
A review of Thomas Piketty’s “Capital and Ideology” - fanf2
http://bostonreview.net/class-inequality/marshall-steinbaum-thomas-piketty-takes-ideology-inequality
======
bisRepetita
I am reading Capital & Idelogy currently. I find interesting how Piketty
challenges the view of property rights. Many think it is something completely
natural, sacred. But he shows it is actually ideology. It is not "the nature
of things".

As I understand it in the book, property is not, and should not be seen as, a
100% inalienable human right. If it was so, it would be completely fair that
slave-owners in Haiti and Santo Domingo were paid to forego slavery, when
slavery was abolished. It was seen as a compensation for this new law that
reduced the value of their property: slaves. Of course, slaves themselves were
not compensated. Since they were the main beneficiaries of this new law, they
actually had to pay for it in some cases. This is actually what happened.

In the USA, there were discussions about a similar outcome, but the sheer
enormity of the needed compensation made it impossible This was one big reason
that lead to the civil war.

This is the kind of weird, morally unacceptable reasoning about property
rights that you will run into if you accept property as a all-powerful,
unconstestable principle.

~~~
refurb
Of course property rights are ideology. Anything to do with society and how
it's organized is ideological.

I think we ended up with private property because the alternatives have been
tried and they are worse (e.g. tragedy of the commons).

~~~
bisRepetita
>I think we ended up with private property because the alternatives have been
tried and they are worse (e.g. tragedy of the commons)

I don't thinl it is all or nothing. Private property is overall a very good
idea and principle, and Piketty says that too. But when someone sees property
it as inalienable right, at any level, is a problem.

For example, if one person talks about a tax based on wealth, two people can
have a healthy disagreement, and discuss how to implement.

But when someone does not event want to consider it... because it would
supposedly bring us back to communism dark ages, that is basic ideology in
action, not rational thinking.

~~~
mytailorisrich
I think that the idea of private property as an inalienable right is rooted in
the enlightenment and on the same level as human rights.

It is to protect individuals against spoliation by the state or powerful, and
even to assert an even more basic right to own property at all. It obviously
does not mean that property cannot be taken away from its owner but that this
must follow a fair and lawful process.

~~~
TheOtherHobbes
The Enlightenment never really worked this through. In fact modern economics
hijacks a lot of humanist rhetoric (including the idea of rationality and
human rights) and glues it rather awkwardly onto concepts that are actually
derived from monarchy - specifically individual sovereignty, and a kind of
individualised version of divine right which elevates unlimited individual
economic freedom-to-profit as the highest possible good.

It's actually a bit of a mess, conceptually and practically.

Property is really not a simple concept. Most people think of it as "Stuff I
own" which reduces the argument to "I don't want the government stealing my
house or my furniture," which sounds trivially obvious.

In fact _all_ claims on property are complex - see also IP, stocks, and so on
- and personal ownership is always a trade-off between individual benefits and
socialised/externalised costs. This doesn't just apply to extreme situations
like a war economy, or impounding the proceeds of crime - it's inherent in the
practice itself.

You won't find much about that in orthodox economics.

~~~
atlih
Taxes are derived from monarchy as well.

------
geodel
" “the Democratic Party in the United States transitioned over half a century
from the workers’ party to the party of the highly educated.” Elites’ distance
from working-class interest, he contends, led the Democratic party and its
ideological counterparts abroad to accede to a policy program betraying the
values of social democracy: regressive taxation, elite domination of higher
education systems, and forms of globalization that enabled the wealthy to hide
their assets from tax authorities and trade agreements that facilitated
outsourcing. "

This is great point. I see this on social media commentary all the time and
wonder if educated elites being merely oblivious or totally asshole about
working class concerns.

~~~
hkmurakami
One thing to remember is that everyone thinks they're "middle class".

Even the corporate VP making half a million dollars thinks she's middle class.

~~~
frant-hartm
If you stop working an can't live off your savings indefinitely you are middle
class by definition.

~~~
refurb
So if I'm clearing $750K per year but spending it all on my home in Manhattan,
private school for my kids and 4 weeks of international vacations per year I'm
middle class?

------
throw0101a
Paul Krugman's review:

* [https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/08/books/review/capital-and-...](https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/08/books/review/capital-and-ideology-thomas-piketty.html)

Krugman liked Piketty's previous book ( _Captail-21C_ ), but concluded this
one needed some more editing:

> _The bottom line: I really wanted to like “Capital and Ideology,” but have
> to acknowledge that it’s something of a letdown. There are interesting ideas
> and analyses scattered through the book, but they get lost in the sheer
> volume of dubiously related material. In the end, I’m not even sure what the
> book’s message is. That can’t be a good thing._

~~~
pradn
I once went to a talk by Nassim Nicholas Taleb after the publication of his
"Skin in the Game". He said the way to make a book last is to stuff it full of
ideas, stories, and wander around. A focused book doesn't last. Take it as you
will.

~~~
LargeWu
Well, that is certainly Taleb's approach. His books do contain some good
ideas, but they are wildly unfocused and borderline unreadable.

~~~
kneel
Taleb is a horrible writer, plain and simple.

Attempted to read antifragile and was hit with a wall of incomprehensible
jargon. The thesis of the book seemed appealing but he's too abstract, smells
like a hack.

------
scythe
I think Piketty makes some good points.

But I still think any account of the woeful separation between the Democratic
Party and the common people which ignores the rise of the pro-life movement
has to be incomplete. Piketty thus misrepresents those who are concerned about
the prevalence of destructive beliefs among the working class:

>“The problem” with the story of a bottom-up defection “is not just that it
depends on the notion that the disadvantaged classes are by their very essence
permanently racist...”

But racism, while extant, is _not_ the most significant ideological issue that
separates the elites from the working class, nor can it reasonably explain
their disagreements with Democrat policy -- current anti-racist policy is
laughably weak, and elites are not consistently anti-racist. That award must
certainly go to _religion_ , not racism.

That an elite who bemoans the disconnection between the elites and the working
class could write a book about ideology which largely ignores the
_predominant_ ideology among the working class in Western countries is
painfully ironic. Ignore this correlation at your peril:

[https://www.pewresearch.org/wp-
content/uploads/2018/11/FT_18...](https://www.pewresearch.org/wp-
content/uploads/2018/11/FT_18.11.07_howFaithfulVoted_vote-for-House2.png)

One could argue, of course, that the pro-life movement has been cultivated and
manipulated for the benefit of capital. But it would be better to _actually
write_ the argument. Such a key step should not be left as an exercise to the
reader.

~~~
charlescearl
It has always been hard to reconcile the rhetoric that labels the “Democrats”
as “elites” who are against the “working class” or “under class”. Especially
as the grandson of sharecroppers and “maids” and a relative of many other
Black folk who would, in terms of wealth and household income, be in the
“underclass”. As an exercise, started reading the French edition — I guess
even poor Black folk can be “elites”

------
lliamander
I was watching a documentary[1] about Sweden's shift away from social
democracy in the 70's/80's time-frame that Piketty talks about.

From the way it sounds, the program of social democracy nearly destroyed the
country. I would take Piketty's nostalgia for those times with a grain of
salt.

[1][https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QcX6BUZlEw4](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QcX6BUZlEw4)

~~~
fulafel
Tl;dw documentary, but that's not a very common interpretation. That was the
time when the nordic countries built their succesful system that's in place
today and is widely held in high regard.

~~~
mongol
There can be too much of everything and there was too much of "social
democracy" in the 70s. Author Astrid Lindgren had to pay more than 100 % tax
and wrote the "childrens story" / opinion piece "Pomperipossa in Monismania"

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pomperipossa_in_Monismania](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pomperipossa_in_Monismania)

Next election the social democrats lost it for the first time in 40 years.

~~~
naravara
That doesn't sound like "too much Social Democracy" so much as a badly
designed law that had a weird edge case.

~~~
mongol
It is not proof in itself, far from it, but it was very debated at the time as
indication of social democracy having gone to far. The fact remains, social
democrats lost power at this time. However the new ruling parties were unable
to reform properly. True reform only started to happen about 10 years later,
in the mid 1980s or so. Johan Norberg in the documentary mentions the (social
democratic) finance minister Kjell-Olof Feldt as influencal in bringing change
about. I agree with that.

Sweden today is very different from the 70s, politically.

~~~
jabl
AFAIU Norberg is pretty far right [1] in Sweden, so not exactly how people
there generally think.

[1] Not far right as in Nazism, but as in pro capitalism, state intervention
is communism (boo hiss!).

------
cwperkins
If anyone enjoys reading about income inequality, I also recommend Joseph
Stiglitz' book called "The Price of Inequality". He speaks of inequality more
from an American perspective and he's one of the thought leaders I personally
like to hear from.

I am a staunch Capitalist and I'd like to see another great era of America
ingenuity and invention. I think the path to solve inequality comes from
creating wealth and solving big global issues in energy, health and
transportation.

------
claudiawerner
Although I haven't read _Captial and Ideology_ , Piketty seems to be situated
in a weird place, as I gathered by his previous book. He isn't critical of
capitalism _as such_ [0] - as economists like Sen, Roemer, Kliman and
Veneziani are, but on the other hand he is aware of the transparent
ideological forces which shape the way we view the economy and capital. The
content of this book, between social, historical and economic axes seems
closer to Marx than Samuelson - and it's refreshing in a climate that seems to
take the concepts under investigation for granted. I look forward to reading
it.

[0] There is a debate between Piketty and Marx-leaning philosopher/economist
Frederic Lordon in French:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dDY3aczWOd0](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dDY3aczWOd0)

~~~
bart_spoon
> Piketty seems to be situated in a weird place, as I gathered by his previous
> book. He isn't critical of capitalism as such[0] - as economists like Sen,
> Roemer, Kliman and Veneziani are, but on the other hand he is aware of the
> transparent ideological forces which shape the way we view the economy and
> capital.

That weird place is simply social democracy. It seems to be unpopular because
it is essentially the "centrism" of the capitalism/socialism debate, and
everyone hates centrists these days.

~~~
claudiawerner
I think that's an overly generous characterization of social democracy - it
only dodges the critique from right-libertarians concerning property, taxes
and the role of government, and it dodges the critique from left-libertarians
on capital, alienation and social domination.

It's much easier (and more historically accurate) to see social democracy,
socialism and capitalism on the same axis, and not to think that social
democracy transcends all hitherto established political and economic thought
by The Right Choice as if by default.

------
atlih
Sounds like a call for the emperors new monarchy. Robin Hood "stole" back
money that the monarchy had excessively taxed and "gave" it to the poor.

------
dorchadas
I'm currently working my way through _Capital in the Twenty-First Century_.
It's been really eye-opening about how bad inequality actually is. I suggest
everyone read it, and I'm excited to read his new one soon after.

~~~
hardtke
The thing I took away from Capital in the Twenty-First Century was his
conjecture that the post-WWII (until about 1990) period was one of the few
times in history that prosperity was widely shared with workers. The era that
I consider to be normal (since I lived it) is in fact very abnormal.

~~~
_0ffh
Yeah, I realised that too at some point. And I immediately formed a (maybe
obvious) hypothesis about the timing.

~~~
bart_spoon
I'm assuming you don't mean communism? Because even in the book he is fairly
down on communism/socialism. It seemed to me the more likely (and unpleasant)
hypothesis is that war/nationalism generates growth like nothing else. When
the threat of war looms and patriotism is high, government investment in
technology and society is also high, and corporations are more likely to be
invested in their home country rather than spreading across international
boundaries looking for the best ROI. And the rapid succession of WWI/WWII/Cold
War basically ensured that environment existed for decades.

~~~
_0ffh
Somewhat. The hypothesis was that the end of the cold war meant that a big
incentive to make the common people in the west feel good about their
affiliation suddenly vanished. Competition is good for the customer, after
all.

------
defterGoose
We need only believe in the possibility of a better, different future to act.
We need only act to manifest it.

Go vote. Go work on things that truly matter.

Edit: If you have ideological differences please consider posting a reply
rather than just downvoting.

~~~
worik
Good advice.

But in the face of power imbalances ineffective.

~~~
defterGoose
Sadly true. Guess it's war then?

~~~
orthecreedence
I've been very interested lately in dual power as an alternative to both
voting in a system where governments are captured agencies and also bloody
revolution.

In effect, forming a network that _bypasses_ the current powers until they
disappear.

~~~
viklove
You don't have to bypass the current powers, you just have to dilute them
sufficiently. Currency is just a coupon you spend to redeem on human
productive output (goods and services). Since the wealthy have most of the
currency, they decide to "spend" human productive output on making them
wealthier.

Billionaires shouldn't unilaterally decide how society spends its human
productive output, that should be a decision society as a whole gets to make.
How do you accomplish this? Universal basic income would dilute billionaire's
ability to control how human productive output is spent, and instead, society
as a whole would get to make that decision.

Inflation caused by UBI only hurts one class of people -- billionaires.
Everyone else ends up better off, and has more of a say on the direction of
human civilization.

------
worik
What is your definition of capitalism?

------
clairity
> "[hyper-capitalism] is defined by unlimited international capital mobility
> to evade regulation and taxation at the national level, alongside definite
> limits on the ability of labor to act in the same autonomous way."

such inequities imbalance the power between labor and capital, which then
destabilizes the social structures resting on these economic (and political)
foundations. power is a highly dynamic, and as a result, a highly
destabilizing force. no (static) socioeconomic idealogy (that we've come up
with so far) can dominate it, not even capitalism.

and that means we can never truly rest in our vigilence to create and retain
the properity, peace and stability that we enjoy only fleetingly.

the balance between labor and capital has tipped wildly and we need to enact
measures--progressive and dynamic taxes/tariffs, both removing and enacting
regulations, de-monopolizing markets, etc.--to bring it back into balance.

~~~
specialist
I'd like all belligerants to pick a target Gini Coefficient number. Then we
manage to that number. Whoever is in power will push the balance towards their
number.

I'm just so exhausted by all the rhetoric, kabuki, ideology, dogma,
propaganda. Arguing about the placement of the deck chairs as the Titanic
sinks.

~~~
refurb
Gini coefficient is a very blunt measure of inequality. You could have two
countries, one with more equality, but a lower standard of living for the
middle class and one country with higher inequality, but a much better
standard of living for the middle class.

The 2nd (with higher inequality) is obviously preferred.

~~~
specialist
Krugman agrees with you. What's a better measure?

~~~
refurb
That's a tough question. Like most things that are complex, there is probably
no one measure that accurately captures inequality.

What would make sense to me would be measuring the wealth of the majority of
the population (3 middle quintiles) and then bringing up the bottom quintile
to an acceptable level with transfer payments.

That reminds me as well, a lot of the inequality measures that you see
_ignore_ government transfers. So yes, the Gini would measure employment
income, but it's not an accurate picture of actual income at the end of the
year.

~~~
specialist
FWIW, geek me would be ok with a basket of measures. Life expectancy, average
weight & height, purchasing power, savings rate. I'm just hoping to find
reasonably simple metrics which are least wrong proxies for larger concerns.

------
0x262d
It's worth noting that Piketty has an astonishingly basic
misunderstanding/non-understanding of the marxist analysis of capitalism
despite the titles of his books. He hasn't even read Capital. I like his
politics relatively well as far as most liberals go but that is still pretty
disappointing.

“What I mean,” Piketty says, explaining his differences with Marx, “is that
your class position is not enough to determine your view of what’s the best
system of property, education, taxation. We need ideas and ideologies and we
need to take them seriously.” (Guardian in Feb). However, that is a trivially
wrong mischaracterization. Marx himself was from a relatively privileged
background and he, Engels, Lenin, etc have never argued for a mechanical
determination of ideology.

In general I think his analysis is that "capitalism should just change some
specific things to reduce inequality" without any materialist, political-
economic understanding of why inequality is so rampant in the first place -
why capital's dominance comes from the structure of the economy. That is why
marxism is interesting, marxism makes a very compelling argument for it, and
liberals ignore it at their peril.

~~~
leftyted
> It's worth noting that Piketty has an astonishingly basic
> misunderstanding/non-understanding of the marxist analysis of capitalism
> despite the titles of his books. He hasn't even read Capital. I like his
> politics relatively well as far as most liberals go but that is still pretty
> disappointing.

Economists use the word "capital" without making reference to Marx. Marx
didn't come up with that word, it had a meaning in classical economics since
Adam Smith (and maybe before).

I think the rest of your post is wrong too. Marx does argue for a "mechanical
determination of ideology". For Marx, man is the animal that labors, not a
rational animal or a political animal. What matters is what you make with your
body. If you labor with your body then you're a proletarian, and you will
experience class consciousness from that perspective. If you make money from
other people's labor, you're bourgeois, and you will experience bourgeois
class consciousness.

I don't know if Marx talks about bourgeois who consider themselves Marxists
(like Engels -- Marx was not bourgeois).

> In general I think his analysis is that "capitalism should just change some
> specific things to reduce inequality" without any materialist, political-
> economic understanding of why inequality is so rampant in the first place -
> why capital's dominance comes from the structure of the economy. That is why
> marxism is interesting, marxism makes a very compelling argument for it, and
> liberals ignore it at their peril.

This is also bizarre. Piketty _does_ have a theory about "why inequality is so
rampant in the first place". He just thinks we can change the laws and fix it!

~~~
dopu
> Economists use the word "capital" without making reference to Marx. Marx
> didn't come up with that word, it had a meaning in classical economics since
> Adam Smith (and maybe before).

How does this refute OP's point? They're really just pointing out how absurd
it is that a study on wealth inequality and class fails to even consider the
Marxist perspective. Genuine scholarly negligence.

> This is also bizarre. Piketty does have a theory about "why inequality is so
> rampant in the first place". He just thinks we can change the laws and fix
> it!

OP isn't arguing that Piketty has no theory -- just that it's a pretty naive
one. A Marxist perspective understands that "changing the laws to fix it" is
not enough. The state is dependent on the bourgeoisie for its survival (see
[0]), and will thus bend to their demands. So long as we have no organized and
militant labor movements (and labor parties to represent them), the working
class will have neither leverage over the state nor the means to enact their
demands.

[0]:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marx%27s_theory_of_the_state#T...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marx%27s_theory_of_the_state#The_Communist_Manifesto_and_The_German_Ideology)

~~~
leftyted
> How does this refute OP's point? They're really just pointing out how absurd
> it is that a study on wealth inequality and class fails to even consider the
> Marxist perspective. Genuine scholarly negligence.

I don't know how to break this to you...but you not everyone accepts the
Marxian viewpoint. It's utterly bizarre to speak of "genuine scholarly
negligence" when you mean "difference of opinion".

> OP isn't arguing that Piketty has no theory -- just that it's a pretty naive
> one. A Marxist perspective understands that "changing the laws to fix it" is
> not enough.

Right, and Piketty says it is. You (and the original poster) have a serious
problem distinguishing between _disagreement_ and _being wrong_.

