Beautiful set of numbers from a confessed Marx bitch

The Australian ^ | 12th October 2005 | Emma Toms

[naturalman1975]

AS the child of a couple of carob-chewing '70s radicals, I spent my early years secure in the knowledge that capitalism was evil. Other forces I knew to be malevolently corruptive were competitive sport, school scripture classes, Barbie dolls, red cordial and the television program Knight Rider. But it was capitalism that earned the bulk of my youthful wrath.

"Bad capitalism," I'd say. "Vile, nasty, unforgivably inequitable capitalism." While I didn't own a Che Guevara T-shirt, I was able to secure a beaten copy of B.N. Ponomarev's The Great Vital Force of Leninism. (It still sits on my bookshelf next to The Simple Solution to Rubik's Cube and the revised edition of Sparky the Space Chimp).

When I moved to Sydney at 21, my revolutionary spirit was still good'n'zealy. Stunned that so many of my fellow cadet journalists were graduates of elite private schools and wealthy power families, I picked countless screamfests in which I accused my free market lovin' colleagues of being ideological automatons, unquestioning slaves to the oppressive dogma of their upbringings.

Hypocritical much?

One poor bastard I crucified simply for knowing the meaning of the phrase "net asset backing". Oh yes, I was truly Marx's bitch.

I can't remember what changed first. Maybe it was the sneaking suspicion that I too was guilty of regurgitating unexamined polemic. Maybe it was the realisation that, despite a genuine passion for egalitarianism, I didn't have the faintest idea how economies actually worked. The crux of my case had always been terribly limited. "Bad capitalism," I'd say. "Vile, nasty, unforgivably inequitable capitalism."

Clearly the time had come to expand my economic library beyond that one slim volume by Ponomarev.

In my late 20s, I began purchasing economics text books for senior secondary students. When these proved too overwhelming, I purchased ones for junior secondary students. Years passed before I was capable of browsing newspaper financial pages but now, in my mid 30s, I'm studying economic-based subjects at university and catching myself tossing round the sort of jargon for which I used to hound others.

Yesterday I came across a particularly clunky sentence in a particularly dense reading on global capital mobility and thought: "Holy f---. Not only do I understand exactly what this capitalist running dog is talking about, but I think she makes some excellent points."

It was very confronting. The ramifications for my relationships with my placard-wielding anti-IMF buddies were huge. But the nuancing of my former viewpoints has been worth it.

I realised that what was missing from my previous position - as well as that of my debate-mates - was an appreciation of human psychology. Marx missed it when he overestimated altruism and underestimated aspiration. But the market-eers also miss it when they ra-ra economic rationalism (since when have humans ever behaved rationally when it comes to money?) and claim economic indicators such as the gross domestic product represent the ultimate measure of how we're travelling as a society.

In many developed countries real GDP per person has doubled or trebled while measures of satisfaction with life have remained stagnant. So why is it considered the height of irresponsible subversion to question government policy that assumes more money automatically equals more happiness?

You can see this scary economic insularity in action when John Howard talks about his beloved industrial relations "reforms". For all the spin about choice, the PM's prime justification is that these changes will spur economic growth. Expert opinion differs on whether this is true, but even if it didn't, even if there were united consensus that we were heading for an unprecedented financial orgy, surely any policy with the potential to affect so many lives so profoundly deserves closer questioning.

Perhaps the natural-born number crunchers could also consider a trip to the other side of the debate as a reminder that the results of their calculations are not only statistics, but carbon-based life forms who experience joblessness and poverty far more acutely than the national accountants who measure such things. The alternative to rabid "growth at all costs" capitalism doesn't have to be a Marx-apalooza - but that doesn't mean there aren't alternatives.

[Alia]

Excellent article!

[TheyConvictedOglethorpe]

But the market-eers also miss it when they ra-ra economic rationalism (since when have humans ever behaved rationally when it comes to money?) and claim economic indicators such as the gross domestic product represent the ultimate measure of how we're travelling as a society.

If she ever discovers Austrian School theory she'll realize that neither of these statements is true of pro-free market economics.

[saganite]

Nothing's really changed for her. She's learned to speak the language of Capitalism but she's not convinced. At best you could say she's sitting on th fence now. A good moderate!

[DCPatriot]

By the headline, I thought the numbers were 36-24-36!

[Candor7]

The basic weakness which brought about the authors abandonment of Marxist economic theory is :

Man does not exist by the sole parameter of material wealth. Having material wealth equally distributed in society does not bring about human happiness. It actually reduces man to be an economic animal focused on equality.
Man is naturally not that. If anything Marxist economic theory is too simplistic and does not reflect the basic nature of man in any reality but a created , imposed one.
For this reason, Marxist economic approaches are doomed to fail in the long run, and are effective only as emergency measures.

[wmont2]

Amen!!

[Spok]

"So why is it considered the height of irresponsible subversion to question government policy that assumes more money automatically equals more happiness?"

Since when is government in the 'happiness' business? Life, liberty and its pursuit only occurs when government stands aside and free men are allowed to attain it, but freedom also embodies the right to fail in the endeavor and bear the consequences.

[supercat]

What brings happiness is a feeling of control over one's own destiny. Capitalism celebrates that. Marxism seeks to destroy it.

[calrighty]

EXCELLENT! short N sweet.

[quinhon6869]

Excellent article. I also ran into a number of Marx's bitches, most notably when I lived in Berkeley in the early 1970's. Their time was almost over but they were too dumb to realize it. Those of us studying economics and data analysis had little to discuss with Marxist true believers; more often than not students of Sociology, Education, or even more pathetically, Journalism or Ethnic Studies. Their entire world was viewed through a prism of Marxist claptrap and they did not want to invest the intellectual energy to understand that abuse of power and corruption were but a few of the problems facing a totalitarian system. The modern day adherents of this totally discredited theory are still trying to foist income redistribution and expanded government on those of us who value freedom and self-responsibility. Its not about economic growth, its about self-determination.</p>

[Rocky]

One of the ingredients for happiness is freedom of choice. Marxism does not allow freedom of choice, and does not even recognize the human need for it. The state must decide who gets what. It's a system doomed to failure, as has been demonstrated over and over.

The author seems to think that we can solve what she perceives as distribution problems by imposing a little bit of marxism. Unfortunately, everyone has a different idea about what's fair, and so what we get is a few privileged people redistributing things to benefit themselves and reinforce their own power base. Human nature again interferes with the ideal.

[Rightone]

What brings happiness is a feeling of control over one's own destiny. Capitalism celebrates that. Marxism seeks to destroy it.

You hit the nail exactly and squarely on the head.

[gitmo]

For this reason, Marxist economic approaches are doomed to fail in the long run, and are effective only as emergency measures.

Marxist economic systems fail because they ignore the win-win nature of capitalism. If I purchase a hamburger for a dollar, it is because the value of the hamburger exceeds the value of the dollar. I win.

And the hamburger guy sold me his hamburger because the value of the dollar exceeds the value of the hamburger. He wins.

The same things applies to employment. The only reason I work 11 hours for my employer is because the value of my salary exceeds the value of that time. I win.

And my employer earns more money from my labor than he spent on my salary and benefits. He wins.

Marxism assumes these exchanges are one sided, and forces the two parties to participate under altered circumstances. When you artificially change the equation (through the use of force), you create losers in the economic exchange. And a system cannot endure when certain participants are perpetually forced to lose.

[Betis70]

This was about all she needed to say (about 3 paragraphs from the end of the article):

"Marx missed it."

[TrailofTears]

Still waiting to see her say that man was created in the image of God and that man is endowed with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Still waiting for the revelation to strike her that the basis of capitalism is that God has given us rights to ourself and because of that we are able to translate that right of self determination into ownership of self, property, and effort.

I guess all that would be asking too much.

[B-Chan]

Capitalism shares these weaknesses:

Man does not exist by the sole parameter of material wealth. Having material wealth, even if earned through work, does not bring about human happiness. It actually reduces man to the status of "human resource" focused on profitability. This contradicts both the fundamental nature of man and his dignity as a human person.

A good society cannot be centered on economic principle. When the lives of human beings are involved, life and death must must be more than a simple calculus of supply and demand. As with Marxian socialism, free-market capitalism is too simplistic in that it reduces all human relations to a basis of economics, and in so doing does not reflect the basic nature of man as a person -- a being of intrinsic value regardless of his or her economic potential, and a being that cannot exist except as an integral part of a community of persons.

By turning human beings into human resources, pure capitalism separates man from his special status as a being unique, sacred, and created in the Image of God; by turning every man into a competitor of every other man, it also disrupts the social character of human life; and, by the practice of work for wages, it alienates him from his own labor. For these and other reasons, purely capitalist economic approaches are doomed to fail in the long run; as with socialism, capitalism's materialistic and utilitarian basis is a foundation of sand. Only those social and economic systems founded upon the Rock of a genuinely Judeo-Christian culture and family-centered social and economic order can truthfully be called moral and viable over the long term.

[ModelBreaker]

Maybe it was the realisation that, despite a genuine passion for egalitarianism, I didn't have the faintest idea how economies actually worked. The crux of my case had always been terribly limited. "Bad capitalism," I'd say. "Vile, nasty, unforgivably inequitable capitalism."

That's actually pretty sophisticated for a leftist.

[KayEyeDoubleDee]

What brings happiness is a feeling of control over one's own destiny. Capitalism celebrates that. Marxism seeks to destroy it.

At first I thought to myself, well, now that's a nice pithy truism. But, sadly, I think that there are too many people that are not happy when they are in control. They'd rather sit around and collect a welfare check.

[supercat]

At first I thought to myself, well, now that's a nice pithy truism. But, sadly, I think that there are too many people that are not happy when they are in control. They'd rather sit around and collect a welfare check.

And are those people happy just sitting around collecting their checks?