Re: Postmodern Marxism vs Post Capitalism / Jordan Peterson
Posted: Mon Jul 13, 2020 10:05 pm
You say "the purpose of being able to command a high salary is that you built that business", but that's not answering my question. You've given a justification for the big salary but that's not the same as a purpose. "What is its purpose" means "what does it achieve". And what doesStom wrote:OK, I'll go in order, with a bonus at the endSon of Mathonwy wrote:I agree, (whatever we call it) capitalism is becoming more extreme, socialist elements are being reduced, inequality is increasing - this is a bad situation.Stom wrote: We live in a neo/post capitalist society, though, however you want to call it.
Back when Marx was writing, corporation tax was mainly greater than 50%. Companies were expected to invest back into the company and wages were not taxed so high. We should be going back to a similar system.
I have no problem with a company owner paying themselves a salary of £10m if the company's performance deserves it. But I do have a problem with private companies making £10bn in profit, sending it through tax havens, and only paying £5-50m in tax on that profit.
I had an idea for small businesses here, whereby a company should get tax breaks after every employee up to around 100. So small and medium sized businesses would be rewarded for creating jobs. Couple this with higher corporation tax and I think you have a much fairer system.
Capitalism isn't the problem, the current interpretation of it is the problem.
The solution is not Marxism, or anything that restricts your ability to create wealth for yourself, but a form of humanism that focuses on individuals rather than companies.
Take the British pub opening as an example. It's a form of neo-capitalism whereby Wetherspoons are benefitted over independent pubs. That should be reversed for us to live in a fair society.
Re the owner with the massive salary, you may not have a problem with it but what purpose does it serve? Does the incentive need to be remotely as great as the unlimited* amounts available? Would it really harm the incentive to work if the maximum individual wealth was, say £10m**?
I can certainly see a case for encouraging job creation (when unemployment is a problem). I haven't given it too much thought in detail - I think I'd want to tie it to training if possible.
NB re Witherspoons vs independent pubs, there was a time when small companies (or rather companies with profit below a certain level) were taxed at a lower rate than larger ones. This has been phased out over a long time and ended in 2015. Not a good thing IMO.
I agree the current interpretation of capitalism is a big problem, but I don't necessarily believe (as you do) that the best system is a capitalist one***. You say the solution is not Marxism (do you mean communism or socialism?), but I don't think you've made the case (say, regarding my sketch of democratic communism).
And, to go back to the earlier discussion, do you now think that (some forms of) communism can function without totalitarianism?
* in that there is no explicit ceiling
** I would go lower, but let's say this number for the sake of the argument
*** although were I in charge I would modify the form of capitalism rather than scrapping it - I don't want one giant leap into the unknown
The purpose of being able to command a high salary is that you built that business. You had the idea, you created it, and you probably put in a lot of work to get there. Wages are not the problem, corporations believing their only purpose is to make money for their shareholders is.
On the same theme, $10m is not that much money. If you want economic stability for life, a lovely home, the ability to take a summer holiday and a winter ski-break, the ability to eat out at the best restaurants, and the ability to basically fulfil your every desire, you probably need a salary between $3m and $100m, depending on the person. I see no problem with this. If the rich were earning $10m a year now, we'd have a damn equitable society. But they're not, because they're earning $250m+ and getting that money without working simply because they had the money to invest in the first place.
My problem with Marxism is an inability for anyone who disagrees with the premise of Marxism=Communism to give me a satisfactory explanation of what Marxism actually is.
I believe a capitalist system is better than either a Marxist or a Socialist one (depending on your definition of Socialism, of course, as that dragon has many heads) simply because, while humans are not inherently selfish, they do inherently want to better themselves. Creating a ceiling on their ability to better themselves will lead to depression, as Peterson talks about in his psychology and human behaviour stuff (much better than his politics, would you believe it from a psychologist), and backed up by many others.
On to communism without totalitarianism: if you are preventing people from making the choice to own certain items, as well as wealth, you're authoritarian already. Couple that with the system's need to sustain itself and you have totalitarianism.
In your example in particular: if someone wants to own a sports car - and I assume there is still sports to watch, else you're going to have to do a lot of explaining to a lot of people - so they can emulate, for example, Lewis Hamilton, you are preventing them from doing so.
If their desire to do so is strong enough to forgo the consequences, you will need to make an example of them. Let them go with just a slap on the wrist and more and more people will go looking for black market Mercedes. And then you have a direct threat to your system of government and economics. How are you going to deal with it?
And for the bonus, I found this guy, who has a very simplistic outline of some of what I believe in economically. I'd be interested to know whether you think what he says has any echoes of Marxism. Because, and this is a very important thing...
Outside of the main tenets of Communism and, therefore what I have seen of Marxism (please someone point me toward somewhere if his main premise changes after the Manifesto, not just the window dressing), there is not much difference between it and Capitalism in the true sense of the word.
That's my big problem with people who are against Capitalism. There seems to be a misunderstanding of what capitalism means.
And, also, capitalism has many facets. It can take many forms. But central to them all, in my opinion, is competition. Or the absence of monopoly (https://www.businessinsider.com/monopol ... ism-2019-1)Capitalism is often thought of as an economic system in which private actors own and control property in accord with their interests, and demand and supply freely set prices in markets in a way that can serve the best interests of society.
Here's that video:
a salary of £10m really achieve that a much smaller salary wouldn't?
"$10m is not that much money" you say. Are you sure about this? I don't know what circles you move in, but surely a salary of $10m (that's $27k per day, right?) way, way beyond any reasonable requirement. It's also insanely more than needed for any of the things you mentioned (other than the fulfilling your every desire point, which could mean anything really, up to levels that not even Gates or Putin could afford).
Agreed we need to be very clear about our definitions otherwise we will argue about different things without even realising it.
"Creating a ceiling on their ability to better themselves will lead to depression, as Peterson talks about in his psychology and human behaviour stuff". Maybe, maybe not - but I wouldn't take Peterson's word for it (or anything). However, if you see depression as an undesirable thing you need to know that it's definitely correlated with inequality, which is one strong reason to put a lid on maximum incomes. See:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5775138/
Of course there would still be sports (why on earth not?) (not that Formula 1 is much of a sport, more of a rolling advert for luxury cars and carbon emissions ... better to have everyone driving the same high-performance electric car, I think). Emulate Lewis Hamilton? No one can do that (legally) on our roads. But anyway, if someone wants a sports car, they can rent one in my system. (A lot of expensive cars are being paid for monthly in the UK anyway, so what's the big difference?) So there's no need for a black market Mercedes, so no wrists to slap.
So I'm still trying to see why my system needs totalitarianism. Any other suggestions?
That was a great video, and I agree with much of what he says (although I'm surprised you do and yet think $10m salaries are okay, when they are largely a product of decades of neo-liberal economics). But yes, this is sanity, great to hear, I wish someone would hypnotise the Tories to get them to believe this.
As I've said, if I was I charge I'd steer the ship to the left, but leave capitalism intact ... although I would wrap it with the red tape The Economist speaks so highly of . I'm not sure if radically different economic models such as the one I sketched are better or worse than left-wing capitalist systems, but from where we are right now the sensible move would be to just steer directly away from neo-liberalism without a dramatic & risky restructuring of the whole model.