On this day in 1818, Karl Marx was born. Historically, he’s a curious fellow since so many authoritarians claimed to base their despotic regimes on his thought. I think he was very much like Adam Smith: essentially a moral philosopher who had some things to say about economics. And also like Smith, when people talk about him, he is little more than a caricature. There’s no doubt that he was one of the greatest thinkers of the 19th century, and although I used to find him culpable in the Communism of the 20th century, I know longer do—just as Adam Smith is not to blame for the neo-feudalism we find ourselves living through today.

What is perhaps most interesting, and frankly charming, about Marx was his conception of humans. He saw them as essentially good and productive. And I would really like to believe that! But I’m afraid that we are instead apes with over-sized brains. Fear, above all, is what drives us. In this way, I tend to be in alignment with the capitalists who think that the only way to deal with this is to create the kind of dog-eat-dog environment that capitalism provides. But I find that I’m more inclined toward Marx’s solution. The capitalist system seems to provide a way for harnessing the problems with humans but in no way limiting them. Capitalism is essentially a way of systematizing what comes naturally to humans.

I think it is possible to create a society that encourages the better aspects of human behavior. And we know what kind of society it is, because to some extent, we’ve already created it: a mixed economy with enough capitalism to encourage people to create, and enough socialism to not turn them into animals. This is why I am a strong supporter of a social safety net and have even come to see the necessity of a guaranteed income. But even more, we need what Ayn Rand always wanted: a revolution of thought. Of course, that revolution needs to be exactly the opposite of what she wanted. We need to learn to value the hobbyist who fashions wooden bowls as much as we value the venture capitalist. And I think that’s possible, which I suppose puts me very close to Marx.

Most people claim that Marx was wrong in his political predictions, and this is true. But his central economic prediction, based upon his analysis of the industrial revolution, we are seeing at this very moment. He argued that the capitalist system will naturally evolve into an unacceptably unequal society. In the 1950s and 1960s, it was easy to regard this as nonsense. Inequality was actually being reduced. But Marx himself said that for brief times the capitalist system could work. What’s more, that reduction in inequality was due to the very socialist programs that conservatives hate. The purer the capitalism, the stronger the tendency to go haywire. And we are seeing this today. The solution, of course, is a balance between capitalism and socialism. But for the last four decades, we have erred constantly on the side of capitalism, and now we have a real mess that has so distorted our politics that it is hard to make the changes we most desperately need.

I think it is clear that given the history of the last 150 years, both Adams and Marx would agree with me about what kind of system is ideal. Neither of them were ideologues. They were interested in improving the practical state of human beings. Contrast this with the modern conservative who is mired in ideology. Of course, it just so happens that this ideology also helps their class. There aren’t a lot of impoverished libertarians, for example. So I think it is important to see Marx and Adams as they really were. We tend to make out Adams like he was Milton Friedman crossed with Jesus Christ, which is bad enough. But the negative view of Karl Marx is unacceptable and unwarranted.

Here is a nice short lecture by Terry Eagleton about his book Why Marx Was Right, which I haven’t read:

Happy birthday Karl Marx!

Here is California today, it is Cesar Chavez Day. And it also happens to be his birthday, which is tidy. But just like Martin Luther King Jr, we celebrate the mythic Chavez rather than the man. And that’s just fine. But the man deserves to be remembered. He was a curious fellow. For example, he was a vegan and he seems to have been against the notion of money. Although I don’t agree with him on either issue, I greatly respect the beliefs and I think it speaks well of any many to have principled beliefs that counter the social norms.

His life story is also right out of The Grapes of Wrath, too. His father lost the family farm during the Great Depression. He cleared 80 acres of land in exchange for the deed to the farm. But the deal was broken so the family moved to California and became migrant workers. Chavez quit school after the 7th grade to work in the fields. Other than two years in the Navy, he was a farm worker for ten years before getting into organizing. The rest, as they say, is literally history.

Some people find it ironic that Chavez and Dolores Huerta and their organization were very much for restricting immigration. But this is to misunderstand what the United Farm Workers (UFW) was doing. Unions are not like churches, going around trying to make the world a better place. Unions exist to represent their workers and balance the power of management. Then as today, the business community tacitly encourages illegal immigration. They want an over-supply of labor so they can pay as little as possible. Immigrants (Especially undocumented!) are in effect scabs that undermine the bargaining power of unions.

The following video is remarkable. Chavez is talking about how boycotts work. But at the beginning, he says an amazingly insightful thing: that voting doesn’t help the poor. That’s interesting because recent political science research finds that the opinions of the poor (and to a large extent the middle class too) simply have no effect on how politicians vote. Just the same, Chavez was big on getting the poor to vote. He’s just making a point that if you want to make change happen, the best way is to make the rich suffer by depriving them of money. That is the most direct way to make positive change.

I’m very pleased that today in Cesar Chavez Day in California. I wish it were a national holiday. We have a holiday for one of our richest presidents who kept slaves. We have a holiday celebrating our independence that kept slavery in existence. We have a holiday celebrating how native people kept early settlers from starving so those settlers could go on to wage a genocide against the native people. Even though Martin Luther King Jr was deeply concerned about workers’ rights, that’s not why we celebrate him. May Day is long gone and most Americans don’t seem to know the difference between Labor Day and Memorial Day. We could use a holiday that celebrates the workers’ struggle in an unambiguous way. Cesar Chavez Day should be a bigger deal. And in another decade, it probably will be.

On this day in 1860, the populist icon William Jennings Bryan was born. It’s sad that today he is almost entirely remembered for his anti-evolution views in the Scopes Trial. Because he was a lot more than that. And I mean that in a good and a bad way. But I think he stands as the ultimate example of populism. If you look at what actual Americans think about political issues, you will find that they are somewhat conservative on social issues and somewhat liberal on economic issues. That’s what Bryan was, except without the “somewhat.”

What boggles my mind is that the modern day everyman archetype is Sarah Palin: socially and economically conservative. But that’s not populist at all! What is populist about thinking that you should get less money and billionaires should get more? What obviously as gone on is a very successful marketing campaign. I’m with Thomas Frank in What’s the Matter With Kansas? The conservative movement has convinced large swaths of America to vote against their best interest in the name of a bizarre kind of identity politics.

I should be clear where I stand: I would give up pretty much all of the socially liberal policies for strong economically liberal policies. Make same-sex marriage illegal in exchange for a $15 inflation adjusted minimum wage? No problem! Make abortion illegal in exchange for a wealth tax and an end to the payroll tax cap? No problem, other than the fact that I’m a man and I don’t have the right to negotiate away a right that belongs to women. But you get the idea: I place a far higher premium on economic issue than I do social issues.

As a result of this, I’m pretty happy where Bryan came down politically. What’s more, let’s face it: he was a smart guy and times have changed. But regardless, this is all Maslow “hierarchy of needs” stuff. People need jobs. And check out what he has to say about the gold standard in 1896. “You shall not press down upon the brow of labor this crown of thorns. You shall not crucify mankind upon a cross of gold.” There are plenty of conservatives today who want to do just that. And there are plenty of “populists” who would cheer them on.

Here is the end of the speech, via NPR:

Happy birthday William Jennings Bryan!

Last year, I highlighted a u-boat captain who was celebrating his 100th birthday. And I am pleased to keep the World War II theme going this year, but with a more tragic figure—even if the tragedy is more lore than history. On this day in 1869, the English Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain was born. I have been wanting to write about him for months, because he has been unfairly maligned for decades. And now with his birthday as well as conservatives ranting about “appeasement” with regard to Putin, it seems like the time.

You know the story. On 30 September 1938, Chamberlain signed the Munich Pact with Hitler. It was peace in our time. But of course it wasn’t. Hitler never had any intention of following the pact. And when he inevitably invaded Poland, people blamed Chamberlain for his “appeasement” of Hitler. This became not only a conservative Truth about the cause of World War II, but an excuse for a generally belligerent foreign policy. Thus, we hold up Winston Churchill as a great hero and Neville Chamberlain as a weakling. There’s just one problem: it isn’t true.

Back in September, for the 75th anniversary of the Munich Pact, Nick Baumann wrote, Neville Chamberlain Was Right. I highly recommend reading the whole thing, but I will give a brief overview here. Unlike the myth, Churchill was not the only one in England who thought that Hitler was a threat. After all, Churchill was First Lord of the Admiralty under Chamberlain. The whole government was working on gearing up for war. But in September 1938, the military were not ready to go to war with Hitler. So the right thing to do at that point—the thing that the military wanted—was the Munich Pact. They wanted another year to get ready.

So there were a lot of heroes in World War II. And one of them is Chamberlain. In this country, especially, we have such a tendency to lionize those who go to war. But more often than not, the heroes are those who don’t go to war. If England had gone to war in 1938, Germany would have quickly defeated it. So yes, Churchill was a hero. But so was Chamberlain.

Happy birthday Neville Chamberlain!

Afterword

This is not a great Elvis Costello song (Shipbuilding is much better). But it applies: