LWDT 8: Hitting the Marx

[Philjia]

As far as I can tell there are currently about 443,000,000 CostCo shares, each of which pays an annual dividend of $2.60. CostCo currently employs about 245,000 people. This means if every one of them owned an equal proportion of the shares, each employee would own about 1808 shares, resulting in an annual dividend of $4701 to each worker. That's $4701 being paid to shareholders who contribute no labour to the company.

Your point being?

Yes, Costco is a publicly-traded company, as are most other large corporations. Is it now immoral to even involve oneself in the stock market?

From my perspective as a socialist, yes. Companies should be owned by their workers, or by their customers, not private individuals.

[Imperium Romanum Sanctis]

Your point being?

Yes, Costco is a publicly-traded company, as are most other large corporations. Is it now immoral to even involve oneself in the stock market?

From my perspective as a socialist, yes. Companies should be owned by their workers, or by their customers, not private individuals.

Okay, fair enough.

But then who invests in a company? Where does the start-up cash come from?

[Philjia]

From my perspective as a socialist, yes. Companies should be owned by their workers, or by their customers, not private individuals.

Okay, fair enough.

But then who invests in a company? Where does the start-up cash come from?

A business loan from a financial institution. (In a market socialist society, this would probably be a building society, the mutual version of a bank)

[Duvniask]

Why do it? Depending on the type of "value" you're speaking of, you don't need money for it to be quantifiable.

How would that work?

Well, consider any given good or service: the objective factors that go into its production are quantifiable without money, for example in terms of labor time or man-hours as it is also called. The exchange of goods for one another that money enables would not be a factor in economies based on direct allocation and consumption. And even with indirect allocation for, say consumer goods, you needn't have money: I put in x amount of labor hours from which I may, in compensation, acquire a good equal to that same amount of labor time.

And you don't need money to do so. Unless you acquire it only for its own sake, money is but a medium of exchange; presumably what matters are the things it can be exchanged for.

The goods and services you exchange money for are part of the picture.The other part is the capacity to choose what goods and services you exchange for, especially when it comes to luxuries.

This begs the question. You don't need money to be able to choose what you want in return for something you've done. This should be familiar to you if you've ever been owed a favor by someone or vice versa.

I'm sorry, but if you're comparing $21.00/hour + a pension and worker benefits to slave labour, then you're either insane or woefully disconnected from reality.

Your right. Orthodox Marxist tend to have a simplistic humanist understanding of economic structures. slavery is obviously base on the human being becoming property. The worker is still an autonomous being.

Learn to read.

[Imperium Romanum Sanctis]

Okay, fair enough.

But then who invests in a company? Where does the start-up cash come from?

A business loan from a financial institution. (In a market socialist society, this would probably be a building society, the mutual version of a bank)

That's fair, but those exist already in the form of credit unions, and there's nothing legally preventing workers from Costco and other companies from quitting their jobs and forming their own syndicates sponsored by financial cooperatives.

They just choose not to.

[Grenartia]

So does Warren Buffet. The likeable billionaire exists. However, nobody truly earns a billion dollars, much less multiple billions of dollars, at least not in their lifetime. Billionaire status is simply the result of their theft of the majority of the wealth created by the workers.



Also, this. Exploitation is necessary to be successful under capitalism.

Screw Buffett. That goon is absolutely guilty of worker exploitation. He owns a plant near where I live, and they constantly do the whole overwork employees to meet a quota, then lay them off as soon as that quota has been met thing.

I did say the likable billionaire, not the ethical one. Because ethical billionaires are exactly as common as unicorns.

If you're taking so much of the profit from the labor of your workers that you're a multi-billionaire than you're fucking exploiting people.
It is not humanly possible to earn that much.

Costco isn't exploiting anyone. The average wage for most of its workers is $21.00/hour, which is more than double the federal minimum wage. It also offers employee pension plans, along with other benefits that most other retailers simply do not do.

Calling it worker exploitation is farcical.

Its closer to triple. However, that does not at all undermine by previous point. The average Costco worker must produce well in excess of $21 of value (plus whatever the value of the benefits are) in an hour (I'm inclined to not count pension, since a lot of corporations tend to drop that particular benefit like a bad habit once it becomes more trouble than its worth), or they would not be employed by Costco.

I'm not a Marxist, but he was absolutely correct on that point. All firms under capitalism take the lion's share of the wealth generated by the workers as profit. The workers are only paid the absolute bare minimum to incentivize them to continue working there. Without the labor of the workers, there can be no profit.

In the case of Costco specifically, the workers are the ones that stock the shelves, maintain the store in such a way that the goods are in a sellable condition, conduct the transactions at the registers, ensure the parking lot is clear and navigable and customers have shopping cart access, etc. Those tasks are critical to Costco being able to sell anything at all. So, while the workers aren't making the products to be sold, they are clearly responsible for the conditions that allow the products to be sold.

The value created by those conditions clearly exceeds what the workers are being paid for doing the labor that maintains those conditions.

How is this a hard concept to grasp?

So an average wage of $21.00/hour + a pension and workers' benefits don't cut it? In that case, what does?

What would be a fair wage for a Costco worker?

You're being awfully incredulous for no real reason. I never said it was bad pay. Simply that it clearly has to be significantly less than the value produced by the worker.

Okay, fair enough.

But then who invests in a company? Where does the start-up cash come from?

A business loan from a financial institution. (In a market socialist society, this would probably be a building society, the mutual version of a bank)

Which reminds me. The movie Its A Wonderful Life was scrutinized by the FBI for daring to portray a banker in a less than flattering, more realistic light, and for presenting a valid and non-oppressive alternative to a bank.

On May 26, 1947, the Federal Bureau of Investigation issued a memo stating, "With regard to the picture 'It's a Wonderful Life', [redacted] stated in substance that the film represented rather obvious attempts to discredit bankers by casting Lionel Barrymore as a 'scrooge-type' so that he would be the most hated man in the picture. This, according to these sources, is a common trick used by Communists. [In] addition, [redacted] stated that, in his opinion, this picture deliberately maligned the upper class, attempting to show the people who had money were mean and despicable characters."[57]

George Bailey, the film’s protagonist, is also a small-scale community bank manager, and seen from one perspective his competition with aggressive tycoon (and Scrooge stand-in) Henry F. Potter, who runs the competing bank, tells a larger story about American business and industry. In the moment of post-war paranoia, even the idea of a community bank could be read as Communist.

[Grenartia]

A business loan from a financial institution. (In a market socialist society, this would probably be a building society, the mutual version of a bank)

That's fair, but those exist already in the form of credit unions, and there's nothing legally preventing workers from Costco and other companies from quitting their jobs and forming their own syndicates sponsored by financial cooperatives.

They just choose not to.

Its not that they choose not to, its that they're likely either unaware of the option, or don't have the disposeable income to make any kind of investment.

[Duvniask]

Or perhaps I'm trying to illustrate, with some exaggeration, why treating people better doesn't mean you're not exploiting them. The fundamental logic is the same, applicable to different situations.

I mean, this is high school level rhetoric for me. It should not be difficult to understand that I'm not saying it is as bad as slave labor, only that your reasons for defending it are hollow and ill-thought out.

Even to loosely make the comparison is ridiculous.

That aside, no, what Costco does it not exploitation. To consider it as such would require most human interactions to also fall under the same label, rendering the term utterly meaningless.

Then I question your understanding of the very concept of exploitation. To exploit someone, beyond just benefitting from them, is to make use of their weakness and vulnerability for your own ends.

Under capitalism exploitation is systematic, the result of fundamentally unequal bargaining power between the classes. Capitalists exploit the working class by taking advantage of their inferior position of not owning any means of production and thus not having any source of sustenance for themselves. You must work for the capitalist or fall into misery and poverty (sometimes even working is not enough to escape poverty!) or even worse, starvation and death.

So an average wage of $21.00/hour + a pension and workers' benefits don't cut it? In that case, what does?

What would be a fair wage for a Costco worker?

You assume the wage relation is even a fair one to begin with.

A business loan from a financial institution. (In a market socialist society, this would probably be a building society, the mutual version of a bank)

That's fair, but those exist already in the form of credit unions, and there's nothing legally preventing workers from Costco and other companies from quitting their jobs and forming their own syndicates sponsored by financial cooperatives.

They just choose not to.

"Legally" but not realistically. I refer you to an earlier post of mine in this same thread as to why.

Further, this doesn't really do justice to any sort of moral critique leveled against the class relations under capitalism, because your solution is to have them exist in competition with the very people whom, it is argued, are committing an injustice. The response is obvious: disgruntled workers shouldn't have to go do their own little thing. Instead, the practices that are being criticized should not exist in the first place.

[Byzconia]

But what happens when "those who would push the selfish interests of the few" take charge of the system? To continue using the historical example of the USSR, the hastily-established political system had no mechanism for preventing the rise of a dictator like Stalin, who turned right around and betrayed most of his fellow revolutionaries and replaced them with toadies personally loyal to him. A more democratic or even liberal republican (in the sense of "separation of powers") might have prevented this situation, but that never happened, despite Lenin's musings on the possibilities in his final days.

EDIT: In other words, a system without checks and balances is almost guaranteed to be abused, no matter how well-intentioned.

It's a danger, certainly, but every check and balance is another foxhole for the enemies of the revolution to dig into, sapping energy and men from the cause. If there were a way to revolution with no drawbacks capitalism would be dead in a ditch at least a century old.

I understand your stance, and I'd support an anarchist revolution if it were happening, but my stance is that the more experiments that get off the ground the more chance there is of something sticking. So I prefer mechanisms that I see as making things less likely to fizzle out in weeks or months.

I respect that you've very clearly thought this out, but I honestly can't imagine a version of events where what you're proposing actually goes well. Revolutions tends to have spotty track record at best, and concentrating power tends to only amplify the already-inherent issues.

[Byzconia]

Why do so many people think the Soviet Union was socialist under Lenin but not under anyone else?

Because Lenin generally still has a good reputation on the left despite all of the shitty and authoritarian things he did (why, I don't know).

Why do so many people think the Soviet Union was socialist under Lenin but not under anyone else?

I'm no expert but I think it's got something to do with State Capitalism. I might be wrong though.[/quote]

This is likely correct, but also ironic since Lenin himself literally said his USSR was state capitalist (and also fathered the NEP).

It also probably depends on one's personal definition of "socialism." As a libsoc, I'm generally a fan of Gorbachev and would consider his ideas more in-line with my "kind" of socialism, while not so much the others. That said, other people may argue otherwise. That's the nature of the left, after all.

[Byzconia]

And when they continue agitating? And, then, (probably) begin violent insurrection against the government for ignoring them?

I'm assuming this means you're going to do something...er, "twisted" to them. But then aren't you just another oppressor doing all the same things the capitalists did before?

[Gim]

I'm assuming this means you're going to do something...er, "twisted" to them. But then aren't you just another oppressor doing all the same things the capitalists did before?

Same with Socialism, ironically speaking.

[Byzconia]

Well it is evident that Stalin's leadership was a personal dictatorship, and Trotsky was Lenin's apprentice, remember. Lenin literally had to combat fears that Leninism spawned Stalinism. Lenin and Trotsky mutually disliked Stalin. The rivalry between Stalin and Lenin in the Soviet military made Lenin wary of Stalin, and so towards the end of his life he warned others about Stalin,

Did they, though? The historical evidence is contradictory. By all accounts Stalin was one of Lenin's closest friends and confidants (though they disagreed on many things). And while I'm aware of the Lenin Telegram and Stalin's reported snubbing of Lenin's wife greatly upsetting Lenin, it's never been conclusively demonstrated that Lenin himself wrote the letter. Some historians have forwarded that Lenin was too debilitated at the time and that, perhaps, his wife was the true author. Counter-evidence to this would be that a) Stalin never disputed the telegram's authenticity and even offered to step-down in light of its reading (though, the Party voted against this--woops!) and b) Lenin's now-widow eventually supported Stalin in his bid for leadership of the Party. Though, like I said, it's never been proven either way.

and advocated for Trotsky as his successor.

I don't recall him ever specifically advocating for anyone as his successor. At most he might have written the Lenin Telegram denouncing Stalin, but didn't include an endorsement of Trotsky therein.

Therefore, even while Stalin may have believed he was a Marxist-Leninist, he cannot be an ML. He's also certainly not a democratic-socialist, nor an anarchist.

Except Stalin himself was the one who invented the term "Marxist-Leninist." Lenin never called himself that (only a Marxist), nor did he call his ideology anything but Marxism/Communism (though it's come to be referred to as "Leninism"). Stalin himself defined what it means to be an ML, as many of the ideas of said ideology directly contradict Lenin himself (namely, "Socialism in One Country" and the notion of applying Leninist principles to other countries). Also, I don't see what Lenin's personal like or dislike of someone has to do with whether they're a Leninist/ML or not. I'd think that'd have more to do with the person's principles and policies than anything else.

And so the only realistic conclusion (based of a lot of information) is that Stalin was a state-capitalist, but I usually refer to his ideals as "Stalinism" to make my statement more clear.

Many people do, but it still doesn't answer my question of, "What is the actual distinction between state capitalism and Marxism-Leninism?" Like, actual, specific political/economic/philosophical differences between the two?

For those still skeptical, there are other examples of this. Remember Marx himself said in response to some of the Parisian "Marxist" movements - "If anything is certain, it is that I myself am not a Marxist". Why? Because he believed that if some of these French so-called Marxist movements were Marxist, then he must not be a Marxist himself.

Yes, I'm aware of this. But, it should also be remembered that, specifically, Marx himself was referring to a couple of French Marxists who had denounced the idea of forming a political party and competing in elections (something Marx himself had agreed with in his younger days, but later changed his mind on).

And there are of course many interpretations of this. If you, a communist (if you are, idk if you actually are lol) said, "If Bookchin is a leftist, then I am not a leftist".

I'm not, I'm a market anarchist, if anything. I think distribution based on need is a good idea, but I don't really think it's practicable without an extremely technologically-advanced society (so it's not necessarily impossible, but if it happens, it will happen gradually and naturally over time--it can't be forced through revolution and economic planning).

That's not true, you still are a leftist and Bookchin is as well, but your schools of thought within leftism are completely different. This is of course again backed up historically. The Soviets, who were communists, put down the anarchist movement in the Ukrainian Free Territory (UFT). The anarchists in the UFT were leftists, and the Soviet Union was made of leftists, but they have opposing schools of thought. One can't take half the political spectrum and attempt to describe it as a sole ideology. It's not.

This is correct, but I'm afraid I don't understand the point you're trying to make?

[Cekoviu]

Why do so many people think the Soviet Union was socialist under Lenin but not under anyone else?

Because Lenin generally still has a good reputation on the left despite all of the shitty and authoritarian things he did (why, I don't know).

I think it's because the stuff he did paled in comparison to Stalin, and he legalized homosexuality so he must be a good guy.

[Byzconia]

I'm assuming this means you're going to do something...er, "twisted" to them. But then aren't you just another oppressor doing all the same things the capitalists did before?

Same with Socialism, ironically speaking.

What do you mean?

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

No they weren't what? I can't tell what statement you're responding to there.

You're right that the situation was still very bad for black people when MLK died, but I don't see how that contradicts anything I said. To my knowledge, violent riots did not really ramp up until 1966 onward, and particularly 1968. No doubt, the change from JFK/LBJ to Nixon played a big part in the fizzling out of the civil rights movement, but I think there is also a definite correlation between the movement's radicalization schism and its decreased results.

That's my bad, "No, they weren't [already won by the time of the black power movement]"

When did the black power movement start?

[United Muscovite Nations]

That's my bad, "No, they weren't [already won by the time of the black power movement]"

When did the black power movement start?

Malcolm X was assassinated by 1965, so its origins had been around for a while, but just because laws were passed doesn't mean that the civil rights movement had been a success.

[Cappuccina]

When did the black power movement start?

Malcolm X was assassinated by 1965, so its origins had been around for a while, but just because laws were passed doesn't mean that the civil rights movement had been a success.

The Civil Rights Movement was a half-success, while it did bring the immediate effect of ending overt institutional discrimination, it didn't solve the social issues plaguing Black culture.

[Joohan]

Question for libertarian socialists ( or what ever shade of red menace you are ):

Following the successful overthrow of your nation's government ( let's just say the good ole U S of A for example ), and your seizure of the state apparatus, how would you make your revolution permanent? How would you prevent capitalist and reactionary powers from taking control once again?

The answer of authoritarian leftists is a pretty clear cut and efficient method, one which libertarian leftists are vocal in their deploring of. I am curious, what would you do when the more conservative elements of society just refused to go along with your program, or even hindered it?

[Totenborg]

Question for libertarian socialists ( or what ever shade of red menace you are ):

Following the successful overthrow of your nation's government ( let's just say the good ole U S of A for example ), and your seizure of the state apparatus, how would you make your revolution permanent? How would you prevent capitalist and reactionary powers from taking control once again?

The answer of authoritarian leftists is a pretty clear cut and efficient method, one which libertarian leftists are vocal in their deploring of. I am curious, what would you do when the more conservative elements of society just refused to go along with your program, or even hindered it?

I can't speak for everyone, but as for myself, I'm not advocating for overthrow. At least not in the literal sense. I'm advocating for an end to hierarchies and for the steady progression of personal liberties within an existing nation.

[Pasong Tirad]

( or what ever shade of red menace you are )

Yeaaaah definitely posting in good faith there.

[Torrocca]

( or what ever shade of red menace you are )

Yeaaaah definitely posting in good faith there.

Eh, Joohan's usually pretty decent when it comes to cross-ideological interactions tbh. It's probably tongue-in-cheek.

[Proctopeo]

Question for libertarian socialists ( or what ever shade of red menace you are ):

Following the successful overthrow of your nation's government ( let's just say the good ole U S of A for example ), and your seizure of the state apparatus, how would you make your revolution permanent? How would you prevent capitalist and reactionary powers from taking control once again?

The answer of authoritarian leftists is a pretty clear cut and efficient method, one which libertarian leftists are vocal in their deploring of. I am curious, what would you do when the more conservative elements of society just refused to go along with your program, or even hindered it?

I can't speak for everyone, but as for myself, I'm not advocating for overthrow. At least not in the literal sense. I'm advocating for an end to hierarchies and for the steady progression of personal liberties within an existing nation.

Given your post history, color me skeptical...

[Card Cartel]

I bet none of you speak Russian.

[Torrocca]

I bet none of you speak Russian.

And?