by Michael Roberts
I recently attended a presentation by Simon Mohun as part of the
London Seminar on Contemporary Marxist Theory at the School of Oriental
and African Studies (SOAS). Simon Mohun (SM) is Emeritus Professor at
Queen Mary College, London and has made many important contributions to
Marxist economics. His presentation was entitled, The rate of profit, crisis and periodisation in the US economy.
SM said he aimed to try apply Marxist economic theory to the facts so
that we could understand better the causes of capitalist crisis after
the Great Recession.
SM’s presentation was similar to one that he made at the recent HM conference ( see my post, Measuring the rate of profit, up or down?,
20 November 2011). SM looked at the data for the US rate of profit
and found that the rate of profit had not fallen but risen, although
punctuated by downturns leading to economic crises in 1929, 1979 and
2007-8. How could he reach this conclusion when nearly everybody else,
including me, had found a long-term trend decline in the US rate of
profit, at least in the post WW2 period?
Well, the answer is that SM redefines what he calls the
‘conventional’ rate of profit into a ‘class’ rate of profit. SM argues
that the conventional measure of profits, based on net added value less
employee compensation, does not express the true class relations under
modern capitalism. Modern capitalism can no longer be defined by a
class that owns the means of production but must be defined by a class
that ‘controls’ investment, employment and the workplace. SM quoted
John Kay, the Oxford economist, who had just written a piece on the
crisis of capitalism in the FT (see my post, Capitalism in crisis – the apologia,
13 January 2012), in which Kay argued capitalism had moved on from
Marx’s day and the ownership of the means of production was no longer
the criterion of class.
Instead it was “control” of production. Now
managers rule and shareholders don’t in modern capitalist companies. So
the wages of managers who “control” the workers should be added to
surplus value because they are “agents of capital”.
In the US data, SM applied this definition of a managerial class to
the category of ‘supervisory’ workers (19% of the workforce) i.e
workers who boss or supervise others, to be found in the official US
data. By doing so, between 15-35% of all wages that goes to supervisory
workers is then transferred to profits. When SM does that (not
surprisingly) , he finds that there has been a rising, not falling, rate
of profit in the US since 1890! This leads Mohun to the conclusion
that capitalism is really a ‘vibrant and dynamic’ mode of production,
just interspersed with the occasional crises (a much overused word, in
his opinion). And this class rate of profit is a better indicator of
crisis than the conventional one, as when it fell on three occasions, a
crisis ensued, while the conventional rate was not such a good
indicator.
I have big problems with this approach. First, I don’t accept the
thesis that ownership of the means of production is now an irrelevant
criterion for the class nature of capitalism. Marx’s original key
category for class rule still seems on the spot to me. In a past post, I
showed a recent study found that ownership through interlocking
shareholdings was key to the control of global investment (see my post,
It’s a not so funny old world, 5 November 2011). And anyway,
Marx was perfectly aware of ‘joint stock’ companies and the growing
‘arms length’ control that shareholders allowed to managers. Sure, chief
executives of the big banks and corporations have been able to get away
with huge increases in bonuses, share options etc at the expense of
shareholders. But if they eventually don’t deliver on profits,
dividends and the share price, they will find themselves out of a job
(even if it is with a large ‘golden handshake’).
Also, on SM’s workings, nearly one on five US workers are
apparently ‘agents of capital’ whose incomes are really profit. This
would include a manager or supervisor on an office floor who might have,
say, two employees to manage. Does this ‘agent of capital’ have any
say on the distribution of profits or investment in a company, on hiring
and firing, or even his own remuneration? I don’t think so. SM
recognised that his category of suprevisory workers was too large and
included people who were clearly not ‘agents of capital’. But he argued
that most of the income earned by these ‘supervisory workers’ went to
the top layers, in other words, income was skewed to the top. So
reducing the 19% to a lower figure would make little difference to the
amount to transfer from wages to profits.
Well, I have had a look at that. I think it is more likely that
just 1% of those 19% supervisory workers are really ‘agents of capital’
(the top 1% of income earners, if you like). These are the managers who
occupy the boardrooms, the CEOs and very senior management who make
decisions on behalf of the shareholders and other managers. Indeed, an
excellent study of where the top 1% of income earners get their money (J
Bakija, A Cole and Bradley Heim, Jobs and income growth of top earners,
November 2010), found that the majority of the top 1% of earners were
top executives in corporations. On Mohun’s workings, supervisory
workers are 19% of the workforce and currently receive some 35% of all
wage income (2007). That’s a ratio of about 2 to 1.
Now, according to
Piketty and Saez’s recent study of US incomes (Atkinson, Piketty and
Saez, Top incomes in the long run of history, 2011), the top 1%
of income earners took 23.5% of all income in 2007. But this includes
all income (dividends, capital gains etc) and not just income from
work. Income from work (excluding capital gains and other capital
incomes) was only one-quarter of that. So the top 1% took just 6% of
all wage income, as against 35% taken by the 19%. And if you switch
only 6% of wage income into profit, then SM’s ‘class’ rate of profit is
unlikely to be much different from the ‘conventional’ rate. Even if
this is still underestimates the proportion and 10% of that 35% went to
the top echelons, that is still less one-third of SM’s estimate.
Interestingly, SM produced a ‘conventional’ rate of profit measure
(based on current costs of fixed assets, of course! ) for the US that
totally matches mine. It showed a fall just before the current crisis
and at most key turns. It looks fine to me. Indeed, SM originally
presented this conventional rate in a paper to an earlier HM conference
(see SimonMohun-Trends). He concluded then that “US
capitalism is characterised by long secular periods of falling
profitability and long secular periods of rising profitability and
crises are associated with major turning points” (see his figure 7 in that paper). I see no need to change (or support) that view with the invention of a class rate of profit.
No comments:
Post a Comment