Respond to David Smith, a capitalist apologist.

[Deicide]

David Smith the economics editor for the sunday times. I typed this out by the way ;)


Marx was one of the most influential thinkers of the modern era, but history has not been kind to his economics. The rise of the middle classes in western capitalist societies defied his prediction of workers kept permanently in conditions of near poverty. Capitalism has been kinder to the masses than Communism. There were crisis of capitalism, most notably the great depression. But Marx’s central prediction, of capitalist crisis brought on by falling profits, did not stand the test of time. The domino-like fall of communism in Eastern Europe at the end of the 1980s, most dramatically with the collapse of the Berlin Wall, and its present minority status, pursued by only a few oddball countries, appears to signal that little more than a century after his death, Marx’s star has waned, possibly never to resurge.

The record of economies run along Marxist lines, ostensibly for the benefit of the workers, was abysmal. Before the unification of West and East Germany in 1990, there was widespread impression that the economy in the east, the old GDR, was quite strong. Only when it was opened up to full view were its weaknesses revealed. Marx’s economics has not lasted. Keynes set the tone in the 1930s by describing Capital as ‘scientifically erroneous’’ and ‘’without interest or application in the modern world’’. Marxist thought, he said, was based on the misunderstanding of the Ricardian theory of value. The classical economists were seriously challenged by Marx’s critique and, in its time, his work provided an intellectual underpinning to the revolutionaries threatening the capitalism of the industrial age. The capitalists of the period and their intellectual supporters would have given short shrift to suggest that Marx did not represent a threat.

That is partly why his predictions were wrong. Even if you were to accept an analysis that suggested workers would tend to remain permanently downtrodden, this did not leave revolution as the only solution. Worker power could be and was exerted through other ways, not least through democratic socialist parties. A Marxist analysis would say that capitalism adapted, steering a course that accepted, under pressure, a more equitable distribution of income. Adam Smith would have said that this was always going to be. Defenders of Marx, responding to the fact that workers had indeed made economics progress, enjoying rising living standards rather than stagnating on the breadline, used to point to the exploitation by industrial countries of their colonies. In other words, western workers had prospered only because of the downtrodden elsewhere. There is a flavour of that in the present debate over globalization. When the richest 200 people in the world have the combined income of the poorest 41 per cent of the global population, or nearly half of the people of the world live on less than 2$ per day, the existence of inequality is not in doubt. What is harder, however, is to argue that this emerges from Marx’s scheme of things. Inequality arises as much from the inability of many people to participate in the capitalist process. The links between global inequality and Marx’s economics are at best tenuous; at worst do not exist at all.

[Tim Cornelis]

David Smith the economics editor for the sunday times. I typed this out by the way ;)

appears to signal that little more than a century after his death, Marx’s star has waned, possibly never to resurge.

'Karl Marx' from Howard Zinn's play Marx in Soho:

"Don't you wonder: why is it necessary to declare me dead again and again?"

As for the rest, I couldn't find a single argument. Merely declarative statements and misrepresentations (e.g. "communist Eastern Europe", "record of economies run along Marxist lines"). This clearly shows that whoever wrote this does not even have a superficial understanding of capitalism.

[Mather]

Marx was one of the most influential thinkers of the modern era, but history has not been kind to his economics.


And history, especially with recent events, is hardly being kind to the type of economics David Smith advocates.



The rise of the middle classes in western capitalist societies defied his prediction of workers kept permanently in conditions of near poverty.


The very same middle classes who now face the prospect of being proletarianised. In the USA, middle class families struggle with private health care bills and mortgage payments. In places like Spain and Greece, the situation for the middle classes is much worse.

Thats before we even get to the situation that the working class now finds itself in due to this global economic crisis.



Capitalism has been kinder to the masses than Communism.


Empty ideological rhetoric totally devoid of facts.

I'm no leninist and have my own criticisms of the USSR and statist 'socialism'/state capitalism; but it cannot be denied that living standards, distribution of wealth and access to education/housing/healthcare/employment were all better than in most of the capitalist world. Especially when we include the Third World, though I have noticed that David Smith leaves out the Third World and focuses on the First, I wonder why that is.:rolleyes:

And the above point is only relevant with regards to state capitalism, as a communist society (no classes, no money, no state) has yet to come into existence.



There were crisis of capitalism, most notably the great depression.


I love how David Smith talks of capitalist crisis in the past tense, as if the current global economic crisis were a figment of our imaginations. There is even the possibility that this global economic crisis will be a lot worse and last a lot longer than the Great Depression.



But Marx’s central prediction, of capitalist crisis brought on by falling profits, did not stand the test of time.


The facts say otherwise.

Capitalists have managed to increase their own profits via numerous means. The super exploitation of the Third World, where most of the heavy industry and manufacturing takes place. Of course the day to day effects of Third World poverty and exploitation are not apparent in the First World and people like David Smith rely on this dichotomy to tell their First World readership that all is good with the capitalist system. In the First World we have seen the dismantling of the welfare state and the selling off of public services to the private sector, as the scope for new markets for capitalists to exploit grows ever smaller. Another factor is the massive expansion of credit (debt). In seeking new markets and in the process gutting the welfare states of most of the First World countries, the global capitalist class has made it impossible for the working class and even sections of the middle class to continue their living standards without resorting to credit. Many working class people have to rely on bank loans and credit cards to pay for the basics such as food/healthcare/bills/rent/mortgage.



The domino-like fall of communism in Eastern Europe at the end of the 1980s, most dramatically with the collapse of the Berlin Wall, and its present minority status, pursued by only a few oddball countries, appears to signal that little more than a century after his death, Marx’s star has waned, possibly never to resurge.


Generic 'end of history' rant.

Francis Fukuyama himself has admitted that history has not ended. That David Smith repeats this is no surprise given the rest of his piss poor article.



The record of economies run along Marxist lines, ostensibly for the benefit of the workers, was abysmal.


Again David Smith confuses state capitalism with Marxism and communism, however I suspect this confusion is deliberate.

Those economies were run on statist lines and the working class did not rule in any of those societies, therefore none were genuinely socialist let alone communist.

As for "economies run along Marxist lines", David Smith would do well to know that Marxism is not some blueprint for a post-capitalist economy, but a method of scientific analysis and the rational study of class relations under the material conditions of capitalism.



That is partly why his predictions were wrong.


Based on a strawman arguement by Keynes.:rolleyes:



Even if you were to accept an analysis that suggested workers would tend to remain permanently downtrodden, this did not leave revolution as the only solution. Worker power could be and was exerted through other ways, not least through democratic socialist parties.


Quelle surprise, a bourgeois mouthpiece advocating reformism over revolution.



What is harder, however, is to argue that this emerges from Marx’s scheme of things.


Why?

David Smith offers no explanation nor any evidence to back this up.



Inequality arises as much from the inability of many people to participate in the capitalist process.


How?

Again, no explanation nor any evidence.



The links between global inequality and Marx’s economics are at best tenuous; at worst do not exist at all.


Another one of David Smith's stupid mind numbing opinions. Again without any facts to back him up and wholly lacking in any proper counter arguement to any of the points raised by Marx.

Everyone must realise that most economic editors/journalists and economists are nothing more than intellectual frauds. Their main job is not to scientifically study economics in an impartial manner as they would have you believe, but to act as ideologists for the ruling class. Which is why so many economists in the late capitalist era are dogmatic free-market types who push a variant of capitalism now known as neo-liberalism.

[Revolution starts with U]

Marx was one of the most influential thinkers of the modern era, but history has not been kind to his economics. The rise of the middle classes in western capitalist societies defied his prediction of workers kept permanently in conditions of near poverty.
Did Marx even predict this? He did say, as far as I can think of, that inequality would rise. Nobody can deny this has been the case. I also seem to remember him also saying that Capitalism was a progressive force.

[Ocean Seal]

Marx was one of the most influential thinkers of the modern era, but history has not been kind to his economics. The rise of the middle classes in western capitalist societies defied his prediction of workers kept permanently in conditions of near poverty.
AFAIK Marx never postulated this, he postulated that wages would eventually go down because capitalist production would not be able to extract surplus values at their current levels.



Capitalism has been kinder to the masses than Communism. There were crisis of capitalism, most notably the great depression.
I don't think this guy understands what crises of capitalism are, but yes the Great Depression created an artificial capitalism which only exists on government life support.


But Marx’s central prediction, of capitalist crisis brought on by falling profits, did not stand the test of time.
And for his evidence?

The Metternich defense.

The domino-like fall of communism in Eastern Europe at the end of the 1980s, most dramatically with the collapse of the Berlin Wall, and its present minority status, pursued by only a few oddball countries, appears to signal that little more than a century after his death, Marx’s star has waned, possibly never to resurge.
Recall that Smith also died with Napoleon, and yet here we are.



The record of economies run along Marxist lines, ostensibly for the benefit of the workers, was abysmal. Before the unification of West and East Germany in 1990, there was widespread impression that the economy in the east, the old GDR, was quite strong. Only when it was opened up to full view were its weaknesses revealed. Marx’s economics has not lasted. Keynes set the tone in the 1930s by describing Capital as ‘scientifically erroneous’’ and ‘’without interest or application in the modern world’’. Marxist thought, he said, was based on the misunderstanding of the Ricardian theory of value. The classical economists were seriously challenged by Marx’s critique and, in its time, his work provided an intellectual underpinning to the revolutionaries threatening the capitalism of the industrial age. The capitalists of the period and their intellectual supporters would have given short shrift to suggest that Marx did not represent a threat.
There doesn't seem to be an argument here.


That is partly why his predictions were wrong. Even if you were to accept an analysis that suggested workers would tend to remain permanently downtrodden, this did not leave revolution as the only solution. Worker power could be and was exerted through other ways, not least through democratic socialist parties. A Marxist analysis would say that capitalism adapted, steering a course that accepted, under pressure, a more equitable distribution of income. Adam Smith would have said that this was always going to be.
At this point I'm sure he doesn't understand Marx.


Defenders of Marx, responding to the fact that workers had indeed made economics progress, enjoying rising living standards rather than stagnating on the breadline, used to point to the exploitation by industrial countries of their colonies.
In other words, western workers had prospered only because of the downtrodden elsewhere. There is a flavour of that in the present debate over globalization. When the richest 200 people in the world have the combined income of the poorest 41 per cent of the global population, or nearly half of the people of the world live on less than 2$ per day, the existence of inequality is not in doubt. What is harder, however, is to argue that this emerges from Marx’s scheme of things. Inequality arises as much from the inability of many people to participate in the capitalist process. The links between global inequality and Marx’s economics are at best tenuous; at worst do not exist at all.
Idealist bullshit.
So you are telling me that poverty arises because people can't participate in capitalism?
How does one not participate in capitalism? In that case you might as well rename the world market something else.

Perhaps workers are poor because they can't participate in capitalism. Maybe if everyone owned the means of production they would all be rich property owners. Maybe then we could all invest capital and have thriving businesses. Oh wait you need workers to run the means of production, just like the first world needs the markets and commodities of the third world. Basically the last part of this analysis is that it is not capitalism that creates the poor, but it is the fact that they are not rich which makes them poor.

[Rafiq]

Marx didn't ever say the living standards of the proletarian class would not improve. He did say that eventually, they would start to get gradually worse and worse (Which they are).

All of the "living standards" achieved since the 1980's were only done so at the price of mass debt. It's what happens when the wages of the proletariat are slashed so fucking low.

[Rafiq]

Anyway, the point of these third world Socialist countries, despite the USSR and the GDR, was not to create living standards or luxury for it's masses comparable to the Imperialist countries.

The point was to:

1. Defend the country from Imperialism

2. Provide adaquet housing and medication to it's populace

3. Feed the populace (obviously)

4. Provide a reasonable educational system to the masses.

They acted as a strong hold until a proletarian revolution would spread internationally and they could finally break the constrains of paranoia and siege (Supposedly).

Of course, their are many flaws in this analysis. Namely that majority of these countries did indeed rely on support from Imperialist powers (The Soviet Union, China). But none the less, to talk of how weak the Eastern Block economies were, of what shit holes Socialist countries were, and so on, is nothing short of obvious. The debate lies as to why that was the case. Certainly this intellecutal clown wouldn't suggest that the very failure of these states signification that "Marx waz wrong" without actually analyzing the material conditions which led to the downfall of them. That's simple idealism , and to analyse the states in such an abstract way sais a lot about how much you're to be taken seriously.