Fisking Marx

Fisking Marx



No, I am not referring to Karl Marx who wrote Das Kapital in 1867. I am referring to Reinhard Marx who wrote Das Kapital in 2008. Archbishop Marx's book carries the subtitle, A plea for the people



Reinhard Marx is now archbishop of Munich and Freising. Until January 2008, he was bishop of Trier, the birthplace in 1818 of Karl Marx.

Roman Catholic Archbishop Reinhard Marx

Was Marx's critique of capitalism right after all? It lasted longer than you expected back in the 19th century, but could it be that capitalism is just an episode of history that will end at some point because the system will collapse as a result of its internal contradictions? At the end of the 20th century, when the capitalist West defeated the communist East in the battle between systems, were we too quick to dismiss Karl Marx and his economic theories?



Capitalism without an ethic and a legal framework is inhumane. This was my conclusion from the finance and banking crisis. I already believed years ago that wild speculation is a sin. I have been an outspoken critic of the culture of greed in modern capitalism and have repeatedly pleaded with managers to subscribe to the social components of a social market economy. I criticise the audacious salary hikes of top managers. Neither primitive capitalism nor a return to Marxism will help create global justice. We need a structured market economy, not a revolution. The central question of the 21st century will be how to solve global problems like social injustice and poverty.

What a pantload of bull crap! To answer your questions, Reinhard, No! Marx's critique of capitalism was not right after all. No! the capitalist system will not collapse as a result of its internal contradictions. No! we were not too quick to dismiss Karl Marx and his economic theories. We may have been too quick to not hold when the USSR collapsed the same kind of tribunals held after Hitler and the Third Reich were defeated.



I reject your narrative that an inhumane unbridled capitalism has flourished, and that capitalism promotes a culture of greed. I believe that there will always be poor people, there will always be injustice, and there will always be sinners.



Never did John Locke, David Hume, Adam Smith, John Stuart Mill, Ayn Rand, F.A. Hayek, or Milton Friedman advocate unbridled capitalism or freedom. It seems that socialists have badly sullied the reputation of liberty. The socialists have repeatedly alleged that capitalism caters to so-called capitalists and gives them unbridled powers to exploit the weak. But that is totally false. Philosophers of liberty have always insisted that freedom comes with responsibility and justice. Adam Smith opposed mercantilism and monopolistic industrial interests. David Ricardo wanted more competition and free trade. Adam Smith and John Stuart Mill advocated labor unions to face the economic power of the owners of industry.



By repeating lies against liberty long enough, socialists have made it appear that the system of natural liberty encourages corruption and things like the sub-prime crisis. But what are the actual facts? Capitalism begins by looking at human nature. Hobbes and Locke, pointed out that since human nature is far from perfect, some people will always try to cheat, mislead, and misuse their powers. So if anyone cheats, then systems of justice should catch and punish the cheats. Thus everyone must be held equally to account and no one is to be above the law. In this manner, by ensuring all crimes are punished, capitalist societies are today among the most ethical on this planet.



Capitalism is also a system of continuous improvement. Lessons from events like the sub-prime crisis are quickly learned and such events prevented from happening again. Some events are complex and finding their causes can take time; but overall, capitalism is a political and economic system founded on democratic choice, law and order, and continuous improvement. And since the governance of capitalist societies is built on the system of checks and balances advocated by Montesquieu and Thomas Jefferson, the concept of capitalism being unbridled simply does not arise!



Our quarrel must be with socialism. In socialist societies, based as the spurious concept of economic equality, state-sanctioned corruption is the norm.



So who is really unbridled? Who is really immoral? Is it socialist countries ? where the governments are totally corrupt, where industrialists are gifted monopoly powers by the corrupt state, and where lives of workers are treated with disdain ? or is it the capitalist West where governments wage a systematic battle against all forms of corruption and irresponsible behaviour? Clearly, it is not capitalism but socialism we must be afraid of.



Unlike Karl Marx, who was a revolutionary, Adam Smith was a reformer. Where Karl Marx saw class struggle, Adam Smith saw special interests that were often at odds with the public interest. If Adam Smith were alive today, it is unlikely that he would join the chorus of triumphant anticommunists. Instead, he would warn that capitalism is prone to excess. He would observe that vigilance is required to ensure that the political system is not manipulated for the economic benefit of a few to the detriment of the entire society. He would be advocating political reforms to make sure that the system is not corrupted by special interests.



Adam Smith described free markets as an obvious and simple system of natural liberty. He did not favor the landowner, the factory owner, or the worker, but rather all of society. He saw, however, self-defeating forces at work, preventing the full operation of the free market and undermining the wealth of all nations.



The political foundation of Marx's utopia always had a critical structural flaw. He never explained how the members of the transitional dictatorship would be chosen, and why they would voluntarily relinquish their authoritarian power.



That critical structural flaw in the quest you have, Reinhard, to solve global problems like social injustice and poverty is the one you better think long and hard about.

The Obama Administration Is Not Clueless

There are so many pundits and journalists who are willing to carry the water for the Obama Administration. They report to their viewers, listeners, and readers that nobody knows for sure what effect the Obama Stimulus Plan is going to have, and if there is a further downturn that it would just be an unintended consequence of this youthful inexperienced team. I do not buy this narrative. Not one bit of it. This team is composed of the far left fringe of the Democratic Party. The end results they want, and the means they use to get them are not new at all. Karl Marx spoke at length about this in March of 1850 to an audience of members the Communist League in London.



Karl Marx described the political parties in Germany, what is the desired end result, what is not possible to do directly, and what is possible to do.

Since the defeat of the German and French revolutionary parties in July 1849, almost all the members of the Central Committee have reassembled in London: they have replenished their numbers with new revolutionary forces and set about reorganizing the League with renewed zeal.



This reorganization can only be achieved by an emissary, and the Central Committee considers it most important to dispatch the emissary at this very moment, when a new revolution is imminent, that is, when the workers' party must go into battle with the maximum degree of organization, unity and independence, so that it is not exploited and taken in tow by the bourgeoisie as in 1848.



This democratic party, which is far more dangerous for the workers than were the liberals earlier, is composed of three elements: 1) The most progressive elements of the big bourgeoisie, who pursue the goal of the immediate and complete overthrow of feudalism and absolutism. 2) The constitutional-democratic petty bourgeois, whose main aim during the previous movement was the formation of a more or less democratic federal state; 3) The republican petty bourgeois, whose ideal is to abolish the pressure exerted by big capital on small capital, by the big bourgeoisie on the petty bourgeoisie. The representatives of this faction were the members of the democratic congresses and committees, the leaders of the democratic associations and the editors of the democratic newspapers.



The relationship of the revolutionary workers' party to the petty-bourgeois democrats is this: it cooperates with them against the party which they aim to overthrow; it opposes them wherever they wish to secure their own position.



As far as the workers are concerned one thing, above all, is definite: they are to remain wage labourers as before. However, the democratic petty bourgeois want better wages and security for the workers, and hope to achieve this by an extension of state employment and by welfare measures; in short, they hope to bribe the workers with a more or less disguised form of alms and to break their revolutionary strength by temporarily rendering their situation tolerable. But these demands can in no way satisfy the party of the proletariat. While the democratic petty bourgeois want to bring the revolution to an end as quickly as possible, achieving at most the aims already mentioned, it is our interest and our task to make the revolution permanent until all the more or less propertied classes have been driven from their ruling positions, until the proletariat has conquered state power and until the association of the proletarians has progressed sufficiently far - not only in one country but in all the leading countries of the world - that competition between the proletarians of these countries ceases and at least the decisive forces of production are concentrated in the hands of the workers. Our concern cannot simply be to modify private property, but to abolish it, not to hush up class antagonisms but to abolish classes, not to improve the existing society but to found a new one.



We have seen how the next upsurge will bring the democrats to power and how they will be forced to propose more or less socialistic measures. it will be asked what measures the workers are to propose in reply. At the beginning, of course, the workers cannot propose any directly communist measures. But the following courses of action are possible:



1. They can force the democrats to make inroads into as many areas of the existing social order as possible, so as to disturb its regular functioning and so that the petty-bourgeois democrats compromise themselves; furthermore, the workers can force the concentration of as many productive forces as possible - means of transport, factories, railways, etc. - in the hands of the state.



2. They must drive the proposals of the democrats to their logical extreme (the democrats will in any case act in a reformist and not a revolutionary manner) and transform these proposals into direct attacks on private property. If, for instance, the petty bourgeoisie propose the purchase of the railways and factories, the workers must demand that these railways and factories simply be confiscated by the state without compensation as the property of reactionaries. If the democrats propose a proportional tax, then the workers must demand a progressive tax; if the democrats themselves propose a moderate progressive tax, then the workers must insist on a tax whose rates rise so steeply that big capital is ruined by it; if the democrats demand the regulation of the state debt, then the workers must demand national bankruptcy.

The way I see it, the Congress leadership and White House are akin to the revolutionary workers' party. The editors of democratic newspapers, CEOs of green economy small businesses, and rank and file members of the Democratic Party are akin to the petty-bourgeois democrats. They have been useful idiots to help overthrow the GOP, but they will be turned on wherever they wish to secure their position of power.



That speech that Karl Marx gave in London about 159 years ago in London is very similar to speeches today in Washington, DC.

The Needy Get Something - The Greedy Get Nothing

The Needy Get Something - The Greedy Get Nothing



This is basically the slogan of the Obama Stimulus Plan, and this is why no House Republicans voted for this bill. This is basically a choice between the philosophy of Karl Marx, and the philosophy of Adam Smith. Let's look at some points Karl Marx made, and translate them into points made by Obama.



Karl Marx address of the Central Committee to the Communist League

We have seen how the next upsurge will bring the democrats to power and how they will be forced to propose more or less socialistic measures. it will be asked what measures the workers are to propose in reply. At the beginning, of course, the workers cannot propose any directly communist measures. But the following courses of action are possible:



1. They can force the democrats to make inroads into as many areas of the existing social order as possible, so as to disturb its regular functioning and so that the petty-bourgeois democrats compromise themselves; furthermore, the workers can force the concentration of as many productive forces as possible - means of transport, factories, railways, etc. - in the hands of the state.



2. They must drive the proposals of the democrats to their logical extreme (the democrats will in any case act in a reformist and not a revolutionary manner) and transform these proposals into direct attacks on private property. If, for instance, the petty bourgeoisie propose the purchase of the railways and factories, the workers must demand that these railways and factories simply be confiscated by the state without compensation as the property of reactionaries. If the democrats propose a proportional tax, then the workers must demand a progressive tax; if the democrats themselves propose a moderate progressive tax, then the workers must insist on a tax whose rates rise so steeply that big capital is ruined by it; if the democrats demand the regulation of the state debt, then the workers must demand national bankruptcy. The demands of the workers will thus have to be adjusted according to the measures and concessions of the democrats.



Although the German workers cannot come to power and achieve the realization of their class interests without passing through a protracted revolutionary development, this time they can at least be certain that the first act of the approaching revolutionary drama will coincide with the direct victory of their own class in France and will thereby be accelerated. But they themselves must contribute most to their final victory, by informing themselves of their own class interests, by taking up their independent political position as soon as possible, by not allowing themselves to be misled by the hypocritical phrases of the democratic petty bourgeoisie into doubting for one minute the necessity of an independently organized party of the proletariat. Their battle-cry must be: The Permanent Revolution.

Barack Obama's economic speech in Indianapolis

It's time to turn the page on eight years of economic policies that put Wall Street before Main Street but ended up hurting both. We need policies that grow our economy from the bottom-up, so that every American, everywhere, has the chance to get ahead. Not just the person who owns the factory, but the men and women who work on its floor.



Well, the working families who've been hard hit by this economic crisis - folks who can't pay their mortgages or their medical bills or send their kids to college - they can't afford to go to the back of the line behind CEOs and Wall Street banks. They need help right here, right now - and that's why I'm running for President of the United States.



Few have been harder hit by our credit crisis than the workers who make our cars and the companies that supply their parts. Now, when it came to rescuing Wall Street, Washington didn't waste a minute. But now that auto-workers are suffering, Washington's put on the brakes.



For the last eight years, we've given more and more to those with the most and hoped that prosperity would trickle down to everyone else. And guess what? It didn't. So it's time to try something new. It's time to grow this economy from the bottom-up.



Now, make no mistake: the change we need won't come easy or without cost. We will all need to tighten our belts, we will all need to sacrifice and we will all need to pull our weight because now more than ever, we are all in this together.

For those readers from Rio Lindo, Karl Marx phrase "petty bourgeoisie" equals Barack Obama phrase "person who owns the factory." Karl Marx phrase "organized party of the proletariat" equals Barack Obama phrase "unionized men and women who work on the factory floor."



Adam Smith had some things to say about this topic. Let's look at some of the points Adam Smith made, and unfortunately there are no translations of his ideas in Barack Obama.



Adam Smith

To enhance the wealth of a nation, every man, consistent with the law, should be free to pursue his own interest his own way, and to bring both his industry and capital into competition with those of other men. It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest. The individual is driven by private gain but is led by an invisible hand to promote the public good, which was no part of his intention.



The skill, dexterity, and judgment with which labor is generally applied is one of the essential determinants of a nation's standard of living. Whatever be the soil, climate, or extent of territory of any particular nation, the abundance or scantiness of its annual supply must in that particular situation, depend upon the productive powers of labor.



No society can surely be flourishing and happy, of which the far greater part of the members are poor and miserable. It is but equity, besides, that they who feed, clothe and lodge the whole body of the people, should have such a share of the produce of their own labor as to be themselves tolerably well fed, clothed and lodged. It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.



In every country it always is and must be the interest of the great body of the people to buy whatever they want of those who sell it cheapest. The proposition is so very manifest that it seems ridiculous to take any pains to prove it; nor could it ever have been called in question had not the interested sophistry of merchants and manufacturers confounded the common sense of mankind. Their interest is, in this respect, directly opposite to that of the great body of the people. As it is the interest of the freemen of a corporation to hinder the rest of the inhabitants from employing any workmen but themselves, so it is the interest of the merchants and manufacturers of every country to secure to themselves the monopoly of the home market.

Adam Smith promoted free trade, good conditions for workers, progressive taxation and competition to benefit the public. The men and women who work on the factory floor could well ensure their relevance in a globalised world by embracing Adam Smith rather than Karl Marx.



I could not care less about parts of the Obama Stimulus Plan where condoms are distributed and pamphlets encouraging people to stop smoking. But I do deeply care about the parts of the plan that declare a war on capping individual achievements and limit who we can buy from, and how much we have to pay for what we buy. Increasing the size, scope, power, and central planning for life's basic necessities by the Federal Government bothers me a lot.

The USA Has Its Own Fidel - YIPPEE!

The USA Has Its Own Fidel - YIPPEE!



This past Tuesday night Tavis Smiley interviewed Carlos Moore on the Tavis Smiley Show on PBS. A transcript of this interview can be read here.



What I find especially disturbing and vile is this comment by Tavis:

There are a couple of things you said in this conversation, Dr. Moore, that I found - at least I heard as interesting parallels between your experience back in the day and the experience that many young African Americans, 17, like you were at one point, are having today - 17, 18, and beyond. And that is, one, this notion of feeling that now that we have a guy named Obama in the White House, we have President Obama now, there are many young people who are as ecstatic and as excited and as enthused about President Obama as you were about your new president, Fidel Castro.

Say what, Tavis? You hear this as interesting parallels? How about hearing this as disturbing parallels or horrific parallels? I would have expected the left to deny, debunk, and refute to the listening public any parallels between Fidel and Barack.



This is just another example of a sickness within the hearts and minds of many Americans that needs to be challenged, and there is no conservative cavalry riding in from our nation's capitol to save us. For too long too many heads are being filled with mush extolling the wondrous possibilities of a workers' paradise if we just follow the philosophy of Karl Marx.



We need to work at the local level with new educators, unions, community organizations, and journalists to inform people about the philosophy of Adam Smith. History needs to be taught revealing how misery and failure have borne out everywhere that Karl Marx's ideas have been tried, and prosperity have borne out everywhere that Adam Smith's ideas have been tried.



Since this is Valentine's Day, I do not want a write a diary that only talks about sickness. There is another event recently that provides an example of wellness. Charles Krauthammer writes about it here. The article is about good news from Iraq's elections that is not being widely reported. I encouraage everyone to read the entire article. These are some of the points from the article:

All the parties that had the words 'Islamic' or 'Arab' in their names lost, noted Middle East expert Amir Taheri. By contrast, all those that had the words 'Iraq' or 'Iraqi' gained.



Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki went from leader of a small Islamic party to leader of the "State of the Law Party," campaigning on security and secular nationalism. He won a smashing victory. His chief rival, a more sectarian and pro-Iranian Shiite religious party, was devastated. Another major Islamic party, the pro-Iranian Sadr faction, went from 11 percent of the vote to 3 percent, losing badly in its stronghold of Baghdad. The Islamic Fadhila party that had dominated Basra was almost wiped out.



The once-dominant Sunni party affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood and the erstwhile insurgency was badly set back. New grass-roots tribal ("Awakening") and secular Sunni leaders emerged.



But in the intervening years, while the critics washed their hands of Iraq, it began developing the sinews of civil society: a vibrant free press, a plethora of parties, the habits of negotiation and coalition-building. Reflecting these new realities, Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani this time purposely and publicly backed no party, strongly signaling a return -- contra Iran -- to the Iraqi tradition of secular governance.

I think it will be a great idea for us Americans to renew our beliefs in free market capitalism and a vibrant free press. Where this is tried it is successful.

Where Have All the Tough Guys Gone?

Graham Amdt. No. 501 As Modified



This amendment transfers the STD prevention and smoking cessation program money to an FDIC mortgage foreclosure prevention program.



rejected by a vote of 57-39



the 57 nay votes included 3 Rs



Sen. Bunning

Sen. Collins

Sen. Snowe



the 39 yea votes included 3 Ds



Sen. Conrad

Sen. Dorgan

Sen. Feingold



Sen. Baucus says passage of the amendment would affect some chunk of money that would complicate the later passage of the compromise package.



pilgrim's translation-The US taxpayers are getting screwed, and so they need the condoms. They need to stop smoking because after the screwing they are getting they can't afford a cigarette afterward.



Vitter Amdt. No. 107



Prohibiting direct or indirect use of funds to fund the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN).



rejected by a vote of 51-45

all 51 nay votes were Ds



the "bipartisan" yea votes included

Sen. Baucus

Sen. Bayh

Sen. Byrd

Sen. Hagan

Sen. Nelson of Nebraska

Sen. Tester



Sen. Durban says that passage of the amendment will be a slap in the face to some true American patriots in ACORN. They did community organizing work in Louisiana in the aftermath of hurricane Katrina, and this is the thanks they get.



pilgrim's translation-ACORN plays a major role in getting Ds elected so defeat this amendment and give our guys their political payback.



This bill is vile to the core, and whittling around the edges with these amendments by Vitter and Graham is a silly kabuki dance that diverts from the main point. The main point is that this bill grows the size and scope of the government like we have not seen since FDR. FDR did not have a historical record to show the fallacies in his approach, and still Obama and the Ds do have a historical record that they don't care about.



Dan Kennedy has an excellent column over at TownHall with the title Where Have All the Tough Guys Gone?



In an interview in the January issue of Esquire, super tough guy and Cleveland Brown of all Cleveland Browns, Jim Brown said:

A liberal is arrogant enough to think he can do you a half-***ed favor. He is superior enough to think he can give you something that you don't deserve. A liberal will cut off your leg so he can hand you a crutch.

Jim Brown never missed a game in his nine record-breaking seasons with the Browns. He also rarely stepped out of bounds to avoid a high speed hit or bruising tackle. Instead he lowered a shoulder and knocked everyone else on their ***es. In the interview he says that the biggest crutch is thinking you're a victim. I imagine if a liberal handed Jim a crutch, he'd beat him over the head with it. Even if he had to hop on one good leg while doing it.