The big question:
Why did Europe not suffer a wave of worker's revolutions, as Marx predicted?
Historian Robert Paxton observes that on the European continent the provisions of the welfare state were originally enacted by conservatives in the late nineteenth century and by fascists in the twentieth in order to distract workers from unions and socialism, and were opposed by leftists and radicals. He recalls that the German welfare state was set up in the 1880s by Chancellor Bismarck, who had just closed 45 newspapers and passed laws banning the German Socialist Party and other meetings by trade unionists and socialists. A similar version was set up by Count Eduard von Taaffe in the Austro-Hungarian Empire a few years later. "All the modern twentieth-century European dictatorships of the right, both fascist and authoritarian, were welfare states", he writes. "They all provided medical care, pensions, affordable housing, and mass transport as a matter of course, in order to maintain productivity, national unity, and social peace."
"Continental European Marxists opposed piecemeal welfare measures as likely to dilute worker militancy without changing anything fundamental about the distribution of wealth and power. It was only after World War II, when they abandoned Marxism (in 1959 in West Germany, for example), that continental European socialist parties and unions fully accepted the welfare state as their ultimate goal."
Christianity and traditional values. That's why Cultural Marxism was invented to get rid of it.
>in order to distract workers from unions and socialism
Why is the narrative always framed as the employers "tricking" the workers with welfare in order to stave off revolution?
I think it is more likely that employers became more socially conscious when they realized that happier, healthier workers are more productive and provide a wider consumer base.
>Successful implementation of Social Democracy in European countries.
This. But more than that, just the expanding wealth and the expansion of capitalism to the lower classes.
I mean, the whole basis of Marx's theorems was the assumption that the capitalists would never make concessions to the proletariat, and that there would always be a small capital-owning class and a large labouring class underneath them. In the 19th century workers owned virtually nothing - everything beyond immediate personal possessions was rented - and had almost no access to capital. Marxism become redundant the moment a worker first took out a loan from a bank and bought his house, because according to Marx that was never going to happen.
>Why is the narrative always framed as the employers "tricking" the workers with welfare in order to stave off revolution?
Because people who are sympathetic to Marxism are butt-hurt that they didn't get their revolution.
More that that, employers being nice to workers isn't supposed to happen according to Marx. Every time an employer uses some of his profits to make conditions for workers better, Marxists have to put that much more effort into their mental gymnastics.
Marx vastly underestimated the versatility and robustness of the capitalist system.
The workers themselves became the consumers and the classes began to overlap. As wages rose due to competitive factors and unions a middle class emerged that began demanding more and more diversified goods driving the market even further and raising wages even more.
Ironically, in feeding sub-cultures with luxury goods capitalism has done more to erode the traditional economic classed than socialism ever would or could.
Moreover, notice that the most conservative, pro-capitalist people are always the workers while the ones sympathetic to marxism are always middle class cafeteria dwellers and sheltered retards at universities.
The proles don't want to be "equal", they want to be rich.
1) Marx wasn't a very good prophet. Or economist.
2) mass graves all over leftist nations turned out to be unappealing.
>a millionaire is not wealthy is our society.
Where do you live bro?
Time spent working for $$$ earned has dropped significantly in the last century. And due to global capitalist markets $$$ earned translates into greater goods, services and essentials than ever before.
People in the capitalist west have more spare time than ever before. We have more leisure time to do things like learn, entertain ourselves and shitpost Marxist rhetoric on 4chan than at any other time in human history.
Have you literally only ever read Marxist books? Have you completely ignored the last century of history? Or are you just completely retarded?
Who gives a shit? 20$ is bullshit to you but a windfall the crack addict on the street. Should he be given your 20$ because you wouldn't appreciate as much as him? Should he not aspire to earn his own 20$ because you made 200$? There will always be someone who is wealthier than you.
Why do Marxists point at a rich man's bank account as if that's a valid argument in any context? Is your entire ideology based on jealousy?
>You gotta be a multi milliard dollar tycoon to be classed as rich
>You're not wealthy unless you make as much money as Donald Trump.
Whether a millionaire is wealthy or not really depends on what you mean by wealthy. For example, 3-10% of the adults in Western countries are worth more than 1 million USD, there are more than 13 million millionaires in the US (and even more if you consider households rather than individual adults.)
>I think it is more likely that employers became more socially conscious when they realized that happier, healthier workers are more productive and provide a wider consumer base.
When did they forget these lessons then? Because in the last at least 30 years they've been working in the opposite direction, outsourcing, stagnating wages and purchasing power, tax evasion.
>You might get to be moderately wealthy, but you'll never be part of the decision making class.
Swedens most powerful mans adoptive father was a lumberjack
The third world has developed enough infrastructure that all but the most white collar jobs can be done for a pittance by Chinese and Indians.
The removal of trade barriers caused the decline you talk about. Globalization was the biggest hoodwink of all time.
Holy shit, Sweden never stops baffling me. Next time they'll elect a Somali refugee fresh off the boat or something.
Either way, I think we can agree that A) Sweden is a special case B) this dude is not even wealthy
Yes but your mistake is in assuming the decision making class is divided from the rest of us down economic lines instead of socio-historical ones. There are plenty of multi-millionaires and billionaires who make more money than Queen Elizabeth or Barack Obama but they don't sit in on Bilderberg meetings for virtue of their deep pockets.
It's ironic you brought up Trump who despite being a billionaire is a verified political outsider currently getting blasted by every media outlet out there. (Also, I'm fairly certain there have been plenty of Presidents and Prime Ministers who were brought out up in poverty but I decided to avoid that subject so I could tackle the core of your flawed argument.)
Jobs was an American middle class kids who went to university
That immediately puts him in the top 1% of humanity
Same goes for Zuckerberg
>His father was an immigrant from Syria.
He was adopted and raised by a white American couple
A minute ago you were claiming that millionaires weren't rich. Now you're saying that middle class Americans are the top 1%.
Which is it? Do you have to be a street shitting Indian to be considered poor?
Globalization means they don't have to. They can simply keep moving their production facilities to cheaper and cheaper locations. When you sell to the whole world, it's irrelevant whether your slave-tier Bangladeshi workers can afford the products they make for you.
>what do you mean you can go from zero to hero? all the low hanging fruit is already picked, you will NEVER be as rich as the Anglo robber baron elite
I love this meme. 50 years ago there was no IT market, now there is and it makes random college kids multi millionaires almost overnight.
Also stop moving the goalposts, retard.
As this graph implicitly admits, only 18% of billionaires are not either direct heirs to their wealth or grew up in families wealthy enough to send their kids to college.
That's not looking too hot for your "self-made man" narrative.
>mass graves all over leftist nations turned out to be unappealing.
Go back to bed, Rummel.
"Refugees" from Syria or Lebanon tend to be high class historically (The Lebanese in particular are part of the capitalists in much of Africa and Latin America)
As for Job's father:
"Steve Jobs's biological father, Abdulfattah "John" Jandali (b. 1931), was born into a Muslim household and grew up in Homs, Syria. Jandali is the son of a self-made millionaire [!!!] who did not go to college and a mother who was a traditional housewife. While an undergraduate at the American University of Beirut, he was a student activist and spent time in jail for his political activities. Although Jandali initially wanted to study law, he eventually decided to study economics and political science."
That doesn't matter though, because Steve Jobs was not a prole anyway. He was basically a hippie in his youth and a yuppie by the time he became rich.
50 years ago kids didn't emerge into adulthood with $100k+ in debt, thereby rendered completely incapable of entrepreneurial activity.
Crippling lifelong debt combined with no social safety net means that if you slip up even once, you fall right into the poorhouse.
Holy shit dude, how many times do you plan on shifting the goalpost?
By the end of this thread 'prole' will be defined as homeless, crack addicted black transsexuals and everyone else is part of a privileged 1%
>everyone goes to college and becomes wealthy
>you have to go to college in order to make money
I'd say the systematic high levels of debt both on a national and personal level is perhaps the biggest failure of neoliberalism.
I've recently become a house broken working man and I honestly say I'd rather pay out my ass for taxes than put up with this shit. Most of my friends can't even afford to move out.
Pretty sure universities and colleges are government supported monopolies that are not subjected to free market competition.
Ballooning student debt is largely the fault of government interference. But by all means, continue to blame that dang 1%
>The rest of the world isn't like America where you have to mortgage your family farm to be able to afford college, though.
Yes. and the reason you get to go to college and make something of yourself instead of being a farm laborer knee deep in shit is because Marxists spent a century fighting and dying so that your family could have that kind of social mobility, you ungrateful faggot.
Like what? I try to be objective about these things. Its not the worst system ever implemented, its got a certain level of comfort to it.
I'm referring to post Thatcher/Reagan capitalism here.
>Ballooning student debt is largely the fault of government interference.
>cheap schools are the result of marxism
Jesus Christ you're worse than feminists ... in fact I wouldn't be surprised if you're the same people
Historically speaking he's not entirely wrong. The people that secured the basic workers liberties that us in the west have tended to be of a Marxist bent.
You might not like said liberties, but it doesn't make them not exist and it doesn't make the history behind them suddenly irrelevant.
Because of WWI.
A huge portion of the impoverished 18 to 25 year old male demographic (that tends to be the main participant in revolutions) was wiped out right at the point in time when communist uprisings were starting to happen. Additionally, the economic demands of the war helped push income taxes into effect on the wealthy, diminishing the sense of injustice and class anger.
Combined with the upsurge in patriotic sentiments and national security policies that comes with any war, this effectively suppressed communism.
How is a poor student able to get a $100,000 loan to study Indian Feminist Literature or something like that?
How is the university able to get away with asking $100,000 for a bullshit degree?
If you can answer that you understand the problem.
>Ballooning student debt is largely the fault of government interference
Since the government has so much control over their universities, how about they institute a price cap on tuition fees?
Consider this: America has one of the highest public education expenditures per capita, and yet has probably the most 'free market' college system in the world. If the Netherlands, Sweden, Austria and Ireland can all have free higher education while spending LESS on each student than we do, then our system is obviously deeply flawed.
Ask yourself in who's interest it is to keep the average Americans uneducated and docile?
But go ahead, blame the whole problem on niggers sucking up all of your resources, as you have been trained to believe.
Not him, but look at history.
Socialist parties and Trade Unions just kept on gaining more and more power, there were socialist rallies in the US alone that had hundreds of thousands of people attending and the rulling class were not getting better, they were getting worse, more abusive and more reactionary, in the US alone, fascist company paramilitaries were formed who murdered and lynched Union members possibly by the thousands.
Politicians saw this, saw the unrest spreading and basically blackmailed the Capitalist class to build the welfare state.
Everything you've said so far has seemed like a failure of consumer capitalism to me.
>when given a choice, these people make the wrong one
>the government allow them to make said choice
ancaps are whack
Prices rise as a consequence of monopoly. Universities have no market competition as governments give the money to students in trust for only a handful of pre-chosen establishments. There is no space in this equation for an up-and-coming competitor, not for higher learning anyway. Few can pay their costs outright so universities exist as a symbiotic organism with government.
Universities get to slowly raise rates over time and the government gets to keep large portions of it's populace indebted to it.
The US govt. would not be able to afford to offer free post-secondary to its citizens at this juncture. Niggers sucking up welfare that does nothing to improve their lives is one reason why the US debt is so high. Another reason is the military and there are a handful of others. (you did create a false equivalency between American and European economies)
As well, the college system as a consequence of what I just explained is demanding absurd amounts of money for utterly useless degrees. If at this juncture say... Sanders got elected then the US would spend literally billions so limp wristed millenials could get degrees in medieval transexual art and a host of other trivialities. Meanwhile you're forced to import more foreign engineers.
Do people here actually read Marx? Why hasn't it happened? Because the technological level of development, RoP and OCC that will cause capitalism to finally implode on itself hasn't happened yet and was delayed by the huge destruction of wealth after WW2.
Marx wasn't predicting the next 50 years, he was predicting a phase Capitalism would have to eventually reach after maybe 100, 200 etc years.
That's like saying "Why hasn't the sun exploded yet?, science disproven"
It's not even that. It's like the housing scheme that gave, say, $30,000 to help everyone purchase their first house.
The result? House prices instantly shot up by about $30,000.
It's the same problem with students loans except students actually have to pay that money back to the state eventually.
>Prices rise as a consequence of monopoly
Is there only one university in the whole of the USA? Can't unis compete with each other, even with those few pre-chosen estabilishments?
I also doubt the goverment want people in debt, they want their people educated.
>Niggers sucking up welfare that does nothing to improve their lives is one reason why the US debt is so high
Literally the narrative in action.
Anyway, all it would take is a small number of target laws to pop this education balloon that's been allowed to inflate for decades unchecked.
>I also doubt the goverment want people in debt, they want their people educated.
I never fail to be amused by people who (rightfully) consider corporations greedy but at the same time think the government has only the best intentions.
Also I think he should've used the word cartel rather than monopoly, it's pretty blatant with the case of AMA accreditation for med schools for example.
>the government wants people stupid and controlled
>give all your power and economic agency to the government
>Why would a goverment want their people with their income compromised?
People who have a lot of debt inherently don't want to rock the boat.
Since any disturbance of the boat could land them in the shit, an indebted person will be more politically conservative and favor the status quo.
Having each generation of young adults shackled with unplayable debt is basically a mechanism to prevent something like the 60s counterculture from occurring ever again.
I havn't read Marx like anon, but I was under the impression that Marx made specific quantitative predictions; such as when the level of income inequality reaches such and such, or when the rate of economic development slows down so much.
The conditions that he predicts will trigger his revolution have not actually occurred yet, although they were certainly on course to during Marx's lifetime.
You're talking like the US was some unstable shithole, it isn't. Having people in debt means they're also less inclined to buy shit, lowering VAT revenue, and wanting a dumber population also means you want a less productive society, thus lowering the governement income tax revenue
Oh boy. We've reached the time in the thread for the No-True-Scotsman.
Please tell us which specific, special snowflake brand of socialist you are and why it and it alone can resolves capitalism's faults without falling into communism's pitfalls.
He has a point. Someone with anarchist leanings will have an entirely different spectrum of beliefs than a Marxist-Leninist-Whatever.
It would be like treating a right-libertarian as a national socialist because they are on the same side of some arbitrary scale
quite simply I don't know, the world is a far too complex place for that
I like a lot of things about capitalism and a lot of things about socialism, but I really dislike the shit at the extremes and in the middle
do you know what all the answers are? why haven't you been made emperor of the world yet?
His chief predictions are to do with the OCC (the level of mechanisation versus human labour in value terms) and rate of profit.
These are the "general tendencies" or the "laws of motion" of capitalism that are contradictions.
These conditions have triggered in the past but capitalism has expanded by introducing new commodities (fabric, steel, chemicals, consumer goods, information) or expanding geographically (France, Germany, The United States, Europe and Americas, Everywhere).
The limits on the second are pretty obvious.
it's going to be interesting to see what happens in 50 years or so when globalism finally locks the entire world into a single common labor market and there's no more cheap labor to flee to anymore because you cant outsource off the globe
You're not allowed to use the word neoliberal to mean what it actually means on 4chan. This is 4chan, so when someone says neoliberal, it's supposed to be a /pol/ thinking he's talking about the opposite of what it means.
We'll have mars colonies by then
>There is no space in this equation for an up-and-coming competitor, not for higher learning anyway.
The value of a university degree is based on the prestige of the university that granted it, so unless your new university has a teaching staff made out of Nobel prize winners, it's really tough to even start.
>Niggers sucking up welfare that does nothing to improve their lives is one reason why the US debt is so high.
Not even close.
>If at this juncture say... Sanders got elected then the US would spend literally billions so limp wristed millenials could get degrees in medieval transexual art and a host of other trivialities.
All of the degree bloat is caused by people taking business degrees. The humanities have shrunk as both a percentage and absolute number of total degrees.
>Meanwhile you're forced to import more foreign engineers.
We already graduate more engineering and science students that we possibly have a use for. The only engineer shortage corporations are worried about are the engineers that work for $20 an hour.
>muh /pol/ boogeyman
So let's see:
Capitalism is /pol/
Fascism is /pol/
Nazism is /pol/
Nationalism is /pol/
Religion is /pol/
Reactionaries are /pol/
Monarchists are /pol/
Basically, everything that isn't outright marxist, is /pol/.
>It isn't. It's a marxist term describing anything that is vaguely pro-market, from Thatcher through monetarists to fucking Austrian school.
But that's exactly what it is though.
To 1990, capital had no interest in a common labour market. In fact as the so-called "neoliberal" policies were implemented dismantling worker's rights in Fordism, lawful migration was halted.
Capital seems to desire a united capital market and a disunited labour market. Something about workers of the world unite probably.
Also, to be less specious, in the 1870-1910 period workers formed effective transnational alliances through transnational labour markets. Look at the circulation of struggle through the docks, or seamen, or UK-US-Au-NZ.
Transnational labour was capable of forming transnational resistance to capital.
Yes, but a millionaire is able to live extremely comfortably, provide for himself, and even live a life of pure leisure if they're willing to downgrade their lifestyle somewhat.
If this is an attainable goal for most people, can we really say that most people are being oppressed?
Europe (Russia, Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia...) did "suffer" worker's revolutions, but too early in the development of human history so they failed.
Nowadays class awareness doesn't exist because class struggle moved from bourgeoisie vs proletariat to proletariat vs proletariat.
>Why did Europe not suffer a wave of worker's revolutions, as Marx predicted?
but they did. the year the Manifesto came out there was a continental-wide wave of revolutions that were mostly defeated
this >>533992 , in combination with loads and loads of systematic state violence
consider that russia would probably not become communist without the WW1 catastrophy fucking up a allready fucked up empire, china became communist in the aftermath of some decades of war etc...
it takes a lot to destabilise and tear down the political and economic system enough for the working population to manage owerthroving it, othervise they just get killed if they fight and revarded if they submit and cooperate, and thats pretty much how social order works
The democratic government (the people in charge at a given moment anyway) needs a degree of popular support to stay in power.
Of course, they also need a degree of corporate sponsorship.
Corporations just need to be profitable and not be caught doing any obvious crimes and even then...
The democratic government has different stakes is all.
A million dollars is still a lot but it is definitely not as much as it used to be. Even when I was a kid in the 90s everyone referred to millionaires and a million dollars to me seemed like an exorbitant amount, until I learned about billionaires... It's the billionaires that can truly throw their weight around on a national or international scale.
>The people that secured the basic workers liberties that us in the west have tended to be of a Marxist bent.
The European postwar welfare state was instituted, or at least significantly expanded, under center-right and center-left governments for the most part.
Not him, but a figure from 2001 (so take it with a grain of salt considering China's progress on poverty), is that almost half the world's population lived on less the $2 a day. So, in fact, a majority of the world's population lives in extreme poverty. What that guy is saying is that Jobs was not even poor my American standards, and going to university several decades ago, when such an education was not common for most Americans, would have given him a leg up into the upper middle class. However, I disagree that this automatically made him a 1%er, thats a retarded statement on that guy's part.
he's saying that being smart is a requirement, but not a guarantee, for becoming rich in the tech boom (having a clever idea also helps for anyone regardless of their intelligence). The corollary is that there are thousands upon thousands of "smart people" who will also try to make it big and will fail miserably.
>I don't know what the word "and" means
Your statement reads "marx had a low IQ, therefore he wasn't good at predicting shit." Otherwise grouping to random observations in a sentence offers no insight and makes you look like even more of an idiot.
Because Marx was wrong. The only people who follow and enact Marx's ideas are edgy losers like Stalin and the edgy losers always fuck it up since they literally just say fuck you to everything in society.
And? Feudalism lasted 1500 years.
Marx's predictions are based on intrinsic trends in capitalism that are at the core of the system. These processes are still occurring today and are measurable.
Marx himself said never underestimate Capitalists way to get themselves out of a crisis, but the new bandaid they come up with will cause its own contradictions.
Capitalism has a major crisis every 30 years or so it seems, Capitalism could have easily collapsed in the 70s if the credit card solution wasn't made, now the issue today is insane levels of private debt while profitability continues to fall and wages are stagnant. What is the solution to the next major crisis?
Also level of technology simply hasn't gotten to the levels Marx was talking about, he was talking about an era of mass unemployment due to automation, which is actually expected to come sometime this century.
Because something didn't happen in 19th or early 20th century, doesn't disprove Marx at all, because he didn't even think it would happen in the 19th or 20th century.
The free market will take care of these things as long as there is a well running economy.
As long as there is competition for labor, employers have to treat workers well enough or they will go work someplace else.
Workers who either have things well enough, or have the choice to walk across the street don't need to revolt.
Only in a small way, but the whole space project was a satire of the soviet ideology of the time; that the revolution needed to be spread abroad by force. It's exactly what Lenin tried to do by invading Poland. It was also an an allusion to the pulpy but very influential novel "what is to be done" by nikolai chernyshevsky, which has these highly ascetic revolutionaries that sleep on nails and stay awake for days. Lenin cited that book as a model for himself. The workers on the project sacrificing themselves for the project resembles this, and it also anticipates the social realist style that stalin promoted when he came to power in the late 1920s.
IDK where you live, but my company has at least two direct competitors who are often hiring. If my place doesn't make with the bonuses, I can easily move. I don't because:
2. They know I could and pay me well.
>People who have a lot of debt inherently don't want to rock the boat.
No, people who have a lot of debt inherently want to radicalize into a political structure where their debts will be ignored, forgiven, or are impossible to enforce.
It's people who are heavily invested in the system, the creditors, who don't want to rock the boat.
There was very heavy intervention from the United States, even before ww2 was over. Although our activity in Asia and South America is more infamous, Europe was the primary focus of not only CIA special operations, but massive investment in the form of the marshall plan.
>Good job adding an extra 0 to the unemployment figures.
1 hour of work or study a fourtnight disqualifies you from the unemployment figures in Australia.
Underemployment is commonly agreed to be that high.
Youth unemployment, officially, peaks at 60 in some suburbs.
>I am an illiterate cunt
Back to >>>/biz/ with you
Labour force non participation in Australia means a crippling and intense poverty.
And underemployment includes not only the partially studying or working, and not only the disheartened, but people employed below their most competitive skill set.
>I am an illiterate cunt
Back to wherever the fuck you came from with you
"Underemployment" is only meaningful insofar as the underemployed are employed yet seeking a position, thus providing downward pressure on wages (although less than would be provided from an unemployed wage-seeker). Underemployment numbers are collected by sample and not by population (in contrast with unemployment) and are usually done in reference to part-time workers, with the question amounting to "do you want more hours".
Since underemployment numbers are ephemeral and expensive to study, these weak indicators are adopted instead. Your "underemployment" rate has nothing to do with the bullshit you're spouting.
And labor-force non-participation trends to mid/high-income households than low-income ones as a matter of function, and simply means that you are otherwise considered able to work (a legal adult, not collecting disability/retirement).
>"Underemployment" is only meaningful insofar as the underemployed are employed yet seeking a position, thus providing downward pressure on wages
I like the way you delete subjectivity entirely.
>And labor-force non-participation trends to mid/high-income households than low-income ones as a matter of function
>as a matter of function
Empirically it is exactly the opposite with long term unemployment.
I look forward to the day when you get shot for counter revolutionary conspiracy.
>Underemployed workers are defined as part-time workers who want, and are available for more hours of work than they currently have, and full-time workers who worked part-time hours during the reference week for economic reasons (such as being stood down or insufficient work being available).
Given that you're such an expert on Australia you'd already have used ABS regarding SEO and long term unemployment.
Oh wait, you're entirely unfamiliar with the least empirical work on Australia and you'll suggest that if someone is registered as long term unemployed then they're a labour market participant.
Go fuck yourself with a hot knife.
>Given that you're such an expert on Australia you'd already have used ABS regarding SEO and long term unemployment.
I never said anything about unemployment, only lfpr, illiterate cunt. And you'd be hard pressed to demonstrate how a long-term non-participant would be able to live in a small household with no income stream, unless Australian unemployment insurance programs pay out generously and indefinitely to non-disabled non-elderly single-households and I've been horribly misinformed.
>Go fuck yourself with a hot knife.
Come to the realization that individuals who ascribe to ideologies prescribing mass movement usually have crippling self-esteem issues. Or kill yourself like I said to earlier.
I have. You haven't. I've not really made strong claims which would require empirical evidence, I'm mostly pointing that the conclusions you've drawn from an ill-informed reading of data are specious due to a massive disconnect between the terminology and your use of it. You (or whoever you're coming to the support of), however, have made multiple strong claims that would require empirical evidence, yet none has been produced.
Marx and Engels' work was mostly based the living conditions of the working class in Manchester and Lancashire. The working class of these areas lived in utter destitution and were demanding reforms by the parliament.The working class organized Chartist movements, strikes, and unions, but the parliament struck down their demands. After 1848, the economy began to recover, and workers' interest in the movements steadily declined.
Arguably we still live in what Marx would describe as times of primitive accumulation, and have not reached the point where industrial capitalism is dominant. You point out the expansion of debt which is arguably not an apparatus of the industrialists who recognize it as an inherently unsustainable practice, but is rather something used by bankers to extract wealth from the economy. Marx anticipated that these bankers, and anyone who uses predatory methods to extract wealth rather than produce it, would be done away with in time by the industrialists or subordinated to them as tool by which to provide the credit necessary to expand the economy. Think banks in Bismarck's Germany or in modern day China where they serve to provide the capital necessary for industrial expansion.
Today, and the majority of the past 500-2000 years, wealthy individuals used their resources to buy up what are essentially privileges to charge tolls on resources like land, insurance, and finances. Marx, building on the traditions set forth by classical economists like Adam Smith and the Physiocrats, thought that parasitism needed to be swept away before the next phase of economic growth led by the industrialists could occur. If we are to believe that Marx thought that the world he lived in was going to move into this phase because of the "industrial revolution" he was hopelessly optimistic since we can see that the same people who dominated the economy before it moved on to dominate it afterwards.
It is disheartening to see just how entrenched those "toll booth operators" are, but it still does seem like industrialist might decide to work with the government to regulate or dismantle the institutions created by the few who have either lucked or cheated into the privileges that they receive. It would be a true "industrial revolution" if it did occur, but we might have to wait a while since there seems to be a concerted effort to unlearn the lessons of the past 200 years.
Literally only a small percentage of people are actually supposed to go to college. That was the intention, appealing to the semi-small group of nerds and weirdos who wanted to do more school.
The rest was for the military.