Karl Marx Was Right

[D1B]

Crickets.....conks avoiding this thread like the plague.

Badly? Z? Trivialman67? BDTAINT?

[D1B]

The US economic system is capitalism?

Already address in the thread and in the article.

Key Marxist economic theories have been employed by the most successful of nations in Northern Europe and the United States of America, to name a few.

Any other brilliant contributions?

[kalm]

Crickets.....conks avoiding this thread like the plague.

Badly? Z? Trivialman67? BDTAINT?

It's pretty damn tough to argue with article, especially if you believe in competition and righteousness of free markets - including labor. I wonder what Adam Smith would think of today's economics?

[OL FU]

You can't deny it. Pegged capitalism as pregnant with the seeds of its own destruction 150 years ago.

By Sean McElwee

There's a lot of talk of Karl Marx in the air these days – from Rush Limbaugh (Tman) ( accusing Pope Francis of promoting "pure Marxism" to a Washington Times writer (AZ) claiming that New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio is an "unrepentant Marxist." But few people (Conks) actually understand Marx's trenchant critique of capitalism. Most people are vaguely aware of the radical economist's prediction that capitalism would inevitably be replaced by communism, but they often misunderstand why he believed this to be true. And while Marx was wrong about some things, his writings (many of which pre-date the American Civil War) accurately predicted several aspects of contemporary capitalism, from the Great Recession to the iPhone 5S in your pocket.

Here are five facts of life in 2014 that Marx's analysis of capitalism correctly predicted more than a century ago:

1. The Great Recession (Capitalism's Chaotic Nature)

The inherently chaotic, crisis-prone nature of capitalism was a key part of Marx's writings. He argued that the relentless drive for profits would lead companies to mechanize their workplaces, producing more and more goods while squeezing workers' wages until they could no longer purchase the products they created. Sure enough, modern historical events from the Great Depression to the dot-com bubble can be traced back to what Marx termed "fictitious capital" – financial instruments like stocks and credit-default swaps. We produce and produce until there is simply no one left to purchase our goods, no new markets, no new debts. The cycle is still playing out before our eyes: Broadly speaking, it's what made the housing market crash in 2008. Decades of deepening inequality reduced incomes, which led more and more Americans to take on debt. When there were no subprime borrows left to scheme, the whole façade fell apart, just as Marx knew it would.

2. The iPhone 5S (Imaginary Appetites)

Marx warned that capitalism's tendency to concentrate high value on essentially arbitrary products would, over time, lead to what he called "a contriving and ever-calculating subservience to inhuman, sophisticated, unnatural and imaginary appetites." It's a harsh but accurate way of describing contemporary America, where we enjoy incredible luxury and yet are driven by a constant need for more and more stuff to buy. Consider the iPhone 5S you may own. Is it really that much better than the iPhone 5 you had last year, or the iPhone 4S a year before that? Is it a real need, or an invented one? While Chinese families fall sick with cancer from our e-waste, megacorporations are creating entire advertising campaigns around the idea that we should destroy perfectly good products for no reason. If Marx could see this kind of thing, he'd nod in recognition.

3. The IMF (The Globalization of Capitalism)

Marx's ideas about overproduction led him to predict what is now called globalization – the spread of capitalism across the planet in search of new markets. "The need of a constantly expanding market for its products chases the bourgeoisie over the entire surface of the globe," he wrote. "It must nestle everywhere, settle everywhere, establish connections everywhere." While this may seem like an obvious point now, Marx wrote those words in 1848, when globalization was over a century away. And he wasn't just right about what ended up happening in the late 20th century – he was right about why it happened: The relentless search for new markets and cheap labor, as well as the incessant demand for more natural resources, are beasts that demand constant feeding.

4. Walmart (Monopoly)

The classical theory of economics assumed that competition was natural and therefore self-sustaining. Marx, however, argued that market power would actually be centralized in large monopoly firms as businesses increasingly preyed upon each other. This might have struck his 19th-century readers as odd: As Richard Hofstadter writes, "Americans came to take it for granted that property would be widely diffused, that economic and political power would decentralized." It was only later, in the 20th century, that the trend Marx foresaw began to accelerate. Today, mom-and-pop shops have been replaced by monolithic big-box stores like Walmart, small community banks have been replaced by global banks like J.P. Morgan Chase and small famers have been replaced by the likes of Archer Daniels Midland. The tech world, too, is already becoming centralized, with big corporations sucking up start-ups as fast as they can. Politicians give lip service to what minimal small-business lobby remains and prosecute the most violent of antitrust abuses – but for the most part, we know big business is here to stay.

5. Low Wages, Big Profits (The Reserve Army of Industrial Labor)

Marx believed that wages would be held down by a "reserve army of labor," which he explained simply using classical economic techniques: Capitalists wish to pay as little as possible for labor, and this is easiest to do when there are too many workers floating around. Thus, after a recession, using a Marxist analysis, we would predict that high unemployment would keep wages stagnant as profits soared, because workers are too scared of unemployment to quit their terrible, exploitative jobs. And what do you know? No less an authority than the Wall Street Journal warns, "Lately, the U.S. recovery has been displaying some Marxian traits. Corporate profits are on a tear, and rising productivity has allowed companies to grow without doing much to reduce the vast ranks of the unemployed." That's because workers are terrified to leave their jobs and therefore lack bargaining power. It's no surprise that the best time for equitable growth is during times of "full employment," when unemployment is low and workers can threaten to take another job.

In Conclusion:

Marx was wrong about many things. Most of his writing focuses on a critique of capitalism rather than a proposal of what to replace it with – which left it open to misinterpretation by madmen like Stalin in the 20th century. But his work still shapes our world in a positive way as well. When he argued for a progressive income tax in the Communist Manifesto, no country had one. Now, there is scarcely a country without a progressive income tax, and it's one small way that the U.S. tries to fight income inequality. Marx's moral critique of capitalism and his keen insights into its inner workings and historical context are still worth paying attention to. As Robert L. Heilbroner writes, "We turn to Marx, therefore, not because he is infallible, but because he is inescapable." Today, in a world of both unheard-of wealth and abject poverty, where the richest 85 people have more wealth than the poorest 3 billion, the famous cry, "Workers of the world unite; you have nothing to lose but your chains," has yet to lose its potency.

Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/ ... z35UgpGNr5" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Conks

Let's take them one by one.
and let's remember we are talking about pure socialism not the varying degrees of mixed economies that exist in western civilization.

1. Capitalism is inherently unstable and chaotic. No argument. The socialist solution is quite possibly more stable as long as you enjoy slower economic growth, less productivity, lower economic lifestyles and less freedom.

2. Honestly and truthfully, this one is more of a who gives a shit. So it is a horrible occurrence that someone throws their recently purchased iphone in the trash to buy the newer model. Oh, the agony.

3. Globalization. I realize if you think anyone that works for a business enterprise is being trampled on, then there is no point in the conversation. Globalization has certainly been bad for this country, but it has certainly positively impacted the lifestyles of millions in third world countries. I am sure they are still downtrodden and abused and misused, which of course is exactly why they left the family rice patty to work in the factory.

4. Can't argue with the results on this one, however there are reasons for it other than businesses trampling on each other. Part of it is number three above. Larger entities have distinct advantages in production and delivery of certain goods and services. We can argue the good and bad (which there is both) all day long.

5. This one seems to be the most obviously correct analysis of the group. If Marx was the first to say it (don't know that he is) he certainly wasn't the first to think it.

Now to the conclusion, as Joe mentioned my understanding of Marx is basically limited to the Communist Manifesto (one of my many short comings). Perhaps Marx soften his approach to the solution in later writings. Perhaps his solution itself was one meant to incite or motivate rather than one that he actually believed in. There is no doubt that (as least in the developed world) the mid 1800s was a time of tremendous social, economic and cultural changes where the improvement of the lives of workers required radical solutions. Perhaps it is difficult to separate the atrocious acts of future individuals, some of which believed in his manifesto and some that simply used it, from the well intention individual that wrote about the impossible to achieve worker's paradise in the future.


His criticism of other socialists who did not see such a violent solution to the problems turned out to be entirely incorrect.

[Pwns]

The US economic system is capitalism?

Already address in the thread and in the article.

Key Marxist economic theories have been employed by the most successful of nations in Northern Europe and the United States of America, to name a few.

Any other brilliant contributions?

But I thought that US "capitalism" needed saving and that any problems we run into proves he was right?

[D1B]

You can't deny it. Pegged capitalism as pregnant with the seeds of its own destruction 150 years ago.




Conks

Let's take them one by one.
and let's remember we are talking about pure socialism not the varying degrees of mixed economies that exist in western civilization.

1. Capitalism is inherently unstable and chaotic. No argument. The socialist solution is quite possibly more stable as long as you enjoy slower economic growth, less productivity, lower economic lifestyles and less freedom.

2. Honestly and truthfully, this one is more of a who gives a shit. So it is a horrible occurrence that someone throws their recently purchased iphone in the trash to buy the newer model. Oh, the agony.

3. Globalization. I realize if you think anyone that works for a business enterprise is being trampled on, then there is no point in the conversation. Globalization has certainly been bad for this country, but it has certainly positively impacted the lifestyles of millions in third world countries. I am sure they are still downtrodden and abused and misused, which of course is exactly why they left the family rice patty to work in the factory.

4. Can't argue with the results on this one, however there are reasons for it other than businesses trampling on each other. Part of it is number three above. Larger entities have distinct advantages in production and delivery of certain goods and services. We can argue the good and bad (which there is both) all day long.

5. This one seems to be the most obviously correct analysis of the group. If Marx was the first to say it (don't know that he is) he certainly wasn't the first to think it.

Now to the conclusion, as Joe mentioned my understanding of Marx is basically limited to the Communist Manifesto (one of my many short comings). Perhaps Marx soften his approach to the solution in later writings. Perhaps his solution itself was one meant to incite or motivate rather than one that he actually believed in. There is no doubt that (as least in the developed world) the mid 1800s was a time of tremendous social, economic and cultural changes where the improvement of the lives of workers required radical solutions. Perhaps it is difficult to separate the atrocious acts of future individuals, some of which believed in his manifesto and some that simply used it, from the well intention individual that wrote about the impossible to achieve worker's paradise in the future.


His criticism of other socialists who did not see such a violent solution to the problems turned out to be entirely incorrect.

Well at least you admit your entire understanding of Marx comes from a pamphlet.

You continue to fail to acknowledge the role of the dialectical process.

[OL FU]

Let's take them one by one.
and let's remember we are talking about pure socialism not the varying degrees of mixed economies that exist in western civilization.

1. Capitalism is inherently unstable and chaotic. No argument. The socialist solution is quite possibly more stable as long as you enjoy slower economic growth, less productivity, lower economic lifestyles and less freedom.

2. Honestly and truthfully, this one is more of a who gives a ****. So it is a horrible occurrence that someone throws their recently purchased iphone in the trash to buy the newer model. Oh, the agony.

3. Globalization. I realize if you think anyone that works for a business enterprise is being trampled on, then there is no point in the conversation. Globalization has certainly been bad for this country, but it has certainly positively impacted the lifestyles of millions in third world countries. I am sure they are still downtrodden and abused and misused, which of course is exactly why they left the family rice patty to work in the factory.

4. Can't argue with the results on this one, however there are reasons for it other than businesses trampling on each other. Part of it is number three above. Larger entities have distinct advantages in production and delivery of certain goods and services. We can argue the good and bad (which there is both) all day long.

5. This one seems to be the most obviously correct analysis of the group. If Marx was the first to say it (don't know that he is) he certainly wasn't the first to think it.

Now to the conclusion, as Joe mentioned my understanding of Marx is basically limited to the Communist Manifesto (one of my many short comings). Perhaps Marx soften his approach to the solution in later writings. Perhaps his solution itself was one meant to incite or motivate rather than one that he actually believed in. There is no doubt that (as least in the developed world) the mid 1800s was a time of tremendous social, economic and cultural changes where the improvement of the lives of workers required radical solutions. Perhaps it is difficult to separate the atrocious acts of future individuals, some of which believed in his manifesto and some that simply used it, from the well intention individual that wrote about the impossible to achieve worker's paradise in the future.


His criticism of other socialists who did not see such a violent solution to the problems turned out to be entirely incorrect.

Well at least you admit your entire understanding of Marx comes from a pamphlet.

You continue to fail to acknowledge the role of the dialectical process.

I may not be much but I am honest. On the other hand, if that pamphlet had not been written, we wouldn't be having this conversation. and I thought we were at least engaged in a modified form of dialectical processes. I should have known better

[D1B]

Well at least you admit your entire understanding of Marx comes from a pamphlet.

You continue to fail to acknowledge the role of the dialectical process.

I may not be much but I am honest. On the other hand, if that pamphlet had not been written, we wouldn't be having this conversation. and I thought we were at least engaged in a modified form of dialectical processes. I should have known better

Point taken. I concede.

[OL FU]

I may not be much but I am honest. On the other hand, if that pamphlet had not been written, we wouldn't be having this conversation. and I thought we were at least engaged in a modified form of dialectical processes. I should have known better

Point taken. I concede.

No you can't. I was about to do the same thing

[Cap'n Cat]

Boom

And Empty Head arrives. Hi Andy.

[Ivytalk]

If anyone wants a good downer, I recommend Spengler's Decline of the West.

[89Hen]

If anyone wants a good downer, I recommend Spengler's Decline of the West.

[Ivytalk]

If anyone wants a good downer, I recommend Spengler's Decline of the West.

Not THAT Spengler!