What do you think?
Rate this book
Historical Materialism #26
Behind the Crisis: Marx's Dialectic of Value and Knowledge
Much has been written since Capital was published about Marx's irrelevance. This has often been attributed to his unworkable method of inquiry. Going against this current, this book introduces the most hotly debated issues and evaluates them using Marx's method. Through these analyses what emerges is a solid foundation upon which to develop a multi-faceted theory of crises.
303 pages, Paperback
First published December 17, 2010
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews
September 24, 2022
It has some good and interesting points on it's abstraction about the dialectic method, but some political stances (such as opposing Marx's theory with Engels' when they are one and the same) and his take of basic concepts (such as ideology, abstract labour, rate of profit, production of knowledge, etc.) are plain wrong.
Another good point is the critique to the neoclassics and Keynes, but the mistakes mentioned are enough to not recommend this book on my opinion (it would confuse more the marxist discussion rather than elucidate it).
Another good point is the critique to the neoclassics and Keynes, but the mistakes mentioned are enough to not recommend this book on my opinion (it would confuse more the marxist discussion rather than elucidate it).
September 30, 2018
I went into this book hoping to get insight into several ideas. It starts off fine. He shows us the flaws of formal logic and explains that dialectics is correct because of the added temporal dimension. He declares all knowledge to be non neutral. I agree with him completely. Ideology is always hiding behind knowledge. But his example of others on the Left falling prey to the ideology of capitalists is really very shallow. He says that explaining the crisis in terms of wage reduction is incorrect. He is right, but I don't believe there are many who see the cause of the crisis as being due to wage poverty. The decrease in wages is only the manifestation of the contradiction of Capital. The people who explain it through wages do not believe that Capitalism is rational or leads to Equilibrium theory as Carchedi assumes.
... I don't agree with his take on the amount of surplus labor capitalists receive from other nations. According to him it's not very much and simply refers us to another author who supposedly examines that subject in detail in another book. I think he does this in order to show us that intellectual labor is legitimate labor and not a surplus which stands on the backs of the laborers overseas who are exploited. This is incorrect on his part.
In order to enter labor based on knowledge he uses the concept of metabolism. He uses this silly concept of the synapses in your brain burning energy as you labor. And he tries to remove the absolutism of the concepts of knowledge workers by explaining that all laborers and workers use their minds etc. This creates a seeming smoothness to the connection between labor and intellectual labor.
He also doesn't think the nation state apparatus has outlived its benefits for the Capitalist class. He ignores the fact that companies are more and more effected by multiple nations who have their different cycles and economic policies. He simply states that when a crisis occurs the problem of the state economy becomes a major concern again.
But just like other leftists he continues to defend the basic ideological components of capitalism. He declares that we should be blindly faithful to the working class. I agree. But one wonders why the authors defend capitalist notions so adamantly. The most obvious is feminism. He declares feminism to be a working class position. Yet he doesn't attempt to explain this in any detail or data. Nor can he. Feminism is today without a doubt the greatest antagonism to the working class. It has made trillions for the rich and has helped the reproduction of the bourgeoisie as a class.
And so I suppose that we can say That the weakness of the dialectic is that it is still stuck within the ranks of the elite.
The book was excellent at demonstrating tendency and counter tendency. I was initially excited and then it turned lackluster. But I would recommend this book! It was an enjoyable read and very thought provoking.
... I don't agree with his take on the amount of surplus labor capitalists receive from other nations. According to him it's not very much and simply refers us to another author who supposedly examines that subject in detail in another book. I think he does this in order to show us that intellectual labor is legitimate labor and not a surplus which stands on the backs of the laborers overseas who are exploited. This is incorrect on his part.
In order to enter labor based on knowledge he uses the concept of metabolism. He uses this silly concept of the synapses in your brain burning energy as you labor. And he tries to remove the absolutism of the concepts of knowledge workers by explaining that all laborers and workers use their minds etc. This creates a seeming smoothness to the connection between labor and intellectual labor.
He also doesn't think the nation state apparatus has outlived its benefits for the Capitalist class. He ignores the fact that companies are more and more effected by multiple nations who have their different cycles and economic policies. He simply states that when a crisis occurs the problem of the state economy becomes a major concern again.
But just like other leftists he continues to defend the basic ideological components of capitalism. He declares that we should be blindly faithful to the working class. I agree. But one wonders why the authors defend capitalist notions so adamantly. The most obvious is feminism. He declares feminism to be a working class position. Yet he doesn't attempt to explain this in any detail or data. Nor can he. Feminism is today without a doubt the greatest antagonism to the working class. It has made trillions for the rich and has helped the reproduction of the bourgeoisie as a class.
And so I suppose that we can say That the weakness of the dialectic is that it is still stuck within the ranks of the elite.
The book was excellent at demonstrating tendency and counter tendency. I was initially excited and then it turned lackluster. But I would recommend this book! It was an enjoyable read and very thought provoking.
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews