NationStates Jolt Archive

In my opinion, Marx's theory about the process and progression of Capitalism, and it's inevitable conclusion of revolution and proletariat states does not apply in our modern world.

When Marx concocted his idea, the world was experiencing what was known as the Era of Unfettered Capitalism (1840-1900). At that time, the various governments of the world took a laissez-faire attitude toward the economy. It was the unrestricted free market. Governments conspired with the companies to maximize profit, screwing the workers bigtime in the process.

That changed in the Progressive Era (1900-1920). Workers were finally able to unionize and seek reforms through the existing government. They found that they no longer needed a revolution, but could accomplish their goals through persistent peaceful methods.

Do you agree?

To an extent yes.

Though you might want to look at Bernstein's critique of Marx that was written in the early 20th Century as well. Where he argue that the internal contraditions of capitalism (that would make it collapse) had been ironed out in a variety ways meaning that capitalism won't inevitably fall and a communist state rise out of the ashes

Also, Marx allowed for revolution by the ballot box.

In my opinion, Marx's theory about the process and progression of Capitalism, and it's inevitable conclusion of revolution and proletariat states does not apply in our modern world.



When Marx concocted his idea, the world was experiencing what was known as the Era of Unfettered Capitalism (1840-1900). At that time, the various governments of the world took a laissez-faire attitude toward the economy. It was the unrestricted free market. Governments conspired with the companies to maximize profit, screwing the workers bigtime in the process.

I'm not sure that period has ended. I mean, Governments still coordinate with Capital on a systematic basis.

That changed in the Progressive Era (1900-1920). Workers were finally able to unionize and seek reforms through the existing government. They found that they no longer needed a revolution, but could accomplish their goals through persistent peaceful methods.

Yes there was a massive change in labour rights and social throughout the era, which I would say lead right up to the early 70's when the roll back began. Now, unions are under attacks from all directions as can be seen from the attempts of WalMart employees to unionise, and the corporate attack on West Coast dockworkers last year. Further assaults have occured on the union sector by simply destroying their jobs through the use of free trade agreements. Once the FTA, or NAFTA was signed (or admission to the WTO was granted) the choice for a union worker during contract negotiations was plain, take a cut or lose your job.

So, I'm going to disagree on your last two points. On the first, I can't actually say. I've never read Marx's theory about the process and progression of Capitalism and I'd be grateful if you could expand on this or link to a useful synopsis. What little I do know is that he believes that communism is a natural outcome of capitalism.

This is pretty basic, but these are the stages of capitalism as described by Marx:

(1) All or most of the capital in the world is accumulated by rich capitalists.

(2) Workers realize they're getting screwed in order to maximize profit, so they take over the means of production (the factories) and run them themselves. They use the old margins of profit to benefit themselves (higher wages, fewer hours).

(3) Workers realize that the existing government exists only to defend capitalism, so they overthrow the existing government and replace it with a Proleteriat government.

This is pretty basic, but these are the stages of capitalism as described by Marx:

(1) All or most of the capital in the world is accumulated by rich capitalists.

(2) Workers realize they're getting screwed in order to maximize profit, so they take over the means of production (the factories) and run them themselves. They use the old margins of profit to benefit themselves (higher wages, fewer hours).

(3) Workers realize that the existing government exists only to defend capitalism, so they overthrow the existing government and replace it with a Proleteriat government.

Lancamore, I'm a little shocked that you feel that Marx no longer applies. We are clearly at stage (1) and there are numerous examples of stage (2) happening around the world -- in Argentina and Bolivia for example.

Following from my previous post, it's true that there was a massive movement to ameliorating the worst excesses of Capitalism through the union and civil rights movements in the early to mid 20th century, but the subsequent rollback has pushed us all back to stage (1) again.

Hmm, Marx wrote before the agricultural "green" revolution and taylorism.

He also wrote before the creation of seperation of control and ownership in modern corporations.

So I am not sure that anything he had to say is that relevent.

(And that prediction about georgia in the civil war, it was just luck, and he didn't understand it himself).

That changed in the Progressive Era (1900-1920). Workers were finally able to unionize and seek reforms through the existing government. They found that they no longer needed a revolution, but could accomplish their goals through persistent peaceful methods.

Do you agree?

So, no, I disagree. It's evident that forcing reforms through the existing power structure of society while leaving those structures intact is doomed to failure for one pretty straightforward reason: Those structures were erected for the express purpose of maintaining the power of private capital over society, under pressure they can give a little in the short term but in the long term will naturally move to subvert any gains. In fact the short term reforms act as a massive propaganda bonanza ("See! The system works!) serving to further re-enforce the power structure, while laying the groundwork for the future roll back.

Why do marxists/socialists always turn to South America for their examples of left wing revolutionary activities.

Argentina is in economic meltdown. There is no workers "revolution" going on. It simply failed to diversify its industrial/service base sufficiently and entered melt down while its leaders argued about their own interests.

Bolivia is more an ethnic/rural workers dispute than a marxist revolution. The people are not wanting to control the means of production, they just want abetter government subsidies.

Go look in the developed world for your marxist revolution. Most countries here are still trying to enter the capitalist phase and leave the feudal system.

Hmm, Marx wrote before the agricultural "green" revolution and taylorism.

He also wrote before the creation of seperation of control and ownership in modern corporations.

So I am not sure that anything he had to say is that relevent.

(And that prediction about georgia in the civil war, it was just luck, and he didn't understand it himself).

Sorry, dude. My readings of Marx are extremely limitted. For instance I'm not sure what you mean by the green revolution and taylorism. I'm pretty sure you don't mean the publication of High Times and the infinite summation of derivatives to approximate a function.

The separation of control and ownership is easily reconciled with Marxism by simply changing the labels boergeoisie with "coordinator class". Managers, engineers, financiers, accountants, stockbrokers & etc. may coordinate and facillitate the functioning of the Capitalist society (control) and are rewarded accordingly (and never proportionately) but we are still bourgeoisie. Executives get the most pay, but are not necessarily owners, just the top echelon of coordinators, though frequently owners. The boundaries don't have to be sharply delineated.

So, barring the technical terms you brought up earlier, I think his comments about the class divisions of society are still highly relevant.

Especially when you consider this:
According to the United Nations Human Development Report, the world's richest 20 per cent receive 86 per cent of the world's gross product; the middle 60 per cent 13 per cent, while the poorest 20 per cent receive one per cent. The ratio between the top and bottom fifth of humanity is 74 to 1. In 1960 it was 30 to 1

Source is article entitled class. (http://www.leninology.blogspot.com/)

Why do marxists/socialists always turn to South America for their examples of left wing revolutionary activities.
Because South America has been screwed pretty hard by Capitalism and provides a wealth of examples of capitalisms abuses.

Argentina is in economic meltdown. There is no workers "revolution" going on. It simply failed to diversify its industrial/service base sufficiently and entered melt down while its leaders argued about their own interests.
Excuse me, but for the entire 1990's Argentina was held up by World Bank and IMF as the poster child of laughable 'free market reforms.' They went into meltdown precisely because they had outsourced control of their finances to extra territorial financial institutions and couldn't do anything to ameliorate capital flight when the over valued peso began to fall. At least 200 (abandoned) factories have been occupied and put into service by the former employees who now run the factories as cooperatives. Marx would have called them Soviets, I call them collectives. So, yes the elites argued about their own interests while those shut out of the market had to find their own non-market solutions.
Bolivia is more an ethnic/rural workers dispute than a marxist revolution. The people are not wanting to control the means of production, they just want better government subsidies
No they want domestic control over their resources. When the Bolivian gov't privatised the water and sewer systems of Cochabamba to Bechtel water rates immiediately quadrupled and water hookup (previously free) cost $400 US. Guess how many people could afford that? Furthermore, it was illegal to collect rain water because Bechtel was given control over all surface waters, which included rain water once it hit a flat surface. I think millions of poor people fighting back against the edicts of the powerful is the very essence of a Marxist struggle.
Go look in the developed world for your marxist revolution. Most countries here are still trying to enter the capitalist phase and leave the feudal system.

They have been in the Capitalist system. Just on the ass end of it. Just look at Lula. What were his election promises? What has he delivered? Before the election the IMF called in all presidential contenders and asked them to sign agreements stating that they would continue to follow IMF Structural Adjustment Policies with the clear threat of capital flight if they were elected and had refused to sign.

Hi-

I agree to some extent, that a violent revolution isn't necessarily what happens to unhappy workers today. There are now perfectly viable peaceful means for the working people to express their discontent.

This doesn't totally nix marx, however. Some of his social views, however, still permiate into our society today. Most notably, that 'all that is solid melts into air' nicely cristalizes (ironic diction alert) the modern trend from solid institutions towards more individualized and free systems. Distributed justice, the breaking down of once sacred institutions, the rise of spirituality rather than religion, and other social affects that make people more seperate and individual rather than glued together in a faceless mass: these all follow marx's characterization of our society.

A second assertion, that 'everything is pregnant with its successor', also runs deep into modern thinking. New versions of software, for example, are built upon and built upon, so the software is never truely complete in a changing world. Car models, as another example, are updated and rereleased every model year, with improvements over the previous product. The idea of iterative improvement is well-founded in marx's later writings.

So we see marx's thoughts in modern society, not as an indictment of capatalism, but rather as a predictor of social changes which affect modernity in many interesting ways. That's just what I gleamed from it, though.

-Duke Anthony

Sorry, dude. My readings of Marx are extremely limitted. For instance I'm not sure what you mean by the green revolution and taylorism. I'm pretty sure you don't mean the publication of High Times and the infinite summation of derivatives to approximate a function.

The separation of control and ownership is easily reconciled with Marxism by simply changing the labels boergeoisie with "coordinator class". Managers, engineers, financiers, accountants, stockbrokers & etc. may coordinate and facillitate the functioning of the Capitalist society (control) and are rewarded accordingly (and never proportionately) but we are still bourgeoisie. Executives get the most pay, but are not necessarily owners, just the top echelon of coordinators, though frequently owners. The boundaries don't have to be sharply delineated.

So, barring the technical terms you brought up earlier, I think his comments about the class divisions of society are still highly relevant.

Especially when you consider this:


Source is article entitled class. (http://www.leninology.blogspot.com/)


The green revolution is what essentially got everyone off the farm and created the modern suburban middle class. Taylorism was the begining of modern industrial organization. These two 'revolutions' have allowed unimaginable increases in productivty, reducing the percentage of the population required to work in producing necessities such as food, shelter, clean water &ct, to fractional levels of those in Marx's day. (Which is why most people in the west now work in the service industries, in some shape or form).

A direct consequence of this is that the problem of grinding subsitence level poverty, which was ubiquitous in the period Marx was writing, just does not pertian today. (I am well aware it is alive in kicking in the developing world, but that, in my opinion and others, is the result of dirty government moreso than anything else).

Clearly, this militates against a proletarian revolution. There is just no need to storm the public granaries for bread - either through the ballot box or other means - because it is relatively cheap and plentiful.

I am not going to be as crass as to suggest that there is no poverty in the western democracies, but if you compare the extent and severity of poverty today as to when Marx was writing the difference is clear. (It is one thing to consider grasping control of the 'means of production' -whatever that means - when the majority of the population is living at or near subsitence level, as compared to when the definition of poverty is "no TV" and effects only a small fraction of the populace.

As to the seperation of control and ownership: In the modern corporate form, ownership of large public companies is diffuse, and has little control over the actual operation of the company itself. Indeed, the biggest concentration of 'capital' is in the 'hands' of insurance companies, mutual funds, public pension funds and the rest. There no longer really exists a 'class' of individuals that 'own' the capital. I am not suggesting that there are not vast inequalities in the distribution of wealth, but I am saying that insitiutions like Calpers - the California State employee pension fund - have more power and capital in respect of modern corporations than any given individual. (Well except for maybe Warren Buffet, be he is hardly and evil robber barron).

As the ownership is so diffuse, a further consequence is that there less direct involvement in actual corporate governence by the capital owners - which lets face it include public school teachers these days, thus leaving, what you term the coordinator class, responsible effectively for the running of the corporation. This does not mean, however, that they are free to do as they see fit. In order to ensure that they respect the rights of all 'owners' (share holders), they are bound by fiducary duties which prevent them - in theory- from doing whatever the hell they like. (If they breach these duties, they can be held personally liable, either criminally or civily depending upon the case.) As such, they are expected to behave in a legal manner, not "insider" trade, avoid forming cartels and monopolies, avoid unfair trade practices, treat with unions as per the existing labor law &ct. as well as treat with all owners -whether they own one share or a million - with equal loyalty. (Or the corporation will face a derivative suit).

Again, I am not going to claim that there are not corporate excess and abuses, but these are more a problem of corrupt government than the existence of corporations. Frankly, politicians are very corrupt, and I don't think the answer is to remove 'temptation' from them - i.e. socialize everything. Instead, I would suggest voting in more honest politicians. (Though where we will find them, I don't know.)

My 2cents. I probably didn't explain it all that well.

They have been in the Capitalist system. Just on the ass end of it. Just look at Lula. What were his election promises? What has he delivered? Before the election the IMF called in all presidential contenders and asked them to sign agreements stating that they would continue to follow IMF Structural Adjustment Policies with the clear threat of capital flight if they were elected and had refused to sign.

I am going to ignore the rest of this left wing propoganda broadcast, as it is nearly 02:00 here and I would have to go digging for data. However this last part I do not need to dig anything out at all, as I was living in Brazil all through the period, with a very active interest in the local politics (It would affect ny life after all.)

The IMF (FMI here) did not ask Louis Ignacio Lula da Silva, nor José Serra nor any of the other candidates to agree to anything. Look, if you care to, at the Standard & Poors risk ratings for Brazil during the electoral period. You will see that they more than tripled. There was capital flight going on anyway.

Palocci, our finance minister announced last week, you probably missed it, that Brazil was not continuing its agreement with the IMF. Brazil does not need the capital.

How long before the election in 2003 was this meeting supposed to have taken place. How many candidates did they summon. From all the parties? (I know one of the people who was an outside candidate to talk to, complete crackpots and fun, but he was not invited to any talks with the IMF)

Stop believing your own sides propoganda.

Point 2. If you want to be a socialist read some of Marx's work. It does help.

Point 3. Goodnight and good luck with an almost impossible task.

Ye gods I want to argue with everything you just stated Lacadaemon, but it's 1AM and I have to sleep. I'll see if I can resurrect this thread tomorrow.

G'night.

Stop believing your own sides propoganda.

Point 2. If you want to be a socialist read some of Marx's work. It does help.

Point 3. Goodnight and good luck with an almost impossible task.

I'll endeavor not to rise to your bait, while noting that you didn't respond to my other points. Another day, I'll dig out the references. Oh, and was your friend a marginal candidate? You seemed to imply that I just want confirmation. If so, why would the IMF/FMI bother talking to him?

At that time, the various governments of the world took a laissez-faire attitude toward the economy. It was the unrestricted free market. Governments conspired with the companies to maximize profit, screwing the workers bigtime in the process.
That changed in the Progressive Era (1900-1920). Workers were finally able to unionize and seek reforms

Your argument is flawed in that the government is today conspiring with the corporations and screwing the workers bigtime. For example, did you know that it it is illegal in the United States to launch what is known as a "sympathy strike?" The workers are once againon bended knee before the Fat Cats becaus the strike power is only a couple notches above nil, and because labor organizations like the Teamsters are, in the end, too beauraucratic.

In my opinion, Marx's theory about the process and progression of Capitalism, and it's inevitable conclusion of revolution and proletariat states does not apply in our modern world.

When Marx concocted his idea, the world was experiencing what was known as the Era of Unfettered Capitalism (1840-1900). At that time, the various governments of the world took a laissez-faire attitude toward the economy. It was the unrestricted free market. Governments conspired with the companies to maximize profit, screwing the workers bigtime in the process.

Interesting contradiction. When goverments conspire to maximize profit, the market is not free.
...

Do you agree?I guess not. It's wrong to say that Marx's theory no longer applies since it's always been fatally flawed.

For example, did you know that it it is illegal in the United States to launch what is known as a "sympathy strike?"

Yes, and no. It depends on the industry in question.

And while many sympathy strikes are illegal, no-one can be forced to cross a picket line. So if the janitors go on strike, probably the entire plant will close down,

No they want domestic control over their resources. When the Bolivian gov't privatised the water and sewer systems of Cochabamba to Bechtel water rates immiediately quadrupled and water hookup (previously free) cost $400 US. Guess how many people could afford that? Furthermore, it was illegal to collect rain water because Bechtel was given control over all surface waters, which included rain water once it hit a flat surface. I think millions of poor people fighting back against the edicts of the powerful is the very essence of a Marxist struggle.Well, you can call that 'capitalism' if you wish, but that doesn't mean it's supported by supporters of laissez-faire capitalism like me. I have all sorts of other words for such absurdity.

I don't claim any great insight or anything, but IMHO, once the workers "take over" and see "how good" the CEO's had it, they will become capalists themselves and screw the workers once again - human "nature" demands it. Go read "Animal Farm" by George Orwell - all animals are equal, but pigs are more equal. Capatalism is flawed, yes, but at least it recognizes human nature and the inherent desire to advance one's self. Communism assumes that the line worker who becomes CEO will give up the perks of being a CEO to help those he left behind, some might, most won't.

So, I'm going to disagree on your last two points. On the first, I can't actually say. I've never read Marx's theory about the process and progression of Capitalism and I'd be grateful if you could expand on this or link to a useful synopsis. What little I do know is that he believes that communism is a natural outcome of capitalism.

It's very difficult for me to do more than a very, very thumbnail sketch, but I'll try.

Marx first assumed that materialism was the correct metaphysical view to take, and all things happen because of what are at root material conditions. His next major premise was that whenever societies organize themselves, they do so to enforce some kind of distribution of goods among the population. How this distribution occurs is in many ways a dialectical process of history: at any given historical point, societies will develop a distributive system that reflects the interests of those who control the means of production. For example, in early hunter-gatherer societies, people will live in what Marx termed a primitive communism, because just about everyone could in theory kill the next meal as well as anybody else, so everyone theoretically had equal access to the means of production. Once people started controlling land and farming it, however, society's government, religion, philosophy, and just about everything else, changed to support those who controlled the land and produced the product thereof.

Now, the problem with this isn't, Marx would argue, simply that this is unjust, but also that at each stage of development, this shift in values and production contains internal contradictions that will inevitably cause the system to come to a crisis that can only truly be averted by shifting to the next stage of history (hence the dialectical part of dialectical materialism). A good example of this is the shift from feudalism to capitalism: feudal lords wanted to exercise more control over their land and own a greater share of the yield of their land, so they threw some of the people off. These people went to the cities and made their living there as burghers, developing newer and better means of production, as well as new ideologies that endorsed what they were doing. The burghers eventually came into conflict with the feudal lords and won, thus setting themselves up as the new owners of the means of production, the bourgeouisie (sp?). Thus the internal contradiction of feudalism (namely, the desire for greater control of land on the part of feudal lords) led to the demise of the same system that first endorsed such a policy.

Marx then argued that capitalism was the next to end phase of history, because each phase had been one of seperating various classes into haves and have-nots, and now, with the existence of only the bourgeouis and proletariat, there could be no further filtration system; i.e. the next transition would be complete. He then argued that capitalism has an internal contradiction within it: the search for profit causes owners to ultimately do two things, one of which is boost production, the other is to slash wages. As any student of economics can tell you, boosting production and slashing wages is a good way to cause deflationary crashes, which is exactly what Marx predicted. His argument is that the only way capitalism could evade these crashes was first to better exploit existing markets, and second to expand to new ones. That, however, just lays the groundwork for a worse crash in the future. Eventually, there would be a crash so total and so monumental that workers would be forced to unite, seize the means of production for themselves, and switch to a communist system of economic development.

Now, you can explain why Marx's vision didn't turn out correct in a few ways. One way is to say that Marx was wrong and his theory is irrelevant. Another way is to say what Rosa Luxembourg (sp?) said, which is to say first that the West did not convert to communism because it was taken in by Democratic Socialists, who argued that communism could be achieved by ballot rather than by bullet, and second to say that Democratic Socialists are wrong because what actually happens is that societies go part of the way towards communism, things improve, and they lose the wherewithal to continue their transition.

Of these choices, personally I think Luxembourg's analysis is pretty good: the things that helped us out in the Depression were by and large not capitalist but Democratic Socialist ideas. Of course, this thinking also leads us to conclude that FDR was the saviour of capitalism, something that most capitalists tend to get skittish around. However, as we've seen a rise of corporate power in recent years and a dismantling of New Deal-era programs around the world, we've also seen a rise in economic instability. Personally, if you look at what Marx said about deflation, and then you look at economic indicators around the world (a huge amount of money sunk into American stocks/bonds, Americans providing the main market for goods/services even as debt rises, savings decline, and wages stagnate or fall), you'd be really hard-pressed not to say that Marx is not only damn relevant, but getting more so by the day.

He then argued that capitalism has an internal contradiction within it: the search for profit causes owners to ultimately do two things, one of which is boost production, the other is to slash wages.

Wages don't get slashed when production is increased. Quite the opposite.

It's very difficult for me to do more than a very, very thumbnail sketch, but I'll try.

Marx first assumed that materialism was the correct metaphysical view to take, and all things happen because of what are at root material conditions. His next major premise was that whenever societies organize themselves, they do so to enforce some kind of distribution of goods among the population. How this distribution occurs is in many ways a dialectical process of history: at any given historical point, societies will develop a distributive system that reflects the interests of those who control the means of production. For example, in early hunter-gatherer societies, people will live in what Marx termed a primitive communism, because just about everyone could in theory kill the next meal as well as anybody else, so everyone theoretically had equal access to the means of production. Once people started controlling land and farming it, however, society's government, religion, philosophy, and just about everything else, changed to support those who controlled the land and produced the product thereof.

Now, the problem with this isn't, Marx would argue, simply that this is unjust, but also that at each stage of development, this shift in values and production contains internal contradictions that will inevitably cause the system to come to a crisis that can only truly be averted by shifting to the next stage of history (hence the dialectical part of dialectical materialism). A good example of this is the shift from feudalism to capitalism: feudal lords wanted to exercise more control over their land and own a greater share of the yield of their land, so they threw some of the people off. These people went to the cities and made their living there as burghers, developing newer and better means of production, as well as new ideologies that endorsed what they were doing. The burghers eventually came into conflict with the feudal lords and won, thus setting themselves up as the new owners of the means of production, the bourgeouisie (sp?). Thus the internal contradiction of feudalism (namely, the desire for greater control of land on the part of feudal lords) led to the demise of the same system that first endorsed such a policy.

Marx then argued that capitalism was the next to end phase of history, because each phase had been one of seperating various classes into haves and have-nots, and now, with the existence of only the bourgeouis and proletariat, there could be no further filtration system; i.e. the next transition would be complete. He then argued that capitalism has an internal contradiction within it: the search for profit causes owners to ultimately do two things, one of which is boost production, the other is to slash wages. As any student of economics can tell you, boosting production and slashing wages is a good way to cause deflationary crashes, which is exactly what Marx predicted. His argument is that the only way capitalism could evade these crashes was first to better exploit existing markets, and second to expand to new ones. That, however, just lays the groundwork for a worse crash in the future. Eventually, there would be a crash so total and so monumental that workers would be forced to unite, seize the means of production for themselves, and switch to a communist system of economic development.

Now, you can explain why Marx's vision didn't turn out correct in a few ways. One way is to say that Marx was wrong and his theory is irrelevant. Another way is to say what Rosa Luxembourg (sp?) said, which is to say first that the West did not convert to communism because it was taken in by Democratic Socialists, who argued that communism could be achieved by ballot rather than by bullet, and second to say that Democratic Socialists are wrong because what actually happens is that societies go part of the way towards communism, things improve, and they lose the wherewithal to continue their transition.

Of these choices, personally I think Luxembourg's analysis is pretty good: the things that helped us out in the Depression were by and large not capitalist but Democratic Socialist ideas. Of course, this thinking also leads us to conclude that FDR was the saviour of capitalism, something that most capitalists tend to get skittish around. However, as we've seen a rise of corporate power in recent years and a dismantling of New Deal-era programs around the world, we've also seen a rise in economic instability. Personally, if you look at what Marx said about deflation, and then you look at economic indicators around the world (a huge amount of money sunk into American stocks/bonds, Americans providing the main market for goods/services even as debt rises, savings decline, and wages stagnate or fall), you'd be really hard-pressed not to say that Marx is not only damn relevant, but getting more so by the day.

Well reasoned, nicely done, but it doesn't address my issue - that being that the minute the "downtrodden" rise up and take control, human nature will kick in and they will become the oppresor themselves. That is, IMHO, what happened in the Soviet Union - Those who came to power, kept it for them and theirs and only paid lipservice to Marxist theory. All animals are equal, but the pigs became "more" equal.

Wages don't get slashed when production is increased. Quite the opposite.

How else do you get the Reubenomic result of increased productivity without a corresponding increase in inflation? Real wages have been stagnant or declining in the face of inflation for years now, while at the same time productivity has been skyrocketing. What has been fueling the boom on the supply side has not been increased wages; it's been increased debt and increasing value of homes (which of course allows you to refinance to take on, you guessed it, more debt). I hate to tell you this, but if the housing bubble collapses and/or the Chinese stop buying American bonds, we are going to officially be up crap creek without a paddle.


Well reasoned, nicely done, but it doesn't address my issue - that being that the minute the "downtrodden" rise up and take control, human nature will kick in and they will become the oppresor themselves. That is, IMHO, what happened in the Soviet Union - Those who came to power, kept it for them and theirs and only paid lipservice to Marxist theory. All animals are equal, but the pigs became "more" equal.

Marx would respond to this by saying that once everyone has what they need and society doesn't value one person having more than another, why would anyone want to become an oppressor? The answer, Marx argued, is that they wouldn't. Human nature in Marx's view is just a construct used to justify how people act because of the incentives given to them in the economic system they are in. Change the economic system, and you change human "nature."

How else do you get the Reubenomic result of increased productivity without a corresponding increase in inflation? Real wages have been stagnant or declining in the face of inflation for years now, while at the same time productivity has been skyrocketing. What has been fueling the boom on the supply side has not been increased wages; it's been increased debt and increasing value of homes (which of course allows you to refinance to take on, you guessed it, more debt). I hate to tell you this, but if the housing bubble collapses and/or the Chinese stop buying American bonds, we are going to officially be up crap creek without a paddle.

I don't know what reubenomics are. (Or for that matter "real wages".)

As to the rest of it, I can explain a lot by Say's law. But in any case, increases in productivity tend to drive wage growth as well as boost spending power. Frankly, if you compare the average lifestyle today to that of thirty years ago, it's pretty self evident.

The other side of that however is that the number of people employed in any particular industry decreases. But, wages in the US have not been slashed in general. (Though there have been localized dislocations, depending upon industry type.) Also, increased productivity allows labor to be freed up for other new types of industry. (As well as a massive increase in the number of service based small industries.)

Insofar as the housing bubble is concerned, ther is no national housing bubble. Certain localities have bubbles, but this is mostly due to local government and zoning/planning restrictions. Take NYC for example, the on-going housing crunch (which has been an "emergency" since WWII) is mostly the result of government interference, and a bizzare rent-control system that generally benefits the very wealthy. (Unless they own an apartment building.) I really don't forsee a massive nationwide housing crash.

I wish China would stop buying US bonds. They do it to devalue their currency and create an artificial competitive advantage. Also, if they did, it would wreck the value of their extensive US holdings. The most they can do is tail it off slowly, which will also have the side effect of increasing our exports to them, while reduce the amount we import from china.

There is a lot of speculation about how fucked the US economy is, but frankly, if you look at the number of Europeans and the like who are purchasing large holdings in the US because of the current state of international exchange rates, it doesn't seem likely.

Edit: And If you read my earlier posts, I don't claim that the US is perfect. But the fault is not capitalism per se, but rather our slightly corrupt government that allows abuses.

Marx would respond to this by saying that once everyone has what they need and society doesn't value one person having more than another, why would anyone want to become an oppressor? The answer, Marx argued, is that they wouldn't. Human nature in Marx's view is just a construct used to justify how people act because of the incentives given to them in the economic system they are in. Change the economic system, and you change human "nature."

The problem with that is that is that first of all is that not everyone will get what they need since in the transition from capatalism to marxism, the pigs will take control. Secondly, once everyone has what they "need" some will decide they "need" more than others for some reason and will seek a way to obtain that little "extra" for themselves. Human nature is not a construct based on economic incentives, it is a practical view of how humans behave. don't you think Bill Gates has every thing he could possibly "need" plus more? Then why doesn't he stop? It is because it is human nature to "win" - to have the most - it's better to have more than you "need", "just in case." As the bumper sticker says "He who dies with the most toys wins." Communism will never succeed until people can be convinced that they can exist without what they "want." As a 7 year old, I "needed" a GI Joe - now I see that "need" was really a "want" but at age 7 you'd never have convinced me otherwise. Further, at 7, my parents and grandparents "needed" to keep me happy, so I got that GI Joe.

No, communism can't work because it assumes all people will give up their own personal desires in the interests of the greater good. I don't see that happening, ever. We've got thousands of year of history to prove that it won't take place.

So, no, I disagree. It's evident that forcing reforms through the existing power structure of society while leaving those structures intact is doomed to failure for one pretty straightforward reason: Those structures were erected for the express purpose of maintaining the power of private capital over society, under pressure they can give a little in the short term but in the long term will naturally move to subvert any gains. In fact the short term reforms act as a massive propaganda bonanza ("See! The system works!) serving to further re-enforce the power structure, while laying the groundwork for the future roll back.
Um.... no? It's proof that the system can adapt to changing demands. Besides, the government was not set up for the sole purpose of defending free-market capitalism. It just fulfilled that role for a while (1840s-1900s).

Somehow I don't think executives and shareholders would agree with you that we are experiencing unfettered capitalism. They have plenty of restrictions and regulations to comply with.

Someone made an excellent point. I didn't mean to contradict ALL of Marx's work, just his theory on capitalism.

In my opinion the places where revolution in the Marxist sense is needed, have no completely disappeared, just moved due to globalisation

Interesting contradiction. When goverments conspire to maximize profit, the market is not free.
...
I guess not. It's wrong to say that Marx's theory no longer applies since it's always been fatally flawed.
They co-operated with companies to prevent strikes and unions from developing. The army was called in to break up strikes.

An interesting theory of Marx was that govenments used colonies and colonial armies as "labor sinks". When there was a huge unemployed mob outside the factory, they would be drafted/offered a job in the army and shipped off to Africa or somewhere. When workers at the factories started rumblings of dissent or agitated for more rights, the governments brought the armies back and discharged the soldiers, giving the companies a big pool of unemployed people to replace the "troublesome" workers they fired.

I guess not. It's wrong to say that Marx's theory no longer applies since it's always been fatally flawed.
I think it applied until there were social and labor reforms in the Progressive Era. Completely unfettered capitalism would inevitably lead to the workers getting screwed enough to fight back. Good thing we don't have completely unfettered capitalism in the US!

Okay, I'm very intrigued by all of the discussion. As someone who classifies himself as a socialist with a Marxist view of history, I'm glad to hear this debate. I agree with others who've said that Marx is terrible relevent. He may not have been proven entirely correct with regard to all of his theories of revolution, but that doesn't mean we should dismiss him out of hand.

Also, to Norleans: You keep referencing Animal Farm, George Orwell, and his "pigs" of the book. Were you aware that he was a socialist himself? Fought for the Loyalists in the Spanish Civil War. Animal Farm was a critique of Soviet style communism, which could hardly be called communism. In fact, it's entirely a misnomer. Marx called for the dictatorship of the proletariat, which would eventually dissolve into communism, thus bringing the destruction of the state. In the USSR, the worker's movement was hijacked by the Bolsheviks (who I disagree with in many ways) after they defeated the Mensheviks for control of the Marxist factions. Lenin believed in the "professional revolutionaries" who would assist to overthrow the bourgeois. I personally believe that Marx would not have approved of this concept. And that's where the problems started in the USSR. In short: Don't use Orwell to throw collective economic theory out the window. He'll be rolling in his grave.

Marxism is badly flawed, however, it is correct in saying capitalism is exploitive. The problem is that it has become much better at disguising its oppressiveness to the point where people don't realize it.

The problem with that is that is that first of all is that not everyone will get what they need since in the transition from capatalism to marxism, the pigs will take control. Secondly, once everyone has what they "need" some will decide they "need" more than others for some reason and will seek a way to obtain that little "extra" for themselves. Human nature is not a construct based on economic incentives, it is a practical view of how humans behave. don't you think Bill Gates has every thing he could possibly "need" plus more? Then why doesn't he stop? It is because it is human nature to "win" - to have the most - it's better to have more than you "need", "just in case." As the bumper sticker says "He who dies with the most toys wins." Communism will never succeed until people can be convinced that they can exist without what they "want." As a 7 year old, I "needed" a GI Joe - now I see that "need" was really a "want" but at age 7 you'd never have convinced me otherwise. Further, at 7, my parents and grandparents "needed" to keep me happy, so I got that GI Joe.

No, communism can't work because it assumes all people will give up their own personal desires in the interests of the greater good. I don't see that happening, ever. We've got thousands of year of history to prove that it won't take place.

Again, Marx would reply that you are mistaken, because you are assuming that what is natural is actually a byproduct of the dominant economic system. Bill Gates doesn't keep going because he has to win, it's because winning and acquisition of wealth are virtues in a capitalist system. Bill Gates accepts the capitalist system. Ergo, Bill Gates accepts that winning and acquisition of wealth are virtues. Were he in a communist society, and were he a communist, he would accept different virtues. The same rules apply for your G.I. Joe example: you "needed" a G.I. Joe because you had been conditioned by society to do so. Change society, and you change the conditioning.

Now, you might argue quite reasonably that the transition period is a fairly dangerous time. Marx, however, would say that any period of transition is dangerous, so communism is no more or less susceptible to corruption than, say, a transition from monarchy to democracy. Does that somehow make democracy in itself bad? Moreover, Marx argued that this is the reason why in the late period of capitalism the proletariat will develop things like labor unions and increase control of the government: to condition the workers for a transition to communism. Orwell would say that communism never implanted in Russia because there is something wrong with communism; Marx would reply that communism never implanted in Russia because they ignored his advice not to revolt until they had first fully switched to the capitalist model (Romanov-era Russia was still feudalistic, and you can't go directly from feudalism to communism in Marx's theory, which is precisely what he told Russian communists in the late 1800's when they asked him), and as a result the workers like Joe Stalin were not conditioned to accept communist values.

Even further, Marx would say that you don't have to be an altruist to be a communist. After all, the whole point of Das Kapital was to show not that capitalism was unjust (although he did think that it was unjust), but that it was unsustainable. If you're really into rational self-interest, and Marx is correct about capitalism and the fate of the bourgeois (violent overthrow by the proletariat), then it doesn't make much sense to be a capitalist, does it?

I don't claim any great insight or anything, but IMHO, once the workers "take over" and see "how good" the CEO's had it, they will become capalists themselves and screw the workers once again - human "nature" demands it. Go read "Animal Farm" by George Orwell - all animals are equal, but pigs are more equal. Capatalism is flawed, yes, but at least it recognizes human nature and the inherent desire to advance one's self. Communism assumes that the line worker who becomes CEO will give up the perks of being a CEO to help those he left behind, some might, most won't.


Marx knew that no revolution would be finished with the first step. The values of Bourgeoisie culture have to be destroyed first, and communal values have to dominate. In America's current economic culture, communism is impossible. Liberalism creates selfishness, it's inherent in our culture. But not all of the world is selfish like Americans are here. Even Americans don't wholly value the principles of classical liberalism. Community is the one value that all of humanity strives towards, Self-interest is a mutant fluke, a dangerous way of building a society. It works for some, and serves to weed out the weak, but humans always seem to work better when they are working for something other than themselves. That is why Fascist economies are so good. Because the goal is the prosperity of the state as a whole. That is why for most of human history, self-interest has not been what society is set up towards. We are set up to be community-minded followers. All of our governmental principles except capitalism come from the idea that people make decisions better together. Democracy, equal rights, fair treatment, all show we value equality and we think we can do things better as a group

Societal changes will be the death of Capitalism. There is so much anti-capitalism right now than there never was before in America. Our citizens are actively adopting anti-capitalism wherever they go. People create class conflict by watching the behaviors of CEOs and Corporate Boards, and seeing that they are indeed screwing us over. Most will rationalize it, but the frustration remains. It's why Yuppie is such a derogatory term. Or "Trust-fund Baby". Even most conservatives will say that they think communism is a better system, that it just works best on paper. Ask anybody if they would rather live in an ideal communism or capitalism. Most would say communism. And though they don't fully accept its merits, there is a rising sentiment that it would indeed be workable, if the conditions were proper. We already have anti-capitalism, we have a vague interest in communism, we work better together than seperate, and we all like having more money. The only things we need are a few large corporate scandals, a few large strikes, a sinking economy, and an active leftist movement. Revolution would be gradual, but it would happen, and after maybe a hundred and fifty years we will have Communism. It is what society and all human history seem to be pushing towards.

Hmm, Marx wrote before the agricultural "green" revolution and taylorism.

He also wrote before the creation of seperation of control and ownership in modern corporations.

So I am not sure that anything he had to say is that relevent.
Marx actually wrote in the middle of the 19th century which was at the height of the industrial revolution in Britain where he lived for many years and modern capitalism is not particularly different from the capitalism of his times. I believe Marx's views are extremely relevant today and although there is more wealth than in the past, at the same time, inequality is greater than ever before due to the continued capitalist exploitation of the working class. Although some people believe that revolution is no longer needed in western countries there are many parts of the world where the degree of oppression faced by the workers is so great that there is still no alternative. Even in the developed world the capitalist state has more control than many people realise and consumerism is the new "opiate of the masses" which distracts people from thinking about the issues which affect their lives.

Well reasoned, nicely done, but it doesn't address my issue - that being that the minute the "downtrodden" rise up and take control, human nature will kick in and they will become the oppresor themselves. That is, IMHO, what happened in the Soviet Union - Those who came to power, kept it for them and theirs and only paid lipservice to Marxist theory. All animals are equal, but the pigs became "more" equal.


There is no one else to repress if there is only one class. Communism will destroy the Bourgeoisie, and if this Communism is democratic (I.E. Not with Party members put into a position of power) then no one will have the ability to exploit anyone else. By distributing power equally, no one has the opportunity to get the upper-hand. That is the central principle of democracy, and Communism requires democracy for every aspect of society. That may be difficult to comprehend, but remember, at one time, it was difficult to comprehend the levels of Democracy that we have now, what with representative government and voting rights.

As democracy becomes the better choice, so communism will become the better choice, and though communism may seem to not take selfishness into consideration, it truly does. That is precisely why it doesn't give anyone else the ability to coerce someone else by force. Only society itself can coerce you by force, and only because society is a gathering of individuals, invested in the common interest because that interest serves them if they have a say in it.

bump

:rolleyes: :sniper: :fluffle:

bump!!! This thread is a good one, please someone respond to something, get discussion going again.

First, I appreciate the reasoned replies. It 's a nice change from the flame baiting that too often appears in the general threads

Second, I understand there is a difference between Marxism and Socialism - "distributed" control over the means of production and "centralized" control over the means of production

Third, I understand and accept that "social influences" can and do affect the way in which the average person would accept that it is better to contribute to "the greater good" than advance his own, personal position/agenda.

Fourth, I would argue that anti-capatilism is not the same as marxism

Fifth, I would use the saying: "Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely." - and this is my point. Even in a pure Marxist society, there will be those who will try to take advantage of the system to advance their own personal position/agenda. Even in a pure Marxist society, some people will have more influence/power than others. As the result of "social influences" and economic issues inherent in a Marxist society, maybe most won't - to begin with - but some will. Once some succeed in this, even a handful, then others will join in and more and more will try to take advantage of "loopholes" to advance themselves. It might take hundreds of years, even thousands, but in the end, self interest will become the norm, not community contribution.

Sixth, This is the fundamental point, Marxism assumes that greed can be conditioned out of people and/or it will cease to exist under a Marxist system due to everyone having what they need. However, this is where I see the flaw, greed will always exist as a part of human nature, it is not possible to "breed it out" of people. Some can be taught to control it and Marxism would try to do that, but it can never be made to completely dissapear.

Seventh, the ultimate in captalistic expression? Crime - Surely no one here expects that Marxism would do away with that do they. Some people will steal to get what they want, even if Marxism is providing what they need. Some of those will common burglars, but some will be sophisticated, white collar, Tyco/Enron type theives who willl steal from the people to enrich themselves.

Again, capatilsm exploits the masses for the benefit of the few, but it also makes it possible for a member of the masses to become a member of the few. It recognizes and encourages self-advancement, even at the expense of others, which is it's flaw. But Marxism's flaw lies in its conclusion that no one will try to advance, even at the expense of others. Pure Marxism represents a utopian dream, Capatilism represents a practical acknowledement of reality.

OK, SBMM, does this fire it up enough for you? :)

Wages don't get slashed when production is increased. Quite the opposite.
Really? Can you explain how or why? Can you provide an example?