It’s been almost a century and a half since Karl Marx’s death, and decades since the collapse of socialism in the Soviet Union, Yugoslavia and elsewhere. In the still nominally…View Post
The author is incompetent and kind of makes me wonder whether they ever read Capital.
An easy example is this: "Marx regarded the working class as the only potentially revolutionary class—but, in fact, history shows that revolutions can be started by any disgruntled group."
Marx definitely never claimed that the working class is the only one capable of any revolutions, anywhere, any time. The author points at revolutions in 17th century England as examples. Amazing. Wars exemplifying obvious, if nascent, bourgeois interests vs. feudal interests. Marx wrote about exactly those things. He critiqued the American system on similar grounds, along with its civil war. What Marx did say is that under the domination of the capitalist system, it is the working class that has class consciousness forced on it, and also the means to force dramatic change through their place as laborers, to carry out lasting revolution and depose the bourgeois class. Outside of a capitalist context, the working class barely even exists, historically, and of course Marx wrote about this a lot. Amateurish errors.
The author also cites just a couple authors, snd oddly. Like... some citatiobs are just links to books costing hundreds of dollars with no page referencr or even an explanation of how the book does what the author implies, like debunking this or that thing Marx said (being generous that they even got that right). It's pretty clear they just like a couple authors' opinions a lot, particularly Vivek Chibber's.
The author also falls onto some pointless tropes about what Marx did or didn't foresee, with the implication that for Marxism to be legitimate, Marx should've predicted, say, the welfare state. Of course, Marx talked about the initial makings of welfare states in the 1800s, but let's pretend he didn't. Why is he on the hook for this? Is there a difference between Marxism and everything Marx ever said, did, predicted, or failed to do? The author implicitlu equates all of these things and doesn't explain or elaborate.
Finally, they're disorganized. The article jumps from point to point like a middle grader writing a book report. Claims that require explanation and justification are just left there. The task they set out to do requires more coherence, thought, and space than they allowed themselves.
An easy example is this: "Marx regarded the working class as the only potentially revolutionary class—but, in fact, history shows that revolutions can be started by any disgruntled group."
Yes, this shows that they didn't even read the communist manifest "The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggle", which in the text makes clear what you wrote long and broad, that it is fundamental to understanding of Marxist, Engelian and plenty of Hegelian thought there are various revolutionary subjects. It just depends on the material conditions (and a few more things).
A valid critique could be phrased as:
The revolutionary subject which Marx saw as the proletariat (and even in its permissive form as the working class) isn't, as developments in the adaption of capitalism, digital surveillance, the union of authoritarian power and free markets (alá Zizek in regards to China) showed capitalism is able to reign in the working class. The only revolutions that happened came from groups better described as XYZ.
However it would be wrong. For two reasons, I'd like to mention, the first is that Marx makes clear that a coup which merely changes who reigns but leaves the system in tact is merely half a revolution, it achieves the change of rulers from one to another group, but the contradictions and forces of capitalism (that for example destroy the planet) remain in force. It isn't a revolution in the Marxian sense.
The other is that even if there are other revolutionary groups which are "disgruntled" and can coup or revolt I would like to see specific examples and in most cases these disgruntled groups aren't revolutionary, in exceptions they are but in those exceptions they are unable to achieve a revolution against capitalism itself, even if they manage to do anti colonial revolutions - for example.
I think I was too generous towards the author, actually. I shouldn't assume they've read anything they cited. They don't demonstrate substantial knowledge of it and made "baby's first anticommunisn"-style errors on Marx, like equivocating on what exploitation means in the Marxist sense.
Yeah, there is a difference between a general coup or revolt -- which may represent nothing but power changing hands by force -- and a revolution -- which changes nearly the whole of society in its impact on relations of production.
The author is incompetent and kind of makes me wonder whether they ever read Capital.
An easy example is this: "Marx regarded the working class as the only potentially revolutionary class—but, in fact, history shows that revolutions can be started by any disgruntled group."
Marx definitely never claimed that the working class is the only one capable of any revolutions, anywhere, any time. The author points at revolutions in 17th century England as examples. Amazing. Wars exemplifying obvious, if nascent, bourgeois interests vs. feudal interests. Marx wrote about exactly those things. He critiqued the American system on similar grounds, along with its civil war. What Marx did say is that under the domination of the capitalist system, it is the working class that has class consciousness forced on it, and also the means to force dramatic change through their place as laborers, to carry out lasting revolution and depose the bourgeois class. Outside of a capitalist context, the working class barely even exists, historically, and of course Marx wrote about this a lot. Amateurish errors.
The author also cites just a couple authors, snd oddly. Like... some citatiobs are just links to books costing hundreds of dollars with no page referencr or even an explanation of how the book does what the author implies, like debunking this or that thing Marx said (being generous that they even got that right). It's pretty clear they just like a couple authors' opinions a lot, particularly Vivek Chibber's.
The author also falls onto some pointless tropes about what Marx did or didn't foresee, with the implication that for Marxism to be legitimate, Marx should've predicted, say, the welfare state. Of course, Marx talked about the initial makings of welfare states in the 1800s, but let's pretend he didn't. Why is he on the hook for this? Is there a difference between Marxism and everything Marx ever said, did, predicted, or failed to do? The author implicitlu equates all of these things and doesn't explain or elaborate.
Finally, they're disorganized. The article jumps from point to point like a middle grader writing a book report. Claims that require explanation and justification are just left there. The task they set out to do requires more coherence, thought, and space than they allowed themselves.
It's as if they don't know what they're doing.
Yes, this shows that they didn't even read the communist manifest "The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggle", which in the text makes clear what you wrote long and broad, that it is fundamental to understanding of Marxist, Engelian and plenty of Hegelian thought there are various revolutionary subjects. It just depends on the material conditions (and a few more things).
A valid critique could be phrased as:
However it would be wrong. For two reasons, I'd like to mention, the first is that Marx makes clear that a coup which merely changes who reigns but leaves the system in tact is merely half a revolution, it achieves the change of rulers from one to another group, but the contradictions and forces of capitalism (that for example destroy the planet) remain in force. It isn't a revolution in the Marxian sense.
The other is that even if there are other revolutionary groups which are "disgruntled" and can coup or revolt I would like to see specific examples and in most cases these disgruntled groups aren't revolutionary, in exceptions they are but in those exceptions they are unable to achieve a revolution against capitalism itself, even if they manage to do anti colonial revolutions - for example.
Yes, of course.
I think I was too generous towards the author, actually. I shouldn't assume they've read anything they cited. They don't demonstrate substantial knowledge of it and made "baby's first anticommunisn"-style errors on Marx, like equivocating on what exploitation means in the Marxist sense.
Yeah, there is a difference between a general coup or revolt -- which may represent nothing but power changing hands by force -- and a revolution -- which changes nearly the whole of society in its impact on relations of production.
Yes! It read like a creationist critiquing Darwin for not knowing the base pairs of DNA.
You made this name up. I refuse to believe there is an academic with this name.
He's indian, and he writes great shit