A question

[rezzza]

I have a couple of questions or comments, but I would just like to assure you I am not a fascist (as I know you do not allow fascists) and I am not an extremist by any means. I am a centrist or moderate.

I would like to further my understanding of communist theory by asking some basic questions (please try write an answer in a few paragraphs):

1) In Marxian economics, what is wrong with profit and capital accumulation?

2) What do Marxists think of the tragedy of the commons theory?

3) How is the free-rider problem solved?

4) What is exploitative about wage-labor?

5) Do Marxists deny competitive markets increase productivity?

6) What is [inherently] wrong with capital and financial markets?

7) How would Marxists handle risk in the absence of derivatives markets?

8) How is capital democratically owned?

9) Is communism synonymous with central planning? What is the alternative to central planning?

10) How is a cost-benefit analysis performed under communism?

11) How do ventures maintain a high efficiency in absence of a profit/loss system.


Thank you. Please note I am not a fascist nor an anarcho-capitalist, simply curious.

[Tim Cornelis]

1) In Marxian economics, what is wrong with profit and capital accumulation?

Marxism is method of analysis and thus in that regards there is nothing ethnically wrong with profits and capital accumulation. What Marxist economics does argue is that there is a tendency for the rate of profit to fall (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tendency_of_the_rate_of_profit_to_fall) due to organic composition capital (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organic_composition_of_capital) increasingly changing in favour of capital over labour, with labour (and nature) being the only source of value. This, it is argued, makes capitalism an inherently unstable and crisis-prone economic system.


2) What do Marxists think of the tragedy of the commons theory?

The real world contradicts this hypothesis. The wikipedia page on this itself already contains evidence: Mongolian land ownership shows that commonly owned land is better managed than state or privately owned land. However, it seems this example has now been removed from wikipedia. I don't know if this is due to ideological vandalism or because the source was invalid.


3) How is the free-rider problem solved?

Some communists argue that with labour based on free association work will become enjoyable and thus that most would freely adopt productive activities on their own accord. There will be free-riders, but with the banking sector and, for instance, most of retail work being obsolete, this would be compensated. It may also mean disassociating from those refusing to work: "no obligation to work, but neither an obligation to those who don't work." This may be problematic as well. If free riding proves a problem labour credits need to be introduced.


4) What is exploitative about wage-labor?

From a Marxist economic perspective, only labour creates value. Capitalists, however, take in the form of surplus value/profits part of the value created by labour without contributing to it.
From a non-Marxist socialist perspective we may point out how the productive resources necessary for the reproduction of life and wealth has been monopolised by a minority -- the capitalist class -- and that they usurp a disproportionate power from this. It creates an inequality of bargaining power in favour of the capitalist class and the workers have to submit to the authority of the capitalist whom are only accountable to their profit margins. This can be considered exploitation from an ethical point of view.


5) Do Marxists deny competitive markets increase productivity?

Not necessarily. Marxists consider capitalism to have been progressive by enhancing productive abilities to the point of mass production which potentially allows for the satisfaction of the (basic) needs and wants of the entire population.


6) What is [inherently] wrong with capital and financial markets?

For one thing, all political conduct is subjugated to their will. As we can see in Europe, austerity is pushed for the sake of financial markets and keeping their calm. It has liberal democracy in a stranglehold.


7) How would Marxists handle risk in the absence of derivatives markets?

First, Marxists wouldn't handle this as Marxism is merely a method, not a system of governance. Risk of investments would be the collective burden of a particular community. They choose to reserve a particular amount of resources for the investment in collective and 'capital' goods based on the evaluations of consumers themselves.


8) How is capital democratically owned?

In what context? Workers' cooperatives may democratically manage capital, but under communism it wouldn't exist, unless you're talking about means of production. Their management would be subject to democratic decision-making of those involved via councils of producers.


9) Is communism synonymous with central planning? What is the alternative to central planning?

Communism is not synonymous with central planning. Communism would utilise decentralised decision-making and coordination from below through mandated delegates. In essence, it would be a decentralised planned economy. Although some here will object to the use of 'decentralised' wrongly believing it precludes central coordination.


10) How is a cost-benefit analysis performed under communism?

We would need to calculate the socially average necessary labour-time per good in the equation to compare outcomes and alternatives.


11) How do ventures maintain a high efficiency in absence of a profit/loss system.

Ventures or corporations aren't necessarily efficient at all. I advice reading Kevin Carson's Organisational Theory on why corporations are inefficient. That said, output is difficultly calculated and we would need some standards by which to judge the economic performance of production units and syndicates. In this regard, we may sacrifice some efficiency in terms of output but gain efficiency in terms of organisational advantages.

[rezzza]

I commend you for actually taking the time to answer my questions and not ban me/label me as an oppressive capitalist dictator:laugh:

One thing I want to know though, is in the USA at least, who would revolt against the bourgeoisie? So many people have investments and are hence "capitalists". Many people earn and live well. I do not think their is a sense for revolution by the ordinary person. How do you respond?

[BIXX]

I commend you for actually taking the time to answer my questions and not ban me/label me as an oppressive capitalist dictator:laugh:

One thing I want to know though, is in the USA at least, who would revolt against the bourgeoisie? So many people have investments and are hence "capitalists". Many people earn and live well. I do not think their is a sense for revolution by the ordinary person. How do you respond?

Most people (my family, friends and neighbors included) seem to have either no investments, or a very small one. They also still get hurt if they invest a lot in a company because if the company does something wrong, they lose a lot of money.

But seriously, there are enough people with little to no investments to revolt. Also, for every person who lives and earns well, there are many who don't.

[rezzza]

Most people (my family, friends and neighbors included) seem to have either no investments, or a very small one. They also still get hurt if they invest a lot in a company because if the company does something wrong, they lose a lot of money.

But seriously, there are enough people with little to no investments to revolt. Also, for every person who lives and earns well, there are many who don't.

This is a fair point you make about many people who do not earn well and I do understand this.

But about your example of your family friends and neighbors, 54% of Americans have stock market investments (i cant post the link to the source but cuz i have less than 25 posts, but you can google "percentage of americans with stock investments and find the number)

Therefore more than half of Americans are "capitalists" (i know not directly, but the statistic includes mutual funds, individual stocks and stocks in 401(k)s or IRAs). So if the majority of Americans are bourgeoisie, then how will a revolution happen?

[Skyhilist]

This is a fair point you make about many people who do not earn well and I do understand this.

But about your example of your family friends and neighbors, 54% of Americans have stock market investments (i cant post the link to the source but cuz i have less than 25 posts, but you can google "percentage of americans with stock investments and find the number)

Therefore more than half of Americans are "capitalists" (i know not directly, but the statistic includes mutual funds, individual stocks and stocks in 401(k)s or IRAs). So if the majority of Americans are bourgeoisie, then how will a revolution happen?

Well look at it this way. When shit gets tough would you rather gamble your access to resources via the stock market or fight for a system that assures you free access to the resources that you need? Plenty of people will (hopefully) eventually choose the latter.

Also, tragedy of the commons usually occurs when a commonly owned resources is unregulated. The problem is the lack of regulation not the common ownership part. Democratic regulation of naturally scarce natural resources would be pursued under communism.

[rezzza]

Well look at it this way. When shit gets tough would you rather gamble your access to resources via the stock market or fight for a system that assures you free access to the resources that you need? Plenty of people will (hopefully) eventually choose the latter.

Also, tragedy of the commons usually occurs when a commonly owned resources is unregulated. The problem is the lack of regulation not the common ownership part. Democratic regulation of naturally scarce natural resources would be pursued under communism.

I understand what you are saying. But the problem is convincing the average American ^^^

Also, I think calling investing 'gambling' is silly as it really is not gambling. Speculating may be gambling, or using derivatives contracts in order to hedge your losses, but long-term, researched investing is not gambling. $100 in 1970 invested in the S&P500 was worth approximately $6000 in 2007, adjusted for inflation.

[Blake's Baby]

This is a fair point you make about many people who do not earn well and I do understand this.

But about your example of your family friends and neighbors, 54% of Americans have stock market investments (i cant post the link to the source but cuz i have less than 25 posts, but you can google "percentage of americans with stock investments and find the number)

Therefore more than half of Americans are "capitalists" (i know not directly, but the statistic includes mutual funds, individual stocks and stocks in 401(k)s or IRAs). So if the majority of Americans are bourgeoisie, then how will a revolution happen?

More than half of Americans aren't capitalists. More than half of Americans derive some of their income from stocks (on your figures: I checked up and the figures I found said just under 50% of households but only 25% of individuals); but as more than 58% of the population are in work, and there are unemployed (also part of the working class) on top of that, we can already see that treating 'workers' and 'capitalists' as separate categories means we have to account for well over 100% population in the US.

Capitalists are those who derive their means of existence from ownership of capital. Not those who supplement their wages with a small stock portfolio.

[rezzza]

More than half of Americans aren't capitalists. More than half of Americans derive some of their income from stocks (on your figures: I checked up and the figures I found said just under 50% of households but only 25% of individuals); but as more than 58% of the population are in work, and there are unemployed 9also part of the working class) on top of that, we can already see that treating 'workers' and 'capitalists' as separate categories means we have to account for well over 100% population in the US.

Capitalists are those who derive their means of existence from ownership of capital. Not those who supplement their wages with a small stock portfolio.

The statistic is 54% of American individuals. I'm gonna define capitalist as an investor of capital in business, unless you're using a different definition (if so please say so I can change my point of reference).

The point being the majority of Americans are not wanting to revolt like this forum encourages. I cannot see Americans revolting due to unhappiness in wages, food prices or their feeling of exploitation.

I'm not sure if you see where I am coming from.

[BIXX]

The statistic is 54% of American individuals.

Most of these people do not have a significant investment. Like, for example, say we have Joe. Joe has some extra money (for convenience lets just say $100) and he decides to invest in x. His boss however, has the money to invest $100000. Which one would you consider a significant investment? The $100000, or the one that is just .1% of that?

The average person is Joe.

[Blake's Baby]

The statistic is 54% of American individuals...

We're obviously looking at different statistics.

Please give me a breakdown of percentages of Americans who are 'capitalists' under your definition, and who are workers, who are unemployed and who belongs to any other categories you might think are important.

Of course, if you end up with more than 100% of the population, then the problem is your figures/definitions, not marxism.



...
I'm gonna define capitalist as an investor of capital in business, unless you're using a different definition (if so please say so I can change my point of reference)...

I just told you what my definition is. A capitalist is someone who derives their means of existence from ownership of capital.

As EchoShock has attempted to point out, someone who earns $20,000 a year through wage labour, and $20 a year from dividends on his or her stock options, is not a 'capitalist'. Someone who earns $100,000 a year through dividends on his or her stock options is a capitalist, even if they also make $20,000 a year in consultancy fees or whatever.


...The point being the majority of Americans are not wanting to revolt like this forum encourages. I cannot see Americans revolting due to unhappiness in wages, food prices or their feeling of exploitation.

I'm not sure if you see where I am coming from.

I agree that most Americans are not about to revolt. I don't think this is because more than 150 million of them are terribly impressed with their tiny portfolios, however.

[rezzza]

Fair enough Blake.

Out of interest, what do you think the tipping point will be for Americans when they one day revolt?

Should I inbox you more questions as I do not want to hijack this thread but I have more questions to ask? I dont want to clutter your forum.

I like this table of American classes:

Capitalist class (1%) Top-level executives, high-rung politicians, heirs. Ivy League education common.

Upper middle class (15%) Highly-educated (often with graduate degrees), most commonly salaried, professionals and middle management with large work autonomy.

Lower middle class (30%) Semi-professionals and craftsmen with a roughly average standard of living. Most have some college education and are white-collar.

Working class (30%) Clerical and most blue-collar workers whose work is highly routinized. Standard of living varies depending on number of income earners, but is commonly just adequate. High school education.

Working poor (13%) Service, low-rung clerical and some blue-collar workers. High economic insecurity and risk of poverty. Some high school education.

Underclass (12%) Those with limited or no participation in the labor force. Reliant on government transfers. Some high school education.

Now, as you can see, the average person in the US earns well. There is no capitalist class vs the rest, no one is going to be liquidating their bosses assets any time soon. What do you think?

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Rezza - your table shows that, even if GDP per capita is high in the US (and obviously it is), 25% of all American individuals are poor, and 55% of Americans are emphatically not bourgeois - i.e. workers or unemployed.

As Blake has said, in the Marxian two-class sociological model, a capitalist is someone who derives their income from ownership and social control of the means of production, so we are talking major shareholders and those with executive social control (i.e. chief executives, executive board members etc.). A worker is someone who derives their income (to survive, not to supplement) from selling their labour power to the capitalist. So a nurse who earns £20,000 per year and earns £200 per year from some sort of investment in the stock market is still very clearly a worker; if they lost their investment returns, they would still survive, but if they lost the earnings from selling their labour, they would not be able to live off the return to the capital they invested in the stock market.

As for the sociological model of capitalist, upper middle, lower middle, working class, working poor, that you espouse, it just seems kinda asserted and baseless. What real difference does a working class and 'working poor' person have, in terms of the economic and social interests? What real difference does an upper middle class bureaucrat and a middle class regional manager have, in terms of social and economic interests? Sociological models that underplay the important of boss-worker relationships and divide the workers into 'respectable' working class and 'working poor' are merely seeking to employ 'divide and conquer' tactics.

[rezzza]

My point was the upper and lower middle class accounts for 45% and working class 30%. A strong, thick and thriving middle class (which hopefully the US will return to in the coming future) is not prone to revolting and overthrowing the bourgeoisie class like this site would advocate. I just cannot see it happening. Tsarist russia was prone to a revolution. But not an America with high standards of living, no big leftist movements, etc.

I know Marx said that it is almost an evolutionary phase i.e: capitalism will not survive forever, but I just cannot see imminent revolution. For instance, the Occupy Movement was not revolutionary. Most just want more government intervention, as opposed to a class warfare-style overthrow, and that movement is the clearly most 'revolutionary' movement the US has seen for a few years.

I myself want a high standard of medical care for everyone (if people want to pay more for an even better standard, then I'm all for it). Same with education: high standard for the poorest man, but I'm fine with privatized education for the middle class and upwards. I want civil liberties: decriminalization of Marijuana (I want it state regulated and taxed, with facilities provided for addicts), I want an equal distribution of wealth (low gini co efficient), so relatively high taxes. But a distinction is I want the market as well. Privatization lifts people out of poverty. I think a government regulated industry (so co2 emission taxes + limits, baking regulations etc) combined with few regulations to starting a business (for example Switzerland) is an excellent model for prosperity. I am fine with a welfare state so long as there are strict regulations for who qualifies for welfare.

I find I have many common goals with you guys: high standards of living the priority. I just cannot accept the abolition of private property, the fact that you cannoy start your own business etc. For example, the LTV has been rejected by mainstream economics, many of Marx's theories are rejected. I just think the Nordic (Scandinavian) model that combines socialistic ideas with ideas that promote business innovation is the best way to achieve my aims.

I have yet to be swayed to the revolutionary left but do not rule me out just yet.:D

[Blake's Baby]

Fair enough Blake.

Out of interest, what do you think the tipping point will be for Americans when they one day revolt?...

'Americans' are not seperate from 'the world', much as some of them think they are. Capitalism is a world economic system, and the pressures that capitalism faces are not different to the pressures 'American capitalism' faces. This means that the pressures that 'the working class in America' faces (as the working class is a worldwide class) are not different in kind (maybe in degree) from 'the working class everywhere/anywhere else'.

The tipping point will be when the working class in America realises that massive struggle is necessary to try to take a future back out of the hands of the bourgeoisie. I don't have a date, but I'd suggest it will be part of a worldwide movement (think something like Arab Spring + May '68 + Turkey Protests + Occupy/Indignados happening in a lot of places simultaneously).


Should I inbox you more questions as I do not want to hijack this thread but I have more questions to ask? I dont want to clutter your forum...

It's your thread, and it's entitled 'a question'. I think we'd all be fine if you supplement your original question with further questions, especially if they follow on from you trying to get clarification on the terms of any answers.





...I like this table of American classes:

Capitalist class (1%) Top-level executives, high-rung politicians, heirs. Ivy League education common.

Upper middle class (15%) Highly-educated (often with graduate degrees), most commonly salaried, professionals and middle management with large work autonomy.

Lower middle class (30%) Semi-professionals and craftsmen with a roughly average standard of living. Most have some college education and are white-collar.

Working class (30%) Clerical and most blue-collar workers whose work is highly routinized. Standard of living varies depending on number of income earners, but is commonly just adequate. High school education.

Working poor (13%) Service, low-rung clerical and some blue-collar workers. High economic insecurity and risk of poverty. Some high school education.

Underclass (12%) Those with limited or no participation in the labor force. Reliant on government transfers. Some high school education.

Now, as you can see, the average person in the US earns well. There is no capitalist class vs the rest, no one is going to be liquidating their bosses assets any time soon. What do you think?

OK, but you have to understand that this is a sociological definition of class. What Marx loooked at is an economic definition of class. In my case - I'm currently unemployed (and have been for some time). So I'm 'Underclass', by your definition. But, shock horror, I have a university degree - quite a good one from a relatively prestigious institution I might add - which would make me 'Upper Middle Class'. So which am I, under your classification? Am I both? If so, how? If not, which 'class' determinant in your scheme is more important?

For a Marxist, the determinant of class is relationship to the means of production (production, because in the end everyone needs to eat and stay warm to live, and we need to work to eat and stay warm, because we can't just graze, catch lightning to run electric fires and find clothes under bushes).

Do I own the means of production? No; so I am not a capitalist. Do I have anything to sell, except my labour power? No; so I must sell that (or be put on akind of retainer until such time as capitalism can re-integrate me into production); ie, I'm working class.

[Jimmie Higgins]

This is a fair point you make about many people who do not earn well and I do understand this.

But about your example of your family friends and neighbors, 54% of Americans have stock market investments (i cant post the link to the source but cuz i have less than 25 posts, but you can google "percentage of americans with stock investments and find the number)

Therefore more than half of Americans are "capitalists" (i know not directly, but the statistic includes mutual funds, individual stocks and stocks in 401(k)s or IRAs). So if the majority of Americans are bourgeoisie, then how will a revolution happen?

I don't think this is true in any meaningful sense. in 2000, 75% of people in the US had debt, something like 40% of Americans have 0 wealth after rent/morgatge and living expenses.

More people do have stocks and in the 1990s this was encouraged - people were told that if they owned their homes they should use that as "investment capital" and lots more people went into debt following that advice from Clinton and Greenspan. In addition to this, the business-union collusion in the 80s and 90s often took the form of workers getting "stock-options" rather than or in exchange for existing benifits. This was seemingly fine in a economic bubble, and it was certaintly more than likely a hope by employers that such schemes would further tie their workers ideologically to the idea that "what's good for business is good for the people" but in economic bust times, the scheme is revelated as what it really was - a way for companies to keep their money circulating into investment rather than giving it to workers or putting it into trusts or lower-risk places. The arguments went: well productivity is increasing, but we can't give you wage increases, so instead, have some stocks and then as our value increases, you will also gain. But it doesn't really work out that way - I'm sure some people who are already realitivly confortable as workers or professionals can have some sucess doing this, but they probably have enough of a small cushin that they might have invested anyway.

So the increased number of people who have some level of stock doesn't mean they are capitalists, it might mean that they would identify with capitalists to an extent but I think probably broader trends in ideas makes more of an impact than this (I think it's a little deterministic that having a couple of stocks would make someone forget about wider political issues let alone the still remaining daily experience of having no economic power or decision-making ability of any meaningful amount).

Having the ability to possibly go to a stock-holder meeting does nothing for having actual control or decision-power in big business. Lots of little investors in the stock market, just means more capital in the system where a tiny few major stock-holders have all the real power.

[Jimmie Higgins]

My point was the upper and lower middle class accounts for 45% and working class 30%. A strong, thick and thriving middle class (which hopefully the US will return to in the coming future) is not prone to revolting and overthrowing the bourgeoisie class like this site would advocate. I just cannot see it happening. Tsarist russia was prone to a revolution. But not an America with high standards of living, no big leftist movements, etc. I also see this argument as overly-deterministic. I think perceptions of what is possible are much more of a factor in motivating people, than misary or lack. Accute swings of poverty might result in people mobilizing themselves, but it might also make people feel demoralized and too focused on just induvidually surviving than organizing for reforms or an altogether better alternative.

The US had periods of revolt in boom times and in the Great Depression. The movements of the 1960s/70s, however were disoritented and eventually pushed rightward due to economic problems in the mid to late 1970s. There were more strikes and more general radicalism in the early 1970s than today even though in the late 1960s, US living standards were much higher than today (in the San Francisco east bay, for example a vet in the late 1950s could buy a home for $50 down and $12 a month compared to today where you can share a room for $600 a month or rent your own place for $1100/month if you don't care about space; people could go to UC Berkeley for about $100/year in the 1960s whereas it's $10K now, double what it was a little over a decade ago).

Maybe a lot of people we see on TV seem happy and content, but personally what I experience everyday is a lot of random (often petty) anger and resentment. It's not really directed at anything - people just sort of are unhappy or sometimes lash-out at others but I think it's a condition of being in a society where we have to compete and especially under current conditions where people feel really insecure about their living situations, jobs, etc. That annecdotal experience along with the hard facts about people in the US being more productive than people in other industrial countries, but at the same time have fewer benifits, pay, breaks, holidays, public services, and workplace rights suggests to me that the objective possibility for a rejection of how things are now and revolt against it exists right now. IMO what doesn't exist are the subjective vehicles for such a thing to happen. Unions have been erroded both by their leaders and outside pressure, keynsian reforms have been gutted, and so on to the point that people don't believe that things could be different - I think this is the biggest barrier, and always has been to some extent. Struggles arise "explosivly" because of this dynamic. Look how quickly some of the rhetoric of Occupy spread without major support from the media or major political funders and lobbyists, Wisconsin also "exploded" despite no initial organizing by the union leaders or the Democratic party (who only organized after the fact in order to push for people to follow a passive soulution that led to defeat anyway).

[The Douche]

Anybody who suggests that having a 401k makes you a capitalist is not arguing in good faith. Fuck this troll.

[rezzza]

Anybody who suggests that having a 401k makes you a capitalist is not arguing in good faith. Fuck this troll.

I should have determined what a Marxist defines as capitalist before I made the statement, I do apologize. The dictionary definition isn't meaningful in this discussion I realize.

@Jimmie- thanks for the detailed response.

@Blake- I understand now. So capitalists vs working class is the only distinction you make. My problem is, as mentioned, there is a thick middle class who can not be lumped in working class. As the global middle class continues to expand, I see more people enjoying the capitalist system. Look at China- it will have an enormous middle class in the next two decades. If capitalism needs to fail globally (i.e: cant work in one country) then I do not see it collapsing any time soon. Countries are becoming more interconnected, there is a new surge of foreign investment, influence etc. I guess my problem boils down to an enormous middle class will not revolt as it is not in their interest (or if it is they are ambivalent).

Maybe one or two countries can/will revolt, but the whole globe? Unlikely. People trade as they then can specialize. This phenomena is not going to disappear. And as mentioned a thick middle class will hold on to their property and savings with their dear life.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Maybe one or two countries can/will revolt, but the whole globe? Unlikely. People trade as they then can specialize. This phenomena is not going to disappear. And as mentioned a thick middle class will hold on to their property and savings with their dear life.

If personal homes and savings being taken away causes resistance, then there's hope for communism yet:

http://2media.nowpublic.net/images//1e/93/1e934f021de1cc4a008f65d2ef6dd45a.jpg
http://i.huffpost.com/gen/402355/thumbs/r-FORECLOSURE-large570.jpg

We struggle so that everyone can actually have a secure place to live whereas capitalism constantly undermines this, banks foreclose, real estate red-lines and ghettoizes people, destroys their savings in their home for a quick buck.

[Blake's Baby]

... My problem is, as mentioned, there is a thick middle class who can not be lumped in working class. As the global middle class continues to expand, I see more people enjoying the capitalist system. Look at China- it will have an enormous middle class in the next two decades. If capitalism needs to fail globally (i.e: cant work in one country) then I do not see it collapsing any time soon. Countries are becoming more interconnected, there is a new surge of foreign investment, influence etc. I guess my problem boils down to an enormous middle class will not revolt as it is not in their interest (or if it is they are ambivalent).

Maybe one or two countries can/will revolt, but the whole globe? Unlikely. People trade as they then can specialize. This phenomena is not going to disappear. And as mentioned a thick middle class will hold on to their property and savings with their dear life.

It's not about 'countries' it's about classes. The working class is an international class. You don't avoid it by living in a country where the working class is slightly better off than the world average. Countries are becoming more and more interconnected - Marx even talked about that 160 years ago. That's how capitalism is a world system and the proletariat is an international class. Its class interests everywhere are to overthrow capitalism, in America and China as much as anywhere else.

[rezzza]

It's not about 'countries' it's about classes. The working class is an international class. You don't avoid it by living in a country where the working class is slightly better off than the world average. Countries are becoming more and more interconnected - Marx even talked about that 160 years ago. That's how capitalism is a world system and the proletariat is an international class. Its class interests everywhere are to overthrow capitalism, in America and China as much as anywhere else.

You cannot group marketing people, car salesman, teachers, nurses, engineers etc with working class. We've been through this? You cannot pull an owner of the means of production vs everyone else stunt. The majority of the US middleclass is well off and would not want radical sociio-economic change.

I like this table the most to illustrate my point:

The super-rich (0.9%) Multi-millionaires whose incomes commonly exceed $350,000; includes celebrities and powerful executives/politicians. Ivy League education common.

The Rich (5%) Households with net worth of $1 million or more; largely in the form of home equity. Generally have college degrees.

Middle class (plurality/
majority?; ca. 46%) College-educated workers with considerably higher-than-average incomes and compensation; a man making $57,000 and a woman making $40,000 may be typical.

Working class
(ca. 40% - 45%) Blue-collar workers and those whose jobs are highly routinized with low economic security; a man making $40,000 and a woman making $26,000 may be typical. High school education.

The poor (ca. 12%) Those living below the poverty line with limited to no participation in the labor force; a household income of $18,000 may be typical. Some high school education.

Who will revolt? I cannot see the middle class revolting. The middle class are still sending their kids to private universities, private healthcare, many entrepreneurs in there (owners of capital) etc. The middle class want economic growth, not an overthrow of the 1%.

:)

[Jimmie Higgins]

You cannot group marketing people, car salesman, teachers, nurses, engineers etc with working class. We've been through this? You cannot pull an owner of the means of production vs everyone else stunt. The majority of the US middleclass is well off and would not want radical sociio-economic change.

Who will revolt? I cannot see the middle class revolting. The middle class are still sending their kids to private universities, private healthcare, many entrepreneurs in there (owners of capital) etc. The middle class want economic growth, not an overthrow of the 1%.

:)

Put in the most basic terms, people who can not survive unless they sell their labor to others have ultimately irreconcilable conflicts with those who make their money through the labor of others and then the re-investment of that money towards other or more production based on the labor of others. Workers want to have a life, they want to minimize work or the toll of work - or even find something they can enjoy if they can; employers are under constant pressure to try and either make workers produce more for the same amount of money or pay workers less to make the same level of production. There are often temporary times of relative stability where bosses accept a certain level of benifits and wages in exchange for "labor peace" or when workers are too weak or underconfident to fight and accept the terms put by employers. But ultimately this is an irreconcilable conflict which emerges on a large scale from time to time based on various circumstances and factors.

US productivity has increased greatly over the last generation while wages have stagnated. People accept this, but not happily and in the US culture reflects a lot of bitterness, anger, and "looking out for number one" type attitudes in responce IMO. People in the US work harder and have less benifits than many other countries where there is more resistance and struggle by regular people. So, again, I think people's willingness to fight comes out of a sense of confidence more than anything else. And again, a wave of wildcat strikes happened in the US in the 1970s at a time when the ratio between production and wages and inequality in general was much smaller than today. Workers then could expect owning a home - workers today can expect debt, but workers then struggled more because there was confidence and a level of grassroots knowledge of militant tactics both from social struggles in the 60s and just passed-down shop-floor activist tradditions.

[rezzza]

I propose government policies aimed at improving capitalism. I just cannot accept some Marxist policies but i think i should do further reading on the subject. i would call myself a center-left thinker, i support many principles of social democracy, democratic socialism etc and a peaceful transition to something similar to the nordic model.

i reading a site called marxist . org on revolutionary ideas, as that is what fascinates me, the violent overthrow of the wealthy when the middle class is also objectively wealthy.

[Blake's Baby]

So, you're a supporter of capitalism?

I expect that you'll be rapidly restricted, but as we're in OI anywy, I guess nothing much will change.

[rezzza]

So, you're a supporter of capitalism?

I expect that you'll be rapidly restricted, but as we're in OI anywy, I guess nothing much will change.

i am open minded though. political beliefs are not concrete and are ever changing. i came here to learn more about marxism and this site has been tremendously helpful, i am 15 and have been fed propaganda about communism at school, and this site has opened my eyes.

i am not a "supporter of capitalism" in the free market sense at all. i want universal healthcare and education, infrastructure etc, a strong democracy, but plenty of limits on business-- environmental restrictions + taxes, banking regulations etc.

i am more center left or a green than a capitalist. i support progressive taxation, high inheritance taxes etc. i am just not yet converted to the far left, but my stay here has certainly opened my eyes. i pledge to read up on marx's concepts in the next few days,, but i understand if i am banned, just think it would be unreasonable to ban someone with an open mind

[Blake's Baby]

... i support many principles of social democracy, democratic socialism etc and a peaceful transition to something similar to the nordic model...


...
i am not a "supporter of capitalism" in the free market sense at all...

i am more center left or a green than a capitalist...

You do realise that Iceland, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Finland... are capitalist states? If what you want is the 'Nordic model', what you want is 'capitalism'; if what you want is capitalism, then you're a supporter of capitalism. How are you not?

And I don't expect you to be banned, I expect you to be restricted.

[rezzza]

You do realise that Iceland, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Finland... are capitalist states?

yes, with elements of socialistic principles? very low gini co efficients (distributions of wealth) , high taxes, good education and healthcare available to everyone, and high state involvement in the economy. of course it is capitalist, but not laissez faire capitalism, more of a mixed economy.

the nordic countries have very high standards of living from this system

there are different degrees of capitalism. the system the US has is fundamentally different to norway. i advocate something similar to norway, but perhaps even more environmentally friendly, more spending on science and a more direct democracy. i think i am very different from a libertarian in the US advocating for no state involvement? surely?

i recognize the horros of pure capitalism. minimum wages, labor conditions laws, trade unions are crucial.

[Blake's Baby]

What does 'elements of socialistic principles' mean?

Is production controlled by the working class? Has property been collectivised? Has capitalism been abolished? No.

Many European countries have - for example - high state involvement in the economy and good healthcare systems. Perhaps some of the Swedish and Finnish comrades who frequent these boards could put you right on how 'socialistic' they are.

[redfist.]

there is a thick middle class who can not be lumped in working class.

Hence the open-ended term: proletariat.

[rezzza]

What does 'elements of socialistic principles' mean?

Is production controlled by the working class? Has property been collectivised? Has capitalism been abolished? No.

Many European countries have - for example - high state involvement in the economy and good healthcare systems. Perhaps some of the Swedish and Finnish comrades who frequent these boards could put you right on how 'socialistic' they are.

I am advocating peaceful transition to a more equitable society through reform and legislature. Environmental protection and social justice are my priorities. Whether private property should be abolished is still a new concept to me, i am still reading up on the LTV extensively, as well as class struggle and how classes emerge.

to call me a capitalist is unfair. i want worker co-operatives and fair and equitable living wages and conditions, and perhaps a peaceful transition towards economic democracy. i would not describe it as capitalism or libertarian socialism. i have still yet to form an opinion of anarchy; the whittling of the state in utopia. could you give me a description of the whittling of the state? and how society would operate. what do you think of credit unions, decentralized planning through cybernetics (advanced computers), participatory planning etc. i am open to all these concepts, and thus i am naturally center left or a leftist. i am very open to social justice; please just give me more time to absorb marxist concepts. remember, only last month did i think marxism was USSR style civil-rights infringing society.

Gabriel

[Blake's Baby]

You seem to have the view that the 'mixed economy' is a combination of capitalism and socialism. It isn't. It's capitalism. If 'laissez-faire capitalism' was the only way of managing capitalism, the term itself would be a tautology - 'capitalist capitalism'. But laissez-faire isn't the only sort of capitalism.

But, keep reading is my advice.

Engels' term was 'withering away of the state'. The idea is that when the roots of class society are destroyed (that is property, because in the end classes represent different relationships to property) then classes cease to exist and thus the product of class society - the state - 'withers away' like the leaves of a plant whose roots have been destroyed.

My own view is that all decisions would be decided democratically in the councils.

[rezzza]

You seem to have the view that the 'mixed economy' is a combination of capitalism and socialism. It isn't. It's capitalism. If 'laissez-faire capitalism' was the only way of managing capitalism, the term itself would be a tautology - 'capitalist capitalism'. But laissez-faire isn't the only sort of capitalism.

But, keep reading is my advice.

Engels' term was 'withering away of the state'. The idea is that when the roots of class society are destroyed (that is property, because in the end classes represent different relationships to property) then classes cease to exist and thus the product of class society - the state - 'withers away' like the leaves of a plant whose roots have been destroyed.

My own view is that all decisions would be decided democratically in the councils.


Things like education and healthcare for everyone are not inherently capitalistic. They are ideas borrowed from ideas valuing the collective, surely?

Thanks for that. As I said, Marxism has opened my eyes up. It's more of a philosophy in my eyes and a view of history resulting from some axioms like relationships to property etc. Very interesting.

What do you think of cybernetics i.e computers managing complex decisions.

Also, what do you think of concepts such as mutualism and syndicalism?

I guess what i need is to read up on the abolishment of property and understand its theories and implications/. i am very much in favor of credit unions, worker-run businesses, BUT i see a role of the entrepreneur still. i guess it ties (in your eyes) to my misunderstanding of the role of property in creating class struggle.

[Blake's Baby]

No, they're policies put in place by capitalism to 1- educate the proletariat to a level sufficient for the needs of capitalism, and 2 - keep the proletariat healthy to a level sufficient for the needs of capitalism, and 3 - reduce the costs of the replication of the working class allowing the capitalists to cut wages.

I don't think computers should manage complex decisions. they make processing complex information easier but people should always make decisions.

Mutualism and syndicalism in my view are both forms of capitalism. Having said that I think 'class syndicalism' (doesn't exist, but it's my attempt at describing a syndicalist position) is OK - 'mines for the miners' is alright if it's recognised that 'we're all miners now'. In other words, if syndicalism moves from the specific to the general, it actually ceases to become 'syndicalism' and becomes 'communism'.

[NGNM85]

Marxism is method of analysis and thus in that regards there is nothing ethnically wrong with profits and capital accumulation.

Let me begin by saying I agree with much of what you've said here, and elsewhere. However; I must, absolutely, take issue with the aforementioned statement. First; 'Marxism', especially in the broadest sense, encompassing not only the collected works of Marx and Engels, (Sometimes affectionately referred to as; 'MEGA.') but also their antecedents; Lenin, Mao, Kautsky, Bordiga, Luxemburg, etc., etc., wears quite a few hats. This large, and diverse, canon straddles philosophy, economics, ideology, etc. So, yes; Marxism does include a method (Or, rather; 'methods.') of analysis, but there's quite a bit more than that.

Second, and, much more importantly; Marxism is not 'value-free.' Marxian economics might be, although; Marx would be the first to insist that there is no such thing as 'economics', as generally understood, as a discrete phenomena, in isolation from other things. In any case; Marx (and, by extension; Marxism) was absolutely, unequivocally on the side of the working class. Moreover; he consistently condemned capitalism is explicitly ethical terms.

[KarlLeft]

I am advocating peaceful transition to a more equitable society through reform and legislature.


I don't blame you there. The problem is that capitalists (e.g. those who have accumulated so much wealth that they can buy political power) aren't going to allow any meaningful reform. They're repelled by anything that would reduce their profits by even a miniscule amount. They truly believe that anything they do is justified if it increases the amount of wealth they can produce for themselves and their shareholders. They're inherently incapable of understanding the kinds of things that you're at least trying to understand. They'll continue to consume all the resources they can to accumulate wealth for themselves at the expense of everyone else's well-being until they're stopped.