OscailtComments on "Marx's Economics for Anarchists"Responses and Comments2012-01-02T22:32:25+08:00Anarkismoanarkismoeditors@lists.riseup.nethttp://www.anarkismo.net/atomfullposts?story_id=21562http://www.anarkismo.net/graphics/feedlogo.gifLearning from Marxhttp://www.anarkismo.net/article/21562#comment139522012-01-02T22:32:25+08:00Ilan S.ilan at shalif dot comThough Marx is the most famous of anti capitalists who criticized capitalist pol...Though Marx is the most famous of anti capitalists who criticized capitalist political economy he is not the only one and clearly not up to date. I started my education with Capital I. but have read since much more up to date critics of capitalist political economy. Some of them more followers of Marx than others. It is important for anarchists to understands the working of the capitalist system in order to expose its wrongs, but it seems that lately the disillusion of the masses of the merits of the capitalist system make this task much easier.<br />
<br />
"Marxist" Economicshttp://www.anarkismo.net/article/21562#comment139532012-01-03T05:04:57+08:00JI don't find the claim that "there is no non-Marxist economics except forms of b...I don't find the claim that "there is no non-Marxist economics except forms of bourgeois economics" very convincing. There were economic ideologies before capitalism that supported feudalism, slavery, or some other form of class society and were neither bourgeois nor marxist. The analysis by David Graeber in Debt: The First 5000 years contradicts Marx on several points, yet is very critical of capitalism (and class society in general). Furthermore, all the parts of Marx's theory you claim are useful you can find in other thinkers before him, such as Joseph Proudhon, David Ricardo, and Adam Smith. The latter two are mistakenly thought of as a right-wing pro-corporate power people today, but socialist interpretations of their ideas developed in the 19th century and had history taken a different turn they might have come to power. There are definite similarities between their analysis of capitalism and Marx's analysis of capitalism. The reason you associate these ideas with Marx, instead of some other faction, is that Marx's followers established a number of totalitarian states which used his ideas to legitimize themselves. They promoted Marx's economics while usually ignoring or denigrating the many other people who advocated similar ideas prior to Marx, and which influenced Marx. Had Proudhonists or left Ricardians come to power we would call it Proudhonian economics or some other term instead. By identifying these ideas with Marx, instead of with the broader 19th century socialist movement, you are repeating the propaganda of Marxist totalitarian states.<br />
<br />
"And now as to myself, no credit is due to me for discovering the existence of classes in modern society or the struggle between them. Long before me bourgeois historians had described the historical development of this class struggle and bourgeois economists, the economic economy of the classes. What I did that was new was to prove: (1) that the existence of classes is only bound up with particular historical phases in the development of production, (2) that the class struggle necessarily leads to the dictatorship of the proletariat,[1] (3) that this dictatorship itself only constitutes the transition to the abolition of all classes and to a classless society." - Marx, <a href="http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1852/letters/52_03_05-ab.htm" title="http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1852/letters/52_03_05-ab.htm">http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1852/letters...b.htm</a>Some non-respnsive responseshttp://www.anarkismo.net/article/21562#comment139572012-01-04T13:53:20+08:00WayneIt is the kind of ignorance displayed by both Ilan and J. about Marx's economic ...It is the kind of ignorance displayed by both Ilan and J. about Marx's economic theory which motivated my writing my book. Rather than respond to what I have written, they go off on their own tangents to discuss what they feel like discussing.<br />
<br />
Once again, they present the argument that there were other political economists who had analyses of capitalism before Marx (bourgeois economists as well as early socialists, including Proudhon). I discussed this for several paragraphs in Chapter 1. Obviously neither J. nor Ilan have bothered to read my argument (including the obvious fact that Marx acknowledged that he built upon earlier economic thinkers, as J's concluding quotation demonstrates). Whatever might have happened if Proudhonists or Ricardians had developed their theories, for whatever reasons, it is a fact that there is currently no developed anti-capitalist economic theory than Marxism. (Referring to feudal theories is bizarre. Obviously I am talking about theories of capitalism.)<br />
<br />
J's explanation for this is nonsense. Bakunin and many other anarchists did not respect Marx's economic theory because Marxist parties would one day come to power. In any case, Marxist theories dominated on the left due to the growth of the Marxist movement, well before the parties came to power. <br />
<br />
As to J's charge that I am repeating the theories of totalitarian states, I can only repeat my claim that there are both libertarian-democratic and authoritarian-statist sides of Marx's Marxism. I give evidence for this in this and other books (unread by my critics). For example, see my comparison in this essay between Samir Amin and Loren Goldner. And I repeat that bourgeois economics is dominant today because it supports capitalism, with all its evil effects. The rejection of Mar's economic theory only leads to boureois economic theory (whatever phantasy anyone may have about some never-created theory of left-Ricardians.)<br />
<br />
Ilan claims that Marx is "not up to date." Well, one point of my book was to demonstrate that the general, abstract, ideas of Marx on economics were still up to date and useful for understanding the current world. This world is still under the system of capitalism, the system which Marx analzyed. Even Ilan admits that he has read "more up to date" economists who were applying Marxist economic theory, which proves my point (note my book's suggestions for further readings of books which apply Marx's theories to the current crisis). If he and J. do not think that I have shown how Marx's economic theory applies today, then they need to respond to what I wrote, rather than to repeat something which they could have said at any time and on any occasion!<br />
<br />
As for J's last quotation from Marx (on classes),, J. probably does not know that Marx used "dictatorship of the proletariat" in his day to mean "the rule of the working class," and specifically cited the ultra-democratic Paris Commune as an example.