Masters of Money – Response from the BBC

[Anonymous]

 

I have received this response from the BBC

 

 

Dear Mr Maratty

Thank you for contacting us about Masters of Money and please accept our apologies for the delay in responding. I discussed your letter with the production team and the Executive Producer has requested that I forward you his response. 

 

Dear Mr Maratty

Thank you for your letter concerning Masters Of Money.

As you say, exploring Marx’s ideas within an hour is a huge challenge for television aimed at the uninitiated.  This is especially the case when the programme is made with reference to the recent financial crisis, itself a very complex issue.  I am very sorry that you didn’t enjoy this particular compression of the relevance of Marx’s thinking, and hope this letter explains some of the thinking behind the programme to your satisfaction.

The reason why we concentrated so heavily on the “can’t buy back” idea is that the programme and series was framed around explaining the recent global financial crisis.  The thinkers featured in the programme who spoke in support of Marx in some shape or form – Joseph Stiglitz, Nouriel Roubini, George Magnus, Raghuram Rajan, Tariq Ali, David Harvey and Martin Jacques – all highlighted this particular reading of Marx’s ideas as being the one most pertinent today, as did our academic advisors at the Open University.  I am aware that there are many other Marxist or Marxian readings of our current situation, but given the constraints, this seemed the best one to focus on.

You object to our description of Marx having “next to no alternative laid out”.  We believe this description to be fair and it is supported by a number of commentators and academics.  As you say, not having a “blueprint” and not having an “alternative” are not one and the same, but if one asserts the existence of an alternative without describing in any great detail what that alternative might be and how it might work, it seems reasonable to say there is “next to no alternative laid out.”  We also explained in commentary and through interviews with Tariq Ali and Slavoj Zizek, why logically Marx might not have felt able to give a very detailed description of an alternative.

You write that there was no critical examination of “Marx and the so-called 'Communist' countries, the link between the two being taken pretty much for granted, with a couple of very minor caveats.”   We did make clear that Marx’s lack of a detailed blueprint should lead us to question his association with 20^th century Communism, and we asserted that the “Communist countries…left Marx far behind”.  That said, it was necessary to mention them as they were real world attempts to find an alternative to capitalism constructed by people who claimed to be following Marx’s thinking, and – as a result – audiences would expect any discussion of Marx, and any discussion of alternatives to capitalism, to mention them.  We felt the overall direction of the programme – advancing Marx’s theories as being useful today and exploring some surprising aspects of his writings about capitalism – would have helped uninitiated audiences learn that there is far more to Marx than his association with 20^th century Communism.   Indeed this was a major thrust of the opening sequence.

You take issue with the use of the word “collapse” to describe Marx’s descriptions of the end of capitalism.  I hope I understand what you mean here.  I think you are suggesting that capitalism does not end because it is inherently unworkable, but because through its development it inevitably creates the political and social conditions that lead to its overthrow, and that by using the word “collapse” we underplay the importance and role of the proletariat.  We did explain also the end of capitalism by saying: “He thought it would all get so bad that the workers would overthrow the system”, also in the opening titles we say “Karl Marx had the most radical advice of all: get rid of [capitalism]”, and we do discuss Marx’s thinking on the revolution that ends capitalism. Either way, Marx certainly did envisage a time when capitalism would no longer be and “collapse” is a reasonable shorthand for Marx’s best known description of the end of the system in Capital.  

Finally, you ask us why we didn’t consult your organisation. We contacted a wide range of commentators – both pro and anti-Marx but because of the constraints of time, we are not always able to contact everyone. We believe the people we spoke to enabled us to produce a good overview of the issues surrounding Marxian economics. 

Thank you again for taking the time to write and I hope you would agree that while not offering anywhere near a complete appraisal of Marx’s ideas, it might have served as an engaging introduction.

I hope this addresses the points you raised and explains the production’s view. We’re grateful to you for watching and for taking the time to contact us. 

Yours sincerely,
Paul Kettle
BBC Audience Services

 

 

[ALB]

Whoever drafted that reply did know something about Marx and discussions about his views. I wonder who it was. But can you also post the letter you wrote them?Incidentally, Flanders herself has not replied to our "official" letter.

[Anonymous]

ALB wrote:

Whoever drafted that reply did know something about Marx and discussions about his views. I wonder who it was. But can you also post the letter you wrote them?Incidentally, Flanders herself has not replied to our "official" letter.

I wanted to post the reply on the original thread where my letter was posted but I can't find the original discussion. If I remember, I used comments from this forum,  in particular a comment by the 'Socialist Party'I think it would be a good idea if comrades or the 'party' could comment and I could send them the link to this thread. What do you think?

[ALB]

Thanks. I've found it. It's message #21 from you here:http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/forum/events-and-announcements/marx-bbc2?page=1

Quote:

Full Complaint: As a Marxist and a member of the oldest Marxist party in the UK I found the program was absolute rubbish. Why did you not consult the oldest Marxist party? The program wrongly claimed Marx didn't really have an alternative to capitalism (it was fair enough to say he didn't have a blueprint, but that's not the same thing of course). There was also no critical examination of Marx and the so-called 'Communist' countries, the link between the two being taken pretty much for granted, with a couple of very minor caveats. Bizarrely, she also put forward the workers 'can't buy back' theory of crises at great length, though in fairness explaining Marxian economics in less than an hour for the uninitiated isn't the easiest of tasks! It got 5 out of 10 at best though. The level of scholarship wasn't great – she repeatedly claimed without any evidence that Marx thought capitalism would collapse, but I honestly don't think she understood what she meant by this claim herself (conflating collapse with the abolition of capitalism). Marx NEVER claimed capitalism would collapse.

[Anonymous]

As I have said to Paddy on Spopen: I should point out I was writing as an individual member and the content of my letter reflected the attitude of the forum at the time. Had I drafted a letter on behalf of the Party I would have worded it differently. I think the BBC realises I am writing as an individual member who was a little angry!If nothing, they are aware of us now, and who knows in the future…. we may be be consulted.

[Anonymous]

Well done in getting a response comrade. More 'person hours' spent

[Author]

Posts