Fascinating. I wanted to make a couple comments on first read:
1. Concerning the “historical science” of economics, I recall Dudley Dilliard showing us how Marx recognized that technological advancement could extend capitalism’s reign by giving capitalists new opportunities to make profit and sustain the system. It seems to me that 20th century health, transportation and entertainment technology advancements and diffusions alone provided living standards improvements that helped forestall more enthusiasm for Socialism.
2. More interesting here is that Dilliard also made the connection between Marx’s thoughts on production technology and his foreshadowing of the neoclassical (Solow) growth model. In that formulation, in a market economy (of many atomistic consumers and producers operating in a perfectly competitive economy) there is no incentive for overaccumulation of capital, and, therefore, technological advancement (or, if you will, TFP which might also include labor quality) is the only way to advance income per capita.
3. As someone who spent several decades working with empirical models of the economy, I have mixed emotions about the Solow Model, but let’s just say most of them are bad. (In the battle of the Cambridge Ks, I was on the losing side. 😊) That model is used entirely too often to examine and explain the economy, and to the extent that Marx contributed to its dominance, I blame him.
You have a better memory than me, re: Dudley's class. He was one of my favorite professors. I do recall he made fun of me in class, in his mild-mannered way.
Marx certainly appreciated technological progress under capitalism. However, he wrote that that same progress would equip and motivate the working class to mobilize for power. which is obvious rubbish.
The Cambridge fracas for me underlines the deep flaws of mainstream theory. I couldn't say if Marx had any better view of capital quantification.
I'm way behind on your posts but I decided to try to catch up, starting with this. My own sense of Marx comes from some reading long ago, but I'll try here. I liked Isaiah Berlin's bio, poorly remembered after decades. I recall this bit from F. Scott Fitzgerald's letter to Scottie, where he tells her to read "The Working Day" chapter of Capital to get a sense of something: why workers are not happy, or why Marx wrote, or ???. I never read Karl Mannheim (skipped that assignment) but my roommate, Daniel Bell's student, explained a little of sociology of knowledge to me; so I have a vulgar sense of Marxist sociology, which I take as usefully or invaluably explanatory.
What stays with me the most, aside from the Manifesto's potted history, is Engels's CONDITION OF THE WORKING CLASS IN ENGLAND. Not much theory, in my recollection, but all too vivid descriptions. I confess to being more interested in the smell of the past, e.g. Henry Mayhew, E. P. Thompson, or further afield with Henri Pirenne, al-Tabari, Arrian etc., rather than trying to understand it tied up in one big theory, or several such.
You yourself bring some of that more global perspective, which (in part) is why I enjoy reading your posts, if not reading them often enough. Onward, Max!
Fascinating. I wanted to make a couple comments on first read:
1. Concerning the “historical science” of economics, I recall Dudley Dilliard showing us how Marx recognized that technological advancement could extend capitalism’s reign by giving capitalists new opportunities to make profit and sustain the system. It seems to me that 20th century health, transportation and entertainment technology advancements and diffusions alone provided living standards improvements that helped forestall more enthusiasm for Socialism.
2. More interesting here is that Dilliard also made the connection between Marx’s thoughts on production technology and his foreshadowing of the neoclassical (Solow) growth model. In that formulation, in a market economy (of many atomistic consumers and producers operating in a perfectly competitive economy) there is no incentive for overaccumulation of capital, and, therefore, technological advancement (or, if you will, TFP which might also include labor quality) is the only way to advance income per capita.
3. As someone who spent several decades working with empirical models of the economy, I have mixed emotions about the Solow Model, but let’s just say most of them are bad. (In the battle of the Cambridge Ks, I was on the losing side. 😊) That model is used entirely too often to examine and explain the economy, and to the extent that Marx contributed to its dominance, I blame him.
You have a better memory than me, re: Dudley's class. He was one of my favorite professors. I do recall he made fun of me in class, in his mild-mannered way.
Marx certainly appreciated technological progress under capitalism. However, he wrote that that same progress would equip and motivate the working class to mobilize for power. which is obvious rubbish.
The Cambridge fracas for me underlines the deep flaws of mainstream theory. I couldn't say if Marx had any better view of capital quantification.
I'm way behind on your posts but I decided to try to catch up, starting with this. My own sense of Marx comes from some reading long ago, but I'll try here. I liked Isaiah Berlin's bio, poorly remembered after decades. I recall this bit from F. Scott Fitzgerald's letter to Scottie, where he tells her to read "The Working Day" chapter of Capital to get a sense of something: why workers are not happy, or why Marx wrote, or ???. I never read Karl Mannheim (skipped that assignment) but my roommate, Daniel Bell's student, explained a little of sociology of knowledge to me; so I have a vulgar sense of Marxist sociology, which I take as usefully or invaluably explanatory.
What stays with me the most, aside from the Manifesto's potted history, is Engels's CONDITION OF THE WORKING CLASS IN ENGLAND. Not much theory, in my recollection, but all too vivid descriptions. I confess to being more interested in the smell of the past, e.g. Henry Mayhew, E. P. Thompson, or further afield with Henri Pirenne, al-Tabari, Arrian etc., rather than trying to understand it tied up in one big theory, or several such.
You yourself bring some of that more global perspective, which (in part) is why I enjoy reading your posts, if not reading them often enough. Onward, Max!