Maybe Marx could help Obama

[Shakespear]

While looking for Marx's views on races as pertains to what the Soviets were doing prior to WWII I found this gem,

Though he may be little versed in the things of this world, it can hardly have escaped the Montesquieu of Cologne that "new inventions" and commercial crises are features just as permanent as Prussian ministerial decrees and legal basis. New inventions, especially in Germany, are only introduced when competition with other nations makes it vital to introduce them; and should the newly arising branches of industry be expected to ruin themselves in order to render assistance to the declining ones. The new industries that come into being as a result of inventions come into being precisely because they can produce more cheaply than the declining industries. What the deuce would be the advantage if they had to feed the declining industries? But it is well known that the state, the government, only seems to give. It has to be given first in order to give. But who should do the giving, Montesquieu LVI? The declining industry, so that it decline even faster? Or the rising industry, so that it wither on the stem? Or those industries that have not been affected by the new inventions, so that they go bankrupt because of the invention of a new tax? Think it over carefully, Montesquieu LVI!

"Think it over carefully, Obama!"


http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx...1849/01/21.htm


PS: Never thought I would be quoting this guy :-)

[c1ue]

Re: Maybe Marxs could help Obama

Whatever your views on Communism, it is always worthwhile to read Marx.

From the epistle you referred to:

Montesquieu LVI has never heard that under existing conditions the division of labor replaces complex labor by simple labor, the labor of adults by that of children, the labor of men by that of women, the labor of the independent workers by automatons; that, with the development of modern industry, the education of workers becomes unnecessary and impossible.

An update to this sentence:

..... has never heard that under existing conditions the division of labor replaces the labor of the developed world with the labor of the developing world, the labor of the educated with the labor of the uneducated, the labor of the human by the labor of the machine, the labor of the mind by the labor of the computer; that, with the development of modern FIRE economies, the right of the workers to sow and reap the benefits of production becomes unnecessary and impossible.

[don]

Re: Maybe Marxs could help Obama

In 1950's America a popular topic was the "problem" of too much leisure time. Isaac Asimov launched his Robot series of stories and novels from this strain of real world naivete. Unfortunately there's a whiff of that Cologne de Utopia in the high-tech infra-structure forecasts. High speed rail for what? Understanding the wellsprings of these phenomenon would seem essential to predicting the future. Not necessary for simply, and I know it ain't simple ;), protection of one's wealth.

[Shakespear]

Re: Maybe Marxs could help Obama

What got me chasing Mr. Marx's was this video

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...et+story&dur=3

which is long, but I highly recommend watching after the 45 min mark. You will definitely learn something about Power Politics and the world of today.

[Spartacus]

Re: Maybe Marxs could help Obama

updated to MBA-corporate-droid-speak(R) PowerPoint(TM),

"free trade" [1]
Arbitrage [2]
Globalization [3]
Usury
Political influence / regulatory capture
privileged taxation

[1] better with no freedom, ie, slave labor under a police state
[2] better with no freedom, ie, slave labor under a police state
[3] you get the idea

Whatever your views on Communism, it is always worthwhile to read Marx.

From the epistle you referred to:



An update to this sentence:

..... has never heard that under existing conditions the division of labor replaces the labor of the developed world with the labor of the developing world, the labor of the educated with the labor of the uneducated, the labor of the human by the labor of the machine, the labor of the mind by the labor of the computer; that, with the development of modern FIRE economies, the right of the workers to sow and reap the benefits of production becomes unnecessary and impossible.

[Shakespear]

Re: Maybe Marxs could help Obama

Now this has been on my mind for some time. By profession I'm a petroleum engineer. Had some economics so am not a total dumb ass in this area.

I am wondering WHY can't a nationalized factory, firm, industry prosper as would a privately owned one?

Give me your Pros and Cons of a nationalized entity, I want to learn to argue this sensibly.

Why do I ask? Well I have seen some firms here in Poland privatized, in refining and heavy industry, and suddenly these firms are said to be prospering. What, they couldn't get the same caliber management and know how before?

OK, here is my list

PRO's

1) More profits stay in the country where the "entity" is located.
2) Higher wages can be payed as less is going to far off investers, owners stc.
3) If startegic industry then the country is under contrl of it.
4) Industry knowlege base stay in the country (patents, process knowledge etc) .

CON's

1) Because of 1) above the government starts to "burn" money on things not needed.
2) The "entity" is bureaucratized to give "friends" work there.
3) Modernization is not keeping up due to slow decision process as things go through the gov. bureaucrats (surely a mechanism could be thought up to counter this)
4) Management has little incentive as is payed less than in private industry (lets look at GM then).

:-)

[c1ue]

Re: Maybe Marxs could help Obama

Theoretically a nationalized production company can do as well as a private one, but in reality this rarely holds true over time.

The reason is simple: job security.

When a company is part of government, it is outside the boundaries of the Darwinian world. Whether via political connections, protection of voting blocs, regulatory protection, or any number of other shenanigans, the tendency over time is for less productivity and investment and thus more inefficiency.

In the Darwinian world, there are always many others willing to eat your lunch. If you fail to do things right, you get killed off.

It is similar to the argument of tyranny vs. democracy. It isn't that democracy is inherently a better system - I would argue that democracy is inherently much more wasteful.

However, the big benefit to democracy is that the churn on leadership is both possible and periodic. Tyranny - rare indeed is one great tyrant followed by even a mediocre one. And once you get a bad one...

[don]

Re: Maybe Marxs could help Obama

When I was 20 I started a 4-year federal electrical apprenticeship at a navy shipyard. We overhauled boomers and fast attacks. I had been working since I was 14- yes, trudging through heavy snows, feet wrapped in rags, etc- and fully understood that a cross ways look at the boss could cost you your job.

Following a few weeks of orientation (a curious luxury in itself) we got sent down to the boats. In the crew was a guy about my father's age who took his tools on board, set them aside, and did nothing but bullshit and smoke until the whistle blew. I was dumbfounded but there was more. I asked my journeyman what was up. He told me the guy and our superintendent had a beef, and an unspoken agreement was in effect that he wouldn't work for about a week, and nothing would be expected of him either. Then he'd return to the work force.

I then knew I had passed through the governmental looking glass.

(A few years later our entire crew of 16 was required to work both Saturday and Sunday for a month. There wasn't any work, just man hours to burn off the project. Mind blowing. We joked that the Soviet satellite saw all this activity and it mucked up their end as well. We felt the USSR didn't stand a chance. They all worked for the government.)

[Shakespear]

Re: Maybe Marx could help Obama

Lets take a look at the shipyard example. I would think that modern accounting methods would be able to estimate the labor/material requirements to do a ship and if what was being done was not within those limits this would be a signal to management that it was not being run right. What I am trying to get at is where is the actual problem. Is it that the management structure/style in private industry could not be made to work in a nationalized firm? Is it the distance between owner and the "entity", I have in mind Washington being far from lets say a firm in LA? In that case couldn't it work on a city/state level?

Where I am going with this is the fact that I am watching firms here in Poland whose owners now are in Sweden, Italy, German etc, of firms which once were in the gov. hands. The new situation results in the bulk of the profits going out of the country. Watching one case in particular I find it hard to see how the benefits of the new owner are staying in the area where the plant is.

The common mantra is that labor costs are huge and reductions are required. That is done but then the management cost rose by 30 times what they were before. Who wins? Certainly not the people living on that land as most of them lost their jobs as that firm was the major employer in the area.

Another is the ship building in Poland, once top in Europe. Since Poland went into the EU the shenanigans have managed to run these into the cemetery. The word on the ground is that it is EU generals that wanted to eliminate them and bribery works wonders in Poland (as it does in many Western countries)

Same could be said for example HOOVER. Born and raised in the Mid-West but because of "pressure" needed to hike to the Far East as labor cost were "killing" them. OK, but what happened in the mean time to management costs and stock holder profits is my question? Did they stay the same, rise, or fell ?

I am not sure if were are not being fed hay in constantly being told that nationalized companies can not be "good" for the country in the long run. Something tells me that this would not be an area of research sponsored by GM or current government to get better answers.

Just some thoughts of someone observing the current mess and wondering what is there so sacred about the mantra that capitalism is the only way to run a business. Having read once the history of the Krupp Industries I found it to be more socialized than capitalist.