One Thing Popa Marx Got Dead Wrong!....A Late Night Musing on the Rate of Profit in the US.........

Just started reading a book I bought a few years back that has just sat on the shelf.  "Wobblies & Zapatistas". Wishing I had picked it up sooner...The first chapter already has me worked up!

The book is interesting so far, but there is a major error in the application of Marxian theory in the first chapter.  When discussing "globalization" in the lens of the Zapatista movement, the book cites the rising Organic Composition of Capital in the 1970's leading to a falling rate of profit for U.S. capitalists and thus the need for expansion.  The result, of course, is NAFTA, and all the ramifications for the Mexican people*

What has not been adequately explained (at least to my mind) is that the profit rate did NOT fall during this period.  It is beyond the scope of what I am going to undertake for a blog entry to find data to prove this but I would direct my reader to a lot of Rick Wolff's semi-recent work for evidence.

This common misconception that globalization was caused by the American capitalist looking for ways to increase a falling profit rate (due to a raising OCC) is just a simple case of finding results where the theory predicts they should be.  The OCC rose, resulting in globalization, read Marx, the profit rate must have been falling???  I think Marx got this one really wrong!  Globalization is a rusult of too much profit, not a falling rate, and the necessity to stick all of this surplus somewhere.

What is at stake in this argument?  A valid question dear reader....please help me with it.


*As an aside, an interesting something cited in this book that I have never come across in my own NAFTA work (albeit years ago now).  The Mexican government removed a line from their constitution allowing land to be held communally by a village at the request of the U.S. government as a precondition to NAFTA.  Perhaps more on this another night.

Farewell O Great Teacher

I am sure I will have much more to write about this in the future:
For now... It saddens me greatly to post a farewell to wonderful Economist, Marxist, Teacher, Mentor, Adviser and Friend, Stephen Resnick.  Steve passed away yesterday, January 2nd 2013. Contrary to everything he has taught me about overdetermination, no other single human being has had such an impact on my life.  For the most part words fail me at the moment, but I wish the best for Steve's family and for him, in whatever (if anything) comes next.  This blog will be filled with writing remembering Steve and his work in the coming weeks/months/years, but for now, I love you Steve, You will be remembered fondly and missed terribly. 
Thank You for everything!

My Online Marxian Economics Class Starting Tomorrow

Just to let everyone know:
I have a couple of seats still in the University of Massachusetts Continuing Education version of Economics 305, "Marxian Economics" that is starting tomorrow, Monday the 17th.
This is the famous Resnick Marxian class, I am just the facilitator / grader.   You get the Resnick video lectures.  This is a great introduction to the subject matter that has done more than any other in shaping my career! 
Email me at
jamiehls@gmail.com
if you would like more info. 

Marvin Miller: The End of Slavery in Major League Baseball. Fondly Remembered

Marvin Miller: Fondly Remembering the Man Who Ended Slavery in Major League Baseball

 

 

Marvin Miller (April 14, 1917 – November 27, 2012) passed away a week ago.  I intentionally waited a few days for this post so as to not be lumped into the discussion of his (non) selection (thus far) into the Baseball Hall of Fame despite his massive influence on the history and development of Major League Baseball. Also, if I get on a rant about economists getting into the baseball hall of fame I may never stop. 

Prior to the late 1960s professional baseball players were not represented by a union.  There had been numerous attempts (I believe dating back to the late 1800s) to unionize.  The  first time the players were successful in a unionization attempt was with the formation of the Major League Baseball Player's Association, that according to their website negotiated the first successful collective bargaining agreement in professional sports in 1968.  

Marvin Miller headed the MLBPA from 1966 until the early 1980's.  Prior to running the player's union Miller worked with The United Steel Workers of America. It was shortly after the beginning of his tenure in baseball that Miller won contract arbitration and free agency for players.  This matters because prior to this victory baseball players were essentially operating under a class structure of slavery, owned and exploited by the owners of the team that they played for.  

I am not meaning to conflate baseball with the social aspects of some of the the other slave systems in human history, the US slave trade, modern sexual slave trades, the East African Slave Trade, and lots of other examples of people being horribly mistreated. However, in terms of class analysis baseball players were essentially slaves. Once under contract a player had no ability to "jump" their contract to play for another team (even if a higher money offer was made).  Players in the early era of baseball were paid their salary (just as a slave is typically given room, board, medicine, etc.) but were not free to leave the employment of the club/team that they played for.  

Generally speaking any baseballer who violated a contract could not legally play professional baseball again.  Also, once signed a baseball player remained the property of the team that signed him for the duration of his career.  Like other pieces of property (bats, balls, cars, houses, etc.), the owners could legally sell and trade their players and the player would have no choice in this other than to pick up and move their family and go play for their new team.  

Finally, it was illegal for baseball players to prematurely end their contract with the owner of their team.  There are documented cases of players being forced to return wages, and even going into debt to owners after suffering injuries, or being involved in other life events that left them unable to play baseball any longer under the terms of their contract.   

In terms of the Marxian language of class structures prior to collective bargaining baseball players were slaves.  They were pieces of property (capital) that were employed by their owners in order to realize surplus (generally speaking,  in the form of tickets and concession sales in the early years of the sport.  Players could be bought, sold, traded, with no say in the matter, and were forced to work when and where their owners told them to.  (Not to mention that in this era salaries of players were quite low). 

Returning to Marvin Miller:   Arguably, Miller did more to change the game of professional baseball than any single player / manager, etc. has ever done.  He ended the existence of the class structure of slavery for baseball players.  Players today, (overpaid or not,) function essentially as capitalist workers.  Team owners pay the player a salary, after the player signs a contract.  After the expiration of the contract the player becomes a free agent and is able to sign with another organization.  Through collective bargaining the MLBPA has won the rights to contract arbitration, no trade clauses, and numerous other rights for their member players.  All of these cornerstones of worker's rights in baseball were enacted under Miller's tenure as the head of the MLBPA.  

Today, it is true that baseball players are very well paid at the major league level (this is not so for the far greater number of players in the minor leagues).  In the Marxian theory modern players are still exploited by the owners.  The form is capitalist exploitation, not slavery.  Modern players are paid for their necessary labor.  The owners of the teams are the first appropriators of the surplus generated by the players (through tickets, merchandise sales, television, etc)  My guess would be that a good sized portion of this surplus is then transferred back to the few players with top contracts by the owners, but that does not change that the class structure of Capitalism exists between owners and players today in Major League Baseball.  

It seems fitting that "America's Game"  should be dominated by America's favorite class structure (capitalism) and Marvin Miller was a big part of why that transition took place.  May athletes, in all the major sports, baseball was the first to unionize; (and non-athletic union members as well), in fact, the whole American labor movement owes a debt of gratitude to Marvin Miller.  


If there is a heaven, I am sure there is baseball being played. Perhaps Marvin can help Jesus renegotiate his contract. 

Revisiting a Problem Shared By Many Marxists

A common "mistake" in Marxian theory is trying to arrive at what Marx "really thought" at various points in his life and/or in his many writings.  What Marx meant is relevant certainly, and should be studied, if you are a historian of Marxian thought.  
Marxian theories (like all overdetermined aspects of existence) evolve through time, and the writings of Marx himself should be viewed as a starting point, not dogma.  Arguing over what Marx "meant" is academic masturbation not economic theory.  These types of arguments are as wasteful of our time as trying to directly transform prices into values.

The Lingering Effects of Ideological Indoctrination

The greatest challenge in terms of material so far in my online Marxian economics course this winter has been the preconceived notions of communism held by many students.

I don't blame my students at all, and yet find it hard not to get frustrated reading discussion post after discussion post along the lines of "the workers getting equal shares of the surplus" when defining communism. 
The concept of apprpriation prior to distibtuion of surplus can be complex, yet...

I cannot help feeling that ideas of a homogenous, drab, poor, "equal" society haunt the consciousness of many of us in this society still.  I guess that is why so many fear Obama being a "socialist"? 

Fighting ideology with ideology remains the mission, the battle remains uphill. 

(As an aside, I am amazed at the sophistication of thought of many of the students in this course.  Teaching introductory level economics is great, but this course has been incredibly invigorating for me so far). 

Briefly on Epistomology (answer to a student's email)

The dialectic was not invented by Hegel but he did a lot to develop the idea. 

The Historical Materialism of Marx was based upon Hegel's dialectics (things influence each other). 
Overdetermination as used by Resnik and Wolff is a step further than Marx's historical materialism. 
Overdetermination is a complete rejection of rationalism and empiricism.  Under overdetermination there is no absolute truth.  Everything is relative and constituted by everything else.  Entry points can be picked to allow analysis and theories fall into order, but there is no standard of truth external to the knower. 

Overdetermination is not so much a way to discredit classical epistemology, but rather intended  to destroy it.
 
Overdetermination is a form of post-modern, aka, post-structuralist, aka, anti-determinist way of thinking about things.  There is a lot of examples of post-modern thought out there if you care to look. 

As it relates to our purposes, this kind of epistemology has the implication that the economy and class are entry points but not causes.  Traditional Marxism states that if you take away the private property and free markets of capitalism, it will cause other aspects of the society to become socialist/communist.  Under a post modern perspective society is far more complex, as is the road to communism. 

The Factory of Bourgeois Ideology Production At Work

I took this picture last night at an Economics 103 (Introduction to Micro Economics) final exam at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst.

No where is it more clear to me than during a large lecture final exam how much our education system is designed to produce obedient and productive capitalist works.  People are expected to be faceless, and nameless, complete their assigned task and leave.  Any deviation from this will result in serious reprocussions, both from the overseers, as well as I would imagine discipline from the other faceless, nameless ones who are attempting to succeed within the system.

The goal is obviously different, a grade instead of a paycheck, but the mechanism certainly prepares the student for their future of being exploited and/or perpetuating exploitation of the working class. 

Regarding the teaching of micro economics by a bunch of Marxists:
This will be a future post, but I don't have an enormous problem with it.  If nothing else neoclassical theory is an important part of economic history.  My hope is that someday it will ONLY be taught as such.  For now, teaching it allows many who are attempting to subvert the theory to reproduce their labor power.  A contradiction certainly, but I can think of worse aspects of what the young Marxist scholar is asked to do on a day to day basis.

Finally, a shout out to Mark S.  The very serious gentleman patrolling the ranks in my photo.  Check out some of his writings here at The Cognitive Footprint. 

Online Marxism

Just a quick note:
UMass Amherst is running an online version of Economics 305 "Marxian Economics" both over the winter and also next summer with yours truly as the instructor.
This course is based upon (and still shows videos of) the course Steve Resnick has taught here for years.  I couldn't be more excited (except for the inherent limitations of the online format).