The M word: It’s time to take Marx beyond ‘Marxism’
Following my last blog there were a few comments referring to how the Green Party must avoid being ‘Marxist’ and how left wing polices will only appeal to the dreaded ‘Marxists’. This got me wondering who the ‘Marxists’ are. After all, Marx famously stated “If anything is certain, it is that I myself am not a Marxist.”
Marx was committed to using science to burn away the mysticism of obscurantist beliefs, so it seems a great tragedy, that his name has been repeatedly hijacked to both legitimise various dogmas he never endorsed and delegitimise his true legacy. As G.A Cohen points out it is a shame that the socialists that followed Marx did not follow him in referring to his work as scientific socialism. ‘Isms’ exist for classifying dogmatic sets of beliefs, held to be self evidently true. For example, Catholicism and Protestantism.
Marx’s work was the opposite of this; it was a set of theories created from a process of applying the most advanced social science to the human condition as Marx understood it. Marx played a central role in the creation of what is now sociology. As well as having a massive impact on a whole set of other social sciences.
This is similar to how Galileo founded what went on to become physics. This being the case, it follows that asking someone if they believe in Marxism is as nonsensical as asking a physicist if they subscribe to Galileoism. Galileo like Marx and all theorists was correct up to a point about some things and incorrect about others.
Being a Marxist, then, cannot mean subscribing to a certain set of dogmas, if used at all, it can only in any faithful sense refer to someone concerned with the application of the most advanced social science to the emancipatory project of replacing capitalism with a more humane social system.
Cohen along with John Roemer and John Elster founded a group known as the No Bullshit Marxists. Bullshit being encapsulated by the idea that ‘Marxism’ contains within itself, its own dialectical method; which is more real and superior to ‘bourgeois science’. This is of course nonsense. If Marx’s work is to have any value beyond simple rhetoric, then it must be able to stand up to analytical and empirical critique.
Dialectics are clearly false: not everything has a direct opposite with which it combines to create a synthesis. Marx suggested this in saying that he had uncovered the same rules in economics as Darwin had in biology i.e. evolutionary not dialectical laws. Dialectical thought can be a useful way to conceptualise something but it pales in comparison to the rigours and power of modern analytical philosophy.
Further bullshit is the Labour Theory of Value (LTV) – the idea that embedded labour is the source of value. In the 1850s LTV was taken as fact by mainstream economists and thus Marx followed suit in using it to develop his theory of exploitation. But contemporary economics has proved, beyond doubt, that LTV is incorrect. This is because LTV should result in more labour intensive industries being more profitable; as there is a greater potential pool of labour which can be exploited, however, there is no empirical evidence that this correlation exists. Marx would surely, have recognised this flaw if he had the power of modern economics or 150 years of hindsight at his disposal.
But there is still much value in many of Marx’s insights; however, these insights must be wedded to the corner stone’s of modern social science: analytical thought, empirical investigation and a reflexive approach. When combined in this way many of Marx’s theories can maintain great utility. Whether the use of analytical philosophy by Cohen to develop and defend restricted historical materialism, the use of modern economics by John Roemer to develop a theory of exploitation not reliant on LTV, or the use of modern research techniques by Stuart Hall to develop theories of ideology.
Some self declared followers of ‘Marxism’ argue that such theorists are revisionists, but this is exactly the point; all theory must be revised in the face of fresh evidence, otherwise it becomes dogma. This is why ‘Marxism’ has always done Marx a disservice and should be retired from the lexicon of the left. But those who see no value in the work of Marx are throwing the baby out with bathwater, ignoring many insights which are still pertinent today, for example the role of class, alienation and exploitation.
In fact, if the Marxian tradition is the employing of science to further emancipation, then surely Bright Greens are the real inheritors of the Marxian tradition; it’s time to take back that inheritance and take Marx beyond ‘Marxism’.
Alex,
I agree that the LTV, as developed by Marx, doesn’t give a theoretically consistent theory of prices. However, I don’t believe that mainstream/neoclassical economics has a better theory of prices to offer. For this reason I don’t see the utility in reformulating Marxism based on neoclassical economics, as (I believe) Roemer and Elster have tried to do. (A pedantic point – I don’t think the LTV was ever demolished empirically, in fact there are a couple of studies purporting to show that it does a good job of explaining prices, e.g. http://www.wfu.edu/~cottrell/eea97.pdf, http://homepage.newschool.edu/~AShaikh/labthvalue.pdf) I’m much less familiar with analytical philosophy than I am with mainstream economics, but I suspect it has its own problems too, especially when applied to the study of society.
These are minor quibbles. I am extremely sympathetic to the project of socialist-green unity. I just don’t think it makes sense to base such a project on Analytical Marxism.
Jim I suggest you read Capital vol 3 chapter 9: Formation of a General Rate of Profit (Average Rate of Profit) and Transformation of the Values of Commodities into Prices of Production
You can view it at
http://www.marxistsfr.org/archive/marx/works/1894-c3/ch09.htm
In the chapter Marx attempts to solve the transformation problem which I talk about in my blog (but didn’t name). He unfortunately made an error in his calculations. Wikipedia does a good job explaining the transformation problem: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transformation_problem
But for a more scholarly source I suggest you read ‘A General Theory of Exploitation and Class’ by John Roemer who is currently the Elizabeth S. and A. Varick Stout Professor of Political Science and Economics at Yale University. Also to ignore the development of marginal utility seems unwise.
I would be really interested to know how you think the dialectical method actually operates.
Personally I don’t think the labour theory of value gets us very far but to call it bullshit is a bit much and I’ve a feeling you don’t understand it (sorry, that’s probably very, very rude of me, I do apologise).
For instance; “This is because LTV should result in more labour intensive industries being more profitable;” Did Marx or Adam Smith argue this? No.
To conflate the idea that value derives from labour with the idea that you can work out what the value would be from the amount of labour put in are two quite different things.
I’d add that the dialect does not mean that “everything has a direct opposite with which it combines to create a synthesis.” which is a very odd way of interpreting a nuanced and powerful way of understanding the world, so I’ll take your assertion that “Dialectics are clearly false” with a pinch of salt until you demonstrate a little more understanding of the subject rather than setting up straw men.
Of course the term dialect has often been used by self-proclaimed Marxists as short hand for “because I said so” but the dialectical method itself has a lot going for it when freed from more dogmatic political theory.
Historical inevitability no thanks but lets not import rational choice methodological individualism.
Plenty of other more thoughtful Marxist traditions take a look at Bensaid for example.
We need Marx’s thought but surely the key point is we don’t need the dogmatism, sectarianism and lack of imagination of the traditional far left….incidentally I think many on the far left have picked up on this.
However I don’t see anyone on the left pushing historical inevitability and bad Hegalism at present.
The real problem is the cultural politics of much which goes for Marxism.
Well Marx argued that you could deduce your five concepts (physical resource, concept, labour, distribution, exchange) down to just labour. As all five require the application of labour: quarrying clay, designing the pot, making the pot, transporting the pot to the market, and the sales person carrying out the exchange.
So the difference between an expensive or cheap pot would be that the former needs more labour to quarry the better quality clay (or today more electricity which at some point would require more labour through digging a greater quantity of coal etc.), or that more labour time had been spent on the more elaborate design or labour had to used in transporting a rare pot from china to the UK market or more labour was used to market the pot etc.
I think Marx was only really concerned with the value of commodities and for something to be a commodity it has to be possible to buy or sell it, so until the pots in the cave are discovered there are outside of this definition.
But the issue for Marx (a part from the transformation problem in my blog) is, why stop at labour why not say that value can be deduced from the amount food necessary in the total production or sunlight etc.
Modern understandings of value are based upon marginal utility. According to which the reason that diamonds are valued more than water is that the loss of a 1 tonne of water is a more marginal loss than the loss of 1 tonne of diamonds because 1 tonne of water is much smaller percentage of the total water on the market than 1 tonne is of the total diamonds on the market.
Hope that makes some sense Jon Roemer does a much better explanation than me.
Re LTV: is it not the case that value comprises a physical resource (e.g mud), a concept (e.g. that mud can be turned into a pot, labour (the potter). It then requires distribution and exchange (because a pile of pots in a cave, unused, has no value in meeting the water retention needs of people).
Does that about cover it?