How will you vote?

[Tman]

Blake's "The Marriage of Heaven and Hell" is a complex work needing serious study to understand, and even then many of his contemporary critics dismissed him as "mad".
Attempting an out-of-context one-liner quote from a such a work would earn you a top-notch place in Pseud's Corner...but I expect you'd perceive that as a compliment.
I wonder...did you attempt to read and understand Marx in the same way?
You know, a few memorable quotes learnt by rote and spouted in attempts to impress?
Busted, clearly not a fan of Uncle Karl, has already high-lighted your somewhat poor grasp of the theory, but as already said, Jezza seems the same.
Soulmates....

[jetblack]

I say one more thing on Marx - cos frankly this is getting boring.

Bustedflush claimed that "Marx recognized that you needed capitalism to create any wealth FIRST before the workers could share it. " He then went onto state that this is Marx's dialectic.

What Marx actually said was that wealth was created from a surplus value that comes about when labour acts upon raw materials. That is, labour is the source of the capitalists wealth. This is very different from saying that "capitalism is needed to create wealth".
Dialectical materialism is something different again - it attempts to describe the march/flow of history. Materialist in contrast to for eg. spiritual. Dialectic - a question holds the seeds of its own answer. Things proceed by thesis - followed by its antithesis - followed by a synthesis. That is the dialectic. I fail to see how this can be used to suggest that Marx believed capitalism is somehow necessary. He may have thought that capitalism was a stage of history that contained the seeds of its own destruction - but necessary ? Thats something different entirely.

He was talking tripe basically - he has too little knowledge on the subject and was hoping no-one would notice. I did. I don't hold it against him because we've all done it to some extent. Indeed, for Tman it seems to be the sole modus operandi.

Anyhow, I suppose at least its nice that Marx is being discussed again - we've come a long way it would seem.

Makes a nice change from Friedman and Hayek.

[bustedflush]

I say one more thing on Marx - cos frankly this is getting boring.

Bustedflush claimed that "Marx recognized that you needed capitalism to create any wealth FIRST before the workers could share it. " He then went onto state that this is Marx's dialectic.

What Marx actually said was that wealth was created from a surplus value that comes about when labour acts upon raw materials. That is, labour is the source of the capitalists wealth. This is very different from saying that "capitalism is needed to create wealth".
Dialectical materialism is something different again - it attempts to describe the march/flow of history. Materialist in contrast to for eg. spiritual. Dialectic - a question holds the seeds of its own answer. Things proceed by thesis - followed by its antithesis - followed by a synthesis. That is the dialectic. I fail to see how this can be used to suggest that Marx believed capitalism is somehow necessary. He may have thought that capitalism was a stage of history that contained the seeds of its own destruction - but necessary ? Thats something different entirely.

He was talking tripe basically - he has too little knowledge on the subject and was hoping no-one would notice. I did. I don't hold it against him because we've all done it to some extent. Indeed, for Tman it seems to be the sole modus operandi.

Anyhow, I suppose at least its nice that Marx is being discussed again - we've come a long way it would seem.

Makes a nice change from Friedman and Hayek.

I love it when this happens! The man backed into a corner starts the vitriol and ridicule.

If you won't listen to me, at least try and listen to someone who knows better than both of us, economictheories.org (Zera)

Now, unless I'm not understanding my native language, this points out that your old mate didn't actually think it was 'necessary' (as I said) but ESSENTIAL to have a capitalist system preceding (i.e. if you're not getting it, BEFORE) this theoretical worker utopia.

"In capitalism, competition and the incessant quest for the accumulation of profit drove participants to discover improved ways to increase productivity for the purpose of cheapening products or making more goods in less time. On one hand, Marx recognized this particular aspect of capitalism as a strength and benefit for a society because he saw how it could potentially provide more material wealth for everybody and improve the overall quality of life. Marx firmly believed that this particular strength of capitalism was very important and highly essential for the purpose of preparing material conditions needed for a future higher order society that would eventually replace capitalism."

He infers this with other facets of the capitalist system too, hence my general (but not highbrow enough for you obviously) observation, not based upon the minutiae of his extensive ramblings but an overall conclusion from where he positioned capitalism in his projected chronology of progress to a centralized system of labour, materials and production and more specifically what should be produced.

Go ahead, have the last word as people like you always do, smarting because someone has challenged their self-generated sense of superiority. Hey, why not tap out that trite remark on a nice smartphone you have been sold by those dreary profit-mad capitalists and industrialists, or on your cheap affordable PC or laptop those devils have forced you to buy via that cable you had foisted upon you! While you're at it do some pro-C*rbyn lobbying on Faecebook owned by billionaire Zuckerberg!

I mean, the bloody cheek of it! Workers owning all these items, gadgets of convenience, cars and then having the audacity to take foreign holidays and own shares to boot! What IS the world coming to? Come on Jezza! Sort it out!

[Tman]

jetblack"]I say one more thing on Marx - cos frankly this is getting boring.

'Rayyy

He was talking tripe basically - he has too little knowledge on the subject and was hoping no-one would notice. I did. I don't hold it against him because we've all done it to some extent. Indeed, for Tman it seems to be the sole modus operandi.

Great riposte there Jet........the "Pseud's Corner" remark hit the treble twenty by the looks of it.
And just to prove you fully deserve that particular accolade-

Makes a nice change from Friedman and Hayek.

[Lounge Lizard]

I say one more thing on Marx - cos frankly this is getting boring.

Bustedflush claimed that "Marx recognized that you needed capitalism to create any wealth FIRST before the workers could share it. " He then went onto state that this is Marx's dialectic.

What Marx actually said was that wealth was created from a surplus value that comes about when labour acts upon raw materials. That is, labour is the source of the capitalists wealth. This is very different from saying that "capitalism is needed to create wealth".
Dialectical materialism is something different again - it attempts to describe the march/flow of history. Materialist in contrast to for eg. spiritual. Dialectic - a question holds the seeds of its own answer. Things proceed by thesis - followed by its antithesis - followed by a synthesis. That is the dialectic. I fail to see how this can be used to suggest that Marx believed capitalism is somehow necessary. He may have thought that capitalism was a stage of history that contained the seeds of its own destruction - but necessary ? Thats something different entirely.

He was talking tripe basically - he has too little knowledge on the subject and was hoping no-one would notice. I did. I don't hold it against him because we've all done it to some extent. Indeed, for Tman it seems to be the sole modus operandi.

Anyhow, I suppose at least its nice that Marx is being discussed again - we've come a long way it would seem.

Makes a nice change from Friedman and Hayek.

Yes, but I have heard that 150 years ago Marx wrote “Owners of capital will stimulate the working class to buy more and more of expensive goods, houses and technology, pushing them to take more and more expensive credits, until their debt becomes unbearable. The unpaid debt will lead to bankruptcy of banks, which will have to be nationalized, and the State will have to take the road which will eventually lead to communism” but I now understand this is a fake quote.

[jetblack]

Yes, but I have heard that 150 years ago Marx wrote “Owners of capital will stimulate the working class to buy more and more of expensive goods, houses and technology, pushing them to take more and more expensive credits, until their debt becomes unbearable. The unpaid debt will lead to bankruptcy of banks, which will have to be nationalized, and the State will have to take the road which will eventually lead to communism” but I now understand this is a fake quote.

Looks fake, but who knows ? Not many people have read Capital all the way through.
He did write about usury, rentiers and banking etc but to be honest the world is a very different place today than it was back then. The Bank of England back then could only issue new bank notes if it had the gold to back it up. It wasn't until the early 1970's when the Bretton Wood agreemant was done away with (which pegged currency issuance to gold reserves) that the banks have had the capacity to create money, and set its price, at will. Combined with the abolition of a reserve requirement for the commercial banks in the early 80's, meaning that they also can create credit (debt to you and me) way in excess of any deposits held in reserve, and you have the basis for a thousand new ways by which we can be deprived of that which we rightfully own. And its all done without ownership of the traditional industrial means of production.

Marx would either be weeping in his grave, or "I told you so"

[bustedflush]

Yes, but I have heard that 150 years ago Marx wrote “Owners of capital will stimulate the working class to buy more and more of expensive goods, houses and technology, pushing them to take more and more expensive credits, until their debt becomes unbearable. The unpaid debt will lead to bankruptcy of banks, which will have to be nationalized, and the State will have to take the road which will eventually lead to communism” but I now understand this is a fake quote.

Looks fake, but who knows ? Not many people have read Capital all the way through.
He did write about usury, rentiers and banking etc but to be honest the world is a very different place today than it was back then. The Bank of England back then could only issue new bank notes if it had the gold to back it up. It wasn't until the early 1970's when the Bretton Wood agreemant was done away with (which pegged currency issuance to gold reserves) that the banks have had the capacity to create money, and set its price, at will. Combined with the abolition of a reserve requirement for the commercial banks in the early 80's, meaning that they also can create credit (debt to you and me) way in excess of any deposits held in reserve, and you have the basis for a thousand new ways by which we can be deprived of that which we rightfully own. And its all done without ownership of the traditional industrial means of production.

Marx would either be weeping in his grave, or "I told you so"

Well the UK left the Gold Standard (which gave the holders of Sterling the right to convert to the set value in gold) in the 1930's. Nixon IIRC did this to the Dollar in the 1970's. Yes, the UK along with some other countries no longer have a reserve requirement, but you forgot to mention the fact they have a capital requirement which, if you are referring to risk of exposure via over-lending and possible toxic debt is more effective anyway. This is updated from time to time to reflect economic conditions, something which Brown admitted he failed in back in 2010 when he'd spent all the money and left us with years of austerity.

At least they seem to have learned from it as it seems especially worded in relation to mortgage debt which was the major issue in the banking crisis, as we saw in 2008.

P.S. Well, you learn something every day, the BofE actually publishes it to all and sundry! Marx would be turning in his box, all this democracy and glasnost!!

http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/pra/Docu ... update.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[jetblack]

At least they seem to have learned from it ...

I doubt it. From yesterday :- UK household debt to income was also high by historical standards, at close to 140 per cent - , from the FT, "Are there signs that banks are taking more risks? Yes, in many areas there is evidence that low interest rates and benign economic conditions are driving banks to increase their riskier lending.One area that the BoE is particularly worried about is the UK’s £198bn consumer credit market. The central bank said its Prudential Regulation Authority had “found evidence of weaknesses in some aspects of underwriting and a reduction in resilience”.






BTW Busted - I have no desire to continue banging my head against a brick wall, but seeing as how you're back...

"In capitalism, competition and the incessant quest for the accumulation of profit drove participants to discover improved ways to increase productivity for the purpose of cheapening products or making more goods in less time. On one hand, Marx recognized this particular aspect of capitalism as a strength and benefit for a society because he saw how it could potentially provide more material wealth for everybody and improve the overall quality of life. Marx firmly believed that this particular strength of capitalism was very important and highly essential for the purpose of preparing material conditions needed for a future higher order society that would eventually replace capitalism."

I was a bit puzzled by this googled quote - seemed a bit odd. So I google this Zera character. Couldn't find anything. So I went to the source - Economictheory.org.
All seemed present and correct - this Zera chap seems legit and to know his stuff.

And then I located the source of your quote. It goes something like this :-

"With regard to material capital, Marx dedicated a substantial amount of his writings to explain the effects of the increasing employment of machines and subsequent industrialization of the economy. In capitalism, competition and the incessant quest for the accumulation of profit drove participants to discover improved ways to increase productivity for the purpose of cheapening products or making more goods in less time. On one hand, Marx recognized this particular aspect of capitalism as a strength and benefit for a society because he saw how it could potentially provide more material wealth for everybody and improve the overall quality of life. Marx firmly believed that this particular strength of capitalism was very important and highly essential for the purpose of preparing material conditions needed for a future higher order society that would eventually replace capitalism.

On the other hand, Marx pointed out that due to the competitive nature of capitalism and its aim for profit, new technology was not being utilized to lighten the load and burdens of the laborer and to reduce the length of his working day. In fact, as soon as the economic system became industrialized and more machines were employed, conditions for the worker including women and children became worse. Hence, work became increasingly hectic, complex, and intense, many opportunities for self-determination faded, and the quality of life for most people actually declined.

I bolded the parts that you conveniently thought it prudent to ommit.

I can see why you ommitted them (the references to mechanisation/automation/technology that is - and the explanation as to how they were used, effectively, counter to the interests of the workforce) - and it wasn't just in the interests of brevity was it old chap ? - you clipped it because by ommitting the bolded sections you were able to give a completely different meaning and slant to the passage that suited your position.

And that, fellow posties, is the wild west that is the internet. Cut, copied and pasted - and completely decontextualised.

So, TLDR; Marx thought capitalism was great at producing profits. Of course he did. When you can send a 12 year old to the coalface for 14 hours, no health and safety and pay him peanuts, whats not to love ? Or, to choose an example closer to home, a City/Wall Street owned RM is great at producing profit by slashing our pensions and sick pay (proposed), in a way that a nationalised industry aimed at providing decent conditions of employment in addition to a service to the nation isn't able.

But to derive from that, this ...

Marx recognized that you needed capitalism to create any wealth FIRST before the workers could share it.

... is, and I'll say it again, utter tripe.

Unless of course you mean "needed/necessary" in the way that gonorrhea is necessary prior to the administration of a penicillin antidote

You then went on to cite a few Marxian buzzwords, almost as an appeal to authority, and to add legitimacy - even though, again, they were completely out of context and irrelevant. You were trying to be too clever by comandeering a man to your cause that to all appearances is counter to it. In actual fact, Marx is counter to your cause. Very much so - it appears to be the case, and it is so. Couldn't you have plumped for, I dunno, Ricardo ? You are the economist, not me.


This is the internet fellow posties - proceed with care.

[baldrick]

Good rebuttal jetblack!

[bustedflush]

................
And that, fellow posties, is the wild west that is the internet. Cut, copied and pasted - and completely decontextualised.



This is the internet fellow posties - proceed with care.

A tactic which alas is not a stranger to your keyboard....as I said you mentioned the reserve ratio being removed but completely and conveniently forgot to inform people that it had been replaced with an equivalent mechanism. 'Hoisted on one's own petard' I believe may be the appropriate expression here.

A bit like me going about telling people "Wembley's been demolished!" and failing to mention there is the new model in its place.

But this the internet people - proceed with care!

Now I tried to find mines in Britain with kids working 14 hour days but I failed to. Now I reckon that could well be because your mate wrote his baloney based on what he saw then, and assumed all the nasty capitalists would never have social reforms or recognize the need for a fit and healthy workforce. Indeed this was mainly the case until the likes of Bourneville Village and Port Sunlight appeared. Thus in the context of today the bolded bit you pasted was not relevant. Again, if nothing else your argument is contradicted by the simple, indisputable chronology of events. Matey wrote his ramblings based upon what he saw and was already in place in many countries, the capitalist system. So in a general context how can you say his theories were NOT formed without consideration or inclusion of what was already materially present beforehand?

If you believe that you would be sitting today at a PC in your house with automatic central heating, flatscreen TV on the wall, car outside, clothes and dishes being cleaned by a machine despite being in a relatively low-earning occupation WITHOUT capitalism then you are seriously confused. You aren't uninformed because you know as we all do there are/were numerous countries that adhered to state management and control where this simply didn't and couldn't have occurred. Yep, it ain't perfect and has peaks and troughs, winners and losers but generally it is what has made material living standards inexorably rise over the last century, credit or no credit. Luckily, most people realize that and accept it, however reluctantly. Do you not have more than your parents at the same age? Will your kids not have more than you did as a child?

But then again, for a man who likes his epithets:

'In the kingdom of the blind the one-eyed man is king'

[jetblack]

...as I said you mentioned the reserve ratio being removed but completely and conveniently forgot to inform people that it had been replaced with an equivalent mechanism.

Yeah - this equivalent mechanism was so effective that in 2008 RBS had a core tier one capital ratio of 5.7%. That is, for every £5 they had in the safe they had £95 lent out, or near as dammit.
This kind of "free market enterprise" meant that to date they have had losses of circa £60 billion - borne by you and I.

This is getting silly.

[Tman]

You keep posting (what you consider to be the) problems with "capitalism", so let's turn this argument over and you give a country/region/area/time span when the political or monetary system would be recognisable as, or self-described as Marxism.
None of that "I didn't see it" waffling now...

[fishtank]

This is a silly argument, all countries and economies operate with a level of state control and a level of free market control. This has been the case throughout most of modern history.Nobody with any sense would argue for one without the other and Marx certainly didn't.

The real argument is where the most effective ratio lies that provides both a safety net for the most vulnerable and reasonable reward for aspiration. The ratio we have at the moment is clearly not working and is certainly not sustainable in the medium to long term, a change is needed but between the diehard right-wing short-termists and the fanciful left-wing idealists the argument rages on, you don't really get the fact that you're both as wrong as each other.

[postslippete]

Yes, Jeremy Corbyn and the Sunshine Band were at Glastonbury drumming up support. The guy obviously thinks that he's popular but for me he appears to represent too much of an anomaly. Could there be any other reason why 99% of the 'many' didn't vote for him over the 1% of the privileged few??

[Tman]

This is a silly argument, all countries and economies operate with a level of state control and a level of free market control. This has been the case throughout most of modern history.Nobody with any sense would argue for one without the other and Marx certainly didn't.

The real argument is where the most effective ratio lies that provides both a safety net for the most vulnerable and reasonable reward for aspiration. The ratio we have at the moment is clearly not working and is certainly not sustainable in the medium to long term, a change is needed but between the diehard right-wing short-termists and the fanciful left-wing idealists the argument rages on, you don't really get the fact that you're both as wrong as each other.

OK Dad.
Is it about being "wrong" and if it is, who're you to judge whether it is or isn't "wrong"? What's silly about it...other than your opinion?
It's a simple pragmatic question (rather than the endless "how many angels can dance etc etc" type of debate about what Marx meant/didn't mean on page 33 of his 1882 speech in Lower Saxony) so I'll repeat it-

If Marx offers anything at all for using as a successful working basis for an economic system, where and when has this happened?