Tag Archives: Karl Marx

The Dubious 1917 Redemption of Karl Marx

27 Sunday Nov 2022

Posted by in Marxism

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Karl Marx has long been celebrated by the Left as a great intellectual, but the truth is that his legacy was destined to be of little significance until his writings were lauded, decades later, by the Bolsheviks during their savage October 1917 revolution in Russia. Vladimir Lenin and his murderous cadre promoted Marx and brought his ideas into prominence as political theory. That’s the conclusion of a fascinating article by Phil Magness and Michael Makovi (M&M) appearing in the Journal of Political Economy. The title: “The Mainstreaming of Marx: Measuring the Effect of the Russian Revolution on Karl Marx’s Influence“.

The idea that the early Soviet state and other brutal regimes in its mold were the main progenitors of Marxism is horrifying to its adherents today. That’s the embarrassing historical reality, however. It’s not really clear that Marx himself would have endorsed those regimes, though I hesitate to cut him too much slack.

A lengthy summary of the M&M paper is given by the authors in “Das Karl Marx Problem”. The “problem”, as M&M describe it, is in reconciling 1) the nearly complete and well-justified rejection of Marx’s economic theories during his life and in the 34 years after his death, with 2) the esteem in which he’s held today by so many so-called intellectuals. A key piece of the puzzle, noted by the authors, is that praise for Marx comes mainly from outside the economics profession. The vast majority of economists today recognize that Marx’s labor theory of value is incoherent as an explanation of the value created in production and exchange.

The theoretical rigors might be lost on many outside the profession, but a moments reflection should be adequate for almost anyone to realize that value is contributed by both labor and non-labor inputs to production. Of course, it might have dawned on communists over the years that mass graves can be dug more “efficiently” by combining labor with physical capital. On the other hand, you can bet they never paid market prices for any of the inputs to that grisly enterprise.

Marx never thought in terms of decisions made at the margin, the hallmark of the rational economic actor. That shortcoming in his framework led to mistaken conclusions. Second, and again, this should be obvious, prices of goods must incorporate (and reward) the value contributed by all inputs to production. That value ultimately depends on the judgement of buyers, but Marx’s theory left him unable to square the circle on all this. And not for lack of trying! It was a failed exercise, and M&M provide several pieces of testimony to that effect. Here’s one example:

“By the time Lenin came along in 1917, Marx’s economic theories were already considered outdated and impractical. No less a source than John Maynard Keynes would deem Marx’s Capital ‘an obsolete economic textbook . . . without interest or application for the modern world’ in a 1925 essay.”

Marxism, with its notion of a “workers’ paradise”, gets credit from intellectuals as a highly utopian form of socialism. In reality, it’s implementation usually takes the form of communism. The claim that Marxism is “scientific” socialism (despite the faulty science underlying Marx’s theories) is even more dangerous, because it offers a further rationale for authoritarian rule. A realistic transition to any sort of Marxist state necessarily involves massive expropriations of property and liberty. Violent resistance should be expected, but watch the carnage when the revolutionaries gain the upper hand.

What M&M demonstrate empirically is how lightly Marx was cited or mentioned in printed material up until 1917, both in English and German. Using Google’s Ngram tool, they follow a group of thinkers whose Ngram patterns were similar to Marx’s up to 1917. They use those records to construct an expected trajectory for Marx for 1917 forward and find an aberrant jump for Marx at that time, again both in English and in German material. But Ngram excludes newspaper mentions, so they also construct a database from Newspapers.com and their findings are the same: newspaper references to Marx spiked after 1917. There was nothing much different when the sample was confined to socialist writers, though M&M acknowledge that there were a couple of times prior to 1917 during which short-lived jumps in Marx citations occurred among socialists.

To be clear, however, Marx wasn’t unknown to economists during the 3+ decades following his death. His name was mentioned here and there in the writings of prominent economists of the day — just not in especially glowing terms.

“… absent the events of 1917, Marx would have continued to be an object of niche scholarly inquiry and radical labor activism. He likely would have continued to compete for attention in those same radical circles as the main thinker of one of its many factions. After the Soviet boost to Marx, he effectively crowded the other claimants out of [the] socialist-world.”

Magness has acknowledged that he and Makovi aren’t the first to have noticed the boost given to Marx by the Bolsheviks. Here, Magness quotes Eric Hobsbawm’s take on the subject:

“This situation changed after the October Revolution – at all events, in the Communist Parties. … Following Lenin, all leaders were now supposed to be important theorists, since all political decisions were justified on grounds of Marxist analysis – or, more probably, by reference to textual authority of the ‘classics’: Marx, Engels, Lenin, and, in due course, Stalin. The publication and popular distribution of Marx’s and Engels’s texts therefore become far more central to the movement than they had been in the days of the Second International [1889 – 1914].”

Much to the chagrin of our latter day Marxists and socialists, it was the advent of the monstrous Soviet regime that led to Marx’s “mainstream” ascendency. Other brutal regimes arising later reinforced Marx’s stature. The tyrants listed by M&M include Joseph Stalin, Mao Zedong, Fidel Castro, and Pol Pot, and they might have added several short-lived authoritarian regimes in Africa as well. Today’s Marxists continue to assure us that those cases are not representative of a Marxist state.

Perhaps it’s fair to say that Marx’s name was co-opted by thugs, but I posit something a little more consistent with the facts: it’s difficult to expropriate the “means of production” without a fight. Success requires massive takings of liberty and property. This is facilitated by means of a “class struggle” between social or economic strata, or it might reflect divisions based on other differences. Either way, groups are pitted against one another. As a consequence, we witness an “othering” of opponents on one basis or another. Marxists, no matter how “pure of heart”, find it impossible to take power without demanding ideological purity. Invariably, this requires “reeducation”, cleansing, and ultimately extermination of opponents.

Karl Marx had unsound ideas about how economic value manifests and where it should flow, and he used those ideas to describe what he thought was a more just form of social organization. The shortcomings of his theory were recognized within the economics profession of the day, and his writings might have lived on in relative obscurity were it not for the Bolshevik’s intellectual pretensions. Surely obscurity would have been better than a legacy shaped by butchers.

Socialist Supremacy’s Dark History of Culling the Race

26 Wednesday Feb 2020

Posted by in racism, Socialism

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Can you think of a social philosophy steeped in many years of blame-making and hatred for “others”, including massive persecution, more than a passing flirtation with racism, and genocide. Why, that would be socialism! Marion Tupy’s 2017 article on racism and socialism at the Foundation for Economic Education (FEE) blog is a good reminder, just in case you know anyone having a romantic fascination with collectivist ideology. I know too many! And if they subscribe to the notion that socialism eschews racism, they are sadly mistaken. In fact, to put it kindly, socialists ultimately eschew anyone standing in their way. Here are a few excerpts from Tupy’s article:

“… Sidney and Beatrice Webb, who were both socialists and eugenicists, bemoaned the falling birthrates among so-called higher races in the New Statesman in 1913. They warned that ‘a new social order [would be] developed by one or other of the colored races, the Negro, the Kaffir or the Chinese’.

Che Guevara, the Argentine revolutionary and friend of the Cuban dictator Fidel Castro, offered his views on race in his 1952 memoir The Motorcycle Diaries, writing, ‘The Negro is indolent and lazy and spends his money on frivolities, whereas the European is forward-looking, organized and intelligent.’ …

In the New York Tribune in 1853, Karl Marx came close to advocating genocide, writing, “The classes and the races, too weak to master the new conditions of life, must give way.” His friend and collaborator, Engels, was more explicit.

In 1849, Engels published an article in Marx’s newspaper, Neue Rheinische Zeitung. In it, Engels condemned the rural populations of the Austrian Empire for failing enthusiastically to partake in the revolution of 1848. …

‘The Austrian Germans and Magyars will be set free and wreak a bloody revenge on the Slav barbarians,’ he continued. ‘The next world war will result in the disappearance from the face of the earth not only of reactionary classes and dynasties, but also of entire reactionary peoples. And that, too, is a step forward.’

Here Engels clearly foreshadows the genocides of the 20th-century totalitarianism in general and the Soviet regime in particular. In fact, Joseph Stalin loved Engels’ article and commended it to his followers in The Foundations of Leninism in 1924. He then proceeded to suppress Soviet ethnic minorities, including the Jews, Crimean Tatars, and Ukrainians.”

As Tupy notes, socialists are given to dressing-up their repressions as “class struggles”, as opposed to racism when it suits them, ideological eliminationism, and genocidal paroxysm. And these fits have often had pronounced “disparate impacts” on ethnic, racial and national minorities. In this sense, Hitler, the national socialist was no exception. Again, from Tupy:

“Hitler’s hatred of the Jews, for example, was partly rooted in his belief that capitalism and international Jewry were two sides of the same coin. As he once famously asked, ‘How, as a socialist, can you not be an anti-Semite?'”

Socialism is not an ideology of “kindness”. As a practical matter, it is an ideology of coercion, control, and extreme inequality of outcomes. It is antithetical to the ideal of personal liberty, not “liberal” in any real sense of the word. It should come as no surprise that the practitioners of socialism have indulged in virulent intolerance and racism. And it’s not simply a matter of “my way or the highway”. It’s often my way or death for those who don’t fall in line, and a highway to hell on earth for those who do.

The Leninists Among Us

29 Sunday Sep 2019

Posted by in Leftism, Marxism, Tyranny

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , ,

I suggested recently that the pursuit of zero-sum gains, and zero-sum thinking generally, is a form of social rot. How timely that Gary Saul Morson has offered this interesting essay on “Leninthink” in the October issue of The New Criterion. It validates my conviction that a zero-sum view of the world invites social brutalism and economic cannibalism. Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov, better known as Vladimir Lenin, was of course the first premier of the Soviet Union after the Bolshevik Revolution in 1917. His philosophy was a practical derivative of Marxism, a real-world implementation of a “dictatorship of the proletariat“. Morson describes Lenin’s view of social relations thusly:

“Lenin regarded all interactions as zero-sum.To use the phrase he made famous, the fundamental question is always ‘Who Whom?’—who dominates whom, who does what to whom, ultimately who annihilates whom. To the extent that we gain, you lose. Contrast this view with the one taught in basic microeconomics: whenever there is a non-forced transaction, both sides benefit, or they would not make the exchange. For the seller, the money is worth more than the goods he sells, and for the buyer the goods are worth more than the money. Lenin’s hatred of the market, and his attempts to abolish it entirely during War Communism, derived from the opposite idea, that all buying and selling is necessarily exploitative. When Lenin speaks of ‘profiteering’ or ‘speculation’ (capital crimes), he is referring to every transaction, however small. Peasant ‘bagmen’ selling produce were shot.

Basic books on negotiation teach that you can often do better than split the difference, since people have different concerns. Both sides can come out ahead—but not for the Soviets, whose negotiating stance John F. Kennedy once paraphrased as: what’s mine is mine; and what’s yours is negotiable. For us, the word ‘politics’ means a process of give and take, but for Lenin it’s we take, and you give. From this it follows that one must take maximum advantage of one’s position. If the enemy is weak enough to be destroyed, and one stops simply at one’s initial demands, one is objectively helping the enemy, which makes one a traitor. Of course, one might simply be insane. Long before Brezhnev began incarcerating dissidents in madhouses, Lenin was so appalled that his foreign minister, Boris Chicherin, recommended an unnecessary concession to American loan negotiators, that he pronounced him mad—not metaphorically—and demanded he be forcibly committed. ‘We will be fools if we do not immediately and forcibly send him to a sanatorium.'”

The ruthlessness of Lenin’s mindset was manifested in his unwillingness to engage in rationalizations or even civil debate:

“Lenin’s language, no less than his ethics, served as a model, taught in Soviet schools and recommended in books with titles like Lenin’s Language and On Lenin’s Polemical Art. In Lenin’s view, a true revolutionary did not establish the correctness of his beliefs by appealing to evidence or logic, as if there were some standards of truthfulness above social classes. Rather, one engaged in ‘blackening an opponent’s mug so well it takes him ages to get it clean again.’ Nikolay Valentinov, a Bolshevik who knew Lenin well before becoming disillusioned, reports him saying: ‘There is only one answer to revisionism: smash its face in!’

When Mensheviks objected to Lenin’s personal attacks, he replied frankly that his purpose was not to convince but to destroy his opponent. In work after work, Lenin does not offer arguments refuting other Social Democrats but brands them as ‘renegades’ from Marxism. Marxists who disagreed with his naïve epistemology were ‘philosophic scum.’ Object to his brutality and your arguments are ‘moralizing vomit.’ You can see traces of this approach in the advice of Saul Alinsky—who cites Lenin—to ‘pick the target, freeze it, personalize it.'”

This offers a useful perspective on why it’s so difficult to have civil discussions with leftists today. They have inherited versions of Lenin’s polemic style. You’re more likely to be verbally attacked by the Left than to be engaged in a productive exchange of ideas, as I’m constantly reminded by observing the behavior of SJWs on social media. Leftist retribution is swift. Glenn Reynolds has mused, “As the old saying has it, the left looks for heretics and the right looks for converts, and both find what they’re looking for.” That might be too optimistic!

The richest source of zero-sum gains is through the levers of government, which possesses the necessary coercive power to achieve that aim. When coercive power is so ruthlessly exercised, the appearance of loyalty to those in power becomes paramount for survival. This can make it necessary to display an outward acceptance of fanciful claims:

“Lenin’s idea that coercion is not a last resort but the first principle of Party action. Changing human nature, producing boundless prosperity, overcoming death itself: all these miracles could be achieved because the Party was the first organization ever to pursue coercion without limits. In one treatise Stalin corrects the widespread notion that the laws of nature are not binding on Bolsheviks, and it is not hard to see how this kind of thinking took root. And, given an essentially mystical faith in coercion, it is not hard to see how imaginative forms of torture became routine in Soviet justice.

Dmitri Volkogonov, the first biographer with access to the secret Lenin archives, concluded that for Lenin violence was a goal in itself. He quotes Lenin in 1908 recommending ‘real, nationwide terror, which invigorates the country and through which the Great French Revolution achieved glory.'”

Morson provides this revealing quote from the madman Lenin himself:

“The kulak uprising in [your] 5 districts must be crushed without pity. . . . 1) Hang (and I mean hang so that the people can see) not less than 100 known kulaks, rich men, bloodsuckers. 2) Publish their names. 3) Take all their grain away from them. 4) Identify hostages . . . . Do this so that for hundreds of miles around the people can see, tremble, know and cry . . . . Yours, Lenin. P. S. Find tougher people.”

At least today the Lefties try to dox people first, rather than #2. The hanging might have to come later.

There is a real danger in encouraging such zero-sum notions as redistribution and class warfare. Even today’s preoccupation with identity politics is one of zero-sum emphasis. Furthermore, the concepts of mass victimization and social justice promote a delusion of righteousness, a necessary precondition to the kind of monstrous acts of a Lenin. Anyone truly interested in promoting an atmosphere of social cooperation should recognize the echos of Leninism we see today from Leftists on social media and in the streets. These tyrants must be resisted before we’re all on the wrong side of the ultimate zero sum outcome.

Art and Its Political Hijacking

15 Friday Dec 2017

Posted by in Art & Politics

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , ,

Art and politics have a long connection that is often quite awkward. One philosophy holds that art cannot be divorced from its social origins, that it is a legitimate platform from which to confront injustice and oppression, and indeed, that art must “serve some moral or didactic purpose”. In the nineteenth century, the contrary view was expressed by the phrase “art for art’s sake“, which has been credited to several individuals including Edgar Allen Poe. At the time, Marxists said the slogan served to prop-up the “petty bourgeois”, as if artistic beauty and exploration must themselves be inspired by political interests. Exploiting art to promote a point of view is not the exclusive domain of the Left, however. The Right has its own variations on political expression through art. But all such varieties on the Left and Right make me cringe just a bit; I cringe even when the intent of art is to promote views with which I strongly agree.

Art and Advocacy

Great art derives from an amorphous combination of talent, certain acquired technical skills, and inspiration. Inspiration can come from anything that might be, strictly speaking, non-art, such as natural beauty, any kind of human drama, the spiritual, or even politics. While many of us can agree that certain artistic works are great, it will always be a subjective matter to one degree or another.

Art may cross subjective boundaries of propriety, and it may offend. No matter the specific topic or the intent, art becomes confrontational and political when some parties object to whatever is portrayed, and especially when attempts are made to suppress it. A work of art is tendentious if the intent is to promote a political viewpoint or a policy, either as a matter of protest or when it is used by either the state or “subversive elements” in an effort to propagandize. It ranges from state-sponsored “artistic” propaganda to private but jingoistic expression, to “protest art”, and to any kind of politically-motivated art.

Obviously, tendentious art can be good from a purely technical perspective even while the subject matter is unappealing to a particular observer. As well, TA can appeal to the emotions effectively, and it can be interesting as a sociological exercise. However, art can portray conditions, dire or otherwise, and appeal to emotions without advocating social policy, and art can be abstract and devoid of any political implication whatsoever.

Even worse than tendentious art are attempts to either censor it or subsidize it. May tendentious art live on as a tool in the marketplace of ideas, free of government involvement. However, on the whole, public or private, I find it unappealing.

Why I’m Averse to Tendentious Art 

Here are several propositions about tendentious art (TA) to which I subscribe. They are overlapping to some extent, and I emphasize they are often matters of degree rather than kind:

  1. It compromises artistic standards;
  2. Persuasion is its purpose, making art subsidiary to the politics;
  3. It demotes art to a tool of delivery, subservient to the message;
  4. TA exploits art for political purposes;
  5. Art often functions as a refuge or escape; TA cannot;
  6. TA is often angry;
  7. the appeal of TA is often self-reverential;
  8. It confuses artistic value and political “virtue”;
  9. practitioners of TA often engage in willful historical distortion;
  10. TA can be self-antiquating;
  11. TA often recycles and co-opts existing art;
  12. It is never Pareto-improving.

I’ll elaborate on some of these points:

TA demotes the art part: To the extent that the art and the political message are separable, art becomes subsidiary to the message, and that is almost always true when the message is explicit. In fact, art becomes a mere conveyance.

Artistic compromise: Your political message does not make you an artist. This is worth extra emphasis in the age of the meme and the meme “artist”. I’ve seen what I consider bad art. I’ve seen a great deal of bad TA. It is as if the artist can be forgiven for an unimpressive artistic effort so long as the message is valued by like-minded partisans. In this way, TA creates confusion over artistic value relative to political “virtue”.

Politics attempts to exploit art: I am appalled at the recent treatment of certain celebrities, artists or otherwise, who are facing demands to publicly state their political views, to support or denounce this or that person or policy. Whether or not one’s work intersects with the political sphere should be up to the artist. It is within one’s rights to be apolitical.

TA is Pareto-violating: Tendentiousness makes art unappealing to certain observers, and that might even be what the artist intends. A particular policy position embodied in TA, if adopted, might actually be threatening to some individuals in terms of their economic welfare or personal liberties. Even worse, extreme forms of TA might serve to incite violent action (free speech demands that government may not engage in “prior restraint”). The point I’m making here is distinct from any issues posed by physical presentation, such as high volume or lighting, that might make a third-party worse off.

In economics, exchange is said to be Pareto-improving if two trading parties are made better-off while no one is made worse off. Of course, one can always ignore certain forms of art, or one can try to if its expression is non-threatening. But someone may well be made worse-off by an exercise of TA, and in a value-free sense, that makes TA inferior to other art.

Trapped like a rat: TA tends to be ineffective as a refuge or escape, no matter how cathartic some might find the message. The observer is bound by the political reality and the conflict it implies. Art doesn’t have to transcend reality to serve as an escape, but it can transcend explicit advocacy.

Your art and your virtue: I don’t think it’s unfair to say that an observer who enjoys tendentious art indulges in a pleasure that is strongly self-reverential. They feel virtuous, and that is the wrong sentiment to derive from art. TA derives some of its value and power by stroking the ego of the observer.

Distorting history: I have seen many examples of inaccurate historical accounts in theatre and elsewhere. The musical Hamilton is prominent in this respect. The musical Annie has its share of distortions regarding the largely similar policies of Herbert Hoover and Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Che Guevara is sometimes depicted in art as heroic, yet he was murderous, misogynistic, and tyrannical. Got any Stalin shirts? I could go on….

TA can get stale: In some circumstances, TA can make art self-antiquating: captive to the time in which it is created and reducing its relevance as times change, especially if the artist is on the losing side of the politics.

What Prompted This? A Band Beyond Description

This post was motivated by my observation of comments on “fan pages” to which I belong on-line. I’ve been an avid follower of a certain group of musicians over the years, and these fan pages give me an opportunity to interact with other enthusiasts, view concert video, and get news about the band. The fans tend to be affable and we share a certain cultural zeitgeist. However, there is division on these pages over politics, and while I’d describe many of the fans as leftist, there is more diversity of opinion than one might guess. One fan page actually has a “no politics” rule, as it’s proven to create unwelcome strife on other pages. I believe the page administrators are correct in viewing politics as “off-topic”. That is not censorship; it is private governance — house rules, as it were, to which I can’t object. Some fans just can’t help violating the rule, however. There, and on other fan pages, a significant segment of fans seem to believe that one cannot really “get” the band and their music without sharing certain political opinions. That doesn’t surprise me, but I dislike the “groupthink” attitude it reflects.

I realized early-on that the band tended to avoid tendentious art, greatly to their credit. Their music often focuses on traditional themes like love, love lost, celebration, the human condition, and many fascinating stories populated with colorful characters. They even cover some biblical topics that are just great stories. Other frequent musical themes are quite abstract, by turns sinister and dreamy.

There is no doubt that the members of the band have opinions about politics. They have supported a number of causes such as the anti-war movement, ending the drug war, environmental causes, and gay rights. But I believe they have intentionally avoided explicit advocacy in their music. They tend not to use the stage as a pulpit, except generally as a pulpit of musical celebration and fun. They sing sweetly (mostly) and they can rock!

Again, the distinctions I’m making are matters of degree. For example, occasionally the group plays concerts to benefit causes or even candidates for office. That’s fine. I might not support their candidate, or I might disagree with a policy position, but that sort of explicit advocacy seldom if ever intersects with their music. It imposes little or nothing on me.

The band has written and performed a few songs expressing concerns that I don’t fully share. In my opinion (in seeming violation of some of the principles I listed above), I consider those songs to be great from a purely musical perspective; the lyrics are well-turned; and they tend to reveal general sentiment and anxiety about things we’d all like to resolve, rather than direct advocacy of specific policies. I like those songs, though I might disagree with the policy prescriptions of the musicians themselves. In any case, they don’t claim technical expertise in those subject areas. I like their art and don’t really care about their policy preferences, unless they rub my nose in them. But they don’t.

Again, while these are matters of degree, this band has always tended not to use their music as a political soapbox. Perhaps the band’s greatest luminary once said the following:

“You need music, I don’t know why. It’s probably one of those Joe Campbell questions [who said, ‘Follow your bliss.’], why we need ritual. We need magic, and bliss, and power, myth, and celebration and religion in our lives, and music is a good way to encapsulate a lot of it.“

Denouement

My admittedly subjective opinion is that the explicit messaging of tendentious art cheapens artistic expression in several ways: it demotes art in favor of political messaging; it subverts the role of art as an escape; it may be inferior by making third-parties worse off; its enjoyment is something of a self-reverential exercise; it confuses artistic value with political “virtue”; it makes art less durable to the extent that the message it embodies may become less relevant with time; and it is usually angry.

The band I’ve referenced in this discussion is the Grateful Dead. I’ll continue to celebrate their great music with anyone who appreciates it as music. (The name of the band originally appealed to the group partly because it seemed somewhat repellent to conformists. That’s a bit confrontational, perhaps, but the name is folkloric.) Their politics don’t much matter to me because I believe they are artists first. They have kept their art largely free of politics.

I close with lyrics to a Grateful Dead song about music and it’s effect on the human spirit, written by John Perry Barlow and Bob Weir. It is non-tendentious:

The Music Never Stopped

[First voice]
There’s mosquitoes on the river
Fish are rising up like birds
It’s been hot for seven weeks now
Too hot to even speak now
Did you hear what I just heard?

Say, it might have been a fiddle
Or it could have been the wind
But there seems to be a beat now
I can feel it in my feet now
Listen here it comes again

[Second voice]
There’s a band out on the highway
They’re high-stepping into town

It’s a rainbow full of sound
It’s fireworks, calliopes and clowns
Everybody’s dancing

[First voice]
Come on children, come on children
Come on clap your hands

The sun went down in honey
And the moon came up in wine
You know stars were spinning dizzy
Lord the band kept us so busy
We forgot about the time

They’re a band beyond description
Like Jehovah’s favorite choir
People joining hand in hand
While the music plays the band
Lord they’re setting us on fire

Crazy rooster crowing midnight
Balls of lightning roll along
Old men sing about their dreams
Women laugh and children scream
And the band keeps playing on

[Second voice]
Keep on dancing through to daylight
Greet the morning air with song
No one’s noticed but the band’s all packed and gone
Was it ever here at all?
But they kept on dancing

[First voice]
Come on children, come on children
Come on clap your hands

Well the cool breeze came on Tuesday
And the corn’s a bumper crop
And the fields are full of dancing
Full of singing and romancing
The music never stopped

Willing Exchange With Capitalists

18 Wednesday May 2016

Posted by in Capitalism, Marxism

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

marx1

Now and then I’m inspired to blog on the misshapen language of political discourse. I recently wrote about the misuse of words by the American left, including their use of the term “liberalism”. This time, the particular word in play is “capitalism”, which I use to describe the ideal laissez faire economic order. I have always viewed it as a force for good. Real capitalism means free markets, consumer choice, strong private property rights, rewards to private initiative, and competition among producers. Even under conditions of concentrated market power, capitalism is preferable to government monopoly. Nevertheless, Gary Galles writes at The Beacon that capitalism is an inferior description of the laissez-faire ideal than”willing exchange“, or alternatively, unforced or voluntary exchange. Perhaps he has a point.

Capital and labor are the primary factors of production and both must be compensated. Labor earns a wage and capital earns a profit. Generally, the more capital a worker has available on the job, the greater the worker’s productivity and the greater the worker’s wage. However, any profit or return to capital is viewed by the left as an undeserved rent. The question of compensation is quite aside from the valuable social role profits play in directing resources to their most valued uses. Robert Murphy’s drives this home in an excellent recent essay entitled “There’s No Such Thing As Excessive Profits“. Here, here! In another post related to the crucial social role played by capital and profit, Patrick Barron explains “Why We Need Private Property To Deal With Scarce Resources“.

Again, any return to capital, normal or extra-normal, is seen by the left as a reward that should flow to labor in a just world. That is the upshot of Karl Marx’s labor theory of value. Thus, owners of capital are characterized as “takers”. Galles notes the belief that Marx coined the term “capitalism” in order to:

“…falsely imply that the system benefited capitalists at others’ expense, when, in fact, workers have been the greatest gainers from all the productivity enhancements the system has generated.“

He quotes Leonard Read on the value of “willing versus unwilling exchange” as an effective way to delineate and contrast the positions of adherents of laissez faire and statism:

“Standing for willing exchange, on the one hand, or for unwilling exchange, on the other, more nearly accents our ideological differences than does the employment of the terms in common usage…there is a minimum of verbal facade to hide behind.

Willing exchange…has not yet been saddled with emotional connotations …Further, its antithesis, unwilling exchange…no one, not even a protagonist, proudly acknowledges he favors that; it does offense to his idealism.

If we cut through all the verbiage used to report and analyze political and economic controversy…much of it boils down to a denial of willing and the insistence upon unwilling exchange. …

The concept of willing exchange unseats Napoleonic behavior—all forms of authoritarianism—and enthrones the individual. The consumer becomes king. Individual freedom of choice rules economic affairs… [It] is for me, and a willing seller, to decide; it is no one else’s business!“

The hallmark of the state as an actor is coercion. After all, it derives its power via “legitimized” coercion. Individuals are bound under its authority to participate in involuntary exchanges and to make do with a constrained set of willing exchanges. As much as we might amuse ourselves with the notion that our Constitution keeps the state in check, it grows and grows, and where it stops, nobody knows. One wonders how strongly the demonization of so-called “capitalists” plays into this process.

I often refer to voluntary exchange in one form or another. The term recommends itself by virtue of its implication of mutual benefit among parties. Nevertheless, I would have a difficult time abandoning the term “capitalism” in my writing. Here’s the thing: capitalism and free markets have had tremendous success over the last two centuries in improving material conditions and ending human poverty around the globe. Meanwhile, Marxism as a philosophy, and collectivism as a form of social organization, have done nothing to recommend themselves to humankind. So the joke’s on Marx, though we haven’t heard the last of the efforts to besmirch capitalism.

Artwork or Art Work? Effort or Value?

21 Wednesday Oct 2015

Posted by in Human Welfare, Liberty

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

Theory of Coffee Value

I know a talented artist who refuses to sell his paintings for less than he values the hours spent rendering them. His work is vibrant and arresting, but he doesn’t sell many paintings, which frustrates him greatly. I know very little about marketing artwork, but I do know that his pricing rationale is foolish. For one thing, the hours expended on a particular work are a sunk cost that he should forget if he wants to sell. And he doesn’t know this, but his opinion on pricing is an implication of Karl Marx’s labor theory of value, the flawed proposition that all value derives from the labor necessary to produce it.

Of course, value is in the eye of the beholder. In any potential exchange, value is determined in the first instance by the subjective assessment of a prospective buyer. Their willingness to pay is based on the enjoyment or utility they expect to gain from the transaction. There is no deal if the seller is unwilling to trade at that price; no one benefits unless the seller is thrilled to do the work without compensation, happy to consume or enjoy their own output, or gratified to simply hold it in inventory. My artist friend isn’t happy with that outcome, but his valuation has not passed a market test. Exactly where is the economic value of his labor? This is a cruel reality to those who scrape by in pursuits that often fail market tests, but it’s a reality that allows resources to be guided into uses that are most highly-valued and that satisfy wants most effectively.

It is surprising to me that the labor theory of value is so thoroughly embedded in the public’s thinking. Ryan McMaken at Mises Wire addresses this point in “Nobody Cares How Hard You Work“. Employers and employees often mistake hours worked and even effort for economic value. Working hard is thought to be admirable, but it is not always consistent with value creation:

“… too many workplaces still subtly communicate to employees the idea that intense effort, usually in the form of long hours, is the best route to a promotion. In fact, though, if you can do your job brilliantly and still leave at 3 p.m. each day, a really good boss shouldn’t object. And by the same token, you shouldn’t cite all the effort you put in when making your case for a raise. Why should a results-focused boss even care?“

At Liberty.me, Michael Bunch’s “A Misunderstanding of Labor and Value” offers some excellent quotes on the distinction, including this from Carl Menger:

“Value is a judgment economizing men make about the importance of the goods at their disposal for the maintenance of their lives and well-being. Hence value does not exist outside the consciousness of men.“

Ignoring the contribution of existing capital to production is an obvious error made by proponents of the labor theory of value, who argue that all value creation should be returned to labor as a reward. Bunch quotes Frederic Bastiat on this topic:

“Without these things [i.e., capital], the labor of man would be unproductive, and almost void; yet these very things have required much work, especially at first. This is the reason that so much value has been attached to the possession of them, and also that it is perfectly lawful to exchange and to sell them, to make a profit of them if used, to gain remuneration from them if lent.“

Yes, capital is man-made wealth, and labor plays an obvious role in its creation. Once extant, however, capital is a productive asset that enhances the productivity of labor as well. As property, its owners must be rewarded at least its marginal product, just as labor must be rewarded at least its marginal product. If the total product is deemed of sufficient value by buyers, then the activity will continue to the benefit of all concerned.

Bunch’s real intent is a bit off-topic: he seeks to refute the notion that patriarchy in the U.S. is active in assigning under-compensated roles to women. I’m not convinced that it’s necessary to debunk the labor theory of value to make that point. 

Is the labor theory of value irrational? Yes! Behavioral economists agree, as the links above point out. There are certainly times when the theory drives the subjective market valuations of buyers. Some behavioral economists use this as a rationale for government intrusion, but there is every reason to believe that an external authority would produce more distorted valuations and allocate resources less efficiently than the flawed market participants. And after all, in a free society, it is not incumbent on an authority to second guess private decisions. A good outcome is whatever floats your boat.

Francis Pontiff-icates In His Fallible Zone

24 Thursday Sep 2015

Posted by in Capitalism, Global Warming, Poverty, Socialism

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Francis Politics

Pope Francis dispenses guidance in matters of faith from his heart. In matters of economics and science, his guidance doesn’t come from a well-informed mind. I’ve devoted two posts to Francis’ political follies this year: “Green Hubris: The Flub of Rome“, and “Francis’ Statist Vision Not Shared By Venezuelan Clergy“. While foreswearing ideology in the pulpit, he nevertheless promotes leftist economic ideology and denigrates capitalism, the single-best form of social organization for lifting mankind from privation. He ignores mountains of evidence demonstrating that his hopes for humanity are best served by free markets and liberty. Francis further confuses the issue of church teachings versus personal ideology by claiming that his views are longstanding views of the Church.

A dark theory of the Pope’s anti-capitalist rhetoric occurred to me. It has to do with an ecclesiastical variant on statism: just as statist elites like President Obama seem to prefer widespread dependence on the state, so too does the Pope wish for widespread dependence on the Church for spiritual nourishment. Karl Marx is often quoted as having said “Religion is the opiate of the masses.” However, the full quote is the following:

“Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.“

Perhaps the Pope understands this all too well. An impoverished world may well be a more pious world, and his condemnation of capitalism might help to lead us there. Is such an ulterior motive too Machiavellian to describe the kind-hearted pontiff? Probably. Perhaps the Devil made me think of it!

Like most on the Left, the Pope does the world’s poor no favor by way of blindly accepting the global warmist agenda, which is based on a hypothesis “proven” only in the sense that a certain class of climate models predict a directional outcome. Those models have accumulated a long track record of bad forecasts. Not only that: the surface temperature records reported by U.S. Government agencies and the media as “evidence” of global warming are not supported by satellite records, and trends have been heavily manipulated via downward adjustments to past temperatures. But even if we stipulate that the carbon-forcing models and the surface temperature records are correct, there are major questions regarding the severity of the outcome and whether it poses a two-sided risk to human welfare. Mediation of this hypothetical risk is extremely costly, requiring diversion of vast quantities of resources, and that takes a real human toll. This is why the policy prescriptions of the warmist community lack internal consistency. For example, they wish to restrict power production from fossil fuels in the developing world, forcing populations to deforest and rely on unhealthy wood burning — indoors! — to meet basic needs like heating and cooking.

Here is the full text of a letter from Don Boudreaux to the Washington Post:

“On the opening page of your website today you ask readers to register their agreement or disagreement with this statement of Pope Francis: ‘This is our sin: Exploiting the Earth and not allowing her to give us what she has within her.’

This claim is laughable. History testifies unmistakably that the earth is extremely stingy in volunteering to humans ‘what she has within her.’ Indeed, what the earth has within her are mere raw materials, by themselves useless unless and until human creativity discovers not only how to transform them into actual resources and outputs that improve human well-being (Ever try fueling your jet with crude oil?) but also how to ‘exploit’ the earth so that she releases her materials to us at a reasonable cost.

The Pope is vocal about helping the world’s poor. I believe that he’s sincere. So I sincerely hope that he comes to realize that the greatest sin of all against humanity would be the suppression of those capitalist institutions that have proven to be the only practical means of transforming what the earth has within her into a bounty of goods and services that allows the masses, for the first time in history, to live lives of material abundance and dignity upon her.“

A few of the comments that follow Boudreaux’s post on Cafe Hayek are good, too.

Stephanie Slade has an excellent piece in Reason entitled “If Pope Francis Wants to Help the Poor, He Should Embrace Capitalism“. Here are some samples addressing the power of markets and capitalism to improve human welfare and eradicate poverty:

“Pope Francis thinks free marketeers have been deluded by a ‘myth of unlimited material progress.’ If we have, it’s because we’ve seen for ourselves the wonders that economic development and technological advancement can bring—from modern medicine stopping diseases that were the scourge of civilizations for centuries, to buildings more able to withstand natural disasters than at any time before, to ever-widening access to the air conditioning he wishes us to use less of.“

“‘Entrepreneurial capitalism takes more people out of poverty than aid.’ With those 10 words, spoken to an audience at Georgetown University in 2013, philanthropist rock star Bono demonstrated a keener understanding of economic reality than the leader of global Catholicism.

The U2 frontman clearly has it right—and Pope Francis is wrong to suggest that poverty is growing, or that capitalism, free markets, and globalization are fueling the (non-existent) problem. In just two decades, extreme poverty has been reduced by more than 50 percent. ‘In 1990, almost half of the population in developing regions lived on less than $1.25 a day,’ reads a 2014 report from the United Nations. ‘This rate dropped to 22 per cent by 2010, reducing the number of people living in extreme poverty by 700 million.’

How was this secular miracle achieved? The bulk of the answer is through economic development, as nascent markets began to take hold in large swaths of the world that were until recently desperately poor. A 2013 editorial from The Economist noted that… ‘Most of the credit… must go to capitalism and free trade, for they enable economies to grow—and it was growth, principally, that has eased destitution.’“

As Slade explains, far from a scourge on the environment, capitalism is and has been a great blessing:

“Both the economics and the history are clear: The more prosperous the developing world becomes, the more it too will be able to demand and achieve livable conditions. If your goal is to move the world to concern for the preservation of biodiversity, the answer is economic growth. If you want to increase access to clean water, the solution is to increase global wealth, and the consumer power that comes with it. Studies have shown that deforestation reverses when a country’s annual GDP reaches about $3,000 per capita. While some environmental indicators do get worse during the early stages of industrialization, the widely accepted Environmental Kuznets Curve hypothesis convincingly argues that they quickly reverse themselves when national income grows beyond a certain threshold. If the pope wants a cleaner world, the best way to get there is by creating a richer world—something Pope Francis’ own policy recommendations will make more difficult.“

A theme in Slade’s essay is that Francis is simply confused. On one level, he seems to know that technological advance is of great benefit to mankind, yet he is extremely wary of economic growth and believes that less production and consumption is better. That would make the job of alleviating conditions for the world’s poor much more challenging, if not impossible! He acknowledges that the environment has improved drastically in some parts of the world, but he seems unaware that the same areas are the most economically developed, and have the most well-developed markets. Like most on the Left, he also seems confused about the real meaning of capitalism. And the Pope “often blurs the line between public and private action.”

Slade concludes with some messages for Catholics. First, the Pope’s opinions on matters of faith are said to be infallible, according to Catholic doctrine. But opinions on topics like capitalism and the environment are outside his sphere of infallibility. Second, Slade is rightly offended by the Pope’s attitude that libertarianism and a belief in the efficacy of free markets is not compatible with Christianity.

Thus far during the Pope’s visit to Cuba and the U.S., he has thrilled the murderous Castro brothers and spoken out in favor of Obama’s climate agenda. Raul Castro is so happy about the Pope’s opinions on capitalism “that he might ‘start praying again’ and rejoin the church“. I truly hope that members of the Catholic flock, or any others,  don’t take the Pope’s political exhortations too seriously.