Tyler Cowen answers Brad DeLong's challenge to find five valid points in Marxism. I have to admire Tyler's attempt to find the silver lining in the very, very dark cloud that is Marxism. However, at the risk of taking on my betters, I think a few comments are in order.

1. Capitalist systems, especially before reaching contemporary times, can produce less autonomy than small scale production. Standards of living do rise from industrialization. But I look at many of my rural Mexican friends. They could earn somewhat higher wages in factories, but they prefer to paint ceramics at home. It is more fun and they control their time to a large degree. At some point industrialization can undercut the cultures and networks of suppliers that makes such a choice possible. Marx directs our attention to a certain indivisibility of systems.

My take: Most of the Mexicans I've seen aren't romantically making ceramics in their houses; they're out in the world trying to eek out a living in that hopelessly corrupt economy. I just can't quite accept the notion that a Mexican peasant is any more "autonomous" than a factory worker.

2. Marxism promotes an alternative idea of freedom, namely freedom from the market. Anyone who has chosen life as a tenured university professor should not claim that such an idea is complete nonsense. Smith thought in terms of marginal tradeoffs. Marx, above all, focused on inframarginal and systematic effects.

My take: Indeed Marxism promotes a different kind of freedom. But is it the correct view of freedom? Remember, DeLong was looking for valid parts of Marxism. The Marxist notion of "freedom from want" is simply childish nonsense that has no validity in any world with scarcity. The pursuit of this pipe dream has led to immense suffering (that Tyler of course acknowledges).

Also, I'm not sure why tenured professors (like me) should be considered to be free from the market. On the contrary, we pay a big price in the market for this luxurious perq in the form of lower pay.

3. The benefits of industrialization take a long time to kick in. Reforming postcommunist economies took fifteen years or more. Poland did most things right and people there are still unhappy. So how long should it take to reform feudalism or other preindustrial structures? Forty years? I take seriously the idea that the industrial revolution did not make people better off right away, so did Marx.

My take: I challenge that the industrial revolution did not make people better off even right away. I'd ask better off compared to what? Which is worse: 10-12 hours a day in a stinking factory or 10-12 hour days on a stinking feudal farm? Hayek's edited book Capitalism and the Historians is a must-read on this question.

4. Being happy at work is one of the most important things in life. Marx saw the importance of this more clearly than did many of the classical economists. And he saw the importance of inframarginal systemic factors.

My take: Why all this talk of happiness? Classical Marxism like Classical Economics was fundamentally about material life. I agree with Tyler that being happy at work is one of the most important things in life, and I'm not necessarily against studying the makings of happiness per se, but I don't think Marxism had much to say on the subject.

5. A growing division of labor can make some people unhappier at their jobs.

My take: More talk of happiness? Sure Marx talked about "alienation" from your labour (note the spelling!) but he meant it in the literal sense that a worker doing minute, specialized tasks is far removed from understanding or appreciating was he is doing. That is, the final product being produced is quite alien to the worker in an economy with specialization. I don't believe Marx used the term "alienation" to mean unhappy though many people read it this way.

Even so, Smith appreciated this point at least as well as Marx.