"Money Ain't A Thang" A Response To Robert Paul Wolff on "The Philosopher's Stone"

At the end of the day, revolutionary change to our system of exploitation in production requires massive cultural change as well. 
Who better than Jay-Z to usher it in?  If only we could get him to read Marx...



Wolff claims that "The Left Has All The Best Songs for Half A Century". 
I Strongly Disagree!
The following is the text of my comments on his post. 
Do any of you care? 
You will, when I am in a Ferrari or Jaguar switching four lanes. ....


Apologies in advance for this. If I hadn't just returned from a concert I would never bother to nitpick at something like this.

Respectfully speaking as both a Marxist and a fan of your blog...

People that are aiming to be in, singing about, etc. the bourgeois elite have released some musical masterpieces in the last 20 years.

The bourgeois culture I spend much my life subverting has given us a lot of good music. To be honest about it, I find most of the contemporary music of the left does nothing more than whine about being on the left.
The other side of this coin is that people unabashedly trying to get rich in our society have provided much of the best music of the past two decades.
For example:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XK-KFfYA2Vk
All good Detroit boys like myself love Seger, so I am not going to argue his greatness, I just want to point out that over the past 20 years or so leftist music has been much like the American social left: Unappealing to those without a vested interest, and fragmented.
The left used to have all the good songs, sure. The left today needs something to unite it, a good song would be a start, and it has been a while since we have had one. 

Marginal Jackass

Just when I was beginning to think Tyler Cowen actually believed  Marginal Revolution's  tag line "small steps toward a much better world" we get this:
http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2012/02/from-facebook.html

Is being a self promoting, arrogant, shit head part of blogging? 
Is it part of making a better world?  
I certainly enjoy self-promotion and being a shit head with this forum, so I hope so.  I doubt it, but I hope so. 

Is encouraging people to read another (same as all the others, methodologically dishonest, ideologically elitist, in support of dishonest hegemonic bourgeois ideals, etc.) neoclassical economics textbook, just because you are the author a "Small Step Towards A Much Better World"? 

It probably is for the shareholders of the publishing company. 

I expect this kind of arrogance and idiocy on the blog of N. Gregory Mankiw but not Tyler Cowen.  Generally speaking Marginal Revolution is worth reading, even for those of us who completely disagree with most of what is written there.  As opposed to Mankiw's blog which is usually just condescending nonsense.
Perhaps it is time for my colleagues at Anti-Mankiw to start becoming counter-margianl-revolutionary as well.  
A preemptive response to some of the comments this post will likely receive:
Yes I am tired on a Friday night and a little grumpy, Yes I am jealous of both Cowen and Mankiw's success, and yes I am angry that their success allows them to indoctrinate far more students than those of us who are "honest" about economics.  Perhaps I am wrong, and these servants of the bourgeois elite are good people, and have good intentions. 
... is there room for good intentions in rational self interest?  

GM Profits

Are enormous again.  Over 8 Billion dollars for 2011.
I wonder what has happened to their rate of exploitation at the point of production.  Wait no I don't...  It has gone through the roof.   Read between the lines of a statement like "shed billions of dollars of cost" in any bourgeois article like this one: 
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204136404577204982933314566.html

 What happens when S increases and V falls?  S/V increases dramatically.   If the American worker is willing to be exploited at higher and higher rates, giving up the benefits their predecessors obtained there just might be hope for the survival of productive capitalism in this country. 

Is that a good thing?  While that all depends....

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"!)