Socialism: the problem and prescription's of Marx

[Rhyfelwyr]

You know I read once in the shrumpeter coloum I think in the economist that suposedly we cannot properly explain why we actually have companies.

Most suscribe to the idea that it is a modern version of industrial/economic feudalism, I give my service and in return am protected from full market forces by my leige lord ( CEO/Manager )

Otherwise I might have to be self employed which is apparently what there fancy economic models tell them we should be doing.

Well, from a historical perspective, companies have come about through various processes - monopolization, the division of labour, the fact that only a select few had the wealth required to set up industries to begin with.

They may well be in some sense a form of modern feudalism, but I don't think that is why they continue to exist. I think they continue to exist simply because they have able to propagate their existence - they don't actually offer anything to society or the world of employment. Indeed, as I said earlier, I think they are very destructive in that regard.

Now, we just need to figure out how to get rid of them, even when so much of our economic organisation is based around them.

There's something pretty innate about the idea of creating a social hierarchy. I also don't think there's anything inherently bad about that, as long as all parts of the whole respect the needs of the others. I don't think its a stretch to say that a medieval Manor Lord probably cared more about the peasants tending the fields than a modern CEO of a blue chip company cares about his entry-level workers, though.

Yes and no. It depends on how interdependent they are on each other. Just look at how Highland Clearances, when hordes of peasants were chucked off their land and replaced with sheep.

So, ignore all the -isms. Those are problems that require specific fixes, not recommendations from a 19th Century philosopher. Reigning in the excesses of the Rich and Powerful in the 21st Century will require new thinking.

Isms are what give perspective to our decision making process. The economy and how it relates to politics and society is a very complicated business - to treat issues in isolation without a larger framework would cause rather chaotic and disjointed policy making. The old "down with isms" approach always gets some popular support because people are fed up with the stalemate and stagnation of opposing ideologies.

Which is fair enough, but the solution isn't to abandon political or economic theory altogether. Instead, we should challenge it, and why we support it. Do we believe something because our human nature means we want to understand the bigger picture, even if it means being careless and smoothing over any and all cracks? Are we doing it out of partisan commitment?

In such instances, the ideology will be corrupted - but that doesn't mean that ideology (or rather, having a wider take on things) is inherently bad for decision making. IMO, it is essential to it.