Karl Marx, in contrast to Malthus, using Malthusian melancholy as the hunting specter of the own activity, proved that there is no law of population at all because every social formation has a particular law of population. There is no and cannot be an absolute overpopulation because there is overpopulation relative as a specific feature of capitalism, generated by the action of the general law of capitalist accumulation. Thus, unemployment and poverty of the working class can be conditioned by the action of this law, but not by the laws of nature. Moreover, both Marx and Lenin showed the failure of transferring the society laws on nature. Malthus was wrong for the very reason that if the plants and wild animals only consume because their existence is limited by the availability of food and space to some extent then the distinctive feature of human society is its production activities. Human society creates for itself the means of subsistence, and it does not depend on the mercy of nature in this sense. Moreover, the man subjugates nature. In this regard, the main Malthus’ “argument”ť in favor that an increase of livelihood lags is far behind the population growth was non-scientific “law”ť of diminishing returns.
The classics of Marxism gave a sharp criticism of this “law,”ť showing that its supporters left aside the most important thing, they ignore the growth of the productive forces of society, the growth of production techniques. Criticizing the “law”ť of diminishing returns, Lenin proved that there is no general difficulty of obtaining food, and the difficulty of obtaining food exist only for one segment of the population which is the working class, and it is entirely determined by the specific laws of capitalism, not by the eternal laws of nature.
In connection with the theory of Malthus’ population, there should be noted the most characteristic feature of his “creativity,”ť which lies in the fact that there was no any original theory in Malthus’ observations, while Marx described Malthus as a “plagiarist in nature.”ť Marx sharply criticized everything written by Malthus, and stated that Malthus stolen his theory of population from another person, and did not even mentioned the name of this person in his work.
In conclusion, despite the failure of the Malthusian scientific “law”ť of population and the obvious immorality of its author, it was a big hit among the bourgeoisie because its ideologues highly satisfied their class needs. The most sinister role this “law”ť has at present because Malthusianism is one of the core theories of modern bourgeois political economy, which the imperialists use for ideological preparations for war, and attack on living standards.
The Uneasy Relationship between Politics and Economics
Both political and economic spheres of society are closely related to each other and represent the interaction between government, civil society and the individual that is the fundamental determinant of any social order. Moreover, the idea that economics influences politics, while politics is a concentrated expression of economics, has the right to life. However, reformations of the economics entail significant changes in the political sphere in the critical periods of development of the state reform processes.
Observing uneasy relationship between politics and economics, it becomes obvious that the interaction of politics and economics plays a crucial role in the development of any society. For the acknowledgement of this fact it is good to state that the impact of politics on the economic life of society increases along with increasing the scale of the economic sphere, complexity and deepening of economic relations in society. In addition, the problem of the relationship of politics and economics takes a particular acuteness in periods of deep break of social relations, social structure, perceptions, and values ”‹”‹of social consciousness.