The Socialism Thread

I said "nascent industrial innovations", the spinning jenny was one of the first inventions of the industrial revolution.

What you said was:

"Marx based his predictions on historical analysis of tradesmen, merchant capitalism and mercantilism, in addition to nascent industrial innovations (spinning jenny and so on)"

The spinning jenny, and indeed the industrial revolution itself, was hardly nascent when Marx write Capital. His chapter in Capital on machinery and modern industry is not limited to old industrial innovations, but fully realizes complex systems and the more important analysis is on the value transferred by machinery to the product. Which matters not what the machinery is, but how it functions in imparting value to production.

  On 10/2/2015 at 3:29 AM, chenGOD said:

What you said was:

"Marx based his predictions on historical analysis of tradesmen, merchant capitalism and mercantilism, in addition to nascent industrial innovations (spinning jenny and so on)"

 

The spinning jenny, and indeed the industrial revolution itself, was hardly nascent when Marx write Capital. His chapter in Capital on machinery and modern industry is not limited to old industrial innovations, but fully realizes complex systems and the more important analysis is on the value transferred by machinery to the product. Which matters not what the machinery is, but how it functions in imparting value to production.

When does my quote relate anything to the date Capital was written? I also said "and so on" (this was a long enough post already, I didn't want to go crazy with the parentheses), prior to that I also talked about factory innovations that were going on in Marx's time, so you can see I'm well aware he was up on the modern developments in Manchester and so on, and as I said, this informed his predictions on the negative impacts of innovation (he viewed it solely as a destructive force, never helping the worker, only keeping his wages depressed or putting him out of a job entirely, but like I've shown, he was completely wrong).

  On 10/2/2015 at 3:36 AM, caze said:

 

  On 10/2/2015 at 3:29 AM, chenGOD said:

What you said was:

"Marx based his predictions on historical analysis of tradesmen, merchant capitalism and mercantilism, in addition to nascent industrial innovations (spinning jenny and so on)"

 

The spinning jenny, and indeed the industrial revolution itself, was hardly nascent when Marx write Capital. His chapter in Capital on machinery and modern industry is not limited to old industrial innovations, but fully realizes complex systems and the more important analysis is on the value transferred by machinery to the product. Which matters not what the machinery is, but how it functions in imparting value to production.

 

When does my quote relate anything to the date Capital was written? I also said "and so on" (this was a long enough post already, I didn't want to go crazy with the parentheses), prior to that I also talked about factory innovations that were going on in Marx's time, so you can see I'm well aware he was up on the modern developments in Manchester and so on, and as I said, this informed his predictions on the negative impacts of innovation (he viewed it solely as a destructive force, never helping the worker, only keeping his wages depressed or putting him out of a job entirely, but like I've shown, he was completely wrong).

 

Because the use of the word nascent implies they were just beginning when Marx wrote Capital. However his analysis of machinery was not based on nascent innovations, so it's irrelevant to the argument.

Marx also did not view industrialization or innovation solely as a destructive force. Rather he argues that it creates relative surplus value and depreciates the value of labour power. He also discusses amortization, and the ability for capitalists to realize greater profits through the utilization of machinery.

One very interesting point he raises in his analysis is that through the use of machinery, the working day can be elongated. I'd say he's half right and half wrong on this one. It could theoretically increase the working day (and it did for a period of time) - except that it is cheaper for factory owners to run two shifts due to societal attitudes about overtime, breaks, other benefits (when unions and collective bargaining were utilized correctly to mitigate the exploitation of workers by factory owners). That explains the decrease in hourly work noted in the WSJ article linked to earlier.

What it doesn't explain is the increase in hours worked by salaried, highly educated men (employed, non-self-employed) from the late 1970s to the mid 2000s. That could be explained by a variety of factors, possibly different compensation schemes by companies, or maybe because it's easier to fire someone who doesn't put in the long hours. It could also be explained by innovation making workers in the service industry (regardless of service or manufacture, it's still labour, because output is simply the value of labour, be it physical or mental) always connected.

That growth in work by highly educated men also took place in the higher earning bracket, and probably explains some of the increasing inequality in America that we see.

Where Marx was wrong is in his prediction of where the revolution against capitalists and landowners would take place. What did Marx predict - that capitalism would produce internal tensions leading to a revolution of the proletariat. What actually happened in Russia and China? A revolution of peasants.

However, the inequality in some places due to capitalism is creating internal tension - and while no one (well no one serious anyways) is recommending communism, people have noticed that there is less inequality and less tension in countries that have better wealth distribution through social safety mechanisms. This type of socialism-with-market characteristics seems to make a happy medium.

  On 10/2/2015 at 5:07 AM, chenGOD said:

Because the use of the word nascent implies they were just beginning when Marx wrote Capital. However his analysis of machinery was not based on nascent innovations, so it's irrelevant to the argument.

You said: "Marx based his predictions on historical analysis of tradesmen, merchant capitalism and mercantilism, in addition to nascent industrial innovations (spinning jenny and so on)"

And you're going to try and say that you weren't implying he wrote Capital (his major economic analysis/predictions) based on that? He did use historical analysis, but the spinning jenny? nascent industrial innovations? nuh uh. He is well beyond that.

(I'm assuming you're not talking about the communist manifesto, because why would you be).

I can only assume you're trolling me at this stage, you don't strike me as the kind of person who can be this obtuse.

Why would you say he based his predictions on nascent innovations when he clearly didn't? Why mention a technology that had been around for more than 100 years before he wrote his most famous economic analysis?

Saying that "X has no relevance to the modern world" is a bit pointless, especially in relation to Marx. The modern world can exist in socialism but socialism cannot exist in the modern world as it is today, especially socialism from the industrial revolution. While many of Marx's views on the systemic nature of capitalism are still relevant, that doesn't change the fact that he was truly a relic of his time. You cannot critique modern socialism with a figure like Marx as the movement has split into a more anarchic ideal rather than a transitional statist one that Marx advocated.

i don't understand anything

i need to come into contact with a really smart person so i can ask questions about everything

i'm scared

i like it when they're scared, it gives my ejaculate an extra 20% of thrust

I'd be an unapologetic socialist if I thought it could ever be established without massacring all the Reactionaries. I'm in no place to have a decent discussion on the nitty gritty details of Marx but IMO that's pointless anyway, since you basically can't ever set it up. 

So in the absence of that option I'm a card-carrying Centrist Dad, with a heavy dose of