|
Criticisms of Marxism have come from various political ideologies and include ethical, economical and empirical criticisms. ==General criticisms== According to Leszek Kołakowski, the laws of dialectics at the very base of marxism are fundamentally flawed, some of them being "truisms with no specific Marxist content", others "philosophical dogmas that cannot be proved by scientific means", yet others being just "nonsense" and there's a group of laws that are so vague and can be interpreted differently, but these interpretations fall into one of these categories either. Economist Thomas Sowell wrote in 1985: What Marx accomplished was to produce such a comprehensive, dramatic, and fascinating vision that it could withstand innumerable empirical contradictions, logical refutations, and moral revulsions at its effects. The Marxian vision took the overwhelming complexity of the real world and made the parts fall into place, in a way that was intellectually exhilarating and conferred such a sense of moral superiority that opponents could be simply labelled and dismissed as moral lepers or blind reactionaries. Marxism was – and remains – a mighty instrument for the acquisition and maintenance of political power.〔Sowell, Thomas Marxism Philosophy and Economics (William Morrow 1985) p. 218〕 Democratic socialists and social democrats reject the idea that socialism can be accomplished only through class conflict and a proletarian revolution. Many anarchists reject the need for a transitory state phase. Some thinkers have rejected the fundamentals of Marxist theory, such as historical materialism and the labour theory of value, and gone on to criticise capitalism - and advocate socialism - using other arguments. Some contemporary supporters of Marxism argue that many aspects of Marxist thought are viable, but that the corpus is incomplete or somewhat outdated in regards to certain aspects of economic, political or social theory. They may therefore combine some Marxist concepts with the ideas of other theorists such as Max Weber: the Frankfurt school is one example. V. K. Dmitriev, writing in 1898,〔V. K. Dmitriev, 1974 (1898), ''Economic Essays on Value, Competition and Utility''. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press〕 Ladislaus von Bortkiewicz, writing in 1906-07,〔Ladislaus von Bortkiewicz, 1952 (1906–1907), "Value and Price in the Marxian System", ''International Economic Papers'' 2, 5–60; Ladislaus von Bortkiewicz, 1984 (1907), "On the Correction of Marx’s Fundamental Theoretical Construction in the Third Volume of ''Capital''". In Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk 1984 (1896), ''Karl Marx and the Close of his System'', Philadelphia: Orion Editions.〕 and subsequent critics have alleged that Marx's value theory and law of the tendency of the rate of profit to fall are internally inconsistent. In other words, the critics allege that Marx drew conclusions that actually do not follow from his theoretical premises. Once those errors are corrected, Marx's conclusion that aggregate price and profit are determined by, and equal to, aggregate value and surplus value no longer holds true. This result calls into question his theory that the exploitation of workers is the sole source of profit.〔M. C. Howard and J. E. King. (1992) A History of Marxian Economics: Volume II, 1929–1990, chapter 12, sect. III. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press.〕 There are also doubts that the rate of profit in capitalism would tend to fall, as Marx predicted. N. Okishio, in 1961, devised a theorem (Okishio's theorem) showing that if capitalists pursue cost-cutting techniques and if the real wage does not rise, the rate of profit must rise.〔M. C. Howard and J. E. King. (1992) A History of Marxian Economics: Volume II, 1929–1990, chapter 7, sects. II-IV. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press. 〕 The inconsistency allegations have been a prominent feature of Marxian economics and the debate surrounding it since the 1970s.〔See M. C. Howard and J. E. King, 1992, ''A History of Marxian Economics: Volume II, 1929–1990''. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press.〕 Andrew Kliman argues that, since internally inconsistent theories cannot possibly be right, this undermines Marx's critique of political economy and current-day research based upon it, as well as the correction of Marx's alleged inconsistencies.〔Kliman states that "Marx’s value theory would be ''necessarily wrong'' if it were internally inconsistent. Internally inconsistent theories may be appealing, intuitively plausible and even obvious, and consistent with all available empirical evidence––but they cannot be right. It is necessary to reject them or correct them. Thus the alleged proofs of inconsistency trump all other considerations, disqualifying Marx’s theory at the starting gate. By doing so, they provide the principal justification for the suppression of this theory as well as the suppression of, and the denial of resources needed to carry out, present-day research based upon it. This greatly inhibits its further development. So does the very charge of inconsistency. What person of intellectual integrity would want to join a research program founded on (what he believes to be) a theory that is internally inconsistent and therefore false?" (Andrew Kliman, ''Reclaiming Marx's "Capital": A Refutation of the Myth of Inconsistency,'' Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 2007, p. 3, emphasis in original). The connection between the inconsistency allegations and the lack of study of Marx’s theories was argued further by John Cassidy ("The Return of Karl Marx," ''The New Yorker'', Oct. 20 & 27, 1997, p. 252): "His mathematical model of the economy, which depended on the idea that labor is the source of all value, was riven with internal inconsistencies and is rarely studied these days."〕 Critics who have alleged that Marx has been proved internally inconsistent include former and current Marxian and/or Sraffian economists, such as Paul Sweezy,〔"Only one conclusion is possible, namely, that the Marxian method of transformation (commodity values into prices of production ) is logically unsatisfactory." Paul M. Sweezy, 1970 (1942), ''The Theory of Capitalist Development'', p. 15. New York: Modern Reader Paperbacks.〕 Nobuo Okishio,〔Nobuo Okishio, 1961, "Technical Changes and the Rate of Profit," ''Kobe University Economic Review'' 7, pp. 85–99.〕 Ian Steedman,〔"()hysical quantities ... suffice to determine the rate of profit (and the associated prices of production) .... ()t follows that value magnitudes are, at best, redundant in the determination of the rate of profit (and prices of production)." "Marx’s value reasoning––hardly a peripheral aspect of his work––must therefore be abandoned, in the interest of developing a coherent materialist theory of capitalism." Ian Steedman, 1977, ''Marx after Sraffa'', p. 202, p. 207. London: New Left Books〕 John Roemer,〔"(falling-rate-of-profit ) position is rebutted in Chapter 5 by a theorem which states that ... competitive innovations result in a rising rate of profit. There seems to be no hope for a theory of the falling rate of profit within the strict confines of the environment that Marx suggested as relevant." John Roemer, ''Analytical Foundations of Marxian Economic Theory'', p. 12. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1981.〕 Gary Mongiovi,〔(Vulgar Economy in Marxian Garb: A Critique of Temporal Single System Marxism ), Gary Mongiovi, 2002, ''Review of Radical Political Economics'' 34:4, p. 393. "Marx did make a number of errors in elaborating his theory of value and the profit rate .... ()is would-be Temporal Single System defenders ... camouflage Marx’s errors." "Marx’s value analysis does indeed contain errors." (abstract)〕 and David Laibman,〔"An Error II is an inconsistency, whose removal through development of the theory leaves the foundations of the theory intact. Now I believe that Marx left us with a few Errors II." David Laibman, "Rhetoric and Substance in Value Theory" in Alan Freeman, Andrew Kliman, and Julian Wells (eds.), ''The New Value Controversy and the Foundations of Economics'', Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar, 2004, p. 17〕 who propose that the field be grounded in their correct versions of Marxian economics instead of in Marx's critique of political economy in the original form in which he presented and developed it in ''Capital''.〔See Andrew Kliman, ''Reclaiming Marx's "Capital": A Refutation of the Myth of Inconsistency,'' esp. p. 210-211.〕 Proponents of the Temporal Single System Interpretation (TSSI) of Marx's value theory claim that the supposed inconsistencies are actually the result of misinterpretation; they argue that when Marx's theory is understood as "temporal" and "single-system," the alleged internal inconsistencies disappear. In a recent survey of the debate, a proponent of the TSSI concludes that "the ''proofs'' of inconsistency are no longer defended; the entire case against Marx has been reduced to the ''interpretive'' issue."〔Andrew Kliman, ''Reclaiming Marx's "Capital"'', Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, p. 208, emphases in original.〕 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「Criticisms of Marxism」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|