Re: Re: Re: Re: Economics and Literature
_The Manifesto of the Communist Party_, _Value, Price and Profit_, et al are more accessible to popular audiences. CB [EMAIL PROTECTED] 09/11/00 02:30PM Brad DeLong wrote: I'm amazed that the literary qualities of even chap. 1 of Capital are being called into question. Section 4 is one of Marx's most deservedly famous passages, the analysis of commodity fetishism, which blends political economy, pyschology, philosophy, and cultural analysis in dazzling ways. As much as I admire Keynes as a stylist, nothing he wrote holds a candle to this. Doug The Yale Humanities Major speaks: º4 may be dazzling to you literati but 'tain't hardly accessible to the toiling masses... First, I'd say that the toiling masses aren't as dumb as a lot of intellectuals think. And second, I don't think Capital was written for the toiling masses as its prime audience - though it'd be a lot more comprehensible to them than just about anything in the JEP. Doug
RE: Re: RE: Re: Re: Re: Re: Economics and Literature
yes. Eileen publishes a ton in journals. Peter was offered (and took) a position at Michigan State (I think) when he wasn't even on the academic market. Of course, it was in an IR department. Not "econ." mbs Does that work win the respect of "real" economists? I beg your pardon but our industrial relations people -- Eileen Appelbaum and Peter Berg -- have visited many factories, interviewing workers and collecting data, for their research on workplace organization. mbs Modern sociologists (like Michael Burawoy) visit factories. Economists don't do so, and in fact sneer at sociologists as being unscientific louts. . . . -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Economics and Literature
They are difficult, although there is some nice stuff in them. Hard as it is, there is some pretty language in the cahpter on commodity fetishism. The standard English translations are not great--Moore 7 Aveling is very Victorian and not all that accurate, and the new MECW slightly cleaned up version is not a great improvement; the Penguin is more accurate but misses the literary qualities. --jks In a message dated Mon, 11 Sep 2000 1:37:00 AM Eastern Daylight Time, Brad DeLong [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: At 01:54 PM 09/09/2000 -0400, you wrote: Marx is a medium rank master of the German language, not as great as Heine or Lessing, but in the neighborhood of Nietzsche. The canard that he is turgid and unreadable is just that, a duck. Marx's reputations as a turgid writer seems to arise from... The first few chapters of _Capital_. They *are* turgid and nearly unreadable, in the standard English translations at least... Brad DeLong P.S.: Dierdre McCloskey was claiming this morning that Marx had never visited either a farm or a factory. Does anyone know of documented counterexamples?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Economics and Literature
Where did she make the claim? I don't know of any specific examples, but few economists of his time had such experience. This calumny is not novel. The earliest instance is Mitrany, David. Marx against the peasant: a study in social dogmatism. P.S.: Dierdre McCloskey was claiming this morning that Marx had never visited either a farm or a factory. Does anyone know of documented counterexamples? -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Re: Re: Re: Re: Economics and Literature
RE They are difficult, although there is some nice stuff in them. Hard as it is, there is some pretty language in the cahpter on commodity fetishism. -- and -- The first few chapters of _Capital_. They *are* turgid and nearly unreadable, in the standard English translations at least... I hope "literary" is not being reduced to "pretty language." In fact, I would go so far as to say that great literature (fiction and nonfiction) could have lots of turgid writing in it. For instance, the literariness of Paradise Lost, Moby Dick, and Four Quartets does not come from reader-friendly pretty language. Eric
Re: Re: Economics and Literature
I'm amazed that the literary qualities of even chap. 1 of Capital are being called into question. Section 4 is one of Marx's most deservedly famous passages, the analysis of commodity fetishism, which blends political economy, pyschology, philosophy, and cultural analysis in dazzling ways. As much as I admire Keynes as a stylist, nothing he wrote holds a candle to this. Doug
Re: Re: Re: Re: Economics and Literature
At 07:55 PM 9/10/00 -0700, you wrote: Dierdre McCloskey was claiming this morning that Marx had never visited either a farm or a factory. Does anyone know of documented counterexamples? maybe, but didn't his friend Fred manage a factory? If old Karlos didn't have the time or resources to visit Fred's factory, I'm sure that the latter would have corrected any of his misconceptions. I don't think Adam Smith ever visited a pin factory, either. The idea of going to an actual factory to study it is pretty rare among economists. Some of the guys that Marx cites did so, however, including those in the official Factory Commissions. BTW, if Marx had visited an actual factory and had left a paper trail indicating that he had done so, one of his opponents would probably accuse him of being biased by his negative experience there... Modern sociologists (like Michael Burawoy) visit factories. Economists don't do so, and in fact sneer at sociologists as being unscientific louts. Economists instead ignorantly talk about how q = f(K, L), how something called "capital" (K) is combined with something called "labor" or "effort" (L) to produce output (q) according to a regular function f. Despite all of the "efficiency" wage literature, economists don't actually _study_ factories and other workplaces. They're like stereotyped Aristotelians, who speculate about the number of teeth in the horse without actually looking the horse's mouth. (Some economists, like George Akerlof, are better, because they look at literatures outside of economics. I'm talking about the vast majority of economists.) Even if Marx never visited a factory, he is to be praised to the stars for being willing to open what economists treat as a mere black box, the production process. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
Re: Re: Re: Economics and Literature
I'm amazed that the literary qualities of even chap. 1 of Capital are being called into question. Section 4 is one of Marx's most deservedly famous passages, the analysis of commodity fetishism, which blends political economy, pyschology, philosophy, and cultural analysis in dazzling ways. As much as I admire Keynes as a stylist, nothing he wrote holds a candle to this. Doug The Yale Humanities Major speaks: §4 may be dazzling to you literati but 'tain't hardly accessible to the toiling masses... Brad DeLong
RE: Re: Re: Re: Re: Economics and Literature
I beg your pardon but our industrial relations people -- Eileen Appelbaum and Peter Berg -- have visited many factories, interviewing workers and collecting data, for their research on workplace organization. mbs Modern sociologists (like Michael Burawoy) visit factories. Economists don't do so, and in fact sneer at sociologists as being unscientific louts. . . .
Re: Re: Re: Re: Economics and Literature
Brad DeLong wrote: I'm amazed that the literary qualities of even chap. 1 of Capital are being called into question. Section 4 is one of Marx's most deservedly famous passages, the analysis of commodity fetishism, which blends political economy, pyschology, philosophy, and cultural analysis in dazzling ways. As much as I admire Keynes as a stylist, nothing he wrote holds a candle to this. Doug The Yale Humanities Major speaks: §4 may be dazzling to you literati but 'tain't hardly accessible to the toiling masses... *Capital* of course is not a leaflet (and I think we should return some day to the discussion of the various genres of political writing). Seen as literature, it is high bourgeois literature, not agitation aimed at the toiling masses who toil too much to have much time to read. But I could give you a very long list of highly admired authors who either are not accessible at all to the "toiling masses" or are grossly distorted when they are made available: Shakespeare, Spenser, Donne, Milton, Rochester, Pope, Swift (try reading his finest work, The Tale of a Tub), Sterne, Wordsworth, Austen, Stendahl . . . . . .Yeats, Pound, Beckett, Pynchon . . . . . . . Carrol
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Economics and Literature
There are numerous stories about groups of workers saving up money together so that they could share a copy. The cigar makers used to have Capital read to them when they worked. In many case, I am sure that the workers understood it better than their more educated superiors. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RE: Re: Re: Re: Re: Economics and Literature
Does that work win the respect of "real" economists? I beg your pardon but our industrial relations people -- Eileen Appelbaum and Peter Berg -- have visited many factories, interviewing workers and collecting data, for their research on workplace organization. mbs Modern sociologists (like Michael Burawoy) visit factories. Economists don't do so, and in fact sneer at sociologists as being unscientific louts. . . . -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RE: Re: Re: Re: Re: Economics and Literature
aah, but you don't understand. In the eyes of the Profession, those are mere sociologists. And as the one of the key Party Ideologists, Paul Krugman, has noted, they work for an organization filled with nothing but hacks. At 01:32 PM 9/11/00 -0400, you wrote: I beg your pardon but our industrial relations people -- Eileen Appelbaum and Peter Berg -- have visited many factories, interviewing workers and collecting data, for their research on workplace organization. mbs Modern sociologists (like Michael Burawoy) visit factories. Economists don't do so, and in fact sneer at sociologists as being unscientific louts. . . . Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
Re: Re: Re: Re: Economics and Literature
Well, this confuses plainness and accessibility with literary mastery, which is the question I raised. Lenin' stuff is plain and accessible, but not beautiful. Marx's is often difficult, but generally beautiful. It has what he said in his early letter to his dad was true of Hegel, a "grotesque craggy melody." --jks The Yale Humanities Major speaks: §4 may be dazzling to you literati but 'tain't hardly accessible to the toiling masses... Brad DeLong
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Economics and Literature
It would be interesting to get validation that Marx never had first-hand experience with farms or factories. I don't like his writings on agriculture particularly, but Marx' work on the reorganization of production during the industrial revolution is truly top-notch -- some of the finest social science of the nineteenth century. Every now and then I dip back into it and I'm always amazed at the originality and depth. Peter Michael Perelman wrote: Where did she make the claim? I don't know of any specific examples, but few economists of his time had such experience. This calumny is not novel. The earliest instance is Mitrany, David. Marx against the peasant: a study in social dogmatism. P.S.: Dierdre McCloskey was claiming this morning that Marx had never visited either a farm or a factory. Does anyone know of documented counterexamples? -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Re: Economics and Literature
At 04:26 PM 9/11/00 -0700, you wrote: It would be interesting to get validation that Marx never had first-hand experience with farms or factories. I This reminded me of something that I forgot to bring up. It was mentioned that the sociologist Buroway worked in a factory to get first-hand information. A while back I xeroxed the book that contained Buroway's reflections on factory work and the class struggle and sent it down to Tom Kruse in Bolivia, who had taken a job in a factory himself as part of a similar project. I can think of a number of people on PEN-L who would benefit from such an experience, particularly in a country like Bolivia or Honduras. Louis Proyect Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org/
Re: Re: Re: Economics and Literature
Like lots of folks on pen-l, I worked in factories and such not to gain enlightenment but to make money. True, I ended up learning some useful lessons (some of which can't be found in books), but if I were independently wealthy and had spent all that time reading instead, I probably would have learned some other, equally or more useful stuff. And there are lots of very orthodox economists who can point to the grimy jobs they held before they were credentialed. Experience is a great teacher, but even great teachers don't reach all their students... Peter Louis Proyect wrote: At 04:26 PM 9/11/00 -0700, you wrote: It would be interesting to get validation that Marx never had first-hand experience with farms or factories. I This reminded me of something that I forgot to bring up. It was mentioned that the sociologist Buroway worked in a factory to get first-hand information. A while back I xeroxed the book that contained Buroway's reflections on factory work and the class struggle and sent it down to Tom Kruse in Bolivia, who had taken a job in a factory himself as part of a similar project. I can think of a number of people on PEN-L who would benefit from such an experience, particularly in a country like Bolivia or Honduras. Louis Proyect Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org/
Re: Re: Economics and Literature
Jim D. wrote: At 07:55 PM 9/10/00 -0700, you wrote: Dierdre McCloskey was claiming this morning that Marx had never visited either a farm or a factory. Does anyone know of documented counterexamples? maybe, but didn't his friend Fred manage a factory? If old Karlos didn't have the time or resources to visit Fred's factory, I'm sure that the latter would have corrected any of his misconceptions. And Engels wrote _Conditions of the English Working Class in 1844_ as well. Even in the anti-Marxist conditions of American higher education, this book is still frequently assigned in the humanities. Everyone who studies Victorian literature must read it in English. I don't know if it's read in Economics, though. Economists seem seldom interested to research how workers live work (hence contempt for sociology that Jim mentioned). Mainstream economics seems alien to works like Harry Braverman's _Labor and Monopoly Capital_. Yoshie Engels was on my core reading list when I last taught British economic history. But that was a long time ago... When I teach European or world economic history these days, Engels gets crowded off the reading list by _Value, Price, and Profit_ and the _Manifesto_. Too many books, too little time... Brad DeLong
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Economics and Literature
Brad DeLong wrote: I'm amazed that the literary qualities of even chap. 1 of Capital are being called into question. Section 4 is one of Marx's most deservedly famous passages, the analysis of commodity fetishism, which blends political economy, pyschology, philosophy, and cultural analysis in dazzling ways. As much as I admire Keynes as a stylist, nothing he wrote holds a candle to this. Doug The Yale Humanities Major speaks: §4 may be dazzling to you literati but 'tain't hardly accessible to the toiling masses... First, I'd say that the toiling masses aren't as dumb as a lot of intellectuals think. And second, I don't think Capital was written for the toiling masses as its prime audience - though it'd be a lot more comprehensible to them than just about anything in the JEP. Doug Hmmm. I'll have to think about that... Brad DeLong
Re: Re: Re: Economics and Literature
At 01:54 PM 09/09/2000 -0400, you wrote: Marx is a medium rank master of the German language, not as great as Heine or Lessing, but in the neighborhood of Nietzsche. The canard that he is turgid and unreadable is just that, a duck. Marx's reputations as a turgid writer seems to arise from... The first few chapters of _Capital_. They *are* turgid and nearly unreadable, in the standard English translations at least... Brad DeLong P.S.: Dierdre McCloskey was claiming this morning that Marx had never visited either a farm or a factory. Does anyone know of documented counterexamples?
Re: Re: Economics and Literature
One of the German professors here -- not a radical at all -- uses Marx as an example of the best in German writing -- not of medium grade. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Marx is a medium rank master of the German language, not as great as Heine or Lessing, but in the neighborhood of Nietzsche. The canard that he is turgid and unreadable is just that, a duck. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Re: Economics and Literature
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Marx is a medium rank master of the German language, not as great as Heine or Lessing, but in the neighborhood of Nietzsche. Nietzsche is a wonderful read, at least in translation. What's with this "medium rank" business? Doug
Re: Re: Economics and Literature
At 01:54 PM 09/09/2000 -0400, you wrote: Marx is a medium rank master of the German language, not as great as Heine or Lessing, but in the neighborhood of Nietzsche. The canard that he is turgid and unreadable is just that, a duck. Marx's reputations as a turgid writer seems to arise from four sources: a) Much of his stuff was never published while he was alive, so he didn't finish it. b) His sentences are longer (and his concepts more abstract) than English-language readers are used to. c) Many or most readers don't understand his dialectical method. d) Many authors are actively opposed to Marx and are willing to say anything to undermine him. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~JDevine
Re: Re: Re: Economics and Literature
In a message dated 9/9/00 2:28:49 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: One of the German professors here -- not a radical at all -- uses Marx as an example of the best in German writing -- not of medium grade. The _best_ in German writing in Goethe, the only writer in German who can touch Shakespeare in English, Dante in Italian, Cervantes in Spanish, Homer in Greek. Marx would not dispute this: even Nietzsche, no modest figure, acknowledged Goethe's uniqueness. --jks
