Capital blunders: the case of karl marx | thearticle

In 1950 all Hungarian Universities (including the Technical University of Budapest where I studied) had to introduce two new compulsory subjects: The Russian language and Marxism, subjects

in which we were examined. One of the topics was “Absolute impoverishment.” It started with David Ricardo’s Iron Law of Wages that maintained that wages can never rise above subsistence

level. If they do, the workers available will increase too and that will lead to the reduction of wages, as implied by the iron law.  We also had on the syllabus  the Marxist theory of

Absolute Impoverishment of the working class, according to which wages must always decline not only relative to the wealth of the capitalists, but also in absolute value. Later in their

lifetimes even its originators, Marx and Engels, had quietly abandoned it. By 1950, nobody believed this thesis any more: the evidence that most workers were not absolutely impoverished in

capitalist countries was undeniable. The sole authority that supported this theory was the ultra-orthodox Hungarian Communist Party. They did not realise that the theory was flawed by a

basic contradiction: if wages are already at subsistence level, as the iron law maintained, they cannot be further cut because the working class would not then be able to survive. This

contradiction was ignored by the Professors of Marxism at our University and it would have been inadvisable to point it out. People had disappeared for lesser crimes. I would call this

Blunder No.1.  Blunder No.2  I found in Marx’s _ Critique of the Gotha Programme. _ Gotha is a city in Germany where the programme of the world’s first Social Democratic Party was

promulgated by Ferdinand Lasalle in 1863. Marx did not like Lasalle and did not like the programme. He wrote his _ Critique _ in April-May 1871, which was circulated in manuscript form for

two decades and published eventually in _ Die Neue Zeit _ in 1891. Marx writes there: “A general prohibition of child labour is incompatible with the existence of large-scale industry and

hence an empty pious wish.” It is true that child labour was not generally prohibited in Britain until 1933, but by the time Marx was writing child labour had already been regulated and bans

were starting to be imposed, for example on under-10s working in factories. Blunder No.3 is related to Blunder No.2. It is also in the Gotha _ Critique _ : “If banning child labour were

possible it would be reactionary, since, with a strict regulation of the working time according to the different age groups and other safety measures for the protection of children, an early

combination of productive labour with education is one of the most potent means for the transformation of present-day society.” In other words, Marx had no principled objection to regulated

child labour.  Karl Marx was a Political Activist, an Economist, a Historian, a Philosopher, and a lot more. In any of these incarnations he had to discuss the future. He saw in the future

the dictatorship of the proletariat, a violent overthrow of the capitalist economic system. He is also famous for predicting that a time will come in the Socialist Heaven when everybody

could live according to his needs. But he failed to see something that he personally witnessed in his own lifetime: the vast amount of wealth that capitalism had been able to generate. Why

did he miss this obvious fact?  I think there are two explanations. One of them suggests that if your work covers a wide range, some of your conclusions might not have been well founded. In

other words: _ Saepe et magnus dormitat Homerus. _ (“Sometimes even the great Homer nods”). This is of course not a proper explanation. It is far too general. It can explain any kind of

failure.  To be more specific we have to look at Marx’ published work, starting with _ The Communist Manifesto _ (written jointly with Friedrich Engels). They wanted nothing less than

uniting all the workers of the world. The argument was that the workers could and should fight for their rights because they had nothing to lose but their chains. An early attempt to put

Marx’s ideas into practice was made in the Paris Commune after the defeat of France in the 1870-71 Franco-Prussian war. Parts of Paris were then occupied by the Communards, who executed the

Archbishop of Paris in the company  of another hundred  hostages. The French Army exacted a bloody revenge. After the fall of the Commune maybe up to 20,000 Communards were executed and

44,000 of them were deported to the French Colony of New Caledonia. At this stage I cannot resist the temptation of comparing the short-lived Paris Commune in France with the equally

short-lived 1919 Soviet Republic in Hungary. First of all, let us acknowledge that both governments came to power after defeat in a major war. The dates in power were also quite similar. The

Communards ruled from 18 th March to 28 th May, the Soviet Republic lasted from 21 st March to 1 st August. Both governments were dictatorial, both resorted to violence, both were followed

by even worse violence. Could one conclude that spring is a favourite time for a Communist revolution? Yes, possibly, but they fall when the weather gets hot. Well, it is a good hypothesis

but I would not try to prove it. Now back to blunders. How could Marx commit them? How, for example, could Marx miss that the future would lie in free full-time education for all children?

Marx believed that a bourgeois government would never establish a universal education system. Paraphrasing Montecuccoli, we could say that universal education needs three things: Money,

money and money. Marx probably believed that capitalists would  always try maximising profit. What he did not realise is that universal education is not incompatible with profit

maximisation. It is just a different kind of investment that needs time to mature. Marx underestimated the wealth that capitalism can create. In Marx’s lifetime (1818-1883) the GDP per

capita of the UK went up by about 80%. Hence England and Wales could afford to introduce universal education from the age of 5 to 12 in 1870. It is the same with the morality argument. We

know that equalising wages, a move towards equality, is not the way to maximise economic output.  They tried it in the early Soviet Union, but soon abandoned it. Instead they introduced the

competitive Stakhanovite system. Could purely moral  arguments be the engines of social change? The obvious examples are the abolition of the slave trade and of slavery in the British

Empire, in which William Wilberforce and likeminded friends played such a significance role. But even in this case money helped to reach an agreement. Slave owners were compensated for their

loss of slaves. A MESSAGE FROM THEARTICLE _We are the only publication that’s committed to covering every angle. We have an important contribution to make, one that’s needed now more than

ever, and we need your help to continue publishing throughout these hard economic times. So please, make a donation._