He did it for the money.
That doesn't mean Marx was good at making money from journalism. He didn't have what it takes to be a hack, as the linked article shows.
There's an old journalist's credo that goes something like this (if anyone can find the original, please post): a) You can do original research and track people down and write and re-write your story until it's the best it can be, and maybe reveal something that's never been revealed before--as long as you get it in by deadline. b) You can fill up your column inches with anything that sounds good to your editor--as long as you get it in by deadline. c) Both a) and b) pay the same.
The article treats what Marx did as some kind of historical curiosity, writing journalism that was strange then and even stranger now. Hmmm. I don't know. He wrote long, discursive articles about foreign affairs, often heavy on abstract economic concepts, yet still bringing in the latest news, while for all intents and purposes sitting on his ass in the capital city of the leading capitalist power of his day. But is this strange?
Isn't there anyone, today, who does this? Maybe even someone else writing for a newspaper in New York? Someone who may even have been a recent discussion subject of Doug's radio show? Really, think about it. As journalists Marx and Thomas Friedman are *exactly the same.* Except, you know, one of them is one of the greatest thinkers the world has ever known, someone whose birdcage liner can still be re-read a century and a half later for its insights, while the other is a fucking idiot who is proved wrong week to week while averaging 2.5 mixed metaphors and 1.8 worthless analogies per paragraph. Oh, and one of them lived in obscure poverty, while the other lives in a Maryland mansion and gets suck-up phone calls from the President of the United States. Little differences like that. But the genre is certainly recognizable. So what went wrong [sic] for Marx?
Marx seemed constitutionally incapable of just writing shit about shit
he didn't care about it, or didn't bother to learn about, the loser.
:) He was constantly screwing up sweet gigs where he could make coin
simply by re-writing the conventional wisdom, but he fucked up every
time.
An even better example of how he just couldn't write for mass market paydays might be his work for the Dana and Ripley for the American Cyclopedia. This project is eventually what allowed Ripley to retire in comfort:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Ripley_(transcendentalist)#Writing
HIs editors were apparently willing to throw a good bit of work Marx's way, but he may have fobbed a lot off on Engels, while here's an example of something that clearly has his own touch:
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1858/01/bolivar.htm
I read the article, and thought two things. First, does Hugo Chavez know about this? Second, what a lousy encyclopedia entry. Marx couldn't have gotten away with this article if could have written it for free on Wikipedia. Now, it's not an uninteresting piece (even if I don't agree with it), and I suppose getting some whacks in on Bolivar, who was already on his way to plaster saint status, serves some use. But it wasn't going to fly in an encyclopedia (and, sure enough, later editions after the war had no trace of Marx's Bolivar article)--and I get the impression that Marx didn't really give a shit.
On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 7:49 PM, nathan tankus
<somekindofheterodox at gmail.com> wrote:
> http://www.marxsite.com/Marx%20as%20a%20Journalist.html
>
> --
> -Nathan Tankus
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> _______________________________________________
> pen-l mailing list
> pen-l at lists.csuchico.edu
> https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l