Mainstream Economist Roubini: Marx was right. Capitalism may be destroying itself.

[NGNM85]

Re: Mainstream Economist Roubini: Marx was right. Capitalism may be destroying itself

You keep telling him he should start a company and hire workers by himself, but as he pointed out one company can't do it. One company hiring workers isn't enough to drive demand, it requires more resources than just one company can do. His is the main thrust of his post,at least in my view:
"Businesses have a ton of cash that they could use to hire more workers, which would in turn drive more demand. If they all did it together it would benefit everyone, but they won't do it individually because they do it individually it will hurt their profit/loss statements. One company hiring, by itself, won't drive demand. " The bolded is the main part. One company alone isn't enough to drive demand, but if they allowed started hiring then demand would go up and their profits would as well.

This merely underscores the point; what we are facing is not a problem within capitalism, or, rather; 'capitalism', 'capitalism' is the problem.

 

[1Perry]

Re: Mainstream Economist Roubini: Marx was right. Capitalism may be destroying itself

You keep telling him he should start a company and hire workers by himself, but as he pointed out one company can't do it. One company hiring workers isn't enough to drive demand, it requires more resources than just one company can do. His is the main thrust of his post,at least in my view:

"Businesses have a ton of cash that they could use to hire more workers, which would in turn drive more demand. If they all did it together it would benefit everyone, but they won't do it individually because they do it individually it will hurt their profit/loss statements. One company hiring, by itself, won't drive demand. " The bolded is the main part. One company alone isn't enough to drive demand, but if they allowed started hiring then demand would go up and their profits would as well.

Someone has to lead. We've seen what not having someone to lead gets us.

 

[SheWolf]

Re: Mainstream Economist Roubini: Marx was right. Capitalism may be destroying itself

Marx's grand view was destroyed years ago.

The problem is not that the model can't work, it's that the government took from the tax payers and gave it to business and Wall Street. No, that is never going to work.

Creative destruction and Marxist Communism are two different things, and two different concepts... Creative destruction in economics is a pretty basic and easily understood model in some examples, and it's been built upon and tinkered with by many economics since Marx first laid it out.... and I think he did first point out that capitalism goes through cycles of destruction. Creative destruction itself doesn't promote Communism either. Many models such as Josepf Schumpeter's more or less explain business cycles.

Marx said a lot of things were going to happen and they never did. However, he was still a very intelligent man and not entirely ignorant about economics or sociology.

 

[U.S. Socialist.]

Re: Mainstream Economist Roubini: Marx was right. Capitalism may be destroying itself

Someone has to lead. We've seen what not having someone to lead gets us.

Yes and in this instance the private sector won't lead so the government needs to.

 

[AdamT]

Re: Mainstream Economist Roubini: Marx was right. Capitalism may be destroying itself

Creative destruction and Marxist Communism are two different things, and two different concepts... Creative destruction in economics is a pretty basic and easily understood model in some examples, and it's been built upon and tinkered with by many economics since Marx first laid it out.... and I think he did first point out that capitalism goes through cycles of destruction. Creative destruction itself doesn't promote Communism either. Many models such as Josepf Schumpeter's more or less explain business cycles.

Marx said a lot of things were going to happen and they never did. However, he was still a very intelligent man and not entirely ignorant about economics or sociology.

Correct. In fact Alan Greenspan, of all people, is a big fan of Schumpeter's creative destruction thesis. I don't think anyone would accuse Greenspan of being a Marxist.

 

[U.S. Socialist.]

Re: Mainstream Economist Roubini: Marx was right. Capitalism may be destroying itself

Correct. In fact Alan Greenspan, of all people, is a big fan of Schumpeter's creative destruction thesis. I don't think anyone would accuse Greenspan of being a Marxist.

He's the exact opposite in fact. He literally studied at Ayn Rand's feet.

 

[1Perry]

Re: Mainstream Economist Roubini: Marx was right. Capitalism may be destroying itself

Yes and in this instance the private sector won't lead so the government needs to.

The government did lead when they gave billions to those they are now complaining about. They shot their wad.

 

[NGNM85]

Re: Mainstream Economist Roubini: Marx was right. Capitalism may be destroying itself

At the risk of derailing this thread I think it's quite silly to make such an ahistorical, categorical argument. Two points about this are what bother me in this line of thinking:

1. Lenin's views on the role of the party changed drastically throughout his life, as did his views on the relation between the party and the broader movement. To say that he was "against democracy [in general]" simply isn't true. From a practical point of view, the undemocratic nature of the party in the Iskra period was necessary due to its underground nature. Later, as conditions changed, he supported a broad, mass based party, promoting the view that anyone is a member who considers themselves one. Following the October revolution, this changed further along with the civil war, the banning of factions and the decline in the movement. Lenin was a result of historical forces, and to make such a universal statement as you have is clearly ahistoric and blatantly wrong.

Workers’ democracy had always been understood to be the heart of Socialism, the core of Socialism, this was a mutual point of agreement between the Anarchists and the leading Marxists of the day. Lenin didn’t share that view. That goes back to the very beginning. Around the time of State & Revolution and the April Theses he changes course to come more in line with the standard, Libertarian position, but this is just political pandering. Even in State & Revolution he talks about a ‘bourgeoisie state without the bourgeoisie’ and that this structure which I guess is supposed to ‘wither away’ to borrow Marx’s phrase, which I always thought was nonsense, or something, but it’s going to have to last a long time, he doesn’t say how long. So, even then, it’s still there. Then afterwards, that gets totally dispensed with, and he reverts to his original position. Technically, Russia was just a placeholder state, because the real revolution had to take place in Germany, according to Marxist doctrine, but I think this is really just a justification, however, it makes little difference, as the end result is the same.

2. This sort of develops out of the first point, but the march of history isn't conditioned primarily by the struggle of ideology. To contrast "Leninism" in such a way with other strains of socialist thought is ignorant of how history develops. "Leninism" was a product of the condition in which it developed, as were "Marxism," "anarchism," "Luxembourgism," etc. The way that you have structured your argument clearly shows that you are not taking these differing beliefs into their proper historical context. "Leninism," for example, as you believe it to be didn't come into existence until after October, and the reasons for it doing so were many and much broader than "Lenin was a dictator" (an obvious few would be the civil war, the massive destruction of the most active elements, famine, the drain of the war on the country as a whole). This fundamental mistake isn't limited to anarchists, but pretty much everyone across the board commits it - Trotskyists, Left Communists and others do the same thing, either for the purposes of apologism or condemnation.

No, it goes back well before the Civil War. Lenin was never really a Libertarian. The rest is fairly textbook Marxist theory, which I don’t subscribe to.

I never liked this argument because you are comparing a political movement to a socioeconomic system and allowing the turd you're quoting to set the terms of the discussion.

He’s clearly operating under a number of misconceptions. I’m more or less confronting his claims head-on. It seems to be the most salient point.