Home
Mobile version
spiked plus
About spiked
What is spiked?
Support spiked
spiked shop
Contact us
Advertising
Summer school
Top issues
Abortion
Arab uprisings
British politics
Child abuse panic
Economy
Environment
For Europe, Against the EU
Free speech
Jimmy Savile scandal
Nudge
Obesity
Parents and kids
Population
USA
View all issues...
special feature
The Counter-Leveson Inquiry
other sections
 Letters
 Review of Books
 Monthly archive
selected authors
Duleep Allirajah
Daniel Ben-Ami
Tim Black
Jennie Bristow
Sean Collins
Dr Michael Fitzpatrick
Frank Furedi
Helene Guldberg
Patrick Hayes
Mick Hume
Rob Lyons
Brendan O’Neill
Nathalie Rothschild
James Woudhuysen
more authors...
RSS feed
survey

abc def ghi jkl mno pqrs tuv wxyz index
Survey home
Introduction
Survey responses
RSS feed
Anjana Ahuja
Julian Baggini
Philip Ball
Marlene Oscar Berman
Gustav VR Born
K Eric Drexler
Marcus Du Sautoy
Edmond H Fischer
John Hall
Tim Hunt
Wolfgang Ketterle
Leon Lederman
Matt Ridley
Raymond Tallis
Frank Wilczek
Lewis Wolpert
James Woudhuysen
professor of forecasting and innovation, De Montfort University.


The greatest innovation in my field, forecasting and innovation, was probably made by Karl Marx.

Bourgeois commentators insist that Marx’s forecasts about the inevitable advent of working class rule have been proved wrong. What they miss is how Marx never presented himself as a forecaster. He spoke of conflicting tendencies of development. When writing about the growth of the reserve army of unemployed, or what he called the absolute general law of capitalist accumulation (chapter XXV of volume One of Capital, Marx was quick to note: ‘Like all other laws it is modified in its working by many circumstances’.

While Marx was a subtle Hegelian, those who denigrate him lack any scholarship. In particular, to prove their point that he was a wrong-headed forecaster, they fall back on just one quotation to summarise a life’s work.  The quotation is from chapter XXXII of volume One of Capital, and reads:

‘Along with the constantly diminishing number of the magnates of capital, who usurp and monopolise all advantages of this process of transformation, grows the mass of misery, oppression, slavery, degradation, exploitation; but with this too grows the revolt of the working-class, a class always increasing in numbers, and disciplined, united, organised by the very mechanism of the process of capitalist production itself. The monopoly of capital becomes a fetter upon the mode of production, which has sprung up and flourished along with, and under it. Centralisation of the means of production and socialisation of labour at last reach a point where they become incompatible with their capitalist integument. Thus integument is burst asunder. The knell of capitalist private property sounds. The expropriators are expropriated.’

It is notable that Marx uses the present tense. He does not set a date on the great events to which he looks forward, except to say ‘at last’. His is an enthusiastic sketch of tendencies, not a black-and-white prediction.

Though he was, if anything, a more original student of technological innovation than Adam Smith, Marx never aspired to be a Nostradamus. He knew that human agency was infinitely more powerful than fate.

That intellectual innovation remains an unassimilated lesson to today’s forecasters!