[Josh20]

(Original post by johnaulich)
Sorry, I didn't mean to sound patronizing. There's a new book out, which aims to point out and explain common misconceptions in Marx's work by Terry Eagleton, entitled 'Why Marx was Right'. If you're interested, its definitely worth a read.

Oh no you wasn't lol I do struggle with classical theory I'm into urban sociology and media sociology that sounds great Ill amazon it thanks

[johnaulich]

(Original post by Josh20)
Oh no you wasn't lol I do struggle with classical theory I'm into urban sociology and media sociology that sounds great Ill amazon it thanks

Happy reading

[Marco1]

(Original post by ANIGAV)
What do you see in Marxism, is it a good or bad idea? What advantages and disadvantages do you see in this theory?

I have not read much on marxism, I just want to get a light overview of this theory before diving deep in it so don't go too harshly on me. ^_^

Like most famous philosophical theories it puts up some powerful argument and nutritious food for thought well worth a read, but in the grand scheme of the complex soup of life itself, it is simplistic twaddle.

Socrates, deemed the wisest man in all of Greece by the Oracle of Delphi, was a great philosopher because he came to understand just how little one can truely know. The higher up the ladder of academia one goes, the more humbled and self-critical they should become.

At work yesterday I came across a very rude and arrogant customer who shouted at me that he was a graduate! and demanding a hospital visit even though it was three hours before visiting time. I put forth that any graduate with the good fortune to have the benefit of higher learning, and displays such unprovoked, intimidatory, sneering, wilful arrogance, firstly is no real graduate and secondly has learned nothing of real value!

[Spaz Man]

It's misguided.

[Oswy]

(Original post by GR3YFOXXX)
Im currently trawling through Capital, its certainly hardwork but some of the concepts are truely enlightening. I'm curious, have many people read Capital?

My favourite quote so far. On describing the inherent ineffective trends of money in Capitalism "The hoarder therefore sacrifices the lusts of his flesh to the fetish of gold."

It's been a long time since I worked through Capital. I tend to think that contemporary Marxists, like the already mentioned David Harvey, are better as a starting point - especially as they can examine manifestations of capitalism as we're experiencing and observing it right now. Aside from Harvey's The Enigma of Capital (already mentioned) I'd also recommend Harry Shutt's The Trouble with Capitalism (written in 1998 and a startling anticipation of the crash we're seeing right now).

[Observatory]

Marxism is a sort of religion, so largely bad, because it obscures understanding but won't ever die due to the large following of fanatics it has acquired, especially in academia.

It's a mix of long obsolete economic thinking, dubious morality, and utterly broken political theory that has been thoroughly debunked in practice and should probably never have obtained the prominence it did.

[johnaulich]

(Original post by Observatory)
Marxism is a sort of religion, so largely bad, because it obscures understanding but won't ever die due to the large following of fanatics it has acquired, especially in academia.

It's a mix of long obsolete economic thinking, dubious morality, and utterly broken political theory that has been thoroughly debunked in practice and should probably never have obtained the prominence it did.

Have you read Marx?

[Observatory]

(Original post by johnaulich)
Have you read Marx?

Yes.

[johnaulich]

(Original post by Observatory)
Yes.

You should probably read it again. Das Kapital especially.

[Observatory]

(Original post by johnaulich)
You should probably read it again. Das Kapital especially.

Das Kapital is principally what I was talking about when I said obsolete economics.

Not the only, but the most important flaw: the labour theory of value upon which it was all based is now known to be mistaken, and in such a way that destroys most or all of Marx's interesting conclusions.

[johnaulich]

(Original post by Observatory)
Das Kapital is principally what I was talking about when I said obsolete economics.

Not the only, but the most important flaw: the labour theory of value upon which it was all based is now known to be mistaken, and in such a way that destroys most or all of Marx's interesting conclusions.

It's his predictions that are most interesting, mostly because they have been vindicated. Take a look at Harvey's previously mentioned work, "The Enigma of Capital".

[Observatory]

(Original post by johnaulich)
It's his predictions that are most interesting, mostly because they have been vindicated.

Where in Das Kapital did Marx predict that free markets would continue to be the dominant mode of economic organisation in all the successful countries and that every attempt to implement a socialistic economy would fail?

Yes, I'm sure you have a dozen reasons why black is actually white in this case - like I said, Marxism is a religion and the fanatics will continue to believe the prophecies have been fulfilled (or deferred - the more common approach) even despite massive contrary evidence.

[johnaulich]

(Original post by Observatory)
Where in Das Kapital did Marx predict that free markets would continue to be the dominant mode of economic organisation in all the successful countries and that every attempt to implement a socialistic economy would fail?

Yes, I'm sure you have a dozen reasons why black is actually white in this case - like I said, Marxism is a religion and the fanatics will continue to believe the prophecies have been fulfilled (or deferred - the more common approach) even despite massive contrary evidence.

The words 'attempt to implement' have massively given you away. Had you actually read Marx, you would know that 'Socialism' and then later 'Communism' are two stages he believed to be inevitable. Revolution was supposed to occur only when the appropriate conditions had been met. Assuming you mean Soviet by 'Socialistic Economy' then, you've got Leninism-Marxism and Marxism confused. Marx didn't specify a time frame for the collapse of Capitalism, but at no point did he argue it wouldn't be the dominant ideology for a significant period of time, just that Socialism would follow its collapse.

EDIT: I should also point out that it is a common misconception that Marxist theory was based entirely on LTV. Its actually more of an Adam Smith thing. Read his Critique of the Gotha Program. His argument is essentially that labour creates value only as it is traded as a commodity.

[Observatory]

(Original post by johnaulich)
The words 'attempt to implement' have massively given you away. Had you actually read Marx, you would know that 'Socialism' and then later 'Communism' are two stages he believed to be inevitable. Revolution was supposed to occur only when the appropriate conditions had been met. Assuming you mean Soviet by 'Socialistic Economy' then, you've got Leninism-Marxism and Marxism confused. Marx didn't specify a time frame for the collapse of Capitalism, but at no point did he argue it wouldn't be the dominant ideology for a significant period of time, just that Socialism would follow its collapse.

Right, Mars was not correctly aligned with Jupiter this century. Maybe next time...

[johnaulich]

(Original post by Observatory)
Right, Mars was not correctly aligned with Jupiter this century. Maybe next time...

Don't criticise it until you have read it or you end up making yourself look stupid, as you have already managed.

[Observatory]

(Original post by johnaulich)
Don't criticise it until you have read it or you end up making yourself look stupid, as you have already managed.

I'd be more interested debating the ideas than the mysticism. From a scientific perspective, what unique prediction did Marx make that turned out to be true?

[johnaulich]

(Original post by Observatory)
I'd be more interested debating the ideas than the mysticism. From a scientific perspective, what unique prediction did Marx make that turned out to be true?

Firstly, look up Marx's Laws of Motion. Here are some other points that there is pretty concrete evidence for:

- Rapid technological change under Capitalism (i.e. technology taking the place of humans, leading to working class disenfranchisement and transferring increasing amounts of wealth into the hands of the few).
- Elites would hold the poor accountable for the mistakes of the rich (look at the current Austerity policies, etc).
- Huge businesses dominate and suppress and overtake smaller ones. The gap between largest and smallest grows ever wider, and a decreasing number of individuals have control over larger amounts of resources and the mechanisms of production. This is hard to accurately research, because a lot of companies are set up for tax avoidance reasons, etc, but more and more companies are part of conglomerates and/or owned by corporations that own a lot of other companies.
- Capitalist economies operate in cycles of 'bust and boom'.

[Oswy]

(Original post by Observatory)
Where in Das Kapital did Marx predict that free markets would continue to be the dominant mode of economic organisation in all the successful countries and that every attempt to implement a socialistic economy would fail?...

Marx expected capitalism to suffer repeated crises until its eventual collapse or overthrow. While he didn't offer a time-scale he did recognise capitalism's capacity to invent new ways to defend its monopolies over human economic and social life. I'm sure predictions of the end of slave-societies by those living at the hight of their manifestations were subject to similar criticisms, though we now know that large-scale slave-based societies were indeed subject to overthrow and transformation. I'm sceptical that you've read any Marx tbh given the erroneous logic you're offering up here to try and criticise him.

[johnaulich]

(Original post by Oswy)
I'm sceptical that you've read any Marx tbh given the erroneous logic you're offering up here to try and criticise him.

My thoughts exactly.

[Observatory]

(Original post by johnaulich)
Firstly, look up Marx's Laws of Motion. Here are some other points that there is pretty concrete evidence for:

- Rapid technological change under Capitalism (i.e. technology taking the place of humans, leading to working class disenfranchisement and transferring increasing amounts of wealth into the hands of the few).

Tech change predated Marx and was well recognised by economists 100 years before; that's an observation not a prediction.

- Elites would hold the poor accountable for the mistakes of the rich (look at the current Austerity policies, etc).

Err, that's supervague. You could make that argument for pretty much any political event in any place and time.

It's also tendentious in this case that the policies enacted after were mainly intended as transfers from the poor to the rich rather than just an attempt to stop it being even worse for everyone. It's become a Daily Mail-esque meme in the left wing press that bailouts and austerity exist to punish the poor, but in reality I think the government just didn't want the banking system to implode and then the country to be crippled by spiralling interest rate on a national debt we could never afford to repay.

- Huge businesses dominate and suppress and overtake smaller ones. The gap between largest and smallest grows ever wider, and a decreasing number of individuals have control over larger amounts of resources and the mechanisms of production. This is hard to accurately research, because a lot of companies are set up for tax avoidance reasons, etc, but more and more companies are part of conglomerates and/or owned by corporations that own a lot of other companies.

This is known to be untrue, but the Theory of the Firm post-dated Marx so it's not surprising his views here are obsolete. Companies don't inevitably trend towards monopolies (example: Kebab shops), they tend to the most efficient size where economies of scale stop compensating for co-ordination costs.

- Capitalist economies operate in cycles of 'bust and boom'.

Again, an observation, not a prediction, and not an original one. Business cycles were known to Adam Smith more than a century before.

Marx's explanation of business cycles is also now known to be wrong, eg. the interest rate does not trend inevitably to zero over time, and firms do not systemically "over-produce" goods. Economics moved on a long time and only the mystics (most of them seem to work in sociology departments for some reason) are still there.

(Original post by Oswy)
Marx expected capitalism to suffer repeated crises until its eventual collapse or overthrow.

That hasn't happened. Socialist economies on the other hand...

While he didn't offer a time-scale he did recognise capitalism's capacity to invent new ways to defend its monopolies over human economic and social life. I'm sure predictions of the end of slave-societies by those living at the hight of their manifestations were subject to similar criticisms, though we now know that large-scale slave-based societies were indeed subject to overthrow and transformation.

The key claim which you don't quite state is that 1. free markets are like slave societies 2. they will inevitably be overthrown. Marx failed in his attempts to demonstrate those things and 2. has applied rather to the attempts to implement his economics, rather than to the successful market liberal countries.

I'm sceptical that you've read any Marx tbh given the erroneous logic you're offering up here to try and criticise him.

It might be a better use of your time to read an undergraduate economics textbook.