Isn't there some way that you could say that if Marx is still useful, then still, reading the original isn't as useful as reading a new explainer of the original? Like, with Newton, there's obviously better ways of engaging with his ideas than reading the original Principia, like reading modern physics textbooks. Same goes with Turing, Godel, etc. It doesn't seem to me like whoever came up with an idea is necessarily the best at explaining it. Is there a way this is understood differently in economics/sociology generally?
This is a great question. I think one of the reasons the analogy with the natural sciences doesn't work as well is because even though they are not unified as a field, they are more so than say economics (or any social science). In that sense, you should 'taste-test' as I like to say, a lot of other authors.
Now, I think Marx has a lot of things that are said in ways that you can't find anywhere else, but I clearly don't think you need to read him all the way through if you're just a casual learner (I haven't read everything!). But I think there are pieces and chapters that are worth it, and reading it with secondary literature can help.
I think the point that economics as a discipline is unaware or unwilling to incorporate its own history (and I can't really comment, my personal experience is too anecdotal for that) is very interesting.
In a sense, Marxist economists like Marx himself, Luxemburg, or even more conciliatory candidates like Bettelheim aren't really part of their discipline, exactly because modern-day economics generally views itself as an "unideological" discipline. Something no Marxist economist I'm aware of ever aspired to. Of course, they only view themselves that way, while reproducing the ideological structure necessary to uphold bourgeois rule.
The mark Marxism left has to be excised in a way, which isn't really necessary for other social sciences.
The most I learned about economic history as an economics student myself was reading « The history of economic thought » on my own, it was incredibly useful and interesting. It’s a shame we were not taught more.
Thanks, I really enjoyed this. You're dead right, and I find many mainstream economists (I did a postgrad degree in it) to be philistine in their apparent lack of knowledge not only of the history of economic thought, but of economic history itself.
On Smith's bad faith, I tweeted a question at him years ago disputing his argument that all international development assistance is bad (I don't think it is). I quoted in full a remark by leading thinker on development aid, who, to simplify, acknowledged that it can fall short of expectations or even have negative impacts, but that there is evidence that some aid works.
Smith seized on the caveat as if it proved him right. He apparently had no interest in learning or debating sincerely, still less in following the nuance of this particular aid-defender's argument. It doesn't seem as if Smith even knew much about the subject.
Very interesting, I've heard similar stories from those who've interacted with him for years. He's just dogmatic and ignorant. The reason I put the joke in the end was because it captures his type of mindset, he doesn't know as much as he thinks yet he thinks he's correct! I'm sure that if he say my post he'd find a way to say "well umm actually no Marx is stupid, killed100000 billion people"
Something I would like to add, Marx’s work expanded on workers could come to harm as capitalism became more productive. This has become so evident in recent economic analysis of neoliberal capitalism. The concept of ‘over accumulation’ to describe the move from Manufacturing to Financial sector dominance in economies was one of the first instances that made me Appreciate Marx works. Marx’s work gives a great insight on what happens to the invisible victims of neoclassical economics.
There are seriously too many examples to count. His entire idea of the "reserve army of labor" has been vindicated too many times to count, and it's obiviously not merely an 'economic' but 'political' argument.
Of course as you say, the idea that capital objectifies knowlege and reduces its dependency on labor (at least for individual firms) is true, and shows how capital hurts workers.
I still haven't done the deep dive I need to, to understand Shaikh's monster work, but he's the first one that turned me on to a curiosity around the 'classicals.' He seems to make a compelling case that modern econ students would really benefit from reading Smith, Ricardo, Marx, all sort of on their own terms, and that the philosophical frameworks behind their thinking tend to be more robust and superior than modern stuff that just looks at math problems and behaviorism out of context.
This is a terrific essay -- I am more excited than ever now to get stuck into David Williams' new book on the history of political economy! However I think it confuses two claims - A) economists need not bother themselves with the original writings of Marx, and B) economists need not bother themselves with the downstream ideas of Marx. I think Marx's original writings are not assigned in undergraduate courses because they are terse to read. Working through such language may be necessary training for prospective sociologists / historians but not for economists (for the most part). A generous reading of Smith's argument would interpret this as the grounding for his claim that "the most useful concepts in science stand alone."
Having said that, I really appreciate the second part of your article and agree it is improper of economics curricula to sidestep Marx's involvement in Keynesian thought on what seem like ideological grounds.
As far as I can tell Noah thrives on contentious polemic for now, a natural doctrinaire who would have loved playing fanatic sermonizer in the 16th century, so I doubt this leaves a scratch on the aspects of his reputation he really cares about. Nonetheless, I appreciate the concise and pointed history here. I'm curious if you're familiar with Imre Lakatos's theory of scientific research programs: it has an interesting account of how and why this sort of history-forgetting non-monotonic progress works and thrives in practice.
Isn't there some way that you could say that if Marx is still useful, then still, reading the original isn't as useful as reading a new explainer of the original? Like, with Newton, there's obviously better ways of engaging with his ideas than reading the original Principia, like reading modern physics textbooks. Same goes with Turing, Godel, etc. It doesn't seem to me like whoever came up with an idea is necessarily the best at explaining it. Is there a way this is understood differently in economics/sociology generally?
This is a great question. I think one of the reasons the analogy with the natural sciences doesn't work as well is because even though they are not unified as a field, they are more so than say economics (or any social science). In that sense, you should 'taste-test' as I like to say, a lot of other authors.
Now, I think Marx has a lot of things that are said in ways that you can't find anywhere else, but I clearly don't think you need to read him all the way through if you're just a casual learner (I haven't read everything!). But I think there are pieces and chapters that are worth it, and reading it with secondary literature can help.
I think the point that economics as a discipline is unaware or unwilling to incorporate its own history (and I can't really comment, my personal experience is too anecdotal for that) is very interesting.
In a sense, Marxist economists like Marx himself, Luxemburg, or even more conciliatory candidates like Bettelheim aren't really part of their discipline, exactly because modern-day economics generally views itself as an "unideological" discipline. Something no Marxist economist I'm aware of ever aspired to. Of course, they only view themselves that way, while reproducing the ideological structure necessary to uphold bourgeois rule.
The mark Marxism left has to be excised in a way, which isn't really necessary for other social sciences.
The most I learned about economic history as an economics student myself was reading « The history of economic thought » on my own, it was incredibly useful and interesting. It’s a shame we were not taught more.
it's a very important thing to learn, not even for the historical element, it's the fact that you're introduced to so many ideas (if the book is good)
Thanks, I really enjoyed this. You're dead right, and I find many mainstream economists (I did a postgrad degree in it) to be philistine in their apparent lack of knowledge not only of the history of economic thought, but of economic history itself.
On Smith's bad faith, I tweeted a question at him years ago disputing his argument that all international development assistance is bad (I don't think it is). I quoted in full a remark by leading thinker on development aid, who, to simplify, acknowledged that it can fall short of expectations or even have negative impacts, but that there is evidence that some aid works.
Smith seized on the caveat as if it proved him right. He apparently had no interest in learning or debating sincerely, still less in following the nuance of this particular aid-defender's argument. It doesn't seem as if Smith even knew much about the subject.
Mainstream economists should be careful to reflect on what they really understand, and what they don't, as I say here: https://substack.com/@dangay/note/c-88040732 .
Very interesting, I've heard similar stories from those who've interacted with him for years. He's just dogmatic and ignorant. The reason I put the joke in the end was because it captures his type of mindset, he doesn't know as much as he thinks yet he thinks he's correct! I'm sure that if he say my post he'd find a way to say "well umm actually no Marx is stupid, killed100000 billion people"
I think it's so funny that I was just about to look up "junior soprano" in my Amazon app to see if he has any published works until I went "oh wait"
good to know I got some people...
Fantastic short piece, would be interested to read more of these - they remind me of Tim Barker’s short critiques.
Thank you! I haven't read those but he has some great stuff!
Great essay- I have a lot of new material to read now so thank you!
You’re welcome!
Something I would like to add, Marx’s work expanded on workers could come to harm as capitalism became more productive. This has become so evident in recent economic analysis of neoliberal capitalism. The concept of ‘over accumulation’ to describe the move from Manufacturing to Financial sector dominance in economies was one of the first instances that made me Appreciate Marx works. Marx’s work gives a great insight on what happens to the invisible victims of neoclassical economics.
There are seriously too many examples to count. His entire idea of the "reserve army of labor" has been vindicated too many times to count, and it's obiviously not merely an 'economic' but 'political' argument.
Of course as you say, the idea that capital objectifies knowlege and reduces its dependency on labor (at least for individual firms) is true, and shows how capital hurts workers.
I still haven't done the deep dive I need to, to understand Shaikh's monster work, but he's the first one that turned me on to a curiosity around the 'classicals.' He seems to make a compelling case that modern econ students would really benefit from reading Smith, Ricardo, Marx, all sort of on their own terms, and that the philosophical frameworks behind their thinking tend to be more robust and superior than modern stuff that just looks at math problems and behaviorism out of context.
dope
This is a terrific essay -- I am more excited than ever now to get stuck into David Williams' new book on the history of political economy! However I think it confuses two claims - A) economists need not bother themselves with the original writings of Marx, and B) economists need not bother themselves with the downstream ideas of Marx. I think Marx's original writings are not assigned in undergraduate courses because they are terse to read. Working through such language may be necessary training for prospective sociologists / historians but not for economists (for the most part). A generous reading of Smith's argument would interpret this as the grounding for his claim that "the most useful concepts in science stand alone."
Having said that, I really appreciate the second part of your article and agree it is improper of economics curricula to sidestep Marx's involvement in Keynesian thought on what seem like ideological grounds.
As far as I can tell Noah thrives on contentious polemic for now, a natural doctrinaire who would have loved playing fanatic sermonizer in the 16th century, so I doubt this leaves a scratch on the aspects of his reputation he really cares about. Nonetheless, I appreciate the concise and pointed history here. I'm curious if you're familiar with Imre Lakatos's theory of scientific research programs: it has an interesting account of how and why this sort of history-forgetting non-monotonic progress works and thrives in practice.
Marshall, anyone? No? No one thinks Marshall is a more accurate lineage…..? K….