My Stuff

https://umass-my.sharepoint.com/:f:/g/personal/rwolff_umass_edu/EkxJV79tnlBDol82i7bXs7gBAUHadkylrmLgWbXv2nYq_A?e=UcbbW0

Coming Soon:

The following books by Robert Paul Wolff are available on Amazon.com as e-books: KANT'S THEORY OF MENTAL ACTIVITY, THE AUTONOMY OF REASON, UNDERSTANDING MARX, UNDERSTANDING RAWLS, THE POVERTY OF LIBERALISM, A LIFE IN THE ACADEMY, MONEYBAGS MUST BE SO LUCKY, AN INTRODUCTION TO THE USE OF FORMAL METHODS IN POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY.
Now Available: Volumes I, II, III, and IV of the Collected Published and Unpublished Papers.

NOW AVAILABLE ON YOUTUBE: LECTURES ON KANT'S CRITIQUE OF PURE REASON. To view the lectures, go to YouTube and search for "Robert Paul Wolff Kant." There they will be.

NOW AVAILABLE ON YOUTUBE: LECTURES ON THE THOUGHT OF KARL MARX. To view the lectures, go to YouTube and search for Robert Paul Wolff Marx."





Total Pageviews

Tuesday, March 17, 2020

A VERY PRELIMINARY BOOK REPORT WHILE I WAIT FOR WHOLE FOODS DELIVERY


The new Piketty book, Capital and Ideology, landed on my desk today with a thud, all 1093 pages of it.  I have now plowed through the first eight pages and I am prepared to offer a preliminary opinion [no one ever accused me of being a scholar!]  It looks to me to be a sophisticated, massive, cross-cultural twenty-first century elaboration of the Historical Idealism through whose heart Marx spent his life trying to drive a stake.  To illustrate my reasons for this judgment, I am going to ignore the protests of my two forefingers and laboriously hunt and peck into this blog post a lengthy selection from pages 7-8, the outer limit of the portion of the book I have read thus far.  Bear with me.  This is going to take a while.

This comes from a subsection of the Introduction titled “Taking Ideology Seriously.”  [Piketty has already explained, way back on page 3, “I take ‘ideology’ in a positive and constructive sense to refer to a set of a priori plausible ideas and discourses describing how society should be structured.”]  Piketty writes:

“Inequality is neither economic nor technological: it is ideological and political.  This is no doubt the most striking conclusion to emerge from the historical approach I take in this book.  In other words, the market and competition, profits and wages, capital and debt, skilled and unskilled workers, natives and aliens, tax havens and competitiveness – none of these things exist as such.  All are social and historical constructs, which depend entirely on the legal, fiscal, educational, and political systems that people choose to adopt and the conceptual definitions they choose to work with.  These choices are shaped by each society’s conception of social justice and economic fairness and by the relative political and ideological power of competing groups and discourses.  Importantly, this relative power is not exclusively material; it is also intellectual and ideological.  In other words, ideas and ideologies count in history.  They enable us to imagine new worlds and different types of society.  Many paths are possible.”

Note well the use of the verb “to choose” in the middle sentence of this passage.

Then, after a de rigueur paragraph contra the conservatives, Piketty continues:  “Nevertheless, the approach taken in this book – based on ideologies, institutions, and the possibility of alternative pathways – also differs from approaches sometimes characterized as ‘Marxist,” according to which the state of the economic forces and relations of production determines a society’s ideological ‘superstructure’ in an almost mechanical fashion.  In contrast, I insist that the realm of ideas, the political-ideological sphere, is truly autonomous.”

After another bit adorned with the phrase “more or less mechanical” [my fingers are giving out], Piketty wraps up a long paragraph with the brave statement, “Clearly stating the alternatives may be more useful in transcending capitalism than simply threatening to destroy it without explaining what comes next.”

I am tempted merely to sigh and move on, but before I do, let me offer one observation [it remains to be seen how much further into the book I will manage to plod.]  I trust you all recall my 9000 word review of Piketty’s first book, Capital in the Twenty-First Century, a book I very much admired.  The central thesis of that book, which ran counter to the received wisdom in the academic Economics profession, was that the roughly 30 year period of reduced economic inequality following World War II was not the new normal of mature capitalism nor a consequence of the victory of a more enlightened ideology [in Piketty’s “positive and constructive” sense] but rather was a temporary anomaly caused by the destruction of physical and financial capital during the Great Depression and the War, an anomaly that was rapidly being replaced by ever-greater inequality in every advanced capitalist country regardless of its ideological and political “choices.”

I take Piketty’s new book to be a Giant Leap Backward.

Stay tuned.

13 comments:

Jerry Brown said...

For some reason I keep thinking wow-'better you than me'. And it is probably true- if I read the book I might learn something- but no one else would. But if you manage to read it we will probably all learn at least a little. I guess you could keep that in mind as you work through the next 950 pages :)

s. wallerstein said...

From what you say above, the guy is basically on our side. Hasn't one of the worst mistakes of the left always been to write off potential allies for ideological reasons that no one but leftie insiders understand?

I have no idea whether the political-ideological sphere is autonomous or not, and I suspect that no one, not even Karl Marx himself, can prove that it isn't autonomous.

What's important is, as you yourself say, which side are you on, and Piketty appears to be on our side and a useful ideological ally even if he is wrong at times and even if you are right because after all, Piketty is a rock star and reaches a lot more people than either of us ever will.

So instead of putting potential allies down, as Marx himself did, why not send him a thank-you note because we need all the allies that we can find?

LFC said...

With respect, I think it is not possible to judge the book, even preliminarily, on the basis of the quoted passage. You need to see how the argument gets elaborated, unpacked, and defended.

The notion that ideology and politics are at least somewhat "autonomous" from, and not necessarily "determined" in a rigid way by, the economic "base" is something that, I would guess, the overwhelming majority of contemp. social scientists and historians, including many with leftist commitments, would endorse. A reciprocal model, in which "base" and "superstructure" interact and influence each other, generally seems better to me than a one-way base-determines-superstructure model. Arguably, the reciprocal view is more Weberian than Marx-inspired although that is possibly debatable since Marx made multiple, and prob not always entirely consistent, statements on the question. The most famous ones, such as in the Preface to the Critique of Political Economy, don't exhaust what he said on it.

What matters though is how Piketty uses his general perspective to cast light on whatever he proceeds to discuss, and you cannot tell that on the basis of the first eight pages.

Robert Paul Wolff said...

You are of course right that you cannot judge a 1000 page book by 8 pages of the introduction. But I am going stir crazy here and I have to write something!

s. wallerstein said...

Why can't you take a walk?

You don't live in the city and if you run into someone on your walk, it's easy enough to keep a safe distance from them.

Not being able to at least take a brisk walk around the block is enough to drive anyone crazy.

Robert Paul Wolff said...

I do, I do.

s. wallerstein said...

A bit of unsolicited and perhaps unwanted advice.

On each walk hold an imaginary conversation with some figure from your vast repertory of philosophical and literary giants: Hume, Kant, Marx, Engels, Jane Austen, etc.

Stick to one figure for each walk and decide beforehand which figure you will converse with on that morning's or that afternoon's walk.

However, if you and someone hit it off particularly well, say, with Jane Austen, feel free to make her (or him if it's someone else) your regular walking partner.

I didn't suggest any figures from ancient philosophy or literature because it seems almost impossible (to me at least) to imagine a conversation with Plato or any other ancient Greek. So too with anyone from the Middle Ages or Renaissance. However, if you're capable of conversing with Plato or Shakespeare, more power to you!

Ásgeir said...

One question, Professor: If the political-ideological sphere is not autonomous, isn't it completely pointless to agitate for social change, especially socialism? How can one be a Marxist, if it is committed to the negation of Piketty's thesis, and think that political work is worth engaging in in the first place? If the "iron laws of history" are so rigid, how could we even try to abolish capitalism?

In a footnote in one of his papers "Why Marxism still does not need a normative theory", Brian Leiter seems accept the premise of my question and writes: "

All the professed Marxist revolutionaries of the 20th-century—Lenin, Mao, Castro, others—clearly had no understanding of the explanatory theory, or every one of them would have instituted a free market economy in their agrarian and preindustrial societies. Why they were such incompetent readers of Marx is a topic for a different day."

Is that really plausible, that all these luminaries were such bad readers of Marx? And doesn't Leiter's point also apply to Marx himself—and most marxists, for that matter?

David Palmeter said...

Is it possible that by his statement that "in every advanced capitalist country regardless of its ideological and political 'choices'" Piketty simply meant that the countries had choices, but those choices were not what led to the apparent growing equality of the post WWII years. Rather it was the destruction of financial capital by the Great Depression and physical capital by WWII?

Jerry Fresia said...

How about a foray into music? Who is your favorite musician?

I ask because I have been discovering Izhak Pearlman. Here's a 2 min add for "MasterClass" where
Pearlman talks about playing the violin. This alone is mesmerizing:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jlp67BlkomA

And I found this interview to be engaging too. He's very likable. In this, he talks
a fair amount here about creativity and teaching.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o3vCa7u2IoM

I agree with your reaction to Piketty's new work. Sure, maybe he brilliantly defends his idealism but that would mean
he would have to drive a stake through the heart of Marxism. Jump to the conclusion to see if reading a 1000 pages is worth the effort. Or ask your sister to provide a review. I believe she has written in this space before.

LFC said...

I am a big fan of Perlman's playing. Passionate, plangent (not a word I often use, so I hope it means what I think), gorgeous upper register (i.e. high notes), amazing technique. Esp when it comes to the Romantic violin repertoire (Brahms etc.), I think no one does it better. I don't buy many CDs and I don't do Spotify or I-Tunes, so over the years I have mostly heard him on the radio. Decades ago I was riding in a car, the radio was on, and I rashly remarked to the driver "that sounds like Perlman," even though I wasn't positive. The announcer came on and sure enough, it was.

Dean said...

I also love Perlman, particularly his Sonatas & Partitas on EMI, first issued in 1988 and one of the first CDs I acquired. More recently, Tomás Cotik has recorded the S&P to marvelous effect. I'll be adding it soon to the collection, I hope.

Business Leads World said...

Best Merchant Cash Advance Leads are exclusive Leads addressed to you Merchant Cash Advance Leads is the Qualified MCA Leads provider as a firm in the entire globe.