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.

Comments

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

Statement re false allegations from Esther Baker

Statement by John Hemming
I am pleased that the Police have now made it clear that there has been a concerted effort to promote false criminal allegations against me and that the allegations had no substance whatsoever.
I would like to thank Emily Cox, my children, Ayaz Iqbal (my Solicitor), my local lib dem team and many others who supported me through this dreadful experience. There are many worse things that happen to people, but this was a really bad experience.
It is bad enough to have false allegations made about yourself to the police, but to have a concerted campaign involving your political opponents and many others in public creates an environment in which it is reasonable to be concerned about ill founded vigilante attacks on your family and yourself. Luckily there was a more substantial lobby to the contrary as well, which included many people who were themselves real survivors of abuse, which has helped.
I am normally someone who helps other people fight injustice. …

Homelessness vs Selling Books

Candidates in elections tend to find themselves very busy with lots of things to do.  It is, therefore, necessary to prioritise things to ensure that the important things are dealt with.

To me the issue of homelessness and rough sleeping is an important issue.  Therefore, when Birmingham's Faith Leaders group contacted me to ask me what I would propose and whether I would work with them to make things better I was pleased to respond with my views and indicate that I would work with them after the election.

The Faith Leaders Group (Bishops and other religious leaders in Birmingham) have now sent out their report.

Sadly, according to their report,  I was the only candidate for Yardley to respond.  The group in their report said:

"Particularly disappointing was the lack of response from some of those candidates seeking re-election as MP for their respective constituencies."
It is worth looking at the priorities of my opponent.
Interestingly today she has decided to be at th…

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…