Shouldn't a Marxist be able to manipulate the market?

[Conquer or Die]

I was watching McCooney's transformation problem videos and it seems to me that if one understood the fluctuations in the market according to labor theory that one person would be able to manipulate the market based on the knowledge of a sector's labor vs. machine ratio and its labor time relative to its value. This is essentially buying low and selling high; a common sense tactic that is well known, but with the benefit of understanding the logic behind it.

I understand mitigating factors - the environment, governmental regulation and protection, and fluctuating political situations as well as the subjective selling of the arts (movies, video-games, sports, fashion). But when it comes down to industrial capacity and basic services like food, energy, shelter, and transportation; one would be able to calculate the positioning of that industry relative to where it stands in the business cycle according to its labor and technology selling below or above its actual value.

Smart fatcats are loading up their reserve capital in all the destroyed industries as we speak; getting ready for the re-emergence of the business cycle. Shouldn't a Marxist be best able to approximate the lowest industries and consequently the most profitable?

[El Rojo]

technically yes, but then we would be capitalists rather than marxists.

our ideology isnt be savvy with the unjust system, our ideology is destroy the unjust system

[Conquer or Die]

technically yes, but then we would be capitalists rather than marxists.

our ideology isnt be savvy with the unjust system, our ideology is destroy the unjust system

What an awful answer.

[La Comédie Noire]

Apparently Marx boasted to Engels in a letter that he had such an extensive knowledge of capitalism and dialects that he could play the stock market.

He died rather poor so I don't think it went too well.

[Havet]

He died rather poor so I don't think it went too well.

That should be a strong indicator of something else, as well...

[this is an invasion]

This is why Marx is still read by economists...

[communard71]

The mitigating factors you listed is far from an exhaustive list, but even a few listed (fluctuating political situations, the environment) are more influential and complicated than you allow. To say Marxists should manipulate their understanding of the market to load up on “reserve capital” is ridiculous for a number of reasons, ideological incompatibility being just one of them. Another is that Marxists aren’t clairvoyant and as such, cannot predict exact market fluctuations any more accurately than others. “Fatcats” make their killings because they are fatcats, i.e., they own the means of production so they can manipulate the market from the inside along with their fellow cartel members and when they fail, they’re size and importance allows them golden parachutes.

[Conquer or Die]

The mitigating factors you listed is far from an exhaustive list, but even a few listed (fluctuating political situations, the environment) are more influential and complicated than you allow. To say Marxists should manipulate their understanding of the market to load up on “reserve capital” is ridiculous for a number of reasons, ideological incompatibility being just one of them. Another is that Marxists aren’t clairvoyant and as such, cannot predict exact market fluctuations any more accurately than others. “Fatcats” make their killings because they are fatcats, i.e., they own the means of production so they can manipulate the market from the inside along with their fellow cartel members and when they fail, they’re size and importance allows them golden parachutes.

And any reasonable Machiavellian communard could play along.

Don't give me this nonsense about "ideological non-compatibility" because that's a flat cop-out and you know it. Either a Communist can reasonably predict the market fluctuations and profit from them (using a more sophisticated calculus of buying low and selling high) or they can't, thus producing problems for the worldview.

What a terrible string of responses. Not a single non-faith based answer from this forum board.

[ckaihatsu]

And any reasonable Machiavellian communard could play along.

Don't give me this nonsense about "ideological non-compatibility" because that's a flat cop-out and you know it. Either a Communist can reasonably predict the market fluctuations and profit from them (using a more sophisticated calculus of buying low and selling high) or they can't, thus producing problems for the worldview.

What a terrible string of responses. Not a single non-faith based answer from this forum board.


It *is* ideological incompatibility in both theory *and* practice -- the practice of Marxism is both intellectual, as with analysis, *and* on-the-ground, making efforts to address particular workplace situations in order to build workers' consciousness of their own collective power there. Time spent *away* from dealing with certain situations from a workers' point of view is time that is *not* spent in Marxist practice. It could be time spent in recreation, or on one's personal interests, or with friends, or working for a regular paycheck, or raising children, or playing the markets, etc. We all have to make decisions over the limited amounts of time we have....

[Conquer or Die]

If nobody can answer this question then do not post in this thread.

[RGacky3]

based on the knowledge of a sector's labor vs. machine ratio and its labor time relative to its value.

Except its pretty much impossible to predict those things and know those things, also because the labor value is'nt nessesarily indicitive of the market value (of which many other factors play in).

[Conquer or Die]

Except its pretty much impossible to predict those things and know those things, also because the labor value is'nt nessesarily indicitive of the market value (of which many other factors play in).

These things are possible to know with the right data collection. They are public corporations.

I don't know what your second point is but a Marxist should rationally be able to predict the market.

[Revolutionair]

Well I am active in the stock market.
The thing is, Marxism is used to approach the value of a product in terms of what it should be in a society where there is only value creation.
In the real world there are speculations. In other words, some stocks become more expensive not because there is actually something happening in the factory, but because someone made a 'price-deal' or some high chief said something good.
The market is not an indicator of actual value, it is an indicator of what people think the value is going to be in some time.
An example is the dutch bank DSB. Some guy just screamed in a random news video: everyone get your money out of the DSB bank. What happened was that EVERYONE got their money out, because they FEARED that other people would get their money out.
This has nothing to do with the actual value that went into DSB. It is just a simple sign that the market only indicates what people think something is worth. So it doesn't matter whether you are a Marxist or a Keynesian or even an Austrian, the market runs on feelings not on actual value.

TL;DR version:
The market does not run on use-value or a set exchange-value, it runs on feelings. Nobody can predict the feelings of somebody else.


Oh and I think his name is Brendan M Cooney, not Brendan mcCooney or w/e.

[RGacky3]

These things are possible to know with the right data collection. They are public corporations.


With that logic all economists should be able to predict market fluctuations, also the data available is dollar amounts.


I don't know what your second point is but a Marxist should rationally be able to predict the market.

My second point is there are many other variables.

[communard71]

If nobody can answer this question then do not post in this thread.

C’mon Conquer or Die, our point is that your question is a non sequitur. Marxists don’t play the market because it is a massive reflection of everything that is so abhorrently unjust and criminally wrong with the way people treat each other in the world of finance, capitalism, and imperialism. It would be an action which directly supports what we struggle against, we would be making a conscious, unnecessary choice (as opposed to purchasing food, clothes, and transportation to stay alive) to support the capitalist system.

[Revolutionair]

Marxists don’t play the market because it is a massive reflection of everything that is so abhorrently unjust and criminally wrong with the way people treat each other in the world of finance
b-b-b-bullshit


In other news. You CAN see that people who read Marx are doing a little better. In the PRC Marx is still well read. The way they mix capitalism with state capitalism is from an economic point of view quite impressive.
So while reading Marx does not make an individual rich, knowing some basic Marxism helps you understand what capitalism is doing at the moment and allows you to adapt.

[communard71]

b-b-b-bullshit


In other news. You CAN see that people who read Marx are doing a little better. In the PRC Marx is still well read. The way they mix capitalism with state capitalism is from an economic point of view quite impressive.
So while reading Marx does not make an individual rich, knowing some basic Marxism helps you understand what capitalism is doing at the moment and allows you to adapt.

Adorable, I wonder if the workers in China’s innumerable factories realize how closely to classical Marxist policies they are, what a comfort that must be to them. Also, b-b-b-bullshit yourself to the idea of using a smattering of Marxism as an investment strategy.

[Revolutionair]

The question that the topic-starter asked was: can Marxism give you an edge when trying to make money.
It is obvious that the answer is yes.
If you are a capitalist and you know Marxist economics you will be able to exploit the workers far more than the other capitalists. However our current market system is mostly speculations. Therefore while Marxism would give you a head start in a system where all other factors except for efficient exploitation were eliminated, it doesn't work that way in the real world.
If you think you're so cool with your karma that people should not 'use Marxism for evil', then you should wake up. The last century was dominated by ruthless bureaucracies hiding under the title of Marxism to oppress people.

[RGacky3]

Marxists don’t play the market because it is a massive reflection of everything that is so abhorrently unjust and criminally wrong with the way people treat each other in the world of finance, capitalism, and imperialism. It would be an action which directly supports what we struggle against, we would be making a conscious, unnecessary choice (as opposed to purchasing food, clothes, and transportation to stay alive) to support the capitalist system.

I'm sure your a holy man with no personal wishes for himself and never act in yourself interest. But I'm pretty damn sure, if it were possible with Marxian economics to predict the market, at least a few would make themselves good ass money with it. I know i would.

THats a retarded answer, if its possible, do it, predict the market, make your money, and donate the money to revolutionary groups, which I'm sure you would do since your such a pure guy.

[ZeroNowhere]

This reminds me of a comment from Paresh Chattopadhyay:

"However, the realization of surplus value [in the Soviet Union] did not always coincide with the production of surplus value at each individual unit of production. As true "Marxists," the Soviet authorities considered surplus value as a social totality created in the economy as a whole so that, for maximizing this social (total) surplus value, the particular unit or units of production, where a part of this surplus value was created, was not of much importance."


it seems to me that if one understood the fluctuations in the market according to labor theory that one person would be able to manipulate the market based on the knowledge of a sector's labor vs. machine ratio and its labor time relative to its valueHow? Things generally don't sell at their values, but that doesn't seem to tell us much about manipulating the market. Anyhow, it seems that a recovery in the near future is going to involve just papering over the economy with debt again, rather than a sustained boom, and thus this may well not be the best of times.


technically yes, but then we would be capitalists rather than marxists.Ehm (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_Engels).

[Dean]

I was watching McCooney's transformation problem videos and it seems to me that if one understood the fluctuations in the market according to labor theory that one person would be able to manipulate the market based on the knowledge of a sector's labor vs. machine ratio and its labor time relative to its value. This is essentially buying low and selling high; a common sense tactic that is well known, but with the benefit of understanding the logic behind it.

I understand mitigating factors - the environment, governmental regulation and protection, and fluctuating political situations as well as the subjective selling of the arts (movies, video-games, sports, fashion). But when it comes down to industrial capacity and basic services like food, energy, shelter, and transportation; one would be able to calculate the positioning of that industry relative to where it stands in the business cycle according to its labor and technology selling below or above its actual value.

Smart fatcats are loading up their reserve capital in all the destroyed industries as we speak; getting ready for the re-emergence of the business cycle. Shouldn't a Marxist be best able to approximate the lowest industries and consequently the most profitable?

Do you have some statistics which reflect labor and machinery ratios?

[Conquer or Die]

regardless of speculation; investment in industries with less labor to machine ratios will net that industry an overall improvement in the marketplace.

I want to see the TSSI guys make some money and then give me a simple program to do it myself.

[communard71]

I'm sure your a holy man with no personal wishes for himself and never act in yourself interest. But I'm pretty damn sure, if it were possible with Marxian economics to predict the market, at least a few would make themselves good ass money with it. I know i would.

THats a retarded answer, if its possible, do it, predict the market, make your money, and donate the money to revolutionary groups, which I'm sure you would do since your such a pure guy.

Holy? Pure? Of course not. I’m simply not a capitalist. Just because you would rather profit from the system which others struggle against doesn’t mean you need to tear me down, it just means you need to re-examine your own motives and beliefs.

[Dean]

regardless of speculation; investment in industries with less labor to machine ratios will net that industry an overall improvement in the marketplace.
Sounds about right. I'm not a scholar on the issue, though.


I want to see the TSSI guys make some money and then give me a simple program to do it myself.
If the above is true, than we need statistics with which to work. How do you know that isn't insider information?

It's comparable to this:

I propose that air density patterns can predict 75% accurate storm predictions given sufficient data.

You ask me to prove it, but provide no data.

The fact is that you are asking for very specific proofs given specific data. I'm not comfortable seeking the data out because I'm not familiar enough with the theory yet. You seem to have more familiarity atm. So why don't you find it? How can you 'disprove' the theory without providing any evidence (besides the perceived lack of a proof offered to you)?

[RGacky3]

Just because you would rather profit from the system which others struggle against doesn’t mean you need to tear me down, it just means you need to re-examine your own motives and beliefs.

I'm not a capitalist either, but your telling me, that if you COULD make a ton of money on the stock market, you would'nt???


regardless of speculation; investment in industries with less labor to machine ratios will net that industry an overall improvement in the marketplace.

I want to see the TSSI guys make some money and then give me a simple program to do it myself.

Thats one factor amung many many other factors, so your being silly.

[Bud Struggle]

I'm not a capitalist either, but your telling me, that if you COULD make a ton of money on the stock market, you would'nt???


It's where I'm at. Really.

There is no difference between owning stock in a company that employs people and owing a factory the employs people outright. It's just a matter of percentages. Nothing more.

[ckaihatsu]

if its possible, do it, predict the market, make your money, and donate the money to revolutionary groups,


This is a very good point actually, because from a strictly labor-materialist perspective it's the *labor* value / efforts that count. Monetary donations to revolutionary politics that were sourced from capital gains / finance is simply someone using their cognitive labor to divert the surplus labor value that's been expropriated from other workers, and channeling that into revolutionary activities, or "proto-collective-administration", if you will.

Alternately, if one doesn't *have* to work for a paycheck and they put their efforts into revolutionary activities, then that's about the same as the previous example, except that it's entirely direct and limited to one's own efforts (not tapping the surplus labor value of others, or having portions of its own labor value expropriated).

Finally, if one is able to *be funded* by donations for revolutionary activity, then that is actually the working class giving rise to the political expression of its own best interests through an increased proportionate control of the totality of the economy.


G.U.T.S.U.C., Simplified

http://i48.tinypic.com/28smo9v.jpg


communist economy diagram

http://i48.tinypic.com/2iiitma.jpg

[Revolution starts with U]

Can a marxist predict the market?
Can birds fly south?
Marxists are humans, just like anyone else. Anyone can make money, it just depends on what they value, and when they value it.
We call this, in the educated world, a red herring. It means nothing, but it smells good, and it distracts you. Fun times :thumbup1:
Seriously tho, we need to realize that capital is the trick to withering away capitalism. Get the capital into the hands of the workers, democratize capitalism. Stock options and pension plans not only turn labor from a simple commodity, to one you have to upkeep. But it also creates a new job for someone else. This is how we eliminate scarcity, return labor to it's proper value and usher in the global commune.
Call me an idealist, but it's true ;)
IOW: it's about God-damned time we stop redistributing worthless paper funny money, and start redistributing the means of production.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Shouldn't a Marxist be best able to approximate the lowest industries and consequently the most profitable?No that's like saying anyone who knows baseball stats really well could predict the world series before it starts or anyone who makes maps could sail around the world in a boat.

I've only read a few of Marx's economic works - volumes of capital and some shorter things, but he is making a map of tendencies and trends, not predicting the future. We try to make our best guesses for the short-term things, but it's all educated guesses. Marx was wrong about the frequency of crisis, but not on it's systemic part in the system. Because of this we have made better guesses than the Capitalists have made over the last 150 years.

Then again, even if capitalists could predict booms and busts, they really couldn't do that much about it - bubbles are made because they are profitable for some, so to sit out of speculation-bubble would mean that your competitors could outperform and drive you out of business anyway.

[Rusty Shackleford]

Marxists have an extensive understanding of the workings of capitalism, but the understandings are criticisms. Something was wrong with capitalism which led to the endeavor of figuring out what was wrong with it.

To apply these understandings of the 'wrongs' in capitalism to make capitalism better would actually destroy capitalism and lead to socialism anyways.

A cynical marxist my try to manipulate the market but they will fail unless they were also well versed in bourgeois economics and then able to some how synthesize them. even then, they will fail.

Working in the capitalist system as a Marxist is impossible.


my thoughts anyways.

[ckaihatsu]

No that's like saying anyone who knows baseball stats really well could predict the world series before it starts or anyone who makes maps could sail around the world in a boat.


Shouldn't a Marxist be able to manipulate the market?


This so-called "issue" falls into the category of fallacies that fail to resolve, or distinguish, between the *general* and the *specific*. Yes, Marxism is an accurate method at *broad scales* -- no, Marxism will not enable you to deduce the next hot stock pick.

I'll kick in an illustrative analogy of my own, to add to those of Jimmie Higgins: Yes, we may know very well the principles and dynamics of weather patterns, but that may not be enough to predict the exact weather conditions a month from now in a certain location.


Generalizations - Characterizations

http://i48.tinypic.com/2m2jpyd.jpg

[RGacky3]

There is no difference between owning stock in a company that employs people and owing a factory the employs people outright. It's just a matter of percentages. Nothing more.

Theres a HUGE difference,

1. Control
2. Proft (owning a comapny directly your paying yourself, owning stock your speculating), thats a HUGE difference because it entierly changes your interest.

Theres ahuge difference.


This is a very good point actually, because from a strictly labor-materialist perspective it's the *labor* value / efforts that count.

WHen it comes to Societal value yes, when it comes to market value no. Market value is based on many many things.

[Bud Struggle]

If a Marxist could do so, then they would be Capitalists. They can't, so they stay Marxists. I could buy 99.9% of all the Communists souls here on RevLeft for a million dollars. You all know that.

When you make it in the Capitalist system you are a CAPITALIST. That's how it goes.

[ckaihatsu]

I could buy 99.9% of all the Communists souls here on RevLeft for a million dollars.


Well, okay, but you're going to have to make the drop *first*...!


x D

[RGacky3]

If a Marxist could do so, then they would be Capitalists. They can't, so they stay Marxists.

There are wealthy Marxists :), if I got rich I would'nt give up knowing that capitalism is un-democratic, hurts most people and is unsustainable, thats a fact.

[Revolution starts with U]

If a Marxist could do so, then they would be Capitalists. They can't, so they stay Marxists
That assumes they tried. In fact, I just recently made one of my clients (I do taxes on the side) 15k+ (maybe more by now) telling him to invest in Chase before the bailout. Chase is rackin in huge profits now, and I got a 2k check from him for my help :D
.
I could buy 99.9% of all the Communists souls here on RevLeft for a million dollars. You all know that.
I must be in that .1%. You could give me the milly, it wouldn't change my views at all. I figured out a long time ago that those who are socialist becuase they are poor, become capitalists when they get rich.


When you make it in the Capitalist system you are a CAPITALIST. That's how it goes.[/QUOTE]
I view socialism as a natural outgrowth of capitalism (uhh.. like Marx?) so, I have no problem making tons of money off the market, and then turning around and using those profits to get more working people into the market as well.
Democratize capital!

[Revolution starts with U]

I could ask the same question to keynesians and austrians as well. You're going to find it just as difficult to predict the market using market economics as you will using Marxist economics.
IT's called a RED HERRING

[Revolutionair]

If a Marxist could do so, then they would be Capitalists. They can't, so they stay Marxists. I could buy 99.9% of all the Communists souls here on RevLeft for a million dollars. You all know that.

When you make it in the Capitalist system you are a CAPITALIST. That's how it goes.

We already get sponsored by Jewish bankers. They pay us way more than you ever could.:thumbup1:

[NecroCommie]

Finnish anti-communists have an entire argument based on important finnish businessmen who used to be marxist. They are quite numerous I say. I hear even the ex-head of Nokia, Jorma Ollila used to be involved with this extreme leninist movement. Though that's just what I hear, I don't bother to seek any sources.

Ironically enough, the large numbers of ex-marxist businessmen signal not the moral weakness of marxist, but rather as you put it, that marxism is so accurate marxists fare pretty well in markets.

[Bud Struggle]

I view socialism as a natural outgrowth of capitalism (uhh.. like Marx?) so, I have no problem making tons of money off the market, and then turning around and using those profits to get more working people into the market as well.
Democratize capital!

You are right. You sold me. So I can have employees and own a factory and land with renters and still be a Communist? All right, Paris is worth a Mass--I'll go with the flow and change my mind about Revolution. It is the ONLY WAY to bring about change.

I've just moved from being a Social Democrat to being a Communist.

Let me in RevLeft. :rolleyes:

[ckaihatsu]

I view socialism as a natural outgrowth of capitalism (uhh.. like Marx?) so, I have no problem making tons of money off the market, and then turning around and using those profits to get more working people into the market as well.
Democratize capital!








Oh, so it's the capitalist club that should control the entire economy???

Have you ever heard of *fundraising* -- ??? How about labor activism?

So why not finance-based fundraising for labor political activism, for its own militancy, and for jobs?

[Revolution starts with U]

You are right. You sold me. So I can have employees and own a factory and land with renters and still be a Communist?
It's all about how much you keep for yourself, and what control you exercise. The more stock that is owned by the workers of said company, the better. Investment allows an economy to not only rely upon simple entrepreneurs. Businesses can find funding without the need for one extremely rich person to provide it (feudal/mercantilism).
If I profit enough to comfortably feed my family, and reinvest any extra dividends into worker stock portfolio/pension plans, is there anything wrong with that? Isn't that the whole point, for the workers to control the means of production?
And when you have 90-99% of the population recieving a significant portion of their subsistence income from dividends of stock, they will finally be free to pursue their own desires, without the need to subject themselves to wage slavery. Workers as the unionized self-employed?! What a dangerous concept.
TL:DR Worthless paper does not give one control. Capital does, and it is powerful. If we want to defeat it, we will have to evolve past it, like a disease.

[ckaihatsu]

That said, it's important to include the political proviso that as revolutionaries we can *not* hope to *depend* on this kind of financial structuring to *substitute* for actual politics. You and your union brothers and sisters may have clouds to the sky *yourselves* but that doesn't address the *larger* struggle and the particular rank-and-file workplace situations, etc.

Even the best militancy at particular workplaces or employers could be called something along the lines of 'syndicalism', at *most* -- without an *explicitly* class-based revolutionary political perspective local struggles are inevitably going to reach the limits of their island-like boundaries and will then face increased pressure from the bosses to buckle and shrink back down. Local struggles *must* reach out for solidarity actions from like workers elsewhere, and from workers in associated industries elsewhere.

[Revolution starts with U]

No doubt. The point is that if democratize capital, it will provide workers with the means to NOT have to subject themselves to bourge pressures. I don't think the democratization is possible without labor struggles... and I have my doubts many of our current unions would be effective either.

[ckaihatsu]

I don't think the democratization is possible without labor struggles...


This whole proposition that we're discussing can be kind of tricky.... I have *zero* experience in dealing with it in any kind of concrete way, but I think we can look at it systematically and see that labor struggles and the democratization of local ownership *could* be mutually reinforcing -- *but*, at the same time, employee co-ownership could very well be the *opposite* -- *detrimental* to workers' solidarity, especially if the financial part gets messy, hemorrhages capital, or overshadows the building of rank-and-file labor solidarity. Really, it's taking on the *additional* duties of capital alongside the regular maintenance of political cohesion on a working-class basis.





No doubt. The point is that if democratize capital, it will provide workers with the means to NOT have to subject themselves to bourge pressures.


Of course this depends on the performance of capital -- nothing here, economically or politically, is an automatic *given*.





and I have my doubts many of our current unions would be effective either.


Yeah, the traditional business unions have been politically bankrupt for *decades* -- see the following as an archetypal example:


For a united movement of the working class to oppose concessions and job cuts!
An open letter from the Indianapolis GM Stamping Rank-and-File Committee

11 October 2010

The following appeal from the Indianapolis GM Stamping Rank-and-File Committee was sent to the World Socialist Web Site.

http://wsws.org/articles/2010/oct2010/indy-o11.shtml

[Bud Struggle]

Oh, so it's the capitalist club that should control the entire economy???

Have you ever heard of *fundraising* -- ??? How about labor activism?

So why not finance-based fundraising for labor political activism, for its own militancy, and for jobs?

A Bake Sale for the Revolution? :)

[RGacky3]

Strikes, occupations, takeovers, disobaying property laws and so on, that'll do fine.

[Outinleftfield]

If we did that we'd be neocons. Many of them actually believe in Marx's theories about historical materialism but instead they think that capitalism is the end of history. A great deal of neocons were ex-Marxists. Selfishness got the better of them and they turned their knowledge towards exploiting people instead of challenging the system of exploitation.

Those who have the most potential to do good also have the most potential to do harm. It all depends on how you use your knowledge.

[ckaihatsu]

If we did that we'd be neocons. Many of them actually believe in Marx's theories about historical materialism but instead they think that capitalism is the end of history.


The class struggle -- not to mention capitalism's own internal contradictions -- remains unresolved within the now-singular global-imperialist-neofeudalist bourgeois hegemony that prevails....

[ComradeMan]

Marxist playing the market.... State Capitalism?

[ckaihatsu]

Marxist playing the market.... State Capitalism?


State capitalism = market *maker* -- for a little while, anyway....