Marxian Economics

[Jennifer]

First of, I don't even know where to put this, so I apologize if this is in the wrong place.

So, I'm very confused on this whole topic of Marxian Economics. Someone told me you can be a Marxist without being Communist; somehow they applied Marxist "philosophy" to an economic policy (there's more to it). I was wondering if someone could help on this, because the explaination I recieved from a particular person didn't completely make sense to me because I'm not understanding how you can detach the economic from the political in Marxism. Anyway, I was wondering if I could maybe PM someone the details of the conversation, and they could help me understand more about this. I hope I'm even attaching the right name to what this person was talking about, but as they did not leave any source for me to refer to, I had to look it up on my own. :/

I'm not particularly well versed Marxism, but from what I do know, I simply don't comprehend this.

So anyone mind helping me with this, one on one? Also, layman's terms please haha. Thank you!


Edit; Okay, I guess I'll post this here anyway... Here is how the person tried to explain that you can apply Marxist "Philosophy" with out being a Communist.

Them: "A Marxist is one who follows the theory that a median tells where an entire system is going (no matter what t...his system is). There is major truth in this in many settings. Through controlling the manageable resource to elevate the median, the entire system will run more smooth and have a higher overall output. Now, if you humanize this (back to it's original form), it would be to elevate the middle to stimulate the highest and lowest portions. Does it work? Well, in theory, yes. In practice, it turns into communism. There is a difference. A Marxist philosophy converted into an economic policy DIRECTLY would not translate into communism. (huh?) It would be a system that was almost purely demand based with greatly reduced effect of supply side factors. It would probably fall closer to a co-op system than a governed system. Carrier corporation used to give annual bonuses in stocks. This is an example of a functional Marxist practice; the worker has more stake in the company, so if the company does well, every employee recieves financial benefit regardless of their actual pay level. In this way, the median is increased, even if the janitor was only paid 15 000 and the CEO 1 500 000. Communism would have the pay and production determined by an outside agency. I hope this explains why a philosophy is greatly different from a practice that it helped lead to."

Then I asked, how this makes Obama "Marxist" if we are using this definition (referring to a statement made earlier by someone who said "Communist may not be an accurate term...but he [Obama] is certainly a Marxist!"). While I still think the persons explaination of using Marxist philosophy in economics is different from using Marxism politically (politically it would create Communism, economically, not?)

Their reply: "Obama seeks to increase the overall of the nation by elevating the middle. That is about as Marxist as you get. The question should actually be; Is Marxism bad? Before anyone gets any thoughts or jumps down my throat, I feel that Marxist... ECONOMIC (not political) philosophies are great for alternative energies, agricultural plants (aka, farms) and the like. The thought of Obama winning another term nauseates me, and the thought of our government turning Marxist has moved me to start looking into our founding documents to see at what point the government has gone too far."


I am completely lost as to how they detached the political from the economic...to make it "not communist". Also, if he does indeed mean Marxian Economics, then why did he say "A Marxist philosophy converted into an economic policy DIRECTLY would not translate into communism." if (from the very little I know) Marxian economics only uses Marx as an influence...

Maybe I'm just missing something, but I didn't follow the thought process. I first did, but then I thought about it...and now I am lost.

[Scrooge]

How about posting the conversation in this thread?

[Kotze]

Well, one can be an owner of means of production and find Marx very informative. Such a person might imagine that in the far future cappies won't exist and that the majority will be better off for that, but that doesn't necessarily translate to a willingness to help this change come about as soon as possible.

I expect the text to be bullshit, but you can write me a PM.

[citizen of industry]

Well, there are different tendencies and interpretations of the word "communist," so it could be someone who understands Marxian economics but doesn't want to associate with former or current parties or regimes who go by "communist." I've also met several syndicalists and anarchists who identify with Marxian economics but do not identify themselves as communists. There's also the professor type I've come across who study Marxian economics but completely reject the revolutionary aspect of it.

[Sputnik_1]

It would be cool if you'd be more specific. There are different tendencies among communists, but in a dictionary under definition of communism you'll find Marx mentioned. Unfortunately to most of people communism=marxism-leninism, quite an unfortunate interpretation as it basically means that people tend to think; communism=Stalin, which I think is a total misinterpretation (Soviet Union state capitalist). Also, I don't exactly understand what is the other question tho.

[Blake's Baby]

It might just be a question of definition. 'Marxian' rather than 'Marxist' tends to be an adjective used by WSM parties - the Socialist Party of Great Britain, Socialist Party of Canada, World Socialist Party of the United States etc - who tend to call themselves 'socialist' rather than 'communist'.

Or as Sailorjay says there may be academics, or non-Leninist socialists (including anarchists) who don't want to be associated with the term 'communist'. Even some Trotskyists are a bit shy of calling themselves 'communist'.

So any of these may be influenced by Marx - may call themselves Marxian or Marxist - but not call themselves 'communists'.

Or, of course, the person who said it origianlly might have been taking something from Marx, ripping it out of context, and putting it into their own home-brew philosophy. Or they may have been talking crap. Difficult to tell without more info.

I would say though that anyone who claims to be a Marxist or Marxian has a 99.5% probability (or more) of being a socialist/communist.

[Zanthorus]

A Marxist is one who follows the theory that a median tells where an entire system is going (no matter what t...his system is).

This is so thoroughly detached from the definitions of Marxism you would find even in a standard school textbook on the subject as to leave me puzzling over where exactly he picked it up from. Interpretors of Marx not reading Marx properly is nothing new, but interpretors of Marx attributing to him claims so seemingly far removed from what he actually believed that it becomes impossible to pin down even a potential source for misunderstanding is fairly unusual, and would leave me to believe that your correspondent was, in fact, pulling shit out of their arse.

Standard definitions of Marxism would usually point to the base/superstructure analogy and the materialist conception of history, the theory of class struggle or dialectical materialism. 'Marxian economics' would usually be identified with some version of the labour theory of value, the theory of surplus-value and a belief that crisis is immanent within capitalism rather than produced by factors external to the system. It's generally self-evident that the Marxian theories of capital accumulation and crises translate into revolutionary socialist politics, which is why mainstream economics does it's best to dismiss Marx as outdated, or his theories as logically contradictory in some way. It's probably not worth the trouble engaging someone whose understanding of Marxism is deficient in pretty basic areas, except perhaps by pointing them towards some introductory texts on the subject.

[Scrooge]

It sounds like the person with whom you are debating doesn't understand the basics of Marxism or Marxist economics. I find this frequently when "debating" people. Most don't even have a superficial understanding of the subject. I would disregard their comments. If you want critiques of Marxism it's probably best to stick to books.

[Rowan Duffy]

It's perfectly possible to believe that Marx's analysis of capitalism is correct and be a capitalist. In fact I think it's liable to be an advantage as you won't have all sorts of models which are complete nonsense guiding your decision making. As an example, Soros has, on occasion, said he used a Marxist economic analysis.

[Erratus]

I have not read everything Marx wrote, but I have read the first volume of Das Kapital and I can only scratch my head at what your pal was saying. Marx didn't pay much mind to the middle class, instead dividing it up by the proletariat and the capitalist. He didn't give advice on how to properly run a capitalist society. He did talk about imperialism helping a capitalist economy, but he was not advising we be imperialist. Also, your friend seems to want to divide Marx's beliefs into pieces (economic, political, social) which Marx never really seemed like he wanted to do. To him, they were all inherently linked and moved together.

In short, I think Zanthorus hit the nail on the head. You friend seems to have no idea what Marx wrote. Ask for for citations, where Marx said this stuff. Because thus far, all of the communists are confused as to what he is saying. Also, when he said this:


The thought of Obama winning another term nauseates me, and the thought of our government turning Marxist has moved me to start looking into our founding documents to see at what point the government has gone too far.

I immediately had to question just how reliable a person like this would be for teaching Marxist thought. Also, this is a little tip I have picked up, but always go to the people in question to learn a belief. Don't go to conservatives (not saying he is one, but he does seem right wing) to learn about communism/Marxism.

[Die Neue Zeit]

It's perfectly possible to believe that Marx's analysis of capitalism is correct and be a capitalist. In fact I think it's liable to be an advantage as you won't have all sorts of models which are complete nonsense guiding your decision making. As an example, Soros has, on occasion, said he used a Marxist economic analysis.

To answer the OP, I think the answer lies in the "Marxian economics" divide between crisis theorists and value theorists. It is with crisis theory where "you can be a Marxi[an] without being Communist."

It is crisis theory that provides the basis for "Marxism for the bourgeoisie."

It is crisis theory that is ultimately overrated. (http://www.revleft.com/vb/marxs-crisis-theory-t160755/index.htm)

[Zealot]

He could just be a dialectical-materialist that steals Marxist philosophy for their own intellectual masturbation without wanting to fully consider themselves Communist a la Christopher Hitchens.

[ckaihatsu]

Them:




"A Marxist is one who follows the theory that a median tells where an entire system is going (no matter what t...his system is).


There's nothing specific to Marxism about this statement -- it's merely advancing a particular statistical method for indicating a society's relative progress or reaction.








There is major truth in this in many settings. Through controlling the manageable resource to elevate the median, the entire system will run more smooth and have a higher overall output.


*This* statement builds on the premise above and advances a method for *politics* that seeks to see results based on the criterion of the median statistic, as stated above. Again, it's relatively generic and does *not* necessarily involve Marxism.








Now, if you humanize this (back to it's original form), it would be to elevate the middle to stimulate the highest and lowest portions. Does it work? Well, in theory, yes. In practice, it turns into communism.


This statement now advances an actual political approach, implying that *something* -- evidently a governmental entity -- is to be the active agent, 'elevating the middle to stimulate the highest and lowest portions'.

And this is the giveaway -- any approach that orients itself to changing the government from within is, by definition, *reformist*, meaning that such an approach necessarily *excludes* revolution, by definition -- overthrowing the system in its entirety in favor of replacing it with a mass administration controlled collectively by its (self-liberated) workers, worldwide.

Marxists have voluminous amounts of empirical evidence on our side that shows definitively that a reformist approach *cannot* achieve its purported ideal -- that of reforming the existing capitalist system to a degree equivalent to a revolution. (This is why the person had to include the disclaimer "in theory" -- in other words, a reformist approach does not work at all.)








There is a difference. A Marxist philosophy converted into an economic policy DIRECTLY would not translate into communism. (huh?)


This is actually an astute recognition of the limits of economism -- Marxists *cannot* only look to labor struggles that are limited to simplistic economic demands as their basis (as for wages, benefits, etc.). A *political* consciousness among the same is needed, so that such militant workers can build solidarity on the *mass* basis of their position in common as the sole producers for society -- the proletariat.








It would be a system that was almost purely demand based with greatly reduced effect of supply side factors. It would probably fall closer to a co-op system than a governed system. Carrier corporation used to give annual bonuses in stocks. This is an example of a functional Marxist practice; the worker has more stake in the company, so if the company does well, every employee recieves financial benefit regardless of their actual pay level.


This is a good scenario to discuss, since there are two distinct components to it: the economic and the political.

Economically the world's working class benefits as a whole from any increase in the proportion of the entire world's economy that it controls -- this would be mass economic gains, as from wages and benefits, that must necessarily be denied to capital ownership, since the same money *cannot* both go to labor and to capital.

But politically this scenario of partial employee ownership in business interests is problematic since it effectively converts workers into capitalists. The more a person's living can be made from capital gains -- stock ownership -- the less that person has interests in working for a wage, and in building solidarity with fellow workers to increase their wages in common.

The contention that greater worker stakes in employers' companies / stock values is "an example of a functional Marxist practice" is pure bullshit -- it is, at best, a deluded radical co-op hippy-like interpretation of workers' power, and is obviously limited to the economic context of individual workplaces -- kind of surprising since this person just put forth a good critique of economism.








In this way, the median is increased, even if the janitor was only paid 15 000 and the CEO 1 500 000. Communism would have the pay and production determined by an outside agency.


While the median indicator may increase slightly from the enactment of *any* conscientious measures, including reformist ones, this person is correct in pointing out that a *political* component is needed -- the "pay and production determined by an outside agency", meaning external to and separate from the usual market mechanism and stock valuations.

This wording implies a *non*-worker-collective control over pay and production -- bureaucratic collectivism or Stalinism, basically. Again, *not* Marxism.








I hope this explains why a philosophy is greatly different from a practice that it helped lead to."

Then I asked, how this makes Obama "Marxist" if we are using this definition (referring to a statement made earlier by someone who said "Communist may not be an accurate term...but he [Obama] is certainly a Marxist!"). While I still think the persons explaination of using Marxist philosophy in economics is different from using Marxism politically (politically it would create Communism, economically, not?)




Their reply: "Obama seeks to increase the overall of the nation by elevating the middle. That is about as Marxist as you get.


The giveaway here is that the context is specified as the *nation* -- this necessarily implies economic nationalism, whereas Marxism is oriented to the workers of the *world*.








The question should actually be; Is Marxism bad? Before anyone gets any thoughts or jumps down my throat, I feel that Marxist... ECONOMIC (not political) philosophies are great for alternative energies, agricultural plants (aka, farms) and the like.


And here's the brush-off -- (alternative) energy and farms are both *costs* to capital (and to workers), and are actually *non-productive*, along with finance, insurance, real estate, and all other similar types of overhead.

This person is seemingly "open" to Marxism but actually distorts it and then relegates it to non-manufacturing sectors of the economy.








The thought of Obama winning another term nauseates me, and the thought of our government turning Marxist has moved me to start looking into our founding documents to see at what point the government has gone too far."


This final statement reveals the person to be a sophisticated type of libertarian, or U.S. nationalist reformist -- the base of their politics is dependent on an arbitrary, religious-like interpretation of the "holy scriptures" of the founding fathers, *not* on objective and contemporary world conditions of the class divide.


[11] Labor & Capital, Wages & Dividends

http://postimage.org/image/1bygthl38/


[7] Syndicalism-Socialism-Communism Transition Diagram

http://postimage.org/image/1bufa71ms/


Ideologies & Operations -- Left Centrifugalism

http://postimage.org/image/1g4s6wax0/

http://postimage.org/image/2cvo2d7fo/

[Rafiq]

I have not read everything Marx wrote, but I have read the first volume of Das Kapital and I can only scratch my head at what your pal was saying. Marx didn't pay much mind to the middle class, instead dividing it up by the proletariat and the capitalist. He didn't give advice on how to properly run a capitalist society. He did talk about imperialism helping a capitalist economy, but he was not advising we be imperialist. Also, your friend seems to want to divide Marx's beliefs into pieces (economic, political, social) which Marx never really seemed like he wanted to do. To him, they were all inherently linked and moved together.

In short, I think Zanthorus hit the nail on the head. You friend seems to have no idea what Marx wrote. Ask for for citations, where Marx said this stuff. Because thus far, all of the communists are confused as to what he is saying. Also, when he said this:



I immediately had to question just how reliable a person like this would be for teaching Marxist thought. Also, this is a little tip I have picked up, but always go to the people in question to learn a belief. Don't go to conservatives (not saying he is one, but he does seem right wing) to learn about communism/Marxism.

Class is not defined by income.

Middle class does not exist.