Socialism is Unscientific By Sir Guilford L. Molesworth 1918

Buy my book: The Folly of Socialism for 99 cents on Amazon

Visit a local listing for this here

Socialism is Unsound and Unscientific By Sir Guilford Lindsey Molesworth 1918

Modern Socialism is based on that unintelligible and self-contradictory work of Karl Marx, "Kapital," which Socialists have styled The Bible of Social Democracy and the scientific foundation of the modern Socialist Movement.

Socialists of the present day have disguised the ugly features and past failures of Socialism by dressing it up in the pretentious garb of "Scientific Socialism," although it is, in reality, absolutely unscientific. The very foundation-stone of it rests on the exploded Ricardian fallacy that labour alone produces wealth, or that all value is the product of labour. Professor Macleod, in his History of Economics, has completely demolished this fallacy. He wrote:— "In short, there never was any doctrine in science which has received such a crushing and overwhelming overthrow as that labour is the cause of value; hence, that system of economics which founds its ideas of wealth and value on labour is utterly fallacious" History of Economics, Macleod, p. 646).

Amongst the numerous cases Macleod has cited to prove the absurdity of this doctrine it will only be necessary to quote one:—

"If a lump of gold and a lump of clay were obtained by equal quantities of labour, they ought to be of equal value" (p. 642). In his endeavour to prove his contention Marx has involved himself in a network of confusion, from which, in his efforts to disentangle himself, he has floundered out of his depth, and has had recourse to pseudo-scientific nonsense. He has admitted, with regard to his theory of "labour power," that "this law clearly contradicts all experience based on appearance," and that the whole question is enveloped in mist. He argues:—

"A commodity appears at first sight a very trivial thing, and easily understood. Its analysis shows that it is, in reality, a very queer thing, abounding in metaphysical subtleties and theological niceties. ... A commodity is, therefore, a mysterious thing, simply because in it the social character of men's labour appears to them as an objective character stamped upon the product of that labour. ... It is value, rather, that converts every product into a social hieroglyphic. Later on we try to decipher the hieroglyphic, to get behind the secret of our own social products; for to stamp an object of utility as a value is just as much a social product as language. The recent scientific discovery that the products of labour, so far as they are values, are but material expressions of the human labour spent in their production, marks, indeed, an epoch in the development of the human race, but by no means dissipates the mist through which the social character of labour appears to us to be an objective character of the products themselves."

But, apart from the unsound character of Marx's Socialism, his assumption that labour is robbed by capital is absolutely disproved by the fact that the employers of labour in Great Britain have, for the past forty years, been struggling to avoid bankruptcy, and the majority of them have failed disastrously. Sir Benjamin Browne has shown from statistics, and from his own experience, that "labour gets about £10 for every £l that is paid in dividends to capital" (Industrial Peace, p. 11).

Buy my book: The Folly of Socialism for 99 cents on Amazon

For a list of all of my disks and ebooks (PDF and Amazon) click here

Taxation, Socialism & Pauperism by Sir Guilford L. Molesworth 1918

Buy my book: The Folly of Socialism for 99 cents on Amazon

Visit a local listing for this here

Taxation and Pauperism by Sir Guilford Lindsey Molesworth 1918

Bastiat, the French Economist, thus discriminates between the good and bad economist:—

"Between a good and a bad economist this constitutes the whole difference—the one takes account of the visible effect; the other takes account both of the effects which are seen, and also of those which it is necessary to foresee. Now this difference is enormous, for it almost always happens that when the immediate consequence is favourable, the ultimate consequences are fatal, and the converse. Hence it follows that the bad economist pursues a small present good, which will be followed by a great evil to come; while the true economist pursues a great good to come, at the risk of a small present evil" (Essays on Political Economy, F. Bastiat, p. 48).

It seldom occurs to the Socialist legislator to look beneath the surface or beyond the superficial aspect of any measure. So great an authority as Professor Foxwell has rightly said:—

"The incidence of taxation is one of the most difficult problems of political economy."

Sidgwick, perhaps the most eminent modern economist, has pointed out that—

"We can only partially succeed in making the burden either of direct or indirect taxes fall where we desire; the burden is liable to be transferred to other persons when it is intended to remain where it is first imposed" (Principles of Political Economy, H. Sidgwick, p. 567).

This frustrates the great Socialist aim "to make the poor richer by making the rich poorer." But Socialists "rush in where angels fear to tread." It is a common saying of Socialist workers, "Pile it on the rates and taxes; it doesn't affect us"; but it does affect them vitally. Lecky said:—

"No truth of political economy is more certain than that a heavy taxation of capital, which starves industry and employment, will fall most severely on the poor" (Democracy and Liberty, vol. i, p. 287).

More than thirty years before the outbreak of the great war Herbert Spencer prophesied that pauperism and unemployment which have actually prevailed in the pre-war years from this cause. He pointed out how the enormous and ever-increasing rates and taxes, whether local or Imperial, falling chiefly on the employers of labour, must necessarily be met from the industries of those employers, and eventually by the working men themselves, either in decreased wages, or in shortage of employment. Since that time, until the outbreak of the war in 1914, local taxation had nearly tripled—Imperial taxation had increased 3.5 times, and was £20,000,000 in excess of the maximum taxation caused by the Boer War. This increase has been due to reckless taxation of the most useless and mischievous character, not for the benefit of the people, but for the purpose of gaining the Socialist votes. At the same time the very foundations of our national defence were being sapped by the short-sighted policy of military and naval retrenchment. The volunteer forces, several battalions of infantry, and batteries of artillery were discarded; the militia, the great source of recruiting, was wiped out; and experienced munition hands were dismissed from Woolwich Arsenal, and eagerly snapped up by Germany; coastguard stations were broken up and sold; and during the three years 1906-8 there had been a total reduction of naval expenditure amounting to nearly £19,000,000.

Shortly before the war the public awoke to the fact that a largely increased taxation would be needed to restore, to some extent, the national defences to that state of efficiency from which they had been allowed to lapse. It also became aware of the connection between taxation and pauperism. Mr. Gordon Harvey, the member for Rochdale, declared:—

"The slackening of trade to-day, the growth of short time and stinted wages, are largely due to the financial stringency of the moment which is largely brought about by the wicked extravagance of Governments."

It would have been well if the member for Rochdale had discovered this fact at an earlier period; for he and his fellow Radical members had been mainly responsible for that "wicked extravagance" from which the country has suffered. Professor Shield Nicholson, in a very able address to the British Association in 1894, attributed the decay of the nation to excessive taxation. He said:—

"By excessive taxation Rome ruined her provinces and shattered her Empire; France accumulated the miseries that broke into the great Revolution; Turkey laid waste the most fertile regions of the earth. At this moment Italy is smouldering with discontent, and even the vigorous colonies of Australia feel their progress checked through the immoderate expenditure of the State. . . . Stripped of all this disguise the very object of Socialism is to impose taxes beyond the limit ever attempted by the rapacity and audacity of Governments."

For a list of all of my disks and ebooks (PDF and Amazon) click here

See also Over 300 PDF/Acrobat Books on Socialism, Communism and Economics and The History & Mystery of Money & Economics-250 Books on DVDrom

Free Speech Leads to Tolerance and Prosperity

J.S. Mill was an early advocate for our current view of free speech. He wrote, “If all mankind minus one were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind.”

Such a rule is likely rhetorically supported in many liberal democracies, and beyond as Greg Lukianoff from FIRE notes, however there exist variations to the rule. European countries permit more restriction on speech and have adopted, by convention or individually, some form of prohibition on hate speech, no longer allowing it, unlike the American system. Hate speech as a category has always been difficult to define and is hued in ambiguity, but generally, it limits speech aimed at people based on race, nationality, ethnic origin, religion, sex, and sexual orientation. The United States has advocates intent on including this as a form of unprotected speech, a category which has been previously unrecognized.

Additionally, information from Pew shows a stronger culture of free speech in the United States when compared to other regions, reflecting the few narrow exceptions to free speech legally permitted now.

Not only is the United States an exception in terms of legal protections for free speech, a product of the First Amendment, but it embraces concepts of free speech to a greater degree than most of the rest of the world. This indicates a culture of free speech which is partially rooted in the legal protections but not solely.

To further illustrate the point that the U.S. is quite exceptional in regards to free speech, consider this survey which found the U.S. at the top of 38 nations.

What we see in the United States is not only a strong legal presumption in favor of speech but strong cultural and political acceptance of free speech as well.

The Consequences Thereof

I suspect John Stuart Mills got it right, or his version is close enough, as a matter of what speech policy yields the best outcomes. Consider this 2016 Pew Survey from their Global Attitudes Survey.

Among the polled countries, the U.S. didn’t just come out ahead, it came out far ahead with only seven percent saying that growing diversity makes the U.S. a worse place to live. This is not reported enough, in my opinion, despite the limited use.

At the very least one should be dubious, in light of this contrast, when claims are made that the U.S., unique in its level of speech protection and tolerance, should adopt the European model of speech laws.

The contrast in attitudes regarding tolerance is so stark that even the least tolerant in the United States appears to match more closely with the most tolerant in other countries. Consider the ideological analysis below parsing out how diversity is viewed within similar groups.

Though much in society, both the good and bad, is multi-factorial and difficult to parse, it appears that broad protection of free speech either does not impact tolerance or it does not increase intolerance, at least when compared to other regimes (this comparison is limited, and temporal comparisons would help draw a more certain conclusion). This may appear counter-intuitive, but I suspect two things occur that help increase tolerance as people are exposed to various types of speech, including offensive speech. First, they see the consequences of offensive or inappropriate speech and adjust their behavior accordingly. Second, they are exposed to various views and are better able to compare them against the alternatives.

The benefits of speech also extend to economic activity and human welfare. Many have extolled the value of speech in economic growth and human flourishing. From science to the exchange of ideas, to the changing view that commerce should be pursued rather than shunned- as it, as well as finance, were once viewed as second-rate economic activity, the ability to converse has been central to human progress.

Deidre McCloskey argues that rhetoric and dignity help explain the Great Enrichment, the period wherein real income, per head “increased, in the face of a rise in the number of heads, by a factor of seven — by anything from 2,500 to 5,000 percent.” No such event in history compares in terms of human flourishing. That this coincided with a rise of traditional liberal values, free speech included, appears to be more than coincidence.

Here the Great Enrichment is graphically represented from Tyler Cowen and Alex Taborrock’s Principles of Economics.

This should amaze you.

That speech is tied to economic development has an intuitive appeal when considering that much of wealth creation is done via communication. From prices to ideas, economic activity is often tied to speech, not only to find benefits but to avoid costs. Whether to find wares, move resources, or spur innovation, speech is crucial to economic growth and prosperity.

Sliding Away From Free Speech

There is a serious concern regarding the future of free speech in the United States. College campuses have become the battlegrounds for much of this cultural battle over how much speech should be permitted. Students and activists on the left and right use the Heckler’s Veto to shut down speech with which they disagree, creating an illiberal turn in our free speech culture.

This attitude appears to be spreading beyond a few activist groups. A 2015 survey found that 40% of Millennials would support bans on certain types of offensive (but currently protected) speech. This in contrast to the, somewhat ironically, low levels of support from the Silent generation, which suggests that about 12% of those polled would support bans on offensive speech.

I do want to be careful to not overstep here in concluding too much from this data. First, I think that since the concerns of the time, the so-called topic du jour, changes from one generation to another it seems likely that what once was considered a speech taboo is no longer relevant and no new taboo arose to replace the outdated one for older generations. Combined with other variables such as the perspective of having seen the positive benefits of speech, such as the end to the draft, perhaps attitudes drift towards more speech tolerance as time goes on.

Nonetheless, these illiberal anti-speech attitudes have been confirmed more recently by Brookings, where free speech was shown again to have unusually low support from college-age adults, not only endorsing bans on speech but demonstrating support for heckling and interrupting a speaker with whom you disagree.

Which again turns us to the culture of free speech. Free speech is as much a cultural phenomenon as it is a legal guarantee. Make no mistake, I believe the fact that the United States is foremost in speech protection and tolerance is closely related, a reflecting glass of sorts, where our moments of speech antagony are met with the protections of the First Amendment allowing us to culturally realign with the underlying message and expand tolerance towards each other and diverse, even wrong, ideas.

However, an illiberal cultural development is possible. We have seen it time again with free trade. Despite the overall benefits, we continue to find anti-trade attitudes bubbling up into our politics and policy, pushing away long-term economic development to alleviate the fears that a few may lose employment. Same is true for the Luddites among us who insist that efficiency and prosperity is a poor trade-off for a static employment regime and scarcity, and wage war against automation.

It is to our benefit to remember that speech brings varied, hard-to-replicate benefits to ourselves and society. Recently, the great American classic, To Kill A Mockingbird was banned in a Mississippi school district as the racially tinged language “[made] people uncomfortable.” It is hard to argue this book has not brought net benefits to many, including myself, despite the fact that it may induce discomfort. So it is with speech. Indeed there are downsides, but they are far outweighed by the benefits, which stretch unseen into our relatively prosperous lives.

Reprinted from Medium

James Devereaux

James Devereaux is an attorney.  All views are his own and not representative of employers or affiliations.

This article was originally published on FEE.org. Read the original article.

See also Over 200 Banned, Controversial and Forbidden Books on DVDrom and Forbidden and Condemned by the Catholic Church - 150 Books on DVDrom - For a list of all of my digital books, click here