📹 Was Karl Marx right?
Karl Marx remains surprisingly relevant 200 years after his birth. He rightly predicted some of the pitfalls of capitalism, but his …
What is the theory of real income?
The phenomenon of inflation entails an increase in the prices of goods and services, which consequently reduces the purchasing power of individuals and diminishes their real income. The term “real income” refers to the amount of money earned and its purchasing power, which is determined by the rate of inflation.
What does Marx say about productivity?
Karl Marx argued that means of labor are not productive unless they are operated, maintained, and conserved by living human labor. Without this, their physical condition and value would deteriorate, depreciate, or be destroyed. Technological developments, which serve as means of production, would not exist without human innovation and industry, which motivates industrial development. Capital, as a factor of production, is viewed in capitalist society as a productive force in its own right, independent from labor.
The essence of the “capital relation” is the power of property ownership to command human energy and labor-time, allowing inanimate “things” to exert autonomous power over people. However, the power of capital depends on human cooperation.
The production of life appears as a double relationship: one as a natural and the other as a social relationship. Social refers to the cooperation of several individuals under specific conditions, in what manner, and to what end. A certain mode of production, or industrial stage, is always combined with a certain mode of co-operation, or social stage, which is itself a “productive force”.
What does Marx think of overproduction?
Marx differs from Keynes in the question of the falling rate of profit, focusing on the rate of exploitation and social productivity of labor. Keynes’ low marginal productivity of capital is caused by an over-abundance of capital relative to profit expectations, leading to potential over-production of commodities. For Marx, the overproduction of capital is only relative to the social productivity of labor and existing exploitation conditions, representing an insufficient mass of surplus-value in relation to total capital.
The crisis in Marx’s theory can only be resolved by expanding profitable production and accumulation, while Keynes believes it can be remedied by increasing “effective demand” and allowing for government induced-production. Marx’s statement that “the last cause of all real crises always remains the poverty and restricted consumption of the masses as compared to the tendency of capitalist production to develop the productive forces in such a way that only the absolute power of consumption of the entire society would be their limit” is often cited as an underconsumptionist theory of crisis.
Other explanations have been formulated and much debated, including the tendency of the rate of profit to fall, full employment profit squeeze, overproduction, the Post Keynesian economics debt-crisis theory of Hyman Minsky, and various theories of Monopoly Capitalism.
The underconsumption of the masses, the restriction of the consumption of the masses to what is necessary for their maintenance and reproduction, has existed as long as there have been exploiting and exploited classes. It is a necessary condition of all forms of society based on exploitation, and therefore, of the capitalist form. However, it does not explain why crises exist today as they did not exist before.
Did Marx predict globalization?
Marx predicted globalization, the spread of capitalism across the globe in search of new markets, as a response to the relentless search for new markets, cheap labor, and the incessant demand for more natural resources. The classical theory of economics assumed that competition was natural and self-sustaining, but Marx argued that market power would be centralized in large monopoly firms as businesses increasingly preyed upon each other. This trend began to accelerate in the 20th century, with the rise of big-box stores like Walmart, global banks like J.
P. Morgan Chase, and small businesses like Archer Daniels Midland. The tech world is also becoming centralized, with big corporations sucking up start-ups as quickly as possible. Politicians give lip service to the minimal small-business lobby and prosecute the most violent antitrust abuses, but for the most part, big business is here to stay. The Reserve Army of Industrial Labor is a key concept in this period, as it emphasized the importance of low wages and big profits in the face of competition and the need for a centralized market.
What is the Marxist theory of production?
Marx’s theory of class focuses on the class’s ownership and control of the means of production. In a capitalist society, the bourgeoisie owns the means of production and derives passive income from their operation. Examples of this class include business owners, shareholders, and the minority of people who own factories, machinery, and lands. Countries like Australia, Canada, and the U. S. are considered capitalist countries. In modern society, small business owners and minority shareholders are considered Petite bourgeoisie, which can buy labor and work alongside employees.
The proletariat, or working class, is the majority of the population that lacks access to the means of production and is induced to sell their labor power for wages or salaries to gain access to necessities, goods, and services. According to Marx, wages and salaries are considered the price of labor power, related to working hours or outputs produced by the labor force.
In a capitalist mode of production, employees perform specific duties under a contract of employment, working for wages or salaries. From a personnel economics perspective, to maximize efficiency and productivity, an equilibrium between labor markets and product markets is necessary. Compensation structures tend to shift towards pay-for-performance bonuses or incentive pay to attract the right workers, even if conflicts of interest exist in the employer-worker relationship.
What does Karl Marx say about income inequality?
In his economic theory, Karl Marx posited that capitalist systems are inherently exploitative and unequal, rendering the establishment of a fair income and wealth distribution an unattainable goal.
What did Karl Marx predict would happen in the capitalist world?
Karl Marx, a prominent philosopher, developed Marxism in the late 19th century, a system of socioeconomic analysis that aimed to unify social, political, and economic theory. His main theories, particularly “Das Kapital” and “The Communist Manifesto”, critiqued capitalism’s shortcomings and envisioned a classless society. Marx believed that the capitalist system would eventually destroy itself, leading to the alienation of oppressed workers and the overthrow of owners.
Marxism, on the other hand, is a form of economic production that extends to government or political movements. Marxism, developed in the latter half of the 19th century, favors communism and socialism over capitalism, emphasizing the struggle between the working class and the ownership class.
What did Marx predict would be the result of the struggle between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie?
Marxism is an economic and political theory that argues that the struggle between social classes, particularly the bourgeoisie and proletariat, defines economic relations in a capitalist economy and will lead to a communist revolution. It is based on the work of German philosopher and economist Karl Marx and has been influential in the development of socialism, which advocates for shared ownership of production means by workers. Communism, on the other hand, rejects private ownership and requires collective ownership and control of goods and services by the people.
What is Marxian theory of income?
Marx’s functional income distribution theory suggests that wages are a basket of goods needed for the reproduction needs of the working class, with profits being the remaining part of income creation. However, this theory has several theoretical and practical shortcomings. The Keynesian paradigm in Keynes and Kalecki’s works offers alternative explanations, focusing on the profit rate influenced by financial market processes and financialization. The degree of monopoly also influences functional income distribution. This approach allows for a plausible interpretation of changes in functional income distribution over recent decades.
Inequality has become a key topic in political and theoretical debates, with income and wealth distribution increasing substantially in developed and developing countries. Functional income distribution, which divides income into labor and non-labour income, is central to this discussion. The profit share in most countries has increased in recent decades, adding substantially to increasing inequality in personal income distribution.
How do Marxists explain poverty and inequality?
Marxism is a political ideology that posits that unequal wealth distribution is inevitable in a capitalist society, with class inequality resulting from the exploitation of the proletariat by the bourgeoisie. Marx argued that people are taught that inequality is inevitable and desirable, leading to poverty. However, Marxists are against welfare benefits, believing that the poor are being manipulated by welfare service workers and that they need to experience poverty and deprivation to realize their inability to continue. This belief could lead to a revolution against the exploitative system.
📹 Capitalism Doesn’t Need Consumers Anymore…
After the launch of Chat-GPT and Dall-E, AI started to raise concerns for jobs and society. As machines and sophisticated …
Marx never underestimated the productive capabilities of capitalism. He just said that there was a better way we can be productive with a social plan instead of the chaos of the market which wastes a lot of resources(expenditure on marketing instead of R&D, turbulent equilbration, over 80% firm failure rate, resource depletion/environmental degradation…)
Marx definitely did NOT say he thought wealth should be divided up equally. I don’t think he just said take the wealth and divide it by the population. I think what he was saying is the means of production would be owned collectively and everyone would get what they needed. Now of course in a highly technological society a lot more than basic needs would be possible, but certainly nobody would go without. I sometimes think the Welfare State is well on its way toward that, where nobody would ever fall below a certain level while humanity reached great heights. The bigger problem might be how collective ownership achieves this in mass technological society, so to this point we have markets and taxes and worker protections.
Right from the beginning I can call bullshit. Marx provided a critique of Capitalism. Not “solution”, but critique. Further, Marx’s theory, if I can simplify, is the theory of evolution applied to economics. The “solutions” you are talking about are the charecteristic of what Capitalism will evolve into. Marxism is not some other economic ideology one chooses willy nilly like icecream.
I remember completely reading Marx’s Capital, and was so overwhelmed and blown away by his analysis. I needed some time to comprehend his work ethic and diligence, because I’d never read a genius before and was in awe how a human being could’ve produced such a thing. Through his analysis, that man was ahead of his time, and is waiting paitently for us to rise to his call.
You correctly say a communist society is stateless but then blame it for the ensuing tyranny even though such a stateless society was never reached. No, the process got stuck at what most would actually describe as state capitalism (or state socialism), and a highly authoritarian state at that, hence the tyranny.
I am not a communist but I must note that there are some benefits of communism that can’t seem to be solved with democracy or capitalism. In a communism state, where pure communism could be achieved without a corrupt leader, crime envy and rivalry would be a thing of the past. Of course, having a leader who can manage an entire country without corruption is almost impossible to find, communism could be the solution to many of the world’s problems including starvation, economic instability etc.
75% of that absolute poverty lift you’re talking about comes from China, which is a self proclaimed communist state. Your arguments against that are one thing (state capital etc) but ‘Capitalism’ didn’t lift that many people out of poverty. Marx also talks about how the market value of products is cheaper thus not paying for true value of labour in Das Capital. It’s mass produced, market value is less. Do your homework. Marx was more right than you think. Social Democrat and Welfare states borrow ideas from Marxism, NOT Capitalism. They adopt Marxist ideals. They’re not Capitalist successes, it’s called Social Market Economy.
Marx never underestimated the abilities of Capitalism: “The bourgeoisie has disclosed how it came to pass that the brutal display of vigour in the Middle Ages, which reactionaries so much admire, found its fitting complement in the most slothful indolence. It has been the first to show what man’s activity can bring about. It has accomplished wonders far surpassing Egyptian pyramids, Roman aqueducts, and Gothic cathedrals; it has conducted expeditions that put in the shade all former Exoduses of nations and crusades.” -Communist Manifesto But also he never said it would make everybody rich, which obviously isn’t true. Also welfare states emerged because of existence (and constant threat) of USSR. As it is gone now, for example Swedish people are wondering and complaining about why everything is getting privatised gradually in the last 30 years. They can keep wondering.
Uh, did the people who made this article even bother to read Marx?? This has nothing to do with what he actually said (and I’m not saying this to defend Communism, which has inflicted a lot of harm on the world ~ but this feels like someone summarizing a page of bullet points about Communism from a middle school textbook)
1. The “Utopian ideal” is addressed in the essay “Socialism: Utopian and Scientific”. The “Economist”, clearly you’ve never read it. 2. It’s less that the ideal of a fair and equal society failed to materialize and more that America has tried everything possible including hundreds of assassination attempts and severe starvation sanctions to make sure that countries that stand up to U.S imperialism to spread popular social reforms for their people (instead of America’s business interests) suffer economically in the hands of U.S foreign policy! 3. I hear from brainwashed morons how “communism slaughtered millions” yet they never can justify how or why giving people democracy in the work place and free education and healthcare slaughters them since they always seem to leave out the part where America comes to “liberate” with coups, drones, bombs and starvation sanctions. 4. Marx didn’t “underestimate” the ability of capitalism to make everyone richer by making everything cheaper. Us Millennials are poorer than our previous generations. We earn less (real wages and cost of living adjusted), own fewer assets and have more debt. 85% of Americans live paycheck to paycheck. However, the owner class are richer than EVER BEFORE, by the hard work of those desperate workers in 3rd world countries working for pennies a day. What Marx did underestimate, is the ability of the people to regress intellectually and praise the shepherds of the sheeple. The working people that keep voting against their own interests.
I’d like to say that Max principles of philosophy is pretty convincing when you try to use it to explain your doubts of reality and this world. But his idea of economy and politics largely depends on his historical stage of the world. By now both capitalism and communism has changed themselfs a lot. That’s why you shouldn’t judge a country by simple words of social forms. Each country has its own way in somewhers between, but still claim themselves to be either capitalism or communism.
There was nothing wrong with Marx’s solution. The problem was how capitalist countries worked tirelessly to make the lives of people in communist countries more difficult through economic sanctions and propaganda. We can also see in Russia how the country has gotten considerably worse since the fall of the empire.
He would have been right except the labour union movement saved capitalism from itself by redistributing wealth (and power) through higher wages and decent worker protection and benefits. Sufficient education together with legitimate elections can also help by introducing social programs to redistribute wealth. But if there’s too much union busting and too many tax breaks for the wealthy, capitalism could wind up eating its own tail and collapsing – we had a taste of that in 2008 but borrowed heavily and shopped ourselves temporarily out of that. Communism and capitalism are similar in that they both fail on their own because they’re both far too simplistic to work sustainability in the real world. For long term success you need a proportionally elected (real) democracy, a good constitution that protects all minorities, strong private sector, strong unions, well funded public health and education and strong government all subject to the same rule of law. “lefty-righty” coke-vs-pepsi style arguments are just lame when addressing the necessarily complicated art of statecraft.
“Impovrished it’s citizens.” Ha! The Russian economy is much worse today than it was in 1991! Under Stalin and Khrushchev, the Soviet GDP was the second fastest growing economy in the world behind Japan, and could’ve have stayed that way if not for Khrushchev and Gorbachev’s reforms. The Soviet Union also had a higher average calorie intake than the United States after ww2, not to mention a higher industrial production. The problems with the Soviet Union and most attempts at communism lie not with the economy, but the society. Lack of free speech and corruption lead to the fall of socialism.
2:40 Those ”welfare states” and ”reforms” were actually fought for by socialists in many cases. Marx also stated in the Manifesto that capitalism created immense productive forces. Obviously a presenter with an anti-socialist / anti-Marx bias would leave out those facts. The most ambitious reform proposals usually came from European socialist parties which were inspired by the writings of Karl Marx. The 1891 Erfurt Program of the SPD calls for the creation of an 8-hour work day (a common demand of socialists and Marxists) and public healthcare in addition to socialization of key industries.
” He also got wrong the capacity of capitalism to reform itself my creating wealth estates that redistribute wealth through taxation” This is simply false. If this were true we wold not be living in a world of rampant inequality like you rightly point out in the clip. The reduction in absolute poverty though, now that’s an actual point worth debating.
“Karl Marx undereestimated the power of capitalism to make everyone ritcher by making products cheaper” .. LOL … My mother strongly dissagrees. Se …. She was born and raised in CCCP and back then everything was getting cheaper, food was getting cheaper, housing was available to everyone, driving license was free to get, education was free and many more things. …
Marx never underestimated capitalism but rather considered it an advance in the human history. What he criticized was its outcome where the majority get exploited to keep the few richer and the majority even poorer. He therefore, suggested the means of production to be seized by the majority (workers) and thus the fruit of labor to be divided between the workers equally and justly.
Marx’s claims are more of a diagnose than a cure. He saw the problem within the system, but were also limited by the era he lived in, unable to provide the perfect cure (neither can we at this time). His methods of thinking and studying the society, however, are an invaluable asset for all human beings.
Quotes from Marx: “A very happy event, the death of my wife’s 90-year-old uncle was announced yesterday.” (Karl Marx on the death of a rich uncle, from whom he expected a considerable inheritance, 1855) “I got a surefire plan to squeeze money out of your old man.” (Karl Marx in a letter to Friedrich Engels to his rich factory owner father, 1848) “The Germans and the Scandinavians, both belonging to the same great race, only prepare the way for their hereditary enemy, the Slav, when they quarrel with each other instead of uniting.” (Karl Marx in 1853 about Russians and other Slavs who later on admired him most) “Couldn’t my mother (have) died instead of Mary, who is now full of physical infirmity and has lived her life to the full anyway? (Karl Marx about his own mother in a letter to Friedrich Engels, whose partner Mary had just died, 1863) “My old lady replied yesterday. Nothing but tender phrases, but no cash. She also tells me what I have known for a long time, that she is 75 years old and feels some infirmities of old age.” (Marx in a letter to Engels about his own mother, 1861) “Let a socialist revolution begin by liquidating the primitive wastes of peoples, such as the Basques, Bretons, Scottish Highlanders.” – Karl Marx, 1848 in the Rheinische Zeitung “The classes and races that are too weak to cope with the new conditions of life must clear the way. “They must be swept away in a revolutionary storm of the world.” – Karl Marx, 1848 in the Rheinische Zeitung ‘Or is it a misfortune that the beautiful California has been snatched away from the lazy Mexicans who knew nothing to do with it?
my biggest disappointment as a socialist is that people criticize a STRAWMAN of my beliefs, but never know what socialism ACTUALLY means. “Democracy in the workplace, democracy in government, and nobody is allowed to privately own price-inelastic industries. (Food, healthcare, water, housing, etc) If youre gonna criticize it, at LEAST be able to define it. please
A MASSIVE mistake here is that Marx or Marxists or socialists want to “spread the world equally”. That’s a kind of meaningless and impossible concept. What they actually argued for was the democratic ownership of the means of production – a much more serious idea. How workers would do this is very little discussed by Marx except to say that they would organise their own means outside of the bourgeois system. Also, this article mention “utopian ideal”. Marx was an indefatigable critic of utopianism and idealism; in fact Marxist theory is called dialectical and historical materialism – it’s materialist, the very opposite of idealist philosophy/religion which sees the world as being shaped by human ideas. Marx saw humans as being part of a material world and that as the world influences us, we also shape the world around us through our labour.
Oh, so the Economist is proposing that we find a new way of dealing with capitalism rather than a new system all together? Hmmm, seems to me like the Economist doesnt understand capitalist economy. Im sorry to say this, but the problems that arise in capitalism arent just by fault of management but are integral parts of the systems damn definition. And history has shown that. Sorry again🤷
TBH Marxism has never truely been tried. Communists all made their own version. Heck in China they found a way to make it work in a more late/collapsing Soviet inspired version. Not to mention Marxism in it’s true form is supposed to be done after full capitalism has been achieved and then it may be able to be successful. That being said I am not saying communism is good or capitalism is bad. He was just a philosopher and some of his idea’s today thrive in capitalist democratic society and the entire purpose of his philosophy was just to start debates and look at alternatives to what was then a oligarch and elite class dominated society.
I need a payee I’m not in charge of my own money, I can’t own nothing because I’ve already lost everything, I can’t get the right medication for my ADHD because the greedy doctors always tell me NO! NO! NO! I’m no longer for capitalist Im joining the Marxist party and we will take over and reform the U.S. and everyone will be equal and everyone will have access to free housing free medical free education and everyone will get equal pay no more commercials no more adds no more greedy rich, we will have distribution of wealth. Once inflation gets so high we the labors must quit our jobs and rise up and destroy the class system..
Personally, I am NOT so impressed and convinced that capitalism is still being relevant even today. In having seen this article by the reactionary right-wing publication, The Economist, I am so offended when the narrator stated that the solution by Karl Marx “was far worse than the disease.” Well, I DO NOT accept that kind of alternative fact by most of Marx’s detractors and I also think that what happened in the Soviet Union and other supposed socialist countries were NOT based on REAL TRUE socialism or Communism!
Hey there. If you would like to learn more about how people during beginnings of Soviet times viewed the communist regime you should read a book called “Us” by Eugene Zamyanin. He was a Russian publicist and writer in Russian Empire and Ussr during 1910-1930. This book is a novel about his view of future of communism and the world. It is fun to read to think about, it predicted a lot of things, like skyscrapers, cameras, etc. and was banned for 80 years for its critique of the regime. Have fun
Funny how few point out Marx’s bad character. Besides his self-hating racism for Jews, he was a self-centered narcissist that insisted on his way with everything. His wife was quoted as stating “He’s my big baby”. While his wife and children lived in dirt poverty and near starvation, Marx always made sure he had his wine and cigars. He never got his hands calloused for doing blue collar work, but struggled to get his articles published. His rich capitalist buddy Engels, who inherited his Daddy’s textile business and lived like a aristocratic Bourgeoisie, kept bailing out Marx over and over, until he finally just set him up on a monthly stipend. Marx chased down every family and friend’s inheritances, even though in his Communist Manifesto one of his platforms was to abolish inheritances! It was always “Do as I say, not as I do” with Marx. Even then Marx burned through money like there was no tomorrow. When Marx moved to England, he purchased a very nice middle class house, with servants (Just like BLM did recently) and then took his family on a three week vacation. Afterward, he threw a party for his daughter and 50 of her friends. The he was in debt again, and Engels had to bail him out again. Marx later got his unpaid housemaid pregnant, and then ignored the child. He had Engels claim it was his son, so Marx reputation would not suffer. Marx never cared about the poor or the working class. It was always about himself. He never went to a protest, never mingled with the workers, but always put himself as “special” to live like the very Bourgeoisie he was jealous of.
Poors are not “poors” anymore. Standard of poors changed. In economic growth, those who benefit the most of it are the poor. At the time of Karl Marx, when a poor man wanted to read something the evening. He couldn’t, he had no light and candles were expensive. Only kings and rich people could read the evening. Now, a poor or the president both just have to turn on the light by flipping a button. Simple.
I have several questions to ask. 1. What did Karl Marx get right? 2. What did he get wrong? 3. Were his theories valid in the period he wrote them? 4. And do his theories still have relevancy now? 5. Have neo-Marxists improved his theories much? 6. How do Marxists differ from Keynesians (demand-side) economically speaking?
Uhhh, no. The lowering of absolute poor people only exists because capitlists shifted the definition of what absolute poor is, and in addition, no matter the economic system, items that are produced in mass quantities only get cheaper…. except under capitalism where you have things like insulin being marked up in price by a hugely ridiculous sum, especially considering it is a necessity to live. Way to give a totally unbiased and absolutely fair explaination of marx whilst also ignoring that the soviet oppression only happened as a direct result of totalitarianism and not communism. In case you are wondering i used sarcasm. I’ll leave it to you to figure out which parts i used it in
I believe this is the classic propaganda technique of a truth sandwich. Some accurate statements then some spin followed by some more truth to make it seem like the whole thing is reasonable. Well played but looking at the comments section, you completely failed to fool the people here. No bonus from your millionaire bosses for you!
You are completely wrong and misleading. As Marx describe, socialism is a middle state before communism. The socialism is an economical system that distribute the wealth equally across the workers base on the government guidance. And communism is a socioeconomic system that archive a classless, moneyless, and stateless society. Fix you article!!!
Yeah. So what we’ve learned is that all systems are corrupt and it’s corruption and not the system that is the bigger problem. It also seems that there’s no utopia so we should take both systems and combine them into one where everyone has their basic needs met and otherwise, you can build a company as big as you want within the confines of environmental and other regulatory oversights. There’s nothing wrong with inequality as long as we all have equal footing to begin with so why not just do both?
I don’t think communism has ever got a fair shot at making it, in the sense that the examples of communism that the world has seen so far have been autocracies with little to no accountability to it’s people. Thus they were run by corruption or sometimes utter incompetence. The people lived in poverty and never had the chance of free qualkity education, which is essential in any system run by the people. I therefore think the conclusion made by this piece is unfair to communism.
but you can’t really call those states communism though. It still had a ruling class. The entire point of communism is to hand the means of production over to the people. The means of production was handed over to the state. This wouldn’t have been so bad had the state been democratic. But it wasn’t, it was handled by a group of 7-9 people known as the politburo. This wasn’t communism this was leninism, and later stalinism.
“his solution was far worse than the disease”. The solution you are referring to is the police state established in Russia following the Bolshevik coup de’tat. But that was not Marx’ solution. After all, Marx died in 1883. Blaming Marx for what the Bolsheviks did is grossly simplistic. At the beginning of the Russian Revolution many socialists in Russia believed Lenin and the Bolsheviks had fundamentally misunderstood Marx ‘ writing.
The prevailing economic system determines the access to what you need to survive determining quality of life. It is the single most import thing to understand. you do not need to be an expert, anyone with a decent basic understanding of political economy would have known the GFC was about to hit and that it was not caused by the banks, but broke out in the banking sector. Blaming the banks, while simultaneously bailing them out, (doubling down a debt crisis), to used as cover for a breakdown that was 100% systemic. As we know the majority 99.9% of Westerners go to only the most reputable reliable objective sources of news such as FOX, the Economist, the back of cereal boxes and lunatics like Jordan Peterson and Dinesh D’Souza for information on important life and death issues In 20 years I am yet to come across a single critic of Marx that has read even the index of the communist manifesto and instead parroting the same threadbare infantile propaganda and distortions they have been taught by route. This garbage by the Economist attempts to appear even handed, as it is forced to deal with the validation of Marxist theory and 2008 GFC, while labelling his prescriptions worse than the disease. The question is not whether Marx was right or wrong, or that he should be immune to criticism. The question that needs to be answered is why Westerners continue to play Russian Roulette with their lives and those of their children in a rigged game, where the gun has a bullet in every chamber?
Marx was idiosyncratic and believed that economic value was created by only the physical labor directly required to turn raw materials into products. IE: He had economic blinders on and never recognised that, this is why his theories would never work in reality he was working on a total misapprehension of what “value” means.
IMO in Something Marx was right, like Class Struggle but in a lot of things he is either off or just plain wrong like with any other Philosopher but he was dead on about how Rich People and the Lower Classes are always bound to come to blows with each other as they have contrasting interests (the Employer wants to pay people with the Least amount of Cash possible/realistically to the Worker for the most amount of Work and Efficiency while the Worker’s interest is to Profit from his work and have Compensation and Retirement benefits with the Minimum amount of Work possible.) especially during his time where Workers are so Cartoonishly exploited thanks to high Corruption and really Bad Anti Corruption laws.
well actually in the communist manifesto he describes and criticizes many socialist models like the ones you guys claim are the materialization of communism. however marxist communism is a stateless and moneyless society, making the soviet union and other self proclaimed communist or socialist countries stalinist and not communist societies, so communism was never actually implemented anywhere but small societies like the paris commune in 1871.
Well first of all… Marx always said that socialism will take place in a society where capitalism has helped in economic growth of society his analysis was historical and more of a prediction which hegel also tried to do … And he always said that socialism cannot take place in a society or country where 85% of the population is peasant
Like all things that evolve the initial versions of Communism were imperfect. But China seems to have a better variant lately with its mixture of low level market recognition but overall focus on public wealth and improvements that take decade to materialize and that no capitalist system would be able to furnish.
NEVER FORGET WE ARE IN CONTINUOUS ECONOMIC EXPERIMENTS THAT SIMPLY LAST LONGER THAN 1 LIFETIME Whilst this article is accurate to a point, it’s VERY IN ACCURATE in that latter part. Capitalist nations have survived by war mongering smaller and poorer nations into the production process to allow profits to continue. And SOCIAL PROGRAMS were only created because of huge worker demands and capitalists eventually realised that it was simply “area’s” of profit to build. IE. Private schools, hospitals, subcontracting law enforcement and jails etc… This leads us to where we are today. Getting towards the opposite of communism in “fascism” (corporate and government working together and the people’s opinions are an afterthought) * Problems are blamed on immigration, or some other 3rd party, race, religion, whatever distracts and divides it the key. And this is DONE by capitalists, because they have very little other windows before they must concede to the worker* I’m not a Marxist or communist, I believe human greed is sadly built into society on large scales and we must figure out a system that deals with that AND works for the masses* So perhaps instead of federal law trumping state law we should have state law always trumping federal or even smaller scales trumping the larger governance body??? I am only guessing at new ideas…. So re8 Marx is actually far far more correct than not. The only problem is that his workers utopia doesn’t cater for the greedy in society, it assumes everyone is happy with wealth distribution, where in human nature since we were tribes roaming the earth this has not been the case.
Marx was in the period of free capitalism. He did not know the change from free capitalism to monopoly capitalism, which was his limitation. However, the most essential contradiction of capitalism, that is, the contradiction between private ownership of means of production and socialization of production, has not disappeared. The economic crisis in recent years, the COVID-19 and the war between Russia and Ukraine are all impacts on capitalism. Society has a trend of development. Marx’s historical materialism, surplus value theory and materialist dialectics are his greatest achievements. Even after being attacked by you for more than a century
The problem with socialism and communism and the many many other forms of the two is that its very clear through real world examples, like Venezuela, that none of it works. Capitalism isn’t perfect but it has kept many nations afloat. Meanwhile one of the classic examples of communism (The USSR) didn’t even make it out of the 20th century. Again, Capitalism is not perfect, but it beats the alternative.