In this new working paper, we investigate our critics' claim that the SPD popularized Marxism in Germany with its 1891 Erfurt Program, long before Lenin came along.
Our main finding may be seen here. The Erfurt Program appears to give Marx's citations a very modest boost in 1891.
Except (1) it isn't statistically significant, and (2) it's dwarfed by 1917, which does past muster for significance.
Some of our critics also claimed that Ngram isn't suitable for this test (although they never offered any compelling reason why). So we ran the same test using an independent database of scanned German newspapers. The result? Not even a visible boost from the SPD or Erfurt.
Together, these findings lend even more support to our original paper. It finds clear empirical evidence that the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917 took Marx, a relatively obscure figure in his lifetime and the decades after his death, and made him mainstream.
Synthetic Karl Marx is returning for another round.
Preview: John Ganz and all the other twitter warriors who claimed that the SPD popularized Marx before 1917 are simply wrong and don't know what they're talking about.
For reference, here's Ganz's claim from back in November about the SPD.
We tested it by using the 1891 Erfurt Program as a treatment, and he's simply wrong.
Our findings using German Ngram reveal only a tiny visual increase in Marx's citations from Erfurt, and we're unable to establish statistical significance. Meanwhile the 1917 boost from the Bolsheviks is huge and statistically significant.
One of the stranger myths of the Brown v. Board aftermath is that Arlington County, VA bucked the "Massive Resistance" movement of the state and permitted integration. Not true! In 1956, the Arlington school board voted 3-0 to fight court-ordered desegregation in appellate court
The Arlington school board consistently affirmed this position in the desegregation era, adopting resolutions that pursued every available avenue. The language of these resolutions clearly sided with preserving segregation.
In 1958 the NAACP sued the Arlington school board after it systematically rejected 30 out of 30 African-American applicants for transfer into all-white schools.
This strategy was intentional and relied on zoning, enrollment caps, and even IQ tests to block the transferees.
In today's NY Times, @jonathanmahler tries to smear Milton Friedman's 1955 school voucher proposal by invoking an outright fraudulent working paper Nancy MacLean.
In reality, Friedman explicitly argued for using vouchers as a tool to undermine segregation.
I documented this history a few years ago at the WSJ, including presenting evidence of how segregationists in Virginia teamed up with the teachers unions to oppose vouchers, which they claimed would lead to the "negro engulfment" of white schools.
For reference, here is a 1959 memo by the head of the Virginia Education Association teachers' union promoting a plan by John S. Battle, Jr. to address the "grave problem" of court-ordered school desegregation.
Gordon Tullock enjoyed military history, often studying scenarios of decisionmaking by different commanders.
It would be a mistake to use this hobby as a basis for projecting the politics of a given war onto him.
Strange: Kuehn's now stalker-responding to tweets of mine that aren't even addressed at him.
Even stranger: I am easily the object of a large plurality of Kuehn's attention on this site even though he also plays a bizarre ding-dong-ditch game of block/reply/block with my account
Same thing happens whenever I post an update on the Marx project. Within minutes he swoops in to have a multi-tweet meltdown, all of which appears as ghost-comments under my post due to his game of Twitter ding-dong-ditch.
Imagine building your entire research agenda around having an adversarial obsession with whatever I happen to be working on at the moment...
Also note: Tullock did not "change his view" to support Dred Scott in the 1980s. Here are examples from 1984 and 1980 where he reiterates his belief that the decision was in error.
Given that he's been ranting for 4+ months based on his own erroneous assumptions about our paper when in fact they were addressed in its text from the get-go, this certainly is awkward.
And now he's backtracking by way of denying the linearity of time.
Hint: If the Russians hadn't put Marx on the map in a big way in 1917, subsequent interest in Marx would likely be much more of a niche topic, as Copleston and dozens of others have explained.
Even Daniel's own favorite "alternative" theory - Frankfurt school critical theory - follows this path.
The founding of the Frankfurt School in 1923 came from students of Karl Korsch, a Marxist theorist who openly admitted that Lenin reinvigorated Marxism from the doldrums.