Great article! a while ago i read two great books which delved even more deeply into the "uninstinctual nature" of market economies; "the capitalism paradox" by paul rubin and "why we bite the invisible hand" by peter foster; both are very informative and well written
"A politics of anger attracts the angry. Especially frustrated lower-tier members of elites who are willing to burn down what exists to displace those above them. To displace the currently successful. A social pattern that Marx also exemplifies. This is very much social justice as moralised social strategy."
The nub of all of it.
This explains why many people are attracted to Marxist-Progressive politics. It certainly explains why I was, for a long time.
One is taught that Other People (rich people, straight people, capitalist people, have-more-stuff-and-friends people) are the reason for one's problems.
Those of us vulnerable to this kind of thinking take it and run with it.
Thanks for this re-look at our friend Marx. Had not thought how the Industrial Revolution caused a real shift in power dynamics. Commerce became much more important and merchants many more trade goods. Made a fairly simple society much more complex.
I think the love concept can be captured in three questions:
1. Do you love your spouse?
2. Do you you think your spouse is superior to all other spouses?
3. Are you a paranoid violent lunatic who sees shadows around every corner and murders everyone from people who totally definitely looked at your spouse funny to your spouse's own friends?
If you answer "yes", "no", "no", you understand civic nationalism. If you answer "yes", "yes", "yes", you understand fascism. If you answer "no", "yes", "yes", you understand Marxism.
One interesting aspect of Marxism is that while Marx believed that the working class was vital to socialism, he also believed that it would be the failed petit bourgeoise who actually lead the revolution, since according to Marx the working class was not sufficiently learned in his perfect scientific theory. I do not think he loved the working class.
You've undermined an otherwise excellent article by claiming that "The Nazi regime mostly mass slaughtered outside its heartland. " The Nazis settled for chasing the Jews out while they were weak, but the goal was always extermination. Going by U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum figures, German Jews were 3 times as likely to be murdered as French Jews (simply because the Nazis had *longer* to wreak evil in their homeland). The goal was 100%.
Higher death figures in Eastern Europe, yes - but not because it was outside the heartland, but because a higher proportion of the population was "untermenschen"
It is disturbing - and accurate - that compared to Marxism, even Fascism starts to look good; but let's not overplay that. Functionally they are part of the same movement. Hitler recruited largely from the Marxists; he boasts in Mein Kampf about Marxists sent to disrupt his rallies instead signing up as Nazis.
Thanks for this. I was hoping to get an explicit answer to your title question. You've given a good enough takedown of Marxism, that we need an explanation for it's popularity.
Is your thesis that exists a class that looks to benefit from "vanguard captial" and is therefore a natural sucker?
Brilliant.
The Nazi hates the banker because he is a Jew, The communist hates the Jew because he is a banker.
Great article! a while ago i read two great books which delved even more deeply into the "uninstinctual nature" of market economies; "the capitalism paradox" by paul rubin and "why we bite the invisible hand" by peter foster; both are very informative and well written
Haven't read the whole thing yet but must comment first, because this is The Internet.
This cycle of essays is such a good idea. Thank you Helen and Lorenzo.
Now back to my duty to read.
Was just reading last night about Jacobinising of Italian nationalism into Fascism, so that struck a chord of recognition.
"A politics of anger attracts the angry. Especially frustrated lower-tier members of elites who are willing to burn down what exists to displace those above them. To displace the currently successful. A social pattern that Marx also exemplifies. This is very much social justice as moralised social strategy."
The nub of all of it.
This explains why many people are attracted to Marxist-Progressive politics. It certainly explains why I was, for a long time.
One is taught that Other People (rich people, straight people, capitalist people, have-more-stuff-and-friends people) are the reason for one's problems.
Those of us vulnerable to this kind of thinking take it and run with it.
Thanks for this re-look at our friend Marx. Had not thought how the Industrial Revolution caused a real shift in power dynamics. Commerce became much more important and merchants many more trade goods. Made a fairly simple society much more complex.
I think the love concept can be captured in three questions:
1. Do you love your spouse?
2. Do you you think your spouse is superior to all other spouses?
3. Are you a paranoid violent lunatic who sees shadows around every corner and murders everyone from people who totally definitely looked at your spouse funny to your spouse's own friends?
If you answer "yes", "no", "no", you understand civic nationalism. If you answer "yes", "yes", "yes", you understand fascism. If you answer "no", "yes", "yes", you understand Marxism.
One interesting aspect of Marxism is that while Marx believed that the working class was vital to socialism, he also believed that it would be the failed petit bourgeoise who actually lead the revolution, since according to Marx the working class was not sufficiently learned in his perfect scientific theory. I do not think he loved the working class.
Marxism is intelligent design for atheists -- a disastrously simplified misapprehension of the messy glory of evolution and human lives.
You've undermined an otherwise excellent article by claiming that "The Nazi regime mostly mass slaughtered outside its heartland. " The Nazis settled for chasing the Jews out while they were weak, but the goal was always extermination. Going by U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum figures, German Jews were 3 times as likely to be murdered as French Jews (simply because the Nazis had *longer* to wreak evil in their homeland). The goal was 100%.
Higher death figures in Eastern Europe, yes - but not because it was outside the heartland, but because a higher proportion of the population was "untermenschen"
It is disturbing - and accurate - that compared to Marxism, even Fascism starts to look good; but let's not overplay that. Functionally they are part of the same movement. Hitler recruited largely from the Marxists; he boasts in Mein Kampf about Marxists sent to disrupt his rallies instead signing up as Nazis.
Thanks for this. I was hoping to get an explicit answer to your title question. You've given a good enough takedown of Marxism, that we need an explanation for it's popularity.
Is your thesis that exists a class that looks to benefit from "vanguard captial" and is therefore a natural sucker?
(P.S. Vanguard Captial is a confusing term: https://investor.vanguard.com/corporate-portal/)