December 1, 2009 at 11:17 am
In 2000 I took a course on Marxism and it’s history as a requirement for my Political Science degree. Though I’m not a Marxist (I did spend some time in the socialist camp) I have to say that this statement betrays one of the most fundamental misunderstandings of the Marxist ethos.
Yes, Marx wanted to abolish private property. But he only came to that conclusion (a misguided one) because of what the rich were doing, not because of who they were. Exploitation was real. People suffered. People suffered because they were denied wages that would have prevented alienation from their labor and themselves. They suffered because they were made to work in horrible and unsafe conditions in the name of profit.
But Marx also knew the golden rule, which is: he who has the gold makes the rules. It would be naive to think that the rich do nothing with their wealth but spend it or horde it. History has taught us that the wealthy use their wealth to exclude certain groups from the governmental process. Often to maintain the status quo. The exploitation of the working class (I’m thinking Industrial Revolution, Europe) deprived them not of money only, but of education, which is of much more importance in the democratic process.
Yes, there is a pathological demonization of the rich in some Marxist thought. But it is not the ideology of the lazy. Marx believed that work was an essential aspect of the whole person. It is easy for sloths to attach themselves like parasites to Marxist thought, using it to justify all sorts of class hatred. But many Capitalists earned the disdain of the people all on their own, without the green eye of jealousy or the inferiority complex of the simple.
- Mike,Economies are built on private property. Why work if you can’t keep what you worked for? What would anyone invest their money in and why? Class warfare is solely based on the greed of the collective “proletariat”. Without private capital the industrial revolution you mention would never have raised the standard of living for ALL people regardless of wealth from pre-civil war conditions. Also, study why those working conditions improved.. FREE MARKET COMPETITION. Unions were only concerned about unions, not labor or the individual. They tried to limit the workforce with racism, xenophobia and sexism to line their own pockets.You also state, “exploitation of the working class”, this is congruent to the common socialist “zero sum” fallacy. In an open and free market no one is forced to work for anyone else, on the contrary multiple firms compete for input. The arraignment is “Mutually beneficial” between two parties. By your logic, why pay them anything at all? I know its hard for ideologues to understand the idea of the free marketplace and the role of the individual in it. I just never understand why a third party, such as yourself can write about how someone else has been exploited. How do you know? also, you are far too presumptuous to assert in the very same statement that income classes remain static. Unskilled work is paid less obviously until they acquire certain skills that make them more valuable in the workplace (why minimum wage is a failure). Skilled labor is obviously afforded more. We know that skilled labor was not born with those skills that would duly compensate them more in a marketplace, rather they earned them through experience.“The rich”? Who are the rich and why are they so? Assets? Income? Do you mean the wealthy? Why is it assumed that anyone that owns a business or invests their capital is “rich”? Some people use their last pennies and mortgage their futures and lives on their businesses. These investments made by these individuals provide goods and services for the populace. They are by no means “rich” however they do wish to create more wealth in the private marketplace. Some of these people don’t make an income for years before they turn a profit, some don’t make it all. Are they rich?Who is the poor? The retired CEO that no longer makes an income? or the college graduate working as a bartender to pay for his internship at a lawfirm in order to gain experience (skills) in the marketplace. People shift between classes all the time in a free society. In a marxist society based on third party central planning, everyone remains in the same class, “the poor” as input and output is distorted by people who pay no price (political or economic) for being wrong.Your entire argument not only defies reason and logic, it refutes human history. 22 years ago after the fall of the USSR, which probably should have fallen sooner, your statements would have been more laughable than they are now. The 25 years after Reagan's 1980 election the west has seen the most prosperous quarter century in HUMAN HISTORY. (along of course with Thatcher).How quickly we forget. I suggest you read Hazlitt’s book, or Hayek’s or Bastiat’s or Friedman’s or Coolidge’s or Reagan’s. Coolidge’s autobiography is excellent, and the best Reagan Biography was written by Dinesh D’souza. By now you must know the fallacious misdeeds by the socialist intelligentsia four years after your initial post, unless of course you would like to deny those four years of history as well.their businesses. These investments made by these individuals provide goods and services for the populace. They are by no means “rich” however they do wish to create more wealth in the private marketplace. Some of these people don’t make an income for years before they turn a profit, some don’t make it all. Are they rich?Who is the poor? The retired CEO that no longer makes an income? or the college graduate working as a bartender to pay for his internship at a lawfirm in order to gain experience (skills) in the marketplace. People shift between classes all the time in a free society. In a marxist society based on third party central planning, everyone remains in the same class, “the poor” as input and output is distorted by people who pay no price (political or economic) for being wrong.Your entire argument not only defies reason and logic, it refutes human history. 22 years ago after the fall of the USSR, which probably should have fallen sooner, your statements would have been more laughable than they are now. The 25 years after Reagan's 1980 election the west has seen the most prosperous quarter century in HUMAN HISTORY. (along of course with Thatcher).How quickly we forget. I suggest you read Hazlitt’s book, or Hayek’s or Bastiat’s or Friedman’s or Coolidge’s or Reagan’s. Coolidge’s autobiography is excellent, and the best Reagan Biography was written by Dinesh D’souza. By now you must know the fallacious misdeeds by the socialist intelligentsia four years after your initial post, unless of course you would like to deny those four years of history as well.
Marxism in One Minute (by Henry Hazlitt)