Marx: "the workers revolution will come any day now, capitalism cannot sustain itself"

Did I get this right?

Other urls found in this thread:

but it can't

The only reason capitalism has survived is because of social democratic intervention. This is the only oversight in Marx's theory.


Marx didnt make a "prediction" for 10 years, he made an economic model describing capitalist production and extrapolated it to the future, and saw that it would be unsustainable. And it is.

Here is how it ends:

We can already predict a permanent 45% unemployment rate due to mechanization, watch this video to get a perspective on just how many jobs will be replaced:
This is what sucks about basic income. When you have 45% of your population that can never have a job, they will have to live off of it. You can freely discriminate against them by having the rent just a little higher than they can afford in the places you want only your porky friends to live, I bet you can come up with a lot more clever ways to keep out a group who's richness you know down to the cent.

Nobody is saying this, but this is a requisite for communism. Automation will fuck capitalism up, and that's a good thing. All the people afraid of losing their jobs should instead be happy that they get to work less. We will have communism eventually.

marx didn't foresee the development of the "finance industry" that is currently driving economic "growth"

but hell, even reading bourgeois outlets like reuters, bloomberg, the economist, and the financial times, you can see that the current economic axis lies on a very unstable foundation and that all it's going to take is a stiff breeze to knock it over.

last year alone production fell and led to a 10% drop in emissions across asia. this year the twelve largest shipping companies are posting losses. despite record profits, a staggering amount of people are out of work and corporate expansion has not only ground to a halt, but is actively retracting.

in many ways it's a repeat of the economic conditions that preceded the fall of the roman imperial system and the rise of feudalism. the vast majority of productive property now lies in the hands of what is essentially an economic aristocracy, and for everyone else their only options are or will be enslavement at the hands of the ownership classes or revolution to acquire the means to provide for themselves.

sorry your "gotcha!" bullshit didn't work out op. read a book and try again.


two questions for people who know the economy well

what are the chances of another 2008-type crisis in the next, say, decade?

and if so, would it be worse than 2008?

We're still in that crisis mate. While some countries GDP has begone to rise by tiny percentages, the income of people still drops and costs rise.

He was, you retard, he was right from the very start. He predicted Lelnin and Stalolnin's failure from the very beginning, he literally wrote the book on that shit.
No idiot, anarchists aren't as fatalistic as marxists; anarchsts see revolution as something that CAN happen, marxists see revolution as something that WILL happen.

We already have advanced technology - guns. Do you think the unemployed proles will sit around and die? No. The revolution used to be fought by peasants, this time the revolution will be fought by the homeless & unemployed (which says a lot about Holla Forums, really.)

So what's the need of the welfare leeches then?

Is this how capitalist success looks like? All I see is protest against the establishment and capitalism turning into self-defence mode (which is fascism).

Coming soon

Anarchy and statism or something else?

yes. 2008 solved nothing.


If Bakunin was so right why does nobody talk about him and instead suck Marx's dick

Checkmate Anarchist

bourg economists are predicting another crash in the next five years or so.

We'll be lucky if there isn't a massive economic catastrophe within the next ten months, much less the next ten years.

I'm not being hyperbolic.

This is just speculation on my part, but there's strong talk of the Fed raising the interest rate next month. This is something they've been putting off all year, and in fact was supposed to have happened way back in August or September (iirc). But why? Nothing has really changed between then and now. On the surface it appears completely arbitrary.

I think, though, the reason is the season, particularly this incredibly fiscally important holiday season. Christmas is the busiest time of the year and the most lucrative. If interest rates were raised earlier in the year, Aug or Sept say, I think we'd be starting to feel the economic effects around now. With household spending power stagnant if not in decline, a rise in interest rates would diminish purchasing power even more, which would cut sharply into profits derived from that holiday buying period.

It's my current belief that the Fed et al are intensely worried about the state of the economy, and for good reason. If even the monumentally profitable holiday period starts to show signs of flagging, I think there would be a significant risk of a repeat of what we saw at the beginning of this year: a massive stockmarket panic, the third in six months. If we have a repeat of that, there's no telling what might happen.

Considering none of the economic or social contradictions which lead to it have been resolved, and in fact have only been exacerbated, it's going to make 2008 look like a fucking picnic.

No one is saying that our current ability to automate is going to bring us post-scarcity, but the development of automation and post-scarcity economics is one of the requirements for a communist society, as in the next theoretical societal evolution after socialism.

When will this meme end?

When the material forces requiring it to be so disappear.

They have, about a century and half ago.


Capitalism might last only until tomorrow, but it might as well last a few centuries, the point is it cannot sustain itself forever. The market is not big enough for everybody to be hired and its going to get only worse in that regard.

Even Fukuyama don't believe in the end of history anymore.

So I heard, plenty of liberals still do though

we need to take over the means of production so we can use full-automation and post-scarcity technology for our benefits.

the anarchists can take their boring weekly consensus meetings on how best we can alienate ourselves through luddite work flipping burgers and offering friends service and fuck off.

imagine working in an anarchist/syndicalist call centre for a career..jesus christ


that is technological determinism.
we *might* have more agency than that.

communism can come first.
full automation will only fully used to benefit the proletariate if communism is already in place.

otherwise layoffs will continue and the state will have to step in to prop up capitalism, like always

Which means revolution is not only inevitable, but fruitful because replacing the existing mode of production will be a much smoother process.

how useful would it be to run a co-op, continually vote to invest in automation, each time lowering working hours while keeping the same pay, until we are working the very minimum possible, at the same time productivity levels stay at what is sustainable?

The central banks have exhausted all their tools for dealing with crisis, so they won't be able to contain the effects of another one.

What do you think the great depression was? Capitalism would be fucking dead if it weren't for socdem reforms.


it is why smart capitalists do not support libertarianism, even tho in the short term minimal government benefits the capitalists, b/c they know it will just make things bad enough for communist revolution

WTF I hate Marx now…..

i always thought he thought capitalism is the most creative and productive thing ever, only problem was it ruins people's lives (humanist marx).

So after the capitalism makes stuff cool, and great factories and the rest of it (automation) we can take it over and use it for our benefit instead of porkys'

did i get marx right?

considering the current model requires endless population growth, yeah :)


Return to Reddit.

marx thought the proletariate had to develop everything? or they would scrap what the capitalitsts had exploited the proletariates into making?