in reply to my posting on executive pay, the following
>A fundamental point of departure for Marxism in the US today is that the
>capitalist system is regressing to the state of inequality that existed
>around the turn of the century. Statistics bear this out, as for example
>those cited by Andrew Hacker in his book "Money".
Yes, money is a very good book, as was Two Nations, and a great much else on inequality, not least Barlett and Steele's Book Who Stole the Dream? and Kevin Phillips Politics of Rich and Poor, not to mention William Greider's excellent books on the subject.
Whether this is a uniquely Marxist observation seems difficult to uphold since, as far as I know, none of these great books were written by Marxists. Still, lets see if it is a point of departure from Marxism:
>
>A socialist explanation for this phenomenon is quite elegant and simple.
>Money is being taken out of the pockets of the working class and put into
>the bank accounts of the ruling class. The redress would be to put a
>taxation of one hundred percent on all incomes over a million dollars or
>something like that. The call for tax redistribution can be used as a means
>to raise socialist themes.
Well, 'socialist', yes I guess so if you mean the redistributionist socialism of JS Mill that Marx pours ridicule upon in Cap. Vol III (I think). It is true in the broadest sense to say that the money that is not going to the working class is going to the ruling class, but your model misses out the third target of revenues, accumulation, and so leaves the analysis strictly in the realm of moralising.
I cannot be sure about the US, but in the UK what is happening is roughly this. A declining rate of investment leaves a greater proportion of the surplus value produced to be directed towards unproductive consumption. At the same time low growth rates mean that wages are held down, as demand is held down. This was what Marx meant when he said that the rate of accumulation is the independent and the wage the dependent variable.
The policies of our two governments, as I understand it are precisely to favour this low growth, called variously 'steady growth' 'the avoidance of the boom and bust economy', and 'the Goldilocks eonomy' (not too hot, not too cold, geddit).
Since Louis favour's a low growth economy (the source of income these massive income differntials), it is not perhaps surprising that he would like to see the the problem resolved at the level of the state acting as a mechanism for redistribution of incomes, after the event so to speak.
>Socialism, you remember what that was, don't
>you, Jim?
Yes, indeed. How could I forget, living in a country where successive 'socialist' governments have been elected on programmes of social redistribution along precisely the lines you indicate. Unfortunately such schemes never work for the simple reason that the distribution of the social product always depends upon the distribution of the means of production between capital and labour, as Marx explains in the Introduction to the Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy.
I don't quite know why Louis is so snide about my contribution to the debate on top people's pay. Doubtless we could all do more. I have only published a book on social inequality, and taken part in a radio debate on top people's pay, trying to draw on my experiences as a union representative in the public sector. My experience then was that sympathy rarely translated into solidarity, and decisive action was more impressive to most people.
I don't doubt Max's point that the website is a good tool for galvanising outrage - especially amongst the immediate workforce, but I still beleive that the ideology of 'anti-greed' can just as easily be turned against workers as turned in their favour. That, I have to say, was my experience, even in Britain's under-paid public sector. -- Jim heartfield