this post was submitted on 08 Sep 2024
54 points (100.0% liked)
askchapo
22765 readers
466 users here now
Ask Hexbear is the place to ask and answer ~~thought-provoking~~ questions.
Rules:
-
Posts must ask a question.
-
If the question asked is serious, answer seriously.
-
Questions where you want to learn more about socialism are allowed, but questions in bad faith are not.
-
Try !feedback@hexbear.net if you're having questions about regarding moderation, site policy, the site itself, development, volunteering or the mod team.
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Agree, the labor aristocracy in the west has their material interested intertwined with imperialism and stands to lose from revolution in the periphery. Now just add to the picture: if all the countries, including the west, had communist revolutions, including redistribution, average people in some imperial core countries like the US and Germany would still initially be better of. People in Canada, France and Spain would lose wealth. They would only get freedom, security, peace, fullfilment from end of alienation and survival of the planetary ecosystem, but this is all less immediate and less material.
Source
This is from 2019. As global inequality increases, more and more workers might stand to win wealth from revolution.
Disclaimer: this simple calculation doesn't take into account, how supply chains would shift after revolutions. It basically just looks at the immediate effect of a hypothetical redistribution of wealth. The real impact of global revolutions on workers in the imperial core, as well as the periphery would depend on structures of international solidarity forming. Still, a quantitative perspective like this can be helpful.
The problem with wealth redistribution calculations like this is that they import the wild real estate values of the global north, which only investors generally benefit from (and the occasional sexpat selling their house and moving to another country)
Yes, that's true. The calculation includes real estate "value", or rather prices, which are highly distorted and far removed from value based on labor power. But what would a more Marxist analysis look like and what would it's likely outcome be? Complicated concepts like absolute and differential ground rent from Capital volume three get involved, if you really want to do it thoroughly.
I don't think you could do it quantitatively - you can hand wave away rents entirely with the premise of the question (global equal wealth distribution) and just look at labour and global production, but even then you'll run into issues around substitution.
For example, most of the world's cobalt is mined in horrific conditions by poorly paid children in the DRC, but if you were redistributing wealth globally (and therefore stopping kids having to mine coltan for poor wages) the impact on the price of cobalt and electronic goods would be fairly marginal, because capital investment through mechanisation would increase in the DRC, or Australia would go back to being the primary cobalt producer as it was historically.
Yes, for real value, quantitative studies might be impossible.
Rent just means income without work or exchange. If you want to account for real estate, you can't wave rent or ground rent in the Marxist sense, because expected rent during depreciation plays a part in determining the price for things like land, which don't have an inherent value, because no labor is used to produce them.
I was manly interest in the impact on revolutionary potential in the core.
Edit: Oh, sorry, you meant the premise of revolutions, hence no more rent. Yes, of course.
Like, how would the numbers on the map I linked change, if real estate weren't included in the calculation?
Damn, excellent infographic, thx for this.