There are many misconceptions in the theories of Karl Marx – too many to cover in a single article. I’d like to mention one of them today – the fact that Marx never understood capitalism when he came up with his economic theories.
Marx asserted that the capitalist exploits workers because the worker is never paid the full value of goods produced. Capitalism allows the business-owner to claim a profit on goods sold minus the costs of labor, etc. Marx viewed this as exploitation of the working class (the proletariat) who isn’t paid the full value of labor put forth to produce goods sold on the market.
Marx believed the ruling class, the bourgeoisie, kept the working class perpetually, from generation to generation, from improving their lot in life. The bourgeoisie, on the other hand, is by birthright the landowner and business owner whose status alone keeps the working class from ever entering entrepreneurship.
This is obviously untrue. In fact, it is the state that acts to prevent totally free markets (true capitalism) from taking place. It is the government that seizes property as it sees fit to benefit the governors at the expense of the governed.
What Marx understood to be capitalism was essentially a mercantilist society. In mercantilism society is rigidly structured in a caste system where people have no upward mobility. This is easily observable in colonial Britain where the ruling class slapped oppressive rules on trade that benefitted themselves, but prevented peasants from ever owning land or starting a business for themselves.
The East India Company could serve as a model for Marx’s bourgeoisie ruling class. The East India Company was granted a Royal Charter granting them monopolistic rights to trade cotton, silk, indigo dye, saltpeter, tea, and opium. This offshoot of the British royal family became so powerful that it ruled large swaths of India following the Battle of Plassey in 1757.
No one outside the East India Company could enjoy the enormous trade benefits and resulting riches. One had to be born into a special caste to participate. There was no hope for an Indian peasant to participate fully in the fruits of his labor and the resources of his country.
It was mercantilism that classic liberal Adam Smith rebelled against and what Karl Marx should have decried instead of capitalism. Mercantilist forces forced their will on colonies spread throughout the world, including the American colonies. It was oppressive mercantilist policies that forced revolutionaries in America to revolt against their oppressors.
In a capitalist society there are no rigid classes. In a freely competitive society, with few regulatory controls or government interference, movement between classes is extremely mobile. Poor men become rich men (the great industrialists of the late 19th century are an excellent example) and rich men become poor men (such as those who invested foolishly during the dot.com bust).
Moreover, a worker is free to choose who he works for and understands that he will be paid a wage. The entrepreneur, on the other hand, understands that he will be able to sell his goods on the market after they are produced for a profit. The smart entrepreneur then reinvests his profits in his business so it will grow.
Capitalism has benefitted American society as a whole and has not resulted in the “unavoidable” class wars that Marx assumed were inevitable. In fact it was the mercantilist society that Americans and other oppressed societies around the world rebelled against.
If only Marx could have corrected his error think of the millions of lives and years of turmoil that could have been saved. Of course the resulting work would have been something similar to Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations.
Wednesday, May 5, 2010
Marx never understood capitalism
There are many misconceptions in the theories of Karl Marx – too many to cover in a single article. I’d like to mention one of them today – the fact that Marx never understood capitalism when he came up with his economic theories.
Marx asserted that the capitalist exploits workers because the worker is never paid the full value of goods produced. Capitalism allows the business-owner to claim a profit on goods sold minus the costs of labor, etc. Marx viewed this as exploitation of the working class (the proletariat) who isn’t paid the full value of labor put forth to produce goods sold on the market.
Marx believed the ruling class, the bourgeoisie, kept the working class perpetually, from generation to generation, from improving their lot in life. The bourgeoisie, on the other hand, is by birthright the landowner and business owner whose status alone keeps the working class from ever entering entrepreneurship.
This is obviously untrue. In fact, it is the state that acts to prevent totally free markets (true capitalism) from taking place. It is the government that seizes property as it sees fit to benefit the governors at the expense of the governed.
What Marx understood to be capitalism was essentially a mercantilist society. In mercantilism society is rigidly structured in a caste system where people have no upward mobility. This is easily observable in colonial Britain where the ruling class slapped oppressive rules on trade that benefitted themselves, but prevented peasants from ever owning land or starting a business for themselves.
The East India Company could serve as a model for Marx’s bourgeoisie ruling class. The East India Company was granted a Royal Charter granting them monopolistic rights to trade cotton, silk, indigo dye, saltpeter, tea, and opium. This offshoot of the British royal family became so powerful that it ruled large swaths of India following the Battle of Plassey in 1757.
No one outside the East India Company could enjoy the enormous trade benefits and resulting riches. One had to be born into a special caste to participate. There was no hope for an Indian peasant to participate fully in the fruits of his labor and the resources of his country.
It was mercantilism that classic liberal Adam Smith rebelled against and what Karl Marx should have decried instead of capitalism. Mercantilist forces forced their will on colonies spread throughout the world, including the American colonies. It was oppressive mercantilist policies that forced revolutionaries in America to revolt against their oppressors.
In a capitalist society there are no rigid classes. In a freely competitive society, with few regulatory controls or government interference, movement between classes is extremely mobile. Poor men become rich men (the great industrialists of the late 19th century are an excellent example) and rich men become poor men (such as those who invested foolishly during the dot.com bust).
Moreover, a worker is free to choose who he works for and understands that he will be paid a wage. The entrepreneur, on the other hand, understands that he will be able to sell his goods on the market after they are produced for a profit. The smart entrepreneur then reinvests his profits in his business so it will grow.
Capitalism has benefited American society as a whole and has not resulted in the “unavoidable” class wars that Marx assumed were inevitable. In fact it was the mercantilist society that Americans and other oppressed societies around the world rebelled against.
If only Marx could have corrected his error think of the millions of lives and years of turmoil that could have been saved. Of course the resulting work would have been something similar to Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations.
Marx asserted that the capitalist exploits workers because the worker is never paid the full value of goods produced. Capitalism allows the business-owner to claim a profit on goods sold minus the costs of labor, etc. Marx viewed this as exploitation of the working class (the proletariat) who isn’t paid the full value of labor put forth to produce goods sold on the market.
Marx believed the ruling class, the bourgeoisie, kept the working class perpetually, from generation to generation, from improving their lot in life. The bourgeoisie, on the other hand, is by birthright the landowner and business owner whose status alone keeps the working class from ever entering entrepreneurship.
This is obviously untrue. In fact, it is the state that acts to prevent totally free markets (true capitalism) from taking place. It is the government that seizes property as it sees fit to benefit the governors at the expense of the governed.
What Marx understood to be capitalism was essentially a mercantilist society. In mercantilism society is rigidly structured in a caste system where people have no upward mobility. This is easily observable in colonial Britain where the ruling class slapped oppressive rules on trade that benefitted themselves, but prevented peasants from ever owning land or starting a business for themselves.
The East India Company could serve as a model for Marx’s bourgeoisie ruling class. The East India Company was granted a Royal Charter granting them monopolistic rights to trade cotton, silk, indigo dye, saltpeter, tea, and opium. This offshoot of the British royal family became so powerful that it ruled large swaths of India following the Battle of Plassey in 1757.
No one outside the East India Company could enjoy the enormous trade benefits and resulting riches. One had to be born into a special caste to participate. There was no hope for an Indian peasant to participate fully in the fruits of his labor and the resources of his country.
It was mercantilism that classic liberal Adam Smith rebelled against and what Karl Marx should have decried instead of capitalism. Mercantilist forces forced their will on colonies spread throughout the world, including the American colonies. It was oppressive mercantilist policies that forced revolutionaries in America to revolt against their oppressors.
In a capitalist society there are no rigid classes. In a freely competitive society, with few regulatory controls or government interference, movement between classes is extremely mobile. Poor men become rich men (the great industrialists of the late 19th century are an excellent example) and rich men become poor men (such as those who invested foolishly during the dot.com bust).
Moreover, a worker is free to choose who he works for and understands that he will be paid a wage. The entrepreneur, on the other hand, understands that he will be able to sell his goods on the market after they are produced for a profit. The smart entrepreneur then reinvests his profits in his business so it will grow.
Capitalism has benefited American society as a whole and has not resulted in the “unavoidable” class wars that Marx assumed were inevitable. In fact it was the mercantilist society that Americans and other oppressed societies around the world rebelled against.
If only Marx could have corrected his error think of the millions of lives and years of turmoil that could have been saved. Of course the resulting work would have been something similar to Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations.
Monday, September 21, 2009
Update on CiCi's
I sent an email to the corporate headquarters regarding my experience a week ago. I am very happy with their response. Not only did they respond to me from the corporate office, but I also got a response from the local store.
I was assured that the seats and tables are thoroughly cleaned after each patron finishes their meal. I do see the workers going about doing this every time I eat there. I'll be watching to see if they do wash the seating - I can't recall specifically if they do.
I will return to CiCi's because my little one loves to eat there. I just won't during an obvious rush time - such as the church crowd I was confronted with last Sunday. This is a personal rule I have at any restaurant as I loathe crowds and waiting in line.
I was assured that the seats and tables are thoroughly cleaned after each patron finishes their meal. I do see the workers going about doing this every time I eat there. I'll be watching to see if they do wash the seating - I can't recall specifically if they do.
I will return to CiCi's because my little one loves to eat there. I just won't during an obvious rush time - such as the church crowd I was confronted with last Sunday. This is a personal rule I have at any restaurant as I loathe crowds and waiting in line.
Sunday, September 13, 2009
Most disgusting act I've ever seen in a restaurant
My 6 year old loves to go to Cici's Pizza. It is a heck of a bargain and they have salad to go with the Pizza carb-fest. We've been patronizing the joint for years and my complaint certainly isn't directed at the personnel - its at the clientele.
As we sat down to eat in the overly crowded Cici's Pizza (Fort Smith on Rogers Ave. next to the Supercenter) my eyesight was entertained with the scene of a ten-year-old boy repeatedly sneezing and making no attempt to stifle the spread of germs. While I was alarmed at this, considering the swine flu scare, this is something you see from time to time at any restaurant - or any public place.
It was immediately after the sneezing fit that I witnessed the most horrible event I've ever seen in a restaurant. A girl, also about ten, seated across from the boy dug into her nose and retrieved a booger. She then examined the nugget and wiped in on the seat next to her. I desperately wished I could "unsee" this incident, as I had not had a bite of pizza yet, but we all know that is impossible.
It was a table of three kids with the accompanying adults seated at an adjacent booth. I considered telling who I assumed was the mother about what her child did then I thought this person probably wouldn't care. I've had skirmishes with these types before only to end up getting scolded myself.
I almost vomited after seeing this. My immediate thoughts were - do the Cici's employees ever wash the seats? Am I sitting on some other kids boogers? I'm forever traumatized. I really hope Cici's does wash the seating and if I can find out that they do I will update this post.
As we sat down to eat in the overly crowded Cici's Pizza (Fort Smith on Rogers Ave. next to the Supercenter) my eyesight was entertained with the scene of a ten-year-old boy repeatedly sneezing and making no attempt to stifle the spread of germs. While I was alarmed at this, considering the swine flu scare, this is something you see from time to time at any restaurant - or any public place.
It was immediately after the sneezing fit that I witnessed the most horrible event I've ever seen in a restaurant. A girl, also about ten, seated across from the boy dug into her nose and retrieved a booger. She then examined the nugget and wiped in on the seat next to her. I desperately wished I could "unsee" this incident, as I had not had a bite of pizza yet, but we all know that is impossible.
It was a table of three kids with the accompanying adults seated at an adjacent booth. I considered telling who I assumed was the mother about what her child did then I thought this person probably wouldn't care. I've had skirmishes with these types before only to end up getting scolded myself.
I almost vomited after seeing this. My immediate thoughts were - do the Cici's employees ever wash the seats? Am I sitting on some other kids boogers? I'm forever traumatized. I really hope Cici's does wash the seating and if I can find out that they do I will update this post.
Saturday, August 29, 2009
The darker side of liberalism
The left - liberals, progressives, "social activists" - I prefer the latter two terms because modern "liberals" have changed the meaning of the word to imply social activism (libertarians are liberal in the classic sense). Whatever we want to call them, the "vocal left" is used to getting its own way by lobbing derogatory falsehoods at the other side...name-calling essentially.
"Nazi," "fascist"...these are two of the most popular insults lobbed at the conservative right but did you know that fascists and Nazis came from social activist/progressive ideology? I'm sure most of my readers have heard the blurbs of recent headlines referring to some halfwit saying Obama is a Nazi and didn't give it much though. But you should...
Jonah Goldberg traces the history of the progressive Democrat to the presidency of Woodrow Wilson (a president referred to as a "fascist dictator") in his book Liberal Fascism. Wilson famously screened D.W. Griffith's homage to the KKK, The Clansman, in the White House - he even invited the director to sit with him as he watched it. The movie, soon to be renamed The Birth of a Nation at the insistence of a close friend to the president, was the first ever shown in the White House.
The left would like everyone to forget that Democrat Wilson was extremely racist, and a progressive. He viewed the KKK as a great bastion of southern heritage that "sprung into existence...to protect the Southern country." Wilson's progressive policy created numerous limitations to market competition - the first of their kind. The Clayton Act of 1914, for example, established a tedious list of "unfair business practices" that formed the groundwork of the Federal Trade Commission that still exists today.
Wilson's shocking behavior didn't stop there...after entering World War I in 1917 - Wilson swiftly issued executive order 2594 that created the Committee on Public Information whose purpose was to influence public opinion in favor of the war. Chaired by George Creel, CPI quickly put out 1,400 posters and the press at the time cooperated to suppress news stories. In 1918 Wilson backed the Sedition Act which outlawed "disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive language" in reference to the government. The act worked to jail some 175,000 Americans as political prisoners. Despite all these horrific acts, Wilson is often remembered as one of the greatest presidents in history.
Goldberg did not make up the term "liberal fascist." In fact, it was a progressive during the time of fascims's height that coined the term. Author H.G. Wells came up with the phrase as a way to revitalise liberalism in 1932 when it was thought the progressive movement was in decline. The fascism of Benito Mussolini was widely respected by the Hollywood crowd and intelligentsia of the time - Time even put Il Duce on the cover twice - once in 1923 and again 12 years later.
New Republic published numerous articles praising Mussolini as the ultimate progressive. Cole Porter's song "You're the Top" is a salute to the dictator - Irving Berlin penned a musical tribute as well. Mussolini had admiration for America at the time also - particularly for Woodrow Wilson.
Mussolini was a leftist with a strong contempt for Christianity and capitalism (sound familiar). He didn't hate Jews, however, that was strictly a belief of the National Socialist Party of Germany. The future "Great Leader" gained early support by supporting striking workers and attacking his former socialist rivals. Mussolini effectively combined nationalist pride with government control, just like Wilson did, and the result was fascism. After establishing dictatorial powers by murdering his adversaries, Il Duce established huge government projects that built bridges, drained swamps, and reduced unemployment - and the public adored him for it.
Comparing progressives to fascists is obvious - the term belongs to them. The Nazi comparison is there as well and not only because the political party contains the word "socialism." Nazis believed strongly in "social reform" policies that included a national health system, a smoking ban, publicly funded abortions - even their own version of affirmative action which included exterminating the Jews. Affirmative action for the Nazis meant eugenics or "racial purification" through selective breeding.
Its the left gone haywire and certainly a comparison that progressives will rail against - insisting that the Nazis were right-wing. But how could they be when they had such strong beliefs in a central, "social reforming" government? That is certainly not a political belief of the right and it never has been. I believe that the left has pegged the Nazis as rightist because of the militance of the group. But they did this without looking into where the Nazi party actually stood on political issues - many issues that the left agrees with to this day (except that part about exterminating Jews).
Wilson wasn't the only liberal fascist...I'll continue this topic at another time.
"Nazi," "fascist"...these are two of the most popular insults lobbed at the conservative right but did you know that fascists and Nazis came from social activist/progressive ideology? I'm sure most of my readers have heard the blurbs of recent headlines referring to some halfwit saying Obama is a Nazi and didn't give it much though. But you should...
Jonah Goldberg traces the history of the progressive Democrat to the presidency of Woodrow Wilson (a president referred to as a "fascist dictator") in his book Liberal Fascism. Wilson famously screened D.W. Griffith's homage to the KKK, The Clansman, in the White House - he even invited the director to sit with him as he watched it. The movie, soon to be renamed The Birth of a Nation at the insistence of a close friend to the president, was the first ever shown in the White House.
The left would like everyone to forget that Democrat Wilson was extremely racist, and a progressive. He viewed the KKK as a great bastion of southern heritage that "sprung into existence...to protect the Southern country." Wilson's progressive policy created numerous limitations to market competition - the first of their kind. The Clayton Act of 1914, for example, established a tedious list of "unfair business practices" that formed the groundwork of the Federal Trade Commission that still exists today.
Wilson's shocking behavior didn't stop there...after entering World War I in 1917 - Wilson swiftly issued executive order 2594 that created the Committee on Public Information whose purpose was to influence public opinion in favor of the war. Chaired by George Creel, CPI quickly put out 1,400 posters and the press at the time cooperated to suppress news stories. In 1918 Wilson backed the Sedition Act which outlawed "disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive language" in reference to the government. The act worked to jail some 175,000 Americans as political prisoners. Despite all these horrific acts, Wilson is often remembered as one of the greatest presidents in history.
Goldberg did not make up the term "liberal fascist." In fact, it was a progressive during the time of fascims's height that coined the term. Author H.G. Wells came up with the phrase as a way to revitalise liberalism in 1932 when it was thought the progressive movement was in decline. The fascism of Benito Mussolini was widely respected by the Hollywood crowd and intelligentsia of the time - Time even put Il Duce on the cover twice - once in 1923 and again 12 years later.
New Republic published numerous articles praising Mussolini as the ultimate progressive. Cole Porter's song "You're the Top" is a salute to the dictator - Irving Berlin penned a musical tribute as well. Mussolini had admiration for America at the time also - particularly for Woodrow Wilson.
Mussolini was a leftist with a strong contempt for Christianity and capitalism (sound familiar). He didn't hate Jews, however, that was strictly a belief of the National Socialist Party of Germany. The future "Great Leader" gained early support by supporting striking workers and attacking his former socialist rivals. Mussolini effectively combined nationalist pride with government control, just like Wilson did, and the result was fascism. After establishing dictatorial powers by murdering his adversaries, Il Duce established huge government projects that built bridges, drained swamps, and reduced unemployment - and the public adored him for it.
Comparing progressives to fascists is obvious - the term belongs to them. The Nazi comparison is there as well and not only because the political party contains the word "socialism." Nazis believed strongly in "social reform" policies that included a national health system, a smoking ban, publicly funded abortions - even their own version of affirmative action which included exterminating the Jews. Affirmative action for the Nazis meant eugenics or "racial purification" through selective breeding.
Its the left gone haywire and certainly a comparison that progressives will rail against - insisting that the Nazis were right-wing. But how could they be when they had such strong beliefs in a central, "social reforming" government? That is certainly not a political belief of the right and it never has been. I believe that the left has pegged the Nazis as rightist because of the militance of the group. But they did this without looking into where the Nazi party actually stood on political issues - many issues that the left agrees with to this day (except that part about exterminating Jews).
Wilson wasn't the only liberal fascist...I'll continue this topic at another time.
Thursday, August 27, 2009
Briana lost first tooth
It had hung on for more than 2 weeks as she was terrified of pulling it out herself. Tonight it finally came out and she told us how...
"I sneezed," she said. "I sneezed it out."
"I sneezed," she said. "I sneezed it out."
Saturday, August 15, 2009
Libertarians are true liberals
Liberalism today has come to mean social activism but this is not what the term is supposed to mean and did mean until the Progressives forever changed the term in America. Libertarians are liberals in the classical sense; that is, we are the true liberals.
Classic liberals - what "liberalism" used to mean - believe in free markets, limited government, and personal freedom. We are liberal because of this strong belief in personal freedom however we go about establishing this freedom in a different way - we don't think the government needs to mandate it. Personal freedom is implied and the government has no business meddling with it.
This is where classical liberalism strays greatly from the modern liberal "social activists." Modern liberals believe the government has to define and enforce personal freedoms for everybody. But doing this forces government involvement in everyone's lives. Doing this takes away personal freedom as it is impossible for the government to "enforce" personal freedom without infringing on the rights of individuals who may disagree with others.
So why has liberalism come to mean social activism? It happened in the late 19th century before the re-definition was complete with FDR's New Deal. The late 19th century politicians, among them Theodore Roosevelt, came to prominence with progressive ideals that were supported by voters. The government began to interfere with the economy (T.R.'s 'trust busting) and the public was happy to allow this. At the time corporate titans John D. Rockefeller, Dale Carnegie, and J.P. Morgan dominated the oil, steel, and banking industries which brought about the public sentiment to regulate business practices.
These first government interventions into wider society mark the first time the government acted as a social activist. Other laws followed such as child labor, worker safety, etc. It was during this time when social liberals split from classic liberals who thought the government shouldn't intervene with the actions of wider society because the markets should determine business practices.
Wilson solidified the acceptance of statism where before classical liberals embraced anti-statist individualism. This stance was assumed at the time by conservatives. Powerful corporations and the enhanced ability to communicate (telegraph, telephone) brought economic organization to a national level - and the "liberal" government of the time period reacted accordingly - culminating in FDR's New Deal where the government functioned as an economic planner. New Deal "economic planners" went so far as to daily dictate the price of gold and reorganize entire industries.
The failures of New Deal economic planning then led liberals to embrace Keynesian economic principles that call on the government to manage aggregate demand - still direct market involvement but not to the extent of FDR's policies.
It was also during this time that individual rights were emphasized by liberals - particularly civil rights - which led to the clashes of the 1960s. It was in the 1960s that the transformation of the liberal into a social activist became complete.
So what happened to the classic liberals? Well, by and large they didn't exist. The dual-party political system in America embraced progressive ideas on both sides and classical liberals were relegated to the sidelines. A few classic liberals popped up from time to time from the Republican Party - Barry Goldwater comes to mind - but a new brand of GOP dominated that accepted the renovations of the social activists and New Deal policies of the 1930s - the "neo-cons."
Today the Internet allows for easy transfer of ideas and people are discovering that they agree with the classic liberal policies of the Libertarian Party when they read about it. Its a completely different stance from the two-party system.
Classic liberals - what "liberalism" used to mean - believe in free markets, limited government, and personal freedom. We are liberal because of this strong belief in personal freedom however we go about establishing this freedom in a different way - we don't think the government needs to mandate it. Personal freedom is implied and the government has no business meddling with it.
This is where classical liberalism strays greatly from the modern liberal "social activists." Modern liberals believe the government has to define and enforce personal freedoms for everybody. But doing this forces government involvement in everyone's lives. Doing this takes away personal freedom as it is impossible for the government to "enforce" personal freedom without infringing on the rights of individuals who may disagree with others.
So why has liberalism come to mean social activism? It happened in the late 19th century before the re-definition was complete with FDR's New Deal. The late 19th century politicians, among them Theodore Roosevelt, came to prominence with progressive ideals that were supported by voters. The government began to interfere with the economy (T.R.'s 'trust busting) and the public was happy to allow this. At the time corporate titans John D. Rockefeller, Dale Carnegie, and J.P. Morgan dominated the oil, steel, and banking industries which brought about the public sentiment to regulate business practices.
These first government interventions into wider society mark the first time the government acted as a social activist. Other laws followed such as child labor, worker safety, etc. It was during this time when social liberals split from classic liberals who thought the government shouldn't intervene with the actions of wider society because the markets should determine business practices.
Wilson solidified the acceptance of statism where before classical liberals embraced anti-statist individualism. This stance was assumed at the time by conservatives. Powerful corporations and the enhanced ability to communicate (telegraph, telephone) brought economic organization to a national level - and the "liberal" government of the time period reacted accordingly - culminating in FDR's New Deal where the government functioned as an economic planner. New Deal "economic planners" went so far as to daily dictate the price of gold and reorganize entire industries.
The failures of New Deal economic planning then led liberals to embrace Keynesian economic principles that call on the government to manage aggregate demand - still direct market involvement but not to the extent of FDR's policies.
It was also during this time that individual rights were emphasized by liberals - particularly civil rights - which led to the clashes of the 1960s. It was in the 1960s that the transformation of the liberal into a social activist became complete.
So what happened to the classic liberals? Well, by and large they didn't exist. The dual-party political system in America embraced progressive ideas on both sides and classical liberals were relegated to the sidelines. A few classic liberals popped up from time to time from the Republican Party - Barry Goldwater comes to mind - but a new brand of GOP dominated that accepted the renovations of the social activists and New Deal policies of the 1930s - the "neo-cons."
Today the Internet allows for easy transfer of ideas and people are discovering that they agree with the classic liberal policies of the Libertarian Party when they read about it. Its a completely different stance from the two-party system.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
