The Tendancy for the rate of profit to fall for dummies

[RGacky3]

Here is an easy non Marxian way to understand one cause of Capitalist Crisis, the tendancy of the rate of profit to fall

Lets say you have 2 shoe companies, both taking half of the shoe market, they each have 10 workers who are paid $10 an hour to produce shoes that cost $30, they produce 1 shoe and hour. Other expenses, machines, advertising, materials and so on cost $10 an hour per worker, so both companies make a healthy $10 profit an hour.

So heres what you have.

In one hour, 1 company makes 10 shoes which sell for $300, of that $300, $100 goes to wages, $100 goes to non-labor cost and overhead, and $100 is the profit. Both companies do this and they maintain half the market share, since they both sell the shoes for $30.

Now Company A, buys a new machine, making it possible for 1 worker to produce 2 shoes per hour .... But its a fancy machine, so its gonna cost the company $5 more in non-labor cost, but check it out, 200 shoes per hour rather than 100, means $600 in revenue rather than $300, and only $50 dollars lost per hour, a pretty good deal.

So Company A: buys the machine, Company B knows this, and figures "OH NO, I gotta get the machine too, otherwise I'm going out of buisiness." So Company B buys the machine.

Now here is your problem, you have 2 companies, making double the amount of shoes, thats 400 shoes per hour rather than the 200 before.

As you can see, supply is bigger than demand, Shoe prices drop, to $15 per shoe.

This will probably happen before as company A will drop the price to under cut acompany B, knowing they can make a good profit doing so, then company B follows.

So heres what you have, Both companies pay their workers in all $100 per hour, Their non labor costs are $150, shoe prices have dropped to $15 so they are selling for about the same $300 (they doubled production but prices dropped), assuming they sell all their shoes, now their profits are only $50.

Now perhaps double the shoes do not sell, but the same amount are being sold, now we have a real problem. If they are only getting in $150, but paying $100 in wages and $150 in non-wage cost, they arn't making profit, they are LOOSING profit, this is a giant problem. So what happens? We have to cut, invariable what is cut is labor.

Now you might say "just cut the workers and you'll be back to pre-machine levles." Sure, thats easy for you to say, BUT you've got company A watching company B, and who ever scales down first is surrendering potential market share, ultimately there will be a tug of war, lay offs, and a gradual raising of price.

The price will not go up back to $30, because both companies have less profits but a larger production capability, so all it takes is one company to raise productivity somewhat and undercut the other one.

Now lets say you've gotten back to market equilibrium, 5 workers have been laid off in each company after a back and forth, so wage cost for both companies is $50, and non wage cost is $150, per hour 10 shoes are made per company. But now the shoes cost $25 ... why? Because all it takes is one company to hire 2 more people, and increase their productivity by 4 shoes, meaning 2 people will be hired, producing 2 pairs worth $50 only paying them $20, and then starts the price war all over again.

There you have it, over time, these new machines cost these companies $50 in profit each.

Yet you might say "why not just not buy the machines in the first place?" Not an option, as long as there is another company that might buy one first, you'll HAVE to buy one, lest you get undercut in the market.

Now then you combine this with the lack of demand you recieve from loosing 5 workers, who may potentially buy shoes, (even more on a macro level), and your profits will drop even more.

Ways this is counteracted.

In the real world profits generally do go up for a while and this phenomenon takes a while to show itself.

1. generally the raise in non-varaible cost is not as high, meaning what happens is that profits do not take as dramatic a hit, infact sometimes they still raise for a while because the effect is sticky, but they'll raise slower and slower.

2. dropping cost of labor, or wage suppression, this is a real issue, but its much harder to do, and when this happens you end up with a classic demand shortage.

3. Government, the government almost always will buy up extra supply, or increase demand artificially, this is one reason for the HUGE US military industrial complex.

4. expanding markets, more people to sell too ...

5. Fictitious capital, this is more complicated and works more on a macro level, basically in short, new markets are invented, (the housing bubble is an example of this)

6. Outsourcing.

7. Cartelization, this is very difficult, but does happened.

8. destruction of competition, happens all the time, buyouts, mergers and so on, one company wins the war.

9. New products, hey we have new and improved shoes, throw away the last ones, or have products non-durable.

10. Lower non-wage costs ... tax cuts ... something else, cheaper advertising (ammerican apparal tried this and failed), this is more difficult.

And I'm sure a bunch more I did'nt think off.

Although in the end, you can't espape the inevitability of collapse.

I hope I explained it relatively simply.

(empirical evidence of this is in the agricultural industry and manufacturing and the subsequant financialization of the economy).

 

[imagep]

Here is an easy non Marxian way to understand one cause of Capitalist Crisis, the tendancy of the rate of profit to fall

Lets say you have 2 shoe companies, both taking half of the shoe market, they each have 10 workers who are paid $10 an hour to produce shoes that cost $30, they produce 1 shoe and hour. Other expenses, machines, advertising, materials and so on cost $10 an hour per worker, so both companies make a healthy $10 profit an hour.

So heres what you have.

In one hour, 1 company makes 10 shoes which sell for $300, of that $300, $100 goes to wages, $100 goes to non-labor cost and overhead, and $100 is the profit. Both companies do this and they maintain half the market share, since they both sell the shoes for $30.

Now Company A, buys a new machine, making it possible for 1 worker to produce 2 shoes per hour .... But its a fancy machine, so its gonna cost the company $5 more in non-labor cost, but check it out, 200 shoes per hour rather than 100, means $600 in revenue rather than $300, and only $50 dollars lost per hour, a pretty good deal.

So Company A: buys the machine, Company B knows this, and figures "OH NO, I gotta get the machine too, otherwise I'm going out of buisiness." So Company B buys the machine.

Now here is your problem, you have 2 companies, making double the amount of shoes, thats 400 shoes per hour rather than the 200 before.

As you can see, supply is bigger than demand, Shoe prices drop, to $15 per shoe.

This will probably happen before as company A will drop the price to under cut acompany B, knowing they can make a good profit doing so, then company B follows.

So heres what you have, Both companies pay their workers in all $100 per hour, Their non labor costs are $150, shoe prices have dropped to $15 so they are selling for about the same $300 (they doubled production but prices dropped), assuming they sell all their shoes, now their profits are only $50.

Now perhaps double the shoes do not sell, but the same amount are being sold, now we have a real problem. If they are only getting in $150, but paying $100 in wages and $150 in non-wage cost, they arn't making profit, they are LOOSING profit, this is a giant problem. So what happens? We have to cut, invariable what is cut is labor.

Now you might say "just cut the workers and you'll be back to pre-machine levles." Sure, thats easy for you to say, BUT you've got company A watching company B, and who ever scales down first is surrendering potential market share, ultimately there will be a tug of war, lay offs, and a gradual raising of price.

The price will not go up back to $30, because both companies have less profits but a larger production capability, so all it takes is one company to raise productivity somewhat and undercut the other one.

Now lets say you've gotten back to market equilibrium, 5 workers have been laid off in each company after a back and forth, so wage cost for both companies is $50, and non wage cost is $150, per hour 10 shoes are made per company. But now the shoes cost $25 ... why? Because all it takes is one company to hire 2 more people, and increase their productivity by 4 shoes, meaning 2 people will be hired, producing 2 pairs worth $50 only paying them $20, and then starts the price war all over again.

There you have it, over time, these new machines cost these companies $50 in profit each.

Yet you might say "why not just not buy the machines in the first place?" Not an option, as long as there is another company that might buy one first, you'll HAVE to buy one, lest you get undercut in the market.

Now then you combine this with the lack of demand you recieve from loosing 5 workers, who may potentially buy shoes, (even more on a macro level), and your profits will drop even more.

Ways this is counteracted.

In the real world profits generally do go up for a while and this phenomenon takes a while to show itself.

1. generally the raise in non-varaible cost is not as high, meaning what happens is that profits do not take as dramatic a hit, infact sometimes they still raise for a while because the effect is sticky, but they'll raise slower and slower.

2. dropping cost of labor, or wage suppression, this is a real issue, but its much harder to do, and when this happens you end up with a classic demand shortage.

3. Government, the government almost always will buy up extra supply, or increase demand artificially, this is one reason for the HUGE US military industrial complex.

4. expanding markets, more people to sell too ...

5. Fictitious capital, this is more complicated and works more on a macro level, basically in short, new markets are invented, (the housing bubble is an example of this)

6. Outsourcing.

7. Cartelization, this is very difficult, but does happened.

8. destruction of competition, happens all the time, buyouts, mergers and so on, one company wins the war.

9. New products, hey we have new and improved shoes, throw away the last ones, or have products non-durable.

10. Lower non-wage costs ... tax cuts ... something else, cheaper advertising (ammerican apparal tried this and failed), this is more difficult.

And I'm sure a bunch more I did'nt think off.

Although in the end, you can't espape the inevitability of collapse.

I hope I explained it relatively simply.

(empirical evidence of this is in the agricultural industry and manufacturing and the subsequant financialization of the economy).

It's fun to make up hypothetical examples to illustrate your point isn't it. I've done some of that myself, and I promise that I could make up a hypothetical example based you your hpothetical example and I could use mine to prove the opposite point.

There is no inevitability of a collapse of a true free market system, with the exception of a collapse that may occur due to the extreme pooling of wealth (causing social discourse and a disincentive for the vast majority of the population to be highly productive). Even the potential for a collapse due to pooling of wealth can be eleminated by certain redistributive mechanisms such as redistribution of ones financial wealth at the time of death (which is actually mother natures way of redistribution), or progressive taxation, or a combination of both.

 

[RGacky3]

Except its not hypothetical, it happened to the Agricultural industry (which is why it ONLY survives as a capitalist industry in state help), and its happening to manufacturing now.


compared to the rate of capital/labor growth.



Which is exactly what Marx predicted.

So you have empirical evidence.

As "productive" industries grow more efficient (higher capital/labor ratio), over time their rate of profit falls, until the industry cannot survive as a for profit capitalist industry, without either state intervention, massiave creative destruction (a neo-classical term), monopoly capitalism or something else external

The extreme pooling of wealth is something else, but it is also inevitable in capitalism.

Are their ways around it? Sure, but we are talking about Capitalism as as a closed system. I personally don't think you can fix it with progressive taxation, you need economic democracy, as Richard Wolf points out, After FDR the next decades were a story of the Capitalist calss undoing all the regulation and redistributive policies.

But thats another discussion.

 

[imagep]

Except its not hypothetical, it happened to the Agricultural industry (which is why it ONLY survives as a capitalist industry in state help), and its happening to manufacturing now.
View attachment 67127293

compared to the rate of capital/labor growth.

View attachment 67127294


Which is exactly what Marx predicted.

So you have empirical evidence.

As "productive" industries grow more efficient (higher capital/labor ratio), over time their rate of profit falls, until the industry cannot survive as a for profit capitalist industry, without either state intervention, massiave creative destruction (a neo-classical term), monopoly capitalism or something else external

The extreme pooling of wealth is something else, but it is also inevitable in capitalism.

Are their ways around it? Sure, but we are talking about Capitalism as as a closed system. I personally don't think you can fix it with progressive taxation, you need economic democracy, as Richard Wolf points out, After FDR the next decades were a story of the Capitalist calss undoing all the regulation and redistributive policies.

But thats another discussion.

Since when did the manufacturing of shoes become agriculture?

 

[Aunt Spiker]

And so - provide a run down of the same industry with a Marxist view: including projection charts, etc.

What does that give us?

 

[RGacky3]

Since when did the manufacturing of shoes become agriculture?

Those graphs were not showing agriculture, they were showing profitability in manufacturing ....

And so - provide a run down of the same industry with a Marxist view: including projection charts, etc.

What does that give us?

It gives us the fact that Capitalism is not sustainable, and has serious internal contradictions.

 

[Aunt Spiker]

Those graphs were not showing agriculture, they were showing profitability in manufacturing ....



It gives us the fact that Capitalism is not sustainable, and has serious internal contradictions.

So Marxism would work, eh? It has a proven trackrecord to stand on? Nevermind what I really think about your scenario. . . if you want to try to give Marxism a boost up you could at least provide some sort of evidence that will combat why it never failed to fail.

 

[Mach]

Definition of Capitalist Crisis:
The problem of having the largest ****ing economy, raising millions out of poverty, the most innovation, the most personal freedom and human rights and prosperity of the known universe.

I do agree, in those terms, marxists nonsense would most certainly cure the world of such a crisis!

Might help if you had debate topics rather than absurd nonsense that is most certainly not relevant to actual economics (other than the political side of course).

 

[Paschendale]

When all those cut workers are now no longer making any money, demand will drop even more. And then profits will drop even more. And more people will have to be cut. And demand will go down again. And then profits go down again. Where exactly does this end?

 

[RGacky3]

So Marxism would work, eh? It has a proven trackrecord to stand on? Nevermind what I really think about your scenario. . . if you want to try to give Marxism a boost up you could at least provide some sort of evidence that will combat why it never failed to fail.

Marxism is an analysis of Capitalism, not an economic system .... So it can't "work" all it can do is explain how capitalism works or does'nt work.

your thinking of socialism or communism, of which Marx wrote very very little about. Although Marx's predictions on how capitalism works have worked.

The problem of having the largest ****ing economy, raising millions out of poverty, the most innovation, the most personal freedom and human rights and prosperity of the known universe.

I do agree, in those terms, marxists nonsense would most certainly cure the world of such a crisis!

Might help if you had debate topics rather than absurd nonsense that is most certainly not relevant to actual economics (other than the political side of course).

Funny how you did'nt address any of the actual points or any of the economic theory.

The point is that Capitalism doesn't work anymore (it worked fine for a while), and you need a solution.

THe problem is having the largest economy yet a huge part of the population in poverty, massiave unemployment and so on, unnecessaraly.

When all those cut workers are now no longer making any money, demand will drop even more. And then profits will drop even more. And more people will have to be cut. And demand will go down again. And then profits go down again. Where exactly does this end?

Thats actually a seperate internal contradiction Marx talked about, i.e. excess capacity, and a lack of demant, its not the same as the tendancy for hte rate of profit to fall, but it ends up with the same outcome.

Keynes actually wrote a lot more on that (excess Capacity and lack of demand), although if you read keynes its clear he got the idea from Marx, even though he does'nt credit him.

 

[imagep]

Marxism is an analysis of Capitalism, not an economic system .... So it can't "work" all it can do is explain how capitalism works or does'nt work.

your thinking of socialism or communism, of which Marx wrote very very little about. Although Marx's predictions on how capitalism works have worked.



Funny how you did'nt address any of the actual points or any of the economic theory.

The point is that Capitalism doesn't work anymore (it worked fine for a while), and you need a solution.

THe problem is having the largest economy yet a huge part of the population in poverty, massiave unemployment and so on, unnecessaraly.



Thats actually a seperate internal contradiction Marx talked about, i.e. excess capacity, and a lack of demant, its not the same as the tendancy for hte rate of profit to fall, but it ends up with the same outcome.

Keynes actually wrote a lot more on that (excess Capacity and lack of demand), although if you read keynes its clear he got the idea from Marx, even though he does'nt credit him.

I do believe that you are correct about Marxism being an analysis of Capitalism. People do have to do a lot of creative reading between the lines to turn it into an economic system.

 

[Khayembii Communique]

Definition of Capitalist Crisis:
The problem of having the largest ****ing economy, raising millions out of poverty, the most innovation, the most personal freedom and human rights and prosperity of the known universe.

Definition of Capitalist Crisis:
The abundance of supply drives prices down so low as to cause an economic crisis. For the first time in history people starve not because we don't have enough food, but because we have too much. :2wave:

 

[JP Hochbaum]

So Marxism would work, eh? It has a proven trackrecord to stand on? Nevermind what I really think about your scenario. . . if you want to try to give Marxism a boost up you could at least provide some sort of evidence that will combat why it never failed to fail.

He isn't saying marxism works. He is saying Marx predicted why capitalism has an inevitable end.

 

[Mach]

Definition of Capitalist Crisis:
The abundance of supply drives prices down so low as to cause an economic crisis. For the first time in history people starve not because we don't have enough food, but because we have too much. :2wave:

Sounds horrible! I'll put on my tinfoil hat and throw some bones in the mean time.

 

[Aunt Spiker]

He isn't saying marxism works. He is saying Marx predicted why capitalism has an inevitable end.

And hinting that Marx - having 'forseen' the 'inevitable' had a 'better' more 'functional' solution, yes?

Obviously I'm not nibbling this.

 

[JP Hochbaum]

And hinting that Marx - having 'forseen' the 'inevitable' had a 'better' more 'functional' solution, yes?

Obviously I'm not nibbling this.

He didn't really give a solution. He hinted that communism would be the inevitable evolution of economies.

Think of Star Trek and the replicator device. What happens if/when that becomes a reality? Most manufacturing jobs will be gone, but producing will go through the roof.

 

[Aunt Spiker]

He didn't really give a solution.

Exactly: there isn't a marxist-solution.

He hinted that communism would be the inevitable evolution of economies.

Or so Marx would like to believe - nevermind the frailties and inconsistencies with Marxism itself.

Think of Star Trek and the replicator device. What happens if/when that becomes a reality? Most manufacturing jobs will be gone, but producing will go through the roof.

Don't need to imagine a Star Trek device and how it might affect "the future" in some imaginative scenario. . . there are plenty of devices already invented largely inspired by the creativity and vision of Roddenbery.

The cell phone, laser surgery. Why stop there? Harvesting machinery for orchards and the conveyor belt. But for every new advancement that streamlines the employment needed to keep said business going there are numerous other evolutions and changes that at the same time require more employees. Indeed! without technological advancement we would need more people to do those jobs. . . .and these other positions newly developed also need new people. It's a circular system - not merely a ladder for one such company to climb. That isn't actually the issue, though.

The issue he's presenting is that Capitalism is 'unsustainable' and 'falls apart' on it's own standards and *naturally* everyone evolves to communism and *naturally* everything becomes so expensive to produce and so about 'technological advancements' that it creates a grand event in which the entire universe implodes! LOL Sounds like unilineal progression of cultures, to me.

Looking at the state of present and past day Communism and Marxism - obviously the only truth is that he has no clue what it takes to form a business, keep it running, and keep it going - let alone addressing issues on a larger economic scale.

 

[Khayembii Communique]

The issue he's presenting is that Capitalism is 'unsustainable' and 'falls apart' on it's own standards and *naturally* everyone evolves to communism and *naturally* everything becomes so expensive to produce and os about 'technological advancements' that it creates a grand event in which the entire universe implose! LOL Sounds like unilineal progression of cultures, to me.

WTF are you talking about

 

[Aunt Spiker]

WTF are you talking about

LOL - of all the things I said that's the one thing you didn't understand

 

[Mach]

The point is, the OP is not a discussion or debate at all.

There is no "capitalist" system, there are many countries that use a good bit of capitalist ideology in their legal system and thinking, and many who don't or didn't who have seen the error of their ways and have made in the last 10-20 years huge gains in their economy, drop in poverty, rise of middle class, etc, as a result of adopting such thinking.

In the real world, every prosperous country has a mixed economy with interplay between government and private individuals, spending both public and private, rules both public, and private, all changing regularly to adapt to new issues as they arise, or to avoid waste where issues have been largely solved. There is no "pure capitalist" economy, there is no frozen-in-time economic structure that is brittle and ready to crack.

As to the eventual failing of a nation, all Marx isn't the first person to recognize the fact that everything humans do likely comes to an end. Certainly don't need volumes to discuss that trend.

As such, aside from historic relevance, it's irrelevant.

 

[iguanaman]

Those graphs were not showing agriculture, they were showing profitability in manufacturing ....



It gives us the fact that Capitalism is not sustainable, and has serious internal contradictions.

It is not sustainable without Govt. interference is what you mean. The other varaible you left out is innovation and technology which serve to delay the end result.
Say a company "c" invents a new kind of shoe, then A and B must catch up starting the whole cycle over again.

 

[RGacky3]

Sounds horrible! I'll put on my tinfoil hat and throw some bones in the mean time.

Great response.

The issue he's presenting is that Capitalism is 'unsustainable' and 'falls apart' on it's own standards and *naturally* everyone evolves to communism and *naturally* everything becomes so expensive to produce and so about 'technological advancements' that it creates a grand event in which the entire universe implodes! LOL Sounds like unilineal progression of cultures, to me.

Most modern Marxists don't buy the social deterministic line, I don't buy it, I don't think after capitalism collapses socialism or communism or anything is inevitable.

What Marx argued is that the for profit mode of production, and the capital/labor relations, along with the capitalist market necessarily lead to collapse beyond a certain point.

I'm talking about Marx in Kapital 1, 2 and 3, I'm not interested in his communism perse, I believe in economic democracy, the point is that the tendancy for the rate of profit to fall is a reality in capitalism, and one that neo-classicals and austrian economists have never properly addressed.

The point is, the OP is not a discussion or debate at all

So I take it you agree with the Marxian theory of the tendancy for the rate of profit to fall then, good.

There is no "capitalist" system, there are many countries that use a good bit of capitalist ideology in their legal system and thinking, and many who don't or didn't who have seen the error of their ways and have made in the last 10-20 years huge gains in their economy, drop in poverty, rise of middle class, etc, as a result of adopting such thinking.

The Capitalist/labor relation is how most firms nowerdays are run, thats a capitalism system, most economies have most of their capital on capital markets and the same with natural resources, most production is commodity FOR PROFIT production, so yeah, its capitalist.

If your gonna argue "but the state is involved," yeah, its still capitalism, the state has and always will be a major part of capitalism, capitalism is state dependant.

As far as the countries becoming capitalism and seeing gains, of coarse, and Marx would have predicted that (Capitalism causes extremely rapid growth, well, for some, rapid growth leaving most in poverty), but after a certain point things start to brake down. Also almost all the countries that have followed the super capitalist neo-liberal programme have crashed.

In the real world, every prosperous country has a mixed economy with interplay between government and private individuals, spending both public and private, rules both public, and private, all changing regularly to adapt to new issues as they arise, or to avoid waste where issues have been largely solved. There is no "pure capitalist" economy, there is no frozen-in-time economic structure that is brittle and ready to crack.

Public vrs private is not the difference between socialism and capitalism, its control by the workers and production for social good rather than control by capitalists and production for profit. You can have nationalized industry still be for profit and without any worker control.

Of coarse there is no capitalist economy without state involvement, capitalism needs state involvement, it does'nt change the theory, infact almost ALL economic models are based on "All other things being Equal" models, you don't dissprove the model by saying "not all other things are equal.

As to the eventual failing of a nation, all Marx isn't the first person to recognize the fact that everything humans do likely comes to an end. Certainly don't need volumes to discuss that trend.

Except Marx showed that Capitalism itself destroys itself.

As such, aside from historic relevance, it's irrelevant.

Not really, Its still the most accurate Critique of Capitalism and still stands today, infact even moreso, it was Marxists that almost a century ago predicted (using Marx's models), the takeover of finance over Manufacturing, as well as the collapse of demand and excess capacity, as well as the lowering profits of productive industry, as well as extremely rapid growth in new capitalist economies.

 

[RGacky3]

It is not sustainable without Govt. interference is what you mean. The other varaible you left out is innovation and technology which serve to delay the end result.

Absolutely, technology and innovation (creative destruction) is one thing that people point to that would delay it or even indefinately postpone it, but then what you basically have to do is rely on new innovation all the time that is exponentially growing with the economy, continueing to a point to where it simply becomes inefficient overall.

As far as the government, thats a point of dissagreement, I don't think the government can indefinately protect capitalism, because doing so requires the government to suppress the accumulation of capital by the capitalists, something that the capitalists will constantly fight against.

 

[Tim Cornelis]

And hinting that Marx - having 'forseen' the 'inevitable' had a 'better' more 'functional' solution, yes?

Obviously I'm not nibbling this.

The problem with this assertion is that you don't need to be right about a future society to be right about the current one. Let's say Marx was wrong on communism, this does not automatically mean he was wrong on capitalism and its tendency of the rate of profit to fall.

I should also point out that Classical Marxism (based on the writings of Marx and Engels alone) has never been tried.

Revolutions based on Classical Marxism: 0
Countries based on Marxism-Leninism (i.e. Stalinism): circa 30.

It is not Marxism that failed, it was Stalinism.

But indeed, Marx did have a better and more functional solution. Namely what he called a "community of freely associated individuals", a society without social classes, without state, where the means of production are owned in common and where production is carried out for the satisfaction of needs as opposed to profits, and where society is governed through a network of freely associated communes of individuals that use participatory and grassroots democracy to make decisions, i.e. communism.

--------------------
@RGacky3

How do you reconcile your adherence to Marxist economics with your advocacy of market socialism where production is carried out for profits. Though profits are shared amongst the workers equally, there would still be a tendency for it to fall.

I suppose that workers would be reluctant to sack themselves and hence the organic composition of capital would positively stablise, but would there not be economic problems as a result of the "internal contradictions of capital", in any market economy?

 

[Tim Cornelis]

And hinting that Marx - having 'forseen' the 'inevitable' had a 'better' more 'functional' solution, yes?

Obviously I'm not nibbling this.

It seems you are implying that because Marx was supposedly wrong on socialism and communism, he must have been wrong on capitalism as well. The fact of the matter is there has never been an attempt to introduce a society based on Classical Marxism (solely on writings of Marx and Engels), only on Leninism and Stalinism (circa 30 revolutions and countries).

Marx did indeed have a better and more functional alternative to capitalism. A society based on what Marx called a "community of freely associated individuals" where the means of production are owned in common and production is carried out for the satisfaction of human needs, individual and communal. A society where there are no social classes and no state apparatus, a society of freely associated communes and networks thereof that govern society by means of participatory and grassroots democracy. That is, communism.

Stalinism failed, not communism.