If only there was a body of literature explaining the theoretical underpinnings of Marxism.
I don’t mean to be a dick. Gramsci is a bit of a tough read but his works are worth reading (or even just getting a summary of). Marx is a philosopher who never did any of the evils of communism. He (and Engels) simply described capitalism and then some ideas on what to change. Were they correct? I don’t know. But I do know my most conservative Econ professors assigned us Marx readings because you cannot understand economics without understanding Marx.
Understanding multiple frameworks (even those you think are wrong) is healthy. I think Ayn Rand blows goats compared to Adam Smith and Marx but I still read enough of her bullshit to know I disagreed. Adam Smith hated absentee landlords more than Marx did.
Edit: I changed Kant to Adam Smith to keep on topic.
It’s also important to understand that “Marxism” means different things in a peasant farmer context than it does in an industrial context. It’s been extended to places and contexts and it’s not always appropriate to do that. But the framework of understanding class was definitely necessary and I think is still appropriate.
Keynes and Friedman are also required reading for understanding economies. And philosophy. Socrates was wrong about everything but we still read his works because they were influential and shaped history. “Philosophy” writ large is ultimately physics (like everything) but no one person can understand everything so we focus and stay humble.
If only there was a body of literature explaining the theoretical underpinnings of Marxism.
I don’t mean to be a dick. Gramsci is a bit of a tough read but his works are worth reading (or even just getting a summary of). Marx is a philosopher who never did any of the evils of communism. He (and Engels) simply described capitalism and then some ideas on what to change. Were they correct? I don’t know. But I do know my most conservative Econ professors assigned us Marx readings because you cannot understand economics without understanding Marx.
Understanding multiple frameworks (even those you think are wrong) is healthy. I think Ayn Rand blows goats compared to Adam Smith and Marx but I still read enough of her bullshit to know I disagreed. Adam Smith hated absentee landlords more than Marx did.
Edit: I changed Kant to Adam Smith to keep on topic.
It’s also important to understand that “Marxism” means different things in a peasant farmer context than it does in an industrial context. It’s been extended to places and contexts and it’s not always appropriate to do that. But the framework of understanding class was definitely necessary and I think is still appropriate.
Keynes and Friedman are also required reading for understanding economies. And philosophy. Socrates was wrong about everything but we still read his works because they were influential and shaped history. “Philosophy” writ large is ultimately physics (like everything) but no one person can understand everything so we focus and stay humble.