Dermezel
Offline
Post: 51940867_1 created on Sun Jul 12, 2009 12:07 amPosted: Sun Jul 12, 2009 12:07 am
 |
I believe, despite what others may think that many of Marx's assertions have been vindicated by empirical data/testing. Marx made specific, testable predictions about capitalist development in Capital, so far these predictions seem well founded by economic data. Some of these predictions are:
1- The Business Cycle- capitalism will lead to booms and busts. This has never been fully solved in capitalist economies, even welfare states have periodic declines due to overproduction. Likewise more centralized, government run economies are less prone to such disasters. China, for instance, was among the least effected economy during the last two economic recessions, one regional (the East Asian Economic Crisis) and the more current world wide recession caused by the United State's trade imbalance. Likewise centralized, government run economies recover faster. And last, countries which went from government control of the means of production to capitalism, such as the USSR, experienced severe economic collapse and are now more susceptible to periodic recession. Note that Marx did not originate this theory but claimed that these cycles were intrinsic to capitalism and could not be fully ended through regulation, whereas Keynes claimed otherwise. Given the continued presence of current economic crashes in the era where government's will heavily regulate capitalism I would argue that the data shows Marx was more correct then Keynes. 2- The Law of Capital Accumulation- Perhaps the most solid, the law of capital accumulation and centralization states that over time capital will become more centralized and accumulate into ever larger financial institutions. We have seen this directly with the rise of international corporations. 3- Relative-Surplus Value- Along with classes, the emphasis of surplus value as a mechanism which distinguishes capitalism from previous modes of production was an original contribution of Karl Marx, one that has been vindicated over time in the form of "plus-sum" production in game theory models. Marx's argument was that capitalism generates wealth by having more produced at the end of the day, in terms of overall wealth, then at the beginning. This unique contribution has been demonstrated in theoretical economic models i.e. Game Theory. And another auxiliary claim of this proposed mechanism- that relative value will increase for the capitalist and decrease for other classes, even as absolute value increases, has likewise been vindicated by the historically unprecedented rise in inequality. 4- The Organic Composition Model: What I personally call the Mechanization of Capital states that machinery will replace human labor over time. Now at days almost all industrial production and effective agriculture is machine intense. And with emerging tools like the internet and robotics you can do more with less. You can be more productive, or just as productive, with fewer workers. I would like an analysis, based on a scientific, as opposed to a political standard of Marx's prediction and theories in Capital based on quantifiable empirical data. Evidence: Marx claimed capital would centralize and accumulate over time, a claim which has been vindicated by several lines of empirical research and data: http://www.endgame.org/primer-wealth.html http://www.faculty.fairfield.edu/faculty/hodgson/Courses/so11/stratification/income&wealth.htm http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9503EFD8153EE033A25753C3A9679C946697D6CF Second, the relative value of wages would decline: http://www.ufcw.org/issues/workers_and_the_economy/epiwages.cfm http://www.epi.org/economic_snapshots/entry/webfeatures_snapshots_20080220se/ http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-11824287.html Third, Marx states that machines will replace human labor. http://us-trade-policy.suite101.com/article.cfm/robots_are_replacing_workers http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1TOK/is_6/ai_n25009527/ http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/custom/portlets/recordDetails/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb=true&_&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=ED246534&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=no&accno=ED246534 This is all current, positive evidence for Marx's predictions. Also I think it is important to clear up some misconceptions with respect to Karl Marx's theories: 1- Marx's invented the labor theory of value. The labor theory of value was actually pioneered by the famous economist David Ricardo, who established the cost of production as the primary determinant of prices in the long-run. Quote: David Ricardo (18 April 1772 – 11 September 1823) was an English political economist, often credited with systematizing economics, and was one of the most influential of the classical economists, along with Thomas Malthus and Adam Smith.[1] 2- Marx is idealizing labor and ignoring supply and demand. Marx actually argues against the labor theory of value as a prescriptive similiar to how Darwin argued against social Darwinism. Marx simply notes that in irrational economic systems, like capitalism, labor is treated as the de facto standard of exchange. He is not saying this should be the case, he is arguing that it is the case, and in fact he heavily implies that the economic system should be based more on utility (use-value ) - what we tend to think of as supply and demand. 3- Marxism is all ideology, not science. Quote: It has become fashionable to think that Karl Marx was not mainly an economist but instead integrated various disciplines—economics, sociology, political science, history, and so on—into his philosophy. But Mark Blaug, a noted historian of economic thought, points out that Marx wrote “no more than a dozen pages on the concept of social class, the theory of the state, and the materialist conception of history” while he wrote “literally 10,000 pages on economics pure and simple.”1 http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/bios/Marx.html 4- Marxism leads to dictatorships like the USSR and the PRC. Actually it was Lenin's State and Revolution which broke radically from Marx on this question, without supplying any evidence for his arguments at all. Lenin's arguments are purely political and practical, whereas Marx's are scientific. Again, to borrow from Darwinism, it is like comparing the writings of Charles Darwin to social Darwinists like Herbert Spencer. But you don't have to take my word for it. Just glance at Lenin's State and Revolution and Marx's Capital. You should notice that Lenin's groundbreaking "book" is actually a pamphlet roughly fifty pages long, full mostly of insults against political opponents. Marx's magnum opus by contrast is roughly 2000 pages of technical economic arguments, observations and material evidence. 5- Marx failed to take into account progressive laws and legislations, he argued capitalism will get worse no matter what. This is a major point of confusion. Marx did not argue that the predictions made in Capital were inevitable, but that they would occur unless there was political circumvention. In other words, Marx argued that capitalism is a system. This system follows certain rules- naturally develops a certain way. Now this means that you can alter the system artificially, say by democratic legislation which protects small businesses. But unless you alter it politically it will tend to develop in certain directions- for example- companies will get larger, more centralized and wealth will become more concentrated over time. An example of this is how corporations tend towards monopoly. |
|
