I agree that most people don’t understand what the bulk of Marx’s writing were about. Indeed, this is probably true about the work of every major thinker/writer, whether it is Marx or Hayek or Adam Smith.

I do think there is a modern understanding of what Marxism is that is based on what self-described Marxists claim to believe; much like with Burkean conservatism, the set of beliefs is often that of self-described followers centuries later than with the original.

As to the literature on classes, and by way of backing up his point about the ideological function of economic class(es), among other things, I’ll be so bold as to suggest one read the works of Erik Olin Wright for a contemporary Marxist take on the topic.

There is, of course, a fine tradition of socialism/social democracy that has always been independent of and highly critical of Soviet-style communism. And some of that was based in some of Marx’s ideas. I wouldn’t call myself a “Marxist” for a variety of reasons, including but not limited to the facts that (i) he was wrong about some important things; (ii) horrible folks have used and misused some of his ideas with tragic consequences; and (iii) I’m not comfortable with being an “ist” for anybody — I would prefer to evaluate and critique ideas without worrying about whether I was being faithful to the notions of some individual long gone. But some of Marx’s ideas were accurate (to Patrick’s list I’ll add the notion that economic class is important in ideological formation and in understanding history and society generally), and some of his ideas spurred other movements and thinkers that have had positive effects.

Barbara E.’s intellectual roots come partly from that non-communist socialist tradition, partly from some ideas developed during and in reaction to the new left (e.g., feminism, trying to understand how class worked in modern American society), but much is her own invention. Her works speak for themselves, and should be evaluated without recourse to labels meant to be insulting and dismissive.

To the extent she is trying to call our attention to the depressingly enormous gaps in wealth and income and the negative effects those gaps have in society, more power to her. Let’s listen to her arguments and evaluate them on their own merits.

Perhaps you would agree that “most people” have not a clue about what the bulk of Marx’s writings are about. Few, for instance, have little appreciation for the fact that Marx wrote (for better and worse) comparatively little about what he understood by both socialism and communism.

FWIW: Part of my worldview is unabashedly Marxist. As to the sense in which I’m a Marxist, it closely tracks the closing words from Jon Elster’s indispensable study, Making Sense of Marx (1985):

“It is not possible today, morally or intellectually, to be a Marxist in the traditional sense. This would be someone who accepted all or most of the views that Marx held to be true and important–scientific socialism, the labour theory of value or the theory of falling rate of profit [I see things a bit differently than Elster on these two items], together with other and more defensible views. But, speaking now for myself only, I believe it is still possible to be a Marxist in a rather different sense of the term. I find that most of the views that *I* hold to be true and important, I can trace back to Marx. This includes methodology, substantive theories and, above all, values. The critique of exploitation and alienation remains central. A better society would be one that allowed all human beings to do what only human beings can do–to create, to invent, to imagine other worlds.” (Elster, p. 531).

Indeed, in the spirit of the above, I find myself drawn to the “Marxist conception of the good life,” at least as spelled out by Elster in his brilliant essay, “Self-Realisation in Work and Politics: The Marxist Conception of the Good Life,” in Jon Elster and Karl Ove Moene, eds., Alternatives to Capitalism, 1989: 127-158.

Finally, and incidentally, I’ve put together fairly short and select bibliography on Marx and Marxism (secondary literature) should anyone be interested in widening and deepening their knowledge in this area.

Although your description of how people use the world Marxist seems a bit off, I think. For the most part, people use “Marxist” as a term to mean a socialist, in my experience; given how few libertarians there are, your definiion seems particularly unlikely.

And the full sentence is “Twenty years ago, Barbara Ehrenreich wrote an article for the New York Times in which she pointed out the growing inequality of American society and was promptly denounced, by a rival paper, as a Marxist.”

@Paul Gowder – “Marxist” is a code-word/slur meaning something like “this person is such a left-wing nut they should be dismissed immediately on general principles because we all know liberalism is wrong and Libertarianism is right”.

Beling a Marxist is a lot like believing George W. Bush is the greatest President in American history. Most people will think you’re out of touch, because they think all the evidence is to the contrary. On the other hand, there are pockets of true believers who insist the doubters are the ones who just don’t get it. As a result, whether it’s discreditable depends on which crowd you have in mind.

Given that she seemed pretty Marxist back in 1969, I would doubt that it was her classroom experience decades later when she had become a faculty member herself so much influenced her views.