in

Marx Still Prevents the Progress of Society

Marxism has been supported by the rich to put workers on the wrong path which cannot replace capitalism. It also prevents new left ideas capable of building socialism and a much better future of humankind.

If one searches the “theory of alienation” in Google, predominately, Marx’s theory comes out because other theories of alienation in a political and economic level do not exist. The question is, why? What is so incredible in Marx’s statement that workers get alienated from the products of their labour, which alienates them from themselves? It just does not hold much water because everyone who produces for the market gets alienated from the product at the moment of purchase.

Marx strongly contributed to the scientific understanding of capitalism. He stated that capitalists profit from the production, while their workers only receive a fraction of the capitalist’s profit as wages. Capitalists exploit workers by paying them low earnings. Marx was right about this. He believed that the exploitation of workers might be eliminated through the socialist revolution only.

Marx was wrong here because a violent revolution cannot better society. Although a revolution may replace a particular social injustice, it has always been replaced with a new kind. To ensure the lasting effect of revolutions, new leadership is generally autocratic and therefore spread alienation throughout society with all the unfavourable dictatorial phenomena that are well-known throughout history. Revolutions have never contributed to the improvement of society as people desired it. Marx did not have enough data to be able to build his vision of socialism scientifically. As a result, his idea of socialism failed.

Thanks to social scientists, it is still not known what exactly creates exploitation of workers even though the answer is simple – unemployment creates exploitation. Unemployed workers are pressured to accept poorly paid jobs to feed their families. When we eliminate unemployment, we will create a fair market for work. The lack of workers will increase their demand on the market so that employers will have to pay them more. This will create a chain reaction in which workers’ salaries will grow, while employers would still make profits. We may say this would eliminate exploitation. There is no formula which would determine what exploitation is, only workers dissatisfied with their earnings may present it. A fair market of work will remove this dissatisfaction.

The rise in workers’ salaries in the fair market can be proved. In the 14th Century, the Black Death killed one-third of the European population, which suddenly increased demand for workers. The shortage of workers increased the workers’ wages. At Cuxham (Oxfordshire, England), a plowman demanded from his Lord a payment 3.3 times greater in 1350 than in the previous year (The Economic Impact of the Black Death, Economic History Association).

“In Parliament, in 1351 the Commons petitioned Edward III for a more resolute and effective response. They complained that “servants completely disregard the said ordinance in the interests of their ease and greed and that they withhold their services to great men and others unless they have liveries and wages twice or three times as great as [prior to the plague] to the serious damage of the great men and impoverishment of all members of the said commons.”” (Michael Bennett, Australian Journal of Law and Society, 1995, The Impact of the Black Death on English Legal History, Page 197)

According to this, if a political party wins an election offering a reduction of work to 5 hours per day, the lack of workers would increase workers’ salaries 2-3 times per hour in one year. The daily wages would rise 30-90% for just a 5-hour shift. Workers would work shorter hours and earn more. It has already happened, and it is much easier to accomplish than raising a revolution.

So who is going to pay for such an increase in salary? The wealthy employers, of course! Right now, they collect this money as a profit for themselves. Can employers refuse to increase worker salaries? They can, but then their workers would find a new employer who would pay more, and that means they will lose the possibility to maintain their businesses. When workers earn more, they will purchase more, which will, in turn, increase the employers’ profits. So, why have we not created a good economy so far? Because the more workers earn, the less they depend on the rich. The rich keep their power in society by maintaining the fear of unemployment. More about it is presented in my article: Full Employment is a Turning Point for Capitalism.

***

Marx thought that the market economy caused the exploitation of workers, so he proposed the elimination of the market economy by a centrally planned economy. Marx knew that the removal of the market economy removes the indicators of economic efficiency, so he called upon for worker conscience to replace it. It revealed a consistency problem of Marx’s philosophy. Human conscience belongs to idealism, and it was never able to improve society because it was never accepted on the social level.

The centrally planned economy was supposed to produce goods and services in quality and quantity to satisfy people’s needs. But the leaders have never learned how to gather people’s needs, so they decided it for them. Such an economy became authoritarian and alienated itself from the people. The socialist economy also deteriorates because revolutions replace experienced entrepreneurs with inexperienced theorists. The socialist ideology overprotects workers while also taking their freedom, which does not stimulate them to work enough. The centrally planned economy is not able to make the balance between production and consumption, leaving people unsatisfied. As a result, the Marxist economy failed to satisfy people’s needs sufficiently.

The centrally planned economy was tried in the USSR and China. It has significantly reduced the material exploitation of workers, which exists in capitalist countries, but also, it decreased the efficiency of the economy. By abandoning the market economy, the authorities had to base their plan on the quantity of produced goods, for example, on tons of wheat produced. People were not hungry anymore, but their needs were most often less satisfied than in capitalism.

The economy in the USSR and China had much lower productivity than capitalist economics. The USSR collapsed due to the inefficiency of the centrally planned economy. Thus, Marxism failed. China has learned on its own mistakes, abandoned the Marxist planned economy in 1978, and accepted the regulated market economy. From that moment, it has become the fastest-growing economy in the world, threatening to take the number one place soon. This explains everything about the Marxist economy.

Taking into account the failures of Marxism, why does it deserve such a significant presence in science, media, and in the hearts of Marxists? It would not be possible without the approval of the owners of big corporations. Without it, Marxists would not be able to participate in political elections. Neither would they be able to teach Marxism at universities and get media support. Why do the rich help the Marxist ideology, which promotes the violent confiscation of their property? The rich knew Marxism could not be a threat to capitalism. Otherwise, it would be banned. They knew that Marxism is on the wrong track and support it because Marxism prevents the progress of society. If Marx proposed reducing work hours instead of revolution, his philosophy would not be supported, and hardly anybody would know he has ever existed.

This is how the conspiracy of the rich works. By supporting Marx, the rich have successfully prevented a better society for 100 years. Now capitalists know they cannot cheat people by supporting revolutions and planned economy anymore. However, they do not abandon Marxism because a large number of people are romantically and emotionally still connected to Marx. Most Marxists accepted Marx’s ideology when they were young. Youthful rebellion based on dissatisfaction and injustice in society made them easy prey for the manipulation of the rich. The rich hid the cause of the exploitation and promoted Marx’s philosophy as the escape from the problem. Marx made revolution scientifically acceptable, and people acknowledged it through the study of his excessive work.

Marxists recognize the failures of Marxism, but they still believe they need to find the right method to implement Marx’s philosophy correctly. By accepting Marxism, they cannot change their opinion significantly anymore, especially not if a simple idea like shorter work hours tries to break it. The rich are masters of deception and Marxists cannot admit they have been deceived. Helped by the rich, Marxists got a strong influence in the political Left, and by promoting the ideology which does not work, they help the rich. They are also helping the rich by preventing new left ideas from coming.

***

This is what has happened to me. I have presented how to create a good society in the book Humanism – A Philosophic-Ethical-Political-Economic Study of the Development of the Society. It is available free of charge online. The book is based on an original theory of alienation. It states that subjectivity alienates us from objective reality. Subjectivity puts us on the wrong path so that we cannot satisfy our needs. The escape from all problems of humankind lies in the building of an objective vision of reality. Democratic acceptance of equal human rights will do it. The implementation of equal human rights will solve all social problems. Nothing more we need for building a good social life and nothing less can make it.

Marx was right when he called upon for equal human rights among people, but he did not see the scope of its development. The ultimate stage of equal human rights will create an equal possibility for the employment of every worker at every public work post at any time. It will be necessary to open a permanent competition of workers for every public work post. The best worker would get the right to work at any time. I know it sounds impossible because such a division of labour never existed. But the realization of it is just a technical problem.

The system I have developed will effectively evaluate the productivity of work offers, define the job responsibilities of workers, and harmonize rewards for work. In short, the workers who offer the highest productivity and accountability, and demand the lowest salary will get the job. No economy can be more productive than the one where each job post gets the best available worker. Public companies will become more productive than private ones so that the latter will go down in history. Only this should be called socialism. I wrote more about it in the article: The Failures of Marxism and the Right Path to Socialism and Communism.

The market is the best choice for the economy. The market of goods allocates every good to the most capable purchaser who needs and loves it the most. The producers profit from it the most as well. The further development of the market will improve the economy much more. The market of work will eliminate work privileges, which will make each job equally demanded. Such a market will allocate every job to the most productive worker who needs and loves it the most. Shorter work hours will eliminate unemployment, while less desirable jobs will be compensated with higher incomes. The market will help society to reach the best life possible. I have presented the bright future of humankind also through stories in three screenplays: Good Capitalism, Good Socialism, and Good Communism.

Even if my ideas are wrong, which they are not, my effort deserves to be noticed, but I have experienced a total refusal by media, science, politics, and film industry. The people who hear me offering increasing salaries for shorter work time, which is the first step in developing the economy and society, think it is too good to be true no matter what arguments I give. Public discussion may help, but it is prevented. One of the reasons for that is Marxists do not like my work.

However, the rich cannot hide the truth forever. It will break through one day. Then people will accept the benefits of full employment and request shorter work hours. The rich will resist it, of course, but they cannot win against united people. This will be the hardest part of creating a perfect society.

2.6 5 votes
Article Rating
Help us grow. Support The Duran on Patreon!

Report

The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Duran.

What do you think?

-17 points
Upvote Downvote
Subscribe
Notify of
guest
21 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Victor
July 27, 2020

Our problem is how to achieve FREEDOM FROM POLITICAL RULE rather than the search for an ‘ideal’ political rule. It is only when labor, capital, and goods have total freedom of movement – free from any form of political intervention – that living standards improve the fastest and the most – and that people can be said to be free. Are you calling for the elimination of political control or merely its ‘reform’ ? Do you concede that taxation is theft or are you merely a tax ‘reformer’ ? Do you advocate replacing government monopoly security controlled by the political… Read more »

Victor
Reply to  Aleksandar Sarovic
July 27, 2020

There are THREE DISTINCT participants in the market: Workers Producers Consumers Each has his own interest: Workers will try to form unions and negotiate the highest pay for the least work. Producers will try to negotiate the least pay for the most work. Consumers will look for products with the highest value for the least cost. Now Marxism and its derivative exponents, yourself for instance, reflexively ally themselves on the side of the workers. Workers FAVOR monopolies because monopolies are able to command higher prices. Take security. Unionized monopoly government security is BOTH terrible and expensive, providing service inferior to… Read more »

John Ellis
July 27, 2020

TRUE — LET’S GO FOR IT

True, the rich would love for our Revolution to be violent, as it then turns into a brainpower dictatorship. For the rich can rationalize problems the fastest, take corrective action the soonest and be it combat in war or capitalism in peace, the rich always win.

True, capitalism destroys the moral fabric of society by forcing all wealth to flow up, making compassion, charity and gratitude impossible.

John Ellis
Reply to  John Ellis
July 27, 2020

True, socialism destroys morality by making compassion, charity and gratitude a legal responsibility enforced by law.

True, every job should have the best one qualified to do it. For the 25% most ingenious should lead, and the 25% middle-class should be technicians and supervisors. And the 50% laboring-class are the only ones with the temperament and endurance to do all the manual labor, which is why they should finally receive a living wage.

Geoffrey Skoll
Geoffrey Skoll
July 27, 2020

Has the author read Marx? It seems not. Misinterprets Marx’s use of ‘alienation,’ for a start. Misinteprets all the key terms. No wonder the author cannot get a hearing (reading). Advice: know what you are talking about before you shoot off your mouth. Also, by the way, throughout history, it is the COUNTER-revolution that has introduced violence. Read St Just and Robespierre.

Carlos
Carlos
July 28, 2020

This is serious … what do you do with the class struggle? Is it not an objective reality? Quite frankly!

Victor
July 28, 2020

Aleksandar I have I believe correctly diagnosed the difficulty in your theory, its crucial failing, the cause and cure of its shortcomings. For you the problem is how to reform and rework political control so that it is able to correct the deficiencies and failures of laissez faire free market capitalism. You in essence describe an ideal political system which brings about a condition of equal human rights which thereby corrects the failures of market capitalism. You do this of course neither giving precise definition of ‘equal human rights’ nor giving a precise articulation of what powers your idealized political… Read more »

Victor
Reply to  Aleksandar Sarovic
July 28, 2020

To the contrary it is the establishment economists who unfailingly argue in favor of government intervention while Mises stands alone in denouncing it. Take the most famous economist of all time, John Maynard Keynes. Keynes wastes no time setting his sights on the Big Enchilada, the government central bank. Keynes if you like provides the ‘econometric’ window dressing behind which banks have seized power in the world. By contrast, Mises and his greatest disciple Rothbard, denounce the central bank advocating for competitive banking, competitive currencies, the gold standard, allowing banks to fail, etc. Establishment economists understand all too well that… Read more »

Victor
Reply to  Aleksandar Sarovic
July 29, 2020

To the contrary, employers are NOT doing workers any favor by keeping them employed in unnecessary jobs. Take our switchboard operators. The moment it becomes apparent that elecro-mechanical switching equipment is going to replace switchboard operators, the most humane thing switchboard companies can do is to fire their workers so that they can be among the first to bid on new jobs created by the deployment of new technology. The longer they remain hired for unproductive work the more difficult time they have competing for productive work.

Victor
Reply to  Aleksandar Sarovic
July 29, 2020

To be honest, no I fear the point has rather escaped me. And I must confess to being somewhat bewildered by what I have just read. The larger point I should very much like to make is this: We do NOT want to conceive so much of passive workers for whom some intellectual class has the duty to look out for. Rather we are likely much better off dispensing with the term ‘working class’ all together – a term still carrying the lingering taint of Marxism. The worker should see himself as much an entrepreneur as a worker, and thus… Read more »

Last edited 17 days ago by Victor
Lawrence Orr
Lawrence Orr
August 4, 2020

Sorry, but I disagree,while uneven poverty exists there can be no chance of equality of wages because immigrants seeking a better life will derail a fair wage structure.

Turley Blasts Media’s Willful Blindness To Obama’s Criminal Spying

Alliance between American university and Pentagon uses app to spy on Russian military