Marx’s Circularity
Aside from what I’ve previously written about Marx, I keep examining his peculiar brand of “economics”. After all, it laid the groundwork for most of the past century’s public policy (and subsequent catastrophes), and pretty much all of what we’ll be forced to bear for the foreseeable future, as well. So I just can’t let it go.
Per Marx, exploitation is the result of primitive accumulation (a topic I’ve already thoroughly discussed). And over-accumulation is what ultimately leads to the exploitation of the proletariat. But so-called over-accumulation depends upon exploitation, right?
As it stands, it’s an insoluble problem. If it were one or the other, we could resolve the root problem.
It can’t be both. Exploitation can’t be the cause of accumulation, if accumulation is a necessary condition for exploitation. Don’t feel bad if you didn’t catch this before. I just noticed it. Until you see this as circular nonsense, Marxists will be able to use either one of those arguments or the other against you, depending on the situation.
Furthermore, Marx assumes, that the evil, cut-throat C. Montgomery Burns-style capitalists unwaveringly collude with one another, to the detriment of the proletariat, even though it is in their individual best interests to break these thieves’ pacts.
Circularity, again. How can the capitalists be so evil as to force less-than-subsistence upon the proletariat, but at the same time not evil enough to undermine, to wreck an economically precarious cartel (all cartels are economically precarious)?
By ignoring competition between capitalists and taking as a given collusion among capitalists, the “race to the bottom” maxim is a foregone conclusion setting the stage nicely for class warfare (where Marx is also wrong!).
When exercised, Marx’s ideas have resulted in super-states (cf. USSR, USA, etc.) and witch hunts, the likes of which put Salem to shame (Solzhenitsyn, Aleksandr I. The Gulag Archipelago Vol. 1).
If I could choose one man, whose ideas would be forever erased from the minds of men, from their libraries and records, it would be Karl Marx.
No related posts.
Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.
About The Author
Excellent post
Exploitation is what created primitive accumulation but not capitalist exploitation. It was exploitation based on explicit violence. Slavery, Feudalism, Colonization. That kind of thing. Once sufficient accumulation was achieved and the technological and cultural level required was there, Capitalism was possible and “non-violent” exploitation.
It’s not about a cartel, it’s about class interest. Capitalist’s don’t collude with each other actively but passively. They don’t conspire to help each other smash unions, but they do join into trade groups and lobby the government to pass anti-labour laws. Industrial capitalists may not like the financial capitalist rising interest rates, but they prefer it to the alternative of smaller and nimbler companies challenging their dominance.
Come on man, if you’re going o critique Marxian economics, at least put the effort to understand it first. Otherwise you simply leave yourself to being dismissed by those you’re trying to convince for being clueless.
Chicken, or egg: Does capitalism imply government, or does government imply capitalism? Again, I do not think it can be “All of the above.” One of them begets the other, and IMO it’s government that gives rise to “capitalism” and not vice versa.
Accumulation (however defined) can certainly come about *without* exploitation, no? At some point the goalpost shifts from “accumulation” (i.e., productivity!) to “explicit violence” and all of a sudden we’re talking about a State or State-like institution of violence.
David: In regards to what begets what, you are correct that historically capitalism required a state in order to rise to domination as a system of production. Given the way it was created and its nature, it’s doubtful that it can come before a state.
In regards to accumulation without exploitation I disagree. Given a possessive system, it’s downright impossible. In a hypothetical propertarian and stateless system though, it is likely that accumulation begins without exploitation but it will at some point require it in order to amount to any significance. Of course this is all quite irrelevant.
“it is likely that accumulation begins without exploitation but it will at some point require it in order to amount to any significance.”
I think this is far from irrelevant. What I read here is that at up until some point, accumulation is proper. Beyond that point (this is somewhat of a grey area to be sure) increasing accumulation must depend on exploitation (e.g., violence). I don’t think this is irrelevant at all. The point at which violence enters the equation is the problem, not mere accumulation (which I agree would not amount to much significance).
It’s irrelevant because the scenario is hypothetical and can’t really tell us anything about the current world. As for which point violence enters the equation, this is when people declare ownership on more than they can use themselves thus requiring other to accept rent or wage contracts.
does that maxim extend to items which they can’t immediately use, but which are also the product of their labor?
David Z: IMO it’s government that gives rise to “capitalism” and not vice versa.
++++++++++++++++++++++++
Are you saying that in the absence of government capitalism cannot happen? Why?
Don, remember that “capitalism” is a (derogatory) term pretty much coined by Marx. For most american libertarians, it has a slightly different meaning than Marx’s.
I’m not saying that “in the absence of government, free markets can’t happen,” but rather the sort of capitalism referred to by left/continental libertarians can’t happen in the absence of a state.
It extends to means of production primarily.
That’s asking me to prove a negative. All I can point out is that historically capitalism in every form required state force in order to create a class of people who had nothing else to sell but their labour. This class of people cannot be otherwise be formed than through force – when starting from an egalitarian situation that is.
hey db0 – agree with your response to Don above.
as far as the “means of production” are concerned, if it’s true that these things can be the product of one’s labor (and without a doubt, they can be) then extending that maxim to these cases; that is the line I won’t cross.
OK, My mistake – in interpretation of terminology. I’ll pay closer attention. Thanks. And I agree, with the free market thing and try to live it everyday.