Now that the world's economy has become globalized under capitalism and life is defined by material gain, more and more people are yearning for Karl Marx's moral ideals and are once again examining his economic theories in the hope of creating a more just society.
The most obvious example of this was when the Reuters news agency conducted a survey of economists just prior to the end of the 20th century. The economists were asked to pick three people who had the most influence on economics over the past centuries. The three selected were John Maynard Keynes, Adam Smith and Karl Marx.
Why do economists still favor Marx? As Sun Yat-sen (孫中山) said, we must learn from Marxist thought. Regardless of people's differing views on Marx, the fact that he stressed the spirit of sacrifice and dedication, as well as the need to speak up for disadvantaged groups and poor people truly deserves our deliberation. Consider the following example.
First, the labor theory of value emphasizes that labor is sacred and that only labor can create value. Many start-up companies began during Taiwan's stock-market boom. There are also lottery winners who became billionaires overnight. This opportunistic mentality is present every-where in society.
Pleasure-seeking people dream of fast advancement in their career. No one wants strenuous work. When people seek employment, they look for those jobs that offer high pay, carry little responsibility and are close to home. As a result, the society is full of greedy and selfish people who seek quick success and instant benefits.
The labor theory of value argues that the amount of labor value should be measured according to the length of labor time. It means the hourly rate of physical labor is as same as that of mental labor; the wage of laborers working one hour should be as same as that of college professors teaching or doing research for one hour.
Just as a Chinese jingle says, one might as well sell tea eggs as make atomic bombs, or one might as well employ the razor as hold the scalpel.
However, Marx's argument that people with better knowledge and ability ought to serve the masses in the spirit of sacrifice and dedication is still sonorous.
Second, the theory of surplus value demonstrates that capitalists and merchants exploit the workers and consumers to accumulate surplus value (or profits). They often raise their prices, extend the working hours of laborers and reduce the wage of workers. Sun once denounced the Ford Motor Co's policies, demanding it reduce prices, reduce working hours and increase wages.
Because of his study of surplus value, Marx detested two groups of people: capitalists and merchants. In Taiwan, for example, the Labor Standards Law (勞基法) to protect the rights of workers and the Consumer Protection Law (消費者保護法) to protect the rights of consumers are still unable to completely eliminate exploitation. The result is more worker protests and consumer complaints.
Third, the theory of capital accumulation and concentration offers compelling insights and has such a great impact on the world. Capitalists first accumulate wealth by gaining surplus value. Big capitalists then swallow up small capitalists by mergers, thereby creating the so-called king of automobiles, king of oil, king of plastics and so forth. Gradually, capital is accumulated in the hands of a few big capitalists. The world is then split into two major classes: bourgeoisie and proletariat.
As the wealth gap becomes wider and wider, a communist revolution becomes inevitable. The poor will rise to overthrow the rich people and finally divide and share the assets among all.
According to a newspaper report, in July 1999 the UN released the following statistics: the total wealth of the three richest people in the world exceeded the total national incomes of 600 million people in 35 countries; the total assets of the 200 richest people in the world exceeded the total incomes of 41 percent of the world's population.
Bill Gates, the wealthiest person in the world, had an alarmist thought -- if a group of people thinks this world is not fair to them, they may harbor animosity, which can be very dangerous to mankind.
The Chinese Communists established themselves through Marxism. After more than 20 years of promoting reforms, the wealth gap between the coastal region and the inland or between the city and the rural community has become wider than ever.
According to a newspaper report last year, the wealth of the richest 20 percent of the people in China accounts for 51 percent of the country's total wealth. The wealth of the poorest 20 percent accounts for just 4 percent of the country's total wealth. Only 3.5 percent of the population had an annual income of 20,000 yuan or more; more than 50 percent of the population had an annual income of less than 2,000 yuan.
Just as a Chinese jingle goes: after 30 years of hard work, one returns, in one day, to the old life before the liberation. The Chinese people have been disappointed with the increasing gap between the rich and the poor after the opening-up reforms.
The Chinese Communists seized power by a revolution, but it is possible that this power will end in their own hands. No wonder former president Jiang Zemin (江澤民) promised that Bei-jing would not support the Maoist communist guerrillas in Nepal and even condemned them as terrorists when Nepal's King Gyanendra visited China. It is unbelievable that the Chinese Communists made such a promise, as if they were trying to save themselves from going off the deep end.
Today, the advanced industrial countries have continued to pursue economic growth and material gain in a globalized economy under capitalism. Communism, on the other hand, pursues social equality and justice; it emphasizes sacrifice and dedication. The blending of the two together, if possible, will definitely be conducive to a more harmonious world.
Chu Yen-ming is a professor at the Graduate Institute of International Politics, National Chung Hsing University.
Translated by Grace Shaw
The past few months have seen tremendous strides in India’s journey to develop a vibrant semiconductor and electronics ecosystem. The nation’s established prowess in information technology (IT) has earned it much-needed revenue and prestige across the globe. Now, through the convergence of engineering talent, supportive government policies, an expanding market and technologically adaptive entrepreneurship, India is striving to become part of global electronics and semiconductor supply chains. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Vision of “Make in India” and “Design in India” has been the guiding force behind the government’s incentive schemes that span skilling, design, fabrication, assembly, testing and packaging, and
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
As former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) wrapped up his visit to the People’s Republic of China, he received his share of attention. Certainly, the trip must be seen within the full context of Ma’s life, that is, his eight-year presidency, the Sunflower movement and his failed Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement, as well as his eight years as Taipei mayor with its posturing, accusations of money laundering, and ups and downs. Through all that, basic questions stand out: “What drives Ma? What is his end game?” Having observed and commented on Ma for decades, it is all ironically reminiscent of former US president Harry