MCViewPoint

Opinion from a Libertarian ViewPoint

Posts Tagged ‘Marxian’

EconomicPolicyJournal.com: Top Marxist Throws Socialism and Communism Under the Bus

Posted by M. C. on December 15, 2019

https://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2019/12/top-marxist-throws-socialism-and.html

Richard D. Wolff

By Robert Wenzel

A debate took place last month at the SoHo Forum.

The proposition before the debaters was “Socialism is preferable to capitalism as an economic system that promotes freedom, equality, and prosperity.”

Arguing in the affirmative was Richard D. Wolff,  the preeminent American Marxian economist. He is Professor Emeritus of Economics at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, and currently a Visiting Professor in the Graduate Program in International Affairs of the New School University in New York. Opposing was Gene Epstein, the former economics editor of Barron’s Magazine.

The debate itself wasn’t that interesting. Wolff is a skilled communicator and drove the debate off in different directions he wanted it to go.

But what struck me is how much Wolff had to yield to defend his socialist/communist position. (He used the terms socialism and communism interchangeably.)

Indeed, he gave up so much that little was left of what we know of as communism/socialism.

Consider this from his opening remarks:

We have a benefit socialists do today. We have some experiments that were made in
the 20th century Russia, China, Cuba and so on and we learned from those experiments what works and what doesn’t, what should be pursued, and what should be set aside.

And then he basically throws socialism under the bus and introduces a new concept, “new socialism.”:

And so the new socialism…socialism is a refocusing of itself. It’s not interested so much in the state doing things that achieved rapid rates of economic growth. True enough but it also left too much power in the hands of too few people and that has to be addressed and dealt with which socialists have been doing.

And the new focus, a new focus of socialism, is to do something at the workplace that was never done, to go beyond capitalism in the organization of the workplace to democratize the workplace, to make where we spend most of our adult lives at work a place where democracy reigns. Where all the people who work in an enterprise participate in making the decisions of what to produce how to produce where to produce and what to do with the profits. Enter a democrat eyes workplace, that’s the new direction of socialism. That’s where socialism will be in 21st century that we are now entering. It’s a new and a different socialism, it has learned from its own earlier experiences and experiment.

And so it appears that Wolff has thrown out the entire concept of the centrally planned economy and instead is now calling for a new socialism that appears to be little more than worker-owned business co-operatives.

Epstein during the debate spotted this and stated more than once something along the lines, “Well go ahead, go launch your democratically run businesses. There is nothing stopping you in the current capitalist system.”

And if democracy is the all-knowing fountain of wisdom, the god of the machine, well then what if everyone in a jurisdiction gets together and votes for free markets?

But aside from taking apart what Wolff calls the new socialism, and there is a lot more that could be taken apart here, the focus must be on how much of old school socialism Wolff seems to have abandoned.

I mean Wolff is a very sharp cookie. He has a BA in history from Harvard, an MA in economics from Stanford University and an MA in history from Yale University and a PhD in economics from Yale University. And he is by far the best, most skilled Marxist communicator I have come across.

If he is giving up what most of us think of as socialism/communism, and in its place, he’s promoting some kind of kumbaya universal workers’ co-ops, then socialism/communism is on the run at the highest intellectual levels and this is a very good and important thing.

Long live Richard Wolff!

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , | Comments Off on EconomicPolicyJournal.com: Top Marxist Throws Socialism and Communism Under the Bus

Black Markets Show How Socialists Can’t Overturn Economic Laws | Mises Wire

Posted by M. C. on June 24, 2019

https://mises.org/wire/black-markets-show-how-socialists-cant-overturn-economic-laws

If we consider economics to be an objective science, its rules should also have universal significance and use, despite differences in societal order. However, socialists of the materialist camp are committed to the idea that common ownership of the means of production would change the way economic laws unfold under socialism. Basically, they reject the notion of the universality and objectivity of economic rules by suggesting that the laws would change along with a change to the social formation.

Thus, communists adhered to the Marxian idea that socialism would rectify a “surplus value” law, end the “exploitation” of workers, and efficiently regulate the production, distribution, and consumption aspects of the economy. They sought to eliminate the market regulatory mechanism and replace it with directives of the central planning authority. Bolsheviks enthusiastically got down to business: they eradicated private property, collectivized everything and everyone, and implemented an official planned economy.

Did it effectively turn off market relations as they thought it would?

No. In contrast to the common perception, socialism has been unable to kill the market economy. The market went underground and turned into a black market. Black markets existed in capitalist countries as well, but they worked underground because they dealt in illegal commodities and services. The black market under socialism served the same purpose, but the list of commodities and services included mostly items of everyday and innocent consumption that people under capitalism could easily purchase in stores. Virtually all groups of personal consumption products found their way to the black market at some time and in some places. Everything from jar lids to toilet paper was subject to black-market relations.

Despite the proclaimed planned economy, people were engaged in market relations on all levels and trusted more the price of the goods and services that were established by the market and not dictated by the government. The official exchange rate of the ruble to the dollar was 0.66 to 1 in 1980. But nobody except party nomenclature was able to enjoy such a favorable exchange rate. At the same time, the black market offered 4 rubles for 1 American dollar.

There was no production of jeans in the Soviet Union, but like all their peers abroad, Soviet youth wore jeans. The price was 180–250 rubles for a pair depending on the brand, which was almost twice as much as the monthly wage of an entry-level engineer. A visiting nurse charged 1 ruble for one injection if a patient lived below the fifth floor. The price reached 1.5 rubles for patients who lived on the fifth floor and up. A plumber happily repaired a faucet for just a bottle of vodka.

Two Prices for Everything

Therefore, in the Soviet Union, any significant goods had two price tags: one real and another virtual. The state set the first price through some obscure methods; the usual mechanism of supply and demand established the second price on the market. If you were lucky, after several hours of standing in a queue, you could purchase goods at the state price. However, due to the chronic lack of everything for everyone, the same product could be bought on the black market at a much higher price. The virtual price became real on the black market and reflected the actual value of the goods for the buyer. The presence of two price tags is a confirmation of the thesis of Ludwig von Mises regarding the impossibility of economic calculations under socialism. At the same time, this is proof of the immortality and immutability of the economic laws of the free market, even under a totalitarian regime. Therefore, two economic systems and two sets of prices co-exist under socialism…

Socialism is a set of systems that try to artificially inhibit the free flow of objective economic laws by creating subjective barriers in the form of specific legislation and punitive policies. Socialists mistakenly think that if they assault private property and market relations, the economic laws will also change. They have taken up the task which, in principle, has no rational solution. Nothing good comes from the idea of ignoring or violating the fundamental laws of economics. These laws still exist, regardless of opinions and neglect to recognize their real character and the impossibility of changing them.

Socialism disrupts the evolutionary process and leads society to a dead end. The desperate economic situation of ordinary folks in Venezuela, Cuba, and North Korea — the remnants of socialist undertakings — is a direct result of building a society in defiance of the natural action of the fundamental law of economics. As a rule, socialist regimes were buying time by employing slave labor, plunder, coercion, and everything else that an aggressive totalitarian regime could offer. However, in the end, the means of socialistic life support was exhausted, and than returning to the natural and healthy market relations, where the laws of economics work for the benefit of the human race.

The same laws of market economics have worked in different human societies: from pre-historic to post-industrial, but still socialists continue to entertain the idea of tampering with these forces of nature.

 

 

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »