Re: Question about Marxist Analysis of Class Consciousness
Posted: Tue Nov 08, 2022 12:48 pm
Good analogy OJ.
Where Mennonites and others connect
https://forum.mennonet.com/
We actually have a way of determining the value of labor and that is the free market. However what often happens is that moneyed interests use the political system to tilt the balance of power in their favor which makes the labor market less than free, or less than fair. This happens in a wide variety of ways from the promotion of anti-union legislation to hiring of undocumented labor to opposing basic labor standards like minimum wage and benefit laws.Neto wrote: ↑Tue Nov 08, 2022 8:34 amI wasn't making any assumption(s), and certainly not that a business investor is not entitled to ANY of the profits. I was actually asking how one could determine what portion of the gross profits should go to that investor, as compensation for risking his own funds. Nor am I endorsing Marxism in any form, although I share some of their concerns, and sometimes found myself in agreement with Marxist social justice efforts in the Amazon, specifically as pertaining to Indian land and waterway rights. Rather, I was attempting to characterize Marxism as it was experienced "on the field" by my people during the 20's and 30's, in what is now Ukraine.Ken wrote: ↑Mon Nov 07, 2022 10:05 pmThat is only true if you assume that workers are entitled to all of the profits of their labor despite:Neto wrote: ↑Mon Nov 07, 2022 6:49 pm I would suggest that most business owners do, to widely varying degrees, "exploit" their workers. But how much of this is "just", in consideration of their own investment in the work, albeit often totally non-labor related? (That is, monetary investment. But how did they get those funds?) How can a 'fair' profit for the one putting up the capital be determined?
But the question here is well beyond an employer's "exploitation" of his own employees (profiting off of the labor of those who work for him), going on to the perceived exploitation of ALL poor (or all employees, whether they work for this particular business man or not). In Marxism (at least as it was encountered by my people in Ukraine) was not concerned with whether a given wealthy person (a Kulak) had any relationship at all to a given person of the working class. All Kulaks were judged guilty of exploiting all workers, whether the Kulak was the owner of a factory or a farm, and whether the worker was a factory worker or a farm hand. These individual Kulaks were guilty because they were a part of the system which exploited the poorer. (You didn't actually have to own very much land in order to be judged a Kulak. It was less than 10 acres, as I recall.)
Having made zero investment in the means of production (business or factory space, machinery, real estate, etc.)
Having made zero investment in the intellectual or creative ideas behind the business
Having made zero investment in marketing and sales which are often the most critical aspect of most businesses
Having made zero investment in the actual management of the business.
That is why most collective farms and collective factory enterprises failed in the USSR and everywhere else. And when you do actually have employee-owned businesses like say the Publix Grocery Chain they operate pretty much exactly the same and with the same salaries and benefits as other competing non-employee owned businesses.
And what is the "that" in the sentence I set in bold print?
I have commented elsewhere on the problems encountered by those attempting to institute a localized anarchist governmental system, especially as it pertains to industrial centers. (By the way, I don’t think the common definition for ‘anarchism’ well describes what they were attempting to accomplish there. I’m also not endorsing the methods or objectives of anarchists like Nestor Machno, who, in fact, oversaw the massacre of whole Mennonite villages.)
It is interesting the "Xi Jinping thought" of "socialism with Chinese characteristics" is one of the few forces prevailing against this new "international socialism", which seems to revolve around really rich people getting even richer, whilst the rest of us are told we can't have beef, gasoline, cars, land, or own our own homes. It is no wonder the global elites want Xi Jinping out of power very, very badly.Falco Underhill wrote: ↑Tue Nov 08, 2022 12:47 pmThe new international socialist government, being a hybrid of socialism and free market capitalism seems to be okay with some inequalities. You may own nothing and be happy, but they won't! They will probably own quite a bit, and you better like it!
Then why are minimum wage laws necessary?
That is incorrect. Labour unions are coddled and protected in America.However what often happens is that moneyed interests use the political system to tilt the balance of power in their favor which makes the labor market less than free, or less than fair. This happens in a wide variety of ways from the promotion of anti-union legislation to hiring of undocumented labor to opposing basic labor standards like minimum wage and benefit laws.
You could say that again. Is there a reason you keep chiming in to a thread specifically wanting to talk about Marxist thought, perhaps with people who are up to date on Marxism, have read Marxist writings, and have listened to what actual Marxists have to say? Instead you just keep bleating about how great the American market economy is (with excuses that those mean evil Republicans are responsible for things not being perfect).I'm not a Marxist and I'm not familiar with all the current Marxist thinking.
If we did that a lot of jobs would be paying far LESS. Imagine what America would look with no minimum wage at all and removing "all manner of other social policy onto employment", such as removing state and federal unemployment, workers' comp, and so on.But in my mind, simply tilting the labor market back to something more equitable would go a long way towards allowing us to determine the actual value of labor. We should also stop trying to piggyback all manner of other social policy onto employment such as health and retirement benefits and so forth. And just pay people fairly for the work they do. Most other countries don't base their health insurance on the employer, for example.
Well, the whole system collapsed. I would call that failure. How many communal farms and factories are still operating in the former USSR if it is such a good model? For that matter, how many kibbutz are their still operating? They are still around but are a small and shrinking percentage of the economic output of Israel.Josh wrote: ↑Tue Nov 08, 2022 9:15 amMost collective farms and Communist factories did not fail.Ken wrote: ↑Mon Nov 07, 2022 10:05 pmThat is only true if you assume that workers are entitled to all of the profits of their labor despite:Neto wrote: ↑Mon Nov 07, 2022 6:49 pm I would suggest that most business owners do, to widely varying degrees, "exploit" their workers. But how much of this is "just", in consideration of their own investment in the work, albeit often totally non-labor related? (That is, monetary investment. But how did they get those funds?) How can a 'fair' profit for the one putting up the capital be determined?
But the question here is well beyond an employer's "exploitation" of his own employees (profiting off of the labor of those who work for him), going on to the perceived exploitation of ALL poor (or all employees, whether they work for this particular business man or not). In Marxism (at least as it was encountered by my people in Ukraine) was not concerned with whether a given wealthy person (a Kulak) had any relationship at all to a given person of the working class. All Kulaks were judged guilty of exploiting all workers, whether the Kulak was the owner of a factory or a farm, and whether the worker was a factory worker or a farm hand. These individual Kulaks were guilty because they were a part of the system which exploited the poorer. (You didn't actually have to own very much land in order to be judged a Kulak. It was less than 10 acres, as I recall.)
Having made zero investment in the means of production (business or factory space, machinery, real estate, etc.)
Having made zero investment in the intellectual or creative ideas behind the business
Having made zero investment in marketing and sales which are often the most critical aspect of most businesses
Having made zero investment in the actual management of the business.
That is why most collective farms and collective factory enterprises failed in the USSR and everywhere else. And when you do actually have employee-owned businesses like say the Publix Grocery Chain they operate pretty much exactly the same and with the same salaries and benefits as other competing non-employee owned businesses.
Kibbutzim account for 40% of Israel's agricultural output.Ken wrote: ↑Tue Nov 08, 2022 1:20 pmWell, the whole system collapsed. I would call that failure. How many communal farms and factories are still operating in the former USSR if it is such a good model? For that matter, how many kibbutz are their still operating? They are still around but are a small and shrinking percentage of the economic output of Israel.Josh wrote: ↑Tue Nov 08, 2022 9:15 amMost collective farms and Communist factories did not fail.Ken wrote: ↑Mon Nov 07, 2022 10:05 pm
That is only true if you assume that workers are entitled to all of the profits of their labor despite:
Having made zero investment in the means of production (business or factory space, machinery, real estate, etc.)
Having made zero investment in the intellectual or creative ideas behind the business
Having made zero investment in marketing and sales which are often the most critical aspect of most businesses
Having made zero investment in the actual management of the business.
That is why most collective farms and collective factory enterprises failed in the USSR and everywhere else. And when you do actually have employee-owned businesses like say the Publix Grocery Chain they operate pretty much exactly the same and with the same salaries and benefits as other competing non-employee owned businesses.
Communal farms and state-owned factories kept operating right through the end of the USSR and in fact continued to operate after its dissolution. After that, the various constituent republics began a process of selling off state-owned factories to private owners, and did the same with collective farms.Ken wrote: ↑Tue Nov 08, 2022 1:20 pm Well, the whole system collapsed. I would call that failure. How many communal farms and factories are still operating in the former USSR if it is such a good model? For that matter, how many kibbutz are their still operating? They are still around but are a small and shrinking percentage of the economic output of Israel.
This is likely true in a classic sense but even then people argued endlessly about the true nature of Marxism. Marx is one of those historical characters, like Lincoln or Freud, who left behind enough material that one can use them to support diverse ideas. This is why I prefaced with how I imagine a modern Marxist might respond.HondurasKeiser wrote: ↑Tue Nov 08, 2022 9:09 amPerhaps, "Good" and "Bad" as we understand them are nonsensical to a materialist and our attempt to translate the 'Oppressor-Oppressed' dialectic into our moral categories is a fundamental category error. I am curious though about your first statement, the part I bolded. You may be perfectly right, however I have always understood the Marxist categories of "proletariat" and "bourgeoisie", to in fact be something close to immutable.barnhart wrote: ↑Tue Nov 08, 2022 7:16 am I would guess a modern Marxist might respond by pointing out the categories of "proletariat" and "bourgeoisie" are not immutable but rather descriptive. People who act in ways that oppress are oppressive and those who are oppressed are not by definition "good", just oppressed.
Yes?HK wrote:I wonder about this thought as well - inasmuch as I have always understood the labor/economic reforms of last century to be spurned by doctrinaire Marxists. ...barnhart wrote: ↑Tue Nov 08, 2022 7:16 am Marxism has to some extent fallen victim to it's own success, we no longer live in a dickensian dystopia of unregulated industrialization capitalism where the masses are pressed to the knife edge of poverty because we chose (Marxist inspired) regulation instead. Now that we have integrated rights and respect for labor into the economy, we have more freedom to evaluate the productive and expansive nature of consolidated capital.
...I was also immediately reminded of my favorite (tongue-in-cheek) socialist, historicist; Howard Zinn. In his polemical "A People's History of the United States" he suggested that the so-called Progressive reforms were nothing more than the "system" or might we say the bourgeoisie, self-correcting to stave off something like a socialist revolution and that the true socialists of the era despised the do-gooder...
...All that is to ask, were the reforms Marx-inspired or bourgeois attempts to avert Marxism?
He always says in one sentence what it takes me paragraphs to elucidate.The value of Marx lies in the critique of unrestrained capital, not in his prescriptions which range from unadvisable to evil.