"Why do socialists / anarchists ignore Vanguard?"

[Nial Fossjet]

Not written by me, but a poster from a different forum:

First a little introduction about Vanguard. Vanguard is the world's largest mutual fund company and second largest asset manager with over 3 TRILLION DOLLARS in assets under management. It's the US' largest provider of 401k plans and has pioneered the low-fee indexing model of investing.

For those of you who don't know, an index fund is a collective investment scheme that aims to replicate the movements of an index of a specific financial market regardless of market conditions.

For example, a S&P 500 index fund would hold shares of all 500 stocks in the S&P 500 index in their proportions to one another. Because you are not paying for a manager to pick stocks, this is a very low-cost and efficient way to buy market performance. A share of the 500 index ETF can be purchased for as little as $150!

I find it very strange that a company that has this characteristics is not heralded as a way forward for modern socialism / anarchist thought:

- Mutually owned by its clients
- By being mutually owned, eliminates conflict of interest between investment managers and clients because there are no outside stakeholders who are demanding profits at client's expense.
- Dedicated to lowering expenses for clients and lowering thresholds for investing
- Allowing people to seize the means of production through low-cost products
- Reforming the capitalist system through the potential for activist investing (As Vanguard is one of the largest stock holders in the country, they have the ability to push through big changes on a board if they so chose to do so)
-Lobbying on behalf of smaller investors and for increased consumer protections

What do you guys think? Can index investing be a way for the proletariat to seize the means of production? Should more companies be mutually owned? Why do people never bring up Vanguard when talking about successful co-ops despite it being one of the most successful companies in the financial services industry? (And one that didn't need a bailout in 2008)


-----

So, does the author of it have a point?

[Sabot Cat]

Hello from Alternate History forums~ :grin:

No, the author does not have a point. I'll dig around for my post there.

Ah, here it is:


I support worker co-operatives; Vanguard is not one of those. They seem to just shift around wealth from off of the back of labor, which is likely the sentiment the OP will see from RevLeft if it's posted there [although with a lot more vitriol and trolling].

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Co-operatives aren't socialism either; socialism means that the means of production have been socialised, not bought off in some inane reformist scheme. Also, hell, "smaller investors"? I can't possibly think of a group whose interests are less compatible with socialism.

[Nial Fossjet]

Would Vanguard even be considered reformist? I mean worker cooperatives like MONDRAGON are at least about empowering labor to some extent. Just because an organization involves cooperation and benefiting its members doesn't mean it has anything to do with leftism.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Would Vanguard even be considered reformist? I mean worker cooperatives like MONDRAGON are at least about empowering labor to some extent. Just because an organization involves cooperation and benefiting its members doesn't mean it has anything to do with leftism.

I don't think anyone has said that Vanguard is reformist (although, with a name like that, you wonder if it was founded by disaffected CPUSA cadre or something), but trying to seize control of Vanguard and using it to "implement socialism" would be reformist.

[DOOM]

Lololol "seizing the means of production through low cost products". Sounds like WalMart marketing proletariat revolution by shopping. But yeah, there's not much of a point there. Reformism blah blah, useless capitalist economics blah, misrepresentation of who owners/investors are blah blah blah

25% off on means of production, only this weekend :laugh::laugh:

[Nial Fossjet]

Another gem:


I would call corporations socialist as well, they have many owners, who pool their resources for mutual benefit and profit, and to mitigate risk for all; they just have a two-tier system where some of the people in the corporation aren't full members.

It actually reminds me of something I read in a novel once:


"Tell me, Mr. French... Who said this? "'Under our system a worker is told just what he is to do and how to do it. "Any improvement he makes upon the orders given him is fatal to his success.' "

Dennis did not see the relevance of the question. ""I don't know. "Lenin? "Mao?"

"No, it was Frederick Taylor... Taylor was an engineer at the turn of last century, when American industry was faced with a tide of poorly educated immigrant laborers. "Taylor boosted planning by separating the planning and execution of work. "Engineers and managers made the plans; foremen and workers carried them out. "It's been the basis of American business practice ever since."

Dennis laughed. ""Oh, no! "And I thought it was Lenin or Mao? "That's priceless!"

She smiled thinly. ""Don't forget that Engels was a factory owner himself, and not necessarily the junior partner of the team. "He thought that entire nations could be run rationally, the way factories were."

"I've yet to encounter a business that was run rationally," Dennis interjected.

Llewellyn ignored the interruption. "Socialism is the apotheosis of capitalism--what I like to call the Managed Society. 'Daddy Knows Best.' "If you want to see Lenin's state in embryo, study Henry Ford's company. "His Sociological Department 'inspectors' could barge in unannounced on employees in their homes and question them on their marriages, their finances, their private lives. "And Harry Bennett's 'outside squads' were just minor-league Brownshirts."

"Henry Ford never had anyone executed," Dennis protested.

"Though Bennett's goons did beat up and harass dissidents. "And other employers during the class war did not shrink from killing union organizers. "The difference between Ford and Lenin was more a matter of scale than anything else. "Lenin organized his entire country into one vast Company Town, with all that implies. "In plain language, the Soviet Union was the largest corporation on the planet. "The Party members were the stockholders, and the Politburo was the Board of Directors. "Ordinary citizens--employees--had no effective say in running the organization. "Corporate headquarters made five-year plans that never worked. "Internal criticism was not allowed. "Everyone had to be a 'team player', by which they meant 'follow the boss's orders' rather than genuine teamwork. "Troublemakers were exiled to Siberia or to meaningless jobs. "Or terminated." Dr. Llewellyn smiled humorlessly. "An interesting choice of words, that."

"Don't forget the hostile takeovers," said Dennis.

Professor Llewellyn laughed. "That's the spirit!"

"I never thought of it before," Dennis admitted, "but a large corporation is run like a socialist state."

"Vice versa, actually. Don't forget which came first."

"Thanks to Frederick W. Taylor."

Llewellyn nodded. "He wasn't the only one involved, but he was the catalyst."

[Skyhilist]

Lol this sounds like more of an advertisement for an investment than something that will genuinely help achieve socialism. Whoever wrote this must be like, the Don Draper of the left or something. Except not as convincing.

[exeexe]

I think it sounds like the good old West India Company, the forerunners to capitalism.

[Црвена]

This just sounds like the usual liberal crap.

[PhoenixAsh]

Aside from the fact that this is pure reformism and actually could be considered petit-bourgeois mentality and class interest. Vanguard is not collectively owned nor do the stake holders have an equal share. While it is true the investors in Vanguard are its stake holders. The actual influence is derived from the amount invested. Never mind the fact that the investment fund is there to accumulate profit. And there is your problem right there.

[Geiseric]

Aside from the fact that this is pure reformism and actually could be considered petit-bourgeois mentality and class interest. Vangabout. rd is not collectively owned nor do the stake holders have an equal share. While it is true the investors in Vanguard are its stake holders. The actual influence is derived from the amount invested. Never mind the fact that the investment fund is there to accumulate profit. And there is your problem right there.

Lol I totally invested into the 4th international when we were planning anti cuts demonstrations so I could profit (?????). You dont know what youre talking about. How the fuck would a vanguard party profit of of ending capitalism, the most exploitative system ever created?

[PhoenixAsh]

I thanked your post because it beautifully illustrates that once again you have no fucking clue what we are actually talking about and that you do not actually read thread subjects.


lol I totally invested into the 4th international when we were planning anti cuts demonstrations so I could profit (?????). You dont know what youre talking about. How the fuck would a vanguard party profit of of ending capitalism, the most exploitative system ever created?

[exeexe]

How the fuck would a vanguard party profit of of ending capitalism, the most exploitative system ever created?
By investing in vulture fonds..

[Per Levy]

Lol I totally invested into the 4th international when we were planning anti cuts demonstrations so I could profit (?????). You dont know what youre talking about. How the fuck would a vanguard party profit of of ending capitalism, the most exploitative system ever created?

oh my goodnes, geis, how can you be so freaking daft? have you even read the op? if you did you would've realized that what PhoenixAsh was talking about is vanguard the company, not vanguard as in a vanguard party. seriously stop being such an ignorant smug ass for once.