The Chairman Mao resembling, Monarchy hating, threat to Britain, Labour Party thread

[Dr_Pangloss]

There's nothing wrong with reading Marx, there's a lot of great observations and interesting theories posited across Capital Vol 1 - 3. In many ways he offered a much more realistic theory of Capitalism than Adam Smith. Smith saw Capitalism as static, Marx saw it as dynamic, there's a reason Schumpeter, who is at the opposite end of the spectrum, took Marx very seriously and didn't take Smith (and his own contemporary Keynes) seriously at all. 

Most people who criticise Marx have never bothered reading him outside of a few snippets from the Communist Manifesto online (which I agree that in large parts is a bit silly). It's unlikely that Andrew Marr has ever seriously read/ understood Marx, so the question was just an empty bit of posturing. 

Edited May 7, 2017 by Dr_Pangloss

[chrisp65]

Yes, I've read a little bit of Marx.

Apparently, he thought that if the factory owners improved workers' conditions, they'd be more productive.

Crazy beardy dude.

 

[Awol]

45 minutes ago, a m ole said:

He did also say there were things that Marx got wrong.

Yes, that Marx thought capitalism would collapse. A pretty fundamental part of his argument, don't you think?! 

[villaglint]

Whether you agree with him or not Marx is one of the most important thinkers in history, I'd be suspicious of anyone who hasn't read it to be honest. 

Without a doubt Marr has read Marx. 

[Awol]

32 minutes ago, Dr_Pangloss said:

There's nothing wrong with reading Marx, there's a lot of great observations and interesting theories posited across Capital Vol 1 - 3. In many ways he offered a much more realistic theory of Capitalism than Adam Smith. Smith saw Capitalism as static, Marx saw it as dynamic, there's a reason Schumpeter, who is at the opposite end of the spectrum, took Marx very seriously and didn't take Smith (and his own contemporary Keynes) seriously at all. 

Most people who criticise Marx have never bothered reading him outside of a few snippets from the Communist Manifesto online (which I agree that in large parts is a bit silly). It's unlikely that Andrew Marr has ever seriously read/ understood Marx, so the question was just an empty bit of posturing. 

I don't disagree with you, it's the aim of overthrowing capitalism element that is going to be electorally tricky to navigate for JM.

If the Tories don't go after him on this they'll be complete idiots. 

[snowychap]

9 minutes ago, Awol said:

Yes, that Marx thought capitalism would collapse. A pretty fundamental part of his argument, don't you think?! 

I think that depends what you're looking at, what you're looking to pick out of it and what point you're trying to make when you do so, e.g. whether the part that you are taking out of it can be painted as 'electorally tricky'.

[jon_c]

When your campaigning for an election and you're being interviewed on TV and someone asks you , are you a Marxist?

You just say "no".

It's not difficult, the story has nowhere else to run.

It's the same if they ask you "Do you think gay sex is a sin?"

 

[jon_c]

Also if you're Diane Abbot on TV and asked a question, just reply "I don't know"

Edited May 7, 2017 by jon_c
Typo

[snowychap]

Just now, jon_c said:

if you Diane Abbot on TV

I try not to Diane Abbot anywhere let alone on TV.

[jon_c]

1 minute ago, snowychap said:

I try not to Diane Abbot anywhere let alone on TV.

Bloody typing on phone

[Dr_Pangloss]

30 minutes ago, Awol said:

Yes, that Marx thought capitalism would collapse. A pretty fundamental part of his argument, don't you think?! 

Interestingly, one could argue that if it wasn't for state interventions at various key moments (such as the various bailouts seen in the developed world over the past 30 years) and state sponsored enterprises (in particular for building key infrastructure and R&D in things such as the internet), we really wouldn't have the sort of 'capitalism' we see today.

From what I've read of Marx, capitalism collapsing was primary an observation and a sensible at that. For Marx, capitalism creates it's own conditions for collapse, he located this through mechanisms such as 'overproduction and underconsumption'. Which essentially translates to a crisis in the demand for goods and services. He also developed (a primitive) theory of the business cycle, which if my economic history is correct, makes him among the first to do this systematically. Anyway, this idea of capitalism creating it's own conditions for collapse is clearly true if we look at how depressions and deep recessions have come about, and how state intervention has become increasingly necessary to either prevent or stabilise these episodes. So nothing particularly controversial about that.

The more controversial point in Marx (which is what I believe you're getting at) is his concept of the 'withering away of the state'. Which I do agree is a highly stupid and potentially dangerous concept and borrows huge theoretical support from Hegel's notions of consciousness and spirit. I did always find Marx's work on 'class consciousness' to be pretty damn stupid.  

If I were JM I'd be more inclined to be sympathetic to Marx as the economist rather than Marx the political philosopher, but he doesn't seem capable of making this distinction because perhaps he's more sympathetic to the latter rather than the former!

Edited May 7, 2017 by Dr_Pangloss

[jon_c]

2 minutes ago, Dr_Pangloss said:

 

The more controversial point in Marx (which is what I believe you're getting at) is his concept of the 'withering away of the state'. Which I do agree is a highly stupid and potentially dangerous concept and borrows huge theoretical support from Hegel's notions of consciousness and spirit. I did always find Marx's work on 'class consciousness' to be pretty damn stupid.  

"Right here waiting" was a tune, though.

[a m ole]

19 minutes ago, jon_c said:

When your campaigning for an election and you're being interviewed on TV and someone asks you , are you a Marxist?

You just say "no".

It's not difficult, the story has nowhere else to run.

It's the same if they ask you "Do you think gay sex is a sin?"

 

And when you're asked "is it wrong that nurses are using food banks", you just say "yes."

[Awol]

25 minutes ago, jon_c said:

When your campaigning for an election and you're being interviewed on TV and someone asks you , are you a Marxist?

You just say "no".

It's not difficult, the story has nowhere else to run.

 

He can't say that because it's not true - 7:15

...Just before he said he'd waited his entire life for the 07/08 financial crisis. 

I'm not making any judgement on his arguments and views, simply saying he's on record (and video) about believing in being honest that he's a Marxist. 

From a purely electoral point of view the Tories are going to make hay with that - presumably. 

[snowychap]

36 minutes ago, Dr_Pangloss said:

The more controversial point in Marx (which is what I believe you're getting at) is his concept of the 'withering away of the state'. Which I do agree is a highly stupid and potentially dangerous concept and borrows huge theoretical support from Hegel's notions of consciousness and spirit. I did always find Marx's work on 'class consciousness' to be pretty damn stupid.

Isn't it more impractical and utopian rather than stupid?

Edit: To be clear, I'm addresing the 'withering away of the state' as opposed to class consciousness.

Edited May 7, 2017 by snowychap

[jon_c]

39 minutes ago, a m ole said:

And when you're asked "is it wrong that nurses are using food banks", you just say "yes."

Totally, and Hunt is getting slated for that today too. 

But the problem there isn't public sector pay. The minimum nurse wage of £22k is more than I earn. (And a lot of people)

The outrage on public sector pay is always a false issue,  as public sector pay is relatively good.

The problem is the ridiculous cost of living in London and some major cities. 

Getting a handle on rent control and property prices, is the issue driving people to food banks.

 

Edited May 7, 2017 by jon_c

[Xela]

2 hours ago, a m ole said:

He did also say there were things that Marx got wrong.

[HanoiVillan]

1 hour ago, Awol said:

I don't disagree with you, it's the aim of overthrowing capitalism element that is going to be electorally tricky to navigate for JM.

If the Tories don't go after him on this they'll be complete idiots. 

Did he McDonnell say he had the aim of overthrowing capitalism?

I agree with you that this stands a good chance of becoming a Tory attack line, but more than anything this is damning about the British education system. Marx was an extremely important thinker in economics. Sadly, economics is assumed to be 'less interesting' than battles or studying the Nazi's again, so the vast vast majority of teenagers in secondary school couldn't tell you anything about Marx, or Adam Smith, or JM Keynes, or Milton Friedman, or anybody else for that matter. Hell, there's probably a very large chunk of the population who don't know that Marx, Lenin and Stalin were different people alive at different times. 

[Awol]

2 hours ago, HanoiVillan said:

Did he McDonnell say he had the aim of overthrowing capitalism?

I agree with you that this stands a good chance of becoming a Tory attack line, but more than anything this is damning about the British education system. Marx was an extremely important thinker in economics. Sadly, economics is assumed to be 'less interesting' than battles or studying the Nazi's again, so the vast vast majority of teenagers in secondary school couldn't tell you anything about Marx, or Adam Smith, or JM Keynes, or Milton Friedman, or anybody else for that matter. Hell, there's probably a very large chunk of the population who don't know that Marx, Lenin and Stalin were different people alive at different times. 

His entry in Who's Who lists hobbies as: 'fermenting [sic] the overthrow of capitalism'. 

I'm sure McDonnell's fans would argue that is a stab at humour, but his general political history suggests not. 

FWIW I agree with you about the dumbed down state of secondary education, ironically a product of the Blair premiership. 

[darrenm]

Marr is a clearing in the woods. He's the shock jock of the BBC.

How to negate his daily mail populist sound bites:

"Are you a Marxist?"

"A what?"

"A Marxist, are you one?"

"Not sure. What's a Marxist?"

"Well, someone who follows the theories and philosophies of Karl Marx"

"Oh, I'm still not sure. Can you give me any examples of his theories?"

"Public ownership of the means of production"

"I think public ownership of things essential to our success is a good idea, wouldn't you agree?"

"It's not for me to say, you're answering the questions"

Etc. Force him to expand on the labels so there's no simple insult available. All reasonably intelligent people know it's more nuanced than calling someone a name but they're easy to use in newspapers.