Kapitalisme voor beginners

by Vivek Chibber, Marina Mommerency (Translation)

Het zou een vraagstuk uit een examen wiskunde kunnen zijn: hoe lang moeten de 300.000 kassiersters van Lidl werken vooraleer ze het vermogen van hun grote baas Dieter Schwarz evenaren? Meneer Schwarz zit op een berg van 37 miljard euro. De vrouwen aan de kassa verdienen gemiddeld 1.300 euro per maand.

Zelfs wie het nieuws maar van op afstand volgt, begrijpt: de economie is een universum van haaien en jakhalzen. Maar om de vinger echt op de wonde te leggen heb je een breder kader nodig. Daarom schreef de Amerikaanse socioloog Vivek Chibber een inleiding tot het systeem dat zo dominant is dat de media het nog nauwelijks benoemen. Kapitalisme voor beginners valt uiteen in drie delen. In het eerste legt de auteur uit waarom kapitalisten en werkende mensen niet dezelfde belangen hebben. In het tweede zoomt hij in op de rol die de staat speelt in dit systeem. In het laatste focust hij op de rol van de werkende bevolking.

Miljardair Warren Buffet wist het al: ‘Klassenoorlog bestáát en mijn klasse is aan het winnen.’ Wie zich daar niet bij wil neerleggen, moet dit boek lezen.

Genres: Politics, Nonfiction, Economics, Philosophy, Class

154 pages, Paperback

First published December 1, 2018

About the author

Vivek Chibber is Professor of Sociology at New York University and the author of Postcolonial Theory and the Specter of Capital and Locked in Place: State-Building and Late Industrialization in India, which won the Barrington Moore, Jr. Prize. He has contributed to, among others, the Socialist Register, American Journal of Sociology, Boston Review and New Left Review.

Reviews

[The Neighbor · Rating 5 out of 5]

I'm not really big on reading academic texts or long dry books on history/philosophy. I found Das Kapital dry and hard to pay attention to. But that's frustrating, cause I still want to understand Capitalism. Like, how does it work? How does it affect me and the other people living under a Capitalist system? How is that different from what we had before Capitalism existed? I think these pamphlets are great for getting regular people like me to start engaging with these questions. They're short, don't get bogged down in academic jargon, and they don't shame people who live under Capitalism. It's straight up systemic analysis and critique. A+, might subscribe to Catalyst because of these.

[Anaclara · Rating 5 out of 5]

Echt een aanrader voor iedereen!!! Legt heel simpel en duidelijk het kapitalisme en de (arbeiders) strijd er tegen uit ! LEES HET

[Harry Sean · Rating 3 out of 5]

Most of us are never accustomed to reading hard-to-penetrate and tedious academic texts that are claimed to provide critical understanding of how the system works. As much as the great majority of ordinary people who are left unsatisfied with the worldview of mainstream and the haves, we never got to the point of actually understanding it. Either out of laziness or simply put, we don't have enough leisure to ponder the world of jargons because we are busy keeping ourselves afloat in water. However, with the global spread of collective resistance enters the scene, we are witnessing the masses who are disgruntled with the market society and this realizations or outrageous is never a result of years of study, it's simply a matter of intuition/experiences of those who have been deeply suffered for years and fed up with the winners. It's exemplified in the climax of Communist Manifesto which aim is a call to action and which structure is to the point. The same can be said for this pamphlet. A series of 3 pamphlet for laymen who want to understand how the Capitalism works. The work is short yet systematic and lively in its critique. And it's for any frustrated decent human.

[David · Rating 5 out of 5]

Op naar Kapitalisme voor gevorderden

[John Beynon · Rating 5 out of 5]

Damn this is good. Even if you think you know the ABCs of capitalism, read this to hone and clarify what you think you know.

[Zeke Smith · Rating 1 out of 5]

This collection of three pamphlets is issued by Jacobin magazine.

Words matter. In the French Revolution, the Jacobins were a radical petty-bourgeois faction within the mainly bourgeois forces overthrowing the old aristocracy. The French Revolution being part the world wide revolution of the capitalist mode of production replacing the feudalist mode of production. So the label "Jacobin" honestly portrays the political orientation here, which in effect is to preserve capitalism, by incremental reforms aimed to save capitalism from itself. But the real problem is capitalism, and the world needs a different solution, one of socialism replacing capitalism through revolution, and as a transition to communism.

The stated purpose on page five of pamphlet one: "Understanding Capitalism": "The problem is the system, and if we're going to do anything to make the situation better, it is important to understand how that system works." True, it is important to understand the system. But Jacobin doesn't follow through on this. In describing capitalism, they omit big pieces of the puzzle, such as internationalism, the anarchy of production, imperialism, base and superstructure, and revolution. And note that Jacobin's goal is not a cure, it's just making the situation "better," like offering some pain relief while the cancer spreads. It's a snake oil of opportunism (while quoting Lenin!) and reformism, not revolution.

Page six of pamphlet one addresses five main points summarized under these headings: "1. Capitalism isn’t just a collection of individuals, but individuals grouped in social classes." "2. Capitalists and workers have very different interests." "3. Capitalists aren’t motivated by greed but by market pressures." "4. This system creates enormous wealth but also great misery for the majority." "5. Workers can only advance if they act collectively." My initial reaction was that these points sounded good, although I noted the absence of words like "the world," "all humanity," and "imperialism." And point 5 raised the question in my mind: Act collectively for what, ultimately? Free safety glasses for all electrical workers in Springfield? Or for revolution, where one class seizes power from another, to establish socialism as a transition to communism and the elimination of the class system, the state, and all forms of exploitation and oppression? I read on. The answer to "What is capitalism?" is summarized under these headings starting on page nine: "1. All production is carried out for selling on the market, not for self-consumption." "2. The labor that goes into production is by people working for a wage." "3. Productive establishments are privately owned." All true, but with this key omission: The fundamental contradiction of capitalism, between socialized production and private appropriation, results in the anarchy of production. Recent examples of the anarchy of production: The accelerating existential threat from global warming, ongoing wars of imperialism, global economic crisis of 2008 and 2020, and inadequate material response to the world covid pandemic.

Marx and Engels defined the anarchy of production, and Bob Avakian further developed its critical significance as follows:

“It is the anarchy of capitalist production which is, in fact, the driving or motive force of this process, even though the contradiction between the bourgeoisie and proletariat [the class struggle] is an integral part of the contradiction between socialized production and private appropriation. While the exploitation of labor-power is the form by and through which surplus value is created and appropriated, it is the anarchic relations between capitalist producers, and not the mere existence of propertyless proletarians or the class contradiction as such, that drives these producers to exploit the working class on an historically more intensive and extensive scale. This motive force of anarchy is an expression of the fact that the capitalist mode of production represents the full development of commodity production and the law of value. Were it not the case that these capitalist commodity producers are separated from each other and yet linked by the operation of the law of value they would not face the same compulsion to exploit the proletariat—the class contradiction between bourgeoisie and proletariat could be mitigated. It is the inner compulsion of capital to expand which accounts for the historically unprecedented dynamism of this mode of production, a process which continually transforms value relations and which leads to crisis.” (Bob Avakian, "Fundamental and Principal Contradictions on A World Scale" Revolutionary Worker, September 17, 1982. Also quoted and discussed in “On the Driving Force of Anarchy and the Dynamics of Change” by Raymond Lotta, November 4, 2013, Revolution Newspaper, revcom.us)

More of pamphlet one’s definition of capitalism is on page 15: "The capitalist now has to do two things. First, she has to get her employees to do the work that is needed to produce the commodity she wishes to sell...the second thing the capitalist needs to do - sell the product...." followed by the section "The Pressure of Competition." True, but again a critical omission: the fundamental expand-or-die nature of the capitalism, integral to the anarchy of production. The capitalist does not just need to sell the product, she needs to sell (and thus produce) more of it than her competition, regardless of what society actually needs. On page 18 is the section "The Compulsion to Minimize Costs" which says "There are two dimensions to this. The first when she goes out to buy machines...She will choose the cheapest option...and you have to make sure that whatever inputs you get are also efficient and productive. This is the second dimension to cost reduction." Again a key omission: the economies of scale, essential in reducing cost. The bigger the assembly line, the lower the cost per unit produced. Economies of scale are a major factor in the need to always expand production and gain market share against competing capitalists, part of the expand-or-die nature of capitalism and its anarchy of production. Capitalists must constantly compete to expand markets not just locally but globally, always searching for cheaper resources and cheaper labor in the global competition of imperialism.

On page 28 there is the heading "A baseline level of insecurity is forced onto workers by capitalism, all the time, everywhere, regardless of country or region." Yes. But the discussion here omits how workers of some nations, while exploited, still benefit from exploitation of workers in other nations. Also omitted are all the other workings of imperialism. Actually, I cannot find the word imperialism anywhere! And imperialism is a key qualitative development of capitalism, not just capitalism on a larger scale. Capitalism ain’t just a grab bag of various market pressures and personal motivations. It’s an integrated and dynamic system, and through imperialism is world-wide. Capitalists either respond to the demands of that system or lose their position as capitalists. And the misery that this system creates is not just a result of a collection of market pressures but is reflected in the subordination, oppression, and exploitation of the vast majority of humanity, in particular those in the oppressed nations of the world.

Pamphlet two, "Capitalism and the State," says on page four: "We are living in a new Gilded Age, in which an immense concentration of wealth has grown together with the concentration of political power. This pamphlet analyzes the sources of state bias. We need to understand why, far from counteracting the power of capital, states tend to reinforce it. We need to recognize the structural forces that bind it to capitalist interests, even though capitalists’ small numbers should be a disadvantage in a democratic system." I was struck by the words "new Gilded Age" and "state bias." What do they mean by "bias"? The state isn't something autonomous from capitalism and just "biased" towards it. As Marx and Engels discovered, capitalism, as the mode of production, is the base. A superstructure arises from this base, and a critical part of that superstructure is the state. But Jacobin sez "...far from counteracting the power of capital, states tend to reinforce it." "Tend" to? The fact is that capitalism is the base, and the state, with its monopoly on violence, is capitalism’s enforcing power. This is inherent in its nature, not just an unfortunate tendency that can be corrected. "We need to recognize the structural forces that bind it [the state] to capitalist interests..." Again, this counters the base-superstructure analysis by treating the mode of production and the state as just two things floating around that got stuck together, and we just need to un-bind them from each other and then things will be ok. In the statement "... capitalists’ small numbers should be a disadvantage in a democratic system." the "democracy" here is actually part of the very superstructure of the capitalist mode of production. They are invoking "democracy" without talking about the class basis of that democracy! This statement is a reformist thing about if we can just get the state separated enough from capitalism, and make things more democratic, then we'll get out of this "new Gilded Age" and back to business as usual (more capitalism, with some reforms) and things will be better some.

In the midst of this pamphlet two there is this one lone sentence on page 30: “To truly enable full participation in the decisions that affect us all it will be necessary to go beyond capitalism.” This is the only place in these pamphlets I can find this urgent world-important need stated. And it leaves me hanging. What is to be done to “go beyond capitalism”? And why should we limit the goal to “full participation”? What about the emancipation of all humanity? The rest of pamphlet two is about the mechanics of the labor struggle, which is fine, but it is all in terms of reform, and not revolution, not ending capitalism. Again, no. All righteous struggles need to be in the context of: The world is a horror, it needs revolution, which is when one class seizes power from another, and establishes its own state to serve its own class interests and the socialist mode of production, as a transition to communism with the ultimate abolition of the class system, the state, and all forms of exploitation and oppression.

Pamphlet three, "Capitalism and Class Struggle": Page four gives the approach: "The reason working-class struggles are central to Left politics is that they are the enabling condition for everything else. They create the power and the political leverage that enables us to act on our morals and ideological beliefs — whereas the morals and values without the leverage remain little more than pipedreams. In this third pamphlet, we develop the classic rationale for a class-based political strategy." This is bass-ackwards. Political line ("morals and ideological beliefs") is what is decisive ("the enabling condition for everything else"). Political line is the map being updated along the way and guiding the struggle. It is produced by the theory/practice/theory dynamic in an ongoing process of knowing and changing the world. We need to know where we are, where we’re going, and how to get there. Jacobin instead basically advocates for opportunism, that is, focusing narrowly on getting short term political gains from various situations in order to obtain immediate influence and approval, as opposed to approaching situations with the purpose of winning people over to a principled position and increasing their political understanding. This opportunism goes hand in hand with reformism, as opposed to revolution.

On page 10 of pamphlet three: "As Lenin famously insisted, the labor movement can't hive itself off from other dominated groups as if it were a simple interest group. He insisted that it had to be a ‘tribune of the people’… [fighting] oppression, no matter where it appears, no matter what stratum or class of the people it affects.” Actually, what Lenin said here (See page 100 of What Is to Be Done? V. I. Lenin, Foreign Languages Press, Pekin, 1978) is not just the labor movement but all socialists need to be tribunes of the people. He then went on to contrast the methods of union leader Robert Knight with those of Social-Democrat party leader Wilhelm Liebknecht, to illustrate Lenin’s ongoing criticism of opportunism. And in the conclusion of “What Is to Be Done?” (page 225) Lenin states the need not just for a labor movement but, primarily, for a vanguard revolutionary party:

“It was not so much the downright rejection of ‘the grand phrases’ that the heroes of this period engaged as in their vulgarization: scientific socialism ceased to be an integral revolutionary theory and became a hodgepodge ‘freely’ diluted with the contents of every new German textbook that appeared; the slogan ‘class struggle’ did not impel them forward to wider and more strenuous activity but served as a soothing syrup, because the ‘economic struggle is inseparably linked up with the political struggle’; the idea of a party did not serve as a call for the creation of a militant organization of revolutionaries, but was used to justify some sort of a ‘revolutionary bureaucracy’ and infantile at playing at ‘democratic’ forms.”

In fact, the quote above is exactly opposed to Jacobin’s overall approach!

Page 14 of pamphlet three: “The fact that workers have an interest in organizing themselves, and that they are also pretty well-positioned to carry it out, led innumerable commentators over the last 150 years to predict that capitalism's days were numbered…There was a workers’ revolution in Russia in 1905, and then again in 1917, massive labor uprisings in Germany and Austria in 1918, and Italian factories in 1920, then again in Germany in 1923, Shanghai in 1927-28, and then, after the Great Depression, another massive wave of strikes and organizing all over the Western World, culminating in the Spanish Civil War in 1936.” Incredibly, the Russian Revolution (October) is omitted. Also the Paris Commune. And the Chinese Communist Revolution. Actual revolution has been written out, ruled out, by Jacobin!

Jacobin does not understand capitalism, and so does not have a cure for it. For an exposition of what capitalism really is, and the “what is to be done” about it, I recommend Bob Avakian’s recent book “The New Communism.” It has proved invaluable to me, including in informing my critique of Jacobin’s ABC’s.

[Zain Bin Amjad · Rating 5 out of 5]

Brilliant overview of how our modern world is working. I think it's an essential and easy read which clearly lays out what capitalism is and how a socialist model would work to counter it.

[Adam · Rating 3 out of 5]

This three-part series uses accessible language and clear argumentation. The first, "Understanding Capitalism" may be a bit too simplistic. I thought the second, "Capitalism and the State," was particularly good. It's great to have all of these ideas so succinctly summarized. I wish I could have read these years ago so that I would have had firmer foundational understanding before I tackled more difficult material in school.

[Trevor · Rating 3 out of 5]

This text would be useful to provide an alternate viewpoint in an Econ 101 class but really nothing more. The gist of the three pamphlets is as follows, A) the system of capitalism inherently involves maximization of profits, which can only be attained by producing more/better products and paying labor less. Capital reaps the profits, labor does what they must to survive, and as such there is a power disparity. B) The State cannot protect against Capitalism as it is dependent upon Capital to fund political campaigns and therefore the wealthy are predominantly at the helm of policy making with the goal of further entrenching Capital's interests. C) The only way to break the system is for the working class to collectively organize.

I don't necessarily disagree with any of those points, but like an Econ 101 class, upon further inspection and a greater understanding of the economy, parts of this work simply require a much greater nuance or are simply not applicable in many situations. The most notable eye roll comes early in Part A when Chibber laments people "losing their access to means of production" which in his mind entails people growing their own food, making their own clothes, and producing their own articles of consumption. This is subsistence living, and I'm not sure this is the basis for a 21st century society where the masses' needs are met.

A similar lack of understanding of the modern (American) economy comes in Part C. Chibber frequently refers to a working class, but there is no breakdown of what he means. Based off his writing one is inclined to see this a folks making physical objects in factories, an industrial base of workers. That is not the modern American economy, and in his accounting of labor movements' success (and then lack thereof) in the 20th century, anyone who understands the rapid postwar Industrialism of America and subsequent offshoring and automation in the 70s and 80s can see why movements began to fail. He does not even mention the trends and changes in the broader economy. He bases his entire argument off this practically non-existent goods-producing working class, a class that doesn't exist today in the same capacity that it did.

All that to say there are broadly good points and is a solid jumping off point for examining Capitalism, but falls apart upon further scrutiny.

[Andrew Smith · Rating 1 out of 5]

This collection is very limited in value for understanding capitalism. Chibber appropriates many Marxist concepts to make a straightforward exposition of how our economic system works. And I think there are some valuable and indeed original passages: for instance, about how under capitalism wages are determined by the market, and not by what workers need. However, it is an anti-revolutionary book, and ultimately offers a theory that leads us back to the status quo. That's his pro-capitalist political commitment at the end of the day. It is the path of the historic 2nd International, and the revolutionary movement knows better, ever since Rosa Luxemburg's crucial analysis of reform and revolution. Long live the Revolution! Down with Chibber and all Kautskyists!

[Greg · Rating 4 out of 5]

Solid introduction to the problems of Capitalism as they relate to the everyday struggles of working people. Helps to connect why the state is fundamentally biased towards the wealthy and why workers have to work collectively to effectively balance the power struggle between employer and employee. It's explained why this balancing is necessary to establishing a state that's at least neutral, if not in favor of, policy directed to help the poor and not the wealthy.

[Robin P · Rating 5 out of 5]

Insightful.

[Killian · Rating 4 out of 5]

Clear, concise, accessible introduction to capitalism and the fundamentally unfair logic that governs it, which, near the end of the essay, he very effectively characterizes as follows:

"The basic set-up of capitalism is simple — you show up for work every day, work hard, and do what you’re told. The promise is that if you abide by these rules, you will be rewarded with the good life. And this promise is based on a very simple premise — that there is a link between effort and reward. If you work hard, the hard work will pay off. But the secret to capitalism is that there is no reliable connection between effort and reword. The people who work in nursing homes, or fast food, or Amazon ware- houses, or in hotel kitchens — they create massive profits for their employers. But they not only see very little of it in their wages, they also have to deal with chronic job insecurity and terrible hours. They are playing by the rules. But the rewards are going to the employer, not to them. This is a basic fact about capitalism, and it is built into the system. It is the natural condition of an economic system in which the bulk of the population is given a simple choice — 'work for what we offer you, or go without a job'. What determines people’s economic fate in capitalism is not their effort, but their power. And employers always have more power than workers" (p. 37).

[Dylan Campana · Rating 4 out of 5]

For anyone curious about leftist critique of capitalism, or if you just want a refresher on capitalist relations with our economy, state, and how to organize against it, ABCS of Capitalism is the text for you. It goes over the fundamentals of capitalism and explores why the capitalist and working class function in the way they do in the present. It continues to explain how capitalism captures the interests of the state and how to reclaim the state from capitalist interests. Finally it explores how unions and working class parties in tandem can start the march towards socialism. Ultimately, I appreciated how straightforward Chibber explains capitalism, and I believe his delivery and style is something we should all strive for in our conversations and writings, for he is clear, concise, and free of overt jargon in his writing. However, I do believe there is a lack of nuance and historical context when he makes his characterizations of capitalism that I believe would make this text a stronger tool for allowing us to understand American society. Furthermore, this novel is clearly not written for a ML perspective in terms of how we should approach revolution and leans more towards the Nordic model. I have a bias in reading this since I took his class on American Capitalism and he goes much more in depth than these short pamphlets but nonetheless it is definitely worth reading.

[Viktor · Rating 3 out of 5]

The book contains three pamphlets written by Vivek Chibber, which present how the capitalistic society operates and what are the consequences from this operational mode. The texts are very short and straightforward, making the book very accessible to people without much time or previous knowledge in the field of economics. This would be a great read for someone who wants to understand: what class struggle is and why the capitalist is empowered by it, how the capitalist system reproduces itself, why workers should act collectively to defend their interests, why politicians are biased to serve capitalist's interests and so on. Surprisingly, this means that a lot of readers can learn from the book.

On the contrary, while I enjoyed the read, I don't think it provides any interesting or exciting ideas to people who have build sufficient knowledge in the field.

[Greg Legore · Rating 4 out of 5]

Solid summary and critique of capitalism, with discussion of key aspects of capitalism which are assumed to be true but are not (from the perspective of the author) actually true. Read this if you want to understand why and how many people, especially those who are anti-capitalist, think about the US economic system. You'll have a basis to discuss the topic with them and might, if you have an open mind, learn something

[lukas · Rating 4 out of 5]

3,5/5 -A very basic but concise introduction to class distinctions, the role of the state in capitalism and the necessity of class politics for all emancipatory struggles that is definitely worth reading and eye-opening for people who haven't had much exposure to Marxist thought yet. Unfortunately, Vivek's essays lack perspectives that transcend the constraints of capitalism, and therefore presents an optimistic case for social democracy and mediated capitalism at best.

[Michael · Rating 4 out of 5]

A solid primer that does what it says on the cover(s). Maybe not radical enough for the taste of some on the left, but certainly a good starting point to recommend for liberals and conservatives struggling to understand why life seems to be getting more chaotic and bad for the masses of people, what capitalism has to do with it, and what is to be done.

[Puck · Rating 3 out of 5]

3.5 stars

This is a great and simple introduction to how capitalism works and how people can respond to it. If I read this a couple years ago it would have been immensely helpful, but its usefulness for more well versed readers is certainly not as big. Highly recommended to anyone concerned about our hellish situation and that doesn't know where to start.

[Nick Brown · Rating 4 out of 5]

A pretty good series of pamphlets explaining capitalism (through a Marxist lens) and how to push back against the ills of capitalism. Would be a good primer for anyone interested in exploring socialist ideas and worker solidarity.

[Stijn De Waele · Rating 3 out of 5]

Inderdaad het ABC van het kapitalisme (wat dat betreft is de titel niet in het minst overdreven), maar tegelijk ook een pamflet er tegen. Het zal van uw politieke voorkeuren afhangen of u dat weet te appreciëren.

[Liesbeth Coeckelbergh · Rating 4 out of 5]

Good book to understand the basics indeed. Repeats himself quite often and sometimes a bit shortsighted concerning how capitalisl has affected us. Doesn't take in account why capitalism has captivated us so strongly

[Minimallyme_ · Rating 5 out of 5]

I think this book does a good job in breaking down how capitalism works and how workers and capitalists operate within it in an easy to read < 45 page pamphlet. I’m not a fast reader and was able to finish it within a few hours. I’m excited to get through the next few pamphlets this weekend.

[Francisco van Jole]

Las de Nederlandse vertaling ‘Kapitalisme voor beginners’ maar het is meer Marxisme voor beginners.

[Misch · Rating 5 out of 5]

Very basic but you gotta start somewhere. Great primer on understanding capitalism or why you hate your job.

[Michael Westbrook · Rating 5 out of 5]

A straight forward explanation of how Capitalism works, how it affects the State, and how to change it with a focus on strengthening the labor movement. Definitely would recommend.

[Gabriel · Rating 5 out of 5]

excellent for real militants.

[Matthew · Rating 3 out of 5]

“C. Capitalism and Class Struggle” is the strongest section.

[Anaïs · Rating 5 out of 5]

YASSS PURRRR SLAY HUNTY MAMA QUEEN GIRLBOSS YOU ATE THIS SHIT UP WERK IT GIRL 😛😋😛🤪😜💅💅

[Luke · Rating 3 out of 5]

Simple and to the point.
As someone who studies politics and critic of capitalism this book is slightly underwhelming as many of the things in it are previous knowledge to me. However to those who would like to jump into this from an interest and little political knowledge, I would recommend. I recommend the ABCs of socialism to go with this leaflet.