the module is called concepts of economic reasoning3000 words--and the questions that the writer can choose fromthen i will upload the readings---1. Is Marx still relevant today?2. What is the...

Introduction
To start with, it is quite astounding that Capital of Marx has persisted and been constantly been a subject of discussion for a long period. Marx basically attempts to outline the social and economic reality during the period of 19th century (Callinicos, 2012). Moreover, the continuing lines throw light upon few insights of Marx. Firstly, is the central aspect related to the capital, for Marx, it’s not only a resource or a simple production factor equivalent to labour and land; nevertheless, a manifestation of highly particular social relationships (Held, 2009). The social relationship amid the employees and the employer is what makes possible capitalist construction to occur at all. It needs employees to remain "free" in a dual respect i.e. "free" for selling their own worker control (not restricted through other socio-economic connections and restraints) and "free" from any possession of the production means, to ensure that they hold no option other than selling their workers’ control for their material existence (Held, 2009). Even at the time when matters seem as being highly multifaceted due to the appearance of subcontracting as well as the "gig economy", such fundamental social relationship is even then important.
The control production means in some hands is efficiently what makes possible for the capital to perform its part during production (Milibald, 2004). Nevertheless, such control was unavoidably grounded upon expropriation from ones who previously held it, like small artisans and peasants who could have also manufactured themselves. Such "primitive accumulation" has frequently been a fierce procedure nevertheless it could also take place in some other highly multifaceted means, as a result of the i
egular progress of capitalism within diverse areas and segments (Duncan, 2013).
An important and still quite influential, conception is of "commodity fetishism" i.e. the condition wherein relationships amid individuals become a
itrated through relationships amid things i.e. money and commodities. Commodities aren’t just objects or things, for the reason that they hold both usage as well as exchange value (Callinicos, 2012). However, the value at that time gets understood as intrinsic to goods instead of being the outcome of workers along with the commodities exchange and marketplace-grounded collaboration are considered as being the "natural" means of handling all objects, instead of as a traditionally particular set of social relationships (Held, 2009). Additionally, more specifically commodity fetishism refers to the deception arising from private property centrality in capitalism that after that decides not just the way how individuals operate and inte
elate, but also the way how they observe realism and comprehend social change. Moreover, this desire towards acquisition, the preoccupation with material satisfaction of desires and human welfare ordering with respect to their capability of commanding diverse commodities, could be collectively explained as being the commodity fetishism forms. The preoccupation with growth of GDP amongst policymakers along with the common public is an extreme, however extensive, illustration of commodity fetishism in the present day.  
Moving ahead, Marx recognized three "cardinal actualities" related with capitalist production. Firstly, concentration of production means in few hands, where they terminate to look as if the property of the close employees and convert into social manufacturing abilities (Held, 2009). Secondly, the a
angement of workers into social labour by way of cooperation, workers’ division and the bonding of workers with accepted sciences (Milibald, 2004). Thirdly, the development of the global marketplace. Moreover, the third aspect is what one now calls globalisation and it’s the normal outcome of the system tendency for spreading and aggrandising itself - for destroying and incorporating previous production forms and transfiguring and transforming institutions and technology continuously (Duncan, 2013).
Capitalism is considered as being forceful, continually creating new kinds of manufacturing organisation along with economic institutes: not only the factory structure but the latest schedules, financial structures and institutions and legal frameworks (Callinicos, 2012). The amassing of capital results in greater outcome and changes systems however it’s also related to i
egular growth. Marx observed capitalism as being within a state of incessant disequili
ium, due to such inclination of i
egular progress that isn’t limited to some particular arena, but features all economic and social relationships (Callinicos, 2012).
As a result, there exists an innate pressure amid the growth of the productive factors and the capability of economic structure for generating adequate demand for the products, which are developed. There prevails disproportionality amid the extension of variable and fixed capital that makes it quite hard for generating revenue (Milibald, 2004). There prevails disproportionality amid segments, which come up during the procedure of accumulation. Additionally, there exists geographically uneven progress, which at the same time develops "underdeveloped" and "developed" regions. This could be stretched for explaining imperialism that could be comprehended like the fight for authority over economic regions of diverse types. Moreover, the unevenness amid money being a means of exchange as well as money being a value measure gets augmented through credit and finance development, resulting in a greater possibility for crisis. 
The system results in a number of contradictions and conflicts, just few of which culminate during the time of periodic crises. As the fundamental capital dynamics is simultaneously aggrandising itself and impoverishing other groups like peasants and employees, all around the countries, it certainly creates class clashes. However, the system also results in intra-class clashes, placing capital against rest of the prevailing capitals and the individual employee in contradiction of other employees (Duncan, 2013). There prevails a Darwinian fight for existence continually at work, to ensure that individualism, competition and conflict turn out to be the directing factors of system. Nevertheless these also develop the market anarchy and the unavoidable inclination towards predicaments. Overproduction with respect to the marketplace is a distinguishing trait just due to the manner in which individual capitals function during the drive for generating greater profits (Held, 2009). Thus, the accumulation procedure is never smooth. Instead, it’s i
egular and inte
upted through calamities. Partially, this is the outcome of capitalism success in offering higher economic progress and technical advancement. Further, taking the above discussion into consideration the continuing sections attempt to examine if Marx is still relevant or not.
Is Marx Still Relevant?
Marx, the 19th-century thinker recognized exploitation as well as inte
ogated the instinctive self-regulation of the capitalist economy. Marx lived during the period of 19th century, a period quite diverse from the present, if also one during which several aspects of present day’s community were starting to take shape (Callinicos, 2012). Moreover, a deliberation of the significance of Marx's perceptions during the 21st century might begin with splitting their outmoded aspects from ones competent of development during the present-day (Pierson, 2012). Amongst the former include conceptions like the value labour theory or the inclination of the profit rate to decrease, both originating from the economic concepts of David Ricardo and Adam Smith and relating to a cu
ently highly out-dated form of capitalism, categorized through low levels of productivity upsurge and a huge agricultural segment, under high stress from growth of population (Milibald, 2004).
Marx's idea related to the human history being the unavoidable evolution of production modes, from the "Asiatic mode" during the distant past towards a communist future, appears as a remnant of positivist concept of different levels of history, more suitable for the era of Auguste Comte and He
ert Spencer as compared to the historical familiarities of the 20th century. Further, Marx ideas are capable of development even in the 21st century (Duncan, 2013).
Foremost is the belief that intellectual concepts along with the political actions exemplifying them are thoroughly linked with social frameworks and shared economic interests (Pierson, 2012). Moreover, Marx considered latter as being the "foundation" and the former as being the "superstructure"; one doesn’t need to approve this metaphor or the priority it indicates for seeing that it’s an effective concept (Held, 2009). Marx first devised this analysis line for the purpose of explaining diverse kinds of royalism within France during the period of 1840s, nonetheless present-day politics, with its crash of powerfully diverse political outlooks all too clearly connected with economic interests or social sets could be comprehended in this manner also. The latest United States presidential selections, along with their rhetoric of around 1 percent and 47 percent are considered as being a sound example, just as the discussion related to austerity politics within the United Kingdom and within the EU, expressed with respect to government debt, even though actually about which the social sets would face the expenses of economic rea
angement (Held, 2009).
Secondly, ostensibly free as well as voluntary marketplace exchanges include within themselves aspects of exploitation and domination (Held, 2009). During the starting stage of industrialisation within Britain, such aspects were quite obvious i.e. hungry handloom weavers along with factory operators toiling for 14 around hours daily within dust-ridden and stiflingly hot textile mills (Duncan, 2013). In the present day, these aspects are understated within more affluent nations – even though they remain quite obvious in nations like Bangladesh (Callinicos, 2012). However, considering the outcomes of three decades of public policy intensifying marketplace exchanges as well as overlooking their destructive impacts, one might prefer taking Marx's perception more seriously (Pierson, 2012). Marx observed the remedy for the condition during ferocious revolution, tagged along through years of international and civil warfare, resulting in a utopian sphere wherein differences amid people and community, and amid state and the community, had been disbanded. Endeavours for implementing such vision during the 20th century, certainly under conditions quite diverse from ones Marx imagined, within the USSR, Cambodia or China, proved quite bad (Callinicos, 2012). Highly modest remedies consist of sound trade unions, substantial social wellbeing initiatives and sound ruling of the financial segment – even though, within the present day’s world, it at times appears that such explanations are utopian like that of Marx (Pierson, 2012).
Moving ahead, the knowledge that a capitalist marketplace economy wasn’t a self-regulating system operated automatically; instead, it every so often move into periods of self-created failure (Duncan, 2013). Marx termed such periods as "crises", which is presently termed as recession. The latest among these, starting during the year 2007-08, requires the older label, considering its severity, global impact and persistence. Moreover, in Das Kapital, Marx puts forward several elucidations for the reappearance of such crises (Held, 2009). The highly fascinating arises from his time being a financial and business columnist for the New York Tribune during the period of 1850s, at that time the globe’s leading newspaper. While throwing light upon 1857 crisis, usually considered as being the foremost global downturn, Marx concentrated upon the guidelines of Crédit Mobilier, the globe’s foremost investment bank.
Marx stated that the statutes of the bank made possible for it to bo
ow around 10 times the capital. Then it made use of the funds for purchasing fund IPOs or shares of French railroad as well as industrial companies, significantly augmenting outcome (Pierson, 2012). Nevertheless, at the time when no buys were discovered for the extended construction, the bank found that the stocks bought by it had decreased in terms of worth, making it quite hard for repaying the loans (Milibald, 2004). Additionally, this does not mean that there was just one thinker i.e. Marx to inte
ogate the instinctive self-regulation of the capitalist economy or also the highly discerning (Callinicos, 2012). He was basically fraction of nonconforming economic custom, which starts with Sismondi and ca
ies on with few diversions, involving John Maynard Keynes as well as Hyman Minsky, to Paul Krugman and Joseph Stiglitz. For particular procedure recommendations, the latest statistics might prove to be highly supportive. Nevertheless, Marx's perceptions about the 19th century still provide interesting means of thinking about the 21st century (Held, 2009).
Conclusion
To conclude, it can be clearly stated from the above discussion that one would frequently observe Marx being described like a moral philosopher and Marx himself acknowledged this label, nevertheless the majority of people believe that he is best labelled as a political economist (Pierson, 2012). Moreover, Marx, just as few other known thinkers, functioned at the connexion of economics, philosophy and politics. The economic study grew out of the scope of moral philosophy (Duncan, 2013). Additionally, Adam Smith, frequently regarded as being the godfather of contemporary economics, was essentially a moral philosopher and Marx shared few of the similar preferences or analytical emphasis like him (Held, 2009). They both were involved in examining the relation amid the state, marketplaces, human nature as well as the human situation. They both acknowledged that marketplaces weren’t natural unstructured aspects, nevertheless the outcome of political interferences and particular political struggles, social contexts and value systems, and they attempted to comprehend the way how such things combined for developing an economic framework, which is political economy (Duncan, 2013). Significantly, they both were also apprehensive about envisioning a future economic model and reaching decisions regarding what the sound economic framework should be like and the standards around which it should revolve (Pierson, 2012). It is highly believed that there are five chief reasons as to why Marx is still relevant in the present day.
Firstly, one among them is the financial let-down of the year 2008 and the quite sluggish worldwide recovery grounded upon low growth rates (Callinicos, 2012). Marx contended that capitalism was prone to crisis because of a decreasing profit rate that would result in
eaks in what he termed as the capital accumulation circuits. That would ultimately mark itself in some loss of value or wealth, which will then require being circulated and as per Marx’s standpoint recovered via an escalating utilization of workers. Thus, in case if one lives, in a period of crisis, Marx is somebody individuals would try to reach for explaining that condition, exactly for the reason that he had a well-built model of capitalist crisis and its fundamental reasons (Pierson, 2012). As per Marx the eventual reason behind all crises at all times continues to be the poverty and limited eating of the masses.
The second chief reason is continuously increasing disparity. Moreover, Marx would have estimated this as being a natural result of exploitation (Held, 2009). Increasing inequality would result in the fall of capitalism, leading to social polarisation, nevertheless also contributing towards further decrease in the profit rate, due to over production or surplus, in relation to decreasing customer demand that itself would be seen as being a result of conflictual class relationships. To the level recovery has been observed within the United Kingdom and United States, it has not actually been complemented through wage growth (Milibald, 2004). The low wage or long hours issue is something, which could be elucidated by way of Marxist lens of increasing exploitation within a crisis cantered model.
Third, individuals are i
itated –Trump, Brexit and increasing nationalisms all direct towards political divergence as well as an increasing sense of individuals becoming isolated from the recognized political mainstream (Duncan, 2013). Isolation resulting from an unequal capitalist system was seen as being a major subject within Marx’s work. Countries appeared increasingly alienated and the reason behind this is the fallout from the previous two forces (Milibald, 2004). At the time when there is a lot of political resentment, polarisation and tension, a Marxist lens offers an expedient elucidation (Pierson, 2012).
The fourth aspect is ecological collapse and climate change. On could apply Marx for explaining the way how a persistent search for capital amassing runs down the planet. Consequently, people have witnessed a growth in Eco-Marxism (Held, 2009). Moreover, there prevail several arguments that labour demand is decreasing, because of robots, automation and others. Marx discussed regarding some industrial reserve army of the unemployed and poor people. As individuals view such things taking place, it’s evidently enticing to connect with Marx, particularly as a comparative absence of consistent well-paid employment turns out to be one among the chief concerns faced by the advanced communities (Callinicos, 2002).
Moving ahead, the legacy of Marx is certainly assorted. In political respect, once it got evident that notionally Marxist systems within several areas of the globe weren’t delivering or functioning, Marxism hardly continued like a political movement (Pierson, 2012). Additionally, as a means of evaluating contemporary capitalism Marx views have never gone away. In actuality, Marxism has at all times been factionalised although and that is co
ect, both academically and politically (Milibald, 2004). During the period of 1970s there prevailed the great Poulantzas v Miliband discussion and even at present there are diverse lines of Marxism with several of the academic discussions mysterious and multifaceted. In political sense, it is quite difficult to contend that systems, which Marx’s proposed and opinions have been free from disastrous impacts, chiefly for people residing there (Callinicos, 2002). Noticeably, these several regimes put forward the clarifications of Marx, which debatably distorted his arguments and thought, but quite less theorists and figures have introduced alternate socio-economic orders as well as politics systems as Marx did. Further, that is considered as being some legacy. Regrettably, the form undertook in practice implies that it was not a sound legacy and Marxism being a political venture, set against a mode of investigation, is possibly blotted for good (Duncan, 2013).
References:
Callinicos, A. (2012) The Revenge of History: Marxism and the East European Revolutions, Polity Press, Cam
idge
Duncan, G. (2013) Democratic theory and practice, University Press, Cam
idge
Held, D. (2009) Models of Democracy, Blackwell, Cam
idge
Marx, K. and Engels, F. (2012) The Communist Manifesto, Yale University Press
Milibald, R. (2004) The Plausability of Socialism, New Left Review, Vol. 10, pp. 206
Pierson, C. (2012) Democracy, Markets and Capital: Are there Necessary Economic Limits to Democracy? Wiley