Marx is the topic for the NY Times Room for Debate feature this week. For those of you who aren't familiar with this column (i.e. everyone but Ethan), the Room for Debate series asks leading experts to weigh in on controversial topics related to recent headlines. The question for this week's is "Was Marx Right?"
You can read the expert opinions here; after you read, I'd love to hear your thoughts.
I think it is interesting that he says that the recession that
ReplyDeletehappened a few years ago was fueled by actions or similar actions to
one in the '60s-'70s. I hadn't really connected our actions from the
last 40-50 years ago to now. The article also says that interest rates
in 1979 were increased "to kill inflation and restrict borrowing,
creating the deepest recession since the 1930s". Making it hard for
many to keep jobs. Also Marxs would describe this by saying: workers
who do have jobs produce more in value than they are paid and if the
worker productivity rises while pay remains low or, profits
increase(for the company not worker). I then thought well how are the
average people or poor then going to afford the all the products that
are now in mass production. This happened and those people then had
to borrow money the article notes. This created a lopsided government.
I think wha the article is trying to show us is that Marx would have
seen this coming again when it happened in 2008ish.
I think it's very interesting how Marx's prediction that following industrialization, the rich will get incredibly richer and the poor become incredibly poor. I find it so interesting that a lot of what Marx predicted has come true, and that makes me wonder if the second half of his prediction (communism and proletariat revolution) will follow.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Josh that parallels to Marx's ideas of the past can be seen. Although there wasn't an outright rebellion during the 60's and 70's, many workers were "slacking off" and ignoring their bosses. This is just what Marx said needed to happen to lead to new phases of government. I also agree that this raises the question of whether things will continue along the path he had predicted, but so far I'd say Marx's ideas are fairly accurate.
ReplyDeleteI think that I disagree with Henwood's theory. First of all, I think that his view of Marx may be a little bit skewed. Where Henwood's says "This is where Marx begins to come in. At the root of these problems was a breakdown in class relations: workers no longer feared the boss. A crackdown was in order." I think that he is wrong. Marx would not have wanted the government to interfere and take extreme measures to control the working forces, he would have wanted the population to be left alone in chaos to eventually come to the realization that their rights are limited and they are powerful enough to take down their repressive government and abolish social order. Also, I do not believe that the recent recession is a signal that our society is slowly transforming into a communist society, as Marx had suggested. If this was the case, our central government would not have as much control and power. At his rate, our country is closer to becoming a socialist society, or maybe eventually a totalitarian society rather than communist. Marx's predicted ending of the proletariat is that of a communist society, and based on the current state of our country and probable repetition of history, I do not find that to be a future possibility.
ReplyDeleteWhile he had a few good points here and there, I think Strain was oversimplifying when he said, "though it is not hard to see why Marx believed that the free enterprise system required the exploitation of workers, it is hard to see why anyone would believe that today. In 1970, 26.8 percent of the world's population lived on less than one dollar per day. In 2006, only 5.4 percent did — an 80 percent drop in this extreme poverty measure in less than four decades. " His idea of exploitation is different from Marx's. Marx's idea of exploitation didn't just address money; he also argued that, with the advent of the Industrial Revolution, the individual worker's labor wasn't as valuable, which turned him into another little worker bee. Also, I think this statement is flat-out wrong: "We are not slaves to changes in the way goods and services are produced and exchanged." I thought his concluding paragraph about the balance of culture and economics was intriguing, but I don't know what solution Strain has in mind.
ReplyDeleteI found that both Strain and Henwood misunderstood key concepts of Marx. They make solid points but I feel that Smith did a much better analysis of the question. She not only understood Marx better but makes a better argument than either Henwood or Strain. When she said, "by contrast, Marx believed that overproduction would lead to pressure on wages, which would prove to be ultimately self-defeating...that's very much in keeping with the dynamic in advanced economies today". I completely agree with what Smith is saying here because I do feel that this aspect of Marxism can still be seen in society today. Overall, I though Smith had a stronger argument mainly because of her understanding of Marxism.
ReplyDeleteMany of Marx's predictions have come true for example as Josh said the richer will just get rushers while the poor just get poorer, which is exactly what happened in the past years. It will be interesting to see what the future holds for us, and Marx's predictions. A specific reference in the article can show one of Marx's predictions that have come true would be about work productivity: "If worker productivity rises while pay remains stagnant or declines, profits increase. This is precisely what has happened over the last 30 years. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, productivity rose 93 percent between 1980 and 2013, while pay rose 38 percent". Marx said that as production rises so does pay which is exactly what happened in the past 30 years. Even though most of Marx's predictions have come true it'll be interesting to see if the rest come in the future.
ReplyDeleteI think Smith made the best argument out of all the experts. Her main argument states, Marx's prediction will not be correct as long as there is a middle class present. Without the middle class there are either very wealthy or very unwealthy people. Obviously the poor people would not be happy with their class position. Therefore there would be large tensions between the two classes and the eventual proletarian revolution. This theory was created by Marx. For the most part he is correct, there are very poor people and very wealthy people, and there is a lot of class conflict. The one problem is the middle class. They are happy with their position, and don't want any sort of revolution. (Maybe a small raise, but nothing major). They hinder the poor of society from starting a revolution, and keep the wealthy from completely exploiting the poor. They are almost like the peace makers of the class society we live in today. And that's why I believe Smith's argument is the best, because she acknowledges the middle class's importance. Without the middle class the potential for a proletarian revolution raises significantly.
ReplyDeleteJimmy has honed in on one of the key questions being raised in the articles overall: the decline of the middle class. The argument is that what prevented a Marxist revolution in Western Europe and America was a thriving middle class during the 1950s and 1960s, but that the middle class has been declining since. (This is what the passage Paul quoted was saying--that wages for the average worker have stayed about the same even though the workers' productivity have gone up.) What do you guys think about this? Do you think the middle class is declining? And would this possibly lead to some kind of revolution?
ReplyDeleteI think that the middle class is declining and slowly becoming poorer, but I do no think that it would lead to a big revolution. I feel like Marx's theory is only partly correct. I also agree with Yves Smith. Smith states "But as long as there is a sufficiently large remnant of the American middle class, still socialized to identify with the established order, no matter how beleaguered they are, it's hard to see how any organized, large scale uprising could occur". I agree that no large scale uprising would happen because of our government and society. Marx's theory could not be completely correct because he made it many years ago and he could not foresee the future government.
ReplyDeleteI found both the Strain and Henwood arguments to be very interesting in respect to each other. While I didn't necessarily agree with one or the other, I do think they both critique the 21st century through the eyes of Marx in very distinct ways. While Henwood thought that Marxism and class division were still very prominent today, Strain opened with the argument that the average person is more wealth than they were decades ago, and that this statistic is growing exponentially. To me, it seemed like Strain viewed the 21st century as a whole as being less Marxist due to the overall improvement of the economy. This is shown after he states his poverty statistic and says that this accomplishment "wasn't 'from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.' It was free enterprise." On the other hand, Henwood more or less ignores this fact and argues that the 2008 recession and overall division between the middle and upper classes are somewhat microcosms for the way Marx viewed capitalism and how it would continue to affect society. While the extremes of the late 19th century economy and class division are not present, the fact that this still exists shows how Marxism still comes into play today.
ReplyDeleteI disagree with Henwood and his opinion on Marxism. As the economy was failing in the 60's and 70's, people cared less about their jobs, and were willing to lose their jobs because it was as if they were still living during the repression. Henwood believes "This is where Marx begins to come in. At the root of these problems was a breakdown in class relations: workers no longer feared the boss. A crackdown was in order." He is saying that workers turning against their employers is what caused economic instability, when really Marx believes the opposite is true. Marx thought that things in society would get bad and then social unrest would begin, which appeared to be the case for the economic struggles during the 70's. And if Marx was right about this situation, which is what Henwood is saying, then the government would have lost a lot of power. This is why I also think the recession that occurred in 2008 was not like the one envisioned by Marx because the government is still very much in charge, and most people accept their rule.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the point which several of the journalists pointed out, which is that while Marx's opinions regarding capitalism were very perceptive, many of them do not apply to the modern world's current economic situation. Marx simply could not have predicted many of the things that are happening today, especially when it comes to the development and use of technology. Pertaining to the United States, I believe that Cowen made a strong point when he wrote that, "The problems are very often rooted in our imperfect institutions, such as lack of accountability in our schools, and a healthcare system which combines the worst properties of public and private sector incentives, leading to more expensive service and lower quality and access". As Jimmy and a few others have previously stated, the middle class continues to play a large role in our society today - even if it is declining. However, beyond what we have already seen in movements such as Occupy Wallstreet, I do not believe that discontent in the middle class would lead to a large revolution.
ReplyDeleteI disagree. I believe that the conditions in Marx's time were exactly the same as they are today. New innovations have created enormous inequality, on a scale not seen since the early industrial revolution, before regulation of capitalism. Back then, Germany was the new, aggressively nationalistic, hostile and militaristic rising world power, China (and to a certain extent Russia and Iran) are exactly the same. Marx did not say that discontent in the middle class would lead to the revolution, he said that discontent in the proletariat (now the minimum wage service class-the only sector with significant job growth since 2008) with barely being able to pay the bills would spark revolution. And just as there was rampant colonization in the nineteenth century, major world powers, such as America and China, have been making diplomatic moves akin to colonization. For decades, American foreign policy has included invading and overthrowing governments in small nations if their trade policies are not conducive to business. That is why Great Britain colonized India. China has recently been buying ports and increasing infrastructure throughout Africa. I believe that the conditions of the modern world are strikingly similar to Marx's world, and that his ideas apply now as much as ever.
DeleteI agree with Smith's argument about the middle class keeping the upper and lower classes in check. Because the majority of the population belongs to the middle class, there are not enough of the proletariat to begin a revolution, which is what Marx predicted would happen. However, the middle class does not make the capitalist economy stable. There is still a theme of the economy being self-defeating because of its rise and fall during the great depression. Even when the economy is at its lowest points and the poor are suffering the most, there are enough safety nets put in place that they will not revolt. The revolution Marx predicted did not account for the Middle class having as much power as it does. In order for Marx's prediction of a revolt to ever come true there would need to be much more economic inequality, similar to the conditions that were present in Russia when Lenin took power.
ReplyDeleteI think that Tyler Cowen makes some very persuasive points, but I think that he is looking at some of the facts the wrong way. He believes that the problem of stagnant middle and lower class wages are mostly due to "low productivity ... education sectors, which raise the cost of living for everybody, plus the high cost of renting or buying in desirable urban areas and in good school districts." His solution is to increase "accountability" in the school systems, and to increase low density (read: cheap tenement) housing. I disagree with both of those solutions. The problem with elementary through secondary education in America is not necessarily in the school systems: it is a societal problem. The reason that certain minority students have historically trended to do better in school (especially in math and sciences) is that their cultures value education more than other cultures. It has also been shown that within a couple generations of immigrating, as people assimilate into mainstream American culture, the education advantage all but disappears. The problem with American schools is not a lack of accountability; it is a societal lack of focus on education. Cowen's other solution that I disagree with is creating low-income housing by making more high-density housing projects. It has been shown time and time again that low-income high-density housing breeds crime and poverty, from the Dickensian London where Marx formed his views, to the Gilded Age tenements of New York, to--recently and notably--Cabrini Green in Chicago.
ReplyDeleteI feel that previously it could have been argued that Marx was wrong. You could argue this because only China and Russia have rebelled against their government and replaced it with a government based off of Marx's ideas, and even then, they rebelled BEFORE being industrialized. I believe our generation will truly put marx's ideas to the test. I think what Smith said in the article was true "as long as there is a sufficiently large remnant of the American middle class, still socialized to identify with the established order, no matter how beleaguered they are, it's hard to see how any organized, large scale uprising could occur". Unfortunately, America is slowly loosing it's middle class. With jobs going to China, or being replaced with machines, there are less and less middle class factory jobs for Americans. Our generation will have to deal with a shrinking middle class, and a larger divide between upper and lower classes then previously seen in the USA. This divide could potentially fuel a rebellion in the lower class against the upper class, AND it would happen in an economy that has already become industrialized. I think our generation will be the true test to Marx's ideas, and only time can tell what will happen in the future with our generation.
ReplyDeleteWhile I thought that both Henwood and Strain made persuasive points about the shrinking middle class and the greater differential between the incomes and overall lifestyles of the upper and lower classes (much like pre-revolution Russia), they both missed out on one key element that was mentioned in Yves Smith's argument. She stated that "the communist revolutions that did occur, in China in Russia, took place before major industrialization in those countries." This industrialization is what ultimately creates the middle class, Smith argues, as she goes on to say that it creates jobs that were not there before, which results in "growing numbers of white collar employees." The fact that both of the revolutions in which Marx predicted took place before any industrialization disproves the argument that any large-scale revolution could occur in present-day America, since it is a highly industrialized country.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Smith's argument that the middle class monitors both the upper and lower class. In Marx's theory, he fails to account for the power held by the middle class. Given that most who reside in the middle class are happy with their status, it provides stability to society, as they would not allow the upper or lower class to revolt in fear of losing their comfortable life style. Since Marx's predicted revolts failed to take place, Smith's theory on a powerful middle class makes sense.
ReplyDeleteHenwood says that Marx begins to come in when "the root of these problems was a breakdown in class relations: workers no longer feared the boss. A crackdown was in order." I disagree with what he says. Marx would have said to leave the population suffer in chaos and disaster to eventually realize what their intentions and ways are supposed to be. They would realize their power to get rid of social order. I do agree with Smith's theory. He says that the middle class keeps up with the upper and lower class because the middle class is the dominate group. As stated by Marx, because of this the proletariat are unable to begin a revolution.
ReplyDeleteI think that Strain's argument, while not perfect, is very good. I believe that his idea to compare the economies first, then how Marx relates to each was a very good decision. I liked as well how he used the idea of laissez-faire as well as that of Marxism to show that our economy is a combination of many things: "both Marxism and pure laissez-faire elevate the economy above its proper station, ignoring the ability (Marxism) and the duty (laissez-faire) of culture, and through it politics, to soften the rough edges of the free enterprise system." I also liked how he does not simply assume that the Great Recession has something to do with Marxist ideas, and instead argues that they are not correlated. What I liked almost as much as the comparison of economies is the disproving of specific Marxist ideas in the essay.
ReplyDeleteI found the point raised by Delong interesting about how the volume of production has grown so much that it re-employs the workers. Marx was wrong and underestimated that fact that people are getting their jobs back and are being being paid good money to keep the machine working properly and other jobs created by the rich. This then creates a middle class. That is the positive way of looking at it but the negative way is that these workers are not getting paid well and they are doing a boring job. If someone is looking at it in this negative way, then I would argue that the working class is in decline and that some type of revolution could be coming.
ReplyDeleteAll of the debaters seemed to agree on a certain point, in terms that Marx was fairly correct in saying that the bourgeoisie (the upper class) would get richer, and the proletariat (the lower class) would get even further driven into the ground. Although, that Marx was wrong about a certain point regarding the complete collapse of capitalism and some sort of proletariat revolution. I agree with the commentators. I do think that the rich are getting richer, and the poor are getting poorer, with, as one of them put it, the productivity of the workers getting higher, but the wages staying the same. This leads to more money for the CEO, but less for the ones who actually put their devotion into a product. This, also, relates to Marx's claim that eventually the worker just become part of the machine, which seems to be happening with the rise of productivity. But, I do not agree with Marx's claim towards revolution. There may be some sort of revolution, because everyone can agree that the system today is outright unfair, but I don't think it will result in a full Communist revolution, due to such a widespread phobia of it across the world.
ReplyDeleteThe following is most likely going to come across as extremely naive and impractical. I am 100% okay with you thinking this. Also I acknowledge that the following rant succeeds at going completely off topic in a matter of sentences.
ReplyDeleteStrain and Delong's arguments appealed to me the most. Delong’s discussion of the optimistic view really intrigued me. I find the idea that the American middle class will eventually revolt completely preposterous. There is no reason that the middle class should even desire to turn to revolution. I believe that America has excelled beyond the point where the middle class would need to revolt for their rights and needs to be addressed. I hope that in the event that the American middle class is in need of aid our government will resolve the issues to improve the wellbeing of the country. If the government officials themselves are not able to discover the solution to the economic problem they have the power to organize a summit of people who have intensively studied economics and have the knowledge to deliberate on how the U.S. can successfully improve the economy and help the middle class get back on their feet. Also I cannot believe that the 1%ers who are comfortably unaffected by the issues of the middle class could turn their backs on these people in need. They have the means to help the middle class and there is no reason that they should refrain from doing so. Some may argue that it is human nature to only look out for yourself and your interests and therefore the unaffected people would have no reason to want to help the middle class. I truly hope that people could not be so heartless as to abstain from helping others when it is within their power to do so. A life is not measured by how much profit you make and how materialistically successful you are, it is measured by the impact you have on the lives of those around you. At the end of the day what comfort can one have from their money when they could have used it to aid those in dire need of help, when they could have donated it towards efforts to rebuild the economy, feed those affected by famine, help reconstruct villages destroyed by natural disasters, fund research to find cures for diseases, fund research to discover better sources of eco-friendly power, or donated it to organizations devoted to improving the environment. Though it’s said a lot it still rings true that money cant buy you happiness. If people realize this and how much of an impact they can have on the world, then not only will this economic issue be able to be fixed, but we as a people will be able to accomplish an innumerable array of things that will improve the wellbeing of the world around us. If we as a country look to improve the world around us we can create a huge variety of jobs to bring about these improvements and that in turn will easily remedy our current economic situation. There is nothing preventing us from building a better world. All we need to do is realize what we are capable of when we stand together.
Out of the many experts Cowen seemed to make the soundest argument. There is not a threatening problem with the working people, or a revolution-inducing problem in general. Rather there are inherent flaws in the systems and corporations that "support" the working masses. Saying that our present economy is liable to push us to the brink of revolution seems silly. Although it may seem like a cop-out reply saying that our institutions are the problem it just so happens to be the case. A few other experts, like Henwood, argue that the people are dissatisfied and the "fear of the boss" is gone. There have been many workers strikes across the nation, including my mother's job at Millersville University. However, Henwood, like Marx, had clear flaws in that he made quick conclusions with the conditions in which we live. While his statement has merit, it is farfetched to say that those conditions are ones that would begin a revolt. The environment in which Marx lived is quite different than the one today; in our daily lives we have institutions working to provide a more stable and livable life, even though they may not being a satisfactory job. However, the institutions are not entirely to blame. The people, us, who live under these institutions don't make much of an effort to better our situation; the people who do are the ones who are likely to be successful. I agree with Ethan's statement that it is a societal issue that is one of our main ailments, but our culture is not entirely to blame either. I believe that rather than a cultural problem, it's the easy access to things that makes us lazy and that is seen all over the world. Technology has notably made our society a fast paced society in which waiting is just pretty crappy WE WANT OUR STUFF NOW. It may be strange to say that technology, while making our environment lightning fast, has made our people lethargic. So I just think that Marx's theories don't really apply to our time or environment. :P
ReplyDeleteI agree with Josh's point very much. It is truly remarkable and horrifying how right Marx was with his prediction on the rich and the poor. However, in response to Marx's second theory, there is a strong lean towards the idea of our government collapsing. If we look at books and films such as The Hunger Games and Divergent, we see a world that is corrupted by a previous war and then a reformation of a government trying to control everything. Therefore, if something like these books happens to our society, for all we know, we would probably fall back into a controlling governmental society
ReplyDelete