Utimately Karl Marx believed...

[Ajidica]

You mean like the inevitability of Russian system he set up to collapse?

Russia had not reached the proper level of industrial development (it was still essentialy a feudal system) and had not developed the proper level of class conciousness. Furthermore, power was removed from the Soviets and given to the Supreme Soviet.
All of these criticism are not new. They have been around since the beginning once the revolutionary fervor died down.

EDIT: I don't want a violent revolution. Sedate Social Democracy works.

 

[Hygro]

WTH
I mean
I can't claim that Marx was a KKK white power type racist, but also you can't claim that for a long long time marxists didn't view their utopia as a place where there will be no filthy reactionary "lower" peoples* who will be exterminated to make place for working class ubermensch to evolve (putting aside extermination of "exploitative" "classes").

*ah, those Slavs

Further more, as I said before, if Marx was to came alive in 1939, he would be in the Nazi camp. SSSR is just about a biggest historical irony there is.

Marxists are not Karl Marx. The USSR was not the realization of Karl Marx. Nazi Germany was not the realization of Karl Marx. You still haven't answered your bizarre claim of his Platonic view, a view that is intrinsically at odds with the emancipation of labor and the freedom of all. The guy argues that capital enslaves labor. Race is not a relevant point of discussion in that debate hence why what little Marx I've read and had lectured to me, race is not part of the discussion. Sure, it is possible Marx was personally racist (I don't know if that's true at all) but it doesn't bear relevance to the world-system he envisioned.

 

[knez]

Not really. If you think about it, its been 130 years since Marx and how many of his predictions have panned out?

Close to none. The only world in which such wild utopia could be realized with some sort of long run sustainability would be one so rich that close to everybody would have close everything desired with no work.

Or, resources would not be scarce in any meaningful way, economics would not matter. Marxism would not matter

 

[Hygro]

Marx obviously believed in violent uprising of the working class. I believe thats pretty much evident. I don't think we are heading anywhere near that. I doubt the world will ever really come to a true socialistic state. This forum is full of liberal hopefuls that want that though.

This is incorrect. That is why I posted this thread. This view is based on his earlier works ala Communist Manifesto but in Das Kapital he suggests in fact the emancipation of labor comes from an increasingly shortened workday as the accumulated capital (technology) will take over the production of our wealth. You are sure of your position but in fact you haven't done your homework. I hadn't either, until it was literally assigned. I was surprised to learn this, but it made perfect sense--Marx spent his time thinking and would at some point come around to this reasonable conclusion.

 

[Ajidica]

Tell me, have you read anything by Marx? He neither advocates for people to stop working or for scarcity to be abolished (while resources are still limited, there is only acute scarcity because of the Capitalists.)

 

[knez]

The thread is largely a debate about the interpretation of Marx and whether he believed revolution would come via a literal violent overthrow or whether it would happen simply by the effect of the completion of a democratic welfare state. You can vote with the rest of the ignoramuses protesters who voted the free market option, but that just shows your ignorance of the subject.

And to answer your question, actually the world is trending a surprisingly Marxist path. We have reached the point in which there is a demand shortage created by capital seeking to move to where production is cheaper (his "race to the bottom"). The other debate, in a thread I might consider posting later, would be what happens when asymptote is reached. It could be a war of destruction to start over again. It could be some form of communism. It could be like a "new game plus" in which you keep your old capital but start the whole system over again.... whatever that would look like. It could be a forth thing.

But at some point aggregate profits run into some brick walls without changes to the system at large, and that would prove Marx correct.

You do realize you are arguing that process which at the end gives cheaper stuff and higher living standards to the working class is bad for the working class?

 

[Ajidica]

Looking at Pinochet's free market reforms, I think we can quite clearly see the benefit of open Capitalism on the 'working class'.

Pinochet's policies eventually led to substantial GDP growth, in contrast to the negative growth seen in the early years of his administration under the advice of the Chicago boys. The upper 20% of income earners ultimately benefitted the most from such growth, receiving 85% of the increase.[54] Foreign debt also grew substantially under Pinochet, rising 300% between 1974 and 1988.

Under these new policies, the rate of inflation grew to twice what it was at the peak of Allende's presidency[55] It was not until Pinochet reversed these policies and returned to the developmentalist style economy in the mid 1980s did the economy begin to turn around.

The junta put the group's recommendations into effect, and cumulative cuts in health funding totaled 60% between 1973 and 1988.

The cuts caused a significant rise in many preventable diseases and mental health problems. These included rises in typhoid (121 percent), viral hepatitis, and the frequency and seriousness of mental ailments among the unemployed.[56]

Plus, the process that creates better stuff cheaper assumes that there is a perfect market. As the two economists on the forum have pointed out many times, the world is not a perfect market and more often then not, issues develop with the lessons you were taught in Econ 101.

 

[Cutlass]

You do realize you are arguing that process which at the end gives cheaper stuff and higher living standards to the working class is bad for the working class?

At any point in time that you lower wages, you make people less able to afford goods and services. Because the reduction in product price will never be as large as the reduction in labor costs. They fundamentally cannot be. So unless the labor displaced by jobs moving have the opportunity to go into higher pay and productivity jobs elsewhere, it is a net less for the economy.

 

[jtb1127]

There is no real answer. Karl Marx is just a state of mind.

 

[Hygro]

You do realize you are arguing that process which at the end gives cheaper stuff and higher living standards to the working class is bad for the working class?

Oh ho you sure got me. Oh wait wages have leveled off and risk trending downward.

It's kind of like the the reverse of the Fordist/Keynesian economic regime of the 50s/60s, where prices rose but wages rose faster.

I don't see stagnant wages that have lead to two-income households combined with debt culture to maintain the same level of prosperity (one income household, no debt, have modern things, own home, send kids to college, retire, vacation, work 40 hours/week for 45 years) as not a drop in overall wellbeing. Because wages themselves are sticky what we are seeing instead is economic insecurity and the requirement for people to work harder and stress themselves a lot more just to maintain the same relative quality of life their parents had.

So try again.

 

[knez]

Russia had not reached the proper level of industrial development (it was still essentialy a feudal system) and had not developed the proper level of class conciousness. Furthermore, power was removed from the Soviets and given to the Supreme Soviet.
All of these criticism are not new. They have been around since the beginning once the revolutionary fervor died down.

EDIT: I don't want a violent revolution. Sedate Social Democracy works.

I've heard variations of this many many times...*
But as it goes, there was like a billion socialist revolutions and socialism failed (or is failing) in every single country established. Socialist system tried to organize themselves in every way imaginable, and yet they failed.

This leaves us with:
a) marxist have failed theories about social organization
or
b) marxist are really super uber smart, but, being that smart no-one will ever manage to understand and implement their ideas with sucess

I vote a)

*the real story would be:
Lenin tries to implement socialism, society breaks and people literally die like flies, cities are abandoned etc.
Lenin sees the error of his way and gives Stalin the task to abandon socialism and let people breathe and produce, Stalin succeeds and soon enough SSSR is in better shape than under Tzars
Stalin decides move SSSR a bit back towards utopia and kill some people

Tell me, have you read anything by Marx? He neither advocates for people to stop working or for scarcity to be abolished (while resources are still limited, there is only acute scarcity because of the Capitalists.)

And tell me, have you read my post. I advocated that marxist utopia would only be sustainable if a society so rich that marxism would mean absolutely nothing. I, not Marx.

Like I said, Marx was a moron.

Smartest of the communist visionaries was Gene Rodenbery. Go watch some Star Trek.

 

[Archbob]

I don't see stagnant wages that have lead to two-income households combined with debt culture to maintain the same level of prosperity (one income household, no debt, have modern things, own home, send kids to college, retire, vacation, work 40 hours/week for 45 years) as not a drop in overall wellbeing. Because wages themselves are sticky what we are seeing instead is economic insecurity and the requirement for people to work harder and stress themselves a lot more just to maintain the same relative quality of life their parents had.

So try again.

Yeah, if you consider a 50% increase in house size and buy a hell lot of extra 'goodies' the 'same level of prosperity'. Income levels when adjusted for inflation over the last 20-30 years have risen about 3-5% actually. But in that same time, the average size of a home has increased about 60%. People aren't trying to maintain what they had a generation ago, they want to supersize everything.

 

[Hygro]

Yeah, if you consider a 50% increase in house size and buy a hell lot of extra 'goodies' the 'same level of prosperity'. Income levels when adjusted for inflation over the last 20-30 years have risen about 3-5% actually. But in that same time, the average size of a home has increased about 60%. People aren't trying to maintain what they had a generation ago, they want to supersize everything.

Well, it depends on how you calculate the median but that's a short cry from the 100% gains the preceding couple of decades. If home sizes and minimal fluctuations in wages (they go up, they go down, they are near the same since the end of the 70s) are your counterbalancing argument against my aforementioned reality, time to bow out acknowledge realize your argument against Marx is by and large ideological. There's nothing wrong with that, who has time to read Das Kapital anyway. But you cannot say the same about ideology wrt me, when I in fact identify myself as a proponent of the free market and capitalism.

 

[Ajidica]

I've heard variations of this many many times...*
But as it goes, there was like a billion socialist revolutions and socialism failed (or is failing) in every single country established. Socialist system tried to organize themselves in every way imaginable, and yet they failed.

Did the failure of the Protectorate demonstrate the failure of the concept of a Liberal Democracy? Did the French Revolution and the Committee for Public Safety demonstrate the failure of the concept of a Liberal Democracy?

Almost all of the Marxist revolutions were of the Marxist-Leninist (which had long been criticized by revolutionaries such as Trotsky) bent in societies that had not reached the proper level of industrial development.
Try going overnight from a feudal, agrarian system to a fully functioning democracy and tell me how well that worked out.

Now, when Socialism has been tried with a democratic bent to it, like in Chile under Allende, it worked moderately well. It suffered because America was upset with the whole 'EVIL COMMUNISM!!! KILL IT KILL IT KILL IT!!!!!' mentality.

This leaves us with:
a) marxist have failed theories about social organization
or

A single ideology which has long been criticized for ites ideas does not a body of work make.

advocated that marxist utopia would only be sustainable if a society so rich that marxism would mean absolutely nothing. I, not Marx.

And what divine revelation from the trinity of Hayek, Mises, and Rothbard have given you such insight?

 

[Archbob]

Well, it depends on how you calculate the median but that's a short cry from the 100% gains the preceding couple of decades. If home sizes and minimal fluctuations in wages (they go up, they go down, they are near the same since the end of the 70s) are your counterbalancing argument against my aforementioned reality, time to bow out acknowledge realize your argument against Marx is by and large ideological. There's nothing wrong with that, who has time to read Das Kapital anyway. But you cannot say the same about ideology wrt me, when I in fact identify myself as a proponent of the free market and capitalism.

A 70% increase in the average size of a home is not a "Minimal fluctuation". People buy far more stuff than they did a generation ago. They are poor, not because they make less, but because they want more. The want a large increase in the quality of life. If they had wanted to maintain their quality of life(which was already pretty good), they could have easily done so. The gains from the previous decades were not realistic to expect to continue. During those decades everyone was so ravaged by the fallout of WWII that they hadn't come close to catching up. From the 70s onwards, the world has naturally been gaining ground on our country.

My argument is not idealogical, its pretty realistic when people don't save as much these days because they have to have a house that nearly twice as big or have to have that luxury car, which wasn't common 30 years ago. People just aren't as good as making decisions these days.

 

[Ajidica]

People just aren't as good as making decisions these days

Blame Reagan and Greenspan for low interest rates.

 

[knez]

Oh ho you sure got me. Oh wait wages have leveled off and risk trending downward.

It's kind of like the the reverse of the Fordist/Keynesian economic regime of the 50s/60s, where prices rose but wages rose faster.

I don't see stagnant wages that have lead to two-income households combined with debt culture to maintain the same level of prosperity (one income household, no debt, have modern things, own home, send kids to college, retire, vacation, work 40 hours/week for 45 years) as not a drop in overall wellbeing. Because wages themselves are sticky what we are seeing instead is economic insecurity and the requirement for people to work harder and stress themselves a lot more just to maintain the same relative quality of life their parents had.

So try again.

If i may...

(Real) wages depend upon productivity of labor. Productivity if first and foremost a function of capital invested. US once had so much that it flooded the world with it, and it's is not surprising it's workers were very productive. But with decline of savings (caused by social changes (cultural marxism), FED and other factors) US today is dependent on imports of capital. It is not surprising that US workers are not productive as they could be and have less they could have.

Outsourcing is really not that connected (aldo often blamed) with this phenomenon, and in the end benefits US workers. "Falling" standard of US worker is not caused by poor people working for a comparatively little, but by general decadence of US as a whole (manifested with lower savings (rate) among other things...)

 

[knez]

Did the failure of the Protectorate demonstrate the failure of the concept of a Liberal Democracy? Did the French Revolution and the Committee for Public Safety demonstrate the failure of the concept of a Liberal Democracy?

Almost all of the Marxist revolutions were of the Marxist-Leninist (which had long been criticized by revolutionaries such as Trotsky) bent in societies that had not reached the proper level of industrial development.
Try going overnight from a feudal, agrarian system to a fully functioning democracy and tell me how well that worked out.

Now, when Socialism has been tried with a democratic bent to it, like in Chile under Allende, it worked moderately well. It suffered because America was upset with the whole 'EVIL COMMUNISM!!! KILL IT KILL IT KILL IT!!!!!' mentality.

auch

A single ideology which has long been criticized for ites ideas does not a body of work make.


And what divine revelation from the trinity of Hayek, Mises, and Rothbard have given you such insight?

Common sense and Gene Rodenbery

 

[Ajidica]

In short, you have no response to any of the points raised. Or are you trying to demonstrate your mother had intercourse with a vegetable?

 

[Cutlass]

If i may...

(Real) wages depend upon productivity of labor. Productivity if first and foremost a function of capital invested. US once had so much that it flooded the world with it, and it's is not surprising it's workers were very productive. But with decline of savings (caused by social changes (cultural marxism), FED and other factors) US today is dependent on imports of capital. It is not surprising that US workers are not productive as they could be and have less they could have.

Outsourcing is really not that connected (aldo often blamed) with this phenomenon, and in the end benefits US workers. "Falling" standard of US worker is not caused by poor people working for a comparatively little, but by general decadence of US as a whole (manifested with lower savings (rate) among other things...)

Real wages don't have much of a connection to productivity. They are about supply and demand. Productivity only tells you what the upper bound might be. Not what will be paid.