Inclined to Liberty::Karl Marx

[halbowden]

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.

[Mike11]

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.

[Brant Gaede]

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

--Brant

[Reidy]

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.

[Chris Grieb]

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.