Rand and Marx

[ParkCungHee]

Studying history at a university level has certainly been an education in that regard. There are no other thinkers that I can think of who lecturers have veered off course for five minutes to critique and/or whinge about.

I didn't mean going off topic though! Even though as far as I know, Marx never even said the words 'Gallowglass' or 'Surrender-and-regrant" these things certainly can be understood in a Marxist context. The conflict starts becoming a lot clearer as a conflict between the nobility, especially those from Septs on the outside of the Golden Ring, and kings, in which the English and Scottish) were used as a tool of Kings to suppress their class enemies. Of course once this conflict is mostly completed the English are still there hence the conflict of the nine-years-war as the now mostly-solidified Irish Monarchs find outside weapons to be unhelpful.

 

[Dachs]

Then when did the Gilded Age occur?
My US history textbook places it between the Civil War and the Turn of the Century. If you feel like sticking the Gilded Age in the Pleioscene, be my guest, but nobody will have a clue what you are talking about.

Last time I checked, the American Civil War ended in 1865, not 1800. It would've been nice to have crushed the traitors and slavers earlier, back when widespread use of capital punishment in response to uprisings was still an accepted response, but that changed in the 1830s and 1840s when people started to get "civilized".

 

[knez]

but falling profitability from increased competition does lead to decreased wages, decreased demand, and further declining profitability.

I know I said this is pointless... but I have to.

Leaving aside your causal chain of events doesn't exist in reality, and is backed up by nothing, lets discuss this:
you claim that with the passage of time profits fall
you also claim that with the passage of time wages fall

but but but
all income in (or at least in marxist interpretation of) economy is either wages of profits
this means that all economic output will go either to those who earn profits or to those who earn wages
in theory, when economy would be static and output wouldn't increase, over time one group could get more - if capitalists get more profits (output), workers get les
and vice versa

but how can both get less???

only possible explanation would be that both groups agree to dump part of economic output (cars, grain etc.) on the bottom of the ocean, and every year more of it, so both workers would get less, and capitalist would get less

how that is just stupid, and how capitalist economies actually grow and produce more output

Anyway...

PS Concept of surplus profits is discarded as a ******** , which it is, and economic science considers profits are what marginal productivity of capital is (as wages are what marginal productivity of labour is) and Marx still hasn't contributed one single thing to economic theory.

It's called knowing the economic history of the US. Laissez-faire, or the closest the US has ever come to it, consistently produced a far more unstable economy and less growth. And then we had the Bush years, where we got far closer to Laissez-faire than at any time in 80 years, and we got far more instability and less growth. Now, in theory, that makes perfect sense. Conventional economic theory tells you that that will happen.

So economic theory and observation of the real world tell you the same thing. Why would anyone choose the greater instability and lesser growth?

If you torture the data long enough, it will confess.

Or however it goes...

Aldo I'm not quite sure how could someone identify laissez-fare with Bush and ignore effects of increased FED activity and power on economic stability (yes, they are negative) and so on in order to prove laissez-fare is bad for economic growth, Marxist here prove that lack of reason is not an obstacle to political agendas.

 

[ParkCungHee]

but but but
all income in (or at least in marxist interpretation of) economy is either wages of profits

Considering Marxist economics in practice called for keeping both of those at a minimum in favor of re-investment...

 

[Cutlass]

If you torture the data long enough, it will confess.

Or however it goes...

Aldo I'm not quite sure how could someone identify laissez-fare with Bush and ignore effects of increased FED activity and power on economic stability (yes, they are negative) and so on in order to prove laissez-fare is bad for economic growth, Marxist here prove that lack of reason is not an obstacle to political agendas.

But what many people don't accept is that, no matter what the government was doing, it was not telling the private sector that it could not do things. Particularly in the financial sectors of the economy.

So not laissez fair, but for financial services, as close to it as at any time since the Great Depression. There just was no regulation of finance.

 

[Antilogic]

I know I said this is pointless... but I have to.

Leaving aside your causal chain of events doesn't exist in reality, and is backed up by nothing, lets discuss this:
you claim that with the passage of time profits fall
you also claim that with the passage of time wages fall

but but but
all income in (or at least in marxist interpretation of) economy is either wages of profits
this means that all economic output will go either to those who earn profits or to those who earn wages
in theory, when economy would be static and output wouldn't increase, over time one group could get more - if capitalists get more profits (output), workers get les
and vice versa

but how can both get less???

only possible explanation would be that both groups agree to dump part of economic output (cars, grain etc.) on the bottom of the ocean, and every year more of it, so both workers would get less, and capitalist would get less

how that is just stupid, and how capitalist economies actually grow and produce more output

Anyway...

PS Concept of surplus profits is discarded as a ******** , which it is, and economic science considers profits are what marginal productivity of capital is (as wages are what marginal productivity of labour is) and Marx still hasn't contributed one single thing to economic theory.

Some of the actual reds can probably correct me on this, but are you asking about the so-called "transformation problem"?

You seem to be implicitly applying several assumptions that Marxism specifically rejects, such as assuming some kind of static equilibrium in all markets, and not taking into account crises like wars, where large amounts of productive capacity are spent on weapons that get destroyed.

 

[Hygro]

I know I said this is pointless... but I have to.

Leaving aside your causal chain of events doesn't exist in reality, and is backed up by nothing, lets discuss this:
you claim that with the passage of time profits fall
you also claim that with the passage of time wages fall

but but but
all income in (or at least in marxist interpretation of) economy is either wages of profits
this means that all economic output will go either to those who earn profits or to those who earn wages
in theory, when economy would be static and output wouldn't increase, over time one group could get more - if capitalists get more profits (output), workers get les
and vice versa

but how can both get less???

only possible explanation would be that both groups agree to dump part of economic output (cars, grain etc.) on the bottom of the ocean, and every year more of it, so both workers would get less, and capitalist would get less

how that is just stupid, and how capitalist economies actually grow and produce more output

Anyway...

PS Concept of surplus profits is discarded as a ******** , which it is, and economic science considers profits are what marginal productivity of capital is (as wages are what marginal productivity of labour is) and Marx still hasn't contributed one single thing to economic theory.



If you torture the data long enough, it will confess.

Or however it goes...

Aldo I'm not quite sure how could someone identify laissez-fare with Bush and ignore effects of increased FED activity and power on economic stability (yes, they are negative) and so on in order to prove laissez-fare is bad for economic growth, Marxist here prove that lack of reason is not an obstacle to political agendas.

I suggest the book The Economics of Global Turbulence.

Here's the two review snippets featured on the back of the book.

A brilliant economic overview of the world’s current economic state. (The Nation )

Here, at last—something good out of the left. (Wall Street Journal )

I'm running a time deficit so I won't get into it in full, but here's me butchering its basic premise: firms invest in fixed capital. Technology brings cheaper and better ways of entering that industry. Some firms close shop, but most stay in the field with reduced profitability as the new firm can effectively compete on price. This lowered profitability leads to lower wages, which will ultimately lower aggregate demand which exacerbates the problem.

 

[Traitorfish]

I know I said this is pointless... but I have to.

Leaving aside your causal chain of events doesn't exist in reality, and is backed up by nothing, lets discuss this:
you claim that with the passage of time profits fall
you also claim that with the passage of time wages fall

but but but
all income in (or at least in marxist interpretation of) economy is either wages of profits
this means that all economic output will go either to those who earn profits or to those who earn wages
in theory, when economy would be static and output wouldn't increase, over time one group could get more - if capitalists get more profits (output), workers get les
and vice versa

but how can both get less???

Marx divides the gross income from the sale of any commodity into three parts: that which goes towards constant capital, i.e. the means of production, variable capital, i.e. wages for labour, and profit. He argues that there is a tendency over time for constant capital to increase relative to the other two, as the cost (in terms of labour, rather than in terms of dollar-value) of the means of production increases due to technological advancement. (This is not a steady march, of course, but something with a lot of back and forthing, not least because efficiency can be increased by means of reorganisation rather than technology, something which Marx himself may not have fully considered, living in a pre-Fordist era, but which is taken into account by his successors.) This means that the remaining proportion must shrink in proportion to this increase, and if capital is to continue to expand effectively, it must continue to devote a steady level of money towards re-investment (or at least as much as everyone else is doing), which would mean wages bear brunt of the fall. However, it must be remembered that the fall in wages is a fall of wages in terms of labour, rather than necessarily representing a fall in the material goods which they may be exchanged for- not least because productive technology is improved as part of the process itself- so it's not nearly as simple as Marx making the patently ridiculous claim that wages always and inevitably decline towards grinding poverty.

Also, I'm pretty sure that fictitious capital plays into all this somehow, but I'll frankly admit that I'm not really capable of explaining it coherently, so, if you're interested, Loren Goldner did an interesting talk on the topic.
There's also some interesting work on the distorting role of intellectual property on this, specifically, the ability of certain sections of capital to levy what amounts to rent from other sections, e.g. Microsoft being entitled to a portion of the proceeds of almost every PC sold because they all come packaged with its software, far above and beyond the actual labour embodied in any given copy of Windows- but that's getting a bit off topic.

I didn't mean going off topic though! Even though as far as I know, Marx never even said the words 'Gallowglass' or 'Surrender-and-regrant" these things certainly can be understood in a Marxist context. The conflict starts becoming a lot clearer as a conflict between the nobility, especially those from Septs on the outside of the Golden Ring, and kings, in which the English and Scottish) were used as a tool of Kings to suppress their class enemies. Of course once this conflict is mostly completed the English are still there hence the conflict of the nine-years-war as the now mostly-solidified Irish Monarchs find outside weapons to be unhelpful.

Oh, that too! I just think it's funny how rant-inspiring he seems to be.

 

[GamezRule]

Rand was a hypocrite. So Marx.

 

[amadeus]

Rand was a hypocrite. So Marx.

Didn't Marx have a housemaid?

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Didn't Marx have a housemaid?

His wife.

 

[amadeus]

Not his wife, Helene Demuth.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Oh yes, her. Hardly a wage-slave. She was Jenny's childhood friend who traveled and lived with them. I suppose you could call her a housekeeper, but not a maid. She had no wage, she was a member of the family. Jenny thought of her as her sister, she is buried with the Marx's in London.

 

[amadeus]

So she was like an unpaid intern? How would that fly with Marxists today if I had a live-in staff and didn't pay them?

 

[Masada]

That period however enjoyed economic gains by grasping low-hanging industrialization fruit combined with the opportunity of kicking poor people into western states the moment they got discontent (Europe's answer to this was to colonize Africa)

Ehhhhhhhhh Africa was an awful solution to population surpluses. Chiefly because it employed piss-all people and when it did it overwhelmingly drew on the children of the petite bourgeoisie and bureaucrats. This can be explained as a result of two phenomenon (1) the often intensive training that was required to enter public service in the colonies; Malaya by way of example required two years of further training on top of a degree and (2) the reluctance of colonial authorities to employ men of 'low moral character' i.e. the poor who might do silly things like mix with the natives. Literally the only position open to Joe Bloggs on the street was in the lower ranks of the colonial military. In most cases, that wasn't all that attractive with low (relative) pay and low social status mixing with what could often be hellish conditions if one was called on to fight.

 

[Crezth]

So she was like an unpaid intern? How would that fly with Marxists today if I had a live-in staff and didn't pay them?

Make sure you argue using semantics only so that none of that annoying "substance" is leached into the conversation.

 

[Traitorfish]

It might be worth noting that Demuth worked with Marx on political matters and on his work, and after his death worked with Engels on the publication of his work. She was very often as much a secretary as a house-keeper, which, while far from settling the issue one way or the other, does shift the dynamic ever so slightly.

Although, for the record, I'm quite happy to admit that Marx was in some matters a hypocrite, and I think he would agree. There was always a tension between his political views and his adherence to a great many bourgeois norms (give or take a certain bohemianism in his youth) which he sometimes acknowledged but never really confronted, for whatever reasons that may be. The deification of Marx, unlike Rand, was a posthumous project that he would have very deeply resented, rather than a personal initiative.

 

[amadeus]

The deification of Marx, unlike Rand, was a posthumous project that he would have very deeply resented, rather than a personal initiative.

I also by no means intend to say that Marx was wrong because he was fallable, but that we shouldn't judge Marx or Rand on their personal failings (whether one views them as such.)

...Although, it's interesting to see the same zeal in shielding both Marx and Rand from any personal criticism whatsoever. Perhaps that will one day be the bridge to reconciliation.

 

[Traitorfish]

I also by no means intend to say that Marx was wrong because he was fallable, but that we shouldn't judge Marx or Rand on their personal failings (whether one views them as such.)

That is also entirely true. My opening question was "who is of the great contemporary relevance" rather than "which yin whid ye pump?" for a reason.