A recently released book revealed that more than half of all Americans now live alone – a phenomenon that has never existed before. The tendency to live alone is also affecting just about every developed or developing country. There are various factors which can explain this fact: people have to move to find work, they may enjoy solitude, they may not be able to afford a house in which they could accommodate a family, demographic change and so forth. The fact remains that more single person households exist and this means increased use of energy and, hence, higher carbon emissions and contribution to climate change.

The root cause of singledom, of course, is the capitalist system: everything that used to be considered ‘natural’ and a part of normal human life, such as space, water, the forests, family, is turned into a commodity which must be paid for in the market. To access nature, we pay fees to enter a national park; to go to the city we pay traffic fees, to find friends we sit in front of computers and subject ourselves to endless advertising to establish personal relationships. In Japan, for example, it is possible to hire people by the hour who will act as pretend mothers, older sisters or brothers or any other kind of relationship which, in contemporary life, it is so difficult to find and which we are endlessly guided away from because of the pressures to consume.

Returning families to joint households would be beneficial not just for those people who find themselves lonely and unhappy but also for energy usage reasons. Consequently, people concerned with fighting climate change will be interested in ways in which we can return to multi-person households, preferably by choice – not all families are happy, of course and it would not be helpful to try to force people to live together who do not wish to do so. This probably means providing a range of incentives for people to live together (which might be addressed through the provision of suitable housing by the government – the market usually fails in this area – as well as the tax code) and fostering a sense of communalism which would help people to want to live together. This latter point is more likely to be successful when it comes from the bottom up – being told to love one another and live together is all very reminiscent of Big Brother. The Occupy movement has helped people rediscover the pleasure and satisfaction of working and joining together in the sense of mutual solidarity – and the incredible violence unleashed by the state to crush the movement shows how seriously the ruling elites take such a threat to their hegemony. There is a need for a flowering of the communal spirit.

            With the fall of Communism, the transition from Communist based economic systems to market based economics was supposed to bring new prosperity to the world. It didn’t. In fact, for most of the twentieth century, the major geo-political goal of America was to defeat communism. Yet, when the goal was finally achieved, this new world prosperity didn’t happen. Instead, the world developed into competing capitalistic models.

            On the one hand is the free-market ideology sometimes called “market fundamentalism” where the belief that markets by themselves lead to economic efficiency and should remain unfettered. “Market fundamentalism” ideology points to Adam Smith’s “invisible hand” – the notion that markets and the pursuit of self-interest leads, as if by an invisible hand, to economic efficiency and even if capitalism misallocates income, that issues of efficiency and equity should be separated. Market fundamentalists view economics as a matter of efficiency and state issues of equity should be left to politics. On the other end of the continuum are the managed market economies such as that adopted by China. In between the ends of this economic continuum are other forms of effective market economies such as Sweden  where robust growth, health-care, and education have been achieved. All are ranked higher than in the United States.

            The world now recognizes that with the financial scandals of the nineties in the United States, and the pursuit of self-interest by multi-national CEO’s, accountants, and investment banks, a financial bubble and the great recession with a massive misallocation of investment resulted and not the economic efficiency that was guaranteed since World War II. The financial crisis and the “Great Recession” have resulted in the rejection of “Finance and Capitalism American Style” [i] and the realization that without appropriate government regulation and intervention, markets do not lead to economic efficiency. Among the central choices of the world’s market economies is the role that government must play. The question is not that “government is the problem and not the solution” as Reagan famously said; but instead, what services should the government provide. The fact is – “market fundamentalism” has been discredited and that there is not just one “right” way to run a market economy and that Sweden’s and other models of capitalism present alternate forms of effective market economies.

            The world has always had to deal with problems with capitalism. Problems with capitalism such as the mis-allocation of wealth and the misalignment of social needs with the needs of capitalism are much more visible now because the ideological battles between Communism and Capitalism no longer exist.   Meanwhile globalization has resulted. Economic globalization has resulted in closer economic integration of the countries of the world through the increased flow of goods and services, capital, and labor, and has resulted in the adoption of capitalism by the world. Capitalism in the form of market economies are now the only game in the world, but capitalism’s problems such as the inability to equitably allocate wealth, the misalignment with societies needs, and the consequences of imperfect and limited information, [ii]  – problems capitalism has always had – along with imperfect regulation has resulted in a rebalancing of economic power in the world and as a by -product, the loss of economic power by the United States and an increase in economic power by the so-called BRIC [iii]  countries and the Pacific Rim.

            Even in the most successful years of the West, during the Industrial Revolution or the economic boom in the United States that followed World War II, GDP growth seldom exceeded three percent. In comparison, China’s average GDP growth over the past thirty years has been over nine percent – three times the growth rate of the best rate of growth in the United States. 

            The major economic issue for the United States in the Twenty-First Century is how to maintain its economic power – and ultimately it’s military power – in a global economy. In other words – how will the United States deal with globalization? The United States now finds itself in the same position Britain was in at the end of the Nineteenth Century. History is repeating itself.

[i]  A term used by Joseph E, Stiglitz. in “Making Globalization Work”, W.W. Norton & Company, New York, 2006. preface.

[ii]  See Joseph E. Stiglitz, “Globalization And It’s Discontents,” W.W. Norton & Company, New York, 2003.

[iii]  A term derived from the first letters of the names for the countries Brazil, Russia, India, and China.

First of all, just by simply comparing today to a mere 5 years ago, statistics have shown that shopping is taking on average almost twice as long now than it was. Why is this? That’s right; the choices that we get. What used to happen is that when we need to buy anything at all, there was perhaps only a few things we could choose from. Occasionally, there was only one. So what happens then? We simply just grab one and leave. What tends to happen today when we are shopping for ANYTHING, food, shoes, bicycles, is that we are stunned by the possibilities. We simply cannot make up our minds. In fact, what often happens is that we end up not choosing anything at all. And the reason is simply because we have so many choices. We are afraid that we will make a mistake by choosing the product that may not be the best, and before we buy anything, we need to make sure it IS the best. The choices in society raises our expectations to a level that it simply cannot be satisfied.

Which leads me onto the next point. Choice and expectation shares an almost symbiotic relationship. If we can choose between 20 doughnuts, our expectation of the doughnut we get are definitely much greater than if we only could choose from say 2. This is human psychology, its flaws. The apparently inherent insatiable nature of mankind. But the paradox here is that of those 20 different kinds of doughnuts we could choose from, most likely they won’t even be that much different. One type of dougnut has ‘hundreds and thousands’ sprinkled onto it, while another chocolate sprinkles. But the main makeup of these two doughnuts remain largely identical; same type of dough, made by the same people, and probably tastes the same as well. We are however, drawn into the illusion that this slight variation somehow makes the ‘perfect product’ a lot more attractive, whereas in fact, the increase in the products quality is tiny, if not non-existent. Even if the product IS much more improved from the sole types that existed say 10 years ago, this new kind of choice presented to us raises our expectations to a level that simple CANNOT be satisfied.

Ultimately, we are lead to dissatisfaction. Anyone who has studied even a bit of economics would know about opportunity costs. For those of you who don’t know what it is, opportunity costs are what economists and others alike use to describe ‘the next best alternative forgone when a decision is made’. That is, what is left out when we choose something, what we could have perhaps instead bought. It is quite obvious that opportunity costs are and always will be negative things. Suppose you had to choose between buying a house and a car; if you bought the car, you would think I wish I had gotten the house instead. Similarly, if you had bought the house, you probably somewhere alone the line would regret this decision also. Because we want everything. The extensive choices we get in society today only accentuates this problems. My mother used to buy us yoghurts every week, when there were only peach and chocolate flavours. Now, no matter how cruddy those yoghurts tasted, we were still satisfied. We didn’t feel like we were missing out on anything anyways; those yoghurts were our only choices. But nowadays, we could choose between original and low fat, chocolate and vanilla, small packages or big packages, one brand or another. I have no doubt whatsoever that the yoghurt I eat today was by FAR superior to those we had before, but ultimately I am always left feeling less satisfied because I always wondered if I had made the right choice. Once again, choice leads to dissatisfaction.

It is human nature to want more, and to always want the best. But this idea was never taken into account by those who advocated for change and improvement to choices. On paper, yes it looks good, every-body’s lives are improved, but inherent human characteristics were left out of the equation in this theory. What is interesting, and ultimately hypocritical for economists and capitalists, is that most of them openly criticise communism as being defective because of their inability to take into the account human factors such as lacking incentive to work were the pays for doctors same as toilet cleaners, but yet they ignore the same ideas that, while a lot more subtle, still perpetrates strongly within their own ideas and theories. Of course, the best way around that problem is to know that it is a problem at all. To know that we ARE being stunted by choice, paralysed and regretting, allows us to take a better approach, to mitigate the effects. If we know that we are being controlled by negative characteristics, such as greed, then we can attempt to alleviate consequences. That is what this article is written for. To show the negative side of things, and so hopefully minimize its effects. 

When a company that builds its success on the American capitalist system and employs thousands of American to produce its product removes its production system into another society, the laid off workers are not easily absorbed into the local jobs. There are not nearly enough extra jobs to go around. These laid off workers now add to the number of people dependent on the welfare system, taking taxes instead of contributing. There is more draw on the welfare system and less people paying taxes to fund it. The elite few that run these corporations get richer and use their money to influence things to their advantage that should be for the better good of America. They promise some of their money (made by using Mexicans or Indians instead of Americans as workers) to politicians in exchange for passing laws advantageous to the business. American society is all about improving the economy and contributing to it, all except for the people that really benefit from it, the ultra-rich who own and run these companies. Companies that become successful on the capitalist system in America should be required to keep their production within the capitalist system, and not be allowed to take advantage of other types of economic societies in a capitalist manner. This would ensure our capitalist society continues to work as a successful system of equality, keeps the American Dream a reality, and does not weaken and lose its meaning as is happening now.

The America Dream of being able to succeed and become rich no matter where you come from, if you work hard at it, is becoming more a dream and less a reality. The middle-class IS disappearing, that is apparent. Mobility is stagnant in this country which prides itself on its lack of social class and attainable mobility (Scott and Leonhardt). Rising standards of living and extensive credit lines have blurred the appearance of the social class lines, but behind the appearance is the reality that most of it is bought on credit by the lower class. It will stay with them their entire lives, crippling their financial stability while they try to pay off their debts and making it even harder to get ahead financially, especially if they lose their job. Meanwhile the ultra rich buy these same things outright and do not need to worry about owing anybody anything. Money they earn is theirs alone and free to use it to become even richer.

This includes their education and their children’s education, which they can pay for outright and it will not follow them the rest of their lives. They can also pay for the best education in the most elite schools, landing them the top choice for the dwindling jobs available to college educated people. Lower class people set on the American Dream and willing to take the risk of buying loans to pay for their college will usually have those loans follow them a long way after they are out of school, even when they find a job to be able to begin paying it back. The off-shoring tactics of many American companies has made getting a college education even riskier for the lower classes. They offshore their jobs which require an education, removing the chance at a middle-class or upper middle-class move for a lower class American who has worked hard to be able to fill that job. Between 2000-2003 it was found that college educated people had the toughest time finding a job because the companies could find a cheaper alternative in another country or replace them in some other way, such as with technology (Cooper). This leaves many college educated people scrambling for low class jobs in hopes to keep up with their college loan payments, while getting placed in the welfare system to make ends meet. They receive no reward for any of the effort they went to, to try to attain the American Dream.

Big businesses that have built themselves up on the American system are now dumping the system, working in every manner to keep themselves getting richer and everyone else poor. They outsource their available jobs and influence politicians with their money, asking for tax cuts while they dump Americans into the welfare system, creating an overburdened system with less taxes coming in to fund it. They claim that outsourcing is good for the economy because it allows their business to create higher paying, cutting-edge jobs for Americans (Cooper). Where are these jobs they talk about? They are being transferred to other countries too. “Today, many good-paying manufacturing jobs are being sent overseas, as are many of the high-tech jobs that were supposed to replace them.” (Greenblatt) What about the people that went to college to be able to work for them and are now making minimum wage and trying to pay off their tuition debt? What about all the tax money the government is having to spend on the welfare system to support these replaced workers? What about the huge bonuses the company executives are now getting while they take advantage of enormous tax subsidies and turn their middle-class workers into people on welfare?( McIntyre)

People who use our capitalist society to succeed, and then take their capitalist ventures into non-capitalist societies need to be reined in. They should not be allowed to cheat the system that helped them succeed. The government should recognize that the money they receive from big businesses is not enough to shore up the weaknesses in our society caused by from big business taking its production into other societies, and should pass laws regarding companies that start in America on our system, and how they need to stay in our system or it will weaken as it is beginning to do. The American Dream and right of a business person in our society is to make money, but it should not extend to taking advantage of other types of economic societies. Social responsibility is not enough for these company executives who are only intent on getting more for themselves. Their tax cuts that they wrangled out of the government also need to be rescinded. As they are cutting workers and contributing to the pull on welfare while they support people in other countries, they should have to pay their extra share of taxes. William Domhoff reports on skyrocketing wealth for the ultra-rich while the lower class enjoy a decline in wealth, “It’s due to cuts in the tax rates on capital gains and dividends, which were down to a mere 15% in 2007 thanks to the tax cuts proposed by the Bush Administration and passed by Congress in 2003. Since almost 75% of the income for the top 400 comes from capital gains and dividends, it’s not hard to see why tax cuts on income sources available to only a tiny percent of Americans mattered greatly for the high-earning few. Overall, the effective tax rate on high incomes fell by 7% during the Clinton presidency and 6% in the Bush era, so the top 400 had a tax rate of 20% or less in 2007, far lower than the marginal tax rate of 35% that the highest income earners (over $372,650) supposedly pay. It’s also worth noting that only the first $105,000 of a person’s income is taxed for Social Security purposes, so it would clearly be a boon to the Social Security Fund if everyone — not just those making less than $105,000 — paid the Social Security tax on their full incomes.” The tax cuts proposed to help businesses make more jobs has obviously so far only made more loopholes to cut jobs and keep more money. This needs to be rectified along with making sure they keep their production in America, instead of outsourcing to contribute to other economies and take away from ours.

These tax cuts for them decrease funding for the welfare system, the safety net put in place to help out those with no other options. The safety net by definition should give those without other options the opportunity to create other options for themselves, and support them while they do it. Specifically, it should provide education to find other jobs or produce new innovations. It should also provide healthcare that won’t cripple them financially for the rest of their lives. Replacing the taxes on the rich to create better welfare programs along with requiring American corporations to employ American workers would put the system back on the right track. The rich man might not be able to get instantly exorbitantly richer, but it would keep the lower-class out of poverty and possibly give them an opportunity to improve their own status and provide for their family a good education and hope for success. Bringing back more jobs and taking back the taxes on the ultra-rich would shorten the divide between the classes.

Sources:

Moore, Michael. “Roger & Me”. 20 December 1989. Video.

Domhoff, William G. “Wealth, Income, and Power” Who Rules America?

September 2005 (updated July 2010).Web. August 13 2010.

Cooper, Mary H. “Income Inequality”. Congressional Quarterly, Inc. April 17, 1998 • Volume 8, Issue 15. Web. August 14 2010.

Cooper, Mary H. “Exporting Jobs”. Congressional Quarterly, Inc. February 20, 2004 • Volume 14, Issue 7. Web. August 14 2010.

Greenblatt, Alan. “Upward Mobility”. Congressional Quarterly, Inc. April 29, 2005 • Volume 15, Issue 16. Web. August 15 2010.

“Layoffs and CEO Compensation” Daily Headlines. University of Arkansas. October 03 2006. Web. August 17 2010.

McIntyre, Bob “Tax Subsidies Reward Job Cutters” Citizens for Tax Justice. September 19 1996. Web. August 17 2010.

Scott and Leonhardt. “Class Matters: Shadowy Lines That Still Divide”. New York Times. May 15 2005. Web. August 10 2010.

            While having a hard time in life, Karl Marx wrote Das Kapital. According to Das Kapital, a capitalistic society of perfect competition will eventually lead to destruction. In this free market, every product sells for the exact price, which in turn is determined by the amount of labor that is put into creating that product. The workers want to earn their wages, while the capitalist wants to make a profit by selling the product. In a capitalist society, it seems impossible for the capitalist to make that profit since the products sell for an exact value.

            Income distribution in a capitalist society is in favor of the capitalists. There will be no problem making profits if there are monopolies that sets extreme prices, but capitalism does not allow those extreme prices, which eventually leads to the destruction of capitalism. As a solution to this problem, Marx identifies that profit can be traced back to labor. The amount of wages the workers receive reflects the price of the product directly; the less they receive, the cheaper the product, the more they receive, the more expensive the product. Therefore, if the labor forces are paid less and the price is kept the same, the capitalist will make more profit. In other words, the capitalist “steals” the workers’ wages by allowing the workers to keep their jobs only if they work a certain number of hours every day. For example, if a regular work day is 8 hours, the capitalist can force the laborers to work for 10 hours with the same pay as what they would receive as 8 hours. This way, the capitalist gains a profit of 2 hours worth of wages and creates a surplus value.

            Surplus value is affected by the rise and fall of capitalism. When a company wants to make profit, it expands its production, which raises capitalism. As companies hire more laborers, surplus value increases. However, because the market is a perfect competition, other companies also try to increase their surplus value. Workers will want to work at a company that offers the highest wages, causing companies to raise the wages. Consequently, profit and surplus value decreases. Eventually, technology gets involved and companies replace laborers with machines. This way, labor increases and the wage decreases. As capitalism rises, surplus value decreases, and as capitalism falls, surplus value increases. However, companies do not receive surplus value from the machines. Yet, in order to keep in pace with the other companies, the capitalist must keep modernizing, which in turn decreases profit to a point where the company gets bankrupt. As workers lose their jobs, wages are forced to accept cuts in wages. Companies hire workers with the low wages, causing the surplus value to return and the cycle repeats itself again, until the capitalist gets swallowed by the bigger capitalists.

            Capitalism is one of the oldest economic systems in the world. Throughout history it has been used by many great nations. Capitalism is portrayed as an extremely flawed system in the world of Upton Sinclair’s The Jungle. Though Sinclair was very against capitalism and therefore may have been biased there is certainly some truth to his criticisms of capitalism. Capitalism is flawed in the book because of what it takes away the peoples’ humanity or it dehumanizes them as in the case of when Jurgis violently attacks Ona’s boss Conner. It makes people do anything for the sake of earning money and helping out their family as in the case of what Ona does with Conner in order to keep her job. The people who have the higher end jobs in capitalism also do not care for the general well-being of those that they are supposed to be serving outside of the working place as in the case of the real estate agent who tricks Jurgis’s family into renting the house. Capitalism also does not care for the safety of the workers while in the factories on a daily basis as shown by the horrible working conditions in the meat packing industry. All of these things demonstrate a moral evil in capitalism among other things that is ultimately comes down to one principal thing: greed. Greed is the cause of the flaws of capitalism and this is what Sinclair is trying to show. These things would not be a problem if it wasn’t for the greed of the employers.

            The first example of a flaw in capitalism portrayed in the Jungle is the way it dehumanizes the workers. When Jurgis finds out that his wife has been having sex with her boss Connor he becomes frantic in his actions.  ”In a flash he had bent down and sunk his teeth into the man’s cheek, and when they tore him away he was dripping with blood, and little ribbons of skin were hanging in his mouth,”(162) writes Sinclair. Jurgis stormed  out of his house and immediately went after Conner. His intention may not have been to kill him but he was determined to cause as much pain to the man that took his wife from him as he could. As shown by this quote Jurgis is very much like an animal. He tore bits of his cheek off of Conner with his mouth. This is a disgusting reality of capitalism in the Jungle. Jurgis was doing this out of revenge. He knew that it wouldn’t accomplish anything but his sense and emotions got the best of him much life an animal. The capitalist employers can get away with things like what Conner did because their greed allows them to and there is no one to stop them. It is all in the pursuit of money and power that they do these things and it turns even the humblest of working men into animals as in the case of Jurgis. Just as capitalism is flawed in this sense another serious flaw would be what it does to the workers as best demonstrated by what Ona did for her family.

            Ona’s boss Conner started have her sleep with him in order for her to keep her job. Ona had to go along with it for she would lose another source of income for her family. Jurgis’s family could not afford to have her lose her job and she knew this so she had to go along with it. “Then he began to-to  make love to me. He offered me money. He begged me-he sais he loved me. Then he threatened me. He knew all about us, he knew we would starve. He knew your boss- he knew Marija’s. He would hound us to death, he said- then he said if I would-if I- We would all of us be sure of work-always. Then one day he caught hold of me- he would not let go-he-he”( p . 160) Conner knew that Ona had no other choice but abide by his wishes. His greed for lust drove him to do the unthinkable to her. Ona was reduced to an object for him but it was for her family. This was just another sad reality of capitalism in the book. It shows that people will do anything to save their families even at their own expense. Just as capitalism is shown to be flawed here another great flaw of capitalism in the book is the lack of care for the workers outside of the factories .

            Jurgis and his family were tricked when they “bought” a house. Beside the fact that the house was not new like they were told they also had not really bought the house.          8. “this was not a deal of sale at all, so far as he could see-it provided only for the renting of the property! It was hard to tell, with all this strange legal jargon words he had never heard before; but was not this plain- “the party of the first part hereby covenants and agrees to rent to the said party of the second party!” And then again- “a monthly rental of twelve dollars for a period of eight years and four months!”( 52-53) They were tricked by the real estate agent into renting the house at a price that they could not afford. Jurgis’s family intended on purchasing the house for a price that would have  been cheaper than the rent. They had no idea what they had gotten into. The real estate agent had no concern for their family what-so-ever and that is why he made that choice. He was only concerned about his own well-being. This is the attitude towards all working families in the Jungle. Jurgis’s family as not the only family who was in this situation as told by their neighbor. Just as this shows a flaw in capitalism so do the working conditions of the meat packing plant.

            In Packing town Jurgis initially works in a meat packing/processing factory. The conditions described there are beyond comprehension. “The cruelest thing of all was that nearly all of them- all of those who used knives- were unable to wear gloves, and their arms would be white with frost an their hands would grow numb, and then of course there would be accidents/ Also the air would be full of steam, from the hot water and the hot blood, so that you could not see five feet before you; and them, with men rushing about at the speed they kept up on the killing beds, and all with butcher knives…,”(85) says Sinclair. The employers do not care for the workers. As long as they get work done and earn money they could care less about the conditions that the workers work in. this is like the factories in China were the working conditions are so bad that they employers have to forcibly keep the workers there to prevent them from committing suicide. Though not that extreme it does show that working conditions even to this day are bad. As said before greed is what drives these men to do what they do. The question in the employers head is, Why should they care about their workers when they can earn money? This is the biggest evil of all when it comes to capitalism. It is not exclusive to workers though. Employers do not always care about their consumers either as in the case of the “pink goo” in most of the nation’s fast food. If a buck can be made off of a product at a worker’s expense then there is no reason for the employers to care.

            Capitalism is a flawed system. It is especially shown in this way in the Jungle. Though there are many good things about capitalism Sinclair does a great job in showing some of the major flaws in capitalism. These are best shown in the dehumanization of Jurgis when he attacks Conner, Ona giving her body to Conner in order to provide for her family, the lack of care for the workers by anyone as shown by the real estate agent when he tricks the family into renting a house, and the lack of care for the workers in the factories as shown by the horrible working conditions of the meat packing industry. In conclusion these things show the biggest flaws in capitalism and they all stem from one major thing. That thing is the greed of men. Without greed these things would not be a problem at all but because it exists so do all of these flaws within capitalism.

Capitalism (Photo credit: Bohman)

Capitalism (Photo credit: Bohman)

We don’t live. We live to earn money to give ourselves a false sense of security and purpose. We have been spoon fed, force fed and we have been tricked into liking it. We are now so dependent that we are incapable otherwise of being told what to do. We think we need governments and politicians. We believe we need the police and military because we are now paranoid of our fellow human. Rightly so. We have created monsters in our society by exchanging our humanity for ego. It’s all about us. All 7 billion of us. We gladly exchange life for the commuting – 9-5 – for – two- free – days lifestyle. We hardly take time out. When we think, its for work. The only questions we ask is How can I make more money? And How can I take advantage of this situation so that I can prosper? We all want something. We all want it more than the next person, to the point where we would take advantage of another so we can “win”. You ask what is wrong with the world? Its our mentality and frame of mind. We are the problem. Can we be blamed? This world was already set out like this for us. They say we were born with free-will. This may have been correct once upon a time, but now I think we are born with no choice. If I had a choice money wouldn’t be an issue because it wouldn’t exist. There would be no need for this rat race powered machine.

      Karl Marx lived at a time when the conditions of the working class were hideously inhumane.  Not only were adults exploited, but children were as well.  Because of their small size, young children were made to work in mines and other industries. 

     Marx befriended Frederick Engles, who wrote The Condition of the Working Classes in England.  Together they paired up to write…The Communist Manifesto.

So what exactly did Marx believe?  

     The way Marx saw it, there was a natural course that was taking place.  He saw it like this…

     First comes Feudalism, then Capitalism and finally Socialism.  This (according to Marx) is the natural course the “material forces of production” takes.  Of course, different countries haven’t followed this outline as laid out by Marx, and we have witnessed their demise (e.g. Russia).

     It is interesting to note the course the United States of America is on.  Only time will tell if Marx had it right.