An old newspaper clipping about Mayor-Elect Zohran Mamdani has revived Fears of the Commies reminiscent of the Twenties and Fifties. The New York Post quotes Stephen Yang: “Mamdani noted the unpopularity of "seizing the means of production" in remarks at the 2021 Young Democratic Socialists of America conference, but said the cause should still be promoted.”
As Chapter 2 of “The Communist Manifesto” makes clear, state seizure of the means of production is the central task of communism. The reactions to Mamdani’s statement have fallen along two lines. First, Mamdani is a good man, so he can’t be a communist. Or: Mamdani is a communist, so he can’t be a good man. Both ridiculous arguments stem from the peculiarly American terror of reading a book that just might change your mind.
Contrary to popular opinion, the seminal works of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels are not evil incarnate. Despite its flaws, Marx’s “Das Kapital” is the most penetrating critique of capitalism that I’ve read. “The Communist Manifesto,” by Marx and Engels, is not as bone-headed as some of Mamdani’s supporters and critics. The Manifesto expresses the inescapable consequence of Marx’s remorseless logic. To say that someone is a Communist, as Mamdani appears to be, is neither to criticize nor praise him. It is to describe his adherence to a philosophy that makes better sense than liberals and conservatives do today.
Marx accepted, as most other economists of his age did, that all production value stemmed from labor. The value of a machine depends on the amount of labor spent to create it. Capitalists compete by mechanizing, since this enables them to produce faster than before and dominate their market. But they cannot profit from the machines: They must pay fully for the labor that created them. They can profit only on the back of the worker, who does not have to be paid a fixed amount to survive for another day. As market competition squeezes profits, capitalists respond by squeezing workers to the point of starvation. Workers must revolt to survive. The only solution to this tragic cycle is a workers’ state. They must seize the means of production and distribute the surplus value – the difference between the value of production and the workers’ wages – in a fair way. In the dynamic economy envisioned by Marx, rising affluence would free workers to pursue their own interests, to be truly human rather than machines. In chapter 10 of the first volume of Das Kapital, Marx vents his outrage at the 12-hour days worked by children in the mills of England, where Marx had fled from Germany.
To say that Marx was logical is not to say that he was right. His theory predicts a falling rate of profit and a falling wage. Both predictions were wrong. Wages since Marx’s day have increased many-fold. Workers are far better off today than in the 1840s. Child labor in high-income countries is illegal.
Where did Marx go wrong? I think that it was in assuming that the capitalist adds no value to production. A good manager motivates her workers to produce more in exchange for most of the surplus value. The manager’s own take reflects the value of her organizational abilities. Happier workers produce more. In this approach, the workers need not revolt, and a market economy will prosper.
Marx’s logic was less than watertight in maintaining that a Communism state, in which all share equally in power, was possible. Power is an aphrodisiac. Without checks and balances, someone will seize it. No democratic Communist state has ever made it to the steady state.
Two points. First, Mamdani’s advocacy of seizing the means of production is understandable to anyone who has read Marx. Second, Mamdani is a Marxist.
In response, I hear protests that Mamdani would never seize the means of production. Of course not. Not even the mayor of New York City has that power. But one’s beliefs precede, not follow, one’s actions. Do I have to be pregnant to be pro-choice? Few Marxists will ever be able to carry out Marx’s agenda. They are Marxists nonetheless.
A clueless podcaster says Mamdani “went back to his core beliefs in his victory speech basically yelling at Donald Trump and saying we are a communist city. Uh the Red Apple….” That wasn’t the victory speech that I heard. Possibly Podcaster XX inhabits another planet. Or Mr. XX is playing on the fears of people who know only that Communism is supposed to be Something Really, Really Bad.
A correspondent quotes Wikipedia to me: Communism is "centered on common ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange that allocates products in society based on need. A communist society entails the absence of private property and social classes, and ultimately money and the state." That is correct. The correspondent concludes that since Mamdani does not propose to abolish private property, he is not a Communist. That is not correct. A Communist is anyone who advocates seizing the means of production. Whether he actually does it, is another matter. One’s beliefs do not depend on what one is willing or able to do. Eugene Debs was never able to reorganize production. Was he therefore not a socialist?
The debate over Mamdani’s beliefs illustrates the sad state of the popular American intellect. My God, Mamdani can’t be a Communist! Communism is Monstrous! Fox News says so! Well, try reading a book rather than goggling Fox or googling Wikipedia. -- Leon Taylor Seymour, Indiana tayloralmaty@gmail.com
