Thomas P.M. Barnett :: Weblog

With all due respect, but could you be any more cryptic? It's really not a big deal, but this weird tangent about Marx not knowing what came next kind of throws me for a loop.

Yes, I know, the "inevitable" revolution and the classless society that he predicted turned out to be nothing more than wishful thinking on his part.

But what I mean is this: did you simply want to point out that he was wrong - while true enough, hardly noteworthy or newsworthy any more - or are you somehow implying YOU can confidently predict where Russia is headed?
Because that's how it came across, and that would be a rather bold claim...

with all due respect, Marc, how much of Tom's stuff have you read? because he's on the record with a lot of this stuff and does not rehearse it every time he posts.

the fact that Marx was right about many things - Tom taught Marx at Harvard and is an economic determinist - but ultimately wrong in predictions is definitely worth noting.

I guess I should apologize - that wasn't well thought-out comment.
For the record: I haven't read Mr Barnett's books - so if you think that one should only comment with a detailed knowledge of his work I will abide by that. It's not an entirely unreasonable position, I admit, although it should be made explicit if that is indeed your view.

I came across his work when he did the series of interviews on PNM on Hugh Hewitt's show and I have read many of his articles and book reviews, so I guess that should at least qualify as a superficial familiarity with his ideas.

Really, it was only the tone of the post that rubbed me the wrong way:
I read it as "oh, by the way, Marx was wrong in his predictions - we moderns have a much better grasp of the future"

I admit, I may not be making an entirely rational point here - it was just a gut reaction, an off-the-cuff remark if you will, to a short blog post that probably was not intended as being anything more than a short off-the-cuff remark either.
It simply struck me as somewhat preening and arrogant and brought up an instinctive aversion I have against any kind of overconfidence in predictions for the future.

I am not trying to denigrate this whole concept of "Grand Strategy" theories and analysis - but I assume Mr Barnett would be the first to admit that although he and his colleagues in the field try to identify the overarching trends as well as some of the less obvious undercurrents of international security and geopolitics, there are always unforeseeable events and developments that could bring the whold house of cards tumbling down.

As an aside, I may be that the reason for my general discomfort here is an underlying negative bias I have as someone from the field of natural sciences (physics) against the predictive powers of social sciences.
So, again, sorry for making a mountain out of a molehill. Feel entirely free to ignore this.

oh, i don't know, Marc: 'apologize' is pretty strong ;-)

while it is not our view that only those with extensive knowledge of Tom's work should comment, i do like for people who criticize Tom or his ideas - or even posts - to have the familiarity to do so. some i obviously don't even publish. it sounds like you are familiar.

further, part of Tom's MO is short, off the cuff/Treo posts that do not attempt to be comprehensive and are sometimes glib. he also makes these kinds of comments in the midst of larger pieces like the Brief and his books (where there's obviously a lot more context).

i'll stop there, so neither of us makes a mountain of a molehill. thanks for your comment and for reading the weblog.