Give Karl Marx a Chance to Save the World Economy

[von Jungingen's bad decision]

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-0...ge-magnus.html

As he wrote in “Das Kapital,” companies’ pursuit of profits and productivity would naturally lead them to need fewer and fewer workers, creating an “industrial reserve army” of the poor and unemployed

This article is really bad. It's so obvious when people haven't read from Marx.
it pisses me off that so many misinterpretations of Marx are in the media lately.

The industrial reserve army (of the unemployed) can be produced by increasing mechanization, but the idea of the industrial reserve army is that capitalists maintain it at a certain static level in order to keep wages low, to keep the bottleneck on any given endeavor capital instead of labor. That article is just using it as a scary sounding phrase, when in reality it has a specific role in the functioning of capitalism and is absolutely required for it to function the way it does.

to add to what I said above, the industrial reserve army is central to the "stick" capitalists wave over the head of labor as a means of discipline... don't go on strike or else you'll end up like them *points to the homeless guys on the street*, settle for whatever wage you can get or else end up like them. It makes the active labor force incredibly easy to manipulate as well as putting downward pressure on wages, increasing relative surplus value gains, etc. Although this process doesn't even happen at a conscious, conspiratorial level. It is simply a factor in the capital-labor relationship.

If you ever have to ask, "is X an integral part of capitalism?" then ask yourself, "is X integral to the labor-capital relationship and the production process generally?" Although the unemployed (and unemployable) may seem far removed from surplus value extraction (profit making essentially), they play an integral, if peripheral, role.

And that's another point worth considering. When we think dialectically about capitalism, we have to understand "capital" as a totalizing concept. labor, the state, credit, the industrial reserve army, etc. are all factors, expressions in form, of the essential nature of capital. That is why having a value theory is so important -and why bourgeois economics denies it- because it separates form from essence and explains the movements of the core structures as they manifest themselves in form (or on the periphery). This is where liberals make the mistake of assuming "the state" and "the economy" are two distinct categories with causal relations between them, rather than functions of capital mediated by internal relations.

That, however, doesn't mean we shouldn't over look how essential features of capital manifest themselves in form through different means. For instance, the age old "transformation problem" of value into prices can be seen two ways. Some Marxists don't see it as important because price is simply the apparent form of value, and whatever fluctuations price takes around the 'anchor' of value is trivial. Others say, no, it's actually very important to understand, not just that value and price deviate, but how and why they deviate.

[visser300]

If Karl Max's theory is so practical, So Viet Union and its bureaucratic economy didn't wipe out.

The countries that still keep the economic model is Cuba and North Korea. Why don't you live in those countries for couple of months and tell us how successful those countries are?

[JJDXB]

If Karl Max's theory is so practical, So Viet Union and its bureaucratic economy didn't wipe out.

The countries that still keep the economic model is Cuba and North Korea. Why don't you live in those countries for couple of months and tell us how successful those countries are?

They aren't Marxist, and never have been.

And, you are confusing the Communist Manifesto, which was what he wanted the economy to change to, with Das Kapital, which is primarily a work of Economic History. They are two separate books, just to be clear.

Even the Daily Fail acknowledges the positive impacts the book has had.

Daily Fail

OK, Marx might now be remembered as a revolutionary advocate of communism - he co-wrote The Communist Manifesto - but he was a leading 19th-century economist in the 'classical' tradition. Indeed, in many ways he is the father of Economic History, having developed explanations for the evolution of the economic structure from feudalism to capitalism. The German philosopher, sociologist and economist, who spent much of his life in London (and is buried in Highgate Cemetery), developed theories to explain why capitalist economies - which he opposed - have fluctuations and crises. However, despite his belief in capitalism's self-destructive tendencies, much of his economic thinking stands up to scrutiny. Had it not been for The Communist Manifesto, I think Western commentators would recognise more readily today his role in advancing economic thinking.

[von Jungingen's bad decision]

If Karl Max's theory is so practical, So Viet Union and its bureaucratic economy didn't wipe out.

The countries that still keep the economic model is Cuba and North Korea. Why don't you live in those countries for couple of months and tell us how successful those countries are?

Don't talk about things you don't know anything about.

[Dave Strider]

If Karl Max's theory is so practical, So Viet Union and its bureaucratic economy didn't wipe out.

The countries that still keep the economic model is Cuba and North Korea. Why don't you live in those countries for couple of months and tell us how successful those countries are?

...

"So Viet Union"?

What?

[Exarch]

bloomberg??

i'm surprised, aren't they supposed to be intelligent ppl giving sage advice to forbes 500 companies?

[Claudius Gothicus]

Marx's basic prediction: ''As Capitalism advances the life of the workers will grow in misery and pain''

It failed, the ''Golden Age of Capitalism''(from the 40's to the 80's) saw a massive rise in the worker's education, salaries and political participation all due to the richness generated by the Markets which was properly distributed(by State sponsored Law's of course).

So... where were we? Ahh yeah the Financial Markets!

Also regarding the Industrial Reserve Army it was quite true during the 1850's and 1860's due to the non-existence of Labor Regulations and the illegal nature of Trade Unions... but what needs to be grasped is that Industry doesn't necessarily expel workers from it's production area to simply leave them out forever, Industry diversifies and if there's institutions properly adequate to the process of re-inserting workers into the productive process there's no need for the Industrial Reserve Army to exist.

[dogukan]

Marx's basic prediction: ''As Capitalism advances the life of the workers will grow in misery and pain''

It failed, the ''Golden Age of Capitalism''(from the 40's to the 80's) saw a massive rise in the worker's education, salaries and political participation all due to the richness generated by the Markets which was properly distributed(by State sponsored Law's of course).

So... where were we? Ahh yeah the Financial Markets!

Also regarding the Industrial Reserve Army it was quite true during the 1850's and 1860's due to the non-existence of Labor Regulations and the illegal nature of Trade Unions... but what needs to be grasped is that Industry doesn't necessarily expel workers from it's production area to simply leave them out forever, Industry diversifies and if there's institutions properly adequate to the process of re-inserting workers into the productive process there's no need for the Industrial Reserve Army to exist.

The regulations my friend, does not seem to stop inevitable crises capitalism will eventually create(s) as Marx said back in his day.
IF the capitalist development was all over the world, the enlightenment it brings+competition would not let capitalism function the way it does now.
Either way, I'm still confident that, something will happen eventually, one day.
Because so far, the base of the predictions seem to on point...except some of the unforeseen changes such as social democracies.

Besides, I'm okay with social democracies for now, I have a career to rock.

[Claudius Gothicus]

The regulations my friend, does not seem to stop inevitable crises capitalism will eventually create(s) as Marx said back in his day.

The problem is that we are talking scientifically in here, and therefore attributing to ''capitalism'' the direct cause of ''crisis's'' seems to be as abstract and inconclusive as putting the cause of floods in a ''monolithic and all-reaching entity known as nature'' and that's exactly why Marx's method doesn't work and only allows one to see what he/she wants to see... because in the process of Systematic Abstraction(from ''capitalism'' to the market from ''the market'' to the commodities from the ''commodities'' to an ''specific commodity'' etc.) a lot of data and variables get lost.

In order to reach the level of ''scientific'' outlook that Marxism aims(and back in the day did have) the explanations and definitions have to be more specific and less reductionist.

In other words, blaming current production systems for a crisis is way to simplistic and does indeed overlook the fact that ever since humans started producing goods to survive there has been periods of time were such production came to find itself in trouble. It's more of a matter of the uncertainty and complexity of reality than a System's specific failures

IF the capitalist development was all over the world, the enlightenment it brings+competition would not let capitalism function the way it does now.

Well... markets have already spread to more than 3/4 of the earth... it looks like we have finally reached the global stage... and besides the ''uncertainty crisis'' the workers are not some form of deformed sub-human morlocks, as Marx predicted them to be by the final stages of our Production System.

Either way, I'm still confident that, something will happen eventually, one day.
Because so far, the base of the predictions seem to on point...except some of the unforeseen changes such as social democracies.

The prediction was made in the Manuscripts of 1844 and therefore has been failing for more than 150 years now. By this point It only gets restructured in a way that permits Marxists to rely on some current data so that they can hold their theory against all odds...

[Platon]

Well, you could say that we already have the socialism that Marx argued would come between Capitalism and Communism. Think about it - Do we really have a truly free market capitalist society today in the developed western world? I would actually say no!!
The crisis capitalism faced 100 years ago could easily have led to proletarian revolutions everywhere. So the western societies adopted many things that communists fought for in the 19:th century. Everything from workers rights, the right to form unions, social welfare, free school and healthcare, pensions and paid vacations... Both in the US and in Europe the capitalists had to give away a big chunk of that surplus Marx talked about through taxes, so that the Govs could afford the welfare system.
You have to give some credit to those rightwing teabagger redneck morons who say that the US for example is socialist - they actually have a point!
We have thousands laws and regulations to keep the free market from ing up itself.
But since the 70:s the neoliberal agenda have pushed back socialism and are trying o take back the 'surplus' the capitalists had to share with the lower classes. But they will have a hard time doing it. Once the middle classes will get hit by austerity, they Will revolt! If the elites refuse to take a 'haircut' now, they risk loosing a bit more than some hair

Thi system is about to collapse anyhow!
A system that is based on greed and profiteering is destroying our world, and we can't continue like that. We need something new. You can say whatever you want about Marx, but he was absolutely right when he said that Capitalism will be replaced - it already has!!

[Claudius Gothicus]

During the 50's and 60's the ownership of the means of production didn't change radically. Most of it was owned by private companies... how's that ''replacing capitalism''?

What did happen is that the Institutions of the System had to adapt themselves to trouble by developing other institutions or other specific functions

[visser300]

They aren't Marxist, and never have been.

And, you are confusing the Communist Manifesto, which was what he wanted the economy to change to, with Das Kapital, which is primarily a work of Economic History. They are two separate books, just to be clear.

Even the Daily Fail acknowledges the positive impacts the book has had.

Daily Fail

Communism is based on the fundamental ideology of Karl Max.

[Veliky Kaiser Theos]

Communism is based on the fundamental ideology of Karl Max.

They're not communists. It's just a name they use. In reality, China and Vietnam are capitalist, whereas Korea is kinda like "oligarchical collectivism" from 1984, but scaled back.

[Basil II the B.S]

Marxism was a poor interpretation of free market 2 centuries ago that resulted in a series of failed experiments. Now it's poor and outdated. Come up with something new ffs.

[(s)AINT]

Its not outdated. It was the way it was applied to societies which made it poor.

[Claudius Gothicus]

Its not outdated. It was the way it was applied to societies which made it poor.

It's definitely outdated. The only thing that keeps saving Marxist theory is more or less the application of Modern Methodology to their Theoretical Framework.

If you think about it even Marx's Method(systematic Abstraction) is not used and never was.

[Ancient Aliens]

Capitalism produces a more competitive society. Competition = progress. This was made apparent by the geopolitical changes of the last century. Drop Communism, I say.

[Condottiere 40K]

The problem is what to do with the bodies.

[Roboute Guilliman]

The problem is what to do with the bodies.

What about Alaska?

[Freddie]

I think this belongs in the Academy but for what's its worth I'm still waiting for someone to come up with a system of government that can bring the masses out of the sort of grinding poverty (the sort of poverty you see in places like east Africa and India) that has been achieved by governments which have followed a capitalistic approach with largely free markets.

I don't think return or a change to Marxism is the way forward as it will lead to a loss of freedom which is to expected once you start centralising more power with the state which then leads to paranoia and insecurity and you end up with a totalitarian regime which nobody wants.

As for fixing the worlds economy it will fix itself and it wouldn't be in the state that it is if governments hadn't started interfering with the free market (points to Bill Clinton who put forward rules about bank lending). For some reason we have gone from an age of capitalism (although not pure capitalism by any stretch of the imagination) to an age of corporatism.