Bem, no plano racional, livres mercados, livre comércio, competição total, regulação mínima, e Estados eficientes são sempre melhores que o contrário de tudo isso, claro...
O problema é que, na prática, não conseguimos ter tudo isso e temos de aguentar um Estado ineficiente, intervencionista (ladrão seria o termo exato) e todas as outras deformações que os economistas chamam de "falhas de mercado". (Poucos falam das "falhas do governo".)
Abaixo um livro que seria o equivalente do realismo em RI.
Eu confesso ser um idealista, ou partidário da ideal-Economik, mas confesso que não teremos isto antes de muito tempo (if ever...).
------ EH.NET BOOK REVIEW ------
Title: The Illusion of Free Markets: Punishment and the Myth of Natural Order
Published by EH.NET (April 2011)
Bernard E. Harcourt, /The Illusion of Free Markets: Punishment and the Myth of Natural Order/. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2011. 328 pp. $30 (hardcover), ISBN: 978-0-674-05726-5.
Reviewed for EH.Net by Daniel J. D'Amico, Department of Economics, Loyola University (New Orleans).
/The Illusion of Free Markets/ is a fascinating attempt to understand public policy. There are both effective and ineffective responses to social problems. Human welfare requires interpreting complex social phenomena and affecting social change. To be fooled by an illusion is to be guided by a bad map.
Neoclassical models of political economy distinguish between markets and governments. Markets are presumed efficient when producing and allocating resources, but in some institutional environments, where property rights are poorly defined and information asymmetric, said to fail. Governments are presumed necessary and sufficient to solve market failures. Society suffers when either problem is misdiagnosed and/or either solution incorrectly prescribed. Bernard Harcourt thinks markets have been overrated. Histories of penology and economic thought help correct this.
The market versus government dichotomy dates to the classical school, when economists thought in terms of natural law. Markets were called natural because the price system is self-adjusting and socially coordinative. Neither shortages nor surpluses persist because prices change on the margin. Self-interest guides social welfare "as if by an invisible hand." While economists favor markets because they produce and distribute tangible wealth, Harcourt is concerned that they under account social costs. In particular, natural law has supposedly borne complex consequences upon American criminal justice.
Markets were heavily regulated during the time of the classical school. Detailed codes of conduct governed all manner of commercial trade. Harcourt observes that Adam Smith and other classicals used the term “policing” to refer to both commercial and criminal regulations. Harcourt prefers Foucault's focus upon discipline over economists' hard dichotomy. Historically, both markets and governments regulated behavior. Both were backed by physical punishments. The market was as disciplinarian as the state.
Harcourt is concerned, and rightly so, with features of American criminal justice. It appears racially biased, excessively severe and uniquely modern. He argues that these are the theoretical consequences of applied natural law. His historical narrative suggests that as the commercial realm was deregulated, disciplinary resources were directed into the penal sphere.
Markets were presumed to be self-regulating, which drove a conceptual schism between lawful market behaviors and unnatural criminal actions. Theorists underrecognize the costs of social change invoked by deregulation because they presume the market natural. Today's penal excesses are the presumed result of a growing network of anonymous contracts. Harcourt's message: the notion that markets are free from coercion is an illusion, both yesterday and today. Privatization and deregulation are insufficient policy solutions to mass incarceration.
Harcourt's comments are a welcome update to neoclassical orthodoxy, which has failed to give an explanation or policy reaction to mass incarceration. If one looks -- as Foucault would suggest -- at different enforcement techniques (physical punishment versus torts and fines) used within the different legal spheres (criminal versus civil); or if one looks at the historical specialization of those techniques across those legal spheres, one notices the world is a very different place than it used to be.
Today the market versus government distinction parallels the civil and criminal law. Contract enforcements are maintained by the civil law. Criminal laws are enforced by incarceration. These separate legal spheres were not always distinct, nor were their enforcement resources specialized. Originally there was no criminal law. Physical punishments, such as arrest and jailing, facilitated market exchanges and resolved civil disputes; afterwards a separate criminal law developed. Then physical punishments became more reserved to enforce against crime.
Harcourt argues the doctrine of natural law ushered this process, and led to problematic criminal justice outcomes. Alternatively, Foucault's historical perspective compliments an Austrian and Public Choice framework of political economy. Neither markets nor governments should be presumed to resolve each other's failures. The efficient-market hypothesis and traditional public goods theory both risk misguidance by illusion. Enforcement technology is an
important focus in so far as it affects the production and distribution of knowledge and incentives.
Austrian political economy emphasizes the distribution of economic knowledge throughout society. Governments differ from markets in how they produce and distribute economic knowledge -- who, what, how, when and where to make and distribute goods. Public Choice political economy emphasizes the incentives that affect rational choice. Bureaucracies produce systematically different incentives than do for-profit markets.
An Austro-Public Choice political economy insists upon the behavioral assumptions applied to governments and markets being symmetrical. Neither market nor government decision-makers are perfectly informed nor perfectly incentivized to accomplish goals. The subsidy and administration of criminal punishments yesterday and today appear not to be an exception.
Harcourt interprets history as a slight against the characterization of commerce as non-coercive. Foucault says markets are disciplinary. Though not emphasized by Harcourt, the inverse also seems true. The history of physical punishments within the market sphere weakens the characterization of governments as particularly necessary for optimal criminal punishment.
Presuming criminal punishment a public good may be just as illusionary.
When markets wielded physical punishments they appeared constrained from excess by the self-interests of disputants. Conflicts among traders were self-sorted for profit seekers. Punitive threats made compliance with financial and service court rulings more appealing. Contract violators were inclined to settle and civil plaintiffs sought tangible compensation for loss.
Contemporary criminal justice problems coincide with expanded market economies and decentralized government in the market sphere. An Austro-Public Choice perspective must reference how changes in knowledge and incentives yield such outcomes. On net federal government has grown, as has its role within the criminal justice system in conjunction with mass incarceration's disconcerting results.
Physical punishment has become relegated to the enforcement of criminal law. Though contrary to Harcourt's narrative, driven by the segregationist logic of natural law, this can be seen as driven by the self-interests of market and government actors. While market traders sought low cost and quantitatively predictable methods to resolve conflict, government capitalized as the monopoly provider of physical enforcements.
Today's greater quantities of physical enforcement are not deployed to enforce civil contracts or tort compliance. Drug and immigration violators occupy most new prison space, unlikely prohibited by contract law. Rather than necessary and sufficient, democracy has proven ineffective to correct the racial, generational, gender, and substance-abuse disproportionality of criminal sentencing. Policy makers have little incentive to change such policies and ordinary citizens lack the necessary knowledge to implement institutional reform.
Daniel J. D'Amico is the author of "The Prison in Economics: Private and Public Incarceration in Ancient Greece," in /Public Choice/. He is currently engaged in a long-term research project focused upon the political economy of mass incarceration.
Copyright (c) 2011 by EH.Net.
Published by EH.Net (April 2011). All EH.Net reviews are archived at http://www.eh.net/BookReview.
Geographic Location: General, International, or Comparative Subject: Government, Law and Regulation, Public Finance, History of Economic Thought; Methodology, Markets and Institutions
Time: General or Comparative
sexta-feira, 29 de abril de 2011
David Ricardo redivivo: uma aula sobre o livre comercio
Um livro fascinante (do site da Amazon):
The Choice: A Fable of Free Trade and Protection
Russell Roberts
Paperback: 144 pages
Publisher: Prentice Hall; 3 edition (October 8, 2006)
Language: English
ISBN-10: 0131433547
ISBN-13: 978-0131433540
Editorial Reviews
Written as a novel, the book makes the complex concepts, issues and terminology of international trade understandable for students. Professors complain that their students cannot grasp the nature of how some economic tools are used or how they work in life. This novel bridges the gap of concepts with applications by use of a fictional story.
David Ricardo comes to life to discuss international trade theory and policy with Ed Johnson, a fictional American television manufacturer seeking trade protection from television manufacturers. Their dialogue is a sophisticated, rigorous discussion of virtually every major issue in trade theory and policy. To illustrate the positive and normative effects of international trade and trade policy, Ricardo takes the reader and Ed Johnson into the future to see an America of free trade and an America of complete self-sufficiency. The fictional element brings these topics to life so that students gain the intuition and understanding of how trade changes the lives of people and the industries they work in. The fundamental intuition of how international markets function including general equilibrium effects and policy analysis is provided.
Wish "It's a Wonderful Life" were more like this
By Ryan Alger (U.S.A)
August 24, 2007
This review is from: The Choice: A Fable of Free Trade and Protection (3rd Edition) (Paperback)
I don't really consider this a work of fiction, and neither does the author. It is in a fiction format, but its primary purpose is to make the case against protectionism, and for free markets. Roberts does this beautifully, raising and dismissing almost every argument for protectionism, and doing this with charm, wit, and almost a complete lack of venom.
The story follows the time-traveling journey and conversation of Ed Johnson (a businessman looking for protection form Japanese competition) and his guardian angle David Ricardo (modeled after the little-known economist.) Together they travel to the future, back to the past, and through alternate timelines to demonstrate Robert's point.
Through this journey, Ricardo corrects some critical mistakes in economic theory; such as the `zero-sum theory', misconceptions on the nature of supply and demand, the role and meaning of wages and `real' wages, the mythical "dangers" of a trade deficit, what imports and exports really are, and most of all, dismisses the myth that trade with other countries hurts the American worker overall (which he admits, in a smaller sense, it sometimes does.)
The book takes some leaps of logic, which the author fully admits in the back of the book; such as the town of Star (Ed's hometown) being unchanged in the `protectionist' universe. These little plot devices are not meant to represent reality, but demonstrate more abstract points, in that sense, it is more like a metaphor.
Overall, the book makes one of the strongest cases ageists the practicality of protectionism that I have ever heard. He also fits some talk as to the moral case against it, that it is really an issue of freedom, and no one person has the right to force another in to a certain kind of behavior (A.K.A., buying American products) and that "America" is all about dreams and growth, something not very possible in the protectionist world
My only complaint would be that I wanted more elaboration on some sections of the `conversation'; such as the `dumping' segment. Robert's makes a good case that dumping is not really practical for anybody, that the `dumper' would have to make up for lost profits from lowering their prices. What I don't understand is....what if a company could cover their lost profits in profits from another product, or section of their company (Such as a department store lowering prices on televisions and allowing the produce-department to cover the loss.) I wish Robert's would have gone in to slightly more detail.
There are several section of the book like this; but I want to make clear is that Robert's never claims that this is the ultimate source for `anti-protectionist' arguments, he even suggests further reading in the back of the book, something all reasonable people should do if they are truly interested in understanding the complexities of economics.
I love Robert's style of writing, his books are not just informative, but entertaining, something very hard to achieve for this subject matter. The book was good enough that I ordered His other book, The Invisible Heart, form Amazon. After seeing what he did to It's a Wonderful life, I can't wait to see what he does for a romance novel.
How free trade benefits us all
By Janet K. Marta (Platte City, MO USA)
November 28, 2006
This review is from: The Choice: A Fable of Free Trade and Protection (3rd Edition) (Paperback)
This is the third edition of Roberts' novel about the benefits of free trade, using "It's a Wonderful Life" as his template. David Ricardo "touches down" from heaven to earth (like Clarence), to help convince Ed (George Bailey) that he should not support protectionism. The previous versions focused more on threats that were perceived from Japan and Nafta. Here, Roberts uses India and China as his examples.
To me, one of the most appealing things about Roberts' work is his honesty. He doesn't pretend that economic change doesn't hurt, but he also focuses on the benefits in the longer term. He writes in such a pleasant style that economics becomes accessible to people who are "math phobic."
His other book, The Invisible Heart, is at least as good as this one.
Free Trade made easy
By Zachary Palen (Minneapolis, MN, USA)
February 26, 2009
This review is from: The Choice: A Fable of Free Trade and Protection (3rd Edition) (Paperback)
A great narrative of Free Trade. Lays the argument in support for free trade out in one of the simplest ways it's hard not to understand this topic that so many have trouble understanding. The examples and story surrounding the benefits of free trade and the detriments of protectionism are kept simple, so one can understand the logic behind Free Trade. Sticks to the basics and stays away from the advanced theories behind International Trade and Economics, but still provides significant empirical evidence. Easy read and a great book.
Russell Roberts
Paperback: 144 pages
Publisher: Prentice Hall; 3 edition (October 8, 2006)
Language: English
ISBN-10: 0131433547
ISBN-13: 978-0131433540
Editorial Reviews
Written as a novel, the book makes the complex concepts, issues and terminology of international trade understandable for students. Professors complain that their students cannot grasp the nature of how some economic tools are used or how they work in life. This novel bridges the gap of concepts with applications by use of a fictional story.
David Ricardo comes to life to discuss international trade theory and policy with Ed Johnson, a fictional American television manufacturer seeking trade protection from television manufacturers. Their dialogue is a sophisticated, rigorous discussion of virtually every major issue in trade theory and policy. To illustrate the positive and normative effects of international trade and trade policy, Ricardo takes the reader and Ed Johnson into the future to see an America of free trade and an America of complete self-sufficiency. The fictional element brings these topics to life so that students gain the intuition and understanding of how trade changes the lives of people and the industries they work in. The fundamental intuition of how international markets function including general equilibrium effects and policy analysis is provided.
Wish "It's a Wonderful Life" were more like this
By Ryan Alger (U.S.A)
August 24, 2007
This review is from: The Choice: A Fable of Free Trade and Protection (3rd Edition) (Paperback)
I don't really consider this a work of fiction, and neither does the author. It is in a fiction format, but its primary purpose is to make the case against protectionism, and for free markets. Roberts does this beautifully, raising and dismissing almost every argument for protectionism, and doing this with charm, wit, and almost a complete lack of venom.
The story follows the time-traveling journey and conversation of Ed Johnson (a businessman looking for protection form Japanese competition) and his guardian angle David Ricardo (modeled after the little-known economist.) Together they travel to the future, back to the past, and through alternate timelines to demonstrate Robert's point.
Through this journey, Ricardo corrects some critical mistakes in economic theory; such as the `zero-sum theory', misconceptions on the nature of supply and demand, the role and meaning of wages and `real' wages, the mythical "dangers" of a trade deficit, what imports and exports really are, and most of all, dismisses the myth that trade with other countries hurts the American worker overall (which he admits, in a smaller sense, it sometimes does.)
The book takes some leaps of logic, which the author fully admits in the back of the book; such as the town of Star (Ed's hometown) being unchanged in the `protectionist' universe. These little plot devices are not meant to represent reality, but demonstrate more abstract points, in that sense, it is more like a metaphor.
Overall, the book makes one of the strongest cases ageists the practicality of protectionism that I have ever heard. He also fits some talk as to the moral case against it, that it is really an issue of freedom, and no one person has the right to force another in to a certain kind of behavior (A.K.A., buying American products) and that "America" is all about dreams and growth, something not very possible in the protectionist world
My only complaint would be that I wanted more elaboration on some sections of the `conversation'; such as the `dumping' segment. Robert's makes a good case that dumping is not really practical for anybody, that the `dumper' would have to make up for lost profits from lowering their prices. What I don't understand is....what if a company could cover their lost profits in profits from another product, or section of their company (Such as a department store lowering prices on televisions and allowing the produce-department to cover the loss.) I wish Robert's would have gone in to slightly more detail.
There are several section of the book like this; but I want to make clear is that Robert's never claims that this is the ultimate source for `anti-protectionist' arguments, he even suggests further reading in the back of the book, something all reasonable people should do if they are truly interested in understanding the complexities of economics.
I love Robert's style of writing, his books are not just informative, but entertaining, something very hard to achieve for this subject matter. The book was good enough that I ordered His other book, The Invisible Heart, form Amazon. After seeing what he did to It's a Wonderful life, I can't wait to see what he does for a romance novel.
How free trade benefits us all
By Janet K. Marta (Platte City, MO USA)
November 28, 2006
This review is from: The Choice: A Fable of Free Trade and Protection (3rd Edition) (Paperback)
This is the third edition of Roberts' novel about the benefits of free trade, using "It's a Wonderful Life" as his template. David Ricardo "touches down" from heaven to earth (like Clarence), to help convince Ed (George Bailey) that he should not support protectionism. The previous versions focused more on threats that were perceived from Japan and Nafta. Here, Roberts uses India and China as his examples.
To me, one of the most appealing things about Roberts' work is his honesty. He doesn't pretend that economic change doesn't hurt, but he also focuses on the benefits in the longer term. He writes in such a pleasant style that economics becomes accessible to people who are "math phobic."
His other book, The Invisible Heart, is at least as good as this one.
Free Trade made easy
By Zachary Palen (Minneapolis, MN, USA)
February 26, 2009
This review is from: The Choice: A Fable of Free Trade and Protection (3rd Edition) (Paperback)
A great narrative of Free Trade. Lays the argument in support for free trade out in one of the simplest ways it's hard not to understand this topic that so many have trouble understanding. The examples and story surrounding the benefits of free trade and the detriments of protectionism are kept simple, so one can understand the logic behind Free Trade. Sticks to the basics and stays away from the advanced theories behind International Trade and Economics, but still provides significant empirical evidence. Easy read and a great book.
Ainda Hayek, desta vez contra Keynes (second round)
Todo mundo (ou quase) já teve oportunidade de assistir ao primeiro embate entre Keynes e Hayek, um rap genial, já postado aqui, inclusive com excelente introdução do Instituto Mises do Brasil.
Neste link: http://diplomatizzando.blogspot.com/2010/04/2105-keynes-vs-hayek-ou-vice-versa-um.html
Agora aparece o segundo round (ao qual ainda não assisti, mas vou fazê-lo agora).
Está anunciado no New York Times:
Keynes vs. Hayek: The Fight of the Century
By THE NEW YORK TIMES, April 28, 2011, 6:29 PM
Round 2 of the great economics smackdown is now available on video. In the impressively produced rap video “Fight of the Century” by the economist Russ Roberts and the producer and director John Papola, Friedrich Hayek and John Maynard Keynes square off to argue over such questions as whether the government should spent less or more, the source of prosperity, and whether war or natural disasters be a blessing in disguise. (Part 1 came out last year.)
In the latest installment, Keynes raps:
It’s just like an engine that’s stalled and gone dark
To bring it to life, we need a quick spark
Spending’s the life blood that gets the flow going
Where it goes doesn’t matter, just get spending flowing
And Hayek responds:
You see slack in some sectors as a “general glut”
But some sectors are healthy, and some in a rut
So spending’s not free – that’s the heart of the matter
Too much is wasted as cronies get fatter.
Will there be a Round 3? In a conversation about the project, Mr. Roberts, an economist at George Mason University, didn’t rule it out.
Q. Where did the idea for the video come?
Mr. Roberts: John Papola, the filmmaker who works with me on these, approached me about two and a half years ago and said ‘Let’s do a video together.” He heard my podcasts and is an economics geek. I said “What for?” But then we talked about it.
Read more here: http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/04/28/keynes-vs-hayek-a-rap-battle-renewed/#more-110279
Tem também a presença dos dois num encontro da Economist, nos EUA, no ano passado.
Vejam este link no meu blog:
http://diplomatizzando.blogspot.com/2010/11/hayek-e-keynes-de-volta-ao-palco-o.html
Neste link: http://diplomatizzando.blogspot.com/2010/04/2105-keynes-vs-hayek-ou-vice-versa-um.html
Agora aparece o segundo round (ao qual ainda não assisti, mas vou fazê-lo agora).
Está anunciado no New York Times:
Keynes vs. Hayek: The Fight of the Century
By THE NEW YORK TIMES, April 28, 2011, 6:29 PM
Round 2 of the great economics smackdown is now available on video. In the impressively produced rap video “Fight of the Century” by the economist Russ Roberts and the producer and director John Papola, Friedrich Hayek and John Maynard Keynes square off to argue over such questions as whether the government should spent less or more, the source of prosperity, and whether war or natural disasters be a blessing in disguise. (Part 1 came out last year.)
In the latest installment, Keynes raps:
It’s just like an engine that’s stalled and gone dark
To bring it to life, we need a quick spark
Spending’s the life blood that gets the flow going
Where it goes doesn’t matter, just get spending flowing
And Hayek responds:
You see slack in some sectors as a “general glut”
But some sectors are healthy, and some in a rut
So spending’s not free – that’s the heart of the matter
Too much is wasted as cronies get fatter.
Will there be a Round 3? In a conversation about the project, Mr. Roberts, an economist at George Mason University, didn’t rule it out.
Q. Where did the idea for the video come?
Mr. Roberts: John Papola, the filmmaker who works with me on these, approached me about two and a half years ago and said ‘Let’s do a video together.” He heard my podcasts and is an economics geek. I said “What for?” But then we talked about it.
Read more here: http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/04/28/keynes-vs-hayek-a-rap-battle-renewed/#more-110279
Tem também a presença dos dois num encontro da Economist, nos EUA, no ano passado.
Vejam este link no meu blog:
http://diplomatizzando.blogspot.com/2010/11/hayek-e-keynes-de-volta-ao-palco-o.html
Retrocede Brasil (7): Marx 10 x Hayek 1 (nas academias, claro...)
Outro dia fui dar aulas numa universidade pública, o que já não faço mais há algum tempo (no máximo concedo participar de algumas bancas de mestrado ou doutorado, se as teses são suficientemente interessantes).
Quando me convidam para aulas regulares, digo que estou muito bem onde estou atualmente.
E é verdade: garagem coberta, ambiente tranquilo, café expresso ou capuccino à vontade, limpeza ambiente (os alunos dispõem de banheiros limpos, por exemplo), todas as salas equipadas com computador e projetor, silêncio e tranquilidade, enfim, as bibliotecas não são como as dos campii americanos, mas está bastante bem assim.
Na tal de universidade pública precisei encomendar expressamente os equipamentos de auxílio, tive de deixar o carro no sol, temeroso de que algum assaltante mal acostumado com o ambiente "laxista" das universidades públicas m'o levasse no meio da aula, e o barulho era garantido: não apenas dos alunos continuamente falando algo no corredor, mas também dos professores nas salas ao lado, sem qualquer isolamento acústico. Não tinha ar condicionado, obviamente, assim que as janelas precisavam ficar abertas. Duas vezes no meio da aula, passou a caravana da máfia sindical pregando não sei qual protesto contra a precarização da universidade e reclamando a efetivação de terceirizados (talvez sem concurso, isso não pude perceber).
Não creio que aceite mais convites assim; prefiro ficar na minha particular.
Enfim, esta introdução para dizer que, a exemplo das academias ocidentais, o marxismo também é muito difundido entre nós, e talvez até mais.
Coloquei Marx dez a um contra Hayek no título, mas acho que exagerei: deve ser 20 a 0,5, no máximo.
E ainda se fosse Marx, estaria bem, o problema é que não é, e sim uma vulgata mal resumida de alguns autores ignorantes que só conhecem Marx de orelha.
O Brasil retrocede, entre outros motivos, por causa disso mesmo: as pessoas não leram Marx, e sobretudo não refletiram sobre o que ele falou e não confrontaram seus dizeres com a realidade.
Vamos ver o que a respeitável Economist tem a dizer sobre a economia marxista, acadêmica...
Paulo Roberto de Almeida
Marx's intellectual legacy
Marx after communism
The Economist, December 19th, 2002
As a system of government, communism is dead or dying. As a system of ideas, its future looks secure
WHEN Soviet communism fell apart towards the end of the 20th century, nobody could say that it had failed on a technicality. A more comprehensive or ignominious collapse—moral, material and intellectual—would be difficult to imagine. Communism had tyrannised and impoverished its subjects, and slaughtered them in the tens of millions. For decades past, in the Soviet Union and its satellite countries, any allusion to the avowed aims of communist doctrine—equality, freedom from exploitation, true justice—had provoked only bitter laughter. Finally, when the monuments were torn down, statues of Karl Marx were defaced as contemptuously as those of Lenin and Stalin. Communism was repudiated as theory and as practice; its champions were cast aside, intellectual founders and sociopathic rulers alike.
People in the West, their judgment not impaired by having lived in the system Marx inspired, mostly came to a more dispassionate view. Marx had been misunderstood, they tended to feel. The communism of Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union was a perversion of his thought. What happened in those benighted lands would have appalled Marx as much as it appals us. It has no bearing on the validity of his ideas.
Indeed, it is suggested, Marx was right about a good many things—about a lot of what is wrong with capitalism, for instance, about globalisation and international markets, about the business cycle, about the way economics shapes ideas. Marx was prescient; that word keeps coming up. By all means discard communism as practised in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe (and China, North Korea, Cuba and in fact wherever it has been practised). But please don't discard Marx.
Give the man his due
There seems little risk of it. In 1999 the BBC conducted a series of polls, asking people to name the greatest men and women of the millennium. In October of that year, within a few weeks of the tenth anniversary of the dismantling of the Berlin Wall, the BBC declared the people's choice for “greatest thinker”. It was Karl Marx. Einstein was runner-up, Newton and Darwin third and fourth, respectively. “Although dictatorships throughout the 20th century have distorted [Marx's] original ideas,” the state-financed broadcaster noted, “his work as a philosopher, social scientist, historian and a revolutionary is respected by academics today.” Concerning the second point, at least, the BBC was correct: Marx is still accorded respect.
As a field of scholarship in its own right, admittedly, Marxist political and economic theory is past its peak. By now, presumably, most of the things that Marx meant, or really meant, or probably meant, or might conceivably have meant, have been posited and adequately (though far from conclusively) debated. But a slackening of activity amid the staggeringly voluminous primary sources is not the best measure of Marx's enduring intellectual influence.
Books on Marx aimed at undergraduates and non-specialists continue to sell steadily in Western Europe and the United States. And new ones keep coming. For instance, Verso has just published, to warm reviews, “Marx's Revenge” by Meghnad Desai, a professor of economics at the London School of Economics. Mr Desai argues that Marx was misunderstood and that the great man was right about far more than he is given credit for. In August, Oxford University Press published “Why Read Marx Today?” by Jonathan Wolff. It too is an engaging read. The author, a professor at University College London, is a particularly skilful elucidator of political philosophy. In his book, he argues that Marx was misunderstood and that the great man was right about far more than he is given credit for.
The newly released memoirs of Eric Hobsbawm, the celebrated historian, lifelong Marxist and unrepentant member of the Communist Party for as long as it survived, also deserve mention. The reviews were mixed, in fact, but rarely less than respectful, finding much to admire in the author's unwavering intellectual commitment. Mr Hobsbawm argues...well, he argues that Marx was misunderstood and that the great man was right about far more than he is given credit for.
Adam Smith, one might say, stands in relation to liberal capitalism, a comparatively successful economic order, roughly where Marx stands in relation to socialism. Searches on Amazon.com and other booksellers indicate that titles in print about Marx outnumber books about Adam Smith by a factor of between five and ten. A hard day's browsing of undergraduate reading-lists suggests that, in economics faculties, Smith is way out in front—interesting, given that Marx saw himself as an economist first and foremost. Elsewhere in the social sciences and humanities, the reverse is true. Smith is rarely seen, as you might expect, though in fact there is far more in Smith than just economics; whereas from Marx and his expositors and disciples it seems there is no escape. It is the breadth of Marx's continuing influence, especially as contrasted with his strange irrelevance to modern economics, that is so arresting.
How is one to explain this? What, if anything, remains valuable in Marx's writings? This is not a straightforward question, given that he evidently had such difficulty making himself understood.
Yes, Marx was a Marxist
When he wanted to be, Marx was a compelling writer, punching out first-rate epigrams at a reckless pace. The closing sentences of “The Communist Manifesto” (1848) are rightly celebrated: “The workers have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to gain. Workers of the world, unite.” He also had an enviable flair for hysterical invective. At one point in “Capital” (1867-94), he famously defines the subject of his enquiry as “dead labour, that, vampire-like, only lives by sucking living labour, and lives the more, the more labour it sucks.” That is not only unforgettable but actually very apt, if you believe Marx's theory of value. He could express himself brilliantly when he chose to.
In his “scientific” work, he minted jargon at a befuddling rate
Yet he was also capable of stupefying dullness and impenetrable complexity. Try the opening pages of “Capital” (it picks up later). In his scientific work, as he called it, he minted jargon at a befuddling rate, underlining terms to emphasise their opacity, then changing their meaning at will. Adding to the fog, what Marx believed in 1844 was probably not what he believed in 1874: the only constant was his conviction that what he said at any time was both the absolute truth and fully consistent with what he had said before. And most of the published Marx, including the “Manifesto” and volumes two and three of “Capital”, was edited, co-written or ghost written by Friedrich Engels. For many years, therefore, separating Marx from Engels in what the world understands as “Marx” was an academic industry in itself.
Still, four things seem crucial, and most of the rest follows from these. First, Marx believed that societies follow laws of motion simple and all-encompassing enough to make long-range prediction fruitful. Second, he believed that these laws are exclusively economic in character: what shapes society, the only thing that shapes society, is the “material forces of production”. Third, he believed that these laws must invariably express themselves, until the end of history, as a bitter struggle of class against class. Fourth, he believed that at the end of history, classes and the state (whose sole purpose is to represent the interests of the ruling class) must dissolve to yield a heaven on earth.
Titles in print about Marx outnumber books about Adam Smith by a factor of between five and ten.
From Marx and his expositors, there is no escape
In what ways, then, was Soviet-style communism a deviation from these beliefs, as modern western commentators like to argue? Chiefly, it is said that Russia jumped the gun (forgive the expression). According to Marx's laws of motion, society is supposed to progress from feudalism to capitalism at just that point when feudalism fetters the forces of production, rather than serving them, as it has up to that moment. Later, capitalism gives way in turn to socialism, the dictatorship of the proletariat, and in much the same way—once its productive potential has been fully achieved, so that henceforth its continued existence is an obstacle to material sufficiency rather than a means to it. But Russia went straight from feudalism to socialism. This was too quick. Marx could have told Lenin that it would never work.
Is this really what he would have said? There is no doubt that Lenin saw himself as a true follower of Marx—and he had every reason to. By the end of the 19th century, socialist thought was dividing. Marx's laws of motion were failing. Capitalism still flourished: no sign of the falling rate of profit that would signal its end. The working class was getting the vote. The welfare state was taking shape. Factory conditions were improving and wages were rising well above the floor of subsistence. All this was contrary to Marx's laws.
In response, the left was splitting. On one side were reformers and social democrats who saw that capitalism could be given a human face. On the other were those who believed that Marx's system could be developed and restated, always true to its underlying logic—and, crucially, with its revolutionary as opposed to evolutionary character brought to the fore.
Marx's incapacity for compromise was pathological
Whose side in this would Marx have been on? Revolution or reform? Would he have continued to insist that the vampire be destroyed? Or would he have turned reformer, asking it nicely to suck a bit less blood? The latter seems unlikely. Marx was a scholar, but he was also a fanatic and a revolutionary. His incapacity for compromise (with comrades, let alone opponents) was pathological. And in the preface to the 1882 Russian edition of the “Manifesto”, his last published writing, Marx hoped that a revolution in Russia might become “the signal for a proletarian revolution in the West, so that both complement each other”; if so, Russia, despite its pre-capitalist characteristics, “may serve as the starting-point for a communist development.” Lenin was surely right to believe that he, not those soft-headed bourgeois accommodationists, was true to the master's thought.
Apart from the gulag
Even if Soviet communism was true to Marx's ideas, or tried to be, that would not condemn all of Marx's thinking. He might still have been right about some things, possibly even the main things.
Aspects of his thought do impress. However, his assorted sayings about the reach of the global market—a favourite proof that “Marx was prescient”—are not in fact the best examples. The 19th century was an era of globalisation, and Marx was only one of very many who noticed. The accelerating global integration of the past 30 years merely resumes a trend that was vigorously in place during Marx's lifetime, and which was subsequently interrupted in 1914.
Marx was much more original in envisaging the awesome productive power of capitalism. He saw that capitalism would spur innovation to a hitherto-unimagined degree. He was right that giant corporations would come to dominate the world's industries (though not quite in the way he meant). He rightly underlined the importance of economic cycles (though his accounts of their causes and consequences were wrong).
The central paradox that Marx emphasised—namely, that its own colossal productivity would bring capitalism to its knees, by making socialism followed by communism both materially possible and logically necessary—turned out to be false. Still, Marx could fairly lay claim to having sensed more clearly than others how far capitalism would change the material conditions of the world. And this in turn reflects something else that demands at least a grudging respect: the amazing reach and ambition of his thinking.
On everything that mattered most to Marx himself, he was wrong
But the fact remains that on everything that mattered most to Marx himself, he was wrong. The real power he claimed for his system was predictive, and his main predictions are hopeless failures. Concerning the outlook for capitalism, one can always argue that he was wrong only in his timing: in the end, when capitalism has run its course, he will be proved right. Put in such a form, this argument, like many other apologies for Marx, has the advantage of being impossible to falsify. But that does not make it plausible. The trouble is, it leaves out class. This is a wise omission, because class is an idea which has become blurred to the point of meaninglessness. Class antagonism, though, is indispensable to the Marxist world-view. Without it, even if capitalism succumbs to stagnation or decline, the mechanism for its overthrow is missing.
Class war is the sine qua non of Marx. But the class war, if it ever existed, is over. In western democracies today, who chooses who rules, and for how long? Who tells governments how companies will be regulated? Who in the end owns the companies? Workers for hire—the proletariat. And this is because of, not despite, the things Marx most deplored: private property, liberal political rights and the market. Where it mattered most, Marx could not have been more wrong.
Right in principle
Yet Marxist thinking retains great influence far beyond the dwindling number who proclaim themselves to be Marxists. The labour theory of value and the rest of Marx's economic apparatus may be so much intellectual scrap, but many of his assumptions, analytical traits and habits of thought are widespread in western academia and beyond.
The core idea that economic structure determines everything has been especially pernicious. According to this view, the right to private property, for instance, exists only because it serves bourgeois relations of production. The same can be said for every other right or civil liberty one finds in society. The idea that such rights have a deeper moral underpinning is an illusion. Morality itself is an illusion, just another weapon of the ruling class. (As Gyorgy Lukacs put it, “Communist ethics makes it the highest duty to act wickedly...This is the greatest sacrifice revolution asks from us.”) Human agency is null: we are mere dupes of “the system”, until we repudiate it outright.
What goes for ethics also goes for history, literature, the rest of the humanities and the social sciences. The “late Marxist” sees them all, as traditionally understood, not as subjects for disinterested intellectual inquiry but as forms of social control. Never ask what a painter, playwright, architect or philosopher thought he was doing. You know before you even glance at his work what he was really doing: shoring up the ruling class. This mindset has made deep inroads—most notoriously in literary studies, but not just there—in university departments and on campuses across Western Europe and especially in the United States. The result is a withering away not of the state but of opportunities for intelligent conversation and of confidence that young people might receive a decent liberal education.
Marxist thinking is also deeply Utopian—another influential trait. The “Communist Manifesto”, despite the title, was not a programme for government: it was a programme for gaining power, or rather for watching knowledgeably as power fell into one's hands. That is, it was a commentary on the defects and dynamics of capitalism. Nowhere in the “Manifesto”, or anywhere else in his writings, did Marx take the trouble to describe how the communism he predicted and advocated would actually work.
Marx's theory of cattle
He did once say this much: “In communist society, where nobody has one exclusive sphere of activity...society regulates the general production and thus makes it possible for me to do one thing today and another tomorrow, to hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticise after dinner, just as I have in mind, without ever becoming hunter, herdsman or critic.” Whether cattle would be content to be reared only in the evening, or just as people had in mind, is one of many questions one would wish to see treated at greater length. But this cartoon is almost all Marx ever said about communism in practice. The rest has to be deduced, as an absence of things he deplored about capitalism: inequality, exploitation, alienation, private property and so forth.
It is striking that today's militant critics of globalisation, whether declared Marxists or otherwise, proceed in much the same way. They present no worked-out alternative to the present economic order. Instead, they invoke a Utopia free of environmental stress, social injustice and branded sportswear, harking back to a pre-industrial golden age that did not actually exist. Never is this alternative future given clear shape or offered up for examination.
Anti-globalists have inherited plenty from Marx
And anti-globalists have inherited more from Marx besides this. Note the self-righteous anger, the violent rhetoric, the willing resort to actual violence (in response to the “violence” of the other side), the demonisation of big business, the division of the world into exploiters and victims, the contempt for piecemeal reform, the zeal for activism, the impatience with democracy, the disdain for liberal “rights” and “freedoms”, the suspicion of compromise, the presumption of hypocrisy (or childish naivety) in arguments that defend the market order.
Anti-globalism has been aptly described as a secular religion. So is Marxism: a creed complete with prophet, sacred texts and the promise of a heaven shrouded in mystery. Marx was not a scientist, as he claimed. He founded a faith. The economic and political systems he inspired are dead or dying. But his religion is a broad church, and lives on.
Quando me convidam para aulas regulares, digo que estou muito bem onde estou atualmente.
E é verdade: garagem coberta, ambiente tranquilo, café expresso ou capuccino à vontade, limpeza ambiente (os alunos dispõem de banheiros limpos, por exemplo), todas as salas equipadas com computador e projetor, silêncio e tranquilidade, enfim, as bibliotecas não são como as dos campii americanos, mas está bastante bem assim.
Na tal de universidade pública precisei encomendar expressamente os equipamentos de auxílio, tive de deixar o carro no sol, temeroso de que algum assaltante mal acostumado com o ambiente "laxista" das universidades públicas m'o levasse no meio da aula, e o barulho era garantido: não apenas dos alunos continuamente falando algo no corredor, mas também dos professores nas salas ao lado, sem qualquer isolamento acústico. Não tinha ar condicionado, obviamente, assim que as janelas precisavam ficar abertas. Duas vezes no meio da aula, passou a caravana da máfia sindical pregando não sei qual protesto contra a precarização da universidade e reclamando a efetivação de terceirizados (talvez sem concurso, isso não pude perceber).
Não creio que aceite mais convites assim; prefiro ficar na minha particular.
Enfim, esta introdução para dizer que, a exemplo das academias ocidentais, o marxismo também é muito difundido entre nós, e talvez até mais.
Coloquei Marx dez a um contra Hayek no título, mas acho que exagerei: deve ser 20 a 0,5, no máximo.
E ainda se fosse Marx, estaria bem, o problema é que não é, e sim uma vulgata mal resumida de alguns autores ignorantes que só conhecem Marx de orelha.
O Brasil retrocede, entre outros motivos, por causa disso mesmo: as pessoas não leram Marx, e sobretudo não refletiram sobre o que ele falou e não confrontaram seus dizeres com a realidade.
Vamos ver o que a respeitável Economist tem a dizer sobre a economia marxista, acadêmica...
Paulo Roberto de Almeida
Marx's intellectual legacy
Marx after communism
The Economist, December 19th, 2002
As a system of government, communism is dead or dying. As a system of ideas, its future looks secure
WHEN Soviet communism fell apart towards the end of the 20th century, nobody could say that it had failed on a technicality. A more comprehensive or ignominious collapse—moral, material and intellectual—would be difficult to imagine. Communism had tyrannised and impoverished its subjects, and slaughtered them in the tens of millions. For decades past, in the Soviet Union and its satellite countries, any allusion to the avowed aims of communist doctrine—equality, freedom from exploitation, true justice—had provoked only bitter laughter. Finally, when the monuments were torn down, statues of Karl Marx were defaced as contemptuously as those of Lenin and Stalin. Communism was repudiated as theory and as practice; its champions were cast aside, intellectual founders and sociopathic rulers alike.
People in the West, their judgment not impaired by having lived in the system Marx inspired, mostly came to a more dispassionate view. Marx had been misunderstood, they tended to feel. The communism of Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union was a perversion of his thought. What happened in those benighted lands would have appalled Marx as much as it appals us. It has no bearing on the validity of his ideas.
Indeed, it is suggested, Marx was right about a good many things—about a lot of what is wrong with capitalism, for instance, about globalisation and international markets, about the business cycle, about the way economics shapes ideas. Marx was prescient; that word keeps coming up. By all means discard communism as practised in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe (and China, North Korea, Cuba and in fact wherever it has been practised). But please don't discard Marx.
Give the man his due
There seems little risk of it. In 1999 the BBC conducted a series of polls, asking people to name the greatest men and women of the millennium. In October of that year, within a few weeks of the tenth anniversary of the dismantling of the Berlin Wall, the BBC declared the people's choice for “greatest thinker”. It was Karl Marx. Einstein was runner-up, Newton and Darwin third and fourth, respectively. “Although dictatorships throughout the 20th century have distorted [Marx's] original ideas,” the state-financed broadcaster noted, “his work as a philosopher, social scientist, historian and a revolutionary is respected by academics today.” Concerning the second point, at least, the BBC was correct: Marx is still accorded respect.
As a field of scholarship in its own right, admittedly, Marxist political and economic theory is past its peak. By now, presumably, most of the things that Marx meant, or really meant, or probably meant, or might conceivably have meant, have been posited and adequately (though far from conclusively) debated. But a slackening of activity amid the staggeringly voluminous primary sources is not the best measure of Marx's enduring intellectual influence.
Books on Marx aimed at undergraduates and non-specialists continue to sell steadily in Western Europe and the United States. And new ones keep coming. For instance, Verso has just published, to warm reviews, “Marx's Revenge” by Meghnad Desai, a professor of economics at the London School of Economics. Mr Desai argues that Marx was misunderstood and that the great man was right about far more than he is given credit for. In August, Oxford University Press published “Why Read Marx Today?” by Jonathan Wolff. It too is an engaging read. The author, a professor at University College London, is a particularly skilful elucidator of political philosophy. In his book, he argues that Marx was misunderstood and that the great man was right about far more than he is given credit for.
The newly released memoirs of Eric Hobsbawm, the celebrated historian, lifelong Marxist and unrepentant member of the Communist Party for as long as it survived, also deserve mention. The reviews were mixed, in fact, but rarely less than respectful, finding much to admire in the author's unwavering intellectual commitment. Mr Hobsbawm argues...well, he argues that Marx was misunderstood and that the great man was right about far more than he is given credit for.
Adam Smith, one might say, stands in relation to liberal capitalism, a comparatively successful economic order, roughly where Marx stands in relation to socialism. Searches on Amazon.com and other booksellers indicate that titles in print about Marx outnumber books about Adam Smith by a factor of between five and ten. A hard day's browsing of undergraduate reading-lists suggests that, in economics faculties, Smith is way out in front—interesting, given that Marx saw himself as an economist first and foremost. Elsewhere in the social sciences and humanities, the reverse is true. Smith is rarely seen, as you might expect, though in fact there is far more in Smith than just economics; whereas from Marx and his expositors and disciples it seems there is no escape. It is the breadth of Marx's continuing influence, especially as contrasted with his strange irrelevance to modern economics, that is so arresting.
How is one to explain this? What, if anything, remains valuable in Marx's writings? This is not a straightforward question, given that he evidently had such difficulty making himself understood.
Yes, Marx was a Marxist
When he wanted to be, Marx was a compelling writer, punching out first-rate epigrams at a reckless pace. The closing sentences of “The Communist Manifesto” (1848) are rightly celebrated: “The workers have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to gain. Workers of the world, unite.” He also had an enviable flair for hysterical invective. At one point in “Capital” (1867-94), he famously defines the subject of his enquiry as “dead labour, that, vampire-like, only lives by sucking living labour, and lives the more, the more labour it sucks.” That is not only unforgettable but actually very apt, if you believe Marx's theory of value. He could express himself brilliantly when he chose to.
In his “scientific” work, he minted jargon at a befuddling rate
Yet he was also capable of stupefying dullness and impenetrable complexity. Try the opening pages of “Capital” (it picks up later). In his scientific work, as he called it, he minted jargon at a befuddling rate, underlining terms to emphasise their opacity, then changing their meaning at will. Adding to the fog, what Marx believed in 1844 was probably not what he believed in 1874: the only constant was his conviction that what he said at any time was both the absolute truth and fully consistent with what he had said before. And most of the published Marx, including the “Manifesto” and volumes two and three of “Capital”, was edited, co-written or ghost written by Friedrich Engels. For many years, therefore, separating Marx from Engels in what the world understands as “Marx” was an academic industry in itself.
Still, four things seem crucial, and most of the rest follows from these. First, Marx believed that societies follow laws of motion simple and all-encompassing enough to make long-range prediction fruitful. Second, he believed that these laws are exclusively economic in character: what shapes society, the only thing that shapes society, is the “material forces of production”. Third, he believed that these laws must invariably express themselves, until the end of history, as a bitter struggle of class against class. Fourth, he believed that at the end of history, classes and the state (whose sole purpose is to represent the interests of the ruling class) must dissolve to yield a heaven on earth.
Titles in print about Marx outnumber books about Adam Smith by a factor of between five and ten.
From Marx and his expositors, there is no escape
In what ways, then, was Soviet-style communism a deviation from these beliefs, as modern western commentators like to argue? Chiefly, it is said that Russia jumped the gun (forgive the expression). According to Marx's laws of motion, society is supposed to progress from feudalism to capitalism at just that point when feudalism fetters the forces of production, rather than serving them, as it has up to that moment. Later, capitalism gives way in turn to socialism, the dictatorship of the proletariat, and in much the same way—once its productive potential has been fully achieved, so that henceforth its continued existence is an obstacle to material sufficiency rather than a means to it. But Russia went straight from feudalism to socialism. This was too quick. Marx could have told Lenin that it would never work.
Is this really what he would have said? There is no doubt that Lenin saw himself as a true follower of Marx—and he had every reason to. By the end of the 19th century, socialist thought was dividing. Marx's laws of motion were failing. Capitalism still flourished: no sign of the falling rate of profit that would signal its end. The working class was getting the vote. The welfare state was taking shape. Factory conditions were improving and wages were rising well above the floor of subsistence. All this was contrary to Marx's laws.
In response, the left was splitting. On one side were reformers and social democrats who saw that capitalism could be given a human face. On the other were those who believed that Marx's system could be developed and restated, always true to its underlying logic—and, crucially, with its revolutionary as opposed to evolutionary character brought to the fore.
Marx's incapacity for compromise was pathological
Whose side in this would Marx have been on? Revolution or reform? Would he have continued to insist that the vampire be destroyed? Or would he have turned reformer, asking it nicely to suck a bit less blood? The latter seems unlikely. Marx was a scholar, but he was also a fanatic and a revolutionary. His incapacity for compromise (with comrades, let alone opponents) was pathological. And in the preface to the 1882 Russian edition of the “Manifesto”, his last published writing, Marx hoped that a revolution in Russia might become “the signal for a proletarian revolution in the West, so that both complement each other”; if so, Russia, despite its pre-capitalist characteristics, “may serve as the starting-point for a communist development.” Lenin was surely right to believe that he, not those soft-headed bourgeois accommodationists, was true to the master's thought.
Apart from the gulag
Even if Soviet communism was true to Marx's ideas, or tried to be, that would not condemn all of Marx's thinking. He might still have been right about some things, possibly even the main things.
Aspects of his thought do impress. However, his assorted sayings about the reach of the global market—a favourite proof that “Marx was prescient”—are not in fact the best examples. The 19th century was an era of globalisation, and Marx was only one of very many who noticed. The accelerating global integration of the past 30 years merely resumes a trend that was vigorously in place during Marx's lifetime, and which was subsequently interrupted in 1914.
Marx was much more original in envisaging the awesome productive power of capitalism. He saw that capitalism would spur innovation to a hitherto-unimagined degree. He was right that giant corporations would come to dominate the world's industries (though not quite in the way he meant). He rightly underlined the importance of economic cycles (though his accounts of their causes and consequences were wrong).
The central paradox that Marx emphasised—namely, that its own colossal productivity would bring capitalism to its knees, by making socialism followed by communism both materially possible and logically necessary—turned out to be false. Still, Marx could fairly lay claim to having sensed more clearly than others how far capitalism would change the material conditions of the world. And this in turn reflects something else that demands at least a grudging respect: the amazing reach and ambition of his thinking.
On everything that mattered most to Marx himself, he was wrong
But the fact remains that on everything that mattered most to Marx himself, he was wrong. The real power he claimed for his system was predictive, and his main predictions are hopeless failures. Concerning the outlook for capitalism, one can always argue that he was wrong only in his timing: in the end, when capitalism has run its course, he will be proved right. Put in such a form, this argument, like many other apologies for Marx, has the advantage of being impossible to falsify. But that does not make it plausible. The trouble is, it leaves out class. This is a wise omission, because class is an idea which has become blurred to the point of meaninglessness. Class antagonism, though, is indispensable to the Marxist world-view. Without it, even if capitalism succumbs to stagnation or decline, the mechanism for its overthrow is missing.
Class war is the sine qua non of Marx. But the class war, if it ever existed, is over. In western democracies today, who chooses who rules, and for how long? Who tells governments how companies will be regulated? Who in the end owns the companies? Workers for hire—the proletariat. And this is because of, not despite, the things Marx most deplored: private property, liberal political rights and the market. Where it mattered most, Marx could not have been more wrong.
Right in principle
Yet Marxist thinking retains great influence far beyond the dwindling number who proclaim themselves to be Marxists. The labour theory of value and the rest of Marx's economic apparatus may be so much intellectual scrap, but many of his assumptions, analytical traits and habits of thought are widespread in western academia and beyond.
The core idea that economic structure determines everything has been especially pernicious. According to this view, the right to private property, for instance, exists only because it serves bourgeois relations of production. The same can be said for every other right or civil liberty one finds in society. The idea that such rights have a deeper moral underpinning is an illusion. Morality itself is an illusion, just another weapon of the ruling class. (As Gyorgy Lukacs put it, “Communist ethics makes it the highest duty to act wickedly...This is the greatest sacrifice revolution asks from us.”) Human agency is null: we are mere dupes of “the system”, until we repudiate it outright.
What goes for ethics also goes for history, literature, the rest of the humanities and the social sciences. The “late Marxist” sees them all, as traditionally understood, not as subjects for disinterested intellectual inquiry but as forms of social control. Never ask what a painter, playwright, architect or philosopher thought he was doing. You know before you even glance at his work what he was really doing: shoring up the ruling class. This mindset has made deep inroads—most notoriously in literary studies, but not just there—in university departments and on campuses across Western Europe and especially in the United States. The result is a withering away not of the state but of opportunities for intelligent conversation and of confidence that young people might receive a decent liberal education.
Marxist thinking is also deeply Utopian—another influential trait. The “Communist Manifesto”, despite the title, was not a programme for government: it was a programme for gaining power, or rather for watching knowledgeably as power fell into one's hands. That is, it was a commentary on the defects and dynamics of capitalism. Nowhere in the “Manifesto”, or anywhere else in his writings, did Marx take the trouble to describe how the communism he predicted and advocated would actually work.
Marx's theory of cattle
He did once say this much: “In communist society, where nobody has one exclusive sphere of activity...society regulates the general production and thus makes it possible for me to do one thing today and another tomorrow, to hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticise after dinner, just as I have in mind, without ever becoming hunter, herdsman or critic.” Whether cattle would be content to be reared only in the evening, or just as people had in mind, is one of many questions one would wish to see treated at greater length. But this cartoon is almost all Marx ever said about communism in practice. The rest has to be deduced, as an absence of things he deplored about capitalism: inequality, exploitation, alienation, private property and so forth.
It is striking that today's militant critics of globalisation, whether declared Marxists or otherwise, proceed in much the same way. They present no worked-out alternative to the present economic order. Instead, they invoke a Utopia free of environmental stress, social injustice and branded sportswear, harking back to a pre-industrial golden age that did not actually exist. Never is this alternative future given clear shape or offered up for examination.
Anti-globalists have inherited plenty from Marx
And anti-globalists have inherited more from Marx besides this. Note the self-righteous anger, the violent rhetoric, the willing resort to actual violence (in response to the “violence” of the other side), the demonisation of big business, the division of the world into exploiters and victims, the contempt for piecemeal reform, the zeal for activism, the impatience with democracy, the disdain for liberal “rights” and “freedoms”, the suspicion of compromise, the presumption of hypocrisy (or childish naivety) in arguments that defend the market order.
Anti-globalism has been aptly described as a secular religion. So is Marxism: a creed complete with prophet, sacred texts and the promise of a heaven shrouded in mystery. Marx was not a scientist, as he claimed. He founded a faith. The economic and political systems he inspired are dead or dying. But his religion is a broad church, and lives on.
As abelhas no Forum Social Mundial de 2011
Tenho absoluta certeza de que a culpa é da globalização capitalista, assimétrica e destruidora do meio ambiente...
Paulo Roberto de Almeida
As abelhas sumiram!
Carta Maior, 27/04/2011
Primeiro, as abelhas começaram a desaparecer nos Estados Unidos, depois no Canadá e, então, no Brasil. “Nós, em Santa Catarina, tivemos um problema muito sério na primavera passada. Álias, esse problema tem se agravado muito e sempre nesta mesma épóca do ano”, explica o professor Afonso Inácio Orth, um dos principais especialistas em abelhas do país e que tem acompanhado os estudos que buscam respostas para o desaparecimento dos insetos desde que este problema foi detectado.
Paulo Roberto de Almeida
As abelhas sumiram!
Carta Maior, 27/04/2011
Primeiro, as abelhas começaram a desaparecer nos Estados Unidos, depois no Canadá e, então, no Brasil. “Nós, em Santa Catarina, tivemos um problema muito sério na primavera passada. Álias, esse problema tem se agravado muito e sempre nesta mesma épóca do ano”, explica o professor Afonso Inácio Orth, um dos principais especialistas em abelhas do país e que tem acompanhado os estudos que buscam respostas para o desaparecimento dos insetos desde que este problema foi detectado.
Retrocede Brasil (6): ajuste fiscal ilusorio e inexistente (ambos os dois, se me permitem a redundancia)
Simplesmente mentira.
O governo nao fez NENHUM ajuste fiscal.
A redução alegada de despesas se fez com base num orçamento inflado para cima pelos parlamentares, sobre um projeto altamente exagerado do governo, que já previa um crescimento das receitas e despesas maior do que a realidade o permitiria.
Ou seja, o governo anunciou corte de fumaça.
Depois, o governo demorou um mês e meio para detlhar um corte pífio de 50 bilhões de reais, sendo que logo depois ofereceu 55 bilhões ao BNDES, o que é de uma coerência extraordinária.
O governo sofre de transtorno bipolar...
-----------
Paulo Roberto de Almeida
O ajuste fiscal é a melhor arma para o combate à inflação, diz Mantega ao iG
iG, 28/04/2011
O ministro da Fazenda, Guido Mantega, afirmou ao iG que o governo está fazendo um forte ajuste fiscal e essa é uma excelente arma que dispõe para ajudar no combate à inflação.
“A consolidação fiscal, que implica em corte de gastos públicos, é uma excelente arma que o governo dispõe para conter a demanda do Estado e que ajuda no combate à inflação”, disse Mantega, em conversa ontem à tarde, em Brasília.
Mantega disse que o governo não possui só esta arma, do ajuste fiscal, mas diversas outras, como a política monetária.
“O governo está atacando em todas as frentes, em todos os lados, tanto do ponto de vista fiscal como monetário”, afirmou Mantega.
O minstro da Fazenda citou, por exemplo, a cobrança de IOF sobre os empréstimos externos com prazo inferior a 320 dias, o que significa uma entrada menor de crédito externo no País.
A enorme liquidez que existe hoje no mundo, que é provocada principalmente pelo longo período de afrou xamento monetário nos Estados Unidos e que deve persistir por mais tempo, é uma das principais responsáveis pela inflação tanto no Brasil como em todos os países.
Em entrevista ontem, Ben Bernanke, presidente do Fed (Banco Central americano), não deu nenhum sinal de que irá interromper essa política de afrouxamento monetário.
O próprio Mantega reconhece que não virá dos Estados Unidos nenhuma ajuda para o combate à inflação.
“Bernanke tem ajudado o País dele”, diz Mantega.
Na opinião do ministro da Fazenda, se hoje os países emergentes estão convivendo com mais inflação é porque também tem apresentado um crescimento maior do que os países ricos.
Mantega diz que o grande responsável por essa inflação de commodities é essa alta liquidez no mundo inteiro, o que ele chamou de tsunami econômico, em referência a um artigo publicado recentemente no New York Times.
O governo nao fez NENHUM ajuste fiscal.
A redução alegada de despesas se fez com base num orçamento inflado para cima pelos parlamentares, sobre um projeto altamente exagerado do governo, que já previa um crescimento das receitas e despesas maior do que a realidade o permitiria.
Ou seja, o governo anunciou corte de fumaça.
Depois, o governo demorou um mês e meio para detlhar um corte pífio de 50 bilhões de reais, sendo que logo depois ofereceu 55 bilhões ao BNDES, o que é de uma coerência extraordinária.
O governo sofre de transtorno bipolar...
-----------
Paulo Roberto de Almeida
O ajuste fiscal é a melhor arma para o combate à inflação, diz Mantega ao iG
iG, 28/04/2011
O ministro da Fazenda, Guido Mantega, afirmou ao iG que o governo está fazendo um forte ajuste fiscal e essa é uma excelente arma que dispõe para ajudar no combate à inflação.
“A consolidação fiscal, que implica em corte de gastos públicos, é uma excelente arma que o governo dispõe para conter a demanda do Estado e que ajuda no combate à inflação”, disse Mantega, em conversa ontem à tarde, em Brasília.
Mantega disse que o governo não possui só esta arma, do ajuste fiscal, mas diversas outras, como a política monetária.
“O governo está atacando em todas as frentes, em todos os lados, tanto do ponto de vista fiscal como monetário”, afirmou Mantega.
O minstro da Fazenda citou, por exemplo, a cobrança de IOF sobre os empréstimos externos com prazo inferior a 320 dias, o que significa uma entrada menor de crédito externo no País.
A enorme liquidez que existe hoje no mundo, que é provocada principalmente pelo longo período de afrou xamento monetário nos Estados Unidos e que deve persistir por mais tempo, é uma das principais responsáveis pela inflação tanto no Brasil como em todos os países.
Em entrevista ontem, Ben Bernanke, presidente do Fed (Banco Central americano), não deu nenhum sinal de que irá interromper essa política de afrouxamento monetário.
O próprio Mantega reconhece que não virá dos Estados Unidos nenhuma ajuda para o combate à inflação.
“Bernanke tem ajudado o País dele”, diz Mantega.
Na opinião do ministro da Fazenda, se hoje os países emergentes estão convivendo com mais inflação é porque também tem apresentado um crescimento maior do que os países ricos.
Mantega diz que o grande responsável por essa inflação de commodities é essa alta liquidez no mundo inteiro, o que ele chamou de tsunami econômico, em referência a um artigo publicado recentemente no New York Times.
Retrocede Brasil (5): monopolios e obrigatoriedade nos combustiveis
Insondáveis são os desígnios de deus e as escolhas do governo.
Pelo menos no que se refere a combustíveis.
Quando o petróleo aumentou barbaramente, pela primeira vez, o governo brasileiro, em lugar de fazer um ajuste pelos preços e tratar da recomposição da matriz energética como todo mundo, escolheu fazer dívida externa para continuar importando petróleo. Enfim, pode-se até dizer que foi uma medida "racional", pois sobravam petrodólares e as taxas de juros eram inferiores à inflação da OCDE. Deu no que deu: a dívida saltou três vezes e colocou-nos no buraco quando os juros aumentaram acima mesmo dos níveis históricos reais do capitalismo.
Ao mesmo tempo o governo iniciou um alucinante programa de substiuição de combustível, introduzindo o álcool subsidiado na matriz de combustíveis, financiando a despesa com mais inflação, que todos pagamos, mesmo aqueles que não usavam carro a álcool, ou qualquer tipo de automóvel.
Passou, com os prejuízos de sempre: fim de subsídios, virtual desaparecimento dos motores a álcool e real sucateamento de quem tinha carros idem. Passou, mas a conta ficou.
Depois, o governo (não este) fez a coisa certa: liberalizou o setor e o álcool passou a ser ofertado em bases de mercado, assim cada um podia escolher. A tecnologia (de mercado, não do governo) avançou para fornecer motores híbridos, o que me parece muito bem.
Até que veio um governo maluco e se sentiu ecológico bastante para sair patrocinando combustível de cana mundo afora. Never mind que não deveria ser nossa vocação sair plantando cana para fornecer etanol ao mundo inteiro, e que no meio do caminho o mesmo governo resolveu sujar a nossa matriz energética patrocinando uma aventura petrolífera estatal sem pé nem cabeça.
Enfim, o problema não está em diversificar a matriz. O problema está em que este governo, e um pouco todos os governos, são autoritários e intrusivos a ponto de tornar obrigatória qualquer solução que poderia ser encontrada pelo mercado num sistema de regulação aberta, permissiva, voluntária.
Não, assim como o governo decreta o monopólio da Petrobras para isto e mais aquilo, ele decreta quanto álcool se deve agregar à gasolina, etc. Quando a dinãmica do mercado muda, o consumidor fica à mercê dos monopólios setoriais e das regulações compulsórias.
Mas essa ainda é tradicional. Mais estúpida ainda foi a medida do governo que determinou a inclusão do biodiesel no diesel petróleo, em percentuais obrigatórios na escala do tempo, sem JAMAIS ter perguntado se o mercado se adequaria a isto. Ou seja, sem jamais levar em conta preços relativos, base produtiva, etc.
Agregando à estupidez, o governo pretendeu que o biodiesel seria feito de mamonas assassinas, quero dizer, de óleo de mamona feito por famílias de camponeses pobres do Nordeste. Juntar matriz energética com problema social é a coisa mais estúpida que existe, mas este governo é capaz de fazer estupidezes desse tamanho sem jamais se perguntar o que uma coisa tem a ver com a outra.
Deu no que deu: as mamonas assassinas não se materializaram -- e isso depois de muito dinheiro gasto em projetos e fábricas simplesmente inviáveis e o biodiesel é mesmo feito sem nenhuma mamona assassina, só com a prosaica soja.
Pouca gente neste Brasil, menos ainda jornalistas, se pergunta quanto dinheiro nosso foi gasto em projetos estúpidos do governo.
Parece que eles não se corrigem: tornam tudo obrigatório (no petróleo ainda é o caso): o monopólio de fato da Petrobras é responsável em parte pelo atual desabastecimento e alta dos preços.
Pelo menos tornaram mais aberta a obrigatoriedade do álcool anidro na gasolina: não resolve mas amplia as possibilidades de abastecimento. Sempre me surpreenderei com burrices de certos governos.
Paulo Roberto de Almeida
Governo autoriza menos álcool na mistura para gasolina não subir
Martha Beck, Luiza Damé e Monica Tavares
O Globo, 29/04/2011
O governo deu ontem o primeiro passo numa política permanente para garantir o abastecimento de etanol no mercado e minimizar os impactos da entressafra da cana-de-açúcar nos preços dos combustíveis. Uma medida provisória (MP) que será publicada no Diário Oficial dá à Agência Nacional do Petróleo (ANP) o poder de regular os estoques de etanol no país. Além disso, o texto amplia a margem com a qual a equipe econômica pode trabalhar se tiver que mexer na mistura do álcool anidro na gasolina. Esse intervalo, que hoje varia entre 20% a 25%, passou para 18% a 25%.
Segundo técnicos da área econômica, a ideia no futuro é estabelecer uma regra pela qual o percentual sempre seja reduzido nos primeiros meses de cada ano, quando a oferta do produto cai em razão da entressafra. O novo intervalo torna a calibragem da mistura mais fácil e dá mais margem de manobra ao governo caso os preços do álcool disparem.
No caso da ANP, regular os estoques significará ter mais controle sobre o setor sucroalcooleiro e monitorar indicadores como níveis de produção, estoques e fluxo de comercialização das usinas. A agência será responsável pela comercialização, estocagem, exportação e importação de etanol. Para isso, o etanol ganhou o status de combustível.
Numa ação mais emergencial, o governo também estuda mexer imediatamente na mistura do álcool à gasolina em razão da disparada dos preços do etanol no mercado doméstico, que está pressionando a inflação. Neste caso, no entanto, o martelo ainda não foi batido. Como a entressafra da cana já está chegando ao fim, o etanol tende a cair ao longo das próximas semanas e reduzir as pressões sobre os combustíveis.
— Tudo vai depender do comportamento dos preços — disse um técnico, lembrando que, em alguns dias da semana passada, o álcool chegou a ficar mais caro que a gasolina nas refinarias.
Isso porque, além de estar praticamente sem reserva de etanol, as pequenas distribuidoras tiveram dificuldades de logística para entregar o produto. O comportamento, explicam os técnicos, também foi influenciado pelos feriados da Semana Santa, quando a maioria dos postos elevou pedidos. As distribuidoras, que não dispunham de álcool adicional, subiram preços.
Embora o governo costume alterar a mistura do álcool à gasolina para se preparar para a entressafra, a ação não faz parte de uma política. O ministro de Minas e Energia, Edison Lobão, disse que tem observado abusos nos preços dos combustíveis no país:
— Há nove anos o preço da gasolina não tem aumento nas refinarias. Mas ela passa pelas distribuidoras, pelos postos, e o mercado é livre para estabelecer os preços.
Pelo menos no que se refere a combustíveis.
Quando o petróleo aumentou barbaramente, pela primeira vez, o governo brasileiro, em lugar de fazer um ajuste pelos preços e tratar da recomposição da matriz energética como todo mundo, escolheu fazer dívida externa para continuar importando petróleo. Enfim, pode-se até dizer que foi uma medida "racional", pois sobravam petrodólares e as taxas de juros eram inferiores à inflação da OCDE. Deu no que deu: a dívida saltou três vezes e colocou-nos no buraco quando os juros aumentaram acima mesmo dos níveis históricos reais do capitalismo.
Ao mesmo tempo o governo iniciou um alucinante programa de substiuição de combustível, introduzindo o álcool subsidiado na matriz de combustíveis, financiando a despesa com mais inflação, que todos pagamos, mesmo aqueles que não usavam carro a álcool, ou qualquer tipo de automóvel.
Passou, com os prejuízos de sempre: fim de subsídios, virtual desaparecimento dos motores a álcool e real sucateamento de quem tinha carros idem. Passou, mas a conta ficou.
Depois, o governo (não este) fez a coisa certa: liberalizou o setor e o álcool passou a ser ofertado em bases de mercado, assim cada um podia escolher. A tecnologia (de mercado, não do governo) avançou para fornecer motores híbridos, o que me parece muito bem.
Até que veio um governo maluco e se sentiu ecológico bastante para sair patrocinando combustível de cana mundo afora. Never mind que não deveria ser nossa vocação sair plantando cana para fornecer etanol ao mundo inteiro, e que no meio do caminho o mesmo governo resolveu sujar a nossa matriz energética patrocinando uma aventura petrolífera estatal sem pé nem cabeça.
Enfim, o problema não está em diversificar a matriz. O problema está em que este governo, e um pouco todos os governos, são autoritários e intrusivos a ponto de tornar obrigatória qualquer solução que poderia ser encontrada pelo mercado num sistema de regulação aberta, permissiva, voluntária.
Não, assim como o governo decreta o monopólio da Petrobras para isto e mais aquilo, ele decreta quanto álcool se deve agregar à gasolina, etc. Quando a dinãmica do mercado muda, o consumidor fica à mercê dos monopólios setoriais e das regulações compulsórias.
Mas essa ainda é tradicional. Mais estúpida ainda foi a medida do governo que determinou a inclusão do biodiesel no diesel petróleo, em percentuais obrigatórios na escala do tempo, sem JAMAIS ter perguntado se o mercado se adequaria a isto. Ou seja, sem jamais levar em conta preços relativos, base produtiva, etc.
Agregando à estupidez, o governo pretendeu que o biodiesel seria feito de mamonas assassinas, quero dizer, de óleo de mamona feito por famílias de camponeses pobres do Nordeste. Juntar matriz energética com problema social é a coisa mais estúpida que existe, mas este governo é capaz de fazer estupidezes desse tamanho sem jamais se perguntar o que uma coisa tem a ver com a outra.
Deu no que deu: as mamonas assassinas não se materializaram -- e isso depois de muito dinheiro gasto em projetos e fábricas simplesmente inviáveis e o biodiesel é mesmo feito sem nenhuma mamona assassina, só com a prosaica soja.
Pouca gente neste Brasil, menos ainda jornalistas, se pergunta quanto dinheiro nosso foi gasto em projetos estúpidos do governo.
Parece que eles não se corrigem: tornam tudo obrigatório (no petróleo ainda é o caso): o monopólio de fato da Petrobras é responsável em parte pelo atual desabastecimento e alta dos preços.
Pelo menos tornaram mais aberta a obrigatoriedade do álcool anidro na gasolina: não resolve mas amplia as possibilidades de abastecimento. Sempre me surpreenderei com burrices de certos governos.
Paulo Roberto de Almeida
Governo autoriza menos álcool na mistura para gasolina não subir
Martha Beck, Luiza Damé e Monica Tavares
O Globo, 29/04/2011
O governo deu ontem o primeiro passo numa política permanente para garantir o abastecimento de etanol no mercado e minimizar os impactos da entressafra da cana-de-açúcar nos preços dos combustíveis. Uma medida provisória (MP) que será publicada no Diário Oficial dá à Agência Nacional do Petróleo (ANP) o poder de regular os estoques de etanol no país. Além disso, o texto amplia a margem com a qual a equipe econômica pode trabalhar se tiver que mexer na mistura do álcool anidro na gasolina. Esse intervalo, que hoje varia entre 20% a 25%, passou para 18% a 25%.
Segundo técnicos da área econômica, a ideia no futuro é estabelecer uma regra pela qual o percentual sempre seja reduzido nos primeiros meses de cada ano, quando a oferta do produto cai em razão da entressafra. O novo intervalo torna a calibragem da mistura mais fácil e dá mais margem de manobra ao governo caso os preços do álcool disparem.
No caso da ANP, regular os estoques significará ter mais controle sobre o setor sucroalcooleiro e monitorar indicadores como níveis de produção, estoques e fluxo de comercialização das usinas. A agência será responsável pela comercialização, estocagem, exportação e importação de etanol. Para isso, o etanol ganhou o status de combustível.
Numa ação mais emergencial, o governo também estuda mexer imediatamente na mistura do álcool à gasolina em razão da disparada dos preços do etanol no mercado doméstico, que está pressionando a inflação. Neste caso, no entanto, o martelo ainda não foi batido. Como a entressafra da cana já está chegando ao fim, o etanol tende a cair ao longo das próximas semanas e reduzir as pressões sobre os combustíveis.
— Tudo vai depender do comportamento dos preços — disse um técnico, lembrando que, em alguns dias da semana passada, o álcool chegou a ficar mais caro que a gasolina nas refinarias.
Isso porque, além de estar praticamente sem reserva de etanol, as pequenas distribuidoras tiveram dificuldades de logística para entregar o produto. O comportamento, explicam os técnicos, também foi influenciado pelos feriados da Semana Santa, quando a maioria dos postos elevou pedidos. As distribuidoras, que não dispunham de álcool adicional, subiram preços.
Embora o governo costume alterar a mistura do álcool à gasolina para se preparar para a entressafra, a ação não faz parte de uma política. O ministro de Minas e Energia, Edison Lobão, disse que tem observado abusos nos preços dos combustíveis no país:
— Há nove anos o preço da gasolina não tem aumento nas refinarias. Mas ela passa pelas distribuidoras, pelos postos, e o mercado é livre para estabelecer os preços.
Assinar:
Comentários (Atom)
Postagem em destaque
Livro Marxismo e Socialismo finalmente disponível - Paulo Roberto de Almeida
Meu mais recente livro – que não tem nada a ver com o governo atual ou com sua diplomacia esquizofrênica, já vou logo avisando – ficou final...
-
Uma preparação de longo curso e uma vida nômade Paulo Roberto de Almeida A carreira diplomática tem atraído número crescente de jovens, em ...
-
FAQ do Candidato a Diplomata por Renato Domith Godinho TEMAS: Concurso do Instituto Rio Branco, Itamaraty, Carreira Diplomática, MRE, Diplom...
-
Países de Maior Acesso aos textos PRA em Academia.edu (apenas os superiores a 100 acessos) Compilação Paulo Roberto de Almeida (15/12/2025) ...
-
Mercado Comum da Guerra? O Mercosul deveria ser, em princípio, uma zona de livre comércio e também uma zona de paz, entre seus próprios memb...
-
Reproduzo novamente uma postagem minha de 2020, quando foi publicado o livro de Dennys Xavier sobre Thomas Sowell quarta-feira, 4 de março... -
Itamaraty 'Memórias', do embaixador Marcos Azambuja, é uma aula de diplomacia Embaixador foi um grande contador de histórias, ...
-
Israel Products in India: Check the Complete list of Israeli Brands! Several Israeli companies have established themselves in the Indian m...
-
Pequeno manual prático da decadência (recomendável em caráter preventivo...) Paulo Roberto de Almeida Colaboração a número especial da rev...
-
O Brics vai de vento em popa, ao que parece. Como eu nunca fui de tomar as coisas pelo seu valor de face, nunca deixei de expressar meu pen...
