I hold weekly anti-communist meetings for interested parties here in Hendersonville, NC.
Communist Economics
Introduction to the Lesson. With Marxism, I have two formulary problems. First, it is unnecessarily overcomplicated. Second, and contrarily, it is oversimplified, with malicious intent.
Concerning, for example, Marx’s philosophy of dialectic materialism, this is not hard. It is a scientific view of developmental struggle, as it pertains to men without any inference of religious standards. The “dialectic” is, as previously discussed, merely an argumentative form, both linguistically and in terms of movement. It implies friction, discord, disharmony. It is a need to progress from an obsolete point. The need, however, is subjective, as that conclusion relies on the observer(s). Furthermore, the movement of objectives, even abstract ones, demands a first cause, in essence, a deliberate consciousness, most indubitably and in finality God. These finer points cause dialecticism to broaden to a more Lockean position. By this reasoning, the “materialism” pontificated by Marx naturally becomes of little, if any, power (dialectically speaking).
It might be rebounded that my argumentation is rationalization of the capitalist system, my diminution of “materialism” a device by which in toto the ruling class retains its power and private property, defended on one side by moral principle, on the other by armaments. This is true. I make no claim otherwise, for it is indisputable that Marx believed capitalism to be derived from Judaism, that is, the Law of God; and logically it follows that for communism to dispense with capitalism it must also destroy that Law. As previously determined, it is this Law (most tellingly, the Ten Commandments) which establishes and shields the rights of private property. We therefore come to a granite moment, when we must either surrender or die for everything dear and good.
Dialectical materialism is a mechanism by which the philosopher explains the struggle for man’s liberty as an inevitable consequence from impossible and oppressive conditions, yet there is nothing simpler to understand than slavery. Communism at its origination (that is, “on paper”) and in its practice is full enslavement. Therefore, the complexity of Marxist dialectic materialism (the argumentation of antithesis in order to reach synthesis) is but a ruse to cloud this reality, and more so now that history has marched on. Communism wiggles shinier bait for the have-nots, but the “solution” is no more than “seizing the means of production,” merely a centralization of that same capitalist industrial power.
Fundamentally, this is Marxism (or, more basically, collectivism). It is the grievance of the oppressed become philosophy, and finally collective action. It is mob mentality controlled by a governing mechanism, or body. It is hive distinction and no more.
In the same manner, Marxian economics takes a simple complaint and revolves around it complexity, so that, although the grievance is swiftly understood the (communist) theoretical resolution is incomprehensible (though it be called genius), and, more saliently, the historical analysis proves it genocidal.
Wages and Labor. The capitalist accumulates wealth by employing laborers at a fixed wage, then selling his particular product or service for a profit. The motivation to capitalize the factory, store, or other business entity is this profit, and not necessarily to provide employment, nor even valuable goods and/or services. Employees are, to the capitalist, a necessary requisite, though comes with it responsibility for proper upkeep of their subsistence and morale. The quality of finished goods and services is a byproduct of competition, more competition theoretically determining high quality for a discerning marketplace (not to say that pride in craftsmanship is entirely absent).
At the opposite pole, the Marxist believes in (1) the abolition of accumulated wealth (private property), therefore making capitalization (capitalism) impossible under communism; (2) full employment which is not only promised but also necessary (if you do not work, you do not eat), and (3) a level of quality for goods and services according to an arbitrary standard, nothing to do with competition or marketplaces (that is, a state-run monopoly).
The communist grievance which propels the dialectic (argument) against capitalism is that “profit” amounts to an unfair and unnecessary step to production. That is, profit motive forces a laborer to work beyond the true cost of any good or service (commodity), not only enslaving the laborer but also inflating artificially the commodity beyond its “fair” value (price). The true cost (or value) of a commodity is, according to the communist, materials and other expenses, plus the labor to completion.
In so saying, it is evident that the communist values the laborer and his labor (or “labor power”) but does not attribute value to the capitalist, neither for providing the capitalization, the factory, the materials, the idea, the risk-taking, the marketing and sales, the delivery, the customer service, nor any number of other services known to be part and parcel of any business venture (the names of each particulate changed from business to business). The capitalist becomes therefore expendable. What replaces the capitalist? The central employer, the state. And is the laborer thus set free from his toil or any inordinate valuation? Of course not! Under communism, work is everything, and the valuation of labor is transformed from individualistic to standardized. That is, a communist laborer will have fewer choices, both in terms of vocation and spending power, than his capitalist counterpart. Why then does communism have multi-generational appeal for the working class? For the true proletariat, it is upward mobility. Thereby, we understand that communism is fueled, after all, by individual self-interest, though for a specific economic and/or social grouping (not counting sympathizers).
Returning to economics, the laborer sells his labor to the capitalist but, it seems, at a rate below its true value. That is, the capitalist makes a living off the back of the laborer, who is therefore, according to the communist, shortchanged and exploited. There are several major logical deficiencies here.
First, unless the laborer is a slave, none of this is true. If men are free to leave their employer, the grievance of the laborer is akin to an excuse. But supposing there is a lack of mobility, so that a laborer, or an entire town of laborers, appears to be enslaved (“stuck”) in a place owned by the archetypical “boss” (“his town”), this must be stipulated to be not an economic crisis but one of morality. The purpose of the law (of the land) is to protect fair opportunity for all, but if the law fails to enforce that fairness, either due to some graft or collusion, this is not the fault of capitalism, but of immorality (corruption). The aggrieved labor force must therefore reorganize their government, either by vote or by more radical means, to enforce morality. However, with rare exception, revolutions of the proletariat (French, Russian, Chinese, etc) have not ended with such morality of law but instead with worse horrors and pure totalitarianism.
Second, competition between business entities enjoins that not only quality of goods and services, but also of working conditions, should be elevated. Only governmental collusion to create monopoly enterprises impinges on this truism, and therefore it is again corruption, not capitalism, which causes this real or perceived exploitation. To prevent such abuses against humanity and the community, government must be properly established to protect the natural rights of people, not that industry must be seized by central government. Marx turns this truth on its head, expecting not a change in the system but an overthrow of it, from within or without, as if the morality of men should automatically attract to altruism or idealism. But even here we grasp at straws, for Marx was a student of the French Revolution, a prime example of that bloodlust which follows immoral men after reversal of roles between oppressor and victim (that is, revenge). We cannot therefore say that Marx was ignorant of this, nor mistaken (he being, after all, “genius”), but only that he deliberately omitted such things for the sake of his utopian outlook.
Third, Marxist economics cannot escape its own Hegelian synthesis. Europe, Canada, even the United States, have all taken on their own socialist economic tendencies, predicated on getting something for nothing. This includes (1) the issuance of fiat currency as a method for spreading wealth to the working classes, (2) unionization as a way to extract more wage for labor, even beyond its value, (3) health and other benefits which become public policy or even mandates, (4) student loans to ostensibly educate on a broader scale, and so on. Real capitalism is based upon hard assets, whether gold, land, oil, crops, or other resource. Today’s borrower, however, often capitalizes his venture with a certain amount of nonexistent money, over and above the value of any collateral. Thereby, the modern capitalist (whether industrialist or homeowner) is a slave to a monetary policy which distorts the economy and diminishes the value of all profit. Whereas the laborer without any capitalization (say, a renter) only must worry about subsistence, the capitalist (say, a mortgagor) must be concerned with the cost and value of all things monetary (stock market, banking system, etc), or else face ruin.
Due to this worldwide “soft socialism” (Keynesian capitalism), the exploitation which Marxism describes is anachronistic, and the modern communist should no longer find the industrialist to be his enemy. Nevertheless, even (or especially) where the standard of living is highest, protests continue against “profits too high” in Big Oil, Big Pharma, and so forth. This ongoing protestation provides good evidence that the goal of communism is not the elevation of the proletariat, or the continuation of the middle class, but instead the destruction of capitalism.
The banker and financier are also targets for the communist, but only when easy credit and low interest rates disappear. The exaggerated boom-bust cycle of Keynesian capitalism creates these conditions, on one hand providing cash for a sprawling materialistic society, on the other side squeezing closed the hand that giveth. When mortgages and student loans become scarce or impossible to pay back, the marches commence upon those who seemingly manipulate the money supply and interest rates. This, however, is another communist ploy, for it is a central banking system with the blessing of corrupt government (think: Federal Reserve, IMF, European Union) which controls those levers, and this machination is specifically engineered by communists and their ilk. That is, central banking is itself a communist plank, furthering the charade! [We now see (in 2012) just how cannibalistic is central banking within a quasi-capitalist system.]
Fourth, Marxist economics relies not on mathematics but on ethics and/or morality. Consider the simple contract, which sets the terms for all legal agreements between men. If a laborer by some contract has agreed to work 8 hours but produces the value so anticipated in 4 hours, no matter if that speed was attained by worker skill or supervisory whip, there are 4 more hours which the laborer in reality owes the employer. The agreed-upon (contracted) wage rate, if paid properly and promptly, is ostensibly in accord with the needs of both laborer and capitalist. Therefore, any excess labor is in fact the property of the capitalist and not the laborer. Marx, however, disagrees, and judges this excess labor to be inordinate, even slavery, the capitalist finding himself richer at the expense of his laborers. Yet, no such thing has occurred. Nevertheless, the grievance thus becomes a moral argument, that the capitalist “steals” time, and therefore wage, from the laborer. In its simplest form, Marxist economics is envy, specifically, coveting. When confronted, however, with this basic error, the communist attacks religion, specifically Judaism, for protecting “exploitation” through the force of both church and law (police).
In truth, the “value” of labor is not confined to an agreement by contract, but may be extrapolated to whatever profit may be creatively squeezed in reselling that which is already produced (or, if a service, that amount of time which it takes to complete a certain task). As an example, some salesmen work on commission and some on wage, indicating that the value of service labor is in the eye of the beholder. Thus, a laborer, having no particular leverage but his own manpower, should be wise enough to know and say the true value of his labor, the contract reflecting such inward knowledge and negotiation (if any). But if we say that the laborer hasn’t clout or education sufficient to effect the proper wage rates for himself, it falls to organized (collectivist) labor, that is, unions, to do it for him. Historically, we may say that such unionization has won the day against child labor and sweat shops, but its pensions and benefits packages have in the private sector chased many a manufacturer to less costly regions, and in the public sector bankrupted many a city and state, or, in the case of Greece 2012, entire nation.
In order to therefore resist such Marxist infiltration and amalgamation, that is, revolution, corruption must be stemmed, beginning at the personal level, then systemically. For when corruption becomes systemic, communism appears as a savior to persons oppressed by unfair collusion, that is, by crony capitalism.
Consider this 1891 Frederick Engels quote from the introduction to Marx’s Wage-Labour and Capital (originally 1849):
“And this is the economic constitution of our entire modern society: the working class alone produces all values. For value is only another expression for labour, that expression, namely, by which is designated, in our capitalist society of today, the amount of socially necessary labour embodied in a particular commodity. But, these values produced by the workers do not belong to the workers. They belong to the owners of the raw materials, machines, tools, and money, which enable them to buy the labour-power of the working class. Hence, the working class gets back only a part of the entire mass of products produced by it. And, as we have just seen, the other portion, which the capitalist class retains, and which it has to share, at most, only with the landlord class, is increasing with every new discovery and invention, while the share which falls to the working class (per capita) rises but little and very slowly, or not at all, and under certain conditions it may even fall.”
This application of mathematical economics no longer applies. The “working class” is not comprised merely of those who “produce” but also of those who provide various “non-essential” services, of entrepreneurs, of management positions, of the retired, of pensioners, of widows, of trustees, of “marketers” who thrive on trading (stocks, bonds, real estate, antiques, autos), of musicians, of artists, of inventors, of advertising geniuses. The capitalist economy has proven itself not only workable and long-lived but also expandable and flexible to accommodate the dreams and aspirations of even the proletariat. Under the aegis of the capitalist system, anyone can become suddenly rich, whether by the discovery of some new sensation, the resale of some lost treasure, or the invention of some necessity.
Marxism, however, does not count such delicacies. For the communist, there is no opportunity under capitalism, only the exploitation of one for another.
Again, from Engels (same source):
“But, these discoveries and inventions which supplant one another with ever-increasing speed, this productiveness of human labour which increases from day to day to unheard-of proportions, at last gives rise to a conflict, in which present capitalistic economy must go to ruin. On the one hand, immeasurable wealth and a superfluidity of products with which the buyers cannot cope. On the other hand, the great mass of society proletarianized, transformed into wage-labourers, and thereby disabled from appropriating to themselves that superfluidity of products. The splitting up of society into a small class, immoderately rich, and a large class of wage-labourers devoid of all property, brings it about that this society smothers in its own superfluidity, while the great majority of its members are scarcely, or not at all, protected from extreme want.”
According to the communist, there are only two classes, rich or poor, one which capitalizes production for its own sake (apparently), the other which is perpetually duped into this slavery. The law in these cases neither protects natural rights nor fair opportunity, the two pillars of a free society, but only engulfs the poor for the pleasure and enrichment of the privileged class. This, however, describes not capitalism but the limitations imposed by monarchy, by czar, by emperor, where there is the subjugation of a people without power.
Marx and Engels purport that capitalism is similarly guilty of such governmental collusion, that is, of corruption. Historically, this is true. Yet, communism is not the cure, nor is it even incrementally better, but is actually worse, for in those nations which have painted themselves purely red (Russia, China, North Korea) the tyranny which followed was worse than the capitalism before. Centralization, the very thing which Marx uses to accuse capitalism, is the pillar of communism (or any other despotism)!
The choice becomes then between the individual liberty of capitalist society and the central control of communism, the former falling prey to oligarchy, the latter to dehumanization, starvation, and genocide. Yet, no comparative analysis is actually necessary. All one need do is observe whether the desperate of this world emigrated from or immigrated into America or Russia, West Germany or East Germany, North Korea or South Korea, and so on. According to this proletariat (have-not) standard, it is no contest.
But hear Engels:
This condition (capitalism) becomes every day more absurd and more unnecessary. It must be gotten rid of; it can be gotten rid of. A new social order is possible, in which the class differences of today will have disappeared, and in which – perhaps after a short transition period, which, though somewhat deficient in other respects, will in any case be very useful morally – there will be the means of life, of the enjoyment of life, and of the development and activity of all bodily and mental faculties, through the systematic use and further development of the enormous productive powers of society, which exists with us even now, with equal obligation upon all to work.
It is no longer possible to even entertain such pipedreams. We live now beyond 1849 and 1891, and know full well that collectivism, whether Marxist, Leninist, Maoist, or any other, is only brutal fascism masquerading as a savior.
This is truth.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.