Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A review of Thomas Piketty’s “Capital and Ideology”

bostonreview.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 218 posts

Re: A review of Thomas Piketty’s “Capital and Ideology”

#11

Post by lainga »

geodel wrote: post #7

" “the Democratic Party in the United States transitioned over half a century from the workers’ party to the party of the highly educated.” Elites’ distance from working-class interest, he contends, led the Democratic party and its ideological counterparts abroad to accede to a policy program betraying the values of social democracy: regressive taxation, elite domination of higher education systems, and forms of glob…

Is it right for Piketty to assert that the Democratic Party was a homogeneous whole in the 60's? What exactly was Daley doing at Chicago in 1968 in the interests of social democracy? You may as well claim that the Democrats transitioned from the party of the South due to unforeseen Goldwater-shaped factors.

Re: A review of Thomas Piketty’s “Capital and Ideology”

#12

Post by save_ferris »

geodel wrote: post #7

" “the Democratic Party in the United States transitioned over half a century from the workers’ party to the party of the highly educated.” Elites’ distance from working-class interest, he contends, led the Democratic party and its ideological counterparts abroad to accede to a policy program betraying the values of social democracy: regressive taxation, elite domination of higher education systems, and forms of glob…

I always assume most are just oblivious, given the fact that the Democratic Party still tries to identify as a worker-first party. That’s rapidly changing with the rise of the modern progressive movement, DSA and the like.

Part of the problem is the two-party system, which essentially ensures that control remains between the Dems and GOP. This is why so many presidential elections wind up being contests of the least-worst option.

Re: A review of Thomas Piketty’s “Capital and Ideology”

#13

Post by [deleted] »

geodel wrote: post #7

" “the Democratic Party in the United States transitioned over half a century from the workers’ party to the party of the highly educated.” Elites’ distance from working-class interest, he contends, led the Democratic party and its ideological counterparts abroad to accede to a policy program betraying the values of social democracy: regressive taxation, elite domination of higher education systems, and forms of glob…

[deleted]

Re: A review of Thomas Piketty’s “Capital and Ideology”

#14

Post by 0x262d »

0x262d wrote: post #10

It's worth noting that Piketty has an astonishingly basic misunderstanding/non-understanding of the marxist analysis of capitalism despite the titles of his books. He hasn't even read Capital. I like his politics relatively well as far as most liberals go but that is still pretty disappointing. “What I mean,” Piketty says, explaining his differences with Marx, “is that your class position is not enough to determine y…

Looking through some of the comments, I want to add that Piketty talks much more clearly about these topics and makes better points than most consensus economists, pundits, etc, so I'm glad people are reading him rather than eg NYT columnists.

But I think people who find this sort of thing interesting would find marxism's analysis of the economy much more interesting and convincing. Start with Wage Labour And Capital then try either Value Price And Profit or Capital itself.

Re: A review of Thomas Piketty’s “Capital and Ideology”

#15

Post by _0ffh »

hardtke wrote: post #9
dorchadas wrote: post #3

I'm currently working my way through Capital in the Twenty-First Century . It's been really eye-opening about how bad inequality actually is. I suggest everyone read it, and I'm excited to read his new one soon after.

The thing I took away from Capital in the Twenty-First Century was his conjecture that the post-WWII (until about 1990) period was one of the few times in history that prosperity was widely shared with workers. The era that I consider to be normal (since I lived it) is in fact very abnormal.

Yeah, I realised that too at some point. And I immediately formed a (maybe obvious) hypothesis about the timing.

Re: A review of Thomas Piketty’s “Capital and Ideology”

#16

Post by 0x262d »

lainga wrote: post #11
geodel wrote: post #7

" “the Democratic Party in the United States transitioned over half a century from the workers’ party to the party of the highly educated.” Elites’ distance from working-class interest, he contends, led the Democratic party and its ideological counterparts abroad to accede to a policy program betraying the values of social democracy: regressive taxation, elite domination of higher education systems, and forms of glob…

Is it right for Piketty to assert that the Democratic Party was a homogeneous whole in the 60's? What exactly was Daley doing at Chicago in 1968 in the interests of social democracy? You may as well claim that the Democrats transitioned from the party of the South due to unforeseen Goldwater-shaped factors.

The Democratic party has always been an unhappy coalition between capitalists and workers with diametrically opposed material interests. But in the 60s and 70s there was an extremely militant labor movement and the balance of power between those two groups was shifted a lot (although political control was never given up).

Re: A review of Thomas Piketty’s “Capital and Ideology”

#17

Post by baron_harkonnen »

0x262d wrote: post #10

It's worth noting that Piketty has an astonishingly basic misunderstanding/non-understanding of the marxist analysis of capitalism despite the titles of his books. He hasn't even read Capital. I like his politics relatively well as far as most liberals go but that is still pretty disappointing. “What I mean,” Piketty says, explaining his differences with Marx, “is that your class position is not enough to determine y…

The greatest work of capitalist propaganda has been to almost completely replace Marx with a straw man in the public imagination. Even if you disagree with Marx, knowing his actual work and thoughts is vital to understanding the world that we live in. If you think Marx is wrong, you should at least be able to articulate it in terms of the things Marx actually wrote.

The fact that the American left is about as ignorant of Marx as the average creationist is of Darwin just goes to show how deeply capitalist ideology has usurped the US political system.

Re: A review of Thomas Piketty’s “Capital and Ideology”

#18

Post by nemo »

0x262d wrote: post #14
0x262d wrote: post #10

It's worth noting that Piketty has an astonishingly basic misunderstanding/non-understanding of the marxist analysis of capitalism despite the titles of his books. He hasn't even read Capital. I like his politics relatively well as far as most liberals go but that is still pretty disappointing. “What I mean,” Piketty says, explaining his differences with Marx, “is that your class position is not enough to determine y…

Looking through some of the comments, I want to add that Piketty talks much more clearly about these topics and makes better points than most consensus economists, pundits, etc, so I'm glad people are reading him rather than eg NYT columnists. But I think people who find this sort of thing interesting would find marxism's analysis of the economy much more interesting and convincing. Start with Wage Labour And Capital…

Anyone interested in Marx should read Bertrand Russel's critiques of Marxism and his analysis of the Manifesto with an honest mind. The Hegelianism behind Marxism is a tool that can prove both that the Kingdom of Prussia in the 1760s was a reflection of God's will, as well as giving Marx the idea that he had a scientific approach to history that let him predict the future. Any tool of reasoning that can prove anything, in the end proves nothing, and all of Marx's history and analysis is steeped in Hegelian dialectic rendering it nonsense. His many predictions all failed, but his ideology lived on despite Scientific Socialism being a failed science.

Also anyone interested in Marx should take the time to understand the Labor Theory of Value. It's a lynchpin of Marx's analysis, and it's an idea long since thoroughly discredited. Marxism is a house built on sand.

Re: A review of Thomas Piketty’s “Capital and Ideology”

#19

Post by codingslave »

geodel wrote: post #7

" “the Democratic Party in the United States transitioned over half a century from the workers’ party to the party of the highly educated.” Elites’ distance from working-class interest, he contends, led the Democratic party and its ideological counterparts abroad to accede to a policy program betraying the values of social democracy: regressive taxation, elite domination of higher education systems, and forms of glob…

I've always viewed it as paradoxical that the left is both:

1.) For the welfare of the worker, social programs, universal healthcare, "standard of living"

2.) Open borders immigration, free trade, outsourcing, and other ultra capitalist policies.

Re: A review of Thomas Piketty’s “Capital and Ideology”

#20

Post by hkmurakami »

geodel wrote: post #7

" “the Democratic Party in the United States transitioned over half a century from the workers’ party to the party of the highly educated.” Elites’ distance from working-class interest, he contends, led the Democratic party and its ideological counterparts abroad to accede to a policy program betraying the values of social democracy: regressive taxation, elite domination of higher education systems, and forms of glob…

One thing to remember is that everyone thinks they're "middle class".

Even the corporate VP making half a million dollars thinks she's middle class.

Post reply on HN