5 ms·

Something like "concentration of capital" that was extensively analyzed by a certain relatively influential German-born economist in the 19th century? I too fa

Something like "concentration of capital" that was extensively analyzed by a certain relatively influential German-born economist in the 19th century? I too fail to understand why it's so polarizing for the 99.5% not benefitting from it.

SeanLuke 3y ago
Concentration of capital isn't polarizing, it's a perfectly cromulent criticism. What's polarizing was the promotion of an economic/politcal system which to date has had a perfect record of turning into a totalitarian dictatorship.
- jampekka 3y ago
  Or something like a welfare state. Most western European countries have implemented roughly all Demands of the Communist Party in Germany, although some of these have been rolled back in the neoliberal era. https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/03/24.htm https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/03/24.htm
  - DonsDiscountGas 3y ago
    The countries with the most comprehensive welfare states all have capitalist economies. Since communism destroys wealth (and lives) rather than create any, there doesn't end up being a lot to spread around.
    - jampekka 3y ago
      Soviet Union (Marxism-Leninism) created a lot of wealth. I don't think it's a good implementation of socialism but your claim that "communism destroys wealth (and lives) rather than create" is just plain false. https://www.jstor.org/stable/45311779 https://www.jstor.org/stable/45311779
    - rickydroll 3y ago
      Most descriptions of the evils of communism usually describe Fascism. As we all know, fascism destroys wealth and lives, except for the oligarchs that manage to float to the top.
      - jampekka 3y ago
        Fascism is quite a vague concept (as is communism), but I think you're right that the "exclusive collectionism" (exclusive to e.g. nationality or ethnicity) and extreme hierarchies (e.g. the fuhrer-principle) are close to what the Cold War propaganda attributes to socialism. And as we know, fascism is capitalism in decay.
        rickydroll 3y ago
        https://web.archive.org/web/20170131155837/http://www.nybooks.com/articles/1995/06/22/ur-fascism/ https://web.archive.org/web/20170131155837/http://www.nybook... Umberto Eco wrote my goto definition of fascism. hope you find it interesting. Socialism is one of those heavily mis-defined/used words. I tend to stick to the economic definition. As in "A socialist economic system is characterized by social ownership and operation of the means of production that may take the form of autonomous cooperatives or direct public ownership wherein production is carried out directly for use rather than for profit." (quote from Wikipedia socialist economics). one of the downsides of discussions about socialism is inevitably someone starts using long convoluted sentences like the above. Socialism as political definitions have been merged and smashed together with communism and fascism in Nazism and conservatism etc. etc.
    - xorcist 3y ago
      Yet they seem to be doing fine?
Gareth321 3y ago
Because he also prescribed violently overthrowing democracy. He had some great ideas, and some truly ridiculous ideas. I can appreciate his inspired insights about capitalism, but I reject his deification. It's easy to criticise an operational system. It's much, much harder to prescribe and implement workable solutions, and I think that's where Marx failed. "Tear it all down and make everything awesome" is just silly. Based on his works, dozens of countries have tried, or are currently trying, to implement communism. More than 100 million people have died as a result. It's time to accept reality: his prescription doesn't work. We know capitalism is flawed. That doesn't mean we should tear it down. So far it is our least bad social and economic structure.
- Gud 3y ago
  Karl Marx didn't prescribe "violently overthrowing democracy". He predicted(correctly, in my opinion) that the current ruling elite would not give up their power over the institutions peacefully, thus violent revolution is a requirement to implement the communist system.
  - Gareth321 3y ago
    He very explicitly did so. Have you not read his most popular works? > The purposeless massacres perpetrated since the June and October events, the tedious offering of sacrifices since February and March, the very cannibalism of the counterrevolution will convince the nations that there is only one way in which the murderous death agonies of the old society and the bloody birth throes of the new society can be shortened, simplified and concentrated, and that way is revolutionary terror. > Both for the production on a mass scale of this communist consciousness, and ... the alteration of men on a mass scale is, necessary, ... a revolution; this revolution is necessary, therefore, not only because the ruling class cannot be overthrown in any other way, but also because the class overthrowing it can only in a revolution succeed in ridding itself of all the muck of ages and become fitted to found society anew.
slibhb 3y ago
In Marx's model, inequality indeed increases. But so does absolute poverty. Marx predicted a future in which a tiny handful of people own everything and subject their workers to slave-like conditions. The latter part hasn't happened; working conditions have improved dramatically over the past few centuries. The middle class, which most Americans are part of, is not something we see in Marx. There's a fundamental lesson here that Marxists still don't seem to understand: an economy can have lots of inequality and very little poverty and, while not perfect, this is a good place to be. > I too fail to understand why it's so polarizing for the 99.5% not benefitting from it. Normal people see a rich guy and think "good for him, he worked hard, is smart and lucky" not "he isn't any better than me, it's unfair that he has more than me". For some reason Marxists think the second thought is admirable.
- morbicer 3y ago
  I absolutely don't want to defend communism, I lived in Eastern Bloc and I prefer the flawed capitalism we have now. But you are not really correct. > The latter part hasn't happened It's true that Bezos doesn't own the whole USA but 3 men has more wealth than 150 million people. https://www.forbes.com/sites/noahkirsch/2017/11/09/the-3-richest-americans-hold-more-wealth-than-bottom-50-of-country-study-finds/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/noahkirsch/2017/11/09/the-3-ric... And the working conditions in Amazon warehouses are horrible. Workers in 50s or 70s had definitely better conditions and purchasing power. Despite all efficiency improvements, purchasing power of US workers is stagnating since 70s https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2018/08/07/for-most-us-workers-real-wages-have-barely-budged-for-decades/ https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2018/08/07/for-most-... The conditions improved because of Marx's teaching, without worker actions nothing would improve, it didn't happen out of capital owners' voluntary decision. It happened because of strikes and many were violently supressed. Just a few in USA: https://www.history.com/news/strikes-labor-movement https://www.history.com/news/strikes-labor-movement > Normal people see a rich guy and think "good for him, he worked hard, is smart and lucky" Normal people are often hardworking (much more than capital owners) and sometimes smart as well. However to get rich, you must be lucky (usually you get born into wealth). Sometimes you need to be lucky just to get out of poverty. I think majority doesn't care that their doctor is kinda rich and can go heli-skiing. They are angry that someone is so rich they can't even spend the money while his workers are struggling. https://mkorostoff.github.io/1-pixel-wealth/ https://mkorostoff.github.io/1-pixel-wealth/ https://nypost.com/2019/07/13/inside-the-hellish-workday-of-an-amazon-warehouse-employee/ https://nypost.com/2019/07/13/inside-the-hellish-workday-of-... It's not normal or beneficial for society that 3 men has more wealth than 150 million of people.

SeanLuke 3y ago

Concentration of capital isn't polarizing, it's a perfectly cromulent criticism. What's polarizing was the promotion of an economic/politcal system which to date has had a perfect record of turning into a totalitarian dictatorship.

jampekka 3y ago
Or something like a welfare state. Most western European countries have implemented roughly all Demands of the Communist Party in Germany, although some of these have been rolled back in the neoliberal era. https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/03/24.htm https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/03/24.htm
- DonsDiscountGas 3y ago
  The countries with the most comprehensive welfare states all have capitalist economies. Since communism destroys wealth (and lives) rather than create any, there doesn't end up being a lot to spread around.
  - jampekka 3y ago
    Soviet Union (Marxism-Leninism) created a lot of wealth. I don't think it's a good implementation of socialism but your claim that "communism destroys wealth (and lives) rather than create" is just plain false. https://www.jstor.org/stable/45311779 https://www.jstor.org/stable/45311779
  - rickydroll 3y ago
    Most descriptions of the evils of communism usually describe Fascism. As we all know, fascism destroys wealth and lives, except for the oligarchs that manage to float to the top.
    - jampekka 3y ago
      Fascism is quite a vague concept (as is communism), but I think you're right that the "exclusive collectionism" (exclusive to e.g. nationality or ethnicity) and extreme hierarchies (e.g. the fuhrer-principle) are close to what the Cold War propaganda attributes to socialism. And as we know, fascism is capitalism in decay.
      - rickydroll 3y ago
        https://web.archive.org/web/20170131155837/http://www.nybooks.com/articles/1995/06/22/ur-fascism/ https://web.archive.org/web/20170131155837/http://www.nybook... Umberto Eco wrote my goto definition of fascism. hope you find it interesting. Socialism is one of those heavily mis-defined/used words. I tend to stick to the economic definition. As in "A socialist economic system is characterized by social ownership and operation of the means of production that may take the form of autonomous cooperatives or direct public ownership wherein production is carried out directly for use rather than for profit." (quote from Wikipedia socialist economics). one of the downsides of discussions about socialism is inevitably someone starts using long convoluted sentences like the above. Socialism as political definitions have been merged and smashed together with communism and fascism in Nazism and conservatism etc. etc.
  - xorcist 3y ago
    Yet they seem to be doing fine?

Gareth321 3y ago

Because he also prescribed violently overthrowing democracy. He had some great ideas, and some truly ridiculous ideas. I can appreciate his inspired insights about capitalism, but I reject his deification. It's easy to criticise an operational system. It's much, much harder to prescribe and implement workable solutions, and I think that's where Marx failed. "Tear it all down and make everything awesome" is just silly. Based on his works, dozens of countries have tried, or are currently trying, to implement communism. More than 100 million people have died as a result. It's time to accept reality: his prescription doesn't work. We know capitalism is flawed. That doesn't mean we should tear it down. So far it is our least bad social and economic structure.

Gud 3y ago
Karl Marx didn't prescribe "violently overthrowing democracy". He predicted(correctly, in my opinion) that the current ruling elite would not give up their power over the institutions peacefully, thus violent revolution is a requirement to implement the communist system.
- Gareth321 3y ago
  He very explicitly did so. Have you not read his most popular works? > The purposeless massacres perpetrated since the June and October events, the tedious offering of sacrifices since February and March, the very cannibalism of the counterrevolution will convince the nations that there is only one way in which the murderous death agonies of the old society and the bloody birth throes of the new society can be shortened, simplified and concentrated, and that way is revolutionary terror. > Both for the production on a mass scale of this communist consciousness, and ... the alteration of men on a mass scale is, necessary, ... a revolution; this revolution is necessary, therefore, not only because the ruling class cannot be overthrown in any other way, but also because the class overthrowing it can only in a revolution succeed in ridding itself of all the muck of ages and become fitted to found society anew.

slibhb 3y ago

In Marx's model, inequality indeed increases. But so does absolute poverty. Marx predicted a future in which a tiny handful of people own everything and subject their workers to slave-like conditions. The latter part hasn't happened; working conditions have improved dramatically over the past few centuries. The middle class, which most Americans are part of, is not something we see in Marx. There's a fundamental lesson here that Marxists still don't seem to understand: an economy can have lots of inequality and very little poverty and, while not perfect, this is a good place to be. > I too fail to understand why it's so polarizing for the 99.5% not benefitting from it. Normal people see a rich guy and think "good for him, he worked hard, is smart and lucky" not "he isn't any better than me, it's unfair that he has more than me". For some reason Marxists think the second thought is admirable.

morbicer 3y ago
I absolutely don't want to defend communism, I lived in Eastern Bloc and I prefer the flawed capitalism we have now. But you are not really correct. > The latter part hasn't happened It's true that Bezos doesn't own the whole USA but 3 men has more wealth than 150 million people. https://www.forbes.com/sites/noahkirsch/2017/11/09/the-3-richest-americans-hold-more-wealth-than-bottom-50-of-country-study-finds/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/noahkirsch/2017/11/09/the-3-ric... And the working conditions in Amazon warehouses are horrible. Workers in 50s or 70s had definitely better conditions and purchasing power. Despite all efficiency improvements, purchasing power of US workers is stagnating since 70s https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2018/08/07/for-most-us-workers-real-wages-have-barely-budged-for-decades/ https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2018/08/07/for-most-... The conditions improved because of Marx's teaching, without worker actions nothing would improve, it didn't happen out of capital owners' voluntary decision. It happened because of strikes and many were violently supressed. Just a few in USA: https://www.history.com/news/strikes-labor-movement https://www.history.com/news/strikes-labor-movement > Normal people see a rich guy and think "good for him, he worked hard, is smart and lucky" Normal people are often hardworking (much more than capital owners) and sometimes smart as well. However to get rich, you must be lucky (usually you get born into wealth). Sometimes you need to be lucky just to get out of poverty. I think majority doesn't care that their doctor is kinda rich and can go heli-skiing. They are angry that someone is so rich they can't even spend the money while his workers are struggling. https://mkorostoff.github.io/1-pixel-wealth/ https://mkorostoff.github.io/1-pixel-wealth/ https://nypost.com/2019/07/13/inside-the-hellish-workday-of-an-amazon-warehouse-employee/ https://nypost.com/2019/07/13/inside-the-hellish-workday-of-... It's not normal or beneficial for society that 3 men has more wealth than 150 million of people.