Send a Tweet
Most Popular Choices
Share on Facebook 14 Share on Twitter Printer Friendly Page More Sharing
OpEdNews Op Eds    H4'ed 5/30/19

Marx Still Prevents the Progress of Society

By       (Page 1 of 2 pages)     (# of views)   5 comments
Author 513600
Follow Me on Twitter     Message Aleksandar Sarovic
Become a Fan
- Advertisement -

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



(Image by ROBERT DARBY)   Details   DMCA
- Advertisement -

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

Marx strongly contributed to the scientific understanding of capitalism. He stated that capitalists profit from the production, while their workers only receive a fraction of the capitalist's profit as wages. Capitalists exploit workers by paying them low earnings. Marx was right about this. He believed that exploitation of workers might be eliminated through socialist revolution only. Marx was wrong here because a violent revolution cannot better society. Although a revolution may replace a certain social injustice, it has always been replaced with a new kind. To ensure the lasting effect of revolutions, new leadership are generally autocratic, and therefore spread alienation throughout society with all the unfavourable dictatorial phenomena that are well-known throughout history. Revolutions have never contributed to the improvement of society as it was desired by people. Marx did not have enough data to be able to build his vision of socialism scientifically. As a result, his vision of socialism failed.

- Advertisement -

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

The rise in workers' salaries in the fair market can be proved. In the 14th century, the Black Death killed one-third of the European population, which suddenly increased demand for workers. The shortage of workers increased the workers' wages. At Cuxham (Oxfordshire, England), a plowman demanded from his Lord a payment 3.3 times greater in 1350 than in the previous year (The Economic Impact of the Black Death, Economic History Association). "In Parliament, in 1351 the Commons petitioned Edward III for a more resolute and effective response. They complained that "servants completely disregard the said ordinance in the interests of their ease and greed and that they withhold their services to great men and others unless they have liveries and wages twice or three times as great as [prior to the plague] to the serious damage of the great men and impoverishment of all members of the said commons" (Michael Bennett, Australian Journal of Law and Society, 1995, The Impact of the Black Death on English Legal History , Page 197).

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

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

***

- Advertisement -

Marx thought that the market economy caused the exploitation of workers, so he proposed the elimination of the market economy by a centrally planned economy. Marx knew that the elimination of market economy removes the indicators of economic efficiency so he called for worker conscience to replace it. It revealed a consistency problem of Marx's philosophy. Human conscience belongs to idealism and it was never able to improve society because it was never accepted on the social level. The planned economy was supposed to produce goods and services in quality and quantity to satisfy people's needs. But the leaders have never learned how to gather people's needs, so they decided it for them. Such economy alienates itself from the people. The socialist economy also deteriorates because revolutions replace experienced entrepreneurs with inexperienced theorists. The socialist ideology overprotects workers while also taking their freedom, which does not stimulate them to work enough. The planned economy is not able to make the balance between production and consumption, leaving people unsatisfied. As a result, the Marxist's economy failed to satisfy people's needs sufficiently.

The planned economy was tried in the USSR and China. It has significantly reduced material exploitation of workers that exists in capitalist countries but also, it decreased the efficiency of the economy. The economy in the USSR and China had much lower productivity than capitalist economies. The USSR collapsed due to the inefficiency of the planned economy. Thus, Marxism failed. China has learned on their own mistakes, abandoned the planned economy in 1980, and accepted the regulated market economy. From that moment it has become the fastest growing economy in the world, threatening to take the number one place soon. This explains everything about the Marxist economy.

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

Next Page  1  |  2

 

- Advertisement -

Rate It | View Ratings

Aleksandar Sarovic Social Media Pages: Facebook Page       Twitter Page       Linked In Page       Instagram page url on login Profile not filled in

Aleksandar Sarovic is an architect and philosopher who has worked on how to create a good society. According to him, equal human rights will unconditionally do it. The result of his work is presented at his web sites www.sarovic.com and (more...)
 

Go To Commenting
The views expressed herein are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.
Follow Me on Twitter     Writers Guidelines
Contact AuthorContact Author Contact EditorContact Editor Author PageView Authors' Articles
Support OpEdNews

OpEdNews depends upon can't survive without your help.

If you value this article and the work of OpEdNews, please either Donate or Purchase a premium membership.

STAY IN THE KNOW
If you've enjoyed this, sign up for our daily or weekly newsletter to get lots of great progressive content.
Daily Weekly     OpEdNews Newsletter
Name
Email
   (Opens new browser window)
 

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

The Conspiracy of the World Exposed

Let's remove unemployment

The Future of Democracy

Marx Still Prevents the Progress of Society

Sadomasochism Finally Explained

Comments

The time limit for entering new comments on this article has expired.

This limit can be removed. Our paid membership program is designed to give you many benefits, such as removing this time limit. To learn more, please click here.

2 people are discussing this page, with 5 comments


David Pear

Become a Fan

(Member since Nov 29, 2014), 46 fans, 73 articles, 312 quicklinks, 3313 comments
Facebook page url on login Profile not filled in Twitter page url on login Profile not filled in Linkedin page url on login Profile not filled in Instagram page url on login Profile not filled in


Add this Page to Facebook! Submit to Twitter Share on LinkedIn Submit to Reddit


  New Content

The economic efficiency of markets is way overrated. Central planning is way underrated.

If markets were so efficient there would be no need for advertising as propaganda. The only advertising that would be necessary would be for information purposes only.

Advertising exists as propaganda because of overproduction, which is a major inefficiency of markets. Advertising is used to create "wants" and mass consumption, which are not "needs". Advertising encourages immediate gratification of "wants", at the expense of other "needs". Markets create externalities which producers profit from, while others bear the price. Markets encourage the exploitation of workers in order to produce at a competitive advantage. Markets create monopolies, concentration of wealth and corruption of democracy. (I could go on, but you get the idea).

Central planning is an essential ingredient of corporations. Many corporation are now many times the size of England during Adam Smith's time. Many corporation today have revenues far in excess of the GDP of some countries. Yet, corporation rely on central planning. Decisions are made at the top by committees or individuals who are far removed from the "wants" and "needs" of consumers. Corporate central planners at the top decide what the "wants" of the consumers are desired and then use advertising to create those wants.

Anyone who has ever worked for a corporation will attest to what I am saying, as will frustrated consumers whose wants and needs are not provided for by the market.

All "ism's" are badly flawed. Ism's are like religion and demand faith instead of facts. No "ism" exists in its pure form. Intelligent, informed and reasonable people take from "ism's" what works and leaves the rest in the dustbin.

Submitted on Thursday, May 30, 2019 at 5:23:35 PM

Author 0
Add New Comment
Share Comment
Reply To This   Recommend  (1+)
Help
 
Indent

Aleksandar Sarovic

Become a Fan
Author 513600
Follow Me on Twitter
(Member since May 24, 2019), 2 articles, 6 comments
Not paid member although Facebook page url on login Profile is filled in Not paid member although Twitter page url on login Profile is filled in Not paid member although Linkedin page url on login Profile is filled in Not paid member although Instagram page url on login Profile is filled in


Add this Page to Facebook! Submit to Twitter Share on LinkedIn Submit to Reddit


Reply to David Pear:   New Content

I can agree with you about the overproduction we have today but it is not the only measurement of productivity. We may reduce production but still increase the productivity of work by producing a better quality of products or by producing faster which means cheaper. We may increase the productivity of work forever and lower the production of goods.


One day every person will democratically participate in the planning of the community. I have defined it in the article "The Future of Democracy" which I plan to post here soon. I can do it today but I feel that too many new ideas may confuse people.


In this article, I have explained that exploitation does NOT come from the market but from unemployment. Reducing work hours will increase the demand for workers and worker salaries. It will eliminate exploitation. I gave an example proven in the 14th century; reducing work to 5 hours per day would increase worker salaries 30-90% per day.

Submitted on Thursday, May 30, 2019 at 7:25:04 PM

Author 0
Add New Comment
Share Comment
Reply To This   Recommend  (1+)
Help
 
IndentIndent

David Pear

Become a Fan

(Member since Nov 29, 2014), 46 fans, 73 articles, 312 quicklinks, 3313 comments
Facebook page url on login Profile not filled in Twitter page url on login Profile not filled in Linkedin page url on login Profile not filled in Instagram page url on login Profile not filled in


Add this Page to Facebook! Submit to Twitter Share on LinkedIn Submit to Reddit


Reply to Aleksandar Sarovic:   New Content

I suppose you are familiar with John Kenneth Galbraith, and his famous (but forgotten) book The Affluent Society. I agree with almost everything he said in that book. It is too bad he went out of style. It sounds as if you are trying to restore some of his ideas. If so, it is very commendable.

Submitted on Thursday, May 30, 2019 at 7:47:55 PM

Author 0
Add New Comment
Share Comment
Reply To This   Recommend  (0+)
Help
 
IndentIndentIndent

David Pear

Become a Fan

(Member since Nov 29, 2014), 46 fans, 73 articles, 312 quicklinks, 3313 comments
Facebook page url on login Profile not filled in Twitter page url on login Profile not filled in Linkedin page url on login Profile not filled in Instagram page url on login Profile not filled in


Add this Page to Facebook! Submit to Twitter Share on LinkedIn Submit to Reddit


Reply to David Pear:   New Content

P.S. Here is an article I wrote several years ago, which explains a lot of what I referred to: NEOLIBERALISM: Austerity vs. The Affluent Society.

Submitted on Thursday, May 30, 2019 at 7:52:35 PM

Author 0
Add New Comment
Share Comment
Reply To This   Recommend  (0+)
Help
 
IndentIndentIndentIndent

Aleksandar Sarovic

Become a Fan
Author 513600
Follow Me on Twitter
(Member since May 24, 2019), 2 articles, 6 comments
Not paid member although Facebook page url on login Profile is filled in Not paid member although Twitter page url on login Profile is filled in Not paid member although Linkedin page url on login Profile is filled in Not paid member although Instagram page url on login Profile is filled in


Add this Page to Facebook! Submit to Twitter Share on LinkedIn Submit to Reddit


Reply to David Pear:   New Content

I agree with Galbright completely. However, I went further. I have found that equal human rights will build a bright future of humankind unconditionally. Nothing else is needed to create a bright future of humankind and nothing else can do it. This is my contribution to the betterment of humankind.

Submitted on Thursday, May 30, 2019 at 9:10:50 PM

Author 0
Add New Comment
Share Comment
Reply To This   Recommend  (0+)
Help
 

 
Want to post your own comment on this Article? Post Comment