[Marxism] Rightwing dickhead comments on Timothy Shenk Nation magazine article about Marxism

Louis Proyect lnp3 at panix.com
Sun Apr 20 10:20:41 MDT 2014


NY Times Op-Ed, April 20 2014
Marx Rises Again
by Ross Douthat

IN the season of resurrection, it’s fitting that he’s with us once again 
— bearded, prophetic, moralistic, promising to exalt the humble and cast 
down the mighty from their thrones.

Yes, that’s right: Karl Marx is back from the dead.

Not on a Soviet-style scale, mercifully, and not with the kind of 
near-scriptural authority that many Marxists once invested in him. But 
Marxist ideas are having an intellectual moment, and attention must be paid.

As Timothy Shenk writes in a searching essay for The Nation, there are 
two pillars to the current Marxist revival. One is the clutch of young 
intellectuals Shenk dubs the “Millennial Marxists,” whose experience of 
the financial crisis inspired a new look at Old Karl’s critique of 
capitalism. The M.M.’s have Occupy Wall Street as a 
failed-but-interesting political example; they have new-ish journals 
(Jacobin, The New Inquiry, n + 1) where they can experiment and argue; 
they are beginning to produce books, two of which Shenk reviews and praises.

What they lack, however, is a synthesis, a story, of the kind that Marx 
himself offered. This is where the other pillar rises — Thomas Piketty’s 
“Capital in the Twenty-First Century,” a sweeping interpretation of 
modern economic trends recently translated from the French, and the one 
book this year that everyone in my profession will be required to 
pretend to have diligently read.

Piketty himself is a social democrat who abjures the Marxist label. But 
as his title suggests, he is out to rehabilitate and recast one of 
Marx’s key ideas: that so-called “free markets,” by their nature, tend 
to enrich the owners of capital at the expense of people who own less of it.

This idea seemed to be disproved in the 20th century, by the emergence 
of a prosperous, non-revolutionary working class. But Piketty argues 
that those developments were transitory, made possible mostly by the 
massive destruction of inherited capital during the long era of world war.

Absent another such disruption, he expects a world in which the returns 
to capital permanently outstrip  —  as they have recently  —  the 
returns to labor, and inequality rises far beyond even today’s levels. 
Combine this trend with slowing growth, and we face a future like the 
19th-century past, in which vast inherited fortunes bestride the 
landscape while the middle class fractures, weakens, shrinks.

Piketty’s dark vision relies, in part, on economic models I am 
unqualified to assess. But it also relies on straightforward analysis of 
recent trends in Western economies, and here a little doubt-raising is 
in order.

In particular, as the Manhattan Institute’s Scott Winship has pointed 
out, Piketty’s data seems to understate the income gains enjoyed by most 
Americans over the last two generations. These gains have not been as 
impressive as during the post-World War II years, but they do exist: For 
now, even as the rich have gotten much, much richer, the 99 percent have 
shared in growing prosperity in real, measurable ways.

Winship’s point raises the possibility that even if Piketty’s broad 
projections are correct, the future he envisions might be much more 
stable and sustainable than many on the left tend to assume. Even if the 
income and wealth distributions look more Victorian, that is, the 99 
percent may still be doing well enough to be wary of any political 
movement that seems too radical, too utopian, too inclined to rock the boat.

This possibility might help explain why the far left remains, for now, 
politically weak even as it enjoys a miniature intellectual renaissance. 
And it might hint at a reason that so much populist energy, in both the 
United States and Europe, has come from the right instead — from 
movements like the Tea Party, Britain’s UKIP, France’s National Front 
and others that incorporate some Piketty-esque arguments (attacks on 
crony capitalism; critiques of globalization) but foreground cultural 
anxieties instead.

The taproot of agitation in 21st-century politics, this trend suggests, 
may indeed be a Marxian sense of everything solid melting into air. But 
what’s felt to be evaporating could turn out to be cultural identity — 
family and faith, sovereignty and community — much more than economic 
security.

And somewhere in this pattern, perhaps, lies the beginnings of a  more 
ideologically complicated critique of modern capitalism — one that draws 
on cultural critics like Daniel Bell and Christopher Lasch rather than 
just looking to material concerns, and considers the possibility that 
our system’s greatest problem might not be the fact that it lets the 
rich claim more money than everyone else. Rather, it might be that both 
capitalism and the welfare state tend to weaken forms of solidarity that 
give meaning to life for many people, while offering nothing but money 
in their place.

Which is to say that while the Marxist revival is interesting enough, to 
become more relevant it needs to become a little more ... reactionary.






More information about the Marxism mailing list