3 ms·

I wonder if Marx considered that labour could shift to serve new markets.

by Raphael 12y ago

karlheinz 12y ago
I definitely think he did
- vidarh 12y ago
  It is specifically mentioned in chapter 1 of the Communist Manifesto, a large part of which is talking about the past expansion of capitalism through conquering new market and extending that tendency into the future. Here's one mention: > The conditions of bourgeois society are too narrow to comprise the wealth created by them. And how does the bourgeoisie get over these crises? On the one hand by enforced destruction of a mass of productive forces; on the other, by the conquest of new markets, and by the more thorough exploitation of the old ones.
mooreds 12y ago
What he didn't think of was productivity increases. See Piketty's Capital in the 21st Century.
- vidarh 12y ago
  Yes, he did. His entire ideology is based around the premise that capitalism would lead to productivity increases sufficient that redistribution would lift everyone out of poverty. Already in The German Ideology (1845) he specifically made the point that the productivity increases inherent in a capitalist economic system was a prerequisite for a successful socialist revolution as otherwise redistribution would just make want common, and the same class struggles would start all over again as people fight to get out of poverty (like what happened in the Soviet Union, China, where the party organisations became the new upper class). In the Communist Manifesto he and Engels spelled out how they saw capitalist productivity increases eventually lead to over-production and under-employment, and that this, according to Marx, is what will eventually lead to an intensification of class struggle and finally enable a socialist revolution as economic productivity under capitalism reaches its peak.
gnaritas 12y ago
> I wonder if Marx considered that labour could shift to serve new markets. Really... you wondered if one of the great minds of history overlooked the simplest of things?

I wonder if Marx considered that labour could shift to serve new markets.

by Raphael 12y ago

I wonder if Marx considered that labour could shift to serve new markets.

karlheinz 12y ago

I definitely think he did

vidarh 12y ago
It is specifically mentioned in chapter 1 of the Communist Manifesto, a large part of which is talking about the past expansion of capitalism through conquering new market and extending that tendency into the future. Here's one mention: > The conditions of bourgeois society are too narrow to comprise the wealth created by them. And how does the bourgeoisie get over these crises? On the one hand by enforced destruction of a mass of productive forces; on the other, by the conquest of new markets, and by the more thorough exploitation of the old ones.

mooreds 12y ago

What he didn't think of was productivity increases. See Piketty's Capital in the 21st Century.

vidarh 12y ago
Yes, he did. His entire ideology is based around the premise that capitalism would lead to productivity increases sufficient that redistribution would lift everyone out of poverty. Already in The German Ideology (1845) he specifically made the point that the productivity increases inherent in a capitalist economic system was a prerequisite for a successful socialist revolution as otherwise redistribution would just make want common, and the same class struggles would start all over again as people fight to get out of poverty (like what happened in the Soviet Union, China, where the party organisations became the new upper class). In the Communist Manifesto he and Engels spelled out how they saw capitalist productivity increases eventually lead to over-production and under-employment, and that this, according to Marx, is what will eventually lead to an intensification of class struggle and finally enable a socialist revolution as economic productivity under capitalism reaches its peak.

gnaritas 12y ago

> I wonder if Marx considered that labour could shift to serve new markets. Really... you wondered if one of the great minds of history overlooked the simplest of things?