Comments (5)

• Barry Loberfeld

  From "Requiem for the Left" (FrontPageMag.com):

  A Seemingly Heretical Development

  "In all the socialist literature I had read," ex-New Leftist David Horowitz once wrote, "there was not a chapter devoted to the problem of how wealth is created. Socialist theory was exclusively addressed to ... the division of wealth that someone else had created." Far from being anything that should have surprised him or anyone else, this was, in the words of Austrian school economist Murray Rothbard, something that had "been almost openly proclaimed by Karl Marx, who conceded that socialism" -- in any of its manifestations -- "must be established through seizure of capital previously accumulated under capitalism." Remember Marx's historicism: Just as feudalism created the conditions for capitalism, so would the latter create the conditions for socialism, one of which was the prerequisite wealth. Capitalism, he acknowledged, "during its rule of scarcely one hundred years, has created more massive and more colossal productive forces than have all preceding generations together." Considering that these were centuries of almost nothing but manual labor, Marx's observation should have been recognized instantly by everyone as a trenchant refutation of his own theory of value (and its barbaric "class war" implications). Be that as it tragically may, Marxist theory is clear on at least this point: first capitalism, then socialism.
  

  What happened to Marxist practice? The answer is not a what but a who: the non-Western European Marxists. What were these socialists supposed to do -- devote their lives to the construction of a capitalist economy in the hope that it would ultimately be riven by "contradictions" and therefore overthrown by their great-grandchildren? Marx's historicism had made socialist revolution in their lifetime a virtual impossibility for their pre-capitalist corner of the world. None too surprisingly, ideological necessity soon gave birth (by Alexander Helphand -- "Parvus") to the invention of "permanent revolution," the theory that revolutionaries anywhere could speed straight past History's capitalist stage to its socialist conclusion.
  

  Alas, the doctrine was a disaster, as its first (accountable-to-nobody) practitioners admitted to themselves:

  Lenin ... conceded that his critics before the Revolution had been right in arguing that Russia needed a long period of capitalist development before she would be ready for socialism, let alone communism. He did not spell out how long he believed the NEP [New Economic Policy, a measure of market liberalization] would last; but he hinted that it would not be abandoned soon. [historian Richard Pipes]

  
  

  
  Rothbard even went so far as to speculate that "Lenin's favorite theoretician, [Nikolai] Bukharin, would have extended [it] onwards towards a free market."
  

  Bukharin, ironically, met the same fate as the NEP itself: liquidation at the hands of Stalin, who also buried Marx's historicism. He is more than anyone else responsible for the transformation of "socialism" from capitalism's historical successor to its practical alternative and moral superior. It is this Stalinism that became the "Marxism" of all socialists thereafter. It was the Marxism that Horowitz himself encountered everywhere from the pages of Trotskyite Isaac Deutscher to the peroration of a self-designated "democratic socialist" sandalista. And yet not a single Leftist could ever bring himself to state the obvious: "We are all Stalinists now."
  

  This change in theory could not help but have consequences for practice...

  FOR THE REST OF THE ARTICLE, CLICK HERE

  Published: February 26, 2009 9:46 AM

• C [the forgotten man]

  "Indeed, by any reasonably compassionate standard, that threshold has long since been reached."

  It is a serious error to surmise that Obama's policy, or even Congress's, is "driven by compassion." It is clearly driven by greed for power, as so clearly spelled out by Ebeling in his article this week:

  Bank Bailouts Are the Payback for Bankrolling Politicians

  It is also a mistake to conflate "mixed economy socialism" with the actual system we have today of classic fascism, as noted on this site by North: Economic Fascism and the Bailout Economy.

  Obama is not really interested in making us marxist; he is interested in consolidating his power via his bankster supporters. Look at the job history of his cabinet.

  Marxism would kill the host that these parasites thrive upon. They know better.

  Published: February 26, 2009 11:00 AM

• Kevin

  Simply one more clear article that illustrates we are indeed at a cross roads in American history possibly global history. While it would be great to have the optimism that there will be a reversal in the path we are on, it seems doubtful. Obama speaks in contradctory terms consistently. He acts in contradictory acitons consistently. He says no nationalization but what other direction are we going and he is pushing? He says freedom but look at the people he has hired under him. They are radicals in different forms all wanting to limit personal freedom for some misguided ideal or retribution of bad behavior long ago.

  What are we to do? I thnk it was Mr. Rockwell that pointed out, it is the Austrian economists that see what is happening. We undertand the how and why. It gives us some comfort and doesn't make us panic as we know the answers to the questions. On the other hand it is like watching a train wreck in slow motion. You see it coming, you know the results but you can't stop it or, will we?

  Hope upon hope is that we don't go the path described in this article. We all becoming witnesses to this historical period. Let us hope we have a great deal to cheer about because a reversal in course is taken just as the proverb stated and we make progress.

  Published: February 26, 2009 12:01 PM

• Ohhh Henry

  Human Action explains the policies of Lenin and Obama.

  Lenin liberalized the economy because there was no benefit for him if he allowed the economy to be further ruined. But there would be a benefit for himself and his fellow elites if they allowed the pig to get fat again.

  Whereas Obama and his gang see that there is a lot of wealth still existing in a lot of places in the USA. They can plunder this wealth for a long time, several years possibly, before they will be faced with any serious shortages of taxable wealth or with a revolution. Even at the end of several years, if the economy is flat on its back and the people are restless, instead of liberalizing they can introduce a draft, start a war, and use the war as an excuse to size other nations' property and stifle dissent with wartime emergency laws.

  Published: February 26, 2009 8:42 PM

• pbergn

  Somewhat awkward attempt to draw historical parallels between early Soviet Russia and present-day US...

  While it is possible to make some comparisons, they are generally not representative of the current situation:

  During NEP, the Communists simply were trying to appease the rising popular anger, and fix the problem of hunger, by giving the peasants a "pseudo-ownership" rights on private property. By this term I mean, that even though formally the peasants were given right of ownership on small parcels of land and small amount of live stock, the whole economy was being run as a classic Fascist state - where government apparatchiks and corrupt Law Enforcement agencies were actually running the show...

  The author fails to point out that the only reason why NEP helped Soviet Russia was NOT because of liberal economic policies. The reason why NEP worked for a while was absolutely different - it was due to reducing the farmers to the status of serves by allocating them a patch of land and giving them live stock, which were necessary conditions (i.e. allocation of capital goods) to be able to exercise the coercive powers of the state, whereas before, immediately after the revolution, everything was nationalized and confiscated, and there was no immediate way of allocating the capital goods to become readily available for labor, which resulted in complete gridlock.

  Author also fails to point out that even in the USSR farmers and citizens were allowed to own small parcels of land and small number of livestock, and small quantities of other property such as a house, hunting and fishing tools, etc.;and this was way after the NEP has been revoked by Stalin...

  Another thing that rings a false note is the attempt to portray the current situation much more dire than it really is...

  There is nothing structurally wrong with the US economy, it is just the market is going through some corrections in the current globalized environment...

  So, I don't see any need for "fixing" anything, or drawing any outlandish parallels...

  All Obama needs to do is just sit back and relax - the market will correct itself...

  And besides, who said that he is trying to fix anything? He is just trying to give the bankers their cut - to the buddies of his...

  Published: February 26, 2009 11:52 PM