Dear David,

If you read my first post, I restricted my argument carefully to the
merits of Marx's ideas -- which are many -- and to the flaws in his
scholarship, which are great.

My ad hominem argument was a specific response to a prior ad hominem
argument, the statement of Rob Curedale that we should respect Marx
because -- in Rob's words -- Marx "was motivated by a genuine
morality and concern for the state of the world at the time."

Let's keep issues clear, please. I did not raise the subject of Marx
as a person. Rob did.

You'll see no ad hominem discussion of Marx in my first post on the
relations between production, social structure, and history. If you
read the post on Marx's reading and the use he made of them, you'll
see a strict account of scholarly issues and you'll note, again,
praise for that which is praiseworthy in Marx's work.

Rob developed an ad hominem argument in his rebuttal to a scholarly
post on Marx's scholarship. Once someone else raised the subject of
Marx's personal qualities, it seemed appropriate to answer.

If the problem is ad hominem argumentation in general, it's odd that
no one took offense when Rob asked that Marx be given scholarly
credit for what was termed his "genuine morality and concern for the
state of the world."

This was the specific comment that occasioned my post on the subject
of Marx's morality. This was an ad hominem argument in exactly the
same way that the original argument to which I replied was ad
hominem. That is, it was an argument addressing Marx's person rather
than his ideas.

You confuse two issues in your response.

It's correct that I offered an ad hominem correction to the ad
hominem praise of Marx as a genuine moralist. Had no one mentioned
Marx as a person, I would have left Karl Marx the person out of it.

The other post involved his scholarship. This is hardly "silly stuff"
on a scholarly discussion list. I discuss Marx's flawed scholarship
in the post on Marx's readings and his use of evidence. This is a
scholarly issue. It is a fair subject of scholarly debate. To analyze
the use of sources is neither a tirade nor an ad hominem argument.

You state that we would have little to work with if we were to ". . .
[check] every source that they themselves use for its veracity,
[check] that they had read everything available in the British museum
at the time, before we allowed ourselves to find their ideas
interesting or useful."

This is, in part, correct.

I have already acknowledged -- in each of my three posts -- that Marx
has interesting ideas, and that his analysis was in part useful.

In criticizing Marx's scholarship, I am not discussing works
available in the British Museum that Marx might have read but did not
read. I am discussing the willful misuse of what he did read. His
works frequently involve falsified quotations or deliberate
misquotes, and his major source of empirical data relies on an
out-of-date source that he knew was in many ways unreliable (Engels
1958 [1845]). We know, for example, that Marx was aware of the Bruno
Hildebrand's 1848 critique of Engels because he made use of the
specific book in which Hildebrand criticized Engels.

Marx was distinguished for his careless or dishonest use of sources.
See, for example, Page's (1987) study on Marx's methods and use of
evidence.

The first post in this thread involves a body of work that was held
up as a theoretical achievement unparalleled by other scholars, not
even in the century and a half since it was first put forward. My
first post refuted that claim.

The second post in the thread involved the notion that Marx could not
have been aware of these later works. My second post discussed the
use that Marx made of the works that were available to him, the works
that he read, and the conclusions that he drew despite a perfectly
useful historical record that suggested other conclusions.

The third post in the thread involved the personal qualities of Marx
as a moral figure. No one should be given scholarly credit for
personal behavior, but when the issue of Marx's personal behavior
came up, I responded by offering a few facts about Marx the person. I
feel no need to discuss Marx as a person. I did feel a need to
clarify an ad hominem argument that was put forward by someone else.

I haven't suggested that anyone is "morally tainted because [they]
find [a] reading of Marx's ideas productive and illuminating." As I
made clear in each of three posts, I am also interested in Marx's
ideas. I have read Marx more carefully and more productively than
many Marxists have. To be sure, that isn't much of a claim. I have
also done careful and productive reading of many who have themselves
been inspired by Marx - especially the scholars of the Frankfurt
School.

If you read my three posts carefully, and this fourth, you will see
that I argue from a reasonable knowledge of Marx, his writings and
his ideas. For various reasons, I also had occasion to learn
something about Marx the man. This should have no place in a
scholarly debate. Nevertheless, Rob's decision to bring Marx's
morality into play required a note on his "genuine morality."

I'm not sure if it's a flashback to the Cold War or a reverse spin on
the notion that we Americans know nothing of Marx, but your tone
seemed to suggest more emotion than my post should have occasioned.

You seem to be reading a critique where none was given. I never
suggested that there's anything wrong with getting some value out of
Marx. There is some value there, and the work has its uses.

My critique was aimed at Marx as a scholar. This is fair enough.
Unlike most scholars and writers, Marx's ideas were used to reshape
the political behavior of the century. From the 1870s on, several
hundred thousand works have been published that use, build on, or
elaborate Marx's work.

Unlike a normal scholar whose work is subject to peer review and
careful critique from the first, Marx's work came into currency
through political means. Most historians or social scientists would
have been subject to far more rigorous and elaborate review well
before their work ever gained such promise. This did, in fact happen,
but the political process was paramount in shaping the reception for
Marx's work. More than a few scholars over the years have treated
Marx as a form of a priori data outside the bounds of critique. This
has tended to reify Marx's work as empirically valid data when it
never was.

Had any other scholar committed the kinds of errors that Marx
committed, their work would have been critiqued and assimilated into
a normal discourse. The valid ideas would have been carried forward,
and the nonsense would have been left aside. In fact, two Cambridge
scholars undertook a careful review of Marx's scholarship as early as
the 1880s, and published a serious study on the flaws and problems.
By this time, however, Marx had undergone a political apotheosis. The
work of two diligent scholars in an academic monograph doesn't
function in the same way against a political hero as it might in a
review of an ordinary scholar.

To point out a few of these flaws is hardly silly. Quite the
contrary, what is silly is the notion that a scholar's work should
have been the basis of several hundred thousand publications written,
for the most part, by scholars who never read a proper critique of
Marx's supposed data.

What seems silly to me is you idea that a writer who has exerted such
influence should not be subject to carefully review. Even at this
late date, there is a purpose served in reviewing the work of an
influential writer given the fact that his work was not, in the first
instance, subject to the kind of careful review or critique that
would have been given to most scholars.

With Marx, you can't have it both ways. As an ordinary scholar,
perhaps his work ought not to be subjected to a source critique. Marx
is not an ordinary scholar. First, there are those several hundred
thousand publications. Then, there are a few hundred universities
built around his theories. Most of them are now defunct or reformed,
but they existed for the best part of a century. Then there were
several dozen governments established on his ideas, governments that
controlled the lives of a few billion people - two or three billion
if you count both the living and the dead - who were subject to the
"dictatorship of the proletariat." While there remain only a billion
or so living people left under the dictatorship of
Marxist-Leninist-Mao Tse Tung thought, there are another few billion
struggling still to find their way out of the world that Marx's
thinking shaped.

As a literary critic and social theorist, Marx remains a lively and
interesting presence in the world of ideas. As a political theorist
and the co-founder of a revolutionary ideology, he has a different
face. Major claims are still made for Marx as a scholar and a
scientist, some just recently on this list. The claim of scholarly
and scientific validity mean that Marx's work must be subject to
scholarly and scientific critique. Given the huge influence he has
exerted, careful source critique is hardly inappropriate.

Your post seems to suggest that one ought to exempt Marx from source
critique simply because he has been responsible for some good ideas.
Not hardly. In addition to his good ideas, he has been responsible
for a lot of nonsense. The worst nonsense involves precisely those
ideas and issues where he fudged, faked, or lied outright. Saying the
Marx ought to be exempt from source critique is "silly stuff" if our
business here involves scholarship.

Scholarship is among the purposes of a list that focuses on doctoral
education. Once we rule out careful evaluation and debate - even
source critique - why, then, any of us can create our own Bible, our
own science, our own dictatorship of the proletariat. I suppose that
wouldn't be such a bad idea if I get to interpret the Bible, set the
terms of science, and run the state. I'm not sure I'll trust you with
those sweeping powers. If, on the other hand, you're not willing to
accept my authority, then you have to allow that we're all scholars
here. That means we're all free to debate, and the work of any other
scholar is subject to debate. And that means Plato, St. Augustine and
even Marx might come in for critique along with the rest of us.

Best regards,

Ken Friedman


References

Engels, Friedrich. 1958 [1845]. The condition of the working class in
England. Translated and edited by W.O. Henderson and W.H. Chaloner.
New York: Macmillan.

Page, Leslie R. 1987. Karl Marx and the Critical Examination of his
Works. London: Freedom Association.



--

Ken Friedman, Ph.D.
Associate Professor of Leadership and Strategic Design
Department of Knowledge Management
Norwegian School of Management

School

+47 22.98.50.00 Telephone
+47 22.98.51.11 Telefax

Home office

+46 (46) 53.245 Telephone
+46 (46) 53.345 Telefax

email: [log in to unmask]