Anglo-Saxon capitalism is a genetic disorder

[Cort Haus]

Originally posted by Kidicious
When did Marx say that capitalism would yield improvements for workers.

I no longer have the books and pamphlets in my possession, so I can't quote you chapter and verse - but certainly the point at which capitalism paved the way for socialism would have been considered an improvement. As I said before, capitalism was considered a precondition of socialism. If you don't accept that, you're no Marxist.

I'd add that the material gains made by the working class in Britain since Marx was writing would be very clear evidence of improvements. My ancestors, living within a couple of miles of the man himself, would certainly have noted the difference between then and now.

Just because it's progressive doesn't mean that capitalism was better for the workers than feudalism. Marx certainly held the opinion that communism will be far better than either however.

Your final sentence is like saying that night follows day. For the first, feudalism has peasants, not workers, but if you which to labour under the delusion that no long-term material gains were made for the toiling classes, despite the persistent and patient explainations on this thread, feel free to do so.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Cort Haus
but if you which to labour under the delusion that no long-term material gains were made for the toiling classes, despite the persistent and patient explainations on this thread, feel free to do so.

Yes, there were long term gains. That doesn't mean that they were created by capitalism or by people working in factories. I believe those gains should be attributed to social and political factors.

[Kidlicious]

Oh, and most of Marx's work is available on line, probably all of it.

[Cort Haus]

By socializing the labour process, concentrating workers into urban settings in large scale production processes and linking them in a world-wide market, the agents of a potential revolutionary change are created. Thus Marx felt that in the course of its development capitalism was at the same time developing the preconditions for its own negation. However, although the objective conditions for change are generated by the capitalist system itself, the subjective conditions for social revolution can only come about through the apprehension of the objective circumstances by the agents themselves and the transformation of such understanding into an effective revolutionary program.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_economics

In addition, if you accept that capitalism develops productive forces, and if you accept that socialism is better implemented on the back of advanced productive forces rather than primative ones, the prospects of building socialism on capitalism are far better than building it on feudalism. This was the problem that the USSR and other countries faced. Had the revolution come first in somewhere like Germany or Britain, it may ultimately have been more successful.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Cort Haus
In addition, if you accept that capitalism develops productive forces,

I don't believe that it's the productive forces that have have created higher living standards. It's the social and political progress that came as the result of the rise of the working class as a political force. Yes, there was scientific progress that allowed for the higher standard of living put the question is what caused it. I think it's a combination of the rise of the working class as a political force and the desire of capitalists to make more money, but a very different thing than just saying that capitalism just developed into a system that is better for the working class. The later makes it sound like it's just one I think.

and if you accept that socialism is better implemented on the back of advanced productive forces rather than primative ones, the prospects of building socialism on capitalism are far better than building it on feudalism. This was the problem that the USSR and other countries faced. Had the revolution come first in somewhere like Germany or Britain, it may ultimately have been more successful.

I'm not arguing that capitalism is not necessary. The issue is whether it created higher standards of living.

[Kidlicious]

I think you have to realize that to Marx increased productive forces wouldn't amount to higher standards of living. He did correctly forsee the rise of the working class as a political force. He did not forsee that the working class in some nations would have so much power within the political system. I still believe, however, that he was correct enough about the economic instability of capitalism that his prediction for a society that the working class rules will come true.

[Cort Haus]

Surely it is clear enough that raised productive forces provide a larger cake for the working class to be able to take a share in - if they are able to fight their corner for it.

Under feudalism, the only decent jump in living standards in hundreds of years in Britain was for the survivors after the Great Plague, when labour was in short supply. Organised Labour was able to secure gains for workers under capitalism within decades.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Cort Haus
Surely it is clear enough that raised productive forces provide a larger cake for the working class to be able to take a share in - if they are able to fight their corner for it.

Yes

Organised Labour was able to secure gains for workers under capitalism within decades.

I think that depends on your what you think is "organized." Labor was trying to organize in the 19th century, but it looked like at that point that they wouldn't be able too.

[Kidlicious]

I think politically, the working class started to have some real effect around the same time. We're looking at the 20th century, maybe the late 19th century.