Skip to main content

View Diary: On the 'Vindication' of Marx *updated (208 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Good diary. (My meeting with a Tory this week) (9+ / 0-)

    A colleague of mine was explaining to me that Thatcher represented a truly heady intellectualism on the right in the UK. He says that it's not really present now, but he said that intellectuals like him were drawn there because the Left had become dominated by radicals demanding power and procedure-bound officials. There is some truth to the charge that Trotskyites and "Comintern says what?" folks were present in the 1970's, but intellectualism on the right does not follow.

    One of the most critical observations, one of the easiest to understand, from Marx is that a distorting layer of capital between labor and price is inevitably unfair, and this unfairness is inevitably going to be self-protecting.

    However, what people miss is that the same distortions occur in professional labor. When corporations have money to fight their workers for generations, then unions have to be on a war footing for generations, too, and that means that the union management -- which should ideally not exist as a job except in a crisis/strike -- becomes permanent, too, and that means that there are people whose job is to be the union, and that, by itself and for itself, destroys the union's capacity to directly negotiate for labor.

    Marx is mostly right, and that means he's mostly right about the left and the monied alike.

    Everyone is innocent of some crime.

    by The Geogre on Sat Apr 13, 2013 at 10:25:38 AM PDT

    •  Interestingly enough (8+ / 0-)

      I don't even consider myself a Marxist. I don't think we have the time to let capitalism naturally decay - we'll kill ourselves as a species if we don't radically change our form of social organization very soon. Marx himself was a capitalist insofar as he believed the system had infinite energy inputs - he still lived in the days of colonial expansion. The system is finite & we need to recognize that pronto.

      •  You might be interested (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        lucid, Words In Action

        in the work of John Bellamy Foster.  He develops Marx's thought within an ecological framework.

      •  Really? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Larsstephens

        I shouldn't think that he thought the inputs were infinite. One of the spurs for Marx was Malthus, after all. What he could not see was the growth of food supply that would relieve a base pressure that should have stressed unequal economies much more and much more quickly than imperialism could have compensated.

        However, any professional class that is non-productive is inherently unfair. To speak less moralistically, such classes are unequal; they create an impossibility of value. However, all the aggregations moved toward establishing such a class -- whether it was aggregating food sales from the village (most equal, least profitable) to the futures market and mass sales between nations (most profitable, least equal) or the struggle for labor from the artisans against the bourgeoisie (direct and close) to "labor" against "management" (professional positions that have representatives drawing a salary to manage a continual strategic stalemate).

        Everyone is innocent of some crime.

        by The Geogre on Sat Apr 13, 2013 at 05:39:37 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site