Lawrence Person's BattleSwarm Blog 8/5/2024
Anointed Democratic presidential nominee Kamala Harris isn’t just the daughter of a Jamacian, she’s the daughter of a Marxist professor.
if Kamala’s origin stories are truly critical in understanding who she is today, we ought to consider briefly the role of her father, Donald J. Harris, a Marxist economist and Stanford professor emeritus.
Donald’s interesting take on economic theory is best laid out in his early foreword to a 1972 reprint of Nikolai Bukharin’s Economic Theory of the Leisure Class. It’s a kind of beginner’s guide to the orthodox left view of “bourgeois economics” as contrasted with the “science” of Marxist analysis.
If the Jeopardy answer is “This thinker greatly influenced modern western economic thinking,” then “Who is Nikolai Bukharin?” is not going to put any points on the board.
Bukharin’s Economic Theory is a classic of the oeuvre, in this instance, a Marxian angels-dancing-on-pinheads critique of the then-emerging economic notion of “marginal theory.” In classical (what Donald sometimes also calls “bourgeois”) economics, marginal theory examines how the addition or reduction of a single unit of a good or service affects consumer decisions: To a man dying of thirst, the first bottle of water is likely worth more than the second — and in that moment, to that man, both may be worth everything else he owns.
But don’t worry overmuch about the details of marginal theory, Donald tells us: “They are matters of lesser importance. What is crucial is [and here he begins quoting Bukharin] ‘the point of departure of the . . . theory, its ignoring the social-historical character of economic phenomena.’”
See, to your typical Marxist, free-market economic theory always obscures — it “ignores” — what’s really real, which is class conflict, Donald says.
It wasn’t always this way with the bourgeois theorists, he says:
In the early phase of capitalist development, bourgeois political economy, by championing the interests of the emerging bourgeoisie in its struggle against the pre-existing dominant class, performs a radical scientific role in exposing the nature of commodity-producing precapitalist society. In the later phase of capitalism, however, bourgeois political economy turns to justification of the system in which the bourgeoisie has become ascendant and is threatened by the growing workers’ movement. It thereby loses its scientific role, a role which is to be taken by Marxian political economy rooted in the interests of the working class.
In that single passage, you’ve got a brief overview of Marxism — its sense that free-market theory, however right it was as a critique of feudalism, is mere propaganda designed not to clarify but to mask the oppression of working people. That free-market economic theory therefore helps justify the persistence of a vestigial/parasitic bourgeoisie, which, having created the industrial system that produces so much abundance, has generated a new problem — the “crisis of overproduction,” Marx and Engels called it — a problem that can be solved only by identifying new foreign markets, juicing consumer demand through advertising, and smoke-and-mirrors ideas like “marginal theory” that help in “the formation of demand.”
You also get a sense of what Marxists mean by “science”: Not a system by which theories are tested to determine verifiable truths about the world, but a word that means “anything that furthers the goal of Marxist revolution.” Remember this anytime someone on the left declares that “the science is settled.”
In a biographical note in the concluding paragraphs, Harris mentions briefly where Bukharin’s work led the once-prominent Soviet thinker: He worked closely with Lenin during the October Revolution, was a member of the Politburo by 1919, “assumed many high-profile offices in the Party,” and “came to exercise great influence within the Party and the Comintern,” Donald writes. Then, in a single, dry sentence, he accounts for Bukharin’s end. There’s no sense of irony here, no sense even that he shares the likely confusion of his readers: “Under Stalin’s regime, . . . he was among those who were arrested and brought to trial on charges of treason and he was executed on March 15, 1938.” Bukharin, 49 at the time of his murder, may have seemed old enough to Donald, just 34 at the time of his writing.
More:
https://www.battleswarmblog.com/?p=59462
