Posts Tagged ‘Marx’


John Lennon (on the B side of “Imagine”) thought that life was hard, “really hard.” I can understand that.

But is modeling inequality really all that hard?

Paul Krugman seems to think so, at least when it comes to the size or personal distribution of income. That’s his excuse for why mainstream economists were late to the inequality party: they just didn’t know how to model it.

And, according to Krugman, not even Marx can be of much help.

Well, let’s see. It’s true, Marx focused on the factor distribution of income—wages, profits, and rent, to laborers, capitalists, and landowners—because his critique was directed at classical political economy. And the classical political economists—especially Smith and Ricardo—did, in fact, focus their attention on factor shares.

That was Marx’s goal in the chapter on the Trinity Formula: to show that what the classicals thought were separate sources of income to the three factors of production all stemmed from value created by labor. Thus, for example, laborers received in the form of wages part of the value they created (“that portion of his labour appears which we call necessary labour”); the rest, the surplus-value, was divided among capitalists (“as dividends proportionate to the share of the social capital each holds”) and landed property (which “is confined to transferring a portion of the produced surplus-value from the pockets of capital to its own”).

It is really just a short step to show that, in recent decades (from the mid-1970s onward), both that more surplus-value has been pumped out of the direct producers and that investment bankers, CEOs, and other members of the 1 percent have been able to capture a large share of that mass of surplus-value. That’s how we can connect changing factor (wage and profit) shares to the increasingly unequal individual distribution of income (including the rising percentage of income going to the top 1, .01, and .001 percents).

See, that wasn’t so hard. . .


The editor, Casey Harison, has informed us that A New Social Question: Capitalism, Socialism and Utopia has just been published.

A New Social Question: Capitalism, Socialism and Utopia brings together a selection of papers presented at the conference on “Capitalism and Socialism: Utopia, Globalization and Revolution” at New Harmony, Indiana, in 2014. New Harmony is best known as the site of industrialist Robert Owen’s experiment in communal living in 1825, and it was Owen’s legacy that drew scholars from across the Atlantic. Owen’s work and his experiment at New Harmony again have currency as the world looks back on the 2008 economic crisis and as “socialism,” seemingly banished with the failure of experiments in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union at the end of the last century has returned to the political and economic lexicon. As David Harvey, Thomas Piketty and Joyce Appleby have lately reminded us, capitalism, particularly the forms it has assumed since 1945, is probably exceptional, perhaps ephemeral, but also dynamic and resilient. If the Great Recession has derailed personal lives, destabilized economies and unnerved politicians, it has also reminded us that we have not reached the “end of history.” Where there was once a Social Question, there is now a New Social Question. This edited, multi-disciplinary volume will appeal to readers in political science, economics, history, sociology, anthropology, literature, communications and cultural studies, and to academic audiences in North America, Britain and elsewhere.

My own contribution, “Utopia and the Marxian Critique of Political Economy,” a revised version of the plenary talk I gave at the conference, is the concluding chapter.

For the record, the relationship between utopia and critique is also the topic of the book I’ll be working on next year.


What are U.S. corporations doing with all the surplus they’re managing to rake in? Well, they’re not investing it. Instead, they’re paying it out to shareholders and upper-management, buying back their stock and expanding their portfolios of financial assets, and hoarding the rest in cash. The net effect is to dampen the rate of economic growth and the creation of new jobs.

And that’s worrying mainstream economists and others who celebrate capitalists, since they appear to be failing in their “historical mission” to accumulate capital.

According to a recent paper by Joseph W. Gruber and Steven B. Kamin (pdf), of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, in the years since the Great Financial Crash, investment spending by non-financial corporations (the red line in the chart above) has been much lower than their “savings” (undistributed profits, the blue line), which has placed them in the position of being net lenders (the black bars at the bottom of the chart).

Their conclusion?

we find that the counterpart of declines in resources devoted to investment has been rises in payouts to investors in the form of dividends and equity buybacks (often to a greater extent than predicted by models estimated through earlier periods), and, to a lesser extent, heightened net accumulation of financial assets. The strength of investor payouts suggests that increased risk aversion and a precautionary demand for financial buffers has not been the primary reason firms have cut back investment. Rather, our results are consistent with views that, for any number of reasons, there has been a decline in what firms perceive to be the availability of profitable investment opportunities.

In other words, corporations have been distributing their profits for many uses other than real investment, a process that started before the crash and has quickened in the years since.

As it turns out, I’ve been teaching about Marx’s theory of the accumulation of capital this week, using the following equation:

ΔK = Δc + Δv = βDI = s – [(1-β)DI + DO + DM + DR]

The idea is that the accumulation of capital (ΔK = Δc + Δv) represents a distribution of the surplus to internal managers (βDI), which is equal to the difference between the total surplus (s) and all other distributions of the surplus—to internal managers other than for the purpose of accumulation ([1-β]DI), to owners (DO), to merchants (DM), and all others (DR ). Obviously, if the distributions of the surplus in the form of CEOs salaries, dividends, merchants, and all others (e.g., taxes to the state, rent to landowners, interest payments, and so on), plus cash holdings, increase, then less accumulation of capital—that is, investment—will take take place.

And that’s exactly what’s been going in recent years—thus undermining the legitimacy of both capitalists and of capitalism.

As Marx wrote (in chapter 24 of volume 1 of Capital), in one of the most quoted and yet misinterpreted passages:

Accumulate, accumulate! That is Moses and the prophets! “Industry furnishes the material which saving accumulates.” Therefore, save, save, i.e., reconvert the greatest possible portion of surplus-value, or surplus-product into capital! Accumulation for accumulation’s sake, production for production’s sake: by this formula classical economy expressed the historical mission of the bourgeoisie, and did not for a single instant deceive itself over the birth-throes of wealth. But what avails lamentation in the face of historical necessity? If to classical economy, the proletarian is but a machine for the production of surplus-value; on the other hand, the capitalist is in its eyes only a machine for the conversion of this surplus-value into additional capital. Political Economy takes the historical function of the capitalist in bitter earnest.

Bitter earnest, indeed—on the part of classical economists then and mainstream (neoclassical and Keynesian) economists today.

Thanks to Bruce Norton, we know that that passage is not Marx’s assertion that capitalists are driven to accumulate capital. Instead, it’s what mainstream economists (then as now) claim is the role capitalists can and should play. It’s one side, if you will, of our pact with the devil: the capitalists are the ones who get and decide on the distribution of the surplus, and then they’re supposed to use the surplus for investment, thereby creating economic growth and jobs.

When they fail to to fulfill that historical mission, and use the surplus to line their own pockets and to share it with their friends, they break the pact and lose their legitimacy in having sole control over the surplus.

Mainstream economists want to do everything possible to encourage the capitalists to accumulate capital. The rest of us recognize that the time has come to replace the capitalists and use the surplus to benefit the mass of people who, until now, created but have had no say in deciding what should be done with the surplus.



It may have taken 167 years. But consider the irony of today’s celebration of Singles Day, when “Alibaba and other Chinese e-commerce companies hosted the world’s biggest one-day shopping spree,” which amounted to more than $14 billion in sales for Alibaba alone, in light of one of the claims made in what is now regarded as the second most important academic book:

The bourgeoisie, by the rapid improvement of all instruments of production, by the immensely facilitated means of communication, draws all, even the most barbarian, nations into civilisation. The cheap prices of commodities are the heavy artillery with which it batters down all Chinese walls, with which it forces the barbarians’ intensely obstinate hatred of foreigners to capitulate. It compels all nations, on pain of extinction, to adopt the bourgeois mode of production; it compels them to introduce what it calls civilisation into their midst, i.e., to become bourgeois themselves. In one word, it creates a world after its own image.


The public was asked to vote on a list of the top 20 academic books, from a list of 200 titles, selected by a committee of experts invited to take part by the Booksellers Association and The Academic Book of the Future project.

As it turns out, Charles Darwin’s On the Origin of Species was the firm favorite, securing 26 percent of the vote. The Communist Manifesto came in second.

But, for some strange reason, Alison Flood [ht: ja] decided to focus instead on Immanuel Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason, which was fifth:

a choice heralded by the Booksellers Association’s Alan Staton. “We seem to be governed by expediency and doublethink and it’s reassuring to know that Kant’s Categorical Imperative is known and thought important,” he said.

Philosopher Roger Scruton agreed. “I am gratified that the Critique of Pure Reason, which must be surely one of the most difficult works of philosophy ever written, should have been chosen as among the most influential of all academic books,” he said of the 18th-century text.

“Kant set out on an extraordinary task, which was to show the limits of human reasoning, and at the same time to justify the use of our intellectual powers within those limits. The resulting vision, of self-conscious beings enfolded within a one-sided boundary, but always pressing against it, hungry for the inaccessible beyond, has haunted me, as it has haunted many others since Kant first expressed it.”

From my perspective, it is much more interesting that the list included Edward Said’s Orientalism, E. P. Thompson’s The Making of the English Working Class, Simone de Beauvoir’s The Second Sex, and John Berger’s Ways of Seeing.


The distribution of income in the United States is increasingly unequal. We all know that. The problem is, the more we focus on the unequal distribution of income, the more we’re forced to discuss the issue of class.

And that’s a real problem for mainstream economists, who either deny the existence of inequality or deny its connection to class.

That’s the only way of explaining why Jason Furman repeats, in two recent papers (“Global Lessons for Inclusive Growth” [pdf] and, with Peter Orszag, “A Firm-Level Perspective on the Role of Rents in the Rise in Inequality [pdf]), the same argument:

Overall, the 9 percentage-point increase in the share of income of the top 1 percent in the World Top Income Database data from 1970 to 2010 is accounted for by: increased inequality within labor income (68 percent), increased inequality within capital income (32 percent), and a shift in income from labor to capital (0 percent).

In other words, for mainstream economists like Furman who actually do pay attention to rising inequality (e.g., as measured by the share of income going to the top 1 percent), it can’t have anything to do with class (e.g., as measured by changing labor and capital shares).

As it turns out, I’m presenting Marx’s critique of the so-called Trinity Formula in one of my courses this week.* Basically, Marx argued that, if the value of commodities is equal to constant capital plus variable capital plus surplus-value, then both the “profit share” (the “profits of enterprise” plus “interest”) and the “rental share” (“ground rent”) represent distributions of surplus-value. In other words, productive labor—not independent factor services—creates, via exploitation, the incomes of both capitalists and landlords.

Marx’s critique of the Trinity Formula is still relevant today because, even if we assume (as many mainstream economists still do, against all evidence) that wage and profit shares are relatively constant, it’s still possible to show that the rate of exploitation has risen.

Consider the following hypothetical chart:


The blue and red boxes represent profits and wages in 1997 and 2007. However, as we can see, the share of income going to CEOs has risen (Furman’s “increased inequality within labor income”). If we combine profits and CEO salaries as different forms of surplus-value, then indeed it is possible for the rate of exploitation to have risen—even if the conventional measure of profit and wage shares remains the same.

In terms of actual national income data, what we’d want to do is add to corporate profits the distributions of the surplus that go to those at the top (including CEO salaries) in order to to get “capital’s share” and subtract those same distributions from wages to get “labor’s share.”

US labor share

As it turns out, Olivier Giovannoni [pdf] has made something like the latter calculation, by subtracting top 1 percent incomes from the total U.S. labor share. As we can see in the chart above, the real labor share in the United States has fallen dramatically since 1970—from about 77 percent to less than 60 percent—just as it has in Europe and Japan.

The only appropriate conclusion is that the increasingly unequal distribution of income in the United States has a lot to do with the diverging movements of the labor and capital shares, and therefore with class changes in the U.S. economy. And the only way to deal with that problem—that class problem—is not by increasing tax rates at the top or by raising minimum wages, but by eliminating the problem itself: the exploitation of labor by capital.

*For the uninitiated, the Trinity Formula is the classical idea that the “natural price” of commodities is equal to the summation of the natural rates of wages, profit, and rent, that is, the idea that the incomes of workers, capitalists, and landlords are independent of one another. The same idea was later articulated by neoclassical economists, who argue that each “factor of production” receives its marginal contribution to production.