Sartre and Marx's critique of classical economists

[Lyev]

So, two questions:

1) In Jean-Paul Sartre's Critique of Dialectical Reason, at least according to Wikipedia, he "set out to give Marxism a more vigorous intellectual defense than it had received up until then; he ended by concluding that Marx's notion of "class" as an objective entity was fallacious". (emphasis mine). So why would Sartre think class as an "objective entity" is "fallacious"?

2) My second question is what's Marx's qualm with classical economists? you know, like Ricardo, Smith, Malthus et al. I've heard somewhere or read somewhere he's critical of them because they're ahistorical(?), so please could somewhere further that and/or explain why from Marx's view being ahistorical is especially bad.

Thanks in advance comrades :)

[Lyev]

No one got any ideas?

[Robocommie]

I'm afraid I can't comment on Sartre, however I can tell you that Marx had an intense dislike for Thomas Malthus on the grounds that Malthus was kind of a bastard. He was convinced that there was a very definite limit on how many people the Earth could support, and that it wasn't a very large number and nations could very quickly be overpopulated. When this limit was reached, famine, war and epidemics were the inevitable result.

While it's not necessarily out of line to believe there's only so many resources you can choke out of the Earth, the problem with Malthus is that he felt egalitarianism and socialism and the like would aggravate this problem. In other words - if you take care of the poor through poverty relief and social programs, they'll only continue to breed and you'll have too many people to even help. Likewise, high wages will encourage the workers to have more children, because they can feed more kids, and also they'll be able to afford more medicine to stave off death which will prevent the population levels from naturally diminishing.

Total cock. A lot of people feel that Charles Dickens based Ebenezer Scrooge and his views towards the poor on Malthusian economics, the whole "they had best die and so relieve the surplus population."

Marx and Engels both vehemently criticized Malthus' view on a couple of grounds, they argued that rather than the population putting pressure on the means of production, it is in fact the means of production which puts pressure on the workers. Unemployment and large numbers of poor benefits capitalism by providing a reserve army of labor.

I found a quote once where Engels basically said Malthus' theories were crude and barbaric, and went a long way to undo all the positive sentiments of loving thy neighbor, which I have to say definitely reinforces my confidence that Marx and Engels were the good guys in this struggle.

[KC]

Edit

[Robocommie]

From what I've read I think a lot of Adam Smith's theories are pretty sound except he pretty plainly is coming from the perspective of the wealthy, not the workers. There are quotes of his though, some of which I've seen used on this board, where his blatant honesty about capitalism's practices are really quite stirring.

Edit: I should clarify, in that I think Adam Smith's theories laid the groundwork for Marx's later contributions, I obviously am not in favor of a free market or Smith's "invisible hand."

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

While it's not necessarily out of line to believe there's only so many resources you can choke out of the Earth, the problem with Malthus is that he felt egalitarianism and socialism and the like would aggravate this problem. In other words - if you take care of the poor through poverty relief and social programs, they'll only continue to breed and you'll have too many people to even help. Likewise, high wages will encourage the workers to have more children, because they can feed more kids, and also they'll be able to afford more medicine to stave off death which will prevent the population levels from naturally diminishing.


Of course, Malthus has been proven wrong by all statistics in his prediction of a correlation between a higher birth rate and a materially more comfortable working population. To this end, an amended version of Malthus' pessimism relating to there being a critical mass, in terms of population and the clearly finite level of resources available to humans, is useful for certain purposes, one such being as a contributory to the field of population economics, for example; advancing the cause of internationalism.

[Robocommie]

Of course, Malthus has been proven wrong by all statistics in his prediction of a correlation between a higher birth rate and a materially more comfortable working population. To this end, an amended version of Malthus' pessimism relating to there being a critical mass, in terms of population and the clearly finite level of resources available to humans, is useful for certain purposes, one such being as a contributory to the field of population economics, for example; advancing the cause of internationalism.

I'm not sure I follow what you're saying, could you rephrase? You've got one long run on sentence there. ;)

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

In other words - if you take care of the poor through poverty relief and social programs, they'll only continue to breed and you'll have too many people to even help. - Robocommie

So what I am saying is, that because his hypothesis here has been disproven - those workers in first world nations who are comfortable relative to those workers living in squalor and destitution in the thirld world - one can discount some of the anti-egalitarian sentiment that underpinned his original theory relating to population. Doing so results in an altered version of his theory which states more that population - within the context of a single nation, let us say - will never exceed a certain natural parameter, even with an open borders migration policy.

I am not feeling particularly eloquent tonight. I seem to be unable to elaborate on this basic idea, relating to population economics. However, i'll come back with a deeper and more coherent analysis at a later date. If you wish to engage this post, then go for it :)

[Robocommie]

Ah, I see what you're saying now. Yes, interesting. It is true of course that Malthus' theories have shown the opposite to be true, that in fact in first world economies where their material conditions are met much better, the birth rate is much lower. I had not connected that to any kind of theoretical conclusion however.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

I realised the connection a long time ago. If I wasn't feeling quite jaded for whatever reason I would theorise on this for sure. If you're interested I may post something on your profile when I have time/energy?

[Robocommie]

I realised the connection a long time ago. If I wasn't feeling quite jaded for whatever reason I would theorise on this for sure. If you're interested I may post something on your profile when I have time/energy?

Certainly, be my guest.

[Lyev]

As for the classical economists, they have a ton of critiques of them, so you're going to have to be more specific.

Well basically, just a very basic outline of the key concepts in Marx's Introduction to the Critique of Political Economy please :)

[KC]

Edit

[Lyev]

Why don't you just read it?
Well I am, but a lot of what Marx says goes straight over head (I'm not especially dumb) and I like to have Marx's concepts wholly ingrained in my head. My addition of The German Ideology has it in the front and, actually, I'm finding it alright at the moment.

[Robocommie]

Well I am, but a lot of what Marx says goes straight over head (I'm not especially dumb) and I like to have Marx's concepts wholly ingrained in my head. My addition of The German Ideology has it in the front and, actually, I'm finding it alright at the moment.

Don't feel too bad about that. I think it can be generally tricky to read Marx. It's not Shakespeare but he did use language in a way that is still archaic by 100 years or so.