Who Said This?

I want to do the following in this paper: First to present the theses that constitute the hard core of the Marxist theory of history. I claim that all of them are essentially correct. …

Marx … gives a historical account of the emergence of capitalism that makes the point that much or even most of the initial capitalist property is the result of plunder, enclosure, and conquest. Similarly … the role of force and violence in exporting capitalism to the – as we would now say – Third World is heavily emphasized. Admittedly, all this is generally correct, and insofar
as it is there can be no quarrel with labeling such capitalism exploitative.

See the answer.

,

19 Responses to Who Said This?

  1. Thomas Knapp February 7, 2018 at 7:58 am #

    I love that quote so much. Every time someone cites him in an argument, I get to feign confusion and then create real confusion with: “Oh, sorry, I didn’t know I was debating a Marxist.”

  2. jtgw February 7, 2018 at 1:37 pm #

    What happened to him? It’s like Anakin Skywalker becoming Darth Vader.

  3. Thomas Knapp February 7, 2018 at 1:44 pm #

    Nothing happened to him. He was educated under Jurgen Habermas at Frankfurt, home of cultural Marxism. Presumably he figured (correctly) that libertarianism was a niche where he would have less competition than in Marxist academia and could get by with cheap parlor tricks like “Argumentation Ethics” instead of having to work at it.

    • Roderick February 7, 2018 at 4:51 pm #

      I don’t see much evidence of insincerity on his part, and I don’t think he’s changed that much. The issues he was good on he’s still good on; he doesn’t emphasise them as much, but I don’t think he’s abandoned them. The alt-right stuff I suspect is stuff he’s always believed too, but has gradually gotten bolder about letting it show. I don’t think he’s an alt-righter in libertarian clothing; my guess is that he really believes it’s possible to fuse libertarianism and alt-right concerns together. I could be wrong of course.

      Btw, I think “cultural marxism” is to the right what “social darwinism” is to the left — a phrase that gets used in attacks but that mashes together and distorts a bunch of distinct and complicated positions, not all of them bad.

      • Thomas Knapp February 7, 2018 at 4:54 pm #

        RL,

        I very seldom reference “cultural Marxism” for precisely the reason you state. But if there’s any one thing that all parties can be said to agree on vis a vis “cultural Marxism,” that one thing is that it originated at Hoppe’s alma mater. Which I think is worth referencing in the context of discussing Hoppe as Marxist.

        • Roderick February 7, 2018 at 4:56 pm #

          True — though also the parts of Marxist class theory he agrees with were mostly pioneered by classical liberals pre-Marx.

      • dL February 8, 2018 at 1:22 pm #

        I don’t see much evidence of insincerity on his part, and I don’t think he’s changed that much.

        I have a difficult time believing Hoppe is not bright enough to see the incompatibility of his invitation-trespass torts with capitalism.

        • Roderick February 8, 2018 at 2:28 pm #

          The capacity of intelligent people to slide their mental gaze quickly and smoothly over contradictory portions of their philosophical systems without feeling undue cognitive dissonance seems to have few limits.

          Compare Rand on the permissibility of killing the innocent: http://praxeology.net/unblog11-05.htm#09.

        • dL February 8, 2018 at 3:01 pm #

          The capacity of intelligent people to slide their mental gaze quickly and smoothly over contradictory portions of their philosophical systems without feeling undue cognitive dissonance seems to have few limits.

          Hmm, the permissibility to kill “innocent” people is different genus of question than say, “taxation on capital goods creates deadweight loss in the shifted supply & demand curves.” Just sayin…

      • dL February 8, 2018 at 1:39 pm #

        Btw, I think “cultural marxism” is to the right what “social darwinism” is to the left — a phrase that gets used in attacks but that mashes together and distorts a bunch of distinct and complicated positions, not all of them bad.

        I’m pretty sure Marx himself would have a problem with “cultural Marxism,” given that he avoided making moral judgements on the things he wrote about. He never called capitalism unjust. And never commented on the justice of communism. It’s almost as if he saw himself merely as a social scientist who viewed capitalism as a (necessary) development in a (materialist) historical dialectic that terminates at communism.

  4. jtgw February 7, 2018 at 3:04 pm #

    I’d be interested in RL’s attitude to this piece. Does he agree with this analysis?

    • Roderick February 7, 2018 at 4:54 pm #

      I wouldn’t endorse everything in the article, but the overall thrust I agree with.

  5. Thomas Knapp February 7, 2018 at 5:00 pm #

    “the parts of Marxist class theory he agrees with were mostly pioneered by classical liberals pre-Marx.”

    Also true. But … shhhh.

    • Roderick February 7, 2018 at 5:12 pm #

      A bit too late for shhhh.

      • Thomas Knapp February 7, 2018 at 5:31 pm #

        (Sigh) It’s just so much more fun to yell “Marxist! Physically remove him! Helicopter ride line forms here!” than to plumb the pre-Marx libertarian roots of his Marxist holdings.

    • dL February 8, 2018 at 1:46 pm #

      “the parts of Marxist class theory he agrees with were mostly pioneered by classical liberals pre-Marx.”

      There’s a commonality between laissez faire and Marx vis a vis class theory, but there is marked divergence on the historical progression. Libertarianism is in no way the Marxist progression of history.

  6. Roderick February 7, 2018 at 5:44 pm #

    The inventor of helicopter rides was gay:

  7. Thomas Knapp February 8, 2018 at 3:24 pm #

    “Compare Rand on the permissibility of killing the innocent”

    I finally gave up on the Objectivists when Robert James Bidinotto patiently explained to me that it was impossible for invading US troops to violate the human rights of Iraqis because Iraqis wouldn’t have human rights until US troops gave them those rights.

    • Roderick February 8, 2018 at 4:43 pm #

      Having an intellectual discussion with Bidinotto is pretty nigh impossible. See this bizarre exchange he had with the heroically patient Charles back in the day. And one time in a debate with me, he embraced the position that nothing logically follows from a false premise (which would incidentally render impossible the Randians’ favourite argument form, i.e. the reductio). He backed down from that one only because David Kelley told him he was wrong.

      Ironically, the first time I met Bidinotto was at a 1997 ISIL conference (the good ISIL, not the bad ISIL) where he gave a talk arguing that Objectivists needed to engage on friendlier and more civil terms with their opponents, and in particular with libertarians.

Leave a Reply

Powered by WordPress. Designed by WooThemes