by 4X follow (0)
« First « Previous Comments 6 - 7 of 7 Search these comments
why Marx is ignored? because ruling class controls what the working class can see and hear.
Is this joke? The primary places where the ruling class controls what the working class can see and hear is in the Marxist countries themselves.
I think he was referring to the point if Marx had not promoted communism. In an earlier post, Vincente had mentioned that most people do not look at Marx for guidance on how to improve capitalism because "his cure is worse than the disease, and most people can never make it past this point. "
...meaning why move to a communist society where very few elite enjoy the life of luxury while the remaining stiffs work all day.
« First « Previous Comments 6 - 7 of 7 Search these comments
From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Marx
....Capitalism can stimulate considerable growth because the capitalist can, and has an incentive to, reinvest profits in new technologies and capital equipment. Marx considered the capitalist class to be the most revolutionary in history, because it constantly improved the means of production. But Marx argued that capitalism was prone to periodic crises. He suggested that over time, capitalists would invest more and more in new technologies, and less and less in labor. Since Marx believed that surplus value appropriated from labor is the source of profits, he concluded that the rate of profit would fall even as the economy grew. When the rate of profit falls below a certain point, the result would be a recession or depression in which certain sectors of the economy would collapse. Marx thought that during such an economic crisis the price of labor would also fall, and eventually make possible the investment in new technologies and the growth of new sectors of the economy.
Marx believed that increasingly severe crises would punctuate this cycle of growth, collapse, and more growth. Moreover, he believed that in the long-term this process would necessarily enrich and empower the capitalist class and impoverish the proletariat. He believed that if the proletariat were to seize the means of production, they would encourage social relations that would benefit everyone equally, and a system of production less vulnerable to periodic crises. He theorized that between capitalism and the establishment of a socialist system, a dictatorship of the proletariat - a period where the working class holds political power and forcibly socializes the means of production - would exist. As he wrote in his "Critique of the Gotha Program", "between capitalist and communist society there lies the period of the revolutionary transformation of the one into the other. Corresponding to this is also a political transition period in which the state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat."[28] While he allowed for the possibility of peaceful transition in some countries with strong democratic institutional structures (such as Britain, the US and the Netherlands), he suggested that in other countries with strong centralized state-oriented traditions, like France and Germany, the "lever of our revolution must be force."[
#housing