A Just Capitalism? A Reply to Alan Wood.

Alan Wood has made a career out of making plausible sounding arguments regarding Marx that have no possible chance of being true. In fact one can spot a trend that has allowed a number of social theorists (I might add here Cohen's A Defense of K. Marx's Theory of History) to askew common sense and reasonable inquiry.

When I created this blog I promised to demonstrate how my particular method for understanding Marx might come in handy. I have chosen Alan Wood's contention that Marx believed that Capitalism was/(is) a just society, because it illustrates how distorted a view can become if one does not take into account how Marx often spoke sarcastically when he promoted his ideas.

I will be following Alan E. Buchanan's treatment of Wood's claim from his Marx and Justice. In the book ,Buchanan stencils out Wood's basic claim, by suggesting it can best understood when broken down in to (2) basic premises: [Buchanan p.53]

1. According to Marx, a standard of justice can only be meaningfully applied to that mode of production from which it arises and to which it corresponds, and each mode has its own distinctive standard.
2. According to Marx, the wage-relation between worker and capitalist is just according to the only standard of justice which applies to it, namely the standard which requires that equivalents be exchanged for equivalents.

Buchanan goes on to argue that "on the basis of premises (1) and (2), Wood concludes that for Marx the exploitation of the worker by the capitalist , though evil because it is a form of servitude, is not unjust." (Buchanan p.52)

Both Holmstrom and Buchanan rightly insist that Wood has "abstracted from his background" the fact that while the commodity of labour power is exchanged freely and equally , the worker is not on the same level playing field as the capitalist.

As has been noted by Buchanan, Nancy Holmstrom concluded that " we now see that calling it a just exchange could only be done tongue-in-cheek."[my emphasis]( Buchanan p. 54)

Within this unequal playground of Bentham and Mill ,the worker undergoes a compulsion under the threat of starvation and death, to enter within a contract with the capitalist , while the capitalist could wait out such a transaction for quite a longer period of time.

As one can see, without considering the sarcastic nature of attacks that Marx will use in defense of his ideas, a completely different account of the relationship between capital and worker could be given. Despite Marx's admonishments to stay away from moralizing the conflict between proletariat and capitalist, Wood's description of the conflict as Evil rather than unjust [ at least within the field of distributive justice] turns Marx on his head. Marx becomes a moralizer and utopian rather than a critic of capitalist theory.

I think in principle, that Marx believed that (equivalents vs equivalents) is a fair distributive practice within capitalism, but that the practice of real life capitalists was nothing like that, capitalism violated it's own myths so it was both evil and unjust. [ Not that I have show a real case for capitalism to be "evil." ]

Marxism of the Right?

TCS: Tech Central Station - Marxism of the Right?: "Until this article by Robert Locke appeared in The American Conservative, conservatives and libertarians have enjoyed a mutually beneficial relationship. After all, there is so much on which they agree."

Max Borders' began his discussion of Robert Locke's article admitting that the "beneficial relationship" between libertarians and conservatives has been quite useful. Something most Objectivists and other libertarians are often quick to minimize.

Though a little later later, Borders' insists that if you suggest that conservetives describe libertarians as consisting of the ilk who indulge in drugs, selfishness and avarice then your simply ignorant about his movement: "You're thinking of libertinism. Mr. Locke is, perhaps, guilty of the same error."

Borders' reports that Mr. Locke's basis for comparison between Marx and libertarians is their equally "fraudulent intellectual" accounts of society based on "apriori accounts of the good":

"This is no surprise, as libertarianism is basically the Marxism of the Right. If Marxism is the delusion that one can run society purely on altruism and collectivism, then libertarianism is the mirror-image delusion that one can run it purely on selfishness and individualism."

I am not sure who should be more offended, Marxists or libertarians. Borders' is quick to distance himself though from the more fashionable wing of his thought, objectivism.

The notion that libertarians believe society ought to be run based on "selfishness" indicates that Mr. Locke frequents cocktail parties with objectivity, not libertarians. First of all, most libertarians don't think society should be "run" at all, rather -- as Hayek taught -- society should essentially run itself.

I won't inform "Max" if you won't about communism's belief in the withering away of the state. I also fail to see a diference between his libertarianism and objectivists (who would argue along the exact same line about how society would run.)[Not to mention anarchists, communists, trekkies etc.]

Mr. Borders takes Locke to task for his what he believes to be the contradictions found in Locke's "mirror-image theory" of Marxism and libertarianism while defending Marxist thought from Locke's simplisitc charge of economic determinism:


The assertion that Marx "reduced social life to economics" is amusing if not misguided. Perhaps the better description of Marxist thought is an attempt to "reduce social life to materialism." This more accurate description of Marx has nothing to do with libertarianism... [my emphasis] , and with that correction, Mr. Locke's cutely constructed "mirror-image" theory collapses.

While I agree with Borders' formulation that Marxism is concerned with materialism [ just how you "reduce" the material world to materialism is a bit confusing for Marxists.] But,as to Max's assertion that the real difference between Marxism and libertarianism lies in the grounding of Karl Marx's thought in materialism could not be further from the truth.

The epistemological foundations of difference between Marxist thought and most apologists for laissez faire capitalism is found at its level of analysis. Marxists recognize that individuals are found in society and cannot be seperated atomicistically from each other. This fundamental aspect of truth is not gleamed by most libertarians.

The Web Blog of Marginal Utility

I wonder if capitalism requires the intensification or deployment of the division of labor that is suggested as necessary by the blog Marginal Utility which writes that capital needs:

deskilled workers who are complacent about the meaningless work they must do to eat, because the deskilling makes it easier to exploit their labor and makes productive processes more efficient.

If capital finds that happy workers are more efficient it will employ methods that "fool" the worker into thinking he has meaning and control.

Plenty of workers in the the so-called information age will still be needed to toil in repetitive tasks and demeaning work ( #1 in created jobs in the next 25 years will be the bed pan changer), but the long term trend could be for less taxing , and more diversified work.

This will in no way alter the basic dichotomy of owner/worker that is at the heart of capitalism. But insisting that all work created by capitalism is devoid of meaning cannot speak to the middle classes and information workers that may enjoy some of the changes of future working conditions. Nor does the imagery lend itself to grasping the alienation of man's power from him through another's controll of the means of production.

In a sense, complaining about the dullness of manual labor or the numbness found in repetition is less radical (to the root) than focusing on the relations of production. Capital always masks it's intentions behind the improvement of working conditions.

On the other hand, I talk often about the the nightmare of the Silent Totalitarianism I believe to be coming. I can see with computer technology the ability to hyper manage and watch intimate details of individuals and for this tendancy to degenerate into an hyper-supervised workplace.

But I think Capitalism is too smart for this, it will allow for us to ask for the control we will lose -via biometrics and computer data mining- and will present a happy face of authority to this newest form of ultimate control.

Vistit the Marginal Utility Blog at http://marginal-utility.blogspot.com/

Visit my Romtex and Bathos websites for some further thoughts on the Age of the Silent Totalitarianism.

This Site of the Week: Marx Myths and Legends

Here is a website that introduces us to Marx Myths and Legends.

Here is how they describe their website:

Typical subjects might be “Marx and socialist utopianism,” “Marx and economic determinism,” “Marx and state control” or whatever. We are open to relatively specialised more technical subjects such as “Marx and theories of crisis” or “Marx and humanism” or myths about Marx’s personal life, but the intended audience is the general public, and articles should be written in accessible language, as well as being well-researched.

Also, we are looking at Karl Marx — not Engels or Lenin or socialism in general. The purpose, however, is both to help to dispel the multiple layers interpretation and misrepresentation that obscures Marx’s work, and to encourage a critical approach to the reading of Marx, rather than trying to create some new kind of orthodoxy.

In addition there is a blog http://marxmyths.blogspot.com/
I will try to stay away from mearly repeating anything that is covered at the above websites.

A Final Note on Methodology.

It was Avineri who once said "Anyone who adds to the already prolific literature on Marx can be expected to be accused of repetitiveness or immodesty."[Avineri 1968]I must admit to suffering from both afflictions. It should be noted that the Blogosphere was devoid of any half-hearted serious inquiry into Marx and Marx alone.

It is of course important to recognize the historical origins of Marx's thought. Most of you who will read this blog are probably well aware of one conventional ( I might say orthodox ) look at his beginnings.

Tradition supposes a trifecta of influences : English Political Economy (Smith & Ricardo) French Socialism , and German Idealism (Hegel & Feuerbach.) One cannot deny those influences and the profound effect they have had on the work of Marx.

What I will suggest ; however, is to look at Marx's work in a different way. One must situate Marx's work in the historical period it is from, and grasp the development of Marx's work over time. In other words , Marx at different times believes different things, he changes his mind, he will contradict himself. This should not be used against him , he was not a prophet , but a man.

Second , a recognition that Marx's work consists largely of works of criticism and diatribes against his enemies. Thomas Sowell rightly points out that "because many of these doctrines have disapeared...later interperters... have not fully understood the real thrusts and limits of [his] words."

Third, Much of Marx's work came late to English speaking peoples. The Paris Manuscripts were not published until 1932. And popular English translations came only later. It was not until the 1960's that that the current view of Western Marxism ( Marxist Humanism ala Perry Anderson) came into being.

Finally, Marx was a dialectician. It was his method of inquiry and presentation but a full defense and explanation must await a future post.
Bertell Ollman quotes Vilfredo Pareto's comments on Marx's "peculiar" use of his words : "... they are like bats, one can see in them both birds and rats." [Ollman 1976 (2nd edition)]

Coupled together , we can see that viewing Marx from this perspective will illuminate a vastly different Marx than one finds popularly digested. It is my hope that I will be able to bring to light this view.

Important Secondary Literature.

A numer of important works inform my reading of Karl Marx. These are in addition to the works I proposed for the reader to visit in my first post. Bolded works are guiding threads for interpetations.

Major influences:

• Bertell Ollman /Alienation
• Richard W. Miller /Analyzing Marx : Moralitty, Power and History
• G.A. Cohen /Karl Marx's Theory of History
• Allen E. Buchanan/ Marx and Justice
• Allen Wood /Karl Marx
• Alexander Balinky/ Marx's Economics
• Sidney Hook/ From Hegel to Marx
• Jurgen Habermas/ Knowledge and Human Interests
• Gavin Kitching / Karl Marx and the Philosophy of Praxis

A Note on the Purpose of this Blog.

My purpose in creating this blog is several fold:

1. To stimulate an interest and revival in Marx and Marxist humanism.
2. To comment onthe use and misuse of Marx whether online in blogs, alt lists, or the news.
3. To formulate my own brand of and criticism of Marxist works.
4. To point out and correct common misunderstandings and myths regarding communism and Marx.