- Joined
- May 14, 2019
Marx is just a whipping boy for smug libertarian capitalists. The venom that some people work up for him is astounding considering that he was not, you know, a dictator, nor did he have powers of prognostication to see what his ideology would result in, nor would his absence have really changed anything given that he was just one of many socialist writers and people have been trying to destroy the rich since one caveman got one more loincloth than another. A lot of his ideas are sound.Perhaps the most fascinating thing about Karl Marx is that the majority of his most fervent critics don't appear to have actually read anything he wrote. They'll point out that his name is heavily associated with the deprivations of communism, but very rarely do they ever engage with the question of how much this association is truly justified, let alone seriously consider the merits of any of the ideas he put forward.
Marx was, by all accounts, a deeply flawed man, and many of his ideas were too, but it's still difficult not to notice the dearth of intellectual honesty among many of his critics, and it's doubly difficult not to notice the ease at which much of the vitriol his name inspires can be traced back to the enduring strength of American propaganda (first by the state; then later by wealthy press barons). It's almost as if the man might've been onto something.
One thing that isn't really right in the way he describes it but is useful is Crisis Theory, he explains the business cycle coming out of intensified exploitation which is nonsense, but if you change exploitation to risk-seeking behavior (something I think he does bring up, but as a side point?), it makes perfect sense: risk-averse businesses take low risk opportunities first and the diminishing profits force them to accumulate risk until it crashes the system. I never read Marx but I read an article that laid out that argument.