MARXISM, COMPLEXITY, AND THE CONVERGENCE
OF ECONOMIC IDEOLOGY
A Project
Presented to the Faculty of the Liberal Arts Master’s Program
California State University, Sacramento
Submitted in partial satisfaction of
the requirements for the degree of
MASTERS OF ARTS
in
Liberal Arts
by
Craig James Townsend
FALL
2012
© 2012
Craig James Townsend
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
ii
MARXISM, COMPLEXITY, AND THE CONVERGENCE
OF ECONOMIC IDEOLOGY
A Project
by
Craig James Townsend
Approved by:
_______________________________________, Committee Chair
Dr. Jeffrey Brodd
_______________
Date
iii
Student: Craig James Townsend
I certify that this student has met the requirements for format contained in the University
format manual, and that this project is suitable for shelving in the Library and credit is to
be awarded for the Project.
_________________________________, Graduate Coordinator
Dr. Victoria Shinbrot
Liberal Arts Master’s Program
iv
_________
Date
Abstract
of
MARXISM, COMPLEXITY, AND THE CONVERGENCE
OF ECONOMIC IDEOLOGY
by
Craig James Townsend
Statement of Problem
Since the discovery of nonlinear dynamics and systems theory with the creation of the
disciplines of complexity theory and complexity economics, a reappraisal of Karl Marx’s
evolutionary theories in light of these new advancements has not been readily
undertaken. I have done an analysis of the extant works from various authors in the fields
of economics, science and the humanities and compared them with Marx’s philosophy
within the complexity theory paradigm to show that there are significant similarities
between them and that a convergence of economic ideology is emerging out of these
fields.
Sources of Data
I reviewed written works from various fields of: complexity theory, classical liberal
economics, the Austrian School of Economics, the works of Karl Marx, Frederick Engels,
v
Vladimir Lenin, and other authors’ works comprising the related fields of study over the
last two hundred years along with technical journals and web resources.
Conclusion Reached
Complexity economics and the techno-optimist data readily corrects the problems with
early twentieth century versions of Marxist eschatology while upholding Karl Marx’s
later conclusion of the need for capitalism to fully evolve in order for it to reach the point
of its own negation. Thus Simon, Lomborg, Goklany, Kelley, Ridley, Diamandis et al.
can be comprehended as actually proving Marx’s later philosophical ideal and providing
the economic statistical data to firmly validate his theory. Coupled with the economic
data of the techno-optimists named above, the classical liberal economists theories have
been proven by the field of complexity economics and support and uphold the technooptimists discoveries and data with the evolutionary insights of Karl Marx. Thus in the
first part of the twenty-first century a convergence of economic ideology is emerging
supported by the data compiled by the various fields of research.
_____________________________, Committee Chair
Dr. Jeffrey Brodd
________________
Date
vi
PREFACE
The aim of parousiastic gnosticism is to destroy the order of being, which
is experienced as defective and unjust, and through [M]an’s creative power to
replace it with a perfect and just order.
-Eric Voegelin
Here at the beginning of the twenty-first century we stand upon the higher ground
of scientific and technological discovery that heralds the coming of a new order of being.
The world is griped by two divergent visions of a utopian future for humankind. The
environmental movement wishes to take humanity back to a Rousseauian paradise before
the “original sin” of industrialization, the other vision shared by cornucopians, technooptimists and complexity theorists portend a futuristic utopia created by exponentially
accelerating technologies that will not only transform society and economics, but as the
Transhumanists theorize humanity itself.
Complexity theory is breaking old ground using a new scientific plough; its
discoveries are older than the nineteenth century and as fresh as today, with hints of a
futuristic tomorrow. It is a new discipline of non-linear systems proving an a priori
praxeological science (economics) that had no mathematical mechanism to prove its
theoretical assertions before complexity theory. Classical Liberalism and the Austrian
School of Economics was much like the laser. It awaited the invention of fiber optic cable
many decades later in order for the laser to have a practical application and to begin
vii
changing the world. Complexity theory and complexity economics is that “fiber optic
cable” as it now gives the means by which both Classical Liberalism and the Austrian
School can prove their theories. Complexity Economics presently is already well on the
way of doing so, while the Austrian School remains on the sidelines awaiting further
developments. The cornucopians and techno-optimists have greatly supported the
complexity theorists with their own discoveries. That this area of investigation also
confirmed Karl Marx’s insight regarding the necessity for “the full evolution of
capitalism in order for the revolution to come” is one of the amazing coincidences of this
emerging process.
The idea of spontaneous, interrelated, evolutionary systems is centuries old. It
took a new field of science to transfer it out of the realm of mysticism into that of
empiricism. As it evolves it is uniting together once desperate schools of thought, left,
right and center into a new convergent whole. As Butler Shafer so relevantly states “in a
period of significant change, we must be prepared to engage in significant learning, rather
than just reaffirming what we already know … For an individual or a civilization to
maintain its sense of vibrancy, a more fundamental kind of learning must be employed:
paradigm breaking.”1
The arising economic data and discoveries from the techno-optimists and
Singularitarians indicate that emerging technological advancements will dramatically and
exponentially change our world. Technological evolution also indicates that an
1
Butler Shaffer, Boundaries of Order: Private Property as a Social System (Auburn, AL: Ludwig von
Mises Institute Press, 2009), 302, 304.
viii
underlying pattern and framework, upon which previously divergent ideologies can
eventually converge so that once fierce ideological opponents can be reconciled, is also
emerging. The study that follows is paradigm breaking in that it presents a way of seeing
old paradigms and oppositional economic ideologies in a new synergistic fashion in light
of recent discoveries. One of the techno-optimists, Kevin Kelly, summarizes this
convergent process in the last chapter of his book What Technology Wants:
What I have shown in this book is that a single thread of self-generation ties the
cosmos, the bios, and the technos together into one creation. … Technology is
stitching together all the minds of the living, wrapping the planet in a vibrating
cloak of electronic nerves, entire continents of machines conversing with one
another. …Technology amplifies the mind’s urge toward the unity of all thought,
it accelerates the connections among all people, and it will populate the world
with all conceivable ways of comprehending the infinite.2
Technology is not only tying together the minds of the living, but also of the dead. The
great minds of the previous centuries are uniting with those now living, slowly merging
into a holism as they converge to a point of transcendence.
It was believed by the Scholastics that “Truth” was a syncretic jewel in which
each facet reflected and conditioned every other part; each element of truth coalesces
without any errors and contradictions, as any errors and contradictions are prima fascia
evidence that we don’t possess “The Truth.” It should then be no surprise that here at the
beginning of the twenty-first century we should begin to see the coalescing of various
elements within divergent ideologies into a complex whole as the world begins to slowly
unite. It is then only natural that our philosophies and ideologies are ripe for unification
2
Kevin Kelly, What Technology Wants (New York: Viking, 2010), 356-359.
ix
as well as they burst their old defective skins. Teilhard de Chardin intuited this time of
convergence now upon us and the new discoveries in science, technology and economics
indicate strongly the potential way forward in an arising paradigm of an interrelated
network system. In the words of Teilhard himself:
Evolution has been weaving its web around us. We believed that we did not
change; but now, like infants whose eyes are opening to the light, we are
becoming aware of a world in which neo-Time, organizing and conferring a
dynamic upon Space, is endowing the totality of our knowledge and beliefs with
a new structure and a new direction.3
A new structure and a new direction is self-assembling before us as we travel the path
into the future. Buckminster Fuller’s accelerating acceleration is pushing human
civilization there faster and faster as Kevin Kelly’s Technium evolves and pushes society
up the slope of Ray Kurzweil’s exponential curve toward his concept of the coming
Singularity, Teilhard de Chardin’s omega point. That so many great minds and
visionaries, both religious and secular, throughout the centuries intuited this neo-Time is
more than an amazing coincidence. This study is at heart an analysis of this synergistic
phenomenon; its intention is best captured by the immortal words of Fichte:
What man of noble mind is there who does not want to scatter, by action or
thought, a grain of seed for the unending progress in the perfection of his race, to
fling something new and unprecedented into time, that it may remain there and
become the inexhaustible source of new creations?4
3
Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, The Future of Man [1959] (New York: Image Books/Doubleday, 2004), 77.
Johann G. Fichte, “What is a People in the Higher Meaning of the Word, and What is Love of
Fatherland,” in European Romanticism: A Brief History with Documents, ed. Warren Breckman (New
York: Bedford/St Martin’s, 2008), 115.
4
x
DEDICATION
I dedicate this work to Gene Roddenberry, creator of Star Trek, who inspired so
many of us growing up in the 1960’s to dream great dreams of humanity’s possible
technological future and to yearn “To boldly to go where no Man has gone before!” We
are on the cusp technologically of the twenty-third century, two centuries early, and we
can begin to glimpse beyond the event horizon. How you intuited and foresaw so much
of it Gene, we will never know.
xi
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I wish to thank the following individuals for the great help they have offered me
on the completion of this Master’s project, especially Dr. Jeffrey Brodd, Chair of the
Department of Humanities and Religious Studies, for his tireless support, guidance, and
infinite patience throughout my Master’s of Liberal Arts program. I also wish to thank
my other professors, Dr. Victoria Shinbrot, Dr. Richard Shek, Dr. Maria Jaoudi, Dr.
Alyson Buckman, Dr. Andreas Agocs, and the retired professors, Dr. Mary Giles and Dr.
Robert Platzner. Please forgive me if I have forgotten anyone. You have all made my
intellectual journey a rewarding and exciting one at California State University
Sacramento throughout the years.
I also wish to thank Matt Ridley, whose email responses, books and videos
encouraged me greatly. To Kevin Kelly, your ideas in your blog, books and videos are
magnificent. To Peter Diamandis, your new book, Abundance, was truly revolutionary,
reframing the evidence for the law of increasing returns for a new generation. I also wish
to thank the great minds and intellects who have greatly influenced me throughout my
life by my reading their great thoughts: Sir Isaac Newton, F. Bastiat, Thomas Payne, J. B.
Say, K. Marx, F. Engels, J.J. Nock, Ludwig von Mises, F.A. Hayek, J. Schumpeter, H.
Hazlitt, A. Einstein, J.F. Revel, Oriana Fallaci, Ayn Rand, A.J. Galambos, J. Simon, I.
Goklany, B. Shaffer, Kevin Kelly, Matt Ridley, Peter Diamandis, Brian Arthur, Francis
Heylighen, Ray Kurzweil and the many others whom space will not allow me to fully
mention. I myself realized a long time ago that, “In order to have great thoughts you must
xii
read the great minds,” and I have had the greatest pleasure throughout my life to read so
many of them.
I especially wish to thank my two greatest boyhood heroes, Gene Roddenberry,
whose incredible vision through Star Trek did so much to change the world and my own
vision of the future, and to astronaut Neil Armstrong, whose “One giant leap for
Mankind” will never be forgotten. May you rest in peace having gained the laurel wreath
of the true world hero.
xiii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Preface………………………………………………………………………………...... vii
Dedication………………………………………………………………………….……..xi
Acknowledgements……………………………………………………………………....xii
List of Tables …………..……………….……………………………………..….…... xvii
List of Figures.………………………………..………………………………….…… xviii
Chapter
1.
INTRODUCTION……………………………………………………………….. 1
2.
A BRIEF HISTORY OF EVOLUTIONARY DYNAMIC CONCEPTS………... 3
3.
ADAM SMITH, THE FOUNDER OF ALL ECONOMIC SCHOOLS…..…..…. 5
4.
ADAM SMITH AND THE INVISIBLE HAND: EARLY SYSTEMS
THINKING............................................................................................................. 8
5.
TEILHARD DE CHARDIN: THE NOOSPHERE RISING….……..………..... 17
6.
COMPLEXITY: THEORY AND ECONOMICS………….…………………....24
7.
RIDLEY, KELLY, DIAMANDIS AND KURZWEIL, THE TECHNOPROGRESSIVE REVOLUTION………………………………………………. 33
8.
THE TWO TEACHINGS IN KARL MARX: REVOLUTION OR
EVOLUTION?…………………………………………………………………...37
xiv
9.
JULIAN SIMON, BJORN LOMBORG, INDUR GOKLANY AND
COMPLEXITY THEORY: MARX’S EVOLUTIONARY INSIGHT UPHELD
AND PROVEN..…………………………………………………………………51
10.
THE REAL CONTRADICTION IN CAPITALIST PRODUCTION………….. 70
11.
THE TRUE MECHANISMS OF CAPITALIST RE-EVOLUTION…...….…....87
I.
The Increasing Economy and Scope of Scale…………………....87
II.
Buckminster Fuller and the Process of Ephemeralization……….88
III.
The Know-More Factor………………………………………….92
IV.
The Learning/Experience Curve…………………………………93
V.
The Law of Comparative Advantage…………………….………95
VI.
Specialization and Division of Knowledge and Labor…….…….98
VII.
The Adjacent Possible…………………………………….….…103
VIII.
The Continuously Falling Rate of Profit and Prices……………105
IX.
Dematerialization……………………………………………….112
X.
The Law of Increasing Returns…………………………………116
XI.
Kurzweil’s Law: The Law of Exponential Returns…………….118
XII.
There Are No Limits to Human Knowledge……….……….…..120
12.
CONCLUSION………………………………………………………………....123
13.
EPILOGUE……………………………………………………………………..128
Appendix A: The Socialist Calculation Debate Revisited……………………..……….133
Appendix B: Who Won the Socialism Calculation Debate?…………………………...150
xv
Appendix C: Index of Economic Figures, 210 Years of Declining Prices…….…....….158
Bibliography………………………………….………………………………………...170
xvi
LIST OF TABLES
Tables
Page
1. Old Economics vs. New Economics………………………………………………27
xvii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figures
Page
1.
The Six Epochs of Evolution………………………………………….…….22
2.
Linear vs. Exponential Growth …………………………………….……….50
3.
Inflation Adjusted Raw Industrial Prices……………………………….…...59
4.
Cycle of Progress…………………………………………………….………62
5.
Cycle of Progress page 2……….……………………………………………63
6.
Rate of Acquisition of the Basic Inventory of Cosmic Absolutes-The 92
Elements……………………………………………………………….…….91
7.
A Century of Decline………………………………………………………158
8.
Metal Detector……………………………………………………………..159
9.
Food Expenditures Share of Disposable Income 1929-2008………………160
10.
U.S. Wholesale Milk Prices (Real) 1890-2010…………………………….161
11.
A Mechanics Wage Rate vs. Price of Bread 1570-1825……………………161
12.
Real Price of Eggs ($/doz.) 1890-2008……………………………………..162
13.
Aluminum Prices 1895-2010……………………………………………….163
14.
Aluminum Production Curve 1901- 2007…………………………………..163
15.
Rare-Earth Element Production and Rare-Earth Patent Activity…………...164
16.
Inflation Adjusted Rare Earth Oxide Prices 1940-2010……………………165
17.
TV Deflation Rate 2005-2010……………………………………………...165
xviii
18.
Deflation Rate of Computer Prices 1998-2009……………………………..166
19.
Cost Per Unit of Computing Power Continues to Decline…………….…...166
20.
Historical Cost of Computer Memory and Storage 1950-2010…………….167
21.
Cost per Raw Megabase of DNA Sequence………………………………..168
22.
Cost per Genome……………………………………………………………169
xix