# Marx in a nutshell



## HenryBHough

*Caution:  Graphic images in the link below!*

For those who want to cut to the basics of the Marxist philosophy the next 223 sections might provide as much insight as a full semester of more traditionally presented material:

A history of capitalism - and Marx - in 233 seconds - BBC News

BBC presenter Colm O'Regan offers some certainly non-traditional insights and give us some visions of the memorial that draws so many students of Marxism to London's somewhat creepy Highgate Cemetery.

"Marx predicted that capitalism would meet a "violent death". So what would he make of its endurance into the 21st Century?"

How does your guess at the ultimate outcome come to that of Mr. O'Regan?


----------



## ralfy

I'd look at overpopulation, peak oil, global warming, etc., and in terms of historical data compared to forecasts. For example,

Limits to Growth was right. New research shows we re nearing collapse Cathy Alexander and Graham Turner Comment is free The Guardian


----------



## midcan5

Marx was essentially correct, capitalism died some time ago, I think those of my age saw bits of it but for the rest we exist now in a state of corporatism plutocracy and oligarchy. Someone can form those ideas into a word for modern America. You need also to add a bit of libertarianism to the stew. Ours is an investment society, work is left to the laborers, often far away. 

"Capitalism is the ownership and use of the concrete but dynamic elements in a society - what is commonly known as the means of production. A capitalist is someone who produces more capital through the production of the means he owns. This necessitates the periodic reinvestment of part of the capital earned into the repair, modernization and expansion of the means. Capitalism is therefore the ownership of an abstraction called capital, rendered concrete by its ownership of the means of production, which through actual production creates new capital.... However, capitalism as conceived today tends to revolve around something called the profit motive, even though profit is neither a cause of capitalism nor at the heart of the capitalist action. Profit is a useful result of the process, nothing more. As for the ownership of the means of production, this has been superseded by their management. And yet, to manage is to administer, which is a bureaucratic function. Alternately, there is a growing reliance upon the use of capital itself to produce new capital. But that is speculation, not production. Much of the development of the means of production is now rejected as unprofitable and, frankly, beneath the dignity of the modern manager, who would rather leave such labour and factory-intensive "dirty" work to Third World societies. Finally , the contemporary idea of capitalism grandly presents "service" as its new sophisticated manifestation. But the selling of one's own skills is not a capitalist art. And most of the jobs being created by the service industries are with the exception of the high-technology sector descendants of the pre-eighteenth-century commerce in trade and services." p360  'Voltaire's Bastards: The Dictatorship of Reason in the West' John Ralston Saul


"Kristol was trying to detach conservatism from its schizophrenic devotion to free markets on the one hand and tradition on the other. *He knew that you can't revere tradition if you admire the "creative destruction" that capitalism brings to life. He knew that you can't insulate the nuclear family from the heartless logic of the market if you accept the dictates of free enterprise.* He knew that conservatism had to become more liberal if it were to sound like something more than hidebound devotion to a phantom past. A "combination of the reforming spirit with the conservative ideal," he declared, "is most desperately wanted," and cited Herbert Croly, the original big government liberal from the Progressive Era, as his source of inspiration.

*Kristol also knew that the competitive, entrepreneurial economy Friedman and Hayek posited as the source of freedom was a mere fantasy.* Capitalism had long since become a system in which large corporations, not small producers, dominated the market - those anonymous and unknowable laws of supply and demand which once made all producers equally subject to the discipline of market forces had been supplanted by the visible hand of modern management: "There is little doubt that the idea of a (free market,' in the era of large corporations, is not quite the original capitalist idea." Some producers had more market power than, others: some persons (and this is how corporations are legally designated) were more equal than others. So everyone was not "free to choose," as Friedman would have it, simply because he or she inhabited a market society. Corporate capitalism remained a moral problem. For in "its concentration of assets and power-power to make economic decisions affecting the lives of tens of thousands of citizens - it seems to create a dangerous disharmony between the economic system and the political."  P11 'The World Turned Inside Out' James Livingston

"Companies achieve great economies, but they do so in part by driving wages down, and over time they will drive wages below the subsistence level unless the government intervenes to prevent them." Adam Smith

"Adam Smith's position on the role of the state in a capitalist society was close to that of a modern twentieth century US liberal democrat."  Spence J. Pack


----------



## ralfy

The results of capitalism are greater dominance of financing and greater concentration of financial wealth among a few, and eventually overpopulation, pollution, and resource shortages.


----------



## Unkotare

ralfy said:


> I'd look at overpopulation,




No such thing


----------



## ralfy

Unkotare said:


> ralfy said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'd look at overpopulation,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No such thing
Click to expand...


Of course there is, as the biosphere has physical limitations.


----------



## Unkotare

ralfy said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ralfy said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'd look at overpopulation,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No such thing
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course there is, as the biosphere has physical limitations.
Click to expand...



Not one we have, or likely ever will, reach.


----------



## amrchaos

Strange

I thought the main goal of socialist was to transform all businesses from a hierarchy dominated by the owner that receives all the profits into worker co-ops in which each worker receives his rightful share of profits from the work he provided.

If this is the case, then capitalism can not die. Socialism is just another form of capitalism in which now you have worker owned corporations--and these corporations will behave in a similar manner to the old corporations they replaced.

The socialist only solves the worker exploitation problem. The socialist does not need to take over governments to achieve this goal.  There are economic tools available now that can transform a corporation into a worker co-op and the means to do so are not violent.

In other words, the early Marxists got it wrong.  They should not seek revolution against the government and economy, they should have sought evolution of the corporation!


----------



## Unkotare

Marx had an interesting analysis of history, but when he attempted to project forward he got it ALL wrong. Countless millions have died as a result.


----------



## chao$

Marx merely wrote a critique on capitalism. Marxism keeps the parts of capitalism that work and improves on or replaces the parts that cause the economic inequality we see today. Capitalism only works when there is sustained growth so the U.S. empire uses its military dominance to allow capitalists to freely go around the world and steal the natural resources of sovereign nations. This will eventually lead to a global uprising that the U.S. is prepared to quash. That is why we have a one trillion dollar "defense" budget.


----------



## Unkotare

The US is not an empire.


----------



## chao$

Unkotare said:


> The US is not an empire.


 
I would have to go way off topic to show that the U.S. is indeed an empire.

My point is that Marxism is not required reading even at the graduate level of economics, so most people that talk about Marx have never read his work. What we call capitalism today is actually laissez-faire neoliberalism – which is far from being prudent.

Ironically, China is the most capitalist country in the world today with Russia coming in second.


----------



## Unkotare

chao$ said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> The US is not an empire.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would have to go way off topic to show that the U.S. is indeed an empire.....
Click to expand...



You'd have to go off the 'topic' of reality, because the US is NOT an empire.


----------



## Unkotare

chao$ said:


> My point is that Marxism is not required reading even at the graduate level of economics....



But it is at the intro level of Political Science.


----------



## chao$

Unkotare said:


> chao$ said:
> 
> 
> 
> My point is that Marxism is not required reading even at the graduate level of economics....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But it is at the intro level of Political Science.
Click to expand...

 
Political science makes a pretty good argument supporting Marx's theory. We are at the end of the lifespan on fiat money and deficit spending, and already witnessing some of Marx's predictions.

Do you agree that today's capitalism is laissez-faire neoliberalism with China being the most capitalist country in the world?


----------



## Unkotare

chao$ said:


> Do you agree that today's capitalism is laissez-faire neoliberalism with China being the most capitalist country in the world?




No.


----------



## theDoctorisIn

Unkotare said:


> Marx had an interesting analysis of history, but when he attempted to project forward he got it ALL wrong. Countless millions have died as a result.



You can't blame Marx for the atrocities of Communist governments any more than you can blame Nietzsche for the atrocities of the Nazis.


----------



## theDoctorisIn

chao$ said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> chao$ said:
> 
> 
> 
> My point is that Marxism is not required reading even at the graduate level of economics....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But it is at the intro level of Political Science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Political science makes a pretty good argument supporting Marx's theory. We are at the end of the lifespan on fiat money and deficit spending, and already witnessing some of Marx's predictions.
> 
> Do you agree that today's capitalism is laissez-faire neoliberalism with China being the most capitalist country in the world?
Click to expand...




What predictions of Marx are we seeing now, exactly?

What is the "lifetime" of fiat money and deficit spending? What makes you say we're "near the end" of it?


----------



## chao$

theDoctorisIn said:


> What predictions of Marx are we seeing now, exactly?


 
The unrest in Greece resulting from austerity is just the beginning. Occupy only appears to have been quashed but it took hold and spread roots.



theDoctorisIn said:


> What is the "lifetime" of fiat money and deficit spending? What makes you say we're "near the end" of it?


 
Most economist agree the lifespan of fiat money is 40 or 50 years. Government keeps kicking the can down the road but eventually the dollar will collapse.


----------



## Socialist

Marx's predictions aren't meant to be set in stone for a specific date, just as we went from slavery to feudalism to capitalism, marx predicted it would only be a matter of time before we transition again. Please read marx, read capital, read engels..


----------



## Unkotare

Unkotare said:


> Marx had an interesting analysis of history, but when he attempted to project forward he got it ALL wrong. Countless millions have died as a result.





...


----------



## Socialist

Unkotare said:


> Marx had an interesting analysis of history, but when he attempted to project forward he got it ALL wrong. Countless millions have died as a result.


What are you talking about? How many died in the conversion from feudalism to liberal democracy/capitalism?


----------



## Socialist

theDoctorisIn said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Marx had an interesting analysis of history, but when he attempted to project forward he got it ALL wrong. Countless millions have died as a result.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can't blame Marx for the atrocities of Communist governments any more than you can blame Nietzsche for the atrocities of the Nazis.
Click to expand...

Agreed, marx was a philosopher and economist who examined the newly emerging system known as capitalism and formed a valid critique that can be applied today, Lenin helped expand on this with his writings, same with Mao/stalin, although their works in relation to marxism have nothing to do with the crimes they commited due to paranoia/etc.. Lenin wrote about imperialism behind a newer stage of capitalism, which is entirely valid considering the rampant exploitation of the third world/colonialism/etc..


----------



## chao$

Does anyone agree that today's capitalism is laissez-faire neoliberalism?

Does anyone agree that today's China is the most capitalist country in the world?


----------



## chao$

chao$ said:


> Does anyone agree that today's capitalism is laissez-faire neoliberalism?
> 
> Does anyone agree that today's China is the most capitalist country in the world?


 
All the rhetoric from conservatives about capitalism being ''free market'' laissez-faire economics is due to the lack of public understanding on the economy. Free market simply means that big business gets to write the rules that allows them to eliminate any competition from small business. The problem here is the Chinese government is one hell of a big business. This corporate giant – the Chinese government – has the ability to meet demand at a lower cost.

Americans bought into the idea that lower cost would increase their money supply resulting in higher consumption. This imprudence is what led to our children having to compete with the labor market in China and India. This may have been avoided if Marx was required reading in high school economics and/or social studies.

Anyone who takes the time to understand economics will learn the so-called conservative strategy on free market, laissez-faire economics is actually neoliberalism. Hong Kong and now modern China is the place capitalists go to avoid the rules of western society, making China the capitalism power of globalization and forcing industrialized nations into a race to the bottom.


----------



## jwoodie

chao$ said:


> chao$ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does anyone agree that today's capitalism is laissez-faire neoliberalism?
> 
> Does anyone agree that today's China is the most capitalist country in the world?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All the rhetoric from conservatives about capitalism being ''free market'' laissez-faire economics is due to the lack of public understanding on the economy. Free market simply means that big business gets to write the rules that allows them to eliminate any competition from small business. The problem here is the Chinese government is one hell of a big business. This corporate giant – the Chinese government – has the ability to meet demand at a lower cost.
> 
> Americans bought into the idea that lower cost would increase their money supply resulting in higher consumption. This imprudence is what led to our children having to compete with the labor market in China and India. This may have been avoided if Marx was required reading in high school economics and/or social studies.
> 
> Anyone who takes the time to understand economics will learn the so-called conservative strategy on free market, laissez-faire economics is actually neoliberalism. Hong Kong and now modern China is the place capitalists go to avoid the rules of western society, making China the capitalism power of globalization and forcing industrialized nations into a race to the bottom.
Click to expand...


You might have more credibility if you could lay off the political labeling.


----------



## chao$

jwoodie said:


> You might have more credibility if you could lay off the political labeling.


 
Make your argument showing that the capitalism touted by conservatives is something other than neoliberalism.


----------



## chao$

chao$ said:


> jwoodie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You might have more credibility if you could lay off the political labeling.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Make your argument showing that the capitalism touted by conservatives is something other than neoliberalism.
Click to expand...

 
There is a bit of irony in questioning someones creditability then running away.


----------



## Friends

theDoctorisIn said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Marx had an interesting analysis of history, but when he attempted to project forward he got it ALL wrong. Countless millions have died as a result.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can't blame Marx for the atrocities of Communist governments any more than you can blame Nietzsche for the atrocities of the Nazis.
Click to expand...

 
Or Jesus for the atrocities of the Christians.


----------



## Friends

Socialist said:


> Agreed, marx was a philosopher and economist who examined the newly emerging system known as capitalism and formed a valid critique that can be applied today, Lenin helped expand on this with his writings, same with Mao/stalin, although their works in relation to marxism have nothing to do with the crimes they commited due to paranoia/etc.. Lenin wrote about imperialism behind a newer stage of capitalism, which is entirely valid considering the rampant exploitation of the third world/colonialism/etc..



The Bolshevik takeover was not the sort of revolutions Karl Marx envisioned. It was certainly not a working class revolution. Nothing gave Lenin the right to speak on behalf of the Russian working class. He never had a blue collar job. I doubt he entered a factory until he was the dictator of the Soviet Union.

The Bolshevik takeover was a coup by an armed minority that took advantage of a chaotic situation. It was unfortunate for the democratic left in the United States because it gave conservatives a horrible example of socialism to condemn, and made it possible for them to exploit the nationalism of American white blue collar workers.


----------



## Friends

Unkotare said:


> Marx had an interesting analysis of history, but when he attempted to project forward he got it ALL wrong. Countless millions have died as a result.


 
Karl Marx did not advocate the cruelties committed in his name. Nevertheless, because he did inspire those killings he cannot be considered to be completely innocent. The writings of John Stuart Mill, for example, did not inspire slave labor camps and mass killings.


----------



## JimBowie1958

ralfy said:


> The results of capitalism are greater dominance of financing and greater concentration of financial wealth among a few, and eventually overpopulation, pollution, and resource shortages.




That is simply not true. The elites are in a dynamic churn, changing from one generation to the next. Bill Gates, Steve Jobs and the rest of the New Rich rose to the top through hard work and creativity. And there is no such things a over population, the man who was going on and on about it in the 70s and predicted mass food riots leading to the deaths of millions, Paul Ehrlich, was completely and totally wrong. And pollution is defined as any human made change in the environment so the only way for us to not have pollution is for all mankind to simply die. Most of us want to cure pollution, but no one wants to voluntarily die to get rid of 100% of it.  And resource shortages are slef-corrected in a capitalist system as scarcity eventually leads to more efficiency and new materials to replace the old.

The only thing that Marx did start that is still with us are all the Marxist professoriate faculty that run our colleges and mislead millions of our best and brightest and ruin their lives.


----------



## JimBowie1958

chao$ said:


> Marx merely wrote a critique on capitalism. Marxism keeps the parts of capitalism that work and improves on or replaces the parts that cause the economic inequality we see today. Capitalism only works when there is sustained growth so the U.S. empire uses its military dominance to allow capitalists to freely go around the world and steal the natural resources of sovereign nations. This will eventually lead to a global uprising that the U.S. is prepared to quash. That is why we have a one trillion dollar "defense" budget.


Marx wrote a complete philosophy and social agenda for his movement. He was a philosopher and historian not an economist.


----------



## JimBowie1958

Friends said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Marx had an interesting analysis of history, but when he attempted to project forward he got it ALL wrong. Countless millions have died as a result.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Karl Marx did not advocate the cruelties committed in his name. Nevertheless, because he did inspire those killings he cannot be considered to be completely innocent. The writings of John Stuart Mill, for example, did not inspire slave labor camps and mass killings.
Click to expand...


The results of Marxist-Leninism are the slaughters, mass starvations and catastrophic wars of the 20th century.

Raw and essential Marxism itself is the inspiration for that, as he did see a need for the Dictatorship of the Proletariate until capitalism was completely destroyed. 

Dictatorship of the proletariat - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Indeependent

JimBowie1958 said:


> ralfy said:
> 
> 
> 
> The results of capitalism are greater dominance of financing and greater concentration of financial wealth among a few, and eventually overpopulation, pollution, and resource shortages.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is simply not true. The elites are in a dynamic churn, changing from one generation to the next. Bill Gates, Steve Jobs and the rest of the New Rich rose to the top through hard work and creativity. And there is no such things a over population, the man who was going on and on about it in the 70s and predicted mass food riots leading to the deaths of millions, Paul Ehrlich, was completely and totally wrong. And pollution is defined as any human made change in the environment so the only way for us to not have pollution is for all mankind to simply die. Most of us want to cure pollution, but no one wants to voluntarily die to get rid of 100% of it.  And resource shortages are slef-corrected in a capitalist system as scarcity eventually leads to more efficiency and new materials to replace the old.
> 
> The only thing that Marx did start that is still with us are all the Marxist professoriate faculty that run our colleges and mislead millions of our best and brightest and ruin their lives.
Click to expand...


Don't put the genius Steve Jobs together with the "copy and patent" Bill Gates.


----------



## JimBowie1958

Indeependent said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ralfy said:
> 
> 
> 
> The results of capitalism are greater dominance of financing and greater concentration of financial wealth among a few, and eventually overpopulation, pollution, and resource shortages.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is simply not true. The elites are in a dynamic churn, changing from one generation to the next. Bill Gates, Steve Jobs and the rest of the New Rich rose to the top through hard work and creativity. And there is no such things a over population, the man who was going on and on about it in the 70s and predicted mass food riots leading to the deaths of millions, Paul Ehrlich, was completely and totally wrong. And pollution is defined as any human made change in the environment so the only way for us to not have pollution is for all mankind to simply die. Most of us want to cure pollution, but no one wants to voluntarily die to get rid of 100% of it.  And resource shortages are slef-corrected in a capitalist system as scarcity eventually leads to more efficiency and new materials to replace the old.
> 
> The only thing that Marx did start that is still with us are all the Marxist professoriate faculty that run our colleges and mislead millions of our best and brightest and ruin their lives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't put the genius Steve Jobs together with the "copy and patent" Bill Gates.
Click to expand...


Jobs was an orchestrator, but Gates is a master at marketing. I think Gates deserves some credit as well. We were talking about new wealth folks and he is the richest man in the world, so he would seem to fit.


----------

