Disenchanted?

A couple of years removed from the formal sphere of academic theory I find myself frequently contemplating the day to day manifestations of anger and depression of many in my social circles.  Regardless of what class analysis would point towards, I don't really see frustration directed towards the wealthy elite, that is, the appropriators of the surplus are not the target of the youngest working generation's frustrations.  It would seem that those becoming insanely wealthy off of appropriating labor are at most an abstract concept that exist elsewhere, and can't really be fought.  For most of the working class, the wealthy elite have become, at best, an object of scorn.  There seems to be a general (if unspoken) consensus among many of my peers that there is no point in fighting against something that cannot really be changed.  Just a few years after the occupy movement the "1%" have become non-relevant to most people as a place to manifest discontent as we search for meaning in our day to day lives.   

Throughout history a person who is unsure of the source of their next meal will not fight for the well-being of their fellows, they will fight to find dinner.  A better life is an abstract concept when faced with a major obstacle (such as subsistence calorie intake), trumped by the immediate need...  The major obstacle for most American workers is not material survival, but rather relevance and meaning. The average working American does not rile against the abstract concept of a wealthy elite stealing their surplus labor, rather they fight for meaning in their day to day processes.   These manifestations, albeit often misplaced, can be witnessed in attitudes towards the role of labor in life.  Most Americans do not want to be defined by their work (which historically has been very different), instead most of us fight to leave their work "at work" whenever possible.   Modern wealth and production gains have replaced physical needs with the need for meaning in labor.  Or when meaning is not perceived as possible, the intentional stripping of all meaning out of labor.  

Meaning, and therefore fulfillment, will not necessarily be found in the tasks preformed as wage labor (although that remains a common desire), but if not defined by our labor then defined where?  If meaning does not come from the labor preformed for a wage, then the meaning of laboring to build a better life/standard of living for one's self and loved ones becomes an option.  Sadly in modern capitalism both of these forms of meaning is generally lacking for a majority of those who are forced to labor without ownership of the means of production.    

When survival is not really in question, but material meaning (growth of standard of living) beyond surviving paycheck to paycheck is unobtainable for most, what is left for the average working person? The work itself is generally viewed as something to be forgotten as quickly as possible after the wage is earned....  If society is not ready to change the system of production to one of non-exploitative labor perhaps smaller changes towards greater individual control in the work place?

I witness people, day to day,  becoming more depressed, if not economically, certainly in spirit, by the perceived notion that change is not possible, and that they just "do as they are told" for fear of losing the ability to reproduce their own labor.  From the first days of industrial capitalism to the present people have been working to earn enough to survive to get back to work.....Perhaps now that basic physical needs are easily met for most workers the point has been overlooked that other needs of the working class are not even on the radar.

The plight of the worker in modern American capitalism is not one of physical starvation but rather a starvation of power and control.  The youngest working generation only knows of the middle class as a concept from history and reacts by treating their lack of relevance (in the work place and in society) by medicating themselves (or allowing their anger to build without any concrete direction).

American society may be a long way from a class based revolution, but I see more class consciousness in the generation just entering the labor force in statements such as "do I really want to go out again tonight?  What's the point? " than I have ever witnessed in my own generation.  I don't know if mass worker ownership will appear suddenly.  However, I have witnessed small amounts of empowerment and hope in worker self management processes.  These processes are not widespread and even where they exist are not presumably not that entrenched or strong but they do have potential.  Convince a young worker to sacrifice for a communist revolution?  Never happen.  Convince a young worker in a capitalist enterprise that they deserve more of a say in the direction of their enterprise as well as their own day to day?  Might actually be something the masses are ready to embrace?  

Disenchanted?  Sure.  Find a Marxist who isn't?  Hopeful?  Always.      

Partial Explaination of the Growing Wealth and Income Gap

Just a link today, to a great short piece.
I think the  productivity gains cited here by Ruccio, combined with a narrative about even the "well off workers" no longer being "well off" explains a lot of what we are seeing today in the US.  Namely, post-recession, post-occupy movement, return to business as usual.  Massive excess on the backs of the American worker and all that. Happy weekend all, two days of cheap processed food and mass produced beer before you head back to being exploited on Monday.  

https://anticap.wordpress.com/2014/11/21/we-allow-our-fellow-americans-to-be-exploited-for-the-benefit-of-corporate-greed-and-unnecessary-wars/

Apologies Dear Reader....For my Absence and for my Return. And...Apologies dear Capitalist, You Remain the Root of the Problem.

I am attempting a return to the world of blogging, and to some degree a return to the world of intellectual existence. After a long break during which I learned more about myself than I ever cared to know, I am once again ready to engage the world.  What limited world I will be engaging is a question that can only be answered in time.  For now, the time feels right, as right as it has felt in a long time at least, to return to caring about problems and questions of the mind and the world around me.  After my break the world still needs to be changed, and I am again ready to actively contribute.  The passivity of post-modern change aside, it feels good to be back.
This brief paragraph of masturbation aside...I welcome you all...and more importantly (in so far as these things are important) myself...back to Marx, Baseball and Rum!

To paraphrase Gordon Wood: As a result of the revolution Americans changed from being subjects to citizens, and the difference is vast.  My problem with this type of statement is what has driven me back to writing.  Although we are free in political realm of our existence (sigh), we remain subjugated in our working lives. As long as the life of the average American remains not their own on the job, the reality remains, that in our economic existence we are nothing but subjects to the man who signs the check.  We, my working American brothers and sisters are not free, we are not citizens of an economic republic, but rather we toil for the enrichment of a select few.  Systemic change remains the goal! The Hope! The Reason to Get Out of Bed!.

The Product Diversity of Modern Capitalism

Generally speaking product diversity (greater choice) is supposed to increase our total utility.  This is economics 101 correct? Greater product diversity leads to increased marginal benefit when we make choices with our limited income? 

In this case is anyone better off?  Those who choose to purchase this product?  Those who don't?  Those who took the time to even think about it (sorry).  Pizza Hut has followed the lead of the Burger King cult classic "Flame" cologne by releasing a scent of their own onto the US market.  A difficult choice, do I want to smell like a burger or a pizza this valentines day?  It seems this abomination started in Canada, just like me. 

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/industry-news/marketing/pizza-huts-signature-scent-to-waft-over-more-countries/article8494216/

"Link of the Day" Some Thoughts From David Ruccio on the Teaching of Stephen Resnick

David Ruccio's Blog is daily filled with valuable critique of capitalism.
One of his posts today was more personal.
I encourage you to read this short summary of what Professor Resnick meant to Ruccio as a teacher.  Many of his thoughts echo my own (that I have not yet been able to face and clearly articulate since Steve's death).
I would also like to draw attention to the point that capitalism, has a history, thus a beginning and an end.  Profound and beautiful in summary.  Thank you to David for this post....

"Hurry Up and Die"

Toronto's The Globe and Mail had the following story today:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/the-hot-button/hurry-up-and-die-japans-finance-minister-tells-nations-elderly/article7643799/
Japan's finance minister has formally told the nation's elderly that living long lives is a source of shame as they are draining the resources of their country. 

This is a problem facing many developed countries, how to pay for increased life expectancy.  We will undoubtedly see increases in retirement ages in more countries, as well as the possible decrease in social security systems, government financed medical care, etc. over the coming decades.  This issues have already become very politically relevant in the US as well as other western countries in the last few years. 

I chose this news story to make my point as it is both somewhat amusing and also very callous.  My point; capitalism is not a system of production that is well designed to protect members of society that are not active in class processes.  If you are not either producing, appropriating/distributing, or ensuring the conditions of existence of the surplus what are you doing for a capitalist society?  Certainly there are non-class processes necessary for capitalist production (politics, culture of consumption, etc.) but do the elderly fill any of these rolls? 

It seems that as our populations age we face three choices:

1. Move away from capitalist dominated methods of production where the interaction of class and non-class around the creation of surplus value is our primary goal, at all costs. Can we find a way to return to a culture in which we value the wisdom and experience of the elderly?  I think it is not likely as the pace of technological change speeds up rather than slows down.  Wisdom and experience around obsolete ideas will have a had time finding a valuable place in society.

2. Find a way for the elderly to contribute to the conditions of existence of exploitation.  Working for merchants such as Wal-Mart for low wages certainly fits this.

3. Put our hands together and pray that our elderly "Hurry Up and Die"  

3D Printing: Possibly a Fundamental Change to the Economy?

Both NPR in general and their podcast Planet Money (story here) have had numerous stories recently about the newish technology of 3D printing.  These printers are essentially duplicating machines a la Star Trek that use raw materials (matter) to create objects by running computer programs and essentially assembling complex objects by combining raw materials based upon computer programs.  The hope for development is that this technology will eventually be able to make organs, bones, etc. as well as complicated manufactured goods.

Health and well being implications aside, I found something remarkable in the Planet Money podcast.  They  mentioned that the 3D printing technology will dramatically lower barriers to entry in manufacturing, as the machines are not terribly expensive.  They of course (and are still in their early stages) cost thousands of dollars, but no millions of dollars. Even more remarkable in the story there was an open, honest and unabashed reference to Karl Marx.  The argument made is that in modern manufacturing the steps from prototype to producing for the market will no longer require massive capital investments just to start out. It could become possible to start a manufacturing firm with just the investment in a 3D Printer.  I couldn't believe my ears hearing Planet Money openly state that "to some degree this innovation of modern capitalism has the potential to put ownership of the means of production into the hands of the masses".  Essentially manufacturing capital could become accessable to a "middle class" member of society.  Using another definition of class, members of the proletariate may be able to afford high technology capital for manufacturing start up.  

I'm not suggesting that there is a major shift in class structure coming immediately out of 3D printing, there will still be owners and workers, and exploitation  present,  I don't think this means the end of capitalism or anything that dramatic, in the world of 3D printing, but the key point made in the story, was one common in  classical Marxism: Ownership of the means of production in highly developed manufacturing could become much more wide spread, thus less concentrated in the hands of the very wealthy.

If nothing else, I see some potential here for a reduction in the massive (and worsening) wealth inequality problem in the developed world. Our massive inequality problems stem in part from a system in which massive amounts of capital are required to start any kind of new product launch.  Is it possible that with 3D printing  that capitalism entrepreneurship  has innovated a product that will put ownership of the means of production into the hands of the masses?  Probably not...but it is a very intriguing idea!

Some Thoughts On Grading and Signaling

Some Thoughts On Grading and Signaling:

I have been spending the evening tonight grading papers and my thoughts have wondered to something that I often enjoy discussing with my students around the idea of grades
(a small caveat, I don't usually bring this up in my online courses as it is open for misinterpretation that I can't read on my student's faces when recording a video lecture. )

I often present to students the idea that a big part of college is not what you are actually learning in any given course (unless you are in the "hard sciences") but rather the idea that by finishing college you are signaling to potential employers that you are able to finish what you have started, as well as apply yourself to the long process of getting a degree.  This includes dealing with bureaucracy (as any UMass student can testify to) as well as the social / cultural skills of interpreting what different professors with different personalities / goals in education think to be important.  It is not learning introductory economics that earns you an A in my course it is learning how to figure out what someone like me thinks is important to memorize / do.  Show up, participate, whatever...

This is of course not really the case, but there is some truth in the signaling model.  Success after college is a mixture of what you have learned, and the ability to show that you were capable of learning it, and all the effort that goes into getting through college beyond the course material. 

Like it or not, (and I generally don't), part of our job as professors is to rank our students for their future employers. Part of this rank is a student being able to signal to a future boss that they are productive and highly exploitable.  A portion of my role is to help the student show just how good they will be at getting exploited.  Gotta love capitalism.

A (massive) Failure in Bourgeois Society

Hypothetically speaking (not that I encountered this on the way home from work...hmm...),  And I am prepared to be ripped to shreds for this post.), is it a personal, educational or societal failure to ask; (when having $2.35 on my food stamps card, and $3.00 in cash, and attempting to buy 2 gallons of milk, and  6 Boston cream donuts)  "How many packs of cigarettes can I get with the change?" 

Needless to say, the poor economist behind you in line just wanted a lo-calorie Gatorade and is now forced to stand in line for 15 minutes in the early hours of morning. 

I would argue that such a question being asked does a few things.  It precludes that tobacco should be illegal (it certainly hasn't helped me in any way), it suggests that our society needs to seriously reexamine benefit programs (and massively expand them, into many areas, including education), and most importantly, it suggests that a society devoid of bourgeois desires would never experience such a question in the first place because a young mother wouldn't need to buy donuts for her child at 3 am. 

Socialism, Utopian (if not Scientific)?  In many ways yes!  I don't even know where to direct my anger without it. 

Now That's What I Call (An Increased Rate Of) Exploitation (Are You Fucking Kidding Me?)

Over that past week or so, all the news about General Motors (GM) has been about how they recorded a RECORD 8 billion dollars in net income for 2011, and hope to be over 10 billion for 2012. 

That is BILLION WITH A B ladies and gentlemen.

As good for GM and their shareholders (not their shareholders who lost everything three years ago of course) as this news is,  (Honestly, this is fantastic for some!)   GM is a symbol of the American heartland, an institution of American capitalism, receiver of one of the largest "Keynesian" (sorry J.M. Keynes, you will always be blamed for the digging holes and refilling them with government money thing)  bailouts in history,  employer of many of my family members past and present, the next major story in the news makes it clear that the revenue increase is nothing but the blood of GM workers. 

What to make of this?

This must mean that the recession is over right?  GM is making a shitload of money for investors as well as the American taxpayer (at least according to every major news outlet). 

Until we get to today's news...
Historically General Motors was a great company to be exploited by (comparatively in terms of standard of living.)  With nothing more than a high school deploma you could earn a decent living and suppport a family.   Part of supporting yourself and your family was being able to retire at a reasonable time (without having to take a job as a greater at Wall Mart to make ends meet).  Right after news breaks of record earnings, today we get this:

A destruction of the pension plan at GM. 
Of course the conservative New York Times frames it as a "change" not a destruction....

Will we see an increase in profits at GM?  Yes........Will it allow the US government to sell the rest of their GM shares at a higher price than otherwise would have been possible?  Yes... Is it just another example of the massive increase in the rate of exploitation in this country?  Of course.
 

The Growth of Holyoke

As I sit in the wonderful city of Holyoke MA, home, preparing for a guest lecture tomorrow in a legal history course at UMass entitled "What is Capitalism, and How Does it Work?".  I have decided to go the case study route with my lecture.

As such, I have been reading an old, and not particularly excellent essay that I wrote a few years ago on the production of paper in the mills of Holyoke.  We all evolve as scholars, and there is a lot of changes I would make to the paper if I were to write it again today.  I did however want to share the section of the paper that introduces the growth of paper making in Holyoke and the growth of city itself.

Out of context, and without the Marxian analysis that follows in the essay, there is nothing overly exciting here:  I just find some of the growth numbers fascinating, and thought some of you might as well.  I remember reading somewhere that in the early 1900s Holyoke had the highest per-capita millionaires in the United States.  That was largely due to the paper production in "The Paper City" .  70 Years after the decline of paper making (and the wealth of Holyoke) the history of this city has left us with a mediocre brewery of the same name (Paper City Brewery). 

The following is from my paper circa 2008:     
Hope you find the numbers interesting as well, and a public thank you to Dan MacDonald for inviting me to lecture tomorrow.  I am looking forward to it!


 

Holyoke was transformed during the first half of the 1800’s from an agrarian backwater to a major industrial center.  The two main industries operating in Holyoke were textile production, that was common in much of the region during this time period, and paper making.  There were a number of factors that allowed for a speedy industrialization in Holyoke, although a factor that cannot be understated is its location on a rapidly flowing section of the Connecticut River. 

            During the 1830’s and 40’s two large construction projects were undertaken in Holyoke with the intention of attracting industry.  Holyoke built an intricate canal system allowing for direct fresh water supply to numerous parts of the downtown area,, and built a large hydroelectric dam on the Connecticut River. 

            The canal system was considered vital for paper makers that decided to open shop in the city.  As will be discussed in more detain in the next section 100’s of gallons of water were needed for each pound of fibrous material to turn it into the “chemically pure” pulp needed for high quality paper.  The canals provided easy access to large amounts of water for a much larger number of mills than would have been possible if they were to locate only along the river banks.    

In a stretch leading into Holyoke the Connecticut River falls 70 feet over the span of two miles.  This allows for massive power generation at what is today known as the Holyoke Dam.  The heavy machinery that became part of both the textile and paper making industries required enormous amounts of power by the standards of the middle 19^th century.  Proximity to the Holyoke Dam allowed for uninterrupted and relatively cheap access to large quantities of power for manufacturing concerns in the community.  The “Great Dam” as it was then know, was completed in 1849.   

            Another factor that was important for Holyoke paper manufactures was the proximity of a large textile concern (Farr Alpaca) that was also located in Holyoke.  Again to be discussed in the next section one of the inputs for the paper mills of Holyoke was linen and cotton rags.  The proximity of textile manufacturers lowered the cost of these inputs, as they did not have to be shipped far, and could be purchased from local businesses with whom relations were generally good.  In Marxian language it could be argued that it was the possibility of cheaper C compared with other areas that originally encouraged paper mills to open in Holyoke.  It was estimated that in the early days of industrialization a paper mill could be opened in Holyoke for as little as $5000 in initial capital compared with estimates of $8000 to $10 000 elsewhere. 

            The growth of the workforce in Holyoke, and the population in general, tends to coincide with the growth and success of the paper and textile industries in the City.  The first paper mill in Holyoke was opened in 1853 with many more following in the next 10 years.   

Holyoke Population

1850 1855 1860 1865 1870 1875 1880 1885 1890 1896, May

3,245 4,639 4,997 5,648 10,733 16,260 21,915 27,895 35,674 44,153

            The population numbers of the town and then city of Holyoke (became city sized circa 1870) tell a story of a rapidly growing industrial community during the second half of the 19^th century.  Computing an average yearly growth rate for this period yields a whopping 5.85% yearly population growth in Holyoke, compared with the United States national population average growth rate of roughly 2.2% for the same period.  As the textile and paper industries stopped growing so did the population of Holyoke.  As of 2007 the city was home to 39,765 residents.  This is almost 5,000 less people than its peak around 1900. 

Government Motors?

General Motors CEO Daniel Akerson was interviewed on NPR this week.
During the interview the term "Government Motors" was brought up as a term that Ackerson didn't "like".

This is not a new way to critically refer to GM.  See for example this article from The Economist last summer:  Government Motors no more

I found Ackerson's argument really interesting in that it parallels one that I often find myself making.  Ackerson was arguing that "Government Motors" and the negative connotations that come with such a term in American society (inefficient, bureaucratic etc.) are unfounded.  Sure the US government still owns about 25 percent of the common stock of General Motors, but ownership does not matter, to paraphrase Ackerson.  What is important is the relationships at the point of production that determine the directions a company is moving in.  Apparently GM is still a vibrantly innovative capitalist firm (I believe he used the words "leaders in technological development a few times).  Vibrant and innovative, even if the ownership structure is something that those preoccupied with ownership relations would call state capitalism.

It is good to know that the top echelon of management at GM understands that increasing the rate of exploitation in their capitalist production relations is still possible, regardless of the ownership structure.  Maybe there is hope for capitalist exploitation in the American Auto Industry.  Keep buying American! (or in the case of GM "assembled American"!) 

Pew Results, Positive and Negative, Capitalism and Socialism by Demographic

These numbers, published by the Pew Research Center are a little disheartening.  Mostly because of the title they place on them of "Little Change...". 

I ask this:  Do we need a survey to know that old rich white people like capitalism and don't like socialism?  (Check the numbers people) 
I also ask this:  How many people that support the Tea Party movement have even a faint inkling of what socialism would look like (that isn't based upon American propaganda of the bleak government controlled East circa 1970)?

Numbers are fun, the work from the Pew here is a great example of that, if nothing else.

As an aside regarding my graphic for this post.  Anyone else annoyed by Lenin being included here?

Surplus and Conditions of Existence.

The following is just a short piece that I posted in response to a common oversight by students in my current Marxian econ course. 
I figured I would share it with all of you as well.

The surplus value in the equation C+V+S=W
is necessary for capitalist growth and expansion, as many of you have written.
I want to add that there are many other conditions of existence of our modern capitalist society that are also fulfilled out of the surplus. 
Many (in fact a majority of) workers in a modern society are not productive (of surplus value).  Managers, service industry people, merchants, bankers, even myself, do not produce surplus, as we are not creating commodities (although the case could be made for education as a commodity). 
All of the value in society has to come from productive activity (by definition) and the rest of us who fulfill necessary conditions for the reproduction (and growth) of the system live off the surplus of the productive workers. To paraphrase the old man in dramatic fashion; we are the vampires of capitalism. 

Grading

Has been all consuming of my time over the past week.
I suppose ranking "customers" of the university to save their future employers time and money in the hiring process is a necessary part of my job.
One of life's little downers.

Brief Thoughts on the Occupy (99%) Movement

While standing on the fringe of a crowd today at the Occupy UMass rally I had a conversation with a veteran of the civil rights movement.

We talked about many things, notably, the fragmentation of the modern left.  He argued that the civil rights movement had as many goals and aims as it had individuals, just as the current occupy movement is being portrayed as having. 

I don't mean to conflate the great successes of the civil rights movement with what is still just a small amount of protestors.  That being said, if a week ago someone told me the occupy movement would still have life and be growing today I would probably not have believed it.  A fundamental change of this system is something that a lot of Obama voters were close to being open to.  Maybe a shift in the US really will take place.  I still think it is highly unlikely but that brings me to the most striking part of my conversation today...

I asked the gentleman to whom I was speaking what he remembered most vividly about being a member of the civil rights movement.  His response was "I remember being afraid".  I asked him if he was afraid of being jailed, or of violence, or something else.  His response was "I was afraid of being ignored.  If during a protest/sit-in, people had just looked at us and laughed and moved on, this man  would still be sitting at the back of the bus".

The broader point here is that acknowledgment (even if it was negative), from the powers that be helped give the civil rights movement legs during its early phases.  At this point I have to ask... have things gotten bad enough that the members of the 99% in the streets are ready to make themselves noticed by the ruling class?  There have been hundreds of arrests in various cities, and mainstream media coverage (here is an article from earlier today in the NYT).  According to reports from some of my colleges at UMass (thanks Dan), the local branches of Bank of America now have armed guards outside while open for business.  Is it possible that the ruling powers are taking notice?  And this will give strength to the occupy movement as my new friend claims happened half a century ago?