by Program-Think, a programmer, a hacker, a prisoner of the communist regime of China.
Introduction
This year (2018) marks the 200th anniversary of Marx's birth. The Chinese government is said to have organized numerous commemorative events, and the notorious CCTV even released a commemorative program called "Marx Was Right," attempting to further mislead the public.
As is my usual style, I naturally seized this opportunity to smear the propaganda harshly. Today, I've compiled a collection of classic works (primarily critical of Marxism-Leninism) and included my short commentary as an introduction.
Glossary
Marxism-Leninism
"Marxism-Leninism" refers to Marxism as further developed by Lenin. In many cases, "Marxism-Leninism" is also referred to as "Leninism."
I like to refer to Marx as the "first generation pope of communism" and Lenin as the "second generation"
Socialism
The term "socialism" is prone to ambiguity and misunderstanding, so it's worth defining it.
In the remainder of this article, unless otherwise specified, "socialism" refers to "socialism in a broad sense" — a general term for various schools of thought, including "Marxism-Leninism," "democratic socialism," and "social democracy".
This post is primarily aimed at "Marxism-Leninism"; other socialist schools besides Marxism-Leninism are not the focus of this critique.
Liberalism
The term "liberalism" is currently subject to much ambiguity and misunderstanding.
Both "classical liberalism" and "modern liberalism" claim to be "liberalism", but they are actually completely different. Therefore, I will avoid referring to the term directly in this article.
(Brief) Introduction to Reasoning Chain of Marxism-Leninism
Before I begin my critique, it's necessary to briefly outline the Marxist-Leninist theoretical system to give everyone a preliminary understanding.
This theoretical system is based on a hierarchical structure. I'll introduce it from the bottom up.
Labor value
The most fundamental principle of Marx's theoretical system is the "labor theory of value."
Many Marxist-Leninist believers believe this was Marx's original creation, but it wasn't. Marx simply borrowed David Ricardo's "labor theory of value." While Marx added some subtle details, the two are essentially the same.
The core idea of the Marxist "labor theory of value" is that commodities contain an objectively existing "inherent value," and this value is determined solely by "labor."
Surplus value
Marx derived the theory of surplus value from the labor theory of value.
Many netizens unfamiliar with Marx's theory confuse the two, but they are actually two separate theories.
Exploitation
Marx believed that the surplus value created in the production process was appropriated by capitalists without compensation.
This is the core idea of Marx's theory of exploitation.
Social class & class struggle
Class theory is crucial to Marxism-Leninism. Marx distinguished between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat based on whether or not they owned the means of production. He also believed that the relationship between these two classes was incompatible, a life-or-death struggle. Furthermore, the struggle between the two would only intensify.
Collapse of capitalism
Marx believed that as productivity continues to rise, the rate of profit will inevitably continue to decline.
Based on this "continuously declining rate of profit," Marx further deduced that because the rate of profit falls, capitalists are forced to exploit workers more harshly (for example, by extending working hours and lowering wages), and thus the contradiction between capital and labor will continue to worsen. When the rate of profit approaches zero, workers will be exploited to the point of destitution, and at this point, a general crisis of capitalism will erupt.
(In a later section of this article, I will refute Marx's reasoning in detail.)
Public ownership of the means of production
This is deduced from the "theory of exploitation."
(Marx believed) capitalists can exploit workers because they appropriate the means of production. To eliminate exploitation, all means of production must be brought into public ownership.
Centrally planned economy
The term "centrally planned economy" is sometimes also called a "planned economy." However, I think the former is more accurate.
What is a "centrally planned economy"? In layman's terms, it's the use of "economic planning" instead of "market" as a method of resource allocation.
Some "centrally planned economies" rely entirely on the market, while others partially do.
Dictatorship of the proletariat
Marxist-Leninist theory holds that due to the existence of "class struggle," the proletariat must establish "proletarian dictatorship" after it comes to power. This is done in order to achieve the goal of "eliminating all classes" and ultimately developing into a "classless society."
Historical materialism (historical determinism)
"Historical materialism" or "historical materialism" is the official term used by the Communist regime; a more accurate term would be "historical determinism."
In short, this is a "philosophy of history" developed by Marx, intended to deceive people into believing that human society's development will inevitably progress through several stages, ultimately leading to a "communist society."
After this article was published, some Marxists attempted to argue that "historical materialism" does not constitute "determinism."
I suggest that these students first understand the relevant concepts of the term "determinism" (which has a specific philosophical definition). Based on Marx's many public writings and statements (including his correspondence), some of his theories clearly fall within the category of "determinism"! (During the debate in the comments section of this article, I quoted some of Marx's statements from his writings and letters.)
Summary
Because the theoretical system of Marxism-Leninism is constructed based on a hierarchical structure—if a particular theory is refuted, all other theories built upon it are automatically refuted as well.
In other words, I only need to refute the most fundamental aspects of Marx's theoretical system to dismantle the entire edifice he constructed. However, as I stated in the subtitle of this blog post, the goal is a comprehensive critique. Therefore, in the subsequent chapters of this article, I will refute not only the most fundamental aspects of Marx's theoretical system, but also every aspect of it.
Comments on Capital by Marx
After briefly describing Marx’s theoretical system, I would like to share some comments from academic giants on Marx or Capital, so that everyone can get a preliminary overall impression.
John Maynard Keynes
I won't go into detail about Keynes's fame. Simply put, he was a leading figure among 20th-century economists.
I've shared the book "Masters of Economics" on my network drive, which includes a chapter devoted to Marx. Unfortunately, that chapter has been completely omitted from the Chinese edition. As for why it was omitted, you know the reason.
This chapter contains numerous comments on Marx and Capital. It mentions someone recommending Capital to Keynes, who then mocked him. Since the Chinese edition of the book is censored, I'm posting the original English version. I hope you'll understand.
(The following are Keynes's original comments. The Chinese explanations in parentheses are my annotations.)
My feelings about Das Kapital are the same as my feelings about the Koran.
I know that it is historically important and I know that many people, not all of whom are idiots, find it a sort of Rock of Ages and containing inspiration.
Yet when I look into it, it is to me inexplicable that it can have this effect. Its dreary, out of date, academic controversialising seems so extraordinarily unsuited for this purpose. But then, as I have said,
I feel just the same about the Koran. How could either of these books carry fire and sword round half the world? It beats me. Clearly there is some defect in my understanding.
Do you believe both Das Kapital and the Koran? Or only Das Kapital? But what ever sociological value of the latter?
I am sure that its contemporary economic value is nil.
Nobel Laureate Robert M. Solow
To avoid bias, I'd like to quote another economist, Robert Solow, who won the 1987 Nobel Prize in Economics. The New York Times published an article by him in March 1988 (link here), in which he commented on Marx.
Marx was an important and influential thinker, and Marxism has been a doctrine with intellectual and practical influence. The fact is, however, that most serious English-speaking economists regard Marxist economics as an irrelevant dead end.
The limitations of Marx’s Era
Why does the mainstream economics community have such a negative evaluation of Marx and his Capital? This has to do with the limitations of Marx's time. Please note that Marx lived from 1818 to 1883—a period so long ago that many theories in economics, sociology, politics, and systems science had not yet emerged or developed.
So, it's clear that Marx himself suffered from very serious limitations of his time. Many of Marx's followers fail to recognize (or acknowledge) these limitations, instead treating him as a sage or prophet who was ahead of his time. This is incredibly naive and ridiculous.
Below, I'll briefly list, in chronological order, some theories (primarily in the field of economics) that had not yet emerged or developed during Marx's lifetime.
Subjective Theory of Value – Measuring Value by “Utility”
The foundation of this theory was laid by Carl Menger's masterpiece, Principles of Political Economy (mentioned below).
Although Marx was still alive when this book was published in 1871, he apparently didn't know much about it. At the time, Carl Menger's influence was primarily confined to the University of Vienna—where his most important followers (Wieser, Böhm-Bawerk, Mises, and Hayek) all graduated.
Further development of the subjective theory of value occurred after Marx's death.
Marginal Utility Theory
In 1889, Friedrich von Wieser published his magnum opus, Natural Value, which introduced the concept of marginal utility for the first time.
This introduction directly triggered the "neoclassical revolution" in the development of economics. With the concept of marginal utility, the "subjective theory of value" based on utility was further developed, and Marx's "objective theory of value" (the labor theory of value) (inherited from David Ricardo) became increasingly inferior.
Interest Theory
Although several economists before Marx (including Marx himself) had attempted to explain the existence of "interest" through theories, these theories were clearly unreliable.
The first relatively reliable theory of interest came from Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk, in his three-volume masterpiece, Capital and Interest. The first volume was published in 1884 (just after Marx's death), and the second volume in 1889. (This book will be discussed in the following chapters.)
Monetary Theory
Marx's time lacked a mature monetary theory. The first relatively mature monetary theory was developed by Knut Wicksell (whom we will discuss in the following chapters) in 1898.
Game Theory
The first to introduce game theory into economics was the incredibly multidisciplinary figure John von Neumann. Not only is he known as the "Father of Computers," he was also a leading mathematician and theoretical physicist.
In 1944, von Neumann and Oskar Morgenstern co-authored "The Theory of Games and Economic Behavior." This lengthy treatise (1,200 pages) marked a landmark achievement for economics! He subsequently earned a new title: "Father of Modern Game Theory." (Had the Nobel Prize in Economics been established before his death, he would surely have won it.)
In addition to von Neumann, another renowned figure, John Nash, also made significant contributions to game theory. In his 1950 doctoral dissertation, he introduced the concept of "Nash equilibrium," for which he was awarded the 1994 Nobel Prize in Economics.
The introduction of game theory to economics has allowed it to better explain various concepts (e.g., price levels, wage levels, etc.). Considering the importance of game theory, I wrote "Introduction to Game Theory - From Basic Concepts to Specific Cases" in 2020 to help everyone deepen their understanding.
Transaction Cost Theory & Property Rights Theory
In 1937, Ronald Coase published his masterpiece, The Nature of the Firm, which introduced the concept of transaction costs. He later proposed the Coase Theorem and the theory of property rights, winning the Nobel Prize in Economics in 1991.
Marx viewed the firm as a pure tool of exploitation; Coase, on the other hand, argued that without the firm, the problem of transaction costs could not be solved (I will return to this book later in this article).
Following this masterpiece, Coase published his 1960 masterpiece, The Problem of Social Cost, which is considered his magnum opus. This paper established the theory of property rights. What is the relationship between this theory of property rights and Marxism-Leninism? I will explain this later when discussing public-owned enterprises.
(I have both of Coase's works on my network drive.)
Of course, the economic theories developed after Marx are far more than those listed above. For the sake of space, I will only list a few particularly representative ones. Below, I'll introduce some well-known works that criticize or refute Marxist-Leninist theory from different perspectives.
For each work, I'll list a subheading. This subheading includes the author's name and the title of the book. Clicking the link for the title will open a Google Docs page with the following information:
Cover Category (which folder on the network drive is located) Book Title (in Chinese and English) Publication Year of the Original and Translations Table of Contents About the Author About the Contents Related Wikipedia Links
I've shared the electronic versions of all the books featured in this article. You can find the download links in the "eBook List" below. https://github.com/programthink/books
Criticism of the Labor Theory of Value
Carl Menger: Principles of Economics
The author, Carl Menger, was an Austrian economist who founded the "Austrian School" and is sometimes respectfully referred to as the "Father of the Austrian School."
He taught at the University of Vienna in his early years and became the Chair of the Faculty of Economics in 1873 (at the age of 33). Many of his students and followers became prominent figures in economics, such as:
- Friedrich von Wieser (his colleague and profoundly influenced by him)
- Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk (his colleague and profoundly influenced by him)
- Knut Wicksell (his student)
- Joseph Schumpeter (his student)
- Ludwig von Mises (his student)
- Friedrich Hayek (his student)
- ...
Just looking at the list above, one cannot help but sigh—Menger truly had "master-level students all over the world." Despite his considerable prominence, he remains relatively unknown and few people know him.
This book, titled "Principles of Economics", is his representative work and was published in 1871 (when Menger was only 31 years old). Before Menger, the dominant theory in economics was the "theory of intrinsic value" (e.g., the labor theory of value of Adam Smith, David Ricardo, and Karl Marx). Marx, for example, believed that commodities possess an "intrinsic value" attribute, an objective attribute ("objective" meaning unaffected by human subjectivity). Therefore, the "theory of intrinsic value" can also be called the "objective theory of value."
In this magnum opus, Menger first linked the "value of a commodity" with the "satisfaction of desires." Although Menger never mentions the word "utility" in this book, he actually pioneered the theory of "utility value"—the "satisfaction of desires" mentioned in the book is simply another way of saying "utility."
Because "utility" is subjective (different people experience different utility from the same commodity), Menger is essentially the pioneer of the "subjective theory of value." Many of the theories of the "Austrian School" were later built on this foundation of "subjective value." Therefore, this book is also called "the unshakable cornerstone of the Austrian School of Economics." Mises's evaluation of it was: "The best introduction to the Austrian School of Economics."
After Marx, the influence of the "objective theory of value" (labor theory of value) was limited to the political sphere (especially in communist countries) and was unpopular in mainstream economics. However, the "subjective theory of value" continued to flourish in academic economics circles after Menger's death. This is not my own opinion. Below is a quote from the Wikipedia entry on "labor theory of value" (link here).
With the rise of marginal utility theory in the 1870s, mainstream economists preferred to use marginal utility, which focuses more on human psychological changes, to explain commodity price formation rather than abstract labor value. They also proposed that production depends on different factors of production, rather than labor alone. Consequently, mainstream Western economists considered the labor theory of value to be flawed, while Marxist economists insisted that it was correct.
Let me quote the book "Ten Great Economists: From Marx to Keynes" by the renowned economist Joseph Schumpeter (which I've also shared online), in which he points out the shortcomings of the "labor theory of value" and the advantages of the "utility theory."
Below are excerpts from his comments (from pages 22-23; bold is mine).
The fundamental question is not whether labor is the true "source" or "cause" of economic value. This question may be the primary concern of sociologists, who seek to derive ethical consequences from it, and Marx himself was certainly not indifferent to it. However, economics is an empirical science that seeks to describe and explain actual processes. It is perhaps more important to ask, "How does the labor theory of value function as an analytical tool?" The real difficulty lies in its poor performance.
First, it is inapplicable in situations where perfect competition is not present. Second, even under perfect competition, it cannot function effectively unless labor is the sole factor of production and can only take one form. If these two conditions are not met, additional assumptions must be introduced, which further complicates the analysis and makes the problem immediately intractable. Therefore, reasoning based on the labor theory of value is only feasible in very specific circumstances and therefore has no practical significance.
…
The theory that first replaced it, now somewhat outdated, was the marginal utility theory. It is generally considered superior in many areas. But its real advantage lies in its greater generality and applicability: on the one hand, it applies under conditions of monopoly and imperfect competition; on the other hand, it also applies when other factors and different types and natures of labor are present.
Frankly speaking, Schumpeter's criticism of the "labor theory of value" is not thorough enough. I quote his words for a deeper meaning.
If you read the first chapter of "Ten Great Economists: From Marx to Keynes" (the chapter on Marx), you will feel that Schumpeter still holds Marx in high regard. Even so, Schumpeter still mercilessly criticizes Marx's "labor theory of value" in the book. This precisely demonstrates that the "labor theory of value" has serious flaws! Moreover, Schumpeter's criticism will be more persuasive for readers who are inclined towards socialism—because Schumpeter himself is inclined towards socialism.
Friedrich von Wieser: The Value of Nature
Author Friedrich von Wieser was an early economist of the Austrian School of Economics. He taught at the Universities of Vienna and Prague throughout his life and was a colleague of Carl Menger.
This book, published in 1889, is his representative work. Its English title is "Natural Value." It explains in detail the concept of "opportunity cost" and, through it, establishes "imputation theory."
In layman's terms, "opportunity cost" is the benefit forgone from using a resource in a specific way. Another of Wieser's contributions is the concept of diminishing marginal utility—the idea that the utility of a commodity decreases as its quantity increases.
So, how do these concepts relate to Marx?
Marx believed that as the scale of production expands, marginal costs continue to decline. Therefore, capitalists tend to expand production without limit, leading to severe overproduction.
However, after the introduction of the concept of "opportunity cost," Because of the existence of "opportunity cost," "marginal cost" doesn't necessarily decrease as output expands. It may even increase after reaching a certain level.
You see, Marx made another mistake because he didn't understand "opportunity cost."
Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk: Karl Marx and the End of His System
The author, Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk, was also a member of the "Austrian School of Economics." He was a devoted follower of Carl Menger and a brother-in-law of Wieser.
Among the Austrian School, he was the first to directly criticize Marx, wielding the book "Karl Marx and the Close of His System" (also translated as "The Collapse of the Marxist System" or "Karl Marx and the Close of His System"). In this book, he raised the famous "Böhm-Bawerk Paradox"—pointing out the contradictions between Volumes 1 and 3 of Capital. Because of his critique of Capital, Chinese textbooks smeared him as a "vulgar economist."
In the previous chapter, Schumpeter's book "The Ten Great Economists" was mentioned, which included a chapter devoted to Böhm-Bawerk. Böhm-Bawerk's "The Close of Karl Marx and His System" was also mentioned, and he gave it a very high evaluation.
Let me reiterate that Schumpeter's book "The Ten Great Economists" contains many praises for Marx, which makes it even more convincing. In other words, even an economist like Schumpeter, who admired Marx, had to admit that Böhm-Bawerk had hit the nail on the head. The following quote is Schumpeter's own, from page 138 of The Ten Great Economists (the bold is mine).
Marx has countless critics and defenders—more than almost any other theorist. None of them is primarily interested in the scientific core of Marx's work, and they often retreat into issues that have nothing to do with this core—historical, political, philosophical, and so on—perhaps unqualified to critique the author and his work. This is precisely why Böhm-Bawerk's critique is so important—he gets to the heart of the matter, and only the heart. Every word and every line reflects the ingenuity of a master; the greatness of the critic can be measured by the greatness of the subject being criticized. This is why this critique occupies a prominent position in Böhm-Bawerk's oeuvre; this is why, on issues concerning the theoretical content of Marx's system, it can always be considered a critique of Marx.
Besides Schumpeter's praise, I'd also like to remind everyone:
This book has been published for over 100 years, and aside from a paper written by Rudolf Hilferding, a Marxist economist of Böhm-Bawerk's time, no other prominent Marxist economist has refuted it. And Hilferding's paper is actually weak and ineffective—it doesn't help Capital justify its own arguments.
This phenomenon once again suggests that Böhm-Bawerk likely hit the nail on the head with Capital.
Why does this chapter quote all the works of the Austrian School?
Unless you're completely oblivious, you'll undoubtedly have noticed that the three books corresponding to the first three sections (Principles of Political Economy, Natural Value, and Karl Marx and the End of His System) are all works of the Austrian School of Economics. Why?
Is it because I particularly favor this school? No, no, no! The reason I'm quoting Austrian economics throughout this section is because of a quote from Bukharin. Who was this Bukharin? Those unfamiliar with Soviet Communist Party history may not have heard of him, so let me briefly introduce him.
He was a key leader of the early Bolshevik Communist Party of the Soviet Union. He was deeply familiar with Marx's theoretical system and was designated by Lenin as a Soviet theorist. Even Lenin's own works (such as State and Revolution) were influenced by him. For more on his life, see "Bukharin and the Bolshevik Revolution: A Political Biography, 1888-1938."
Bukharin once said: "The Austrian School is the most formidable enemy of Marx's economic theory." His words are enough! Praise from one's enemies is often the best kind of praise. If even Soviet theorists admitted that the "Austrian School" was the strongest rival to Marx's economic theory, then this fully demonstrates that the Austrian School's theories posed a serious threat to Capital.
Why did I spend so much time talking about the "labor theory of value"?
In the opening chapters of this article, I've already outlined Marx's entire theoretical system:
His historical theory is based on his political and sociological theories;
His political and sociological theories are based on his economic theories;
His entire economic theory is ultimately based on the labor theory of value.
... For example, he derived "surplus value" from "labor value," then derived "theory of exploitation" from "surplus value," and then derived "class theory" from "theory of exploitation"... Therefore, once you understand that the "labor theory of value" is "wrong," Marx's entire theoretical system collapses.
If I wanted to be lazy, I could end this discussion with the "labor theory of value." However, in order to thoroughly refute Marxist-Leninist theory, this article will continue...
Criticism of the Theory of Surplus Value and the Theory of Exploitation
Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk: Capital and Interest
This author appears for the second time in this article, so I won't introduce him further to save some time.
This book, titled "Capital and Interest," is his representative work. It consists of three volumes, the first published in 1884, the second in 1889, and the third in 1921 (posthumously).
The first volume critiques historical interest theories (including a critique of Marx), while the second develops his own theory (called the "time-difference theory of interest").
A brief explanation of the "time-difference theory of interest":
Böhm-Bawerk believed that the value (here, "subjective value") of the same type and quantity of goods received now and in the future differs. This difference is reflected in interest. While Böhm-Bawerk's interest theory was not perfect, it pointed the way forward for the development of modern interest theory and had a significant impact on other areas of economics. The key to this theory lies in his introduction of the concept of time difference.
If you've studied finance and come across concepts like present value and discount rate, you should know that time difference is a key variable when calculating present value. (Those who don't understand finance at all can read this primer.)
Knut Wicksell: Interest and Prices
The author, Knut Wicksell, was a brilliant figure comparable to Carl Menger (both were equally impressive, though less famous, yet both founded their own schools of thought). Wicksell founded the "Swedish School" (also known as the "Stockholm School"). Incidentally, Wicksell had attended Menger's lectures at the University of Vienna, making him a direct disciple.
He holds a significant position in the history of economics—he was the first to combine "price theory" with "monetary theory." Hayek commented on him: "Thanks to this great Swedish economist, two schools of thought, which had remained separate until the end of the 19th century, were finally definitively integrated."
The book, titled "Interest and Prices," was published in 1898 and is considered his magnum opus. In it, he inherited and developed Böhm-Bawerk's "theory of time-dependent interest" and incorporated the equilibrium theory of another economist, Walras.
In this book, he introduced a crucial concept called the natural interest rate (a core concept in macroeconomics; its introduction on Wikipedia is here). What is the "natural interest rate"? Wicksell believed that the interest rate that balances the supply of capital with the demand for capital is the "natural interest rate." If the "real interest rate" is lower than the "natural interest rate," investment exceeds savings, aggregate demand exceeds aggregate supply, and the macroeconomy is in an expansionary state. Conversely, aggregate demand is lower than aggregate supply, and the macroeconomy is in a contractionary state.
summary
To avoid excessive length, I won't cover other works that criticize the "surplus value theory."
Below, I'll briefly highlight a few key points (note: the "surplus value theory" certainly has more than just these few flaws):
- Marx [ignored] the labor of capitalists
Marx and his followers often portray capitalists as someone who gets something for nothing. But capitalists actually have to do a lot of work.
Before starting a business, capitalists need to make many decisions (e.g., where to invest capital, how to operate the business, etc.), all of which require mental effort.
After starting a business, if capitalists participate in its management, this management work also requires mental effort. If they don't, they rely on "professional managers," and selecting these managers and evaluating their performance after selection also require mental effort.
- Marx [ignored] the element of risk
If these decisions go wrong, the capitalist could lose everything—this is the risk. Risk naturally comes with a reward. Rewards earned from taking risk cannot be considered exploitation.
- Marx's misunderstood "Interest"
Although Marx mentioned "interest" in Capital, his understanding was incorrect.
First, Marx failed to consider the time factor.
Although Böhm-Bawerk's theory of time-differential interest wasn't perfect, it was at least on the right track—he pointed out the time factor of capital. (As I've said before, anyone with even a passing understanding of finance knows that time is a crucial factor in finance.)
Second, Marx didn't understand the "natural rate of interest" (in his time, there was neither a macroeconomic system nor a theory related to the "natural rate of interest").
Therefore, he considered the "capital growth at the natural rate of interest" to be exploitative income. But it isn't! The capital growth at the natural rate of interest is the income earned by the capital holder and has nothing to do with exploitation.
To put it simply, you earn interest when you deposit money in a bank; in this process, you don't exploit anyone, yet your money grows.
Of course, this analogy is merely for the sake of simplicity. For a more detailed introduction to the concept of "natural interest rate," please see the following article: "Educating on the Basic Concepts of Monetary Economics: From "Interest Rate" to "Central Bank Monetary Policy""
Criticism of the Theory of Capitalist Collapse
I don't even need to cite any classics for this part. The facts alone demonstrate that Marx's predictions have completely failed (as everyone has seen, capitalist society has not collapsed).
Of course, some die-hard Marxists will argue that the time for collapse hasn't arrived yet. As soon as the time arrives, capitalist society will inevitably collapse (even in China, similar arguments persist in the 21st century).
To refute these die-hards, we need to begin with Capital and examine how Marx himself reasoned to conclude that capitalism is inevitable to collapse. Once you understand Marx's reasoning and the flaws in his reasoning, you'll no longer believe in the so-called "capitalist collapse theory."
Marx's key argument is that as productivity continues to rise, the rate of profit must continue to decline.
The entire reasoning is quite lengthy, so if you're interested, please read Capital, Volume 3, Chapter 3, entitled "The Law of the Tendency of the Rate of Profit to Fall." This "Part 3" further includes Chapters 13, 14, and 15 (for those who truly want to read, focus on Chapter 13).
Based on the "continuous decline in the rate of profit," Marx further deduced that because the rate of profit declines, capitalists are forced to exploit workers more harshly (for example, by extending working hours and lowering wages), leading to a continued exacerbation of labor-capital tensions. When the rate of profit approaches zero, workers will be exploited to the point of destitution, and at this point, a general crisis of capitalism will erupt.
Sadly, Marx was severely disproven. The facts have completely contradicted his predictions—as productivity continues to rise, workers' living standards continue to improve (compare 21st-century workers with 19th-century workers for disbelief), and their working hours continue to decline (for example, 19th-century workers did not enjoy a two-day weekend). Furthermore, the rate of profit has not "declined toward zero" as Marx predicted.
Instead, emerging high-tech industries enjoy extremely high profit rates. Microsoft in its heyday and Apple today boast profit margins far superior to those of 19th-century sweatshops. Even if we only look at traditional manufacturing, average industry profit margins haven't followed Marx's prediction (continuously declining toward zero).
I personally believe Marx actually got it the other way around. As productivity rises, profit margins don't decline; they actually rise (or at least remain roughly flat). If you're not convinced, compare different industries: the more high-tech (e.g., software, internet, pharmaceuticals), the higher the profit margins.
Why was Marx so wrong on this point? The key lies in the flawed foundation of his entire economic theory (the labor theory of value).
A Critique of Marx's Economic Methodology
Ludwig von Mises: Human Action: An Economic Treatise
The author, Ludwig von Mises, was a leading figure in the Austrian School of Economics and had a significant influence on Hayek of the same school. Mises' influence can be seen in many of Hayek's works and theories.
A brief digression:
Mises's achievements were long overlooked (or even rejected) by the academic community. This was partly due to his theories being too advanced, and partly due to his fiery personality—he was always blunt and unforgiving in his conversations, showing no regard for others' feelings. There are many anecdotes (and gossip) about his approach, but given the length of this article, I won't dwell on them.
Speaking of his advanced nature, he was probably the first economist to recognize the importance of game theory (in the early 20th century). Decades later, Morgenstern (I mentioned earlier), who co-authored the groundbreaking work "Theory of Games and Economic Behavior" with von Neumann, was a student of Mises.
(End of digression, back to the point.)
Human Action, also known as Human Action—A Treatise on Economics and translated into Chinese as The Economic Analysis of Human Action, was published in 1949 and is considered the "masterpiece" expounding the Austrian School of Liberalism. Many consider it Mises's most important work. At 950 pages, the book comprises 39 chapters divided into six parts, making it a truly monumental work.
In the book's preface, Mises wrote: "We must build upon the solid foundation of human action, or praxeology, the theory of catalactics." (Programmer's Note: Mises's "catallatics" refers to "market transactions.")
In his view, economics is only a subset of "human praxeology," and it is based on praxeology.
In the book, he also argued that economic theory can only be established through the methodology of subjectivism. If you understand that the Austrian School of Economics is based on Carl Menger's subjective theory of value, you can understand why Mises reached this conclusion.
So, what is the relationship between this work and Marx?
As I mentioned earlier, the cornerstone of Marx's entire economic theory is the "labor theory of value." Marx believed that "value" (intrinsic value) is an objective property inherent in commodities. From this, it can be seen that Marx's entire economic theoretical system is based on the methodology of objectivism.
In Mises' view, Marx's economic system is not only flawed in its theory, but also in its methodology for studying the theory.
Criticism of Class Theory
Peter Drucker: Postcapitalist Society
Since Marx, many scholars have criticized his class theory from various perspectives. However, these books are relatively old. Today, I'd like to introduce a relatively recent book by the renowned master Peter Drucker (also known as "Drucker"). He is revered as the "Father of Management," and the renowned magazine "The Economist" has called him the "Master of Masters."
This book, published in 1993 (relatively recent compared to many of the books mentioned in this article), is titled "Post-Capitalist Society."
The book primarily discusses the fundamental changes in the capitalist world caused by technological progress. Drucker makes the following points: "Post-capitalist society" is still "capitalist," but its social structure will differ significantly from previous periods.
The proportion of manufacturing workers is steadily declining (as is the influence of this group).
The key means of production is no longer "capital" or "natural resources," but "knowledge." Unlike laborers in pre-capitalist societies, knowledge workers in post-capitalist societies own both the means of production and the tools of production.
In pre-capitalist societies, capitalists knew how to use capital for production; in post-capitalist societies, knowledge workers know how to use knowledge for production.
Knowledge workers (those who perform purely intellectual labor) have become a sufficiently large and influential group (the middle class).
From Drucker's book, you can see that the distinctions between "bourgeoisie" and "proletariat" are outdated! According to Marx's criteria, it's difficult to categorize knowledge workers like today's knowledge workers (whether they are classified as bourgeois or proletarian is a stretch).
Even more embarrassing for Marxists is that more and more companies are adopting employee stock ownership incentive systems (for example, large IT companies like Microsoft and Google). These employees who receive stock ownership become both employees and owners of the company.
Regarding the "post-capitalist era," another problem Marxist theory struggles to explain is this:
Marx argued that capitalists control the means of production, leaving workers with no choice but to be employed by them and quietly exploited.
According to "Post-Capitalist Society," today's knowledge workers own both the means of production and the tools of production. So, why don't knowledge workers organize themselves? Why do they continue to be employed by capitalists? This is where Marxist-Leninist theory falters—it can't explain this problem.
However, a prominent economist has provided an answer: Ronald Coase, whose renowned work, The Nature of the Firm, is introduced below.
Ronald Coase: The Nature of the Firm
Author Ronald Coase was a key member of the Chicago School and winner of the 1991 Nobel Prize in Economics.
This is his 1937 paper, titled "The Nature of the Firm." It is considered his most famous work.
In it, Coase attempts to answer the question: Why do workers join firms and become employed by capitalists? Why don't these workers spontaneously organize themselves to engage in production?
After much argument, he concluded that without firms, the problem of transaction costs cannot be solved. So, what are "transaction costs"? Due to the length of this article, I won't explain them; I'll just link to Wikipedia (here).
So, what is the relationship between this book and Marxism-Leninism?
Marx believed that the firm in capitalist society is purely a tool of exploitation. Through this paper, you can understand that, regardless of exploitation, the firm is necessary! Only through the firm can the problem of transaction costs be solved. Seeing this, some Marxists might ask—since enterprises are indispensable, can public enterprises replace private enterprises?
I'll further comment on this topic in the section on public ownership below: Why are public enterprises unreliable?
Criticism of the Public Ownership of the Means of Production
Friedrich Hayek: The Road to Serfdom
If you're patient enough to read all the way to this point, you'll finally come across the name of Friedrich Hayek. He was a leading figure in the Austrian School of Economics and the 1974 Nobel Prize winner in Economics. In my article "How Was the Soviet Union Slowly Strangled? — On America's Containment Strategy During the Cold War," I mentioned that both President Reagan and Prime Minister Thatcher were greatly influenced by Hayek.
The book's English title is "The Road to Serfdom," written in 1943 and published in 1944.
It is undoubtedly Hayek's most influential work (bar none). Its influence was so great that it was a "selling-out sensation" when it was first published.
In criticizing "public ownership of the means of production," I'd like to quote Chapter 7 of this book, "Economic Control and Totalitarianism."
First, in the introduction to this chapter, Hayek quotes Hilaire Belloc's famous statement: "Control over the production of wealth is control over human life itself." Once a country implements "public ownership of the means of production," it means the government controls all means of production, and therefore every aspect of everyone's life. Think about that for a moment; this is terrifying!
Let me quote a few passages from Hayek's chapter:
In a competitive society, our freedom of choice is based on the fact that if one person refuses to satisfy our wishes, we can turn to another.
But if we face a monopolist, we will obey his orders. And one can imagine how powerful a monopolist the authority directing the entire economic system would be.
...
In a country where economic life is thoroughly regulated, even the formal recognition of individual rights or the equal rights of minorities loses all meaning. The experience of various Central European countries fully illustrates this point.
Milton Friedman: Capitalism and Freedom
Author Milton Friedman is a world-renowned economist and winner of the 1976 Nobel Prize in Economics. A leading figure in the second generation of the Chicago School, he revitalized the school and made it a key force in the fight against Keynesianism.
This book, titled "Capitalism and Freedom," compiles some of his critical essays.
I'd like to focus on Chapter 1, titled "The Relationship between Economic and Political Freedom." The author argues that "economic freedom" is a necessary but not sufficient condition for "political freedom." To put it simply, without economic freedom, there will be no political freedom; and with economic freedom, there will not necessarily be political freedom.
Ronald Coase: The Problem of Social Cost
Ronald Coase has already been introduced, so I won't waste time elaborating on him here.
This is his 1960 paper, considered his magnum opus, titled "The Problem of Social Cost."
The core idea of this paper was later summarized by George Stigler as the Coase Theorem (the Wikipedia page for this theorem is here).
There are many ways to express the Coase Theorem. Considering that most readers are not economics majors, I'll give a more general explanation:
When property rights are clear and transaction costs approach zero, any resource will eventually transfer (through transactions) to those who can maximize its value.
The Coase Theorem emphasizes the importance of property rights, and the problem with state-owned enterprises lies precisely in their unclear property rights. Although state-owned enterprises are nominally owned by the state, the state is an abstract concept. "The state acting as owner" is equivalent to the absence of an owner. The inevitable result is wasted resources and reduced efficiency.
I imagine some petty pinks will retort, "Don't the two oil giants (CNPC and Sinopec), as state-owned enterprises, make a lot of money?"
My response is: People who raise similar questions often confuse "efficiency" with "profit." These are two different concepts! Inefficient companies can still make a lot of money, provided they possess some kind of competitive barriers. The two oil giants represent a form of state monopoly—this is what I mean by "competitive barriers."
After all this talk about the drawbacks of "publicly owned enterprises," some students may still not understand. So let me quote another famous quote from Milton Friedman (the guy who wrote "Capitalism and Freedom"):
Spending your own money on your own business—emphasizing both economy and effectiveness.
Spending your own money on others' business—emphasizing economy, not effectiveness.
Spending others' money on your own business—not economy, but effectiveness.
Spending others' money on others' business—not economy, not effectiveness.
When leaders of state-owned enterprises (publicly owned enterprises) make decisions, which of the following do they tend to choose? I don't need to explain; everyone should understand, right?
Criticism of the Centrally Planned Economy
Ludwig von Mises: Economic Calculation in a Socialist State
As for the author, Mises, I've already introduced him, so I won't elaborate on him here.
In 1920, he published the paper "Economic Calculation in the Socialist Commonwealth," in which he first posed the "economic calculation problem," questioning the centrally planned economy of the Communist regime. That year, Russia's October Revolution had just ended, and the Soviet Union hadn't even been established yet, but Mises was already questioning central planning—another testament to his foresight.
In his paper, Mises argued that central planning inevitably undermines the market's price mechanism (complete central planning completely destroys the price mechanism, while partial central planning partially undermines it). With the price mechanism undermined, the bureaucrats responsible for economic planning are unable to calculate the efficient allocation of resources. This is the famous "economic calculation problem."
The "economic calculation problem" sparked a massive debate in academia: on one side, those supporting capitalism, and on the other, those supporting socialism. In response to Mises's criticism, some Marxist scholars argued that a complete set of equations could be constructed, incorporating information about all resources in society and all preferences (which became the parameters of the equations), and then solving them.
Hayek also joined the debate, countering that constructing such a system of equations would require too much information to be practical; even if such a system could be constructed, solving it would be difficult.
Because computer technology was not yet fully developed at the time, the debate over the system of equations was a drawn-out one.
In the 1980s, Soviet economist Alexander Nove pointed out that even if such a system of equations could be constructed, it would take millions of years using the best computers of the time.
Although Alexander Nove recognized the difficulty of the "economic calculation problem," I would argue that he was still naive (and still significantly underestimated the computational effort). Neither he nor those who had attempted to construct such a system of equations before him clearly understood chaos theory. Human society, however, is a typical chaotic system. (For more on "chaos," see the blog post "Political System and System Robustness"—A Study Based on Complexity Science.")
If you read the above blog post and understand what "chaos" means, you'll naturally understand that constructing such a system of equations is pointless.
Of course, the Communist government's economists won't admit defeat (at least not verbally), and they can always find various excuses to justify their claims. So, let's just rely on the facts.
After World War II, the Communist Party seized power in many countries and implemented centrally planned economies. What were the results? By the late 1980s, not a single country had successfully implemented a centrally planned economy! All centrally planned economies, without exception, ultimately faced severe economic shortages, scarcity of goods, and waste of resources.
Janos Kornai: The Economics of Shortage
Author János Kornai is a renowned Hungarian economist and a member of both the Hungarian Academy of Sciences and the Swedish Academy of Sciences.
He majored in philosophy as an undergraduate and then became an economist through self-study. He was expelled from the Communist Party in 1955 (for doubting communist beliefs). From the mid-1980s until his retirement, he taught at Harvard University. He excelled in critiquing and analyzing the centrally planned economies of Eastern European communist countries, becoming a leading academic authority on this subject.
The book, titled "Economics of Shortage," is his magnum opus and established his authority in the field.
The book argues that the shortages in Eastern European countries were not the fault of individual decision-makers, but rather a systemic problem. The author argues that "shortages" are a chronic disease endemic to socialist planned economies.
Friedrich Hayek: Individualism and Economic Order
I've already introduced the author, Hayek, so I won't waste time elaborating on him here.
The book's English title is "Individualism and Economic Order." Hayek devotes one-third of the book (the last three of nine chapters) to the "Socialist Calculation Problem." I've listed the three chapters below: Chapter 7: Socialist Calculation (I) - The Nature and History of the Problem Chapter 8: Socialist Calculation (II) - The Truth of the 1935 Debate Chapter 9: Socialist Calculation (III) - The "Solution" of Competition
Criticism of Utopia
The word "utopia" is often used to refer to a "perfect society or ideal state." In layman's terms, it means "paradise on earth."
In Marxist-Leninist theory, a utopian communist society is promised in the future. I often say that Marxism-Leninism is highly deceptive, and the "promise of utopia" is one of its deceptive qualities.
In this section, I recommend the "Anti-Utopia Trilogy." All three are novels, but each takes a different critical perspective.
After this article was published, some readers attempted to refute it by pointing out that "utopia" and "anti-utopia" are not the same concept.
Of course, I understand that these two concepts are different. Incidentally, the Chinese term "anti-utopia" has different meanings. It can be understood as either "anti-utopia" or "dystopia." To avoid this confusion, I will refer to the former as "critical utopia" and the latter as "anti-dystopia." Why do I recommend dystopian novels in the "Anti-Utopia" section? Here's a quote from the great 20th-century thinker Karl Popper (whom I'll return to in subsequent chapters):
The attempt to create heaven on earth invariably produces hell.
Understanding the horrors of dystopian societies can help some overzealous utopians calm down and sober up.
George Orwell: Nineteen Eighty-Four
George Orwell was a British left-wing writer, journalist, and social commentator. His real name was Eric Arthur Blair, and the familiar "George Orwell" was the pen name he adopted in 1933.
In his early years, he embraced Marxism-Leninism and served in the International Brigade during the Spanish Civil War. During the war, he encountered a major purge within the International Brigade (directed by Moscow). Many of his comrades were summarily executed, and he himself was labeled a Trotskyist, nearly losing his life. From then on, he began to reflect on his position and, through his writing, criticized Stalinist totalitarianism.
In "Why I Write," Orwell said:
The Spanish Civil War and the events of 1936-1937 changed the situation, and from then on, I knew where I stood.
Since 1936, every line of serious writing I have written has been, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and in favor of democratic socialism as I understand it.
The English title of "1984" is "Nineteen Eighty-Four." It is not only Orwell's masterpiece, but also the most influential political novel of the 20th century (bar none).
Before its publication, many European and American intellectuals harbored unrealistic fantasies about the Soviet Union—they mistakenly believed that the Soviet Union had created a completely new human society, a model for the future.
"1984" ruthlessly shattered these fantasies, allowing many to finally see the ugly face of the Soviet Union and the Communist Party of the Soviet Union.
(Incidentally,) not only European and American intellectuals, but also many intellectuals during the Republican era held similar fantasies about the Soviet Union. Even a master thinker like Hu Shi was deceived by the Soviet Union for over a decade. For more information on this topic, please see my blog post: "Facing the Communist Party: The Diverse Profiles of Republican Humanistic Masters."
Aldous Huxley: Brave New World
Aldous Huxley was a British writer who moved to the United States in the latter half of his life. He completed his debut novel at the age of 17 and wrote numerous works throughout his life (primarily novels and essays).
By the way, his grandfather was a renowned biologist known for his defense of the theory of evolution (the one nicknamed "Darwin's Bulldog").
Brave New World is his magnum opus and the second of his dystopian trilogy. Although both are dystopian novels, it differs somewhat from Nineteen Eighty-Four. While Nineteen Eighty-Four depicts a world of "oppression to death," this novel presents a world of "amusing ourselves to death."
After reading this novel, you might also want to check out Neil Postman's Amusing Ourselves to Death (I've shared the electronic version on my network drive).
Eugene Zamyatin: We
The author, Eugene Zamyatin, was once an Old Bolshevik in Russia. According to Wikipedia, he had been a member of the Communist Party at least before 1908 and was arrested several times for his revolutionary activities, including being exiled to Siberia. However, after the October Revolution, his stance began to turn anti-communist, and he began writing literary works satirizing the Soviet Communist Party.
Among his anti-communist works, the most famous is "We." The novel also has another Chinese title: "Anti-Utopia and Freedom."
Although the least well-known of the "Anti-Utopia Trilogy," this book was published first and significantly influenced the other two. Its lesser fame may be due to its significantly inferior literary techniques.
By the way, this novel also holds the honor of being the first literary work to be banned by the Glavlit regime. It was not published publicly in the Soviet Union until 1988. The Glavlit was a censorship agency established by Lenin. All books, newspapers, magazines, and films were required to be approved by the agency before publication. It can be said that the Glavlit pioneered censorship within the Communist regime.
Criticism of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat and Totalitarianism
According to Marxist-Leninist theory, after a successful violent revolution, the Communist Party must establish the "dictatorship of the proletariat." Sadly, most countries that have implemented the "dictatorship of the proletariat" have ultimately degenerated into totalitarian states.
Friedrich Hayek: The Road to Serfdom
I've already mentioned this book before, when discussing "public ownership." Now, I'd like to discuss it again.
In Chapter 2 of this book (titled "The Great Utopia"), Hayek repeatedly reminds readers that the Soviet and Nazi regimes share the same essence.
In this chapter, the author quotes Lenin's friend Max Eastman's assessment of Stalinism:
Stalinism is not better than fascism, but worse—more brutal, barbaric, unjust, immoral, anti-democratic, and hopeless.
It might better be called super-fascism.
In the same chapter, Hayek also quotes Drucker (the "father of management" mentioned earlier in this article):
The complete collapse of the belief that "freedom and equality can be achieved through Marxism" has forced Russia onto the same path that Germany has been following: a totalitarian, purely negative, non-economic, unfree, and unequal society.
This is equivalent to saying that communism and fascism are essentially the same. Hayek himself wrote:
Equally important is the intellectual history of many Nazi and Fascist leaders. Anyone who has observed the development of these movements in Italy or Germany has been deeply impressed by many of their leaders. Starting from Mussolini and going down (not excluding Laval and Quisling), these leaders all began as socialists and ultimately became Fascists or Nazis.
This was true of the leaders of the movement, and even more so of its followers at the lower levels. In Germany, a young Communist could easily become a Nazi, and vice versa. This was well known, especially to the propagandists of both parties.
… Of course, in Germany before 1933 and in Italy before 1922, Communists clashed more frequently with Nazis and Fascists than with other parties. They competed for supporters of the same type of ideas, and thus maintained a mutual hatred of heresy. But their practice revealed just how closely they were connected.
Milovan Djilas: The New Class: An Analysis of the Communism System
The author, Milovan Djilas, was once a high-ranking official in the Yugoslav Communist Party, rising to the position of Vice President. As a moderate within the party, he disagreed with Tito, the party's top leader, leading to his imprisonment, though fortunately, he survived.
This book, titled "The New Class: An Analysis of the Communist System," is his representative work.
The book argues that after the victory of the revolution, while the old ruling class is eliminated, the party ultimately transforms into a new one. This is the origin of the title, "The New Class."
Even more tragically, if you observe various communist regimes, you'll find that the ruling class formed by the party is often even more evil and brutal than the original ruling class.
Having written this far, I'd like to share a famous quote from former Russian President Boris Yeltsin:
Communist Party officials at all levels have their own hospitals, sanatoriums, office buildings comparable to imperial palaces, beautiful restaurants, specially prepared banquets, and comfortable transportation... The higher you climb the career ladder, the richer your enjoyment.
When you reach the pinnacle of the Party's power pyramid, you can enjoy everything in the world—and thus, you enter communism first.
By the way, Yeltsin himself was once a high-ranking official in the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. Later, during the dramatic changes in Eastern Europe, he became a key figure in overthrowing the Communist Party.
Karl Kautsky: Terrorism and Communism
Author Karl Kautsky was a German Social Democrat in his early years and later became a close friend of Engels. He compiled Marx's posthumous manuscripts and published Volume 4 of Capital (Programming Note: Capital published in China is usually a three-volume edition, not including Volume 4 compiled by Kautsky).
After Engels' death, Kautsky and Lenin had serious disagreements over Marx's theory. Kautsky accused Lenin of distorting Marx and engaging in terrorism, while Lenin accused him of dogmatism.
Kautsky was extremely familiar with Marx's works, a fact even Lenin, his sworn enemy, had to acknowledge. Lenin once commented on him:
Don't forget that Kautsky knew Marx's works almost by heart; judging by all of Kautsky's writings, he must have had many small drawers in his desk or head, neatly organizing everything Marx had written, making it extremely easy to quote. This book, titled "Terrorism and Communism" in English, was published in 1919 and can be considered a sequel to Kautsky's other work, "The Dictatorship of the Proletariat."
In this book, Kautsky contrasts Lenin's "dictatorship of the proletariat" with the Paris Commune following the French Revolution. He argues that Lenin's "dictatorship of the proletariat" was essentially "terrorism."
This book demonstrates at least one point: even Marx's followers could no longer tolerate the brutality of the Bolsheviks after they came to power.
Further Reading
Numerous works have exposed and criticized the Communist regime's authoritarianism. For the sake of length, I've selected only a few.
For others, please refer to the following e-book categories: [Politics / Political Theory / Communism] [Politics / Political Theory / Totalitarianism and Authoritarianism]
Criticism of Historical Materialism
Let me reiterate: "Historical Materialism" is the official term used by Marxists and the Communist regime. A more accurate term would be "historical fatalism" or "historical determinism."
As for why "historical materialism" is characterized as "determinism"? I've already explained this at the beginning of this article (when introducing Marx's theoretical system), so I won't repeat it here.
Karl Popper: The Poverty of Historicism
The author, Karl Popper, was a renowned 20th-century philosopher and thinker who made significant contributions to the philosophy of science (including the concept of falsifiability). Politically, he championed liberalism and advocated for an "open society."
The book's English title is "The Poverty of Historicism." Among various works criticizing historical determinism/historical fatalism, this one has been the most influential (bar none).
The book is based on a paper of the same name he completed in 1936. The paper wasn't first published in an academic journal (in three parts) until 1943-1944. It wasn't published as a separate book until the 1950s.
Nearly a decade passed between the initial publication of the paper and the publication of the separate book. During this time, Popper completed his logical proof against historicism. Therefore, when the book was officially published, he briefly outlined his logical proof in the preface. I have extracted this section separately below (the bold in the quotation is mine):
Since then, I have successfully refuted historicism: I have shown that, for purely logical reasons, we cannot predict the future course of history.
This argument is contained in a paper published in 1950, "Indeterminism in Classical and Quantum Physics". But I am no longer satisfied with this paper. A more satisfactory discussion of indeterminism is given in the chapter on indeterminism in the "Postscript: Twenty Years Later" to my "Logic of Scientific Discovery".
In order to make the reader aware of these recent results, I will briefly discuss my refutation of historicism here. My argument can be summarized in the following five theses:
(1) The course of human history is strongly influenced by the growth of human knowledge. (Even those who regard our ideas, including our scientific ideas, as by-products of some material development are forced to admit the correctness of this premise)
(2) It is impossible for us to predict the growth of our scientific knowledge in a rational or scientific way. (This statement can be logically justified by the reasons outlined below)
(3) Therefore, we cannot predict the future course of human history.
(4) This means that we must reject the possibility of a "theoretical history," that is, of a historical social science comparable to theoretical physics. No scientific theory of historical development can serve as a basis for predicting history.
(5) Therefore, the fundamental purpose of the historical determinist method is wrong; historical determinism cannot be established.
Of course, my argument does not refute the possibility of predicting society; on the contrary, it is entirely compatible with my argument that the method of predicting that certain developments will occur under certain conditions can be used to test social theories - economic theories, for example. My argument refutes the possibility of predicting historical developments simply by the fact that historical developments are inevitably affected by the growth of our knowledge. The decisive step in this argument is thesis (2). I find it convincing to say that if there is such a thing as the continuous growth of human knowledge, then we cannot know in advance today what we will know tomorrow. I think this inference is tenable, but it is not yet a logical proof of the thesis. The proof of (2) that I provided in the above paper is complex. I would not be surprised if a simpler proof were found. My proof consists in pointing out that no scientific forecaster—whether a scientist or a computer—can use scientific methods to predict the outcomes of its own future developments.
Criticism of Marxist-Leninist Sociological Methodology
"The Logic of Scientific Discovery and Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge" by Karl Popper
Karl Popper has been introduced before.
Both of his books fall into the field of philosophy of science. Their English titles are: "The Logic of Scientific Discovery" and "Conjectures and Refutations—The Growth of Scientific Knowledge."
In the former, Popper pioneered falsificationism (also known as "critical rationalism"). Through this falsificationism, Popper established the criterion for demarcating "science" from "non-science"—falsifiability.
In the latter, Popper pointed out the means by which scientific theories develop.
So, what is the relationship between these two books and Marxism-Leninism? In Conjectures and Refutations, Popper pointed out the degeneration of Marx's theory (the bold in the quote below is mine).
In some early formulations of this doctrine (such as Marx's analysis of the nature of "future social revolution"), their predictions are testable and have in fact been falsified. However, Marx's followers not only refused to accept these falsifications, but also reinterpreted the theory and evidence to salvage it—to prevent it from being refuted. However, this came at the cost of employing tactics that rendered the theory irrefutable. In doing so, they gave it a conventionalist twist, and through this very tactic, they undermined its much-vaunted scientific status.
In layman's terms, after being reworked by Marxists, Marx's theory has degenerated into pseudoscience. Why? Because his theory (after this reworking) has lost its falsifiability and can no longer be considered a "scientific theory". Yet, Marxists continue to call it "scientific socialism." If a theory isn't scientific but disguises itself as such, it's a classic example of pseudoscience.
Please note: "Non-science" and "pseudoscience" are two different concepts. (For a discussion on concepts related to "science", you can refer to an old blog post from many years ago - "What is Science? - Also discussing "non-science, pseudoscience, anti-science" and some common fallacies")
Criticism of the Marxist-Leninist Philosophical System
Karl Popper: The Open Society and Its Enemies
This book, titled "The Open Society and Its Enemies," is Popper's representative work. It's a large and rather academic work. Readers should have a basic understanding of the subject, otherwise it will be quite challenging.
Although the title is "The Open Society and Its Enemies," it focuses more on the "enemies of open society" rather than the concept of "open society" itself. The author traces the history of the world from Stalin to Lenin, from Lenin to Marx, from Marx to Hegel, and from Hegel to Plato. He then focuses on criticizing the philosophical systems of Plato, Hegel, and Marx. Popper believed that the philosophical theories of these three individuals were the "roots" of totalitarian ideology.
After reading this book, students can also read Isaiah Berlin's "Liberty and Its Betrayal: Six Enemies of Human Freedom." This book is also available on my network drive. It criticizes the ideological systems of six well-known philosophers (including Hegel).
Comprehensive Criticism of Various Socialist Trends
Friedrich Hayek: The Fatal Conceit: The Socialist Fallacy
The book, titled "The Fatal Conceit—The Errors of Socialism," was written in the final years of Hayek's academic career and can be considered a summary of his lifelong scholarship.
The Wikipedia page on the book describes it as follows:
This work is "a summary of Hayek's lifelong intellectual struggle against totalitarian socialism." It offers a comprehensive and systematic critique of socialism, arguing that socialism is a "fatal conceit," a "fallacy," and a "road to slavery."
This work incorporates many of the theoretical advances from "The Road to Serfdom" and subsequent developments, thereby systematizing his criticism of socialism.
Ludwig von Mises: Socialism: An Economic and Sociological Analysis
The book's English title is "Socialism: An Economic and Sociological Analysis." It consists of five volumes, 35 chapters, and over 600 pages (considered a substantial tome).
In terms of breadth of content, this book is even richer than Hayek's The Fatal Conceit. In the book, Mises fiercely criticizes various schools of socialism from multiple perspectives (political, economic, cultural, ethical, religious, etc.). The intensity of his attacks is rare.
Hayek commented on the book:
At first, each of us found his views too exaggerated and even his tone too irritable.
But gradually, he won us over—though it took a long time.
In the end, I had to admit that his conclusions were correct; but it was still uncomfortable to accept his views.
Ending
At the end of this article, I'd like to quote former US President Reagan again:
How do you tell who is a communist? A communist is someone who has read the works of Marx and Lenin.
So, who is an anti-communist? An anti-communist is someone who understands the works of Marx and Lenin.
How do you tell a communist? Well, it's someone who reads Marx and Lenin.
And how do you tell an anti-communist? It's someone who understands Marx and Lenin.
I hope the books I've introduced will help you become a true anti-communist.
Copyright Disclaimer
All original articles on this blog retain copyright. Any reprint must include this disclaimer, maintain the integrity of the article, and provide a hyperlink to the author, Programming Thoughts, and the original article:
https://program-think.blogspot.com/2018/09/Book-Review-The-Errors-of-Marxism-Leninism.html
版权声明
本博客所有的原创文章，作者皆保留版权。转载必须包含本声明，保持本文完整，并以超链接形式注明作者编程随想和本文原始地址：
https://program-think.blogspot.com/2018/09/Book-Review-The-Errors-of-Marxism-Leninism.html
See also: