It is a sign of my affection for you that I have three Wikipedia tabs open in order to properly contextualize a 170-year-old Marx essay. It is also worth noting that Barry Ritholtz is a capitalist's capitalist; Ritholtz calling for more regulation is akin to Elizabeth Warren saying credit cards can do great things. Of course, we are in corner-case bizarro world since Bill Gross is now championing a 70% tax cut. Of course, now that the fix is in, errbody mad if they aren't part of the fix so corner-case bizarro world ain't nearly as weird as we would have expected it to be. THAT SAID Sounds good to me. This is generally where I lose patience with Marx: his driving principle is that we're all idiots and the world will be better if someone is in charge and that someone's principle qualification is "agreeing with Marx." Why yes, Karl, the 2nd Republic was a shitshow, thanks for noticing. Really, France was a shitshow from Louis the 16th through de Gaulle. Be that as it may, Marx wrote about a social structure that much more closely matched "crony capitalism" than "capitalism."The peculiar character of social-democracy is epitomized in the fact that democratic-republican institutions are demanded as a means, not of doing away with two extremes, capital and wage labor, but of weakening their antagonism and transforming it into harmony.
Only one must not get the narrow-minded notion that the petty bourgeoisie, on principle, wishes to enforce an egoistic class interest.
After this analysis it is obvious that if the Montagne continually contends with the party of Order for the republic and the so-called rights of man, neither the republic nor the rights of man are its final end, any more than an army which one wants to deprive of its weapons and which resists has taken the field in order to remain in possession of its own weapons.
His driving point is that whoever is in charge is looking out for someone's interest, and under capitalism that's the people with the capital. This is relevant to the discussion of crony capitalism vs. capitalism because it implies that's a distinction without a difference.
Assumes "capitalism" is a state rather than a direction. Capitalism, left to its own devices, becomes feudalism. Piketty said that, Marx said that. Marx, unlike the rest of the world, argues that it must become feudalism; most everyone else argues somewhere between "lots of capitalism" and "some capitalism." I would argue that "crony capitalism" is "lots of capitalism": it's that "capitalism" where "the market" has consolidated wealth into hereditary oligarchs with the ability to warp and bend civic structures to maximize their impunity and ability to accumulate wealth. Ritholtz lists eight examples of things that do not benefit you in the slightest unless you are wikipedia-page wealthy. More than that, he lists eight examples that aren't "stupid rich people tricks" they're cases where public money is being used to enrich private individuals. "Capitalism" by definition should make a level playing field between all capitalists; when the State favors the extraordinarily rich over the ostentatiously rich, the ostentatiously rich get mad and bitch about crony capitalism.
Not in the bit a quoted, and not in general either. Marx argues that capitalism must become socialism, as a synthesis of "but muh risk and innovashun!" and "how come I do all the work and you get all the rewards?" and that feudalism had to become capitalism. Marx might have turned Hegel on his head, but he kept the gist of history being the world figuring itself out and inching towards perfection.
You misunderstand me. Marx, in your words, is arguing as to the evolution of society whereas I'm arguing as to the eventual decomposition of policy. Marx is saying "this is what it has to become" while I'm arguing "this is what it will be if left to its own devices." The typical argument against Marxism/Leninism is that it requires altruism by everyone at every level but more altruism by those with the power to affect more than their own lot in life. The typical argument against capitalism is it rewards a lack of altruism.