By Thomas F. Cargill
Summary: In the Communist Manifesto, Karl Marx and Frederick Engels declared history can be interpreted as the struggle between the oppressors and the oppressed. This blog proposes and explains why the real struggle now is, and perhaps always historically has been, between individualism and collectivism.
Marx and Engels (Manifesto of the Communist Party, 1848) declared all hitherto history is the struggle between opposing economic classes – one the oppressor and the other the oppressed. In capitalism, the struggle is reduced to only two classes – the Bourgeoisie (capitalists) and Proletariat (workers). They are brought together by the factory system of mature capitalism, the capitalist expropriates the surplus value component of the value created by the workers’ labor power which the worker is forced to sell to survive. The oppression increases and eventually the Proletariat rise up in a violent revolution, throw off their chains and the expropriators are expropriated. After a short period of Socialism or Dictatorship of the Proletariat in which the State is still important, history comes to a harmonious end in Full Communism. The law of distribution then becomes from each according to his ability to each according to his need, a new communist human being emerges eliminating the need for exploitation and the State withers away.
Marx’s Das Kapital, published in three volumes in 1867, 1885 and 1894 laid out a model and analysis of the rise and fall of capitalism; however, no detail is provided about what followed the downfall. Marx’s impact on world history has been profound despite a narrow view of history, numerous contradictions in his formal model of capitalism and the historical fact that not one of Marx’s major predictions were correct.
Why then does the shadow of Marx stretch from 1848 to the present? The answer is because Marx provided a convenient and effective framework for a small group to mobilize large numbers of people to redesign economic, political and social institutions designed to elevate the collective over the individual.
This is often done with deceit; for example, the October 1917 revolution in Russia continues to be portrayed as a worker’s revolution but history shows otherwise. A small group of elites mobilized large numbers of Russians with the assistance of the German army to achieve power and then once in power, imposed a controlled society that was a far cry from what was promised. And so it goes with so many redesigns of a country’s institutions away from the individual to the State. President Obama’s claim “you didn’t do that by yourself” or “I just want to spread the wealth around a little more” are straight out of Marx. Obama along with many other progressives believe that behind wealth lies an act of exploitation – pure Marxian.
In thinking about Marx’s political economy and its impact on world history, several issues come to mind. Was Marx right about hitherto history being a struggle of economics, who owns the capital and who does not? Are there fundamental differences between socialism, communism, fascism, Nazism, etc. or are the differences merely a distinction with a difference? What has been the human cost of Marx inspired systems? Collectivist systems are inherently unstable, but what about individualistic based systems?
Hitherto history is not a struggle between economic classes, but between the collective and the individual
Marx’s focus on the ownership of capital, which he never successfully defined and even modern economics cannot adequately define, biases the discussion against private ownership of property in general, is historically narrow and ignores the role of the State once history moves to the Dictatorship of the Proletariat and presumably now owns the capital.
Marx never acknowledged or analyzed the potential of the State to be inefficient or to become as tyrannical as he claimed the capitalists were to the workers. Marx never explained how the State would operate during the Dictatorship of the Proletariat nor how the State would wither in Full Communism
Marx assumes that once economic distinctions are eliminated between people, there is no need for exploitation but never explains how distinctions based on culture, race or religion will not create class antagonisms. Marx simply assumes these distinctions will also wither away as a new communist person emerges during the Dictatorship of the Proletariat.
Marx’s claim the State would eventually wither away is not credible, especially in the light of the historical development of collectivist systems based on Marx. The emergence of a new communist individual will require State intervention, maintaining capitalist production levels after the revolution will require State intervention and to ensure no effort is made to return to a capitalist system will require State intervention. When one really delves into Marx in terms of his formal modeling, historical analysis and predictions, one can only conclude this is a “bunch of clap-trap”, a phrase used by Marx and Engels to describe capitalist marriage and education.
The collectivist versus the individual perspective reveals the common foundation of all collectivist systems
Teaching history of economic ideas and presenting an assessment of Marx, socialism and capitalism, I would often be challenged by students that I ignored the different types of Marxism and socialism something like “yes, communism in Russia didn’t fulfil its promise, but that’s because it was not a true socialist society”, “yes, British socialism in the post WW2 period ultimately failed, but that’s because it was not a true socialist country”, “how can you compare Nazi Germany to the Soviet Union or other socialist societies – Nazi Germany was not a socialist country?” and so on. I was never confronted, however, with claims of different types of capitalism since many students had a negative view of capitalism and believed it could only be salvaged with varying degrees of collectivism.
This multi-definitional perspective of Marxism, fascism, socialism, communism etc. is troubling for two reasons.
First, it offers a convenient way to avoid recognizing the many failures of socialism. “Yes, that example of socialism was unsuccessful, but the solution is to adopt another form of socialism”. It is remarkable, for example, that George Orwell could produce both Animal Farm and 1984 as criticisms of the Soviet Union, but at the same time advocate “democratic socialism”. He was well aware of the potential for a benign government to become tyrannical but yet, assumed this would not be an issue in less tyrannical systems of socialism. History suggests this view is naïve at best.
Second, focusing on so many forms of Marxism and socialism prevents recognizing the fundamental nature of all of these collective systems – the suppression of individual freedom and the acceptance of Hegel’s view that “many an innocent flower” is crushed on the road to utopia. As Hannibal Lector explains to Claris in Silence of the Lambs, “Of each particular thing, ask: ‘What is it in itself? What is its nature?’”. It is well worth remembering this paraphrasing of Roman Emperor Marcus Aurelius. All collectivist systems are cut from the same cloth and only differ in the degree of control over the individual and how far they will go in trampling innocent flowers in their pursuit to their version of socialist utopia.
There are only two approaches to organizing society – one based on individualism and the other based on the collective, which accepts control over individuals and collateral damage as part of the process of achieving socialist utopia. The collective is incompatible with individual freedom and is inherently inefficient and as such, will fail in the long run. Economic theory and history demonstrate this and yet, the siren of socialism and justice for all is never lacking for adherents.
In this regard, there is little essential difference between Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, China, North Korea and other societies based on the extreme form of collectivism. The softer collectivist systems in the West share the same foundation. This is a most inconvenient truth that is ignored.
To illustrate, note the reaction to the Black Book of Communism published by Harvard University in 1997 which presented estimates of the human cost of communism in the 20th century. An estimated 85 to 100 million people died from one cause or another as a direct result of communist policies, with China and Russia accounting for 60 and 20 million deaths, respectively.
Many were shocked at the number of deaths attributed to communism. In 1968 Robert Conquest in the Great Terror estimated that Stalin’s purges in the late 1930s resulted in 20 million deaths; however, his estimates were largely ignored because they were based on second hand information. After the fall of the Berlin Wall and the opening up of Russian information, it appears Conquest was right. Many criticized the estimates of the Black Book, but no one denied large numbers of deaths occurred in communism.
The size of the estimates immediately challenged Nazi Germany’s widely accepted position as the standard measure of human misery in the 20th century. WW2 resulted in about 70 million deaths total and estimates of those due to Nazi Germany’s crimes against humanity, range from 17 to 25 million. Of course one of the criticisms is that Nazi Germany was not a communistic (socialist) country, but this misses the point. Nazi Germany, China, the Soviet Union, etc. were all collectivist societies designed to control individuals and willing to trample many innocent flowers on their road to utopia.
The State becomes an element of instability in an individualistic approach to organizing a country
Adam Smith was critical of any form of collectivism. In his time, Mercantilism manifested by State control of domestic and international trade to establish a powerful nation state was the primary collectivist system. Smith argued that a system based on individualism was a far better approach to resolving the fundamental economic problem; however, such a system still required a role for government or the State to protect private property, provide national defense and for limited public goods. Other writers such as Jeremy Bentham emphasize the need to establish a representative State along with Smith’s “simple system of liberty”.
Unfortunately, even a small role for the State envisaged by Smith in the simple system of natural liberty is an element of instability in a market system. The State over time becomes focused on protecting its power, enhancing its power and has an incentive to achieve those objectives even if nor in the public interest. The State has an advantage over the market because it is not subject to the discipline of the market, it has the power to tax, regulate, enforce, bestow benefits (costs) on favored (disfavored) sectors or individuals and most of all, to exempt itself from the same forces that constrain the market system as mistakes by the State seldom result in job losses or reduced budgets.
Even in a simple system of natural liberty, the State becomes a power unto itself and over time that can transform a society into a de facto collective. This has certainly been the case in the United States.
To see the fundamental problem one should turn to the writings of Anthony de Jasay, who died in 2019. De Jasay was a Hungarian writer, economist and philosopher who wrote about the State as a separate entity not only in communist countries but in any country. Much of his work reflects the same points made in the public choice literature but his analysis is more analytical, based on a wider foundation of information and more philosophically founded in my opinion.
At the start of The State (Liberty Fund, 1998), De Jasay asks the reader “what would you do if you were the State?” Imagine if you had the power of the State – would you pursue your activities to improve welfare of the public even if those activities reduced your power and influence? Not likely if one is honest. Consumers maximize satisfaction, businesses maximize profit, so why not view the State in the same manner? The State maximizes power – power maintains the State, enhances the State and permits the State to pursue whatever its objectives are at the time.
In the United States, the State played a relatively small role until the progressive movement in the early 20th century and dramatically increased its role during the Great Depression fundamentally limiting the individual freedoms enshrined in the Constitution.
The collective systems based on Marx failed in every respect in the 20th century, but in all these cases, the State continues to expand in those countries. The idea the State would wither away was never credible and even with the collapse of Marist inspired collectivist systems, the State remains in those countries and the collective continues to expand. In the West, the State has grown significantly restricting individual freedom, imposing collateral damage as it pursues its objectives and is becoming more and more independent of the voting public. As current events suggest it is difficult to ratchet back the State.
The United States is unique, however. No other country has a Constitution designed to limit the power of the State over the individual. That my friends is why the progressive movement for over a century has tried to limit the influence of the Constitution such as replacing original intent with a “living” interpretation of the Constitution.
