Labour is right—Karl Marx has a lot to teach today’s politicians

The economist?
economist.com/news/britain/21721916-shadow-chancellors-comment-provoked-scorn-yet-marx-becomes-more-relevant-day-labour

well I mean their reading of marx was meme-tier but it's still clear that they mean well and they tried harder than most

how can a magazine called the economist be so ignorant of someone like marx?

can you post what it says pls it's behind a paywall

open in incognito

AN UNOFFICIAL rule of British elections holds that you don’t mention big thinkers. On May 7th John McDonnell, the shadow chancellor, broke this rule by mentioning not just any old big thinker but Karl Marx. “I believe there’s a lot to learn from reading ‘Capital’,” he declared. The next day Jeremy Corbyn, the Labour Party leader, described Marx as “a great economist”.

This produced jubilation on the right. The Daily Telegraph dismissed Messrs McDonnell and Corbyn as “the Marx brothers”. The Daily Mail reminded its readers of the murderous history of communism. David Gauke, a Conservative minister, warned that “Labour’s Marxist leadership” was planning to turn Britain into a “hard-left experiment”. He added for good measure that Marx’s thinking is “nonsensical”.

Yet Mr McDonnell is right: there is an enormous amount to learn from Marx. Indeed, much of what Marx said seems to become more relevant by the day. The essence of his argument is that the capitalist class consists not of wealth creators but of rent seekers—people who are skilled at expropriating other people’s work and presenting it as their own. Marx was blind to the importance of entrepreneurs in creating something from nothing. He ignored the role of managers in improving productivity. But a glance at British business confirms that there is a lot of rent seeking going on. In 1980 the bosses of the 100 biggest listed firms earned 25 times more than a typical employee. In 2016 they earned 130 times more. Their swollen salaries come with fat pensions, private health-care and golden hellos and goodbyes.

The justification for this bonanza is that you get what you pay for: companies claim they hire chief executives on the open market and pay them according to their performance. But the evidence is brutal. Most CEOs are company men, who work their way up through the ranks, rather than free agents. In 2000-08 the FTSE all-share index fell by 30% but the pay for the bosses running those firms rose 80%. J.K. Galbraith once said that “the salary of the chief executive officer of the large corporation is not market reward for achievement. It is frequently in the nature of a warm personal gesture by the individual to himself.” Corporate Britain is more subtle: CEOs sit on each other’s boards and engage in an elaborate exchange of such gestures.

The political system is no less rife with rent-seeking. Politicians routinely cash in on their life of public service by transforming themselves from gamekeepers into poachers when they retire, lobbying departments they once ran, offering advice to companies they once regulated and producing platitudinous speeches for exorbitant amounts of money. Tony Blair became rich in his retirement by offering advice to bankers and third-world dictators. George Osborne, a former chancellor, is also cashing in: he makes more than £650,000 ($840,000) for working for BlackRock investment managers one day a week, earns many tens of thousands for speeches and edits a London newspaper, the Evening Standard.
Marx predicted that capitalism would become more concentrated as it advanced. The number of listed companies has declined at a time when profits are close to their highest levels ever. Concentration is particularly pronounced in the most advanced sectors of the economy. Google controls 85% of Britain’s search-engine traffic. Marx was also right that capitalism would be increasingly dominated by finance, which would become increasingly reckless and crisis-prone.

What about his most famous prediction—that capitalism inevitably produces immiseration for the poor even as it produces super-profits for the rich? “Immiseration” is too strong a word to describe the condition of the poor in a country with a welfare state and a minimum wage. Yet many trends are worrying. Average wages are still below their level before the financial crisis in 2008 and are not expected to exceed it for several years. The rise of the Uber economy threatens to turn millions of people into casual workers who eat only what they can kill.

(cont.)

(cont.)

Full Marx

The problem with Marx is not that his analysis is nonsensical, as Mr Gauke maintains, but that his solution was far worse than the disease. And the problem with Messrs Corbyn and McDonnell is not that they have learned something from Marx but they haven’t learned anything from the past hundred years of history. Mr McDonnell is a fan not just of Marx but also of Lenin and Trotsky. Mr Corbyn described Fidel Castro as a “champion of social justice”. A leaked draft of the Labour manifesto resurrects defunct plans to renationalise industries and extend collective bargaining.

The Tory party is heading for a substantial victory in large part because Labour’s leaders are so unreconstructed. But it would be a mistake for the Conservatives to ignore the lessons of the master himself. As Trotsky once put it, “You may not be interested in the dialectic, but the dialectic is interested in you.” The financial crisis suggested that the economic system is worryingly fragile. The vote for Brexit suggested that millions of people are profoundly unhappy with the status quo.

The genius of the British system has always been to reform in order to prevent social breakdown. This means doing more than just engaging in silly gestures such as fixing energy prices, as the Conservatives proposed this week (silly because this will suppress investment and lead eventually to higher prices). It means preventing monopolies from forming: Britain’s antitrust rules need to be updated for an age where information is the most valuable resource and network effects convey huge advantages. It means ending the CEO salary racket, not least by giving more power to shareholders. It means thinking seriously about the casualisation of work. And it means closing the revolving door between politics and business. The best way to save yourself from being Marx’s next victim is to start taking him seriously.

are shadow councillor is based tbh

The greatest service to be done to Marx is to describe how capital is a real, animate force manifested through the dictates of the market to capitalist ists. Furthermore, though the concept of rent-seeking is important to Marxian theory, the most important part is the whole picture of which it's a part, the analysis of the commodity form and how it crystallizes and further intensifies the already-inherent contradictions between labor and capital within the system of commodity production. Any understanding of Marx must start where he starts, with the commodity form, and the expansion of its analysis beyond the happy liberal surface of market relations between context-less actors (where bourgeois economists start and stay, as visible with this article) and into the unseen subterranean depths of the firms where value production takes place.
At least they're making an effort, I guess.

How was that article ignorant?

because marx wasn't an economist

can one of our marxists get into the comments section and blow these fuckers out pls

Bongs are so cucked

Goddamn I didn't know they were wizards

...

Read motherfucker.

Fucking socdems.

but he wasn't. what's the problem here?

What's an "economist" to you, then?

like smith or ricardo or the folks he was critiquing. they work in the field of economics. It's primarily a study of how things work in the present state of things. Marx was more concerned with asking why things were like that which is a different question and one which should not be understood as within the field of economics but a critique from outside. That's what Capital was. He started by examining the most basic concepts which came out of that field. Some of what he did was pointing out little mistakes here and there but for the most part, he wasn't trying to tear down other theories in order to push forward a "marxist economics"

Are you kidding. Most of Capital is an analysis of the workings of capitalism in comparison with other economic systems, including feudalism and primitive economies. He then goes on to describe socialist and communist economies and how those would compare to capitalism.

...

Then you weren't being clear at all…

He died after writing the first volume of the first book of SIX(6) books on economics he was writing. Yes he was an economist. No he wasnt trying to create marxian economics, but only to further the study of political economy which was then abandoned for ideological reasons.

Whenever I read about the Economist, this quote rushes back into my mind:

Old people are generally dumb. I'd follow the investment advice of a 25 year old egg-head with acne way before a 55 year old fogey with a bald spot.

Fucking lol


There is a difference between a leader and a manager…

Right, anyone who's ever done hard work in a group understands that it's worth assigning some people to the role of taking a step back and directing the workers. The difference is that all the workers follow that direction voluntarily because they trust and respect those directors.

Right, a stateless, classless, and moneyless society in which everyone's needs are met sounds fucking AWFUL


Translation: when things go to shit we give the working class just enough to not become class conscious.


I'm going to choose to read this as an invitation to workers and a threat the shareholders and property owners.

In that case, damn right you better

Well, he was a philosopher first and foremost. ML's like to degrade philosophy to ideology and unwittingly spit on their source material.

There's a reason that economics was traditionally called, the "Worldly Philosophy".

my point was that marx's critique of political economy comes from outside the field. I don't know how to state that any more clearly.

You could define what the field is and how it could possibly not include Marx.

I always thought it was written by older people

Saw this comment on HN:


Marx BTFO?

Alas, the marble on which I sculpted my knowledge unravels like a house of cards…

I already did. Read my post again.

I see what you're saying, but I still think he could be called an economist

The Economist actually posted this quote on their social media in honor of Marx's birthday not realizing that Marx was making fun of them

the economist is peak "very serious person"
and cucked as fuck

REALLY cucked

I'm not sure they didn't realize it.
And I'm not sure he was "making fun".

That pic has a lot of exploitable potential

Someone who only sees Marx as philospher and not as economist is like someone who only sees Adam Smith as economist and not a philosopher.
It´s an indication that you understand neither Marx nor Smith.

Not sure, but I think that Marx meant it more factual than anything else. Like in: London is the heart of 19th century capitalism, and the economists in London decide what happens in the European economy.