waagnfnp

Ideas & Strategizing Posted by christian h., 18 Jul 2007 06:28 am

Workers of the World, Unite!

Trackbacks

Responses to “Workers of the World, Unite!”

1. on 18 Jul 2007 at 11:36 am 1. James Killus said …

   I’ve always divided my opinion of Marxism into critiques of Marxist analysis (with the recognition that the socio-economic analysis was furthered by the likes of Veblen, Lewis, and Galbraith), and Marxism as a prescriptive political ideology. In the latter case, I’ve never been able to get past the phrase “dictatorship of the proletariat” along with the attendent monopoly of communication demanded by The Party, etc. (Brief aside: on of my critiques of Marxist analysis is that “means of production” does not give proper weight to the special position held by communication and transportation in society).

   It seems to me that prescriptive Marxism has simply failed. North Korea is an absolute monarchy, Cuba is a familial oligarchy, while other versions became right wing authoritarian regimes, in the sense that all power resided with an established authority, and hereditarian principles bubbled to the surface rather quickly. The Cult of Personality takes hold far too readily, and the Personality tends to favor family and friends.

   So it remains to be proven that Marxism is compatible with a democratic society even to the extent that Western-style propertarian states have managed. If Marxism is to have any claim to being a “left wing” philosophy (in the sense that it desires to reduce or abolish hereditary privilege, which I take to be the bare minimum of a political philosophy of the left), then one has to ask (as I have done before), what sort of organizational structure is compatible with such a goal? I have my own notions on the matter, but I’m interested in hearing from those who are more authentically leftist that I am, or at least those who self-identify as such.

   Ultimately, a commnad-and-control society whose only difference is that the “right” people run it, at the very least begs the question of how those people are selected, and, given the historical record, may be accused of being a difference that makes no difference making no difference.

   As an afterthought, I’ll observe that I tend to view Marxism as a form of utopianism, which is neither cynical nor idealistic, but rather a protective measure against the sense of being a participant in a slow motion trainwreck. If pressed, I might concede that it only rises to the level of intellectualization, which means that it is only another form of my own favorite Freudian defence mechanism.

2. on 18 Jul 2007 at 12:15 pm 2. Oaktown Girl said …

   Very busy at work today, will get back here later. But in brief…

   Ultimately, a command-and-control society whose only difference is that the “right” people run it, at the very least begs the question of how those people are selected, and, given the historical record, may be accused of being a difference that makes no difference making no difference.

   James has nicely summarized a big question/concern I’ve always had about this issue.

   Clearly, we’d all be better off if everyone joined the WAAGNFNP and surrendered to the infinite wisdom and justice of Lord Astaroth. That would cut through all the bullshit right quick in a hurry.

3. on 18 Jul 2007 at 12:35 pm 3. Kiera PSI said …

   That would cut through all the bullshit right quick in a hurry.

   Particularly when the use of bullshit earned them an extended stay in The Trunk

   My more relevant comment is that I guess I have a lot of Marxist principles in my outlook. However, as James noted, it is a utopian view, and I really don’t think that we, as beings, are ready or capable of achieving that anytime soon.

4. on 18 Jul 2007 at 1:36 pm 4. Seattle said …

   So I was reading the post and wondering where companies that in part pay their employees in stock fit in the over all Marxist dynamic. When the worker receives their yearly bonus in stock or stock options, the rationale that I always hear is that the worker becomes more invested in doing a good job because they’ll be rewarded as a stock owner. Personally, I think I’ve earled all of $10 based on that concept in my own work place, but I know there are workers out there who literally urge their coworkers to do better “to help our stock prices”. Coming back to Marxism, when workers become part owner of the means of production in this way, is it considered a step in the right direction, or more capitalist BS?

5. on 18 Jul 2007 at 1:49 pm 5. Lord Astaroth said …

   The Minister of Justice: Clearly, we’d all be better off if everyone joined the WAAGNFNP and surrendered to the infinite wisdom and justice of Lord Astaroth. That would cut through all the bullshit right quick in a hurry.

   Kiera PSI: Particularly when the use of bullshit earned them an extended stay in The Trunk

   My more relevant comment is…

   Madame, there is nothing more relevant than my Wisdom and Justice. Surely you meant to say, “More to the point of chrisian’s essay…”.

6. on 18 Jul 2007 at 1:59 pm 6. christian h. said …

   James, I agree that it remains to be shown that revolutionary Marxism can result in something else than “bureaucratic state capitalism” (Tony Cliff’s term for the class structure of the Soviet Union), as we like to call it. However, I’d like to insist that the jury is still out.

   Let me just make the following points.
   First, don’t you think people in, say, 1815, could have said (and no doubt did say) that a democratic republican form of government with universal (male) suffrage can’t work? That any revolutionary process aimed at bringing it about will necessarily end in military dictatorship? They could have pointed to the English experience (Cromwell), and the French one (Napoleon), and to the French satellites. [N.B.: the US does not count; as a colonial settler state it was in a special position].

   Second, there have not been many socialist revolutions at all. The Russian one surely, which degenerated into Stalinism; and maybe the Chinese one (although it is more similar to Cuba in many respects, with minimal participation by the industrial working class - mostly being a peasant revolt led by radical elements of the middle class, something Lenin and Trotsky had warned about in Russia earlier). North Korea and the East European countries received “socialism” as a “gift” from outside and from an indigineous revolution. The rest are thrid world revolutions invariably middle class nationalist in nature that turned towards “socialism” as practiced in the Soviet Union for protection as much as out of conviction.

   “Dictatorship of the proletariat” is a phrase easily misunderstood. What it means is that after the revolution, the working class must not allow the forces of reaction to resurrect the old system, as they will surely attempt to do. An example of the kinds of actions necessary can be found in the treatment of loyalists in the colonies after the war of independence. You might call this phase “dictatorship of the bourgoisie”, if you will.

   I politely disagree with your classification of revolutionary Marxism as “utopian”, I suppose as opposed to “realist”.

   As I wrote, I don’t know when a revolution will occur - it’s certainly not going to be tomorrow, and it’s certainly not going to be achieved by a bunch of college students trusting the transformative power of violence. Then again, historical processes can move quickly and discontinuously (that’s the meaning of “revolution” in Marxist thought) - as has been seen throughout history.

7. on 18 Jul 2007 at 2:05 pm 7. christian h. said …

   One more quick point: James is absolutely correct that Marx’s own economic analysis necessarily - due to the economic world he was analyzing - doesn’t fit today’s economy too well. That doesn’t mean that there isn’t Marxist analysis that takes transportation, communication, and particularly financialization (the ascendancy of financial capital as something else than merely a reflection of industrial capital) into account; it can be found for example in Monthly Review.

   Of course, Oaktown Girl rightly points out that the most revolutionary and liberating act imaginable is the GNF, after which there will be a period of “dictatorship of the gamma ray”.

8. on 18 Jul 2007 at 2:26 pm 8. James Killus said …

   Coming back to Marxism, when workers become part owner of the means of production in this way, is it considered a step in the right direction, or more capitalist BS?

   Galbraith’s answer was that “ownership” in corporate enterprises actually takes a back seat to the managers thereof (who are capable of what is now called “control fraud,” thereby siphoning as much of the actual wealth of the corporation into their own pockets.

   As I tend to both imply and say outright, the issue for me is the nature of the centers of control and who occupies them. The U.S. Constitution formalizes one answer to the question in the “separation of powers” and “checks and balances” ideas, but as we have seen lately, ideology and authoritarian organizations can overwhelm any given structural setup. The question in my mind is how do you protect yourself against such things, and are there organizational forms that can trump authoritarianism? I believe that there are, but they are not necessarily forms that I would advocate.

   I’ll also note that I’ve had some thoughts about an unusual downside of Marxist theory, and I’ve just promoted an essay to that effect to my blog (with the requisite back reference to please the MOJ).

9. on 18 Jul 2007 at 3:29 pm 9. Kiera PSI said …

   Madame, there is nothing more relevant than my Wisdom and Justice. Surely you meant to say, “More to the point of chrisian’s essay…”.

   Well, when you put it that way…of course. Though I think I’d have said “Christian’s essay”.

   *folds self into The Trunk*

10. on 18 Jul 2007 at 4:10 pm 10. Lord Astaroth said …

    Well, when you put it that way…of course. Though I think I’d have said “Christian’s essay”.

    Well, we both got it wrong. I made a typo (my hands aren’t made for your Hu-mon keyboards), and you gave him a capital “C”. He likes to go with the small “c” for his blog name. And I only indulge him in that petty triviality because he’s such a Loyal Party Patriot.

    *folds self into The Trunk*
    Quite right. But since you went in without me or the MOJ having to tell you to go, your stay will be slightly shorter.

11. on 18 Jul 2007 at 4:29 pm 11. James Killus said …

    I agree that it remains to be shown that revolutionary Marxism can result in something else than “bureaucratic state capitalism” (Tony Cliff’s term for the class structure of the Soviet Union), as we like to call it.

    That’s pretty close to what I mean by “utopian.” I do not use the term in opposition to “realism” (which often has perjorative connotations, given them that tends to use it) but rather in opposition to, perhaps, empiricism, in that I’d like to see some successful examples, even small scale examples of what someone has in mind.

    I’ll also note that the argument “it doesn’t work on a small scale” isn’t very convincing. I don’t believe that things get easier when things get bigger. (As an aside, I also believe the same thing about things getting smaller, e.g. nanotechnology).

    My concern with “dictatorship of the proletariat” is likewise empirically based. It simply looks to me like all efforts to control communication–whatever the nature of that control may be–tends to wind up being used for censorious purposes. If The Party controls communication, The Party will become a censor, and real dictatorship follows soon after.

    In the United States, censorship is accomplished (as is most else) through propertarian means. As the old saying goes, “the press is free if you own one.” There is less acknowledgement of the control of communications that copyrights represent and I tend to believe that any political philosophy that holds democratic ideals should be in favor of the abolishment of copyright, or at least the severe restriction thereof (for example, limiting copyrights to individuals and disallowing corporate ownership).

    But again, all this avoids my main question: what would a democratic Marxist organization look like? Must it have national sovereignty? Are smaller examples possible? Unless these questions have answers, how can Marxism be anything but utopian?

12. on 18 Jul 2007 at 4:36 pm 12. Zeus said …

    One point quickly, picking up on what James Killus observed: It seems like the center of power has moved from who own the means of production, to who controls the financial management and decision-making over the means of production. As one simple example, mutual funds are controlled by managers that have massive influence over so-called “assets” without necessarily owning them, and without necessarily even putting the money up themselves. Often they “represent” pension funds owned by thousands of individuals, but THEY, not the “owners,” make decisions about allocation and purchasing.

    I don’t know if Marx was able to predict this. It is a new twist contingent upon the quasi/(occasionally even) non-materialist basis of the Information Age. Private funds like Cerberus (that just “bought” Chrysler) by leveraging assets (essentially claims on property, not actual property or production) to “buy” more assets. When this is done on margin, with, say, only 15% of assets put up as collateral (and the rest borrowed or funneled against the expectation of future process, at which time one might “cash out” or further leverage).

    I think Marx would now think we have gone from an oppressive society where capitalists try to exploit the value of labor, to an absurd world in which financiers try to impute and skim value from anything they can name. Witness hedge funds, which don’t produce anything but, slice up and sell “risk”. Witness “collateralized debt obligations” (CDO’s) a fancy name for “things that give you a very high interest return for buying sub-prime mortgage risk until the housing market starts to tank but you’ve already bought on margin from the same banks that tried to pass their risk off to you”. Funny thing is, as the Ponzi scheme is allowed to go, the “top” hedge fund managers have made literally over a BILLION dollars a year, skimming off these schemes. Moody’s and Standard and Poor and other rating agencies keep the ratings on these POS’s (pieces of sh*t) high, and get this, peg their ratings AAA = very stable, low risk to a model of value and stability that they create theoretically! (This is no joke). And surprise, they have made hundreds of millions of dollars out of keeping these ratings high.

    I think the disease has gone far beyond what Marx could have imagined, a dystopian disconnection between production, ownership, and control of assets. It’s going to bite us big. Look for the next year to reveal that there is no “there” there in stocks and especially housing values. It won’t be the revolution by the proletariat, and it certainly won’t be “once and for all” (a state that will never exist with the changing nature of consciousness), but it will be an upheaval of history that requires adjustment, some of it traumatic, some of it carthartic, some of it just plain baffling and even ridiculous.

    Citizen Zeus

13. on 18 Jul 2007 at 4:44 pm 13. Zeus said …

    Added note:

    One similarity between the new an old capitalist exploitation, is that they are both essentially parasitic in nature, and therein lies the problem at the core of much capitalist practice: it encourages parasitism over creativity and productivity. It is as Nietzsche might say essentially negational or life-resenting or necrophilic in nature (in a nutshell “nihilistic”, the very thing Nietzsche is often unfairly accused of). The point in my “utopian” view is to educate, develop, or other organize people around the attitudes and work habits and values of creativity (art, etc.) and to critically resist and sideline parasites and parasitic behavior (usury, etc.)

    Citizen Zeus

14. on 18 Jul 2007 at 10:33 pm 14. Oaktown Girl said …

    (Apropos of basically nothing in regards to the conversation, but simply because the word’s been used a lot…)

    Not wanting to throw the baby out with the bath water, I am cautious against using the word “Utopian” in discussing theories/strategies on how to extract ourselves from the current mess without getting ourselves into another one just like it (except with a new slogan).

    Since Utopia can never be achieved, it’s easy for people to just throw up their hands and give up on even trying for something better, thus giving the lazy person a convenient way out. Clearly, there are a lot of good principles that we should be fighting for, including basic fundamental workers’ rights that have been trampled under deregulation and crony capitalism. My fear is that words like “Utopia” just reinforce an “all or nothing” sentiment, and therefore everything is out of reach because we’ll never get the “all”.

15. on 18 Jul 2007 at 11:32 pm 15. JP Stormcrow said …

    No time to do this justice until probably this weekend.

    It is interesting to note the slight “shock value” that I still experience seeing someone come out and declare themself a MArxist-Leninist (or some variant). That is one narrative that was wired very deeply into my subconcious growing up, and though I can “intercept” it at the conscious layer, it clearly rumbles around in the nether regions of my mind - along with any number of other unthinking prejudices and stupid points of view.

16. on 19 Jul 2007 at 9:40 am 16. James Killus said …

    Actually, Oaktown Girl, that was the very reason why I was using the word “utopian.” My experience (a singular viewpoint, of course) is that those who hold utopian principles are those most prone to the opinion that there is no difference between the electorial choices that we are given, they’re all crooks anyway, etc. etc.

    Anywat, to offer a suggestion for an answer to my own question, I’ve come to the conjecture that there are several sorts of organizations that might fit the description of “left leaning” in one fashion or another. One is those organizations, either public or private, that hold professionalism as the highest standard. Thus, agencies like NOAA, the EPA, and others might serve as a template (and the hostility of the current administration to those agencies is one element supporting the conjecture).

    The other would be represented by such things as the Open Source Movement and Wikipedia. Control is highly decentralized, and there are no “owners.”

    The question of scaling remains an issue.

17. on 19 Jul 2007 at 9:48 am 17. Oaktown Girl said …

    Thanks for the nice set-up, JP, because I have something very related on the subject of what I’ll call “trigger” words.

    A word that I think is counter-productive is “imperialism”. When people hear the words “U.S Imperialism”, their brains completely shut down and anything said after that is just static. Why? Because upon hearing those words, I feel it’s safe to predict that 99% of the time they will be thinking one of two thoughts:

    1. “This person is an America-hater.”

    2. “I’m moderately sympathetic this person’s politics, but I’m in no mood to hear some long-winded spiel (or anything, for that matter) from this Marxist whack-job.”

    That’s where we are with “U.S Imperialism”. We need to find another way to talk about the devastating and downright horrific impact US corporations (aided by their political lapdogs) are having in other countries: supporting death squads in South America which are torturing and murdering union activist fighting for a living wage and humane working conditions, killer air and water pollution in India, support of military dictatorships in Africa, and sweatshops all over Asia and elsewhere.

    Americans need to understand people around the world don’t “hate us for our “freedoms”, they hate our policies and actions. How are Americans going to learn this? The corporate-owned, profit-driven media sure as hell isn’t going to tell them. Whatever we do, we can’t start (or even finish) the conversation with “Imperialism”. As a rallying cry, it’s a word that has about the same impact as a ping pong ball being thrown inside the Houston Astrodome.

18. on 20 Jul 2007 at 6:09 am 18. christian h. said …

    Look here, I have some internet access! First off, I hear you had an earthquake in the Bay area, I hope Oaktown Girl and all the others out there are safe!

    Second, thanks to everybody to their very thoughtful comments.

    Zeus, the role of finance capital has been very much noticed in Marxist analysis, see for example this essay by J. B. Foster in Monthly Review this year.

    James, if what I wrote (without a doubt both convoluted and jargon-laden) suggested I’d argue “it doesn’t work on a small scale”, that’s not what I meant. However, I do think that (a) the sample size of genuine home-grown socialist revolutions is way too small to draw categorical conclusions and (b) the impossibility of “socialism in one country” is not a question of size - the Soviet Union was pretty big - but rather results from the immediate pressure such a socialist state will find itself under from the capitalist states - invasion, economic blockade, you name it. This will lead to/ open the window for increased internal repression and militarization. Again, I’d suggest the example of the French, bourgeois, revolution is instructive; it immediately found itself in a fight for its survival against the reactionary powers of its time - the result is well-known.

    Oaktown Girl, I try to say “imperialism” or “Western imperialism”, without the “US” bit. The word is becoming more mainstreamed again, surely, with all the positive attention it receives from the right. In any event, I am not a fan of backing down on the choice of terminology - just like I don’t like giving up the term “liberal”.

19. on 20 Jul 2007 at 9:20 am 19. Oaktown Girl said …

    Hi christian-
    My point was not that we need to “back away” from using the word “imperialism”. My point is that its use as a rallying cry is almost ineffective unless you have time to explain to people what exactly you mean by it (as in the examples I gave).

    It’s not about backing down. It’s about being smart and effective with your time and energy. I don’t see it at all as being analygous to the demonization of the word “liberal”. The demonization of “liberal” was a deliberate, well-thought out effort by right wing think tanks and strategists. “Imperialism” has not been demonized, but has been made “toothless” by overuse/mis-use/blanket use by people on the “left”.

    If one has time to explain what they mean by “imperialism”, fine, by all means use it.(And frankly, I’m all for more people understanding exactly what it means). But bumper stickers, newspapers, posters, and protest chants that say, “End U.S/Western Imperialism” aren’t going to win over any new converts, or energize many sympathizers.

    It’s about strategy, and it’s along the same line of of how Republicans win votes in campaigning by telling “real” stories about “real people” to get their message across, while Dems talk about policy which just leaves people cold. People mostly vote with their hearts and “guts”, not their brains.

    We can do easily do that (appeal to peoples’ hearts), and without sacrificing any of our principles. Lord knows there’s enough “real” stories on our side to do it.

20. on 20 Jul 2007 at 9:32 am 20. Oaktown Girl said …

    christian -
    almost forgot - thanks for asking about the earthquake. Yeah, the city of Oaktown got shook up pretty good (epicenter was very close to me). And that means a lot coming from me, a local who pretty much ignores anything under 4 points or so.

    You know, last week I sent an email to a bunch of my friends saying that I “felt one (earthquake) coming on”. Usually when I “feel one coming on” I nail it within about a week and a half. Wish I could predict it more accurately than that, maybe I could make some BACM (big ass cash money). Oh…and perhaps save lives, which is almost as important as the BACM.

21. on 20 Jul 2007 at 10:00 am 21. JP Stormcrow said …

    Oh…and perhaps save lives, which is almost as important as the BACM.
    

    I don’t know, try using “saved lives” as your down payment on that ski chalet in Aspen. It’s like the old saying “money talk, commie humanitarian types walk - because the pathetic losers can’t even afford bus fare.”

22. on 20 Jul 2007 at 11:36 am 22. Kiera PSI said …

    Wish I could predict it more accurately than that, maybe I could make some BACM (big ass cash money).

    It’s a thankless job. Just ask “Earthquake Mary” up in the Stockton area. She’s always right, and some people either blame her for the damn things, or for not making them believe her. Sigh.

    Being a “real” psychic just doesn’t pay BACM. Only the fakes get rich.

23. on 20 Jul 2007 at 12:21 pm 23. Oaktown Girl said …

    One of my favorite funny buttons/refrigerator magnets is this one:

    “I didn’t say it was your fault. I said I was going to blame you!”

    So funny because it’s so true.

24. on 20 Jul 2007 at 2:51 pm 24. JP Stormcrow said …

    I didn’t say it was your fault.

    See if it really was your fault, then we probably would be justified in blaming you.

    Q: Why do geologists have trouble eating dinner?
    A: Because their plates keep moving.

25. on 20 Jul 2007 at 3:29 pm 25. Oaktown Girl said …

    JP - Ha!
    I didn’t even think of the “fault” pun (re: the earthquake discussion) until after I read your comment. See, we all suffer when I’m so busy at work I have to rush (and sneak) my comments.

    James, too, who surely would have pounced on that pun had he not been putting out metaphorical fires at the office.

    Oh. And I just now got the “second” level of that geologist joke. (I hate having to rush things).

26. on 23 Jul 2007 at 12:43 pm 26. The Constructivist said …

    Speaking of quakes, have you all been following the revelations about the Tokyo nuclear power plant that was damaged by the latest one? Makes me think that those energy, climate, and ecology issues are key to any marxist or other analysis of where global capitalism is heading….

    Oh, and I proposed a less than revolutionary campaign for the Party over at Mostly Harmless!