Comment Cards

January 22

Q: Is over-consumption of goods ruining the modern American society? Can we help it? What improvements can we the consumers make to cut down and live more sustainably?

R: To reframe your question a bit, it is evident that America is the consumer society par excellence. To pick a quote from Veblen in Sackrey's text, American consumers aspire to "...an ideal of consumption that lies just beyond our reach (Sackrey 68)." We can "help it" if we learn how powerful the messages are that are being sent to us through music, film, advertising and the lifestyles of celebrities. Additionally, as Galbraith warned years ago, we must realize the connection between the use of our resources to produce unnecessary consumer goods and the loss of natural and social capital.

Q: How can the market system be seen as natural?

R: The change from a pre-market sense of human society was not smooth and seamless. In Feudal Europe peasants possessed a belief that there was a natural "right to life". By this they meant everyone had a right of access to the means of production. When the enclosure movements of the sixteenth century caused them to be displaced from the land, many undertook violent revolt. When artisans in England during the industrial revolution of the eighteenth century were replaced by machines they attacked the factories and destroyed the machines -- the so-called Luddites, now a synonym for an anti-technologist. But in spite of all that, Adam Smith and others appropriated the concepts of harmony and equilibrium, evoked by Sir Isaac Newton to describe the planetary motion in the universe, and applied them to the movement of goods and services in an exchange economy. Additionally, Smith found in humans a previously undiscovered penchant "to truck, barter and exchange one thing for another." So, conveniently on the eve of the emergence of a market society it was found that humans were naturally designed to fit such a system. Antonio Gramsci once wrote, "Nothing is natural (in the non-habitual sense of the word) but is dependent upon conditions whose disappearance would not be without consequence." He meant something of the sense that if anything exists it is too easy to argue that it is natural simply by its existence alone. How is that for a convoluted answer?

Q: How does the social schema set itself up for things such as terrorism?

R: The social schema reflects the materialist conception of history. To put it simply, the way we organize production determines finally how we will structure the rest of our social system including the way we think about it. This was Marx's view. So, as was mentioned in class, you would find few institutions within a slave society that actively criticized the system upon which that society was based. If Marx were alive today, he might argue that members of a capitalist market society would be predisposed to interpret terrorism as anything other than an act of class conflict. During the Civil War Marx, along with most of the poorer classes of Europe, was sympathetic to the Union cause -- a cause they saw as one between two social systems, one free and one slave. In America, even Lincoln was more concerned with the economic consequences of a divided Union than with the social question of slave versus free labor. 

January 27

Q1: Overall, when looking at how the production of goods is being dealt with in the United States, I have this to say: I stand by the average American worker (the little guy). That guy may be doing a boring, belittling job but is supporting his family; in a sense supporting America. capitalism is obviously necessary in America but more focus needs to be put on workers' rights. They are not just numbers. This social aspect needs to be dealt with more when looking at the whole "political economic" process. 

R: I don't know how anyone could disagree.

Q2: I don't necessarily agree with the private vs. public school argument. I live on an island with one public school and no private schools so we really didn't have a choice. I don't think we were ushered through at all and think the public school I attended was perfectly capable of producing "high end" employees.

R: Sam Bowles' and Herb Gintis' book, Schooling in America, set off quite a stir when it was first written. Their point, of course, was to ratify the Marxist notion that a society reproduces itself inclusive of its various classes. A more moderate point might be made that many of those who assume the positions at the top of American society have been groomed at certain kinds of schools. The exclusive private schools of Groton, Phillips Academy (G.W. Bush), St Paul's (J. Kerry) and so on have turned out many of our presidents, for example. 

Q3: Taking the mind away from a worker, as you say, not only hurts the company, but can't it also hurt the worker? If so, wouldn't this be motivation to move on to better/bigger things for the worker. 

R: The movement of scientific management that started with Frederick Winslow Taylor did not have the expressed purpose of "dumbing down" the work process. It's purpose was to increase the efficiency of the work place. The assembly line production process did, however, fragment the tasks, speed up the pace of production and deskill many of the jobs. The worker became a cog in part of the machinery who was rendered incapable of controlling the pace of production. Most (but certainly not all) of those jobs have become obsolete by robotics. During Taylor's time, the response by workers was to fight back. Many strikes began over the issue of speed ups and the reduction of the number of work breaks. 

Q4: How does the labor theory of value insist that production increases but quality doesn't? I thought if on an assembly line a worker is doing one thing it would be the same every time.

R: The Labor Theory of Value does not imply that product quality does not improve. The theory simply argues that the value of a product is equal to the quantity of labor necessary to produce it -- both dead (capital) and living labor (the worker). The employer has an interest in increasing the amount of output produced with an hour of labor so as to reduce the labor costs per unit of output. This means that as time goes by, according to Marx, the worker is replaced by machinery. What's interesting today is that economists are scratching their heads over the question of why output is increasing but employment is rising ever so slowly. They answer their own question when they realize that productivity has gone up, i.e., more workers are not necessary if output per worker is higher. your last point is correct. Repetitive motions are now recognized as a reason for many injuries sustained by workers. Much research has gone into improving the ergonomics of work.

Q5: With such worry about the economy, it seems an easy solution could be keeping jobs within the U.S. and paying the workers more/and more evenly -- giving more people a chance to put money back into the economy by being able to go out and purchase products.

R: You make good sense. A problem we face is that the world's economies are entirely integrated. A solution for America cannot be isolated from what is occurring elsewhere. The successful businesses of the future may increasingly look like WalMart, a company whose workers are among the least well-paid in America while the heirs of Sam Walton are worth $100 billion. It is apparent that raising American's incomes can occur only if we can bring the rest of the world with us, otherwise our companies will move abroad. Perhaps another solution is to restructure jobs in the U.S. toward knowledge-based industries. In any event, you are correct, we have to protect jobs from going overseas, but we also must worry about the working conditions in foreign countries (perhaps through groups like the International Labor Organization and the United Nations) as a way of achieving that goal.

Q6: Why do Marxists have such a bleak outlook on the worker and his power?

R: You ask important questions. Remember though, we are studying Keynes, Galbraith, Veblen and others who have provided powerful critiques of the market system and its impact on workers. Read the quote from Bob Dole on the top of page 51 of Kuttner's book. Critics of the market system come in surprising forms. Clearly, the market system has provided workers with the highest standards of living in human history. Marxists who deny that are simply wrong. 

Q7: Will the movement of labor from the U.S. to overseas ever eventually lead to the revision of American capitalism? If so, how can the problem be remedied?

R: The answer to Q5 may apply to your question as well. I would add Galbraith's notion that there is an imbalance in the U.S. between the private and public sector. However, in many cases we are recognizing, even if by default, that the answers to instability, mal-distribution of income and wealth and the quickening pace of job losses in certain sectors are too important to leave to the private market system. Galbraith's worry about the backlash against government may be overcome before too long. Read chapter 8 in Sackrey to learn more about the so-called "middle way".

Q8: The Marxist labor theory of value made a lot of sense, but I didn't understand why the workers couldn't get extra wages if they put in hard work and have been working for a little while. 

R: Workers can earn more money if they work harder and more hours. Marx's labor theory of value was  a long-term perspective based upon what he saw as an internal contradiction. The fact that workers had a dual role as both the primary source of  production costs (wages) and the primary source of demand for output (consumption spending) created a dilemma for the capitalist class. The incentive is to raise productivity (the amount of output a worker produces in an hour) while keeping wages constant. This solves the production cost side, but poses a problem on the demand side -- workers collective incomes are insufficient to buy all that has been produced. Keynes addressed that problem with his suggestion that an external source of injections of new spending could be found in government. The individual worker, in any event, can always earn more by working harder. The issue Marx addressed was the survivability of the system itself. In some sense, Keynes trumped Marx -- in fact after Keynes finished The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money he wrote, "...there's one last nail in the coffin of Karl Marx." Keynes has been right so far. 

Q9: I think the idea of looking at the market with reference to Darwin, Newton and Malthus is interesting ... giving it a connection to theories of everyday life/science.

R: All education is interdisciplinary. Human thought is infectious. It cannot be confined to a single discipline. This is the key to the liberal arts. Employers consistently state that they want workers who are effective thinkers and good writers. Being able to integrate ideas from science, the arts, economics and the social sciences is crucial to intellectual growth. Sorry, for being pedantic. 

Q10: Adam Smith's golden economy can only work if the economy is pure, self-maintained. Our society today has government and the economy far too linked for it (Smith's economy) to come about.

R: There are numerous economists who hold this view. You might want to read Frederick A.  Hayek's Road to Serfdom. It was written in 1945 and is still being reprinted. His is a libertarian's view of Smith's thesis. 

Q11: I find the stock market crash very interesting. I still don't understand why the banks were allowed to invest so much money in stocks.

R: You might want to read Robert Heilbroner's Beyond Boom and Crash or J.K. Galbraith's The Great Crash 1929. As Heilbroner writes, faith in the stock market and the American economy was utterly firm. There were people who saw the warning signs but no one in authority successfully recommended regulating the bank's investment policies. It had only been since 1914 that the Federal Reserve system was in place and its original purpose was simply to clear checks drawn from banks in distant parts of the country, serve as a banker's bank (i.e., hold deposits for banks to facilitate the settlement of accounts between banks) and provide short-term credit when banks required reserves were low. The Fed was not given responsibility to implement a monetary policy. The Federal Reserve Board was comprised of 12 "governors" who controlled decision making. They were all bankers. 

January 29

Q: Why don't we look at Sweden as a model of living?

R: We will read a chapter in Sackrey on the social democracy of Sweden, or the so-called "middle way." Look at the two graphs on pp 210-211 to get a preview of the difference between the U.S. and Sweden.

Q: Are the disadvantaged laborers of other countries that produce goods for America considered one of the lowest classes in the American Hierarchy?

R: There is a group of theorists who examine the structure of advanced market economies as being at the head of a "global commodity chain" stretching around the world. Each node of the chain provides an intermediate product or service that binds the links together. This is part and parcel of the notion of "flexible specialization" that also reflects the workplace strategies of domestic producers. Workers at each node or in each flexibly specialized production process are vulnerable to decisions made at the head of the chain. Your question goes to the issue of class. This is tricky because there are some who argue that class doesn't exist unless class consciousness exists. Americans don't accept that they are part of a class society. Workers in the third world often do.

Comments on the existence of a class system

Q:  As much as we may not want to see classes today, I think people in America definitely recognize them more than is suspected. I recognize what class I'm in and what class people close to me are in. I think it's unfortunate to say the least but it has always been that way and probably won't change anytime soon.

 Q: A class system, especially one with the chance of advancement, has proven fairly stable. Does the American ignorance of their classes affect this stability?

R: As mentioned above, I think the question of class consciousness is a complicated issue. Everyone is aware that there are people who have more money and power than they do and that there are those who have less. However, studies suggest, as Sackrey (106) argues, that the concepts of the "melting pot" and the "American Dream", which seem to presuppose the existence of upward mobility, cause many Americans to deny the existence of classes. But at the same time, many have experienced the alienation that can come from sensing that one is "out of place" or does not possess the same "cultural capital" as others -- read the quotes from those who experienced this "status dissonance" in the academic community in Sackrey (128-129).

February 5

Q: Just because you make commodities out of your life, freedom, body, votes and babies, doesn't necessarily mean you must sell them, so isn't our created society the same as the one we live in, just with higher prices (so the law is overlooked)?

R: I think what you're saying is that just because others do it doesn't mean you have to. And that if these transactions were rendered illegal (which they are) it would simply cause them to become more expensive, i.e., they would still take place. But where does that leave us? Remember the mention made by Sackrey of Karl Polanyi's book The Great Transformation in which Polanyi argued that allowing labor to become a commodity caused the greatest dislocation of  human society -- job losses as a factory closes its doors and pulls out of town can destroy the community. So, all we can ask is does society have any rights over that of the individual? Democracy is a system that has answered in the affirmative. There are limits this system sets on the actions of an individual because of the potential  harm to society -- the collection of individuals. The question is where do we draw the line beyond which the market is forbidden to tread? It isn't an easy question to answer, but we had better start to fashion one. There are markets developing in clean air, potable water and the human genome itself. As Arundhati Roy writes, "What happens when you 'privatize' something as essential to human survival as water? What happens when you commodify water and say that only those who can come up with the cash to pay the 'market price' can have it (Roy Power Politics 44)?"