Originally appeared in the magazine ' 22 '

Whenever anyone, taking air as saying something profound, declares that "Marx was right" and proclaim the relevance for understanding the current circumstance of Marxism or of the contemporary world, this devoaleaza one of the following two ways: a) has no idea what he's talking about, b) that says you bullshit, but say still, being animated by reasons which have nothing to do with intellectual probity.

 

We can reformulate the observation above and as follows: when a columnist (novel or stranger-girl in discussion not discriminam on national databases) is launched in pirouettes marxizante in an attempt to give a semblance of theoretical reinforcement summarises his rudimentary anyway, over the crisis, the world and life, between the lines, we read the following statement: "I've not studied anything in my life that make me understand economic world they live in; are used to give my opinion about all and all without embarrassment and now I have to write something about the crisis, using me for some primitive cliches because else know anyway I don't mind me dispensez template ".

 

I left the impressions and thoughts upon the assumption that the individual in question are "rudimentary anyway". How did we get to this? Simple: by nature of things, if someone is intelligent and has a sense of observation, you will find something interesting to say about a fascinating phenomenon as the crisis, even if you don't know the theory. The fact that appeals to not only look like marxism is unable to identify and use a theoretical tool but also as serious, is deprived of natural intelligence that would help him to say yet something with meaning, independent of recourse to any theoretical or another device.

 

The reality is that the relevance of Marxism to understanding not only of the economic crisis, but generally speaking, the world of the 21st century is void. If you have not been able to observe that even without the Economics studies, then neither the ten PhDs can not help you with anything.

 

Marxism today

What is Marxism? A doctrine of what sustains economic myths dispelled history for more than a century. "Pauperizarii Law", "law of the proletariat decrease salaries", "law", "concentration of capital decrease in the rate of profit" law comprise a system of sentences what defies most elementary empirical record keeping. What relevance can have such a doctrine for the 21st century? What analytical capabilities bring a conceptually based on theoretical as well as Museum exhibits "class struggle" or "value-theory", flogistonului from prehistory equivalents of natural science moderne?

 

If someone would come up and you start to explain us resistance to earthquakes of buildings in Europe using the flogistonului theory, I quickly decide he's jumped on the fix and would quickly become a cause for pity or fun. That's why we have neither too much editorial using this as reinforcing the venerable analytical theory. Why do we have so many editorial trying to explain us resistance to the economic cycle in Europe economies using flogistonului equivalent in social sciences remains an interesting question. Maybe we should ask ourselves more seriously.

 

The world economy has gone from 1848 until today through many revolutionary transformations. And, when we say revolutionary, we don't play with words: second industrialization between 1880 and 1900, two managerial upheaval in the 20th century, a revolution in the means of communication and informatics have radically transformed not only the economy, but also the entire society. Technological change, economic trends, demographic, social and cultural values of the world were accelarat and intensified in the last hundred years longer than did the Neolithic revolution coupled up to the industrial revolution of the 18th century.

 

With all due respect to "prophetic visions" of Marx's (by the way: what Marx predicted correctly?!), the world in 2010 looks completely different than the one seen and described by him or his descendants from the early twentieth century. Who has a problem with that has a problem with both the principles of social science, but also with the most elementary principles of observation of feel-good.

 

To say something. Division of labour mechanisms identified and described by Adam Smith remains the same and will remain the same in perpetuity. Marx's idea that social dynamics is based on the structure of the class (or, rather, the way in which i find it looks this structure in England to 1850) may be scuzata as an honest scientific error.

 

But the notion that, in the end, there will be a new company, a company running breaking any principle of Division of labour in which each can do one thing today, another tomorrow morning, Hunt, fish, afternoon, and evening hire raises cattle in literary criticism after dinner; but without ever becoming Hunter, fisherman, banker or critical "can hardly claim a similar forgiveness. That's why Adam Smith is considered the father of a science, and Marx of an ideology. If anyone has not noticed it yet and still claim to have the authority to pronounce itself on issues of economic and political high has a problem. And, along with it, we have a problem of all those we are forced to endure her improvisation.

 

The relevance of a relics

Returning to the theme of change, however. Contemporary world not only looks completely different than the time of Marx, but the ways in which we try to understand the theoretical tools and approaches–there were changed and they radically. Discussion of economic fluctuations, of the relationship between market processes and their regulatory frameworks, the analysis of functions of the State, the tension between social norms and the huge difference between individual maximizatoare have all held in the registers for which the vocabulary used in the 19th century even does not have the necessary words.

 

Study society and economy today with models of game theory, use randomized experiments and tests, build explanations using behaviorism and cognitive psychology, evolutionary models. We analyze the political structures and their relationship with economic ones by calling institutional theory, theory of public option, "agent-based modeling" and theory of social networks.

 

I went through a "inferentiala revolution" brought widespread application in parametric statistics Social Sciences and nonparametrice. After 1960 there was discipline that have not been touched. Of the economy (through Econometrics) to history (via cliometrie) does not exist in that aggregate data analysis not be changed perspective. Similarly, in the plane, I went through a "revolution" and we behaviorista now in full "cognitivista revolution".

 

We already have a solid tradition of cumularii of knowledge in contemporary social sciences, I have tried many, I have experienced a lot and I have learned from mistakes.

 

Short and very simple: there is no question that Marx would have something to say about our economy today. In fact, we today understand the economic and institutional parameters of economy of his time infinitely better than himself. And don't pretend that we'd be smarter for him. But we have access to data and tools from which he did not even dream of. Even if only that should be sufficiently to put an end to the discussion. Do economic history using econometrics and analyze the economic world in which he lived and wrote about procesand statistical series computers and complicated programs.

 

When interpreting the data build and his era, relying on theories based on scientific progress, not on speculation. Who has any doubt you probably need to reevaluate the baggage of culture, from which it is almost certain that some 100 years of history and economic history of modern social sciences are failing to appeal.

 

A tangent edifying

If the above are correct, then it is understood that you can't not ask yourself: "What God these people who will all give zor with Marxism and Marx?!". No longer seem exaggerated to say that those who invoke it in discussions regarding Marx contemporary economy raise question marks concerning their own intellectual discernment. For the sake of argument, let's try to take seriously the idea of marxism. Maybe it will find her name and as the only really respectable intellectual reclaim from marxism today are those related to the so-called "analytical marxism".

 

But for authors such as David Miller, John Roemer and, to a certain extent, Jon Elster or Philippe van Parijs, analytical Marxism was an attempt to save bits of marxism offering them steroids theory rational options. Raymond Boudon himself, the greatest classical liberal sociologist in life, trying to justify the generous you can justify from marxism, as a social scientist, in the same way. Anyway I get it but, eventually, these moves, everything dissolves into a methodology, doctrine policy. An attempt to recover the disparate elements of the conceptual and giving them utility in contexts different from the original, thought of Marx.

 

But let's not lose our tangent in sophisticated, parading useless: observation of eruditie above is made more for the love of art. Miller, Roemer and company are not present even in the comentariatul of the left from the international press, mention in the country. The key problem is different: the texts of "analiticilor" are heavy I suppose fitness reading professional familiarity with the social sciences and some thinking maturity, qualities rarely found in journalist or pattabiraman oportunistul mimic the prone Marxism for opportunistic reasons.

 

Degringolada and responsibilities

After all, the key observation in this discussion is different: it is not degringolada imputabila journalists. They are just tools and (maybe). The explosion of media industry in recent decades has created a is reached jobs in journalism at the global scale. The amount of affected quality. In the West it was constituted a majority of those who did not have any vocation, no conceptual tools with which to interpret events you comment, go beyond this disabled imprumutand, left, with slogans that are, like everybody else, familiar from indoctrination in campuses under the label of "general education".

 

Talk about the rare moments when not repeating syllables what they read in the newspapers of the left influences, such as the New York Times and The Guardian. Or when not rerecicleaza via BBC or CNN what already had been recycled from the posts in question from the earlier mentioned. In other parts of the world, the mechanisms are different, but the result is the same. And so we come to discuss today, when we enter the second decade of the 21st century, about-neither more nor less than "relevance of Marxism". We must be very clear, however: the problem comes mainly from journalists. How can each lead. The problem is one that is drawn from the tips of the intellectual left. The first responsible for the situation are ganditorii and university professors from the left. For Division of labour in intellectual, they are those that give the tone.

 

There was a time when intellectual struggle between left and right was a battle of the Titans. Enrico Barone, Oskar Lange, Abba Lerner at an Mises, Hayek, Schumpeter or Pareto. At that time, the Socialist left had something to say. Wrong, Yes. But smart, innovative and daring. Today, however, objectively speaking, those who consider themselves descendants of stangistilor Socialists above mentioned would probably be repudiati no right of appeal.

 

How can it be otherwise, when a good part of contemporary Socialists do nothing but hiding behind Keynes? An interesting situation, which would deserve to talk by itself. In the context of the argument, to mention just one thing. Keynes was a antimarxist. He was autoconsiderat (and was considered by many) as the Savior of capitalism. In his letter antologica il Announces George Bernard Shaw as he works on a book that will revolutionize economic thinking, which he says will be the most profound impact thereof: demolition of Marxism through the demolition of its ricardiene.

 

Here we at least this man and do not credit him mix the pile in this discussion about the left, marxism, that we deal with now. A discussion you don't do than to ask how can I pretend to be taking seriously the leftist members of the intellectual elite, when not only the practice without embarrassment intellectual fire parasitic but, when they do, tolerate and even cultivate company of characters that may exemplify in their "works", but not any processes elementary schools once taught intellectual such as: analysis, synthesis, logic and coherence raportatea the empirical reality. For instance, what can you talk or understand starting at Zizek, Hardt and Negri, the company about the role of the State, the functioning of a market economy or economic fluctuations caused by the instability of the financial sector? It's a rhetorical question. To remember that before we talk about us with all kinds of suggestions on the possibility of a monetary theories stalinisto-zizekiene. These people do not know the joke.

 

Price degringoladei

The above is not insinueaza in any case left there could develop a line of argumentation and attuned to the empirical reality. For instance, we can ask how it would look if their debates on socialism left instead to juggle with Foucault and Lacan, would try to use arguments or options theory, more broadly, those of constitutional political economy. Or if it works as well as Socialism after Hayek Theodore Burczak (in that it combines the ideas of Hayek with those of a Martha Nussbaum or an Amartya Sen to relaunch socialist project discussion) would be those of the young men teachers would point them leftists as required reading, instead of waste paper multi-culti and fair political they anaesthetize critical sense and reflexes of a normal smart. (We have every reason to reject the theory that most young leftists it selects today as leftists because it would leave the birthday with a parafrazam-to unwieldy, but delicately-intellectual vivacity somewhat slower. As we have every reason to hope that specific cognitive laxitatea is because, natures sensitive and vulnerable were victims of involuntary saturarii with ideas and attitudes by the leftist media and education system.)

 

Returning teachers and role but the servants left intellectuals, when it comes not from the Department, but also research and publications, to say only one thing: to behave like a hundred and something years of economic history and politics and all that kind of progress in social sciences have passed without notice not only is neconstructiv for public debate and intellectual neonest but it is, at the same time, destructive for the left tradition. Impression that it balteste today in cheap propaganda, exhibitionism, irrelevance and outdated ideas is not independent of the attitudes of these intellectuals.

 

Conclusion

Deep-seated changes put in motion forces of capitalism and classical liberalism in the last hundred years have created an economy and a society of unprecedented complexity. We are able to predict and control the dynamics of this type of social order? Does. But we made progress in understanding them. And, no matter how flimsy it would be these developments, one thing we know for sure: the subject (society and economy) has changed tremendously in the past few decades and will continue to change. And the intellectual tools (theories and methods) with which we try to understand and respect this dynamic as well. In these circumstances, it is obvious why recourse to marxism appears to us as being, more than anything else, a sign of ignorance or intellectual gridlock.

 

On the other hand, however, if what left the floor level or intellectually most visibly and vocally shows what it looks like, it's no wonder that, reflective, journalism and publishing incline stangista tend to return obsessively to the part that seems to have the cat something sense their ideological universe: ancient, but through force of circumstances, perenul Marx, a monument of intellectual clarity in comparison to his descendants today.

 

So, whenever someone, taking the attitude that says something profound, declares that "Marx was right" for understanding the relevance of proclaiming class Marxism of the present world economic circumstance, this unfortunate devoaleaza more than personaa a certain intellectual disorientation. He tells us, something very important about the intellectual desert that left turns erratically for so long.