As most people reading this will agree, production of bourgeois ideology in society is very well developed. It is so well developed that its engineers can pretend that the machine of ideology production does not exist.
Some, myself included, have argued that a critical blog lends credibility to the existence of the machine. Upon further reflection I am starting to believe that anything (even the implied relevance brought by taking the time to critique) that makes people more aware of the propagation of dominant ideology in society could have very positive results. I am hoping for the best!
07 November 2011
Anti-Mankiw on Blogger is Born
A project long in the making....the brain child of economic historian Daniel MacDonald of UMass Amherst...Inspired by the epic rant in book form by Marc Linder (Anti-Samuelson)...The anti-Mankiw movement has moved to the blog-ishphere. This project is essentially about alternative perspectives and criticisms to mainstream economic thought...about time it manifested blog form. Congrats on the launch of the new project everyone!
http://anti-mankiw.blogspot.com/
http://anti-mankiw.blogspot.com/
12 October 2011
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?
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?
22 June 2011
Theft and Exploitation; brief thoughts
To state the obvious:
An employee who steals from a capitalist (be it product or money) is a criminal (has violated criminal law).
A capitalist who extracts surplus value from her employees is just a capitalist.
Many of us do not see a great deal of difference between these two acts, society as a whole sees a large difference but many Marxists do not.
Even though both acts involve appropriating the property (labor power) of another to further one's own material well being, there is an important distinction beyond the obvious criminal aspects:
A capitalist who finds a way to further exploit labor is rewarded with more SV to appropriate and distribute (and ultimatly more profit), a furthering of the capitalist's own well being.
A worker who becomes increasingly successful in workplace theft certainly gains more as an individual, there is however another result as well. Workers increasing their rate of theft from the capitalist will result in the capitalist having less SV. A fall in surplus value for the capitalist may just result in a lowering of profit more likely if the worker is successful enough in their theft it will have some impact on the capitalist's ability to secure the conditions of existence of their enterprise (the most important use for SV for the capitalist), the worker's theft will force the capitalist to take action.
Again holding aside the criminal aspect of worker theft (or assuming the capitalist does not know about the theft, or at least does not know which worker(s) are stealing), the lower SV coming into the corporation will result in the capitalist needing to raise the rate of exploitation to continue to secure existence. Assuming the firm in question needs a certain level of surplus to continue to operate a worker that is successful in stealing will result in the capitalist needing* to further exploit all workers. Wages and benefits will be reduced, hours and intensity increased, etc.
This issue is more complex than I am presenting here, but the argument can be made that a capitalist stealing more labor power helps the capitalist, and a worker stealing back some of the surplus that has been taken from them does nothing more than cause the capitalist to further exploit the workers. On all levels the system is set so that the worker just cannot win at this game.
An employee who steals from a capitalist (be it product or money) is a criminal (has violated criminal law).
A capitalist who extracts surplus value from her employees is just a capitalist.
Many of us do not see a great deal of difference between these two acts, society as a whole sees a large difference but many Marxists do not.
Even though both acts involve appropriating the property (labor power) of another to further one's own material well being, there is an important distinction beyond the obvious criminal aspects:
A capitalist who finds a way to further exploit labor is rewarded with more SV to appropriate and distribute (and ultimatly more profit), a furthering of the capitalist's own well being.
A worker who becomes increasingly successful in workplace theft certainly gains more as an individual, there is however another result as well. Workers increasing their rate of theft from the capitalist will result in the capitalist having less SV. A fall in surplus value for the capitalist may just result in a lowering of profit more likely if the worker is successful enough in their theft it will have some impact on the capitalist's ability to secure the conditions of existence of their enterprise (the most important use for SV for the capitalist), the worker's theft will force the capitalist to take action.
Again holding aside the criminal aspect of worker theft (or assuming the capitalist does not know about the theft, or at least does not know which worker(s) are stealing), the lower SV coming into the corporation will result in the capitalist needing to raise the rate of exploitation to continue to secure existence. Assuming the firm in question needs a certain level of surplus to continue to operate a worker that is successful in stealing will result in the capitalist needing* to further exploit all workers. Wages and benefits will be reduced, hours and intensity increased, etc.
This issue is more complex than I am presenting here, but the argument can be made that a capitalist stealing more labor power helps the capitalist, and a worker stealing back some of the surplus that has been taken from them does nothing more than cause the capitalist to further exploit the workers. On all levels the system is set so that the worker just cannot win at this game.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)