Karl Marx - Chasing Yesterdays In A Modern World.
The nineteenth-century thinker’s ideas may help us to understand the modern world's economic and political inequality.
The new world of globalisation has created new modes of production, communication and networking, but there is a problem here. The wealth has not been evenly distributed.
As the wealth becomes more concentrated, the rich get richer and the middle class starting sinking into the mire of the working class - this is a well known effect of globalisation as jobs move overseas.
Karl Marx is not wrong yet. He said there would be 2 types of people: those with property and those who sold their labour. 133 years later he is still correct.
Marx has produced works which have stood the test of time. They still retain their vitriolic venom even now. "The Communist Manifesto” is like a calm bomb about to go off in your local street. He was a true revolutionist who has stood the test of time.
You can put Marx back in his place in the nineteenth century, but he will not stay there - he seems to transcend space and time.
Inequality has been with us for a long time. In the nineteenth century it was industrial capitalism, and now in the twenty first century its financial capitalism.
The only thing that can ever reverse it is political change, but these corporations are now so much bigger than our governments that in essence its them who hold the keys to change.
We invented these social arrangements, so we better stand up to them soon if we want to change anything.
This post has been linked to from another place on Steem.
Learn more about linkback bot v0.4. Upvote if you want the bot to continue posting linkbacks for your posts. Flag if otherwise.
Built by @ontofractal
Hello version 0.4 bot thing! OR should I say 01000101111011100000101010101010111
Marx Vs Trump - love to see that in a debate.
Now that would be fun!
marx vs trump knife fight, both in their prime.
Sounds like some kinda ancient cage fighting event! Ha ha!
The rentseekers use their money to pay for favours in congress. The problem is not the market but the market in deception and destruction, which is not a market, but rather a mutual aid network for psychopaths.
One really simple solution that I see is this: your vote is multiplied by your proportion of taxes paid out of the total. Just like how your vote is indexed against your SP versus the SP of the rest of the system. The middle class is being raped by taxes, but their vote means the same result as the masses of uneducated, welfare trapped individuals, and the wealthy who got there by buying laws to vanquish their competition also don't pay as much tax for how much they get back.
The yield on lobbying for laws to shut down competition have several hundreds maybe thousand percent ROI. And these scumbags run the media who get the larger mass of poor people's votes under their control which more than accounts for what extra tax they are paying. When compared not just total sum of taxes but also the income remaining after it is levied, the super wealthy cronies power is massively amplified.
The problem is the structure of consensus building in the governments. This one potential solution would massively change the situation... but good luck getting anyone to adopt it who has a say. This is why we have Steem here, as a demo version of what it would look like, and, probably, it's going to grow up pretty fast and have a remarkable economic power as a collective, compared to its size (because it favours the meritorious in the redistribution).
'a mutual aid network for psychopaths.' - I love that line!
P.S. Are you REALLY sure about that Steem Power (SP) thing?? https://steemit.com/steemit/@mindhunter/why-does-steemit-need-to-reach-a-unanimous-agreement-to-hard-fork-like-ethereum-to-smoke-out-all-that-blatantly-pre-mined-steem
Yes. If by that question to you mean 'votes count according to stake'. Very sure. Reading this post inspired this post:
https://steemit.com/government/@l0k1/steem-is-not-just-an-ad-hoc-corporate-system-but-also-a-prototype-for-a-government
By the way, you provoked me by writing a Marx Fan Screed to write this. There is nothing about Marx's musings that could possibly have anticipated what we have now, and neither did Marx critique the problem of cronyism that is central in democracy, and I might be somewhat mis- or un-informed, but I believe that Marx favoured democracy. Well, I am not against democracy, if it is transparent (no secret ballot) and vote weight is indexed upon contribution to the pool of funds the government redistributes (taxes, and, note, for this also a blockchain based commerce system would allow the taxes to be automatically tracked, in every place they are applied).
I hope you enjoy this post I made, it is very relevant to this post I think.
Directly addressing that post about 'starting again'. I disagree. I think that when the rules are changed to address issues, the inequity rebalances. Starting again is very disruptive, why should the good people have to go through this when it's only the bad guys who do the wrong thing. I say, better that essentially the bad guys have to start again, once there is a system to punish them put into place.
Your post indeed is the identical twin to mine - thanks for pairing them up ;)
I like you l0k1 - but I'm sorry I can't follow you - I follow no man - shame!
me either, but on steem it just means watching them.
The l0k1 + mindhunter @ watching Steemit!
Those who work for a living can't compete with those who vote for a living.
Cool remark :)