Masters of Money: Marx

[The Idler]

In the last of this series produced in partnership with The Open University, BBC Economics Editor Stephanie Flanders examines one of the most revolutionary and controversial thinkers of all. Karl Marx's ideas left an indelible stamp on the lives of billions of people and the world we live in today. As the global financial crisis continues on its destructive path, some are starting to wonder if he was right.
Marx argued that capitalism is inherently unfair and therefore doomed to collapse, so it should be got rid of altogether. Today as the gap between rich and poor continues to cause tension, his ideas are once again being taken seriously at the heart of global business.
Stephanie travels from Marx's birthplace to a former communist regime detention centre in Berlin and separates his economic analysis from what was carried out in his name. She asks what answers does Marx provide to the mess we are all in today.
Check it out
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b01n6z4s/Masters_of_Money_Marx/
outside uk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hsxfMHbLubA

[GiantMonkeyMan]

I watched it the other day. Interesting how they touch upon some Marxist theory and then immediately juxtapose that with East German prisoner camps and when they ask whether or not revolution is inevitable they cut to the head of the Bank of England as if he is an authority on proletarian organisation. Definitely worth a watch, if only to get a glimpse at what the other side thinks of us.

[Psy]

I watched it the other day. Interesting how they touch upon some Marxist theory and then immediately juxtapose that with East German prisoner camps and when they ask whether or not revolution is inevitable they cut to the head of the Bank of England as if he is an authority on proletarian organisation. Definitely worth a watch, if only to get a glimpse at what the other side thinks of us.
I find it more interesting saying the fact capitalism still exists somehow is a strike against Marx even though Marx never said how long it would take for capitalism to run its course, also feudalism was around for 10 centuries before capitalists even started getting any real power.

[Yuppie Grinder]

I watched it the other day. Interesting how they touch upon some Marxist theory and then immediately juxtapose that with East German prisoner camps and when they ask whether or not revolution is inevitable they cut to the head of the Bank of England as if he is an authority on proletarian organisation. Definitely worth a watch, if only to get a glimpse at what the other side thinks of us.
Thanks for letting me know not to watch this.

[Drosophila]

What a load of shit. I hate when these morons try to simplify Marx into crap like "HE SAID CAPITTALISM WAS GONNA COLLAPSE 'CUS IT'S UNFAIR!" You just can't simplify something like Marxism into a single sentence.

[International_Solidarity]

At least they didn't base their critique of Marxism on the godlessness of Materialism.

I would say, personally, that criticizing him because of East German prison camps, which he had absolutely, positively, nothing to do with is even worse. Why is it that no-one in the media ever just talks about Marx within the frame of his lifetime? Oh, now I remember, the media in most Capitalist countries is owned by a few Bourgeoisie. :/

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

Interesting how they touch upon some Marxist theory and then immediately juxtapose that with East German prisoner camps

I haven't seen the video yet, but do they portray the prison camps as if it should bother the viewer? I mean, if the BBC complains about prison camps (in which the US holds 25% of the world's prisoners, over half of them private for-profit labor prisons and a disproportionate amount of them African Americans), i'd really wonder whether they turned into a bunch of state-hating Anarchists. Do they really have a problem with Marxists because we advocate a monopoly on violence, or just because they're getting paid by the bourgeoisie?...

[GiantMonkeyMan]

I haven't seen the video yet, but do they portray the prison camps as if it should bother the viewer? I mean, if the BBC complains about prison camps (in which the US holds 25% of the world's prisoners, over half of them private for-profit labor prisons and a disproportionate amount of them African Americans), i'd really wonder whether they turned into a bunch of state-hating Anarchists. Do they really have a problem with Marxists because we advocate a monopoly on violence, or just because they're getting paid by the bourgeoisie?...
I think the insinuation is that if you follow a Marxist critique of capitalism and lead a revolution into communism, you want to torture people in prisons.

[Psy]

I haven't seen the video yet, but do they portray the prison camps as if it should bother the viewer? I mean, if the BBC complains about prison camps (in which the US holds 25% of the world's prisoners, over half of them private for-profit labor prisons and a disproportionate amount of them African Americans), i'd really wonder whether they turned into a bunch of state-hating Anarchists. Do they really have a problem with Marxists because we advocate a monopoly on violence, or just because they're getting paid by the bourgeoisie?...

Basically they use a false dichotomy of the choice being capitalism or the Stasi as if the Stasi in itself is was an alternative to capitalism.

[ComradeOm]

Thanks for letting me know not to watch this.Your loss

I quite enjoyed this. Yes, it has the standard tropes about Communism and yes it didn't come to the conclusion that we should all go outside now and start organising soviets. Amazingly the BBC production team weren't members of revolutionary communist organisations determined to put across a new vision for society. I should tear up my licence fee!

If you can get past the fact that this was a BBC production for a mainstream audience then it was a well-produced, if superficial, take on Marx and his relevance to economic thought today. It was entertaining and I learnt the odd new fact. The key Marxist critiques of the current crisis were well covered, and fairly so I thought. But if want to spurn this because of the obligatory visit to a Stasi prison then it is, as I say, your loss


Why is it that no-one in the media ever just talks about Marx within the frame of his lifetime? Oh, now I remember, the media in most Capitalist countries is owned by a few Bourgeoisie. :/That would be a short, albeit interesting, show. The reality is that the vast majority of Marx's influence on society came after his death. And, yes, that includes the DDR and USSR. Trying to exorcise these from the past century of Marxist history is not just futile, it's delusional

Really. what does everyone expect? Let's do a show about Marx without mentioning that at one point over a quarter of the world's population were ruled by self-proclaimed Marxist regimes?

[ed miliband]

Your loss

I quite enjoyed this. Yes, it has the standard tropes about Communism and yes it didn't come to the conclusion that we should all go outside now and start organising soviets. Amazingly the BBC production team weren't members of revolutionary communist organisations determined to put across a new vision for society. I should tear up my licence fee!

If you can get past the fact that this was a BBC production for a mainstream audience then it was a well-produced, if superficial, take on Marx and his relevance to economic thought today. It was entertaining and I learnt the odd new fact. The key Marxist critiques of the current crisis were well covered, and fairly so I thought. But if want to spurn this because of the obligatory visit to a Stasi prison then it is, as I say, your loss

That would be a short, albeit interesting, show. The reality is that the vast majority of Marx's influence on society came after his death. And, yes, that includes the DDR and USSR. Trying to exorcise these from the past century of Marxist history is not just futile, it's delusional

Really. what does everyone expect? Let's do a show about Marx without mentioning that at one point over a quarter of the world's population were ruled by self-proclaimed Marxist regimes?

haha, crap. they provided a very crude underconsumptionist reading of marx, nowt about commodities or surplus value or the falling rate of profit -- marx's "genius" was reduced to a caricature of that david harvey rsa video.

and this:


If you can get past the fact that this was a BBC production for a mainstream audience then it was a well-produced, if superficial, take on Marx and his relevance to economic thought today.

who gives a fuck about marx's relevance to "economic thought"? all that matters is marx's relevance to this class struggle. this show would have you believing that marx is only of very superficial interest to a few bankers and some important economists.

[ComradeOm]

haha, crap. they provided a very crude underconsumptionist reading of marx, nowt about commodities or surplus value or the falling rate of profitAnd what else did you expect to get other than the broadest of outlines? It's a BBC documentary, not an online or Open University lecture


who gives a fuck about marx's relevance to "economic thought"? all that matters is marx's relevance to this class struggle. this show would have you believing that marx is only of very superficial interest to a few bankers and some important economists.So nobody other than 'bankers and economists' should care about economics? It's of no interest to anybody else what lies behind the crisis or what the various theories out there are?

And no, Karl Marx is not yours. Hate to break it to you but he's been seeing other people and they're interested in him as well. Awkward. Even worse, not everyone else has got the exact same view of Marx as yourself - whisper it quietly but they've been influenced in different ways. I know, I know, you thought that you were special and that only you had had to right to say what bits of Marx are relevant or not. Just clam down and have a cup of tea, there's plenty more philosophers in the sea

Or to exchange sarcasm for bluntness: lose the narrow and self-centred bullshit. If somebody is looking for an alternative to the neo-liberal explanation for the current crisis (so much as one exists) then slapping them down because 'it's all about the class struggle, m'kay?' is just ignorant. Starting with Marx the Economist is as good a point as Marx the Revolutionary or Marx the Journalist

[l'Enfermé]

Marx argued that capitalism is inherently unfair and therefore doomed to collapse, so it should be got rid of altogether.

No he didn't.

There's Marx the political economist, Marx the Revolutionary and Marx the Journalist? I thought Marx was only one person :(

[Manic Impressive]

The basic premise of the program, to explain Marx's theory of why recessions happen was wrong. Marx did not say that under consumption is the cause of recessions. Was crisis of overproduction even mentioned?

[ed miliband]

And what else did you expect to get other than the broadest of outlines? It's a BBC documentary, not an online or Open University lecture

here's the thing: i don't think it was the "broadest of outlines", and you're very accomodating if you think it was. it was, as i said, an underconsumptionist reading of the crisis, and one that owes more to various keynesian-influenced "marxists" than marx himself.

now of course you're right, "it's a bbc documentary" -- i didn't expect any better. you were some what pleased with it though, it seems, which is what i was commenting on.


So nobody other than 'bankers and economists' should care about economics? It's of no interest to anybody else what lies behind the crisis or what the various theories out there are?

And no, Karl Marx is not yours. Hate to break it to you but he's been seeing other people and they're interested in him as well. Awkward. Even worse, not everyone else has got the exact same view of Marx as yourself - whisper it quietly but they've been influenced in different ways. I know, I know, you thought that you were special and that only you had had to right to say what bits of Marx are relevant or not. Just clam down and have a cup of tea, there's plenty more philosophers in the sea

Or to exchange sarcasm for bluntness: lose the narrow and self-centred bullshit. If somebody is looking for an alternative to the neo-liberal explanation for the current crisis (so much as one exists) then slapping them down because 'it's all about the class struggle, m'kay?' is just ignorant. Starting with Marx the Economist is as good a point as Marx the Revolutionary or Marx the Journalist

i don't think you can draw a distinction between marx the economist, marx the revolutionary or marx the journalist. the way i see it, marx can of course be read in a variety of different ways: capitalists may read marx strategically, academics may pore over marx endlessly, but as communists what is the purpose in reading marx? capital is a weapon in the class struggle, and marx himself believed this, thinking it was of prime importance that capital was read by the working class.

so of course marx isn't just for me or other communists, but why should i have any interest in what mervyn king or nouriel roubini or paul krugman has to take from marx?

and indeed, my main point was that the documentary portrayed marx not to be of any interest to but a small group of powerful men. when marx is of interest to anyone else we get labour camps and dictators, or so the documentary would have us believe.

[ComradeOm]

now of course you're right, "it's a bbc documentary" -- i didn't expect any better. you were some what pleased with it though, it seems, which is what i was commenting onIf I were to say that I was pleased with my car does that mean that I think it could compete in Formula 1? If I enjoy a Hollywood popcorn flick does that mean I expect it to sweep the Oscars?

I enjoyed this documentary. Does this mean that I think it's a complete and accurate summary of all Marx's writings? Go away with you


so of course marx isn't just for me or other communists, but why should i have any interest in what mervyn king or nouriel roubini or paul krugman has to take from marx?Because it's interesting to hear their take? It's interesting to have these issues discussed outside of that horrible echo chamber that is much of the left today?

Or maybe it's not of interest to you. I don't particularly care


and indeed, my main point was that the documentary portrayed marx not to be of any interest to but a small group of powerful men. when marx is of interest to anyone else we get labour camps and dictators, or so the documentary would have us believe.That's nonsense. You've invented a subtext that doesn't exist. It's akin to saying that the 80s/whatever was only experienced by the various comedians and Z-list celebrities who comprise the talking heads on those 'Best of the 80s/whatever' shows


There's Marx the political economist, Marx the Revolutionary and Marx the Journalist? I thought Marx was only one personThere's also Marx the Historian, Marx the German, Marx the Philosopher and probably dozens more. There are many, many ways in which one can read Marx


The basic premise of the program, to explain Marx's theory of why recessions happen was wrong. Marx did not say that under consumption is the cause of recessionsAh, the other side of that decidedly Marxist narrow-mindedness: the determination to reduce everything to orthodoxies. There has been more than a century of Marxist economic thought since Marx's death and yes (horror) underconsumption often features amongst them. Authors from Luxemburg to Harvey have dealt with this aspect of capitalism

[Manic Impressive]

Ah, the other side of that decidedly Marxist narrow-mindedness: the determination to reduce everything to orthodoxies. There has been more than a century of Marxist economic thought since Marx's death and yes (horror) underconsumption often features amongst them. Authors from Luxemburg to Harvey have dealt with this aspect of capitalism
So you concede that it was a later development and nothing to do with Marx. Since the program was about Marx's view on capital don't you think that they probably should have focused on what he did say rather than what he didn't?

edit: Om you are being incredibly defensive about this program. You're not Stephanie Flanders are you?
If you were I could understand why you're getting so upset.

[ComradeOm]

So you concede that it was a later development and nothing to do with MarxNo, if that's what I meant then that's what I'd have said. You cannot divorce Marx from Marxism and you cannot suggest that Marxist theorists today, or a century ago, have "nothing to do with Marx". Similarly suggesting that we consider Marxism to have reached perfection in the 19th C is both hopeless and delusional. Any Marxist explanation as to the causes of the current financial crisis is of course going to draw on the past century of Marxist thought. How could it not?

This is the difference between those who consider Marx to be a historical relic, in the religious sense, and those who continue to apply and develop what should be a 'living doctrine'


edit: Om you are being incredibly defensive about this program. You're not Stephanie Flanders are you?
If you were I could understand why you're getting so upset.Upset? Perish the thought. This was a decent documentary: well-produced and edited (as is the norm for the BBC) and providing a broad introduction to some Marxist analyses of the crisis. I'm happy to see this sort of thing on TV but I've no particular investment in it

What does piss me off are, in order:

1) That 'holier than thou' sneering at any programme that dares connect Marx and the former Communist states. "I can't watch that, it visits an East German prison." Shocking, no?

2) Related, the assumption that a BBC documentary should call for violent social change or otherwise cover the breadth of Marx's work. "Well if the BBC approached me to make a 1 hr documentary on Marxist critiques of the current crisis, I'd start with spending 45min on Marx's reactions to the Bonapartist movement."

3) The above mentioned insistence on Marx rather than Marxism. That is, reducing Marx to an authority to be mined for quotes and authority

All of which are just a by-product of the staggering narrow-mindedness of much of the left today. Who cares what various Marxists and non-Marxists have to say about the crisis? I do, for one. People who don't can just not watch the programme; people who dismiss something out of hand because it doesn't entirely echo their own opinions can just fuck off

[Manic Impressive]

No, if that's what I meant then that's what I'd have said. You cannot divorce Marx from Marxism and you cannot suggest that Marxist theorists today, or a century ago, have "nothing to do with Marx". Similarly suggesting that we consider Marxism to have reached perfection in the 19th C is both hopeless and delusional. Any Marxist explanation as to the causes of the current financial crisis is of course going to draw on the past century of Marxist thought. How could it not?

This is the difference between those who consider Marx to be a historical relic, in the religious sense, and those who continue to apply and develop what should be a 'living doctrine'
The series is "what does X have to say about the current economic crisis". That program was on Marx not Luxemburg or David Harvey or any other Marxist it was on Marx and his theory. I don't agree with under consumption, but that's besides the point. The program presented the informartion as though it was Marx's theory when it wasn't and quite clearly you are in agreement on that. Anything else is irrelevant.


Upset? Perish the thought. This was a decent documentary: well-produced and edited (as is the norm for the BBC) and providing a broad introduction to some Marxist analyses of the crisis. I'm happy to see this sort of thing on TV but I've no particular investment in it

What does piss me off are, in order:

1) That 'holier than thou' sneering at any programme that dares connect Marx and the former Communist states. "I can't watch that, it visits an East German prison." Shocking, no?

2) Related, the assumption that a BBC documentary should call for violent social change or otherwise cover the breadth of Marx's work. "Well if the BBC approached me to make a 1 hr documentary on Marxist critiques of the current crisis, I'd start with spending 45min on Marx's reactions to the Bonapartist movement."
Good, good, I'm glad you're not upset just being your usual cheery self I see. The thing is I actually and I can't believe I'm going to say this

I a... I can't it's to painful

I agr.... no I just can't do it

Lets just say that I don't find your perspective on this to be too abysmal.


3) The above mentioned insistence on Marx rather than Marxism. That is, reducing Marx to an authority to be mined for quotes and authority
As for this it's just something you made up


All of which are just a by-product of the staggering narrow-mindedness of much of the left today. Who cares what various Marxists and non-Marxists have to say about the crisis? I do, for one. People who don't can just not watch the programme; people who dismiss something out of hand because it doesn't entirely echo their own opinions can just fuck off
But it doesn't echo Marx's opinions as for the rest of it well.....The left can certainly fuck off. But I look at the program this way despite being factually inaccurate, heavily biased and quite annoying it's an impossible task to fit Marx into an hour long program and the job they did was ok. Lets face it it could have been a lot worse. And frankly any publicity is good publicity

[GiantMonkeyMan]

Upset? Perish the thought. This was a decent documentary: well-produced and edited (as is the norm for the BBC) and providing a broad introduction to some Marxist analyses of the crisis. I'm happy to see this sort of thing on TV but I've no particular investment in it
I thought it was an interesting documentary as well. But then I find most screen media interesting from certain perspectives. :)


1) That 'holier than thou' sneering at any programme that dares connect Marx and the former Communist states. "I can't watch that, it visits an East German prison." Shocking, no?
The reason I mentioned the prison in the first place was because it's a tactic that editors and producers utilise to envoke certain emotional responses in their audiences. If you show an old man smiling and then cut to a person getting run over that envokes the feeling that the old man is cruel. If you show the old man smiling then cut to a dog running in a sunny field that conjures a very different emotion such as a feeling that the man is simply good and friendly. The conscious choice to discuss Marx and then cut to a horrific prison where people were tortured is a carefully made decision to associate Marxism with tyranny.

I had to go back and find it again on youtube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hsxfMHbLubA) to see the relevant part that sprung out to me in the first place. They're talking about alternatives to capitalism and that Marx hadn't fully laid out what a communist society would look like. One dude says capitalism has "won" and then the second says that, although it cannot happen today, change is inevitable. Then it cuts to some unsettling music and the narrator reminds us of the "millions of ruined lives" behind the Berlin wall. It's associating a systemic change in society with millions of people suffering and reaffirming the idea that capitalism 'winning' is a good thing.


2) Related, the assumption that a BBC documentary should call for violent social change or otherwise cover the breadth of Marx's work. "Well if the BBC approached me to make a 1 hr documentary on Marxist critiques of the current crisis, I'd start with spending 45min on Marx's reactions to the Bonapartist movement."
I don't think anyone's expecting the BBC to make a documentary that would be fully supportive of revolution and personally I would probably find an indepth study of Marx's work to be ill suited to screen media... it'd be boring. Doesn't mean I can't be critical of the BBC if they make a programme about Marxism though.

[Rafiq]

"he said Capitalism is unfair and therefore will collapse"

Just fucking shoot me. Das Kapital us now a basis for a moral framework. The whole book was about how capitalism is unfair, not an objective analysis of it's composition devoid of any moral proclamations. Yup, just kill me. Idler posted this. I'm not surprised.

[Rafiq]

Marx was more an "economist" than anything else, and the only reason he was a communist was due to his understanding of capitalism. Sorry Ed, but there's a reason for the distinction between Marx and, say, Bakunin or Baebuf. Marx was a social scientist, not a man drowning himself in ideology. Althusser is right, Marx was the first, or the most significant of his field, as Darwin was to natural history, and as Newton was to physics.

[ed miliband]

Marx was more an "economist" than anything else, and the only reason he was a communist was due to his understanding of capitalism. Sorry Ed, but there's a reason for the distinction between Marx and, say, Bakunin or Baebuf. Marx was a social scientist, not a man drowning himself in ideology. Althusser is right, Marx was the first, or the most significant of his field, as Darwin was to natural history, and as Newton was to physics.

why you sayin sorry to me?

[ed miliband]

"he said Capitalism is unfair and therefore will collapse"

Just fucking shoot me. Das Kapital us now a basis for a moral framework. The whole book was about how capitalism is unfair, not an objective analysis of it's composition devoid of any moral proclamations. Yup, just kill me. Idler posted this. I'm not surprised.

what robert owen was to marx, marx is to keynes, according to this documentary. that's the way i read it at least.

[Rational Radical]

I attempted to watch it on youtube just now,when they first flashed marx along side lenin and stalin it irked my nerve,then they kept showing videos of people tearing down the berlin wall which made my eyes roll. By 5:13 I couldnt stomach it and immediately left youtube.