What is your understanding of socialism and/or communism?

Earthhorse

brianthebard wrote: »

The point of socialism is that the means of production are put in the hands of the workers not the managers.

Can't say I've read much on the subject but this is what I've always taken socialism to mean. Ironically, I think the capitalist model actually supports this ideology better though I'm not too sure exactly how socialists propose we put the means of production back in workers' hands.

Communism, on the other hand, I've always associated with centralised, command economies, at least in practise. Not too sure how the theory differs.

From the little I've read I would say literature on socialism and communism seems to be bound into political ideologies, whereas literature on capitalism doesn't (or does to a lesser extent).

DadaKopf wrote: »

Now, there's another thing about Marxism - it is a particular tradition in analysing political economy. It describes capitalism as a social relation, but recognises that capitalism is a tendency rather than something specific; capitalism is a social relation but the theory required to explain it in any age has to be reinvented every few years (see my first paragraph there).

Can you explain what is meant by "social relation" please?

brianthebard

Earthhorse wrote: »

Can't say I've read much on the subject but this is what I've always taken socialism to mean. Ironically, I think the capitalist model actually supports this ideology better though I'm not too sure exactly how socialists propose we put the means of production back in workers' hands.

Can you explain how? Capitalist systems often talk about choice and freedom as benefits of their system, where workers are free to move up the social ladder. Is that what you mean?

Communism, on the other hand, I've always associated with centralised, command economies, at least in practise. Not too sure how the theory differs.

From the little I've read I would say literature on socialism and communism seems to be bound into political ideologies, whereas literature on capitalism doesn't (or does to a lesser extent).

Communism is about decentralising, giving power to communities. The states you are referring to would generally be called "state socialism" by socialists. Are they right or wrong? That's up to you I guess, but when you get to the level of centralisation seen in the USSR or PRC you are no longer looking at a system which could even turn towards Communism imo. (although Chinese politicians would say that they are not even Socialist yet).

I think the ideology of Capitalism is out there, but it doesn't have one particular text from which all else emanates.

Earthhorse

brianthebard wrote: »

Can you explain how? Capitalist systems often talk about choice and freedom as benefits of their system, where workers are free to move up the social ladder. Is that what you mean?

Essentially, yes. If we go back to first principles there are four means of production; labour, land, capital and, uhm, strawberries. Okay, it's not strawberries. I forget the fourth one.

Capitalism basically puts as few restrictions as possible on how we move these about and who can own them. So the means of production are in the hands of the workers (including managers, who are also workers). This is especially true in a knowledge based economy where you are the means of production. How Orwellian.

But...I would not use the term social ladder.

Would be very interested in hearing how socialists see their model working and what they mean by having the means of production in the hands of the workers.

brianthebard wrote: »

Communism is about decentralising, giving power to communities.

Again, I would argue that this is best supported by captialism. Essentially, the organistions existing in a capitalist system are communities; whether they be clubs, charities, companies or what have you. These communities are, again, self organising and probably not really recognised as communities by the communist model (I'm guessing).

brianthebard wrote: »

The states you are referring to would generally be called "state socialism" by socialists. Are they right or wrong? That's up to you I guess, but when you get to the level of centralisation seen in the USSR or PRC you are no longer looking at a system which could even turn towards Communism imo. (although Chinese politicians would say that they are not even Socialist yet).

Nothing fundamentally right or wrong about them in theory but in practise they've produced some terrible results. Centralised power is a bad idea, in my opinion, as it tends to attract not just the corruptable but the downright sadistic.

brianthebard wrote: »

I think the ideology of Capitalism is out there, but it doesn't have one particular text from which all else emanates.

I would argue that capitalism isn't really an ideology at all; it's an economic model. Communism and socialism on the other hand seem to make more ideological claims. This is actually a drawback with them as the noble goals of both, interfere with describing how things work in a frank manner that produces discussion of what methods best result in those goals.

sink

Earthhorse wrote: »

Essentially, yes. If we go back to first principles there are four means of production; labour, land, capital and, uhm, strawberries. Okay, it's not strawberries. I forget the fourth one.

Entrepreneurship?

DadaKopf

Again, I would argue that this is best supported by captialism. Essentially, the organistions existing in a capitalist system are communities; whether they be clubs, charities, companies or what have you. These communities are, again, self organising and probably not really recognised as communities by the communist model (I'm guessing).

So you're saying 'the market' is the best way to optimally distribute resources in a way that ensures equality. But equality of what? And for whom does this arrangement really benefit? Rather than using the 'neutral' term communities, Marxism segments society into 'classes' - it's here you see the market being very un-neutral: capitalism, whereby capitalists own the means of production and labourers rent their bodies for income, is a social relation whose tendency is towards alienation and exploitation. Always, always ask: qui bono? (who benefits?).

A latter day example is the financial market crisis: hailed as the most advanced, self-regulating, efficient, wealth-producing, wealth-redistributing marketplace and look what's happened. Not only was it not good at distributing resources, it created a clobal economic crisis (as expected by left-wing analyists) affecting millions of people, reinstating the inequalities the capitalist tubthumpers said were a thing of the past. But Marxian analysis knows better (IMHO).

It must be said, the world now is a different place; things aren't so simple, and Marxist analysts have moved with the times.

Kama

Earthhorse wrote:

From the little I've read I would say literature on socialism and communism seems to be bound into political ideologies, whereas literature on capitalism doesn't (or does to a lesser extent).

Seen the Usual Suspects? 'The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing people he didn't exist'; the greatest trick liberal capitalism (imo) has ever pulled is convincing people it's non-ideological. That there's less attention to and awareness of ideology does not equal that there is less of it. Again, my epeenion...

DadaKopf wrote:

Always, always ask: qui bono? (who benefits?).

But...but...that's Conspiracy Theory!

brianthebard

Earthhorse wrote: »

Essentially, yes. If we go back to first principles there are four means of production; labour, land, capital and, uhm, strawberries. Okay, it's not strawberries. I forget the fourth one.

Capitalism basically puts as few restrictions as possible on how we move these about and who can own them. So the means of production are in the hands of the workers (including managers, who are also workers). This is especially true in a knowledge based economy where you are the means of production. How Orwellian.

But...I would not use the term social ladder.

Would be very interested in hearing how socialists see their model working and what they mean by having the means of production in the hands of the workers.



Again, I would argue that this is best supported by captialism. Essentially, the organistions existing in a capitalist system are communities; whether they be clubs, charities, companies or what have you. These communities are, again, self organising and probably not really recognised as communities by the communist model (I'm guessing).



Nothing fundamentally right or wrong about them in theory but in practise they've produced some terrible results. Centralised power is a bad idea, in my opinion, as it tends to attract not just the corruptable but the downright sadistic.



I would argue that capitalism isn't really an ideology at all; it's an economic model. Communism and socialism on the other hand seem to make more ideological claims. This is actually a drawback with them as the noble goals of both, interfere with describing how things work in a frank manner that produces discussion of what methods best result in those goals.

I pretty much disagree on all counts (except that centralisation is bad). What you are talking about is free trade/laissez faire society, in which the market is supposed to govern itself and the hand of god is supposed to play a key part in equality. (Check out Adam Smith for more info) This is not a fair and equitable system. Moreover it was created with the middle class industrialists in mind, not the working class. The equality it is supposed to supply is between aristocracy and middle classes, the working classes were and still are disenfranchised to a large degree. Capitalism obviously has an ideology, otherwise how could it set itself in opposition to Socialism? Everything you have outlined is capitalism's ideology.

Edit: for capitalist ideology, look at Adam Smith, the anti corn law lobby, the economist, and various other nineteenth century philosophers/radicals.

Kama

I would argue that capitalism isn't really an ideology at all; it's an economic model.

Why would one think economics couldn't contain or embody an ideology? Economic theories are socially constructed, in particular times and places, , have the interests of some served more than others, and contain many philosophical or ideological presuppositions. Dada's question is pertinent here: who benefits? Neoliberal economics I would not consider a 'disinterested science', it serves certain interests *far* more than others. Economic models in their effect can be far from neutral.

Nothing fundamentally right or wrong about them in theory but in practise they've produced some terrible results.

Socialised states have also produced some impressive outcome figures in terms of quality of life, mortality, and so on. Iraq pre-sanctions won WHO awards for its healthcare (which existed pre-Saddam, lest someone yell). Market-state Yugoslavia had free medical care, 90-plus percent literacy, and 6% growth. Kerala in India had Communist local government, and India-leading figures for women's participation, literacy etc, high human development with a relatively low economic base. Examples abound. In outcomes, especially for the less privileged, a degree of socialization seems efficacious.

You can also make a fair argument that for a 'free market' to work in any way well, and provide actual meritocratic opportunity, a measure of socialist redistribution and investment in the people (creches, healthcare, education, etc) is not just healthy but necessary. Otherwise accumulation makes a joke of the meritocratic ideology of opportunity, on which liberal capitalism is dependent for legitimacy.

Capitalism basically puts as few restrictions as possible on how we move these about and who can own them.

In theory yes, in practice no. For an example, take the Zapatistas in Mexico...a main irritant leading to the uprising was the removal of peasant group-ownership land rights from the Mexican constitution in line with NAFTA, which is an example of the ideological bias in liberal-capitalism toward individuals.

Also, the critique of corporate human rights in reference to 'free ownership' is relevant here, imo. And has often been noted, laissez-fair 'deregulation' required a colossal amount of rules and regulation, which due to greater 'voice' by corporate bodies such a 'lack of restrictions' on ownenership can result in a 'grab' by dominant players; a lack of restriction on a regulatory level in a zero-sum situation can lead to significant 'restrictions' on a lived level.

Earthhorse

DadaKopf wrote: »

So you're saying 'the market' is the best way to optimally distribute resources in a way that ensures equality. But equality of what?

No, not quite. I never said anything about equality, just about community. You can organise the community whatever way you want. If you want everyone to have an equal say you can structure your community that way. If you want one person to have all the power you can do it that way too.

Self-organising communities, be it family, friends or franchises, tend to organise themselves into hierarchies where there are people at the top and people at the bottom. Leaders and followers, winners and losers, if you will. Rather than asking whether we can create a world where everyone is equal I think it's more fruitful to ask whether we can create one where everyone is a winner regardless of whether some win more than others.

Personally, I think the capitalist model nearly produces this result and could produce it with refining; hard to judge the marxist model, I'm not familiar with any real world examples.

DadaKopf wrote: »

And for whom does this arrangement really benefit? Rather than using the 'neutral' term communities, Marxism segments society into 'classes' - it's here you see the market being very un-neutral: capitalism, whereby capitalists own the means of production and labourers rent their bodies for income, is a social relation whose tendency is towards alienation and exploitation.

Terms such as class come loaded with connotation. It doesn't matter to me how class is split; that is, I'm not concerned with whether anyone has too much provided everybody has enough. Even the term "labourers rent their bodies for income" implies something sinister in play. Personally, I disagree that capitalism tends towards alienation and exploitation though there is no doubt this occurs under capitalism.

DadaKopf wrote: »

Always, always ask: qui bono? (who benefits?).

Pffft. More U2 bashing. Where are the mods!

DadaKopf wrote: »

A latter day example is the financial market crisis: hailed as the most advanced, self-regulating, efficient, wealth-producing, wealth-redistributing marketplace and look what's happened. Not only was it not good at distributing resources, it created a clobal economic crisis (as expected by left-wing analyists) affecting millions of people, reinstating the inequalities the capitalist tubthumpers said were a thing of the past. But Marxian analysis knows better (IMHO).

Any analyst worth his salt would have said the sub-prime market wouldn't hold in the long run. The problem here is unfettered markets, which I wouldn't be for, rather than markets themselves.

brianthebard wrote: »

What you are talking about is free trade/laissez faire society, in which the market is supposed to govern itself and the hand of god is supposed to play a key part in equality. (Check out Adam Smith for more info)

Smith talked about the invisible hand which is taken today to mean the self-correcting market mechanisms guided by individual self-interest. Nothing to do with God, even if that might have been Smith's original intent. Also, although I am talking about the market system I don't believe in an unregulated one.

brianthebard wrote: »

This is not a fair and equitable system. Moreover it was created with the middle class industrialists in mind, not the working class. The equality it is supposed to supply is between aristocracy and middle classes, the working classes were and still are disenfranchised to a large degree.

It may not be perfectly fair and equitable but it is pretty fair and equitable if you ask me. It doesn't matter, to me at least, with whom it was created in mind; if it provides the best distribution of wealth to create a better standard of living for the most people, that is all that matters. The working classes may very well be disenfranchised but that is a problem with implementation of the model rather than the model itself.

Would be interested in knowing how the working class fair under a Marxist model. Is there any existing Marxist model in the real world?

brianthebard wrote: »

Capitalism obviously has an ideology, otherwise how could it set itself in opposition to Socialism? Everything you have outlined is capitalism's ideology.

Capitalism doesn't have an ideology as I see it; that is like saying biology has an ideology. Capitalism is merely a model of how people interact with each other economically. Capitalists sometimes set it in opposition to socialism, which doesn't mean they should.

brianthebard wrote: »

Edit: for capitalist ideology, look at Adam Smith, the anti corn law lobby, the economist, and various other nineteenth century philosophers/radicals.

Those are the roots of capitalist thinking but not necessarily reflective of where we stand today. Capitalists seem to have shed themselves of these ideas whereas socialists seem to hold on to their ideological roots. Totally open to correction on this, just my experience on reading around the subjects.

Kama wrote: »

Seen the Usual Suspects? 'The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing people he didn't exist'; the greatest trick liberal capitalism (imo) has ever pulled is convincing people it's non-ideological. That there's less attention to and awareness of ideology does not equal that there is less of it. Again, my epeenion...

No doubt there are people out there that view it as an ideology and practise it as a way of life. But most are happy to see it merely as a model of interaction; nothing more, nothing less.

Anyway, I think my presence on this thread is dragging it off topic into a debate which has probably been done to death round these parts and this was not my intention. Would be interested in hearing more detail about how the Marxist model is supposed to work.

sink wrote: »

Entrepreneurship?

That's the one. They should have gone with strawberries though. Would have won the popular vote.

DadaKopf

No, not quite. I never said anything about equality, just about community. You can organise the community whatever way you want. If you want everyone to have an equal say you can structure your community that way. If you want one person to have all the power you can do it that way too.

Self-organising communities, be it family, friends or franchises, tend to organise themselves into hierarchies where there are people at the top and people at the bottom. Leaders and followers, winners and losers, if you will. Rather than asking whether we can create a world where everyone is equal I think it's more fruitful to ask whether we can create one where everyone is a winner regardless of whether some win more than others.

Personally, I think the capitalist model nearly produces this result and could produce it with refining; hard to judge the marxist model, I'm not familiar with any real world examples.

I think you're confusing 'trade' with 'capitalism'. In pre-capitalist societies there was trade, trade is an activity in which people exchange goods for other goods. Capitalism is a 'social relation' different to feudalism, for example, which is what capitalism replaced in Europe. This social relation has a particular form: a minority owns the property required to generate certain goods, which are traded, and the majority works for the minority, transferring a portion of the minority's profit in the form of money/benefits to those workers as they exchange their bodies/minds for it.

In theory, this sounds like a fair deal, except when applied to the real world (which is what left-wing analysts do, rather than classical economists who build unrealistic 'models') reveals that the flow of power is generally in favour of the minority than the majority.

Terms such as class come loaded with connotation. It doesn't matter to me how class is split; that is, I'm not concerned with whether anyone has too much provided everybody has enough. Even the term "labourers rent their bodies for income" implies something sinister in play. Personally, I disagree that capitalism tends towards alienation and exploitation though there is no doubt this occurs under capitalism.

Now, if you want to define this in terms of traditional class divisions, fine. This is an interesting (if incomplete) attempt to redefine class in contemporary Ireland. You could define things in terms of 'social stratification' (e.g. Weber's typology), or much more innovative and influential approaches like 'field theory' of Pierre Bordieu, or even those use by comparative politics analysts where people are simply defined by profession. All of these, though, underly the fact that the power relations among each of these groups are interpenetrated with economic power, and that one of the key structures influencing our social hierarchies is the political economy. This even applies to the socio-spatial stratification of urban spaces.

Now, you accuse me of making loaded statements. Yes, it was loaded. What's the problem, it's what I believe to be the case and I see it as a hypocrisy to conceal this reality in pseudo-objective language.

brianthebard

Earthhorse wrote: »

Smith talked about the invisible hand which is taken today to mean the self-correcting market mechanisms guided by individual self-interest. Nothing to do with God, even if that might have been Smith's original intent. Also, although I am talking about the market system I don't believe in an unregulated one.



It may not be perfectly fair and equitable but it is pretty fair and equitable if you ask me. It doesn't matter, to me at least, with whom it was created in mind; if it provides the best distribution of wealth to create a better standard of living for the most people, that is all that matters. The working classes may very well be disenfranchised but that is a problem with implementation of the model rather than the model itself.

If it is fair and equitable, please explain how. I don’t believe disenfranchisement is just a problem with implementation, it is fundamental to the model that working class interests be seen as base, static, and undemanding, and any demands that they may have must be suppressed by the market if industry is to thrive.

Would be interested in knowing how the working class fair under a Marxist model. Is there any existing Marxist model in the real world?

The more I learn about Marx the less I believe his model is to be enacted directly on the world, it has to be adapted to the times, the place, it has to be updated every few years as society moves along. Marxism today is by necessity very different to his day.

Capitalism doesn't have an ideology as I see it; that is like saying biology has an ideology. Capitalism is merely a model of how people interact with each other economically. Capitalists sometimes set it in opposition to socialism, which doesn't mean they should.
Those are the roots of capitalist thinking but not necessarily reflective of where we stand today. Capitalists seem to have shed themselves of these ideas whereas socialists seem to hold on to their ideological roots. Totally open to correction on this, just my experience on reading around the subjects.

All you have to do is open the latest copy of The Economist or the Financial times to see Capitalist ideology today in action. I have no idea what capitalists are supposed to have shed, free market ideology is as widespread as ever, perhaps more so, in business today. Please outline what ideas capitalism had that have been shed, and what ideas socialists have that need to be dropped.

DadaKopf

brianthebard wrote:

The more I learn about Marx the less I believe his model is to be enacted directly on the world, it has to be adapted to the times, the place, it has to be updated every few years as society moves along. Marxism today is by necessity very different to his day.

Precisely. As I said earlier, Marx realised that the real world informs theory, and theory informs the real world in an infinite loop - the 'dialectic'. That goes as much for capitalism as anything that some would replace it with. Marx himself wasn't prescriptive about the precise form of a proletarian democracy, it was his accolytes in Russia, Ukraine etc. who provided that form. I'd argue that didn't work, but as with any revolutionary change, it was as much product of historical baggage as a product of passionate utopianism. So everywhere you have the intrinsic tendency of capitalism, as argued by leftists, but very different ways of implementing leftist reforms.

Kama

I'm quite interested in an analysis of the Strawberry factor of poduction, could be quite fertile. Are strawberries fungible with mushrooms? :D:D

DadaKopf wrote:

I think you're confusing 'trade' with 'capitalism'.

Key point here...capitalism as a social formation and ideology is not identical with trade; trade pre-existed capitalism, and is not inconsistent with socialism. You can have states which are highly socialised competing in capitalist world-markets (Scandinavia is a general model), or socialist businesses trading (Spanish anarchist industrial cooperatives spring to mind), and so on.

Capitalism doesn't have an ideology as I see it; that is like saying biology has an ideology.

If social arrangements come to be seen as 'natural' and 'inevitable', some would call this ideology. Whether biology has ideology in it is off-topic, there's actually some very interesting work on that by people like Donna Haraway, but a principal initial difference is between a interested and involved social science, and a disinterested and objective natural science; it's famously difficult to be 'objective' in social matters or political economy. Imo economics is often highly ideological, but thats probably a debate for a different thread. As Dada said, the results in a real-world of economic models can have definite social-political consequences.

It may not be perfectly fair and equitable but it is pretty fair and equitable if you ask me.

A lot of this depends on what one's definition of 'fair' is; socialist conceptions of fairness have tended to emphasise equality of outcomes, whereas liberal-capitalist conceptions have tended to focus on equality of opportunity this is where the meritocratic ideology in capitalism gains its legitimacy, but the dynamics of capitalist accumulation weigh against the meritocratic ideal. I wouldn't agree that it is equitable btw...

if it provides the best distribution of wealth to create a better standard of living for the most people, that is all that matters.

Agree with this, the question for me is how, on an evidence-based approach, that this can be accomplished. The distribution of wealth under neoliberal-corporate capitalism appears been closer to the robber-baron period than, say, the Keynesian post-war consensus; extreme concentration of wealth in capital markets, stagnant or declining incomes for the middle and working classes.


Apropos of self-organising communities and social means of production, there's a line of techno-booster thought which looks at think like fabbers meeting open source design principles and p2p sharing as allowing decentralised production on a local basis. You could have group ownership of the means (as it's a little capital-intensive), open IP for designs, but private ownership of produce, for instance.

DadaKopf

Alfred Kahn, an economic adviser to President Carter, was told by the White House to avoid using the word "recession" and so substituted "banana". In 1978 he declared that: "We're now in danger of having the worst banana in 45 years." The words "credit crunch" first entered the economic lexicon in 1967; this month they made it into the Concise Oxford English Dictionary, along with "sub-prime".

url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jul/30/economicgrowth.creditcrunch]Source[/url

Kama

'credit crunch sounds like a cheerful breakfast cereal'

ahahaha!

DadaKopf

Kama wrote: »

'credit crunch sounds like a cheerful breakfast cereal'

ahahaha!

George Bush = Cap'n Crunch?

Kama

Nah, Cap'n Crunch reappropriated the means of communication for the phreaking masses, that's a highly underserved slur on a revolutionary figure there Dada...

Earthhorse

Kama wrote: »

Why would one think economics couldn't contain or embody an ideology?

It's not that I don't think it can so much as I don't think it needs to or should. Just because certain interested bodies are for the model does not mean we need follow suit (I mean purely in terms of viewing it as an ideology).

Kama wrote: »

Socialised states have also produced some impressive outcome figures in terms of quality of life, mortality, and so on. Iraq pre-sanctions won WHO awards for its healthcare (which existed pre-Saddam, lest someone yell). Market-state Yugoslavia had free medical care, 90-plus percent literacy, and 6% growth.

Well, I hope they enjoyed reading about all the jobs that weren't available. Individual successes in healthcare, literacy etc. don't show the whole picture in terms of quality of life.

Kama wrote: »

Examples abound. In outcomes, especially for the less privileged, a degree of socialization seems efficacious.

And hey, I'm not against a degree of socialisation. Some of my best friends are degrees of socialisation.

Kama wrote: »

You can also make a fair argument that for a 'free market' to work in any way well, and provide actual meritocratic opportunity, a measure of socialist redistribution and investment in the people (creches, healthcare, education, etc) is not just healthy but necessary. Otherwise accumulation makes a joke of the meritocratic ideology of opportunity, on which liberal capitalism is dependent for legitimacy.

Sure, I'll go along with that.

Kama wrote: »

In theory yes, in practice no. For an example, take the Zapatistas in Mexico...a main irritant leading to the uprising was the removal of peasant group-ownership land rights from the Mexican constitution in line with NAFTA, which is an example of the ideological bias in liberal-capitalism toward individuals.

Oh, so one example means it doesn't largely work in practise? Please.

Kama wrote: »

Also, the critique of corporate human rights in reference to 'free ownership' is relevant here, imo. And has often been noted, laissez-fair 'deregulation' required a colossal amount of rules and regulation, which due to greater 'voice' by corporate bodies such a 'lack of restrictions' on ownenership can result in a 'grab' by dominant players; a lack of restriction on a regulatory level in a zero-sum situation can lead to significant 'restrictions' on a lived level.

The important point is not that people should be allowed move the means of production with no restriction but with as little restriction as possible. This can include measures to ensure such grabs do not take place if we regard them as necessarily undesirable.

DadaKopf wrote: »

I think you're confusing 'trade' with 'capitalism'. In pre-capitalist societies there was trade, trade is an activity in which people exchange goods for other goods.

Kama wrote: »

Key point here...capitalism as a social formation and ideology is not identical with trade; trade pre-existed capitalism, and is not inconsistent with socialism.

Maybe. Perhaps it is because I'm approaching this from a pure economics background rather than with a grounding in political theory. Personally, I think the economic and political model should be kept separate, the same way we separate church and state (or should). I don't contend the two won't interact, merely that one should be concerned with creating and distributing wealth, and the other with allowing this to happen and redistribution of wealth to where the first failed to place it.

DadaKopf wrote: »

Capitalism is a 'social relation' different to feudalism, for example, which is what capitalism replaced in Europe. This social relation has a particular form: a minority owns the property required to generate certain goods, which are traded, and the majority works for the minority, transferring a portion of the minority's profit in the form of money/benefits to those workers as they exchange their bodies/minds for it.

A minority, maybe, but how fixed and significant a minority? In the essay you linked the split was 40/60 middle/working class. And that's just a rough macro model, the split could be different. I'm still interested in hearing how Marxists would have the means of production handed back to the workers.

Kama wrote: »

You can have states which are highly socialised competing in capitalist world-markets (Scandinavia is a general model), or socialist businesses trading (Spanish anarchist industrial cooperatives spring to mind), and so on.

So, are the means of production in the hands of workers in Scandinavian countries or are they still following a broadly capitalist model underpinned by strong socialist leanings?

DadaKopf wrote: »

In theory, this sounds like a fair deal, except when applied to the real world (which is what left-wing analysts do, rather than classical economists who build unrealistic 'models') reveals that the flow of power is generally in favour of the minority than the majority.

In practise that minority might not be that minor and the majority may be little or no worse off because of this concentration of capital. Hardly think it's fair to compare modern left-wing analysts with classical economists; I'm sure there are modern "right-wing" analysts that study the real world and it's implications too.

DadaKopf wrote: »

Now, if you want to define this in terms of traditional class divisions, fine. This is an interesting (if incomplete) attempt to redefine class in contemporary Ireland. You could define things in terms of 'social stratification' (e.g. Weber's typology), or much more innovative and influential approaches like 'field theory' of Pierre Bordieu, or even those use by comparative politics analysts where people are simply defined by profession. All of these, though, underly the fact that the power relations among each of these groups are interpenetrated with economic power, and that one of the key structures influencing our social hierarchies is the political economy. This even applies to the socio-spatial stratification of urban spaces.

Well, I didn't want to bring class into it at all actually, but yeah, the essay you linked contains a far more interesting, and useful, model of classes than the traditional ones. Like you say it's incomplete though; long on critique of the existing model, short on suggestion of how we can change it for the better or even whether such change is possible.

DadaKopf wrote: »

Now, you accuse me of making loaded statements. Yes, it was loaded. What's the problem, it's what I believe to be the case and I see it as a hypocrisy to conceal this reality in pseudo-objective language.

It wasn't so much an accusation given that you'd already admitted the language was biased. The problem with it is you've basically traded one form of obfuscation (pseudo-objective language) for a worse one (actual-subjective language). Phrases such as "labourers rent their bodies for income" implies some form of prostitution or exploitation whereas a phrase such as "labourers rent their labour for income" neither pre-supposes nor precludes such a possibilty, allowing us to determine whether this has taken place on a case by case basis, thus bringing us closer to an understanding of reality.

brianthebard wrote: »

If it is fair and equitable, please explain how.

Kama wrote: »

A lot of this depends on what one's definition of 'fair' is; socialist conceptions of fairness have tended to emphasise equality of outcomes, whereas liberal-capitalist conceptions have tended to focus on equality of opportunity this is where the meritocratic ideology in capitalism gains its legitimacy, but the dynamics of capitalist accumulation weigh against the meritocratic ideal. I wouldn't agree that it is equitable btw...

That would be part of my thinking yes; once you have broadly equal access to education, employment, healthcare and I'm not concerned with where you end up so long as it's not the gutter and we can hopefully put means in place to prevent that (though not with 100% success). There is also plenty of evidence that as countries engage in more free trade, standard of living indexes rise, income gaps narrow, poverty rates decline etc. So it is pretty fair and equitable.

Also, the socialist emphasis on outcomes may not be helpful. It pre-supposes we can reach a state where inequities are eliminated (I assume by eliminating the class struggle which I can only imagine is achieved by eliminating class - could be wrong here) by transferring the means of production back to the workers. This is like saying the patient is ill and we need to cure them by eliminating the disease, rather than studying the disease to see how it works and see what we can do about it. It puts the cart before the horse.

brianthebard wrote: »

I don’t believe disenfranchisement is just a problem with implementation, it is fundamental to the model that working class interests be seen as base, static, and undemanding, and any demands that they may have must be suppressed by the market if industry is to thrive.

If it is fundamental to the model that working class interests be seen as base, static, and undemanding, and that they must be suppressed by the market if industry is to thrive, please explain how.

brianthebard wrote: »

The more I learn about Marx the less I believe his model is to be enacted directly on the world, it has to be adapted to the times, the place, it has to be updated every few years as society moves along. Marxism today is by necessity very different to his day.

Nice dodge. Let me rephrase; how do you see the transition to a Marxist model, and the maintenance of it, working in an economy - any economy - today or in the recent past?

brianthebard wrote: »

All you have to do is open the latest copy of The Economist or the Financial times to see Capitalist ideology today in action. I have no idea what capitalists are supposed to have shed, free market ideology is as widespread as ever, perhaps more so, in business today. Please outline what ideas capitalism had that have been shed, and what ideas socialists have that need to be dropped.

You provided an example yourself when you talked about Smith referring to God. Will I find references to God's hand balancing inequities in recent issues of The Economist or the FT? I can't provide you with an example on the socialist front at the moment; I only encounter socialist writing in a haphazard manner and no definite example springs to mind.

Kama wrote: »

it's famously difficult to be 'objective' in social matters or political economy.

Difficult but not undesirable.

Kama wrote: »

Apropos of self-organising communities and social means of production, there's a line of techno-booster thought which looks at think like fabbers meeting open source design principles and p2p sharing as allowing decentralised production on a local basis. You could have group ownership of the means (as it's a little capital-intensive), open IP for designs, but private ownership of produce, for instance.

That's a fascinating idea.

It'll never work.

Earthhorse

Kennedy wrote:

Kennedy lampooned Eisenhower's circumlocutions when, in 1958, he quipped: "We're now at the end of the beginning of the upturn of the downturn."

Nice work!

DadaKopf

Phrases such as "labourers rent their bodies for income" implies some form of prostitution or exploitation whereas a phrase such as "labourers rent their labour for income" neither pre-supposes nor precludes such a possibilty, allowing us to determine whether this has taken place on a case by case basis, thus bringing us closer to an understanding of reality.

Very important point to my mind. It's a philosophical one, but nonetheless vital to understanding Marx's ideas (and various, IMHO, real Marxists rather than scientistic, economistic Marxists).

Basically, what I mean is: at what point can a human being realistically be disconnected from his or her activity? Is what you say simply a language game that functions to preclude such questions (hence revealing an ideological bias)? Or, to pick an extreme but nonetheless real example, can a woman prostitute truly separate her 'labour' from her body?

Interestingly, the global economy (though concentrated in the economic north) has shifted its productive system from producing things to producing feelings (what Hardt and Negri call 'affective production'). This takes the production of capitalism right into the core of people's psychology, their inner space. Capitalism in our world has gone far beyond this convenient distinction between your work and your soul, and I would argue it was never so clear to begin with. Talking about capitalism means talking about personal experience. Afterall, Marxism is a methodology rooted in the everyday.

In sum, this is the general concern (based on Marx's ontology derived from Hegel and Feuerbach) of Marx and that which gave rise to his labour theory of value as a replacement for capitalist conceptions of value where he draws a distinction between exchange value and use value.

I'd love to type more, but I've to go to bed!

Kama

Well, I hope they enjoyed reading about all the jobs that weren't available. Individual successes in healthcare, literacy etc. don't show the whole picture in terms of quality of life...Also, the socialist emphasis on outcomes may not be helpful.

Well, for one thing outcomes are helpful because you can measure it quite accurately; it's highly helpful to be scientific that you can measure something. It's much harder to measure the possibility of something happening; opportunity is a far fuzzier concept operationally to make comparisons on any evidence-based level. In the Scandinavian case, universal creche/childcare and early education gives a strong movement toward initial equality and consequent possible meritocracy. Initial conditions matter, imo, and a highly unequal system fails meritocratically imo because of this, which is a strong ethical argument for socialised provision. I'd query what you'd like to measure, if not outcomes?

What 'the whole picture' is depends on what you prioritise. If you are arguing that job creation is what you are trying to maximise, full employment isn't usually a neoliberal capitalist priority. But, I'm actually quite for an outcomes-based approach, as in the examples I outlined. Infant mortality by socioeconomic class imo is a critical variable, as is general mortality, both of which are heavily affected by quality of healthcare available. If you accept a highly unequal distribution of healthcare, you implicitly accept a highly unequal distribution of infant mortality. Which I don't personally consider 'fair and equitable', in any kind of Rawlsian 'Veil of Ignorance' or otherwise.

Oh, so one example means it doesn't largely work in practise? Please.

No, thats an example; its not a refutation, its a factual counter. Again, what do we want to prioritise, which brings us into social choice. Zapatistas were an interesting example, because it was declared as an armed insurrection against the disinterested non-political economics embodied by NAFTA, which queers the non-political assumption re economics a little imo. Plenty of other examples if you look for 'em. And to me the question is not whether it 'works', but how it works, and (the ideological question) in whose interests it works. (You can be meliorist and look at this as a helpful critique for designing better regimes and rules for capitalist market-states, rather than anything overly revolutionary.)

I don't contend the two won't interact, merely that one should be concerned with creating and distributing wealth, and the other with allowing this to happen and redistribution of wealth to where the first failed to place it.

Which to me is the argument for socialist market-states, that there's a productive synthesis between the two. Another interesting approach imo is Georgist economic thought (Alaska Permanent Fund being an interesting example) where you would charge a rent for the use of a resource, and then allow competition downstream, so as not to interfere with a competitive market; a non-distorting form of taxation. There's an advantage that you are taking out upstream to fund social projects, rather than redistributing after the fact downstream, with its attendent political struggles.

Economics is oftren said to be about the allocation of scarce resources; the divorce of economics from political economy has had one party attempt to ignore politics so it will hopefully go away, but the allocation of resources (especially for anyone materialist) is always-already a political question. If they are to be seperated, this is a project to achieve rather than a current state of affairs.

There is also plenty of evidence that as countries engage in more free trade, standard of living indexes rise, income gaps narrow, poverty rates decline etc. So it is pretty fair and equitable.

I don't think the evidence is nearly as clear as you say. There's evidence going in the other direction too, both intra-country and in international trade, without even going into the asymmetric nature of what is generally phrased as 'free trade'. Usually the argument would be that (intra-country) growth is increased, inequality rises, income gaps widen, Gini coefficient goes up, but that inequality is a price worth paying for robust growth. Between countries, the Marxist argument would be that the gains made disproportionately accrue to a dominant class within the countries, and that this is neither fair nor equitable.

Again, need to decide what is 'fair', and what decide qualifies as 'free trade', and so on; way off-topic, but raising it as an issue. In an ideal-theoretical world I'd agree with you more, but because economic trade agreements etc are heavily influenced by respective 'voice' or power, trade agreements (I'm sure you agree) are often heavily asymmetric. The irony is that theoretically, unilateral liberalization without reciprocation would be its own reward; but peculiarly, the dominant Western capitalist states don't work on this basis, which is part of Chang's argument in Bad Samaritans.

You provided an example yourself when you talked about Smith referring to God. Will I find references to God's hand balancing inequities in recent issues of The Economist or the FT?

Yes, its right there in the general equilibirum model that much classical economics is founded on. But that its origins are in theology doesn't completely undermine it, its more an interesting genealogical flavour to the discipline, without going into the semi-religious faith that some people have in market processes.

That's a fascinating idea.
It'll never work.

Hehe it was a techno-booster utopian thing; I don't count on it happening, but I'd be *very* interested in what would happen if replication and open-source design became widespread, and has interesting ramifications in terms of ownership of the means of production, imo.

DadaKopf

Again, need to decide what is 'fair', and what decide qualifies as 'free trade', and so on; way off-topic, but raising it as an issue. In an ideal-theoretical world I'd agree with you more, but because economic trade agreements etc are heavily influenced by respective 'voice' or power, trade agreements (I'm sure you agree) are often heavily asymmetric. The irony is that theoretically, unilateral liberalization without reciprocation would be its own reward; but peculiarly, the dominant Western capitalist states don't work on this basis, which is part of Chang's argument in Bad Samaritans.

Power is in all human relations. This condition is inescapable so you need fair 'rules of the game' to minimise this effect. Capitalism as a social relation, to bring things on-topic, is such a power relation and, theoretically, this would still fail when applied to lived social reality.

I don't think the evidence is nearly as clear as you say. There's evidence going in the other direction too, both intra-country and in international trade, without even going into the asymmetric nature of what is generally phrased as 'free trade'. Usually the argument would be that (intra-country) growth is increased, inequality rises, income gaps widen, Gini coefficient goes up, but that inequality is a price worth paying for robust growth. Between countries, the Marxist argument would be that the gains made disproportionately accrue to a dominant class within the countries, and that this is neither fair nor equitable.

Dependency theory, developed by UN economists Andre Gunder Frank (who worked with and broke from Milton Friedman) and Raoul Prebisch, made a very strong case showing how capitalism generates unequal development both within and between countries. Dependency theory sought to explain the underlying economic structures of global trade and then develop a solution to this - developing countries should, temporarily, de-link their economies from rich countries and trade among themselves.

As for poverty, inequality and outcomes, I absolutely agree that we should focus on actual outcomes. Income inequality is just one measure, and a good proxy for other quality of life factors. It's a complex old issue. The first problem is: there are different measures of inequality, fir for different purposes. Secondly, the kind of data and your sources of data matter greatly. Overall, I think inequality has been rising within countries, and between regions, Africa having lost out the most. Anyway, here's something I wrote for a place I used to work in.

Moves towards measuring 'development' as well-being, like the UN Human Development Index, are another more integrated way to look at equality, rather than focusing solely on income. Unfortunately, the gini index isn't a component of this measure so it suffers from some weakness - the exclusion of this inequality measure was probably a political one. Another interesting finding recently is by the New Economics Foundation in the UK which compared EUROSTAT figures measuring people's 'subjective well-being' in the UK (as they have across the EEC since the 1970s) with income per capita (GNI); the study found that since the 1970s until the 1990s, people's subjective well-being rose with increased income, but past a certain point, income continued to increase but well-being remained static. At the same time, the UK has become a more unequal place; while incomes have congealed around the centre, there is a new super-poor and super-rich split. More than that, there is a huge, and growing, wealth divide.

It's equality of outcomes that matters most. That's by no means to say the end justifies the means, how you get there is part of the story.

brianthebard

You suggested things were getting off topic so I’ve only answered points I thought related to the original post.

Earthhorse wrote: »

Maybe. Perhaps it is because I'm approaching this from a pure economics background rather than with a grounding in political theory. Personally, I think the economic and political model should be kept separate, the same way we separate church and state (or should). I don't contend the two won't interact, merely that one should be concerned with creating and distributing wealth, and the other with allowing this to happen and redistribution of wealth to where the first failed to place it.

I think that’s very unrealistic of you, the economic model you are putting forward (free market capitalism) came from political and philosophical radicalism and theory, and vice versa. They are, like most things in society, intricately linked.

Also, the socialist emphasis on outcomes may not be helpful. It pre-supposes we can reach a state where inequities are eliminated (I assume by eliminating the class struggle which I can only imagine is achieved by eliminating class - could be wrong here) by transferring the means of production back to the workers. This is like saying the patient is ill and we need to cure them by eliminating the disease, rather than studying the disease to see how it works and see what we can do about it. It puts the cart before the horse.

That’s just plain wrong, Marx spent a long long time analysing the capitalist model before putting forth his ideas about what was wrong with it. Furthermore he never prescribed any specific form of government, other than communal based (if he even did that) and Marxists such as Adorno continued to analyse the capitalist system (see Culture industry again without putting forward prescriptive ideals on how to change it.

If it is fundamental to the model that working class interests be seen as base, static, and undemanding, and that they must be suppressed by the market if industry is to thrive, please explain how.

The workers are suppressed by low wages, long hours, and the force of industrialists that collaborates with each others. (as well as controlling the means of production and capital in the economy).

Nice dodge. Let me rephrase; how do you see the transition to a Marxist model, and the maintenance of it, working in an economy - any economy - today or in the recent past?

It wasn’t a dodge. Marxism is not a prescription (just to reiterate). Each situation is unique. For instance in Scandinavia and Iceland, there is no immediate threat to social democrat countries sovereignty. They have therefore been privileged to create a system of government which does not have to include Nationalism. On the other hand nations in South and Latin America, Africa, and Asia have, upon declaring socialist/Marxist/communist ideals been under threat from many different sides, and have had to involve nationalist ideals to try and keep the movement alive, because they cannot assume that they will be left to decide their own fate. This is probably a simplistic example, but imo explains why nations like Cuba have had to employ nationalism, despite it being non-Marxist.

You provided an example yourself when you talked about Smith referring to God. Will I find references to God's hand balancing inequities in recent issues of The Economist or the FT? I can't provide you with an example on the socialist front at the moment; I only encounter socialist writing in a haphazard manner and no definite example springs to mind.

Well you yourself suggested the invisible hand has just been reformed to be secular, so yeah you will. Please provide an example on the capitalist front then and I’ll better understand your position.

Earthhorse

DadaKopf wrote: »

Basically, what I mean is: at what point can a human being realistically be disconnected from his or her activity? Is what you say simply a language game that functions to preclude such questions (hence revealing an ideological bias)? Or, to pick an extreme but nonetheless real example, can a woman prostitute truly separate her 'labour' from her body?

Talking about capitalism means talking about personal experience. Afterall, Marxism is a methodology rooted in the everyday.

If what you are really interested in is the experience of workers then why not use the language they would to describe that experience? They would never say they "rent their bodies/minds in exchange for a portion of capitalists' profits" (prostitutes or stunt doubles might but even that's a stretch), they would say they "work for money". I mean, you know what work is, if you're old enough to read this then you know what work is.

Is what you say simply a language game that functions to super-impose you're own value judgments on that experience (hence revealing an ideological bias)?

Kama wrote: »

Well, for one thing outcomes are helpful because you can measure it quite accurately; it's highly helpful to be scientific that you can measure something.

We should measure outcomes, such as adult literacy, mortality rates etc., but focusing on them, particularly ones which we have no idea are achievable e.g. full equality, might not be helpful.

Kama wrote: »

It's much harder to measure the possibility of something happening; opportunity is a far fuzzier concept operationally to make comparisons on any evidence-based level.

We don't have to measure the possibility, we can measure the actuality e.g. does everyone have access to education?

Kama wrote: »

What 'the whole picture' is depends on what you prioritise.

I disagree. The whole picture is everything that plays into quality of life. We may quibble over whether certain measures may be included e.g. whether means of production are spread evenly, but there is no harm in including and we'll probably find more areas we agree should be included. Then, once you have the whole picture, you can decide what you want to prioritise. Indeed the picture may very well tell you what needs to be prioritised.

Also, we shouldn't just pick and choose the outcome measurements that support our arguments (though obviously we should pick and choose measures we consider important). For example:

Kama wrote: »

Infant mortality by socioeconomic class imo is a critical variable, as is general mortality, both of which are heavily affected by quality of healthcare available.

Ireland scores high on infant mortality if I'm not mistaken but that is not the full picture with regard to Ireland.

Kama wrote: »

If you are arguing that job creation is what you are trying to maximise, full employment isn't usually a neoliberal capitalist priority. But, I'm actually quite for an outcomes-based approach, as in the examples I outlined.

Full employment is largely desirable in my opinion though difficult to maintain over the long run. I wouldn't describe myself as a neoliberal capitalist (I don't really subscribe fully to any ideology as such).

Kama wrote: »

No, thats an example; its not a refutation, its a factual counter.

Ah, but it was preceded by the rather blunt phrase "In theory, yes; in practise, no" which implies the idea never, or nearly never, works in practise.

Kama wrote: »

Which to me is the argument for socialist market-states, that there's a productive synthesis between the two.

Well, perhaps I am a neo-socialist-market-statist then. You know. In disguise.

Kama wrote: »

Another interesting approach imo is Georgist economic thought (Alaska Permanent Fund being an interesting example) where you would charge a rent for the use of a resource, and then allow competition downstream, so as not to interfere with a competitive market; a non-distorting form of taxation. There's an advantage that you are taking out upstream to fund social projects, rather than redistributing after the fact downstream, with its attendent political struggles.

Think this idea is presented in The Undercover Economist though I can't remember what the context was. Interesting approach alright. Would like to see it in place more.

Kama wrote: »

I don't think the evidence is nearly as clear as you say. There's evidence going in the other direction too, both intra-country and in international trade, without even going into the asymmetric nature of what is generally phrased as 'free trade'. Usually the argument would be that (intra-country) growth is increased, inequality rises, income gaps widen, Gini coefficient goes up, but that inequality is a price worth paying for robust growth. Between countries, the Marxist argument would be that the gains made disproportionately accrue to a dominant class within the countries, and that this is neither fair nor equitable.

DadaKopf wrote: »

As for poverty, inequality and outcomes, I absolutely agree that we should focus on actual outcomes. Income inequality is just one measure, and a good proxy for other quality of life factors. It's a complex old issue. The first problem is: there are different measures of inequality, fir for different purposes. Secondly, the kind of data and your sources of data matter greatly. Overall, I think inequality has been rising within countries, and between regions, Africa having lost out the most. Anyway, here's something I wrote for a place I used to work in.

Moves towards measuring 'development' as well-being, like the UN Human Development Index, are another more integrated way to look at equality, rather than focusing solely on income. Unfortunately, the gini index isn't a component of this measure so it suffers from some weakness - the exclusion of this inequality measure was probably a political one.

Income inequality is an okay measure but PPP is better again. I would agree with Feldstein, that income inequality is not such a big deal once everyone's lot is on the increase. Whilst it might not be fair that growth results in a disproportionate accrual to the already well off, it is fairer than nothing accruing to the less well off while the already well off remain so.

Kama wrote: »

Again, need to decide what is 'fair', and what decide qualifies as 'free trade', and so on; way off-topic, but raising it as an issue. In an ideal-theoretical world I'd agree with you more, but because economic trade agreements etc are heavily influenced by respective 'voice' or power, trade agreements (I'm sure you agree) are often heavily asymmetric. The irony is that theoretically, unilateral liberalization without reciprocation would be its own reward; but peculiarly, the dominant Western capitalist states don't work on this basis, which is part of Chang's argument in Bad Samaritans.

In an ideal-theoretical world I'd agree with you that fairness and equity are totally achievable. I absolutely agree that trade agreements are often heavily asymmetric but this is obviously contrary to what free-market capitalism preaches. The fact that vested interests can unduly influence the drafting of these agreements is not a trivial issue but without concrete proposals for preventing it, will certainly continue in the medium run.

Kama wrote: »

Yes, its right there in the general equilibirum model that much classical economics is founded on. But that its origins are in theology doesn't completely undermine it, its more an interesting genealogical flavour to the discipline, without going into the semi-religious faith that some people have in market processes.

Yeah, if I just squint a little, and hold the paper up to the light, and if I close my good eye and focus on a point in the middle distance, why, I can see it! A classic supply curve in the shape of our saviour's face!

Kama wrote: »

Hehe it was a techno-booster utopian thing; I don't count on it happening, but I'd be *very* interested in what would happen if replication and open-source design became widespread, and has interesting ramifications in terms of ownership of the means of production, imo.

Heh. I remember in my early days of internet access loggin into a Marxist IRC channel and outlining my vision for machine-communism; a utopian state where machines look after the production of basic goods - food, housing, clothing - leaving its citizens free to pursue their hearts' true desires. A nation of philosophers, artists and dreamers.

It met a somewhat muted reception so I got bored and started quoting Rage Against the Machine lyrics at them.

DadaKopf wrote: »

Dependency theory, developed by UN economists Andre Gunder Frank (who worked with and broke from Milton Friedman) and Raoul Prebisch, made a very strong case showing how capitalism generates unequal development both within and between countries. Dependency theory sought to explain the underlying economic structures of global trade and then develop a solution to this - developing countries should, temporarily, de-link their economies from rich countries and trade among themselves.

Forgot to read this one. Would be interested in knowing why developing countries didn't do this? Too much exterior pressure?

DadaKopf wrote: »

Another interesting finding recently is by the New Economics Foundation in the UK which compared EUROSTAT figures measuring people's 'subjective well-being' in the UK (as they have across the EEC since the 1970s) with income per capita (GNI); the study found that since the 1970s until the 1990s, people's subjective well-being rose with increased income, but past a certain point, income continued to increase but well-being remained static.

Well, I wouldn't say that's news or anything. Most studies of employee satisfaction indicate that income matters to a certain level and after that people concern themselves more with other things. If anything, this is more evidence that inequality (of incomes anyway) doesn't matter because once everyone is at a certain base level other things become more important.

(btb, you posted just before I started writing this so I'll get back to you later, by which I mean earlier but tomorrow).

DadaKopf

Earthhorse wrote:

Income inequality is an okay measure but PPP is better again. I would agree with Feldstein, that income inequality is not such a big deal once everyone's lot is on the increase. Whilst it might not be fair that growth results in a disproportionate accrual to the already well off, it is fairer than nothing accruing to the less well off while the already well off remain so.

Funny you should mention this. 'A rising tide lifts all boats', eh? Today, a health analyist spoke in Dublin. He's compared the links between income, inequality and health across countries. In his view, health inequality is much more strongly linked to inequality than income alone. So, in other words, inequality of income impacts the whole of society's life chances. So, as incomes rise and inequality rises, the health of many is adversely affected. That itself is a symptom of wider social factors.

And anyway, PPP is only relevant when comparing inequality between countries; I don't see what point you're making. PPP is simply a useful (but necessarily crude) tool for comparing real incomes across countries (as opposed to international comparative measures derived from exchange rates). PPP can reveal nothing about inequality within countries.

Kama

Earthhorse wrote:

If what you are really interested in is the experience of workers then why not use the language they would to describe that experience?

Well, for example, i often hear people speak of 'whoring' themselves in reference to work, and of having to 'suck (koka-noodles)'. Sucking Satan's (koka-noodles) in Bill Hicks terms. The language and experience of forced degradation isn't entirely inaccurate. Yes, it has a value judgement, but I'd argue whether this is imposed as you say. If anything, the biological and bodily metaphors are closer to reality than an abstracted concept. The Marxist phrase is emotive, but accurate for many.

We should measure outcomes, such as adult literacy, mortality rates etc., but focusing on them, particularly ones which we have no idea are achievable e.g. full equality, might not be helpful.

I agree, I'm not actually a proponent of full equality, I just think that the optimum level of inequality is far lower than a less regulated market supplies; which loses me points with both my socialist and capitalist friends. Arguing both in terms of efficiency and equity. If it was all a rational choice thing, we'd decide what we want, and then choose a system on that basis, though obviously that's not how the world works, power and path dependence are far more important imo. But if it is shown that a more socialized strategy delivers better overall on basic indicators such as mortality and education, I look on that as a strong argument for it. Similarly, showing the externality costs of inequality is a strong argument for greater equity, without getting into anything too value-laden.

The whole picture is everything that plays into quality of life.

Given that there is dispute A: on what constitutes quality of life and B: how one could then measure that, I don't think we have access to this 'whole picture', if it exists. Picture is a 2D metaphor, whereas my position is that what the 'picture' looks like depends on perspective, which depends on values and social position. Which to me is a generally helpful way to think about ideology, that's it's positional, rather than X has/hasn't value judgements, and accounts for people holding different views without saying 'X is wrong because he is ideological', which always begs the question...

DadaKopf

Given that there is dispute A: on what constitutes quality of life and B: how one could then measure that, I don't think we have access to this 'whole picture', if it exists. Picture is a 2D metaphor, whereas my position is that what the 'picture' looks like depends on perspective, which depends on values and social position. Which to me is a generally helpful way to think about ideology, that's it's positional, rather than X has/hasn't value judgements, and accounts for people holding different views without saying 'X is wrong because he is ideological', which always begs the question...

Totally, dude.

Been reading some interesting articles recently about Marxian international relations theory. I won't bore anyone with the details, just to say that within Marxist circles, these kinds of discussions are happening constantly. It's not a calcified ideology, it's a living, breathing entity. Importantly, it notes that figures like Antonio Gramsci, Ernst Bloch, Georg Lucácks and Leon Trotsky were scratching their heads about why the revolution didn't happen, why European countries turned to fascism. In other words, they were challenging the dogmatic ideas put forth by orthodox Marxists who explained everything in terms of pure, rational economics.

In other words, the theory didn't fit reality at the time, so it changed. And, today, the same open discussion is happening. This article in question seriously challenges the left's 'blood for oil' logic used to explain the invasion of Iraq. But this is dragging things off-topic.

Kama

Yeh, ideology seemed to be coming up a lot; OP is 'your understanding of socialism' so it's not exactly off-thread. Don't think understanding of and choice between political-economic systems can really be discussed without some kind of ideology. Marxist lines of thought have more attention to ideology, but this doesn't make those who pay less attention less ideological, in my view.

I forget who (possibly Zizek, possibly someone earlier) said that saying your position is 'non-ideological' is a supremely ideological position; I'm pretty down with that. Saying 'ideology is what Marxists/Greens/whoever have' seems pretty sterile and ... um ... ideological to me.

Which isn't 'it's all ideological' and do a flat relativism; but it does mean I'm *very* interested in comparative outcomes between regime-types. Mortality is as close as I think is possible to a 'brute fact', though the weighting of outcome indicators to come to a 'whole picture' would imo reflect ideology in respective priorities.

Infant mortality by class brings in a little more positionality, but regardless of social ideology, dying that young by virtue of privileged birth is impossible (in my view) to justify on any grounds of justice or fairness. It's a important base indicator in my view.

DadaKopf

I forget who (possibly Zizek, possibly someone earlier) said that saying your position is 'non-ideological' is a supremely ideological position; I'm pretty down with that. Saying 'ideology is what Marxists/Greens/whoever have' seems pretty sterile and ... um ... ideological to me.

Could be. Or Terry Eagleton.

Kama

Not sure, nm. Relevant point to me though, is that the Left, conceptually, went around calling the other side ideological for quite a while, saying workers had 'False Consciousness' etc before the reflexive penny dropped.

The same self-criticism doesn't sem to have arrived on the other side of the fence. 'Ideological' remains a useful slur. There's interesting (or boring ) linkages there with 'post-ideological' pragmatisms, socialist or otherwise. But the basic point am after is that there are multiple 'big pictures', each of which may be true, but partial; ideology as position and perspective.

Earthhorse, I suspect we actually have very similar positions on a practical level. Georgist geoeconomics is something I've been meaning to go back to, it has an interesting array of socialist and libertarian adherents, due to not distorting markets and competiton overly, while allowing upstream taxation for government and social projects. Seen some suggestions for it funding Basic Income or Citizen Dividends, which ties with what we were discussing in reference to income disparity, basic needs, and human happiness. I'm a big fan of upstream solutions rather than downstream cleanups, across a lot of areas.

Put plainly, if a capitalist system (of which there can be many variants) is generating wealth rather than appropriating it, my objections are far fewer; but historically, appropriation in a zero-sum sense (from Land Enclosure to capital markets to current IP) law seems dominant.

If this is due to 'distortion' from power, information asymmetry, greater voice, whatever, it only underlines the need (imo) for economics to be theoretically sensitive to power rather than elide it. Which from my 4 small years of economics in university, it ain't.