Skip to main content

Why Marxism is wrong (Dialectical Materialism and the theory of Surplus Value)

It is, admittedly, unusual to have a proper Marxist as the Shadow Chancellor standing for election.  However, as we now have one I think it is right to explain the basic problems with Marxism.

There are two key components of Marxist theory: Dialectical Materialism and the theory of Surplus Value.

Dialectical Materialism analyses progress into the concept of there being a Thesis, an Antithesis and consequentially a Synthesis.   The idea is that the conflict between the thesis and antithesis results in the synthesis.

This is essentially an overly simplistic model of society which really does not create any intellectual value.  It encourages the concept of conflict which may be emotionally attractive to some people, but in fact is not normally mass conflict that creates progress. Challenges from competition and the desire to improve things is the main driver for progress. That happens best without mass conflict.

The second part is the theory of Surplus Value
Using the quotation from wikipedia: "According to Marx's theory, surplus value is equal to the new value created by workers in excess of their own labor-cost, which is appropriated by the capitalist as profit when products are sold."
The problem is that this model makes a number of assumptions that fail in the real world. I will happily give examples if anyone asks me to, but the theory in itself is so absurd that I really should not need to. If you want some examples post a comment asking for examples.

Marxist Threat
The threat of Marxism and the risk to ordinary people is that it is used to justify the idea that the state should control all economic activity. Obviously the state has a role in regulating economic activity and there are functions that have to be managed by the state (police, armed forces etc). However, politicians are not that good at running things. Hence state run economies fail the ordinary citizen. A more Liberal Democratic form of system which allows people to establish business is better. People pay taxes, but they don't have everything taken by the state. This is why the Liberal Democratic countries are the ones that people have wanted to go to. When there was the Iron Curtain people wanted to escape communism.

My personal view, which I think is a Liberal view, is that if people want to live in a communist country they should go to one and then they can make each others lives a misery whilst they leave us to get on with our lives.


Tim G said…
Challenges from competition unfortunately result in a desire to improve things only really to the effect that the improvement creates personal profit . Not always "improving" the world or society

So many examples . Health care and public transport being 2
John Hemming said…
So is health care or transport today worse than it was say 50 years ago?

Popular posts from this blog

Millionaires and politics

The Labour Party spent most of the last election criticising me for being a successful businessman (aka millionaire). That is business in the private sector employing over 250 people. It is worth looking at the situation for the Labour Candidate now:

For the year 2016-7 Annual Income from Parliament74,962Specifically for her book51,250Other media income etc5,322.82Total declared income131,534.82

Traditionally anyone with an annual income of over £100,000 has been considered to be a millionaire. I did not use my position in parliament to increase my income.

I have been asked for sources for this. This BBC piece looks at how one should define rich. It was written in 2011 so the figures will be slightly out of date. There are perhaps 2 relevant pieces:
"In 1880 a rich person would have had £100,000 in assets or an income of £10,000 a year, he says. About a hundred people a year died leaving £100,000 and by 1910 this was 250 - "a microscopic fraction of the number of death…

Gender Issues comparison of candidates

John Hemming believes that an MP should represent everyone in their constituency.  This should be regardless of their race, religion, gender, abledness, sexual orientation or anything else.  It should be everyone.

When he was an MP he worked on issues relating to men, those relating to women and those relating to non-binary people. Everyone.

For example here is John Hemming on a demonstration outside the courts with the campaign group Women Against Rape (it related to the case of a mother who had her child removed from her because the mother was raped).

Jess Phillips, who campaigns on women's issues, notwithstanding the questions asked about her appointments in her parliamentary office, had the following response when asked for a debate on issues specifically relating to men:

The Labour Candidate's Book Promotion Tour and Why It Matters

In the 2015 General Election the Labour Candidate criticised John Hemming for having an external interest and made a pledge that she would be a "Full Time MP for Yardley and my only other job will be mom & carer ...".  Here is a copy of that pledge:

Since that point she has been working on paid Television Programmes and has also written a book. John Hemming has made no secret of the fact that he chairs the board of the company he founded in 1983. This involves one meeting a month. When he was the MP for Yardley he was a full time MP and the Job of being MP for Yardley came first. The Labour candidate has reported 1,274 hours of work other than being an MP in the two years she has been elected and her income in the last year was over £131,000.

Ignoring the question as to how she reconciles that with her "pledge" the question is raised as to what extent her external activity conflicts with the role of Member of Parliament for Yardley. She is supposed to de…