What Meets the Eye...

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Liberty -vs- Tyranny

In a recent post that somehow ended up with Marxism finding its way into the discussion, it was suggested by the Griper that I do a post on Karl Marx. Realizing that I had little actual knowledge of Marx I was not in a position to do a in depth post on Marx, who by the way was above all an economist more in the vein of Adam Smith than not.

Recognizing my shortcomings with respect to the depth of Marx's works, and not desirous of doing to Marx what many who lack depth of knowledge and understanding do to Ayn Rand, I went to a trusted source who majored in economics and studied Marx in depth. While he is many years removed from his studies of Marx his knowledge has not been lost nor colored by political hyperbole.

Before moving on I find it necessary to make two very important statements. First, my belief is that one must always seek the truth and in so doing stay true to reason and logic. Secondly, I am, always have been, and will remain a strong advocate of capitalism for reasons that I believe are obvious.

My knowledge of Marx is that he was an economist, combined with all the references to his ideology when discussing modern day communism and totalitarianism. That's it folks. Pretty much like the majority of folks today I would guess. So I asked one who has a deeper knowledge if he would provide some of his insights on Karl Marx. He agreed to do so anonymously. His thoughts...

Marx was quoted as saying, "I am not a Marxist". Even during his life he was appalled at some of the interpretation of his work.

In the Communist Manifesto there is a famous line (which much like the second amendment, is almost always half ignored) that goes something like this. "The first job of the proletariat is to raise itself to the position of ruling class i.e. **to win the battle for democracy **"

It is always important to put things in the historical context when they were written, and no less so with the works of supposedly "timeless" great thinkers. Marx lived in a time when feudal monarchies were a significant barrier to economic growth (Marx would have phrased it something like an impediment to the release of the tremendous potential inherent in social forms of production, of which capitalism was the first (and necessary) form). In a real democracy, workers would be a majority, hence the "ruling class".

I don’t have any specific references at hand for this point, but (IMO) it is
essential to realize that Marx was about production, not distribution of goods. He had nothing but contempt for his socialist contemporaries who focused on (re)distribution of economic output. The point was to understand the fundamental forces behind economic production and to take the steps necessary to unleash the potential inherent in social forms of production (as opposed to e.g. feudal guilds).

As an economist, he was a classical economist who admired Adam Smith. Basically, he thought capitalism was a revolutionary, positive development in human economic society that was nevertheless not without its problems. Those problems were pretty obvious at the time (look no farther than the writings of Charles Dickens for examples). The inherent "contradiction" in capitalism he identified is playing out (again). Capitalists are driven to extract value out of the system. But capitalism relies on mass consumption and if the people producing the goods can't afford to buy the things they produce, well ... you end up with a lot of folks struggling to make ends meet who start to get pretty pissed and raise a ruckus.

That's what the Great Society was really all about--saving capitalism. Even as staid a capitalist as Henry Ford understood this innately , though I suspect he would have been appalled at the suggestion that by producing cars efficiently and cheaply and paying his workers enough that they could afford to buy them he was validating a basic tenet of Marx's economic theory.

But I've found it is pointless to try and have this sort of discussion. Bring up Marx and all you will get is mindless rhetoric about totalitarianism, class warfare (as though there were no such thing as classes of society with competing interests and politics were not the process of reconciling those interests, hopefully without breaking out the guns), etc.

The above kinda sounds like Marx really was a proponent of a democratic capitalism that he believed would eventually result in a democratic socialism resulting in greater economic equality for all peoples. If my thesis is true perhaps it is understandable why the capitalists of his day, the early 20th century. and today might actually fear a true understanding of Marx's economic and social philosophy. In Marx's world power would not be vested in the hand of just the very wealthy. It would rest in the handS of the people. Sounds oddly familiar, doesn't it?

What say you?

My thanks to Anon, for providing his time and knowledge in response to the Griper's valuable suggestion.

Footnote: This just in from Anon: "And there's always that quote to the effect that government exists largely to advance the interests of one class over another ..."