You misunderstand my point. I am not saying that "Marxism is useless." I am saying that its core ideas can be expressed in terms that ordinary Americans can understand and will be receptive to, but not if people who wish to talk to the laity insist on talking in the language of 19th German social democracy or early 20th century Russian revolutionaries. For these ideas not to be rejected, they have to expressed in familiar accents.
I don't pretend that this is a startlingly new or original idea or even that it is deep. It's just true and useful. It also has not been absorbed by many self-identified Marxists. Not all: some Marxists and Marxist-inflienced activists activists and thinkers do a good job of talking plain language, even in expressing deep. hard insights drawn from Marxist traditions. Stephen Jay Gould and Richard Lewontin come to mind as models.
In addition I am not saying that there is no point to using a Marxist technical vocabulary in some contexts. I do this, and have done it, myself, where I thought it appropriate. But it's not appropriate for activist work, at least that aimed at a mass, or hopefully mass, audience. There will be no mass audience in America for people talking about "the proletariat" and so forth. I'd be happy to be proved wrong about this, but we have had over a century of experience to the contrary.
As to the thought that the Marxist commonplaces I say most people accept could be assented to by right wingers: that is true, and they often are, but not for the reason you suggest. You translate them into the language of neoclassical economics. which is just as alien to ordinary folk as Marxtalk. What I mean is something that ordinary people of little education can understand because they have experienced it. I do not think that the basic Marxist critique of capitalism expresses ideas that bear no relation to the actual experience of working people. Nor do I think that workers are so befuddled that they do not know more or less what is going on.
Anyway, you seem more interesting in establishing that you are a superior intellect than in enagging in a discussion, so I'll stop here.,
Complacently yours,
jks
>
>Justin Schwartz wrote:
> >
> > At the risk of underlining my obliviousness, what am I being oblivious
>to?
> > And what am I being complacent about? Is the suggestion that I think our
>job
> > is easy? I don't. --jks
>
>Complacent in the sense of thinking you've expressed either any ideas,
>and done so in such a form, that most don't already understand.
>Oblivious to the fact that you've said nothing about marxism or its
>critique of capitalism.
>
>Each of your thoughts is sufficiently opaque and malleable as to be
>expressable by the most virulent right winger. The rich run things, as
>they should based on their merit and for efficiency and
>productivity/growth benefitting all. Democracy is a joke (and in fact
>incompatible with capitalism); that's why we have a republic. And the
>last one they would change slightly: work is a necessary drag that
>bosses must coordinate/control; in fact work is a disutility performed
>only for money, whereas people, by their nature, prefer leisure, as we
>learn from the neoclassical apologists who teach us economics in school.
>
>My beef is with your implication that you've given any reason why
>marxism is less useful. You haven't.
>
>RO
>
>P.S. Duly noted that Max, or anyone else, does not know who hit the
>famous homer of Ralph Terry.
>
> > >
> > > >>>>In my experience, the Marxist critique of capitalism is common
>sense
> > >to most working people; it's pretty obvious that the rich run things,
>that
> > >democracy is a joke, that work is drag because the bosses exploit us,
>etc.
> > >These ideas can gain wide currency if expressed without Marxist
>technical
> > >vocabulary, which is offputting.<<<<
> > >
> > >Brilliant, just brilliant, the obliviousness perhaps exceeded only by
> > >the evident complacency.
_________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com