Marx May Have Had a Point

Hitting the mainpage for the first time, Black Sabbath writes "While communism has been declared dead and buried (with a few stubborn exceptions), Karl Marx's diagnosis of capitalism's ills seem quite bang on the money. Harvard Business Review blogger Umair Haque lists where Marx may have been right." It's a pretty good read once you get past the author's three paragraph disclaimer that he is not a communist. The MIT news also ran a short interview discussing the economic trends in August this morning.

Comments

Re:Nothing to surprising

[geekmux]

And yet under communist rule there are still wealthy power brokers who know how to game the system for their own profit.

Corruption is corruption, no matter what "wrapper" we put around it. Greed (whether personal or financial) always has been and always will be the Achilles heel of ANY model. Every model will fail if greed and corruption are left unchecked. Again, this should come as no surprise to anyone.

Re:Scope of Effect

[mfnickster]

Under capitalism, you can have companies that exploit workers but if they do that too much workers are free to leave and start new companies that start afresh... at least you have that ability as long as regulations do not impose too heavy a burden to start a new company to compete.

Regulations, schmegulations. The reason small businesses can't compete is because big business has rigged the game to their favor, and the playing field is no longer level.

Re:Nothing to surprising

[zixxt]

It has been tried but not under the term Communism. There was a form of primitive Communism in the Bible read the book of Acts. So yes Christianity and socialism are very compatible.

Acts 2

44: And all that believed were together, and had all things common; 45: And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need.

Acts 4

32: And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul: neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common. 33: And with great power gave the apostles witness of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus: and great grace was upon them all. 34: Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold, 35: And laid them down at the apostles' feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need. 36: And Joses, who by the apostles was surnamed Barnabas, (which is, being interpreted, The son of consolation,) a Levite, and of the country of Cyprus, 37: Having land, sold it, and brought the money, and laid it at the apostles' feet.

Re:Nothing to surprising

[pdabbadabba]

I think this isn't quite right. Marx believed that you could transform man's greed for material wealth into greed for something else, not that it could be eliminated.

Marx, being a Hegelian, believed that man's psychology could be altered through social changes; he thought that changes in social structure could create corresponding in the peoples' incentive structure. Thus, in a successful Marxist state as Marx envisioned it, peoples' greed for gold would be replaced with a zeal for contributing to society (and, perhaps, greed for the social recognition that would come from those contributions). So, in a way, a successful communist system would be as much driven by greed as a capitalist one.

It may not be possible, of course, to modify peoples' incentives in this way, though it's never truly been tested since the prerequisite social structure has never actually been created (and I don't think it's accurate to say he "assumed" that they could; it was certainly something he explicitly argued for). It doesn't seem crazy on its face, though, that people can be conditioned socially to value something other than material wealth.

Re:Nothing to surprising

[wwfarch]

I agree with this and will add a bit. The failing of capitalism is not in accounting for greed. For capitalism to work you need an educated consumer base. This is where capitalism fails in reality. Marketers intentionally deceive consumers which wouldn't be a problem with an educated consumer base (they would be able to catch the deception). The problem is that it's literally impossible to be educated about all products on the market so you simply can't have the educated consumer base necessary for free markets to operate as theories would indicate.

Re:Nothing to surprising

[tmosley]

Everyone who wants to discuss Marx should read this first: http://fofoa.blogspot.com/2010/07/debtors-and-savers.html

The author identifies the fundamental flaw with Marx's theory--he used a false premise. The author here starts a corrected premise and proceeds to give a very interesting history lesson, one which applies quite strongly to today's economic environment.

Re:Nothing to surprising

[MartinSchou]

Put 4 or 6 minimum wage people into that same apartment.

Will get you kicked out of that 270 square foot apartment - not to mention that there's barely room for the beds.

Or move back in with your parents.

Dead, only child, parents lived in an apartment.

I started out as an office clerk making $4 an hour back in 1980.

4 USD in 1980 equals 10.44 USD in 2010. By comparison the Federal minimum wage is 7.25 USD, and Washington has the highest minimum wage of 8.67. In other words, in 2010 dollars, you made between 20 and 44 percent more than minimum wage.

I lived paycheck to paycheck for many years

Now cut that paycheck between the aforementioned 20 and 44. Assuming you only worked 40 hours a week back then, you'd now have to work between 48 and 58 hours a week to make the same paycheck, which would cut significantly into your available time for self-improvement.