The Mass Immigration Debate within the Socialist Party of America from 1910–1912, Part 2

In part 1 here, the debate within the Socialist Party of America on mass immigration at their national convention in Chicago from 15–21 May 1910 was examined.

In 1912, the Socialist Party of America held another national convention from 12–18 May in Indianapolis.

Once again, the issue of mass immigration was discussed, and once again the committee on the immigration question produced a majority report.

Remarkably, the majority report of 1912 was even more opposed to mass immigration than that of 1910. Furthermore, the authors were not afraid to examine the issue of how racial feelings and animosities were exacerbated by mass immigration and also exploited by capitalists.

The full text of the majority report is as follows:

MAJORITY REPORT OF COMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION
At the national congress of the Socialist Party in 1910, the Committee on Immigration presented a majority report signed by Ernest Untermann, Joshua Wanhope and Victor L. Berger, and a minority report signed, by John Spargo.

The majority report declared that the interests of the labor unions and of the Socialist Party of America demanded the enforcement of the existing exclusion laws which keep out the mass immigration or importation of Asiatic laborers.

The minority report declared that the danger from Asiatic labor immigration or importation was more imaginary than real and that, therefore, the Socialist Party should content itself with an emphasis upon the international solidarity of all working people regardless of nationality or race. The minority report did not state whether the Socialist Party should demand the repeal of the existing exclusion laws. When asked during the debate whether he favored the repeal of these laws, Comrade Spargo declined to commit himself to a definite answer.

In the course of the discussion, Comrade Morris Hillquit introduced a substitute for both reports. This substitute evaded the question for or against the existing exclusion laws, merely demanding that the mass of importation of contract laborers from all countries should be combated by the Socialist Party.

An amendment to this substitute, demanding a special emphasis upon the fact that the bulk of the Asiatic immigration was stimulated by the capitalists and for this reason should be excluded, was offered by Comrade Algernon Lee.

After a debate lasting nearly two days, the congress adopted Hillquit’s substitute by a vote of 55 against 50.

This close vote induced the congress to recommit the question for further study to a new committee on immigration with instructions to report to the national convention of 1912.

In this new committee the same alignment immediately took place. After a fruitless effort of the chairman to get unanimous action, the majority decided to act by itself and let the minority do the same.

Continued study and the developments on the Pacific Coast during the last two years convinced the majority of this committee more than ever that the existing exclusion laws against Asiatic laborers should be enforced and be amended in such way that they can be more effectively enforced. The details of the necessary amendments should be worked out by our representatives, or by our future representatives, in Congress and submitted for ratification to the Committee on Immigration, which should be made permanent for this purpose.

It does not matter whether Asiatic immigration is voluntary or stimulated by capitalists. There is no room for doubt that the capitalists welcome this immigration, and that its effect upon the economic and political class organizations of the American workers is destructive.

It is true that all foreign labor immigration lowers the standard of living, increases the unemployed problem and supplies the capitalists with uninformed and willing tools of reaction. But of all foreign labor immigration, the Asiatic element, owing to its social and racial peculiarities, is the most difficult to assimilate and mold into a homogeneous and effective revolutionary body. It is all the more dangerous to the most advanced labor organizations of this nation, because it adds to and intensifies the race issue which is already a grave problem in large sections of this country.

In the European countries the labor unions and the Socialist Party are not confronted by the task of educating, organizing and uniting vast masses of alien nationalities and races with the main body of the native class-conscious workers. Where alien immigration enters into the European labor problem, it plays but an insignificant role compared to the overwhelming mass of native workers. America is the only country in which the labor unions and the Socialist Party are compelled to face the problem of educating, organizing and uniting not only the native workers but a continually increasing army of foreign nationalities and races who enter this country without any knowledge of the English language, of American traditions, of economic and political conditions. The disappearance of the Western frontier has intensified the difficulties of labor organizations and Socialist propaganda to such a degree that it has become an unavoidable task to decide whether restrictive measures shall or shall not be demanded in the interests of the labor unions and of the Socialist Party. Since the race issue enters most prominently into this problem and has for years been the central point of restrictive legislation, the Socialist Party has been compelled to take notice of it.

Race feeling is not so much a result of social as of biological evolution. It does not change essentially with changes of economic systems. It is deeper than any class feeling and will outlast the capitalist system. It persists even after race prejudice has been outgrown. It exists, not because the capitalists nurse it for economic reasons, but the capitalists rather have an opportunity to nurse it for economic reasons because it exists as a product of biology. It is bound to play a role in the economics of the future society. If it should not assert itself in open warfare under a Socialist form of society, it will nevertheless lead to a rivalry of races for expansion over the globe as a result of the play of natural and sexual selection. We may temper this race feeling by education, but we can never hope to extinguish it altogether. Class-consciousness must be learned, but race-consciousness is inborn and cannot be wholly unlearned. A few individuals may indulge in the luxury of ignoring race and posing as utterly raceless humanitarians, but whole races never.

Where races struggle for the means of life, racial animosities cannot be avoided. Where working people struggle for jobs, self-preservation enforces its decrees. Economic and political considerations lead to racial fights and to legislation restricting the invasion of the white man’s domain by other races.

The Socialist Party cannot avoid this issue. The exclusion of definite races, not on account of race, but for economic and political reasons, has been forced upon the old party statesmen in spite of the bitter opposition of the great capitalists.

Every addition of incompatible race elements to the present societies of nations or races strengthens the hands of the great capitalists against the rising hosts of class-conscious workers. But the race feeling is so strong that even the majority of old party statesmen have not dared to ignore it.

From the point of view of the class-conscious workers it is irrational in the extreme to permit the capitalists to protect their profits by high tariffs against the competition of foreign capital, and at the same time connive at their attempts to extend free trade in the one commodity which the laborer should protect more than any other, his labor power.

It is still more irrational to excuse this self-destructive policy by the slogan of international working class solidarity, for this sentimental solidarity works wholly into the hands of the capitalist class and injures the revolutionary movement of the most advanced workers of this nation, out of ill-considered worship of an Asiatic working class which is as yet steeped in the ideas of a primitive state of undeveloped capitalism.

A proper consideration of working class interests, to which the Socialist Party is pledged by all traditions and by all historical precedent, demands that our representatives in the legislative bodies of this nation should reduce the tariff protection of the capitalists and introduce a tariff, or tax, upon unwholesome competitors of the working class, regardless of whether these competitors are voluntary or subsidized immigrants. Real protection of American labor requires a tariff on labor power and the reduction and gradual abolition of the tariff on capital. Such labor legislation already exists in British Columbia and has proved effective there.

The argument that the menace of Asiatic labor immigration is more imaginary than real overlooks the obvious fact that this menace has been minimized and kept within bounds by the existing exclusion laws, and that it can be eliminated altogether by a strict enforcement and more up-to-date amendment of these laws.

The majority of this committee realize of course, that the development of capitalism in China, India and Japan will necessarily tend to bring the American laborer into competition with the Asiatic laborer, even if the Asiatic does not come to the shore of this country. But the exclusion of the Asiatic from the shores of this country will at least give to the American laborer the advantage of fighting the Asiatic competition at long range and wholly through international commerce, instead of having struggle with the Asiatic laborer for jobs upon American soil. This will tend to abolish the labor of children and women in American factories, to maintain a rational standard of living and to reduce the unemployed problem for adult male workers.

International solidarity between the working people of Asia, Europe and America will be the outcome of international evolution, not of sentimental formulas. So long as the mind of the workers of nations and races are separated by long distances of industrial evolution, the desired solidarity cannot be completely realized, and while it is in process of realization, the demands of immediate self-preservation are more imperative than dreams of ideal solidarity.

The international solidarity of the working class can be most effectively demonstrated, not by mass immigration into each others’ countries, but by the international co-operation of strong labor unions and of the national sections of the International Socialist Party.

Socialism proves itself a science to the extent that it enables us to foretell the actual tendencies of future development.

This is the general principle that guided us in the struggle against the capitalist classes of the world. We work for the transformation of capitalist into Socialist society, not so much because sentiment, longing, dogma or argument drive us, but because we are convinced that the dominant tendencies of capitalism work in the direction of Socialism.

This point of view has been almost wholly overlooked in the discussion and practice of these ‘immediate’ policies which serve as our conscious steps in the direction of Socialism.

In our general propaganda and party organization, we work for the prophesied outcome of capitalist development and shape our actions in harmony with the foreseen probable course which the majority of the citizens will be compelled to adopt during the revolution of the human mind towards a Socialist consciousness.

Not so in discussing and acting upon, questions of immediate policy, such as the exclusion of Asiatic laborers from the United States. Instead of clearly foretelling the inevitable policy which the majority of the voters of this nation will be compelled to adopt in this particular instance, we are supposed to shape our actions in response to sentimental, Utopian or dogmatic arguments dictated by the personal likes or dislikes of a few individuals.

Instead of scientifically foretelling the inevitable logic of events, we are supposed to listen to a logic inspired by the sophistry of the advocates of unrestricted immigration.

Those who affirm the sentimental solidarity of the working classes the world over and at the same time demand a restriction of the stimulated mass importation of contract laborers admit unwillingly that this ideal solidarity is really impossible. And while they thus contradict their own sentimental assertion, they evade the real issue by an exaggerated reverence for a Utopian race solidarity.

The common sense Socialist policy under these circumstances is to build up strong national labor unions and strong national Socialist parties in the different countries and work toward more perfect solidarity by an international co-operation of these labor unions and parties. To this end the Socialist Party of America should consider above all the interests of those native and foreign working class citizens whose economic and political class organizations are destined to be the dominant elements in the social revolution of this country.

In the United States this means necessarily the enforcement of the existing exclusion laws against Asiatic laborers, and the amendment of these laws in such a way that the working class of America shall fortify its strategic position in the struggle against the capitalist class.

The majority of this committee are not opposed to the social mingling of races through travel, education and friendly association upon terms of equality. But we are convinced that the mass of the voters with the growth of social consciousness, will rather eliminate more and more those warring elements of social development which interfere with an orderly and systematic organization of industrial and political democracy. They will not be anxious to intensify the unemployed problem and the race issue, but will strive to transform the international working class solidarity from a Utopian shibboleth into a constructive policy. They will use their collective intelligence to reduce the evils growing out of unemployment and race feeling, until we shall be able to eliminate those evils altogether and strip race feeling at least of its brutalities.

This tendency is so plainly evident to the majority of this committee that we can afford to dispense with appeals to passion. This question will not be solved by a repetition of phrases, but by a conscious and instructive policy which will enforce itself as an inevitable step in the direction of working class solidarity and Socialism all world over.

ERNEST UNTERMANN, Chairman.
JOSHUA WANHOPE,
J. STITT WILSON,
ROBERT HUNTER.” (Spargo 1912: 209–211).

As we can see, the majority report of 1912 fully endorsed government legislation implementing large-scale mass immigration restriction into America.

Notably, they thought that preventing large-scale mass immigration of people with differing cultural and racial backgrounds into the United States would actually reduce racial tensions and racial prejudice. This view is rather similar to the progressive Liberal idea of that era of national self-determination as a way to reduce ethnic and national tensions.

The majority report view is stated again here:

“International solidarity between the working people of Asia, Europe and America will be the outcome of international evolution, not of sentimental formulas. So long as the mind of the workers of nations and races are separated by long distances of industrial evolution, the desired solidarity cannot be completely realized, and while it is in process of realization, the demands of immediate self-preservation are more imperative than dreams of ideal solidarity.

The international solidarity of the working class can be most effectively demonstrated, not by mass immigration into each others’ countries, but by the international co-operation of strong labor unions and of the national sections of the International Socialist Party. ….

The common sense Socialist policy under these circumstances is to build up strong national labor unions and strong national Socialist parties in the different countries and work toward more perfect solidarity by an international co-operation of these labor unions and parties. To this end the Socialist Party of America should consider above all the interests of those native and foreign working class citizens whose economic and political class organizations are destined to be the dominant elements in the social revolution of this country.” (Spargo 1912: 210–211).

How times have changed in modern Marxism, socialism and Social Democracy, where the fanatical support for open borders and mass immigration is now a religion.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Spargo, John (ed.). 1912. Proceedings. National Convention of the Socialist Party, held at Indianapolis, Ind., May 12 to 18, 1912. The Socialist Party, Chicago, Ill.
https://archive.org/details/nationalconvention00soci

The Mass Immigration Debate within the Socialist Party of America from 1910–1912, Part 1

The Socialist Party of America existed between the 29th July 1901 and the 31st December 1972.

Before the party was repressed for its opposition to World War I and suffered splits over the question of Communist Russia, it was probably the most successful and largest radical party of the socialist Left in America, at least down to the 1920s.

The Socialist Party of America was made up of Marxists, anarchists, some members of the Industrial Workers of the World (IWW) union, democratic socialists and Social Democrats of that day. Eugene V. Debs was on two occasions its candidate for US president in the elections of 1912 and 1920, and even won about 6% of the votes in 1912.

From 15–21 May, 1910, the Socialist Party of America held a national convention in Chicago (Ross 2015: 119). During that convention the party discussed the controversial issue of immigration restriction and the question whether mass immigration was good for American workers, as analysed by a committee established in 1908 consisting of Victor L. Berger, Guy E. Miller, John Spargo, Joshua Wanhope and Ernest Untermann (Untermann had been the first American translator of Karl Marx’s Das Kapital).

By modern standards, the socialists of that day had a frank, detailed and spirited debate for and against mass immigration, and decided by a not insignificant majority to oppose certain kinds of mass immigration.

The proceedings of the 1910 National Congress of the Socialist Party are available online here for anybody to read, so that we can easily delve into their own records.

So what did these radical socialist – and some of them Marxist – comrades from 1910 actually think? I am willing to bet that most modern leftists or Marxists have no clue about this forgotten aspect of their history.

Here is the text of the majority report, accepted by most of the committee established in 1908 to investigate the issue of immigration:

“REPORT OF COMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION.
The Socialist party aims to realize a system of society in which economic class distinctions, the foundation of all other class distinctions shall no longer exist, and in which all human beings without regard to nationality or race shall have equal opportunities as members of the industrial army of the world.

In the struggle for the realization of our social ideals it is the duty of the Socialist party to combat vigorously all those tendencies of the capitalist system which weaken the working classes of the different countries in their struggle for emancipation, and to promote and accelerate all those tendencies which increase their power of resistance, raise their standard of living and facilitate the organization and propaganda of the most militant and intelligent portions of the working class.

We recognize, however, that our present decaying capitalistic system generates many contradictory phases and antagonisms which at times compel the Socialist movement in its efforts to conform its acts to the present and immediate interests of the working class, to come into apparent conflict with its ultimate ideals. This, however, is an unavoidable condition of the general law of social progress. We work toward our ultimate ideals through and despite these apparent contradictions. We recognize with Marx that the progress of working class emancipation does not proceed uniformly and by identical methods in all countries, but that the working class of each nation will have first to settle matters with its own ruling class before absolute international working class solidarity can be realized.

The general question of Immigration and Emigration with its multitude of conflicting elements falls clearly into the category of contradictions referred to above. In a conflict between ultimate ideals and immediate class interests, the law of self-government asserts itself above all ultimate ideals. The Socialist Party in its present activities cannot outrun the general development of the working class, but must keep step with it. We agree with the statement of the Communist Manifesto that the Socialists ‘fight for the immediate aims, for the enforcement of the immediate interests of the working class,’ and that precisely ‘in the movement of the present we also represent and take care of the future’ of our movement.

In advocating the policy of restricted immigration, or even the exclusion of specific races, we are not necessarily in contradiction with the essential principles of solidarity of the working class. On the contrary, we are convinced that this policy may, under some conditions, and especially under present conditions in the United States, be the most effective means of promoting the ultimate realization of international and inter-racial solidarity.

We agree with the conclusions of the International Congress at Stuttgart to the effect that ‘Immigration and Emigration of working-men are phenomena as inseparable from the substance of capitalism as unemployment, over-production and under-consumption of the working man, and that they are frequently one of the means to reduce the share of the working men in the product of labor, and that they at times assume abnormal dimensions through political, religious and national persecution.’

Also we thoroughly endorse the statement of the same body that ‘it is the duty of organized working men to protect themselves against the lowering of the standard of life which frequently results from the mass import of unorganized working.’

We believe that this statement applies with peculiar force to conditions in the United States. If it be admitted that the working class of each nation has first to settle matters with its own ruling class; if it be furthermore admitted that by defending the immediate interests of the working class we are taking care of the ultimate ideals of the future; and if it be finally admitted that the principle of national autonomy prevents the International Congresses of the Socialist Party from laying down specific rules for the carrying out of the general principles recognized as valid by all Socialists: then we may well cede the right of the International Congress to declare that it ‘sees no proper solution of these difficulties in the exclusion of definite races and nations from immigration,’ and nevertheless deny that an opposite policy is necessarily ‘in conflict with the principle of proletarian solidarity.’

For this reason we are convinced that we are fully justified in endorsing every demand and position taken by the International Congress in its resolution on Immigration, with the exception of those passages which refer to specific restriction or to the exclusion of definite races or nations.

We do not believe that such measures are necessarily ‘fruitless and reactionary’ as stated by the International Congress, but on the contrary are convinced that any measures which do not conform to the immediate interests of the working class in the United States are fruitless and reactionary.

Such a measure or measures would place the Socialist Party in opposition to the most militant and intelligent portion of the organized workers of the United States, those whose assistance is indispensable to the purpose of elevating the Socialist Party to political power.

We have no special recommendations to make that would enlarge upon the general position on Immigration and Emigration taken by the International Congress in its Stuttgart resolutions. But the present conditions compel us to make an important exception in the matter of exclusion of immigrants from specific and definite nations. This exception refers altogether to the mass immigration of Chinese, Japanese, Coreans [= Koreans] and Hindus to the United States. We advocate the unconditional exclusion of these races, not as races per se—not as peoples with definite physiological characteristics—but for the evident reason that these peoples occupy definite portions of the earth in which they are so far behind the general modern development of industry, psychologically as well as economically, that they constitute a drawback, an obstacle and menace to the progress of the most aggressive, militant and intelligent elements of our working class population.

The larger and more powerful elements of our ruling classes, the great capitalists, the real and effective opponents of the militant working class, are the real beneficiaries of immigration from those countries, and being well aware that these immigrants are accustomed to a much lower standard of living and do not easily assimilate with the other elements of our population, use every means, legal and illegal, to encourage the immigration of these peoples to a point where it becomes an effective competitor against the progressive elements of the working class, serves to lower their standard of living, and constitutes a formidable factor in perpetuating division among the workers by subordinating class issues to racial antagonisms and thus tends to prolong the system of capitalistic exploitation. For this reason the exclusion laws already on the statute books are not only not enforced, but are made largely inoperative by the influence of the powerful interests which desire that this immigration shall continue.

It is true that this legislation was passed mainly by the influence of the middle class in its vain struggle to avoid political and economic extinction, but it has so happened that this legislation promotes the interests of the working class rather than those of its originators.

The exclusion of the above-mentioned peoples does not prevent the disintegration of the middle classes, but it does, on the other hand, assist the workers by lessening the unemployment, maintaining the standard of living, minimizing the number of possible strike-breakers and lessening the various race problems which tend to confuse and divert the working class in its struggle for final emancipation.

In view of the already existing race problem bequeathed to this country by former chattel slavery, every mass immigration of the peoples referred to tends to add to and intensify race issues and relegate the class war to the rear by weakening the political and economic labor organizations and substituting an Asiatic middle class with a lower standard of living than the American. The continuity of such mass immigration would undoubtedly prolong the life of capitalism in this country and constitute a most formidable factor in retarding and relegating to the far distant future the realization of our social ideals.

Just as emphatically as we insist on the exclusion of the races named above, so we on the other hand insist that our position shall not be construed as applicable to those immigrants of other races and nations who have behind them a long history of faithful service in the struggle of the working class and which contain most valuable revolutionary elements much needed here in our common conflict with the exploiting classes.

Especially does this exception refer to immigrant laws from all countries, who, through long centuries of association, not only in struggles against race oppression, but in the general labor struggle, have become an integral and essential part in the world’s revolutionary forces.

Also, it is to be distinctly understood that we are in full agreement with the position taken by the International Congresses which demand freedom of immigration and emigration for political refugees, regardless of their race or nationality.

The Committee has arrived at this conclusion after several years of careful study of all available data. So far as the time limits of this convention permit, individual members of this Committee are prepared to state the general and specific reasons that have led them to the position taken in this report.

We would, however, call attention to the fact that an enormous amount of data has been accumulated on this question, an amount which precludes the presentation of anything more than a general conclusion. We would recommend, in addition, that this mass of data be arranged systematically, with a view to publication in book form for the education of the party membership on this complicated and important question.

Finally, we recommend the continuation of this committee with the same members, or others, as the Convention may decide, for the general opinion of this Committee is that this question is in no sense exhausted, and that new and peculiar phases of it appear from year to year which imperatively demand attention.” (McDermut 1910: 75–77).

So, while the majority resolution made an exception for political refugees and immigrants with “a long history of faithful service in the struggle of the working class” (essentially, European immigrants), it advocated significant immigration restriction:

“… the present conditions compel us to make an important exception in the matter of exclusion of immigrants from specific and definite nations. This exception refers altogether to the mass immigration of Chinese, Japanese, Coreans [= Koreans] and Hindus to the United States. We advocate the unconditional exclusion of these races, not as races per se—not as peoples with definite physiological, characteristics—but for the evident reason that these peoples occupy definite portions of the earth in which they are so far behind the general modern development of industry, psychologically as well as economically, that they constitute a drawback, an obstacle and menace to the progress of the most aggressive, militant and intelligent elements of our working class population.

The larger and more powerful elements of our ruling classes, the great capitalists, the real and effective opponents of the militant working class, are the real beneficiaries of immigration from those countries, and being well aware that these immigrants are accustomed to a much lower standard of living and do not easily assimilate with the other elements of our population, use every means, legal and illegal, to encourage the immigration of these peoples to a point where it becomes an effective competitor against the progressive elements of the working class, serves to lower their standard of living, and constitutes a formidable factor in perpetuating division among the workers by subordinating class issues to racial antagonisms and thus tends to prolong the system of capitalistic exploitation. For this reason the exclusion laws already on the statute books are not only not enforced, but are made largely inoperative by the influence of the powerful interests which desire that this immigration shall continue.” (McDermut 1910: 76).

And the majority report did not seek to exclude them simply because they were racially different, but for pragmatic economic, social and political reasons.

There was also a minority report which was less opposed to mass immigration in the immediate circumstances of 1910, but which made it very clear that it also advocated immigration restriction should large-scale harmful immigration into the US occur:

“MINORITY REPORT ON IMMIGRATION
At the International Socialist Congress held at Stuttgart in 1908 the following resolution upon the subject of immigration was adopted:

‘Immigration and emigration of workingmen are phenomena as inseparable from the substance of capitalism as unemployment, overproduction and underconsumption of the workingmen; they are frequently one of the means to reduce the share of the workingmen in the product of labor, and at times they assume abnormal dimensions through political, religious and national persecutions.
The congress does not consider exception measures of any kind, economic or political, the means for removing any danger which may arise to the working class from immigration and emigration, since such measures are fruitless and reactionary, especially not the restriction of the freedom of emigration and the exclusion of foreign nations and races.

At the same time the congress declares it to be the duty of organized workingmen to protect themselves against the lowering of their standard of life, which frequently results from the mass import of unorganized workingmen. The congress declares it to be their duty to prevent the import and export of strike breakers.

The congress recognizes the difficulties which in many cases confront the workingmen of the countries of a more advanced stage of capitalist development through the mass immigration of unorganized workingmen accustomed to a lower standard of life and coming from countries of prevalently agricultural and domestic civilization, and also the dangers which confront them in certain forms of immigration.

But the congress sees no proper solution of these difficulties in the exclusion of definite nations or races from immigration, a policy which is besides in conflict with the principles of proletarian solidarity.

The congress, therefore, recommends the following measures:

I.—For the Countries of Immigration—

1. Prohibition of the export and import of such workingmen who have entered into a contract which deprives them of the liberty to dispose of their labor power and wages.
2. Legislation shortening the work-day, fixing a minimum wage, regulating the sweating system and house industry and providing for strict supervision of sanitary and dwelling conditions.
3. Abolition of all restrictions which exclude definite nationalities or races from the right to sojourn in the country and from the political and economic rights of the natives or make the acquisition of these rights more difficult for them. It also demands the greatest latitude in the laws of naturalization.
4. For the trade unions of all countries the following principles shall have universal application in connection with it:

(a) Unrestricted admission of immigrated workingmen to the trade unions of all countries.
(b) Facilitating the admission of members by means of fixing reasonable, admission fees.
(c) Free transfer from organizations of one country to those of the other upon the discharge of the membership obligations towards the former organization.
(d) The making of international trade union agreements for the purpose of regulating these questions in a definite, and proper manner and enabling the realization of these principles on an international scope.

5. Support of trade unions of those countries from which the immigration is chiefly recruited.

II.—For the Countries of Emigration—

1. Active propaganda for trade unionism.
2. Enlightenment of the working-man and the public at large on the true condition of labor in the countries of immigration.
3. Concerted action on the part of the trade unions of all countries in all matters of labor immigration and emigration.
In view of the fact that emigration of workingmen is often artificially stimulated by railway and steamship companies, land speculators and other swindling concerns, through false and lying promises to workingmen, the congress demands:

Control of the steamship agencies and emigration bureaus and legal and administrative measures against them in order to prevent that emigration be abused in the interests of such capitalist concerns.

III. Regulation of the system of transportation, especially on ships. Employment of inspectors with discretionary powers, who should be selected by the organized workingmen of the countries of emigration and immigration. Protection for the newly arrived immigrants, in order that they may not become the victims of capitalist exploiters.

In view of the fact that the transport of emigrants can only be regulated on international basis, the congress directs the International Socialist bureau to prepare suggestions for the regulation of this question, which shall deal with the conditions, arrangements and supplies of the ships, the air space to be allowed for each passenger as a minimum, and shall lay special stress that the individual emigrants contract for their passage directly with the transportation companies and without intervention of middlemen. These suggestions shall be communicated to the Socialist parties for the purpose of legislative application and adaptation, as well as for the purpose of propaganda.’

While this is the expression of the International Congress, it is important to bear in mind that, as declared by the National Executive Committee of the Socialist Party of America, the International national congress has no power to determine tactics for national parties.

It is an advisory body only; its decisions are recommendations, not laws. Therefore, we in America, while paying due and just attention to the suggestions of the International congress, must determine our own position in light of our experience.

Of all the nations of the world no other has an immigration problem of such vast magnitude as that with which the United States has to contend. For reasons inhering in its economic development, this nation has become the ‘melting pot’ of the world.

Men and women of every race and tongue come to this country to the number of more than a million a year, inevitably creating conditions which greatly add to the complexity and difficulty of the struggle of the proletariat of the nation to emancipate itself from the oppression and thrall of capitalism. Diversities of race, creed, language and custom militate against the solidarity of the workers by obscuring in some degree the fundamental class struggle.

Of the workers who are drawn to the United States a large proportion come from countries where the standards of living are inferior to those which the workers of this country have, by long and arduous struggle, established. Such immigrants, whenever they come in large numbers, for a time at least, until they are reached by the economic organizations of this country, commonly become, more or less unconsciously and unwillingly, tools of the capitalist class in their warfare upon the organizations of the working class.

They accept conditions of labor, wages and standards of living lower than those generally prevailing. That this is a temporary phase of the immigration from practically every country is made clear by all the available statistics on the subject.

We must face the fact that the proletariat of the United States differs from the proletariat of every other country in that it is largely constituted of aliens of many races and nationalities, differing in race, language, creed and customs, who find it difficult to understand each other.

We have to-day great industrial centers, of which Gary may be cited as an example, almost wholly made up of foreign speaking workers, of many races, who have not been reached by the economic or political organizations, of the working class of this country.

In ‘Free America’ they are serfs, living and working under an industrial feudalism, little likely, unless special efforts are made to educate and organize them, to become American citizens, able to share effectively in the proletarian struggle as a whole or even to protect their own interests.

Enormous and varied are the difficulties attendant upon the political and economic organization of the working class under these conditions. But they are not insurmountable. They can and must be overcome.

The organized proletariat of this country must, through its political organization, the Socialist Party, and through the labor unions, make a supreme effort to break down the barriers which keep the immigrant workers outside of the organized working class movement.

This nation differs from every other in that a majority of its citizens are either naturalized immigrants from other countries or the children of such immigrants. It is the nation’s task to break down the dividing lines of race, language, and custom and make intelligent citizens of all the varied elements drawn to its shores.

Even more is it the task and opportunity of the workers of the nation to overcome all those barriers which divide our class and so hinder its conquest of the economic resources of the nation.

Upon all essential principles we stand by and affirm the Stuttgart resolution. But, while we agree with its declaration in so far that we see no proper solution of the difficulties arising from mass immigration ‘in the exclusion of definite nations or races from immigration,’ we cannot agree that such exclusion would, if determined upon, be ‘in conflict with the principle of proletarian solidarity.’

We affirm, in opposition to this declaration, that the central, fundamental principle of Socialism is the class struggle; that it is the duty of the Socialist movement to fight the battle of the working class for a higher standard of living; and to protect, at all costs, the measure of civilization we have attained against any and all forces which menace it.

If ever the time comes when the protection of these requires the total exclusion of a race which menaces our standard of living, or our democratic institutions, then, in conformity with the central principle and mission of the Socialist movement, the Socialist Party would be compelled, however regretfully, to stand for that measure.

In view of the present existence of a grave and perplexing race problem in our southern states, the tragic result of the importation of slave labor by the capitalist class, it would be a betrayal of every principle and ideal of the Socialist movement should the Socialist Party, in such an emergency, act otherwise.

But that question is not immediately before us, nor do any available statistics warrant the belief that it is likely to be in the near future. The movement in favor of the exclusion of Asiatic immigration which has so long agitated many of the workers of our western states, is, we believe, due to a misunderstanding of the facts.

The volume of such immigration, including Chinese, Japanese, Koreans, Hindoos and Malays, is at present too small to constitute a serious menace; nor are there any signs of a considerable immediate increase. It would, therefore, be unwise for the Socialist Party to advocate Asiatic exclusion at this time.

We call the attention of the workers to the fact that it is perfectly well understood that most of the Asiatic immigration of the present time represents, not the free migration of workers, but practically contract labor.

It is artificially stimulated, subsidized immigration against which the party, in conformity with the Stuttgart resolution, stands with all labor organizations.

We direct the attention of our comrades and all members of our class to this condition, and to the fact that they can only secure protection from the menace of the mass immigration contract laborers by controlling the political powers.” (McDermut 1910: 77–80).

However, the minority report was rejected, and a compromise version of the majority report was adopted as the official policy of the Socialist Party of America.

In defending the majority report, the German Marxist Ernest Untermann – who had chaired the Committee on Immigration – also pointed out that there were cultural and social reasons for exclusion:

“Neither Japan nor China has developed a capitalism anything like the United States or Germany. It is in a state of development which at most resembles that of England 100 or 150 years ago, and even most of the peasants still live under the feudal system, and the old communes are just being disintegrated, so that an industrial proletariat is just in the process of formation.

That being the case, economic conditions in China and Japan and among the Hindus make these men not only economically backward but psychologically backward. These men still stand under the influence of Buddhism and Shintoism. They still believe in the ancient code of ethics and do not know anything about modern problems. They are just as lost when they come over to this country as you people would be lost if you were thrown en masse across to China or Japan. You would be in a new world. You would be among people that you would not understand, and you would be among people that would not understand you. That being the case, the tendency would be for you to live an isolated life, to stay away from the actual industrial problems, to work them out for yourselves. And if that is the case, they may as well work them out for themselves in their own country instead of making it more difficult for us by coming over here. ….

This is not a question of superiority of races. I am perfectly willing to grant that the Chinese and Japanese in their physiological qualities as a race are just as good and perhaps superior in some respects to us. That is not the question with us at all. The question with us is whether they as a nation, and occupying a certain geographical territory in a certain development and environment, are in a psychological stage which makes them accessible and assimilable to our ideas and civilization. I deny that emphatically on the strength of the experience of the comrades in the Pacific states.” (McDermut 1910: 87–88).

Untermann was also well aware that large-scale mass immigration from East Asia would effectively dispossess the European workers of America and make them a minority:

“It has been argued by some comrades that in this problem race does not go as deep as class. I do not know what they mean by such a phrase. But certainly this is not a question of a struggle between different classes, but of a struggle between the same class of different races. And when it comes to the question of whether we shall be permitted to live in our own house or whether we shall voluntarily abdicate and let somebody ese come into our own house, I should think every sensible man would stand for his own house and for the right to live in it, rather than voluntarily emasculate himself and let somebody else in.” (McDermut 1910: 90).

After some days of debate over the issue of immigration restriction between the supporters of the majority and minority reports, a compromise resolution was finally passed 55 to 50 as devised by Morris Hillquit (McDermut 1910: 168):

“The Socialist Party of the United States favors all legislative measures tending to prevent the importation of strike-breakers and contract laborers, and the mass importation of workers from foreign countries, brought about by the employing classes for the purpose of weakening the organization of American labor, and of lowering the standard of life of American workers.

The party is opposed to the exclusion of any immigrants on account of their race or nationality, and demands that the United States be at all times maintained as a free asylum for all men and women persecuted by the governments of their countries on account of their politics, religion or race.” (McDermut 1910: 157).

This compromise was intended to support mass immigration restriction in practice on pragmatic economic grounds, but allowed immigration of people suffering persecution, and did not call for exclusion on the basis simply of their race.

As we shall see in a future post, at the May 1912 national convention of the Socialist Party, the majority report on immigration took an even stronger line against mass immigration.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
McDermut, Wilson E. 1910. Proceedings. National Congress of the Socialist Party held in Masonic Temple, Chicago, Ill., May 15 to 21, 1910. The Socialist Party, Chicago, Il.
https://archive.org/details/NationalCongressOfTheSocialistPartyHeldInMasonicTempleChicagoIll.

Ross, Jack. 2015. The Socialist Party of America: A Complete History. Potomac Books, Lincoln.

What is the Case against Marxism in a Nutshell?

That is, what is the case against the actual theory presented by Karl Marx in volume 1 of Capital? This was the only volume of Capital that Marx published in his lifetime, and volume 3 contradicts volume 1 in important respects.

First, we need to know what Marx actually argued in volume 1 of Capital.

The essence of Marx’s theory and his conception of the historical tendency of capitalism is as follows:

(1) Marx had an elaborate labour theory of value on which he founded volume 1 of Capital (see here). Marx understood “value” in the following terms:

(1) the substance of value is abstract socially necessary labour time, which must be defined as a homogeneous unit capable of aggregating and measuring all heterogeneous types of human labour-power (Marx 1906: 45–46);

(2) so therefore value is abstract, socially necessary labour time embodied, crystallised, or materialised in commodities, and

(3) the magnitude of value or quantitative measure of value is the amount of abstract socially necessary labour time, counted in homogeneous units (Marx 1906: 45–46).

Marx also thought that market prices move around and are determined by labour values, since the latter are the equilibrium price anchors for a capitalist system.

(2) capitalism tends to increase the (1) accumulation, (2) concentration (accumulation over time) and (3) centralisation of capital. Capitalism will therefore have a tremendous tendency towards monopoly.

(3) capitalism will tend to destroy more and more capitalists and result in huge centralisation of capital (or monopoly) and reduce even capitalists to the proletarian class;

(4) capitalism will tend to use more and more machines and automation in production resulting in a huge body of unemployed people.

(5) the industrial reserve army of labour (the unemployed) grows and grows, and helps to hold real wages in check (see Chapter 25 of Capital). Even more, Marx thought that a large and growing industrial reserve army is a necessary condition of capitalism: it was a “condition of existence of the capitalist mode of production” (Marx 1906: 646).

(6) the tendency of capitalism is to keep the real wage at a subsistence level, which is the value of the maintenance and reproduction of labour-power (on this, see Chapter 25 of Capital and here). Wages rise and fall around this subsistence level as an equilibrium process;

(7) machines will only increase the intensity, speed and arduousness of work for the proletarians and their misery (see Chapter 15 of volume 1), and also increase the employment of women and children who are paid a lower wage than adult men (although government laws might counter this latter trend to some extent). The adult men are then increasing thrown out of work by machines and women and children replace them with lower wages;

(8) volume 3 of Capital adds to this the tendency of the profit rate to fall, but this mechanism is not invoked in volume 1 as one of the causes of the collapse, and some modern Marxists now dispute just how important the tendency of the falling rate of profit was for the final collapse of capitalism in Marx’s theory, as the emphasis given to this may be more the result of Engels’ tendentious editing of volume 3 of Capital.

(9) eventually almost the whole of society is reduced to the proletarian class with only a tiny handful of monopoly capitalists, who according to Marx “usurp and monopolise all advantages of this process of transformation” (Marx 1906: 836).

(10) the huge and constantly growing class of proletarians, who are kept in poverty with a subsistence wage, are subject to an increasing “mass of misery, oppression, slavery, degradation, [and] exploitation” (Marx 1906: 836). As in the passage of Engels quoted by Marx, the “other classes perish and disappear in the face of Modern Industry” (Marx 1906: 837, n. 1).

(11) finally, the proletarians eventually organise and rebel against capitalism, overthrowing the system.

Now these theories and predictions judged in their totality were not the long-run tendency of capitalism.

Even if a few elements are true (e.g., the increasing use of machines), nevertheless Marx’s vision is a Marxist caricature of capitalism which has been falsified by history.

We can run through the problems and failed predictions of Marxism as follows:

(1) Marx’s labour theory of value is false. The a priori argument for the labour theory of value in volume 1 of Marx’s Capital is a non sequitur and later contradicts itself, as detailed here and here. There are devastating problems with the very concept of a homogeneous unit of abstract, socially necessary labour time and serious empirical problems with the theory, as I show here. The very concept, as Marx defines it, cannot be accepted or defended as coherent or meaningful, and is contrary to the empirical evidence. The labour theory does not explain price determination (for how most prices are actually determined, see here), and the theory of price determination in volume 3 of Capital is inconsistent with that in volume 1. See here.

(2) the tendency to monopoly has its limits even in capitalism, and the extreme and increasing degree of monopoly as predicted by Marx goes well beyond anything observed in real world capitalism;

(3) the size of the working class eventually stabilised and society was swelled by a growing and prosperous middle class and social mobility. Unemployment rates in capitalism are simply a cyclical result of the business cycle: even in the 19th century, unemployment rates did not grow and grow in the long run, as Marx’s theory predicts, but normally simply moved around a point somewhat above full employment, as John Maynard Keynes pointed out:

“our actual experience … [sc. is] that we oscillate, avoiding the gravest extremes of fluctuation in employment and in prices in both directions, round an intermediate position appreciably below full employment and appreciably above the minimum employment a decline below which would endanger life.”
Keynes, J. M. 1936. General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money , Chapter 18.
https://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/economics/keynes/general-theory/ch18.htm

(4) Marx thought that the large industrial reserve army is a necessary consequence and necessary condition of capitalism, but this is incorrect. In the Keynesian era of full employment, there was very low unemployment and indeed labour scarcity in the advanced capitalist world, but capitalism continued and thrived – indeed we now call it the “Golden Age” of capitalism.

(5) the long-run tendency of capitalism, even in the 19th century, was to massively increase the real wage, which has soared above subsistence level, even for workers (see here and here).

(6) the growing real wage and rising disposable income even of workers in capitalism also allowed a massive capacity for production of new commodities and new opportunities for employment (e.g., especially in services and middle class employment), which in turn has helped to overcome technological unemployment.

(7) Marx’s claim that machines, generally speaking, are an unmitigated evil in capitalism whose primary effect is to increase the intensity and speed of work by labourers is an outrageous falsehood – a perversion of history and reality. In reality, machines have, generally speaking, tended to decrease the intensity, difficulty and monotony of human labour and often reduced to human labour to lighter work of visual inspection and overseeing of machine work, not physical labour. On this, see here and here. Advanced capitalist nations have also virtually eliminated child labour as well, and in our time have tended to pay women the same hourly wage for the same type of work as men.

(8) highly developed and advanced Western capitalist states like Britain and the US proved the most resistant to communism and Marxism (contrary to Marx’s theory), and when communist revolutions broke out it was in backward Russia and China. Even the communist outbreaks in Germany and Italy at the end of the First World War were more the result of the collapse of those nations under the strain of war, and not in line with the vision Marx had predicted (as I noted here).

In the Keynesian era of full employment from 1946 to 1973, mixed economy capitalism produced a golden age.

Of course, since the 1970s we have entered a a disastrous and regressive era of Neoliberal economics, but, even so, the consequences of that Neoliberalism are not in line with all of the predictions of Marxism as listed above.

The end of the Keynesian period and the return to revived neoclassical theories from the 1970s brought with it a return to lower growth, higher unemployment, stagnating real wages, and higher income inequality, but, above all, a transnational globalised neoliberal capitalism which has shipped a great deal of Western manufacturing and jobs to the Third World, and allowed legal and illegal Third World mass immigration into the West to lower wage costs, displace native workers and even replace populations.

To the extent that early Marxists dealt with issues of immigration and open borders, many welcomed it.

Engels in The Principles of Communism (written in 1847) welcomed the destruction and erasure of ethnic and national groups:

“What will be the attitude of communism to existing nationalities?

The nationalities of the peoples associating themselves in accordance with the principle of community will be compelled to mingle with each other as a result of this association and thereby to dissolve themselves, just as the various estate and class distinctions must disappear through the abolition of their basis, private property.”
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/11/prin-com.htm

Lenin saw open borders as “progressive”:

“There can be no doubt that dire poverty alone compels people to abandon their native land, and that the capitalists exploit the immigrant workers in the most shameless manner. But only reactionaries can shut their eyes to the progressive significance of this modern migration of nations. Emancipation from the yoke of capital is impossible without the further development of capitalism, and without the class struggle that is based on it. And it is into this struggle that capitalism is drawing the masses of the working people of the whole world, breaking down the musty, fusty habits of local life, breaking down national barriers and prejudices, uniting workers from all countries in huge factories and mines in America, Germany, and so forth.

America heads the list of countries which import workers. …. The bourgeoisie incites the workers of one nation against those of another in the endeavour to keep them disunited. Class-conscious workers, realising that the break-down of all the national barriers by capitalism is inevitable and progressive, are trying to help to enlighten and organise their fellow-workers from the backward countries.”
V. I. Lenin, “Capitalism and Workers’ Immigration,” Za Pravdu No. 22, October 29, 1913.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1913/oct/29.htm

So early Marxists saw mass immigration and the destruction of national differences as “progressive,” and thought that once people had been mixed up into multicultural or multi-ethnic states, this would create a huge class-conscious proletarian movement, which would then overthrow capitalism. This was yet another Marxist delusion.

Instead, unending Third World mass immigration means the dispossession of the people of the Western world, the Islamisation of our societies, the transformation of our nations into dysfunctional, Balkanised areas with rent-seeking nepotistic and mutually hostile ethnic and religious groups fighting for control of the state.

The deteriorating plight of Western workers and even segments of the middle class by Neoliberalism, the Islamisation of our societies, and Third World immigration has not produced any renewed Marxist or Communist movements of any political importance in the First World.

Rather, more and more people have reacted with increased support for nationalist and protectionist conservatives, and Marxists and Communists – where they still exist – militantly support the disastrous mass immigration policies that more and more people hate and reject.

In particular, modern Marxists are mired in irrational regressive left and Cultural Leftist delusions, such as Third Wave feminism, the idea that all cultures are equal and the nonsense that mass immigration is always a positive force.

That is why Marxism is destined for the dustbin of history.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Marx, Karl. 1906. Capital. A Critique of Political Economy (vol. 1; rev. trans. by Ernest Untermann from 4th German edn.). The Modern Library, New York.

Marx, Karl. 1990. Capital. A Critique of Political Economy. Volume One (trans. Ben Fowkes). Penguin Books, London.

Lenin on Open Borders

Here is Lenin speaking about mass immigration in 1913:

“Capitalism has given rise to a special form of migration of nations. The rapidly developing industrial countries, introducing machinery on a large scale and ousting the backward countries from the world market, raise wages at home above the average rate and thus attract workers from the backward countries.

Hundreds of thousands of workers thus wander hundreds and thousands of versts. Advanced capitalism drags them forcibly into its orbit, tears them out of the backwoods in which they live, makes them participants in the world-historical movement and brings them face to face with the powerful, united, international class of factory owners.

There can be no doubt that dire poverty alone compels people to abandon their native land, and that the capitalists exploit the immigrant workers in the most shameless manner. But only reactionaries can shut their eyes to the progressive significance of this modern migration of nations. Emancipation from the yoke of capital is impossible without the further development of capitalism, and without the class struggle that is based on it. And it is into this struggle that capitalism is drawing the masses of the working people of the whole world, breaking down the musty, fusty habits of local life, breaking down national barriers and prejudices, uniting workers from all countries in huge factories and mines in America, Germany, and so forth.

America heads the list of countries which import workers. ….

The bourgeoisie incites the workers of one nation against those of another in the endeavour to keep them disunited. Class-conscious workers, realising that the break-down of all the national barriers by capitalism is inevitable and progressive, are trying to help to enlighten and organise their fellow-workers from the backward countries.”
V. I. Lenin, “Capitalism and Workers’ Immigration,” Za Pravdu No. 22, October 29, 1913.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1913/oct/29.htm

I think this passage is the key to understanding why so many Marxists and Communists love open borders.

It is quite clear from this passage: they see mass immigration and the destruction of national differences as “progressive” and think that once people have been mixed up into multicultural or multi-ethnic states, this will create a huge class-conscious proletarian movement, which will then overthrow capitalism.

Notably, this was also the vision of Engels in The Principles of Communism (written in 1847) for the Communist world he envisaged:

“What will be the attitude of communism to existing nationalities?

The nationalities of the peoples associating themselves in accordance with the principle of community will be compelled to mingle with each other as a result of this association and thereby to dissolve themselves, just as the various estate and class distinctions must disappear through the abolition of their basis, private property.”
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/11/prin-com.htm

History shows us that this is a dangerous and unhinged Marxist fantasy.

The vast majority of people have an in-group preference: generally speaking, people of the same culture, same nationality, same religion or same ethnic group prefer to live together. This explains why many people, generally speaking, when left alone, prefer to self-segregate.

As has been shown in Robert D. Putnam’s paper “E Pluribus Unum: Diversity and Community in the Twenty‐First Century” (2007), when diversity is increased in a community, this has devastating consequences by tending to destroy that community’s internal social cohesion, trust and social capital. (One of the few exceptions in the West is the collapse of endogamy between people of the same denominations of Christianity; see Putnam 2007: 160).

For ordinary people, the cultural, national, religious and ethnic differences between human beings are often far more important than the economic or class interests that they share in common.

This is the reality that Marxists and the regressive left fail to understand, and precisely why their vision is collapsing all over the Western world.

Paradoxically, this may be less true of the Western multicultural neoliberal elite of the modern world, who love the vision of open borders and free trade, which they see as good things per se, but it is surely true of the broad mass of normal people, more and more of whom desire an end to open borders.

And, paradoxically, neoliberals and many Marxists/Communists have the same vision of a world with no borders and nationalities dissolved and destroyed.

But the Marxist internationalist vision of open borders is doomed to abject failure, just as the neoliberal vision of the same thing is. In the Western world, the neoliberal world of mass immigration is falling apart, and all the evidence suggests that socialism or social democracy as beloved by the left works best in highly homogeneous societies, not in multicultural societies.

A world with open borders and unending mass immigration will not result in a Marxist proletarian revolution, but – on the contrary – is more likely to unleash a nationalist and nativist backlash, and, in extreme cases, might even provoke fascism.

This is the trajectory of the modern world, and the mainstream left is simply committing political suicide by its adherence to the combined neoliberal and Marxist internationalist cult of open borders and diversity.

It’s time for the left to ditch this ridiculous cult and, instead, adopt a realistic and pragmatic policy of restricting mass immigration and ending open borders.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Putnam, Robert D. 2007. “E Pluribus Unum: Diversity and Community in the Twenty‐First Century. The 2006 Johan Skytte Prize Lecture,” Scandinavian Political Studies 30.2: 137–174.

Realist Left
Realist Left on Facebook
Realist Left on Twitter @realistleft
Realist Left on Reddit
Realist Left Blog
Realist Left on YouTube
Lord Keynes on Facebook
Social Democracy for the 21st Century: A Realist Alternative to the Modern Left

Alt Left on the Internet:
Alternative Left on Facebook
Alt-Left on Google+
Samizdat Broadcasts YouTube Channel
Samizdat: For the Freedom Loving Leftist

I’m on Twitter:
Lord Keynes @Lord_Keynes2
https://twitter.com/Lord_Keynes2

Debunking Marxism 101 (Updated)

In the links below I update my series of posts debunking Marxist economics and ideology, to complement my series on Debunking Austrian economics 101.

As in the series on Austrian economics, not all posts actually debunk Marxism, but sometimes provide outlines or summaries of Marxist theory or interesting points on Marxism or Karl Marx’s life and thought. There are also some posts where constructive things can be said: on endogenous money, the falsity of Say’s law and the monetary theory of production, how some of Marx’s economic thought anticipated Keynes, but even here the discussions in Marx’s Capital are simply obsolete and have long been superseded by modern Post Keynesian theory, and are mainly of historical interest.

In what follows, sometimes Marxist economic theory will be debunked by means of Post Keynesian economics (which is what this blog advocates), though frequently I have my own original criticisms or follow the arguments of other critics of Marxism.

It is important to remember that Post Keynesian economics – although it has severe criticisms of laissez faire capitalism and neoclassical or Austrian economics – is still strongly distinct from Marxist economics. Post Keynesian economics is not Marxism, and leading Post Keynesians and economists whose work has been foundational for Post Keynesian economics have rejected the labour theory of value, the basis of Marxist economics.

John Maynard Keynes, for example, said that Marx’s theories were founded “on a silly mistake of old Mr Ricardo’s” (Skidelsky 1992: 517) – namely, the labour theory of value. For Michał Kalecki and Joan Robinson the labour theory of value was “metaphysical” (Brus 1977: 59; Robinson 1964: 39), and for Piero Sraffa it was “a purely mystical conception” (Kurz and Salvadori 2010: 199). If the labour theory of value is unsound, then the whole Marxist edifice constructed on it cannot but fall and collapse. Moreover, the classical Marxist idea of historical determinism is also incompatible with the Post Keynesian idea of the fundamental uncertainty of the future.

For Marx’s theory of the “law of value” in volume 1 of Capital, see here:

“Marx’s ‘Law of Value’ in Volume 1 of Capital,” February 4, 2016.

For an overview of why the labour theory of value is wrong, see this post:

“Why Marx’s Labour Theory of Value is Wrong in a Nutshell,” June 28, 2015.

For a detailed discussion of how Marx and Engels continued to think of the theory of value in volume 1 of Capital as an empirical theory of pre-modern commodity exchange before modern capitalism (where prices of production are anchors for the price system), see here:

“Engels’ View of the Theory of Value in Volume 1 of Capital in the 1890s,” August 12, 2015.

The posts below are divided into the following groups:

(i) Bibliographical Posts.
(ii) Marx and Engels’ Works Online
(iii) Karl Marx’s Life 1818–1883
(iv) Documentaries about and discussions of Karl Marx and Marxism.
(v) Against the labour theory of value.
(vi) On the alleged tendency of the rate of profit to fall.
(vii) On Marx’s “Critique of the Gotha Program.”
(viii) Discussions of David Harvey’s lectures on Reading Marx’s Capital Volume 1.
(ix) Steve Keen on Marxism.
(x) On Marx’s views on phrenology and race.
(xi) On Marx’s views on slavery.
(xii) Marxism, authoritarianism and imperialism.
(xiii) Against Marx’s Communist Manifesto.
(xiv) Against Sraffian and Marxist long-run equilibrium.
(xv) Chomsky and Marxism.
(xvi) Against Temporal Single System Marxism (TSSI)
(xvii) Marx’s Monetary Theory
(xviii) Marx versus Keynes
(xix) Critical Summaries of Volume 1 of Capital
(xx) Marx’s Theory of Wage Determination in Capitalism
(xxi) Useful Insights in Capital
(xxii) Marx’s Views on Capitalism and Imperialism and Colonialism
(xxiii) Historical Development of Marxism
(xxiv) Responses to Marxists
(xxv) Failed Predictions of Marx and Engels
(xxvi) Marxism and Poststructuralism
(xxvii) Marx and Immigration
(xxviii) Engels’ Pause and Marx’s Hasty Generalisations about Capitalism
(xxix) Marx and Increasing Intensity of Labour in Capitalism
(xxx) Marx and Technological Unemployment.

I also recommend my series of posts that are critical chapter by chapter summaries of volume 1 of Capital in section xix below (or listed in a separate post here).

The posts are as follows:

Debunking Marxism 101
(i) Bibliographical Posts:

(1) “Study Guides to and Overviews of Marx’s Capital,” June 10, 2015.

(2) “Bibliography on Marx’s Monetary Theory,” June 16, 2015.

(3)“Early Reviews and Critiques of Marx: A List,” March 16, 2016.

(ii) Marx and Engels’ Works Online:

(1) “Some Early Editions of Marx’s Capital Online,” May 10, 2015.

(2) “Engels’ Later Works Online,” May 13, 2015.

(iii) Karl Marx’s Life 1818–1883:

(1) “Karl Marx’s Life 1818–1841,” April 20, 2015.

(2) “Karl Marx’s Life 1842–1844,” April 21, 2015.

(3) “Karl Marx’s Life 1845–1849,” April 24, 2015.

(4) “Karl Marx’s Life 1850–1860,” April 25, 2015.

(5) “Karl Marx’s Life 1861–1870,” April 28, 2015.

(6) “Karl Marx’s Life 1871–1883,” May 1, 2015.

(7) “Karl Marx’s Night Out on London Town,” September 5, 2015.

(8) “Karl Marx the Conspiracy Theorist,” December 11, 2015.

(iv) Documentaries about and discussions of Karl Marx and Marxism:

(1) “A BBC Discussion of Karl Marx,” April 4, 2015.

(2) “Karl Marx in London,” April 26, 2015.

(3) “BBC Radio 4 Discussion on the 1848 Revolutions,” April 22, 2015.

(4) “Jonathan Sperber on Karl Marx,” April 23, 2015.

(5) “Bryan Magee interviews Peter Singer on Hegel and Marx,” April 8, 2015.

(v) Against the labour theory of value

(1) “Mysticism and the Labour Theory of Value,” May 7, 2014.

(2) “Did Kalecki Accept the Labour Theory of Value?,” April 18, 2014.

(3) “Adam Smith on the Labour Theory of Value,” April 20, 2014.

(4) “Progress in Marxism on the Labour Theory of Value?,” March 18, 2015.

(5) “Marx’s ‘Socially Necessary Labour Time’: A Quick Overview and Critique,” March 26, 2015.

(6) “Marx on the Labour Theory of Value in Volume 1 of Capital,” March 27, 2015.

(7) “Marx’s Labour Theory of Value and Rothbard’s Homesteading Property-Rights Theory: Peas in a Pod,” March 28, 2015.

(8) “The Foundation of Marx’s Labour Theory of Value in Ricardo,” March 29, 2015.

(9) “More Mystical Labour Theory of Value Nonsense,” March 29, 2015.

(10) “The Two Epistemological Ways to Interpret the Labour Theory of Value,” March 30, 2015.

(11) “Piero Sraffa’s Damning Verdict on the Labour Theory of Value,” March 30, 2015.

(12) “Kliman’s Explanation of Marx’s Labour Theory of Value,” March 31, 2015.

(13) “Philip Pilkington on the Labour Theory of Value,” April 1, 2015.

(14) “The Labour Theory of Value and Animal Labour,” April 1, 2015.

(15) “Achille Loria and Alexander Gray on Marx’s Labour Theory of Value,” April 2, 2015.

(16) “Matias Vernengo on Marx’s Labour Theory of Value,” April 3, 2015.

(17) “My ‘Sun Theory of Value’: Why it’s better than the Marxist Labour Theory of Value,” April 5, 2015.

(18) “Achille Loria on the Contradiction in Marx’s Labour Theory of Value,” April 7, 2015.

(19) “Marx’s Wage-Labour and Capital,” April 9, 2015.

(20) “Dühring’s Review of Capital and Marx’s Letter to Engels of 8 January, 1868 on the Labour Theory of Value,” May 12, 2015.

(21) “Marx’s Abstract Socially-Necessary Labour Time in A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy and Capital,”

(22) “Marx on Labour Value and Cost Price in the Grundrisse,” May 7, 2015.

(23) “Engels’ Letter to Werner Sombart on the Labour Theory of Value in 1895,” May 14, 2015.

(24) “What the Labour Theory of Value does not Explain,” May 15, 2015.

(25) “What Conditions are Necessary for Commodity Prices to Equal Marx’s Labour Value?,” May 17, 2015.

(26) “A Devastating Contradiction in Marx’s Argument for the Labour Theory of Value,” May 19, 2015.

(27) “Wicksteed on the Contradiction in Chapter 1 of Volume 1 of Capital on the Labour Theory of Value,” May 21, 2015.

(28) “Karl Popper on the Labour Theory of Value,” May 30, 2015.

(29) “Fiat Money Destroys the Labour Theory of Value,” June 6, 2015.

(30) “Why Marx’s Labour Theory of Value is Wrong in a Nutshell,” June 28, 2015.

(31) “Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk’s Critique of Marx: A Quick Summary,” August 6, 2015.

(32) “Two Important Instances in Volume 1 of Marx’s Capital where Labour Values determine individual Commodity Prices,” August 7, 2015.

(33) “Two Instances where Marx’s Theory of Value in Volume 3 Intrudes into Volume 1 of Capital,” August 8, 2015.

(34) “Joan Robinson on Marx’s Labour Theory of Value: A Few Points,” August 11, 2015.

(35) “Engels’ View of the Theory of Value in Volume 1 of Capital in the 1890s,” August 12, 2015.

(36) “Marx’s Letter to Engels of 2 August, 1862 on Prices of Production,” January 19, 2016.

(37) “Engels’ Understanding of the ‘Law of Value’ in the Anti-Dühring” January 29, 2016.

(38) “Robert Wilbrandt’s Interpretation of Marx’s Law of Value in Volume 1 of Capital,” January 30, 2016.

(39) “The Historical Development of Marxist Interpretations of the Law of Value,” January 31, 2016.

(40) “Rudolf Hilferding on the Law of Value in Volume 1 of Capital,” February 1, 2016.

(41) “‘Socially Necessary Labour Time is the only Source of Value’: What Does this even Mean?,” February 2, 2016.

(42) “Marx’s ‘Law of Value’ in Volume 1 of Capital,” February 4, 2016.

(43) “Alexander Gray on the Two Contradictions in Marx’s Theory of Surplus Value in Volume 1 of Capital,” February 8, 2016.

(44) “Louis Boudin on the Contradiction between Volumes 1 and 3 of Marx’s Capital,” February 10, 2016.

(45) “A Marxist agrees with me on the Labour Theory of Value and Fiat Money!,” February 12, 2016.

(46) “Debunking Marx’s Concept of Exploitation based on Surplus Labour Value,” February 13, 2016.

(47) “Would Capitalism necessarily be destroyed if Human Labour fell towards Zero?,” February 12, 2016.

(48) “The Long-Run Tendency of Capitalism is to Decrease the Rate of Exploitation,” February 14, 2016.

(49) “Eduard Bernstein on Engels’ Historical Defence of the Law of Value in Volume 1 of Capital,” April 12, 2016.

(50) “Marx and Engels’ Attempt to Salvage the Law of Value in Volume 1 of Capital,” November 29, 2015.

(51) “The Important Points about Marx’s Labour Theory of Value,” December 1, 2015.

(52) “The Absurdity of the Transformation Problem,” December 6, 2015.

(53) “More on Engels’ Supplement to Volume 3 of Capital,” December 8, 2015.

(54) “‘Imaginary’ Prices and Marx’s Labour Theory of Value,” December 11, 2015.

(55) “Engels’ Famous Challenge in the Preface to Volume 2 of Capital on the Transformation Problem,” December 22, 2015.

(56) “Empirical Studies showing that Prices are Correlated with Labour Costs do not Prove the Classical Marxist Labour Theory of Value,” December 23, 2015.

(57)“Böhm-Bawerk on Marx’s Problem of Aggregating Heterogeneous Human Labour,” March 7, 2016.

(vi) On the alleged tendency of the rate of profit to fall:

(1) “Michael Heinrich on the Tendency of the Profit Rate to Fall and Engels’ Dubious Editing of Marx,” April 4, 2015.

(2) “Marx’s Tendency of the Rate of Profit to Fall: Analytically and Empirically Unproven,” February 22, 2016.

(3) “The US Profit Rate was Abnormally High in WWII and Immediately Afterwards,” March 4, 2016.

(vii) On Marx’s “Critique of the Gotha Program”:

(1) “Marx’s ‘Critique of the Gotha Program’: Four Points,” April 29, 2015

(viii) Discussions of David Harvey’s lectures on Reading Marx’s Capital Volume 1:

(1) “David Harvey on Reading Marx’s Capital Volume 1, Class 01,” April 8, 2015.

(2) “David Harvey on Reading Marx’s Capital, Volume 1, Class 02 (Updated),” June 30, 2015.

(3) “David Harvey on Reading Marx’s Capital Volume 1, Class 03,” July 3, 2015.

(4) “David Harvey on Reading Marx’s Capital, Volume 1, Class 04,” July 19, 2015.

(5) “David Harvey on Reading Marx’s Capital, Volume 1, Class 05,” September 25, 2015.

(ix) Steve Keen on Marxism:

(1) “Steve Keen’s ‘A Marx for Post Keynesians,’” April 6, 2015.

(x) On Marx’s views on phrenology and race:

(1) “Marx’s Phrenology and Racial Views,” April 26, 2015.

(xi) On Marx’s views on slavery:

(1) “Marx on Slavery in his 1846 Letter to Annenkov,” April 27, 2015.

(2) “Marx on Slaves as Fixed Capital,” July 16, 2015.

(3) “Marx on Slave-based Plantation Systems,” July 18, 2015.

(xii) Marxism and authoritarianism:

(1) “Engels on Authoritarianism and Revolution,” April 30, 2015.

(2) “Communist Imperialism,” February 14, 2016.

(3) “‘Marx was not responsible for the Horrors of Communism’ is Nonsense,” November 5, 2015.

(xiii) Against Marx’s Communist Manifesto:

(1) “What Economic System did Marx and Engels Advocate?,” July 24, 2012.

(xiv) Against Sraffian and Marxist long-run equilibrium:

(1) “Sraffians versus Kaleckians versus Fundamentalist Post Keynesians,” June 17, 2014.

(2) “Matias Vernengo on Marx’s Labour Theory of Value,” April 3, 2015.

(3) “Sraffian Long-Run Equilibrium Prices of Production and Post Keynesianism,” April 11, 2015.

(xv) Chomsky on Marxism:

(1) “Chomsky on Marxism,” July 12, 2015.

(xvi) Against Temporal Single System Marxism (TSSI):

(1) “Mongiovi on Temporal Single System Marxism,” May 16, 2015.

(2) “Nitzan and Bichler on the Temporal Single System Interpretation (TSSI),” June 3, 2015.

(xvii) Marx’s Monetary Theory:

(1) “Marx on the Necessity of Money being a Commodity,” June 8, 2015.

(2) “Marx rejected Fiat Money,” February 16, 2016.

(3) “Marx on the Origin of Money in the Critique of Political Economy (1859),” April 5, 2016.

(xviii) Marx versus Keynes:

(1) “Keynes versus Engels on ‘Socialism,’” May 5, 2015.

(xix) Critical Summaries of Volume 1 of Capital:

(1) “Prolegomena to the Study of Marx’s Capital (Updated),” June 2, 2015.

(2) “Marx’s Capital, Volume 1, Chapter 1: A Critical Summary, Part 1 (Updated),” June 21, 2015.

(3) “Marx’s Capital, Volume 1, Chapter 1: A Critical Summary, Part 2,” June 26, 2015.

(4) “Marx’s Capital, Volume 1, Chapter 2: A Critical Summary,” June 4, 2015.

(5) “Marx’s Capital, Volume 1, Chapter 3: A Critical Summary,” June 12, 2015.

(6) “Marx’s Capital, Volume 1, Chapter 4: A Critical Summary,” July 4, 2015.

(7) “Marx’s Capital, Volume 1, Chapter 5: A Critical Summary,” July 6, 2015.

(8) “Marx’s Capital, Volume 1, Chapter 6: A Critical Summary,” July 13, 2015.

(9) “Marx’s Capital, Volume 1, Chapter 7: A Critical Summary,” July 31, 2015.

(10) “Marx’s Capital, Volume 1, Chapter 8: A Critical Summary,” August 2, 2015.

(11) “Marx’s Capital, Volume 1, Chapter 9: A Critical Summary,” December 19, 2015.

(12) “Marx’s Capital, Volume 1, Chapter 10: A Critical Summary,” February 3, 2016.

(13) “Marx’s Capital, Volume 1, Chapter 11: A Critical Summary,” February 7, 2016.

(14) “Marx’s Capital, Volume 1, Chapter 12: A Critical Summary,” February 11, 2016.

(15) “Marx’s Capital, Volume 1, Chapter 13: A Critical Summary,” February 12, 2016.

(16) “Marx’s Capital, Volume 1, Chapter 14: A Critical Summary,” March 9, 2016.

(17) “Marx’s Capital, Volume 1, Chapter 15: A Critical Summary, Part 1,” March 17, 2016.

(18) “Marx’s Capital, Volume 1, Chapter 15: A Critical Summary, Part 2,” March 18, 2016.

(19) “Marx’s Capital, Volume 1, Chapter 16: A Critical Summary,” March 20, 2016.

(20) “Marx’s Capital, Volume 1, Chapter 17: A Critical Summary,” March 21, 2016.

(21) “Marx’s Capital, Volume 1, Chapter 18: A Critical Summary,” March 23, 2016.

(22) “Marx’s Capital, Volume 1, Chapter 19: A Critical Summary,” March 24, 2016.

(23) “Marx’s Capital, Volume 1, Chapter 20: A Critical Summary,” March 26, 2016.

(24) “Marx’s Capital, Volume 1, Chapter 21: A Critical Summary,” March 28, 2016.

(25) “Marx’s Capital, Volume 1, Chapter 22: A Critical Summary,” April 4, 2016.

(26) “Marx’s Capital, Volume 1, Chapter 23: A Critical Summary,” April 10, 2016.

(27) “Marx’s Capital, Volume 1, Chapter 24: A Critical Summary,” April 14, 2016.

(28) “Marx’s Capital, Volume 1, Chapter 25: A Critical Summary,” April 16, 2016.

(29) “Marx’s Capital, Volume 1, Chapter 26: A Critical Summary,” April 17, 2016.

(30) “Marx’s Capital, Volume 1, Chapter 27: A Critical Summary,” April 18, 2016.

(31) “Marx’s Capital, Volume 1, Chapter 28: A Critical Summary,” April 19, 2016.

(32) “Marx’s Capital, Volume 1, Chapter 29: A Critical Summary,” April 20, 2016.

(33) “Marx’s Capital, Volume 1, Chapter 30: A Critical Summary,” April 20, 2016.

(34) “Marx’s Capital, Volume 1, Chapter 31: A Critical Summary,” April 20, 2016.

(35) “Marx’s Capital, Volume 1, Chapter 32: A Critical Summary,” April 21, 2016.

(36) “Marx’s Capital, Volume 1, Chapter 33: A Critical Summary,” April 22, 2016.

(xx) Marx’s Theory of Wage Determination in Capitalism

(1) “The Debate on Marx’s View of Wages in Capitalism,” January 12, 2016.

(2) “A Simple Challenge to Marxists on the Theory of Wage Determination in Volume 1 of Capital,” March 7, 2016.

(3) “Marx on Wage Determination and the Classical Economists,” March 27, 2016.

(4) “Marx and the ‘Iron Law of Wages,’” December 29, 2015.

(5) “Marx on Wages in Value, Price and Profit (1865),” December 30, 2015.

(6) “Engels on Subsistence Wages,” December 21, 2015.

(7) “Marx’s Views on the Effectiveness of Trade Unions,” March 15, 2016.

(xxi) Useful Insights in Capital

(1) “What are the Useful Insights in Marx’s Capital?,” January 27, 2016.

(xxii) Marx’s Views on Capitalism and Imperialism and Colonialism

(1) “Capitalists and Imperialism,” January 3, 2016.

(2) “Paul Bairoch on the Industrial Revolution, Imperialism and Capitalism,” February 19, 2016.

(3) “Paul Bairoch on the Industrial Revolution, the Third World and Imperialism in World History,” February 20, 2016.

(4) “Who said this about British Rule in India?,” December 28, 2015.

(xxiii) Historical Development of Marxism

(1) “The Critical Responses to Volume 3 of Marx’s Capital and the Early Development of Marxism,” February 9, 2016.

(2) “Some Early Critical Reviews of Volume 3 of Marx’s Capital,” December 18, 2015.

(3) “The Historical Development of Marxist Interpretations of the Law of Value,” January 31, 2016.

(xxiv) Responses to Marxists

(1) “Response to Jehu on ‘Four Questions for LK on Money,’” April 8, 2016.

(xxv) Failed Predictions of Marx and Engels

(1) “Marx and Predictions of Capitalist Crisis,” September 17, 2015.

(2) “Engels’ Failed Prediction of Revolution in the UK,” December 20, 2015.

(3) “The Failed End of Capitalism Prediction by Marx,” December 4, 2015.

(xxvi) Marxism and Poststructuralism

(1) “The Poststructuralists as Frustrated Marxists-Communists,” October 20, 2015.

(xxvii) Marx and Immigration

(1) “Marx on Mass Immigration and Capitalism,” November 13, 2015.

(2) “The Hypocrisy of Marxists and Left Libertarians on Mass Immigration,” March 13, 2016.

(xxviii) Engels’ Pause and Marx’s Hasty Generalisations about Capitalism

(1) “Engels’ Pause: A Cause of Marx and Engels’ Hasty and False Generalisations about Capitalism,” February 6, 2016..

(xxix) Marx and Increasing Intensity of Labour in Capitalism

(1) “Marx on the Increasing Intensity of Labour in Industrial Capitalism: I Refute Him Thus,” March 18, 2016.

(xxx) Marx and Technological Unemployment

(1) “Marx on Technological Unemployment in the Grundrisse,” April 9, 2016.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Brus, Włodzimierz. 1977. “Kalecki’s Economics of Socialism,” Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics 39.1 (February): 57–67.

Kurz, Heinz D. and Neri Salvadori. 2010. “Sraffa and the Labour Theory of Value: A Few Observations,” in John Vint et al. (eds.), Economic Theory and Economic Thought: Essays in Honour of Ian Steedman. Routledge, London and New York. 189–215.

Robinson, Joan. 1964. Economic Philosophy. Penguin, Harmondsworth.

Skidelsky, R. J. A. 1992. John Maynard Keynes: The Economist as Saviour, 1920–1937 (vol. 2), Macmillan, London.