3 ms·

This is not at all what Marx believed. I understand where the misconception comes from though. Marx was quite particular amongst socialism because he did not b

This is not at all what Marx believed. I understand where the misconception comes from though. Marx was quite particular amongst socialism because he did not believe humans were equal in ability. Indeed, he argued with other socialists and believed that different people had superior and inferior abilities, and even that the more productive people logically deserved a higher wage, and so did the people with greater need. This is why unlike other socialists of the era, Marx did not advocate for equal wages - he thought that people that were more productive should have a greater income (as well as people who needed it, ie, people with families, handicapped, etc...) He also did not believe that conditions would not improve - he was a radical proponent of economic growth, and thought that things would improve for a significant amount of time until a plateau was hit, at which point a transition to communism would be the only alternative to decay. Instead, Marx's argument was not that capitalism created inequality - he thought that inequality was inherent to the human condition - but that capitalism fundamentally engendered inequality on the basis not of personal ability, but on the basis of artificial social relations that rewarded the ownership of capital far more than the inherent inequality of humans ability and human need. He also would vehemently disagree that voluntary trade worsened the situation of the working class - he wrote extensively about how capitalism was an immense improvement over feudalism, and how it would and was improving the situation of the working class materially. The issue he had is that the thought that this material improvement would eventually stop contributing to well-being, and that eventually the social harm caused by the capitalist social relations would lead to a plateau then decay of overall wellbeing. If you look at his immediate suggestion in how to improve them, you would find them much more inline with modern welfare states than anything else, and indeed that was why Lenin basically instated a welfare state when he took power. Here are the actual policies that Marx wanted to see implemented: 1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes. 2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax. 3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance. 4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels. 5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly. 6. Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State. 7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan. 8. Equal liability of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture. 9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country. 10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, &c, &c. These are certainly quite radical. But all of these are suggestions that are either already implemented today in capitalist countries, or that liberal capitalists have advocated for. Except for 1., 3. and 2., he was actually correct about how to improve the conditions of the working class - the abolition of private property of capital was his eventual goal, yes, but he was incredibly precient about the policies that would be used to improve capitalist society.

kragen 5y ago
Thank you for sharing your point of view! I agree with most of what you said, and I was remiss in not quoting the Communist Manifesto myself. Still, I don't think you can be a liberal capitalist and favor "confiscation of the property of all emigrants", "equal liability of all to work", or even "abolution of property in land", or even an exclusive monopoly on credit, and given that "the means of communication" here presumably means newspapers (as opposed to mails and telegraph companies) I don't see how a liberal could be in favor of that either, since it abolishes freedom of the press; and centralization of the means of transport in the hands of the state eliminates freedom of domestic travel. In countries that have abolished freedom of the press, property in land, freedom of domestic travel, and/or the freedom to emigrate without having all your property confiscated, it has not in fact improved the conditions of the working class; very much the contrary, it has been used to enslave and impoverish them. Even inheritance abolition and heavy income taxes are not clearly compatible with liberalism, but they aren't as central to liberalism as land tenure and the freedoms of the press, travel, and emigration. (Georgists want to abolish land ownership too, but George didn't claim to be a liberal.) I didn't mean to say that Marx claimed that voluntary exchange worsened the condition of the working class more than feudalism, just that in its capitalist form it still tended to the immiseration of the working class. As for "prescience," I'm not sure it was a question of prescience; I think that to a great degree the Russian Revolution and the Warsaw Pact simply moved the Overton Window a long way toward Marxist policies. I think capitalist societies adopted Marx's policies not, in many cases, because they would have anyway, but because (a) they were under pressure to do so when the policies were popular, so people wouldn't emigrate to Russia or replace their own governments with Communist ones, and (b) they were under less pressure not to do so when the policies were unpopular, because there were less and less places where you could escape from those policies.
- sudosysgen 5y ago
  Do you think that capitalist societies would not have eventually ended child labor, nationalized some key industries, and provided free education without the October revolution? I think that this would have happened anyways, these policies are just too helpful. As far as the things you quoted - confiscating the property of all emigrants really means capital controls. Many liberal countries did in fact do this during periods of reform, such as Iceland in 2008. But beyond that, capital controls were instituted under the Bretton Woods system. The idea of preventing people from leaving with their capital was indeed quite popular, and in that it allowed for example Iceland to reform their banking system, or a country from instituting public education and raising income taxes, many economists do think that they improve welfare. Equal liability of all to work was also something that liberals implemented - here it basically just means public works projects open to all. As far as "the means of communication", Marx does mean mails, telegraphs, and radio communication. He had argued otherwise for public newspapers, but argued against any kind of censorship of the press - making this actually yet another policy liberals would adopt : In order to combat freedom of the press, the thesis of the permanent immaturity of the human race has to be defended. It is sheer tautology to assert that if absence of freedom is men's essence, freedom is contrary to his essence. Malicious sceptics could be daring enough not to take the speaker at his word. https://wikirouge.net/texts/en/On_the_Assembly_of_the_Estates https://wikirouge.net/texts/en/On_the_Assembly_of_the_Estate... A historical document such as this one needs to be read in it's historical context. At the time, the income tax in England was of 3% - our modern income taxes of 20-30% are what Marx was referring to by saying heavy income taxes, As far as abolishing property of land and renting it out, this is essentially just another way of saying "Land value tax". While it's not a liberal policy in essence, it is a policy that liberals advocate nowadays, and that many liberal capitalist countries such as Denmark, Singapore and Taiwan implement. Completely abolishing inheritance of capital is something that no country has done in the capitalist world, yes, but it is again something that many liberals do advocate for, and nowadays inheritance tax rates of 50% do exist. As far as saying that capitalism made the working class better off but that it will never completely stop immiseration of the working class, is that not what I said?

kragen 5y ago

Thank you for sharing your point of view! I agree with most of what you said, and I was remiss in not quoting the Communist Manifesto myself. Still, I don't think you can be a liberal capitalist and favor "confiscation of the property of all emigrants", "equal liability of all to work", or even "abolution of property in land", or even an exclusive monopoly on credit, and given that "the means of communication" here presumably means newspapers (as opposed to mails and telegraph companies) I don't see how a liberal could be in favor of that either, since it abolishes freedom of the press; and centralization of the means of transport in the hands of the state eliminates freedom of domestic travel. In countries that have abolished freedom of the press, property in land, freedom of domestic travel, and/or the freedom to emigrate without having all your property confiscated, it has not in fact improved the conditions of the working class; very much the contrary, it has been used to enslave and impoverish them. Even inheritance abolition and heavy income taxes are not clearly compatible with liberalism, but they aren't as central to liberalism as land tenure and the freedoms of the press, travel, and emigration. (Georgists want to abolish land ownership too, but George didn't claim to be a liberal.) I didn't mean to say that Marx claimed that voluntary exchange worsened the condition of the working class more than feudalism, just that in its capitalist form it still tended to the immiseration of the working class. As for "prescience," I'm not sure it was a question of prescience; I think that to a great degree the Russian Revolution and the Warsaw Pact simply moved the Overton Window a long way toward Marxist policies. I think capitalist societies adopted Marx's policies not, in many cases, because they would have anyway, but because (a) they were under pressure to do so when the policies were popular, so people wouldn't emigrate to Russia or replace their own governments with Communist ones, and (b) they were under less pressure not to do so when the policies were unpopular, because there were less and less places where you could escape from those policies.

sudosysgen 5y ago
Do you think that capitalist societies would not have eventually ended child labor, nationalized some key industries, and provided free education without the October revolution? I think that this would have happened anyways, these policies are just too helpful. As far as the things you quoted - confiscating the property of all emigrants really means capital controls. Many liberal countries did in fact do this during periods of reform, such as Iceland in 2008. But beyond that, capital controls were instituted under the Bretton Woods system. The idea of preventing people from leaving with their capital was indeed quite popular, and in that it allowed for example Iceland to reform their banking system, or a country from instituting public education and raising income taxes, many economists do think that they improve welfare. Equal liability of all to work was also something that liberals implemented - here it basically just means public works projects open to all. As far as "the means of communication", Marx does mean mails, telegraphs, and radio communication. He had argued otherwise for public newspapers, but argued against any kind of censorship of the press - making this actually yet another policy liberals would adopt : In order to combat freedom of the press, the thesis of the permanent immaturity of the human race has to be defended. It is sheer tautology to assert that if absence of freedom is men's essence, freedom is contrary to his essence. Malicious sceptics could be daring enough not to take the speaker at his word. https://wikirouge.net/texts/en/On_the_Assembly_of_the_Estates https://wikirouge.net/texts/en/On_the_Assembly_of_the_Estate... A historical document such as this one needs to be read in it's historical context. At the time, the income tax in England was of 3% - our modern income taxes of 20-30% are what Marx was referring to by saying heavy income taxes, As far as abolishing property of land and renting it out, this is essentially just another way of saying "Land value tax". While it's not a liberal policy in essence, it is a policy that liberals advocate nowadays, and that many liberal capitalist countries such as Denmark, Singapore and Taiwan implement. Completely abolishing inheritance of capital is something that no country has done in the capitalist world, yes, but it is again something that many liberals do advocate for, and nowadays inheritance tax rates of 50% do exist. As far as saying that capitalism made the working class better off but that it will never completely stop immiseration of the working class, is that not what I said?