5 ms·

> A whole lot of his predictions didn't come to be in part because of his predictions. That doesn't make any logical sense. At best it means self-contradiction

> A whole lot of his predictions didn't come to be in part because of his predictions. That doesn't make any logical sense. At best it means self-contradictions: "The model fails because of itself". > E.g. Germany got the worlds first modern healthcare and pensions insurance because Bismarck, terrified of a repeat of the uprisings of 1848 as Marxist and other revolutionary groups gained support, pushed through massive healthcare and pension reforms that became a blueprint for large parts of Europe. And Marxists actively frowned upon those gradual increment in workers welfare because it directly contradicted a core tenet of Marxism that only a "real" revolution of the proletariat could increase workers' condition, which wasn't the case. Social democrats are not Marxist, were always frowned upon as "Marx-falsifiers" and even without Marxism, revolts, revolutions and civil wars happened well before Marx. > But other than that, we don't really know whether or not he'll be right or wrong, because the core proposition of his predictions were that capitalism would start seeing crises once it had exhausted the ability to expand into new markets. Sure, there never was a total lack of new markets but there was also many capitalist economies that did not have direct access to those markets and yet they never collapsed as Marx predicted. If anything, it means that it doesn't have that much of an impact on a capitalist economy's survival. And it's not like economists are not aware of scarcity of resources, labor and market, and in fact those factors come into play although not in a "total lack of new markets" but in a more gradual way. > Whether or not he'll be right about capitalism "eating itself" by being so efficient that it will drive the price of labor towards zero and so destroy the very markets it depends on, is not something we can really tell until we see how capitalism behaves once most countries have taken the "easy gains" of a developing economy. Once growth in China, India and Africa flatlines, we'll be able to get a real idea. Developing countries such as African countries and China and India are already seeing their remuneration increasing at tremendous rates, this can be seen by all metrics ranging from alphabetization rate going up to fertility rate going down. Yet the pre-Covid economy was soaring amid those factors. This goes directly against Marx predictions, those were not dampening the wellness of the global economy, and it's not like new populated continents were discovered. And a big factor for this, as it was for Malthusianism's failed predictions, was technology and automation, whose potential was never truly considered.

vidarh 6y ago
> That doesn't make any logical sense. At best it means self-contradictions: "The model fails because of itself". It makes perfect logical sense. The predictions changed behaviour. The changed behaviour meant the original predictions were based on conditions that no longer applied. > And Marxists actively frowned upon those gradual increment in workers welfare because it directly contradicted a core tenet of Marxism that only a "real" revolution of the proletariat could increase workers' condition, which wasn't the case. Social democrats are not Marxist, were always frowned upon as "Marx-falsifiers" and even without Marxism, revolts, revolutions and civil wars happened well before Marx. This is massive oversimplification. The Communist Manifesto itself includes a list of electoral demands for reforms, that includes things like e.g. free primary education. What it doesn't include is a call for revolution, but a reactive suggestion that if forced by circumstance the working class makes itself the ruling class by means of revolution, then that would in a stroke sweep away the bourgeois state. Marx left the door open for electoral politics already then. Indeed, the Communist Manifesto also expresses his support for the activity of the Chartists in the UK, who aimed to expand suffrage, to the consternation of more hardline revolutionaries who saw it as pointless. Later, one of Marx own most famous works - Critique of the Gotha Programme - does not critique said program by rejecting the idea of electoral policies, but instead critiques and suggests changes to said electoral program set forth by the Social Democratic Workers Party in Germany, a party closely aligned with Marx and Engels, and one of forerunners of the SPD. And incidentally one of the parties that helped scare Bismark into action. The founder of social democracy - Eduard Bernstein - was a personal friend of Marx, and a Marxist himself. Modern social democracy is a very different thing, but from the start it was strongly aligned to communism, with many modern social democratic parties tracing their origin to Marxist organisations. Incidentally, the Erfurt Programme of the SPD, published in 1891, was written by Kautsky, Bebel and Bernstein, all three of whom were outspoken Marxists, though Kautsky and Bebel were much more "orthodox" in their support for the need for revolution. The sharp separation between social-democrats and revolutionary socialists of various shades first started taking shape towards the very end of the century and sped up with a number of social-democratic parties supporting World War I, leading to splits, and further splits after the Bolshevik coup. That separation was not "complete" until the late 1920's with the Stalinisation of Komintern. > Sure, there never was a total lack of new markets but there was also many capitalist economies that did not have direct access to those markets and yet they never collapsed as Marx predicted. If anything, it means that it doesn't have that much of an impact on a capitalist economy's survival. Marx didn't predict that a capitalist economy would immediately collapse if it did not have access to new geographic markets, so this is entirely flawed logic. His prediction is very simple: Companies will eventually need to reduce the cost of labour per unit of value produced to survive, because it will be the easiest remaining way to compete, and this will eventually drive unemployment, and that this will eventually lead to escalating crises. But a pre-requisite is that labour first needs to become the easiest factor to optimise. > Developing countries such as African countries and China and India are already seeing their remuneration increasing at tremendous rates, this can be seen by all metrics ranging from alphabetization rate going up to fertility rate going down. Yet the pre-Covid economy was soaring amid those factors. This goes directly against Marx predictions, those were not dampening the wellness of the global economy, and it's not like new populated continents were discovered. There's nothing in Marx' predictions that goes against this. This goes back to the insistence that capitalism is first at threat of crises once reducing the cost of labour becomes the primary competitive lever. I pointed to China, India and Africa explicitly because they still see the easy gains of developing economies, where there are a plethora of ways to drive growth that are easy enough that focusing on reducing total labour costs are not worthwhile. Just like Europe and the US exported low-paid work to India and China, China and India are exporting low paid work to Bangladesh, Vietnam and Africa, and in doing so allowing for salary growth in their own countries. But even within Africa this is happening between countries at different levels of development. The point I was making is explicitly that we have no way of determining whether or not Marx was right about what happens when there are no further places to export competitive pressure until those places have exhausted the easy gains. Basically: Once even sub-Saharan Africa starts seeing GDP growth rates closely track declining population growth numbers is the first point in time when we will actually be able to start making a judgement about whether his prediction that aggregate labour costs will be driven down is true or not, and whether or not that will have the effect of causes crises. Were at a minimum many decades away from that, maybe much longer. And he may well be wrong, but we can't tell anytime soon. > And a big factor for this, as it was for Malthusianism's failed predictions, was technology and automation, whose potential was never truly considered. Socialism already pre-Marx, in their earliest formulations by Henri de Saint-Simon , was based on the expectation of technology and automation eventually removing the need for labour. If anything, the biggest errors Marx made was to assume too rapid growth, and a too rapid declining need for labour. Ultimately socialism as an ideology started as a near fetishistic belief in rapid technological advance. Marx is gushing over the advances brought by capitalism like an over-excited fanboy at the start of the Communist Manifesto. To the point where overestimating the speed of technological advance was clearly a problem with his predictions.

vidarh 6y ago

> That doesn't make any logical sense. At best it means self-contradictions: "The model fails because of itself". It makes perfect logical sense. The predictions changed behaviour. The changed behaviour meant the original predictions were based on conditions that no longer applied. > And Marxists actively frowned upon those gradual increment in workers welfare because it directly contradicted a core tenet of Marxism that only a "real" revolution of the proletariat could increase workers' condition, which wasn't the case. Social democrats are not Marxist, were always frowned upon as "Marx-falsifiers" and even without Marxism, revolts, revolutions and civil wars happened well before Marx. This is massive oversimplification. The Communist Manifesto itself includes a list of electoral demands for reforms, that includes things like e.g. free primary education. What it doesn't include is a call for revolution, but a reactive suggestion that if forced by circumstance the working class makes itself the ruling class by means of revolution, then that would in a stroke sweep away the bourgeois state. Marx left the door open for electoral politics already then. Indeed, the Communist Manifesto also expresses his support for the activity of the Chartists in the UK, who aimed to expand suffrage, to the consternation of more hardline revolutionaries who saw it as pointless. Later, one of Marx own most famous works - Critique of the Gotha Programme - does not critique said program by rejecting the idea of electoral policies, but instead critiques and suggests changes to said electoral program set forth by the Social Democratic Workers Party in Germany, a party closely aligned with Marx and Engels, and one of forerunners of the SPD. And incidentally one of the parties that helped scare Bismark into action. The founder of social democracy - Eduard Bernstein - was a personal friend of Marx, and a Marxist himself. Modern social democracy is a very different thing, but from the start it was strongly aligned to communism, with many modern social democratic parties tracing their origin to Marxist organisations. Incidentally, the Erfurt Programme of the SPD, published in 1891, was written by Kautsky, Bebel and Bernstein, all three of whom were outspoken Marxists, though Kautsky and Bebel were much more "orthodox" in their support for the need for revolution. The sharp separation between social-democrats and revolutionary socialists of various shades first started taking shape towards the very end of the century and sped up with a number of social-democratic parties supporting World War I, leading to splits, and further splits after the Bolshevik coup. That separation was not "complete" until the late 1920's with the Stalinisation of Komintern. > Sure, there never was a total lack of new markets but there was also many capitalist economies that did not have direct access to those markets and yet they never collapsed as Marx predicted. If anything, it means that it doesn't have that much of an impact on a capitalist economy's survival. Marx didn't predict that a capitalist economy would immediately collapse if it did not have access to new geographic markets, so this is entirely flawed logic. His prediction is very simple: Companies will eventually need to reduce the cost of labour per unit of value produced to survive, because it will be the easiest remaining way to compete, and this will eventually drive unemployment, and that this will eventually lead to escalating crises. But a pre-requisite is that labour first needs to become the easiest factor to optimise. > Developing countries such as African countries and China and India are already seeing their remuneration increasing at tremendous rates, this can be seen by all metrics ranging from alphabetization rate going up to fertility rate going down. Yet the pre-Covid economy was soaring amid those factors. This goes directly against Marx predictions, those were not dampening the wellness of the global economy, and it's not like new populated continents were discovered. There's nothing in Marx' predictions that goes against this. This goes back to the insistence that capitalism is first at threat of crises once reducing the cost of labour becomes the primary competitive lever. I pointed to China, India and Africa explicitly because they still see the easy gains of developing economies, where there are a plethora of ways to drive growth that are easy enough that focusing on reducing total labour costs are not worthwhile. Just like Europe and the US exported low-paid work to India and China, China and India are exporting low paid work to Bangladesh, Vietnam and Africa, and in doing so allowing for salary growth in their own countries. But even within Africa this is happening between countries at different levels of development. The point I was making is explicitly that we have no way of determining whether or not Marx was right about what happens when there are no further places to export competitive pressure until those places have exhausted the easy gains. Basically: Once even sub-Saharan Africa starts seeing GDP growth rates closely track declining population growth numbers is the first point in time when we will actually be able to start making a judgement about whether his prediction that aggregate labour costs will be driven down is true or not, and whether or not that will have the effect of causes crises. Were at a minimum many decades away from that, maybe much longer. And he may well be wrong, but we can't tell anytime soon. > And a big factor for this, as it was for Malthusianism's failed predictions, was technology and automation, whose potential was never truly considered. Socialism already pre-Marx, in their earliest formulations by Henri de Saint-Simon , was based on the expectation of technology and automation eventually removing the need for labour. If anything, the biggest errors Marx made was to assume too rapid growth, and a too rapid declining need for labour. Ultimately socialism as an ideology started as a near fetishistic belief in rapid technological advance. Marx is gushing over the advances brought by capitalism like an over-excited fanboy at the start of the Communist Manifesto. To the point where overestimating the speed of technological advance was clearly a problem with his predictions.