Marxists.org offers the complete content of their website (8 gig) as a two-disk DVD set. Since I recently purchased the collection, I figured I’d ask one of the curators about the future of Marxism. I wrote:
“I really enjoy the DVDs. I have one question: Are you and the other caretakers of the site really Marxists?
I come from the Austrian school of economics (Mises, Hayek, Menger, etc.) and assumed that with the calculation debates over socialist planning, as well as the collapse of the Soviet Union, Marxists would have set aside old theories and embraced new ones. Is that not the case?”
From his response, it appears that Marxism is alive and well — and that they will get it right next time.
“Actually…for you to ask me this question, today, in the midst of the biggest financial crisis ever faced by capitalism globally, is interesting. I’m not an economist, per se, but if anything we see many of the prediction that Marx talked about in Capital and the communist manifesto coming to life. Marxism is growing by leaps and bound, again, but this time freed from the syphilitic shackles of Stalinism.
The swing against Hayek style free-market economics is in full political swing right now. It’s been an unmitigated failure in Latin America for example and the working classes have reacted, to the left, because of it.
So let’s agree the “book is still out” on this question.”
I’m glad you enjoy the DVDs.
Today we scored one for Liberty, or at least saw Liberty defended at the margin. I’m elated, and my Marxist friends are elated too. Ironic.
{ 13 comments }
Well, Jim, are you aware that your acceptance of the Mises-Hayek calculation angle is just part of your bourgeois bias? The Party believes you purchased the DVDs so that when the revolutionary transformation comes they will be evidence that will keep you out of the re-education system. Another bourgeois move, indeed. Nice try Jim. But don’t fight it. You do not need to fight the inevitable peace.
how do you tell someone they’re wrong when you know that you’re right?
hand them the wheel, and get out of the car.
Hmmm… Get out of the car first! (And I am not even sure that they will find the wheel.)
I have come to the conclusion that Marxists are the creationists of economics.
I’m just wondering if that makes Keynesians/Neoclassicals the eugenicists of economics?
The problem with marxists is that none of them are economists “per se”- BTW love the creationist comparison to marxism great contrast there libertas!
Funny that people sometimes say Austrians are the creationists of econ. That just informs me that I am dealing with uneducated rubes, or pseudo-intellectuals, who are unfamiliar with it.
That scares the heck out of me.
Inquisitor: “Funny that people sometimes say Austrians are the creationists of econ.â€
I think you’re right because creation science follows the a priori method as does Austrian econ. Keynesian econ and evolutionary science claim to follow the empirical, but they’re inconsistent and fall back on faulty theory when the empirical evidence fails them.
They try to imply it’s pseudo-science. But Marxism is considered pseudo-science precisely because it’s non-falsifiable. Austrian econ is – via revisions in chains of deductive reasoning or the exposition of malformed concepts (which is inductive, really) or the discovery of axioms/concepts hitherto unknown. So it is open to “falsification” and thus is a non-example.
Inquisitor,
I thought Austrian axioms are apriori and analytic- so not falsifiable empirically, not falsifiable by observation?
Let it be agreed that mistakes can be fixed in the chain of deductive logic.
But by your use of “falsification” is this where Mises and Rothbard differ? Wouldn’t Mises adamantly say that under no conditions are Austrian axioms falsifiable (barring massive change in the nature and stability of the Universe) because that is their nature and no test can be developed: even tests rely on apriori analytics. But Rothbard would say that these axioms, although truly undeniable except by contradiction, are indeed arrived at by a very broad observation of humans- and even uses the word empirical, but not a lab test so to speak.
In add, a “malformed’ concept example, maybe? Like by stating that human action is trading a lesser state for greater state of satisfaction in the eyes of the actor. This can be challenged without resorting to behaviorism. One could revise the statement and say that human action means acting purposively to resolve perceived uneasiness… Splitting hairs maybe but little differences may result in the chain of logic because of it.
No, I’m not evoking the positivist sense of the word. All I mean is that there are methods of correcting poor theories, that are open to all. When I say concept-formation is inductive it is because I have a Aristotelian-Randian view of the process. So basically I mean the same thing as Rothbard. Keep in mind Austrian econ, in addition to axioms such as ‘man acts’, also contains subsidiary postulates, such as the disutility of labour. Failing to identify such a postulate might be why a theory falters when trying to interpret a phenomenon, and thus this acts as a sort of retroactive control over the postulates. I suggest Barry Smith, Geoffrey A. Plauche and Roderick Long on this topic.
Thanks Inquisitor, I am on the case (while chasing the dollar too). Just started Barry Smith’s chapter on Austrian econ. Smith writes “Mises, as we shall see shortly, has here drawn together in illegitimate fashion the two concepts of the a priori and the analytic.” Now I am compelled.
Def interested in how the Randian-Aristotelian perspective contrasts/compares with Mises as well. Will be reading with this in mind. Cheers.
“Are you and the other caretakers of the site really Marxists?”
The answer to this is no, not entirely anyway.
We Marxists were devastated to discover that there were avowed anti-Marxists on the staff at Marxists.org. Imagine if you’d gotten the bulk of your Austrian School education from Mises.org, then learned it was run by Marxists. You might begin to question whether this site had presented a fair picture to you, no?
I hope your side would condemn such subversive disinfo tactics. The allegiances of these agents remains unclear, but we can assume they’re of the Right. I only hope it’s not your corner of the Right, because even though I disagree with you, I respect you for this resource, as you respect Marxists.org.
Comments on this entry are closed.