Do marxist writers have an obligation to write well ?
Whatever sympathies one has for marxist critiques of the world, it only takes one look at, say, Capital and Class to realise how unutterably dull and soulless marxisms can be. It is tedious and smug in equal measure, but it shouldn’t be. It seems to take the worst traditions of autistic political economy (hardly leavened by ‘critique’) and re-writes them with the unctuous prolix of a zealot. Somehow it makes medieval scholasticism look rather worldly and pragmatic in comparison.
However, we’re told that “Since 1977 Capital & Class has been the main, peer-reviewed, independent source for a Marxist critique of global capitalism.” At least in that faint praise perhaps we have the kernel of an explanation for the decline of marxism. If this is the best on offer we’re well and truly screwed. No doubt it is independent, by which one assumes is meant independent from any marxist party or particular organisation’s doctrine. And no doubt it is peer-reviewed, where the reviewing peers are invariably not so much critics as disciplining hermeneuts. But no doubt it remains dull as ditch water.
So after half a dozen years of not having read Capital and Class, this renewed attempt to re-engage with the soi-disant “pioneer[s of] key debates,” I’m left with the same disappointed sigh with which I closed Capital and Class six years ago.
Morfoubey 