The Economist's A-Z entry on Karl Marx is in the fire

[peaccenicked]

MARX, KARL
Much followed, and much misunderstood, German economist (1818–83). His two best-known works were the Communist Manifesto, written in 1848 with Friedrich Engels, and Das Kapital, in four volumes published between 1867 and 1910. Most of his economic assumptions were drawn from orthodox CLASSICAL ECONOMICS, (http://www.economist.com/RESEARCH/ECONOMICS/alphabetic.cfm?term=classicaleconomics#classicalec onomics) but he used them to reach highly unorthodox conclusions. Although claimed and blamed as the inspiration of some of the most virulently anti-market governments the world has ever seen, he was not wholly against CAPITALISM (http://www.economist.com/RESEARCH/ECONOMICS/alphabetic.cfm?term=capitalism#capitalism). Indeed, he praised it for rescuing millions of people from “the idiocy of rural life”. Even so, he thought it was doomed. A shortage of DEMAND (http://www.economist.com/RESEARCH/ECONOMICS/alphabetic.cfm?term=demand#demand) would concentrate economic power and wealth in ever fewer hands, producing an ever-larger and more miserable proletariat. This would eventually rise up, creating a “dictatorship of the proletariat” and leading eventually to a “withering away” of the state. Marx thought that this version of history was inevitable. So far, history has proved him wrong, largely because capitalism has delivered a much better deal to the masses than he believed it would. 1 (http://www.economist.com/RESEARCH/ECONOMICS/alphabetic.cfm?term=moneysupply#marxkarl)


The aggregate demand curve is due a hiding.

The bottom line is inflation and deflation are and always have been purely monetary in nature. Supply and demand can drive prices all over the place, but it is only a changing money supply that can truly spawn inflation or deflation. And the money-supply data is crystal clear. The Fed is growing the fiat-dollar supply by frightening rates, all the way from double-digit broad-money growth down to a scary doubling of the monetary base! 2 (http://news.goldseek.com/Zealllc/1232730612.php)

Bourgeois economists believe that there is a switch that can regulate or control the money supply. History tells us it is not that easy.
Shortage of DEMAND is on its way to being an institutionalised part of Late Late capitalism/imperialism

"Late Late" being my new catchphrase. :blushing: :ohmy:

[peaccenicked]

Maybe this should be in economics, oops.

[Diagoras]

I'm already getting pumped to protest the Late Late Late stage of capitalism, whenever it gets here. Just biding my time with these bumper stickers.

[bailey_187]

MARX, KARL
Much followed, and much misunderstood, German economist (1818–83). His two best-known works were the Communist Manifesto, written in 1848 with Friedrich Engels, and Das Kapital, in four volumes published between 1867 and 1910. Most of his economic assumptions were drawn from orthodox (http://www.economist.com/RESEARCH/ECONOMICS/alphabetic.cfm?term=moneysupply#marxkarl)CLASSICAL ECONOMICS, (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.economist.com/RESEARCH/ECONOMICS/alphabetic.cfm?term=classicaleconomics#classicalec onomics) but he used them to reach highly unorthodox conclusions. Although claimed and blamed as the inspiration of some of the most virulently anti-market governments the world has ever seen, he was not wholly against CAPITALISM (http://www.economist.com/RESEARCH/ECONOMICS/alphabetic.cfm?term=capitalism#capitalism). Indeed, he praised it for rescuing millions of people from “the idiocy of rural life”. Even so, he thought it was doomed. A shortage of DEMAND (http://www.economist.com/RESEARCH/ECONOMICS/alphabetic.cfm?term=demand#demand) would concentrate economic power and wealth in ever fewer hands, producing an ever-larger and more miserable proletariat. This would eventually rise up, creating a “dictatorship of the proletariat” and leading eventually to a “withering away” of the state. Marx thought that this version of history was inevitable. So far, history has proved him wrong, largely because capitalism has delivered a much better deal to the masses than he believed it would..

History has not proved him wrong. Marx meant the masses would become worse of in relation to the capitalists - which, for the most part is correct

Also, this article try to make out Marx as someone who just believed capitalism was bound to collapse, not that he was against it and actually participated in trying to replace it


EDIT - Ignore the underlined bits, they wont go away - I am responding to the bits in red:confused:

[AnarchyIsOrder]

History has not proved him wrong. Marx meant the masses would become worse of in relation to the capitalists - which, for the most part is correct
"The various interests and conditions of life within the ranks of the proletariat are more and more equalized, in proportion as machinery obliterates all distinctions of labour, and nearly everywhere reduces wages to the same low level. The growing competition among the bourgeois, and the resulting commercial crises, make the wages of the workers ever more fluctuating. The unceasing improvement of machinery, ever more rapidly developing, makes their livelihood more and more precarious..." (Communist Manifesto)

"The modern labourer, on the contrary, instead of rising with the progress of industry, sinks deeper and deeper below the conditions of existence of his own class. He becomes a pauper, and pauperism develops even more rapidly than population and wealth." (Communist Manifesto)

"Let us sum up: The more productive capital grows, the more the division of labour and the application of machinery expands. The more the division of labour and the application of machinery expands, the more competition among the workers expands and the more their wages contract." (Wage-labour and Capital)

I'm not sure if he was referring to relative wages in the third one, though I'm not sure that that would be completely correct either, but the first two seem to indicate that he was referring to absolute impoverishment.