Was Marx Right?

[bubbatentoe]

LOL, Marx was wrong.

EU/US financial markets aren't failing because of capitalism.
It's failing because of loop holes that were created & exploited due to financial de-regulation.

http://www.twnside.org.sg/title2/finance/2009/twninfofinance20090305.htm

 

[Alan]

oh the U.N said so. That settles it

But again it seems the simple concept of a bubble and the "boom and bust" economic cycle is beyond the grasp of some people.

A credit boom-bust cycle is an episode characterized by a sustained increase in several economics indicators followed by a sharp and rapid contraction. Commonly the boom is driven by a rapid expansion of credit to the private sector accompanied with rising prices of commodities and stock market index

Even during the boom Countries were running unsustainable deficits. Greece was warned about it's deficits before the financial crises. But now that economies are no longer booming and creating income that even doing the boom years could not cover these nanny state expenditure by some work of voodoo it's now sustainable.

 

[WilD_CaT]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late-2000s_financial_crisis

What started the strains on the financial systems? Some blind ideological defenders wanna blame welfare, but lets be honest... it was all capitalism and the problems mentioned in the OP that has lead the world to this place. Blindly blame welfare all you want, but these financial issues were not caused by social programs, but with capitalistic markets out of control. Its as simple as that.

There has to be a healthy mix between the two (capitalism and welfare) and it has to be smartly managed.

Central bank intervention by lowering interest rates so that they don't reflect consumer time preference and send false signals to producers.

Government that promoted the lowering of lending standard (Everyone should have a house) and the banks obliging.

Banks sold of the loans so they didn't have to worry creating a moral hazard. Valuators who overvalued houses in order to get jobs the banks could sell the debt.

Buyers mentality in speculating instead earning.

And the most free market extremists around called it. Funny.

Marx is wrong on a number of issues.

1. Labour theory of value.
2. Inability of socialism to perform economic calculation. Admited by some of the most famous communist economists of the era.

 

[w1z4rd]

Pity so few people are commenting on the points Marx talks about in the OP here.

 

[Hard Rain]

(Note to others: ghoti has placed me on his "ignore" list because he does not like me)

All of Marx's arguments in this piece fall to pieces because he regards any exchange engaged within the subjective valuations of each participant to be an act of "exploitation".

For example: If I wish to trade you my tie for your pen, and we both agree to this trade, we must both believe we are benefiting from the trade individually and subjectively; therefore we are both "profiting" from each other in our own minds.

Marx, on the other hand, thinks this is nonsense and that we, by "profiting", are both exploiting one another.

If you can take that seriously you can take any of his ramblings seriously.

What is interesting, however, is that ghoti is providing this point of view divulged solely by deductive means and yet, simultaneously, ghoti condemns contra methodologies which also utilize deductive reasoning. Conclusion: ghoti is a hypocrite.

 

[Hard Rain]

LOL, Marx was wrong.

EU/US financial markets aren't failing because of capitalism.
It's failing because of loop holes that were created & exploited due to financial de-regulation.

http://www.twnside.org.sg/title2/finance/2009/twninfofinance20090305.htm

There are, literally, tens of thousands of pages of regulation. The real questions are: who are the regulators? Whose interests do they represent? Are their intentions just? What are the consequences of their regulations?

 

[alloytoo]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late-2000s_financial_crisis

What started the strains on the financial systems? Some blind ideological defenders wanna blame welfare, but lets be honest... it was all capitalism and the problems mentioned in the OP that has lead the world to this place. Blindly blame welfare all you want, but these financial issues were not caused by social programs, but with capitalistic markets out of control. Its as simple as that.

There has to be a healthy mix between the two (capitalism and welfare) and it has to be smartly managed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late-2000s_financial_crisis

What started the strains on the financial systems? Some blind ideological defenders wanna blame welfare, but lets be honest... it was all capitalism and the problems mentioned in the OP that has lead the world to this place. Blindly blame welfare all you want, but these financial issues were not caused by social programs, but with capitalistic markets out of control. Its as simple as that.

There has to be a healthy mix between the two (capitalism and welfare) and it has to be smartly managed.

An asute observer (Anton Rupert IMS) attributed the initial financial crisis to the fall of the Soviet Union. The rationale being that the collapse of communism led to an period of unprecidented growth and profit as economies and markets normalized. Over time however those profits diminished and the only way they could be maintained would be to assume greater and greater risk. Eventually the global market corrected.

The sovereign debt crisis is a consequence of reduced global appetite for risk. Those unproductive countries which leant too much toward becoming welfare countries are reaching the sad conclusion that they simply cannot afford to support the status quo.

Other so called welfare states with low unemployment are weathering the debt crisis better.

 

[OzzieCapie]

Pity so few people are commenting on the points Marx talks about in the OP here.

They can't help themselves. Although the author makes it clear many times that he is against communism and is only talking about Marx's criticism of capitalism and to discuss that, they instead discuss the failings of communism, something no one is advocating.

Does Capitalism fail in practice because it has no mechanism for dealing with poverty? Or at least none of which I am aware of.

Poverty is in fact a requirement of capitalism.

Another thread argued that social policies was akin to a Ponzi Scheme. I believe that Capitalism, in the way it has turned out if not the way it was designed, is the ultimate Ponzi, and the cause of the boom-bust cycles.
(The way it has turned out ) Capitalism is the few getting richer as a result of many getting poorer. As more and more people get poorer, ultimately the system fails (Pyramid anyone?).
The introduction of socialism to capitalism is to limit this poverty. We got to have 'just enough people' who think they are doing ok -and what better way to indebt to live above their means and to keep working - so that they can spend and make the top of the pyramid richer.
The countries with the most disparity will fall the hardest (does that sound like USA..mmmh??). Australia with its control of skilled migrants, social security and very broad middle clas, it is no surprise that they are doing ok. Make the brickies labourer, tradesperson, teacher and doctor live side by side and all in this middle class indebted rut and the system works better...and make them give enough to the unemployed etc too, so that they can also purchase and feel good.

At some point, like any Ponzi scheme this will fail too, just give it time...the disparities cannot be kept in check as we try and justify it by "I am trying to make a success" i.e. let me get to the top of the pyramid and do the trampling myself.

Capitalism may be better than Communism, but it aint working...or maybe as someone else said here...both could work except for the failings of humans...the exploiters will always exploit, the smell of the s**t just differs.

 

[WilD_CaT]

Poverty is in fact a requirement of capitalism.

Rofl. Zero-sum games. Next you are gonna say fat people are fat because thin people are thin and the only way someone gets thin is if someone else gets fat and the only way someone gets fat is if someone else gets thin.



Another thread argued that social policies was akin to a Ponzi Scheme. I believe that Capitalism, in the way it has turned out if not the way it was designed, is the ultimate Ponzi, and the cause of the boom-bust cycles.

Nope. A ponzi scheme essentially defrauds future generations and leaves the last people to join without a chair to sit.

(The way it has turned out ) Capitalism is the few getting richer as a result of many getting poorer. As more and more people get poorer, ultimately the system fails (Pyramid anyone?).

Fallacy of zero-sum games and an incorrect theory of value.

No system has increased the standards of living all over the world as much as the free enterprise system.

 

[obs]

Alarm clock rings. Slams clock. Nah, not this morning my pall ghoti got it covered for me anyways.
Me farts, rolls over and goes back to sleep.

 

[zippy]

Agreed. I believe Capitalism thrives on exploitation and has no mechanism to deal with it or poverty I find Marx`s thinking on Capitalism to be correct in this regard (and only what is discussed in the OP). The communists also say that their system is the perfect system if not for the fallibility of humans. If all humans worked equally as hard in a communist system would it fail?.

So I guess systems we use must take into account that its got humans and theyre fallible.

I believe the real issue is the political system combined with the political culture of a country. They have to gel. The economic system then needs to flow from that.

Capitalism only succeeds if there is a culture of questioning authority. Communism doesn't tolerate this and relies on the good graces of the leaders.

The economic failures in the west have occurred because the public have fallen asleep and either allowed politicians to over regulate or business leaders to cook the books on a massive scale.

Neither system can prevent a crisis, but communism is worse because things get progressively worse until there is a massive collapse. Combining capitalism with democracy helps to provide regular check points, where the political process keeps the politicians in check, and capitalism keeps the business leaders in check. Allowing politicians to cover for business leaders is what leads to major failures. While no system is perfect, the combination of capitalism and democracies allows for relatively smoother corrections.

If you want a perfect economic system, you wont find it. Understanding that capitalism it isn't perfect allows you to be wary and keep on eye on those leaders. You can vote with your buying preference or at the ballot box. If your system was communism and you saw the leaders enriching themselves, there is nothing you can do about it.

 

[w1z4rd]

They can't help themselves. Although the author makes it clear many times that he is against communism and is only talking about Marx's criticism of capitalism and to discuss that, they instead discuss the failings of communism, something no one is advocating.

Yup

 

[w1z4rd]

Alarm clock rings. Slams clock. Nah, not this morning my pall ghoti got it covered for me anyways.
Me farts, rolls over and goes back to sleep.

What relevance does this have to the points discussed in the OP?

I feel that people just read the headlines and are unable to read the OP.... weird.

 

[Geriatrix]

Wow, this thread went as expected.
I didn't answer the article point for point because it's obviously bull.

I'm sure DJ or wildcat would do this better than me but hell I've got a few minutes so I'll ramble something together.

Immiseration.

Well just take a look around. Working conditions in capitalist countries are as good as working conditions can get. Safety standards, new equipment, growing enterprises. Look at working conditions in Cuba and North Korea and then look at the UK and Aus. Growing middle classes is a characteristic of capitalist or capitalist mimicking societies(think China).

Now regarding the falling wages, I argue that has got to do with government interference and not because of inherent characteristics of capitalism. Bailouts, retarded taxation policies, bureaucratic red tape and crazy spending have all decimated the dollar and the middle class.

Now the CEO's making more than the workers part. Supply and demand. You've got 30 000 people who can all weld and pack with the same efficiency and speed. But how many people are educated, experienced and ballsy enough to take charge of a million dollar enterprise? Also, nothing is stopping those welders and packers to go do their own thing. Not in a capitalist society. Hell, my uncle did it. He went from a grunt in a security company to his own business running huge mining security control systems. Only capitalism would have made that possible.

Capitalism also made products cheaper and more plentiful. Those poor workers are able to buy meat everyday, sleep on sheets, buy shoes, buy washing machines, get cellphones and access to the internet like never before in history. Seriously, before the modern industrial capitalist society just being able to eat meat was a special treat in most societies unless you lived in the sticks and hunted your own food.

Crisis.

Argument is bunk, the financial crisis was not caused by over production. Please. It's got to do with government protected banksters, spending, taxation, QE and bailouts and artificially low interest rates to start with.

Stagnation.

It's inevitable in any society, not just capitalist societies. I would argue that capitalist societies have the freedom to develop alternative industries and areas of growth. Think Google, ILM and cellphones. All industries that grew from capitalist societies.

Alienation.

Ha. First world problems. When you start thinking about what it all means and get all existential you know that most of your basic needs are met. And it's not limited to capitalist societies. This is where all philosophy and religions grew from. And Fight Club.

False consciousness.

People who have their needs met get mellow and complacent. Who would you have work at McD's or Wallmart if not their employes? Where should they go then with their skills level and experience? How are they exploited if they cannot do anything else? And if they can, it's up to them to do it. Their ancestors where unhappy with their conditions and they ****ing transversed oceans and took the risk of colonizing unknown lands to improve their conditions. Why do modern people need someone to hold their hands the whole time? Are you suggesting everyone should be highly paid CEO's or computer programmers?

Commodity fetishism

Once again, not just in capitalist societies. Totems, revered objects, status symbols, all these are ancient and inherent in the human experience. At least our modern versions employ and feed someone.

Seriously, capitalism has some faults(resource depletion, overpopulation, large scale environmental destruction) but these arguments hold not water for me.

 

[Alan]

People who have their needs met get mellow and complacent. Who would you have work at McD's or Wallmart if not their employes? Where should they go then with their skills level and experience? How are they exploited if they cannot do anything else? And if they can, it's up to them to do it. Their ancestors where unhappy with their conditions and they ****ing transversed oceans and took the risk of colonizing unknown lands to improve their conditions. Why do modern people need someone to hold their hands the whole time? Are you suggesting everyone should be highly paid CEO's or computer programmers?

The fundamental belief that draws people to Marxist theories and is why they're so opposed to capitalism is that every individual is equal in a materiel sense.

Individuals regardless of their work ethic and competence all have the same right to the same standard of living. In a capitalist society done right you live according to your contribution to society. That's why they oppose it and why they fell for communism because it promised a utopian society of classless materialistic equality.

So yes they do actually believe everyone should be well paid regardless of whether they're a hard working, intelligent CEO or a lazy dunce who can contribute nothing more to society than flipping burgers.

 

[Rkootknir]

The fundamental belief that draws people to Marxist theories and is why they're so opposed to capitalism is that every individual is equal in a materiel sense.

Individuals regardless of their work ethic and competence all have the same right to the same standard of living. In a capitalist society done right you live according to your contribution to society. That's why they oppose it and why they fell for communism because it promised a utopian society of classless materialistic equality.

So yes they do actually believe everyone should be well paid regardless of whether they're a hard working, intelligent CEO or a lazy dunce who can contribute nothing more to society than flipping burgers.

Not really. As far as I know the fundamental difference between communism (Marxism is communism with a supposedly "interim" state) and capitalism is in who should own the means of production: Labour or capital.

Communism as a political theory has no requirement to treat everybody as equals when it comes to work ethic or competence. The saying is "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need". The "to each according to his need" part will only be possible if or when there is a abundance of goods and services. That's the utopian part of communism that the Bolsheviks tried to implement by force using the State.

 

[Hard Rain]

That's the utopian part of communism that the Bolsheviks tried to implement by force using the State.

Unfortunately it's not just the Bolsheviks who have this wacky point of view. Plenty of people actually believe the government can abolish scarcity by decree. Take ghoti, for example...

 

[Alan]

Not really. As far as I know the fundamental difference between communism (Marxism is communism with a supposedly "interim" state) and capitalism is in who should own the means of production: Labour or capital.

Communism as a political theory has no requirement to treat everybody as equals when it comes to work ethic or competence. The saying is "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need". The "to each according to his need" part will only be possible if or when there is a abundance of goods and services. That's the utopian part of communism that the Bolsheviks tried to implement by force using the State.

well the support for communism was a means to an end. Naive bleeding hearts advocated communism to realize their utopian society. Since communism failed diabolically as an economic system they then turned to the free market capitalist system.

That's the "third way" system which uses the capitalist economy to fund leftwing social policies. Which itself is failing judging by Europe's debt crises.

 

[Arthur]

Karl Marx (aka A.Williams) was right about quite a lot of things: the good beer at the Trier Tavern Drinking Club, the taxi fare from his house to Soho, and even in some aspects of notions like alienation. But his theories of history and cosmology are profoundly erroneous, and led him into a deeply-flawed anthropology, sociology and politico-economics. His dialetical historical materialism is philosophically incoherent. One quite often hears the phrase "communism is great in theory, but in practice..." but this is not true - communism is even worse theoretically than its praxis.

There's little point in debating capitalism vs communism for the (n+1)th time. There's a deep hunger in the human heart for an overaching Theory of Everything, and to many Marxism / Dialetical Historical Materialism seems to provide answers, thereby occupying that part in the psyche normally associated with religion. In our own anti-religious age, we're particularly prone to replacing an omnipotent deity with an omnipotent state. A big difference between the two is that the former (at least in the Christian conception) only invites and never compels, whereas the latter operates primarily by compulsion (laws enforced by police).

I know which I prefer.

 

[OzzieCapie]

Rofl. Zero-sum games. Next you are gonna say fat people are fat because thin people are thin and the only way someone gets thin is if someone else gets fat and the only way someone gets fat is if someone else gets thin.

Are you "rolling on the floor laughing" because you are fat? Is that why you use a stupid 'fat vs thin' analogy?

Capitalism does not continue to escalate wealth ad infinitum without the working class being indebted, purchasing to have their higher standard of living- which capitalism has 'delivered' --well done capitalism...

...however your 'thin people' are not running the fat people's kilometres, using their gym equipment nor are the fat people eating the thin people's food.

You might have somehow made a point had you not clutched at such a stupid analogy.

cheers

stop rolling now.