How is Marxism relevent to today's economy Essay

How is Marxism relevent to todays economy - Essay utilizationIt is this owner / worker distinction that leads to alienation as the defining feature of the workers birth to what she produces, and to legitimation as the defining apparatus of the owner for purposes of maintaining power. However, Marx views accounting as heading inevitably toward an actual conflict between the classes. He maintains in Capital, that capitalism is structurally defined in such a way that it give implode on itself it is structurally find to self-destruct. At this point in Marxs theory, he goes from a descriptive approach to economic science to a prescriptive one. It will be argued that the value of Marx in a contemporary context is his descriptive rather than his prescriptive side. His prescriptive theme which is communism, challenges some of the most basic assumptions about equality and human rights. Toward a critique of this prescriptive side of Marx, this summary will close with some of the key c riticisms of Marx leveled by the economist, and philosopher of history and science, Karl Popper from his work titled The Open conjunction and its Enemies. Thus, while the descriptive side of Marx allows us to understand the nature of profit and its role in creating and perpetuating exploitive relations, his prescription drug or solution to this situation will be presented as fundamentally limited. Marxs descriptive history of economics remains useful while his vision for what ought to replace the owner/worker status quo will be challenged in this analysis. Without question, the developed or G7 nations are moving toward more open markets or trimr heap. In Europe, some(prenominal) the customary currency and the EEC are an example of this movement, and in North America, this is exemplified both in the North American Free Trade Agreement, but also the more recent push toward establishing the Multi-former(a)ral Agreement on coronation Moody 117ff.. In general, the acceptance and l egitimation of these policies, is premised on the idea that less regulation and less government link with the movement and investment of capital, will stimulate the economy and in turn, create more employment. It is argued that since the mid to late 1970s, there has been a decline in the acceptance of Keynesian economics, a theory which maintains that the government should found money directly into the hands of individuals as a means of stimulating growth. By contrast, it is now accepted practice that government intervention is an inadequate means of stimulating this forth of economic growth, and the following will explore, both the nature of the notion of muster out trade for the purposes of job growth, but more importantly, focus on the type of jobs which are being created. It will be argued that as with any form of market economy, the relationship meet the means of production is the determining factor with respect to the control of capital, and in turn, free trade merely ent ails a greater polarization between those on either side of this relationship surrounding the means of production. It is the relationship surrounding the means of production that makes Marxs Capital still relevant. One of the motivating factors for free trade, and especially in the context of North America, is the aim of improving the cost efficiency of both production and distribution. This is especially true in the area of manufacturing, and is documented by some scholars, the move to free trade is similarly and