Marxists Have More Serious Thoughts Than....

David Ruccio is one of my favorites; he gave a speech on the relevance of Capital to my political economy class, and since then, I've been an ardent follower of his blog. Below is a quick comment conversation we had, that highlights Ruccio's sensibility, which many mainstream economists don't give credit to Marxists. (All the Marxists I know are quite sensible people, in fact.)

I don't think I made my point well enough, though.  The thesis I was trying to tease out was basically this: If enough people get screwed over, or feel screwed over, by the institutional arrangements of society, will they just drop out of them and form institutions of their own?  Can exploitation, in the Marxists, sense continue if the exploitees stop playing the game?

1. Christian says:

   10 January 2012 at 12:22 am

   David,

   Would you agree that Marxists aren’t opposed to competition and merit etc per se. Instead, they are opposed to societal structures that cause such great inequality that a greater number of members of society withdraw from formal society and join the informal society?

   Reply
2. David F. Ruccio says:

   10 January 2012 at 10:50 am

   On one hand, you’re right, Christian: Marxists aren’t necessarily opposed to competition and merit. But, on the other hand, Marxists’ opposition to societal structures that cause inequality stems from an indictment of exploitation, regardless of whether we’re talking about formal or informal society.

   The point is, the formal structures of capitalism are based on class exploitation, which allows a tiny minority to appropriate and distribute the surplus produced the majority. Ideas of competition and merit often serve to disguise that exploitation.

   But we can certainly imagine other forms of competition and merit—call them socialist competition and merit—that have nothing to do with exploitation.