Dear David,

Thanks for your clarification. I understand now what you meant. All
is well. One thought in your note calls for a quick response.

My argument against Marx is not ad hominem except as it goes to his
reliability. Many reliable scholars and scientists are far from
likable. This does not influence my opinion of their work. If the
scholarship is good, and the research sound, personal behavior or
views on subjects outside the scope of inquiry are irrelevant. The
problem with Marx is that he was often deliberately dishonest in his
scholarship.

One use of ad hominem argument is generally accepted as appropriate.
It involves personal reliability. When a scholar lies deliberately,
we are right to question his reliability. When a scholar deliberately
states that it is permissible to lie, we are right to question his
reliability. Both cases obtain with Marx. Marx saw his scholarship as
a propaganda tool intended to further his political cause. As such,
he determined that lies were acceptable in the service of his cause.
Whatever Marx was as a politician, purposeful lies and
misrepresentations open his scholarship to question.

My argument with Marx¹s scholarship involves his willingness to lie
and fudge figures. It is this, and not his private life, that makes
him unreliable. He used old figures when he had better and more
recent figures, he distorted or fabricated quotes and source material
to create false impressions that he could then attack, he ignored the
real conditions of industries and workers he claimed to study.

As I see him, Marx was a talented propagandist and a critic who
focused his interpretive attention on society rather than art. Some
of his interpretive notions were inspired, and some ideas involve a
useful critique. What is true and useful in Marx, however, does not
appear in Marx alone.

Adam Smith, to offer an appropriate contrast, is sharp in his
criticism of businessmen and privilege. At one point, Smith (1976
[1776]: 144) accuses businessmen of ³conspiracy against the public.²
The difference between Smith and Marx is simple. Whatever you think
of Smith¹s conclusions, his research was so careful that it remains
useful.

There are many great Marxist scholars: Benjamin, Adorno, Habermas,
Hobsbawm, Lefebvre, and many more. The list is long. The polemics and
poetry of Karl Marx has clearly inspired some excellent scholars.
Marx himself is not among them.

Others may decide whether I love complicatedness more than
simplicity. As I see it ­ Occam¹s Razor again ­ I seek the smallest
number and simplest kinds of categories that account for the data.
The subject matter dictates the kind and number of categories
required for robust explanation. The idea that one should not create
more categories than required is bounded by the demand that one
create as many categories as required and no fewer.

The constraints of necessity are the key. As Hal Varian (1997: 1)
writes of models, ³keep at it till it gets simple. The whole point of
a model is to give a simplified representation of reality. Einstein
once said ŒEverything should be as simple as possible but no
simpler.¹ A model is supposed to reveal the essence of what is going
on: your model should be reduced to just those pieces that are
required to make it work.²

Just how simple must a model, an idea, or a theory be? The idea of
research is to let the world inform us in each specific case.

Best regards,

Ken

References

Smith, Adam. 1976 [1776] An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the
Wealth of Nations. Edited and with an introduction, notes, marginal
summary and index by Edwin Cannan. With a new preface by George J.
Stigler. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Varian, Hal R. 1997. ³How to Build an Economic Model in Your Spare
Time.² Passion and Craft. Economists at Work. Michael Szenberg,
editor. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

--

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

Visiting Professor
Advanced Research Institute
School of Art and Design
Staffordshire University