A short description of 'market based economies' from a Marxist perspective.

Against market/competition/PROFIT driven society (capitalism):

My evaluation of Capitalist, market driven economy:

·         The competitive nature of capitalist society hinders technological progress, as the technology is not made to the best possible degree due to the competition between market leaders for profit, rather than collaboration for the improvement of society. E.g: no product is sold for it’s worth, rather for the maximum profit it can demand without protest. Due to this, Pharmaceutical corporations, rather than sharing their research with other companies, to faster achieve progress in development, will keep their knowledge in order to be the only supplier of a drug or treatment in the future so that they can maximise profits for themselves. Which surely is amoral, yet, in a market/competition based economy, it is the logical decision to restrict resources in order to increase their value, rather than try to attain abundance; which holds no promise of profit (e.g. If a gold mine produces more gold, they do not have more money, just the value of gold is decreased, so by restricting your supply of gold to others gold retains its value and maximum profit can be achieved) .

·         In this sense, corruption and amorality is an inherent part of the economy, as a moral and humanitarian company would be destroyed by those companies that make more profit.

·         This inherent corruption is in turn then applied to society; as due to the suppliers restricting supply to increase their products value, the consumer must compete with one another in order to attain resources for themselves. This is apparent in the ‘Alienation’ that arises between the Bourgeoisie (wealthy) and the proletariat (poor) and the unbalanced distribution of wealth in the population, as we are born into a society whereby hoarding as much one’s self as you can is seen as the only way to progress within society (e.g. the Bourgeoisie).

·         This leads to international scale amorality, with powers such as America etc. feeling the need to invade and dominate other nations for their resources, as competition for profit from resources dictates that nations, corporations and the populace must only share resources for unfair ‘maximum profit’ orientated costs.

·         This even spreads to humanitarian aid, as the investment in poorer countries (who are poor due to the inability of more PROFITABLE countries to fairly share resources) is only done in order to create a perpetual and ever growing debt to the more powerful country.

From this it is apparent that money IS debt and profit IS corruption (corruption being the exploitation of others for personal gain).

Thus, profit kills fair trade.

Philosophy masterclass

Yesterday (Tuesday), I embarked upon an academic journey through time and, theoretically, space. The expedition into these realms was very capably lead by none other than Jack Webb, a fellow student of journalism. We began in the pre-Socratic era, with Thales, a philosopher who was the very first recorded mathematician and Philosopher, famous for his prediction of the eclipse. However there are no written records of his work. Anaximander was the next topic of discussion, with his theory of the world being made of all elements rather just water, this was later discredited by Aristotle, but a good effort nonetheless. Pythagoras was next, the namesake of the infuriating mathematical theory, not only this, Pythagoras worked out the mathematical links between the universe, music and maths as well as being the head of his own religion, such was the contemporary importance of his works at the time. Parmenides and Hericlitus, the former of which argued that everything was made of one substance as opposed to the latter who argued that everything was kept in balance by two equally matched opposites, were next. Needless to say, the two were not best friends.

We then moved on to all things post Socrates, including Socrates himself, who, although we have no written evidence of his work, was extremely influential, tutoring Plato who in turn tutored Aristotle. Socrates died as a result of accused impiety and was thus forced to drink large quantities of poisonous substance (lovely). Plato, being next in the line of great philosophers was the number one student of Socrates, whose great work consisted of a plan for a seemingly utopian future society, exploring the nature of justice, politics and statesmanship. This as well as proposing the big questions of how and why anything exists, suggesting that there is a perfect other world that this world merely shadows, and that philosophers were the only few who could access the knowledge in that other realm, possessing the 'ultimate innate knowledge' (sounds like a big ego to me, but he was a smart guy). The student of Plato was Aristotle, perhaps the most well-known Greek philosopher, who argued with Plato on the origin of knowledge and that it was acquired through experience as opposed to Plato's idea of innate knowledge. Aristotle was also, the origin of logic and a master of metaphysics, physics, ethics, biology and politics to name a few.

After the death of Aristotle, stoicism became more prevalent in Greek culture, with the idea of a wonderful immortal life awaiting those who would live in a good way. However, after a while these theories were overtaken by a re-ignition of Plato and Aristotle's theories. In other news, shorthand is going alright.