Excerpt from my textbook

[Labor Shall Rule]

Critique this

Marx's ideas were vulnerable to attack.
In his theories about changes in history, Marx succeeded in making many people aware of the importance of economic forces. Until then history had been written with the emphasis largely on military and political developments. Furthermore, the late 19th and early 20th centuries did witness a concentration of wealth, the growth of even larger industrial units, and varying periods of economic depression. Yet the events of history have shown that Marx was a poor prophet. In addition, his theories suffer from basic weaknesses in his logic.
In his own day, and longer afterwards, Marx's ideas have been widely attacked. Most historians believe that Marx's interpretation of historical forces is oversimplified. Events do not result only from economic causes nor are people shaped solely by them. Many factors must be accounted for-patriotism, religous zeal, and political loyalties are among the strong motives that move men to action. Class struggle as a theoryof historical change has serious shortcomings. Ordinarily, people do not think of themselves only in terms of economic class. Numerous examples in hisory show that of many classes fight together against a common enemy. The world wars of modern times have shown nationalism as a force stronger than class feelings. In addition, many reputable historians maintain that it was not the capitalistic system that caused the laboring class to exploited but the misuse of power and authority on the part of certain individual capitalists. Capitalism was young at the time of Marx, and evils of industrialism were obvious, but as time advanced, many of these evils diminished or were corrected.
Economists have demolished Marx's labor theory of value. The cost of making a product includes not only the labor required to make it but the contribution of the manufacturer, who must provide the raw materials and maintain the factory and its equipment and pay for its upkeep. Furthermore, the price of a product is affected by the general conditions in the market; for example, an oversupply of a paticular item can lead to a decrease in the selling price-sometimes even below the cost of the labor that went into it. Marx also exhibited a blind spot about labor. He did not recognize the importance of creative abilities and managerial talents. Physical labor is not the only ingredient creating values in a product. Many workers do not produce material goods at all but supply skills essential to the manufacture of a product.
History did not bear out Marx's prophecies. With the growth of trade unions, which began in the 19th century, workers were able to bargain effectively with their employers for higher wages and shorter working hours. The advance of political democracy and the spread of universal manhood suffrage meant that workers could elect their own government representatives abd that they, in turn, would strive for social reforms. In the final years of the 19th century, conditions for workers improved. Wages advanced, and workers could afford to buy the products made in the factories and mills. To be sure, some of the rich did become richer, but most of the poor did not become poorer. Instead, the general standard of living rose to heights never before attained in history.

[Gradualist Fool]

Hence, only a fool is a classical Marxist.

[Gradualist Fool]

Btw, Red Dali, your textbook doesn't by chance mention either Austrian economics or supply-side economics, does it? If so, cite something. I wouldn't be surprised if it says nothing, because both are pseudoscience.

But I'm sure it mentions Keynes, at least. There's definitely support for "socialistic," policies to be found in Keynes.

[boxinghefner]

The cost of making a product includes not only the labor required to make it but the contribution of the manufacturer, who must provide the raw materials and maintain the factory and its equipment and pay for its upkeep.

Marx has written about this already via the relationship between constant and variable capital; that's fairly basic Marxist economics!


patriotism, religous zeal, and political loyalties are among the strong motives that move men to action.

I like the idea portrayed in the quote that any of the above mentioned social phenomena are enacted in some sort of economic vacuum.



Where on earth are you buying your text-books?

[RebelDog]

Events do not result only from economic causes nor are people shaped solely by them. Many factors must be accounted for-patriotism, religous zeal, and political loyalties are among the strong motives that move men to action.

Why do republican, anti-nationalist communists come from the working class? Their economic situation has thus provided the material conditions for their ideas.
Why do kings believe they were put their by god, because the idea supports their position in society. If I was not born in a council house but a mansion in Belgravia, London, I would be less/more inclined to be marxist?


The world wars of modern times have shown nationalism as a force stronger than class feelings.

Marx said that the ruling class has hegemony of culture and ideas. When they need working class people to do their fighting the machinery used to enflict their ideas goes in to overdrive (ie media). Marx didn't think wars were a thing of the past. While we have a bourgeois we will have war. War can come and go, a developed widespread class consciousness among the working class need happen only once and means serious trouble for the ruling class.


Capitalism was young at the time of Marx, and evils of industrialism were obvious, but as time advanced, many of these evils diminished or were corrected.

I wonder what is happening here;
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6211250.stm


Economists have demolished Marx's labor theory of value. The cost of making a product includes not only the labor required to make it but the contribution of the manufacturer, who must provide the raw materials and maintain the factory and its equipment and pay for its upkeep.

You have read only the economists, not it would seem Marx. The working class provide the raw materials, maintain the machinery and produce the product. The capitalist uses some of the surplus value (stored labour) to upkeep the factory and buy new machinery. That is money he withheld from the workers. Your arguments were crude and ignorant when Marx was alive, they are no less so today.


an oversupply of a paticular item can lead to a decrease in the selling price-sometimes even below the cost of the labor that went into it.

Marx never mentioned the crisis of capitalism, overproduction?
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1894-c3/ch15.htm


History did not bear out Marx's prophecies. With the growth of trade unions, which began in the 19th century, workers were able to bargain effectively with their employers for higher wages and shorter working hours. The advance of political democracy and the spread of universal manhood suffrage meant that workers could elect their own government representatives abd that they, in turn, would strive for social reforms. In the final years of the 19th century, conditions for workers improved. Wages advanced, and workers could afford to buy the products made in the factories and mills. To be sure, some of the rich did become richer, but most of the poor did not become poorer. Instead, the general standard of living rose to heights never before attained in histor

All this was handed on a plate to the working class was it? Marx knew that everything the working class gets is won by the working class. He was over-enthusiastic about when revolution would come about, aren't we all? We cannot wait for the enevitable proletarian revolution, we must fight for it. Marxist theory has had the greatest effect of any person in history and that history has hardly begun. Critics always attack Marx on his predictions for revolution but it shows the weakness of their attacks if that is the main point. His economic and historical theories will remain relevant for as long as capitalism remains.

[colonelguppy]

it is correct, most if not all of predictions failed to come true. and i do agree that his class struggle theory is horribly oversimplified. that and the LTV is a joke...

basically, a very concise summaryof the problems with marx.

[colonelguppy]

Originally posted by The [email protected] 07, 2006 12:35 am
.

Why do republican, anti-nationalist communists come from the working class? Their economic situation has thus provided the material conditions for their ideas.
Why do kings believe they were put their by god, because the idea supports their position in society. If I was not born in a council house but a mansion in Belgravia, London, I would be less/more inclined to be marxist?

i don't know, why do conservative right wingers also come out of the working class while some of the richest philantrophists consider themselves communists or socialists? no one here is denying that class doesn't play any part, but to pretend like it is the only part is just that, pretending.


Marx said that the ruling class has hegemony of culture and ideas. When they need working class people to do their fighting the machinery used to enflict their ideas goes in to overdrive (ie media). Marx didn't think wars were a thing of the past. While we have a bourgeois we will have war. War can come and go, a developed widespread class consciousness among the working class need happen only once and means serious trouble for the ruling class.

even assuming that the media is some kind of bourgioeus propaganda machine (which is absurd), what makes you think that nationalism goes away with the bourgioeus? you can't just destroy national and cultural identity.


I wonder what is happening here;
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6211250.stm

1. this assumes that because the top 2 own the top 50%, that it was any better previously, or that problems involving poverty are worse than they were before.

2. it also assumes that industrialization has taken its full course, which for most of the world, it hasn't.


Marx never mentioned the crisis of capitalism, overproduction?
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1894-c3/ch15.htm

yeah. and it never happened, because production lowers with decreased incentive to produce. its called market equilibrium, marx didn't understand it.


All this was handed on a plate to the working class was it? Marx knew that everything the working class gets is won by the working class. He was over-enthusiastic about when revolution would come about, aren't we all? We cannot wait for the enevitable proletarian revolution, we must fight for it. Marxist theory has had the greatest effect of any person in history and that history has hardly begun. Critics always attack Marx on his predictions for revolution but it shows the weakness of their attacks if that is the main point. His economic and historical theories will remain relevant for as long as capitalism remains.

marx hasn't been relevant sense the fall of the USSR. there are no serious communist movements, anywhere. infact, its heading the opposite direction in many places.

[KC]

Most historians believe that Marx's interpretation of historical forces is oversimplified.

That's because they misinterpret the materialist conception of history. When Marx speaks of class conflict within society, they see these classes as rigidly defined bodies, when Marx meant no such thing. For example, serfs in feudal times were all part of the serf class, however the form of a serf could be radically different in different parts of Europe. It's all based on a gross misinterpretation of Marx's theories. They oversimplify his theories, then they "debunk" them by "proving" they're oversimplified.


Events do not result only from economic causes nor are people shaped solely by them. Many factors must be accounted for-patriotism, religous zeal, and political loyalties are among the strong motives that move men to action.

Many of these forces are based on economics themself. I don't think Marx ever claimed that economic forces are the only cause. Rather, he believed it to be the primary cause and so it was possible for him to base his theories on the development of history on this truth.


Class struggle as a theoryof historical change has serious shortcomings. Ordinarily, people do not think of themselves only in terms of economic class.

I don't think it matters what people think of themselves. What matters is why they're acting how they act, not why they think they're acting how they act.


Numerous examples in hisory show that of many classes fight together against a common enemy.

Marx agreed with this.


The world wars of modern times have shown nationalism as a force stronger than class feelings.

He also wrote on subjects like this.


In addition, many reputable historians maintain that it was not the capitalistic system that caused the laboring class to exploited but the misuse of power and authority on the part of certain individual capitalists. Capitalism was young at the time of Marx, and evils of industrialism were obvious, but as time advanced, many of these evils diminished or were corrected.

This is based on a horrible lack of understanding of Marx's economic theories. His theories weren't based on the "evils of industrialism" or any such bullshit, but are actually used to describe the reasons behind the "evils of industrialism". They were based on common laws inherent in capitalist society, all of which are still true to this day.


Economists have demolished Marx's labor theory of value. The cost of making a product includes not only the labor required to make it but the contribution of the manufacturer, who must provide the raw materials and maintain the factory and its equipment and pay for its upkeep.

And the raw materials and the factory maintanence and equipment all were produced by workers.


Furthermore, the price of a product is affected by the general conditions in the market; for example, an oversupply of a paticular item can lead to a decrease in the selling price-sometimes even below the cost of the labor that went into it.

Marx talks about this numerous times throughout his economic writings. The most prominent one is part three of Wage Labour & Capital where he reconciles the theory of supply and demand with his economic theories. He also briefly touches on it at various points throughout Capital Volume 1. Marx never claimed the market price of a commodity was equal to the amount of labour contained within it. Rather, he believed that supplpy and demand (competition between buyers, competition between sellers, and competition between buyers and sellers) caused the market price of a commodity to fluctuate over time, yet it always equilibrated back at its value, which is where the labour theory of value comes in. Marx wasn't interested in predicting what the price of a pound of wheat was going to sell for at the market; he was interested in the workings of the capitalist system as a whole.


Marx also exhibited a blind spot about labor. He did not recognize the importance of creative abilities and managerial talents. Physical labor is not the only ingredient creating values in a product. Many workers do not produce material goods at all but supply skills essential to the manufacture of a product.

I believe this was discussed in either Volume 2 or 3 of Capital but I'm not sure.


History did not bear out Marx's prophecies. With the growth of trade unions, which began in the 19th century, workers were able to bargain effectively with their employers for higher wages and shorter working hours. The advance of political democracy and the spread of universal manhood suffrage meant that workers could elect their own government representatives abd that they, in turn, would strive for social reforms. In the final years of the 19th century, conditions for workers improved. Wages advanced, and workers could afford to buy the products made in the factories and mills. To be sure, some of the rich did become richer, but most of the poor did not become poorer. Instead, the general standard of living rose to heights never before attained in history.

This doesn't disprove anything.


Originally posted by The Dissenter+--> (The Dissenter)While we have a bourgeois we will have war. [/b]

While we have classes we will have war.


Gup
it is correct, most if not all of predictions failed to come true.

What predictions are those? As far as I know he never made any predictions besides the fact that the working class will become class conscious and overthrow capitalism. And you can't say that that's failed because it hasn't happened in the 100 or so years since Marx's time; Marx never predicted when it would happen and to attribute a deadline to it is a straw man.


and i do agree that his class struggle theory is horribly oversimplified.

Why is that? I'm guessing that you aren't knowledgable enough about his theories on class struggle and that is why you are coming to that conclusion.


that and the LTV is a joke...

Again, I'd like to know why you think that. I think we could have a very interesting discussion on the matter and would love to hear your reasoning behind this. It's probably the misinformation spread on here by people that don't know what they're talking about.



i don't know, why do conservative right wingers also come out of the working class while some of the richest philantrophists consider themselves communists or socialists? no one here is denying that class doesn't play any part, but to pretend like it is the only part is just that, pretending.


The same reason many working class people become religious. It's not only a rejection of reality, but a denial of (or a conscious ignorance of) their place in society. It's comforting to believe that the noble US government is out to protect our freedoms agains those freedom-hating terrorist savages.


even assuming that the media is some kind of bourgioeus propaganda machine (which is absurd), what makes you think that nationalism goes away with the bourgioeus? you can't just destroy national and cultural identity.

Nations don't exist.


yeah. and it never happened, because production lowers with decreased incentive to produce. its called market equilibrium, marx didn't understand it.

It happens all the time. The problem with your conception of it is that you think that these things happen instantaneously, when they don't. By the time the producer realizes the demand is down relative to the amount he is producing, he has already produced too much. Production does lower with decreased incentive to produce, but it doesn't do so soon enough. I can't believe you're denying that overproduction happens. Do you know that the government is paying farmers to produce less milk because it's driving down prices? Did you know that OPEC is attempting to slow the production of oil because the prices are too low?

[colonelguppy]

Originally posted by Zampanò@December 07, 2006 01:32 am
.

What predictions are those?* As far as I know he never made any predictions besides the fact that the working class will become class conscious and overthrow capitalism.* And you can't say that that's failed because it hasn't happened in the 100 or so years since Marx's time; Marx never predicted when it would happen and to attribute a deadline to it is a straw man.

well there is the one where he predicted that the capitalist pursuit for profit motive would leave the masses incapable of uspporting themselves (and thus consumerism which fuels the capitalists), causing the system to collapse. pretty much the opposite happened.

then there was the prediction that class conciesness and thus revolution would happen in already industrialized (western) countries, when the only revolutions happened in the 3rd world, and there are no real signs that revolution will happen at all in industrialized countries. i guess thats all i can really think of.

oh and the overproduciton thing never really came to fruition.


That's because they misinterpret the materialist conception of history.* When Marx speaks of class conflict within society, they see these classes as rigidly defined bodies, when Marx meant no such thing.* For example, serfs in feudal times were all part of the serf class, however the form of a serf could be radically different in different parts of Europe.* It's all based on a gross misinterpretation of Marx's theories.* They oversimplify his theories, then they "debunk" them by "proving" they're oversimplified.

well, regardless of the the discriminating characteristics that make up each different classes, there is a defined lower/working class and a ruling class, and the interaction between the two was the source of conflict in the world according to marx, correct?


Again, I'd like to know why you think that.* I think we could have a very interesting discussion on the matter and would love to hear your reasoning behind this.* It's probably the misinformation spread on here by people that don't know what they're talking about.

the labour theory of value is the idea that the amount of time/labour put into a certain commodity is what determines ultimate value, correct?


The same reason many working class people become religious. It's not only a rejection of reality, but a denial of (or a conscious ignorance of) their place in society. It's comforting to believe that the noble US government is out to protect our freedoms agains those freedom-hating terrorist savages.

well i could argue fairly easily that embracing some collectivist pipedream is a rejection of reality, but we both know you won't change your mind, but thats besides my point. people will never just embrace their material status as their primary motivator, and even if they do, that doesn't really mean they will all be motivated to the same ends.


Nations don't exist.

sure they do.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:World-map-2004-cia-factbook-large-2m.jpg

hundreds of nations with seperate political and cultural identities.


It happens all the time. The problem with your conception of it is that you think that these things happen instantaneously, when they don't. By the time the producer realizes the demand is down relative to the amount he is producing, he has already produced too much. Production does lower with decreased incentive to produce, but it doesn't do so soon enough. I can't believe you're denying that overproduction happens. Do you know that the government is paying farmers to produce less milk because it's driving down prices? Did you know that OPEC is attempting to slow the production of oil because the prices are too low

oh, well of course that happens, i was thinking of the overproduction crisis i've heard people here ***** about, how capitalists will just produce and produce untill their products become so valueless that industry collapses. the price system has a built in mechanism to deal with everyday overproduction.

[KC]

well there is the one where he predicted that the capitalist pursuit for profit motive would leave the masses incapable of uspporting themselves (and thus consumerism which fuels the capitalists), causing the system to collapse. pretty much the opposite happened.

No he didn't. You are attributing the theory of the absolute impoverishment of the working class to him, which wasn't one of his theories and was debunked by Ernest Mandel in his introduction to Capital Volume 1. I quoted it in this (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=59407&view=findpost&p=1292218750) post.



then there was the prediction that class conciesness and thus revolution would happen in already industrialized (western) countries, when the only revolutions happened in the 3rd world, and there are no real signs that revolution will happen at all in industrialized countries. i guess thats all i can really think of.

This doesn't prove that his 'predictions' have failed.



oh and the overproduciton thing never really came to fruition.


It constantly comes to fruition in capitalist society.


well, regardless of the the discriminating characteristics that make up each different classes, there is a defined lower/working class and a ruling class, and the interaction between the two was the source of conflict in the world according to marx, correct?

Marx believed that class struggle was the motor of the history of society and the development of society. What you seem to be missing is that Marx's theory of class struggle is much more complicated than proletariat vs. bourgeoisie. There is also conflict within these classes, and with other classes as well (the petit-bourgeoisie, the lumpenproletariat, the peasantry, etc...). When Marx discusses social classes he isn't defining them as a homogeneous mass of people in identical situations that will act in the exact same way when put in the same situation. Rather, he is saying that generally proletarians will conduct class struggle against the bourgeoisie (many workers wouldn't prefer to be poor or not have benefits) and that this fact is what unites them into a class.

There are different elements within the proletariat, for example, that act differently based on the material conditions in which they have lived (some examples would be scabs, nationalists, etc...), however in general they will all agree on the fact that they want better pay, and they want better benefits, and they want working conditions.

The same could be said about the bourgeoisie; while there are elements within the bourgeoisie that compete with each other (democrat vs. republican, for example), they all generally agree on the same thing: they want profit and giving workers better wages, better benefits, and/or better working conditions costs money and impedes on their profit. It is from these general definitions that the class struggle can be defined: the proletariat wants what the bourgeoisie doesn't want and vice versa. Marx's theories of class are often incredibly oversimplified, either because it's unnecessary to go into detail on the subject (as is often the case on this board) or because the person discussing it doesn't know what they're talking about.



the labour theory of value is the idea that the amount of time/labour put into a certain commodity is what determines ultimate value, correct?


Yes, but value isn't the same thing as market price, or the price that it is sold for. That's a common misconception held by many people that disagree with the labour theory of value.

I edited my previous post if you would like to respond to it.

[GX.]

In addition, many reputable historians maintain that it was not the capitalistic system that caused the laboring class to exploited but the misuse of power and authority on the part of certain individual capitalists. Capitalism was young at the time of Marx, and evils of industrialism were obvious, but as time advanced, many of these evils diminished or were corrected. haha. There's nothing wrong with capitalism, a few guys were just acting up. Sorry 'bout that, everything's fine now!


Furthermore, the price of a product is affected by the general conditions in the market; for example, an oversupply of a paticular item can lead to a decrease in the selling price-sometimes even below the cost of the labor that went into it.
Is there a point buried somewhere in there? I thought we were talking about how economists demolished ltv. I'm confused.


Marx also exhibited a blind spot about labor. He did not recognize the importance of creative abilities and managerial talents. Physical labor is not the only ingredient creating values in a product. Many workers do not produce material goods at all but supply skills essential to the manufacture of a product. wtf? Random quote from Capital ch. 16:
"As the co-operative character of the labour-process becomes more and more marked, so, as a necessary consequence, does our notion of productive labour, and of its agent the productive labourer, become extended.

In order to labour productively, it is no longer necessary for you to do manual work yourself; enough, if you are an organ of the collective labourer, and perform one of its subordinate functions."

I love the spin though. Tony Snow would be proud. If you don't want to think Marx said someting, just say he didn't.


History did not bear out Marx's prophecies. With the growth of trade unions, which began in the 19th century, workers were able to bargain effectively with their employers for higher wages and shorter working hours. The advance of political democracy and the spread of universal manhood suffrage meant that workers could elect their own government representatives abd that they, in turn, would strive for social reforms. In the final years of the 19th century, conditions for workers improved. Wages advanced, and workers could afford to buy the products made in the factories and mills. To be sure, some of the rich did become richer, but most of the poor did not become poorer. Instead, the general standard of living rose to heights never before attained in history. Mr. Snow here conveniently forgot to mention which of Marx's nonexistent prophecies wasn't born out.

[colonelguppy]

No he didn't. You are attributing the theory of the absolute impoverishment of the working class to him, which wasn't one of his theories and was debunked by Ernest Mandel in his introduction to Capital Volume 1. I quoted it in this (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=59407&view=findpost&p=1292218750) post.

sorry, my mistake


This doesn't prove that his 'predictions' have failed.

well, considering there is no revolution in sight in any post industrial countries, yeah i think it does.


It constantly comes to fruition in capitalist society.

sorry i think we confused our terms here, look at my last post.



Marx believed that class struggle was the motor of the history of society and the development of society. What you seem to be missing is that Marx's theory of class struggle is much more complicated than proletariat vs. bourgeoisie. There is also conflict within these classes, and with other classes as well (the petit-bourgeoisie, the lumpenproletariat, the peasantry, etc...). When Marx discusses social classes he isn't defining them as a homogeneous mass of people in identical situations that will act in the exact same way when put in the same situation. Rather, he is saying that generally proletarians will conduct class struggle against the bourgeoisie (many workers wouldn't prefer to be poor or not have benefits) and that this fact is what unites them into a class.

There are different elements within the proletariat, for example, that act differently based on the material conditions in which they have lived (some examples would be scabs, nationalists, etc...), however in general they will all agree on the fact that they want better pay, and they want better benefits, and they want working conditions.

The same could be said about the bourgeoisie; while there are elements within the bourgeoisie that compete with each other (democrat vs. republican, for example), they all generally agree on the same thing: they want profit and giving workers better wages, better benefits, and/or better working conditions costs money and impedes on their profit. It is from these general definitions that the class struggle can be defined: the proletariat wants what the bourgeoisie doesn't want and vice versa. Marx's theories of class are often incredibly oversimplified, either because it's unnecessary to go into detail on the subject (as is often the case on this board) or because the person discussing it doesn't know what they're talking about.

ok so ending classes would end conflict, is that the general idea?


Yes, but value isn't the same thing as market price, or the price that it is sold for. That's a common misconception held by many people that disagree with the labour theory of value.

I edited my previous post if you would like to respond to it.

who said anything about price? i was just saying how things would be valued using the LTV. my main problem with it is that the amount of labour has nothing to do with the value of a product (correlation perhaps, not causation though), and to think you are going to be able to effectively distribute demanded commodities using that model is absurd.

[KC]

well, considering there is no revolution in sight in any post industrial countries, yeah i think it does.

Not at all. Marx never created a timetable for revolution. In fact, his theories on the development of capitalism have been true and are supported by historical evidence. Why do you think the New Deal was created?


ok so ending classes would end conflict, is that the general idea?

If there aren't any classes, then there isn't class conflict.


who said anything about price? i was just saying how things would be valued using the LTV. my main problem with it is that the amount of labour has nothing to do with the value of a product (correlation perhaps, not causation though), and to think you are going to be able to effectively distribute demanded commodities using that model is absurd.

Sounds like you're still confusing price with value. Also, I don't think anyone has suggested that we distribute demanded commodities using that model.


well i could argue fairly easily that embracing some collectivist pipedream is a rejection of reality, but we both know you won't change your mind, but thats besides my point. people will never just embrace their material status as their primary motivator, and even if they do, that doesn't really mean they will all be motivated to the same ends.

People already do "embrace" their material status as their primary motivator. That's completely obvious. You can have the nicest and most generous capitalist that will cut benefits and lay off thousands of workers to maintain profit. He doesn't have to think "I'm bourgeois so I have to be a certain way". He merely acts based on his position in the world.


sure they do.

user posted image

hundreds of nations with seperate political and cultural identities.

A culture isn't a nation. A state isn't a nation. A geographic area on a map (a country) isn't a nation. A nation is a propaganda tool used to rally the populace behind those that control the state in order to support their agenda (i.e. nationalism).


oh, well of course that happens, i was thinking of the overproduction crisis i've heard people here ***** about, how capitalists will just produce and produce untill their products become so valueless that industry collapses. the price system has a built in mechanism to deal with everyday overproduction.

Who the hell said anything like that?

[Alexander Hamilton]

Earlier statement of a contributor:

Where on earth are you buying your text-books?


Ans: It's a MARXIST textbook. He's not buying it, he gets to take it for free!

Duh!


A.H.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by Zampanò@December 12, 2006 08:35 pm
Not at all. Marx never created a timetable for revolution. In fact, his theories on the development of capitalism have been true and are supported by historical evidence.
You sound like a Christian predicting the rapture.