Forum Post: Karl Max Predicted This - Here We Go
Posted 12 years ago on Nov. 22, 2011, 1:59 a.m. EST by tackyjan
(46)
from San Diego, CA
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
According to Wikipedia:
Karl Marx was heavily critical of the socio-economic form of society, capitalism, which he called the "dictatorship of the bourgeoisie", believing it to be run by the wealthy middle and upper classes purely for their own benefit, and predicted that, like previous socioeconomic systems, it would inevitably produce internal tensions which would lead to its self-destruction and replacement by a new system, socialism. Under socialism, he argued that society would be governed by the working class in what he called the "dictatorship of the proletariat", the "workers state" or "workers' democracy". He believed that socialism would, in its turn, eventually be replaced by a stateless, classless society called pure communism.
We are witnessing the beginning of the self destruction predicted by Marx. The 99%'ers are the workers and the 1%'ers are the bourgeoisie.
I don't know what the 1%'ers are so scared of. After all, it was Jesus who said "If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."
Perhaps one with such narrow views focused on a truly marginal facet of our composition would recognize the extreme generosity of the 1% in relation to funding of the arts, sciences, universities, theater, medical research.....and so on and so on. And, when natural disasters strike around the world, who is foremost in financial aid? Damn fucking right, the USA!!!!!!!!!!!!
why is it that the left attacks people for being christian and then will quote (or misquote here) Jesus to make their points?
The left attacks people who claim to be Christian but ignore the fundamental teachings of Christ.
Because OWS are hypocritical in nature.
I think a lot of what you say (and what Marx said) is true. The occupy movement is worldwide, and is very much a 'workers revolution'. Karl Marx thought that the revolution HAD to be global, since a revolution in just one country (Cuba, China, Soviet Union), wouldn't work.
Another interesting thing Karl Marx said, was that the workers would own the means of production.
In his time (1835), the means of production were dangerous machines the size of locomotives, which required scores of workers to operate. Since humans wouldn't be able to go back to a world without mass produced goods, the workers would need to claim the machines and factories for themselves, and run them by themselves.
Today, the 'means of production' are much smaller, and many of us own them already ourselves. We can make movies with a digital camera, and notebook computers give us incredible freedom to do livestream, DJ, edit movies, record music, and so forth. We also have our own tools and workshops, allowing us to make our own furniture, clothes, etc.
At the moment, where the 1% have us is in things such as licensing and distribution. They act as the middle men, in other words.
There are not enough tools and workshops in the developed world to come anywhere close to providing for even just basic needs. Yes we have digital cameras and whatnot. But the means of production for actual, tangible goods are anything but smaller. Even food production is massively industrialized now, in the form of agribusiness (something Marx never even imagined, the small farmer class was always a stumbling block for him). And all other production of tangible goods is much more industrialized and mechanized than it ever was in 1835, when a "factory" didn't necessarily have any machines at all and people were still putting the bristles on brushes by hand.
Even in terms of workshops. Thirty years ago, most people (well, men anyway) knew a bit of carpentry, some welding perhaps, basic engine mechanics and so on. But today's young generation - at least, the urban ones - often cannot so much as change a tire or wire a light, and they certainly don't have a workshop.
Eh, well when Karl Marx wrote the manifesto, he was only considering industrialized countries, such as England and the United States. He wasn't really considering the developing world at the time. That concept didn't even exist then.
There is a technological innovation which some people think might end Capitalism as we know it. It's called a 'Rep Rap', which is a 3-D printer. This is a poor man's version of Nasa's 'Fab Lab' (Fabrication Laboratory), which was designed to be able to make 3-D objects (such as tools). There are other machines that do this, such as Makerbots.
The Rep Rap was designed copyright free, and is able to reproduce itself. The inventor is planning on sending them to poor areas and remote areas, so they will be able to manufacture replacement parts for things that break.
As you have probably observed yourself, technology is shrinking machines as well as making them more sophisticated. There will likely be something like vending machines to custom make the things from raw materials you buy in the stores now, right on the spot.
These things (rapid replication) are in their beginning stages, so they can only make things out of plastic. However, they are like a very primitive version of the 'replicators' you might have seen on 'Star Trek, the Next generation'.
Ever wonder why they don't use money on Star Trek? It's because they have no use for it. It's not a world of capitalism and corporations in the Star Trek universe. I think it's closer to Karl Marx's vision than any kind of a Libertarian vision of the future.
It's true that we have lost a lot of the skills which our fathers and grandfathers had. In the future we may have to re-learn these skills. More and more, we have allowed the corporations to take over and provide us the goods that we used to make for ourselves.
Eh, well when Karl Marx wrote the manifesto, he was only considering industrialized countries, such as England and the United States. He wasn't really considering the developing world at the time. That concept didn't even exist then.
Marx was an internationalist and imagined a global revolution. He talked quite a bit about global economies and what were then colonies. He believed that the colonies would rapidly become industrialized, because capital would always seek lower labour costs. The industrialized countries were closest to the necessary state, but, he didn't ignore the rest of the world at all. In fact it was critical to his idea of class consciousness. Capital and free trade destroy national industry, in favour of global industry, and because Marx imagined social realities proceed from the realities of production, so globalism would erase or render irrelevant national identities and class-based identities would emerge on a global scale.
There is a technological innovation which some people think might end Capitalism as we know it. It's called a 'Rep Rap', which is a 3-D printer.
Some people used to think sewing machines would end textile factories. There are more of those now than ever, and the conditions are just as bad as ever in many cases. And though we are paying through the nose more than ever for clothing, not many people have a sewing machine anymore. When I was a kid, everyone had one (and even then, there were still lots of textile factories, and no, I'm not ancient, this was just in the 1970s). Increasingly we are less and less able to produce the things we need for ourselves, despite growing potential to do so.
As far as Star Trek, well, its scifi, and things won't necessarily be like that at all. They can make food out of thin air more or less. 3D printers aren't anything like that. All they are is a cutting tool guided by computer.
Well, you make some excellent points. You are also very familiar with Karl Marx and his ideas. You are right that Marx envisioned a world-wide worker revolution. I still think that a lot of Marx's predictions have come true.
I'm not sure what you are arguing here though.
I suppose an alternative view is that this is the collapse of industrial civilization (as peak oil theorist Michael Ruppert says).
Of course there is no false dichotomy. It's not 'this way or that way'. However, I just don't see the system continuing the way that it is now.
You are right that Marx envisioned a world-wide worker revolution. I still think that a lot of Marx's predictions have come true.
Surely many of them have. He was spot on in saying that globalization would be antagonistic to national industry (capital flight and all that) and create new, transnational identities (though they don't as yet appear to be class-based). Marx's views on capitalism are interesting, some stuff he missed the mark but you can say that about any thinker.
However, I don't find his alternative very satisfying. I mean there really isn't much of it. In all his extensive works, he wrote less than what's on this page about communism. Much less. You can read almost all of the concrete statements he made about it in just one letter, Critique of the Gotha Program, and even there it is only a few brief and still rather vague asides. Basically put, it seems like Marx didn't have much time for communism itself!
I'm not sure what you are arguing here though.
Well, I don't have a competing thesis to give you, I'm afraid. I'm just commenting on what you've written according to what I've picked up.
I just don't see the system continuing the way that it is now.
It obviously can't. How can an economy that produces so few tangible goods, and can't even generate the fake wealth it runs on anymore, possibly be sustainable? Never mind the resource inputs and diminishing returns from ecological damage. But I don't think there is any Star Trek horizon in any near future. I picture a period of crisis, and then after, the generation who lives through it will be extremely frugal and hardworking (and I mean actual work, the kind that involves sweat, not shuffling files around or writing nonsense in corporatespeak all day long). They'll want their children to not have to go through what they went through, so they'll set them up for a good future. And that spoiled generation will wreck everything and ruin their children's future and we'll be back here again.
Well it's fine that you don't have an alternative thesis. I don't think many people do right now. Communism (at least the Soviet version) failed, now Capitalism (at least Corporate Capitalism) is in it's death throes.
Even if Communism/ socialism was a perfect system, I don't see it being adopted in the United States. There is too much ingrained indoctrination against it for most people to find it palatable.
The current system is also obviously failing. At the heart of the problem as you pointed out, is that the manufacturing base of the US has been exported, so now the only thing that keeps the economy going is shuffling papers around.
I did read a book in University that talked about a fusion of the best elements of capitalism and communism. Everyone would have health care, housing, and school taken care of. Some necessary utilities (such as electricity, roads, sewers) would be paid for by the state. You would still have privately owned small businesses competing with each other, and there would still be the profit motive. However, like Sweden, there would be no excessive wealth nor extreme poverty.
II think that you are right. What is going to happen will be a hyper inflationary period, then a sort of 'dark ages', or at least a return to the way things were during the Pioneer days. I don't see this ending in a generation though.
I think that the petrochemical industry will die out as the oil runs out. I also think that as oil becomes more expensive, foreign exports from overseas will dwindle or even stop.
I also wonder what will happen to political borders? The internet seems to have rendered them meaningless already.
If cars and airplanes become too expensive to operate, but we still can speak to people through internet and phone all over the world, will everyone on the planet resort to a city-state sort of government again?
Maybe that would be for the best. That way, if there was war it would be between two cities, and not huge nation-states.
It might also be the only way that different regions of the USA can accommodate the radically different political viewpoints of the people that live there. San Francisco might be Communist and in support of gay marriage, Mobile, Alabama might be Tea Party where abortion is illegal, for example.
Corruption in politics might not be ended, but at a municipal level it would be a lot less. Also of course, politicians might be made a lot more accountable. Hopefully there will be some transitioning to a General Assembly model.
I'm not saying it SHOULD happen, just that it COULD happen. I remember a Robert A. Heinlein story where the USA was like this. Well, more like each state was it's own country.
What if this happened and the USA was threatened by another country such as China? Well, I'm sure every city-state would instantly unite to counter a common threat.
I did read a book in University that talked about a fusion of the best elements of capitalism and communism. Everyone would have health care, housing, and school taken care of. Some necessary utilities (such as electricity, roads, sewers) would be paid for by the state. You would still have privately owned small businesses competing with each other, and there would still be the profit motive.
We actually did have that. It was called the mixed economy, or Keynesian capitalism. After the war, everyone saw that the government, if properly motivated, could actually manage to do things pretty well. And so we got things like employment insurance, pensions, banking and trust regulations, social security, workplace safety legislation, environmental legislation, all that sort of stuff. Economies exploded - no economic system has ever come close to the mixed economy, there is nothing to hold a candle to it. Governments all over the developed world had to build massive new infrastructure systems (eg Eisenhower's interstate highways etc) to handle the explosive growth, which continued for decades. Until in the late 70s a wave of cynical politics swept the world, demanding more privatization, more deregulation, more cuts, and in the economy, more downsizing. "Can't Do" and a policy of continually shrinking everything (both government and corporate) has led us to this place, which is ultimately just a failure of the imagination. You think big, you get big, you think small, you get small. That applies to society and the nation every bit as much as it does to individuals.
A lot of Karl Marx's predictions were made long before he came along.
Yes that's true.
http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/197468/20110813/roubini-nouriel-roubini-dr-doom-financial-crisis-debt-crisis-europe.htm
"Karl Marx had it right," Roubini said in an interview with wsj.com. "At some point capitalism can self-destroy itself. That's because you can not keep on shifting income from labor to capital without not having an excess capacity and a lack of aggregate demand. We thought that markets work. They are not working. What's individually rational ... is a self-destructive process."
Re. "The 99%'ers are the workers and the 1%'ers are the bourgeoisie.", the essence of the problem is actually concentrated in the 1% OF The 1% !!!
The demoCRAZY deMOCKERYcy prevalent in The U$A perpetuates The Government OF The 99%, BY a 1%, FOR a 0.01%.
Two Linx : http://www.marxists.org/ & for a foot tapping 5 minutes ; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xq3BYw4xjxE ! njoy both ...
SOLIDARITY !!
In these times British society was strongly class-based and governed by an openly plutocratic regime. Marx's worker state means simply that the majority governs.
stateless? i wish
The self destructive process has come to its end. Some people don't realize that, because the elites hide their defeat behind shameful lies. In America and in Europe the capitalism there is no more. The banksteins have just to say:"Our age is finished. Now it's your turn". But they haven't the courage to do it. Then let the workers say: "99% all over the world, fight togheter. Our time is on".
http://www.psupress.org/Justataste/justatasteRNelson.html "The Keynesian God
It would be hard to imagine a temperament more the opposite of Marx’s than that of John Maynard Keynes. If Marx was prophetic and bombastic, Keynes had the manner of the worldly wise. If Marx was a social misfit and bohemian, the urbane Keynes designed economic blueprints for the British Treasury, and yet at the next moment might be consorting with the artistic elite of Bloomsbury.21 Keynes also differed sharply from Marx in his prescription for solving unemployment and other economic problems. Yet in terms of ultimate values, Keynesianism was only a modest variation on Marx—on the recent revelation of God’s actual plan for the world, that the Christian Bible is apparently mistaken, that God actually works in history through economic forces and is planning a glorious ending to the world based on the workings of rapidly advancing material productivity."
You're reading a much different Marx than I read. Marx wanted to destroy capitalism and the nation-state, Keynes wanted to save both of them. Marx bitterly complained when the German Worker's Party demanded free public education and when they asked for the government to help set up worker's co-ops, he stated "Instead of arising from the revolutionary process of transformation of society, the 'socialist organization of the total labor' 'arises' from the 'state aid' that the state gives to the producers' co-operative societies and which the state, not the workers, 'calls into being'. It is worthy of Lassalle's imagination that with state loans one can build a new society just as well as a new railway!"
You seem to have conflated Marx with Lenin here. One could definately make the case that the welfare state and Keynesian capitalism saw some features of the Soviet economy which could be adapted to capitalism. But there's nothing in Marx even vaguely resembling Keynesianism. Flat-out, the only state aid or redistribution Marx will allow are some poor houses, "of the type we have in England now" ie 19th century poor houses complete with treadmills and whatnot. The welfare state would have horrified Marx - he would have seen it as a political alliance between the bourgeouis and lumpenproletariat, against the working classes. Keynesianism would have upset him greatly, being that it basically renders capitalism indefinately sustainable.
Thanks for that link... thought provoking on many levels! I'll be passing this one on :)
Yes, but what did Max Headroom predict about it?
"Catch it if you can, can."
Regardless of whether it works or not and regardless of what you think of Karl Marx he predicted what is happening right now.
socialist bullshit artists have been predicting that the collapse of western economies was right around the corner since they started whining about wanting shit and not working for it 100+ years ago.
are you familiar with the concept of a roomful of monkeys and typrewriters? do you know what ultimately happens? are you afraid the writer of Planet of the Apes might have been a similarly gifted prognosticator as marx?
besides, this economic mess will end eventually and marx will STILL be wrong. and despite this, malcontent losers will still try to promote his ridiculous theories. it's just human nature. there will always be 1-2% of people who, in their rebellion phase (perfectly normal) take up marx and even a smaller amount who never can grow up enough to let it go.
" this economic mess will end"......You got that right. "Along with the system that made the mess."
"Along with the system that made the mess."
if the system ends, it won't happen because people are whining about wall st, it will happen when people start protesting DC, the federal govt. the people who make and enforce the rules and allow themselves to be bought.
I wish someone in ows would be honest enough to admit that if this protest was happening 3+ years ago, you would all be in DC, and the reason it is not happening now is because the president and the senate are controlled by fellow leftists.
I am neither for nor against Marx and his theories. I only state the obvious. That what we are witnessing was predicted by him.
yeah, you already said that.
are you incapable of accepting more input that might alter your mastery of the obvious?
btw, are you sure he predicted a sub-prime mortgage meltdown on top of runaway govt spending resulting in a recession and a 47+ month recovery?
or is close enough close enough?
ahh, nevermind. he predicted something bad would happen at some point in time in some way because no one would listen to him. yep...he sure nailed it!
[Deleted]
yeah, he's a regular Nostradamus with that startling prediction.
I guess some people are easily impressed, especially when they want to be.
Plato predicted this 2,500 years ago in the Republic. Karl Marx merely repeated the prediction.
Karl Max, now that's funny!
This was predicted long before Karl Marx by Plato in The Republic.
[Removed]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Z9WVZddH9w
http://occupywallst.org/forum/cubas-electoral-system/
It gets the money out of politics, big time.
http://cubandemocracy.wordpress.com/election-process/
Communism isn't classless. There are people at the top who make all of the decisions and let the rest do the work. The people at the top are very, very wealthy. This happened in the USSR.
The people on committee become wealthy because the workers are in competition for goods. People opposite from those who are in competition are the ones who benefit.
You want consumers to be the beneficiaries of competition because everybody is a consumer. In order for this to happen, you want firms to be competitive, not consumers.
[Removed]
[Removed]
Isn't this what you would call an attempt at creating a self-fulfilling prophecy?
I like the art Karl's brother Peter produced in the 60s and 70s a lot. Very talented man.
LMAO. That was Max, slizzo. Peter Max.
right, and the post here about Max, gnomunny. Karl Max.
Damn! I totally missed that. In my defense it was damn near the middle of the night. (-;
@ gnomunny : Given what the thread is trying to address itself to, I thought that you and others may like this excellent animation & critique by David Harvey, "Crisis of Capitalism: Is it time to look beyond Capitalism to a New Social Order?" : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qOP2V_np2c0 .
Also, given your known soft spot for a decent tune, I came across this on another thread : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xq3BYw4xjxE , which though a little 'Dylanesque', had me humming along at the song's 'Occupy' sentiments.
Further, IF you fancy an uplifting & illuminating 15 mins. : Try Slavoj Zizek @ OWS ; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oEUZNfOtPlE ! He has a strong sLOVEnian accent so thank goodness for 'MIC-CHECK' !!
Finally, for you and those who wish to make your own mind up about Karl Marx : http://www.marxists.org/ , one of the best on-line resources on the matter that I've ever seen.
Stay well and keep seeking 'gno(sis)' ;-)
pax et lux ...
You're the man, shadz. Thanks for the links. Peace, my brother!
funny. Cuba started selling cars this year. I guess Marx wasn't a fortune teller after all.
Pure socialism doesn't work.
The Revolution has a theme song!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rGaRtqrlGy8&feature=related
http://occupywallst.org/forum/make-a-stand-join-the-clan/
The Revolution starts here! No one can silence the Revolution!
What Marx was too shallow to see is that capitalism is evolutionary; a biological, genetic force unstoppable, the product of innate desire.
And so is "government."
I'm having difficulty with your first sentence though - "socioeconomic form of society." Are not society and socioeconomic the very same word?
Every power system claims to be the truest reflection of the natural order and product of "innate desire". Yet anyone who knows a bit about propaganda and marketing knows that "innate desire" can easily be manufactured and manipulated. Capitalists have no more proof to support the contention that acquisitiveness is a primary and innate human desire than the claims of the primacy of the innate human desire for sharing from those of other economic philosophies they try to debunk.
Moreover, if capitalism caters to everyone's acquisitiveness, then why is it producing a situation where so many work for someone else's benefit and wealth but themselves enjoy only a small fraction of the profit their work produces? It's obviously NOT catering to people's acquisitiveness at all - they are giving up the wealth they produce, to executives and landlords and bankers who have never worked a day in their life. That's the problem.
What you're saying here is that the greed of capitalism needs to be checked; we do that through a cyclical process of oppression and reform. It's ALL evolutionary.
Karl Marx was a lazy asshole who couldn't make money to support himself.
He lived off of money from his wealthy friend Friedrich Engels who had money from his rich industrialist father.
Karl Marx was a lazy bastard who lived off of money from his 1% friends.
Who's historical wisdom are you gleaning that nugget of feces from?
Marx was far more of a hard worker than any U.S. Presidents of recent vintage, by all accounts having worked more real jobs than the average political thinker or economist today. Anyway... so what!?! Why would that be an argument of any merit to you, when judging the validity of philosophers?
Marx spent the majority of his life leeching off of his friend Engels.
He did not work. Name jobs that he did to support himself throughout his life.
Even failing at publishing and editing newspapers and books is more work than most rich people do. Being a good writer and educator and organizer is hard work. Although writing did not prove to be itself successful for him from the economic standpoint, some might argue that his writings had more value than was placed on them in his day.
Having a friend and benefactor who was dedicated to helping sustain a him, who believed Marx a person of great worth, devoted entirely to his fellow-men, may look from some vantage like being a "leech" -- but that is surely not how the friend saw it.
And why should you?
Not everyone can support themselves and others in the same kinds of way. We all have different talents and capabilities.
It says a lot that no one was interested in buying anything that Marx produced. He had to be supported by someone who derived their income from capitalism.
No one was buying Marx's crap. He was a leech.
The only people that bought into Marxism were totalitarian revolutionaries.
Not a good track record. Not with the largest body count in human history behind it.
Sure you're not confusing Marxism with Christianity there?
Marx is no more to blame for any "body count" (surely not the largest claimed under the banner of any ideology, but no use arguing with someone content with fantasy figures and factoids,) than Christ was for the foolish actions of those who misuse his name and misinterpret his message.
This is not to compare Marx to Christ in any other way. . .natch!
That makes him the perfect idol for OWS! lmao
I support the OWS movement and I am not a lazy bum. I paid my own way to get a college degree in engineering and I have had a steady job for 20 years. I am not a bum. I don't crap in the street. I have taken a shower today. I am totally self sufficient. And yet I agree with the philosophies of OWS. This is just a media smear campaign to make the public believe that we are all bums and we should not be listened to.
Here here. I've been working over half my life (will be 28 this December,) even had to drop out of the 8th grade to help at my parent's failing bookstore. I've never been so happy to be an American than when I'm looking at the brave people of the Occupy movement.
Lazy is staying home and complaining about minor temporary inconveniences. Taking the time to dedicate yourself fully to a purposeful, meaningful, and - moreover: highly necessary cause - learning hands-on tools for true democracy and regaining dignity and enthusiasm for your Country's future: these are people alive and creating something of worth.
Those still whining and supporting the status quo and hating their dutiful work to an unsustainable State, these people need to look out their window and see real hope and change, not the looking-glass abstraction on their wall which tells no more than half-truths, and often outright lies.
Chill, it was a joke. And it was to the living off of the 1% not showering.
But beyond that, lots of people agree with various aspects of the "philosophies" of OWS. Why wouldn't they? Most of it is nothing new and largely is the same stuff that other groups have been complaining about for years. Just because some new group is saying it, doesn't mean that people have to sign on with them especially when much of the rest is a mess and very far off as far as core values for most.
Karl Marx - another sick radical judaic
freedom90, you really have something against Jews don't you?