[was: Re: [PEN-L:3324] Re: Re: Re: Re: WSJ on teaching economics]
Justin wrote:>>>I haven't read [Wolfson's] 1964 Reappraisal of Marxisn
Economics in many years, although I have my copy on my desk just now. I
recall being impressed with it. He argues that Marx does not make good on
an inevitable collapse thesis, but otherwise is pretty good as an analyst
of capitalism, and can't be dismissed. "Only the most obtuse reader can
fail to recognize that a century ago Marx raised the key economic questions
of our time." (p. 186). Don't we all agree with that? ...<<<
I wrote: >>Since I can't find my copy of his book, I can only mention two
things that Wolfson misrepresented and/or misunderstood: dialectics
(contradictions) and Marx's version of the "labor theory of value."
Criticism of Marx is a fine and worthy occupation, but I think that Bob
Dylan said it best: don't criticize what you don't understand. And since
Wolfson didn't understand the basic ideas of Marx's method (as opposed to
the orthodox method of economics), he doesn't really understand what Marx
was talking about....<<
Justin ripostes: >Well, both of those are things that I have been accused
of misunderstanding myself, not least by you, so I am inclined to give W a
large margin of error in his readings. There is room for difference of
opinion on these topics. I thought the book was good and useful, and his
main point, that Marx did not prove that a breakdown of capitsliam was
inevitable, is right. Looking over the book, it has a dated assurance that
capitalism has solved its contradictions--he's talking fiull employment,
etc.--but the kinds of points you are making doesn't make him out to be an
ideological hack.<
three points: (1) Marx didn't predict or even try to "prove" the "breakdown
of capitalism." In the MANIFESTO, obviously one of the more rhetorical
pieces in his work and thus most likely to predict a breakdown, right at
the beginning he and Engels note that the class struggle need not end with
"a revolutionary re-constitution of society at large" but could instead end
with "the common ruin of the contending classes." In general, his economics
predicts economic crisis, but for there to be an actual breakdown, the
working classes have to be so well organized (and so class-conscious) that
they can replace capitalism with a different system. (This is the so-called
"subjective factor.") Else, the capitalists rapidly re-organize (often with
the help of a Bonapartist leader or external intervention) and re-establish
themselves in power.
Marx was very optimistic about the growth of the working-class movement, so
that it sometimes seems like he's predicting capitalism's breakdown.
Unfortunately, this optimism was based on extrapolation from his experience
in Western Europe (especially in Germany) rather from a serious analysis.
He also wasn't clearly aware of how the internationalization of capitalist
social relations (imperialism) feeds back and changes the dynamics of the
system, including those of the working-class movements.
(2) Just as people shouldn't criticize movies they haven't seen, I really
shouldn't critique something that's only in my shaky memory. But I remember
very clearly that Wolfson saying that he rejected Marx's idea that society
has contradictions. Instead, he says, the conflicts in society represent
the clash of "contraries" (maybe quoting Popper). To me the terminology
isn't very important, but Wolfson doesn't even pause to reflect about the
meaning of the difference between "contradictions" and "contraries."
Marx's use of the term "contradiction" reflects his view that society is a
unified totality, one in which each individual and group is interdependent
with all others as part of a social system. Within this unity, the
different parts aren't working according to principles which allow the
totality to reproduce itself harmoniously over time. This produces crises,
conflicts, etc. On the other hand, Wolfson's use of the word "contrary" is
part of his view that society is basically just a bunch of individuals
("there is no society, just individuals," quoth Mrs. T) and groups that are
made up of individuals. The basic interdependency and the existence of a
society that shapes our characters as individuals are elided. But Wolfson
says Marx didn't see my point of view -- i.e. that it's contraries not
contradictions -- therefore Marx is wrong. This is a standard method among
mainstream social scientists, of course, since they control academe.
(3) I didn't say that Wolfson was an "ideological hack" but rather that I
found that his book wasn't useful except as a compendium of errors and
misinterpretations that can be combatted. I don't know the man well enough
to say anything about his status as a hack. However, his view that
"capitalism has solved its contradictions" is clearly ideological.
Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
