Aw jeez, just finished grading it and saw who wrote it. Totally nice guy, seems to be trying. Probably gonna take it pretty hard (this is definitely a D paper).
this is pretty harsh, not the grading, the paper is worth what it's worth, but quoting it on an internet forum and laughing about it is something i would be pretty gutted about if i found one of my tutors doing it
The devout contrarian in me likes the idea, but I can think of too many exceptions to really get behind it.
Do you know @ronya, I've been meaning to ask you: do you actually see very many Marxist/structuralist econ grad students? I feel like, for obvious reasons, those dudes only exist in The Academy. We have a guy here at FIU named Ronald Cox, whom I confused with Robert Cox -- on the PowerPoint slides for my IPE class, he was credited as "R. Cox" -- and for a couple of minutes I was like "Oh man oh man a real live Marxist is here at my school. Does the President know about this??"
There are allegedly some at my college, but I've never met them. I mean, there's the usual coterie of people who self-proclaimed Marxists, but actual students of it are the stuff of legend.
Feel like I gotta chime in here with an anecdote from my own University.
Most of the people I school with actually lean pretty right for the most part, there's just this one single guy over in Psych that's a pretty legit old-school Trotskyite. Bit of a shame that a living fossil like that also manages to be an insufferable oaf, but I guess it can't be helped.
One of my classmates was, however, banned from speaking at the student council last year.
The reason being, "His choice of words were too Bourgeoisie".
I thought that was pretty hilarious myself actually.
Alright and in this next scene all the animals have AIDS.
This is 100% of teachers. It's hard not to when things are legitimately funny, and it helps get through the objectively terrible experience of grading. But it's also true that it would be very, very unfortunate if word ever got out to a particular student, and, as such, Casual is probably right that I should stop posting such excerpts. Chances are very, very low that anyone would ever make the connection (which is why tumblrs like "Shit My Students Write" can continue to exist), but, still, it would also be very, very bad if it happened.
but you need to discard a lot of the rhetorical baggage to make it work
a lot of its appeal stems from (1) being able to sprinkle suggestions of CLASS WARFARE throughout the argument (2) being able to allude to in-the-news CRISES OF CAPITALISM to lend importance
both of which, unfortunately, tend to be the baggage that require jettisoning
but you need to discard a lot of the rhetorical baggage to make it work
a lot of its appeal stems from (1) being able to sprinkle suggestions of CLASS WARFARE throughout the argument (2) being able to allude to in-the-news CRISES OF CAPITALISM to lend importance
both of which, unfortunately, tend to be the baggage that require jettisoning
I've been preached to by academic Marxists on its virtues as a theory of history, and, suitably amended, it seemed plausible in that role.
+1
Options
VanguardBut now the dream is over. And the insect is awake.Registered User, __BANNED USERSregular
but you need to discard a lot of the rhetorical baggage to make it work
a lot of its appeal stems from (1) being able to sprinkle suggestions of CLASS WARFARE throughout the argument (2) being able to allude to in-the-news CRISES OF CAPITALISM to lend importance
both of which, unfortunately, tend to be the baggage that require jettisoning
For me, the appeal is really in the bits about the division of labor
As far as class warfare goes, I disagree
The ruling classes of the world have lived at the expense of the majority for pretty much ever
I think it is most useful when you want to explain political consciousness, because political identity in bourgeoisie-dominated states does tend to work a bit like the marxist narrative
but given that you also need to allow for that consciousness to be wholly, well, um, wrong about facts on the ground, it loses quite a chunk of its predictive lustre
communism of all forms doesn't work for the same reason monarchies don't work, you can't give one person or a small group of people unlimited power over everyone else then expect them to not abuse it
it's like anarchism, in a small village of ~100 people it could work, at state level? not a chance
communism of all forms doesn't work for the same reason monarchies don't work, you can't give one person or a small group of people unlimited power over everyone else then expect them to not abuse it
it's like anarchism, in a small village of ~100 people it could work, at state level? not a chance
Communism = / = Marxism
We're talking theory
+1
Options
Mojo_JojoWe are only now beginning to understand the full power and ramifications of sexual intercourseRegistered Userregular
It is all cold and trying to snow. Bad Saturday
Homogeneous distribution of your varieties of amuse-gueule
I've actually studied "History-Marxism" to some limited extent when I took a couple of courses in Political History last year.
It's a bit unwieldy, but the perspective isn't entirely invalid as long as it isn't applied in a vacuum - as an analytical tool, it's more useful when placed alongside other perspectives on history.
As Ronya said though, you can do without most of the rhetoric.
Zephiran on
Alright and in this next scene all the animals have AIDS.
you can make the argument that the trade flows only seem to point in all the wrong directions because it so happens that the capitalist mode of production only permits the extraction when they whip their domestic classes into sending lots of material value overseas
but then it stops looking terribly marxist
0
Options
MrMisterJesus dying on the cross in pain? Morally better than us. One has to go "all in".Registered Userregular
edited February 2013
Marx's prescriptions for social organization (and, hey, his labor theory of value) are separable from his theory of history. You don't have to think communism is the way forward or that capital is theft in order to benefit from examining social forces and explaining social change, past and present, in terms of the organization of society with respect to the means of production.
MrMister on
+1
Options
VanguardBut now the dream is over. And the insect is awake.Registered User, __BANNED USERSregular
communism of all forms doesn't work for the same reason monarchies don't work, you can't give one person or a small group of people unlimited power over everyone else then expect them to not abuse it
it's like anarchism, in a small village of ~100 people it could work, at state level? not a chance
But to address this, the problem with all attempts at Communism is that they never make it past the revolution. The state is overthrown, replaced with a new government that, because it never hands off the power, becomes fascistic in nature.
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
Marxist dramatic literature is good.
Well...
Brecht is good.
Which is a wee bit of an understatement.
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
Modern day Marxist writers are kind of trying too hard, but that could be selection bias.
Marx's prescriptions for social organization (and, hey, his labor theory of value) are separable from his theory of history. You don't have to think communism is the way forward or that capital is theft in order to benefit from examining social forces and explaining social change, past and present, in terms of the organization of of society with respect to the means of production.
from a comment at crookedtimber:
“Liberals who spend their time ranting against the labour theory of value or “the tendency of the rate of profit to fall” are certainly welcome to do so, but they shouldn’t claim to be engaging with Marxism.”
And yet, when I wrote a post which started from the minor premise “labour theory of value is wrong/uninteresting”, and went on to ask how we (social democrats and liberals) should best engage with Marx’s theory of capital in its absence, I got 293 comments pointing out that anyone who didn’t accept the centrality of the LTV to Marxist thought was a tool of the bourgeoisie.
:rotate:
like I said, I think marxism is most useful when considering a society that already conceives of itself as aligned according to modes of production
then it constructs political identities along conveniently economic lines
throw in some idiosyncrasies of how technological modes make some kinds of political organization easier than others, and out falls marxism as one kind of outcome. But frankly, otherwise, if you limit Marx to "explaining social change, past and present, in terms of the organization of of society with respect to the means of production", you can invoke neoclassical theory to do exactly the same task and it will be (1) more general (2) more precise (3) better tractable (4) still flawed, but containing no flaws which ye olde classically-economic Marx doesn't
ronya on
0
Options
VanguardBut now the dream is over. And the insect is awake.Registered User, __BANNED USERSregular
Marxism, as it manifested in LANGUAGE Poetry, has been interesting, and a very good counter to the tyranny of paraphrase.
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
communism of all forms doesn't work for the same reason monarchies don't work, you can't give one person or a small group of people unlimited power over everyone else then expect them to not abuse it
it's like anarchism, in a small village of ~100 people it could work, at state level? not a chance
But to address this, the problem with all attempts at Communism is that they never make it past the revolution. The state is overthrown, replaced with a new government that, because it never hands off the power, becomes fascistic in nature.
There's a very sticky reason that it never gets past the revolution: human beings are running it.
There are bits of Marxist philosophy that are decent enough on their own, but the real world application of it, Communism, is total crap.
0
Options
Deebaseron my way to work in a suit and a tieAhhhh...come on fucking guyRegistered Userregular
communism of all forms doesn't work for the same reason monarchies don't work, you can't give one person or a small group of people unlimited power over everyone else then expect them to not abuse it
it's like anarchism, in a small village of ~100 people it could work, at state level? not a chance
But to address this, the problem with all attempts at Communism is that they never make it past the revolution. The state is overthrown, replaced with a new government that, because it never hands off the power, becomes fascistic in nature.
There's a very sticky reason that it never gets past the revolution: human beings are running it.
There are bits of Marxist philosophy that are decent enough on their own, but the real world application of it, Communism, is total crap.
Yeah, which is why I delineated between Marxist theory and Communist government. I think it's more useful, as others have said, as one of many possible critical tools.
+1
Options
Tiger BurningDig if you will, the pictureRegistered User, SolidSaints Tuberegular
Marx's prescriptions for social organization (and, hey, his labor theory of value) are separable from his theory of history. You don't have to think communism is the way forward or that capital is theft in order to benefit from examining social forces and explaining social change, past and present, in terms of the organization of society with respect to the means of production.
That's not entirely true. The predictions that a theory makes are part of the theory (the most important part!). He wasn't saying, 'here are the forces that shape history, and now here's what we should do', but 'here are the forces that shape history, and the result of that will be'.
Though small h, m historical materialism is pretty appealing, as far as theories of history go.
Tiger Burning on
Ain't no particular sign I'm more compatible with
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
communism of all forms doesn't work for the same reason monarchies don't work, you can't give one person or a small group of people unlimited power over everyone else then expect them to not abuse it
it's like anarchism, in a small village of ~100 people it could work, at state level? not a chance
But to address this, the problem with all attempts at Communism is that they never make it past the revolution. The state is overthrown, replaced with a new government that, because it never hands off the power, becomes fascistic in nature.
There's a very sticky reason that it never gets past the revolution: human beings are running it.
There are bits of Marxist philosophy that are decent enough on their own, but the real world application of it, Communism, is total crap.
Yeah, which is why I delineated between Marxist theory and Communist government. I think it's more useful, as others have said, as one of many possible critical tools.
True enough. I just felt the need to point out that Communism not getting past the revolution stage is a feature rather than a bug.
I wonder what an alternative academic universe where people embrace new-institutional econ would look like
there's still extraction and exploitation and rent-seeking and class warfare
but it's quite a different beast, in terms of how it interacts with political identity. for one thing, the whole gulf full of MATH between identity and exploitation would make rendering it into a politically appealing narrative much much harder
see, look, class identity! modes of production and exploitation and oppression!
but if someone points out that the model implies that undoing the oppression might make the real wage fall, you can't elaborately wave your hands and cry NO LOOK AT THE C-M-C and M-C-M AND SURPLUS VALUUUUE
nay it does not yield to your literary sputterings
0
Options
MrMisterJesus dying on the cross in pain? Morally better than us. One has to go "all in".Registered Userregular
Marx's prescriptions for social organization (and, hey, his labor theory of value) are separable from his theory of history. You don't have to think communism is the way forward or that capital is theft in order to benefit from examining social forces and explaining social change, past and present, in terms of the organization of society with respect to the means of production.
That's not entirely true. The predictions that a theory makes are part of the theory (the most important part!). He wasn't saying, 'here are the forces that shape history, and now here's what we should do', but 'here are the forces that shape history, and the result of that will be'.
Though small h, m historical materialism is pretty appealing, as far as theories of history go.
Marx was confused about a lot of things, including his predictions, which is why modern standard bearers have to amend the theory. And, contra Popper, being amended by modern standard-bearers in response to refuted predictions does not ipso facto render a theory bankrupt.
@ronya as per the claim that neoclassical economics, as a theory of history, gives better and more precise answers than Marxism, I must demure. I was talking with an academic who claimed that Marxism was by far the best and most powerful theory of history he had encountered in his work, but I don't have the requisite knowledge to evaluate that sort of thing for myself.
Posts
this is pretty harsh, not the grading, the paper is worth what it's worth, but quoting it on an internet forum and laughing about it is something i would be pretty gutted about if i found one of my tutors doing it
Feel like I gotta chime in here with an anecdote from my own University.
Most of the people I school with actually lean pretty right for the most part, there's just this one single guy over in Psych that's a pretty legit old-school Trotskyite. Bit of a shame that a living fossil like that also manages to be an insufferable oaf, but I guess it can't be helped.
One of my classmates was, however, banned from speaking at the student council last year.
The reason being, "His choice of words were too Bourgeoisie".
I thought that was pretty hilarious myself actually.
I got a little excited when I saw your ship.
http://www.theonion.com/articles/hilarious-hamlet-essay-circulated-in-teachers-loun,1409/
This is 100% of teachers. It's hard not to when things are legitimately funny, and it helps get through the objectively terrible experience of grading. But it's also true that it would be very, very unfortunate if word ever got out to a particular student, and, as such, Casual is probably right that I should stop posting such excerpts. Chances are very, very low that anyone would ever make the connection (which is why tumblrs like "Shit My Students Write" can continue to exist), but, still, it would also be very, very bad if it happened.
Heard this quoted verbatim in class, no less!
I got a little excited when I saw your ship.
All good fun
oh, it is
but you need to discard a lot of the rhetorical baggage to make it work
a lot of its appeal stems from (1) being able to sprinkle suggestions of CLASS WARFARE throughout the argument (2) being able to allude to in-the-news CRISES OF CAPITALISM to lend importance
both of which, unfortunately, tend to be the baggage that require jettisoning
I got a little excited when I saw your ship.
I've been preached to by academic Marxists on its virtues as a theory of history, and, suitably amended, it seemed plausible in that role.
For me, the appeal is really in the bits about the division of labor
As far as class warfare goes, I disagree
The ruling classes of the world have lived at the expense of the majority for pretty much ever
They can suck it
but given that you also need to allow for that consciousness to be wholly, well, um, wrong about facts on the ground, it loses quite a chunk of its predictive lustre
it's like anarchism, in a small village of ~100 people it could work, at state level? not a chance
it is
annoyingly
annoyingly
hard
to make the argument of extraction show up in observed trade flows or income transfers
to paraphrase a remark out of my econ history class, if these were the imperialists, they were really bad at imperialism
Communism = / = Marxism
We're talking theory
It's a bit unwieldy, but the perspective isn't entirely invalid as long as it isn't applied in a vacuum - as an analytical tool, it's more useful when placed alongside other perspectives on history.
As Ronya said though, you can do without most of the rhetoric.
I got a little excited when I saw your ship.
but then it stops looking terribly marxist
But to address this, the problem with all attempts at Communism is that they never make it past the revolution. The state is overthrown, replaced with a new government that, because it never hands off the power, becomes fascistic in nature.
Well...
Brecht is good.
Which is a wee bit of an understatement.
from a comment at crookedtimber:
:rotate:
like I said, I think marxism is most useful when considering a society that already conceives of itself as aligned according to modes of production
then it constructs political identities along conveniently economic lines
throw in some idiosyncrasies of how technological modes make some kinds of political organization easier than others, and out falls marxism as one kind of outcome. But frankly, otherwise, if you limit Marx to "explaining social change, past and present, in terms of the organization of of society with respect to the means of production", you can invoke neoclassical theory to do exactly the same task and it will be (1) more general (2) more precise (3) better tractable (4) still flawed, but containing no flaws which ye olde classically-economic Marx doesn't
There's a very sticky reason that it never gets past the revolution: human beings are running it.
There are bits of Marxist philosophy that are decent enough on their own, but the real world application of it, Communism, is total crap.
Keep negging. You're almost there! Peacock like a motherfucking shark
Yeah, which is why I delineated between Marxist theory and Communist government. I think it's more useful, as others have said, as one of many possible critical tools.
That's not entirely true. The predictions that a theory makes are part of the theory (the most important part!). He wasn't saying, 'here are the forces that shape history, and now here's what we should do', but 'here are the forces that shape history, and the result of that will be'.
Though small h, m historical materialism is pretty appealing, as far as theories of history go.
True enough. I just felt the need to point out that Communism not getting past the revolution stage is a feature rather than a bug.
there's still extraction and exploitation and rent-seeking and class warfare
but it's quite a different beast, in terms of how it interacts with political identity. for one thing, the whole gulf full of MATH between identity and exploitation would make rendering it into a politically appealing narrative much much harder
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
Goats go to hell
Gays go to heaven
Goats... Go to hell
Awwwww yeah
I heard only very average responses, but maybe this is worth a look.
Good even without having read the book?
see, look, class identity! modes of production and exploitation and oppression!
but if someone points out that the model implies that undoing the oppression might make the real wage fall, you can't elaborately wave your hands and cry NO LOOK AT THE C-M-C and M-C-M AND SURPLUS VALUUUUE
nay it does not yield to your literary sputterings
Marx was confused about a lot of things, including his predictions, which is why modern standard bearers have to amend the theory. And, contra Popper, being amended by modern standard-bearers in response to refuted predictions does not ipso facto render a theory bankrupt.
@ronya as per the claim that neoclassical economics, as a theory of history, gives better and more precise answers than Marxism, I must demure. I was talking with an academic who claimed that Marxism was by far the best and most powerful theory of history he had encountered in his work, but I don't have the requisite knowledge to evaluate that sort of thing for myself.