http://mises.org/books/inclined.pdf

Inclined to Liberty
LOUIS E. CARABINI

Chapter 28
KARL MARX

WHAT EXACTLY LED TO THE collapse of the Soviet Empire? Was it
communism or totalitarianism? Is there, in fact, a difference
between the two?

Marx would not have condoned the tyranny used by those
who acted in his name, but for Marx to expect that his words
"from each according to his ability and to each according to his
needs" would not be used to justify despotic acts is quite naïve for
someone who called himself a scientist. Marx was not, in fact, a
scientist; he saw, but ignored, the abundant data available in England
that refuted his contentions.

According to Marx, all the value of a good derives from the
labor that goes into its production. This labor theory of value is in
opposition to the subjective theory of value, which posits the value
of a good or service is determined by individuals, regardless of the
time and energy (labor) that went into its production. The labor
theory of value is fallacious; if it were not so, one of my paintings
(God forbid!) would be as valuable as one by Vincent van Gogh.
Based on the labor theory of value, Marx claimed that workers
do not get all of the proceeds from a sale because they are
exploited by the rich factory owner. He further claimed that factory
owners and landowners, having control of the political system,
are able to siphon off a portion of the wealth in the form of
profits that should, instead, flow to the workers. On this point,
Marx was wrong, even during his time and based on the conditions
where he lived. Workers in London were continually
improving their conditions. While surrounded by clear evidence
to the contrary, he nevertheless wrote:

"In proportion as capital accumulates, the lot of the labourer, be
his payment high or low, must grow worse. Accumulation of
wealth at one pole is at the same time accumulation of misery,
agony of toil, slavery, ignorance, brutality, mental degradation
at the opposite pole.45"

45Karl Marx, Das Kapital (1867).

Marx's critique of capitalism is not valid, but that invalidity in
and of itself is no crime. Many who read and believed his contentions
indoctrinated the masses with his teachings, and that in
itself is not a crime, either. But when that indoctrination failed to
improve conditions as Marx had contended it would, the leaders of
the movement then resorted to physical force. They tortured and
killed millions by decree and starved millions of others by compulsory
collectivist programs. Those actions are crimes—indeed, acts
of genocide. Marx might have been appalled to see what happened,
or he may have simply turned his head and ignored the evidence,
as he did when he wrote his critique of capitalism.

Marx dreamed of a world where labor was a fulfillment of one's
need to work, as love is a fulfillment of one's need for sex. He envisioned
a world without money, private property, or inequality, in
which everyone would have the greatest fulfillment of life and liberty.
Although he ridiculed religion as an "opiate of the masses," his
promises were, ironically, even more seductive and addictive than
religion; they promised paradise here on earth. What a wonderful
promise to hear when you're a struggling worker: have faith, and a
Garden of Eden awaits you just around the corner.

The strategies employed by the disciples of Marx to indoctrinate
the masses also resemble those used by the disciples of
Christ. They each employed rituals, repetitious readings, rote declarations,
strict allegiance, and a vigorous, proselytizing campaign.

Historically and ironically, many who failed to "see" the merits of
communism or failed to conform to the dogma of the church
were tortured and killed. Such atrocities took the form of crusades,
witch hunts,labor camps, forced famines, and executions
of any detractors who were deemed to be traitors, sinners,
heretics, or merely obstructionists. 46, 47 48

46Matthew White, "Selected Death Tolls for Wars, Massacres and Atrocities
Before the 20th Century," http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat0.htm

47Brian Levack, The Witch-Hunt in Early Modern Europe, 2nd ed. (London:
Longman, 1995). The author estimates there were about sixty-thousand
accused witches executed in Europe. The estimate of deaths by others
ranges between twenty thousand and one hundred thousand from 1400 to
1800.

48Robert Conquest, The Great Terror: Stalin's Purge of the Thirties (New York:
Macmillan, 1968). The author estimates those killed under Stalin by executions
from 1936 to 1938 were about one million; from 1936 to 1950 about
twelve million died in the camps; and three-and-a-half million died in the
1930–1936 collectivization. Overall, he concludes Stalin was responsible for
at least twenty million deaths. Mao Tse-tung, another disciple of Marx,
caused the death of an additional thirty million in China between 1958 and
1962.

The suffering and killing of those unwilling to conform to
someone else's political or religious beliefs continue in many parts
of the world today. Even in this country, religious fanatics impose
their dogma and values upon others by using the strong arm of the
State. In this respect, although their beliefs may be at odds with
those of Marxists, these believers also endorse the concept of mastery
over the lives of others.

Communism, like religion, can be practiced without everyone's
indulgence. I wonder whether, if Marx were alive today, he
would believe as he did then. Maybe he would not scorn capitalism,
but rather, accept its technologically advanced society. Those
who see communism as a better way of life can now choose to live
that life without the need for others to do likewise. No longer is
there a need for a revolution.

Today, because of technology, one can earn the basic necessities
of life in a small fraction of the time it took during the nineteenth
century, when Marx lived.49 If work, as Marx suggests, is a fulfillment
of a human need (as I agree it is), one can now more easily
choose a form of work that brings a personal fulfillment of that
need. Fellow Marxists can form personal communes and avoid
money, private property, and inequality. They can live the life
that Marx dreamed of living. In a free society, they can practice
their communal convictions to their heart's content—even
encouraging others to join them. Such associations would not be
too unlike those seen in a monastery or convent, where the
lifestyles chosen by their members are voluntary. In this respect,
communism is not in conflict with liberty, since the communal
association with others is not one of coercion.

49The gross domestic product (adjusted for inflation and deflation) of the
material standard of living in the United States from 1820 to 1998 increased
approximately twenty-two-fold, or an average of 1.73 percent per year.
EH.Net Encyclopedia.

However, when Marxists demand that everyone must live
their lives in the same way as Marxists do, their alleged ideology,
lifestyle, and fulfillment of a need just become façades to cover up
a ruthless quest for social and political power.

Despite my criticism of Marx's so-called science, his utopian
promises, his fallacious labor theory of value, and his denial of the
labor conditions around him, there is little doubt that Marx wanted
the best for humanity. He spent his life living as he believed, and I
find him to have been a man of spirit who lived by his convictions.

This is also true, however, of many do-gooders who try to reform
the world. They see conditions of the world that they despise and
try to improve them, while, unfortunately, neither possessing nor
seeking a clear understanding of causality and human nature.

Armed with misconceptions of the real world and fallacious
reasoning, these reformers pound the pavement for their cause,
and when they discover that their solution only worsens matters,
they simply pound harder. Marx was the world's most notorious
do-gooder, and those who take him to heart still keep pounding
harder. Today many who despise the real world continue to find
comfort in their faith in a Marxist utopian world.

There are problems with the article but given that I just spent 4 minutes of my life over at aynrand.org thanks for this breath of fresh air.

This set off my bs alert. If he "wanted the best for humanity" he should have bathed more--or jumped off a bridge.

--Brant

I don't know much about Marx, but according to what I've read (in Sowell if memory serves), Carabini's sappy paean might apply to the early Marx but not the later one. When early readers pointed out that his theories would lead to just the results they did, his reaction was to agree and to say that this would be fine with him. In that case, what Carabini says ceased to be defensible some time during Queen Victoria's reign.

Thanks Reidy and Grande.

Was this early period when Marx was working for the New York Herald Tribune? I have heard he was the correspondent for a New York newspaper during the Civil War.