American Marxism

[Gary Childress]

Ultimately, I think everyone agrees that workers should be paid a fair share for their contribution to the economy. And I think we can all agree that all of society should not be run by a privileged few who use the power at their disposal to further their own narrow interests while neglecting the welfare of the many. The question is, how do we accomplish this goal? What sort of institutions or ways of governing should be adopted?

thoughts?

[promethean75]

You'd start with a general outline for what you'd wish to accomplish, and then work out the unpredictables as you went along, democratically.

https://www.quora.com/Is-work-in-commun ... chtenstein

But the failure of such an ambitious project would not lead to ruin (this isn't 19th century bread lines or Chinese peasants melting cooking pots to sell the metal), especially today with the use of digital technologies and upcoming AI... rather to a reversion back to a capitalist model. But then you've lost nothing and are back to where you were when you began. So what's the problem? What r u, chicken? Course you could be a capitalist, which explains why you wouldn't want it to happen; you'd no longer be able to live for free if it did.

[Immanuel Can]

...the capitalist invests nothing that he hasn't ready appropriated from the labor of some wage earner...

Ah, another Marxist delusion.

Of course that's not true. In fact, the opposite is true.

The man who had the vision for the creating of the hotel had to come up with financing. For that, he depended on other capitalists, and made them profit. He bought land, and paid the owners of the land for it. Then he had to hire labourers and buy the means to build the hotel. And he paid them the wages they agreed upon. Then he had to staff the hotel, and made jobs for every person there. Then he had to supply the hotel, and made jobs for farmers, dry goods makers, truckers and shippers...And he had to pay for all of them. And then he has to pay upkeep, wages, benefits, insurance, repairs, etc. on an ongoing basis, thus creating more jobs and paying more wages...

A thousand people benefit from his entrepreneurship. He made jobs where there were none, and created wage opportunities where none existed before. He added value, and did so at the hazard of his own livelihood. The investors will not demand their returns from the doorman.

You see, value is not zero-sum. There is not a fixed amount of value in the world, so that one man's win has to be another's loss. That's rubbish. Rather, value can be ADDED to the world, by the ingenuity of man, by his ability to combine and manage resources, by his powers of discovery and investment. And without the surplus value he creates, the worker has no job.

And there could be no greater testimony to the stupidity of Marxism that that it has literally ruined every economy in the world where anybody has even tried to create it, and has caused misery not just to capitalists but to all the workers wherever Marxist economic theory been applied.

[promethean75]

Hey yo and don't try to take all those links in in one sitting because you'll become overwhelmed, give up, and go right back to being a moron at some philosophy forum. You gotta plan your study out bro and ease into it like you would a frickin college course. When your shuttle enters the Rosa system and takes orbit, your days of putzing around forums
are over. You're working wit professionals now. So tighten the fuck up.

[Immanuel Can]

Ultimately, I think everyone agrees that workers should be paid a fair share for their contribution to the economy.

Absolutely.

If I agree to do a day's work for $300, then at the end of the day, I am owed $300. I am not owed $400 merely because I'm jealous of my boss. I deserve the wages I agreed to take -- no more, no less -- and if the boss gives me $320 as a bonus, I owe gratitude as well.

If I don't like my $300, I am perfectly free to take my labour elsewhere, and get my $400 from somebody who agrees that my work is worth it. Or I'm perfectly free to educate myself or upgrade my skills and qualifications, and to take a job that deserves $400.

But what I can't do is get all grumpy and petulant because there are people who are cleverer than me, who have invented things I haven't, or who have taken entrepreneurial risks I am too chicken to take, or even who have just run their businesses so well they've made good money. Their prosperity simply is not my concern at all. Their prosperity does not hurt me; and in fact, it gives me a thriving economy in which I can make my way, too.

If I think I'm so smart, then in a free economy, I can invent something myself, or run my own business well, or take an entrepreneurial risk and get bigger rewards...nobody is stopping me, because in a free economy, such innovation are forever going on. But I am not owed any money for what I have not done.

And if I think I am, I'm not a brilliant economist: I'm a spoiled little jealous brat.

[Immanuel Can]

You're working wit professionals now. So tighten the fuck up.

Professionals don't say "yo" and can spell "with," and don't resort to cheap obscenities to "tighten up" a rhetoric that lacks intrinsic meaning.

[promethean75]

No, no and no. Capitalist incentive is a sufficient but not necessary condition of production. While a capitalist might begin a business of growing tomatoes or building hotels, this doesn't mean tomatoes and hotels don't, or shouldn't, need to be made without capitalism. Rather the capitalist 'inserts' himself (like a parasite) into an already existing demand and chain production. He then takes profit he has generated from exploiting laborers X and invests it into means of production in which he is able to further exploit laborers Y, ad nauseum.

And laborer's 'accept' a wage through coercion. What else are they gonna do? Go homeless and live in the woods? Naw you can't do that because the government owns all the land and you'd be criminalized for trespassing. It's a trap, mang. There are no other options.

[promethean75]

"Professionals don't say "yo" and can spell "with," and don't resort to cheap obscenities to "tighten up" a rhetoric that lacks intrinsic meaning."

Yeah? Tell that to Tony 'two toes' Cafaro. G'head.

[Gary Childress]

Ultimately, I think everyone agrees that workers should be paid a fair share for their contribution to the economy.

Absolutely.

If I agree to do a day's work for $300, then at the end of the day, I am owed $300. I am not owed $400 merely because I'm jealous of my boss. I deserve the wages I agreed to take -- no more, no less -- and if the boss gives me $320 as a bonus, I owe gratitude as well.

If I don't like my $300, I am perfectly free to take my labour elsewhere, and get my $400 from somebody who agrees that my work is worth it. Or I'm perfectly free to educate myself or upgrade my skills and qualifications, and to take a job that deserves $400.

But what I can't do is get all grumpy and petulant because there are people who are cleverer than me, who have invented things I haven't, or who have taken entrepreneurial risks I am too chicken to take, or even who have just run their businesses so well they've made good money. Their prosperity simply is not my concern at all. Their prosperity does not hurt me; and in fact, it gives me a thriving economy in which I can make my way, too.

If I think I'm so smart, then in a free economy, I can invent something myself, or run my own business well, or take an entrepreneurial risk and get bigger rewards...nobody is stopping me, because in a free economy, such innovation are forever going on. But I am not owed any money for what I have not done.

And if I think I am, I'm not a brilliant economist: I'm a spoiled little jealous brat.

That works in theory land, IC, not in the reality of major international and interregional corporations. Workers are not always free to negotiate their wages for what they would like to be paid for their work. Agreement does not always = fair (you'll note I used the word "fair" where you completely ignored the word). When a capitalist is making thousands of times the wage of those working under him or her, then there's something clearly wrong.

[Gary Childress]

And if I think I am, I'm not a brilliant economist: I'm a spoiled little jealous brat.

BTW, that's not a very professional argument either, IC.

[promethean75]

"Ultimately, I think everyone agrees that workers should be paid a fair share for their contribution to the economy."

This is a notorious ambiguity that by nature of its ambiguity, allows free market theorists to advance obscure arguments that explain nothing. There is no such thing as 'fair', G. But there is such a thing as democratic decision making... which substitutes the power of the individual to have a degree of control in deciding, for ubiquitous arguments over what exactly is 'fair'.

Seriously, what is 'fair'? Have you ever met a worker who didn't want more money, or a capitalist who didn't want to pay less?

No man, it's a trick. 'Fair' might mean 'competitive wage', which would make a dollar more than minimum wage seem reasonable.

A 'fair' exchange, if there were such a thing, would involve getting ALL of the profit derived from the sale of the product or service one provides as a worker, would it not?

You tryna tell me that because capitalism pushed wages down so low that Juan's raise to $1.85 per day for picking oranges, is 'fair'?

[promethean75]

"BTW, that's not a very professional argument either, IC."

Thanks, Gary. Don't let that fuckin guy bully me.

[Immanuel Can]

That works in theory land, IC, not in the reality of major international and interregional corporations.

"International corporation" were not even a thing when Marx was writing. Their existence is relatively recent, and I agree, is problematic. But there's no solution to them in Marxism, so they're equally problematic for everyone.

Workers are not always free to negotiate their wages

They are in all free countries. In both underdeveloped and Marxist countries, they're not.

When a capitalist is making thousands of times the wage of those working under him or her, then there's something clearly wrong.

It's not that easy, Gary.

What's fair for me is not at all defined by what SOMEBODY ELSE has. it's defined by what I have merited. I have no right at all to be jealous of somebody else, no matter how much he has. If I am, I'm a bad person, period.

But you are right this far: capitalism makes some people rich beyond the level they have merited, too. And while that's none of my business, it is a serious problem for them. For it breeds corruption in them, and gives them an absurdly inflated sense of their own merit. Still, if I get what I contracted to earn, I am not being treated unjustly, no matter how much they may be corrupting themselves.

And there is another effect to their wealth: additional jobs. For they do not merely hoard, but invest, buy, expend -- sometimes with extreme extravagance -- and every time they do, more people are employed. Somebody has to manage their stocks, make their cars, clean their pools, build their mansions...Meanwhile, it's good for the economy that they keep producing new value; because economies always need new sources of money, or they stagnate and die. And a dying economy creates more misery for the workers than anything the rich may do directly.

Take a look at what's happening in your country right now. Economic mismanagement by the government is creating absurdly inflated housing, food, gas and other prices, and it's not the rich who are feeling it first. A stagnant economy hurts the poor most.

The rich, well, they're always insulated. Do you think Biden or Pelosi is feeling the pinch right now?

[Immanuel Can]

"BTW, that's not a very professional argument either, IC."

Thanks, Gary. Don't let that fuckin guy bully me.

It's an appropriate response to the unproffessional one that was offered. And it is, at least, articulate.

[Gary Childress]

That works in theory land, IC, not in the reality of major international and interregional corporations.

"International corporation" were not even a thing when Marx was writing. Their existence is relatively recent, and I agree, is problematic. But there's no solution to them in Marxism, so they're equally problematic for everyone.

Colonialism was a "thing" when Marx was writing and international corporations are little more than an extension of it in practice.