Reflexion of a random teenager...

As much I read the intellectuals that we think are less simple to understand. Perhaps this is because when doing a micro analysis of the subject it is for new meanings about a superficial vision of it. If you just tried to deal with the intention of obtaining from them their ideas is very likely that this problem does not occur, but this is not the case when it is of great intellectuals, as they analyzed the problems giving rise to multiple analysis and valuations for the same purpose. First I called preocuparé by economists for their great contributions. It should be mentioned here that the economists who have called are those who have large shed light to the functioning of social life of his time and after reaching the present day. Example of these would be known as Classical economists: Adam Smith, David Ricardo, Thomas Robert Malthus and Karl Marx. But this is the detail that makes increasingly less understand the more elaborated on their ideas, because in most cases the contributions they make are designed to benefit a small portion of society, in which portion generally they are included. Therefore their input materials and lay the theoretical groundwork which inequality is built, a detail which I think are clearly aware.
A complex design theories turn for the better functioning of the economy within society, theories that are being undertaken as a vital requirement for the inclusion of any society within the production process, but in allocating the benefit that these new economic measures entail, it is completely uneven, and excludes a large proportion of the individuals involved in its development, making people who have privileged access to a portion of it to obtain a benefit that much from the equity holders of the means of production and if they perceive a benefit due to the relatively high ownership of the portion of those who do not already seen through the increasing extraction of surplus value. Ricardo accepts and allows to distinguish as the process through which the capitalist appropriates much of the total production in the form of benefit, which in some cases exceeds 2 / 3 of total production, making the 1 / 3 remaining income is divided between the land and the wage bill. And, as if to serve as a consolation, he says that long term the market tends to pay out of subsistence.
Adam Smith is not too far to see Ricardo as the division of labor in the higher productivity that allows an increase in wages that is expressed in a higher per capita income that gives workers the opportunity to achieve higher levels of annual consumption, resulting in a greater wealth of a nation. But it looks as Ricardo, and that after a hike in the salary of the product division of labor and increased productivity it brings, allows improvements in the quality of life, manifested in increased the birth rate, which in the medium term the company would generate the need for more jobs, and since this is limited, leading to the inclusion of more people in the productive process and the substantial decrease in wages for workers order to cover the costs of the new workforce. Process to medium and long term is reflected in a declining quality of life and poverty insipiente that will result from the death of those who do not have the means to survive. Smith that the poverty and death of part of the population reaches the point where the available labor in society and the people who are up in equilibrium.
It was Malthus who finished developing the ideas of Smith to the population and the means to produce their own subsistence, in his well-known Essay on the Principle of Population (1798) which suggests that food increases only to an arithmetic progression (2-4-6-8-10), while the population doubles every generation in a logarithmic progression (2-4-8-16-32), and the only way to avoid this phenomenon was through a control birth rate (measured Malthusian) or through a natural control which was "positive." The type of natural control is to wars, epidemics, pestilence, plagues, the famines and human services, which combine to control the volume of world population and limited to the food supply.
It is then at least I understand, because if these individuals were able to explain the reality and how it works, why their ideas were not aimed to overcoming these problems, and not, instead, to create new and more complex, considering that the last function of the economy is to serve the people and not use it. Repaired only in the possibility of designing systems that were applicable to the company the benefit of a few and the detriment of about many.
Unfortunately those who do not possess the means of production are predestined to be the need to sell their production (which is the only asset they possess) on the market as a commodity and in return receive the same wage, that the great most cases it bear with the little amount of work given to change it. This contract is carried out between those who possess the means of production and who have only their labor the point that provides the essence and inequality in its most pure and complete.
It is in the midst of these problems occur when the story is an individual who, unlike the classical economists mentioned above, sought a solution to the problem, the problem of inequality and the possession of means of production as well as to the private property itself. It is Karl Marx.
Karl Marx had already been persuaded of these problems from an early age, and it is he who coined terms such as labor force, means of production surplus, and so on. Terms that describe both escape since it does not suggest who should play each roll but does not look within a certain time and space.
Marx who is also to analyze the economy from a different perspective to the traditional, in other words, not a bourgeois. It should be noted that the ideological conception prevailing in the year Marx was imposed by Hegel, namely, the philosophy of the idea. The notion that the reality was determined by the idea disturbed Marx demonstrated that the legal relations as forms of rule can not be understood by themselves or by the so-called general development of the human spirit, but are, on the contrary, material living conditions. That's when Karl Marx understood that the production of their life, men against certain necessary relationships, independent of their will, relations of production which correspond to certain stage of development of their material productive forces. All these relations of production form the economic structure of society, the real basis on which stands the legal and political superstructure and corresponding forms of social awareness. Hence the assumption that it is not the consciousness of men that determines their being, but, by contrast, is a social being that determines consciousness.
But beyond these ideas and theories of the functioning of society, the most remarkable is that Marx was an active revolutionary, was characterized by pragmatism in their way of life, was a person who said what he thought and did what it said . Behavior that earned him a number of exile in the countries where it was settled throughout his life.
But Marx, like Smith, Ricardo and Malthus responded, or at least tried to present their problems. The odd thing is that today we continue to take the theories advocated by these men, which in many cases, are already obsolete. Not because they are close in their training, but because times change and it would be an anachronism to use them. But the curious to look at this is that if the contributions of these intellectuals are still valid that means that we are witnessing a process where intellectual production has declined since that time. This situation necessitates the use of those theories, which have more than 150 years and continue to answer many of the problems in our society today, which if you think intellectual production which suffered a period of stagnation or, for In contrast, the company which is in a static period in the evolutionary process.
The second hypothesis seems trite, but we could not dismiss it because, as the accused often illuminated the medieval period was a dark and stagnant, that vision of being tested, would be applicable to this situation. But could not fall into the naivety of assuming that there was no progress in society since that time, as the development of technology accuses the presence of a strong and growing intelligentsia.
Is required except that when I refer to intellectual stagnation, do not pretend to say that the society remain the same at that time, but increased, but following the lines of those intellectuals then unable to overcome yet. But within these lines of thought have been surprising that more progress, which have revolutionized the whole economic structure as well as the entire superstructure in Marxist terms.
I think if we target the division of labor can perhaps find the explanation for why the intellectual stagnation or intellectual state. I submit that this is because it is well known as the division of labor makes it more problematic to focus on more timely, ie, tends to go from the general to the particular, making our intellectuals today are experts in different themes which are prepared, but this leads to the production of what we know as culture becomes increasingly scarce, or, worse, what we consider as general a view increasingly skewed from reality.
I spoke to our intellectuals today to make an analogy with the intellectuals of the previous centuries, but this issue is reproduced in all individuals. And this is clearly visible in the trades today, just the low diversity of individual offices, or even more clearly to the greatest expertise on the topic making people lose interest in almost no other disciplines believe useful in terms labor. It is true that in previous centuries it was possible to cover a number of different offices negligible since the field of knowledge to be had for each discipline was rather more limited than it is today. Today would not have the number of trades that could have a person capable of the 17th century, since knowledge of these trades yourself today have far exceeded those of that time, a detail that would make a person to collect the current number of offices need two lives or a life over time.
I stress to the caveat that the potential difference between this approach to different disciplines in one season and another is not a criticism of the current, but it's just an observation between the two eras. Centuries ago a few men could explain almost all the questions of humanity, today this is impossible, today thousands of specialists who try to give such explanations. Today we must use an interdisciplinary approach to finding answers to questions of great complexity.
One reads Rousseau, Voltaire, Montesquieu, Darwin, etc.. and it seems that you can hear almost everything on earth and human life, but the development of work and its inevitable fragmentation makes it necessary to venture into increasingly complex issues, which makes it increasingly complex to be updated in the knowledge scientific and more complicated still be a part of it. Individuals named as civilians can not understand in many cases due to various issues investigated the intellectual background necessary to decode this information is not within their reach or simply had not purchased. So you can see an intellectual competition against the clock to be part of that tiny portion "privileged." It's like an eternal learning never ends and it undergoes a painful recognition of the ever will know everything, or never finish any knowledge of something.
This is a detail of how the present society, but what concerns me personally is to know how far reaching this is, what is the roof of this intellectual development, is that man has a greater mastery of the world where you live or on the contrary can make the man I have a shrinking of the same domain? And what purpose is pursuing this development and what is the future destiny lies as a society? Is possible that some day the man I have complete mastery over the world in which he lives? This development tends to unify the companies or on the contrary tend to differentiate them? And if the domain of the world is obtained, it will be a collective or a few?
These and many other questions have to be the engine that drives me to the world of scholarship to find answers for the moment not more than I can ask about the conjecture, but I hope to be able to hopefully find an answer at all plausible, and to that target direct my efforts ...