Lutheran Economics (1.1) - Beginning Words (Economics and Religion): (The Class Nature of Economics)
There is a view that says that economics should transcend politics. That was a lie (nonsense). There is another view that says that economics should be unified, that there should be unified economics in different historical periods. This was even more deceptive (bullshit).
Every class has its own economics. Whichever class is in power, that class's economics prevails. As to how it prevails, let's not talk about it for the moment.
What we can be sure of is that human beings produce under certain social conditions, use the tools of production, obtain certain products, and then distribute these products among the whole society for consumption or investment. As to why these products are produced this way, and whether this distribution is reasonable, someone needs to explain.
When someone is starving to death, and the person next to him is about to vomit, how can the person who is starving to death be reassured? Then there needs to be an authoritative force to tell him that it is God's plan to starve to death because he has not been blessed by God for his own reasons. The person who is about to vomit has been blessed by God for all his good deeds. Therefore, you should not be jealous of the person who is about to vomit, you should not resent society, you should not consider the existing distribution, you should not have any "improper" ideas, but you should constantly bow down and reflect on yourself according to the will of God, and strive to be blessed by God as soon as possible. Otherwise, you deserve to starve to death.
That is the role of religion.
The problem is that some people do not believe in religion, and with the spread of education and the Reformation, more and more people are not so easily deceived. At this time, a new theory (authority) was needed. This theory (authority) had to be able to make the poor people who were starving to death feel ashamed of their inferiority and feel at ease to work like cattle and horses. It had to be able to make the masters who were full to the point of vomiting feel at ease. This theory (authoritative force) is economics.
Therefore, economics is also an instrument of governance (religion).
It is also Christianity. Everyone acknowledges the existence of God. But everyone interprets it in a way that is advantageous to himself. The Pope is the spokesman of God. The power of kings comes from Heaven. This is one interpretation. Everyone who believes in the existence of God has the right to interpret religion. This is another interpretation. Both agree on the existence of God, but have different interpretations of the right of interpretation. God is not important. What is important is the interpretation. If the Pope is the spokesman of God, then the Pope is God. If everyone has the right to interpret, then everyone is God.
How can we unify our thoughts? We need the Inquisition. Therefore, in the end, the right of interpretation still had to be combined with violence, even though the iron fist was often hidden in a velvet glove. Taking a step back, whichever group had more material resources, that group would have the ability to spread their ideas in a wider range with greater efforts. Therefore, the spread of ideas could not be separated from the support of violence and wealth. "The ruling ideology of any era is always the ideology of the ruling class." [1] Another way of looking at which theory of value is in vogue and which theory of distribution is in vogue, is to know approximately which class is in power.
Back to economics. There were countless economic theories, and there were so many economists that their research papers were as vast as the sea, dazzling everyone's eyes. In fact, when class interests are drawn, everything becomes clear at a glance: economics in the interest of the landlord class, economics in the interest of the bourgeoisie, economics in the interest of the financial capitalists (that is, rentiers), economics in the interest of the bureaucrats, and so on.
In economics, the concept of value was like the concept of force in physics. It was the most basic concept. Only the existence of force could explain the movement of objects, and only the existence of value could explain all economic behavior. Everyone acknowledged the existence of value, and there were various interpretations of value. Different classes in power had completely different interpretations of the economy.
I once had a master's degree in finance complain to me that the concept of value in economics was so complicated that it could only be learned by rote. I say, if you look at it another way, it's actually quite simple.
When the big landlords were in power, the prevailing economics was physiocracy, and the value of products came from the land. The big landlords, of course, had to put themselves in the most important position. China did not have physiocracy. China had the Five Dunces, and the merchant was one of them. Aristotle also rejected the merchant in politics, because in an agrarian economy, landlords and yeomen were bound to oppose the merchant who wanted a share of the profits.
The merchant's position was high, and the prevailing economic theory was mercantilism. The purpose of economic activity was to make money, in that era, to obtain gold and silver. Apart from gold and silver mining, foreign trade was the real source of monetary wealth. Therefore, in order to make a country rich and powerful, it had to export more than it imported, because the excess of trade led to a net inflow of precious metals. The more precious metals a country had, the richer and more powerful it would be. Therefore, the government should do its best to encourage exports, and not advocate or even restrict imports of goods (especially luxury goods).
In the time of Adam Smith, the new bourgeoisie wanted to challenge the aristocracy (the feudal landlords) and the monks, and this was the time to propose a free market and a labor theory of value. Under the conditions of a free market, there was sufficient division of labor, and social wealth could be greatly enriched. Labor created value, commerce promoted circulation, and the big landlords and monks ate their fill.
In the time of Marx, the working class wanted to rebel, so they insisted on the labor theory of value. Labor created value, and it was the workers who did the most work. Although the capitalists also worked, why should they take so much? The capitalists took more not because they did more work, but because they owned assets and exploited the workers. Therefore, the proletariat of the world had to unite, and by tomorrow, Internazionale must be realized!
The bourgeoisie used the proletariat to overthrow the big landlords, and it had to let economics defend itself, to reassure the workers, and not let them hate the rich. This required a new theory of value to replace the labor theory of value, and so the marginal utility theory of value began to be favored. Everything was useful and scarce. The capitalists took out the assets, and the workers provided the labor. The assets were scarcer than the labor, so it was natural that the capitalists would take the bigger share. Every voluntary transaction was mutually beneficial, and was beneficial to increasing the value of both sides. The workers took less because the labor of the workers was not worth much, and there was nothing to complain about.
When playing Fight the Landlord, it was the labor theory of value; when playing World War II, it was the marginal utility theory of value. That was then, and this is now. The process of domination and power required a different theory of value, and so economics was constantly evolving. Of course, it could also be said that it was regressing.
Generally speaking, the ruling class preferred the marginal utility theory of value, and the ruled class preferred the labor theory of value. The workers created the total product of society, and these total products were distributed among the different classes. The people who monopolized the core resources received the biggest share of the distribution. This was the process of production and distribution. The difference was the interpretation of this process. If it was the marginal utility theory, then the people who monopolized the core resources provided the scarce resources, and were naturally entitled to the biggest share. If it was the labor theory of value, then the people who monopolized the core resources were often idle, and did not participate in the production process of social products, or their contributions were limited. But because they monopolized the core resources, they could get most of the products. For example, the landlords, or the aristocrats who controlled violence, were entitled to most of the products. Or even if they did participate in the production process, the income they received was not in proportion to the labor they put in. If the labor theory of value was applied, it would obviously lead to the conclusion that they were parasites. John Law, who put forward the theory of the comparative value of water and diamonds, was himself a professional gambler who lived for a long time on the income of gambling. He naturally did not admit that he was a lazy class. The ruled class, on the other hand, laboring day and night to make ends meet, was naturally willing to accept the conclusion that the ruling class was a parasite.
The fierce debate between the two theories of value was the surface, and the contradiction between the ruling class and the ruled class was the essence. Those who said that the marginal utility theory had replaced the labor theory of value because economics had developed did not understand that the marginal utility theory and the labor theory of value had sprouted almost at the same time. The development of productive forces had promoted class antagonism, and the antagonistic classes had attacked and defended themselves. The weapon of criticism could not replace the weapon of criticism, and vice versa, the weapon of criticism could not replace the weapon of criticism. So each class pursued its own theoretical weapon, and the antagonistic classes had to have antagonistic theories. The two theories of value, like yin and yang, went hand in hand and provided theoretical weapons for the antagonistic classes. The feudal landlord class and the usurer used the marginal utility theory to find legitimacy for themselves, and the industrial capitalist used the labor theory of value as a weapon against the marginal utility theory. In the end, the bourgeoisie came to dominate. The contradiction between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat rose to the level of the principal contradiction. So the bourgeois economists began to pick up the theories of the feudal landlord class and the usurer as a weapon for their defence. It was not until they understood the social changes behind the changes in the theory of value that they said that economics had developed.
The theory of value was the basis of economics, just as the concept of force was the basis of physics. Different classes had different theories of value, just as different (religious) beliefs had different definitions of good deeds.
The only process of wealth creation that we can confirm is that some people produce certain goods under certain conditions. How it is explained depends on who has the right to speak. Whichever class it is, it has to explain itself as the class that creates value — no class can explain itself as a parasite.
Different economics had different interpretations of the ultimate ideal society. The landlord class rewarded farming and war, and suppressed the circulation of goods, which was to say, emphasized agriculture and suppressed commerce, and pursued a society where the people were well organized. The big bourgeoisie pursued a society where the big bourgeoisie was high above the rest, and the other classes honestly contributed surplus value, so they had to make full use of scarce resources, maximize value, improve efficiency, and achieve Pareto optimality. The bureaucrats pursued a society where the power of bureaucrats was unlimited and unrestrained. The lower classes of society pursued a society without oppression. Private capital died out, and so did the state.
If we looked carefully, we would find that these ideal societies looked infinitely beautiful, but they were not as described, and they were not compatible with each other. Living in the ideal society pursued by the big landlords, the big businessmen would be very uncomfortable. Living in the society pursued by the big bourgeoisie, the workers would be very uncomfortable, because labor was the least scarce element, and the wages of the workers were destined to be low. On the other hand, in the society pursued by Luther, people were either distributed according to work or according to need. The private property of the big capitalists and big landlords could not be used as the basis for distribution, and they would be very uncomfortable.
It was like different (religious) beliefs, there were different heaven and hell. A was heaven, B was hell.
The economics of different classes, whether it was the measure of economic behavior or the ultimate goal to pursue, were all worlds apart. The interests of different classes were not unified, and even sharply opposed, so different classes would inevitably have different economics. Therefore, there was a certain economics, and Luther had Luther's economics. The idea that the world should have a unified economics was very naive.
Therefore, providing theoretical support for the class was the most basic function of every economics. Behind every economics, there were hidden demands of the class. Promoting itself as a sacred science was just a self-concealment, like putting a halo on Jesus.
Those who believed that economics should transcend politics and be unified were nothing more than hinting that the economics they supported was the only truth, and that other economics were fallacies. From another perspective, those who put forward such a view were often advocating the current economics, and the hidden purpose was to block Luther and his predecessor's economics — although they may not be aware of it.
Since this article was Luther's economics, it had to be explained in Luther's way. Luther had nothing, suffered hardships, and was the one who contributed. According to China, he was a laborer. Since he was a laborer, he must agree with the labor theory of value.
The most famous Luther economist in history was undoubtedly Marx. Unfortunately, more than a hundred years after Marx's death, although Luther shocked the world, he did not establish Internazionale, and the development of Luther's economics was slow. As for why, this article will not explain. For those who are interested, you can read the Yugoslav Jiras's "New Class".
This article will try to take a small step on the shoulders of the giant Marx.
Note: This article is written for Luther, it is not suitable for students studying economics. The one who controlled the world was a sure thing. If one were to publicize one's views in the world of a sure thing and become a Lutheran economist, one would definitely be ostracized and shut out by the sure thing that had the right to speak, just like Marx. If you don't want to fail your exams, have your thesis blocked, and be rejected for job applications, it is recommended that economics students agree, but not disclose the views of this article.
You've already exceeded your reading limit for today. If you want to read more, please log in.
Login
Select text and click 'Report' to let us know about any bad translation.
