Let Marx Liven Up Your Thanksgiving Dinner!
Or, Relatives Foaming at the Mouth
Hey, everybody! Here’s a fun idea. Try out one of these sassy conversation starters over Thanksgiving Dinner. Or, for a real hoot, explore all three!
Conversation Starter #1: “Hey, everybody! Did you know that just like Jesus Christ wasn’t a Christian, Karl Marx wasn’t a Marxist?”
Some useful conversation points:
1) People whose ideas gain widespread attention—and sometimes trigger large social movements—have no control over how followers interpret and put into action those ideas.
2) For example, we don’t blame Jesus for the horrors of the Spanish Inquisition. Now do we? So why blame Marx for, say, Stalin’s Great Ukrainian Famine of 1932-33?
3) If your alt-right Uncle Don opines, while gnawing on a drumstick, that the Spanish Inquisition was a damn good idea, try this follow-up: “So, Uncle Don, let me get this straight. Jesus is likewise responsible for Priests molesting children? Is that what you’re telling us about Our Lord and Savior, Uncle Don? That Jesus inspires pedophilia?”
No guarantees, but that might get him thinking.
4) If, at this point in the dinner, you feel like delivering le coup de grâce to Uncle Don, try this out. Explain to him how Ronald Reagan got his most beloved policy idea—trickle-down economics—from Stalin.
This discussion will require a bit of background prep.
In 1928, Stalin decided to adopt the theories of an ultra-leftwing Soviet economist named Preobrazhensky. This guy with the mile-long name argued that the Politburo needed to collectivize Soviet agriculture. That way, all investible wealth could go into the hands of a central planning authority. That state agency, in turn, would then be able to maximize economic growth. (At that moment in Soviet history, the nation desperately needed to build up its industrial sector.) The happy result of this state-run maximized economic growth—so the theory ran—would be the increased prosperity of all!
(If you really want to study up on the matter, read “Thing 13” of this feisty and indispensable little book: here. In fact, you should seriously consider giving this book to your Uncle Don for Christmas.)
But guess what?
These ideas of Preobrazhensky are the same basic ideas advocated by ardent free-market thinkers such as David Ricardo (in the 19-th century) or Milton Friedman (in the 20-th century). The only difference is that these ultra-rightwing capitalist economists argue that all the investible wealth needs to be (or, rather, to stay) in the hands—not of the state—but of rich people. That way, these wise and wonderful rich people will be able to maximize economic growth. The happy result of this pro-rich theory—enacted by Reagan and now known as neoliberalism—will be the increased prosperity of all!
As you’ve already figured out, this theory doesn’t work. In fact, it stinks. Neither a centralized state agency nor a (so-called) free market proves to be a very good instrument for the fair distribution of wealth. The money simply doesn’t “trickle-down” in meaningful amounts.
Within a few years of adopting the policy, Stalin managed to starve millions of Soviet citizens (the aforementioned Great Ukrainian Famine of 1932-33). As far as the overhyped “Reagan Revolution” goes, well, since the 1980s these neoliberal economic policies have managed to impoverish billions of people globally—much of it by way of slowly strangling the middle class. All Reagan really managed to do was start us down the economic road to staggering wealth inequities between a handful of the cozily sheltered superrich and the rest of us poor schmucks.
So, sorry Uncle Don, but when it comes to your cherished Reaganomics, a rising tide only floats the yachts.
Conversation Starter #2: “Hey, everybody! Did you know that Adam Smith and Karl Marx totally agree about capitalism?”
Some useful conversation points:
1) First, be warned. Uncle Don might do a mashed potato spit-take when he hears this one.
2) Simply set out the following bare fact about capitalism upon which Adam Smith and Karl Marx completely agree: money is made through the use of workers.
In 1776, Smith politely termed this concept “productive labor.” In 1867, Marx not so politely described it as the exploitation of workers, writing that capitalism is “vampire-like” and “only lives by sucking living labor, and lives the more, the more labor it sucks.”
The “what” is the same. Their “so what” is very different.
3) At this juncture, it would be easy to get lost in the economic theory weeds—somewhere you don’t want to be when the pumpkin pie is served. So just lay out the bare economic formula of capitalism—again, something upon which Smith and Marx agreed. In economic terminology, that formula is call the Means of Production (MOP). It goes like this: M – C – M’
This notation stands for:
Money invested – Commodities bought to make a product – Money earned by selling a product
Simple enough, yeah? Even Uncle Don will nod his support, maybe adding something manly and neoliberal like “Damn straight.” (That is, if you haven’t coup de grâced his butt yet with the Reagan-Stalin connection.)
4) Now all you have to do is a shallow dive into the MOP. Just the bare bones. Money out (earned) at the end of the process has to be more than Money in (invested) at the start. That’s obvious. That’s profit. The whole point of the capitalist MOP. (Here, Uncle Don might stand up and salute.)
Where the real magic happens, though, is in the realm of Commodities—that is, the things purchased with the invested money that are required to make a product.
For the monied person (aka capitalist) undertaking the MOP, there are fundamentally two kinds of Commodity that she needs to buy: materials and labor.
5) Materials: the stuff necessary to make a product. This can include raw materials, manufacturing equipment, a factory or facility to assemble the item, the energy needed for its fabrication, packaging to put it in, transportation to get it to market, and so forth. It all depends on what, exactly, you’re producing.
In economic-speak, these material Commodities are also known as Constant Capital. The term means that the money (Capital) you need to spend to buy these essential production materials is, more or less, going to remain the same (Constant). That is, every time you run through the MOP, you can count on having to spend X amount of cash for this stuff.
Therefore, by and large, the area of Materials IS NOT where your profit is to be made.
6) Labor: along with materials, in order to produce a product, you have to buy as well the human Commodity of worker time.
As Smith and Marx both tell us, here is precisely where your profit IS to be made.
Another economic term for labor is Variable Capital. If material costs are pretty much constant, it is in the arena of labor costs where there is room for play—lots of room. That is, the money (Capital) you spend on workers can be manipulated so as to be quite flexible (Variable).
What is more—and here’s the silver bullet of capitalism—the less you spend for your labor, the greater your profit will be.
Boom, there it is. Capitalism in a nutshell.
How does the capitalist spend as little as possible for labor? Low wages brings the most immediate boost to profits. Cheap or no benefits helps a lot. Throw in long hours, a crap workplace, some dangerous working conditions—outdated equipment, accelerated assembly lines, too few workers doing too much work, inadequate break times—and you’ll see increased gains to your bottom line. In short, there are many ways to squeeze the most out of your workforce. Whatever you do, though, don’t let a union into your shop.
“Productive labor” or the life being sucked out of “living labor”? You decide.
Conversation Starter #3: “Hey, everybody! Did you know that you’re probably not actually a capitalist?”
Some useful conversation points:
1) Save this one for dessert. It goes well with pie, pumpkin or mincemeat.
2) Simply ask everyone around the table who currently participates in The Great American Means of Production where they, personally, fit into our MOP schema. At its core, there are only two choices.
Choice #1: Are you the person investing the money at the start of the process and, therefore, the person collecting the profit at the end of the process? If so, congrats! You are a bona fide capitalist.
Choice #2: Or, are you the commodity in the middle of the process selling your labor-time? If so, bummer! You are not a bona fide capitalist. You are a cog.
3) Unless you’re dining with tycoons (e.g. Thanksgiving dinner on Succession), you’ll most likely be in the company of cogs. There very well could be a small business owner or two at the table, as well as an “entrepreneur” (whatever that really is) of some sort. These tend to be hearty, small-fry capitalists doing their damnedest to keep head above water. (During dinner, they’ll be the ones complaining the loudest about taxes, business regulations, pro-union initiatives, and the cost of employee healthcare.)
4) Finally, before waddling off to the living room to watch football and digest, muse aloud about how very peculiar it is that those of us, in the great majority no less, who are so aggressively undercut by the capitalist MOP—remember, the very mission of which is to obtain the cheapest possible labor—not only dutifully perform within that instrument of our own dispossession, but ardently identify with the ideology that gives it sway.
So very curious indeed.
To Conclude, a Suggestion for Table Decorations
At each place setting, on a tastefully embossed little card maybe also picturing a colorful arrangement of gourds, offer guests the following “Food for Thought”:
If the misery of our poor be caused not by the laws of nature, but by our institutions, great is our sin. – Charles Darwin
Just the knucklehead ex-prez...
After the Turkey Day, but still resonates!