« 45p: Power beats evidence | Main | Stagnationism, exhilarationism & beyond »

March 23, 2012



Gee, it is as if Gramsci never lived.


Uh, isn't the whole point of free markets to "attack" capitalists? As in, unleash the brutal forces of competition and push down profit margins for any individual capitalist?

Certainly that's what happened in retail banking post-Big Bang.

Adam Bell

This argument comes dangerously close to being a simple framing problem; while you recognise the problem Marx's statement has with falsifiability, you do not adequately distinguish between that statement and its converse.

For example, if I were to make the claim that 'the executive of the modern state is but the organised expropriation of wealth from the bourgeoisie to the proletariat' then many of the points you make in defence of Marx's statement would still hold true. The proletariat require the infrastructure of the modern state for the generation of the wealth that is to be expropriated; the welfare state is their key tool in this expropriation, and defending their bourgeoisie from foreigners who would seek to expropriate their wealth themselves requires an army.

Such statements are, as a result, uninteresting; they do not tell you anything useful about the world. However, they are relatively simply heuristics for explaining it, if that's your thing.


This isn't metaphorical.

Neither is the labour theory of value so Adam has it exactly backwards.

The comments to this entry are closed.

blogs I like

Blog powered by Typepad