• Most creations of the intellect or fancy pass away after a time, varying between a brief moment and a generation.
• Some creations, however, return after suffering eclipses, coming back in their individual form, with visible scars and marks.
• These enduring creations are rightly called great ones, defined by their vitality and ability to revive.
• Greatness, in this sense, is linked to revivals, making it independent of subjective feelings like love or hate.
• A great achievement may not be flawless or a source of light; it can even be viewed as a power of darkness.
• Disproof or adverse judgment of the Marxian system, far from damaging it, highlights the strength of its structure.
• The last twenty years have witnessed an interesting Marxian revival.
• Marx’s rise in Soviet Russia is unsurprising, but the gulf between Marx’s message and bolshevist ideology mirrors historical gaps between religious ideals and church practices.
• A more intriguing revival occurred in the United States, where Marxism had been superficial and insignificant before the 1920s.
• Until the 1920s, the American labor movement and intellectual thought had little to do with Marxism.
• Bolshevist-style revivals did not spark similar interest in countries with strong Marxist traditions, such as Germany.
• In Germany, even during the post-war socialist boom, Marxian thought was largely kept at a distance, with socialist leaders reasoning like other economists.
• The American Marxian revival stands alone outside of Russia and is notable for its unexpected growth.
• While the causes of this revival are not the focus, it is worth surveying the message that has resonated with so many Americans.

I. MARX THE PROPHET

• The analogy with religion in the title of this chapter is intentional; Marxism, in a significant sense, functions as a religion.
• To the Marxist believer, it presents a system of ultimate ends, embodying the meaning of life and providing absolute standards to judge events and actions.
• Marxism offers a guide to those ends, implying a plan of salvation and identifying the evil from which humanity, or a chosen section of it, must be saved.
• Marxist socialism belongs to the subgroup of religions that promise a paradise on earth, rather than in an afterlife.
• A hierologist could classify and comment on these religious characteristics, possibly uncovering deeper sociological insights into Marxism than an economist might provide.
• Marx’s success is not explained by purely scientific achievement, even if it had been more perfect, nor by his party slogans.
• Part of Marx’s success comes from his rhetoric, including impassioned accusations and fiery slogans that have served their purpose well, despite sometimes requiring Marx to bend his own system’s logic.
• Marx’s true significance, however, lies in his role as a prophet, not as a mere purveyor of phraseology, which would have left him forgotten.
• To understand Marx’s achievement, we must place it within the context of his time, which was the zenith of bourgeois realization but also the nadir of bourgeois civilization.
• Mechanistic materialism dominated, with no sign of a new art or mode of life, and faith was rapidly declining across all social classes.
• For millions, the Marxian message of a terrestrial socialist paradise provided a new ray of light and a new meaning of life.
• Even if one views Marxism as a counterfeit or caricature of faith, its greatness remains undeniable.
• Most of the millions who embraced Marxism may not have understood the message’s true significance, but that is typical of all messages.
• What matters is that Marxism was framed to be acceptable to the positivistic mind of its time, despite its bourgeois roots.
• Marxism, as a product of the bourgeois mind, articulated the feeling of being thwarted and oppressed, which resonated with the unsuccessful masses.
• It also proclaimed that socialist deliverance from those ills was not only possible but certain, and even amenable to rational proof.
• Marxism successfully weaves together extra-rational cravings left behind by receding religion with the rationalistic and materialistic tendencies of the time.
• Preaching alone would have been ineffective, and analyzing social processes would have only interested specialists.
• Marx’s genius lay in combining preaching with analysis to appeal to heartfelt needs and offering the conviction that his cause would ultimately triumph.
• This was further reinforced by personal force and the flash of prophecy, which played a role beyond the contents of his creed.
• The cogency of Marx’s proof of the inevitability of socialism remains a subject for discussion.
• His formulation of the feelings of the unsuccessful masses was not an accurate representation of actual feelings but an attempt to replace them with his vision of the logic of social evolution.
• By attributing class consciousness to the masses, Marx falsified their true psychology, which often centered on the aspiration to become small bourgeois rather than revolutionary aims.
• However, where Marx’s teachings took hold, they expanded and ennobled the aspirations of the masses.
• Marx rejected sentimentalism, unlike the Utopian Socialists, and did not glorify the workman as bourgeois sentimentality often did.
• Marx had a clear understanding of the masses and aimed far beyond their immediate thoughts or desires, focusing on social goals beyond their reach.
• He did not set himself up as an ideal-maker; instead, he saw himself as the humble mouthpiece of the dialectic process of history, aligning with the dignity of a true prophet.
• Marx’s dignity in this role compensated for the pettinesses and vulgarities that occasionally appeared in his work and life.
• Marx was far too civilized to fall into the mindset of those vulgar professors of socialism who failed to recognize the value of civilization.
• The Communist Manifesto serves as a glowing testimony to the achievements of capitalism, even while it predicted its eventual demise.
• Marx recognized the historical necessity of capitalism, even though this view carried implications he may not have accepted.
• His understanding of the organic logic of social evolution strengthened his attitude, even if, at times, he engaged in the life of a coffeehouse conspirator.
• Socialism for Marx was not an obsession that bred hatred or contempt for other civilizations; rather, he viewed it within a broader and more scientific perspective.
• Marx’s brand of socialism, grounded in his fundamental theories, rightfully earned the title of Scientific Socialism.

II. MARX THE SOCIOLOGIST

• Faithful Marxists often resent the cold analysis of Marx’s work, believing that separating the parts misses the whole, which they see as an interconnected system where all parts complement and explain one another.
• Despite the resentment, it is necessary to examine Marx’s work in pieces, acknowledging that, while there is unity of vision, enough independence remains in each area to accept some aspects while rejecting others.
• By breaking down Marx’s work, some glamour is lost, but valuable truths can still be salvaged from areas not tied to hopeless wreckage.
• Marx’s philosophy was shaped by his German training and speculative nature, beginning as a Neo-Hegelian. He and his group accepted Hegel’s methods but replaced conservative interpretations with their opposites.
• His philosophical background is evident throughout his work, especially in his early writings, leading some German and Russian readers to view this element as the key to the system.
• This interpretation is seen as a mistake and an injustice to Marx’s scientific powers; although Marx retained a love for philosophy, it never superseded his scientific approach.
• Marx never betrayed science for metaphysics, as he himself stated in the preface to the second edition of Das Kapital. His arguments are based on social facts, not philosophical principles.
• Critics who focused on the philosophical side of Marx’s work often misinterpreted his arguments, as they were not well-versed in the social sciences. This misled discussions and caused confusion among both friends and foes.
• As a sociologist, Marx had an impressive command of historical and contemporaneous facts, though his knowledge of current events was somewhat antiquated due to his reliance on books rather than immediate sources like newspapers.
• Marx’s historical knowledge was extensive, and he was able to illustrate his social visions with historical frescoes and detailed analysis, which were often of higher reliability than many of his contemporaries.
• His insights went beyond surface-level observations, delving into the grand logic of historical events, combining both passion and analysis in his work.
• The outcome of this effort, the Economic Interpretation of History, is considered one of sociology’s greatest achievements, regardless of whether it was entirely original or drew from earlier German and French predecessors.
• The economic interpretation of history does not imply that people are wholly or primarily driven by economic motives, whether consciously or unconsciously.
• Non-economic motives and the way social reality reflects itself in individual psyches are central to the theory and among its most significant contributions.
• Marx did not claim that religions, metaphysics, art, ethical ideas, and political actions are either reducible to economic motives or unimportant. Instead, he sought to unveil the economic conditions that shape them and explain their rise and fall.
• Max Weber’s facts and arguments align well with Marx’s system, which focused on how social groups and classes understand their own existence and behavior.
• Marx criticized historians who took ideologies at face value and tried to interpret social reality through them.
• For Marx, ideas and values were not the primary drivers of the social process, but neither were they insignificant; they functioned like transmission belts in the social engine.
• The Sociology of Knowledge, a post-war development, further explains these principles, but it is essential to clarify Marx’s often misunderstood position.
• Even Engels, at Marx’s grave, incorrectly suggested that individuals and groups are primarily motivated by economic factors, a simplification of Marx’s theory.
• The economic interpretation has also been called the materialistic interpretation, a term used by Marx himself, though it is misleading.
• Marx’s philosophy is no more materialistic than Hegel’s, and his theory of history is not more materialistic than any other theory that uses empirical science to explain historical processes.
• This theory is compatible with any metaphysical or religious belief, much like a physical picture of the world, as even medieval theology offers ways to establish such compatibility.
• The theory can be summarized in two propositions:
  1. The forms or conditions of production are the fundamental determinant of social structures, which in turn shape attitudes, actions, and civilizations. For example, the hand-mill creates feudal societies, and the steam-mill creates capitalist societies, though technology alone does not explain everything.
  2. The forms of production have a logic of their own; they change due to necessities inherent in them, producing their successors through their own workings. For instance, the hand-mill creates conditions that lead to the adoption of the steam-mill, which, in turn, brings about new social functions and interactions that outgrow their own frame. This internal process drives economic and social change without needing an external impetus.
• Both propositions in the economic interpretation of history contain significant truth and serve as valuable working hypotheses.
• Objections, such as pointing to the influence of ethical or religious factors or Eduard Bernstein’s assertion that “men have heads and can act as they choose,” fail to address the theory’s core.
• While people do make choices, those choices are influenced by standpoints, views, and propensities that are shaped by objective circumstances rather than being independent of them.
• The question arises whether the economic interpretation is more than just a convenient approximation, as it may work better in some cases than in others.
• Social structures, types, and attitudes are resistant to change and can persist for centuries, making actual behavior deviate from expectations based on the dominant forms of the productive process.
• Durable structures that transfer from one place to another, like the Norman conquest of Sicily, illustrate how such persistence can complicate the economic interpretation.
• Marx did not overlook such facts, but he failed to fully grasp their implications.
• The emergence of feudal landlordism in the kingdom of the Franks during the 6th and 7th centuries is another example that does not fit neatly into the Marxian schema.
• This event was shaped by military leadership, which later evolved into feudal landlordism, influencing society and production, but it doesn’t conform to the Marxist framework.
• Auxiliary hypotheses could integrate such facts into the Marxist theory, but the need for these hypotheses may signal the beginning of the end of a theory.
• The difficulties in applying the Marxian schema can be mitigated by admitting some degree of interaction between production and other aspects of social life.
• However, the appeal of the theory depends on the strictness of the one-way relation it asserts between production and society.
• If this strictness is questioned, the economic interpretation will need to be regarded as one among many partial truths or replaced by a more comprehensive theory.
• Despite its limitations, the theory’s rank as a major achievement and its usefulness as a hypothesis remain intact.
• To its followers, it remains the master key to understanding human history, and while its naïve applications may seem simplistic, it replaced far more superficial arguments.
• Even the Marxian Theory of Social Classes, a derivative of the economic interpretation, is seen in a more favorable light when considering what it replaced.
• Marx’s recognition of social classes was an important contribution, as economists had been slow to recognize this phenomenon.
• Economists traditionally classified individuals based on roles, such as landlords or workmen, but these were simply sets of individuals with common characteristics.
• Social classes, however, are living entities, and their existence has consequences that a schema focused on individuals or families would miss.
• It is debatable how important social classes are for purely economic theory, but they are undoubtedly significant for practical applications and the broader social process.
• Social classes were introduced through the famous statement in the Communist Manifesto: “The history of society is the history of class struggles.”
• Even if toned down, the idea that historical events can often be interpreted in terms of class interests and class structures remains valuable, almost as significant as the economic interpretation of history.
• Success in applying the principle of class struggle depends on the theory of classes we adopt.
• The interpretation of history and social change will differ based on theories, such as the racial theory of classes (Gobineau) or the division of labor theory (Schmoller, Durkheim).
• Different class theories lead to different interpretations depending on how class interest is defined and how class action is perceived.
• The topic is still a hotbed of prejudice and not yet fully in its scientific stage.
• Curiously, Marx never systematically worked out his theory of classes, despite it being central to his thought.
• It is possible Marx didn’t feel the need to formally define his class theory, or he may have faced difficulties in developing a fully-fledged theory.
• Marx’s applications of class theory, like in History of the Class Struggles in France, stand out, but real progress in theory development has not been achieved.
• Engels’ theory was based on division of labor, which is not entirely aligned with Marx’s concept of class.
• Marx’s writings, especially in Das Kapital and the Communist Manifesto, are filled with insights and brilliant observations related to class, but they do not form a comprehensive theory.
• The stratifying principle in Marx’s class theory is based on the ownership or exclusion from ownership of the means of production.
• The two fundamental classes are the capitalists (owners) and the proletariat (those who sell their labor).
• Intermediate groups, like farmers or artisans, exist but are treated as anomalies that tend to disappear in capitalism.
• The fundamental relation between capitalists and proletariat is one of class war, inherent in the structure of capitalist society.
• Marx argues that in this class war, capitalists will eventually destroy each other and the capitalist system itself.
• The ownership of capital leads to further accumulation, raising the important question of primitive accumulation—how capitalists initially became capitalists.
• Marx dismisses the bourgeois idea that people become capitalists through superior intelligence and energy in working and saving, though he acknowledges some truth to it.
• While supernormal intelligence and energy often account for industrial success, and saving was important in the early stages of capitalism, classical economics oversimplifies this process.
• The bulk of accumulation comes from profits, not individual saving from wages; capitalists typically borrow others’ savings to start enterprises.
• Marx had a point when he downplayed the role of saving but his inference doesn’t fully follow, and his guffaw at the classical theory oversimplifies the issue.
• Marx’s alternative theory of primitive accumulation emphasizes force, robbery, and subjugation, though this doesn’t fully solve the problem of how some people acquired the power to exploit others.
• Marx’s theory assumes capitalism grew out of feudalism, accepting the bourgeois view that feudalism was a reign of force and exploitation.
• The feudal exploiter was simply replaced by the capitalist exploiter, and in some cases, feudal lords actually became industrialists.
• Historical evidence supports this in cases where feudal lords used their rents and agricultural labor (sometimes serfs) to run factories, particularly in Germany.
• In other cases, the Marxian explanation is less satisfactory, and Marx’s theory offers no satisfactory explanation for primitive accumulation without invoking non-Marxian elements.
• Marx’s theory of primitive accumulation suggests that primitive accumulation continues throughout the capitalist era, indicating the persistent nature of these processes.
• The theory of social classes is flawed not just in its treatment of past processes but also in its failure to address the heart of the phenomenon it attempts to explain.
• This theory holds relevance mainly during the period of medium-sized owner-managed firms, but beyond that, class positions are often the cause rather than the consequence of economic positions.
• Business achievement is not always the only path to social eminence, and ownership of means of production does not always determine social standing.
• Marx’s notion of a watertight division between capitalists and proletarians is unrealistic, as social mobility causes the rise and fall of individual families within the upper strata.
• The incessant rise and fall of individuals into and out of social classes highlights a key issue: Marx’s theory does not account for these dynamic movements.
• Marx’s theory of social classes and the economic interpretation of history are not independent but intertwined, as the economic system shapes the social structure.
• For Marx, the social structure, especially in non-socialist epochs, is defined in terms of two classes that are directly shaped by the capitalist mode of production.
• Marx’s focus on economic class divisions led him to neglect deeper views on social classes, restricting his analysis to narrow economic phenomena.
• Marx defined capitalism by the same trait that defines his class division, which was a bold move but tied the fate of social classes to the fate of capitalism itself.
• By defining classes based on private ownership of means of production, Marx limited himself to two classes, owners and non-owners, dismissing other plausible principles of division.
• The exaggeration of the division and antagonism between the capitalist class and the proletariat ignores the cooperative aspect of their relationship in normal times.
• Antagonism and cooperation are both present in social relations, and Marx’s absolute focus on class antagonism overlooks the ubiquity of cooperation in society.
• Marx’s theory needed the antagonism between capitalists and proletarians to be fundamental, as it was essential for the dynamics of class struggle and the eventual rise of socialism.
• Marx defines capitalism sociologically, focusing on the institution of private control over means of production, while the mechanics of capitalist society are explained through his economic theory.
• This economic theory demonstrates how sociological concepts like class, class interest, and class behavior work through economic values, such as profits, wages, and investment, to generate the economic process.
• The economic process Marx describes will break the institutional framework of capitalism and simultaneously create the conditions for a new social world to emerge.
• Marx’s theory of social classes serves as an analytic tool linking the economic interpretation of history with the concepts of the profit economy, making all social phenomena interconnected.
• This theory is not just about explaining an individual phenomenon; it has an organic function that is more significant than merely addressing the immediate problem it presents.
• Understanding the importance of this function is crucial for grasping how Marx, despite being aware of the theory’s shortcomings, still accepted it.
• Some enthusiasts admire the Marxian theory of social classes on its own, but more often, people are captivated by the synthesis as a whole, condoning the shortcomings in the individual components.
• The task now is to assess how Marx’s economic mechanics fulfills the demands placed upon it by his general plan, which will be examined further in Chapter IV.

III. MARX THE ECONOMIST

• Marx was a learned economic theorist, and it is essential to recognize this aspect, despite being labeled a genius and prophet.
• Geniuses often lack professional learning, and their originality can stem from this; however, Marx’s economics is rooted in rigorous scholarship and theoretical analysis.
• He was a voracious reader and an indefatigable worker, engaging with significant contributions in his field.
• Marx approached every fact or argument with passion for detail, demonstrating a commitment to understanding entire civilizations and developments.
• His work, Theories of Surplus Value, exemplifies his theoretical ardor and deep engagement with economic thought.
• His relentless pursuit of knowledge helped free him from prejudices and extra-scientific aims, even as he aimed to validate a specific vision.
• Despite his powerful intellect, Marx’s primary interest was the problem itself, focusing on sharpening analytical tools, addressing logical challenges, and constructing a theory that was scientifically grounded.
• Friends and foes often misunderstood his contributions to economics; friends felt he transcended mere professional theorizing, while foes resisted acknowledging his valid economic analysis.
• Marx’s economic theory is often overshadowed by his impassioned language and critiques of exploitation and immiserization, which may lead some to overlook the analytical nature of his work.
• The rich language and emotional expressions in Marx’s writings may detract from the recognition of his contributions as a scientific analyst.
• Marx was a pupil of David Ricardo, and understanding his economics begins with this recognition.
• His arguments stem from Ricardo’s propositions, and he learned the art of theorizing through studying Ricardo’s work.
• Marx consistently used Ricardo’s theoretical tools, viewing problems through the lens of his deep engagement with Ricardo’s ideas.
• While Marx acknowledged Ricardo’s influence, he may not have fully recognized his position as a student learning from his professor, which complicates the debate between his followers and critics.
• Marx’s economic theory was influenced by multiple sources, with Quesnay being significant for his understanding of the economic process.
• The group of English writers from 1800 to 1840, who developed the labor theory of value, offered suggestions but are overshadowed by Ricardo’s influence.
• Marx’s critiques of authors like Sismondi, Rodbertus, and John Stuart Mill were often harsh, especially in relation to their proximity to his work.
• Certain aspects of Marx’s economic thought, such as his weak performance in the field of money, did not reach the standards set by Ricardo.
• An abbreviated outline of Marx’s argument in Das Kapital may overlook its complexities due to the work being unfinished and challenged.
• Marx’s theory of value forms the cornerstone of his theoretical structure, aligning closely with Ricardo’s theory.
• Despite differing in wording, deduction methods, and sociological implications, both theorists agree that the value of a commodity is proportional to the labor contained within it, under conditions of perfect equilibrium and competition.
• Both measure labor in hours of work, using the same method to standardize different qualities of work.
• Marx and Ricardo face similar challenges regarding their value theory, lacking insights into monopoly and imperfect competition.
• Marx’s responses to critics are seen as less polite and more verbose compared to Ricardo’s.
• The theory of value has faced extensive discussion and criticism, revealing that neither side holds absolute truth; the labor theory is widely regarded as unsatisfactory.
• For economists, the primary concern is not whether labor is the true source of value, but how the labor theory functions as an analytical tool.
• The labor theory of value is ineffective outside the framework of perfect competition.
• Even under perfect competition, the theory fails to operate smoothly unless labor is the sole factor of production and of one type.
• Deviations from these conditions necessitate additional assumptions, complicating analysis to an unmanageable extent.
• Thus, reasoning based on the labor theory of value addresses a limited and largely impractical scenario, though it may provide rough approximations of historical value tendencies.
• The theory of marginal utility, which has become the predominant theory, applies more generally to cases of monopoly and imperfect competition and accommodates various types of labor.
• This newer theory suggests that if restrictive conditions are introduced, a proportionality between value and labor quantity can still be inferred.
• It is erroneous for Marxists to challenge the validity of the marginal utility theory, which is the contemporary standard.
• The labor theory of value is not necessarily “wrong” but is considered obsolete in current economic discourse.
• Neither Ricardo nor Marx fully recognized the weaknesses in their foundational theories, though they identified some issues, particularly regarding the Services of Natural Agents.
• Both theorists aimed to eliminate the role of these services in production and distribution, leading to the development of their respective theories of rent.
• The Ricardian theory of land rent and the Marxian theory both attempt this elimination.
• Once an analytical framework is established that accommodates rent alongside wages, the difficulties associated with these theories diminish.
• The presence of capital as a stock of produced means of production presents another challenge for both theorists.
• Ricardo addressed this in his Principles, noting that commodities produced with capital goods will yield returns to the owners of those goods.
• He acknowledged that the time lag between investment and sale affects actual commodity values, deviating from the proportionality of labor hours involved.
• Ricardo presented this relationship as if it supported rather than contradicted his fundamental value theorem, limiting his exploration of the issue to secondary concerns.
• Marx, recognizing this same issue, did not question it but accepted its implications and aimed to tackle it more thoroughly than Ricardo, devoting extensive pages to the problem.
• Marx demonstrated a deeper understanding of the problem and enhanced the conceptual tools inherited from Ricardo.
• He replaced Ricardo’s fixed vs. circulating capital distinction with constant vs. variable (wage) capital, offering a clearer framework.
• He refined Ricardo’s basic notions of production duration with the concept of the organic structure of capital, emphasizing the relationship between constant and variable capital.
• Marx contributed significantly to the theory of capital but will focus here on his Theory of Exploitation and the net return to capital.
• The masses historically did not always perceive themselves as exploited; intellectuals interpreted their situation for them without precise definitions.
• Marx recognized the inadequacies in earlier arguments explaining exploitation, particularly the usual rhetoric about bargaining power and cheating.
• He sought to demonstrate that exploitation stems not from individual circumstances but is inherent to the logic of the capitalist system, occurring independently of personal intentions.
• Marx conceptualized labor as a potential resource, referring to it as Arbeitskraft, which translates poorly to “labor power.”
• Marx conceptualizes labor as a stock of potential labor that exists in a definite quantity, viewing it as a commodity similar to others.
• He draws parallels between the wage contract in capitalism and the purchase of a slave, suggesting that employers buy a quota of potential labor rather than the laborer themselves.
• Since this potential labor is a commodity, the law of value applies, meaning it should fetch a wage proportional to the labor hours involved in its “production.”
• The labor hours needed to produce a worker’s stock of potential labor include those spent on rearing, feeding, clothing, and housing the laborer.
• This value constitutes the laborer’s potential, and when parts of it are sold (in days, weeks, or years), the wages correspond to the labor value, similar to how a slave’s price reflects the total labor hours.
• Marx avoids simplistic slogans that suggest laborers are merely robbed or cheated; instead, he argues that they receive the full value of their labor potential.
• However, once capitalists acquire this potential, they can extract more actual hours of labor than what they’ve paid for, resulting in a disparity between the two values.
• This disparity leads to the concept of Surplus Value (Mehrwert), where capitalists “exploit” laborers despite paying them the full value of their labor potential.
• Capitalists receive from consumers the full value of the products sold, with no reference to unfair pricing or market manipulation.
• Marx acknowledges the existence of unfair practices but does not base his fundamental conclusions on them.
• The use of the term Exploitation serves a pedagogical purpose, comforting followers in their ideological struggle.
• Two critical aspects of the scientific argument must be distinguished; critics often overlook one of them.
• At the ordinary level of a stationary economic process, Marx’s doctrine of surplus value is untenable under his assumptions.
• The labor theory of value, even if valid for other commodities, cannot apply to labor itself, as this implies workers are produced like machines based on rational cost calculations.
• Since workers are not produced this way, there’s no justification for assuming the value of labor power is proportional to the labor hours involved in its “production.”
• Marx could have strengthened his argument by accepting Lassalle’s Iron Law of Wages or adopting Malthusian perspectives, but his refusal undermines his theory of exploitation from the outset.
• In a perfectly competitive equilibrium, if all capitalists make exploitation gains, they would expand production, leading to increased wages and diminishing gains.
• While one could argue this case using imperfect competition and institutional frictions, such a modification would be moderate and not align with Marx’s original principles.
• Marx’s analytical aim is to analyze a process of incessant change in the economic structure rather than a stationary equilibrium that capitalism can never attain.
• Surplus values may be impossible in perfect equilibrium but can be ever-present due to constant re-creation, allowing for a more favorable interpretation of the results.
• While this defense does not save the labor theory of value or the argument about exploitation, it provides insights into Marx’s economic analysis and explains why criticisms did not entirely damage his theoretical framework.
• At the ordinary level of discussion, the doctrine of surplus value complicates the discrepancies between the labor theory of value and economic realities.
• According to Marx, constant capital (non-wage capital) does not add value to products, implying that profits should vary between firms based on the organic composition of their capitals.
• Marx believed competition among capitalists would redistribute the total surplus value, leading to profits proportional to total capital and uniform rates of profit.
• This reliance on competition results in spurious problems arising from an unsound theory and leads to counsels of despair.
• Marx claimed his theory explained why the rate of profit has an inherent tendency to fall, linked to the rising importance of constant capital in wage-good industries.
• As the relative importance of plant and equipment increases, with the surplus value remaining constant, the rate of return on total capital decreases.
• This argument, admired by many, has flaws rooted in its premises but is crucial to understanding Marxian dynamics and connects the theory of exploitation to the Theory of Accumulation.
• The surplus extracted from exploited labor is reinvested into capital (means of production), a familiar notion framed as saving and investment.
• For Marx, this fact needed to be part of an inexorable logic of capitalism, establishing a necessary relationship.
• It was insufficient for this necessity to stem from the social psychology of capitalists; it had to be a compelling force driving accumulation independent of their feelings.
• Marx sought a more substantial explanation for capitalist behavior, beyond psychological factors, to account for the necessity of accumulation.
• To discuss the compulsion to save, I will assume Marx’s view that capitalist saving implies a corresponding increase in real capital.
• This movement initially occurs in the variable part of total capital (wage capital), even if the intention is to increase fixed capital (machinery).
• In a perfectly competitive economy, exploitation gains would lead capitalists to expand production to increase profits, necessitating accumulation.
• However, this expansion tends to reduce surplus values through rising wage rates and potentially falling product prices, illustrating contradictions in capitalism that Marx highlighted.
• There exists a compulsion to accumulate, even in a stationary process, which could only reach equilibrium by reducing surplus value to zero, thus destroying capitalism.
• Capitalist economies are not stationary; they are continuously revolutionized by new enterprises, products, and production methods.
• Economic progress in capitalism involves turmoil, with existing structures and conditions constantly changing.
• New products and methods of production create opportunities for investment and compete against old products and methods, compelling firms to adapt or risk being undersold.
• As a result, firms must plow back part of their profits into accumulation to remain competitive.
• Marx recognized the significance of this industrial change more clearly than his contemporaries but did not adequately analyze its mechanism.
• He conflated the roles of the entrepreneur and capitalist, leading to logical inconsistencies and mistakes in his arguments.
• Despite shortcomings, Marx’s vision of the capitalist process was useful for his objectives; non sequiturs became less critical when alternative arguments could support his points.
• While Marx’s theory of surplus value is untenable, capitalist processes do generate temporary surplus gains that can be explained by other theories, allowing the subsequent focus on accumulation.
• Marx did not satisfactorily establish the compulsion to accumulate, but these shortcomings can be remedied with a more effective explanation, aligning profit declines with competition.
• The overall rate of profit on total industrial capital need not fall long-term; competition from new commodities and production methods constantly threatens individual plant profits.
• Marx’s Theory of Concentration explains the tendency for industrial plants and control units to grow, simplifying competition as a battle to cheapen commodities.
• This perspective echoes current textbook explanations but is limited by its exclusive focus on the size of individual capitals and inadequately addresses monopoly and oligopoly dynamics.
• The admiration for Marx’s theory among many economists outside his ideological sphere is not entirely unwarranted.
• He successfully predicted the rise of big business, a notable achievement given the economic conditions of his time.
• Marx connected concentration to the process of accumulation, viewing it not just as a factual pattern but as part of the logic of capitalism.
• He recognized some consequences of this concentration, such as the idea that individual masses of capital serve as the basis for ongoing changes in production modes.
• His portrayal of the phenomenon was charged with themes of class struggle and politics, elevating his exposition beyond dry economic theories.
• Marx’s ability to continue his analysis despite the shortcomings of individual motivations or a perceived lack of rigor was facilitated by the actual emergence of industrial giants and the accompanying social situations.
• The theory of Verelendung (immiserization) and the theory of the trade cycle will further complete this analysis.
• Marx posited that, over time, real wage rates and the living standards of the masses would decline due to the intrinsic logic of capitalism, not due to external factors.
• This prediction has proven to be largely incorrect, leading Marxists to struggle in reconciling it with opposing wage statistics.
• Initially, some Marxists insisted on defending the notion of immiserization based on wage trends, even into contemporary times.
• Attempts were later made to reinterpret this idea to refer to the relative share of labor incomes in total national income rather than absolute wages.
• While some of Marx’s writings can be interpreted in this way, it contradicts the overall meaning of his theory and would not alleviate the difficulties he faced.
• The relative share of wages in total income remains relatively constant over time, lacking a clear downward trend.
• An alternative explanation for the failure to observe the predicted trend in wage data is the existence of exceptional conditions that might suppress inherent tendencies in the capitalist system.
• Modern Marxists often argue that colonial expansion and the opening of new countries in the 19th century created a “closed season” for the exploited.
• While facts may provide some initial support for this argument, its validity depends on the existence of an otherwise well-established tendency.
• Marx’s theoretical structure regarding immiserization is fundamentally untrustworthy due to flawed analytical groundwork.
• The theory of immiserization relies on the theory of the industrial reserve army, which addresses unemployment stemming from mechanization in production.
• This reserve army theory is heavily based on Ricardo’s insights about machinery, without adding essential new elements.
• Marx’s approach adds various minor touches, such as incorporating the idea of replacing skilled workers with unskilled ones in the concept of unemployment.
• He also enriched his argument with vivid illustrations and the broader context of his social theory.
• Initially, Ricardo believed that introducing machinery would generally benefit workers but later revised this view, presenting a numerical example to illustrate the possibility of adverse effects.
• Ricardo’s example is recognized as a possibility rather than a definitive outcome, acknowledging that net benefits for labor could arise from mechanization over time.
• His example highlights that when a firm mechanizes, it may free some workers, potentially leading to a loss of wages equal to those previously paid to them.
• Marx’s concept of replacing variable capital (wage capital) with constant capital (machinery) mirrors Ricardo’s analysis, emphasizing the surplus population or reserve army.
• While Ricardo’s ideas may have sufficed for his limited purpose, they became inadequate and misleading when Marx built a larger theoretical framework upon them.
• Marx seemed aware of this inadequacy and clung to Ricardo’s pessimistic outlook, treating it as the only possible scenario and opposing theories that suggested compensatory benefits for labor from mechanization.
• He needed a solid foundation for his reserve army theory, which was crucial for his views on exploitation.
• By rejecting the Malthusian theory of population, Marx replaced it with the perpetually recreated reserve army.
• His narrow view of mechanization was vital for supporting his dramatic proclamations in Das Kapital.
• Marx’s impactful phrases describe how capitalism leads to the centralization of capital, the growth of misery and exploitation, and the eventual revolt of the working class.
• He foresees a future where the concentration of production and socialized labor become incompatible with capitalism, leading to its collapse and the expropriation of capitalists.
• Marx’s contributions to the theory of business cycles are challenging to evaluate due to their scattered and casual nature across his writings and letters.
• The fragmented observations do not form a coherent cycle theory, making interpretation subjective and potentially biased by admirers seeking to attribute favorable later research results to Marx.
• Many scholars mistakenly assume that Marx must have a straightforward cycle theory, given his frequent references to it in relation to his core themes.
• Marx acknowledges the productive power of capitalism but also emphasizes the growing misery of the masses, leading some to link this to crises resulting from under-consumption or over-production.
• His work has been associated with under-consumption theories of crises due to parallels with Sismondi and Rodbertus, who advocated similar views.
• Certain passages, like those in the Communist Manifesto, suggest an under-consumption interpretation, but Marx himself explicitly rejects this notion.
• Ultimately, Marx does not possess a simple or clear theory of business cycles, nor can one be logically derived from his analysis of capitalist processes.
• Even if one accepts Marx’s ideas of surplus value, accumulation, mechanization, and increasing surplus population, these do not inherently lead to cyclical fluctuations in the capitalist system.
• Marx’s depiction of accumulation operates on a steady basis, lacking the necessary elements to account for the inherent alternation of booms and busts.
• The absence of a cyclical theory isn’t a significant drawback, as many theorists argue that crises occur when substantial issues arise in the system.
• This flexibility allows Marx to examine a variety of factors affecting business cycles without forcing them into a rigid framework.
• He explores the role of money in commodity transactions to challenge Say’s Law and argues against the idea of a general glut.
• He references easy money markets to explain disparities in investments in durable goods and mentions external stimuli, such as new markets and social needs, as drivers of accumulation.
• Marx attempts to link population growth to economic fluctuations and notes that production often expands and contracts suddenly, although he doesn’t fully explain this phenomenon.
• He critiques the superficiality of political economy for confusing credit fluctuations with the underlying causes of industrial cycle changes.
• His analysis includes a range of incidents and external factors contributing to economic fluctuations, though they lack a cohesive theoretical underpinning.
• The analysis of business cycles presented is largely sound and reflects common sense, encompassing many elements recognized in serious economic studies.
• Recognizing cyclical movements was a significant achievement for Marx, as previous economists primarily focused on crises as isolated events rather than part of a larger cyclical process.
• Many economists before Marx viewed crises as consequences of errors, excesses, or failures within the credit mechanism, missing the cyclical nature of these events.
• Marx was one of the first to transcend this narrow perspective, foreshadowing the work of Clément Juglar, despite not providing a complete explanation of the business cycle.
• He acknowledged the existence of a decennial cycle, noting it was often “interrupted by minor fluctuations,” and speculated that this cycle might relate to the lifespan of machinery in the cotton industry.
• Marx’s work reveals a clear awareness of the mechanisms behind business cycles, earning him a notable position among the founders of modern cycle research.
• While he typically used the term crisis in its conventional sense (e.g., referring to the crises of 1825 or 1847), he also applied it differently, linking it to the broader evolution of capitalism.
• Marx believed that capitalism would eventually disrupt its institutional framework, leading to increased friction and symptoms of a fatal illness before any actual breakdown occurred.
• He associated recurrent crises with this unique crisis of capitalist evolution, suggesting that the former might serve as precursors to the ultimate collapse of the system.
• However, it is important to note that the factors Marx identified as responsible for the ultimate breakdown do not adequately explain the recurrent depressions without additional assumptions.
• The notion that the expropriation of the expropriators might be more feasible during a depression than a boom does not provide substantial insights into the nature of crises themselves.
• The concept that capitalist evolution will inevitably outgrow the institutions of capitalist society (Zusammenbruchstheorie or the theory of inevitable catastrophe) exemplifies a mix of non sequitur reasoning and profound insight that salvages Marx’s conclusions.
• Marx’s argument relies on the premise that the growth of misery and oppression will incite the masses to revolt, but this is undermined by the logical leap that questions the validity of the assertion regarding the inevitable growth of misery.
• Many orthodox Marxists have started to doubt the idea that the concentration of industrial control is inherently incompatible with capitalism, a perspective notably articulated by Rudolf Hilferding.
• Hilferding, a key figure among the Neo-Marxists, argued that concentration might actually enhance the stability of capitalism, suggesting a shift in understanding the relationship between big business and production modes.
• While Hilferding’s perspective may be overstated, it counters the prevalent belief that large businesses impede production modes and highlights that Marx’s conclusions do not logically follow from his premises.
• Despite potential flaws in Marx’s facts and reasoning, his assertion that capitalist evolution will undermine the foundations of capitalist society may still hold true.
• This vision, articulated by Marx in 1847, is considered profound and remains relevant, echoing ideas later expressed by Gustav Schmoller, a non-revolutionary figure who acknowledged similar truths without delving into their implications.
• The analysis concludes that:
  • No one committed to pure economic analysis can claim unqualified success in Marx’s work.
  • No one favoring bold theoretical constructions can assert unqualified failure.
• A verdict on Marx’s theoretical technique must be critical, pointing out his reliance on an inadequate analytic framework that was becoming obsolete in his time.
• Marx’s work contains numerous conclusions that do not logically follow or are outright incorrect, and correcting these mistakes often alters essential inferences.
• Nevertheless, any critique of Marx’s methodology requires nuance, recognizing two key grounds for qualification.
• First, despite Marx’s frequent errors, his critics were not always correct, highlighting that many were accomplished economists whose arguments he could not address directly.
• Marx made significant contributions to various individual problems in economics, particularly visible in his treatment of the business cycle and the structure of physical capital.
• His schemata in the field of physical capital, while not flawless, have been valuable in contemporary work that has Marxian elements.
• A theoretical appeal might warrant a complete reversal of judgment on Marx’s work, given one notable achievement: his fundamental idea of a cohesive theory.
• This theory seeks to explain the sequence of economic patterns and the economic process as a continuous historical phenomenon, where each state influences the next.
• Marx visualized an economic theory that remains relevant today, as scholars gradually accumulate empirical data and functional equations to build upon his foundations.
• He attempted to implement this vision despite the shortcomings and scientific flaws present in his work, which should be evaluated differently because of the ambitious goals he aimed to achieve.
• A significant methodological contribution of Marx’s work is his integration of economic history into theory, treating historical facts not just as illustrations but as essential components of economic analysis.
• He was the first major economist to systematically demonstrate how economic theory could evolve into historical analysis and vice versa.
• Although Marx did not address the analogous issue concerning statistics, the integration of history into economic theory implies an approach to this challenge.
• This also clarifies how Marx’s economic theory aligns with his sociological framework: while it does not fully succeed, it establishes a goal and a method for future economic analysis.

IV. MARX THE TEACHER

• The main components of the Marxian structure present an important question: does the whole represent more than the sum of its parts?
• The synthesis within Marx’s system may both spoil and enhance various elements, leading to a result that can be more true or false than individual components.
• The synthesis also carries a Message that arises solely from the whole, which each individual must interpret personally.
• In contemporary society, there is a strong demand for synthesis, particularly in social sciences, where non-professional perspectives are significant.
• Marx’s system exemplifies how synthesis can provide new insights while simultaneously creating new constraints.
• Sociology and economics are intertwined in the Marxian argument, making them effectively one field; major concepts carry the same meanings across both disciplines.
• Economic categories, such as labor, and social classes, like the proletariat, are fundamentally linked and often treated as identical.
• The concept of functional distribution in economics, which explains income emergence as returns to services, is reinterpreted in Marx’s system as a distribution between social classes, altering its meaning.
• In Marx’s framework, capital exists only in the hands of a distinct capitalist class, whereas the same entities in the hands of workers are not considered capital.
• This interconnectedness revitalizes analysis by making abstract economic concepts more relatable to social reality, allowing for a richer understanding of economic phenomena.
• Marxian analysis broadens the scope of economics by integrating all forms of class action, including wars, revolutions, and legislative changes, into a unified explanatory framework.
• However, this integrative approach has its drawbacks, as it may sacrifice analytical efficiency for vividness.
• By conflating the terms worker and proletarian, valuable distinctions are lost, potentially obscuring the broader economic picture.
• In non-Marxian economics, different types of labor, from top lawyers to street sweepers, are all treated as returns to services, allowing for insightful generalizations.
• Equating labor with the proletariat eliminates important nuances and may lead to errors in understanding economic phenomena.
• Consequently, synthesis, particularly in the Marxian tradition, risks resulting in both poorer economics and poorer sociology due to oversimplification and misinterpretation.
• Synthesis in general refers to the coordination of methods and results from different disciplines, which is often challenging and rarely attempted.
• Many students, trained to focus on individual details, express dissatisfaction, yearning for a broader understanding, without realizing the complexities involved in achieving synthesis.
• The result of this yearning can sometimes resemble an intellectual concentration camp, where the diversity of knowledge is stifled.
• Marxian synthesis, which coordinates economic and sociological analyses to serve a singular purpose, often reflects this limitation.
• While Marxists claim their system resolves significant issues that non-Marxian economics cannot, it does so at the cost of oversimplifying these issues.
• Marx’s synthesis encompasses historical events and social institutions often viewed as disturbances by non-Marxian economists, which they merely analyze.
• These factors are crucial for defining any research program, although they might not always be explicitly mentioned, as their importance is generally understood.
• A distinctive feature of the Marxian system is that it treats historical events and social institutions as variables rather than mere data.
• Events like the Napoleonic Wars, American Civil War, and major revolutions are integrated into Marxian economics to explain them through concepts like class warfare and exploitation.
• Economists are no longer limited to technical analyses; instead, they uncover the underlying meanings of societal struggles through economic theory.
• In the Marxian view, politics is no longer an independent factor but is influenced by the economic structure, functioning as a key part of economic analysis.
• The appeal of such a synthesis is understandable, especially among the young and those frustrated by traditional academic approaches.
• Many seek a comprehensive explanation that clarifies the complexities of societal events, finding solace in Marx’s framework.
• Marx provides an explanatory schema that feels both general and specific, offering insights into the mechanisms behind political and economic phenomena.
• This perspective helps individuals connect with larger societal issues, providing clarity amid the confusion created by political and business elites.
• Given the alternatives, it is not surprising that many are drawn to Marx’s synthesis as a means of understanding and engaging with the world.
• The value of the Marxian synthesis is questioned, particularly regarding its practical implications.
• Economists discussing England’s transition to free trade or early factory legislation recognize the structural conditions influencing these policies without needing a Marxist framework.
• The Marxist contribution often boils down to a narrow, distorted theory insisting on the class struggle between owners and non-owners.
• While this theory produces simple, clear results, applying it to specific cases can lead to fatigue from the repetitive class conflict narrative, raising concerns of inadequacy or triviality.
• Marxists often highlight the success of the Marxian analysis in identifying economic and social trends within capitalism, especially the rise of big business.
• Although Marx’s insights can enhance understanding, the overall contributions must be weighed against failures, notably the incorrect prediction of increasing misery linked to capitalist evolution.
• Relying on the Marxian synthesis to understand current situations can lead to significant misjudgments.
• Recent experiences have led many Marxists to question their framework’s effectiveness, particularly in light of economic events in the last decade.
• Any prolonged period of economic depression can validate various pessimistic forecasts, including Marxian ones, blurring the line between genuine structural changes and typical economic downturns.
• The prevailing narrative may misrepresent the situation, driven by disillusioned bourgeois and hopeful intellectuals, rather than by concrete facts supporting a unique Marxian interpretation.
• Common phenomena such as high unemployment, lack of investment, and declining money values fit established patterns of economic depression, similar to those observed in the 1870s and 1880s.
• Marxist theory of Imperialism traces its roots back to Marx’s major works but has been expanded by Neo-Marxist scholars in the early 20th century.
• This Neo-Marxist movement, centered in Vienna, included influential figures like Otto Bauer, Rudolf Hilferding, and Max Adler, who aimed to adapt Marx’s ideas without completely discarding traditional Marxist tenets.
• The discourse on imperialism has continued with varying emphases, notably through the works of Rosa Luxemburg and Fritz Sternberg.
• The arguments surrounding the Marxist theory of imperialism involve analyzing economic and political dynamics under capitalism, seeking to understand its global implications and transformations.
• Capitalist society relies on profits for survival and functionality, yet profits are continually undermined by the system itself.
• The capitalist class’s primary goal is to maintain profits amid ongoing elimination due to systemic pressures.
• Accumulation, while temporarily benefiting individual capitalists, ultimately exacerbates the overall situation, leading to a falling rate of profit.
• The falling profit rate arises from:
  • Increased constant capital relative to variable capital.
  • Rising wages and shorter working hours, which reduce the rate of surplus value.
• In response to declining profits, capital seeks new outlets in undeveloped countries where labor remains exploitable and mechanization is minimal.
• Capital export includes sending capital equipment and consumer goods to these regions to acquire labor.
• This capital export is unique because it is not immediately compensated with goods, services, or currency from the importing country.
• Capital export often results in colonization to protect investments from local resistance and competition from other capitalist nations.
• Colonial control is typically enforced through military force, provided either by the capitalists or their home government, reflecting Marx’s description of the state as an executive committee for managing bourgeois interests.
• The use of force is not solely defensive; it often leads to conquest and conflict among capitalist nations and within competing bourgeois factions.
• Colonial expansion driven by falling profits is viewed by Marxists as indicative of later-stage capitalism, aligning with a concentration of capitalist control and reduced competition typical of small to medium-sized firms.
• Marx did not emphasize monopolistic tendencies and protective measures against competition, but Neo-Marxists incorporated this perspective, linking it to imperialist policies and modern protectionism.
• Once undeveloped countries become more industrialized, capital exports are expected to decline, leading to a trade exchange of manufactured goods for raw materials between the former colony and the mother country.
• Over time, competition from former colonies will impact the mother country, leading to a decline in manufactured exports.
• Efforts to delay this outcome may spark tensions between capitalist nations and their colonies, resulting in wars of independence and other conflicts.
• Ultimately, domestic capital will face restricted outlets, leading to a lack of investment opportunities, overcapacity, and potential crises like national bankruptcies or global conflicts driven by capitalist despair.
• Historical patterns suggest a cyclical nature of these issues, hinting at inevitable disasters if capitalism fails to address these fundamental contradictions.
• The Marxian synthesis is exemplified through the theory of imperialism, which attempts to solve problems and gains authority by providing coherent explanations.
• This theory derives from two foundational premises:
  • Theory of Classes
  • Theory of Accumulation
• It claims to account for significant contemporary facts and simplifies the complexities of international politics.
• Class actions, while fundamentally consistent, can manifest as political or business actions depending on the circumstances, dictating tactical methods and language.
• Capitalists will choose the most profitable means:
  • If negotiating a loan is advantageous, they will do so.
  • If war is more profitable, they will engage in warfare.
• Protectionism emerges logically from capitalist evolution within this framework.
• The theory’s strength lies in its alignment with historical and contemporary facts, evidenced by numerous historical examples.
• Notable instances include:
  • European oppression of native labor in various regions.
  • Suffering of South and Central American Indians under Spanish rule.
  • Slave-hunting, slave-trading, and coolieism.
• Capital export is a persistent feature of capitalist nations, often accompanied by military conquest to subdue native populations and compete with other colonial powers.
• Historical examples such as the Boer War illustrate the military aspect of colonization.
• Colonial ambitions have significantly influenced European conflicts since approximately 1700.
• Modern discussions highlight the “strategy of raw materials” and its impact on European economies due to the rise of native capitalism in the tropics.
• Protectionism is seen as an evident phenomenon within this analysis.
• Caution is warranted, as surface-level verification through familiar cases can be misleading.
• Energetic appeals to common knowledge can influence acceptance of a desired narrative, a technique effectively used by Marxists.
• The facts often appear known yet poorly understood, inviting skepticism about their accurate representation.
• Future discussions will explore the bourgeoisie’s relationship to imperialism.
• Questions arise about the adequacy of the Marxian interpretation of capital export, colonization, and protectionism as a comprehensive theory.
• While imperialism can be defined to align with Marxian views, doing so may result in tautological solutions that do not genuinely address the complexities of the phenomenon.
• The adequacy of Marxian or any purely economic approach to yield non-tautological solutions requires further exploration, but this exceeds the current discussion’s scope.
• At first glance, the Marxian theory of imperialism appears to fit some historical cases, particularly the English and Dutch conquests in the tropics.
• However, it fails to adequately explain other instances, such as the colonization of New England.
• Even the former cases are not satisfactorily described by Marx’s theory.
• Merely recognizing profit as a motivating factor for colonial expansion is insufficient; the Neo-Marxists argue for an accumulation-driven narrative, linking colonialism to mature capitalism.
• The period of colonial adventure was characterized by early, immature capitalism, where accumulation was just beginning, and pressures on profit were not evident.
• Although monopoly existed, it was more pronounced than today, contradicting the notion that monopoly and conquest are exclusive to advanced capitalism.
• The theory’s emphasis on class struggle is equally flawed; it overlooks instances of class cooperation during colonial expansion.
• Colonial ventures aimed to increase both profits and wages, ultimately benefiting the proletariat more than the capitalist class due to the exploitation of native labor.
• The causation of colonization does not primarily stem from class conflict, but rather from individuals within the capitalist class seeking to advance their interests.
• Abandoning a narrow view of colonization as merely a class struggle reveals that little of the original Marxist perspective remains; Adam Smith’s views are equally applicable.
• The Neo-Marxian theory of modern protectionism persists, with classical literature criticizing the “sinister interests” of agrarian sectors demanding protection.
• Classical economists had a causal theory of protection that linked it to the interests of large businesses seeking to manipulate market prices.
• Modern economists with Marxist leanings should recognize the connection between the trend toward protectionism and the consolidation of large business entities.
• Both classical and modern interpretations of protectionism are one-sided and often incorrect regarding consequences and interests involved.
• Classical economists acknowledged the monopoly aspect of protectionism, a concept familiar to Marxists.
• While many protective tariffs are influenced by large corporations, attributing them solely to monopolistic pressure is reductive.
• American public support for protectionist policies arises from a desire for stability and control over their economic environment, rather than direct domination by big business.
• A synthesis that ignores these public sentiments is a liability, not an asset.
• Reducing the causes of protectionism to monopolistic elements oversimplifies the issue; big business has capitalized on popular sentiment rather than creating it.
• The theory of capital export and colonization as the primary explanation for international politics misrepresents the complexity of the situation.
• It simplifies international politics into a struggle between monopolistic capitalist groups and their proletariats, resembling a simplistic narrative.
• Big business and finance have had limited influence on foreign policy, often leading to naive or misguided outcomes.
• Capitalist groups typically adapt to national policies rather than drive them, influenced more by short-term considerations than long-term objectives.
• Marxism, when applied in this context, risks devolving into mere popular superstitions rather than a robust analytical framework.
• There are similar issues throughout the Marxian framework; for instance, the definition of governments from the Communist Manifesto contains a kernel of truth regarding class antagonisms.
• However, this truth is often trivial and does not adequately address the majority of cases where the theory fails to match reality or accurately describe governmental behavior.
• In most instances, the Marxian theory can be rendered tautologically true, as any policy short of eliminating the bourgeoisie can be interpreted as serving bourgeois interests in some capacity.
• This tautological nature does not enhance the theory’s value.
• A second example of the problem-solving ability of the Marxian synthesis is the idea of Scientific Socialism.
• Marx asserts that socialism is inevitable due to the logic of capitalist evolution, leading to the destruction of capitalism and the emergence of socialism.
• However, it is questionable how effectively Marx establishes the existence of these tendencies.
• The notion of capitalist self-destruction has not been convincingly demonstrated; critiques from figures like Hilferding highlight flaws in Marx’s arguments.
• Some essential propositions of Marx, such as the inevitable increase in misery, are untenable, and the breakdown of capitalism does not necessarily follow from them.
• While Marx correctly identifies factors that the capitalist process tends to develop, he may need to replace the Marxian linkage with another explanation.
• The term “breakdown” may misrepresent the situation if interpreted as a failure of capitalist production.
• The transition to socialism is a separate issue; capitalism may collapse, but chaos might ensue, preventing socialism from emerging.
• The anticipated socialist organization is just one of many possible outcomes following capitalism’s demise.
• Marx wisely refrained from detailing socialist society, focusing instead on conditions for its emergence:
  • Giant units of industrial control, facilitating socialization.
  • An organized, oppressed proletariat that is disciplined and united.
• These conditions suggest a final confrontation between the two classes in an acute stage of conflict.
• Marx’s vision implies that the proletariat will “take over” and, through its dictatorship, eliminate exploitation and establish a classless society.
• This view aligns with chiliastic beliefs, but for scientific forecasting, it lacks robustness.
• Schmoller provides a more plausible outlook, envisioning a process of bureaucratization and nationalization leading to state socialism, which makes more sense.
• Marx does not transform the socialist possibility into a certainty; even accepting his breakdown theory does not guarantee socialism’s emergence.
• Rejecting the breakdown theory leads to a more substantial failure of Marx’s predictions regarding socialism.
• The realization of socialism will not occur automatically, regardless of whether one accepts Marx’s reasoning or any alternative perspective.
• Even if capitalist evolution creates all the conditions for socialism in a distinctly Marxian manner, proactive action is still necessary to actualize it.
• This aligns with Marx’s teachings, as his concept of revolution embodies the specific form of action needed to bring about socialism.
• The emphasis on violence in Marx’s thought is understandable given his experiences during the revolutionary upheavals of 1848.
• Despite his ability to critique revolutionary ideology, Marx could not entirely escape its influence.
• Most of his audience would likely have been reluctant to accept a message devoid of the dramatic revolutionary call.
• Although Marx recognized the potential for a peaceful transition, particularly in England, he may have doubted its likelihood due to the prevailing conditions of his time.
• His framing of class conflict made it harder to envision peaceful change.
• Engels, a close associate of Marx, even studied tactics related to revolutionary action.
• While revolution can be viewed as non-essential, the necessity for distinct action remains a core component of Marx’s vision.
• This clarifies the debate among Marxist disciples regarding revolution versus evolution; Marx viewed evolution as the parent of socialism.
• Marx was too influenced by the inherent logic of social progress to believe that revolution could entirely replace evolutionary processes.
• Revolution, in Marx’s view, serves to conclude a set of premises that have been established through evolutionary change.
• The Marxian revolution fundamentally differs from those of bourgeois radicals or socialist conspirators, as it is revolution in the fullness of time.
• Disciples who oppose this interpretation, especially in relation to the Russian case, can cite numerous passages that seem contradictory.
• In these passages, Marx contradicts his deeper, more mature insights expressed in the analytic structure of Das Kapital.
• This implies a conservative aspect within Marx’s thought, which can be overlooked amid the more radical rhetoric.
• The ability to interpret Marx in a conservative manner does not diminish the seriousness of his ideas; it affirms their validity and complexity.