Is there a difference any more between Marxism and orthodox social science? I’m prompted to ask by this paper by Jeremy Greenwood. He writes:
A large part of social change is a reaction to technological progress in the economy. Technological progress affects society‘s consumption and production possibilities. It therefore changes individuals‘ incentives to abide by social customs and mores…
This notion is applied here to the rocket-like rise in premarital sex that occurred over the last century…This is traced here to the dramatic decline in the expected cost of premarital sex, due technological improvement in contraceptives and their increased availability.
This notion is applied here to the rocket-like rise in premarital sex that occurred over the last century…This is traced here to the dramatic decline in the expected cost of premarital sex, due technological improvement in contraceptives and their increased availability.
This justifies Marx’s famous claim that “The mode of production of material life conditions the general process of social, political and intellectual life” - such as how much people shag around.
Of course, Greenwood is by no means unusual in doing this. Ever since Gary Becker’s pioneering work (pdf), mainstream economists have shown how the mode of production - technology and people’s perceived costs and benefits - affects social life, such as crime, family structure or obesity. In Marxian terms, “base” does influence “superstructure.”
This, though, is not the only point of convergence between orthodox and Marxist economics. The basic premise of neoclassical economics, that people respond to incentives, echoes the Marxian notion that individuals are bearers of social relations. Both stress that an individual’s behaviour arises from the position he finds himself in - which influences the costs and benefits he perceives - more than from his character. Of course, both views can be pushed too far. But both remind us not to see human action as rising from mere idiosyncratic disposition.
There’s a further point of convergence - economic history. Marx said that technology shapes property rights and hence class relations:
Of course, Greenwood is by no means unusual in doing this. Ever since Gary Becker’s pioneering work (pdf), mainstream economists have shown how the mode of production - technology and people’s perceived costs and benefits - affects social life, such as crime, family structure or obesity. In Marxian terms, “base” does influence “superstructure.”
This, though, is not the only point of convergence between orthodox and Marxist economics. The basic premise of neoclassical economics, that people respond to incentives, echoes the Marxian notion that individuals are bearers of social relations. Both stress that an individual’s behaviour arises from the position he finds himself in - which influences the costs and benefits he perceives - more than from his character. Of course, both views can be pushed too far. But both remind us not to see human action as rising from mere idiosyncratic disposition.
There’s a further point of convergence - economic history. Marx said that technology shapes property rights and hence class relations:
In acquiring new productive forces men change their mode of production; and in changing their mode of production, in changing the way of earning their living, they change all their social relations. The hand-mill gives you society with the feudal lord; the steam-mill society with the industrial capitalist. (The Poverty of Philosophy ch 2, second observation.)
Non-Marxist economists such as Terry Anderson and Peter Hill have shown how this happens. For example, the invention of trains increased the value of land in the US-mid-west, and so encouraged its transfer into private hands, whilst the invention of barbed wire allowed huge tracts to be enclosed.
So far, I’ve considered the convergence between neoclassical economics and Marxists. But there’s an important convergence between Marx and behavioural economics. Marxists believe that false consciousness can bamboozle workers into accepting capitalism. If we want to know how this happens, the cognitive biases and heuristics programme helps us. For example, the fundamental attribution error leads us over-estimate the extent to which the poor are to blame for their poverty, and to under-rate the importance of environmental or societal forces. The availability heuristic leads workers to blame immigrants for unemployment rather than less obvious forces. The just world phenomenon and system justification cause us to believe that capitalism must be fair. The status quo bias causes us to accept existing evils rather than risk new ones. And adaptive preferences (pdf) cause the poor to resign themselves to their fates and want less, with the result that capitalist democracy sustains inequality.
Of course, both Marxists and mainstream economists will reject all this, and come up with endless guff about “methodology” to explain why they really really hate each other, and would prefer to languish in their little intellectual ghettos.
But the fact is that they do converge upon many important points. And you know why? Because both see the truth.
So far, I’ve considered the convergence between neoclassical economics and Marxists. But there’s an important convergence between Marx and behavioural economics. Marxists believe that false consciousness can bamboozle workers into accepting capitalism. If we want to know how this happens, the cognitive biases and heuristics programme helps us. For example, the fundamental attribution error leads us over-estimate the extent to which the poor are to blame for their poverty, and to under-rate the importance of environmental or societal forces. The availability heuristic leads workers to blame immigrants for unemployment rather than less obvious forces. The just world phenomenon and system justification cause us to believe that capitalism must be fair. The status quo bias causes us to accept existing evils rather than risk new ones. And adaptive preferences (pdf) cause the poor to resign themselves to their fates and want less, with the result that capitalist democracy sustains inequality.
Of course, both Marxists and mainstream economists will reject all this, and come up with endless guff about “methodology” to explain why they really really hate each other, and would prefer to languish in their little intellectual ghettos.
But the fact is that they do converge upon many important points. And you know why? Because both see the truth.
Mainstream science and Scientology have also converged.
Like physicists and electrical engineers, Scientologists use Wheatstone Bridges:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-meter
and they share the skepticism of many scientists about the effectiveness of popular psychoactive drugs in treating mental health problems:
http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/the_tls/article6013955.ece
This is because both scientists and Scientologists see the truth.
Posted by: PooterGeek | July 10, 2009 at 05:04 PM
Sorry, PG - I don't see the analogy.
The points of convergence I've described are neither trivially true nor incidental parts of Marxism.
For example, the non-Marxist left spent much of the 80s denying the importance of economic forces - hence its ignorance of economics as regularly displayed in the Guardian. The fact that crime has economic causes (in part) is news to moralizers who want to understand a little less and condemn more, in John Major's phrase.
And the possibility that support for capitalism rests in part upon non-rational factors is surely controversial.
Also, these are examples of orthodox social science corroborating Marx's hypotheses, not of Marxists twisting existing social science.
A better analogy would be if mainstream science were to find lots of evidence in favour of dianetics.
Posted by: chris | July 11, 2009 at 09:57 AM
It ain’t about methodology alone Chris. Marxism – or indeed any most other forms of political economy – would not accept, in an unqualified way, the statement that ‘A large part of social change is a reaction to technological progress in the economy. Technological progress affects society‘s consumption and production possibilities. It therefore changes individuals‘ incentives to abide by social customs and mores’.
Most political economists that I’ve read (I’ll readily admit I’m no expert, but I do attempt to keep up..) would reject this because it is technologically reductive: they would see existing social relations also shaping the development of technology. (e.g. those everlasting light bulbs we’ve always heard do much about but have never been able to buy, or indeed the current struggle to retain established property rights in the e-world that has given us iTunes rather than music which is both free and legal...).
It’s true that Marx identified defined the moment of epochal change – a shift in the mode of production - as being when the forces of production come into irreconcilable conflict with the relations of production.
But such moments are by definition rare in human history. More commonly, as Engels wrote to Bloch in 1890:
“ According to the materialist conception of history, the ultimately determining element in history is the production and reproduction of real life. Other than this neither Marx nor I have ever asserted. Hence if somebody twists this into saying that the economic element is the only determining one, he transforms that proposition into a meaningless, abstract, senseless phrase. The economic situation is the basis, but the various elements of the superstructure — political forms of the class struggle and its results, to wit: constitutions established by the victorious class after a successful battle, etc., juridical forms, and even the reflexes of all these actual struggles in the brains of the participants, political, juristic, philosophical theories, religious views and their further development into systems of dogmas — also exercise their influence upon the course of the historical struggles and in many cases preponderate in determining their form......
Marx and I are ourselves partly to blame for the fact that the younger people sometimes lay more stress on the economic side than is due to it. We had to emphasise the main principle vis-á-vis our adversaries, who denied it, and we had not always the time, the place or the opportunity to give their due to the other elements involved in the interaction. But when it came to presenting a section of history, that is, to making a practical application, it was a different matter and there no error was permissible. Unfortunately, however, it happens only too often that people think they have fully understood a new theory and can apply it without more ado from the moment they have assimilated its main principles, and even those not always correctly. And I cannot exempt many of the more recent "Marxists" from this reproach, for the most amazing rubbish has been produced in this quarter, too....”
Posted by: CharlieMcMenamin | July 11, 2009 at 12:29 PM
one other piece - cognitive dissonance can be a critical micro-behavioral component in understanding the creation and mainatainance of ideology. confronted with a negative shock (say in income), i can either change my actions (get pissed off, argue with my boss), or change my preferences/beliefs ( "well, this is a difficult time for everyone, hey we all want the business to succeed even if it means my getting shafted a bit"). the way we do the latter is squarely in the realm of cognitive dissonance - resolve it by changing beliefs/preferences instead of action.
Posted by: Arin D | July 12, 2009 at 08:06 AM
@ Charlie - I wasn't attributing to Marx or conventional economists the notion that the relation between technology and social relations runs only one way.
Marx's point that property relations can be "fetters" upon the productive forces clearly acknowledges that the causality can run the other way. And all neoclassical economists would concur.
Nor is anyone saying that the economic element is the only determining one. Note Greenwood's qualification "a large part", Marx's use of the word "conditions" rather than "determines", and my word "influences", rather than "determines."
Posted by: chris | July 12, 2009 at 10:03 AM
Yes, there is one essential difference - Marxism is the cold hand of the state, the jackboot on the neck of society, whereas orthodox economics allows one to breathe.
Posted by: jameshigham | July 12, 2009 at 03:34 PM
Whereas, as Dsquared says, the invisible hand doesn't leave any fingerprints.
Posted by: Alex | July 12, 2009 at 04:51 PM
Staus quo bias would lead one to rationalize whatever system they're in, including a Marxist one. And insofar as 'capitalist' countries are really 'mixed economies,' this bias is simultaneously rationalizing regulation and the welfare state.
Posted by: Dain | July 12, 2009 at 07:36 PM
@james higham
"Marxism is the cold hand of the state, the jackboot on the neck of society, whereas orthodox economics allows one to breathe."
Not only absurdly idealogical, but about as welcome and useful as farting in church. However, it does rather indicate that "orthodox economics" - by which I take it you mean Chicago school free marketism - is as scientific, rational and relevant to real life as, say, Scientology.
Posted by: rockinred | July 13, 2009 at 09:25 AM
Gentlemen - I think we are confusing theory with practice here.... Marxist theory as used in sociology and economics is not the same as (leninist-) marxist policy which does involve the cold hand of the state.
Marxist theory is simply another framework for trying to explain economic and social change and behaviour. Of course it has its imperfections just like any other quasi-economic theory (libertarianism, monetarism, keynesianism, freudianism et al)...
Posted by: Glenn | July 13, 2009 at 10:08 AM
I must say this is a great article i enjoyed reading it keep the good work.
Posted by: air jordan shoes | July 14, 2009 at 01:21 AM
Note Greenwood's qualification "a large part", Marx's use of the word "conditions" rather than "determines", and my word "influences", rather than "determines."
Posted by: jordan 6 rings | July 17, 2009 at 03:09 AM