Impetus; Kapital

Marxism is passionately repro fast by two thirds of the world. It is passionately rejected by another fraction. What is that passion all about. Impetus a program about books that have shaped our time. The books discussed in the series are not necessarily great or even good. But all of them have been employing childe works and for better or for worse. They have little men to actually give and shape to the 20th century. Not here was the host of it. Just a good one. The University of Chicago. Our guest this evening is Abrams Harris a professor of economics in the college and in philosophy at the University of Chicago. Our book is long on pages and short on titles. It is heavy in influence and light on readers.

It is the Bible of communism. It is Karl Marx's volume simply titled capital or in better English capital. Like most Man I've never read it so I shall listen to a Paris with both ears. What will you tell us about Marxism made Joe. I think we should confine our discussion of capital to two of the main points. Well you don't have to be so solemn about it just stick to your two points. The first point is the idea of the exploitation of labor and the second is the idea of general overproduction leading to cycles of prosperity and depression accompanied by mass unemployment well start out and tell me something about Marx's idea about Labor will you. Well the term exploitation of labor. It's a million. Need I say it does it doesn't it doesn't mean what is commonly thought.

It does not mean that labor is poorly paid all that labor has swayed it. It means this that by virtue of the private ownership of the means of production capitalists able to filch from the workers what Mark's call the show filth yet yells from the workers what Marx called the surplus product. And what's the surplus for well this I suppose product takes a forum of interest rent and profit and these incomes Marce considered to be on earned by virtue of the fact that the capitalist really is. It is Spence double agent in production. So actually the common newspaper American view communism versus capitalism isn't so far wrong when it talks about capitalism having the profit motive and communism not. Yeah because the essence of this exploitation of labor idea is that profit is essentially wrong that it's a stealing and later Marx never like to use the word stealing but I think you're quite right in applying it here. What I should say in this connection that the prophet movie

is my next point the profit motive leads to what Marx call the overproduction general overproduction now you're on number two number two now number two is Marx's notion that capitalism inevitably leads to overproduction and you decide to go ahead and this leads to what we today call the business cycle cycles of prosperity and depression accompanied by mass unemployment. These are tendencies but you consider it inevitable in capitalism which would lead to the breakdown the ultimate collapse of capitalism and its replacement by a higher form of society which is classless devoid of oppression and in which equality is the ruling norm. Well now which would you I there are two things I'd like a which one would you like to do first to mean you want to do it. You can either tell me what Marx proposes in his scheme to avoid these two alleged evils. Or you could tell me something about how far we in capitalism have gone to cure the evils.

Well I should i could do some of both by the way. Well which one to do files I'll do the first one first sorry. This idea that the exploitation leads to only an increment is a very fascinating late minute leads to what an earned income or an income this is not all that surplus or flash product. But if we were from what we know about Russia for example or for that matter other countries in which the attempt is made to bring about greater inequality in the distribution of income so called on an increment seems to have a peculiar way a reasserting itself in the form you need what happens tends to be the DNA of the so-called on earned income it just goes to different people. Yes in different ways like example you have to if you want people to say you in the economy you have to pay them to save or take it from that interest us interest. If you want to increase the product of industry and general welfare then you have to pay

people of exceptional ability differential return. Well this is just the profit motive again sneaking up on a yes form of interest or other rewards for either saving your money or working harder rock right now in the United States on this problem of inequality I should like to point out here that we have gone to far far way in mitigating it. The problem of course is in how much inequality you want to be present. Let me see if I've got your point straight your first point seems to be that communism is actually practiced has not solved the difficulty that Marx started out with on the contrary what we find what from what we know the little we know about the Russian experience and since 1929 we are inclined to believe that inequality is all the increase and increasing at a more rapid rate and then the United States. Who are they what is the class or who are the people who are getting the extra dough in Russia now. Well it would be them their member. I would call the elite by and large as they are the

elite. Well Italy played landed partially the managers of industry. These appear a worker so cost kind of fights. We see bonuses and premium for excellence in short one way or another they simply got a profit motive in there for a kind of capitalism together with national plan. Yes I would say that right now you get all this about the saying that they are not solve the problem by the device's Marx said would solve them. Are you now suggesting that we have gone a long way in our own way absolving. Yes well tell me about. Well I think the fundamental reason for the tendency to what Less think inequality in the United States is be found in what I would call in rather technical terms occupational mobility. I'm not going to ask you what you mean by that go ahead but I had what seemed like a simple The movement of people from long forms of employment to higher forms of employment from one generation to another.

Now lower and higher means more unskilled and better paid for paid and better paid. Isn't there lateral mobility too I don't know where I picked up this phrase but it seems to me that one of the great important things about this country. Just because a profit motive. Is that when people are in one industry or one kind of work and its begins to peter out or peter off they move to something else they'll train themselves to take another job. Well this is another point which I want to mention and. The heading of increasing productive capacity. All right well let's And that's when you get to it when you please. Now wait now I understand a point about how we have met it. That is we do have vertical mobility of labor they go tend to just don't have to fill in the bottom by the way and if a bunch of unskilled laborers in one generation become the skilled laborers in another who's going to do the unskilled are all wild I don't think it's a very important problem and you don't know I think what we ought to do is get rid of as much unskilled work as we possibly can always go have my education my education both formal and technical. Yeah but my point oh I get what you mean by technical people far for new

jobs within this expanding creating new products inventions and all this kind of thing. Yeah but a bit I mean was that if there are unskilled laborers at any time it must be because there is unskilled labor to do while I say don't run get rid of unskilled the unskilled labor to do and this is a question of improving the techniques of production creating new products and and of course things like our fancy automation will get us all as my home automation. But this raises some more problems which I didn't read that intention but I'm afraid all of the term automation might raise more problems we can solve in two minutes. All right anyway I get that go on the next point. Then I'm considering we considered connection with Marx. Is this problem over production leading to depressions and to mass unemployment. Well now here boy it was sounds as if you've got a tougher problem in defending capitalism than you did on the other one because with a little of something called a recession no. That's correct and not everybody seems to know what to do about it.

Well I am not so certain that we don't know what to do about it is a question I would say arises from confusion about the appropriate remedy is to be utilized at this time. You seem to be talking out of the funny corner of your mouth but to just read appropriate remedies and not know how to do it. Well quite deaf while the question is whether lowering the income tax all whether creating public works both of which might be a may be used well. One or the other might not create more difficulties. Then we're faced with the present time. I mean that's but the Christ problem so what you mean is that we do know that what you do in recessions when you get him is to somehow jack up the money available in the spending the question is how you make the money available and who doesn't have anything but want to vary it when one of the very interesting things you ought to bear in mind in connection with our present so-called recession is the fact that the Federal Reserve Board has acted rather quickly I should think in lowering the rate of interest and changing the reserve requirements of the banks all of these being remedies

which we now consider very important ones to use in mitigating a recession. Well when you talk about we consider them important ones my my my question as a man on the street in a stove is there any sign that the actions of the Federal Reserve Board have really begun to help. Well that's just too hard for me to say right now I'm inclined to think yes from the gradual modification on employment given areas and in some areas the rice in business in the bar in your own part of business. But part of business for what this is really it's really to say. Now how effective this is. When I made my point of this that one problem in this connection is the fact if you begin to move down in a recession a lowering of money rate may not be as quick to bring about a change raising them as raising the rate curbing inflation. All the all the weasel words you have to use indicate one thing that though we've gone a long way toward making for greater equality of distribution of our common wealth

we have not gone quite as far certainly in keeping our capital our capitalism our economics on an even keel. Yes I say I was I would say that and I'll go add to that that although we know something about the mitigation of the depression we have learned a great deal since nine hundred and thirty. It is still one of our very basic problems right now I want to raise a third question a third point you said you had only two but I got a third I'd like to know what Mark says about it if anything and what we've done about it it seems to me that when you talk about equal distribution of wealth it's a phrase and an idea that captures everybody's imagination everybody gets pretty emotional about it so emotional in fact that they forget about the fact that. What's more important or equally important will equal distribution of wealth is how much wealth there is to distribute. Now did Marx ever face this question about building up better than capitalism could the Commonwealth.

Yes he got the program not in capital. He does make the statement that you know the famous phrase he uses at the end of the Gotha Program from each according to his ability to each according to his need. Remember that famous phrase What's this got to do with the Commonwealth. This is that well you have this it seems to me that you'd have to have to have so much wealth that people would be more or less indifferent about how you're stupid. I mean I wish you to a flat state all right. I'm Has I'm coming to that statement. Well go on then. You think you know what I want. The statement is that Marx argues that. Fundamentally capitalism by virtue of the quest for profit him is in the forces of production. All right now listen man one flat question to you on this score on the matter of the Commonwealth who's ahead now. The communist areas of the world in the rate at which they're building up are the capitalist areas like the United States in the way it is building. Well and in Russia where the rate of industrialization is going to force going ahead very rapidly at a much more rapid pace I suppose and the pace that we

are at which we will give an update I think in six alright but not just close it off now by telling me where we stand relative to Russia on this one I think. I think we are quite ahead. OK. Impetus a program about books that have shaped our time. Your host was Joseph J Schwab WM Randy Harper professor of the natural sciences at the University of Chicago. Tonight his guest was a broom L. Harris a professor of economics in the College of the University of Chicago. This is the end I ybe Radio Network.