The daily worker. [volume] (Chicago, Ill.) 1924-1958, 1928-10-01
Carver on "MarXism TODAY
By Fred Ellis


details regarding the industries from
which he derives his income. 1t is
not capital that is non-productive,
but the capitalist. Marx, in dealing
with the question says: "Since the
mere owner of capital, the money
capitalist, has to face the invest
ment capitalist, while money-capital
itself assumes a social character
with the advance of credit, being
concentrated in banks and loaned by
them instead of by it's original own
ers, and since, on the other hand
the mere manager, who has no title
whatever to the capital, whether by
borrowing or otherwise, performs
all real functions pertaining to the
investing of capital as such, only
the functionary remains and the
capitalist disappears from the pro-
cess of production as a superfluous
person" Capital, Vol. III, p. 1867
With the export of capital to col
onial and semi-colonial countries, a
process that was only in its infancy
at the time Marx wrote we see a
high development of the parasitism
of capitalism; "a whole stratum of
investors, people living by clipping
coupons alone, whose profession is
idleness." Lenin, Imperialism"
Chapter 81
Carver is the spokesman for pre-
cisely this class of idle parasites
when he tries to create the illusion
that there is some mythical power
by which capital can create values.
Let Carver, who talks much of
logic" start from the premises of
scientific analysis of capitalist So
ciety, as did Marx, and he will dis
cover that he cannot arrive at con-
illusions favorable to the imperialist
assassins of the working class with
out doing violence to his logic.
Buckle and Spencer.
For no other apparent reason than
an attempt at display of profess
serial erudition Carver drags in
what he calls "the economic inter-
probation of history" which he
claims has nothing whatever to do
with socialism. Says Carver:
1T lends quite as much support
to individualism as to socialism,
and it's most thorough going ex-
Founders, such as Buckle and
Spencer, were individualists and
not socialists
1t appears that Carver is in
capable of understanding anything
he comes in contact with. His sole
attribute seems to be an ability to
crawl before the bourgeoisie. He
might, however, claim some degree
of originality inasmuch as he i'm
AGNES Buckle and Spencer were
"expounders" of the economic in
depreciation of history.
Even the variest tyro in high
school knows, or ought to know, that
Buckle claimed that the determining
factor in history is climatic condi-
ditions and not economies. Buckle
did not perceive that society changes
according to changes in the tech
nique of production even though
climatic conditions remain unaltered.
AS to Spencer, his analysis of So
ciety left out altogether the econ
omic factor. The only part of Car
ver's statement on Spencer that is
true is that Spencer was an individ-
ualist.
l would not insult Spencer by
placing him in the same category
with Carver, but one must admit
that the Synthetic philosopher" had
very contradictory notions concern
ing society, which he called $50
cial organism" comparing the state
in it's relation to the rest of So
ciety to the brain of human being.
At the same time Spencer argued
that those societies were most pros
porous and happy that enjoyed a
minimum of state nterference--that
is, where the state functioned least.
Following this analogy to its logi-
cal conclusion one must conclude
that the individual human being