carnes@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP (Richard Carnes) (03/19/85)
Thomas Sowell has come out with a new book entitled *Marxism: Philosophy and Economics*, an introduction to the thought of Karl Marx. Judging from an article of Sowell's on Marx that I have read and from reading a few pages of this book, I would guess that it is an excellent introduction to Marx, and I would especially recommend it to free-market types and Sowellites on the net who would be interested in a Marx-without-tears introduction. (I would suggest that you also read some basic texts of Marx, including the *Manifesto*, *The German Ideology* Part I, and *Capital* I. This reading list is still shorter than *Atlas Shrugged*, and approximately as readable, so you may wish to substitute this list for your seventh or eighth re-reading of Rand's novel.) Sowell's book will certainly be controversial among Marxists, since just about everything written about Marx is controversial. Sowell of course does not consider himself a Marxist, and he offers some serious criticisms in his assessment at the end of the book. Nevertheless it's refreshing to come across a non-Marxist economist who, like Schumpeter, has taken Marx seriously enough to try to understand him (what a contrast with George Stigler, for example, and the entire <choke> "Chicago School"). One should be careful using the word "Marxism" -- it is used in at least three different ways: (1) to refer to the views of Marx and Engels (this is usually termed classical Marxism); (2) to refer to the modern body of thought that has developed from classical Marxism (according to Lukacs, *method* is the sole criterion of Marxist "orthodoxy"); and (3) to refer to leftist revolutionary movements in Third World countries, as when Ronnie talks about "the virus of Marxism infecting Central America," etc. Of course these meanings are closely related. While I'm on the subject of Marx, you may be surprised, as I was, to learn that for Marx the capitalist system could not be faulted on grounds of justice. The capitalist is quite justified in receiving his profits, and the worker is not cheated by capitalism. The wages received by workers are, in general, fair. Yet Marx considered capitalism to be exploitative and called for its revolutionary overthrow. How is this possible? In brief, for Marx the focus was always the mode of *production* rather than the pattern of distribution, and it is the mode of production that needs to be changed. This is of political importance, since those socialists who denounce capitalism as unjust, call for a fair wage, denounce "profit-hungry capitalists," etc., are missing the Marxist point and are essentially prescribing liberal aspirin for capitalist cancer. More on this later. Richard Carnes, ihnp4!gargoyle!carnes
tonyw@ubvax.UUCP (Tony Wuersch) (03/20/85)
I've also looked at Thomas Sowell's book on Marxism. It's rhetorical
strategy -- the way the book is organized to make its points -- strikes
me as very nasty. Like a lot of neoconservative tomes that way --
first a little fair, clear, objective summary of the opposition's
theoretical point of view, followed by lots of hyperbole, personal
innuendo, and categorical statements of failure in the real world
for the theory built with good, naive, misguided intentions. The fair
objective summary gets people to open the book and, if the strategy
succeeds, gives the innuendo a cloak of legitimacy. If the innuendo
follows the summary in the book, then the reader should infer that
the innuendo follows from the summary like stones from clear water.
The major parts I object to are first, the combination of a refusal
to look at later Marxist work than Marx's and a very sloppy sampling
of Lenin's writings, with a charge that the failure of the Marxist
project is a practical failure for which Marx's theory is responsible;
and second, the extraordinary bitterness involved in the description
of Marx's life in the chapter "Marx the Man", which could have come
out of the cheapest National Enquirer. That whole chapter is one
long cheap shot, EVEN IF IT IS TRUE. (Of course, Sowell could defend
his presentation of Marx the man as a balanced one -- after all, he
does mention that Marx loved and doted on his children!)
The description of the economic theory and some of its blind spots is
not bad, but since Sowell refuses to deal with modern revisions which
solve significant problems left open by Marx, the reader has no way
to judge whether Sowell's objections to the economic theory are answerable
or not. This is just another expression of critical meanness which
should not be tolerated in so-called "scholarly" work, I think.
Overall, I couldn't recommend the Sowell book to anyone who doesn't
already know the subject matter.
Tony Wuersch
{amd,amdcad}!cae780!ubvax!tonyw