Economics Questions

Re: Contribution of Marx

The Late Andrew Ryan — Thu, 15 Jul 2010 02:44:58 GMT

"Does Marxism account for the unemployment levels we are facing today? How is sitting at home unemployed and getting paid a form of slavery? Wouldn't the bourgeois want us to work even more for them at lower and lower wages? We're not seeing that separation of bourgeois and proletariat intensifying."

You fail to use the Marxist logic

The Bourgeoisie is in it for itself, it works in its self interest. With this being said it will always try to preserve itself. In the past what you said above is exactly what happened, but when the proletariat showed signs of revolting the bourgeoisie made concessions to ensure that it would not be overthrown by the proletariat, this included things such as unemployment and so this continues in order to ensure the proletariat does not organize and revolt against the bourgeoisie

Re: Contribution of Marx

Caley McKibbin — Thu, 15 Jul 2010 02:38:08 GMT

There's no such thing as a proletariat.

Re: Contribution of Marx

Giant_Joe — Thu, 15 Jul 2010 02:01:49 GMT

I never looked into this, but I'm left wondering:

Does Marxism account for the unemployment levels we are facing today? How is sitting at home unemployed and getting paid a form of slavery? Wouldn't the bourgeois want us to work even more for them at lower and lower wages? We're not seeing that seperation of bourgeois and proletariat intensifying.

Re: Contribution of Marx

Coase — Wed, 14 Jul 2010 22:45:57 GMT

By taking the labor theory of value to its logical conclusion, he probably helped expose its flaws and in doing so may well have indirectly contributed to the development of the subjective theory of value, even if by accident.

Re: Contribution of Marx

BrianAnderson — Wed, 14 Jul 2010 21:50:49 GMT

I think all of his good ideas got lost in the mane around his head.

Re: Contribution of Marx

John Ess — Wed, 14 Jul 2010 21:43:21 GMT

Not being a Keynesian.

Re: Contribution of Marx

Caley McKibbin — Wed, 14 Jul 2010 20:55:30 GMT

Marx's Kids

Re: Contribution of Marx

The Late Andrew Ryan — Wed, 14 Jul 2010 20:52:02 GMT

"Shame he didn't find any insight to help his kids."

I forget how many of them died? I know that he only had one daughter who survived but I forget how many of the little suckers died for the father of marxism.

Re: Contribution of Marx

E. R. Olovetto — Wed, 14 Jul 2010 20:50:24 GMT

Jesse:
He is more consistent in his application of the labor theory of value than the classical school was.

1/0=2/0

your point?

Re: Contribution of Marx

Jesse — Wed, 14 Jul 2010 20:47:34 GMT

He is more consistent in his application of the labor theory of value than the classical school was.

Re: Contribution of Marx

Caley McKibbin — Wed, 14 Jul 2010 20:44:24 GMT

He has some decent social commentary and insights, the conclusions and theory though are as batty as can be.

Shame he didn't find any insight to help his kids.

Re: Contribution of Marx

William — Wed, 14 Jul 2010 20:38:03 GMT

He has some decent social commentary and insights, the conclusions and theory though are as batty as can be.

Re: Contribution of Marx

ViennaSausage — Wed, 14 Jul 2010 20:09:01 GMT

"Well, historicism, determinism, and dialectical materialism are all badly flawed tools for economic analysis,"

I do find the Marxist term "material conditions" in reference to "dialectical materialism" and "historicism" interesting, albeit its usage is typically in connection with flawed theory, ie capitalist exploitation and theory of crisis.

Re: Contribution of Marx

ViennaSausage — Wed, 14 Jul 2010 20:06:45 GMT

"I claim that all of them are essentially correct."

Hoppe and his arguments are hilarious yet insightful. I love how he uses their own logic against them.

Re: Contribution of Marx

Mises Pieces — Wed, 14 Jul 2010 19:42:12 GMT

Well, historicism, determinism, and dialectical materialism are all badly flawed tools for economic analysis, so anything Marx got right was just by luck.

However, the worldwide conflict we see today between the political class and the economic class does seem somewhat analagous to Marx's depiction of the proletariat versus the bourgeois. I'm sure that after Bohm-Bawerk and others demonstrated that Marx's economics were flawed, and that different classes could mutually benefit from cooperation, many assumed it was a death blow to Marxian collectivism. However, the "proletariat" (political class) continues to agitate against the market even knowing that it improves everyone's lot, possibly out of some irrational antagonism against the more wealthy economic class. Certainly none of this is/was "inevitable" as Marx claimed, but maybe he was more prescient about the persistence of class antagonism than was once thought.