I think it depends on whether this is a closed system of 100 people, or 100 people in a much larger populous (market) as well as whether the product is essential (a food source/food/shelter) or a luxury item.

Can you clarify those parameters?

Maybe read Marx instead of relying on the caricature US society has made of him? — Benkei

Since the US can't understand him and I suspect you'll say the same of Stalin, which county do I look to to see how his views are properly understood? You can see why I might thing think his views have been completely defeated based upon how its been applied, but we seem to always have this same "if it were applied correctly" or "if it were just better understand" argument that tries to rehabilitate it.

Are they unprofitable or are they forced to price their goods lower than they would because of competition from counties that don't have all sorts of EHS and labour standards and you want to ensure a critical industry continues to exist in your county? — Benkei

I doubt that's a primary driver, but I'll look at whatever data there is. What you probably see on American farms is a large migrant labor force that receives low pay.

I don't doubt labor costs probably aren't higher here, but I don't know if that is the primary reason for subsidies.

You'll hear no idealist defenses of Marx from me.

But you won't hear idealist condemnations either.

Yes, millions died under socialism due to socialist policies. Millions more will die tomorrow.

The only thing I'm noting is -- it's not that different under capitalism. And rather than look to the famines of the past as a reason to dismiss Marxist analysis, I'm just applying Marxist analysis to the question at hand.

Yes! But, most importantly, this picture centers the worker as a political actor -- rather than being a part of the electorate, the worker can organize outside of the state due to the dependency relationship between workers and the rest of the world.

So, not democratic participation in the sense of being a part of a liberal party within a capitalist state -- but rather as being a member of an organization dedicated to worker's power.

And so it converts what looked like a moral question into a political question.

There's no such thing as Marxism because he continuously changed his view on what ought to be done but his critique of capitalism is very good. Marx as a tool to discuss economics, like any other economic theory, is extremely valuable. No economic theory is complete or right because they are based on simplified assumptions about human economic behaviour. The elevation of certain economic theories as "true" and subsequentily being used as guiding principle of political decision making (at the exclusion of moral considerations) is the source of a majority of the problems we currently face.

Principles cost money; if we only pursue economic effectivity we will end up morally bankrupt with injustice the norm.

Aha, for me democratic participation includes activism and (grass roots) organisation and unionisation but good to know it elicits other connotations so I can clarify that next time.

Heh. I may just be too democracy-poisoned ;) I've heard "democracy" as a palliative to concrete wrongs far too often, putting justice in a place far beyond what a body will experience. I think the term elicits notions of propriety and correctness, which is the sort of thing that -- if one's political actions are going to be successful at all -- needs to be pushed to the side. Political action isn't about propriety, respect, correctness, or any of that.

I remember during Occupy well-meaning (and well to do) liberals lecturing us about how they agreed with our goals, but not our methods. And if we were only more proper then we'd have more support from the likes of them.

For me "democratic participation" just sounds a lot like that, when successful political action, in the sense of obtaining concrete goals for a group, is the exact opposite of these recommendations, and where they come from has less to do about what is efficacious and more to do with what well to do people feel comfortable with.

I'm not going to claim that this is universal or something, but it's that hesitancy to act which I think I'm pushing against. A lot of the time people believe "democratic participation" amounts to nothing more than reading the news, thinking about issues, and going to the voting booth. That's the civic religion, after all. And I think that does fit the term. I'm trying to point out -- it takes more, if you happen to fall into a particular class of people at least.

The only thing I'm noting is -- it's not that different under capitalism. — Moliere

Well, you said that, and I was inclined to actually look that up, to see what the total deaths (both domestic and foreign) at the hands of the US government versus those of the Soviet Union and Russia. I would have to think that it wouldn't be close, considering the brutality of Stalin. That analysis would also assume a moral equivalence, suggesting that the deaths at the hands of the US were as unjustified as those of the Soviet Union.

I do understand that Marxism does not equal Stalinism, but I'm not sure what Marxism does equal in reality. I can accept that injustices exist in either system, but I don't think it's a sustainable argument that capitalism and communism are equally bad but just for different reasons. The US built a wall to keep people from coming in, where the communists built a wall to keep people from leaving, which I think at its height was thousands of East Germans fleeing daily. That does speak loudly to the question of which condition is preferable.

I do think things are very different under capitalism. They aren't comparable really. This isn't me waving an American flag offended by the suggestion that the US isn't perfect, but there is not a moral equivalence here.

Principles cost money; if we only pursue economic effectivity we will end up morally bankrupt with injustice the norm. — Benkei

The most ideologically consistent nations would probably be theocracies, which means the cost of adhering to principle isn't just measurable in dollars and cents, but in loss of human rights.

I'm just pointing out that your attempt to create a moral society isn't something that probably anyone disagrees with, but it will ultimately center on the dispute on what is moral. That is, if the US believes communism is evil, it has cast a moral judgment on it, and it is as much for that reason it is rejected as it is as you suggest, which is that it will cost too much money.

There are those, believe it or not, who think the current capitalistic system is just. It's not as if they all know deep down there are unjustifiable inequities, but they pretend there are not for pragmatic reasons.

Eh, it's a sad line of conversation I've already had the displeasure of going down. Wracking up the sins of each nation is a good way to feel sad the rest of the day, and at the end of it you really wonder why you're obsessing over such macabre things. In my estimation, when you go through the list of sins, it's something of a wash. Nations will behave like nations, in the end, and whether that benefits you has a lot to do with what your social position within that nation is.

For the purposes of historical tabulation, though, I include Stalin. Like I said, no idealist defenses. As a USian with a passing interest in Marxism I've been bombarded with the litany of socialist sins most of my life, so it's unlikely you'll find a shocking fact that will move me. Socialists done some evil shit.

Just like us.

And at the end of the day, it doesn't even matter to me -- the analysis makes sense of the patterns between the classes in the United States, and my advice to become organized remains the same. After all, the owners are organized.

h, it's a sad line of conversation I've already had the displeasure of going down. Wracking up the sins of each nation is a good way to feel sad the rest of the day, and at the end of it you really wonder why you're obsessing over such macabre things. — Moliere

You say this, but then you say:

Just like us. — Moliere

You can't say "just like us" unless you're willing to engage in the analysis you just said you wouldn't do. You can't refuse to consider the evidence and then answer the question.

And at the end of the day, it doesn't even matter to me -- the analysis makes sense of the patterns between the classes in the United States, and my advice to become organized remains the same. After all, the owners are organized. — Moliere

The past has to matter to you if you're trying to come to a solution for the future to at least know what you're fighting for and to be sure you're not recreating something we know doesn't work.

To the extent you want to organize labor to fight for more rights, that seems appropriate, but that is a far way from communism. That's just being an advocate of labor unions.

You can't say "just like us" unless you're willing to engage in the analysis you just said you wouldn't do. You can't refuse to consider the evidence and then answer the question. — Hanover

I'm saying I've considered the evidence, and my conclusion is that both nations are prone to doing all kinds of evil things to the extent that, after looking at it, it's not really a worthy goal to say which somehow eeks out a slightly better score.

Historians been at this game for awhile. There's books by historians that are pro- and anti- Marxist. I've read a handful of them, and there's more I could read. There's even more that could be written, too.

From what I hear, it sounds like you'd get along with Robert Service's description of communism.

The past has to matter to you if you're trying to come to a solution for the future to at least know what you're fighting for and to be sure you're not recreating something we know doesn't work.

To the extent you want to organize labor to fight for more rights, that seems appropriate, but that is a far way from communism. That's just being an advocate of labor unions. — Hanover

I agree that Marxism and labor unionism are not the same. If anything, my critique of labor unions is that they aren't militant enough.

I wouldn't say I'm fighting here, though, either. Just to note. I'm still doing philosophy -- this is just a conversation between thems of us who like to think about this stuff, rather than some political activity.

And, duh, the past matters. If anything I'm over-historical in my approach to things. I'm just noting how the Soviet Union's various failures don't have much to do with American workers who should organize militantly if they want the good things in life.

I'm saying I've considered the evidence, and my conclusion is that both nations are prone to doing all kinds of evil things to the extent that, after looking at it, it's not really a worthy goal to say which somehow eeks out a slightly better score. — Moliere

It's not slight. It just seems like a simple acknowledgment that Stalin has secured a place in history far worse than any US leader would be a simple thing to do, with the understanding that that doesn't mean the US hasn't done bad things as well.

If you want to salvage Marx from this by describing his writing as academic and simply fodder for debate without regard to the real world consequences of how his views were used, that's fine, but it seems pretty uncontroversial to recognize the particular evil of Stalin without trying to draw a moral equivalence to the US.

It's not slight. It just seems like a simple acknowledgment that Stalin has secured a place in history far worse than any US leader would be a simple thing to do, with the understanding that that doesn't mean the US hasn't done bad things as well. — Hanover

I agree. So would the average historian. Westerners don't have any frame of reference for understanding what happened in the USSR.

Although, crediting capitalism for the robustness of the western economic scene is over simplifying. The west received a boom of energy through emancipation from religious tradition, which acted as a cap on progress. Descartes' works on philosophy were partly an attempt to pull the Church out of the mud so as to enjoy its blessings on scientific and mathematical advancement. Capitalism funded the Reformation, so together, they crushed the opposition. Science and capitalism have been joined at the hip ever since.

I'm not trying to salvage Marx, and I thought it obvious that this was so when I said I'm not trying to defend Marx on idealist grounds, or when I said socialists have done evil shit.

The part you're not liking is when I say the United States has done enough evil shit that it's a sad and stupid game to pick a side on. The only way you'll make the point is to add up the numbers, and how you add the numbers is how you choose which side you're on. That's why there are historians which are both pro and anti. But it has more to do with the historian than the events, when they tabulate, and it's a dry affair that doesn't really capture human suffering. And at the end of the day I suspect you'd disagree with the things which the United States does, so why is it we're talking about a now defunct state?

Marxism is a living, breathing philosophy and tradition of both thought and action. Marx doesn't need to be salvaged -- the concrete conditions of our life are what makes Marx relevant. His critique of political economy fits even if Stalin is a worse leader than any US leader.

That's why there are historians which are both pro and anti — Moliere

The 20th Century events in the USSR and China are unique in human history. It was mass insanity, not evil. No other country can compare, including the US.

Westerners don't have any frame of reference for understanding what happened in the USSR. — frank

So...

I agree. — frank

Is of no use to anyone since you're a 'Westerner' and so "don't have any frame of reference for understanding what happened in the USSR".

Or are you the special one?

Or are you the special one? — Isaac

No, that would be Geoffrey Hoskings, who spent time in Russia examining records from the Soviet era.

Aren't you banned yet?

Can we keep things on topic, please.

So, rather than the importance of democratic participation, I'd say I'd emphasize the importance of class power and organization.

There is some great insight in what you wrote.

It is easier to seize wealth than to produce it. So long as the State makes the seizure and distribution of wealth a matter of legalized privilege, so long will the squabble for that privilege go on.

Whether it’s workers or owners who benefit from the State, it matters little; all we’ve done is shifted from one beneficiary of state power to another, from one exploited class to another, and so on. Class power and organization spent in the pursuit of State power and the privilege to seize and distribute wealth might be in that respect a lost cause, when it might be better spent regaining the opposite of state power, social power, so that each class and organization will have the opportunity to determine the path of their own lives. Until then, achieving the means of exploitation appears to be the only solution on offer.

The part you're not liking is when I say the United States has done enough evil shit that it's a sad and stupid game to pick a side on. — Moliere

That's not actually what I said. I'll acknowledge the US has done things it shouldn't have. My point is that there is a way to compare the two, and it does boil in part down to the murder of citizens, but it's also things like gulags, purges of people from the party as a form of ostracism, starvation, and a whole host of other horrible events. These things are not ancient history. It's like saying we can't condemn Nazi Germany (which is closely wrapped up in all of this) as Americans because Americans are also bad. Of course we can.

And at the end of the day I suspect you'd disagree with the things which the United States does, so why is it we're talking about a now defunct state? — Moliere

A few reasons we care. The first is that it does serve as an example of what Marxist thought can cause, and that should offer pause when using Marxism as a philosophical basis for social change. The fact that it's not just a theoretical danger but an actually realized one matters. The other is that it's hardly a defunct state, with an actual war taking place right now between a former Soviet state and Russia in an effort to re-establish its former perceived greatness.

Marxism is a living, breathing philosophy and tradition of both thought and action. Marx doesn't need to be salvaged -- the concrete conditions of our life are what makes Marx relevant. His critique of political economy fits even if Stalin is a worse leader than any US leader. — Moliere

It's largely an intellectual movement that holds sway among those who wish to view politics as an academic subject without concern for the fact that had the world never heard of Marx the world would have been a better place. Scientific theories begin with a theoretically valid hypothesis, but their final proof rests with the empirical evidence. That Marxism offers you great insight into the inequities of capitalist society means just that, but it doesn't mean anyone ought try again to implement those policies. We don't need another lesson in failure in that regard.

That's not actually what I said. I'll acknowledge the US has done things it shouldn't have. My point is that there is a way to compare the two, and it does boil in part down to the murder of citizens, but it's also things like gulags, purges of people from the party as a form of ostracism, starvation, and a whole host of other horrible events. These things are not ancient history. It's like saying we can't condemn Nazi Germany (which is closely wrapped up in all of this) as Americans because Americans are also bad. Of course we can. — Hanover

There's a similar list for the United States. Right? Genocide and chattel slavery aren't ancient history, either.

Something about an afternoon comparing gulags to genocides seems like a sad game, at least. And then -- do you really feel like you know more about which system is better or worse?

I don't.

I'm aware of the evils of socialism. I don't think of these things lightly, for that matter. I'd rather not have gulags or the Khmer Rouge.

I don't think those evils are necessary features of socialism, though, as much as necessary features of nation-states. And I've heard the numbers crunched before and seen the United States come out on top.

Didn't do much for me, though, other than leave me thinking -- this whole thing is fucked up, really. (EDIT: I'll also note I've seen the numbers tabulated the other way -- hence my thought that it just depends on what side you want to win. You'll choose a theory of counting based upon which side gets to win)

A few reasons we care. The first is that it does serve as an example of what Marxist thought can cause, and that should offer pause when using Marxism as a philosophical basis for social change. The fact that it's not just a theoretical danger but an actually realized one matters. The other is that it's hardly a defunct state, with an actual war taking place right now between a former Soviet state and Russia in an effort to re-establish its former perceived greatness. — Hanover

The USSR can serve as an example of what Marxist thought can cause, sure.

But you're going to have to draw the connections between a Marxist analysis of the workplace and, say, Stalinism.

Stalin, while a very famous Marxist -- and I'm not interested in trying to get the hard cases out of the category, as I hope is apparent by now -- is not the only Marxist. There are many Marxists, and not all of them are Stalin. For instance, Salvadore Allende was a Marxist (which the United States helped to overthrow in a coup of his country -- something the United States has a habit of helping and doing in South and Latin America).

And for me, at least, I'm fairly heterodox on the question of history. I don't think it's necessary at all -- rather, it's open. So one of the things I tend to say is "Well, what if we just didn't do that?" -- i.e., just because we're organized militantly for power doesn't mean we'll use that power to create gulags.

So I agree with you that it's important to know history. I think we can learn from it.

But I disagree with the inference that Marxism is a failure. I think history is far more open on that question, and it really depends on who you are within your particular social system. It's a lot easier to sing the praises of capitalism when it's treating you well, just as it's easier to sing the praises of socialism when it's treating you well.

I didn't say there was no answer, I said there was no moral weight to it. There's no way it ought to be done. There are, of course, multiple ways it can be done. — Isaac

So there’s multiple ways to do things, but we can’t say “ought” or “should”?

Sorry, but I see a very clear moral component between democracy and totalitarianism.

I don’t think distributing 90% of profits to shareholders is fair, and I don’t think the undemocratic decision making process that leads to that distribution is fair either.
— Mikie

So why not? — Isaac

Because I’m not in favor of unjustified power, in this case corporate tyranny.

But we can't determine a fair distribution objectively either because it relies on the value of scarcity and risk, and those evaluations are subjective. — Isaac

Who’s “we”? “We” don’t decide anything— and that’s the point. If everyone concerned had input into how profits were distributed, I’d have little problem with whatever was decided. Invoking subjectivity and objectivity is irrelevant and a diversion.

But notice how it's not a fault of the board, then. It's just what it takes to have a business win the game. — Moliere

But this simply isn’t true. I may have failed to emphasize this, but while this transfer of profits to shareholders — which has increased these last 40 years — hasn’t been good for workers, it hasn’t been good for businesses either.

Capitalism is the more general structure and environment within which actors -- be they corporations, states, individuals, or groups -- act. — Moliere

Sure. But a particular kind of capitalism— one that is currently choosing to distribute 90% of profits to shareholders. This is the background on which people in states and, more relevant to this thread, corporations operate. It’s a system of beliefs and values.

Shareholder primacy theory is a major justification for these actions in my view.

I share your thought about capitalism, but I don’t think it’s sufficient to answer the OP questions.

I think it depends on whether this is a closed system of 100 people, or 100 people in a much larger populous (market) as well as whether the product is essential (a food source/food/shelter) or a luxury item.

Can you clarify those parameters? — Benj96

I wouldn’t get hung up on the 100 number. What I’m driving at is how profits are distributed— and who decides. In our current reality, 90% goes back to shareholders— and the people making that decision is the board of directors, who themselves are voted in by…Major shareholders.

I don’t think the distribution is fair…but if had been decided by the entire workforce, say in a democratic way, I’d have less of an issue with it. The problem is that workers of all stripes are shut out of decisions and in fact have zero input whatsoever on how the profits which they helped generate are divided up.

If we all contributed to baking a pie, to varying degrees, we should all get some day in how it’s divided. If I only contributed a small amount, perhaps I or others would reasonably argue that I deserve a smaller slice compared to the person who cut all the apples and made the dough. There’s all kinds of issues that arise, no doubt.

But compare to a system where most of the work is done by 95 people, yet only 5 decide how to divide the pie up and, not surprisingly, they decide to give themselves 9 out of 10 slices.

Sorry, but I see a very clear moral component between democracy and totalitarianism. — Mikie

Well then that's to do, not with the distribution, but the power of the participants to freely negotiate.

Coming up with a 'right' way to distribute profits just moves that power from a political authority to a moral one. It doesn't put that power back in the hands of the people who benefit from the deal thereby struck.

I'm arguing that there is no 'right' way to distribute the profits of a co-operative enterprise, but there is a right amount of freedom to negotiate. That freedom is brought about by removing the coercion, removing the imbalance in power between employer and employee. It's not brought about by deciding how profits ought to be distributed.

Because I’m not in favor of unjustified power, in this case corporate tyranny. — Mikie

It's not corporate tyranny if everyone freely agreed that to be the appropriate deal in that case. Your target is off. It's not the outcome that's at fault, it's the conditions of coercion which lead to such outcomes.

If everyone concerned had input into how profits were distributed, I’d have little problem with whatever was decided. — Mikie

Right. That's precisely what I've been saying. There's no profit distribution that's automatically right or wrong, it's about the degree of coercion, the power imbalance in those negotiations. If we removed that, a 90% split to investors could still be right, if that's what everyone freely agreed.

The only answer to the question...

(1) Should some of the 100 people get more of the total profit accumulated per year compared to others? If it's not equally distributed, who should get more -- and based on what criteria?

(2) If so, how much more? Should 60% of the pie go to this individual or group of individuals -- say 10 people? Or should it be more like 30%? What about 90%? — Mikie

... is "whatever arrangement the participants freely arrive at".

his critique of capitalism is very good. — Benkei

Economic/political ideas how to replace capitalism, which have been tried again and again, were not and have not been historially so good.

Critique is one thing, what is given as the solution is another.

Decorporate every company. Only companies that are non-profit and fulfill a general public utility should exist and once their goal is reached closed. Instead of limiting capitalist power, we've concentrated it even further. And we don't need them. We had an industrial revolution based on partnerships.