| Username |
Post |
| maximus |
Posted
on 14-May-02 02:39 PM
Marx is dead but it is the loss of the central tenet of marxism, that of class consciousness, that i mourn. With Marx had come the idea of man as part of an economic collective. In his interpretation, man was essentially an economic being and that culture a by-product, an embellishment (raato tika nidaarma). Ironically, man is most ‘economic’ under capitalism, and the communist ‘transcendence’ is the transformation of the ‘economic’ to the ‘cultural.’ Marx theorized that under capitalism, class consciousness will sharpen, leading to class-based conflicts culminating in the victory of the masses and the final utopia. The Marxist model might just have been an interesting intellectual exercise but centrally flawed. Nevertheless, it provided man a new identity, that of class. Economic class.
Today, in America capitalism triumphs. Since the 1970s, there has been a constant erosion of class consciousness. People no longer think or struggle in class terms or such consciousness is silent/ dormant. American democracy functions not with the participation of all, through their votes, but thrives in the non-participation of the masses. It is thus that minority groups like the conservative christians (John Ashcroft) end up wielding much power. Capitalism, in making man material, makes him apolitical and only the moneyed interests co-opt the government to further their agenda (read Enron). This is a politics of complacency, not a vibrant democracy at work.
The working mass buoyed by the prosperity of capitalism easily takes the logic of capitalism as truth. The results of the free market are considered fair justice. The economic efficiencies of capitalism become the guiding principle for life. Instead of rationality and morality deciding what is fair and good, it is economics that dons the judge’s hat. Thus, CEOs making millions of dollars, mass employee layoffs, more working hours are all justified and executed with no opposing voice. It has to be understood that capitalism is not merely an economic system but that it rests on the masses accepting the actions and results within such a system as being fair and justifiable. “The American dream is the opium of the masses (just to be dramatic!!.” Why are people giving so easily to the temptations of capitalism? Why should we agree that it is OK for CEOs to earn millions, for us to be on the welfare line?
Class defines much of our world, of what we eat, who we interact with, who we become, how we think…..Capitalism inherently is opposed to raising class consciousness but class is an important part of who we are. We maybe Asian, black or whatever…but we are also rich or poor. In fact, I argue that first we are rich/poor and then only Asian/black/white/lesbian/bahun/newar….…everything else. Poverty breeds a culture of its own. Thus, a poor man in Nepal, Burkina Faso and Colombia probably have much in common than with the rich in their own land. The poor are always silenced, through coercion, threats under feudalism, and through some economic benefits and a lot of unachievable (in reality) dreams in capitalism.
Thus, I call for class consciousness. I call for the poor in America to raise their voices, to play a bigger role which the American democracy allows for them. You do not have to accept relative poverty just because you are out of absolute poverty. There is no reason why the son of a rich guy should attend a good private school while yours languishes in a run-down public one. Just like the capitalists who use democracy and freedom to advance their own agenda, the poor too can do this. Class consciousness is not passe, class movements are not against democracy.
|
| Biswo |
Posted
on 14-May-02 03:08 PM
>Why should we agree that it is OK for CEOs to earn millions, for us to be on the
>welfare line?
Maximus ji, nice thoughts. Yet , it is so much like a presentation of dichromatic
prism. Presenting Rich and Poor as two indivisible elements of society,you have
also tried to obfuscate the fact that there are so many things in common with
these two also. Rich can be poor instantly, and poor can be rich instantly. I
don't even understand what type of voice you want to raise against, and against
whom.
CEOs earn millions by virtue of meritocracy. They may be earning unconscionably
more, but it is difficult to say because their contribution to the organizations they
lead is also very crucial in the functioning of that organization.
But your posting definitely transports us to the path you want our thought
process to travel along. Should it be called 'elementary theory of alternative
communism'?
|
| maximus |
Posted
on 14-May-02 03:33 PM
Biswo ji,
Thanks. Again, my point is that it is the capitalistic system that makes us believe that it is justified for CEOs to earn millions and that we easily accept it as just. I am asking people to really think about why it has to be this way? Why?
In essence, i really see no difference between saying you cannot attend school because your are from a low-caste and to say because your parents are poor and cannot pay for it. Why do we believe the former is wrong but the latter is OK? Why? Again, because we believe that the captilastic system is just. But is it really OK? Is it really a fair system...these are my fundamental questions.
American capitalism is marked by growing inequality, not just in income but in who is heard in the political arena. Why do you think when Bush is passing a bill to cut taxes that will overwhelmingly benefit the rich that there is no uproar on the street from the poor? It is this culture of silence on which American capitalism stands. It does not have to be this way.
Class, i believe, like religion,culture, gender, etc. is another basis for collective identity. But today, that class identity in America is weak. The poor are losing their voice and yet in living within this system, we feel quite alright with it. It is time to re-examine this.
Finally, yes..the rich/poor dichotomy is for illustration purposes. Obviously, there are stories of the rich getting poor and vice versa but these happen on the fringes. Mostly, the rich remain rich and the poor remain poor. The American dream is a Hollywood story, bar for few.
|
| Paschim |
Posted
on 14-May-02 10:36 PM
Maximus, great to see you enter Sajha with your trademark intellectual thunder! A warm welcome. You pose some interesting questions. Rather than attempting to give my quick responses right away, they deserve to be taken away for some serious pondering...still haven't figured out convincing answers to Arbin's MBA query of "Everyone talks about changing the world, but nobody talks about changing himself or herself. Comment." These are the kind of questions that give you kicks and thus deserve some no-nonsense thinking!
But a lighter aside on your forms of collective identity: Amartya Sen, visibly irritated by a question of whether he was an Indian or an American and all that usual elementary voyeurism on the part of many people to pin other people's monolithic identity, said people may have multiple identities - a male, a professor of X lineage working in a Y country with sasurali in Z, an admirer of golf, and above all a vegetarian!! Not his words verbatim, but the tone is close.
|
| RP |
Posted
on 14-May-02 11:34 PM
Hi Maximus,
Great name! The theory of marxis may be great, but it ended in reality -Soviet Union. They could not go any further. The classless society is merely a theory in utopian mind of poor.
There is hierarchy among animals also. For example, bees. The hierarchy in bees is queen bee, she is the leader and she really does not do much beside lead other bees and other bees do the working ( producing honey).
In America there are two classes one is working class and the other is non-working class, that is they don't need to work to live. In other words they have money, inheritence, stocks, bonds, real estate whatever the case maybe. They may work, but work only for pleasure. Where as the other class is working class and they do need to work to make a living.
The leisure class have a symbol and marketers protect that symbol, which maybe driving a merecedes, porsche, ferrari etc, playing golf, jewelry etc. The working class works to go after those symbols of leisure class. This is called emulating theory from "Theory of Leisure Class" of Veblen (MBA)http://xroads.virginia.edu/~HYPER/VEBLEN/veblenhp.html
Hierarchy and leisure class is not going to go away for long long time. Martin Luther King Jr. was the leader to initiate desegregation between Black and White. Later he realized that it was not matter between Black and White it was matter of class. Dr. King brought this issue about class and right after he brought this issue he was shot. There may not be any evidence of him being shot for bringing out the class, but people has been protecting class.
In the United States' constitution it is said that "All men are created equal". They may be created equal, but they will not remain equal.
Let me take this thought to Nepal and Maoists situation. Maoists leaders are no different than any other leaders, that is they have their own belief about the world and everything depends on "how you see the world" from well being II -Robin Pandey ( http://www.chakrapath.com/wellbeing2.htm )
They are born from old theory of classless society, which died a long time ago. Only remaining in coma are North Korea, and coming out of coma are Soviet Union and China. It is going to be class society in both countries.
If these Maoists leaders really care about their people, they would provide them education rather than blowing up schools. Education is the answer to see the light. I am not going to touch more on this issue because it has been talked about inside and outside.
We are all lucky to come to United States. "Students you are here to study, you are lucky ones, study. There are a lot of peopel in Nepal do not get education" - PM Deuba ( http://www.chakrapath.com/pmdeuba1.sbd , needs mgi video wave).
I did not know Deuba, and I have been living here in the US for a long time, but listening to this word was profound to my ears at the PM Deuba's New York reception.
What is going to be fate of Nepal? There are several talks going on. One is going to be on May the 25th in Dallas, Texas, Organizer IAFN President Dr. Hari Pandey (He has invited a senator, mayor and congressman) and I am sure there are others in different towns and different dates. One in June in London, organized by UK PM Blair and so forth.
I could go on, but I really have to get going. :)
Cheers,
-RP
|
| Biswo |
Posted
on 15-May-02 07:47 AM
>In essence, i really see no difference between saying you cannot attend school
>because your are from a low-caste and to say because your parents are poor
>and cannot pay for it. Why do we believe the former is wrong but the latter is
>OK? Why?
Maximusji:
Again, It depends on how we want to see the fabric of society, how we want to
set the rules etc. Kids are going to some particular school these days because our
society somehow recognize a kid's right over his parent's earnings. Let's say this
is not a very direct and obvious right, but it is there. Caste based seggregation
is vile, because it doesn't even recognize progress made by all ancestors of one
particular caste.
See, if we want to be iconoclastic and view each idols of our society with
alternative way of viewing than the one we are accustomed to, we can find
a lot of problems in the society, and that is fine. I am pretty sure that is what
you have been doing. You are asking a lot of questions regarding the fundamentals
of our society itself. It is not easy find answers of all profound questions ! It is
easier to read and wonder about these, however, which is what I am doing:-)
|
| maximus |
Posted
on 15-May-02 09:16 AM
Oh Paschim guru, ke cha? Arbin's question is really a powerful one and has made me thinking...hmmmmm! And it reminded me of what Nitzsche (sp!) said, that god (jesus), in his living and dying, showed people how to live and die a good, moral life but people, instead of taking the path showed by god, started praying to the same god. Thus, praying comes from man's realization of his weakness/inability to live a godly life. So, maybe it is to hide our personal frailties that we talk of big stuff...some parallels there!!!
Another ethical question that has been bothering me is this...(was posed by some prof. of ethics at Princeton).....we cry foul at the killing of innocents, and find it heinous, barbaric, amoral....all that. But an average family from the industrialized nations or the rich in the poor countries could, let's say reduce their consumption of luxuries by say 10% and create a fund to save millions of people from hunger, poverty, etc.....but they don't. yes, legally there is no crime here but the decision of rich to consume luxuries is killing millions of innocents. Inaction is a form of action. So, how do you define ethics? What is ethical is maybe that which we feel comfortable with but is it ETHICAL???
|
| NK |
Posted
on 15-May-02 09:29 AM
What a refreshing article. The purveyors of capitalism sneer at any criticism of their religion, i.e. capitalism. Withh a big grin they smugly point to the communist controlled China. In the past if the heroes were people who fought for their country, found a cure for diseaset, now all you have to do is amass a great wealth and people will flock to you to hear each of your words for enlightenment. Bill Gates books becomes best seller so does Iococa’s.
In this triumphant march who has time to look behind how many billions are left behind? How many people *want* to look behind? If you do you become a naysayer, a pessimist, you become somebody who is not worth of living in a civilized society. They will shout in unison, “Do you want to live in a former Soviet State? "
There are now thousands of multimillionaires in China according to the latest NY Times. And yet, outside of shanghai thousands die from malnutrition, lack of clean water, just plain lack of basic necessities. It (China) has one of the world’s greatest wealth gap. The have-notsdescend upon cities in hordes just to sleep on streets and the haves just have to pull their curtains only to enjoy oyster dinner with a fine Bordeaux. If you don’t see, it does not exist.
I think to better oneself, to stride for success is human. But, and this is a big but, who gets to the top is determined largely by where you come from. If you come from moneyed class it becomes a smooth sail for you. People always have rags to riches stories to lull the have-nots class into believing you can do it, only if you try. But every Li Qinfu, Charlie Chaplin you have hundreds of Bushes, Gates, Rockefellers, and Kennedys.
At the time when the gap between rich and poor is widening people should be conscious about their status in the society. Here in the states as soon as a Democrat utters about Enron and how it influenced the Republican party from energy policy to accounting policy and by that how many billions it amassed, Republicans try to shout him /her down accusing he/she is instiagating a class warfare! As if that is a bad thing. For them as you said maximus, people should not talk about disparity, rather they should be grateful there are groups like Enronites. This is the opium of our times. All have-nots have to do is wait patiently so some of the free market capitalistic fruits will drop on their way too and thank the Lord.
Down with Class Unconciousness!
|
| NK |
Posted
on 15-May-02 09:31 AM
oh by the way. just in. 23% nepali are hungry!
|
| Koko |
Posted
on 15-May-02 09:52 AM
With the integration of the new migrants and the and the bubble effect in the later 1990's sort of make the whole class system a blur. The bull just took off at such a pace that it was hard to differentiate who was who..
The utopian society of marxism can only exist in theory but it will never happen in practicality. Our human nature would not let it happen. From the begining people imposed rather than embraced Marxism. Those in power will not give it up that easy. We have learned that lesson over and over again.
I personally like the Scandinavian style of socialism, with personal freedom, high taxes but lots of benefits from the govt., 3month vacation a year etc etc
|
| amilo |
Posted
on 15-May-02 01:35 PM
This might not be a relevant article to go with the flow of conversation on Marxism. However, it is quite interesting to see how an institution is trying to take advantage of stereotyped group of people for its benefits. Enjoy!
Source: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0205140149may14.story
Vanderbilt aggressively seeking Jewish students
By John Gerome
Associated Press
Published May 14, 2002
NASHVILLE -- Vanderbilt University, an elite institution in the middle of the Bible Belt, is aggressively recruiting Jewish students in a campaign that is making some Jews uncomfortable.
The university has portrayed the move as part of a broad effort to increase diversity. But the administrator in charge of the effort acknowledged that Vanderbilt is also trying to tap into a group of students who tend to score highly on the SAT.
That kind of talk is making some worry that the university is promoting the inflammatory idea of Jewish intellectual superiority.
"It dredges up stereotypes and issues we really don't want on the table," said Jessica Keimowitz, director of college counseling at the New Jewish High School of Greater Boston.
Vanderbilt, a private university ranked 21st on U.S. News and World Report list of top colleges, has long had a reputation as a Southern, white, wealthy and Protestant school. Jews account for about 4 percent of its enrollment of 10,500, compared with more than 20 percent at Ivy League schools. About 2 percent of the U.S. population is Jewish.
The only Top 25 university with fewer Jewish students than Vanderbilt is the University of Notre Dame, a Roman Catholic school.
It is a statistic Vanderbilt's chancellor, Gordon Gee, wants to change and a reason he hired Rabbi David Davis as an assistant to the provost a year and a half ago.
Central to Vanderbilt's recruiting effort is the new $2.2 million Schulman Center for Jewish Life, a two-story building with a copper dome and stained-glass windows. It is named for 1939 graduate Ben Schulman, who contributed $1 million to build it. A kosher cafe will open there this summer.
University officials are also expanding the Jewish studies program and attending conferences to promote the school as a comfortable place for Jews.
|
| dasein |
Posted
on 16-May-02 04:55 AM
There's something wrong with this world and I don't like it.
When only an insignificant proportion of population owns most of the wealth, then wouldn't the vast majority would like to see it redistributed?
People are so busy trying to make money, most Americans probably die without once questioning the status quo.
Maximus, talking about the ethics question, our sensitivity to others discomfort is inverse to the actual physical distance, (Milgram's experiments?) I can think of two ways to nudge people's conscience, one is to expose to them their freedom and ability to change the state of affairs (don't we all deny ours?) the other is to set forth an ethics through mass propaganda. I sincerely believe that if you tell people repeatedly that they ought to make a choice of helping others (as humans, americans , or any other form of identification), they they will actually start believing and acting on it.
but we all know that there's no such thing as ethics, right?
|
| maximus |
Posted
on 04-Jun-02 09:29 AM
Prof. Krugman's editorial today from the NYT supports my concern!
Greed Is Bad
By PAUL KRUGMAN
he point is, ladies and gentlemen, greed is good. Greed works, greed is right. . . . and greed, mark my words, will save not only Teldar Paper but the other malfunctioning corporation called the U.S.A."
Gordon Gekko, the corporate raider who gave that speech in the 1987 movie "Wall Street," got his comeuppance; but in real life his philosophy came to dominate corporate practice. And that is the backstory of the wave of scandal now engulfing American business.
Let me be clear: I'm not talking about morality, I'm talking about management theory. As people, corporate leaders are no worse (and no better) than they've always been. What changed were the incentives.
Twenty-five years ago, American corporations bore little resemblance to today's hard-nosed institutions. Indeed, by modern standards they were Socialist republics. C.E.O. salaries were tiny compared with today's lavish packages. Executives didn't focus single-mindedly on maximizing stock prices; they thought of themselves as serving multiple constituencies, including their employees. The quintessential pre-Gekko corporation was known internally as Generous Motors.
These days we are so steeped in greed-is-good ideology that it's hard to imagine that such a system ever worked. In fact, during the generation that followed World War II the nation's standard of living doubled. But then, growth faltered — and the corporate raiders arrived.
The raiders claimed — usually correctly — that they could increase profits, and hence stock prices, by inducing companies to get leaner and meaner. By replacing much of a company's stock with debt, they forced management to shape up or go bankrupt. At the same time, by giving executives a large personal stake in the company's stock price, they induced them to do whatever it took to drive that price higher.
All of this made sense to professors of corporate finance. Gekko's speech was practically a textbook exposition of "principal-agent" theory, which says that managers' pay should depend strongly on stock prices: "Today management has no stake in the company. Together the men sitting here [the top executives] own less than 3 percent of the company."
And in the 1990's corporations put that theory into practice. The predators faded from the scene, because they were no longer needed; corporate America embraced its inner Gekko. Or as Steven Kaplan of the University of Chicago's business school put it — approvingly — in 1998: "We are all Henry Kravis now." The new tough-mindedness was enforced, above all, with executive pay packages that offered princely rewards if stock prices rose.
And until just a few months ago we thought it was working.
Now, as each day seems to bring a new business scandal, we can see the theory's fatal flaw: a system that lavishly rewards executives for success tempts those executives, who control much of the information available to outsiders, to fabricate the appearance of success. Aggressive accounting, fictitious transactions that inflate sales, whatever it takes.
It's true that in the long run reality catches up with you. But a few years of illusory achievement can leave an executive immensely wealthy. Ken Lay, Gary Winnick, Chuck Watson, Dennis Kozlowski — all will be consoled in their early retirement by nine-figure nest eggs. Unless you go to jail — and does anyone think any of our modern malefactors of great wealth will actually do time? — dishonesty is, hands down, the best policy.
And no, we're not talking about a few bad apples. Statistics for the last five years show a dramatic divergence between the profits companies reported to investors and other measures of profit growth; this is clear evidence that many, perhaps most, large companies were fudging their numbers.
Now, distrust of corporations threatens our still-tentative economic recovery; it turns out greed is bad, after all. But what will reform our system? Washington seems determined to validate the judgment of the quite apolitical Web site of Corporate Governance (corpgov.net), which matter-of-factly remarks, "Given the power of corporate lobbyists, government control often equates to de facto corporate control anyway."
Perhaps corporations will reform themselves, but so far they show no signs of changing their ways. And you have to wonder: Who will save that malfunctioning corporation called the U.S.A.?
|
| Biswo |
Posted
on 04-Jun-02 09:45 AM
Just a note, Gordon Gekko is one of my most favorite movie characters. There was
one dialogue in which he says something like, "Main thing is bottomline, Rest is
conversation!"
Never saw any movie that is so much shockingly wall-streetlike. The only another
movie that goes so deep to an institution was probably "Network"(1976) which
shows nitty gritty of networks.
Sorry to veer off a bit from the main theme.Good movies have been my main
kamjori.
|
| New Yorker |
Posted
on 04-Jun-02 04:47 PM
RP,
There is an another class called "Creative Class". I read about this in some article posted here by Florida.
New Yorker
|
| ashu |
Posted
on 04-Jun-02 11:47 PM
Maximus,
Even the great Krugman (who happens to be one of my intellectual idols -- both in terms of the kind of research he did and does and the kind of writing he publishes in NYT, Slate and other general-interest publications!) ended on that
wishy-washy note.
Oh well.
For a somewhat better answer (to your concerns and to Krugman's concluding question), may I refer you to this article?
"The Earnings Game: Everyone Plays, Nobody Wins"
Summary: The earnings game distorts corporate decision making, reduces securities analysis and investing to a guessing contest, compromises the integrity of corporate audits, and ultimately undermines the capital markets. This article takes an in-depth look at these effects, examining the intricacies of the earnings game and why companies believe they have no choice but to play it.
Author: Harris Collingwood
Published in Harvard Business Review
Mar 1, 2002
Length: 10p
Happy reading,
oohi
ashu
ktm,nepal
|
