by Karl Marx, the committed revolutionary, once proved that the revolution need not happen. What did he do next?Marx was a committed revolutionary, so much so that when reflecting on his life, he said that if he had it all to do over again, he would still be a revolutionary but would not marry, to save his wife from having to suffer the privations of life with him. There were, of course, many committed revolutionaries in the 19th century. What set Marx apart from them all was that he had proven that revolution not only would happen, but had to happen. It was inevitable. And then, one day, he proved, using a significant advance in his own economics, that revolution did not have to happen: that the inexorable force he had believed pushed in that direction was the outcome of a flaw in his
Topics:
Mike Norman considers the following as important: Karl Marx, Labor Theory of Value, value theory
This could be interesting, too:
Robert Vienneau writes William Baumol On Marx
Robert Vienneau writes Francis Spufford On Commodity Fetishism As A Dance
Robert Vienneau writes A Derivation Of Prices Of Production With Linear Programming
Robert Vienneau writes How Ownership Obtains A Return According To Marx
Karl Marx, the committed revolutionary, once proved that the revolution need not happen. What did he do next?
Marx was a committed revolutionary, so much so that when reflecting on his life, he said that if he had it all to do over again, he would still be a revolutionary but would not marry, to save his wife from having to suffer the privations of life with him.
There were, of course, many committed revolutionaries in the 19th century. What set Marx apart from them all was that he had proven that revolution not only would happen, but had to happen. It was inevitable.
And then, one day, he proved, using a significant advance in his own economics, that revolution did not have to happen: that the inexorable force he had believed pushed in that direction was the outcome of a flaw in his own theory. When the flaw was corrected, the force was gone, and not only was revolution not inevitable, it might not even be necessary.
How do you think he reacted?
He fudged, of course....First, it is significant that Steve Keen is writing for RT, given the demonization that it is being subjected to and by implication all that are connected to it in any way. Good on Steve for going out on a limb.
Secondly, Steve illuminates the apparent contradiction between Marx the economic sociologist and Marx the political activist and revolutionary. But I think he get the reason wrong. See #3 below.
The actual contradiction is between Marx as economic sociologist and Marx the revolutionary political activist. As economic sociologist Marx realized that the relations of production (superstructure) are consequent on the mode of production (infrastructure) and change in the relations in production do not occur without the potential of the mode of production being exhausted. As revolutionary political activist, Marx thought that the change could be forced by political action leading to revolution.
While these are not necessarily incompatible, Marx's political activism doesn't follow necessarily from his economic sociology and his economic sociology suggests that it's a matter of time. As a matter of fact the revolutions of 1846 failed in industrial Europe while revolution succeeded in feudal Russia and China, which his theory seemed to rule out.
Thirdly, I don't think that SK gets this right, but I am not a Marx scholar. He has received pushback from scholars of Marx against this objection. See Matthijs Krul, Steve Keen’s critique of Marx’s Theory of Value: A rejoinder.
Fourthly, Sk doesn't help his case by asserting that Marx's PhD dissertation was on Hegel. The title was The Difference Between the Democritean and Epicurean Philosophy of Nature. It is about ancient Greek atomism and materialism.
RT
Karl Marx sacrificed logic on the altar of his desire for revolution