Communism in its elemental form is as proposed by Marx in his book Das Capital -A critique of political economy. It is in this corner stone that we need to find the flaws. It is in this root where the real decay lies. Communism poses to the visible eye many a glaring inadequacies but I would like to rather point out the flaws in the base philosophy itself.
Commodities ~ the problem of valuation
One of the basic problems that Marx encountered was how to assign value to commodities in a socialistic economic system. A non existent issue in a free market or Laizze faire Capitalistic model where in market determines the exchange value of commodity. In Marxist economic model however these exchange value had to be fixed for him to proceed with his economic theory. Even though Mark admitted variance of quality and type of labour made a grave error of assigning every commodity value in labour rather than demand and supply. I quote “For simplicity sake we shall hence forth account every kind of labour to be unskilled, simple labour; by this we do no more than save ourselves the trouble of making reductions” Economics needs mathematical precision his deduction to start with flawed theory. The fact being that society or state as an institution cannot determine the value of any commodity, especially so on the basis of labour. An accomplished painter may make a master piece in an hour’s time, and may end up painting a not so appealing painting after days of effort. What must be then the criterion that determines the prize of his paintings? In free market the demand shall determine the prize; the one that is more appealing shall fetch more. While as per Marxism the one that has taken more time and effort is automatically the costlier one. If we see any socialist set up the state tends to regulate the market. It is not what is demanded that is produced but what state deems as needed. They may end up producing guns and tanks when they needed to produce wheat
Wages and Labour problem
The first and foremost allegation against a free market from the socialist would be that who will ensure that labour gets the right wage. They will be underpaid and exploited by the capitalist if state does not regulate these issues. The fact being free market has no concept of exploitation. It was a feudalistic concept of bonded labour and slavery which were in prevalence when industrial revolution and capitalism came about. These concepts got tagged on and people still quote of exploitation while it is so visible that all capitalist countries have higher wages and living standards. Even in India no PSU or government organisation is paying its workers / labourers the way private institutions do. It however would be wrong that free market means higher pay. The market determines the prize be simple equations of supply and demand, if a labour is available at Rs 5/- then so shall it would get. There is no altruistic benevolence in these issues as socialist propose. What automatically happens is that such labour if not lucrative enough would soon start waning. It will automatically raise the demand and bring the equation to equilibrium. Communism instead fix the cost of the labour irrespective of the commodity being produced, even if the commodity is not in demand or the organisation is incurring loss the labour will still draw the same wage. Such an institution simply proliferates mediocrity and rots the economy.
Competition and quality
Instead of dwelling into the quality of commodities I would rather take the labour itself as a commodity. In a socialist economic model there exists no competition whatsoever. All men are equal and can produce equal, there is no scale that can differentiate two men and their work. They will be paid just the same for a type of work. Pay scale is fixed for a particular grade the years he has to put in before he gets promoted or gets an increment. The competition is literally nonexistent in the communist model. Capitalistic model is simply the way nature is, it works on one simple principle of survival of the fittest. Competition is an essential element of nature’s design, without it we could have never evolved and reached so far. Nature never made men equal…even if she did in some odd ways she wanted men to find where they differ and exploit their respective strengths in their struggle for existence. Assumption of all men being equal is thus the most essential flaw in socialist model.
Communism and Altruism
It is assumed more often than not that a socialistic model whether political or economical is more altruistically inclined and keeps in mind the interest and welfare of the downtrodden and the weak. Even though Das capital is more of an economic philosophy with almost negligible dwelling into any kind of socialistic altruism, its followers were able to move masses and bring about revolutions harping on these obscure aspects of the philosophy. I believe such agendas can only be political and not economical as no sane economist would ever suggest a model in which a large chunk of unproductive population is feeding on the hard work of a comparatively small work force. Such attempts of benevolence on the part of state have more often than not led to severe abuse of resources and worst, corruption in the part of the administration and state.
Disclaimer...
I must admit as I conclude that I am yet to read Das capital in complete depth my limited knowledge of economics has been a cause of hindrance in me doing so. I have however read the portion that are more theoretical in nature and found these fundamental flaws. The article has no bearing on my political inclination...It is but just one of the countless reflections of my philosophical odyssey
Commodities ~ the problem of valuation
One of the basic problems that Marx encountered was how to assign value to commodities in a socialistic economic system. A non existent issue in a free market or Laizze faire Capitalistic model where in market determines the exchange value of commodity. In Marxist economic model however these exchange value had to be fixed for him to proceed with his economic theory. Even though Mark admitted variance of quality and type of labour made a grave error of assigning every commodity value in labour rather than demand and supply. I quote “For simplicity sake we shall hence forth account every kind of labour to be unskilled, simple labour; by this we do no more than save ourselves the trouble of making reductions” Economics needs mathematical precision his deduction to start with flawed theory. The fact being that society or state as an institution cannot determine the value of any commodity, especially so on the basis of labour. An accomplished painter may make a master piece in an hour’s time, and may end up painting a not so appealing painting after days of effort. What must be then the criterion that determines the prize of his paintings? In free market the demand shall determine the prize; the one that is more appealing shall fetch more. While as per Marxism the one that has taken more time and effort is automatically the costlier one. If we see any socialist set up the state tends to regulate the market. It is not what is demanded that is produced but what state deems as needed. They may end up producing guns and tanks when they needed to produce wheat
Wages and Labour problem
The first and foremost allegation against a free market from the socialist would be that who will ensure that labour gets the right wage. They will be underpaid and exploited by the capitalist if state does not regulate these issues. The fact being free market has no concept of exploitation. It was a feudalistic concept of bonded labour and slavery which were in prevalence when industrial revolution and capitalism came about. These concepts got tagged on and people still quote of exploitation while it is so visible that all capitalist countries have higher wages and living standards. Even in India no PSU or government organisation is paying its workers / labourers the way private institutions do. It however would be wrong that free market means higher pay. The market determines the prize be simple equations of supply and demand, if a labour is available at Rs 5/- then so shall it would get. There is no altruistic benevolence in these issues as socialist propose. What automatically happens is that such labour if not lucrative enough would soon start waning. It will automatically raise the demand and bring the equation to equilibrium. Communism instead fix the cost of the labour irrespective of the commodity being produced, even if the commodity is not in demand or the organisation is incurring loss the labour will still draw the same wage. Such an institution simply proliferates mediocrity and rots the economy.
Competition and quality
Instead of dwelling into the quality of commodities I would rather take the labour itself as a commodity. In a socialist economic model there exists no competition whatsoever. All men are equal and can produce equal, there is no scale that can differentiate two men and their work. They will be paid just the same for a type of work. Pay scale is fixed for a particular grade the years he has to put in before he gets promoted or gets an increment. The competition is literally nonexistent in the communist model. Capitalistic model is simply the way nature is, it works on one simple principle of survival of the fittest. Competition is an essential element of nature’s design, without it we could have never evolved and reached so far. Nature never made men equal…even if she did in some odd ways she wanted men to find where they differ and exploit their respective strengths in their struggle for existence. Assumption of all men being equal is thus the most essential flaw in socialist model.
Communism and Altruism
It is assumed more often than not that a socialistic model whether political or economical is more altruistically inclined and keeps in mind the interest and welfare of the downtrodden and the weak. Even though Das capital is more of an economic philosophy with almost negligible dwelling into any kind of socialistic altruism, its followers were able to move masses and bring about revolutions harping on these obscure aspects of the philosophy. I believe such agendas can only be political and not economical as no sane economist would ever suggest a model in which a large chunk of unproductive population is feeding on the hard work of a comparatively small work force. Such attempts of benevolence on the part of state have more often than not led to severe abuse of resources and worst, corruption in the part of the administration and state.
Disclaimer...
I must admit as I conclude that I am yet to read Das capital in complete depth my limited knowledge of economics has been a cause of hindrance in me doing so. I have however read the portion that are more theoretical in nature and found these fundamental flaws. The article has no bearing on my political inclination...It is but just one of the countless reflections of my philosophical odyssey
No comments:
Post a Comment