Another fair warning: Marxism consists of two parts: socioeconomic model, which is still good and valid, and political… stuff, which was put on top of it and, frankly, never was good or valid. I am only talking about the socioeconomic model. Also, if you look at it, you’ll find that most of it does not belong to Carl Marx at all, he actually collected a number of ideas and theories developed by other, still very respectable people, starting with Adam Smith and Charles Darwin.

Under the hood Marxism is a Darwinian theory properly applied to human societies. One paragraph essence of Marxism is quite simple:

There is food, there are those who eat it.
There is no food, there are no those who eat it.

Period.

Here is an informal one page version:

• The history of human kind can be presented as production and redistribution of food.
• Environment, resources and technological level (production forces) define who and how produces the food (the worker class and mode of production).
• Who and how produces the food (the worker class and mode of production) defines who and how takes it away from them (the exploiters class and production relations).
• These parts (production forces, class of workers and class of exploiters, mode of production and production relations) define the social system.
• Example from biology:
  • Beavers built a dam on a creek that flooded the meadow nearby.
    • Marsh plants began to grow. Mosquitoes began to multiply.
    • Mosquitoes are frogs’ food, so frogs began to multiply.
    • Herons, bitterns and other marsh birds eating frogs built nests around.
    • Otters stealing birds eggs came in.
  • Then something happened to the dam. Maybe beavers got eaten, or a bear accidentally broke it, does not matter what. The water left.
    • Marsh plants dried out and died.
    • Mosquitoes disappeared.
    • Frogs died or hopped away.
    • Marsh birds flown away and did not return next year.
  • But:
    • Meadow grasses began to grow, including those that bring grain.
    • Mice and other small rodents came in and began to multiply, eating that grasses and grains.
    • Foxes and owls from nearby forest came in hunting the mice.
  • See? There is food, there are those who eat it. There is no food, these is no those who eat it. Simple, isn’t it? Marsh-marsh plants-mosquitoes-frogs-herons-otters is one “social system”, meadow-grass-mice-foxes-owls is another. That’s it.
• Now let’s get example from the human history:
  • In 16th Century England land was the most important resource, and most efficient use of land was to grow food.
    • Owners of the land wanted others to grow food on it.
    • Hence, a lot of people could support themselves and their families by being peasants. There were “jobs” for peasants, there were peasants.
    • A few other people were able to support themselves by owning (on behave of the King) the land, where peasants worked, and hence taking away food from peasants for themselves. Again, there were “jobs” for landlords, there were landlords.
    • The system was: land to grow food – peasants – landlords. There was land to grow food, there were peasants. There were peasants, there were landlords.
    • Landlords cannot survive without peasants, peasants would be very happy to live without feudal and other gangsters. Land to grow was the reason for peasants. Peasants were the reason for landlords.
  • In 16-17th Century England, it become more profitable to keep sheep on the same land, so the land for peasants disappeared.
    • Hence, peasants were thrown from the land they used to grow food. Less “jobs” for peasants resulted in less peasants.
    • Landlords mostly stopped exploiting peasants-growers, and become wool suppliers with voluntarily employed shepherds.
    • No land to grow – no peasants. No peasants – no medieval landlords.
    • Land for sheep – sheep and shepherds. Sheep and shepherds – wool producers.
  • At the same time, England started to produce a lot of wool textile. That’s why keeping sheep become more profitable than growing food.
    • Peasants, who lost their land, become vagabonds. A lot of them (~200 thousands, with the whole British population 3-3.5 million people) were hanged on crossroads for that, the rest become workers at manufactories, producing textile, and sailors, delivering textile to overseas markets.
    • Again, jobs for workers and sailors appeared, workers and sailors multiplied. There are jobs, there are people.
    • A few people become able to support themselves as owners of manufactories. Again, there are “jobs” for capitalists, there are capitalists. When you have a lot of workers producing textile, there are those who own manufactories and can support themselves by using workers labor.
    • The social system become: steam machines to power manufactories and looms to produce textile – workers – capitalists (manufactories owners). Technology created workers. Workers created capitalists.

Some will argue that it’s capitalists who created workers. However, imagine two identical islands, both with wool supply and textile mill. One island has workers but no mill owners, another has mill owners but no workers. Which one do you think will work?

Also, imagine yourself on the second island. You have the money, would you buy a mill? A reminder, there are no workers on that island. The answer is you won’t, because you cannot use it to produce money. The workers are the resource you need as a capitalist to make money. If there is no resource, there is no income. Hence, the main Marxists point: technology creates workers, who use this technology. Technology and workers create those who benefit from it.

You may use some euphemisms like “technology makes possible to be a worker” or “availability of technology and workers make it possible to produce textile”, but in the end you will say the same thing, just in a less clear way. As I am not in the business of dimming other people minds, I don’t use those complicated vague sentences.

Here is more formal definition of it:

• The food (food and survival essentials, like shelter and fuel in cold countries) is the key to human history and social processes. Everything else matters only as something that’s convertible to food (including being part of food production or distribution).
  Example: Hollywood movies are convertible to food by selling tickets and copies on DVDs.
• Human history and social development can be described in the terms of (a) making and (b) redistributing the food (and food equivalents).
• Redistribution of food became a force in social systems at the time when productivity allowed to take part of the food from the producer, without dooming him and his family to the death by starvation. That’s the same time when humans moved from hunters and gatherers societies to more complex social systems based on domesticated crops and animals. That part of the produced food is called economic surplus.
• Every society since that was divided into two classes of people, where the word “class” is used in the original taxonomy meaning – large group with the same characteristics.
• These two classes of people are those who produce food, and those who redistribute economic surplus in their own favor.
• Everything involved with creation of food is called productive forces, including resources, technology, and food (or food equivalent) producers. Everything involved in redistribution of food is called production relations.
• Productive forces determine production relations, not the other way around.
  Simply put, you cannot use slave labor to create spaceships, they just won’t fly.
• Productive forces, especially level of technology, define how we produce food – production method. The way we produce food (production method) defines who are the food producers (the workers class).
  Example: if you top technology is hoe, your food producers are farmers or slaves, who use hoes on the land to grow food. That kind of a food producer does not need an education (hoe is a very simple tool), can produce food from a really early age and until he is alive, and only needs to maintain himself at the basic survival and procreation level (the second part is essential for the social stability, or you will run out of hoe users in one generations, and then you’ll run out of food, and that will be the end of your society)
• Who are the food producers defines how the food (economic surplus) is taken away from them. The way food taken away from food producers for redistribution defines the second class of the society.
  Example: If the product require some expensive equipment, which can be operated by relatively uneducated workforce (high school skills top), your producers are industrial workers. Owning them won’t bring any advantage, because you have surplus of available industrial workers, hence slave owner would not have any advantage in such economy. Owning large pieces of land would not result in any advantage, because factories only require a limited space, so medieval feudal won’t have any advantage in such economy. Owning the factory becomes a key for production, and hence capitalist who owns the factory has the advantage and can redistribute surplus in his own favor.
• Again, environment, resources and, most importantly, technological level define who and how produces the food (and food equivalents). Who and how produces food, defines who and how redistributes that food.
• These two classes define the social system. Slaves and slave owners in slavery societies. Peasants and feudal landlords in feudal societies. Workers and capitalists in early capitalism. Organized workers and management in socialism (or “industrial society”, if “socialism” sounds too scary for you).
• Social system is how we produce food and how we redistribute food. Another equivalent definition is who and how produces food and who and how redistributes it in their own favor. That’s it.
• Final point is that those who benefit from the system want to keep it even after production forces and technology are developed beyond the point when the old production relations work. Hence any change in social formation follows the same pattern: old relations start failing to produce the results, until finally everything blows up in some kind of unpleasant upheaval ending up with the new production relationships that fit technology level, production forces and the new production method.
• Political part of classic Marxism claims that it’s a revolution, however, we know now that it may take different forms, including some peaceful ones, albeit still quite painful like a deep economic crisis resulting in significant changes to the laws (sounds familiar?)

Frankly, that all, folks.

Oh, yeah, and of course, those who produce food don’t like most of it taken away, and those who take it away, like that a lot. As you can guess, that sort of creates a conflict, which defines a lot of social processes and what’s happening in the society. In the end, human history and social processes can be viewed as one huge fight over the food and who eats it. You see why I say that Marxism is essentially a Darwinian theory applied to human societies?

In the Year 2000 the Matrix Has You!

While there is a much deeper truth in it, which I will talk about later, consider this circumstantial evidence for now: how often do you see pictures like that:

Or, like that:

And how often instead you see the pictures like that:

Really?

Michael wanted out. He did not like fairy tales, he wanted to escape into the real world. “What’s the use to earn money and getting property, if the state won’t allow me to take it with myself, when I will leave the country? Knowledge is the only property that they cannot take away from me at the customs!”

We are lucky. We live in the Free World and we can have property. Can we?

Just two days ago I was driving from my home and noticed a sign “Estate Sale”. It usually means that somebody died and left a lot of stuff. In Ancient Egypt they’d throw it into the burial chamber for the use in afterlife, but in the modern times we know that they won’t need it. So, we sell it. That’s what the word “estate” means: your earthly possessions, your stuff, your property.

We are accustomed to think of property as something that we OWN, that’s unquestionably ours, that’s something we can rely on being available, when we need it, that’s there at our disposal because we have the right to it. Have we?

Think about an American holy of holies, an American dream, your home, Real Estate. Do you know why real estate is called “real”? Most people think that’s because it’s the only kind of property that is truly real, as “not fake”, material, substantial. Alas, they are wrong.

In fact, “real estate” comes from Spanish. It’s not “real” estate, it’s “royal” estate. That is something that belongs to the King, and you are just granted the privilege to use it.

Ok, ok, we don’t have a King anymore, do we? Then, what do you think will happen if you’ll stop paying property taxes? Do you still think it’s a “real” property or does it begin to feel like a sort of a rent or a lease?

Yes, all property still belongs to the King or, at least, to the Crown. It’s just we have other entities in place of the King: state, county, city, but the point is still the same. You don’t own your property, you’ve just got the right to use it, and a very expensive right by the way. You buy this right for hundreds of thousand dollars, and then you pay a rent that’s called property taxes. Stop paying that rent, and the landlord – state, county, city – we’ll get you out cold on the sidewalk. Here, in the Free World, we still don’t own our property.

Let me share another story with you. About a year or two ago one of very successful Internet marketers Perry Belcher made a mistake. He decided to promote some diet product. I don’t know what happened, maybe he’s got too high share of the market to attract attention of the big boys in the industry, maybe the product was really not on par with its promises – like the most of diet products are, but one day a local county sheriff walked in and sealed all his property. It was not even FDA or FTC, that was just the local county, which got a few complaints from the customers and, in the end, got a few millions in its budget – everything that Perry had. Notice, I don’t claim that it was the reason, I am just stating the facts: money belong to Perry and went where? To the county or state budget. I don’t know who’s right and who’s wrong, that’s not the point of my story. The point is that he lost everything: real estate, bank accounts, business, you name it. Everything was confiscated. The King came in and took his Estate just like in medieval Europe or Rome during the soldier emperors or Nero.

Still, in a year and a half, Perry is back on his feet and again making millions. Yes. In a year and a half after he lost everything. Yes, millions. There was one thing the King could not take away: Perry’s knowledge, skills, friends, and ability to market goods and services.

Today in America, it’s still the Soviet Union all over again. The King can strip you away of anything you own with a snap of fingers of lawyers, courts, or government officials. And just like in the Soviet Union, there is still something he still cannot take away: your intrinsic value.

That’s the essence of the knowledge economy. The first time in history of the human kind, we have something that the King cannot take away. At last, we are not interreplaceable slaves, we have an intrinsic inseparable value of our knowledge, skills, and friends.

Don’t get me wrong, money is important. I work hard for the money I earn, some would say that I work too hard and I should do it smarter instead. Hey, I am learning. That’s what I do. Learning. Learning from other people, who hopefully will become my friends. Because learning gives knowledge, skills, and friends.

Because that’s my only Real (”real”, not “royal”) estate that the King cannot take away from me.

Say, if you want to herd sheep, it make sense to buy the best breed of sheep that give the best, most expensive wool, right? Same with any business… The problem is that in the knowledge economy, for example, in the software development, managing the best is a little more complicated than herding the sheep. In fact, it’s often compared more to herding the cats. And if you don’t manage “the best” properly, you may easily end up with a serious trouble and get significantly poorer results than by hiring average and managing them properly. Of course, to manage the best properly, your managers should be the best. Ironic, isn’t it?

So, here is the trouble with hiring the best. Philip Su, who works as a development manager at Microsoft, suggests the following recipe to create great software. Get a lot of great developers; give them a lot of computers; provide them with good salaries, stock options, awards and bonuses, so that they don’t have to think about it; then don’t forget to feed them as needed. That’s it. Once they don’t have to worry about money, they’ll do what they love and know — creating great software. Simple, isn’t it?

The only problem is that such creative heaven is very hard to maintain, even if you have money. Shareholders and Wall Street shout at you that you are wasting money. Yeah, like they did not prove lately again that they don’t have a clue how to manage money, their own or otherwise… Analysts look down at you and write articles about you not following the latest fad and not managing your people properly. No, they don’t create software, they find their reward on Earth by teaching others how to do that. Still, the market listens and your company, including your employees, who have tons of company’s stock, suffer.

Then you give up and introduce performance reviews, bell curve, or even layoffs when other companies lose money and have tough times. Well, Adam tasted the prohibited fruit, started to use metrics, heaven is gone and replaced now by an evolutionary environment. That is, the place where the fittest survive, and the rest, well… perish.

Notice, the “fittest”. Fittest is not the smartest. It’s not the strongest. It’s not even the best professional. It’s just that, the fittest. “The boy who lived,” no matter how the survival was achieved.

But maybe it’s not that bad, is it? After all, all nearest relatives of humans – chimps, pigs, rats – they all live in an evolutionary environment and succeed, right?

Speaking of rats, let me tell you an interesting piece of trivia, I’ve heard long ago. On medieval ships rats were a huge problem. One of the ways to get rid of them was called “A Rat King.” Sailors were catching as many rats as they could, put them into an empty barrel, and did not feed them. The weakest rats were eaten fast by others, of course, so very soon you only had “the best” rats in the barrel.


However, and here comes the catch, in the evolutionary environment there is no such thing as strong and weak. There are only those who are stronger, and those who are weaker. Once all the weakest are eaten, one of the strongest become the weakest. And then another one. And the next one. And so on, until there is only one Big Rat in the barrel called a Rat King. The fittest.


After that the sailors release the Rat King, and by this time it already knows that fellow rats taste much better than scraps and moldy grain. So, it does the job much better than any cat could, leaving the ship mostly ratless, “best rats” or otherwise.

Oh, well,… so what did we talk about? Sorry, I’ve got carried away with an irrelevant story… Oh, yeah, corporations that hire the best and then force an evolutionary environment! So, what I am trying to say, is that hiring the best is a fine idea, as long as you know how to manage them. Unfortunately, too many don’t. If you hire the best, you have to put them into a creative environment. If instead you put them into an evolutionary environment, you may get, well, “the fittest” instead. And you’ll have nobody to blame for that but yourself.

Seriously. Evolution is a harsh mistress. Wherever there are resources and competition for them, there are parasites. Turn on evolution in your corporation, and parasites will fill your management ranks. Ever wondered why Wall Street guys were so insistent in their advice to you? They wanted these jobs for their kin!

You always wanted to make money. But then once, at a party, you overheard a conversation. A stately man, looking like a professor from the local university, mentioned that modern societies are divided into two classes of people: the ones who make money, and the ones who are getting all that money. Suddenly, the idea of making money stopped looking so attractive and you started to consider the means to join the second group.

Further research showed that the professor referred to Marxism, a dreadful theory practiced by Soviets, Chinese and a bunch of other guys, whom you know being bad from mass media propaganda. Probably, Bin Laden too,… no, wait, he was something different… Anyway, you decide, you gonna do what you gotta do. After all, if it is so dreadful, it should be efficient, so you pick up “Das Kapital” in the local library and find out that the guy wrote it in German. Oh my, you certainly don’t have the time for German. So, you pick up the translation, go on and read several pages, and suddenly German does not look that bad. Yes, Karl Marx’s “The Capital” is not a light reading, not at all. In fact, you would not like any classic edition to be dropped on your foot. That’s two thick and heavy volumes written in as heavy a style as the books physically are.

So what are you going to do? Read this book instead. This is not a “for dummies” book. First, in author’s opinion, real dummies are out of reach for a help. Second, you don’t have time to read “for dummies” books. They may have lighter style, but they are still thick. This book is light and easy, and it’s short. In plain English it explains the essence of Karl Marx’s socioeconomic model.

This book does not cover Marxist ideology, it is only about the rational basis of Marxism, its socioeconomic model. Even more, when Marx patches his model with pieces of ideology, we dared to replace it with something more scientific based on modern data. Of course, such places are clearly identified.

Don’t tell me lies. Never tell me lies. I cannot accept your lies.

Even if you believe in them yourself, don’t tell me your lies. Even if your boss believes in them, don’t tell me your lies. Even if your family believes in them, don’t tell me your lies.

It does not matter, if it is a big lie or a small lie. It does not matter if it hurts me or helps me. It does not matter if it affects me or not. Don’t tell me your lies.

It does not matter if this is a lie about Enlightened Future of Humanity (whichever it is). Or about Values of your Political System (whichever it is). Or about how happy I should be working for such a great company (whichever it is). Don’t tell me your lies.

On a staff meeting you expect me to be inspired by the company pep-talk. But I cannot.

On meetings you expects me to say finally that we made a good decision. But I cannot.

On my performance review your expect me to agree with your opinion. But I cannot.

That’s not because I am not a team player. That’s not because I am not collaborative. That’s not because I cannot reasonably estimate myself.

Because I am a team player, and I can follow team decisions even if they are wrong. Because I am collaborative and I can compromise to reach the goal. Because I can estimate myself comparing to what my colleagues achieved and how they are praised for that.

But I cannot say that wrong decision is right, it’s still wrong. But I cannot say that compromise is better that the right decision, because it still not better. But I cannot accept that somebody is worth more than me because you just like him, you have to have something more than that.

What’s the use of a scale, if it will show pound and kilogram the same to avoid bias in favor of US or EU system?

What’s the use of a microscope, if it’s made to show male and female cells the same way because legally they are “equal”?

What’s the use of a camera, if it shows black and white with the same color on photos?

My mind is my precious tool. It has the ability to see things right. To distinct clearly right and wrong, truth and lie, good and bad.

This is why I can make good designs. This is why I can create complex systems. This is why I can do my work.

My mind is what makes me different from a part-time worker at McDonald. From pizza delivery guy. From cashier at the grocery store.

My mind is the reason why you hired me. My mind is the reason why you need me. My mind is the reason why you are paying such money for me.

If I’ll accept your lies, I will break this tool. If I will accept your lies, I will not be able to distinct truth from lie anymore. Good design from a bad design. Right decision from a poor one. Bug from a feature.

If I’ll accept your lies, I will be useless to you.

Don’t tell me your lies.

Surprisingly, the answer may lay in the writings of such an unexpected character as Carl Marx. No, no, not about exploitation and class struggle, though it feels pretty close when you get another rejection slip, but in his theory on economy. His theory is very much a Darwinian one: there are jobs, there are people; there are no jobs, there are no people. In XVII Century England there were a lot of “jobs” for peasants, so there were a lot of peasants. In XVIII century England there were no jobs for peasants, but a lot of jobs for industrial workers. So, a lot of peasants went from peasantry in the countryside to cities to become a proletariat, the new working class. Makes sense, doesn’t it? So, what kind of “jobs” are out there for writers?

Consider what any course on writing says today. “Think: What does the editor want? He wants you to entice readers to buy the magazine (that nobody really wants to read!) He wants you to attract the readers.” You see? If you are a “successful writer”, you are not exactly a writer. You are on the marketing team! Lord Byron and Leo Tolstoy were writing to people’s souls, and they put their souls into their writing, just like you do. The problem is, the editor is not you-know-who, and he does not want your soul. He wants to sell his magazine. He wants money!

So, essentially, when we say “writing”, we are talking about two completely different professions. One is about an ability to tell people what you want to tell and — the really important part — having something important to tell people. That’s Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, Lord Byron, and Count Leo Tolstoy. Or, you are a freelancer, marketing consultant, expert at putting the words into a publication that make it sell. After it’s sold, it might as well hang from a nail in a restroom, it does not matter anymore. It does not matter as long as it sells.

So, what kind of an author are you? In the end, it’s your choice. By the way, if you consider the number of copies that Lord Byron sold in his lifetime… well, he would find a problem looking for a publisher today! What can I say? You are in good company.

—
P.S. This is a repost of my March 2007 article from my old free blog on Blogger