What if Moses were a Marxist?

[satz]

Hi BJ,

Just to ensure I am understanding you correctly;

I vaule his labor for exactly what I give him not a penny more. And yes his labor will bring a Capitalist more than they pay him. Thats called using a mans labor as a means for Capitalist to accumulate wealth. They didn't buy that surplus labor, they stole it because they could.

If a worker is employed in a factory producing X, and X sells for $25 on the market, what should the worker be paid?


----

Apart from that, just checking, but did you see my first post? I still fail to see how your arguments are compatible with the master-servant relationships we see in the bible. God did not even think it wrong for a master to own the persons of his servants, not to talk about their labor.

God did not create all men equal socially. There are masters and servants, rich and poor, and that is the way he ordained the world. The equality he wants between men (apart from legal equality in judgment) is in terms of necessary items like food, water, clothing, housing.

It seems to me you have offered a lot of philosophical reasons for why you believe what you believe, but those are not bible reasons.

Where does the bible say a master must get down and work with his servants?

Where does the bible support the idea that the owners of means of production are thieves?

Where does the bible even support the definition of surplus capital?

 

[Pilgrim]

I haven't listened to them, but these messages on communism, etc. by F.N. Lee may be of interest.

 

[B.J.]

Mark,

If a worker is employed in a factory producing X, and X sells for $25 on the market, what should the worker be paid?

Well, my first inclination is to say $25. No, I got it. The worker should be payed $24.97. That way the Capitalist makes .03 surplus labor. That seems fair, right?

As for the kingdom parables, are you suggesting that Jesus is lecturing on economics? I can't find a single commentator that thinks Jesus is teaching anyhting about Capitalism. Maybe Gary North.

Where does the bible say a master must get down and work with his servants?

I am not sure that it does. Should it? My wife just had a C section instead of natural child birht due to complications. Does the Bible condone that? Should it?

Where does the bible support the idea that the owners of means of production are thieves?

As much as I believe in the suffiency of Scripture I also hold to the insuffiency of Scripture. And in this case, I dont think the Bible lays out the economic superstructure that Christian Capitalist want it to. I am open to the idea though. I just refuse to read 8,000 pages of Gary North.

Where does the bible even support the definition of surplus capital?

Thats a good question for a Capitalist who needs it to justify its use, Scripturally speaking. I asked that earlier. I wanted someone to show me that surplus labor was biblical.

 

[satz]

Hi BJ,

Thanks for your reply.

As for the kingdom parables, are you suggesting that Jesus is lecturing on economics? I can't find a single commentator that thinks Jesus is teaching anyhting about Capitalism. Maybe Gary North.

No, I am not at all suggesting Jesus was lecturing on capitalism. My point was that Jesus would not use an essentially immoral practice (if what you are saying is correct) to compare with the Kingdom of Heaven. Now the bible does sometimes compare God and his kingdom to worldly things, but it is always to make a specific point, and we are always told why. So the second coming is compared to a thief because of its unexpectedness. God is compared to an unjust judge who listens to a widow because of her persistence as an ‘if even he will listen, than won’t God…’ example to teach Christians perseverance in prayer. I do not see the same happening in the kingdom examples.

I am not sure that it does. Should it? My wife just had a C section instead of natural child birht due to complications. Does the Bible condone that? Should it?

If you say the bible does not command it (master working with their servants), than how can you condemn those who don’t?

You were free to have a C-section because the bible never condemns it. Some want to bring up the idea that there is a duty to take care of life etc, but I don't see that is necessary since the bible never even raises the idea that a C-section would be wrong. It is your freedom.

Likewise workers are under the authority of their employer or master, and he can do with them what he wishes. The bible does not command him to help them in the specific tasks they are performing. Of course, sloth is wrong, but if the master wishes to occupy his time in other ways, that is his choice. Again, I don't see from the bible that management or oversight is somehow not considered work.

As much as I believe in the suffiency of Scripture I also hold to the insuffiency of Scripture. And in this case, I dont think the Bible lays out the economic superstructure that Christian Capitalist want it to. I am open to the idea though. I just refuse to read 8,000 pages of Gary North.

But from your comments, you don’t even seem to be certain the bible condemns the capitalist superstructure. If the bible neither condemns something, nor commands something completely opposite, than how can we condemn that thing, no matter how much we may dislike it?

You did not interact with the point about masters and slaves and how God’s allowance for such a practice is consistent with the notions you are putting forward.

Thats a good question for a Capitalist who needs it to justify its use, Scripturally speaking. I asked that earlier. I wanted someone to show me that surplus labor was biblical.

My point was, I don’t see that the bible even supports the definition of surplus labour as Marx defines it. God has ordained some men as masters and others as servants. Servants are entitled to fair treatment, but I don’t see anywhere God gives them a right to demand a ‘fair share’ of the profits from their masters. Again, God did not even think it amiss for a master to own his slaves completely, which makes arguments about who owns their ‘surplus capital’ somewhat irrelevant, as I see it.

Exodus 21:2-5 If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing. If he came in by himself, he shall go out by himself: if he were married, then his wife shall go out with him. If his master have given him a wife, and she have born him sons or daughters; the wife and her children shall be her master's, and he shall go out by himself. And if the servant shall plainly say, I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free:

God has such a high view of the rights of masters he did not even think a woman getting married broke the rights her master had over her. He required her husband to choose between his freedom and staying with his family. Note, even the children are the master's. What in the world would God think about someone who wanted to argue about his 'surplus capital'?

Exodus 21:20-21 And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished. Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money.

If a master was to go to far in disciplining a servant (even a female one) and that servant was to die, God did not consider the master guilty worthy, for as the text says, the servant is the master’s money or property. As I understand the text, the one day stipulation is to show that it was truly an act of discipline and not a malicious murder attempt, since if it was (ie the master really wanted to kill), the servant would not have survived a day.

Well, my first inclination is to say $25. No, I got it. The worker should be payed $24.97. That way the Capitalist makes .03 surplus labor. That seems fair, right?

Well, why should not the master earn $5, $10 or even more worth of surplus capital, so long as the worker (or servant, which is the bible term) is paid enough to feed and shelter himself? If the servant was not happy with the terms of his employer, why doesn’t he go and set up his own business so he can claim the full $25? Most probably he lacks the tools to produce the item, the reputation or distribution networks to sell it, or other resources needed for its production. Or, as I think you are getting at, because the employer owns the means of production while the worker doesn’t. Hence the employer profits because of his control of the means of production. While this may be wrong from Marx’ point of view, does the bible agree? As I said already, God made rich and poor, and he made masters and servants. Just has he ordained kings over citizens, husbands over wives and parents over children, by his providence, he gave some men the capability and resources to be masters, while denying that to others.

 

[B.J.]

Mark,
Thanks for the insight. It is very thought provoking. I am in process with these things and need to read some more on it.


Thanks,
B.J.

 

[Pilgrim]

Which school had the Marxist professors?

 

[Puritanhead]

Which school had the Marxist professors?

I used to argue with a Marxist professor in front of the whole class and bring his naive insistence that Lenin and Stalin betrayed Marx and wasn't true communism into ill repute. Students should be insubordinate to professors that preach such tripe and garbage. If it were all to do over, I would be even more abrasive and confrontational. Ideas have consequences. Any serious effort to implement Marx's political program will yield the same bloodletting and human misery. It's an ideology at odds with human experience and nature.

Why is it Marxism died in Russia and the Ukraine, but is still alive and kicking on American college campuses? A few years ago, Duke Univ. was revealed as having some of the highest per capita concentrations of avowed Marxist professors in the United States. There is a littler irony in someone making $65-110k year, driving a late model sedan, and ranting about the evils of capitalism. Don't bite the hand that feeds you, nitwits!!!

 

[B.J.]

Which school had the Marxist professors?

Which ones don't? I was attending Armstrong Atlantic State University here in Savannah, Ga. I had this professor for several philosophy classes.

 

[B.J.]

I used to argue with a Marxist professor in front of the whole class and bring his naive insistence that Lenin and Stalin betrayed Marx and wasn't true communism into ill repute.

This is the same jargon used by all Neo-Marxist. I suppose by seperating themselves from the horrid acts of Stalin and Lenin, and claiming they weren't true to Marxist doctrines, it leaves them a fighting chance that the "true" revolution is yet to come. Marxist optomism has always fascinated me.

My professor always told me that "true" communism must come out of a Capitalistic society. It can't be forced on a society. It is the natural out working of the dialectical tension between the classes, and it will be the last class struggle in pre-history.

 

[Pilgrim]

Which ones don't? I was attending Armstrong Atlantic State University here in Savannah, Ga. I had this professor for several philosophy classes.

I never had any who taught Marxism in this fashion, although one of them joked that he was a Trotskyist. However, he would have had to have gotten completely off subject to really propagate Marxism. Actually I much preferred that professor to some other more conventional liberals I had classes with. But he was also new and had not yet gotten tenure. If/when he does, maybe things will change?

I only took one rather basic philosophy class. Most of my history and political science profs. were moderates at worst, and this included a Baptist college as well as public universities. Most of them came of age in the 1960's and I know that several of them became more conservative as time went on. One professor of Latin American history revealed that he used to be quite liberal and had previously blamed the US for all of the problems in Latin America but he had become much more conservative in recent years. One exception was a history professor who strongly attacked the veracity of the Bible. I wasn't even a believer then, but I still felt bad about it. He was such a commanding presence that I don't think anyone dared challenge him, especially not in a Civ I class. Whether he was a Marxist, I don't know.

 

[BrianLanier]

Mark,
Thanks for the insight. It is very thought provoking. I am in process with these things and need to read some more on it.


Thanks,
B.J.

If you haven't already, you should read Thomas Sowell's book, Marxism: Philosophy and Economics, it is very good. He accurately represents Marx and Engels and offers a great critique at the end. Dr. Greg Bahnsen used a lot of material from this book in some of his lectures on Marxism (both in his philosophy and his political ethics courses).