Just When I Was Out, They Pull Me Back In

contributed by David L. Prychitko

I've written much on Marxism and made a bit of a dent.  Got away from it for a few years, but now Hardt and Negri's most recent book, published on October 1st, draws my attention. I'm lined up for a review in The Freeman, and I also have plans for a lengthy, critical and harsh paper.    

Comments

[Rafe Champion]

On the topic of Marxist exegesis, I would really like to know what people think about Popper's critique in The Open Society and its Enemies. It appears to have no profile in the English speaking world, although I understand that it was popular in some circles in Europe. Isiah Berlin described his take on Marx as the most scrupulous and formidible in the English language, not that I regard Berlin as an authority (too much of a talking head) but he had a point.

Is the book too long for modern students? Is it out of date? Maybe he was too generous to Marx but he was writing for an audience of social democrats. Also he was taken in by the orthodox line on the industrial revolution. But it was a good effort for second job that he took on while he worked in New Zealand.

As to the length, there is a kind of Readers Digest condensed version on line.

http://www.the-rathouse.com/OpenSocietyOnLIne/AATheProjectwithIndex.html

Comments off line are invited.

Rafe rchamp@bigpond.net.au

[Current]

Are Marxists really very important anymore. The impression I've got is that this crisis has helped the post-Keynesians the most.

[Dave Prychitko]

Current,

my forthcoming paper takes the post-keynesians head on. But this Hardt and Negri stuff is gaining attention, not among economists, but among other radicals. I haven't dealt with the Marxists in several years now, but I think it will be more fun than important to deal with these guys.

[David EA]

Rafe,

Popper's critique of Marx is perhaps not that interesting anymore, but his critique of Plato remains topical. Unexamined Platonic idealism seems as popular as ever. Perhaps not among intellectuals, but among the not-so-educated masses. Don't you agree?

[Current]

"my forthcoming paper takes the post-keynesians head on. But this Hardt and Negri stuff is gaining attention, not among economists, but among other radicals. I haven't dealt with the Marxists in several years now, but I think it will be more fun than important to deal with these guys."

Interesting. I see what you mean, Post-Keynesians may be doing well in Economic circles, but there are many other circles too.

[Chris A.]

Hmm. It seems that the only time a movement or idea is declared "dead" is when the persons saying so rather wish that was the case. Cold fusion, religious belief, and yes, marxism now come to mind. It's always a race between human stupidity and innovation, anyway.

[Richard Ebeling]

Many years ago when I was teaching at the University of Dallas, I participated in a faculty seminar on Alan Bloom's new translation of Plato's "Republic."

The discussions were lead by members of the UD political science department, all of whom were "Struassians."

I had never before read, cover-to-cover "The Republic," only secondary works on Plato, including Popper's discussion of Plato in volume one of "The Open Society and Its Enemies."

After reading Plato first-hand -- with faculty colleagues who were certainly sympathetic to Plato, and who tried to interpret him in the most favorable light -- I concluded that Popper's analysis was absolutely on the mark.

I also consider his analysis of Hegel and Marx in volume two to be extremely informative and helpful, as well.

Richard Ebeling