Marxism and the Correlation Co-Efficient
I’m working toward a College degree in Sociology, late in life and, in that capacity, I am required to take a course in Statistics. Understanding the rigors of Statistics, particularly the Algebra, is very challenging for me so please cut me some slack as I attempt to present what appears to me to be a classic example of the statistical concept of the “Correlation Co-Efficient which I relate to the Marxist Theory of Exploitation.
The goal of the Correlation Co-Efficient equation, as I understand it, is to determine whether there is a positive or negative relationship between two separate variables or, as the case may be, whether there is any relationship at all. The result of the equation, after plotting and calculating the data, may be so insignificant that the statistician my deem there to be no real difference between the two. Once the Correlation Co-Efficient is determined, what is called the “R,” the statistician then makes a judgement regarding correlation in relation to causation.
It occurs to be that one of the central themes of Marxism, the theory of exploitation, is based on a Correlation Co-Efficient and that the answer to that equation is that one variable has little to nothing to do with the other overall.
Please allow me to elucidate.
Marx theorized that western society, in the stage that he referred to as Capitalism which, he contended, was in the early stages of industrialization, was divided into two variables, the co-efficient, variables which he called the Bourgeois and the Proletariat. Marx contended that the Bourgeois variable existed as a result of its exploitation, by means of force and by the use of such inventions and deceptions as religion, which he referred to as the opiate of the masses, of the Proletariat. This is, indeed, the basic conspiracy theory that underlies Marxism to this day, one that serves as the foundation of the conspiratorial view of society that is still held by most true-believing leftists.
To distill these variables down to a common denominator as a means of illustration, a process which is also an abstract aspect of practical Algebra, we might consider a man, standing in for the proletariat, looking down the street at his neighbor, a man standing in for the bourgeois, who has a bigger house, a better car, a more beautiful wife, than the proletarian man.
According to the Marxist theory of exploitation, the bourgeois man had more things and attributes that the proletarian man because he somehow took advantage or ripped off the proletarian man. His success, his possession of more capitol, or what Marx called surplus capitol, was not due to his own circumstances, of hard work, or smarts, or energy, or luck, or whatever combination of complex factors that brought him to his condition but, rather, he got there by somehow taking something away from the proletarian man.
This particular conspiratorial theory, this correlation co-efficient, requires the acceptance of the theory of scarcity which holds that all material in the world, both real as well as abstract, is finite. This theory cancels out human will, invention, imagination, energy, creativity and uniqueness. The acceptance of the theory of scarcity serves to justify, both in practical as well as in moral terms, the necessity to re-distribute the scarce resources of existence evenly. The theory of scarcity even includes money which is an abstract means of exchange that reflects human creativity and imagination.
The proletarian man, in this scenario, thus feels entitled to a share of the property of the bourgeois man down the street simply because he exists. The proletarian doesn’t have to do anything, doesn’t have to create anything or apply any effort, to get his share of his neighbors property, he is just entitled to it because the neighbor is more successful than him as a result of his somehow ripping him off and due to the limited resources in the world.
The Marxist theory of exploitation is neither a positive or a negative correlation co-efficient since no real correlation actually exists. Yes, there are always what statisticians call outliers, people or groups who do rip off their neighbors, who do exploit, in order to benefit unfairly and these machinations may lead to degrees of impoverishment. The system of justice, and the system of checks and balances that are hallmarks of a free society are established to counter these tendencies and render justice when required. But there is no co-efficient per se, there is no systemic corruption of this nature in a free society.
Thus, the bourgeois guy down the street is not likely richer because the proletarian guy is poorer. The ideology that seeks to exploit, and this is the real locus of exploitation, the feelings of envy, greed, lust and avarice of the proletarian man, with an appeal to the dark side of his nature, is the ideology that ultimately seeks to exploit both variables by means of force and deception.