ok biz, pls tell me what's wrong with Marxist criticism

His belief that capitalism would inevitably collapse. none of Marx's predictions have come true.
>Ever greater unemployment and “immiseration” of workers.
Nope. In fact, until the recent crunch, things continued to mostly get better for everyone – rich, middle class, and poor.
Things suck right now, but that’s not because of anything remotely described by Marx… it’s happening because of a credit crunch explained by Mises and the Austrian free-market thinkers.
So after a century, he was wrong.
>Declining rates of profit.
Not quite. Profits are doing great so long as there’s not a credit crunch, and that’s caused by bad monetary policy, not a structural thing.
>Rising concentrations of economic power.
This prediction is from the late 1800s… the golden age of the super rich.
Our rich now don’t even COMPARE to the rich of the late 1800s. Not even close. At all. Rockefeller and Carnegie have no modern equal.
>aggressive imperialism
It's a lot less aggressive than it used to be.

>>963971
>pls don't use memes such as the comunist states like russia, it's not related to my question

How is it not related to your question?

It's an implementation(among others) that completely failed and results in millions of innocent deaths and terrible life quality.

File: karl-marx-never___.jpg (154KB, 640x427px) Image search: [Google]

154KB, 640x427px

>>963971
Your system of feelings-economics doesn't deserve better than memes as a counter argument.

It's easier for you to just list the things that you think are correct and let us BTFO them

>>963971
A lot of his criticism of the bourgeoisie is that they'd have to constantly "squeeze" wages out of the workers to profit. This simply isn't true. The economy isn't a zero-sum system.

Marx is worse than Keynes at understanding how money and populations work. It boggles my mind how people still support their methodologies. It's like if someone were to say "Oh Sigmund Freud? He's the greatest." You'd be laughed out of any serious psychotherapist convention. And yet the Fed and its academic Harvard PhDs run everything. Fucking blows my mind.

>>963971
no, the rich doesn't have to distribute monies and no, you won't get your free money.
get a goddamn job.

>>964030
It's amazing how you've said absolutely nothing.

>>964030
Marx's ideal policies weren't backed by economic theory.

Keynes' were. That doesn't mean they're right, but it puts him leagues above Marx.

>>964046
It's amazing how you couldn't derive anything from what he said.

>>963971

Nothing, Marx was absolutely right that dirt farming was so much better than the evil exploitative capitalist system

>>964046
You must be pretty dumb then

>>964030
Anon, what the fuck are you talking about? Most of the people in macro graduating from Harvard's economics PhD program are strict neo-Keynesians which are only Keynesians in name--the models are far more robust and grounded in the 1980s monetary theory advances as well as neoclassical thought.

>>963971
1. He treats humans as rational economic actors
2. He treats economic considerations as the only important ones.

>>964372
keynesian economics = stimulate aggregate demand during the bad times, save during the good times
Neo-keynesian economics = keynesian economics during the bad times, bubble and bust borrow and spend debtconomics during the good times

The only time they use monetarist theories is when dealing with their own finances. It is kind of like someone selling heroin to others while refusing to touch the stuff himself.

>>964372
>keynesian economics
The branch of economics that deals with external market forces trying to control the market.

It doesn't work. The freaking huge bubble we have right now is due to spending money on predictions that didn't come true. The market should never be artificially tampered with. When it does we have unforeseen consequences.

>>964964
Unbiased, purely factual, unbiased economic standpoint:

Low interest rates or easy access to credit causes large amounts of investment and output expansion. Growth ensues. Soon enough, something occurs to tick off the time bomb (it can be anything, but is always related to trust. If everyone believes that the economy is about to contract then trust goes down). Bubble pops, repeat.

This happens so regularly in today's time that we call it the 'business cycle' now. As to why on a deeper more abstract level, no one can exactly agree, but most economists confirm that it is due to too much tampering in the market by the fed and government. Government use to manage the market usually creates bubbles. That's Keynesian econ for you, Making bubbles from 1940's

>>963971
Diagnostically its spot on.

Its his cure where it all falls flat , partly because he underestimated how powerful an opiate consumerism was (focusing instead on religion)

US is a great example. Piss poor schmucks who are hardcore conservatives and support their own continued debasement and robbery

>>963989
Because ussr and other "communist" states were not actually communist you numpty

>>964022
But it's no purely wealth generating either. It's a mixture of the two.

>>965138
>It's a mixture of the two.
And? The fact is that companies get out more than simply the worth of their workers' wages. They can very much produce goods while paying their employees justly.

>>964372
They're keynesians in the same way that republicans are the same republicans as 40 years ago. As in: the label is still there, and people only see the label. Keynesian economics is a term that means, "the government can fix your problems." So in that sense, they're still the exact same. The core belief remains the same, and so model-arguing is a moot point: that's like a value investor and an EMH guy arguing about risk. They're not speaking the same language.

>>965110
Keynes does have some good points, just like Austrian free marketeers have their own. Being strictly grounded in a single philosophy of economics is inherently limiting, but we focus on label differences rather than what makes sense. The primary shortcoming of Keynes is that governments and politicians need something to say "oh yeah the economy, we can do something about that, keynes said so!."

No one would get voted into office if he said "yo you've heard about this hayek guy, right? The government shouldn't be involved in money making." It's admitting that the people in charge aren't actually in charge, and that's scary to a lot of folk.

And before anyone says the free market is to 'blame' for 07, read up about the savings and loan crisis, and how the government created the conditions for the crash by straight up guaranteeing defaulting loans, because votes. That's not to say banks didn't get $$$ in their eyes when that came down, which amplified it. But by digging deeply into root causes you can get a better idea than by listening to some online narrative spewed from an anonymous retard like me.

>>965222
So basically keynesian economics is just for show? I understand that it is inherent;y scary to see that the our elected officials should have no control on the market. However wouldn't that just lead us to the same problems again?

Heck hong kong was a freaking miracle brought to us by the free-market. The politicians there were forced to just let the market run by itself because their entire economy was based on trade.

and look at them now after 80 years. Used to be an island with no resources whatsoever, with its populance being the poorest of the poor as they were the refugees from the mainland. And now they're one of the major trading hubs.

>>965222
I would even predict that once the interest rates goes up in the U.S, we will see a huge credit-freeze and then a market crash.

>>965137

By that logic, there are also no capitalist states, so what was Marx arguing against?

He assumes that employment is exploitation because the worker doesn't get their share of the surplus value (profit) generated by a business. This is wrong for several reasons:

1. The employment arrangement is voluntary.
2. The worker is paid BEFORE real value is generated from the worker's labor, so surplus value (profit) isn't even guaranteed for the capitalist.
3. Employer stock options give the worker an opportunity to own the "means of production" and get a share of the surplus value (in the form of dividends). This really wasn't a thing in Marx's time though, so I'll give him a pass on that.