In the world of Karl Marx, capital mostly took the form of companies privately owned, companies that were in many cases managed by the individuals who owned them. It was relatively easy to see that the world was divided into landowners, entrepreneurs, capitalists, and workers. And as Marx argued quite persuasively, over a long period of time stretching across several centuries, workers had systematically been deprived of the tools of their labor and also of their skills, which more and more were built into the machines they tended. The wealth of the capitalist class was rapidly expanding as they appropriated the surplus of the productive activities of their workers in the form of money profits.
By the early 20th century, the situation had
changed dramatically. As Berle and Means
argued in their classic 1932 work The Modern Corporation and Private Property, ownership
of private corporations in America has been substantially divorced from control
and management of those corporations. Although technically the owners of shares
of stock in a publicly traded corporation are partial owners of that
corporation, in reality owning a share of stock in a corporation confers no
control at all over its operation.
The management of a large publicly traded corporation are in
fact employees of the Corporation, and their compensation appears in the
accounting of the Corporation along with the other costs, such as raw materials,
electricity, and such. To be sure, the managers of America’s great publicly
traded corporations tend to be quite rich and frequently own large chunks of
stock in the Corporation, but their ownership of stock in the Corporation is a
consequence, not a cause, of their role as managers. Rex Tillerson, for
example, Trump’s first Secretary of State, ended his private career as the head
of Exxon Mobil. He held something like $600 million in Exxon Mobil shares, but
that was a result of his career with the oil company, not a condition of his
elevation to the presidency of it.
The enormous inflation in the compensation of corporate
executives in the United States over the past 40 years can I think best be
portrayed as systematic theft by the corporate managers from the faceless real owners of the corporations, the shareholders. When the United Auto Workers go
toe to toe with the management of the automobile industry, it is not labor
confronting capital, it is low-paid workers confronting high paid workers.
As the statistical studies of Thomas Picketty and others
demonstrate, the enormous inequality in the distribution of income in modern
capitalist societies is dwarfed by the vastly more unequal distribution of
wealth.
In my paper “The Future of Socialism” I presented a little
hypothetical example designed to demonstrate that in the modern Corporation it
is impossible, according to the canons of cost accounting, to allocate
unambiguously the costs of the Corporation to the several divisions
producing different commodities. The implication of this fact, I argued, is
that decision-making within the Corporation has become, in its logical
structure, increasingly like the political decision-making engaged in by
government representatives and can no longer be portrayed simply as determined
by market forces. My point was, rather simple mindedly, that something akin to
socialism was developing within the womb of capitalism.
That was simply a thought experiment, a first attempt to get my hands around the peculiar character of modern capitalism. If we are to think our way to a form of economic organization beyond capitalism, it is these sorts of investigations rather than celebration of “Occupy Wall Street” that is required.
5 comments:
Regarding “the peculiar character of modern capitalism”, isn’t the most peculiar aspect of it the fact that while we are approaching a realm of pure abstraction, we seem completely unaware of this fact? For one example, a lot of us persist in (and insist in) interpreting societal conflict as arising out of ethnic difference. But what if the difference was not between different ethnicities, but between humans—natural persons—and other, more modern forms of “life”?
This may sound like Sci-Fi, but bear with me. The type of person calling the shots today isn’t so much that avatar of wickedness, “The White Man”, or even Henry Clay Frick types, dressed up like the Monopoly Man, but a rather more anonymous (and durable) person, the corporation itself. The Corporation (“S” type or LLC) enjoys, thanks to our Supreme Court, the benefits of personhood without any of the drawbacks. It gets birthed in a lawyer’s office, lives forever, and doesn’t (and in fact can’t) care about anything humane at all.
The idea that the members of this tribe will, with the demonstration of a sufficient amount of righteousness, somehow be shamed into doing the right thing is absurd on its face.
"rather than celebration"?
Why not affirm both? After all, Marx could say (in his Civil War in France), “Workingmen’s Paris, with its Commune, will be forever celebrated as the glorious harbinger of a new society,” and a decade later, in a letter to F. Domela-Nieuwenhuis he could write of the Paris Commune “that this was merely the rising of a city under exceptional conditions, the majority of the Commune was in no wise socialist, nor could it be. Witha modicum of common sense, however, it could have reached a compromise with Versailles useful to the whole mass of the people—the only thing that could be reached at the time. The appropriation of the Bank of France alone would have been enough to put an end with terror to the vaunt of the Versailles people, etc. . . .” (I’m quoting from Lewis Feuer (who may have had an axe to grind?), Marx & Engels Basic Writings on Politics & Philosophy, pp. 390, 391.)
I guess I’d also ponder which of these two evaluations has proved the more inspiring and the more cautionary over the years?
As for the alternative of celebrating Occupy Wall St. or analyzing contemporary capitalism,
I agree with Anon that both can be affirmed.
Successful revolutions like the French Revolution and the Russian Revolution and all the unsuccessful ones come when people just get fed up with the status quo, not because they've analyzed all the alternatives.
Occupy Wall St. seems to be a good example of a mass movement of people fed up with the status quo. It didn't lead to much, but that's not because it wasn't based on a scientific analysis of capitalism, but simply because not enough people signed up for it and persisted in it.
I must be missing something. There are still bosses or people, in effect, doing mental work directing people doing rather mindless work. The value extracted from the majority doing mindless work finds its way to the opulent few, non-owners or not.In the Soviet Union the state displaced private owners; now, perhaps, its the PMC. Distinctions without a substantive difference?
Thus sayeth Billy Joel: some people wait for a miracle cure, some people just accept the world as it is
Lyrics from Innocent Man
You've been holding your breath for the revolution, and you are hardly an innocent man
I ask: what revolution?
And out of the rubble of your revolution, will a better world be built?
Billy Joel is wiser than Karl Marx
Post a Comment