• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Was Karl Marx Right About Capitalism?

Was Karl Marx Right About Capitalism?

  • Yes

    Votes: 30 41.1%
  • No

    Votes: 43 58.9%

  • Total voters
    73

MildSteel

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 5, 2014
Messages
4,974
Reaction score
1,047
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Here's an interesting article by George Magnus, former Chief Economist at UBS, the biggest bank in Switzerland

Give Karl Marx a Chance to Save the World Economy: George Magnus

Policy makers struggling to understand the barrage of financial panics, protests and other ills afflicting the world would do well to study the works of a long-dead economist: Karl Marx. The sooner they recognize we’re facing a once-in-a-lifetime crisis of capitalism, the better equipped they will be to manage a way out of it.

The spirit of Marx, who is buried in a cemetery close to where I live in north London, has risen from the grave amid the financial crisis and subsequent economic slump. The wily philosopher’s analysis of capitalism had a lot of flaws, but today’s global economy bears some uncanny resemblances to the conditions he foresaw.

Consider, for example, Marx’s prediction of how the inherent conflict between capital and labor would manifest itself. 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: “Accumulation of wealth at one pole is, therefore, at the same time accumulation of misery.”
Story: John Henry and the Making of a Red Sox Baseball Dynasty

The process he describes is visible throughout the developed world, particularly in the U.S. Companies’ efforts to cut costs and avoid hiring have boosted U.S. corporate profits as a share of total economic output to the highest level in more than six decades, while the unemployment rate stands at 9.1 percent and real wages are stagnant.

U.S. income inequality, meanwhile, is by some measures close to its highest level since the 1920s. Before 2008, the income disparity was obscured by factors such as easy credit, which allowed poor households to enjoy a more affluent lifestyle. Now the problem is coming home to roost.

Over-Production Paradox

Marx also pointed out the paradox of over-production and under-consumption: The more people are relegated to poverty, the less they will be able to consume all the goods and services companies produce. When one company cuts costs to boost earnings, it’s smart, but when they all do, they undermine the income formation and effective demand on which they rely for revenues and profits.

This problem, too, is evident in today’s developed world. We have a substantial capacity to produce, but in the middle- and lower-income cohorts, we find widespread financial insecurity and low consumption rates. The result is visible in the U.S., where new housing construction and automobile sales remain about 75% and 30% below their 2006 peaks, respectively.

As Marx put it in Kapital: “The ultimate reason for all real crises always remains the poverty and restricted consumption of the masses.”

......................

SO

Was Karl Marx right about capitalism?
 
Here's an interesting article by George Magnus, former Chief Economist at UBS, the biggest bank in Switzerland



SO

Was Karl Marx right about capitalism?

My controversial opinion is that he is essentially right about the failure of capitalism, only that he limited his timeline too much. My belief is that in social studies such as economics, the "long run" is in the centuries unit. Capitalism as defined by Smith has already failed and gave way to an entirely different economic system. From a system where a factory of 10 was significant enough to be mentioned, an age of small merchants and farmers to an age of giant corporations and unions, of big government and complex international economic relations. No, what we have is definitely not capitalism, at least what Smith would have defined it.
As for Marx's theory of labor, I believe that technology has made it obsolete (automation) and future unpredictable technology will further disprove it. Yet in the sense of "capitalism" failing, he was right.
 
What we practice is heavily controlled by the government, so it's not really fair to judge capitalism based on how things are today.
 
I prefer Groucho Marx when it comes to government predictions. We're headed for Duck Soup, the lot of us.
 
Democracy is the road to socialism--Karl Marx

"Democracy is indispensable to socialism." - Vladimir Lenin


no wonder i hate democracy as a Form of government.-------ernst barkmann


democracy is the most vile form of government- James Madison

capitalism......please!... the federal government has controlled the markets for so long they are not free.
 
Democracy is the road to socialism--Karl Marx

"Democracy is indispensable to socialism." - Vladimir Lenin


no wonder i hate democracy as a Form of government.-------ernst barkmann


democracy is the most vile form of government- James Madison

capitalism......please!... the federal government has controlled the markets for so long they are not free.
Free to what? Pollute and ass rape?
 
Free to what? Pollute and ass rape?

no one you must learn the the difference between federal power and state powers.

federal being ...few

state being ....vast.

the states are given powers which would have some control over markets.....the federal government is given only the power to regulte between the states, to protect against state trade wars and barriers...which is what the states did under the articles of confederation.

to prevent that again.....power was given to the federal government to prevent it happening....they were no given power to control markets.
 
no one you must learn the the difference between federal power and state powers.

federal being ...few

state being ....vast.

the states are given powers which would have some control over markets.....the federal government is given only the power to regulte between the states, to protect against state trade wars and barriers...which is what the states did under the articles of confederation.

to prevent that again.....power was given to the federal government to prevent it happening....they were no given power to control markets.
I got news for you: trade in financial instruments is a form of commerce, and regulate means control.
 
There is no "right and wrong" option. :(

Yes - every system has strengths and weaknesses. Nothing's going to solve all of our problems (because problems are caused by people and nature, etc, not your economic system).

Our economic system serves, in some ways, to correct or address these inherent issues.

Ergo: the best system is the one that permits you the most flexibility as you need it and as the world changes around you. The least favorable are ones that are stringent or limiting.
 
I think his writings are a product of his time. The exploitation is still there. Today your are labeled a communist for wanting a 3% performance raise. The labor laws are better now in the UK and USA though.
 
Democracy is the road to socialism--Karl Marx

"Democracy is indispensable to socialism." - Vladimir Lenin


no wonder i hate democracy as a Form of government.-------ernst barkmann


democracy is the most vile form of government- James Madison

capitalism......please!... the federal government has controlled the markets for so long they are not free.

Spoken like a true SS blood hound.

I guess this one really turns you on:

"Democracy is the canal through which bolshevism lets its poisons flow into the separate countries and lets work there long enough for these infections to lead to a crippling of intelligence and of the force of resistance." Adolph Hitler

Oh, and BTW the last time the markets were really free they tanked the word economy in 1929.

Also, the US markets regained a significant measure of "freedom" when Glass-Steagel was repealed in 1998, thus leading to the creation of entites too big to allow to fail without risking another worldwide collapse. Enron was only the first of those monstrosities.

Also the US real estate markets were virtually unregulated in the late 1990s leading to the 2007-8 crash, from which we have not yet recovered.

Regulation is our friend. We need more regulation, not less.
 
There is no "right and wrong" option. :(

Sorry. I misunderstood what you meant in my response to your previous post. If you feel this way, please elaborate.
 
Spoken like a true SS blood hound.

I guess this one really turns you on:

"Democracy is the canal through which bolshevism lets its poisons flow into the separate countries and lets work there long enough for these infections to lead to a crippling of intelligence and of the force of resistance." Adolph Hitler

Oh, and BTW the last time the markets were really free they tanked the word economy in 1929.

Also, the US markets regained a significant measure of "freedom" when Glass-Steagel was repealed in 1998, thus leading to the creation of entites too big to allow to fail without risking another worldwide collapse. Enron was only the first of those monstrosities.

Also the US real estate markets were virtually unregulated in the late 1990s leading to the 2007-8 crash, from which we have not yet recovered.

Regulation is our friend. We need more regulation, not less.

thanks for the personal comment.....it shows me you cannot put aside personal feelings, and thus govern with your passion, which makes for a very bad debate.

you missed one----democracy is the most vile form of government- James Madison..father of the u.s. constitution.

but i don't mean to not share information with you...here i have more:

John Adams An Essay on Man's Lust for Power
Categories: Democracy
Date: August 29, 1763
[D]emocracy will soon degenerate into an anarchy, such an anarchy that every man will do what is right in his own eyes and no man's life or property or reputation or liberty will be secure, and every one of these will soon mould itself into a system of subordination of all the moral virtues and intellectual abilities, all the powers of wealth, beauty, wit and science, to the wanton pleasures, the capricious will, and the execrable cruelty of one or a very few.

John Adams letter to John Taylor
Categories: Democracy
Date: April 15, 1814
Remember democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.


James Madison The Federalist Papers Federalist No. 10
Categories: Democracy
Date: November 23, 1787
[D]emocracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security, or the rights of property; and have, in general, been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.

Fisher Ames speech in the Massachusetts Ratifying Convention
Categories: Democracy
Date: January 15, 1788
The known propensity of a democracy is to licentiousness which the ambitious call, and ignorant believe to be liberty.


James Madison The Federalist Papers Federalist No. 10
Categories: Democracy, Self-Interest
Date: November 22, 1787
[In a democracy] a common passion or interest will, in almost every case , be felt by a majority of the whole; a communication and concert results from the form of government itself; and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual.
 
I got news for you: trade in financial instruments is a form of commerce, and regulate means control.

regulate to the founders means..... to keep commerce flowing.

commerce between the states was turned over to the federal government......not inside the states.....that was done in 1942...over crows eating wheat!
 
Last edited:
When I was young I was brainwashed to believe that what Marx put forward was the most evil thing on the planet. I was very surprised when I got older and started to learn about it a bit more. I find that the Marxist take on capitalism is for the most part accurate.
 
While the US economy isn't doing so well, many third world economies are doing great, so capitalism as a concept is still validated from what I can tell.

However, I do foresee the next big crisis in capitalism is how to keep the population employed and their minds off revolution. Folks who are out competed don't simply go away and I think we are going to increasingly find that we need to find something for them to do. Our current solution, dubbed as welfare, doesn't really do all that great in preserving the dignity and pride in those who are being helped and because it underminds their spirits, its harm long term viability for short term gain. I think we are going to have to find a new method which doesn't leave people to starve or too desperate yet strikes a balance with the needs of a greater society. If we can't, we will consume ourselves as a country.

I am not exactly sure social democracy is the answer or at least some aspects of need to be rethought given the lessons in human nature we have learned over the last fourty years.
 
Here a link to the Madison citation:

The Federalist No. 10

These are the sections relevant to this discussion, all numerals and emphasis added:

From this view of the subject it may be concluded that a pure (1) democracy, by which I mean a society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person, can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole; a communication and concert result from the form of government itself; and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths. (2)Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of government, have erroneously supposed that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions.

(3A) A republic, by which I mean a government in which the scheme of representation takes place, opens a different prospect, and promises the cure for which we are seeking. Let us examine the points in which it varies from pure democracy, and we shall comprehend both the nature of the cure and the efficacy which it must derive from the Union.

The two great points of difference between a democracy and a (3B) republic are: first, the delegation of the government, in the latter, to a small number of citizens elected by the rest; secondly, the greater number of citizens, and greater sphere of country, over which the latter may be extended.

The effect of (3C) the first difference is, on the one hand, to refine and enlarge the public views, by passing them through the medium of a chosen body of citizens, whose wisdom may best discern the true interest of their country, and whose patriotism and love of justice will be least likely to sacrifice it to temporary or partial considerations. Under such a regulation, it may well happen that the public voice, pronounced by the representatives of the people, will be more consonant to the public good than if pronounced by the people themselves, convened for the purpose.

(1) Here it is obvious that by "democracy" Madison means what in modern parlance is termed "oligarchy".

(2) Here Madison discredits universal suffrage. This and slavery were where he and the rest of the early US leadership fell most short of modern democratic practice and ideals.

(3ABC) Here it is obvious that Madison used the term "republic" to mean what in modern parlance is termed "democracy".

Ergo Madison might be termed hostile to what we term democracy on the basis of his views on suffrage, but not on the basis of his views on the core democratic principle of elective representation. Madison supported democratic government.
 
Here a link to the Madison citation:

The Federalist No. 10

These are the sections relevant to this discussion, all numerals and emphasis added:



(1) Here it is obvious that by "democracy" Madison means what in modern parlance is termed "oligarchy".

(2) Here Madison discredits universal suffrage. This and slavery were where he and the rest of the early US leadership fell most short of modern democratic practice and ideals.

(3ABC) Here it is obvious that Madison used the term "republic" to mean what in modern parlance is termed "democracy".

Ergo Madison might be termed hostile to what we term democracy on the basis of his views on suffrage, but not on the basis of his views on the core democratic principle of elective representation. Madison supported democratic government.


wrong...here is Madison's own words on democracy in the federalist #10...


The other point of difference is, the greater number of citizens and extent of territory which may be brought within the compass of republican than of democratic government; and it is this circumstance principally which renders factious combinations less to be dreaded in the former than in the latter.

Madison went with republican form of government...not a democratic form

article 4 section 4 of the u.s.constitution.

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened), against domestic Violence.


a democracy is a democratic form of government and the founders hated democratic forms.
 
you missed one----democracy is the most vile form of government- James Madison..father of the u.s. constitution.

Meaning majority rule. James Madison warned about the tyranny of majority and majority rule which would manifest itself in an absolute democracy. However, the U.S. is a representative democracy with constitutional limits.

The U.S. is a republic, which is a vague term for any form of government that is not ruled by a monarch or divine rule. All democracies are republics, but not all republics are democracies.
 
As for Marx's theory of labor, I believe that technology has made it obsolete (automation) and future unpredictable technology will further disprove it. Yet in the sense of "capitalism" failing, he was right.

I think that essentially any economic system will eventually fail, just due to human nature, and the tendency of some individuals to either take advantage of the weaknesses in others, or in the system itself. It's also a huge problem that humans vary so widely in ability motivation and ability.
 
I think that essentially any economic system will eventually fail, just due to human nature, and the tendency of some individuals to either take advantage of the weaknesses in others, or in the system itself. It's also a huge problem that humans vary so widely in ability motivation and ability.

I think if hard work alone is not enough to provide a sufficient living, there is a problem in the system.
 
Meaning majority rule. James Madison warned about the tyranny of majority and majority rule which would manifest itself in an absolute democracy. However, the U.S. is a representative democracy with constitutional limits.

The U.S. is a republic, which is a vague term for any form of government that is not ruled by a monarch or divine rule. All democracies are republics, but not all republics are democracies.

The demise of monarchies have resulted in capitalists filling the void.
 
I think if hard work alone is not enough to provide a sufficient living, there is a problem in the system.

Well, you do have a certain point, but I think that the complexity of our lifestyles in this day and age tends to skew that opinion somewhat. At one time, one could live by the "sweat of the brow", if he/she was willing to put in the labor, but we are so interdependent on each other nowadays, to provide and obtain the more technological things in life, and ordinary modern conveniences, that the guarantee of being able to live if you were willing to do the labor, has become pretty much meaningless.
 
Back
Top Bottom