CDZ An interesting analysis of our economic problems, but....

[JimBowie1958]

Other:
As for your remark about Marx and Marxism, what I think you may overlooking is that Marx was was a social economist first and a "technical" (some might say "classical") economist second. Accordingly, one must look at Marx's ideas, particularly his later ones such as those in Grundrisse, in terms of what they mean for people as a whole rather than for what they mean to the agents of production.

Meh, I think he was mostly a philosopher and historian who had some good ideas initially then got spun into the fever swamps of levelerism by the mid 1800s or so and the PAris Commune.

Marx was less concerned about pure economic efficiency that capitalism provides and how to obtain it, but rather than he was concerned about the impact of structuring and basing society, nations and public policy so as to achieve the efficiency that capitalism can yield. Marx doesn't deny capitalism's efficiency; it was quite clear to him that capitalism is far and away the most economically efficient of the economic systems. He thought, however, that society, and more importantly to him, the people in it, is better off living in a less efficient economic system if that is what it takes to minimize or eliminate the enmity in society between capitalists and labor.

Put another way, Marx saw capitalism, when implemented on a societal level (whatever be the size of the society in question) essentially as that society's cutting off it's nose to spite its face. Yes, it's great to make all that money and have it available to spend on society's "bars, temples, and massage parlors," but if doing so leaves huge swaths of the society in despair and comparative destitution, what's the point for there's no denying that a billionaire doesn't actually need billions of dollars to actually be happy. So if a less efficient economic system -- be that constrained capitalism, or be it capitalism constrained to the point we call it socialism, or no capitalism at all, which we call a command economy -- can provide satisfaction for more people in society, Marx thought that preferable to one in which a small share of the society are greatly over satisfied, a large share are somewhat satisfied and have no "in their lifetime" prospect of becoming over sated, and a large share who are just barely sated or not sated at all.

And I think most people would agree with him on that, but the trick is to find ways of making an alternative to pure Jungle Mode capitalism that can still get people fed,clothed and housed and also to provide them with economic security and economic freedom of choice. This is where the idea of a command economy fails every time, but Nordic Socialism is successful, wildly successful.

Contrasting Marx with Keynes, Marshall and the other "technical" economists, one finds that pretty much all of them assume that individuals living in a capitalist economy will do what makes sense to do under capitalism: become capitalists. Why do they make that assumption? Because it doesn't take great genius to see that being a capitalist is the way to get one's "piece of the pie." One may not become a billionaire capitalist, but one can nonetheless get enough "pie" to enjoy a pleasant lifestyle.

Corporations are the fly int he opintment of capitalism, as they are less efficient than small businesses and use their larger funding as a slush fund to hire lobbyists to pitch changes in laws to the government so that they gain economic advantage over their smaller more efficient competitors.

We need to seriously reign in corporations and revise our corporate laws.

Now coming to where we find ourselves today, not just the U.S., but the world, we find ourselves in precisely the situation that Marx predicted and that your OP's video illustrates. Some may take that we do as an indication that Marx was right and that the classical economists were wrong. Attempting to head down that path would be a mistake because they are both right.

One might ask how can it be that they are both right. Well, the answer is that Marx is right because the societal impacts he predicted are manifest. Yours and others' lamentations about our economy are clear proof of that much. The classical economists are right because they didn't attempt to address the societal impact of capitalism. (That's why I referred to them as "technical" economists.)

How can classic economists are anyone else be 'right' about a problem simply by ignoring it? They are wrong due to having an implausibly narrow definition of their goals and range of issues they look at.

What good is any field of knowledge if it does not improve the lives of We the People? IF they cant do that, then fuck them and cut their funding.

Above I've tried to provide an explanation of why the ideas in the video are considered Marxist. In short they are because their focus is on the society not the on maximizing and obtaining economic efficiency. If you'd like to get a better understanding of the details of Marx's ideas, I'd suggest starting with Grundrisse.

• There's an annotated copy of it here. I haven't read it, so I don't know what the annotator's thoughts are, but it doesn't matter what they are for no matter what be their themes, they'll nonetheless provide fodder for one to consider. I suggest reading Grundrisse and then reading the annotations.
• An analysis of Grundrisse -- Marx and Beyond Marx -- Lessons on the Grundrisse

What is the significance of Grundrisse? It's the first draft of Kapital, however, in it, Marx offers numerous reflections on matters that Marx did not develop elsewhere in his oeuvre and is therefore extremely important for an overall interpretation of his thought.

I read an abridged version of Das Kapital in high school and though it was not as dry as 'Thinking the Unthinkable' it was more organized and clear than 'Mein Kamph'.

I saw a flaw to Marxes economic theory right off the bat, but I couldnt find anyone who could or would discuss it since the lefties would get mad at my presumption of critiquing Marx, lol and the conservatives were shocked I would read the damned thing in the first place, roflmao.

Teachers have a very important job, but most of them are not really much more than of average intelligence. The few who were above the norm were unwilling to engage in any kind of discussion of controversial topics.

I hated high school and loved college, for the most part.

 

[320 Years of History]

I think he was mostly a philosopher and historian who had some good ideas initially then got spun into the fever swamps of levelerism by the mid 1800s or so and the PAris Commune.

What is "levelerism?" I Googled it and could find nothing on the first page of results that seemed relevant. The best I found was a footnote reference to a text by a F.R. Donnelly, Levelereism in 18th and 19th Century Britain, but I could not find the actual text, or the specific passage in the book that contains the footnote.

What good is any field of knowledge if it does not improve the lives of We the People?

Plenty of fields of knowledge have elements of pursuing knowledge for its own sake. Economics has that quality too; however, the economic policy aspect of it isn't one of them; that component of economics an applied science.

The problem isn't with economics and its theories (scientific sense of the word) that economists have discerned. The problem is that between the extremes of laissez faire capitalism and a 100% command economy, there sit infinite degrees of more and less of either. Combine the existence of so many "flavors" of economic policies that lie between the endpoints with political leaders, their constituents, and myriad commentators -- all of whom have varying degrees of proficiency, but more often ignorance -- all trying to propose the "perfect blend" of economic restraint and economic freedom, and what you get is the clusterfuck that is modern economic policy and debate.

The thing with economics, unlike, say, physics or chemistry, is that practically everyone thinks they they know enough to have something worth saying about how, how much, where and when to implement (or debate) "this or that" aspect of economic theory. Quite simply, everyone does not, yet they arrogantly are more than willing to refute the ideas presented by the people who are (professional economists), ideas they often don't know exist, and even of the ones they do understand, their grasp of them is bare at best.

I mean really. Would you tell your plumber, doctor, lawyer, accountant, exterminator, interior designer, general contractor, electrician or "hairbender" that they are wrong when they give you their professional advice? I sure wouldn't, for if I knew more than they, I wouldn't reach out to them for their input. Yet, that's essentially what "everyone" does with regard to highly trained and knowledgeable economists.

Teachers have a very important job, but most of them are not really much more than of average intelligence. The few who were above the norm were unwilling to engage in any kind of discussion of controversial topics.

I hated high school and loved college, for the most part.

Perhaps I was lucky and had good/smart teachers. I really enjoyed high school, college and grad school. After all, what's not to like? All one has to do is learn a lot of stuff that in one's own interest to learn, think critically about and apply the stuff one leans, and share one's thoughts in various essays, exams and presentations. Life doesn't really get much easier or better than that.

 

[sealybobo]

I think he was mostly a philosopher and historian who had some good ideas initially then got spun into the fever swamps of levelerism by the mid 1800s or so and the PAris Commune.

What is "levelerism?" I Googled it and could find nothing on the first page of results that seemed relevant. The best I found was a footnote reference to a text by a F.R. Donnelly, Levelereism in 18th and 19th Century Britain, but I could not find the actual text, or the specific passage in the book that contains the footnote.

What good is any field of knowledge if it does not improve the lives of We the People?

Plenty of fields of knowledge have elements of pursuing knowledge for its own sake. Economics has that quality too; however, the economic policy aspect of it isn't one of them; that component of economics an applied science.

The problem isn't with economics and its theories (scientific sense of the word) that economists have discerned. The problem is that between the extremes of laissez faire capitalism and a 100% command economy, there sit infinite degrees of more and less of either. Combine the existence of so many "flavors" of economic policies that lie between the endpoints with political leaders, their constituents, and myriad commentators -- all of whom have varying degrees of proficiency, but more often ignorance -- all trying to propose the "perfect blend" of economic restraint and economic freedom, and what you get is the clusterfuck that is modern economic policy and debate.

The thing with economics, unlike, say, physics or chemistry, is that practically everyone thinks they they know enough to have something worth saying about how, how much, where and when to implement (or debate) "this or that" aspect of economic theory. Quite simply, everyone does not, yet they arrogantly are more than willing to refute the ideas presented by the people who are (professional economists), ideas they often don't know exist, and even of the ones they do understand, their grasp of them is bare at best.

I mean really. Would you tell your plumber, doctor, lawyer, accountant, exterminator, interior designer, general contractor, electrician or "hairbender" that they are wrong when they give you their professional advice? I sure wouldn't, for if I knew more than they, I wouldn't reach out to them for their input. Yet, that's essentially what "everyone" does with regard to highly trained and knowledgeable economists.

Teachers have a very important job, but most of them are not really much more than of average intelligence. The few who were above the norm were unwilling to engage in any kind of discussion of controversial topics.

I hated high school and loved college, for the most part.

Perhaps I was lucky and had good/smart teachers. I really enjoyed high school, college and grad school. After all, what's not to like? All one has to do is learn a lot of stuff that in one's own interest to learn, think critically about and apply the stuff one leans, and share one's thoughts in various essays, exams and presentations. Life doesn't really get much easier or better than that.

I agree the solution is somewhere in the middle. The solution isn't libertarianism and the solution isn't socialism. Our economy should be the right blend of policies that are both fair to the rich but also fair for workers

 

[JoeMoma]

I watched the video from the OP. I will never get those eleven minutes back.

Beware of the wealth inequality boogieman!

 

[there4eyeM]

The 'solution' is certainly not attachment to any one, current ideology. The measure is human. Anything that makes the state or any other concept the center of things is in error. Humans are at the center. What works for humans is what should be applied.
The only caveat is that people have to have at least a modicum of realization about life. Human psychology, perceptual function, linguistic capacity and limitation need to be clearly and simply understood. It doesn't require a high I.Q. or a Harvard degree.