It's not really Marxist when you are analysing issues according to social science. My Social Relations applies the system of cause and effect. It is the relations of the cause and effects that are bound when the effect is depended upon the cause and the correlation directly follows first effects to another down the spiral. Social issues are usually the common and strongest correlation.

If you stand on top of the stairs and drop a ball down, it would roll until it stops. Your job then is to study the reasons why the ball rolled from the top to where it stopped.

The relationship is not bound when the cause is half way down the stairs, or irrelevant attachments are added; the relations of the correlation have to be logically valid such as 1 + 2 = 3.

The correlation is a natural process, but some relations are not valid when designed to deliver a political outcome. But then arguing against politicians can get personal. And the cause of science is conditioned for political expedience. So we have a valid science of issues and we have a subjective condition of political debate.

I have reasoned unemployment before so here it is again. While lack of education does not necessarily prevent anyone from working, lack of qualification is considered in here the major cause of unemployment, Why is anyone lacking education is because he/she cannot afford school fees or higher and better education. Why is anyone cannt afford education is because his/her parents earned low incomes. And it turned out that parents were disadvantaged because of their culture and or income. Well Pasifika peoples for example were over represented in low paid menial jobs but let's say it is traced to one's social position in the economy.

Looking at a flight of stairs, a ball is dropped on the top and rolls down the stairs. As it rolls it gains momentum; it rolls faster and impacts harder on the next step down. It moves faster and impacts harder as it gets lower.

Now, if the ball is the position on the economy and on structure places parents at the top step and children are usually at the bottom stairs, the impact of the roll effect more damage on children than parents.

At this point of social debate of unemployment, 1 + 2 = 3 is now associated with other variants such as bullies, obesity, drugs, addiction, burglary and violence. Our logic is not so straight forward anymore and we have something like 1 + (a + b = 2) = ? And our simple logic has become a complex.

The ball not only gathers momentum, but now attached with other variant developments as it roll down the spiral.

So now we have spinners who would manipulate the equation to produce a political outcome. They would usually remove the original cause and reverse the correlation to place the responsibility at the bottom of the stairs. Children are pumped up with psychological persuasion and medication in order to be able to sustain the impact of the downward spiral.

In that way, the economy is a rock star while the consequences are swept under the stairs. But in so doing the effect or social consequences has established the basis of an Underclass under the stairs. And the Underclass prompts the infrastructure of a social class of elite doctors, counsellors, caregivers and etc..

This is a 'ground up development' not to be confused with the 'bottom up' one. The ground up development is where the structure is erected from the lower end to prompt a professional social class at the top end. The Underclass is a ground up development. The availability of all these children and their whanau living in Poverty have created a need for doctors, counsellors, lawyers and care givers etc..

The 'bottom up' development refers to decisions determined by feelings and emotions such as heightened instincts.

The ground up development is considered invalid and subjective because logic does not start from the back to front. It starts from the cause. If the unemployed had rich parents to afford him/her a better education, he/she wouldn't have ended at the bottom of the stairs. And if there were no people at the bottom of the stairs, an Underclass would not exist and so is the privileged professional social class at the top. You see, the professional elite class depends upon the existent of an Underclass.

In here, Marx would validate the social elite class on an economic base, where unemployment is due to the social or economic position of parents.

There is a cultural or ethnic variant of the correlation by the fact the Underclass is over represented by Maori and Pasifika peoples. We asked why these folks are failing the education system but lets make do with fact that they were already disadvantaged by the position of their parents in the economy. In that sense, education might be relieved from cultural discrimination but the economy remains the major cause.

And this position is currently addressed by women to better their lot by striving for equality, disparity and equal pay. I'm not sure if women from other cultures are included in their movement but polarising the Underclass is a universal concern.

So Marxism is the social structure of society validated by the social science of cause and effect. The analysis has provided data on mechanisms of the system in place for the purpose of correcting deviations and improving the material means of subsistence. But the availability of such valuable information has given capitalists among economists advantage over labour in appropriation for profit.

Marxism is reversed by capitalists from ground up developments; the invalid proposition of placing the cart before the horse.

However, the experience of the position has motivated some young people to succeed in their education and to improve the standing for the whole family. Professional sports have also helped some gifted young people to take advantage of their physical condition.

Marx is a great man who had helped low-income earners to understand the system as an advantage to improve their standings and in turn their lives.