• Political Economy and the Press: Karl Marx and Henry …
  • Rousseau and Marx: Property and Inequality Essay -- …
  • communism and universal private property

Karl Marx believed that power was to be taken by the people through the elimination of the upper class bourgeois’ personal property and capital....

That concept traveled down to Karl Marx and the Communist agenda

Marx & Bester Properties | 71 Properties | Private Property

Where Locke and Marx seem at first to differ most significantly is on the issue of private property
Now it is apparent that this renders historical materialismconsistent. Yet there is a question as to whether it is at too high aprice. For we must ask whether functional explanation is a coherentmethodological device. The problem is that we can ask what it is thatmakes it the case that an economic structure will only persist for aslong as it develops the productive forces. Jon Elster has pressed thiscriticism against Cohen very hard. If we were to argue that there isan agent guiding history who has the purpose that the productiveforces should be developed as much as possible then it would makesense that such an agent would intervene in history to carry out thispurpose by selecting the economic structures which do the bestjob. However, it is clear that Marx makes no such metaphysicalassumptions. Elster is very critical — sometimes of Marx,sometimes of Cohen — of the idea of appealing to‘purposes’ in history without those being the purposes ofanyone.

Marx’s demand to “abolish private property” was a clarion call to ..

Marx recognized that machines and men are competitors in the sense that scientists and and managers, in carrying out their function to produce goods and services in a competitive market, strive to eliminate labor costs and to improve upon hand methods of production. “The instrument of labour [meaning, of course, machines, the instruments of the capitalist ] when it takes the form of a machine, immediately becomes a competitor of the workman himself.” (Ibid. page 470) In speaking of this competition, Marx comes as near as possible to recognizing that capital instruments are active forces in the production of wealth, performing an economic function of the same sort as labor, and frequently performing functions which can interchangeably be performed by either.2


The Ten Planks of the Communist Manifesto by Karl Marx

But today, with the development of feed-back, self-correcting and self-programming machines, capable of automatically performing a sequence of logical operations, correcting their own errors as they perform their productive tasks, choosing from built-in instructions or characteristics their proper functions, it is likely that even Marx would have broken through his barrier-obsession that labor does all the work.

It may well be that confusion between man the worker and man the thinker–the source of all ideas and plans–contributed as much as any cause to Marx’s failure to recognize capital as a producer of wealth in the same sense that labor is. Mental activity enters into economic transactions primarily in two ways:

Karl Marx: The Almost Capitalist - Center for Economic …

Let us now examine once more the principles of capitalistic production that Marx might and should have used as a starting point. In an exchange economy, and particularly in an economy of freely competitive markets, each service and each commodity is valued for its peculiar ability to satisfy a certain desire of the consumer. Whether the service of commodity is produced by labor alone or by capital alone or by the co-operation of these two, is unimportant to the potential purchaser except as the method of production implants specific characteristics in the thing marketed. It is the finished product which is demanded by the purchaser, not the knowledge that it is produced in one way or another–a mere means by which the product was brought forth. Contrary to what some sentimentalists think, there is nothing sacred about the products of labor that is not equally sacred about the products of capital or those produced jointly by capital and labor.

Just as private property in land includes ..

Had Marx started with an objective analysis of production and a deeper insight into the property-freedom relation, he might well have concluded with a declaration of war against capitalists for hoarding capitalism.

and Marx opposed private property.

To effect any change in the nature or position of material goods or to perform any kind of a service, material goods must be acted upon. Marx recognized this; but, because of his obsession with the labor theory of value, he contended that only labor could be credited with the value of material goods produced or services performed. “Useful labor” he said, “is an eternal necessity imposed by Nature without which there can be no material exchanged between man and Nature, and therefore no life.” (Ibid. page 50). To effect such changes in matter, or to perform such services, purely physical, i.e., mechanical means, must be used. With rare exceptions, pure thought is not economically compensable. Speech, writings, mechanical action–all these things performed by man, are capable of entering into economic transactions. The thought behind such speech, writings, mechanical action, is not by itself capable of entering into ordinary commerce.