Purpose of State Industry Under Capitalism. Expenditures at Maximum Limit.

It is interesting to see the capitalists suggesting the state is too expensive, and attempting to pay less money towards it.  This would be the idea of Elon Musk, the white South African billionaire, also the world’s richest man; that the state is wasting money, and its expenditures need to be cut drastically.

I guess we have to look at what is owned by the state.  We have a passenger railroad industry, Amtrak, the Post Office,  and waste pickup among others.

The railroad is owned by the state, and usually loses money.  But every other industrialized nation has passenger railways, with Western Europe having high speed railroads, and advanced locomotives that have their own tracks, that go in the mountains and such.

They serve the practical purpose of connecting people between large cities, from downtown regions to other downtown regions.  It’s like going between downtown Chicago and Milwaukee, you don’t always want to drive your car as you encounter traffic , and even if it did not slow you down (which is ridiculous),  driving to downtown Chicago can be a real adventure.

Even if you fly 150 km south, which uses large amounts of energy compared to Amtrak, you still have to ride the L or rent a car to get from O’hare to downtown.  It is about a 45 minute ride between the train station to O’Hare on the L, making flying down there kind of rough.

So the bourgeoisie rises to the occasion, and even though Amtrak does not make a profit, passenger rail is seen as needed, and paid for by a subdivision of taxes from the profit.  

Perhaps to remind us that the capitalist state does good things too, Musk will try to cut railroad money.   He owns a luxury car company; I guess he must be in favor of auto travel.  

But selling it to anyone who has had to commute downtown, and drive it, is a hard sell.

Perhaps gutting the Post Office would be a source of savings.  They committed the sin of moving the mail in ballots we all use to vote, when we were losing the drop boxes the Republican bourgeoisie have come to detest. 

But the bills from the electricity and gas monopoly come in the mail.  They get the money from the bank automatically, but send a receipt showing your energy usage.  Paper receipts are essential in a failure, such as crashed computers.

So no real help there.  Taxes are also sent by mail; every year it comes time to pay the taxman, and it goes in checks by mail.  

This system seems to be working.  There is also mail that has to leave the country. Ever tried to use United Parcel Service, UPS, to send something outside the country? Try Canada, it’s like 10 times more expensive to send a letter UPS than the mail.    Need to send a package? Milwaukee to near Toronto Canada, about 900 miles, our package would have cost 217 dollars for Worldwide Express plus (same day),  $166 for the end of the day.  It costs $153 for worldwide expedited, and for standard (5 days or less), about $44.  The package was less than a pound.

Perhaps the fact recycling is now being done with Waste Management instead of the city sorter would be some savings.  Considering the city sorter burned down, it is now Waste Management that is sorting recyclables. 

But it certainly looks like using the city to get started recycling was effective.  We always said it would save money to recycle, now it is profitable.  Recycling proved to be a real success.  I guess the only question is if you really want to tamper with a working system of city garbage pickup.  It is one of the few remaining parts of our recycling program still not privatized. It may fall, but the fact remains recycling was accomplished without surplus value as a goal of the movement.  And the city pickup created no surplus value, it was not the reason for recycling, we were concerned about what disposable society was doing to the ecology. It is an example of the state giving in ot the desires of workers to do something that the profit motive was neglecting,, helping ecology. So they can give in sometimes, but once it could be done with a profit Waste Management commenced doing the recycling.

They look an awful lot like a monopoly, or a trust. They seem to be handling most of Milwaukee’s recycling, doing the sorting. Whether they own the recyclables is a more difficult question. Capitalists often prefer monopoly to state ownership, like NASA and Elon Musk. He now has a monopoly on what NASA used to do, launch men to the space station. He gets government contracts to do this. All this has done is move capital from the state to Musk’s pocketbook, from industry that was functioning just fine before capitalists decided they wanted a private company to do the launches.

So here we have 3 or 4 of the things the state owns, and it doesn’t look possible to remove the money being used to keep this industry productive and working.  

Maybe instate college tuition?  That is huge.  But it is a subsidy to the petty bourgeoisie and the middle class, who vote and support the Republicans.  It would be very surprising to see this gravy train come to a halt.  Our bourgeois political economists Ivory Towers are connected to this; good luck getting that through Congress. 

So we are really left to ponder, where will these massive savings Musk wants will come from?  Cutting off welfare, Social Security payments, could keep them from having to spend their sacred profits on senior citizens pensions.  But that is not popular with their following either, many of whom are retired or going to retire soon.  

Given any industry that can make a profit is made to do so, through privatization of nationalized assets, what could be unnationalized?  School systems?  There are capitalists who may be supportive of religion in schools,  but their beloved Constitution divides Church and State very  directly.  They have been promoting using state money for religious schools, they call them charter schools.  But they have shown no real promise of providing a better education than the state schools they are meant to replace.  And the right to an education is a thing all of us value, it is not socially acceptable to have children labouring instead of in school.

Basically the state really cannot be removed more than it already is without causing a social crisis for capitalists.  The industry the state controls is only this way as it is needed but cannot create a profit.  Are we to believe Musk can make the Post Office create a surplus this year?  Welcome back to planet Earth Elon.  It hasn’t created a surplus in decades, and unless something big really changes, expect  it to remain a government institution paid for by the state.  

It is sort of amusing to see the same institution, the state, which is used to hold down the proletariat, shrinking.  In this respect it is hard to take Musk and Donald Trump seriously.  We all remember the movement to pay less money to the riot police, defunding the police became a rallying call for the bourgeois.  No savings there either.  

The more you look at it, the more foolish it looks. It would seem to be an empty threat, from a rich man and his puppet.  It remains to be seen if doctrinaire experiments will follow. 

Nicholas Jay Boyes

Milwaukee Wisconsin

American Democratic Republic

Taxes on Imports.  Attempts to Limit China’s Exports by Raising Taxes here on Commodities. 

Taxes on Imports.  Attempts to Limit China’s Exports by Raising Taxes here on Commodities.  11 29 2024

The cockeyed idea that you can control production from another country of commodities in demand worldwide by raising taxes on the import of these commodities is running into difficulties.  The idea that the American market can pressure China to produce less Electric Vehicles (EV’s)  and Solar Panels, by taxing imports; tariffs, seems to be an argument that without Americans to consume China’s production, they will be unable to sell their EV’s and solar panels. What this view lacks is the recognition that the production of high quality finished goods, which will easily find a market elsewhere, are making the taxes only bite the consumers, primarily American workers, who consume cheap Chinese products at Dollar Stores, WalMart, etc.   

The latest complaint is capitalist production cannot compete with China’s socialist system.

“China is too large to export its way to rapid growth and would benefit by reducing excess industrial capacity which is pressuring other economies, Yellen said in remarks to an audience of about 40 representatives of the American Chamber of Commerce in Guangzhou.”

“”Overcapacity isn’t a new problem, but it has intensified, and we’re seeing emerging risks in new sectors,” Yellen said in China’s southern export hub of Guangzhou, where she met with Vice Premier He Lifeng and Guangdong Province Governor Wang Weizhong.”

“Yellen and other Biden administration officials are growing increasingly concerned about China’s overproduction of electric vehicles, solar panels, semiconductors and other goods that are flooding into global markets in the face of a demand slump in China’s domestic market.”

Reuters 4 5 2024

“Chinese state media have pushed back against Yellen’s excess capacity message, saying it was an example of a double standard.”

“”While it is just basic economics that surplus products naturally seek out markets elsewhere once domestic demand is met, and Western nations have been doing that for centuries, when it comes to China, it becomes an ‘overcapacity problem’ threatening the world,” the China Daily said.” 

Ibid. Reuters

They really look silly telling China to produce less because the market in America cannot compete, and they are starting to refuse to buy the commodities to hurt China.  It’s like cutting off your nose to spite your face.   They are going to deliberately cause inflation with taxes on imports, taxes that will be paid by the consumer, often of products like solar panels for rooftops that have been acknowledged by them as effective to stop climate change.

What logic is it to not buy a cheap solar panel, just because the seller has decided to sell it below its value, the amount of labour time required to produce it?  Why should the buyer care? 

Creating a surplus is the basic rule of all capitalist production.  Suggesting China should not export so many products is a ridiculous request, given this is the overriding goal of capitalist production, to create surplus value.  Do as I say, not as I do.   

“Nov 29 (Reuters) – U.S. trade officials announced on Friday a new round of tariffs on solar panel imports from four Southeast Asian nations after American manufacturers complained that companies there are flooding the market with unfairly cheap goods.”

Article continues…

“According to a preliminary decision posted on the U.S. Commerce Department’s website on Friday, the agency calculated dumping duties of between 21.31% and 271.2%, depending on the company, on solar cells from Cambodia, Malaysia, Thailand and Vietnam.”

“Most solar panels installed in the United States are made overseas, and some 80% of imports come from the four nations targeted in the Commerce Department probe.”

“President-elect Donald Trump has called the Inflation Reduction Act too expensive, but also has said he plans to slap hefty tariffs on a range of sectors to protect American workers.”

Reuters 11 29 2024

Trump said his favorite word was “tariffs”, and now he is becoming president again.  What he really means is his favorite word is actually “taxes”, because that’s what tariffs are, a tax on imports.  He already is trying to figure out what to do with the money from the taxes on imports, with lofty goals of being able to use it for his state.

Apparently there  is some contention about if the consumer will be paying these taxes.  They will, unless they purchase American made products, the old non metric, fossil fuel dependent production.   

Solar panels are becoming more out of reach to the worker daily.  China produces 80% of the panels, it is unlikely they will take a loss to sell their panels for less to compensate for the tariffs.  You will see inflation on panels, due to taxes levied by the bourgeoisie, who are not really committed to stopping climate change. 

It would be nice if solar panels were produced here, but instead the focus seems to still be on pumping as much fossil fuels as possible out of the ground, in the least amount of time. China seems to be rapidly becoming superior to American production of a key component of any renewable energy plans, the solar panel.   

China is already talking about putting their own tariffs on large gasoline powered engines, for cars and trucks.  This could get interesting.  How about a tax on non metric products? Imagine if they had to go metric to access foreign markets.

In all this taxing of imports it is the consumer who is going to pay.  This form of taxation will also bite the bourgeoisie, as Sam Walton owns WalMart, for instance, and will have to raise prices on Chinese products popular there due to tariffs.  And if those non metric gasoline large motor powered cars and trucks get tariffed, it could cause an economic crisis.

Most large scale production uses Chinese produced raw materials, for welding, for instance.  This is s tax on their own production; without the cheap welding supplies the commodities rise in value.  Will the bourgeois willingly make less profit to offset the taxes?   

Nicholas Jay B\oyes

Milwaukee Wisconsin 

American Democratic Republic

Technological Advancement and Material Conditions

Technological Advancement and Material  Conditions  

So what we seem to be seeing is what the new government is going to  be doing is to keep the old decaying industry functioning, regardless of its ecological impact.  The appointments Donald Trump has made are all involved with petroleum and fossil fuel production. Either that or they are inexperienced, and will take orders well.

What we can expect is, for instance, Milwaukee’s electrical generation will be remaining coal fired turbines, until Trump leaves office.  For a number of years Wisconsin Electric, the monopoly that sells natural gas and electricity to Southeastern WIsconsin, has talked about switching the Oak Creek power plant to gas. 

This now looks unlikely, regardless of the ecological effects of massive coal storage and burning.  Simply put, the Republican bourgeoisie will not have deep enough pockets to change the turbines to gas.

It also looks like gasoline powered large engines for autos, boats, etc. will be here to stay.  Trump has said he will tariff, or tax, Chinese electric vehicles (EV”S). The current government has already increased for this year 100% tariffs on electric vehicles, a 25% tariff on lithium-ion EV batteries and a 50% tariff on photovoltaic solar cells produced in China.

And this is not enough for Trump, he wants to increase taxes on imports, tariffs, even higher.

China has shown it can produce cheap quality EV’s that are competitive in the world market. They pollute the ecology far less than Detroit’s SUV and pickup trucks that use large gasoline powered engines.  The tax on imports of Chinese EV’s are designed to make Detroit’s products more competitive in the domestic market. 

Who wouldn’t want a cheap quality EV?  Why would a machine that can reduce the ecological impact of climate change not be welcomed?

China now produces 80% of the photovoltaic cells for solar energy.  At some point China decided to move forward industrially, went metric, and shifted to developing the latest technology.  All our bourgeoisie can do is tax imports from China to keep Americans buying Detroit’s gasoline powered large engine vehicles, and consuming fossil fuels for power generation. 

We expect it from Trump, but here is Biden doing it too.  These forms of protectionism are only going to get worse, and you can really see how non metric industry is simply not competitive.  China is still considered a third world country by the United Nations, and American can’t compete.  The statements to expect are something to the effect of “China, India and Russia are polluting the ecology, why should we be held to a different standard?”

Which reduces us to the standards of a declining capitalist model, like Russia, without recycling; or India and China, that are in the developing world. 

How far we have come.  The days of glory are coming to an end; technological progress is changing society, and Detroit is still not metric.  The speed limit signs, the gas pumps, the size of containers at the store, are all not yet metric. 

And do you really expect Trump to do a metric conversion?  He doesn’t even believe climate change is real.  “Make America Great Again” includes inches, gallons, and feet.

Another 4 years without a metric conversion.  And this is supposed to be someone who understands basic economics.  

What this is going to do is fetter the productive forces even worse than they are currently. It will further isolate the workers and industry from the rest of the world.  Who is going to buy a large non metric gasoline powered motor pickup truck outside the domestic market?

Then there is the social conditions; Elon Musk, who invested more than 250 million dollars into getting Trump elected, is now coming to power.  His industry he owns is called Tesla, and produces luxury automobiles.  It is not part of regular commodity production, it is what the surplus value is spent on.  It does not produce a profit, rather it consumes profit.  A worker cannot afford Musk’s cars, they are for the bourgeoisie.  It is what the bourgeois spend their profits on, rather than an affordable car a  worker would consume. 

This and government contracts are how Musk has gained his wealth. Trump will steer more government contracts for space,. to Musk’s monopoly, complete with the knowledge of engineers who created the industry for NASA previously..

These are all part of what to expect around here for the next 4 years.  Buying a Detroit gasoline powered truck, not being able to afford a solar panel for the house, using gas and electricity instead of renewable energy….  The speed limit staying 70 miles per hour on the highway; purchasing gallons of gasoline for the car, etc.  Prepare yourself for it, it is coming.

Nicholas Jay Boyes

Milwaukee Wisconsin

American Democratic Republic

Profit and Taxes.  Wages and Profit. 

Profit and Taxes.  Wages and Profit. 

Wages are the lowest that can be paid, remaining socially acceptable.  The unpaid section of the workday, the surplus value, essentially what profit, is where taxes are divided off from. Escaping from this reality seems to be what is desired now, by cutting taxes for the wealthy.

If you cut taxes from profit and shift it directly on the workers back,. the taxes still have to be paid for. Workers work longer hours, what Marx referred to as increasing the absolute surplus value.  But this too runs into resistance, as there are laws about how many hours workers are supposed to be able to work, 8 hours is the current one.

You have to work them overtime to make up for the loss of wages due to the tax   

Longer hours, a wage cut…  It makes one wonder where the support for this is coming from.

Privations by the proletariat would seem to be coming.  You cannot simply raise the amount of profit.  If you lower the amount of the taxes from profit the taxes have to come from somewhere.  

And as the only thing that creates profit is labour,: lowering taxes on the wealthy is the same thing as increasing the profit kept by the capitalist at the workers expense.  

Either the taxes are coming from the form of profit, or from making the worker privy to part of what was taken as surplus value directly by his employer by charging him yearly, like property taxes, or printing it on the paycheck as a deduction, it still comes from the worker. In either case, divided off of profit, or shifted on to the worker, the surplus value flows into the state.

The bourgeoisie claims the tax money as their own. Obviously for them it is part of their profit. State industry does not make a profit.  It is privatized when it can make a profit, we saw this with recycling.  Waste Management now runs the sorter. Money for the state can only come from taxes.

The wealthy can only cut taxes by increasing privations from its workers.  Surplus value from the worker is needed to maintain the capitalist state.  It is a bourgeois fantasy to massively defund the state. Perhaps some of the savings will come from the prisons, police, etc. whose social function becomes clear during unrest. Like that is going to happen. The whole purpose of the state from its inception is to keep the classes divided.

Perhaps it is more palatable to the bourgeoisie to consider taxing workers directly rather than making a profit and dividing it off to pay for the state.  But in the end, it is all the labor of the workers that has to pay this, out of the surplus value they have created thorough exploitation of their labour.

Nicholas Jay Boyes   

Milwaukee Wisconsin

American Democratic Republic

Abortion in Ancient and Modern Times. Aristotle on the Subject. 10 31 2024

Abortion in Ancient and Modern Times. Aristotle on the Subject. 10 31 2024

“With regard to the choice between abandoning an infant or rearing it, let there be a law that no cripple child be reared.  But since the ordinance of custom forbids the exposure of infants on account of their numbers, there must be a limit to the production of children.  If contrary to these arrangements copulation does take place, and a child is conceived, abortion should be procured before the embryo has acquired life and sensation; the presence of life and sensation will be the mark of division between right and wrong here.”

Aristotle the Politics p.448

Book 7 ,  part 16

Penguin classics

This is of interest as this is from 350 years before Christ was born.  This shows that abortion was an issue in ancient times, as it is today.  With Catholics voting in favor of stopping legal abortion, guided by Christianity,  I believe the relevant question is,  what Jesus Christ thought about abortion?

It is not in the bible.  It was an issue before the bible was written, 350 years before Christ.  It seems unlikely Jesus had no opinion on an issue that the Greeks were involved in, well before he was born.

As far as the statement goes, they did not have morning after pills then.  You would have to realize you were pregnant, then  go to a doctor and get  an abortion.  They did not have misoprostol; abortion would have required surgery.  

So we can definitely say,  at least in Greece in  Aristotle’s time,  abortion was legal. At least up to a point, that is.  He says abortion should be legal until there is “life and sensation”.

Square that off with the Republican bourgeoisie, and their Catholic following.    They often want all abortion illegal, with no exceptions.  In many cases as of late, with abortion becoming illegal in parts of America again, 6 weeks is the limit of time a woman has to decide to have an abortion.

If Aristotle thought crippled children should not be reared, what do you suppose he would have said about “life and sensation” , in regard to a child?

Whatever.  The point here is, why is abortion not in the bible?  Where is Jesus coming out against it? It was obviously an issue then, abortion existed well before Christ lived in Israel.

How Christians turned against abortion remains a mystery.  Clearly the Pope and his Catholic clergy are all against all abortion, even before 6 weeks.  Greece looks more liberal in 350 BC than the bourgeois today.  I guess democracy in Athens, compared to American suffrage, another thing the bible does not discuss, was in common with the way referendums on abortion seem to be going.  Putting it on the ballot generally results in it being legal.

I will not split hairs with Aristotle about when the life of a child begins.  A person’s birth and death date become considerably difficult to ascertain.  Was he born the day of conception?  Or later, when his brain was more developed?  

In any case society, at least in Greece in Aristotle’s time, looks rather much like American society today.  It is still an issue whether or not a woman should be allowed to have an abortion.  And it is still an issue when a child is a person, after 6 weeks, 3 months, etc.

The bourgeoisie likes to consider themselves so advanced, and make fun of ancients.  The Christians are notorious for it.  The opposition to the Jews resembles this.  That is part of the bible.  

But when we look deeper, how much has society changed in 2374 years?  I guess it shows just how far we have come, and how far we have yet to go.  Rising on one’s high horse and proclaiming Jesus to have been against abortion, is fiction.  It is not in the bible to be against abortion, and it is nowhere written Jesus coming out against a practice that seems to have been practiced since the beginnings of recorded history.  At best perhaps the Catholics can claim a “moral awakening”, perhaps some time in the Dark Ages?

Nicholas Jay Boyes

Milwaukee Wisconsin

American Democratic Republic

10 31 2024

Skilled Labour. The Metric System. Technological Progress.

Skilled Labour. The Metric System. Technological Progress.

It is sad to see the state of the workers, whose misplaced rebellion to keep their jobs skilled, results in strikes against more advanced machinery being used in the industries they work in. 

“U.S. ports already lag those in Europe and Asia in their use of technology. And Daggett (International Longshore Workers Union president ed. ) wants to keep it that way, by prohibiting the operators of marine terminals from automating cargo handling.”

““If it was up to them, they’d like to see everybody lose their jobs. … They don’t want to pay anybody,” he said in a recent union video. “Someone has to get into Congress and say, ‘Whoa, time out.’ This world is going too fast for us. Machines got to stop. … What good is it if you’re going to put people out of work.””

“The dockworkers’ challenge is not unique. Technology has been eliminating some jobs and creating others for more than two centuries. In recent decades, elevator operators, secretaries, and steelworkers all have seen demand for their services upended by mechanization.”

Washington Post 10 5 2024

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2024/10/05/port-strike-workers-jobs-automation-union/

This group of people who profess to be a radical workers organization are trying to organize to keep low wage workers out of their industry.  They want to be superior to the unskilled workers, the proletariat.  They are more like an aristocracy than a movement to organize the workers.

To accomplish this they are trying to keep their jobs skilled labor, by coming out against improvements in industry.  By keeping the skill in their labor they hope to remain high paid, as opposed to unskilled labor.

They seem to be fighting modern technology.  

“On the picket line outside Red Hook Terminal at the Port of Newark, strikers this week agreed that automation is their chief concern.”

“Lydia Ortiz, 60, said she notices each day the work that is performed by machines. No humans sitting in the toll booths, thanks to E-ZPass. Scarcely a worker to be seen at the grocery store checkout lines, filled with self-checkout machines.”

““They want everything automation,” she said. “We’ve got to support families, no?””

 Washington Post ibid.

Which is misguided; it is the system of capitalism that is making the machinery a burden for workers, who are losing their jobs and becoming proletarians.  It is the fact a capitalist is using the machinery and is incentivized by the profit he can make by using it, instead of technological development to make life easier for the workers, by making it take less labor to produce the same product, that the ILU feels threatened by modern industry.  

In an environment where workers owned the means of production,  like a cooperative, technological achievements would absolutely lower the hours needed to be worked by the worker in his respective industry. 

It is in this respect that organization of the proletariat becomes imperative. That instead of strikes for wage increases, by keeping labor skilled, a new method is tried.   

The ILU is facing a losing battle.  It is impossible to stop modern technological improvement,  regardless of the fact it throws people out of work.  We saw this with the power loom, an invention that shook the foundations of Europe. It allowed for a 12 year old boy moving a stick and pulling a lever to replace the labor of more than a dozen hand weavers.  It was burned publicly, according to Karl Marx in Capital.

This caused the previously skilled workers to become proletarians. But it did not stop the march forward of technology, the loom was eventually adopted. 

The transition from the integrated steel mills to the electric arc furnace struggle is occurring now.  US Steel is a coking mill, producing virgin steel.  Losing money, it was being sold to Nippon Steel, a Japanese company, planning to invest in coking steel technology.  The unions were against the Japanese company buying it; skilled workers were needed in US Steel, but the industry was becoming rapidly outdated.  The electric arc mill technology that smelts recycled materials, the steel that it produces is the same, but it is not virgin.  Nevertheless it looks unlikely the sale of US Steel will go forward, Trump is against it..

Obviously it saves a ton of money to simply recycle, and most new mills are recycling mills.  It requires less labor to produce steel in an electric arc mill, and they are often not union.  The workers are more often relatively unskilled, compared to conventional steel production. And here again we have the struggle of skilled workers vs unskilled, union labor and unskilled general laborers.

US Steel will not be sold, both Trump and Biden agree.  What will become of the skilled workers clinging to privilege, well paid with generous pensions, seems to be being decided.  Nippon Steel will not be buying US Steel, or so it seems.  But the issue of recycling vs virgin steel production will not be going away any time soon.

It is the same with the longshoremen.  It’s like being against the metric system because it is going to cost American workers jobs.  Obviously it will cost less to use a more scientific system of measurement; how can a non metric company compete in the world market?  We see this with Chinese Electric Vehicles, 100 % tariffs, taxes on import, due  to the inability of non metric gasoline powered motor producing industry to produce EV’s competitively. 

But good luck getting a metric conversion  through Congress and the Senate.  The Republican bourgeoisie will vote against it for protectionist reasons, the liberal progressive bourgeois will do it to keep American skilled labor, like the US Steel workers and the longshore workers, in their well paid jobs. 

America will go metric, they are the last country in the world not to.  Technology will continue to advance whether or not it is advantageous to the labor union aristocracy. The very presence of a proletariat proves this. As productivity increases, machinery always becomes easier to use, and the producers less skilled.

As far as these ILU workers go, and skilled workers in factories general go, they should organize unskilled workers.  Strikes to increase wages, by keeping labor skilled that could otherwise be done easily with machines, is futile.  Lowering hours, with a decent minimum wage, makes more sense than trying to reform capitalist shops.  

Employee ownership works; in retail, a branch of production, for instance. It is cheaper, and higher quality products are available for far less cost than the capitalist stores.  The only strikes should be to gain control of the means of production, towards worker control of industry.  If anything, less hours, even with less pay, would be a start to the road to employee ownership.  The workers could pack a lunch, and give up bars and restaurants for their own stoves in the kitchen.

This may sound ridiculous, but is it any more strange sounding than suggesting technological progress is detrimental to society?  Machinery may put men out of work, the power loom’s introduction caused suffering.  But attempting to stop it, rather than taking control of it and using it to benefit everyone, seems wrongheaded.  

Nicholas Jay Boyes

Milwaukee Wisconsin

American Democratic Republic

The Gens and Private Property

The Gens and Private Property

The level of ignorance towards the native Americans, and other peoples like the early  Romans and Germans who were in the lower stages of barbarism, is something common to modern conditions.  The lack of knowledge of the kinship structure of man in this condition was part of the effort to root out these often matrilinear family systems.

Clearly  history shows that the monogamous patriarchal family we know now is a historical product, part of the class structure, and the level of technological development.. It was not until men began to acquire property, according to Friedrich Engels in his book The Origin of the Family, Private Property, and the State, that it became necessary to remove the matriarchy that was ruling in previous conditions, when men just fished and hunted and had little or no property as we know it, and the women did the domestic work, that the general breakdown of the society governed by the system of gens begins. 

Prior to the formation of the state, the society was ruled by the gens, or kin, groups.  There was little or no real property, men were just starting to become pastoral.  When people domesticated cattle society began to move towards patriarchy; the men were taking care of the animals, rather than just hunting and fishing, the domesticated animals becoming the basis of property.

As the labour of herding fell to the man,  and the property connected to it was his, it was inevitable that soon the men would overpower the matriarch that was part of early barbarism, and replace it with the patriarch.  When property could be inherited, when a man’s possessions could remain property of someone even though its owner was dead, the transfer of power away from inheritance in the gens only began to transform society further away from gentile society.  Having the inheritance switch from the matriarch and her family to the man’s sons, marked the end of matriarchy. 

At this point money is invented, based first of cattle which was used as money, then the precious metals. This allowed for debts to form, and mortgages on property begin to form.  Classes are now formed, and the society is forced to create a mechanism to protect the class structure.  This organization is called the state. This form of society quickly replaced the gens., the corrosive power of private property and money starts to dissolve the old kinship group, especially the matriarchy.

Prior to the state the gens protected  its members if they were sick, or if there was crime.  There was the right of vengeance for murder, but beyond this there were little laws in the gens; there was no theft, burglary, fraud etc.  as there was little property.  

The state completely overrules the gentile society, and classes are formed, often of landowners and later hereditary nobility forms.  The Romans  reached this point, and the longing for a return to life under the gens was part of why the German Odacer, who was a barbarian,  could overpower Rome, where the state was formed.  People longed for the old gentile society, before usury and large landowners, to return.

But after Rome fell to the Germans, the land became private property, and the gens was unable to survive.  The amount of land the Germans found themselves with hastened the end of gentile society.  The Germans could not  control all the land they now owned and nobility came to be resorted to for territorial control.  The longing for a return to the gentile life was impossible to satisfy; the state was formed, and in a short period of time, the  peasants were in the same condition they were under the Romans. 

Slavery was part of ancient culture under the Romans.  Large scale agriculture was heavily reliant on slaves, when Rome fell the land was parceled out to individuals.  But it was not passed down to the gens as inheritance, and soon there were usurers and large landowners.  It is at this point a new feature of society develops, a person whose job is to exchange products for another, the merchant.  The commodity is developed, production is for society rather than for one’s self.  Handicraft had preceded this, and production was still primarily for oneself and family. With money it becomes possible for production to be for exchange purely.  The merchant  provides the commodities now, everything exchanged gradually becomes more of a commodity  with the intervention of money.

The state comes along the whole way.  It reaches its apex of power with the condition of civilization we know now.  An instrument developed as a mechanism to maintain the class structure, it survives on taxes.  It even borrows money as bonds, it debts, are traded on the stock market;. speculation on the states debts becomes common.  

Manufacture is the intermediate state between what we know now as heavy industry, and handcraft.  Manufacture starts when handicrafts are replaced by groups of people producing for money, under a single individual.  The commodity is formed, the producer no longer produces for himself and his small family, he doesn’t know who will be consuming the product he helped produce.

This gives way to large industry, where the producer uses machinery, and his race or sex are not barriers to the capitalists who own the machinery, the women and children are all used by the capitalist.  The producer does not own the means of production, its efficiency at producing a surplus is the reason it is used.  It does not matter to the capitalist who works the machinery, it is often the man who is not working due to fear of rebellion by him against the state.  His children are less likely to rebel, so are used for labour.  His wife is in the same position.  The same mechanism that caused the patriarchy to form now is taken to the point of dissolution.  Private property comes to be its opposite,  the producer is propertyless.  At best he owns a small home in a city, he is the modern proletariat.  

Divorce becomes easier with women working.  There are less impediments to divorce by the woman, she no longer has to ask the man’s permission to divorce.  Property also falls in half to the woman. Large scale industry seems to be a return  of the woman to power, at least as more equal than in previous historical conditions to the male.  As he owns no real private property,  there is less dominance as things were when the patriarchy formed. 

It is at this point we leave off at.  But first a word about the state.  Formed due to classes, it begins to die out as the means of production gradually come to be controlled by the workers, and become not owned by anyone, at least not by a capitalist..  A socialist society without class would seem to be the antithesis of the organization created to maintain class, the state. If there is no class, what does the state become?  What would it be for?

Perhaps like the capitalist state what remains is the security mechanism, the police for shoplifting etc., but not in control of industry. A socialist society would still have to have security, but just because industry was no longer controlled by capitalists it does not follow industry must be owned by the state. Rather it is not owned by anybody, the state just keeping it from being looted etc.

Engels conclusion in the book mentioned above, the state is to maintain classes is completely right.  It seems inevitable it will  be less powerful as classes are less a dominant force in society.  Unfortunately, it looks like society has a long way to go before the state as we know it becomes a thing of the past

Nicholas Jay Boyes

Milwaukee Wisconsin

American Democratic Republic

Monopoly, Trusts., Joint Stock Companies.  Imperialism.  Ecological Consciousness and Materialism.  8 1 2024

Monopoly, Trusts., Joint Stock Companies.  Imperialism.  Ecological Consciousness and Materialism.  8 1 2024

In Vladimir Lenin’s book Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism, he talks about how the system of capitalism gets away from competition and free markets, only to be replaced by trusts, joint stock companies, and state ownership of production.  

This seemed like new territory, but if you read Friedrich Engels Anti- Duhring, you can see that in Karl Marx and Engels time there were already trusts, monopolies, and joint stock companies. By the late 19th century, there was already concentrated ownership of the means of production,  and crisis due to overproduction was a reality.  There had been a crisis about once every ten years, and every time ownership became more concentrated, until there were large trusts and monopolies.

Engels’ Anti- Duhring was published in 1878, Lenin’s Imperialism the Highest Form of Capitalism was published in 1917.  Engels’ observations of the direction modern industry was going was pretty much dead on; by 1917 most large industry in Europe and America was in trusts, or monopoly.  

In this respect Lenin’s observations, although nothing new to Marx and Engles, show the strength of Engels work; he was able to predict the progression of capitalism, from handicrafts, to manufacture, to large industry, then to joint stock companies.  He also predicted the demise of capitalism, and the shift to employee ownership and nationalization without compensation by the workers.

But the point I’m making is Lenin did not discover all he wrote in his book about imperialism, rather Marx and Engels had already shown what trusts and joint stock companies represented by 1875.

Lenin was a gifted thinker, and had a good understanding of Marxism.  By 1917 he grasped what Marx represented, and his book in 1902 What is to be Done? shows he had a knowledge of social democracy in Germany, and was at the beginning of his writing as a Marxist.

What Lenin learned from Engels was the theory of social progression, from the early stages of capitalism, when production was by individuals, or a family unit, for instance raising sheep, shearing wool, using the spinning wheel to make yarn and weaving it etc., then Engels and Marx trace this production, referred to as handicraft production, to the presence of the merchant, who at first trades the surplus from the family, the wool in our example, and provides money and access to goods the individuals doing the handicrafts could not get, often from far away.

The next step is the merchant and property owner begins to put together production in larger groups, manufacture.  The individual weavers, doing handicraft labour, are replaced by a collection of individuals producing not for themselves, but socially.  This is the first stage of commodity production, handicrafts are replaced by collective production, rather than for immediate consumption by the individual who created the product, controlled by a capitalist.

The next stage is large industry, where it is production of commodities, but instead of workers simply put together to produce commodities by dividing up the work, it is replaced by machinery.  The labour is made simpler, the job now working, for instance, a power loom, where the wool is milled by a large machine, and skill is less important, it is a low skilled job primarily.  The worker does not own the loom, rather works for a capitalist, who obtains his product without exchange with the labourer , at least not as any commodity he is selling.    

But the exchange of the commodity is the same as it was under the manufacturer ; the person in charge of the manufacture still simply trades his product for its value. Its value is the amount of labour required to produce it, regardless of whether or not it is paid for.  

And in all commodity production the worker does not own the means of production, and the exchange of the commodity labour power means the worker does not receive the entire value of the commodity he produces, rather part of the value is kept by the capitalist as surplus value.

Large scale industry makes massive collective production a necessity, competition forces the capitalist to invest in ever larger machinery, further making it impossible for the worker to ever be able to purchase the means of production.  The producers work on machinery they do not own, and ownership of the means of production remains in the hands of the bourgeoisie.   Every invention to save labour is used to compel the worker to labour more, to create an ever larger amount of surplus value for the capitalist.

This is the point where capitalism becomes dominated by joint stock companies and trusts.  The trust is when a few large companies control an entire production process, and as a monopoly determine the price of the product, rather than by supply and demand, and competition.

The latter was already happening by the time Engels wrote Anti During in 1875.  Lenin saw this stage in 1917,  as he had left Russia as an exile.  Russia was still an agricultural country just coming out of feudalism and serfdom in 1902, when Lenin wrote What is to be Done?.  

But by a strange confluence of factors, Russia had a revolution in 1917, and Lenin was chosen to lead it.  It was an early attempt to put the ideas of Marx and Engels into practice.  

But the center of these ideas remained Western Europe, as it was here the worker had experienced these stages I mentioned above play out in real  history. In retrospect, we should have seen the shift from trusts and monopoly ownership to the next stage, social ownership, would never really be understood in Russia.  What they tried to do was skip a stage in society, to go from agriculture and manufacture directly to socialism.  

What they built lasted about 75 years, and was for its time a remarkable achievement.  But by 1989 their vision of socialism was faltering, and without a strong movement in the west where large scale industry was in the form of trusts and monopoly, and partial state ownership in the joint stock company as a buyer and owner of shares, a capitalist arrangement, society began to falter,. When Russia returned to capitalism, industry became owned again, sold off at absurd prices to capitalists. Russia could no longer practice the socialism they tried in vain to produce.

The ecological movement was rooted in large industry, satellites to record the warming, for instance, and the windmills and solar panels to stop it. It was tragic; by 1989 Russia was exporting petroleum, nuclear energy, and metals.  When the Chernobyl nuclear reactors melted down, it was clear a main export was a disaster  waiting to happen.   In time even Germany would scrap nuclear power altogether, as the Fukushima reactors in Japan, built by America’s General Electric and Japan’s Hitachi., also melted down. 

This left Russia with a dangerous export nobody wanted: Russian reactors.  But the return to capitalism in 1991 did not make the Russians any more free of nuclear energy, and they’re still trying to export what is basically the same technology used in Chernobyl.   

The Americans and the French are still trying to build nuclear energy, but a reactor  now costs about 10 billion dollars to produce, putting in question if it is an investment to make a profit or a doctrinaire experiment. 

Russia did not make the transition to renewable energy before or after the fall of socialism there.  Compounding their  problems was they had put massive investments in petroleum production, drilling oil with no real concern for ecology.  When it became clear climate change was coming, the pumping of oil the main cause, Russia was reverting to capitalism.

And instead of producing renewable energy, Russia just kept pumping as much oil as possible for export. They never even looked back.

Russia has yet to start a recycling program, and its metals production suffers from this.  The end of socialism did not bring recycling.  Whether their exports of metals are even competitive is questionable; the ecological cost of production cannot always be materially measured.  What does a strip mine for bauxite really cost?   

Had Russia kept trying to build socialism, they may  have become ecological.  But what they went through proved the opposite.  What they built for its time was once state of the art, but without experience of capitalist ways, gained through centuries of living under capitalism in Britain, France and their colonies, the latter built for capitalism, Russia was destined to fail.

The failure of Russia was not due to a failure of Marx and Engels.  At worse we can say ecological thinking was in its infancy then, in Anti- Duhring ecology is only starting to be mentioned.  For example the dreams of modern sewage filtration, and the embrace of Charles Darwin in Anti-Duhring.  

But the socialism of Russia seemed to have no ecological compass,it was designed as a paradise for humans.  But as far as Marx and Engels theories go, they clearly saw the direction the society was taking.  Lenin only sharpened the ideas of the 19th century about trusts and monopolies being in control of this stage of capitalism. But Marx and Engels remain the founders of thought about what modern capitalism represents.  That will not change, the only thing different today is ecological.  Industry has moved forward allowing us to pollute less, and understand our symbiotic relationship with ecology.  It is not  a matter of man’s mastery of nature, this effort was coming to a close in the 21st century.  What we have learned is without ecological consciousness, industry is impossible.  Clearly decomposition is the heaviest industry, and recycling and composting precisely this.  If man had mastery of ecology we wouldn’t be having a climate change problem, clearly symbiosis with nature is the answer, rather than crude mastery through destruction of ecosystems. The question becomes if we ask workers to pressure their boss to , for instance, use less petroleum. Does this sound like a good idea? Should we be surprised when he no longer can ask his boss for ecological progress?

It is left to the workers on their own to fix ecology. Asking the bourgeoisie for concessions results in physical suffering by the worker, following him for the rest of his life. They never forgive anyone who questions their authority, for instance asking them to use less petroleum. It is a compelling reason why capitalism will never reform itself.

Nicholas Jay Boyes

Milwaukee Wisconsin

American Democratic Republic

8 1 2024

Capitalism and Monopoly

In Friedrich Engels Socialism, Utopian and Scientific, he talks about trusts, cartels, and joint stock companies.   The book is from 1883.  The relevant passages read:

“As a matter of fact, since 1825, when the first general crisis broke out, the whole industrial and commercial world, production and exchange among all civilized peoples and their more or less barbaric hangers-on, are thrown out of joint about once every 10 years. Commerce is at a stand-still, the markets are glutted, products accumulate, as multitudinous as they are unsaleable, hard cash disappears, credit vanishes, factories are closed, the mass of the workers are in want of the means of subsistence, because they have produced too much of the means of subsistence; bankruptcy follows upon bankruptcy, execution upon execution. The stagnation lasts for years; productive forces and products are wasted and destroyed wholesale, until the accumulated mass of commodities finally filter off, more or less depreciated in value, until production and exchange gradually begin to move again. Little by little, the pace quickens. It becomes a trot. The industrial trot breaks into a canter, the canter in turn grows into the headlong gallop of a perfect steeplechase of industry, commercial credit, and speculation, which finally, after breakneck leaps, ends where it began — in the ditch of a crisis. And so over and over again. We have now, since the year 1825, gone through this five times, and at the present moment (1877), we are going through it for the sixth time. And the character of these crises is so clearly defined that Fourier hit all of them off when he described the first “crise plethorique”, a crisis from plethora.”

“In these crises, the contradiction between socialized production and capitalist appropriation ends in a violent explosion. The circulation of commodities is, for the time being, stopped. Money, the means of circulation, becomes a hindrance to circulation. All the laws of production and circulation of commodities are turned upside down. The economic collision has reached its apogee. The mode of production is in rebellion against the mode of exchange.

“The fact that the socialized organization of production within the factory has developed so far that it has become incompatible with the anarchy of production in society, which exists side by side with and dominates it, is brought home to the capitalist themselves by the violent concentration of capital that occurs during crises, through the ruin of many large, and a still greater number of small, capitalists. The whole mechanism of the capitalist mode of production breaks down under the pressure of the productive forces, its own creations. It is no longer able to turn all this mass of means of production into capital. They lie fallow, and for that very reason the industrial reserve army must also lie fallow. Means of production, means of subsistence, available laborers, all the elements of production and of general wealth, are present in abundance. But “abundance becomes the source of distress and want” (Fourier), because it is the very thing that prevents the transformation of the means of production and subsistence into capital. For in capitalistic society, the means of production can only function when they have undergone a preliminary transformation into capital, into the means of exploiting human labor-power. The necessity of this transformation into capital of the means of production and subsistence stands like a ghost between these and the workers. It alone prevents the coming together of the material and personal levers of production; it alone forbids the means of production to function, the workers to work and live. On the one hand, therefore, the capitalistic mode of production stands convicted of its own incapacity to further direct these productive forces. On the other, these productive forces themselves, with increasing energy, press forward to the removal of the existing contradiction, to the abolition of their quality as capital, to the practical recognition of their character as social production forces.

“This rebellion of the productive forces, as they grow more and more powerful, against their quality as capital, this stronger and stronger command that their social character shall be recognized, forces the capital class itself to treat them more and more as social productive forces, so far as this is possible under capitalist conditions. The period of industrial high pressure, with its unbounded inflation of credit, not less than the crash itself, by the collapse of great capitalist establishments, tends to bring about that form of the socialization of great masses of the means of production which we meet with in the different kinds of joint-stock companies. Many of these means of production and of distribution are, from the outset, so colossal that, like the railways, they exclude all other forms of capitalistic expansion. At a further stage of evolution, this form also becomes insufficient. The producers on a large scale in a particular branch of an industry in a particular country unite in a “Trust”, a union for the purpose of regulating production. They determine the total amount to be produced, parcel it out among themselves, and thus enforce the selling price fixed beforehand. But trusts of this kind, as soon as business becomes bad, are generally liable to break up, and on this very account compel a yet greater concentration of association. The whole of a particular industry is turned into one gigantic joint-stock company; internal competition gives place to the internal monopoly of this one company. This has happened in 1890 with the English alkali production, which is now, after the fusion of 48 large works, in the hands of one company, conducted upon a single plan,…“

“In the trusts, freedom of competition changes into its very opposite — into monopoly; and the production without any definite plan of capitalistic society capitulates to the production upon a definite plan of the invading socialistic society. Certainly, this is so far still to the benefit and advantage of the capitalists. But, in this case, the exploitation is so palpable, that it must break down. No nation will put up with production conducted by trusts, with so barefaced an exploitation of the community by a small band of dividend-mongers.

“In any case, with trusts or without, the official representative of capitalist society — the state — will ultimately have to undertake the direction of production. [4] This necessity for conversion into State property is felt first in the great institutions for intercourse and communication — the post office, the telegraphs, the railways.

“If the crises demonstrate the incapacity of the bourgeoisie for managing any longer modern productive forces, the transformation of the great establishments for production and distribution into joint-stock companies, trusts, and State property, show how unnecessary the bourgeoisie are for that purpose. All the social functions of the capitalist has no further social function than that of pocketing dividends, tearing off coupons, and gambling on the Stock Exchange, where the different capitalists despoil one another of their capital. At first, the capitalistic mode of production forces out the workers. Now, it forces out the capitalists, and reduces them, just as it reduced the workers, to the ranks of the surplus-population, although not immediately into those of the industrial reserve army.

Friedrich Engels Socialism, Utopian and Scientific

Chapter 3

So essentially by 1883 this was visible, the transition of capitalism to what Lenin would call ”imperialism”, in Imperialism, the Highest Form of Capitalism, in 1917.  In 1883 Karl Marx died, and it is not clear what condition he was in near the end of his life, and if he cooperated with Engels to write the book just quoted from.  

Anyhow, the presence of monopoly trusts and joint stock companies is alive and well in Milwaukee, Wisconsin in June of 2024.   The electric and gas company, Wisconsin Electric, owns the electric and natural gas factories, with no competition.  They seem to determine the price, and own the power lines too.  It has been like this as long as I can remember.

Also the cable company Charter (Verizon)  is currently in a cartel with AT&T and the  other cable companies to keep the government from capping the fee for low income people to get internet at $30.  AT&T is good at running monopolies.

“AT&T officially broke up on Jan. 1, 1984. Its 22 members were formed into seven independent Regional Holding Companies or the Baby Bells.”

Google search ATT break up to baby bells

Dec 7, 2020

So AT&T is no stranger to organizing trusts, which is what we see:

“AT&T, Charter, Comcast and Verizon are quietly trying to weaken a $42.5 billion federal program to improve internet access across the nation, aiming to block strict new rules that would require them to lower their poorest customers’ monthly bills in exchange for a share of the aid.”

“In state after state, the telecom firms have blasted the proposed price cuts as illegal — forcing regulators in California, New York, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia and elsewhere to rethink, scale back or abandon their plans to condition the federal funds on financial relief for consumers.

Washington Post April 15 2024

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2024/04/15/telecom-lobbying-price-caps-broadband/

Article continues:

NCTA – the Internet & Television Association, whose members include Charter and Comcast, would be the name of the trust this group is being called.  

“In detailed guidelines issued in 2022, the Biden administration suggested that internet plans should cost consumers no more than $30 per month — though it allowed local officials to propose alternatives.”

“The opposition underscores the vast power and reach of the telecom industry, one of the most formidable political forces in capitals across the country. “

Ibid.

Here we have AT&T, Comcast, and Charter, all together to fight lower cost internet.  Their fixed price in New York is now $65 for internet, and it interferes with their ability to create surplus value if they have to provide cheap internet.  

One may ask why a state program to cap internet prices, and to pay state money to ATT would bother them.

The answer to this is obviously taxes are a part of the surplus value, a division of this.  This is why AT&T, Comcast, and Charter have built a trust, they are trying to refuse to pay part of their surplus value to make the internet affordable to low income people. 

The evidence is precisely what AT&T is doing now, which is to try to build a cartel like they had in telephones with their internet cable business, prior to being broken up in 84.

Lenin wrote in 1917

“Cartels come to an agreement on the terms of sale, dates of payment, etc. They divide the markets among themselves. They fix the quantity of goods to be produced. They fix prices. They divide the profits among the various enterprises, etc. “

“Competition becomes transformed into monopoly. The result is immense progress in the socialisation of production. In particular, the process of technical invention and improvement becomes socialised. “

“The German economist, Kestner, has written a book especially devoted to “the struggle between the cartels and outsiders”, i.e., the capitalists outside the cartels. He entitled his work Compulsory Organisation, although, in order to present capitalism in its true light, he should, of course, have written about compulsory submission to monopolist associations. It is instructive to glance at least at the list of the methods the monopolist associations resort to in the present-day, the latest, the civilised struggle for “organisation”: (1) stopping supplies of raw materials … (“one of the most important methods of compelling adherence to the cartel”); (2) stopping the supply of labour by means of “alliances” (i.e., of agreements between the capitalists and the trade unions by which the latter permit their members to work only in cartelised enterprises); (3) stopping deliveries; (4) closing trade outlets; (5) agreements with the buyers, by which the latter undertake to trade only with the cartels; (6) systematic price cutting (to ruin “outside” firms, i.e., those which refuse to submit to the monopolists. Millions are spent in order to sell goods for a certain time below their cost price; there were instances when the price of petrol was thus reduced from 40 to 22 marks, i.e., almost by half!); (7) stopping credits; (8) boycott.

“Here we no longer have competition between small and large, between technically developed and backward enterprises. We see here the monopolists throttling those who do not submit to them, to their yoke, to their dictation. This is how this process is reflected in the mind of a bourgeois economist:

“Even in the purely economic sphere,” writes Kestner, “a certain change is taking place from commercial activity in the old sense of the word towards organisational-speculative activity. The greatest success no longer goes to the merchant whose technical and commercial experience enables him best of all to estimate the needs of the buyer, and who is able to discover and, so to speak, ‘awaken’ a latent demand; it goes to the speculative genius [?!] who knows how to estimate, or even only to sense in advance, the organisational development and the possibilities of certain connections between individual enterprises and the banks. . . .”

“Translated into ordinary human language this means that the development of capitalism has arrived at a stage when, although commodity production still “reigns” and continues to be regarded as the basis of economic life, it has in reality been undermined and the bulk of the profits go to the “geniuses” of financial manipulation. At the basis of these manipulations and swindles lies socialised production; but the immense progress of mankind, which achieved this socialisation, goes to benefit . . . the speculators.”

Lenin Imperialism, the Highest Form of Capital

Chapter one

Here we see Lenin reaffirming what Engels said about joint stock companies, trusts, cartels.  Speculation becomes an integral part of commodity production, the Stock Exchange becomes a center of imperialist activity.  The banks use credit in the form of massive amounts of capital, channeled through investment bankers who gamble on joint stock assets on the financial markets.  Speculation runs rife, large bureaucracy becomes the norm for financial capital.  The banks include huge luxury office space in skyscrapers; a class who no longer labours at creating commodities, rather exists by drawing interest from production of commodities,  becomes ascendant to control of markets.  

Sometimes the state is in control of production, like railroads and the Post Office.

“In any case, with trusts or without, the official representative of capitalist society — the state — will ultimately have to undertake the direction of production. [4] This necessity for conversion into State property is felt first in the great institutions for intercourse and communication — the post office, the telegraphs, the railways.”

Engels ibid. see above

The passenger railroad Amtrak is nationalized property, the bourgeoisie cannot get it together to build passenger railroads anymore. The state run Amtrak runs on freight lines often.  The freight lines in the west are all owned by two large companies, Union Pacific and BNSF, the latter owned by Warren Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway. I don’t really know how much competition there is between Union Pacific and BNSF, but with a duopoly, you can only  imagine. 

How close to state ownership like Amtrak these railroads are is a matter of opinion.  They are both joint stock companies,  Buffet controls the BNSF, and is not an engineer.  Rather he controls financial capital, as a sort of banker.  He invests capital gained through production for surplus value, gained through his exploitation of the proletariat.

If Amtrak could make a profit, it would no longer be owed by the state.  But even if it was not state owned, it would probably be spun off into one company or two, and would be a monopoly.  Capitalists are way to connected to producing automobiles to produce railroads.  

The Post Office, where the bills from our monopolized companies are sent to us through, is owned by the state. It is not an example of socialism, taxes are also paid through it. It is an essential part of the capitalist system, it is just not making a profit.  They hire veterans who are supportive of the capitalist  system to run it, they get favored status on the entrance exam.  Its leadership is picked by the White House, by capitalists. 

Even if the industry is state owned, it is still part of capitalism.  In this respect it is also a monopoly, the Post Office sets prices for mail delivery.  Of late it has been receiving some competition from UPS, the private post office, which delivers packages. It is an attempt to remove business from the state owned post office, which now moves mostly letters. But the postage rate is set by the capitalist state. 

“Prices and fees are then subject to review by the Postal Regulatory Commission (PRC), an independent agency created by the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act of 2006 (PAEA) as a successor to the former Postal Rate Commission.

Google search post office rates governed by

June 19 2024

Which means the prices are set by the PRC, not by competition. Here we have the state company determining prices, controlled by capitalists.

Once Marx wrote Capital, he showed very clearly how the capitalist system was functioning.   This was 1863, and it is still relevant, in particular in the east, where capitalism is returning.

But the presence of trusts, cartels, joint stock companies, etc. is a more recent development.  Engels saw it, and Lenin later based his writing on Engels.  He developed Engels works further, when history had proven Engels correct.  The trusts are all real, the speculation part of capitalism.  Engels was correct,  Lenin picked up on this.

Nicholas Jay Boyes

Milwaukee Wisconsin

American Democratic Republic

Notes on Ha Joon Chang Economics 4 2 2024

Notes on Ha Joon Chang Economics

Ha Joon Chang’s book Economics presents many economics principles in a way that is easier to  understand than Keynes, in other words, without essentially redefining the whole language of political economy to overshadow and conceal concepts like profit and surplus value.  These concepts, although not much mentioned by Chang when discussing the production process, are part of his description of financial capital, which he is talented at.

“Money is what others in your society owe you,  or your claim on particular amounts of the society’s resources.  

P.18 Ha- Joon Chang Economics 2014 Bloomsbury Press

Which places money as a commodity, a special one capable of representing other commodities.  The commodity represents social labour, done by the worker not for himself or his own enjoyment, rather for society, although mediated by the capitalist, who owns the means of production.  It is this disconnection that forms the basis of capitalism, the worker does not own the means of production he is labouring on, and the product he is producing  is a commodity, it is labour for society, not his personal enjoyment as a particular object he has created,

Here we see money as commanding commodities,  a claim on societies resources, social labour as “ societies resources”, rather than individual desires.

“So what is the capitalist economy, or capitalism? It is an economy in which production is organized in pursuit of profit, rather than your own consumption (as in subsistence farming) or for political authorities (here comes his dig against socialism, in parentheses here)- as in feudal or socialist economies where political authorities, respectively aristocrats and the central planning authorities tell you what to produce.” 

Ha – Joon Chang Economics p. 27

Well we must remember Chang is a Cambridge professor, so this should not surprise us (at least the misrepresented account of what socialism represents).  The part about production being organized to create profit is right. But to compare feudalism, whose labourers were often slaves or serfs, basically chained to the land, without earning money, which would have been contrary to their status as slaves, to socialism neglects that if nothing else slavery no longer exists, rather it was removed in cooperation with socialists, in 1863 when Karl Marx was involved in the Civil War, which emancipated the slaves, and with it the last vestiges of feudal society whose economic system was still  prevalent.  Incidentally at this point in 1867 the right to participate in universal suffrage was extended to freed black male slaves, a direct result of socialist cooperation with Abraham Lincoln.

Ha Joon Chang seems to think central planning is a repressive process, but look at agriculture under capitalism, with its more than 10 billion dollars worth of yearly farm subsidies, controlled by massive bureaucracies in the capitalist state with billion dollar budgets,, and you see central planning is a real part of collectivized agriculture, and is not feudalism.  The land is not rented, the landlord is not part of late capitalism, at some point he became redundant in the late 18th and early 19th centuries, and was replaced by large scale capitalist farmers, whose only goal was profit.   

The ethical argument for collectivized agriculture, that it ends rural backwardness by allowing for the once farmers to move to the city, where they will be more culturally advanced, as there are museums, theaters, libraries, etc. in the city that are not present in the country is a strong one.  Given the pull of rural society, backwards Republican bourgeois strongholds, compared to the urban proletariat, literate and industrialized more heavily, especially as of late with computers and the internet, it is hard to see any alternative to large scale collectivized agriculture.

To make it worse, to even be able to compete with a large farm vs a small one, requires money for tractors, harvesters, trucks, etc.  Unless you are a small organic farm, with a following in the cooperatives or Whole Foods organic food stores, competition with capitalists is difficult.

But what differentiates feudal from socialist agriculture is not central planning, it is the farmer owns his own land under socialism, individually or collectively.  Either he outright owns a farm,  with no landlord, rent or profit, or he labours in a collective farm with employee ownership of some sort, which differs from slavery obviously, that should be clear to our economist, who disparages the worker who has had the audacity to question the capitalist control the means of production. 

Chang seems to dis socialism anytime the world profit or profits comes up.  He never spells out exactly what profit is, instead goes right into financial capital  and an average rate of profit.  He also does not square off with what a community represents, no less a concept like surplus value.  It’s just more and more defense of profit, and financial capital.

About the only thing valuable about his “beginners guide to economics” is he does point out there is more financial capital today than previously.  But he does not see interest is  a subdivision of surplus value, like taxes.  Consumed by the fetish of interest bearing capital,  profit removed from the factory, he displays the many ways financial capital in form of bonds, stocks, derivatives, etc. make a profit for their owners.  

If it seems too complicated don’t worry, he even says himself of the myriad financial transactions he discusses they are all too difficult to understand, even to him.  It is abstraction basically, and Chang is caught up in it.  

He takes the vulgar view here:

“Capitalists own the means of production either directly or,  more commonly these days,  indirectly by owning shares(or stocks) in a company- that is , proportional claims on the total value of the company- that owns those means of production.  Capitalists hire other people on a commercial basis to operate these means of production. These people are known as wage labourers, or simply workers. Capitalists make profits by producing things and selling them to other people through the market, which is where goods and services are bought and sold.

Ha Joon Chang Economics p. 27

His view of profits being made by people selling things in markets shows the vulgar view of profit, namely it does not occur in production, rather when the commodity is exchanged for money.  First and foremost,  the value of a commodity is the amount of labour time contained in it, regardless of whether or not it is paid for.  David Ricardo showed us this on the first page of his book Principles of Political Economy and Taxation in 1817. Surplus value is the amount of unpaid labour contained in the commodity, its value (the commodity) is the amount of labour time required to produce it.  Its exchange value is how much money it is worth, which does not determine how much labour time is required for its production, it is a measure of it.  The unpaid labour, essentially profit, is not created by exchange, it is already present in the commodities value, realized by being sold at its price of production in the market. 

Indeed goods and services are bought and sold in the market, but this is not the cause of profit. It is the relationship with the wage labourers he identified who “operated on a commercial basis to operate these means of production” with the capitalist that is the source of the unpaid labour, the profit. Just what the “commercial basis” that makes one man owners of these means of production, that are “more commonly these days”  owned by more than one capitalist, and wage labour, remains a mystery not solved by Chang. This influences his views later of financial capital  and interest.

He then proceeds to show that much has changed since Adam Smith wrote Wealth of Nations.  Banking, stock exchanges, corporate bonds, are all touched on.  Things have changed, and Chang grudgingly accepts that the goal of production is the same, the quest for surplus value.  Adam Smith, however limited he was, is still further along than this fellow as he recognized the value of a commodity  is the amount of labour required to produce it, whether or not it is paid for.  He saw surplus value as part of the cost of production, not as coming from exchange, which our vulgarian just suggested.

He does acknowledge the quest for profit is the same as in Adam Smith’s time on page 33, when he says

“…competition among profit- seeking firms may still be a key driving force of capitalism, as in Smith’s scheme.”

Chang p. 33

Which is as close as he gets to looking at how Adam Smith viewed profit, and how surplus value is created  in production.  

“But it is not between small, anonymous firms which, accepting consumer tastes, fight it out by increasing the efficiency in the use of given technology. “

Chang p.33 ibid.

Smith  understood technological changes driving profits as,  for example, the power loom was making its introduction felt around his time.  His example of the needle making factory also fits in with a basic knowledge of commodity production and what Marx referred to as an increase in relative surplus value when a company invests in better machinery to remove a competitor, or create a profit windfall.  The needle example shows although Smith did not spell this out exactly like Marx,  he still understood what changes in the means of production represented.

These are just a few takes from his Economics book, which claims to explain for the beginner economics,  which he also suggests is simply a political concept.  In other words,  political economy is not a science. Fitting words to a man who cannot use the word “profits “without disparaging workers.

Nicholas Jay Boyes

MIlwaukee Wisconsin

American Democratic Republic

4 2 2024