In my opinion Banthum has given an accurate description of certain branches of literalist Marxism. The theory has a descriptive part and a predictive/prescriptive part. The descriptive part is about human economic development through various phases up to Industrialization and is fairly accurate with respect to the societies Marx was studying. The predictive part is extrapolating this by adding further stages of Socialism and eventual Communism.
Precisely because Marxism makes predictions, it can fail to understand the current and future state of economics, while capitalism is just an economic system that exists and doesn't have to understand anything (just as Communism would be).
> it is easy to see the weakness of the current system, to identify the pressure points and where it will fail, collapse.
I don't think it is actually that simple. Marx saw the working conditions of coal miners in Germany as a weakness that would lead to an uprising. That revolution never happened and their working conditions improved within the system (unions likely played a part). I'm actually not aware of any Marxist revolution in an already industrialized country. (The Soviet Union and Mao's China famously miscalculated their industrialization plans.)
Today we might identify Automation as the weakness that will lead to a Socialist restructuring of society, with shared ownership of the means of production and all that. But it might all come differently and we could end up in a completely stratified society, without replacing Capitalism.
> Because one is not good at the latter does not mean the critique of the former is illegitimate.
I don't think Banthum was trying to insinuate that, but talking about something that's still happening as "late stage" is a bit presumptuous about your ability to tell the future.
> Are you suggesting that perhaps things have not significantly changed in regards to technology and the economy since the 19th century?
The complete opposite, I would think. Since the various problems plaguing the Capitalist system at the time didn't lead to its downfall and have mostly disappeared, any similar claim needs some very good arguments to explain why it will be different this time.
Precisely because Marxism makes predictions, it can fail to understand the current and future state of economics, while capitalism is just an economic system that exists and doesn't have to understand anything (just as Communism would be).
> it is easy to see the weakness of the current system, to identify the pressure points and where it will fail, collapse.
I don't think it is actually that simple. Marx saw the working conditions of coal miners in Germany as a weakness that would lead to an uprising. That revolution never happened and their working conditions improved within the system (unions likely played a part). I'm actually not aware of any Marxist revolution in an already industrialized country. (The Soviet Union and Mao's China famously miscalculated their industrialization plans.)
Today we might identify Automation as the weakness that will lead to a Socialist restructuring of society, with shared ownership of the means of production and all that. But it might all come differently and we could end up in a completely stratified society, without replacing Capitalism.
> Because one is not good at the latter does not mean the critique of the former is illegitimate.
I don't think Banthum was trying to insinuate that, but talking about something that's still happening as "late stage" is a bit presumptuous about your ability to tell the future.
> Are you suggesting that perhaps things have not significantly changed in regards to technology and the economy since the 19th century?
The complete opposite, I would think. Since the various problems plaguing the Capitalist system at the time didn't lead to its downfall and have mostly disappeared, any similar claim needs some very good arguments to explain why it will be different this time.