5 thoughts on “Why I can’t be bothered to read Marx”

  1. Posted 16/05/2017 at 02:58 | Permalink

    Kris
    If all you get from reading the Guardian is irritation then be rational and stop. Its circulation will decline by one and if all people who are in a similar position stopped reading it then our much maligned market will confine it to irrelevance and economics will deliver the coup de grace. Just think, their circulation may well be at a tipping point and by cancelling your subscription you may well tip them over. Unless, they then convince the government that their continued existence is a necessary antidote to the Murdoch press and worthy of a (very) generous taxpayer subsidy.

    Or is it possible, just, that you do get value as the Guardian helps to reinforce who you are not? They are the Other so beloved by Constructivists. If even mildly true then the same can be said of Marx. Reading Das Kapital may well fortify your beliefs about capitalism.

    Evidently, to be a true Marx aficionado you must read his work in German. I tried to read the English translation but struggled (Like thick soup it can be described as turgid). However, it did cure my insomnia and perhaps one day I will get back to it. But for now it is gathering dust on my shelf alongside Pilketty.

  2. Posted 17/05/2017 at 10:03 | Permalink

    As a university teacher, I am generally all in favour of the reading of original texts rather than just summaries or second-hand accounts. Nevertheless, some books should not be read cover to cover. When I was an adolescent and had more energy than sense, I managed to read John Locke’s Essay on Human Understanding in its entirety, all two volumes and 996 pages of it. Despite my respect for Locke, this isn’t something I could recommend to anyone—there are better things to do with one’s time. Marx’s Capital is another book that should not be read from cover to cover, although I suspect that many people have come to the same conclusion as I have without the benefit of my advice. It is a huge, sprawling, badly organised tome. Here I am speaking of the first volume, the only one Marx himself completed. It has many of the vices of the caricature of German scholarship—ridiculous length and an extravagant display of needless scholarship—with few of the virtues—clear analysis and logical rigour, although David McClelland bizarrely claims to find it ‘witty in a heavy-handed Germanic sort of way!’

  3. Posted 18/05/2017 at 12:36 | Permalink
  4. Posted 01/09/2017 at 14:19 | Permalink

    I find this article deeply disappointing.

    Here we have an academic, a well-learned and well-read individual who has studied hard to reach his position, a positon from which you would hope that such an individual would champion the reading of books, rather than urging us to do quite the opposite.

    I gain no such pleasure from trolling on the internet, and I genuinely do not wish to be rude to Dr Niemietz, but I find it somewhat disturbing that he would encourage us all to avoid reading what is clearly, one of the most important economic and philosophical works of the past 200 years.

    I am not a particularly intelligent man and I am also not handsomely paid for the low grade clerical work that I do and I often struggle to understand some of the more complex aspects within books of academia.

    Nevertheless, I absolutely felt it necessary to take on Das Kapital (admittedly after procrastinating for many years!) and am currently about half way through it. It is challenging in places and sometimes it can drag a little, but it is far from turgid and its arguments have a sound logic behind them and are backed up with much evidence.

    Again, I am not the brightest of individuals, but I would be curious to hear of any other theorist who has so effectively explained the theory of value adequately or attempted to analyse in accurate detail the actual dynamics of capitalism. The project of neo-liberal economic theory (or “vulgar economics” as Marx might have it) have done nothing other than give us a manual on how to perpetuate a system of unequal distribution and to that end, it has not been altogether that successful considering the vicissitude of the banking crisis!

    Dr Niemietz ‘s area of study is quoted as Poverty Research, yet he flatly refuses to acknowledge the importance of the most authoritative tome on the fundamental structural causes of much poverty in capitalist societies.

    Again, I do not wish to troll, I’m just deeply saddened by such a dismissal of an important and in my opinion, accurate analysis of why capitalism is not working for people like me.

    It is further disappointing, because, as a member of the working class, we are told to extoll the virtues of the successful middle classes, yet Dr Niemietz cannot evet be bothered to read one of the most crucial economic theorists of the modern era?

    Dr Niemietz, I ask you, what has market de-regulation, the rolling back of the state and the erosion of worker’s right done to improve society as a whole?

    It has given us a weakened welfare state, overpriced utilities and flatlining wages. How can this be seen as positive?

    I know I am stupid working class idiot but I would generally love to know what is so great about your neo-liberal doctrine?

  5. Posted 30/06/2018 at 18:58 | Permalink

    Matt, You’re right, you are not the brightest of individuals otherwise you would know that Smith and Riccardo both explained the role of value in production far better than Marx, although all three of them were unable to appreciate the role of imperfect competition in underming the theory itself. It is not labour which determines value but price. Das Kapital was irrelevant when it was written and is a fossilised relic now. No wonder Harold Wilson never got past page 1.

    Of course self identification as working class is in itself a misnomer as most who do so are usually anything but. De-regulation is separate from a capitalist society (the CEO of the NHS is a member of the Labour Party) and the alleged state of society to which you refer is a myth. Possibly you’re too young to remember the inefficiency of the former nationalised industries, the trade union tyranny practiced by Jones, Scargill et.al in pursuit of Marxist theory. Certainly you are too myopic to acknowledge that empiricism has proved the irrelevance of socialist theory in the real world.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.