The capitalism of Marxism

I have never really bothered to read into Marx as he has so many discourses and has been decrypted by countless scholars in different ways. My understanding is that although he was opposed to the whole capitalist system during his times, his labour theory of value if applied practically would actually save society from having to spend surplass capital, hence the proleteriat would not be stripped of their savings through their own slavery to the Bourgeoisie. The objective of any capitalist is to maximise profits and a key factor for this is minimising expenses. Labour is an expense. If the labour value theory was applied today goods would be alot cheaper and wealth distribution would be closer to equal. The proleteriat would actually be saving money and accumulating capital. Marxism has also supported industry and productivity which actually generates capital. Would it be safe to argue that Marx was not wholly opposed to captalism?

The “value Labour theory” was part of Marx’s critique of capitalism. The value of a good is determined by how much labour has gone into its production. The capitalism that existed during Marx’s time is no longer the capitalism that exists in the world today. However, that being said Marx was not wholly opposed to capitalism, in fact, he saw it as a necessary step in the development of industrialized society. Marx subscribed to a teleological view of history, the notion that history moves through stages toward some ultimate goal, or in Marx’s case the penultimate stage of communism. Although Mar saw capitalism as a necessary stage, I don’t think it can be said that Marx was in favour of capitalism; he saw it more as a necessary evil.

Marx saw that there was a natural tendency towards monopolization, that is companies teneded to buy each other out or become larger entities until all industry would be run by a single mega company. Once this would occur the proletariat would just have to take over that simple company and run it as if everyone was an owner.

If you want a good bookl which disscussed the problem with Marxist theory in the current environment please see Frederic Jameson “Postmodernism, or The Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism.”

marx had no idea of the selfishness of people and how easily they are self-manipulated by exagreated needs. despite the pun, a “monkey” would be better (or nay animal) at running a communist country becasue they are not selfish and do not take mroe than is needed for survival

marx was a genius though…

on and unrealated note i just bought the communist manifesto and other russian revolutionary writeds for $0.95 good deal eh? :slight_smile:

From a different perspective you might view it as a product rather than an expense. Not to mention that the premise, what you called the ‘objective’, is begged in the conclusion of ‘minimising expenses,’ if in the system ‘profits’ are generated by ‘labor’, which they are.

Capitalism often does this when presenting problems and/or principles by which it functions. The system creates it own internal conventions which create problems, what would otherwise not exist in a different system, and then pretends to justify the incentive by the conclusion that those problems are necessary.

Of course this is not to say that within that setting capitalism has to produce the problems it does. There are several things which could be tweaked to modify the basic structure of capitalism.

I’m not sure what Marx would say, but my own opinion is that only surplus money achived through the means of private employment and wage based forms of payment can be considered true ‘capital.’ The whole point, or problem rather, is that work force should not be sold like a commodity. If a capitalist is generating money at such a rate that interest and wholesale profit is so extreme that he, himself, does not have to labor while also producing at least a one-hundred percent profit from the labor of someone he pays to provide the means for the capitalist’s wealth, then something is fucked.

Imagine a business owner who pays a worker fifty cents an hour to make sugar and then sells it back to his worker for a dollar-fifty. The worker is now paying one dollar more than what it cost him to make the sugar, from the person he made the sugar for who has not worked but yielded a one dollar profit from selling someone their own labor back to them.

My god! The guy didn’t do anything! He was just there, with the fucking sugar making machine and a medical benefits package. Yet he has the audacity to pull some shit like that?

What has the world come to, people?

Communal owner-ship and a new class system is what we need. People should be classed by their profession, while also performing within a non-competative field.

Money cannot have anything to do with an ethical judgement, it is a dubitable form of value, and where status and respect, or moral investment is made according to the content of one’s possessions, there will be problems. Money translates into ownership and ethical value, as a result, has a tendency to de-rail itself from imperative principles and organize around a consequentialism based from levels of sub-judgements about how such money was attained, as well as the pragmatic value dilemma of something that redeems itself from the terms in which it was aquired by the results of its productivity.

For example: stealing some money and building a hospital with it. Only in a capitalist setting where there are inclinations to justify acts more easily as means, and not ends themselves, will the natural tendency to ascribe to relativism occur, and the shifting of imperative principle will then endure as the concept ‘money’ is described as inherently problematic, so as to produce a sort of ‘sour-grapes’ attitude while participating in a capitalist system.

Granted, it might be established that stealing is wrong, sure. But inside of a system where there is money, the medium on which relative values such as "clean’ and ‘dirty’ money ensue, providing for ipso facto justification of a consequentialistic program within the apparant system founded on absolute rules and imperatives.

Look at it like this: only where there is money can money be stolen. A metaphor perhaps; if it weren’t for locks there would be no thieves.

Half, if not three-quarters, of all afflictions occur because of monetary exchanges between private enterprises, or as a direct result of such. No doubt ethical conflicts will emerge as well in a setting where money is esteem and value.

Greed: making 3 kilos out of 2.

still…