Marx Gaining In Popularity

This is troubling.

Karl Marx is back in fashion, says one German publisher, who attributes his new popularity to the economic crisis.

Publisher Karl-Dietz said it sold 1,500 copies of Das Kapital this year - up from the 200 it usually sells annually.

Written in 1867, sales of the tome rarely hit double digits but have been on the rise since 2005.

Marxist economic philosophy - and in particular its Russian Leninist version - fell out of favour with the collapse of the Soviet Union in the late 1980s.

“It’s definitely in vogue right now,” said the publisher’s director Joern Schuetrumpf.

“The financial crisis brought us a huge bump.”

1. Members of our own local UW system are even stepping out in Marxist fashion.  Very troubling, indeed.

   Posted by GAMazy on October 21, 2008 at 2209 hrs




2. Define “irony:”

   A wordlwide financial crisis caused in part by central planning and market control leading to an increase in the popularity of an ideology that is based on central planning and market control.

   Maybe they’re all just interested in how they got where they are, and they’re not trying to learn how to “fix” the problems?  Unfortunately, I doubt it.  I hear books on the Weimar Republic are hot right now, too…

   Posted by Mike Gallo on October 21, 2008 at 2223 hrs




3. A wordlwide financial crisis caused in part by central planning and market control leading to an increase in the popularity of an ideology that is based on central planning and market control.

   Right…

   I still shake my head at the lost opportunity for John McCain and republicans here.

   The opportunity to explain the merits of a hands-off policy.  The merits of letting the market adjust and purge itself.

   Instead we have unanimous (amongst the dems and r’s) push for taxpayer funded bailouts, government intervention into the private sector like never before..

   Opportunity lost.

   Johnny Mac would be running away with this election if he’d just come out with faith in the marketplace. 

   Of course Obama could have taken advantage of the same trend, but being the socialist he is, that’s not his game to begin with.  For Obama this is an opportunity to achieve the goals he and his party have embraced for decades.

   Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 21, 2008 at 2228 hrs




4. This should not be troubling, whatever your personal views. I will take the fact that serious people are engaging with serious ideas any day, whatever the ideas, instead of the alternative.

   If Marx is wrong, then why is it troubling for people to learn about Marx?

   Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 22, 2008 at 0417 hrs




5. Fad.

   Posted by Josh Schroeder on October 22, 2008 at 0427 hrs




6. XX, I would have loved to see John McCain try that strategy. He would be down by 15-20 points instead of 5-10 in the polls.

   Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 22, 2008 at 0624 hrs




7. That is the best part about the McCain campaign. He is all trussed up in an ideological straightjacket called conservatism and cannot not come up with a solution because his credo led to the crisis.

   This election is not a trial on McCain, but the failures of conservatism. Although as righties love to tell me that Americans self-ID that they are conservative, know it or not they have had a bellyful over this whacko out of tough philosophy.

   Conservatism as practiced today has just one goal. To make certain people rich while keeping everyone else down. And now the electorate is set to throw it out unless the GGOP cheats find a way to steal it.

   Anyone who thinks that too much regulation led to this mess must be getting their meth from Wasilla.

   Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 22, 2008 at 0719 hrs




8. Actually over the past eight years we’ve had Marxism—the Marx brothers have been in our government—sans humor.

   Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 22, 2008 at 0722 hrs




9. One of the things I note about these comments is that conservatives have one narrative about the financial crisis and the rest of us have another.  You guys believe it was caused by Clinton and regulation and the desire to get poor people into home ownership.  The rest of us believe that the crisis was caused largely by deregulation of the banking industry.  Fannie and Freddie were never major players in the overall crisis, yet they’re the first thing conservatives point to—the government bit of it.

   So, reality check: not everyone shares your understanding that the financial crisis was caused by government intervention, regulation and liberalism.  Right or wrong, do at least bear that in mind when you discuss the issue with a general audience.

   Posted by scott on October 22, 2008 at 0755 hrs




10. I didn’t buy my copy this year, but I have read Marx.  I’ve also read Ayn Rand.  Granted I agree with the latter far more than the former, but its still important to understand your enemies just as well as your friends.

    I’d recommend you pick up a copy as well and read it.  Its surprisingly prescient given today’s political climate.  Think about it… if the Packers could go to the store and buy a copy of the playbook for their next week’s opponent… wouldn’t they?  Why wouldn’t you?

    Posted by Nick on October 22, 2008 at 0839 hrs




11. One of the things I note about these comments is that conservatives have one narrative about the financial crisis and the rest of us have another.

    So there is only 2?

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 22, 2008 at 0917 hrs




12. Generally speaking.

    Posted by scott on October 22, 2008 at 0922 hrs




13. Interesting how a topic about Marxism brought out the hard lefties in droves…

    This election is not a trial on McCain, but the failures of conservatism.

    I guess it really depends how you define conservatism Keith.

    If you define conservatism as “republican policies as they have been enacted”  well I have news for you… THAT isn’t conservatism.

    If you devine conservatism as adherence to a strict (conservative) interpretation of the role of government as defined by the constitution, I can assure you we’ve had NONE of that.  If you think we have, I challenge you to show me, in the past 8 years the headway the Bush administration made towards a smaller and more restricted role of government.

    So in your socialist idealogical head, I know you are going to try to sell this as a ‘failure’ of conservatism, but its nothing of the sort.

    The whole political spectrum over the past 50 years has shifted whole-heartedly liberal.  JFK was FAR more conservative than todays republicans.  THAT is how far we’ve slipped.  And you’re going to indict true conservatism?  How?

    We’ve seen none!

    We have more government today than at any point in our history.  More government spending, more entitlements, more social spending, more bureaucracy, more federal encroachment on aspects that were formally completely state level issues.

    Perhaps we need to drop the conservative label because thats been bastardized and start talking about freedom.

    Where has freedom won over the past 50 years?  Where has freedom expanded? 

    We’ve been on the bigger government bandwagon our entire lives.  If anything its time to GIVE freedom a chance.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 22, 2008 at 0932 hrs




14. JFK was FAR more conservative than todays republicans.

    And Richard Nixon was far more liberal than today’s Republican candidates.  Point?

    The way I see it we’ve taken a huge step to the right during my lifetime, not to the left.  It’s true that given an even longer view, the world has become more liberal (thank goodness), but in America the blip of my lifetime so far is decidedly rightward.  (PS. Bill Clinton was a moderate.  Really!)

    Today’s Republican party isn’t “conservative”?  They don’t adhere to the Reaganeseque definition of conservatism?  Possibly not, but nether did Reagan himself.  As usual you guys cling to a fiction, a narrative, more than the actual facts. 

    If by “conservative” you mean shrinking the size and scope of the federal government to half its current size then I brand you not a conservative but a radical.  Wear the label with pride and see how far you get with the American people.  Meanwhile, “conservatives” have inflicted upon this country the worst president in history (or at least in our lifetimes).  Should there not be any reckoning? 

    I’m not naive enough to believe that Obama’s impending victory is a wholehearted embracing of liberal politics by the electorate.  This election is about you and how badly the Republican party has screwed up the government.  Did you vote for it?  Then own your failure.

    Posted by scott on October 22, 2008 at 0942 hrs




15. Was JFK really conservative? He was definitely hawkish, but in the context of the time, that wasn’t really a right-left issue between the two major parties.

    Would a conservative have pushed hard for civil rights legislation, greater government assistance for the poor, and a universal health care system?

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 22, 2008 at 0959 hrs




16. Well put Scott.

    Conservatism has been allowed to literally run wild over the past 25 years. Yes, I include Clinton in that gap, though he hit the brakes somewhat and most of us benefitted. After all, it was his administration who provided oversight on the mortgages to poorer people and the nonsense got out of hand under Bush—http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/15/opinion/15 wed2.html?_r=2&scp;=1&sq;=Community Reinvestment Act,&st;=cse&oref;=slogin&oref;=slogin.

    Don’t blame it on the miss-application of conservatism on Bush. Everything your little hearts desired was there—a not only lightly regulated market but food chain as well, tax cuts for the wealthy, a ballooning military budget, a conservative activist court, corporate dominance, unilateral foreign policy, inactive government (reference Katrina) and the veiled use of racism as an appeal. Oh, sorry for the last one. That’s fascism. 

    If people have had a bellyful - and they have—it was the full dose of conservatism that brought them to this point. They have lived with and have had to bear the burden of the sophomoric and psychotic philosophies of Little Orphyn Aynnie.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 22, 2008 at 0959 hrs




17. Everything your little hearts desired was there

    Not so.

    Government take-over of airport security and a BIG huge growth in government called the TSA and the Dept. of Homeland Security.

    NO action on Social Security

    Non-sense restrictions on free speech in the form of campaign finance reform

    Expansion of police and government powers via the patriot act

    Increased federal spending and intervention on state issues (education)

    Bush was a failure.  Yup I voted for him in 2000.  And I’m confident that the only thing worse than what Bush did was what GORE WOULD have done.

    So you’ve had your 8 years to say “told you so”.

    I’m confident that the mess Gore and liberals would have created after things like 9-11 would have been equally or more destructive.

    Given liberals willingness to tromp on individual rights during the clinton administration I’m scared to think how they would have embraced even more freedom raping policies than the patriot act and TSA put in place.  I believe that the push-back liberals showed to those freedom-raping policies were ONLY because it was leverage against bush.  NOT because as a matter of principle have they EVER been against sacrificing liberty for percieved security.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 22, 2008 at 1022 hrs




18. It’s fitting on a thread about Marx for an arch-conservative to claim that true conservatism didn’t fail under Bush because it hasn’t been tried yet.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 22, 2008 at 1044 hrs




19. OK, Owen I’ll bite.

    Why is this troubling?

    Ignorance is bliss?

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 22, 2008 at 1054 hrs




20. Steve your trite little sayings don’t amount to refuting what I said.

    Liberals can call something conservative and say it failed.  And you might get a head nod from anyone who doesn’t want to take a look beyond the semantics and see whats really happend here.

    Of course liberals have been making a living (in an electoral sense) off of people who get caught up in the cutesy sayings and one-liners for a long time.

    I posed some very specific looming instances why Bush was nothing for smaller more limited government, and you respond with a little trite commentary.

    Telling.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 22, 2008 at 1103 hrs




21. So scott,

    The 2 narratives are what?

    1# “Poor” people and the govt with did this to us.

    2# “Rich” people and the govt did this to us.

    Just for yucks here is a third.

    We all (in the aggregate) spent way to much and now we have to pay it back.

    Maybe all we need is one of those credit counseling agencies.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 22, 2008 at 1107 hrs




22. We all (in the aggregate) spent way to much and now we have to pay it back.

    Bingo.

    This is not a GOP or Dem issue in spite of each side trying to blame the other.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 22, 2008 at 1114 hrs




23. I’m confident that the mess Gore and liberals would have created after things like 9-11 would have been equally or more destructive.

    Can’t let that one go.

    1) Chances are Gore would have read his daily presidential briefing and might have averted the attacks. Or better yet, Bin Laden having worked with so many in the Bush administration would have knew these people would go blind ape crap like they did and were perfect targets for an attack.

    2) Only the totally delusional would imagine Gore heading off to Iraq, the wrong country. Just like after the first attack on the WTC during the Clinton admin, the perpetrators would have been apprehended and dealt with. The only thing Bush is good at is sending Afghan cab drivers to Gitmo where they were brutally tortured for information they didn’t have.

    Time for the clowns to pack it up. And let’s face. Rove’s boys ran a very clownish campaign for McCain.

    By the way, it would be a nice idea to grace us with some examples of what kind of “freedom raping” went on under Clinton. My freedoms it seems maintained their virginity.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 22, 2008 at 1136 hrs




24. I thought one of the primary contributors to the financial crisis was the deregulation of the banking industry in 99 (which in all fairness, Clinton signed into law).  We did away with some of our critical safeguards—thanks to the “deregulate” crowd—and look where we are.

    Posted by scott on October 22, 2008 at 1139 hrs




25. primary contributors to the financial crisis was the deregulation of the banking industry in 99

    OK, and what did that do or allow?

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 22, 2008 at 1152 hrs




26. You know this marxism label doesn’t add much to the discussion.

    You’re better than that Owen.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 22, 2008 at 1158 hrs




27. When did I call anyone a Marxist?  Find me the quote.  I put up a post about Marx’s book being bought more in Europe.  The rest of y’all warped it into a discussion about the presidential election.

    Posted by Owen on October 22, 2008 at 1233 hrs




28. 1999 banking deregulation.

    Owen, come on.  The McCain campaign is caling Obama a socialist, and you—a highly partisan blogger and McCain supporter—cites a story about the increasing sale of Marx’s works and find it “troubling.”  Yet we’re not supposed to believe that there is a connection worthy of rebutting?

    Posted by scott on October 22, 2008 at 1302 hrs




29. Sorry scott,

    What I should of asked was how the deregulation led to the current economic mess.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 22, 2008 at 1444 hrs




30. You can infer whatever you want.  That doesn’t make it true.  I saw this and thought about the economy and our current overreaction to it, but if you want to think about the presidential race, whatever.  Believe it or not, I think about things other than presidential politics.

    Posted by Owen on October 22, 2008 at 1506 hrs




31. What I should of asked was how the deregulation led to the current economic mess.

    From the article:

    “The 1999 Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act broke down barriers between banks, securities firms, mortgage lenders and insurance companies. That deregulation repealed Great Depression-era bank regulations with the approval of former president Bill Clinton.

    The Gramm bill encouraged lending during the strong housing market but has put banks, investment houses and insurance companies in peril since the housing bust which started two years ago. The measure allowed those lending money to sell off those loan portfolios to other companies, thus disconnecting the lending risk.”

    Now that I do some googling, though, perhaps that’s not exactly true.  Factcheck.org has a rebuttal to that claim—and one for McCain, too.

    http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/who_caused_t he_economic_crisis.html

    Posted by scott on October 22, 2008 at 1524 hrs




32. Now that I do some googling, though, perhaps that’s not exactly true.  Factcheck.org has a rebuttal to that claim—and one for McCain, too.

    Bingo.

    This is not a GOP or Dem issue in spite of each side trying to blame the other.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 22, 2008 at 1727 hrs




33. Nice quote scott, but not factual.  AIG insured mortgages and was unaffected by the 1999 act.  The investment banks in trouble were investment banks prior to 1999 and unaffected by the act.  The 1999 act has actually allowed some of the worst offenders to survive through bank purchases that would have been illegal prior to 1999.

    Freddie and Fannie are major players in the housing debacle because they are the originator of many of the securities packages involving mortgages.    They are involved in about half of all mortgages.  Had they at any time upheld standards for the mortgages they securitized, the subprime market would have evaporated as it would have been far more difficult to originate a bad loan and then sell it off.

    pjr and cynical are entirely correct.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 22, 2008 at 1816 hrs




34. Saying something is bi-partisan rings nice and is somewhat true, but not totally.

    How could the 30-plus-year-old Community Reinvestment Act be responsible for a crisis that has occurred only in recent years? Then there’s the fact that the regulatory guidance issued under the reinvestment act and other banking laws actually impose restraints on the riskiest kinds of subprime lending.

    In addition, subprime lending was not driven by banks, which are covered by the act. Rather, most subprime lending was driven by independent mortgage lending companies, which the act does not cover, and, to a lesser extent, by bank affiliates and subsidiaries that are not fully covered by the act. By some estimates, nonbank lenders and bank affiliates and subsidiaries may have originated 75 percent or more of the riskiest subprime loans.

    A study released recently by the Center for Community Capital at the University of North Carolina in Chapel Hill shows that people of similar financial profiles were three to five times more likely to default when they received high-priced subprime mortgages than when they got bank loans made under the Community Reinvestment Act.

    All of this took place over the last eight years. Under whose watch? Yeah the Democrats have been in charge of Congress for the past 21 months. But they have passed no legislation of any impact.

    So what? We have a choice between one party that wants to lift regulation and one that wants to impose more of it.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 23, 2008 at 0647 hrs




35. No keith, it hasn’t happened in the last eight years.    The current mortgage mess is an extension of the 2000 stock market bubble.    It began in the early 1990’s when the fed loosened the money supply and the the federal government began ignoring the effects of monetary policy.    Every congress and administration since has gone along with the fed policy.

    The community reinvestment act and fannie and freddie policies became important when there was a sudden increase in the availability of cheap money; something that wasn’t available in the 1970’s and 80’s.

    Subprime lending is driven by the ability to securitize the loans in order to get a secondary buyer.    That depends in part on people willing to give the garbage securities an AAA rating, an entirely regulated process.  Had these securites been properly rated, there would have been a much smaller secondary market, and the lower demand would in turn have raised lending standards.

    But all of that is irrelevant without addressing the fundamental problems of a fed with a loose money supply and a government with no fiscal policy.  the money would simply have gone elsewhere.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 23, 2008 at 0821 hrs




36. Getting back to the Marxism issue…

    Do any of the lefties around here think it is a good thing for more people to warm to Marxist doctrine?  If yes/no, why?

    My view: I don’t think it is a good thing.  I view Marxism as a violation of the fundamental right of human self-determination in deciding what to do with the property (including money) that one earns or acquires.  I find it reprehensible on a theoretical level, and it had obviously been proven a disaster when implemented as a matter of policy (North Korea, Cuba, U.S.S.R, etc.)

    What Marxism tries to do is ignore the fact that some people are born smarter, faster, more beautiful - or just plain more lucky - than others.  As “sucky” as that can be at times for the rest of everybody, the smarter/faster/luckier people tend to live easier lives with more privilege and ease.  Marxism tries to force compensation for natural disparities, not by uplifting the less fortunate with liberty and opportunity, but by stifling individual progress and punishing the successful.

    Your thoughts…?

    Posted by David on October 23, 2008 at 1442 hrs




37. good thing for more people to warm to Marxist doctrine?  If yes/no, why?

    What exactly do you mean by “warm” to it?

    Read it, implement it or use it in the wood stove?

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 23, 2008 at 1456 hrs




38. First—no, I don’t think it’s good that more people “warm” to Marxist thought.  (Although I by no means believe that’s a given, even if people are more interested today than five years ago.)  Why?  Because socialism (as I understand it*) doesn’t work very well, and communism doesn’t work at all.  The problem with them is that market forces are the only means of creating wealth, and these schools of thought minimize it or even outlaw it.  Clearly not going to work. 

    Second, I’m wondering why us “lefties” are being called upon to express our opinion on Marxism.  It’s not as if the American left is anywhere near this kind of thinking.  I you believe it is, you’re wrong and you should have your head examined.

    (* Socialism is becoming a strange word to use in American politics.  To some people you’re a socialist if you like Social Security.  To others you’re a socialist if you want tax funded health insurance.  To others you’d have to be closer to the kind of thing you find in present day France.  So I don’t really know what’s being talked about unless it’s clarified.  There are degrees of “socialistic” policies which can—and should—be a part of <strike>this nutritious breakfast</strike> a good capitalistic economy such as ours.)

    Posted by scott on October 23, 2008 at 1457 hrs




39. Warming to it would mean things like voting for or supporting political or revolutionary leaders who intend to shape policy based on Marx, raising one’s children under Marxist values, or in general propping it up as a positive way of life.  I suppose if someone reads it, loves it, and then never says or does anything about it wouldn’t matter.  But if we infer from the article that the people reading more Marx are going to act on it to advance it, i ask whether anyone thinks that is a good thing.

    Posted by David on October 23, 2008 at 1502 hrs




40. David, the major flaw in Marxism (or one of them, anyway) is that under Marxist thought, the capitalist who pays their employees poorly, works them hard, and gives them an unpleasant working environment is treated the same way as a capitalist who innovates new methods to create a better product at a better value and treats their workers well with good pay and good working conditions. Both are considered exploitative under Marxist doctrine.

    I ran across a funny scorecard of Marxism the other day where the writer took a look at the major predictions Marx made as a supposedly objective scientific look at how history would unfold. The result? 3.5 out of 10.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 23, 2008 at 1507 hrs




41. Second, I’m wondering why us “lefties” are being called upon to express our opinion on Marxism.  It’s not as if the American left is anywhere near this kind of thinking.

    Good point.  Habits I’m trying to break - thanks for pointing it out.

    Posted by David on October 23, 2008 at 1507 hrs