How is Marxism relevent to today's economy Essay

How is Marxism relevent to today's economy - Essay Example It is this 'owner' / 'worker' distinction that leads to alienation as the defining feature of the workers relationship to what she produces, and to 'legitimation' as the defining apparatus of the 'owner' for purposes of maintaining power. However, Marx views history 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 will implode on itself – it is structurally determined to self-destruct. At this point in Marx's theory, he goes from a 'descriptive' approach to economics 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 solution 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 analysis will close with some of the key criticisms of Marx leveled by the econom ist, and philosopher of history and science, Karl Popper from his work titled: The Open Society 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 or solution to this situation will be presented as fundamentally limited. Marx's 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 ‘freer trade’. In Europe, both the common 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-lateral Agreement on Investment [Moody 117ff.]. In general, the acceptance and legitimation of these policies, is premised on the i dea that less ‘regulation’ and less government involvement 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 1970’s, there has been a decline in the acceptance of Keynesian economics, a theory which maintains that the government should put 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 free 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 surrounding the means of production is the determining factor with respect to the ‘control’ of capital, and in turn, fre e trade merely entails 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 Marx's 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