Marxism discussion thread

[will_shred]

Hey all, with the talk of the recent right/left violence and increasing political polarity, I thought it would be fun to start a thread to discuss what many people view as the epitome of the "radical left" Marxism. I think that the value in Marx is in his critique of capitalism. But you don't need to look to Marx to see the internal contradictions of capitalism. Take economist Thomas Piketty, in his book Capital in the 21st Century, he demonstrates how "market capitalism" as we know it, will generate continually increasing income inequality and class division (the book is almost 1000 pages, forgive me for having only read parts of it). His basic idea can be demonstrated with this "R>G" which means that when the rate of return on capital is greater than the rate of economic growth, income inequality will rise. With income inequality come a great number of problems that I don't think I need to go into detail on. Marx's ideas laid the foundation for many different alternatives to capitalism, and I think it goes without saying that 20th century communism was a failure. But that doesn't mean we should give up the search for alternative's to market capitalism. So to start the conversation, I will talk a little about a couple modern thinkers who were heavily influenced by Marx, who propose alternatives to our current system. One is an idealist, one is more of a realist who has a very simple idea that could bring big change. I'm mostly doing this because I injured my hand and haven't been able to play guitar for over a week.

The first is Peter Joseph, who's point is very simple, and powerful. His idea is that, technologically speaking, there is nothing stopping our civilization from creating a "post scarcity" economy. The TL;DR is that with modern energy technology, and vertical farming technology, we could theoretically create a world without poverty. Its not a matter of technological limitations, its a matter of how inefficient markets are as resource distribution systems. Peter is an idealist, essentially saying that the only thing between us and a technological communist utopia (I use that world very lightly, because you can't have up without down) is a lack of political will, not technological limitation.





The next is Richard Wolff, who is more of a realist. He proposes that by introducing "democracy at work", and abolishing the employer employee relationship, we could make capitalism into a much more ethical system. Every worker at a business will be able to vote on what the business does with the profits of that business, instead of a board of directors who have a power over the business that kings had over countries. His proposal isn't a utopian vision, but one that would propel us forward into a better tomorrow.

 

[AngstRiddenDreams]

In before "muh human nature"

 

[tedtan]

"muh human nature"

 

[tedtan]

The next is Richard Wolff, who is more of a realist. He proposes that by introducing "democracy at work", and abolishing the employer employee relationship, we could make capitalism into a much more ethical system. Every worker at a business will be able to vote on what the business does with the profits of that business, instead of a board of directors who have a power over the business that kings had over countries. His proposal isn't a utopian vision, but one that would propel us forward into a better tomorrow.

Seriously, though, if someone risks their money and the well being of their family creating a business (and the jobs that go along with it), why would they agree to allow their employees to determine what they can do with their profits?

 

[AngstRiddenDreams]

Because those employees are responsible for those profits.
The idea that hundreds or thousands of workers can create value that is solely the property of one person is ridiculous.

Watch the Wolff video.

 

[Drew]

Take economist Thomas Piketty, in his book Capital in the 21st Century, he demonstrates how "market capitalism" as we know it, will generate continually increasing income inequality and class division (the book is almost 1000 pages, forgive me for having only read parts of it). His basic idea can be demonstrated with this "R>G" which means that when the rate of return on capital is greater than the rate of economic growth, income inequality will rise.

I haven't read Picketty's work, and while I'd like to at some point and I think from 10,000 feet his argument is sound (though, I wonder if there's any cyclicality to it and that we're just currently in a period where returns on capital are higher than the return on labor), I have read summaries of a couple pretty good critiques of his work. This one ran in The Economist about two years ago (I thought it was more recently, honestly, but sure enough, March 2015).

https://www.economist.com/news/fina...chiefly-responsible-rising-inequality-through

Pertinent passages:

Mr Piketty argues that over the long run the rate of return on wealth exceeds economic growth. Over time, this relationship increases inequality as the share of national income going to those who own capital (the rich) rises, while the portion going to labour (everyone else) falls. He also argues that the return on capital in recent history has been remarkably stable, even as economic growth has fallen, and that this trend will continue in the future.

Mr Rognlie has three main criticisms of all this. Several commentators have pointed out that the rate of return from capital should decline in the long run, rather than remaining high as Mr Piketty maintains, owing to the law of diminishing returns. Mr Rognlie expands on this, arguing that Mr Piketty has an inflated idea of the current return. Modern forms of capital, such as software, depreciate faster in value than equipment did in the past: a giant metal press might have a working life of decades whereas a new piece of database-management software will be obsolete in a few years at most. This means that returns from wealth may not necessarily be growing in net terms, since a rising share of the gains that flow to the owners of capital must be reinvested.

Second, Mr Rognlie finds that higher returns to wealth have not been distributed equally across all investments. The return on assets other than housing has been remarkably stable since 1970. In fact, surging house prices are almost entirely responsible for growing returns on capital.


Third, the idea that workers’ share of wealth can continue to decline rests on the assumption that it is easy to substitute capital (ie, robots) for workers. But if lots of the capital in question is tied up in houses, then this switch would be far harder than Mr Piketty suggests.

So, yes... But it's probably not as simple as Picketty makes it out to be, and the argument that the long-term return on capital will NOT converge to the economic growth rate as opportunities to outperform the long run growth rate are arbitraged away would seem to defy basic economic theory.

That's not to say inequality isn't a huge problem, and that lots of home-owners with lots of equity wrapped up in their houses having a higher share of wealth than non-home-owners isn't problematic in its own right... But, it's important to remember that Picketty is merely one (if an important, and currently very trendy) voice in a much larger discussion.

Personally, I'm reminded of Churchill's famous quote on democracy; "Democracy is the worst form of government, except all of the others." I think you can fairly say the same about capitalism.

Because those employees are responsible for those profits.
The idea that hundreds or thousands of workers can create value that is solely the property of one person is ridiculous.

Watch the Wolff video.

Well, again, it's a complicated subject... but, the profits aren't solely the result of the workers. They're also the result of the committed capital employed. Giving the workers total credit for the profits generated and total decision making authority ignores the reality that someone else put up large sums of money to invest in property, machinery, input materials, etc, and would not do that unless they were likely to receive a decent return on their capital.

Now, the devil, of course, is in determining the appropriate breakdown between return on capital and return on labor. But clearly it's not 100% return on labor and 0% return on capital, or you'd have to be a fool to commit capital to a business.

 

[will_shred]

Seriously, though, if someone risks their money and the well being of their family creating a business (and the jobs that go along with it), why would they agree to allow their employees to determine what they can do with their profits?

Because the business literally is built off the labor of the workers, there would be no business without workers, and the decisions that the employers make with the profits effect the lives of the workers. The workers should have equal say in what happens to the profits because those choices have just as much impact on the lives of the workers as they do the founders of the business. What gives the "owners" the exclusive rights to decide what happens to the profits when they have so little involvement in the day to day running of the business? at best you could say that the duty of management is itself a lot of work, which i will concede, but it isn't vastly more difficult than any other skilled labor, and in my book that does not constitute grounds for being given exclusive rights to decide how profits are distributed.

If workers decided what happened with the profits, do you think CEO's would be making 300 times what the average worker makes? Not a chance.

 

[Explorer]

Is there some mechanism whch prevents workers from formng their own cooperatives to compete with owner-owned businesses?

Is it being proposed that potential employees be forbidden by law for working for an owner-owned business?

Is it being proposed that non-cooperatives be illegal, down to a owner-ownd and -operated single-person business which then hires one additional employee?

I'm just curious as to when people are proposing stripping a single owner of the business, into which he put his work. What is the line he or she has to cross to suddenly be penalized for having been a good worker for his own company?

Similarly, can an employee who is proving a detriment to the business be stripped of previous wages? If not, why not?

The more astute will understand my puzzlement on these matters.

 

[Spaced Out Ace]

The only thing I like about Marxism is Anthony Fantano's "Marx debunked ______ years ago!!!`111`" meme. Shit's dank.

 

[marcwormjim]

I always enjoyed knowing that Chico was a great pianist, but that fans assumed Harpo was better because he only knew one song; and had developed it over his lifetime to be a devastating party piece.

 

[Spaced Out Ace]

Because the business literally is built off the labor of the workers, there would be no business without workers, and the decisions that the employers make with the profits effect the lives of the workers. The workers should have equal say in what happens to the profits because those choices have just as much impact on the lives of the workers as they do the founders of the business. What gives the "owners" the exclusive rights to decide what happens to the profits when they have so little involvement in the day to day running of the business? at best you could say that the duty of management is itself a lot of work, which i will concede, but it isn't vastly more difficult than any other skilled labor, and in my book that does not constitute grounds for being given exclusive rights to decide how profits are distributed.

If workers decided what happened with the profits, do you think CEO's would be making 300 times what the average worker makes? Not a chance.

"The workers should have equal say in what happens to the profits because those choices have just as much impact on the lives of the workers as they do the founders of the business." That's never going to happen, and should never happen. Unless you have drones or robotic automation, you'll never get a group of people to agree on something. And if they don't agree on something, then that person whose wishes does not get acknowledged in the final decision therefore does not have any say at all, and certainly not an equal say.

I could hear out everyone's opinion on here what guitar/gear I should spend $500 bucks on, and after the thread has died down, say fuck it and buy 8 or so fleshlights. In the same notion, an owner could listen to everyone's concerns or ideas, etc. and say fuck all of that, I'm buying myself a Porsche, now get your asses back to work, slackers.

And owners have "little involvement in the day to day running of the business"? Uhh... Only owners that wish to see their business close up due to mismanagement do not have involvement with the day to day running of their business.

 

[Lemonbaby]

That discussion is as old as our modern market itself. Standard question back: if the workers want to decide on what's happening with the profit of a company - are they willing to also compensate for the losses from their salaries?

Just discussing the profit situations is a massively simplified view on a complex topic. Everyone feels obliged to dish out money that's been earned, but who's responsible for decisions that might run the company bankrupt. All of a sudden. no one will be there to demonstrate his skills, I can assure you.

 

[will_shred]

Is there some mechanism whch prevents workers from formng their own cooperatives to compete with owner-owned businesses?

Is it being proposed that potential employees be forbidden by law for working for an owner-owned business?

Is it being proposed that non-cooperatives be illegal, down to a owner-ownd and -operated single-person business which then hires one additional employee?

I'm just curious as to when people are proposing stripping a single owner of the business, into which he put his work. What is the line he or she has to cross to suddenly be penalized for having been a good worker for his own company?

Similarly, can an employee who is proving a detriment to the business be stripped of previous wages? If not, why not?

The more astute will understand my puzzlement on these matters.

No there isn't, and worker owned co-ops have already been shown to be effective business models. That's why Richard Wolff's entire platform for change is basically advocating for more co-ops. Like I said, its far more realistic than Peter Josephs technological utopia.

 

[will_shred]

"The workers should have equal say in what happens to the profits because those choices have just as much impact on the lives of the workers as they do the founders of the business." That's never going to happen, and should never happen. Unless you have drones or robotic automation, you'll never get a group of people to agree on something. And if they don't agree on something, then that person whose wishes does not get acknowledged in the final decision therefore does not have any say at all, and certainly not an equal say.

I could hear out everyone's opinion on here what guitar/gear I should spend $500 bucks on, and after the thread has died down, say fuck it and buy 8 or so fleshlights. In the same notion, an owner could listen to everyone's concerns or ideas, etc. and say fuck all of that, I'm buying myself a Porsche, now get your asses back to work, slackers.

And owners have "little involvement in the day to day running of the business"? Uhh... Only owners that wish to see their business
close up due to mismanagement do not have involvement with the day to day running of their business.

You're still making the assumptions that the founders of the business "own" the entirety of the profits of the business in the same way you "own" your paycheck. Your paycheck is delegated from the work you do, the profits are the result of the collective efforts of everyone in the company. Like I already said, management is itself a job, obviously, but it is defined by a set of skills that anyone could theoretically learn. The management class are not uniquely qualified to make decisions for the business on behalf of the employees of the business who's livelihoods depend on that business.

 

[will_shred]

I haven't read Picketty's work, and while I'd like to at some point and I think from 10,000 feet his argument is sound (though, I wonder if there's any cyclicality to it and that we're just currently in a period where returns on capital are higher than the return on labor), I have read summaries of a couple pretty good critiques of his work. This one ran in The Economist about two years ago (I thought it was more recently, honestly, but sure enough, March 2015).

https://www.economist.com/news/fina...chiefly-responsible-rising-inequality-through

Pertinent passages:



So, yes... But it's probably not as simple as Picketty makes it out to be, and the argument that the long-term return on capital will NOT converge to the economic growth rate as opportunities to outperform the long run growth rate are arbitraged away would seem to defy basic economic theory.

That's not to say inequality isn't a huge problem, and that lots of home-owners with lots of equity wrapped up in their houses having a higher share of wealth than non-home-owners isn't problematic in its own right... But, it's important to remember that Picketty is merely one (if an important, and currently very trendy) voice in a much larger discussion.

Personally, I'm reminded of Churchill's famous quote on democracy; "Democracy is the worst form of government, except all of the others." I think you can fairly say the same about capitalism.



Well, again, it's a complicated subject... but, the profits aren't solely the result of the workers. They're also the result of the committed capital employed. Giving the workers total credit for the profits generated and total decision making authority ignores the reality that someone else put up large sums of money to invest in property, machinery, input materials, etc, and would not do that unless they were likely to receive a decent return on their capital.

Now, the devil, of course, is in determining the appropriate breakdown between return on capital and return on labor. But clearly it's not 100% return on labor and 0% return on capital, or you'd have to be a fool to commit capital to a business.

The problem with that counter argument to Piketty is that Capital is essentially a history of modern capitalism, and Piketty demonstrated pretty clearly that the only time in modern history where G>R was in the post WWII economic boom, which was due to a highly unique and complex set of circumstances that are unlikely to happen again short of another world war.

 

[Adam Of Angels]

It's worth noting, because it hasn't yet been explicitly noted, that Capitalism allows everything from workplace democracies to outright communistic systems.

 

[Drew]

The problem with that counter argument to Piketty is that Capital is essentially a history of modern capitalism, and Piketty demonstrated pretty clearly that the only time in modern history where G>R was in the post WWII economic boom, which was due to a highly unique and complex set of circumstances that are unlikely to happen again short of another world war.

You're missing most of my argument. Two main points you either didn't see or ignore.

1) Businesses require both labor AND capital. There needs to be SOME return on capital for capital-holders to invest in a business, so the profits need to be divided between those who contribute labor and those who contribute capital. The raw materials necessary to make a product (or the factory its made in) don't pay for themselves.

2) Critics of Pikkety have demonstrated, fairly concretely, that most of the returns on capital Pikkety has pointed to in his work can be attributed to the return on housing assets, which are assets not employed in the production of goods via labor.

G>R alone isn't a nuanced, thorough critique of capitalism. There are PLENTY of grounds with which to critique capitalism, but at the end of the day it's a very efficient manner of distributing scarce resources to where they can create the greatest utility. Given a government and regulatory environment that ensures maximum utility remains at least reasonably well aligned with the common good, it's a pretty workable economic model, and I have yet to see one with a better track record. It isn't perfect, but it's the least worst option I've seen.

 

[Drew]

It's worth noting, because it hasn't yet been explicitly noted, that Capitalism allows everything from workplace democracies to outright communistic systems.

...and that lately we've seen a premium paid for things in this model - farmers' markets, local artisanal crafts, locally owned businesses, businesses with sustainable and socially conscious labor practices, etc. I guess you can say capitalism is just a very good way of giving us the economy we want, even if we don't necessarily realize what it is we're asking for.

 

[tedtan]

Because those employees are responsible for those profits.

Because the business literally is built off the labor of the workers, there would be no business without workers

No, the business owner investing his time and money, sacrificing other things he could have done, in an effort to build the business is what built the business. There would literally be no business without the founder's contributions.

As the business grew, he was able to provide opportunities for others (e.g., jobs) and those others certainly helped grow the business from that point. But they didn't create the business and they certainly haven't sacrificed their money, their relationships, time and effort to the extent that the owner has. Plus they're compensated for the time and effort they have put into growing the business in the form of their pay whereas the owner is on the hook for any liabilities or losses the business incurs along with any profit it earns.

If the owner can't expect a return on his investments of time and money, why would he put that time and money into creating the business in the first place? And without that investment from the owner, where would the employees be? Unemployed without income?

, and the decisions that the employers make with the profits effect the lives of the workers. The workers should have equal say in what happens to the profits because those choices have just as much impact on the lives of the workers as they do the founders of the business.

How many laborers do you know who know enough about corporate finance that they could make sound decisions about what to do with the corporate profits that they could keep the business in business and profitable? And why should they be able to decide what to do with someone else's money just because the person that owns the money pays them to show up and do some work? They're already paid to show up and work.

If they want to decide what to do with the profit from their efforts, their choice is simple: stop working for someone else and start their own business (but then they are owners rather than workers, and have to assume the risks and liabilities that go along with owning a business rather than just taking their check in exchange for their time).

The idea that hundreds or thousands of workers can create value that is solely the property of one person is ridiculous.

What gives the "owners" the exclusive rights to decide what happens to the profits when they have so little involvement in the day to day running of the business?

Well, fundamentally, the owner(s) owns that profit via owning the business. The workers, not owning the business, do not own that profit.

at best you could say that the duty of management is itself a lot of work, which i will concede, but it isn't vastly more difficult than any other skilled labor, and in my book that does not constitute grounds for being given exclusive rights to decide how profits are distributed.

No, owners of a business own the profit because they own the business that produced the profit, not because they manage the business. Management is still just workers, for the most part.

If workers decided what happened with the profits, do you think CEO's would be making 300 times what the average worker makes? Not a chance.

Most CEOs do not make anywhere near that high a multiple of what their employees make. Sure, there are a few CEOs of large, publicly traded companies that do, but you're cherry picking your facts in order to come up with that multiple.

Most CEOs probably make between $150k and $300k per year whereas their employees make between $35k and $150k per year. A multiple of between 2 and 10 would be much closer to reality than 300. And when you look at the profitability of each employee (how much they "profit" they create less what they cost in terms of wages, overtime, salary, benefits, etc.), CEOs are generally worth their pay because they bring in the big deals that generate many time the CEO's pay in revenues for the company.

 

[AngstRiddenDreams]

Okay. All of the employees of any large company quit. Does the owner owning the company create profit or was it the presence of workers accomplishing things?
What you're explaining is redundant, owners owning profit because they own the business. Yes, that is how things are functioning. We're opposing that.

You also seem to believe that you know what the experience of all business owners is like.

To me your argument sounds like "that can't be because that isn't how things are right now"

@ Adam and drew, capitalism is a necessary step for communism according to Marx so you're not wrong