That’s just not possible when you factor in both accumulation of wealth (it’s exponential like compound interest) and the competition between capitalists for profit. The competition does not come from their moral beliefs but from the incentives created by the system itself.
All that takes is preventing those without a personal concept of “enough” from controlling capital.
This would require to remove capital from the hands of individuals and either throw it in the hands of the state, or change its (corporate) ownership to co-op model (one worker - one vote). Both have been shown to work but that would no longer be capitalism but instead a form of socialism, as private capital would no longer dictate what’s produced in the economy and how it’s distributed. Instead it would be dictated by the state which is controlled by the people through some form of democracy, or democratically by the workers within each corporation, or both. In both cases what’s produced is dictated by the needs of the majority of the workers in that state. And that’s textbook socialism.
Das Kapital was published in 1867. Modern psychology is considered to have begun in 1879. The first DSM was not published til 1952. Marx understood economics but he has an archaic understanding of human psychology which cripples his work.
Modern economic theory incorporates behavioral economics. In reality people don’t always act rationally or optimally. Time restraints, cognitive limitations, emotional attachment, and trauma all affect decision making.
We are living in an example of how the working class will vote against their own material interests and how deprivation of resources doesn’t inevitably lead to a proletariat uprising.
None of that goes against Marx, though. Marxist economics does not depend on people acting rationally 100% of the time. The working classes do not control bourgeois elections, the fact that you think this is a point against Marx points to unfamiliarity with Marxism more than anything.
You keep ignoring large parts of my argument. Think about how wrong the understanding of biology that doctors had in the 1860-70s compared to what we do now. Marx had the equivalent lack of knowledge about human psychology. His theories do not accurately describe human behavior on a fundamental level.
Marx did not understand the psychological and sociological needs that religion fulfills (I.e. fear of death). He confuses properties of Judeo-Christian religions as being universal to religion itself. Did most pre Columbian Native American faiths struggle with the exploitation of the proletariat? No. If anything several were closer to the Marxist ideal of a classless society than any attempts at communism.
The working classes do not control bourgeois elections,
I have asked you several times to explain how Marx’s theories do not accurately describe human behavior on a fundamental level, not to simply restate your thesis over and over. There’s nothing to work with here. As for how religion works, Marx was analyzing the context of contemporary (to him) religion, not historical religion, with respect to the proletariat. Plus, Marx analyzed what he called “primitive communism,” the very early communalist societies you’re referencing here. These are not the same as communism, the future fully collectivized global system, but they do “rhyme” with it. Further, pointing out that the working classes do not actually control anything in capitalism isn’t an excuse, it’s a core denial of your central idea.
I am not ignoring your argument, it’s abundantly clear that you don’t actually have the familiarity with Marx to be able to make blanket claims about the viability of his theories.
I am not going to explain to you the entire history of modern psychology which developed since Marx lived. He didn’t incorporate any of it because it didn’t fucking exist! How hard is that to understand?
Nowhere within Capital does Marx actually say proletarian uprising is inevitable; he arguably alludes to this in the Afterword to the Second German Ed. but it’s actually a difficult question whether proletarian revolution is inevitable in Marxism in the first place.
It was obviously known in Marx’s time that people don’t always act rationally or optimally. This isn’t the basis for Marx’s theory.
Accumulated wealth is a choice. We can tax inheritance at 100% beyond a certain point (say 100,000x the federal minimum wage).
The competition does not come from their moral beliefs but from the incentives created by the system itself.
Disagree. It is a choice to not say to yourself “I have enough. I am stopping work and donating all this wealth I don’t need to charity.” It is a choice not to make your fortune, retire, and then give ownership of the company to the employees who made you successful. Society once chose to treat homosexuality as a mental illness. No reason we couldn’t do the same for greed.
We say people can’t use slave labor. We say kids can’t work. There is no reason we couldn’t say people above a certain wealth threshold can’t work. That’s just regulation, not socialism.
That’s just not possible when you factor in both accumulation of wealth (it’s exponential like compound interest) and the competition between capitalists for profit. The competition does not come from their moral beliefs but from the incentives created by the system itself.
This would require to remove capital from the hands of individuals and either throw it in the hands of the state, or change its (corporate) ownership to co-op model (one worker - one vote). Both have been shown to work but that would no longer be capitalism but instead a form of socialism, as private capital would no longer dictate what’s produced in the economy and how it’s distributed. Instead it would be dictated by the state which is controlled by the people through some form of democracy, or democratically by the workers within each corporation, or both. In both cases what’s produced is dictated by the needs of the majority of the workers in that state. And that’s textbook socialism.
How to make a cluekess dude read Marx? It’s baffling that we have to answer the same questions again and again.
New questions for you to answer: https://archive.org/details/19thcenturyphil
Sheesh. 🤷♂️
Das Kapital was published in 1867. Modern psychology is considered to have begun in 1879. The first DSM was not published til 1952. Marx understood economics but he has an archaic understanding of human psychology which cripples his work.
Can you elaborate? How does Marx’s understanding of human psychology hold back his work?
Yes, let’s hear it from the liberal.
Modern economic theory incorporates behavioral economics. In reality people don’t always act rationally or optimally. Time restraints, cognitive limitations, emotional attachment, and trauma all affect decision making.
We are living in an example of how the working class will vote against their own material interests and how deprivation of resources doesn’t inevitably lead to a proletariat uprising.
None of that goes against Marx, though. Marxist economics does not depend on people acting rationally 100% of the time. The working classes do not control bourgeois elections, the fact that you think this is a point against Marx points to unfamiliarity with Marxism more than anything.
You keep ignoring large parts of my argument. Think about how wrong the understanding of biology that doctors had in the 1860-70s compared to what we do now. Marx had the equivalent lack of knowledge about human psychology. His theories do not accurately describe human behavior on a fundamental level.
Marx did not understand the psychological and sociological needs that religion fulfills (I.e. fear of death). He confuses properties of Judeo-Christian religions as being universal to religion itself. Did most pre Columbian Native American faiths struggle with the exploitation of the proletariat? No. If anything several were closer to the Marxist ideal of a classless society than any attempts at communism.
Excuses excuses.
I have asked you several times to explain how Marx’s theories do not accurately describe human behavior on a fundamental level, not to simply restate your thesis over and over. There’s nothing to work with here. As for how religion works, Marx was analyzing the context of contemporary (to him) religion, not historical religion, with respect to the proletariat. Plus, Marx analyzed what he called “primitive communism,” the very early communalist societies you’re referencing here. These are not the same as communism, the future fully collectivized global system, but they do “rhyme” with it. Further, pointing out that the working classes do not actually control anything in capitalism isn’t an excuse, it’s a core denial of your central idea.
I am not ignoring your argument, it’s abundantly clear that you don’t actually have the familiarity with Marx to be able to make blanket claims about the viability of his theories.
I am not going to explain to you the entire history of modern psychology which developed since Marx lived. He didn’t incorporate any of it because it didn’t fucking exist! How hard is that to understand?
Nowhere within Capital does Marx actually say proletarian uprising is inevitable; he arguably alludes to this in the Afterword to the Second German Ed. but it’s actually a difficult question whether proletarian revolution is inevitable in Marxism in the first place.
It was obviously known in Marx’s time that people don’t always act rationally or optimally. This isn’t the basis for Marx’s theory.
Accumulated wealth is a choice. We can tax inheritance at 100% beyond a certain point (say 100,000x the federal minimum wage).
Disagree. It is a choice to not say to yourself “I have enough. I am stopping work and donating all this wealth I don’t need to charity.” It is a choice not to make your fortune, retire, and then give ownership of the company to the employees who made you successful. Society once chose to treat homosexuality as a mental illness. No reason we couldn’t do the same for greed.
We say people can’t use slave labor. We say kids can’t work. There is no reason we couldn’t say people above a certain wealth threshold can’t work. That’s just regulation, not socialism.