...da imprensa!
De quem mais poderia ser?
“Estarei sempre à disposição do partido para vir aqui dar esclarecimentos e explicar melhor o que estamos fazendo no governo para estarmos mais sintonizados. Para explicar a política econômica porque, às vezes, ela acaba sendo distorcida pela imprensa”.
Ministro da Fazenda, Guido Mantega, em reunião do Diretório Nacional do PT.
sábado, 30 de abril de 2011
A diva blogueira e a corrupcao do sistema: desmoralizando Betania...
Apenas transcrevendo...
[Acréscimo em 30 de abril: um comentário de um leitor, na sequência desta postagem, e meus próprios comentários in fine...PRA]
O escandaloso blog de poesia de Maria Bethânia
Digestivo Cultural n. 478, 27/04/2011
Na música, todo mundo louvava Maria Bethânia, por ela não haver se rendido à acomodação dos outros Doces Bárbaros. Não havia se perdido em rock como Caetano, não havia se desencaminhado na política como Gil e não havia se aposentado precocemente como Gal Costa. Maria Bethânia parecia incansável: gravando compositores novos, fazendo pesquisa de ritmos, lançando selo próprio e, claro, fazendo shows - admiráveis desde a concepção até a performance (de tirar o fôlego das cantoras mais jovens). Acontece que a mesma Bethânia - que musicalmente admirávamos tanto - protagonizou um (ou se deixou envolver num) dos maiores escândalos de captação de recursos, via Lei Rouanet, via Ministério da Cultura, via Governo Dilma, via Era Lula...
O projeto "O Mundo Precisa de Poesia" se apresentou ao MinC como um "blog", onde Maria Bethânia recitaria um poema por dia, e, para isso, solicitava quase 1,8 milhão de reais, sendo que 600 mil apenas para a sua remuneração. Tudo bem que o MinC aprovou "apenas" 1,35 milhão de reais para captação, mas conhecendo os blogs - como a blogosfera conhece - a grita foi geral. Primeiro porque qualquer pessoa que já tenha aberto uma conta de e-mail na Web, sabe qual é o custo de montar um blog: 5 minutos. Evidente que o custo de manter um blog é outro. Mas para fazer vídeos, e distribui-los via YouTube, não demora muito mais, não. Depois, porque o projeto literalmente caiu na rede e seu conteúdo era uma piada de mal gosto. A "síntese", os "objetivos" e a "justificativa" eram de uma redação quase infantil. E a equipe era a dos usual suspects: Conspiração Filmes, Andrucha Waddington e Hermano Vianna.
Para completar: dos quase 2 milhões solicitados, o webdesigner receberia 6 mil, no total, e a manutenção/atualização do site custaria, simples e apenasmente, 8,4 mil reais (durante um ano). Em defesa de Bethânia - ou do projeto em que ela foi usada de "laranja" - vieram dizer que estava tudo dentro da lei. Podia até estar, mas, como d izia Boris Casoy nos bons tempos, não deixava de ser "uma vergonha". Outros projetos, de outros Doces Bárbaros, vieram à tona, para engrossar o caldo, mas a nova Ministra da Cultura nem ficou vermelha. Desta vez, o governo não poderia jogar na conta da "herança maldita" de FHC (e do PSDB), porque o projeto remontava ao ano passado (2010)...
Ao fim e ao cabo, esse projeto é, na realidade, uma das contas que a sociedade está pagando pela terceira eleição, na sequência, do mesmo governo. Porque no Ministério da Cultura também existe malversação de recursos, e quem se aprochegou dos cofres públicos nos últimos 8 anos, quer continuar se beneficiando nestes próximos 4 anos...
>>> Blog da Bethânia, o projeto
=========
Um leitor, conhecedor dos meandros das políticas culturais neste país que é nosso (embora seja mais de alguns do que de todos), me escreve o que segue:
Professor, este texto é de uma sequência de equívocos:
1. O mecanismo de incentivo fiscal não é uma marca da Era Lula. É Lei (de 91), que está tentando ser modificada já que deixa o incentivo à cultura via renúncia fiscal (ou seja, $ público) nas mãos da capacidade de captação dos proponentes - ou seja, muito mais no depto marketing do que no de cultura. Os mal informados acusam, inclusive, a tentativa de reforma da lei de "dirigismo estatal" dos investimentos culturais. Muitos projetos INCRIVEIS foram realizados via Lei Rouanet, mas muitos piores do que o da Betânia também. Esse "escândalo" poderia ter se dado em qualquer momento já há muito tempo. Não posso compreender porque acham o caso da Betânia mais escandaloso do que o do famoso banco que trouxe o famoso circo via lei de incentivo, fez um monte de propaganda e ainda cobrou ingresso caríssimo. (veja em http://www1.folha.uol.com.br/folha/ilustrada/ult90u59903.shtml). Ou seja, vamos perceber que a situação é MUITO MAIS complexa do que a narrada nesse texto...
2. Gil não se "desencaminhou" na política. Foi de importância decisiva no Ministério da Cultura, deixou um incrível legado. Inclusive foi o responsável por criar outras abordagens para a política pública cultural brasileira que não a do incentivo fiscal, formulando Programas que hoje são referência para diversos países. Ou seja, o texto mistura alhos com bugalhos da forma que é conveniente ao argumento. Diz que o personagem é "desencaminhado", justamente ele que foi quem mais fez contra o que o autor diz achar um absurdo...
3. Quem pode julgar o processo artístico de Caetano ou Gal??!!! "Aposentadoria precoce de Gal" é uma das expressões mais preconceituosas que já vi. Só porque ela não se esforça para estar toda hora na mídia com uma novidade? Mas não é essa a acusação que o autor do texto faz a Caetano Rock'n'roll? Perceba a contradição e a petulância desses comentários...
Entenda, não é o caso de defender um governo ou outro, mas de ver a Cultura como um campo complexo de ação pública, tão imbricado nos processos de transformação do Estado como qualquer outro. Um governo não pode, por voluntarismo, modificar a aplicação da Lei. Ela tem que ser reformada pelos complexos mecanismos da nossa democracia, e é justamente isso que está sendo feito, de forma não imune a acusações de pessoas como o autor desse texto.
Se for publicar a resposta, por favor preserve meu nome, porque gente como o autor desse texto contra a Betânia não hesita em pegar o que vc escreve, tirar de contexto e circular por aí.
[Leitor anônimo]
===============
Permito-me agregar o que segue (PRA):
Não vou comentar o post principal, que coloquei apenas por instinto de provocação, que sempre é o meu, independentemente da correção e objetividade dos argumentos, mas que NÃO subscrevo, esclareço. Apenas era o tema do momento, suficientemente escandoloso para chamar a atenção da "mídia", como chamou, e despertar sentimentos de animosidade ou de defesa, entre os interessados por esta área da vida nacional. Apenas por isto postei aqui, mas concedo que o tom é rancoroso e não traduz a racionalidade que se espera de um blog como este, que se pauta, como indicado, por respeito a ideias inteligentes. Não era o caso do post e do tema, e eu deveria ter abandonado a intenção. Agora já está postado e despertou reações do distinto público que aqui comparece.
Tampouco vou comentar o que está transcrito acima, de um leitor inteligente e cognoscenti.
Vou apenas dizer o que penso do sistema e do caso.
É evidente que num país invadido, dominado, subjugado por políticas públicas, especialmente as setoriais, que interessam a grupos de interesse, como o Brasil, não poderiam faltar políticas de "favorecimento" disto e daquilo, para todos e cada um.
Um Estado esquartejado por grupos de interesse, geralmente poderosos, como o Brasil, no qual o dinheiro do contribuinte, do empresário, do cidadão comum, e especialmente dos pobres -- que jamais pagam imposto de renda, mas que deixam 50% do que ganham para o Estado sob a forma de impostos -- é evidente que num país assim sempre haverá espertos, e mais espertos que os espertos, que conceberão, aplicarão e se beneficiarão de políticas ditas "incentivadoras" para estimular esta ou aquele setor que não recebe os "sinais corretos" do mercado.
Cultura é obviamente um deles. Muitos, talvez a maioria concordam com a afirmação de que iniciativas e empreendimentos culturais não podem e não conseguem se pautar pelas "regras de mercado" -- vocês sabem, aquelas coisas perversas geralmente ligadas ao lucro e à acumulação de capital -- e que por isso mesmo devem se beneficiar de incentivos públicos (ou seja, o dinheiro de todo mundo -- para que as magníficas produções culturais de artistas "fora do mercado" possam alcançar o público, geralmente o público mais vasto de cidadãos comuns que não podem pagar uma ópera na Metropolitan House, e que depende mesmo de TV aberta e de "espetáculos populares".
O caso da Bethânia talvez nem seja o mais escandaloso no caudal de "projetos culturais" que recolhem -- é bom que se diga -- não o dinheiro do MinC, mas o imposto devido por capitalistas, que assim podem posar de amigo das artes e de mecenas culturais. Provavelmente, assessores mais espertos, inclusive com a ignorância da cantora, aproveitaram esse mecanismo perverso de redistribuição de renda -- no Brasil é sempre dos pobres em favor dos ricos -- para carrear alguns milhões para seus apartamentos da Vieira Souto.
Seja lá o que for, minha posição é muito clara e a expresso aqui.
Sou contra todas essas políticas setoriais do Estado em favor de quaisquer grupos de interesses que existam, QUAISQUER: usineiros, industriais da FIESP, cantores populares, garimpeiros, pescadores, enfim, vocês escolhem o que quiserem.
Para mim só existe um grupo de interesse que não é especial, mas que é básico: as crianças, de qualquer cor, de qualquer renda, de qualquer origem geográfica e de qualquer formação cultural ou background social.
A única política que o Estado deveria ter seria esta: escolas de qualidade, em tempo integral, para todas as crianças, apenas isto. Dos 4 ou 5 anos, até os 17 anos, a sociedade nacional "suportaria" -- no sentido de apoiar -- escolas de qualidade.
Depois, bye, bye, até logo. Cada um que se vire no mercado.
Apenas isto, e nada mais do que isto.
Acredito que o Brasil e os brasileiros sejam suficientemente inteligentes para julgar o que penso do resto das políticas públicas.
Ponto.
Assunto encerrado.
Paulo Roberto de Almeida
Brasília, 30 de abril de 2011
[Acréscimo em 30 de abril: um comentário de um leitor, na sequência desta postagem, e meus próprios comentários in fine...PRA]
O escandaloso blog de poesia de Maria Bethânia
Digestivo Cultural n. 478, 27/04/2011
Na música, todo mundo louvava Maria Bethânia, por ela não haver se rendido à acomodação dos outros Doces Bárbaros. Não havia se perdido em rock como Caetano, não havia se desencaminhado na política como Gil e não havia se aposentado precocemente como Gal Costa. Maria Bethânia parecia incansável: gravando compositores novos, fazendo pesquisa de ritmos, lançando selo próprio e, claro, fazendo shows - admiráveis desde a concepção até a performance (de tirar o fôlego das cantoras mais jovens). Acontece que a mesma Bethânia - que musicalmente admirávamos tanto - protagonizou um (ou se deixou envolver num) dos maiores escândalos de captação de recursos, via Lei Rouanet, via Ministério da Cultura, via Governo Dilma, via Era Lula...
O projeto "O Mundo Precisa de Poesia" se apresentou ao MinC como um "blog", onde Maria Bethânia recitaria um poema por dia, e, para isso, solicitava quase 1,8 milhão de reais, sendo que 600 mil apenas para a sua remuneração. Tudo bem que o MinC aprovou "apenas" 1,35 milhão de reais para captação, mas conhecendo os blogs - como a blogosfera conhece - a grita foi geral. Primeiro porque qualquer pessoa que já tenha aberto uma conta de e-mail na Web, sabe qual é o custo de montar um blog: 5 minutos. Evidente que o custo de manter um blog é outro. Mas para fazer vídeos, e distribui-los via YouTube, não demora muito mais, não. Depois, porque o projeto literalmente caiu na rede e seu conteúdo era uma piada de mal gosto. A "síntese", os "objetivos" e a "justificativa" eram de uma redação quase infantil. E a equipe era a dos usual suspects: Conspiração Filmes, Andrucha Waddington e Hermano Vianna.
Para completar: dos quase 2 milhões solicitados, o webdesigner receberia 6 mil, no total, e a manutenção/atualização do site custaria, simples e apenasmente, 8,4 mil reais (durante um ano). Em defesa de Bethânia - ou do projeto em que ela foi usada de "laranja" - vieram dizer que estava tudo dentro da lei. Podia até estar, mas, como d izia Boris Casoy nos bons tempos, não deixava de ser "uma vergonha". Outros projetos, de outros Doces Bárbaros, vieram à tona, para engrossar o caldo, mas a nova Ministra da Cultura nem ficou vermelha. Desta vez, o governo não poderia jogar na conta da "herança maldita" de FHC (e do PSDB), porque o projeto remontava ao ano passado (2010)...
Ao fim e ao cabo, esse projeto é, na realidade, uma das contas que a sociedade está pagando pela terceira eleição, na sequência, do mesmo governo. Porque no Ministério da Cultura também existe malversação de recursos, e quem se aprochegou dos cofres públicos nos últimos 8 anos, quer continuar se beneficiando nestes próximos 4 anos...
>>> Blog da Bethânia, o projeto
=========
Um leitor, conhecedor dos meandros das políticas culturais neste país que é nosso (embora seja mais de alguns do que de todos), me escreve o que segue:
Professor, este texto é de uma sequência de equívocos:
1. O mecanismo de incentivo fiscal não é uma marca da Era Lula. É Lei (de 91), que está tentando ser modificada já que deixa o incentivo à cultura via renúncia fiscal (ou seja, $ público) nas mãos da capacidade de captação dos proponentes - ou seja, muito mais no depto marketing do que no de cultura. Os mal informados acusam, inclusive, a tentativa de reforma da lei de "dirigismo estatal" dos investimentos culturais. Muitos projetos INCRIVEIS foram realizados via Lei Rouanet, mas muitos piores do que o da Betânia também. Esse "escândalo" poderia ter se dado em qualquer momento já há muito tempo. Não posso compreender porque acham o caso da Betânia mais escandaloso do que o do famoso banco que trouxe o famoso circo via lei de incentivo, fez um monte de propaganda e ainda cobrou ingresso caríssimo. (veja em http://www1.folha.uol.com.br/folha/ilustrada/ult90u59903.shtml). Ou seja, vamos perceber que a situação é MUITO MAIS complexa do que a narrada nesse texto...
2. Gil não se "desencaminhou" na política. Foi de importância decisiva no Ministério da Cultura, deixou um incrível legado. Inclusive foi o responsável por criar outras abordagens para a política pública cultural brasileira que não a do incentivo fiscal, formulando Programas que hoje são referência para diversos países. Ou seja, o texto mistura alhos com bugalhos da forma que é conveniente ao argumento. Diz que o personagem é "desencaminhado", justamente ele que foi quem mais fez contra o que o autor diz achar um absurdo...
3. Quem pode julgar o processo artístico de Caetano ou Gal??!!! "Aposentadoria precoce de Gal" é uma das expressões mais preconceituosas que já vi. Só porque ela não se esforça para estar toda hora na mídia com uma novidade? Mas não é essa a acusação que o autor do texto faz a Caetano Rock'n'roll? Perceba a contradição e a petulância desses comentários...
Entenda, não é o caso de defender um governo ou outro, mas de ver a Cultura como um campo complexo de ação pública, tão imbricado nos processos de transformação do Estado como qualquer outro. Um governo não pode, por voluntarismo, modificar a aplicação da Lei. Ela tem que ser reformada pelos complexos mecanismos da nossa democracia, e é justamente isso que está sendo feito, de forma não imune a acusações de pessoas como o autor desse texto.
Se for publicar a resposta, por favor preserve meu nome, porque gente como o autor desse texto contra a Betânia não hesita em pegar o que vc escreve, tirar de contexto e circular por aí.
[Leitor anônimo]
===============
Permito-me agregar o que segue (PRA):
Não vou comentar o post principal, que coloquei apenas por instinto de provocação, que sempre é o meu, independentemente da correção e objetividade dos argumentos, mas que NÃO subscrevo, esclareço. Apenas era o tema do momento, suficientemente escandoloso para chamar a atenção da "mídia", como chamou, e despertar sentimentos de animosidade ou de defesa, entre os interessados por esta área da vida nacional. Apenas por isto postei aqui, mas concedo que o tom é rancoroso e não traduz a racionalidade que se espera de um blog como este, que se pauta, como indicado, por respeito a ideias inteligentes. Não era o caso do post e do tema, e eu deveria ter abandonado a intenção. Agora já está postado e despertou reações do distinto público que aqui comparece.
Tampouco vou comentar o que está transcrito acima, de um leitor inteligente e cognoscenti.
Vou apenas dizer o que penso do sistema e do caso.
É evidente que num país invadido, dominado, subjugado por políticas públicas, especialmente as setoriais, que interessam a grupos de interesse, como o Brasil, não poderiam faltar políticas de "favorecimento" disto e daquilo, para todos e cada um.
Um Estado esquartejado por grupos de interesse, geralmente poderosos, como o Brasil, no qual o dinheiro do contribuinte, do empresário, do cidadão comum, e especialmente dos pobres -- que jamais pagam imposto de renda, mas que deixam 50% do que ganham para o Estado sob a forma de impostos -- é evidente que num país assim sempre haverá espertos, e mais espertos que os espertos, que conceberão, aplicarão e se beneficiarão de políticas ditas "incentivadoras" para estimular esta ou aquele setor que não recebe os "sinais corretos" do mercado.
Cultura é obviamente um deles. Muitos, talvez a maioria concordam com a afirmação de que iniciativas e empreendimentos culturais não podem e não conseguem se pautar pelas "regras de mercado" -- vocês sabem, aquelas coisas perversas geralmente ligadas ao lucro e à acumulação de capital -- e que por isso mesmo devem se beneficiar de incentivos públicos (ou seja, o dinheiro de todo mundo -- para que as magníficas produções culturais de artistas "fora do mercado" possam alcançar o público, geralmente o público mais vasto de cidadãos comuns que não podem pagar uma ópera na Metropolitan House, e que depende mesmo de TV aberta e de "espetáculos populares".
O caso da Bethânia talvez nem seja o mais escandaloso no caudal de "projetos culturais" que recolhem -- é bom que se diga -- não o dinheiro do MinC, mas o imposto devido por capitalistas, que assim podem posar de amigo das artes e de mecenas culturais. Provavelmente, assessores mais espertos, inclusive com a ignorância da cantora, aproveitaram esse mecanismo perverso de redistribuição de renda -- no Brasil é sempre dos pobres em favor dos ricos -- para carrear alguns milhões para seus apartamentos da Vieira Souto.
Seja lá o que for, minha posição é muito clara e a expresso aqui.
Sou contra todas essas políticas setoriais do Estado em favor de quaisquer grupos de interesses que existam, QUAISQUER: usineiros, industriais da FIESP, cantores populares, garimpeiros, pescadores, enfim, vocês escolhem o que quiserem.
Para mim só existe um grupo de interesse que não é especial, mas que é básico: as crianças, de qualquer cor, de qualquer renda, de qualquer origem geográfica e de qualquer formação cultural ou background social.
A única política que o Estado deveria ter seria esta: escolas de qualidade, em tempo integral, para todas as crianças, apenas isto. Dos 4 ou 5 anos, até os 17 anos, a sociedade nacional "suportaria" -- no sentido de apoiar -- escolas de qualidade.
Depois, bye, bye, até logo. Cada um que se vire no mercado.
Apenas isto, e nada mais do que isto.
Acredito que o Brasil e os brasileiros sejam suficientemente inteligentes para julgar o que penso do resto das políticas públicas.
Ponto.
Assunto encerrado.
Paulo Roberto de Almeida
Brasília, 30 de abril de 2011
Armas de procriacao em massa: qual seria a dissuasao contra o Viagra?
Bem, seria preciso ver se a Libia está pagando os royalties direitinho, pois creio que o Viagra ainda está protegido por patentes.
Aqui no Brasil tivemos um caso, alguns anos atrás: juízes certamente malucos, do Rio de Janeiro, obrigaram o SUS a fornecer Viagra gratuitamente para alguns velhinhos depravados. Nao tenho noticias de que, em consequência, tenha aumentado a incidência de estupros por aquelas bandas, mas seria preciso investigar melhor, inclusive sobre eram remédios protegidos ou genéricos...
Paulo Roberto de Almeida
EUA acusam Líbia de dar Viagra a tropas e estimular estupros
Terra Notícias, 29/04/2011
A embaixadora dos Estados Unidos na ONU disse na quinta-feira ao Conselho de Segurança que as tropas leais ao líder líbio Muammar Kadafi estão cada vez mais recorrendo à violência sexual, e que alguns soldados têm recebido doses de Viagra, medicamento contra a impotência, segundo diplomatas.
Vários diplomatas da ONU que participaram de uma sessão a portas fechadas do Conselho relataram que a embaixadora Susan Rice citou a questão do Viagra no contexto do agravamento dos casos de violência sexual por parte dos soldados do regime líbio. "Rice abordou isso na reunião, mas ninguém respondeu", disse um diplomata, sob anonimato. A acusação havia surgido inicialmente em um jornal britânico.
O medicamento Viagra, do laboratório Pfizer, é usado contra a impotência sexual masculina. Se for verdade que os soldados de Kadafi estão recebendo Viagra, disseram diplomatas, isso indicaria que eles estão sendo estimulados por seus comandantes a estuprar mulheres para aterrorizar a população em áreas que apoiam os rebeldes.
O uso do estupro como arma de guerra tem recebido crescente atenção da ONU. No ano passado, o secretário-geral da ONU, Ban Ki-moon, nomeou uma relatora especial para questões de violência sexual durante conflitos armados, Margot Wallstrom. Neste mês, Wallstrom criticou o Conselho de Segurança por não ter mencionado a violência sexual durante duas recentes resoluções relacionadas à Líbia, apesar de o Conselho ter prometido priorizar esse assunto.
Wallstrom disse na ocasião que relatos sobre estudos na Líbia não haviam sido confirmados, mas citou o caso amplamente divulgado de Eman al Obaidi, uma mulher que no mês passado foi a um hotel frequentado por jornalistas em Trípoli e disse que havia sido estuprada por milicianos leais ao governo.
O Tribunal Penal Internacional já está investigando se o regime de Kadafi cometeu crimes de guerra na sua violenta repressão a manifestantes que exigiam mais liberdade. A delegação dos EUA junto à ONU não quis comentar o assunto.
Aqui no Brasil tivemos um caso, alguns anos atrás: juízes certamente malucos, do Rio de Janeiro, obrigaram o SUS a fornecer Viagra gratuitamente para alguns velhinhos depravados. Nao tenho noticias de que, em consequência, tenha aumentado a incidência de estupros por aquelas bandas, mas seria preciso investigar melhor, inclusive sobre eram remédios protegidos ou genéricos...
Paulo Roberto de Almeida
EUA acusam Líbia de dar Viagra a tropas e estimular estupros
Terra Notícias, 29/04/2011
A embaixadora dos Estados Unidos na ONU disse na quinta-feira ao Conselho de Segurança que as tropas leais ao líder líbio Muammar Kadafi estão cada vez mais recorrendo à violência sexual, e que alguns soldados têm recebido doses de Viagra, medicamento contra a impotência, segundo diplomatas.
Vários diplomatas da ONU que participaram de uma sessão a portas fechadas do Conselho relataram que a embaixadora Susan Rice citou a questão do Viagra no contexto do agravamento dos casos de violência sexual por parte dos soldados do regime líbio. "Rice abordou isso na reunião, mas ninguém respondeu", disse um diplomata, sob anonimato. A acusação havia surgido inicialmente em um jornal britânico.
O medicamento Viagra, do laboratório Pfizer, é usado contra a impotência sexual masculina. Se for verdade que os soldados de Kadafi estão recebendo Viagra, disseram diplomatas, isso indicaria que eles estão sendo estimulados por seus comandantes a estuprar mulheres para aterrorizar a população em áreas que apoiam os rebeldes.
O uso do estupro como arma de guerra tem recebido crescente atenção da ONU. No ano passado, o secretário-geral da ONU, Ban Ki-moon, nomeou uma relatora especial para questões de violência sexual durante conflitos armados, Margot Wallstrom. Neste mês, Wallstrom criticou o Conselho de Segurança por não ter mencionado a violência sexual durante duas recentes resoluções relacionadas à Líbia, apesar de o Conselho ter prometido priorizar esse assunto.
Wallstrom disse na ocasião que relatos sobre estudos na Líbia não haviam sido confirmados, mas citou o caso amplamente divulgado de Eman al Obaidi, uma mulher que no mês passado foi a um hotel frequentado por jornalistas em Trípoli e disse que havia sido estuprada por milicianos leais ao governo.
O Tribunal Penal Internacional já está investigando se o regime de Kadafi cometeu crimes de guerra na sua violenta repressão a manifestantes que exigiam mais liberdade. A delegação dos EUA junto à ONU não quis comentar o assunto.
sexta-feira, 29 de abril de 2011
Livre-mercadistas: nao mantenham ilusoes... - livro sobre os grandes mitos
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
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
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.
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...
-
FAQ do Candidato a Diplomata por Renato Domith Godinho TEMAS: Concurso do Instituto Rio Branco, Itamaraty, Carreira Diplomática, MRE, Diplom...
-
Uma preparação de longo curso e uma vida nômade Paulo Roberto de Almeida A carreira diplomática tem atraído número crescente de jovens, em ...
-
Liberando um artigo que passou um ano no limbo: Mercosul e União Europeia: a longa marcha da cooperação à associação Recebo, em 19/12/2025,...
-
Homeric Epithets: Famous Titles From 'The Iliad' & 'The Odyssey' Word Genius, Tuesday, November 16, 2021 https://www.w...
-
Quando a desgraça é bem-vinda… Leio, tardiamente, nas notícias do dia, que o segundo chanceler virtual do bolsolavismo diplomático (2019-202...
-
Textos sobre guerra e paz, numa perspectiva histórica e comparativa Paulo Roberto de Almeida 5136. “A Paz como Projeto e Potência”, Brasília...
-
Alternâncias e conformismo na diplomacia brasileira Paulo Roberto de Almeida Em democracias vibrantes, com alternância de poder, a polític...
-
Minha preparação prévia a um seminário sobre a ordem global, na UnB: 5152. “ A desordem mundial gerada por dois impérios, contemplados por...
-
Mais recente trabalho publicado: 1609. “Política externa e diplomacia do Brasil: convergências e dissonâncias em perspectiva histórica”. P...
