mck@ratex.UUCP (Daniel Kian Mc Kiernan) (03/22/85)
Mr Carnes tells us that 'A common denominator of the libertarians on
the net, even the economically sophisticated ones, is that they have
absolutely no notion of what Marx said and thought.' Mr Carnes has engaged
in foolish overstatement! Let me note some of what Marx thought, and why
it was wrong.
An integral element of Marxism metaphysics is Dialectical Materialism.
Marx derived this system from Hegel. Hegel had argued that reality
proceeded thru stages. First there was a stage called the 'Thesis', then a
stage of opposite characteristics, called the 'Antithesis', and finally a
product of 'Thesis' and 'Antithesis' called (not surprisingly) the
'Synthesis'. Hegel had argued for such a metaphysical process because:
1) Dialectical reasoning (a system where understanding of a concept
is amplified by consideration of its opposite) is the highest
form of reasoning.
2) God used the highest form of reasoning.
and 3) The universe is God's mind.
Point 1 is arguable (Hegel substantiated it circularly); point 2 can be
opposed on the grounds that God doesn't REASON (he just KNOWS); point 3
relies upon the existence of God, and a challengable theory of the
universe. Marx adopted Hegel's claim that reality proceeds dialectically,
but would have none of his Theistic nonsense. Trouble is, Marx never
thought to fill in the hole that removing God left! Dialectical
Materialism was thus an unsubstantiated dogma.
Now, of course, one might try to substantiate this dogma by empirical
analysis; many Marxists have sought to do so. Early attempts were flawed
because Marxists generated their 'facts' from their theory (sure of the
theory, they were sure of these 'facts'), not surprizingly, subsequent
research has often demonstrated these 'facts' to be completely at variance
with truth. This practice of falsification has been continued by some
Marxists (recently, a Marxist author who had 'documented' Capitalist
support for Fascism was shown to have invented and otherwise altered key
references), but there are those Marxists who make a wholly honest attempt
to seek-out the facts, and build paradigms which include these facts while
preserving the essentials of Dialectical Materialism. Unfortunately for
the Marxists, subsequent predictions by these systems are never both
unique and correct (those which are unique are not correct; those which are
correct are not unique).
Marx claimed that, as the transition was made from Feudalism to what
he called 'Capitalism', an elite wrested control of the means of
production from the community, thereby creating an opposite class (the
Proletariat) who, having nothing left but their labor, were forced to work
for the Capitalists. Engels's writings are filled with idyllic
descriptions of the wonderful agrarian life before the coming of the
Capitalist oppressors.
While there was unquestionably unjustifiable seizure of land by an
elite, it hardly explains as much of the arisal of the Capitalist as Marx
would like it to. But (for purposes of non-prescriptive analysis), the
Marxist picture of agarian paradise, and the Marxist explanation of the
development of a Proletariat class are far worse! Marx and Engels
made the pitiable assumption that the standard of living of the pre-
Capitalist small farmer was roughly that of the 19th century small farmer.
If anyone cares to (and many cliometricians have), they care crank-out the
figures on how many people could live at what level given available
resources (including technology) in the pre-Capitalist period. If you do,
you will discover that A PROLETARIAT CLASS AROSE BECAUSE UNDER THE NEW
ECONOMIC ORDER, THEY COULD FIND JOBS, SURVIVE, AND MULTIPLY; WHEREAS, UNDER
THE OLD ORDER, THEY JUST STARVED.
And let's go back to the relationship between the Proletariat and the
Capitalists. Marx noted that there was a significant differential between
(undiscounted) price and cost; he concluded that this difference was
principally got by paying the laborer less than his worth. I included the
paranthetical modifier 'undiscounted' because MARX FAILED TO TAKE INTO
ACCOUNT TIME-PREFERENCE. In *Capital and Interest*, Bohm Bawerk justified
and included the phenomenon of time-preference in his analysis, and showed
that this was the principal source of 'surplus value' (I sketched Bohm
Bawerk's justification in an early discussion of interest). Marx's mistake
was being made elsewhere by others, but it was a mistake nonetheless!
Further, a great deal of Marx's analysis is built on the assumption
that, overall, cost determines price, when in fact PRICE DETERMINES COST
because the demand for the factors of production is ultimately derived from
the demand for what they produce!
At its core, Marxism is fundamentally, fatally flawed!
Is everything in Marx worthless? No. For example, his theory of the
business cycle (while hardly sufficient) contains some worthwile points.
I began with Mr Carnes's quote ([...] 'libertarians on the net' [...]
'have absolutely no knowledge of what Marx said and thought.'). Clearly,
that claim was ridiculous! If Mr Carnes were to instead claim that
Libertarians do not have as much of an understanding of Marx as, all things
being equal, they ought to, then he would be right. But all things are not
equal, and I little more have the time for an autopsy of Marxism than for
an autopsy of Ptolemiacism (whatever my estimation of the intelligence of
either man).
Back later,
DKMcK
PS: Altho I have not yet had much time to read it (for the same reason that
I have been absent from the net), I obtained a copy of *PC* by Sraffa the
day after I made a promise to do so.