The confrontation between the famous Canadian scientist Macpherson and the American economist Friedman is a vivid example of the collision of two opposite value systems. The two people belonged to entirely different political groups and had practically opposed views. The central point of controversy was the concept of freedom and its understanding by the two scholars. The purpose of this essay is to analyze Macpherson’s criticism of Friedman, as well as to examine its components, such as statements about dead labor.
Freedom as a concept was perceived differently by the two scholars lies in their political views. As an economist in America, Friedman was a proponent of capitalism and perceived freedom as something negative, as the absence of restrictions. In his understanding, it consisted of free competition under capitalism, in which the state intervenes only when the market cannot regulate itself (Macpherson, 1968). This independence is a prerequisite for political freedom; therefore, it must be guarded and guarded, protected from outside influences. According to Friedman, capitalism is a prerequisite for political freedom, and the scientist makes this conclusion based on observations of human history. According to him, the greatest amount of political freedom was observed only in countries with a capitalist structure. An additional argument for capitalism on the part of Friedman is also the possibility of the economy working as a deterrent to politics.
In turn, Macpherson was a supporter of Marxism, and in his arguments to Friedman, he proceeded from a completely different understanding of freedom. For the scientist, this concept represents a necessary positive force and should be used for the complete disclosure of human potential. Thus, freedom can in no way be associated with capitalism, which restrains man. According to Macpherson, in capitalism, an individual can change jobs, but it is impossible to refuse a job (Macpherson, 1968). Consequently, in a capitalist society, there is a compulsion to the existing system, to monetary economic relations, which directly contradicts the concept of freedom put forward by scientists. Macpherson makes three claims to Friedman’s text: capitalism carries out economic activity through coercion; it is not a necessary component of freedom; it is not ethically justified. Macpherson notes that in capitalist countries, the economy does not hold back and directs politics.
Thus, Macpherson’s criticism of Friedman is based primarily on different understandings of fundamental concepts of ideologies. Besides, the Canadian scientist noted the one-sidedness and insufficiently clear understanding of the works discussed by Friedman. In particular, according to Macpherson, the economist paraphrases Marx’s original creations, either not fully understanding them or adjusting to his theory (Macpherson, 1968). For example, Friedman examines part of Marx’s statement, focusing on the phrase “to each according to his work,” rejecting that this statement is only a transition to the ideal concept of “to each according to his needs.”
Scientists also disagree on the issue of attitudes towards work, both past and present. Marxist teaching says that labor has been exploited throughout history because it produced the entire product but received only a part of it. Friedman scoffs at this concept, apparently seeing it as an attachment to the past and sarcastically noting the impossibility of returning the product to bygone, dead labor, except in the form of “elegant tombstones” (Macpherson, 1968). MacPherson disagrees with this interpretation since he sees in it not an attachment to a dead past but a need to change the future and reject the exploitation system.
Thus, the two scholars’ disagreements stem from the different ideologies that each of them adheres to. Since MacPherson was a supporter of Marxism, and Friedman was a supporter of capitalism, they had opposite ideas about the concepts of freedom and labor in society. Besides, the differences were intensified by different interpretations of the same documents, including Marx’s original works. In the study of past labor, Friedman saw an attachment to the past, which cannot be changed because the workers who did not receive the goods had already died. However, Macpherson interpreted the same text as the need for systemic changes that should prevent the further exploitation of current labor.
Reference
Macpherson, C. B. (1968). Elegant tombstones: a note on Friedman’s freedom.Canadian Journal of Political Science/Revue canadienne de science politique, 1(1), 95-106. Web.