God, Reason & the Redistribution of IncomenRobert L. Heilbroner: Marxism: Fornand Against; W. W. Norton & Co.;nNew York.nMichael Harrington: Decade of Decision;nSimon & Schuster; NewnYork.nby William E. CagenIt is a perverse tribute to human intelligencenthat Marxism is still discussednin intellectually respectable circles. Itnis testimony to our naivete and gullibilitynthat we allow the title “Marxist state”nto be applied to almost every cheap dictatorshipnwhich has been establishednsince 1950. And yet the current upsurgenin Marxist literature provides an exemplaryncase of how fundamental and necessarynfreedom is to the human experience.nWorks on Marx—whether they reflectnthe plausible structures of Heilbronernor the formless emotionalism of Harrington—neednto be examined on theirnmerits and should be judged where theynare found wanting, regardless of thenphilosophical disposition of the reader.nThat is to say, both of the books reviewednhere leave this writer with ansense of tired frustration. Have notnthese ideas already been laid to restnthousands of times.” Are these writersn(and their readers) not aware of the millionsnof hours which have been futilelynspent attempting to justify (or even justnexplain) Marx’s peculiar analysis.^nWhether they are or not, the grip thatnMarxism has on today’s world makesnit important to treat these ideas andntheir authors fairly, and perhaps in thenprocess we can diagnose the malaisenfrom which the Western world suffers.nHeilbroner has always been an excellentnwriter. He has a gift for explainingncomplex ideas in a manner which makesnthem understandable to the lay public.nDr. Cage is a corporate economist innMissourinHowever, even Heilbroner is taxed tonthe limits when trying to explain Marx.nMarxism: For and Against is the bestnplace this reviewer knows to beginnstudying Marx. Heilbroner treats Marx’snphilosophical method, the core of whatnis in fact Marxism, and even tests Marx’sntheories (not very carefully) againstnreality. He goes further and examinesnwhat it would mean if Marx’s prescriptionsn(as distinct from his t/escriptions)nwere actually instituted in humannsociety.nor quasi-Marxist, at large today, includingnMichael Harrington.nA here can be no doubt that MichaelnHarrington “cares.” He is genuinelynconcerned with the poor, the powerless,nthe downtrodden. Unfortunately, therenis also no doubt in this reviewer’s opinionnthat Harrington has adopted an essentiallynMarxist viewpoint in analyzingnand interpreting the world of today.nThat is unfortunate for Harrington’snown concerns because Marxism doesn”if the scorr: ol Iniok.s piilili.slii-i] in rhc pa.sl ti-w wars iln nor lonliiiii a lasi-ntnMcirxi.srii rcviLl, 1 K-ilbroiKT’s hook OTiaiiily will.”n— The PnijifrcssircnHeilbroner understands Marx andnMarxism, and his book can serve as anreliable reference for anyone who wantsnto explore these subjects. In fact, ifnthere were any chance that it would benread, Heilbroner’s work would be annexcellent gift for anyone who preachesnthe virtues of Marxism. A passagenshould serve to illustrate the point:n… it seems to me as unlikely that ansocialist civilization will be fundamentallyninterested in what we callnliberty as that a bourgeois civilizationnwill be fundamentally interested innwhat its predecessors called piety . . .nThe practice of Marxism is not an effortnto create a kind of ‘socialism’nthat embodies the highest ideals ofncontemporary, bourgeois society. It is,nrather, the effort to bring into beingna new social order, different fromnand beyond bourgeois society, andntherefore embodying institutions ornideals that may not be attractive, orneven acceptable, to those of us whonare situated in, and profoundly influencednby, bourgeois thought.nHeilbroner is no antagonist of Marx,nand he could possibly be called a supporter—butnhe nonetheless understandsnwhat he supports. That is in sharp contrastnto virtually every other Marxist,nnnnot offer an adequate or valid explanationnof economic events, and to rely onnMarxism to identify the means for solvingnworld poverty is analogous to tryingnto orbit a satellite while thinking thatnthe universe revolves around the earth.nThe entire theoretical structure simplynwill not permit the objective to benreached. It is quite likely that Harringtonncould learn something about Marxnfrom Heilbroner. Harrington coversn300 pages with obtuse, turgid writing,nfalling victim to a common debatingsocietynerror (you can prove anything ifnyou offer enough quotes and citationsnin favor of it). He reaches his conclusion,nand it is not a very remarkable one.nIt is “that there must be a structuralntransformation of corporate power. Andnthe key to that development is the democratizationnof the investment function.”nIt would be simpler to say thatnthe government should be in charge ofnmaking all investment decisions. Hownwill this cure the sickness of poverty.’nHow will government investment reducenincome inequality.” Well, that isnhow Marx gets dragged into Decade ofnDecision. It is impossible to set forthnthe logic to the argument because therenisn’t any. That’s why Harrington shouldnread Heilbroner.nH H ^ M H H M M M I 1)nJVovcmber/Dcccmber 1980n