I don't know if I see any evidence to believe Marxism isn't outdated and will grow to be anything but less relevant.
the THEORIES behind Marxism are all but obsolete, but the original observations they are founded on are as relevant as ever. Quite frankly I'm surprised we haven't seen an uprising in interest for socialism/communism in America during this bank bailout and recession shit, because our population demographics and economic disparities DO resemble that of a "class struggle". Don't shy away from Marxism just because it's immensely unpopular - the perspectives and observations still very much apply.
the THEORIES behind Marxism are all but obsolete, but the original observations they are founded on are as relevant as ever. Quite frankly I'm surprised we haven't seen an uprising in interest for socialism/communism in America during this bank bailout and recession shit, because our population demographics and economic disparities DO resemble that of a "class struggle". Don't shy away from Marxism just because it's immensely unpopular - the perspectives and observations still very much apply.
My field is capitalist economics. What fundamentals of commodity markets originated from Marx that are used today by capitalist economists?Marx has contributed considerably more that has stood the test of time. He mostly gave us conflict theory in sociology, and fundamentals of commodity markets that are used today in economics even by rabid capitalists.
EDIT: Jesus. It took Backmail! to remember that Marx concerns more than just political movements.
EDIT: Jesus. It took Backmail! to remember that Marx concerns more than just political movements.
nozflubber said:Everyday I walk around my Uni watching researchers, professors, faculty staff and I ask why do they do what they do? What are their overall motivations? "The history of Academia is an economic history" is all that echoes in my ears over and over everytime I observe my fellow academics. People don't give a flying fuck about science or medicine save for a scarce few - most people in academia and research just want a damn job and a high-paying salary while doing as little as possible. They only care for preserving their pet theories like a sinner of avarice hording a stash of Gold, prodding and attacking any and all who would attack their sacred theory; they only care for "Publish or Perish". Marx hit the nail on the head with that one, I almost hate him for being so truthful about it, because I can't prove him wrong. Only the most eccentric NTP or NTJ scientist/mathematician makes me realize Marx was oversimplifying.
Freud tried to oversimplify and reduce everything to the extent of forcing the simplification, and like someone else said he overemphasized sex. I think Marx is still relevant except to those who misunderstand his theories.
His labour theory of value and factors of productio nare outdated and would simply be regard ed as lacking or false in today's understanding of econocmis.
The phillosophical and sociological impolications of this are quite relevant.
Yes, but after comparitive advantage, I gave him a pass on ltv. Marx took it further.You mean Ricardo's labour theory of value?
I understand with a lot of what Marx said, especially many facutal things about capitalism. My biggest beef with him is his understanding of fairness, the ethics of exploitation, et cetera. Also, I feel his understanding of the factors of production (his overemphasis for labour anyway) to be insufficient.The thing about Marx, like I said before, is that he was a student, gathering together into a single hypothesis other theories, therefore a lot of the people who condemn Marx and Marxism dont realise that they are condemning by the same token a lot of classical economics. Its a little clearer if you go to the original sources, read Adam Smith the way that Marx did, Hegel the way he did and really early Proudhon (seriously Proudhon typified French "socialism's" popular reaction to the change and development which industrialisation and economic restructuring were bringing in, you'll not believe it but a lot of the work attempted to explain and pitch Smith's ideas to people more likely to demand paternalistic despotic regimes).
Yes, I'm aware Marx coined capitalism as being the most productive system or whatever. I agree with that part.Marx was a champion of capitalism BTW, the communist manifesto is basically a defence of capitalism against paleoconservatives and socialists, basically he suggests that the system has huge potential and that prosperity would be generated by the superabundance it could create NOT redistribution per se, its similar to Durkheim's distinctions between socialism or syndicalism and communism. That'll be a surprise to many but its none the less a fact if you make a close and proper reading of his books.
Yes, but after comparitive advantage, I gave him a pass on ltv. Marx took it further.
I understand with a lot of what Marx said, especially many facutal things about capitalism. My biggest beef with him is his understanding of fairness, the ethics of exploitation, et cetera. Also, I feel his understanding of the factors of production (his overemphasis for labour anyway) to be insufficient.
Yes, I'm aware Marx coined capitalism as being the most productive system or whatever. I agree with that part.
The one advocating the contemporary relevance of Marxism is surprised by how things played/are playing out, the one doing the opposite is not.
For example, "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs." I find unethical. My understanding is that this was part opinion and not simply what he believed to be a necessity under communism. Do you disagree?
Likewise Marx tried to construct a similarly reductionist and deterministic theory, like Freud, I tend to think he was as great an economist as others of his day and age, just saw the invisible hand guiding society in a different direction to that predicted by classical liberals. Or rather saw the visible hand to class struggle in the place of invisible market forces. His theories about motivation and individuals being frustrated producers instead of frustrated consumers, they all predate him. He was really an archetypical student who spent time in the British Libraries reading rooms trying to weave his favourite authors (German philosophy, english economists, french socialists) into a single tapestry.
For example, "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs." I find unethical. My understanding is that this was part opinion and not simply what he believed to be a necessity under communism. Do you disagree?
Chicago and Austrian schools have explanations for crises under a market economy. Neither while doing undergrad and postgrad economic studies, did I once hear the expression 'bourgeois economists', what does that mean?Really? I disagree. I wasn't surprised by the current economic crisis, neither are most Marxists. Nearly all bourgeois economists were, and have been unable to explain it seriously.
In fact no other "school" of economics has a theory of why crises are inherent to capitalism, yet we can see they are.
It's neither an "opinion" or a "fact", it's a proposal for a rationally organized society.
I don't agree, although I can't specifically say where I disagree with you because you haven't provided your specific argument. I don't believe capitalism necessitates a perfectly competitive market and that there will always be administrative costs. From such observations alone, I don't see how 'from each according to etc.' is the ethical basis for capitalism. Please explain specifically?Its also the ethical basis for capitalism if you give it a bit of thought. Its not that radical.