Ask a Red III

[Quackers]

How does the analysis of labour exploitation work under a trademan who drives a van around all day fixing washing machines? It is a microfirm with no other employers - he owns the tools of trade. I have a guess but i want to hear it from the mouth of a red.
How does it change when the same microfirm gains two employers to work alongside the original bloke?

 

[Hygro]

How does the analysis of labour exploitation work under a trademan who drives a van around all day fixing washing machines? It is a microfirm with no other employers - he owns the tools of trade. I have a guess but i want to hear it from the mouth of a red.
How does it change when the same microfirm gains two employers to work alongside the original bloke?

He's an offshoot of a market system still tied to wage labor, as the demand for his service is lower because the financial abilities of his customers is surpressed. This is speaking from Marxian theory.

My beloved Red friends, may I as a non-Red talk more extensively of worker oppression from a Pink theory combining mainstream political economy and Marxian ideas?

 

[Takhisis]

Define 'Pink'.

 

[Hygro]

hm, good point that's already an official term. I just meant red with default society, so a softer, red-esque color.

 

[Takhisis]

Be more precise, and please remember that whats called 'leftwing' in the US is called 'centre-right' in other countries (yes, other places do exist).

 

[Mouthwash]

Democracy is to socialism as oxygen is to the body. It's not my system, it's the socialist system. An egalitarian society founded upon principles of cooperative enterprise can only exist and function democratically.

But who would protect people from greed?

 

[Terxpahseyton]

As a rule, I don't. That implies the ability to stand outside of history, to alienate ones perspective from ones historical being, which is really more of a Kantian than Marxian way of approaching these issues. Marx was insistent upon the necessity of historical perspective, and although he did argue that we in capitalist society enjoy a certain epistemological privilege in that we are able to look backwards upon previous societies with some degree of accuracy, this was understood as very much a one-way street. What he claims to see isn't a realised communist society, but rather the forces within capitalism that make communist society necessary.

Okay, so much to what Marx thought.
Straight question: Do you (or the other Reds) buy this? If so: why o why? I really would like to debate this, because this is in my mind the crux of the whole matter of Marxist thought/Communism/whatever. If such a debate is not wanted here (it is being repeated that this is not a debate thread) please say so and I am happy with asking a moderator to put it into a new thread.
It to me just doesn't make sense but honestly seems in the end like nothing but a strategy to avoid the issue of how an alternative economic system would/could actually look like (not implying that this is actually the purpose, just that this is what it really is). And that is I would say utmost troublesome. Because every child knows that to only identify problems is not helpful as long as there is no actually known way to do it better. Which reduces the whole red thought to the convenient task of complaining without bothering with actual solutions. I am aware that it is believed that - whatever the actual looks - something is bound to replace capitalism. But I don't want to get to that, not right now at least.
I would like to focus on the statement that a future post-capitalistic society could not be actually discussed because we don't "stand outside of history".

First, I certainly recognize how every development of human civilization so far is a matter of historic circumstances. I accept that to understand why we are where we are or why we have been where we have been, history gives all the answers. And I accept that it is not possible to project where exactly we are going for the very same reason. Because we do not stand outside of history but are "trapped" within a specific point of history, so to speak. (but oh wait, Reds actually do believe they can project the future... this thought construct is hard to not contradict, well maybe you can just bear with me)
But IMO all this has next to nothing to do with discussing possible alternative systems and their viability.
Having vast empirics as well as sciences like cognitive science, psychology, anthropology and sociology to draw from and most of all being humans ourselves, I think we are pretty solid in understanding the in the big picture relevant traits of the human condition. By that I don't mean simple formulas like "It is human nature to be egoistic" or such cheap talking lines belonging in the trash bin. I also don't mean that we can actually know how humans will interact in an untested environment. I mean that we can have very reasonable discussion about potential interactions, what they would require and if and how the necessary conditions could be established.
I mean, that it is absolutely baseless to claim, we couldn't.
Obviously, whatever theoretic system we may dream up, it is correct that not we but history will decide if such a system ever comes to fruition. And we are only a very small part of history. So yes, IF some kind of red-themed system replaces capitalism - we can not know what that would be. But we can certainly discuss the viability of a post-capitalistic society by making assumptions, by being creative.
And last but not least, I am talking about the inevitable demise of capitalism after all. And start again with a question: Why? I can think of some vague suggestions why that could be assumed. But they all are not the least inevitable by any sane measure. So I just spare you that and ask: On what basis is this belief founded? How would we know?

And at the very last: If we can not know. Isn't it silly to adhere to Communism without being able to suggest an alternative to capitalism?

 

[Traitorfish]

He's an offshoot of a market system still tied to wage labor, as the demand for his service is lower because the financial abilities of his customers is surpressed. This is speaking from Marxian theory.

My beloved Red friends, may I as a non-Red talk more extensively of worker oppression from a Pink theory combining mainstream political economy and Marxian ideas?

Aye, no bother. You've certainly got the firmest grasp on political economy here.

*snip*

The problem with appealing to "big picture" facts is that they function only at the level of the "big picture", i.e. that they are too general to tell us any historically-specific details. Psychology or neurobiology may be able to outline for us the basic terms of human society, but they can tell us nothing about any specific society. Communism is not for Marx an ideal structure, like Plato's ideal republic but a particular historical outcome that can only be understood in terms of the processes leading to it.

edit: What I'm basically getting at is that communism is not seen as a Hegelian "end of history", but simply as the end of the history of class society. Post-capitalist humanity is still fully historicised, and thus variable with material and historical context. "Communism" is not an extra-historical ideal which is realised, but an ideal type that is constructed to describe a certain form of historically-specific social organisation, and so it contains allows room for at least the same degree of heterogeneity as "capitalism" or "feudalism".
At its very best, empirical science might be able to supply that side of the data pertaining to a more-or-less invariant biology, but without the side of the data pertaining to material and historical context, it tells us nothing. (Although, I'm not particularly convinced that the invariant biological human has ever truly existed, and certainly not that it has an indefinite future, so even there I'm sceptical.)

And at the very last: If we can not know. Isn't it silly to adhere to Communism without being able to suggest an alternative to capitalism?

Only if we begin from the assumption that rational schematics precede real society, which I don't think is at all the case.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

I just accidentally deleted my post.
I'll be back.

 

[Mouthwash]

What did Marx think of Adam Smith?

 

[Hygro]

Aye, no bother. You've certainly got the firmest grasp on political economy here.

Huge huge compliment coming from you. Thank you.

How does the analysis of labour exploitation work under a trademan who drives a van around all day fixing washing machines? It is a microfirm with no other employers - he owns the tools of trade. I have a guess but i want to hear it from the mouth of a red.
How does it change when the same microfirm gains two employers to work alongside the original bloke?

He's an offshoot of a market system still tied to wage labor, as the demand for his service is lower because the financial abilities of his customers is surpressed. This is speaking from Marxian theory.

My beloved Red friends, may I as a non-Red talk more extensively of worker oppression from a Pink theory combining mainstream political economy and Marxian ideas?

So I had this big old post with links and stuff, but then my computer battery died and it decided to shut down instead of sleep. I had a big reply to potatokiosk as well.

These are the following terms I would focus on in giving you a longer explanation (the one that got eaten by my aging battery).
Economic profit rates dictating accounting profit.
Economic profit as driven by demand.
Aggregate (macroeconomic) and market (microeconomic) demand.
Income inequality and how most of today's wealth is tied up in liquidity and supply, rather than in demand.
Debt and economic and accounting ownership.
Economic rent.
Opportunity cost.

Here's the short story, the system we are in, even relative to previous forms of capitalism, hurts potential demand. The business your example-man is in is a competitive market. Even if he was the best, and could charge monopolistic-competition rents, it's still a competitive market. And it's a mass consumer-competitive market too, so his business comes from high volume dependent on the buying power of those consumers.

Those consumers have weak buying power, so they can't pay him much. So his earnings are reduced. The consumers have weak buying power because consumers have low wages relative to the absolute economy. Right now the economy is tied up in finance. This is because industrial investments are poor. Industrial investments are poor because consumers have weak buying power right now. Isn't that a terrible cycle?

Thanks to the competitive nature of our economy, the world is looking increasingly like a Hobbs's Paradise/ Rousseau's hell/ Marx's race to the "bottom". This means: that fewer and fewer people have more and more wealth, and everyone else is moving towards equality--a poor equality. I disagree we're heading towards a subsistence level but a new, almost middle class bottom level. You can see this because wages are arbitraging--wages are moving up in the developing world as they creep down in the developed world.

Because this wealth is not spread around, growth and profitability are hurting bad. Ultimately, we have a tax, legal, and market system that makes everyone (even most rich people in the medium-long run of 20 years) poorer over time. So you can own all your own tools in the world, but if the people you are selling to don't have as much money as they could due to a system that is deliberately transferring wealth upward which deliberately clamping down on real wealth growth, then you won't earn what other forms of capitalism say is your fair share--let alone social/communism.

Sorry I can't give you a more detailed answer, I'm too burnt out from enthusiastically writing my last post. Potato didn't even get his real reply.

 

[dutchfire]

(Have you considered the Lazarus plugin?)

 

[Terxpahseyton]

MOOOOOOONSTER post
Hahahaha!

The problem with appealing to "big picture" facts is that they function only at the level of the "big picture", i.e. that they are too general to tell us any historically-specific details.

I am not sure what exactly you mean with "historically-specific details". If you mean the specific implementation of general concepts, I suppose I have to agree. But if we discuss an alternative society, there - at least at the first step - is no need to get all too specific. We can settle with the broad, general, overarching, fundamental features of a given society. We can stay in the "big picture". So use not being able look beyond it is a non-argument.
Unless it was not possible to understand the big picture without the historically circumstantial specifics.

But is that so? Marx certainly doesn't seem to think so.

After all, he thinks to be able to predict the down-fall of capitalism nevermind its further specific history. The IMO indisputable general truth is, that any assumption of alternative societies or projection of future developments of a given society (like capitalism) will always be based on more or less complex models. And those models are what we talk about when referring to the "big picture". Marx created a model describing capitalism and based on this model predicted that it had to destroy itself and inevitably would find itself replaced.

If Marx can do so, certainly we can also device a model regarding whatever alternative societies?

May that model reflect what would actually come to fruition or not - we can still try to test if it could work based on our model. After all - that is exactly what Marx did! And what Marxism is based on - no?

To give a simple illustration of a model which may serve to test hypothetical societies: The Prison dilemma. I assume you are ware of it, if not, no bother, I forget the details myself, but what it comes down to is the following point: If a person has no reasonable security to trust in the actions of another person, if hence all the person got is the option of faith and if betrayed faith would mean a loss too high be acceptable - the rational choice is to not trust the other person. Within this model, this rationality is IMO indisputable (but please still oppose whatever you must). And the thing is, if we look at real life, if we look how people again and again act in certain situations - the empirical science - by and large this model has been validated again and again. And the practical consequence is the justification of the monopoly of force. Because it establishes security with regards to physical violence. It is reasonable to have faith in others to not physically harm me, because they would get themselves in serious trouble otherwise. And accordingly, with the development and centralization of the monopoly of force, physical violence per capita has seen a dramatic decrease over the previous centuries and even millennia.
So see, in this case, empirics don't just supply a "invariable biology" (though I have to admit I am not quit sure what I would have to understand as belonging to this category), they also - within the constraints of models - establish constants of human behavior.

Of course one must not just take such a monopoly of force as the only answer to prevent thriving violence. Of course one can suggest that there are alternative means - but then one needs to consider how the aforementioned model could be accounted for. Or explain why this model wasn't universally valid (which I think no one can because it IMO is universally valid, as it in deed merely describes a simple necessity of human survival instinct [that is perhaps what you label invariable biology?] and rationality). If actually possible, that should be doable, no? Nevermind historical circumstances, just analyzing this one isolated dynamic.

And there are other models like that out there. Or can be constructed. Not always convincing, always deserving some skepticisms - but all in all very potent to discuss hypothetical societies.
They won't tell us a thing about what will actually happen, I agree. For historical specifics and such. But they give us fundamental perspective of what can be expected to happen.

But Reds do at times seem absolutely uninterested in such perspective and the models such perspective could be based on, but only care about the Marxian model. And then exclude other models by criteria the Marxian model itself does fulfill! Which is the unfeasability of models due to historic specifics. Seems rather inconsistent to me.

Psychology or neurobiology may be able to outline for us the basic terms of human society, but they can tell us nothing about any specific society.

As already said - agreed. And this brings me back to models.

Communism is not for Marx an ideal structure, like Plato's ideal republic but a particular historical outcome that can only be understood in terms of the processes leading to it.

To reiterate my criticism of the as I see it inconsistent reasoning here:
But the downfall of capitalism can be understood without knowing the process leading to it? Marx certainly didn't knew it, given his predictions of acute pauperism and the abolishment of the middle class, while the exact opposite is what happened.

Only if we begin from the assumption that rational schematics precede real society, which I don't think is at all the case.

I already replied to this in the past, but sadly received no response. What about the Soviet Union? Wasn't this for its time unique social experiment preceded by rational schematics? What with the French revolution? Didn't they need rational schematics to organize a new society? What triggers sweeping social change might be beyond rational schematics. But what kind of change actually is implemented - how can you disjunct that from rational schematics? The whole democracy movement in Europe - based on the enlightenment and respectively on rational schematics such as natural rights.
I think you seriously underestimate the power of ideas. Don't get me wrong. I also think in a lot of ways we see eye to eye here. I am not naive. I realize that there are vast historically rooted, circumstantial but at the same time systematic developments at play which to a large degree shape our societies. But it to me appears as an unfounded extreme to just disregard ideas in their entirety as a factor.

 

[Traitorfish]

*snip*

(In my fist attempt at a reply, I got a bit hung up arguing details, so I'm going to try and address the first part of the post as a whole.)

You claim that Marx makes his arguments in reference to a model of capitalism. But I don't think this is wholly true; the only strict or closed model that Marx ever develops is that in Capital, which he never intends (nor claims) to be an accurate or comprehensive description of capitalist society. The intention of the work is not simply to present an alternative political economy but to offer (and this is the subtitle, which is a bit of a hint as to how important he thought it was) a critique of political economy: he takes the assumptions of the bourgeois political economists (which, crucially, he accepts as valid insofar as they are descriptions of how capitalism appears to us), and attempts to show that by the application of his critical method, the layers of appearance can be pulled away to reveal a very different reality. To put it briefly, he wants to show that even on their own terms, their system is not what they assert it to be, and that even a hyper-streamlined, idealised capitalism, free of all the clutter and chaos of actual history, is still destined to eat itself.
As such, the only closed model he constructs in the book cannot be taken as straightforwardly scientific, but as methodological: valid only insofar as its premises are valid, which Marx does not assert to be the case. He was rather highly aware of the irreducible complexity of human existence, and in fact one of his major criticisms of capitalism is that it attempts just such a reduction: that by driving towards the mediation of value in every aspect of human life, it attempts to reduce existence to a series of economic transactions by isolated individuals.
His scepticism of this position is made I think very clear in his more philosophical work, in which he is pointedly critical of bourgeois philosophers and economists who attempt to justify such a reduction (e.g. Smiths claims that the market operated under a set of natural laws as much as a chemical reaction or the orbit of the planets), and his political commentaries, with their explicit (if under-developed) recognition of the importance of culture and contingency (see for example his discussion of the ascendency Louis-Napoleon in The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Napoleon) show a willingness to not only engage with but adopt perspectives lying outside of and indeed contradicting the absolute validity of the model he builds in Capital.


Further, I don't think that what you offer as a "model" actually is one, let alone one that can be legitimately described as empirically. You make reference to a thought-experiment which is (intentionally) very abstract and simplistic, and through that lens attempt to derive some absolute interpretation from a series of questionable historical generalisations. At best, that's an extremely speculative psychology, but it's not an historical model as I would recognise it.

I already replied to this in the past, but sadly received no response. What about the Soviet Union? Wasn't this for its time unique social experiment preceded by rational schematics? What with the French revolution? Didn't they need rational schematics to organize a new society? What triggers sweeping social change might be beyond rational schematics. But what kind of change actually is implemented - how can you disjunct that from rational schematics? The whole democracy movement in Europe - based on the enlightenment and respectively on rational schematics such as natural rights.

I think that you're confusing the ideology espoused by actors with the reality of their actions. The French Revolution was not a case of somebody inventing a fabulous idea called "democracy", and everyone else agreeing that, yes, that sounded great. Frankly, to claim as much suggests me that you are very poorly aquainted with the history of the French Revolution, which was in reality an extremely confused and contested affair. (Even the identification of the "French Revolution" as a single and discrete event is a specific historiographic position, and not just the stating of self-evident historical facts, and one not un-contested by historians of the period.) Likewise the Soviet Union, likewise the "democracy movement in Europe". If reason exists in history, it does not exist at the level of explicit schemes.

I think you seriously underestimate the power of ideas. Don't get me wrong. I also think in a lot of ways we see eye to eye here. I am not naive. I realize that there are vast historically rooted, circumstantial but at the same time systematic developments at play which to a large degree shape our societies. But it to me appears as an unfounded extreme to just disregard ideas in their entirety as a factor.

I don't think that I do disregard ideas. Rather, I would assert the need to understand ideas in phenomenological terms, as frameworks of meaning and meaningful action in actors- that is, human beings- move and communicate, rather than as self-sufficient historical forces in their own right. To give ideas a credibly place in history is to recognise their historicity, which means recognising them not as something distinct from and prior to social practice, but as a dimension of it.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

I read your further notes on what Marx thought with interest, but with all the intellectual rigorousness you display when doing so, you still manage to make a to me not very sensible maneuver which conveniently leads you to not actually argue an important gist of my post, that about the inconsistency

To put it briefly, he wants to show that even on their own terms, their system is not what they assert it to be, and that even a hyper-streamlined, idealised capitalism, free of all the clutter and chaos of actual history, is still destined to eat itself.

"He wants to show" - yes, but whatever and however he wants to show it, it will in the end have to take the form of a model. It doesn't matter if it is a comprehensive model, or a scientific model, or a model pulled out of his arse, it has to be a model. Because what is a model? It is nothing but a scenario created for the purpose of simulating versions of reality. And it is the only way we can even start to grasp reality, for actual reality is not something we can ever truly grasp in its wholeness. So weather Marx does a somersault, spits Lincoln Vampire Hunter in the face or is concerned with the "layers of appearance" of capitalism - as soon as he wants to say anything meaningful about capitalism he will do so based on a model.
Now you say that Marx was aware of the limitations of models. Well then it makes no sense for him to think to able to predict the destiny of capitalism.

I don't think that I do disregard ideas. Rather, I would assert the need to understand ideas in phenomenological terms, as frameworks of meaning and meaningful action in actors- that is, human beings- move and communicate, rather than as self-sufficient historical forces in their own right. To give ideas a credibly place in history is to recognise their historicity, which means recognising them not as something distinct from and prior to social practice, but as a dimension of it.

That is exactly what I think and I am afraid you misunderstood my portrayal of the French revolution or the Russian revolution. My point merely was exactly what you say, that ideas were a dimension of those processes. And that accordingly they were one necessary ingredient for those revolutions to lead where they did lead and proceed how they did proceed.
And assuming you agree with me here - where then is the logic in saying that an adherence to Communism wouldn't require rational schematics for they wouldn't precede history? It after all suffices for them to be one important dimension of history to matter.
But further on it not only matters in the sense of the future of humanity, but also regarding the individual choice to adhere to Communism. Because if we accept the inherent shortcomings of models, the reasoning that Communism had to replace Capitalism anyhow doesn't fly. Because it would constitute blind faith in whatever model predicts so. But given the willingness of Red's to apparently overlook this, there is no need at that point to further quarrel abut the model I suggested, because evidently models are accepted as powerful explanatory tools if a believe in the demise of our whole way to organize society is based on a model - which it has to if it wants to be based on anything at all other than the wish for it.. Or if on the other hand you want to reject models for history and that means reality is too complex, it can also not be concluded that Communism was some sort of natural conclusion and for the lack of "rational schematics" regarding its implementation has no leg to stand on.
Either way, it ends at a situation where without the suggestion of an actual alternative, adherence to Communism got nothing but faith.

 

[Hygro]

If reason exists in history, it does not exist at the level of explicit schemes.
.

I'm loving this quote.

 

[Takhisis]

(In my fist attempt at a reply, I got a bit hung up arguing details, so I'm going to try and address the first part of the post as a whole.)

Honestly, wee Traitorfishy, ye feels more hung over than hung up.

 

[GhostWriter16]

I've heard Cheezy say (Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think this is right) that he is sometimes pro- free market but always opposed to capitalism. Can you explain to me how you can have a free market without capitalism?

I know you can have the state run things capitalistically, which is technically a non-market form of capitalism (Like China.) But I don't see how you can have a free market with no capitalism. Can someone explain this to me?

 

[Quackers]

He's an offshoot of a market system still tied to wage labor, as the demand for his service is lower because the financial abilities of his customers is surpressed. This is speaking from Marxian theory.

Appreciate the post and the other longer one.
I'm more interested in the specific power dynamics and how it ties in with the labour theory of value. Another post i think it was written by Cheezy explains LTV quite well and I want to understand how that relates to my microfirm example.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

What did Marx think of Adam Smith?

Pretty smart guy. Marx quotes him constantly. Personally, I think he gave Smith a little too much credit. Smith's most famous work was basically a compilation of existing economic [read: Physiocrat] thought, with some of his own musings thrown in.

Appreciate the post and the other longer one.
I'm more interested in the specific power dynamics and how it ties in with the labour theory of value. Another post i think it was written by Cheezy explains LTV quite well and I want to understand how that relates to my microfirm example.

Apologies for missing this earlier.

How does the analysis of labour exploitation work under a trademan who drives a van around all day fixing washing machines? It is a microfirm with no other employers - he owns the tools of trade. I have a guess but i want to hear it from the mouth of a red.
How does it change when the same microfirm gains two employers to work alongside the original bloke?

While the example I have historically used is the family farm, your one-man operation fits the bill also. He is a worker who owns the means of production that he uses. His operation, therefore, is entirely compatible with socialist social order.

If said bloke were to hire two others while retaining sole control of the operation himself, he would be an exploiter. The new employees would have to become partners with him to fit the Red bill, if you will. A strange idea, perhaps, to the capitalist-inaugurated, but such things are not unheard of. Many dual and multiple proprietorship enterprises exist, and such startups and mergers are always the product of careful thought and consideration. This translation into the taking on of all new help is simply part of the realization that people are not simply animated machines to do labor for a bit, but in fact people, and are partners in the operation of things.