Marx May Have Had a Point 1271
Hitting the mainpage for the first time, Black Sabbath writes "While communism has been declared dead and buried (with a few stubborn exceptions), Karl Marx's diagnosis of capitalism's ills seem quite bang on the money. Harvard Business Review blogger Umair Haque lists where Marx may have been right."
It's a pretty good read once you get past the author's three paragraph disclaimer that he is not a communist. The MIT news also ran a short interview discussing the economic trends in August this morning.
Marx did have a point (Score:2, Informative)
And it's been something economists, philosophers, politicians and, y'know, the actually wealthy have all been struggling with since capitalism was a thing. Wealth accumulates. That's what it does. Much has been said for and against the process (See Rawls, Nozick, et al.) by which this wealth is then redistributed. But in the end it really just boils down to Marx's depiction of haves and have-nots. It's just as true now as it was when he wrote Das Kapital.
Bakunin (Score:4, Informative)
Bakunin saw that Marx was right in his analysis of capitol, but did not appreciate the dangers of the state either. He famously said "liberty without socialism is privilege, injustice; and that socialism without liberty is slavery and brutality". Marx accurately predicted the end state of Capitalism. Bakunin accurately predicted the end state of Marxism.
Attribution: (Score:5, Informative)
Worst False Consciousness examples ever (Score:4, Informative)
I struggle to think how anyone could have thought up worse examples to undermine their own point, no matter how hard they tried. The turnover at McDonalds and Wal-Mart is amazing, and the very idea that these workers are happy and don't feel like exploited disposable cogs is laughable. Seriously, these two companies may be the very very worst to use as examples, in all the history of humanity, to make an argument for some kind of Stockholm Syndrome.
The dude needs to rewrite that paragraph to avoid distracting readers from his point, with that glaring over-the-top WTF. I almost wonder if he put that into his article as an "are you really reading?" joke or test.
Re:Nothing to surprising (Score:5, Informative)
It expects people to be people, not ants.
No. It expects people to be able to act rationally and in their long-term best interest. That's still not how people work.
Eat The Rich (Score:4, Informative)
I still think P.J. O'Rourke's Eat The Rich [wikimedia.org] is the best book on this subject. Every Economics major should have to read this book. His basic premise is that almost any socioeconomic system can work provided that there is rule of law and private property rights. Take away these things and nothing works, whether it be capitalism, socialism, communism or anything else.
Re:Nothing to surprising (Score:4, Informative)
Funnily enough, that's what Marx was all about too. His approach is characterised as Historical Materialism because it's only concerned with the realities of human nature and things that really happen here, in the material world.
The whole point of Marxism* is to build a political economy that's better/I. than Capitalism. Capitalism is the greatest, most innovative form of political economy devised by mankind but it comes at a terrible price. Marxism is about confronting the reality of the world, which developing a critique of Capitalism in its various forms, and trying to change things for the better.
The only way that struggle can be ultimately resolved is for the working class to gain the consciousness necessary to govern. That change has to come from the bottom up - you can't impose it from above. All attempts to create Socialism from above are doomed to create authoritarian, bureaucratic structures.
Basically, Capitalism as a game is rigged. It rewards making money over performing useful labour (e.g. using knowledge from a medical degree to figure out reasons to refuse insurance payouts rather than using it to treat patients) and results in a world I think most people are clearly unhappy with. The challenge as Socialists is to figure out a better game, a better system of incentives and discouragements to get people doing more useful things.
As to what things are useful, well, that's not a question for one person to answer. It should be decided democratically!
Marx called himself a Humanist. He once said, in reference the the French Marxists with whom he disagreed, "all I know is that I am not a Marxist".
Re:Nothing to surprising (Score:5, Informative)
You're trying to argue that gravity falls up. It's a nice attempt, but ultimately moot, because employee owned companies do exist.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_employee-owned_companies [wikipedia.org]
Perhaps you should consider that the challenges you mention are not insurmountable.
Re:Marx was indeed, partly correct (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Evidence Throughout the Ages of This (Score:2, Informative)
The abolition of slavery
That is not a move away from capitalism. That's a move away from, essentially, fuedalism. Capitalism participation in a market, and the mutually agreed-upon exchange of goods, services, etc. Being forced to work for someone else isn't capitalism. But it is the bedrock of socialism.
Re:Technology (Score:4, Informative)
Which wouldn't be a problem if wages would increase so that a person could feed himself and his family on the reduced wages.
Alternatively, we could reduce the cost of feeding. Technology, changes to distribution methods, increases in productivity of all kinds have done precisely that:
Americans paid a high price to support this balkanized system for conveying food from farm to table. Food was hugely expensive, relative to wages. The average working-class family in the 1920s devoted one-third of its bud get to groceries, the average farm family even more. Most households spent more to put dinner on the table than for their rent or their mortgage. And for the average house wife, shopping for food consumed a large part of the day. This money, time, and effort bought plenty of calories, but only moderate amounts of nutrition.
http://www.npr.org/books/titles/139761304/the-great-a-p-and-the-struggle-for-small-business-in-america?tab=excerpt#excerpt [npr.org]
According to the interview with the author (which I heard while driving, and cannot find a transcript), the budget fraction for groceries is now somewhere near 5%.
Meanwhile, the standard of living has continued to rise. We talk about our poor, but what do we really mean by "poor?" Consider http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/07/what-is-poverty [heritage.org]:
As scholar James Q. Wilson has stated, “The poorest Americans today live a better life than all but the richest persons a hundred years ago.”[3] In 2005, the typical household defined as poor by the government had a car and air conditioning. For entertainment, the household had two color televisions, cable or satellite TV, a DVD player, and a VCR. If there were children, especially boys, in the home, the family had a game system, such as an Xbox or a PlayStation.[4] In the kitchen, the household had a refrigerator, an oven and stove, and a microwave. Other household conveniences included a clothes washer, clothes dryer, ceiling fans, a cordless phone, and a coffee maker.
The home of the typical poor family was not overcrowded and was in good repair. In fact, the typical poor American had more living space than the average European. The typical poor American family was also able to obtain medical care when needed. By its own report, the typical family was not hungry and had sufficient funds during the past year to meet all essential needs.
Poor families certainly struggle to make ends meet, but in most cases, they are struggling to pay for air conditioning and the cable TV bill as well as to put food on the table. Their living standards are far different from the images of dire deprivation promoted by activists and the mainstream media.
Re:Nothing to surprising (Score:5, Informative)
It was voluntary, not state mandated. Communes and Kibbutz in Israel also function well, and are "communistic". However people are kicked out for not doing what they are able, and everyone is responsible for everyone else. The problem with state mandated communism is that it necessarily is abusive of power, or sufficiently weak that it doesn't work.
Expectations of work, and the condition of expulsion of those that are able, but refuse to work allow for Communes and Kibbutzes to function. A large state cannot function in that manner.
Re:Long-Term or Short-Term Trends? (Score:2, Informative)
Forty six percent of all poor households actually own their own homes. The average home owned by persons classified as poor by the Census Bureau is a three bedroom house with one and a half baths, a garage, and a porch or patio.
Seventy six percent of poor households have air conditioning. By contrast, 30 years ago, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.
Only 6 percent of poor households are overcrowded. More than two thirds have more than two rooms per person.
The average poor American has more living space than the average individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens, and other cities throughout Europe. (These comparisons are to the average citizens in foreign countries, not to those classified as poor.)
Nearly three quarters of poor households own a car; 30 percent own two or more cars.
Ninety seven percent of poor households have a color television; over half own two or more color televisions.
Seventy eight percent have a VCR or DVD player; 62 percent have cable or satellite TV reception.
Seventy three percent own microwave ovens, more than half have a stereo, and a third have an automatic dishwasher.
----
Being poor isn't what it used to be.