Terry Eagleton responding to the question, “Do you think at this point in history “Marxism”, “communism”, “socialism”, “leftism” are basically interchangeable? Would you insist on sharp distinctions?”
Barker, Alexander and Niven, Alex. “An Interview with Terry Eagleton.” The Oxonian Review. 4 June 2012. Web. 4 June 2012. [source] h/t: ayjay)
I’m very fond of the final three sentences.
Ron Paul, Racism, Bad Arguments
I’ve become absolutely fascinated by the number of arguments I’ve seen recently about Ron Paul and racism. It doesn’t much matter to me if Ron Paul espouses racist ideas or has simply associated himself with people who do. But what amazes me is the lengths to which some people will go to defend Paul against any statement that doesn’t simply and straightforwardly crow about his many obvious virtues.
But my favorite argument of them all (here, here, and here, for example) is the one that says Ron Paul can’t hold any racist beliefs because he’s a libertarian and libertarianism is inherently an anti-racist philosophy insofar as it discourages any thinking about groups and only focuses on individuals (and their rights).
To see why this is nonsense, consider the following statements:
- Leaders of the Communist Party in the Soviet Union or any of its Eastern European satellite states couldn’t possibly have owned private property because they were all committed Marxists and Marxism is inherently opposed to private ownership.
- Throughout history, Christians have always been forgiving to one another and have always treated all human beings with the respect befitting their dignity because the Christian Bible teaches that forgiveness is one of the highest human virtues and that all human beings, as the beloved children of God, are brothers and sisters.
I could go on and on with these, but I’ll stop with just two. The logic in each one is delightful, except that we all know the statements are false.
Holding a particular philosophy, religion, or doctrine does not mean that a person necessarily follows its every tenet, or even its central one. People are notoriously bad about applying their beliefs consistently.
Here’s my post on this subject (which Alex selectively quotes above.)
Harvard’s conservative economist Joseph Schumpeter. [Wikipedia]
In the process of finishing Geoff Ingham’s Capitalism, I have redeveloped an appreciation of Schumpeter.
The current global financial crisis has given rise to a new contingent of unlikely admirers. In 2009 the Vatican’s official newspaper, L’Osservatore Romano, published an article praising Marx’s diagnosis of income inequality, which is quite an endorsement considering that Marx declared religion to be “the opium of the people.” In Shanghai, the turbo-capitalist hub of Communist-in-name-alone China, audiences flocked to a 2010 musical based on Capital, Marx’s most famous work. In Japan, Capital is now out in a manga version. Brazilians elected a former Marxist guerrilla, Dilma Rousseff, as President last year.
The vogue for Marx should be expected at a time when European banks stand on the precipice of collapse and poverty levels in the U.S. have reached levels not seen in nearly two decades. Politicians know they can score points with their constituents by kicking job-creating capitalists like mangy curs.
Here’s the surprising thing, though: You don’t have to sleep in a Che Guevara T-shirt or throw rocks at McDonald’s to acknowledge that Marx’s thought is worth studying, grappling with, and possibly even applying to our current challenges
”Marx to Market: The economic crisis has made the philosopher’s ideas relevant again, but the world shouldn’t forget what Marx got wrong.
Peter Coy for Bloomsburg Businessweek. Plenty to disagree and agree with, it’s almost impossible to talk about Karl Marx without oversimplifying him and this remains true for this piece. It’s still a good read.
Marx’s critiques seem, today, more resonant than we might have guessed. Now, here’s what I’m not suggesting: that Marx’s prescriptions (you know the score: overthrow, communalize, high-five, live happily ever after) for what to do about the maladies above were desirable, good, or just. History, I’d argue, suggests they were anything but. Yet nothing’s black or white — and while Marx’s prescriptions were poor, perhaps, if we’re prepared to think subtly, it’s worthwhile separating his diagnoses from them.
Because the truth might just be that the global economy is in historic, generational trouble, plagued by problems the orthodoxy didn’t expect, didn’t see coming, and doesn’t quite know what to do with. Hence, it might just be that if we’re going to turn this crisis upside down, we’re going to have to think outside the big-box store, the McMansion, the dead-end McJob, the bailout, the super-bonus, and the share price.
The future of plenitude probably won’t be Marxian — but it won’t look like the present. And if we’re going to trace the beginnings of better, more enduring, more authentic, more meaningful, fundamentally more humane paradigm for prosperity, perhaps it’s worthwhile exploring — even when we don’t agree with them — the critiques and prophecies of those who already challenged yesterday’s.
Thoughts?
