Monday, January 16, 2012

Lesson 16: Marxism Dismantled (The Poverty of Philosophy)

I hold weekly anti-communist meetings for interested parties here in Hendersonville, NC.

Synopsis of Week 16

Some Notations on Marx’s The Poverty of Philosophy

Though I commented briefly (Lesson 8) on The Poverty of Philosophy (1847), Marx’s critique of Proudhon’s The Philosophy of Poverty, I wish to return to it in order to make clear a few points:

(1) In discussing the idea of “value,” that is, what is something worth, Marx takes great pains to involve “labor” as having a particular value. Thereby, he seeks to simplify that “production” should take no greater cost than its labor value. Now, even should we permit such a concept, forgetting even the cost of materials, facilities, services, and other needs, which vary from enterprise to enterprise, the value of labor is itself proportional in two ways.

First, labor is performed by human beings, and each human being has particular skills, talents, personal limitations, and other characteristics which make one’s labor more or less valuable to a particular enterprise at any given time. Such include (whether fair or not) age, gender, work history, even biases of the employer.

Second, the enterprise itself has a demand which sets an abstract limit on wages which the employer is unable, financially or psychologically, to exceed.

Labor is therefore not a commodity which can be valued according to general needs, in the same way as, for example, corn or cotton.

This decimates Marx’s scientific approach to an egalitarian workers’ society; for, all things being equal, there can be no equality. There will always be deficiencies to the human character, and frailties to the body, creating havoc for the type of productive utopia Marxism requires.

The only solutions to such erratic labor value appear to be destructive. First, reduce the variety of products to be manufactured, food to be cultivated, or services to be offered. This provides the type of limited supervisory authority necessary to avoid a bourgeoisie class. At once, however, we see the error of this way, for it does not attend to the unique tastes of each person. Capitalism, however, does, and therefore will always be the more popular structure and superstructure, irrespective of its inequalities. Self-interest is always more powerful than collective good. If limitation of variety is to be the Marxist future, it can only be by force, and thus utopia becomes dystopia.

Second, eradicate labor which is not within certain parameters of acceptability. Naturally, the Marxists will deny such a possibility. After all, to them belongs the ideology of compassion, no? However, we need not rely upon their assurances, for history shows quite clearly that under Marxist regimes those who are “inferior” (not to mention those who don’t agree) become fodder for reeducation, slavery or death. The capitalist society, on the other hand, despite its dog-eat-dog inequity, often makes great provision for charity, both privately and publicly (unfortunately, this latter often skirts off into socialist do-good-ism, eventually reeling into virulent anti-capitalism), and there are no gulags for undesirables. Capitalism is, without advertisement, the most humane economic plan.

(2) In discussing “money,” Marx begins a diatribe against hoarding, that is, the accumulation of wealth in any fashion, whether that be excess coin (gold, silver), paper (scrip, contracts), or commodities (sheep, corn), even surplus labor.

The Marxian tack against hoarding, that is, “private property,” is quite philosophically pure, being not yet axiomatic against such ethical compunctions as greed, but instead relying upon a scientific view of property’s impossibility to provide anything beyond power, whether that be of governments or landlords.

One miscalculation, however, is that Marx fails, whether deliberately or without enough wisdom, to include and explain that hoarding (wealth) provides personal power against such wicked governments and landlords. We know this phenomenon as financial independence.

Marx should not be excused from this omission, even if it be argued that he focused only upon central Europe (his philosophical filling station). For the Jews there, always (without just cause) persecuted and stripped of their wealth and citizenship, were nevertheless able to claw back time and again from poverty to very high positions of status and gain. This ability of oppressed European Jews (and, later, American immigrants of various ethnicity) to, against all odds, amass “money” (property and leisure time) makes a mockery of Marxist class warfare rhetoric. No wonder Marx thought Judaism to be not only the cause of capitalism but also his greatest nemesis! Proudhon went further, and suggested (in a diary entry, dated December 26, 1847) that all Jews be either expelled from France or exterminated.

(3) Examining the Hegelian dialectic in terms of political economy, “to keep the good side, while eliminating the bad,” Marx speaks of slavery as an “economic category like any other.”

In a pontification regarding North America, Marx states, “Direct slavery is just as much the pivot of bourgeois industry as machinery, credits, etc. Without slavery you have no cotton; without cotton you have no modern industry. It is slavery that gave the colonies their value; it is the colonies that created world trade, and it is world trade that is the precondition of large-scale industry. Thus slavery is an economic category of the greatest importance... Wipe North America off the map of the world, and you will have anarchy – the complete decay of modern commerce and civilization. Cause slavery to disappear and you will have wiped America off the map of nations.”

Marx, of course, was wrong. Although many fine cases may be made to say in which way the American South suffered after the Civil War (loss of life, loss of sovereignty, loss of slave labor, overseas competition), America itself weathered the storm. Even if one argues that such hardiness only was possible through further manifest destiny and oppression, it still exposes the falsities of Marxist thought. In fact, one might say that Leninism is the repudiation of this particular facet of Marxism, that is, confidence in Hegelian-type revolution, embracing instead the more imperialistic tendencies of the West.

Most interesting, however, is Marx’s apparent “message” to the collectivists residing in the United States, that is, to assist the Abolitionists and thereby destroy the capitalist nation most upsetting for communists. This is not to say that the Abolitionists were Marxist – far from it – but only that the communist approach, even at this early stage, seems to have been settled. Working specifically toward the needs of the working class (in this case, North American slaves), (1) find a grievance of high moral division, (2) sympathize with it, (3) help tirelessly until viewed as supremely sacrificial, (4) organize those around you, (5) use that power bloc for the purpose of anti-capitalist subversion.

(4) On “division of labor,” Marx agrees with Proudhon that it is all degradation, morally and financially, by “meagerness of the wage,” by “giving him a master” (a foreman), by sinking “from the rank of artisan to that of common labourer.”

Disregarding the historical bases for Marx’s agreements and further remarks, there is within the entire conversation a deep resentment over “authority.” That is, “Who made you the boss?” While this may seem much too simple an explanation for Marxism, it is in fact central. This is exploitation of the “grievance.” Concerning authority, it comes down to two roots, force or fraud.

Force is easy to understand: “I am boss because I have the superior weapon.” Marx concentrates mainly on the force of law, of military, of church, and therefore cultivates moral grievances against coercion and other economic and social pressures. This he does to sow the seeds of dissent against the society proper, and not only to perform the Hegelian plastic surgery (of which he nevertheless accuses Proudhon!). Marx does not, however, compute the value of intangible weapons, such as intelligence or salesmanship, which in their highest form are rare and valuable. In capitalism, these traits are naturally esteemed, but in communism they do not perform the “value” of “work” (they do, but Marx ignores this).

Fraud is a bit more subtle. Here, Marx complains of phony valuations in money, in work, and in production; but also in attribution of royalty, of honor, of land ownership. Depending on his target, Marx’s arguments range from the sensible to the ridiculous. When discussing the debasement of currency, he is a strict conservative. However, when questioning such things as corporate hierarchy, he is merely a troublemaker, in fact at times implying that a stronger laborer has more right to lead (by physical force) than does a non-productive manager. Naturally, many laborers agree with this analysis, but, even if some laborers have better qualification to be manager than the present manager, the use of force will not normally make that change transpire (unless we live by law of the jungle). Furthermore, if it is absolute change Marx seeks, why promise the laborer anything at all (see #7 below)?

(5) On the principles of “competition,” Marx seems confused. Taking into consideration that he is in this treatise merely criticizing Proudhon, we might be inclined to say that Marx accepts competition, if for no other reason than communism is itself a competitor against capitalism for the hearts and minds of men. Marx, if present, might object to that definition, instead invoking the Hegelian inevitability of communism, but that is merely sloughing off his exegesis concerning the need for revolution.

It is in transit with the negative particulates of competition where Marx begins to percolate:

“Competition engenders misery, it foments civil war, it ‘changes natural zones,’ mixes up nationalities, causes trouble in families, corrupts the public conscience, ‘subverts the notion of equity, of justice,’ of morality, and what is worse, it destroys free, honest trade, and does not even give in exchange synthetic value, fixed, honest price. It disillusions everyone, even economists. It pushes things so far as to destroy its very self.”

Harsh medicine, and there are none who would disagree. Yet, there is a fallacy coming, where Marx goes off the rails:

Thesis: Feudal monopoly, before competition. Antithesis: Competition. Synthesis: Modern monopoly, which is the negation of feudal monopoly, in so far as it implies the system of competition, and the negation of competition in so far as it is monopoly.”

While acknowledging feudal monopolies as “artificial” and modern (bourgeoisie) monopolies as “natural” (or “rational”), he sees no real solution in it. This is incomplete. Marx ends here, not seeing or knowing the future of capitalism, that is, in the expansion of credit and the utilization of central banking. For with these monopolistic tendencies, all aspects of human life, including health, education, and technology, have been expanded (some might disagree with “improved”) to hitherto unknown levels. Some might argue that the ability for world domination has grown in concert with this expansion, yet it can be equally argued that Old World nationalistic dynasties were no less destructive. The question is, Are we better off for having had progress? According to Marx, not at all.

With such a philosophy, Marx becomes increasingly more difficult to fathom. For if his goal is the absence of tyranny, why should he espouse a regressive economy which dedicates itself to minimizing individuality? Further, by which method other than nationalism shall he stay the hand of the warrior usurper? Quite simply, there is no other choice but force. The communist goal of world domination is proof of this concession, for the sterility and inherent weakness of Marxism cannot survive with only voluntary submission.

It is capitalism alone which produces the superior economic and social superstructure, which in turn causes its inhabitants to defend that superstructure (call it “freedom”) all the more ferociously against coups and invasions. As often mentioned, the few freedoms afforded by real constitutions far surpasses the grey actuality of collectivism.

(6) Where it concerns “rent,” neither Marx nor Proudhon can seem to wrap his mind around the notion that property is purchased for appreciation, not only production. Or, if they do, they are so disgusted by the activity that it is displaced from conversation. When one takes a mortgage to speculate on land values, a renter-tenant is often secured to cover the monthly payment to the creditor. According to Marx, this is nonproductive and therefore breeds a type of parasite class. Naturally, this static view of property produces the errant conclusion, for land which is fallow only stays that way in a stagnant economy. When a location becomes desirable, it rarely remains vacant.

Naturally, rent may be charged on property already owned, without mortgage, but such transactions are under the aegis of competition, which is to say, “location, location, location.” As such, it falls entirely outside the sight of the communist, who in purity would never indulge in such free-market activity.

Private property ownership is a central evil with the collectivist. In fairness, many cases may be brought forth to show that some land ownership has derived from either force or fraud, both of which ethically or legally negate any right to collect rent. Deeds, of course, prove transaction, but where that deed was first taken immorally or illegally, or created from thin air, there is an historical taint. This is a worldwide phenomenon, and, in reality, is unsolvable.

How interesting then that the Marxist solution is to take all private property and put it in the hands of central governance! Stealing shall atone for stealing! Again, Marx proves that force is to replace force, structure for structure. Ad nauseum, “Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.”

(7) Regarding “combinations” (unions), Marx says thus:

“And we, as socialists, tell you that, apart from the money question, you will continue nonetheless to be workers, and the masters will still continue to be the masters, just as before. So no combination! No politics! For is not entering into combination engaging in politics?”

Surprising? Not really. The communist pretends to be an anarchist for the sake of the romance, saying, “The socialists want the workers to leave the old society alone, the better to be able to enter the new society which they have prepared for them with so much foresight.”

Realizing his audience might understand the difference between "dictatorship of the proletariat" and true anarchy (the promised utopia), Marx performs obvious self-analysis, asking and answering , “Does this mean that after the fall of the old society there will be a new class domination culminating in a new political power? No.” Nevertheless, Marx knows that he is indeed proposing a new order from the ashes of the old, scavenging the superstructure of capitalism.

His usual patronization, “The condition for the emancipation of the working class is the abolition of every class, just as the condition for the liberation of the third estate, of the bourgeois order, was the abolition of all estates and all orders,” is unable to ring true, for historically it has never come close to emerging, even in the most ardently Bolshevik states; and it never shall.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.