Friday, June 04, 2010

Debating the ghost of Marx

A blogger at Corrente asks if we can't "please bury Marx once and for all?" and I think it is a very good question. After all, we shouldn't have to rely on someone from the 19th century to provide us with insights into the challenges we face today. We should be facing up to them ourselves.

The challenges posed to humanity by a system that preferences short-term gain over long-term planning are significant, and Marx took them seriously. Anyone hoping to move past Marx will either have to confront these challenges in a way that obviates his work, or wake up in a world where they no longer exist.

It's not enough to say, "I don't like Marx," because recent world history tells us that millions of other people still do. Our options are either to more persuasively address these concerns, or accept that there is a utility to Marx that will likely remain until we do -- or until problems like poverty, climate change, militarism, and financial crises decide to leave us alone "once and for all."

8 comments:

Jenny said...

I kinda think he has a point though: all industries are important, including agricultural. I think what we should be support are subsidies for both U.S. AND Mexican farmers along with supporting the formation of unions wherever workers may desire for one. This means reforming NAFTA,et al, yes, but if there are people out there already willing to protest Israel and the like,I think we can help jumpstart the anti/reform NAFTA trade movement.

Jack Crow said...

His point is thinly disguised Christian Democratic contempt for those who resist the urge to play politics within the system, JM.

And Lindbergh as a role model? An America-firster racist with sympathies for fascism?

Come on now...

Enron said...

What did Marx say about history again?

Jenny said...

Wow, you have an amazing way of picking up on traits, Jack. Mind giving me some examples of this Christian democratic ideal and his support for Lindberg?

Richard said...

Wow, I just read the linked post. It is simply remarkable all the things people believe they know about Marx. And yet who has read his work?

Glad to see you (JR) and Jack holding the fort over there.

Jack Crow said...

Jenny,

Christian Democrats are a species of European party, common in Germany and Italy, but not limited to those two nations.

It was a reference to a way of doing politics which its adherents claim to lead away from oppression and institutional injustice, on Christian terms, but which really just embodies it, since CDs almost never address the problems they identify.

And if you really don't enough about Lindbergh's America Firster advocacy, all I can suggest to you, kindly, is that you even just start at Wiki.

The Lindbergh reference is right in the original article, next to props to Veblen. Granted, the son was far more virulent than the father (by an order of magnitude), and the father's grangism was commonplace, for the time. But that doesn't change the facts at hand. The entire populist-progressive program, of the day, was a white dominated, often overtly racist, call to arms for sons of Europe to seize the nation from bankers, to ship the "coloreds" back to Africa, and to continue the Westward expansion and consolidation without remit.

Jack Crow said...

And Veblen, Jenny, don't even let me get started on Veblen...

DPirate said...

The system doesn't much matter. Communism, feudalism, capitalism, whatever, some will be happy and some won't. All that really matters is how much of a dick the people at the top are.

Correct me if I am wrong, but game theory says that while one player can exploit the rules to his immediate advantage (which is much more readily accomplished in the political and economic realm as the rules are drawn up to enforce the status quo), the optimum net advantage comes from cooperation (in zero-sum games, such as life).
Seems like there ought to be a thesis in there somewhere...