What Marx got right

[RGacky3]

Predictions Marx got correct.

Finance Capital: It was predicted that later on in the development in Capitalism, in the latter stages, finance capital would dominate over industrial and merchant capital, due to many different factors, one being the rate of profit to fall in the productive sector, also the reliance of other capitalists on financial capital, and so on.

Centralization: Marx predicted that more and more wealth would fall into fewer hands, and wealth distribution would become more and more wide.

Monopolization: Marx predicted that indsutries would become more and more monopolized or into ologarchies, and that smaller buisinesses would be slowly eaten up.

Underconsumption and Overproduction: As capital wins over labor (as it has in the lsat 30 or so years), you'd see a crisis in capital due to a lack of demand.

Tendancy for the Rate of profit to fall: Productive industry, as productivity goes up, would slowly see their rate of profit falling.

The evidence of this is not common knowledge but here we go
Figure 2: US, German and Japanese manufacturing net profits rates
http://www.isj.org.uk/images/115/115harpro2.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d5/Profits_Finance_vs_Manufacturing.jpg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Profits_Finance_vs_Manufacturing.jpg)

This actually confirms both Marx's prediction of the rise of finance capital and the tendancy for the rate of profits to fall in the industrial sector.

Capital would beat out Labor: Overtime labors share of the wealth would diminish while capitals share would go up, thats happening as wages flatline while profits go way way up.

Commodity fetishization: Almost everything becomes a commodity, the raise of the stock market, commoditization of ownership, futures markets, derivatives and even commoditization of home ownership by packagin mortgages into CDOs and so on. when Marx was around limited liability was barely starting, many classical economists were against it, thought it was a distortion of markets, Marx thought it would take capitalism to a whole new level, which it did.

The predictions Marx got wrong had mostly to do with revolution and socialism, almost ALL of his predictions on Capitalism happened exactly the way he said.

[Robert]

Well, the inevitability and desirability of revolution, and what should follow, are what we're arguing about. Marx can take a bow for his other no doubt prescient observations.


I think limited liability was barely starting.I don't have the slightest problem with limited liability. It means that the stockholders themselves don't face general liability for wrongs of the corporation. So you can't sue the schoolteachers in Topeka for the Exxon Valdez disaster simply because their pension fund owns shares of the company.

You can sue exxon, and recover, and collect on the judgment. You can also pierce the corporate veil (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piercing_the_corporate_veil) and recover from the shareholders if the corporation is merely an alter ego of the fat cats.

[Dean]

Well, the inevitability and desirability of revolution, and what should follow, are what we're arguing about. Marx can take a bow for his other no doubt prescient observations.

No, that's what you're arguing about. Just because you've come here to spout hysteria against the prospects of revolution doesn't mean that that is the only reason other people post here. Indeed, the OP seems to agree on that point:


The predictions Marx got wrong had mostly to do with revolution and socialism, almost ALL of his predictions on Capitalism happened exactly the way he said.

So it doesn't look like you're arguing at all - just trying to reframe the discussion.

[Robert]

I'm not the first to criticize Marxism on the grounds of oversimplification of society and the primacy of material conditions in societal change, though for some reason the articles I'm familiar with don't note what I call the permeability of classes, in the USA at least. The more I read of our British foreros, the more I think class distinctions are more entrenched in Europe than they are over here.

I guess I have as much right to elaborate this theory in a monograph as anybody else, but nobody but you guys would read it, and then you'd just trash it as reactionary.:laugh:

Anyway, Marx's critics do not all reside inside the boardrooms of Exxon, Citigroup and AT&T, as you may already know.

http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/theory/marxism.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticisms_of_Marxism

[RGacky3]

Well, the inevitability and desirability of revolution, and what should follow, are what we're arguing about. Marx can take a bow for his other no doubt prescient observations.


Thats not what I'm arguing about, Marx barely wrote anything about socialist or communism or revolution, Marxism is about analysis of Capitalism.


I don't have the slightest problem with limited liability. It means that the stockholders themselves don't face general liability for wrongs of the corporation. So you can't sue the schoolteachers in Topeka for the Exxon Valdez disaster simply because their pension fund owns shares of the company.

You can sue exxon, and recover, and collect on the judgment. You can also pierce the corporate veil (http://www.anonym.to/?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piercing_the_corporate_veil) and recover from the shareholders if the corporation is merely an alter ego of the fat cats.

Sure, but limited liability causes all sorts of contradictions in capital that we see today, many of which were predicted by Marx, like the drive for short term profits above all, and things like agency problems (As far as I know not from Marx). But either way, its part of commodity fetishization that marx got right.

(BTW, limited liability, which is the basis for encorporation, is the biggest big daddy government privilege program there is out there.)

[RGacky3]

I'm not the first to criticize Marxism on the grounds of oversimplification of society and the primacy of material conditions in societal change, though for some reason the articles I'm familiar with don't note what I call the permeability of classes, in the USA at least. The more I read of our British foreros, the more I think class distinctions are more entrenched in Europe than they are over here.


In Europe class culture is more entrenched, but hte class system in the US is actually more economically severe than in europe, and economically is what counts.


I guess I have as much right to elaborate this theory in a monograph as anybody else, but nobody but you guys would read it, and then you'd just trash it as reactionary.http://www.revleft.com/vb/marx-got-right-t163740/revleft/smilies2/lol.gif


If you have a critique of Marx's analysis of capitalism, or the predictions he put forward go right ahead.

[Robert]

One of the reasons I come here is because I know the deficiencies of capitalism ... no, change that to "shortcomings". This goes way back before revleft. (How would I even have found it otherwise?)

And speaking of shortcomings, I am not in Marx's league and wouldn't presume to criticize his economic analysis. Or that of his critics like John Kenneth Galbraith. I don't have the horsepower or the knowledge and, no offense, neither does anyone on this board that I have encountered.

If your worldview consists of increasing worker participation in industry decisions, I have no problem with that at all, so long as the majority supports it. Cramming it down society's throat for its own good, yeah, I got a problem with that. Surprised if you don't.

We're about to have a referendum in Greece. I'm open to one here, on any subject, but we both gotta live with the results.

[Dean]

I'm not the first to criticize Marxism on the grounds of oversimplification of society and the primacy of material conditions in societal change, though for some reason the articles I'm familiar with don't note what I call the permeability of classes, in the USA at least. The more I read of our British foreros, the more I think class distinctions are more entrenched in Europe than they are over here.

If you're referring to social mobility, it is lower in the US than most European nations (if not all).


Anyway, Marx's critics do not all reside inside the boardrooms of Exxon, Citigroup and AT&T, as you may already know.

http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/theory/marxism.html
That's more in keeping with your rejection of materialism. He seems to think that ideas define societal relations, rather than the power structures humans exist within. His attempts to depart from the Marxist critique of various things, particularly the state and democracy, is typically reductionist - for instance, he talks of the "collective need for defence against nomads" while other anthropologists have noted that the nomads attacked these enshrined states specifically because the nomads owed debts to them.


Non-market planning, as the method to reach the key goal of Marxist politics, which is an end to economic exploitation, has proven to be unworkable in complex economies in large countries.

And markets proved to be incredibly destructive to national economies during feudal times, specifically as a consequence of gold/silver (money) hoarding by different actors over time.

Worker collectives have largely shown themselves to be effective at maintaining stable work environments with high quality production, as well as maintaining high consumer demand (via return of the profits to the workers to spend). The relevance of money in such economies should dissolve as most needs cease to be met with scarce goods, and the market can almost certainly be done away with - just like Feudalism was left in the dustbin.

The most coherent criticisms of Marxism are consistently filled with this tunnel vision. It only makes sense if you have a very static view of how the world works.

[Skooma Addict]

The relevance of money in such economies should dissolve as most needs cease to be met with scarce goods, and the market can almost certainly be done away with - just like Feudalism was left in the dustbin.

The only way to get rid of markets is through force, and even then it may not be possible. Markets even existed in POW camps. They existed in every country which attempted socialism/anarchism ever. It most likely is not possible to eliminate markets completely.

Also, how would the economy function without money? How will consumers get products in this scenario?

[RGacky3]

The only way to get rid of markets is through force

It depends what you mean by markets, I agree markets are generally around in some form or another, but for most of history it has'nt been the dominant economic institution, infact markets as the dominant institution only came about when the nation state started enforcing strict property laws along with the capitalist mode of production.

Also many socialists are not against commodity markets, the main arguments are against capital markets, and private ownership of the means of production and labor markets.

[Skooma Addict]

It depends what you mean by markets, I agree markets are generally around in some form or another, but for most of history it has'nt been the dominant economic institution, infact markets as the dominant institution only came about when the nation state started enforcing strict property laws along with the capitalist mode of production.

Also many socialists are not against commodity markets, the main arguments are against capital markets, and private ownership of the means of production and labor markets.

The less of the role the state played in the economy, the larger the role of markets.

The same principles apply for all markets. It doesn't make much sense to be for one and not the other unless you believe something to be a public good or whatever.

[graffic]

Thats not what I'm arguing about, Marx barely wrote anything about socialist or communism or revolution, Marxism is about analysis of Capitalism.

You know nothing about Marxism




Sure, but limited liability causes all sorts of contradictions in capital that we see today, many of which were predicted by Marx, like the drive for short term profits above all, and things like agency problems (As far as I know not from Marx). But either way, its part of commodity fetishization that marx got right.


All history shows that after a revolution you only need one personality like Stalin and it becomes a big problem.

[graffic]

In Europe class culture is more entrenched, but hte class system in the US is actually more economically severe than in europe, and economically is what counts.

Maybe there is more snobbery in European culture, or its more obvious, or whatever. But in reality I think the class system is even worse in the US

[Bud Struggle]

You know nothing about Marxism
:) Gack, you are a great American.



All history shows that after a revolution you only need one personality like Stalin and it becomes a big problem.

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y43/MercutioTomK/th_2112914163_764b6754aa_m-1.jpg

[Judicator]

Clearly then Christianity is true too....

PROPHECIES FULFILLED BY JESUS CHRIST



The Old Testament, written over a 1,000 year period, contains over 300 references to the coming Messiah. All of these were fulfilled in Jesus Christ, and they established a solid confirmation of His credentials as the Messiah; the Anointed One (King; Priest; Saint); Intercessor (to release or deliver; help; meet; seek; accompany).



Many of the prophecies concerning the messiah were totally beyond human control:

Birth: Place, time, manner of.

Death: Peoples reactions, piercing of side, burial

Resurrection: Where did His body go?

By using the modern science of probability in reference to just eight of these prophecies --- the chance that any man might have lived to fulfill all eight prophecies is one in one hundred trillion!



To illustrate this: If we take 100 trillion silver dollars and lay them on the face of Texas, they would be two feet deep. Now we mark one of these silver dollars and stir the whole mass thoroughly --- all over the state. Now blindfold a man and let him travel as far as he wishes, but he must pick only one silver dollar. What chance would he have of picking the right one? The same chance that the prophets would have of writing just eight of these prophecies and having them all come true for any one man --- if they had written them without God's inspiration!



The chance of any one man fulfilling all of 48 prophecies is one in 10 to the 157 power. The electron is about as small an object as we can imagine. if we had a cubic inch of these electrons and tried to count them, it would take us (at 250 per minute) 19,000 time 19,000 time 19,000 years to count them. Now mark one of them, and thoroughly stir it into the whole mass. What chance does our blindfolded man have of finding the right electron? --- The same chance as one man of fulfilling 48 of the prophecies about Christ, without being the Son of God!



Jesus Christ fulfilled every prophecy written about the coming Messiah --- over three hundred of them! Would that have been possible had He not been the Son of God?



Here is a short listing of some of the hundreds of prophecies concerning Christ:



Linage Genesis 3:15; 9:26: 22:18; 26:4; 28:14; 49:10; 2 & Samual 7:12-16

Son of God Psalm 2:6-7

Virgin birth Isaiah 7:14

Birthplace Micah 5:2

Piercing of side Zechariah 12:10

Darkness Psalm 22:2

Vinegar Psalm 69:21

Mocking Psalm 22:6-8

Nakedness Psalm 22:17

Gambling for clothes Psalm 22:18

Unbroken bones Psalm 34:20

Burial Isaiah 53:9

Resurrection Psalm 16:10; Hosea 6:2; Psalm 30:3,9; Isaiah 53:10

Assention to right hand of God Psalm 110:1; 68:18; Proverbs 30:4; 24:3-10

HHHhhhh

OTHER HISTORICAL PROPHESIES



In addition to the hundreds of Biblical prophecies that have been fulfilled in the past, there are a special class of predictions that focus on the events of what the Scriptures call "the last days", "the latter times", or other similar expressions. These prophecies also provide further evidence of Biblical inspiration, since many of them are being fulfilled right before our eyes! As more and more of these ancient predictions are seen coming to pass, the evidence for the Divine origin of the Bible is made stronger all the time.



THE RE-ESTABLISHMENT OF ISRAEL



The most important of these end-time prophecies, the re-establishment of Israel as a nation in it's ancient homeland. That a nation could be completely destroyed as an organized entity by an invading army (by the Romans in 70 AD), it’s people either slaughtered or scattered from one end of the world to the other, it’s lands occupied and ruled by aliens for over 1900 years. Yet Israel survived as a distinct nationality, and then finally regained its homeland and became recognized as a viable nation once more by the other nations of the world. (1/191)



Seems impossible? Even so, it was predicted to happen many centuries before it happened. Jesus Himself predicted the fall of Jerusalem in Luke 19:43-44, "The days will come upon you when your enemies will build an embankment against you and encircle you in on every side. They will dash you to the ground, you and the children within your walls. They will not leave one stone on another, because you did not recognize the time of God’s coming to you." Deuteronomy 28:64 prophesies "Then the Lord will scatter you among the nations from one end of the earth to the other." Jesus again predicts in Luke 21:24, "They will fall by the sword and will be taken prisoners to all the nations. Jerusalem will be trampled on by the Gentiles, until the time of the Gentiles is fulfilled.".



The Jews began to return to Palestine in small numbers in the early part of the twentieth century, and then in much larger numbers after World War I. After World War II the Israeli nation was re-established in part in 1948, and in 1967 in the "six-day war" Israel recaptured the "old city" of Jerusalem. Amazingly, Jerusalem is now completely under Jewish control, except for one spot. This is on Mount Moriah where the Arabs have built their famous Dome-of-the-Rock, the second most holy place in the Muslim world. The Jews for political or other reasons have not yet dared to expel the Arabs from this site, raze it, and proceed to rebuild their temple, as they must want to do. (1/192-193) "Last Days Prophecy" is being fulfilled right before our eyes!



TYRE



In the 26th chapter of Ezekiel (592-570 BC) seven things are predicted to happen to the city of Tyre:



1) Nebuchadnezzar will destroy the mainland of Tyre (Ezekiel 26:8).

2) Many nations against Tyre (Ezekiel 26:3).

3) Make her a bare rock; flat like the top of a rock (Ezekiel 26:4).

4) Fishermen will spread their nets over the site (Ezekiel 26:5).

5) Throw the debris into the water (Ezekiel 26:12).

6) Never be rebuilt (Ezekiel 26:14).

7) Never be found again (Ezekiel 26:21) (2/285)



Nebuchadnezzar laid siege to mainland Tyre three years after the prophecy and after a 13 year siege (585-573 BC) Tyre made terms and acknowledged Babylonian authority over them (4 xxii.452) When Nebuchadnezzar broke the gates down, he found the city almost empty. The majority of the people had moved by ship to an island about 1/2 miles off the coast and fortified a city there. The mainland city was destroyed in 573 BC, as predicted. The city of Tyre on the island remained a powerful city for several hundred years. (2/286)



Alexander the Great, in his war on Persia, marching southward called on each city to open their gates to him, as part of his plan to deny the use to the Persian fleet. Tyre refused to do so, and Alexander laid siege to the city. Possessing no fleet, he demolished old Tyre, on the mainland, and with the debris built a causeway 200 feet wide across the straits separating the old and new towns, erecting towers and war engines at the farther end. (4/xxii. 452) Tyre continually raided the causeway with fire-ships greatly retarding progress, until Alexander pressured conquered subjects to make ships for his operation. After attaining a superior naval force, Alexander finished the causeway, battered the walls of Tyre down killed eight thousand of the inhabitants and sold thirty thousand into slavery. (5/153)



A history book by a secular historian reads, "Alexander the Great ... reduced Tyre to ruins... The larger part of the site of the once great city is now bare as the top of a rock --- a place where fishermen now spread their nets to dry." (5/55)



Another historian, John C. Beck, says, "The history of Tyre does not stop with after the conquest of Alexander. Men continue to rebuild her and armies continue to besiege her walls, until finally after sixteen hundred years, she falls never to be rebuilt again." (6/41)



All the prophecies of Ezekiel about Tyre have come true: Nebuchadnezzar destroyed the mainland city of Tyre; Many nations were against Tyre; Alexander made her a bare rock and threw debris into the water to make the causeway; fishermen now spread nets over the site; (there is a city of Tyre today, but it is located down the coast from the original Tyre) the old city of Tyre has never been rebuilt, even though a great freshwater spring are located at the site, providing 10,000,000 gallons daily. It is still an excellent site today but has never been rebuilt, although many have tried. All seven of the predictions came true in the minutest detail.



Some others examples of fulfilled Bible prophecy about history:



Sidon (Ezekiel 28:22-23);

Samaria (Hosea 13:16 & Micah 1:6);

Gaza-Ashkelon (Amos 1:8; Jeremiah 47:5; Zephaniah 2:4);

Moab-Ammon (Ezekiel 25:3-4; Jeremiah 48:47 & 49:6);

Petra-Edom (Isaiah 34:6-15; Jeremaih 49:17-18; Ezekiel 25:13-14 & 35:57);

Thebes-Memphis (Ezekiel 30:13-15);

Nineveh (Nahum 1:8-10; 2:6; 3:10; 3:13; 3:19);

Babylon (Daniel 2,7; Isaiah 13:19-22; 14:23;

Jeremiah 51:26 & 43);

Chorazin-Bethsaida-Capernaum (Matthew 11:20-24 );

Jerusalem Enlargement (Jeremiah 31:38-40); and finally

Palestine (Leviticus 26:31-33 & Ezekiel 36:33-35), where the events are happening before our eyes!

[RedZezz]

Thats not what I'm arguing about, Marx barely wrote anything about socialist or communism or revolution, Marxism is about analysis of Capitalism.


Taking only the analysis of capitalism from Marx is called Marxian economics. Marxism is a political ideology which encompasses Scientific Socialism, Materialistic philosophy, dialectics, and an assortment of other things.



All history shows that after a revolution you only need one personality like Stalin and it becomes a big problem.


That is a crude and innaccurate understanding of history. If supposes that Stalin alone and his dumbfounding personality brought down the revolution. In truth, the foundations of Stalinism fostered before Stalin. It arrived from many policies (some mistakes, some out of necessity) the Bolsheviks implimented during the Civil War and after. It also fostered from what was happening around Russia, such as the defeat of the revolutions in Germany.

[Revolution starts with U]

Does it surprise you that a capitalist would assume one "Big Man" can single-handedly change society? :rolleyes:

[Robert]

That wasn't the point. The point was that despots have a tendency to emerge from commie revolutions.

George Washington refused to even seek a third term as President.

Fidel Castro reluctantly agreed to more than two.

[Robert]

you've come here to spout hysteria against the prospects of revolution

I'm hysterical? hoo, boy!:lol:

[RGacky3]

Taking only the analysis of capitalism from Marx is called Marxian economics. Marxism is a political ideology which encompasses Scientific Socialism, Materialistic philosophy, dialectics, and an assortment of other things.


Thats why I don't call myself a Marxist, but I do draw a lot from Marxian economics.


Clearly then Christianity is true too....

PROPHECIES FULFILLED BY JESUS CHRIST


Well, I do believe christianity is true ....

But unlike christianity Marxian economics does'nt require divine intervention, just an understanding of capitalism.

But I take it you can't discuss the actual points of Marxian economics ....


George Washington refused to even seek a third term as President.

Fidel Castro reluctantly agreed to more than two. ¨

You basically juts admitied that it juts comes down to personality and has nothing to do with whether or not its a socialist or a liberal revolution.

[La Comédie Noire]

Is that from a constant rate of investment though? Or is the profit falling because the capital is being removed from the industrialized nations and being invested in the underdeveloped nations? Which could also be a movement away from capitalized markets to more labour oriented markets too, but I'm a little confused as to what exactly the charts are showing.

[RGacky3]

Is that from a constant rate of investment though? Or is the profit falling because the capital is being removed from the industrialized nations and being invested in the underdeveloped nations? Which could also be a movement away from capitalized markets to more labour oriented markets too, but I'm a little confused as to what exactly the charts are showing.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/rate-profit-fall-t160824/index.html

I wrote a little guide to the tendancy rate of profit to fall for dummies here. (http://www.revleft.com/vb/rate-profit-fall-t160824/index.html)

It has to do with the nature of industrial capital, and how its dependant on the capital/labor ratio and extracting value from the value labor creates and the compedative nature of the market.

Basically the higher the Capital/labor ratio is, the more productive you are and you have a surplus of production causing prices to fall (assuming a competitive market), which causes cost cutting which takes the form of labor cost cutting, which causes the value extraction to be less (since the excess value comes from the labor).

I go over it more in my little guide and explain it better, take a look at it.

[La Comédie Noire]

http://www.revleft.com/vb/rate-profit-fall-t160824/index.html

I wrote a little guide to the tendancy rate of profit to fall for dummies here. (http://www.revleft.com/vb/rate-profit-fall-t160824/index.html)

It has to do with the nature of industrial capital, and how its dependant on the capital/labor ratio and extracting value from the value labor creates and the compedative nature of the market.

Basically the higher the Capital/labor ratio is, the more productive you are and you have a surplus of production causing prices to fall (assuming a competitive market), which causes cost cutting which takes the form of labor cost cutting, which causes the value extraction to be less (since the excess value comes from the labor).

I go over it more in my little guide and explain it better, take a look at it.

I understand the theory of the falling rate of profit just fine. What I am asking is does profit look like it is falling because investors are moving their investments or is the rate of profit actually falling because the value creating substance, labor, is being pushed out by machines?

My question is really more about the nature of the data.

[RGacky3]

What I am asking is does profit look like it is falling because investors are moving their investments or is the rate of profit actually falling because the value creating substance, labor, is being pushed out by machines?

My question is really more about the nature of the data.

The revenue to cost ratio is falling, so the rate of profit falls, investment then shifts as a result generally.

The data is actual profitability (revenue to cost).

[graffic]

That is a crude and innaccurate understanding of history. If supposes that Stalin alone and his dumbfounding personality brought down the revolution. In truth, the foundations of Stalinism fostered before Stalin. It arrived from many policies (some mistakes, some out of necessity) the Bolsheviks implimented during the Civil War and after. It also fostered from what was happening around Russia, such as the defeat of the revolutions in Germany.

For all Marxism's claims to scientific certainty, revolutions are very risky. The future doesn't exist, you can only speculate what could happen. In my opinion, because of Russia's economic conditions and the fact that Germany and other parts of the world didn't follow, Stalinism was inevitable to an extent.

[RGacky3]

For all Marxism's claims to scientific certainty

It does'nt claim scientific certainty, it claims to approach things from a scientific standpoint.


The future doesn't exist, you can only speculate what could happen. In my opinion, because of Russia's economic conditions and the fact that Germany and other parts of the world didn't follow, Stalinism was inevitable to an extent.

Of coarse you can only speculate, but if you have an understanding how capitalism works you can make basic predictions based on the mechanics of the system.