Introduction

Conservatives and pro-capitalist investment bros invariably equate Marxism with oppressive state capitalism. They take a tiny document written in 1848 and intended for a specific purpose at a specific time and use it to put all socailists into a Pol Pot box. They ignore the volumes of research and understanding that not only Marx but other economists have learned since that time. Why? Its all about the money. Specifically transfer of wealth from your pockets to theirs. If they cannot keep the lie going their grift is over.

When I first started reading about Marxism, I was skeptical. I thought yea, just more banal propaganda designed to rope morons into doing someone’s bidding. I am not alone in that point of view. In the United States we are conditioned from birth to avoid anything that even remotely smacks of communism or socialism. Consequently we get the narrative that our capitalist government wants us to get, and even though the truth is out there most people are afraid to look.

When I finally did take a look, and started reading the OG literature, I was shocked at how well informed Marx, Engels, and Lenin were on the intricacies of markets, money, capital and business. These people were no light weights and sometimes it is daunting to read them, but well worth the effort. The narrative that communists don’t understand economics is patently absurd once you start looking into it. They understand it better than most CEO’s and probably better than the senior staff on the Federal Reserve if the recent interview with the FED chair, who could not explain why if we print money we have to borrow that money and pay it back with interest, is any indication of the level of economic illiteracy our senior leadership suffers from in this country.

Because the goal of capitalism is to maximize profit, and out compete everyone else, this gives natural rise to the destruction of the free market as the whales gobble up the gold fish. Because labor is forced to negotiate with fewer and fewer capitalists and because capitalists are motivated to maximize profits this leads to ever increasing exploitation. Further only the most efficient businesses thrive and this comes largely by process improvements which leverage automation and minimize the value of labor. Eventually you end up with a few ultra rich, ultra powerful people and a whole plethora of starving unemployed or exploited masses.

At this point you have no market, because everyone is broke and can’t afford to buy the things you hire them to create assuming you have not replaced them with robots. Capitalism then becomes imperialistic and sheds it’s kinder gentler face in favor of a more Fascist approach to securing the well being of a tiny few at the expense of the many. We are already seeing this in our politics today. Capitalism has been likened to an ouroboros, or a snake that eats it’s own tail. And this is what Marxists are talking about when they say that capitalism embeds a contradiction that ensures it’s own demise.

This is a phenomena not unique to capitalism, but exists in any system that rewards individualism. For example if you are familiar with multi player games like Ark. You can see this played out on public servers. It takes a certain kind of mind set to be happy on a server where everyone is trying to kill you. Some like it and most don’t. Eventually the server becomes controlled by a single faction, and then the server is considered stale. Even the controlling faction loses interest because there is nothing left to do and the server is abandoned.

The world is full of people who want to live, laugh and love, but capitalism rewards those who subscribe to the philosophy that the best thing in life is to “crush your enemy, see them driven before you and to hear the lamentation of the women” – Conan the barbarian. When capitalism finally burns down Marx posits that there are two outcomes. In outcome one, there is nothing left standing and the world lies in ruins. In outcome two, a workers revolution saves the world from the inevitable destruction that capitalism will bring.

Individualism vs Individuality vs Collectivism

Marxists, socialists, and communists however focus on delivering the basic needs at the lower levels of Maslow’s hierarchy to the greatest number of people they can. Marxists have been accused of suppressing access to the higher parts of the hierarchy and preventing self actualization because they eschew individualism in favor of collectivism. This is however an invalid accusation borne of a failure to understand the difference between individuality and individualism.

Individualism vs Individuality

Individualism is a social and political philosophy or ideology that emphasizes the importance of the individual over the collective. It advocates for the rights and freedoms of individuals and often promotes self-reliance, personal autonomy, and independence.

It’s often discussed in the context of societal and political systems. For example, individualism might be a foundational principle in certain democratic or capitalist systems, where personal freedom and private ownership are highly valued.

The focus is on the individual’s right to make choices and pursue their own goals, sometimes even at the expense of collective norms or societal needs. Individualism can sometimes be associated with a belief in minimal government intervention and the idea that individuals should be responsible for their own success.

Individuality refers to the qualities and characteristics that make a person distinct from others. It’s about the uniqueness of an individual and their personal identity, including their thoughts, preferences, and experiences.

Individuality is more about personal attributes and self-expression. It’s concerned with how a person differentiates themselves from others in terms of their personality, interests, and behaviors.

The focus is on the internal aspects of a person that define who they are. Celebrating individuality might involve encouraging people to express their unique selves and embrace their personal differences rather than conforming to a group identity.

In essence, individualism is a concept related to how society should be organized around the rights and freedoms of individuals, while individuality is about the unique personal identity and attributes of each person.

Individualism vs Collectivism

Individualism and collectivism are two contrasting cultural orientations that shape how people perceive themselves and interact with others. Here’s a breakdown of their key differences:

Individualism emphasizes the importance of personal freedom, self-reliance, and individual rights. It values personal goals and achievements over group goals.

Key Characteristics:

• Self-Identity: People define themselves based on personal attributes and achievements rather than their relationships or social roles.
• Autonomy: Individuals are encouraged to make their own choices and decisions.
• Personal Responsibility: Success and failure are seen as a result of individual effort and choices.
• Social Relations: Relationships are often more voluntary and based on mutual benefit rather than obligation.
• Cultural Examples: The United States, Australia, and many Western European countries are often cited as examples of individualistic cultures.

Collectivism focuses on the needs and goals of the group rather than the individual. It prioritizes group harmony, family bonds, and communal responsibilities.

Key Characteristics:

• Self-Identity: People define themselves through their roles and relationships within the group, such as family, work, or community.
• Group Loyalty: There is a strong emphasis on maintaining harmony and meeting the needs of the group, sometimes even at the expense of individual desires.
• Shared Responsibility: Success and failure are often seen as outcomes of group efforts rather than individual actions.
• Social Relations: Relationships are typically more hierarchical and based on duty and loyalty.
• Cultural Examples: Many Asian countries, such as Japan, China, and India, along with some African and Latin American cultures, are examples of collectivist societies.

Impact on Behavior and Society

• Decision-Making: In individualistic cultures, decisions are often made independently, reflecting personal preferences. In collectivist cultures, decisions may be made collectively or influenced by group consensus and social norms.
• Conflict Resolution: Individualistic societies might encourage direct confrontation to resolve conflicts, whereas collectivist societies might prefer indirect approaches to avoid disrupting group harmony.
• Motivation: Individualists are typically motivated by personal goals and achievements, while collectivists are often driven by the well-being and success of the group.

Both orientations have their strengths and weaknesses, and many societies incorporate elements of both. For instance, cultures can vary in their emphasis on individualism versus collectivism depending on the context or specific aspects of life.

It is interesting to note that in Lenin’s book “Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism” he points out that when the free market has finally given way to monopolies and cartels as it is inevitably inclined to do, all production becomes socialized. So while a worker experiences a rather intense form of socialism when they go to work for Corporate America, the appropriation remains private so they do not receive a collective benefit. Essentially the current state of affairs is we live in socialism without any benefit that a truly socialist society would provide such as ensuring that everyone’s basic needs are met and that they are free from the burden of being one paycheck away from homelessness.

You can see strong evidence of this when you start examining corporate training, and HR policy. Corporations do everything they can to stifle individualism because individualistic workers are not “team players”, they encourage a disagree and commit attitude, and they stifle innovation in favor of control. As a consequence we have fallen behind China as the worlds leading economic power and continue to slip further into decline with each passing year.

Counterintuitively it turns out that a Marxist collectivist approach actually yields higher levels of self actualization:

To make one’s life one’s object is therefore to treat one’s life as something that is under one’s control. To raise in imagination plans for one’s future and present, and to have a stake in being able to fulfill those plans. To be able to live a life of this character is to achieve “self-activity” (actualization), which Marx believes will only become possible after communism has replaced capitalism. “Only at this stage does self-activity coincide with material life, which corresponds to the development of individuals into complete individuals and the casting-off of all natural limitations. The transformation of labor into self-activity corresponds to the transformation of the earlier limited intercourse into the intercourse of individuals as such”.

What is involved in making one’s species one’s object is more complicated. In one sense, it emphasizes the essentially social character of humans, and their need to live in a community of the species. In others, it seems to emphasize that we attempt to make our lives expressions of our species-essence; further that we have goals concerning what becomes of the species in general. The idea covers much of the same territory as “making one’s life one’s object”: it concerns self-consciousness, purposive activity, and so forth.

We see tons of stuff on linked in promoting a more positive corporate culture because it turns out that when people are not hounded by fear and when they have the ability to explore, they become more creative and this actually promotes innovation in a way that competition can never hope to achieve.

The most successful organizations successfuly blend individualism with collectivism to create secure yet engaged contributors.

Yeast in a Bottle

Corporate America is driven by one overarching objective, bring value to the shareholder at all costs. Part and parcel to this is growth. If a company is not growing their stock either stalls or declines.

The “growth mentality” is often used interchangeably with “growth mindset,” a term popularized by psychologist Carol Dweck. It generally refers to the belief that abilities and intelligence can be developed through effort, learning, and perseverance. While this mindset has many positive aspects, it’s important to recognize potential fallacies or limitations that might arise from an uncritical embrace of the concept.

1. Overemphasis on Effort One fallacy is the assumption that effort alone will lead to success. While effort is crucial, it’s not the only factor. Success often requires a combination of resources, support, strategic planning, and sometimes, inherent talent. Believing that sheer effort will always lead to improvement can lead to frustration and discouragement when outcomes don’t align with expectations.

2. Neglecting Structural Barriers A growth mentality can sometimes overlook structural barriers and systemic issues. For example, individuals in disadvantaged situations might be encouraged to adopt a growth mindset without addressing the broader social, economic, or institutional factors that limit their opportunities. This can inadvertently place the blame on the individual rather than acknowledging the need for systemic change.

3. Misinterpreting Failure A common misconception is that a growth mindset means always viewing failure as positive or productive. While learning from failure is valuable, it’s important to acknowledge that some failures are due to factors beyond personal control and not necessarily indicative of a lack of effort or ability. This can lead to a harmful cycle where individuals feel they are at fault for failures that are beyond their control.

4. Ignoring Different Learning Styles The growth mentality often assumes that everyone benefits from the same approach to learning and improvement. However, people have diverse learning styles and needs. What works for one person might not work for another, and a rigid application of growth mindset principles might not address individual differences effectively.

5. Undervaluing Rest and Recovery There can be a tendency to undervalue the importance of rest and recovery in the pursuit of growth. The focus on constant effort and improvement might lead to burnout if individuals are not mindful of the need for balance and self-care.

6. Reinforcing a Fixed Idea of Success Sometimes, the growth mentality can inadvertently reinforce a fixed idea of what success looks like. For example, if success is narrowly defined as achieving certain goals or outcomes, this can lead individuals to focus on those benchmarks at the expense of exploring diverse paths or redefining what success means to them personally.

In summary, while a growth mentality can be empowering and motivating, it’s important to approach it with nuance and an awareness of its limitations. Balancing effort with an understanding of external factors, diverse learning needs, and the importance of rest can lead to a more holistic and effective approach to personal and professional development.

Empire in Decline

When an empire is in decline, it often struggles to adapt to new realities and may double down on failed strategies for several reasons:

Psychological Investment: Leaders and institutions may have a deep psychological investment in existing strategies. Admitting that a strategy is failing can be seen as a failure of their vision or judgment, which can be difficult to accept. This cognitive dissonance leads them to cling to their original strategies, hoping that persistence will eventually yield success.

Institutional Inertia: Large organizations, including empires, tend to have significant institutional inertia. Established processes, hierarchies, and bureaucratic structures make it challenging to implement change. Reforming or abandoning a strategy often requires overcoming substantial resistance from entrenched interests, which can slow or even prevent adaptation.

Fear of Uncertainty: Embracing new strategies often involves venturing into unknown territory. The uncertainty and risks associated with novel approaches can be daunting. Leaders may prefer to stick with familiar, albeit failing, strategies because they perceive them as safer compared to the unpredictability of new alternatives.

Ideological Commitment: An empire’s leaders might be ideologically committed to certain principles or visions that guide their strategy. For example, they might prioritize military expansion or economic dominance based on a belief in their inherent superiority or destiny. This ideological commitment can blind them to the changing realities and necessitate a continued focus on failed strategies.

External Pressures: Sometimes, external pressures or threats compel an empire to double down on existing strategies. In the face of rising challenges, such as military defeat or economic downturns, leaders might intensify their efforts to protect their position rather than risk perceived weakness by changing course.

Historical Precedent: Leaders might look to past successes and assume that persistence will eventually lead to a turnaround. They may believe that their past strategies worked under different circumstances and that with a bit of perseverance, similar results can be achieved again.

Limited Options: The options available for change might be limited or impractical. When an empire is deeply entrenched in a certain strategy, the alternatives might seem either too radical or too risky to implement effectively.

This dynamic can be seen throughout history, where empires, rather than innovating or reforming, have stuck with failed strategies. For instance, the late Roman Empire’s focus on maintaining its vast territorial holdings despite military and economic strain, or the Soviet Union’s continued emphasis on centralized planning even as its economic model faltered, illustrate how declining powers often reinforce their failing approaches rather than adapt.

A growth mindset, as proposed by psychologist Carol Dweck, involves believing that abilities and intelligence can be developed through effort, learning, and persistence. While this mindset is generally associated with positive outcomes, it can sometimes lead to a counterproductive doubling down on failed methods. Here’s how this can happen:

Persistence vs. Stubbornness: A growth mindset encourages persistence in the face of challenges, but this persistence can sometimes become stubbornness. Individuals with a strong growth mindset may insist on continuing with a method that clearly isn’t working, believing that with enough effort, the outcome will eventually improve. This can lead to spending excessive time and resources on strategies that are inherently flawed.

Misinterpretation of Feedback: People with a growth mindset often interpret feedback as a challenge to overcome rather than a signal to change course. They might view failure as a learning opportunity but fail to adequately analyze why a method is failing. This misinterpretation can result in tweaking an ineffective approach rather than reassessing and changing the approach entirely.

Overemphasis on Effort: In a growth mindset, effort is seen as a key to success. However, there’s a risk that individuals may overemphasize effort and persistence without adequately evaluating the efficacy of their methods. This can lead to the belief that more effort will fix an approach that isn’t fundamentally sound.

Attachment to Initial Ideas: When individuals have a growth mindset, they might be particularly attached to their initial ideas or strategies. The belief that “failure is not final” can sometimes result in a refusal to abandon or radically revise an approach, even when it’s clear that a different method might yield better results.

Fear of Admitting Defeat: A growth mindset involves embracing challenges, but this can sometimes lead to a fear of admitting that a particular method has failed. There might be an internalized pressure to demonstrate that persistence will eventually lead to success, making it harder to pivot or abandon a failed approach.

In summary, while a growth mindset generally promotes resilience and continuous improvement, it’s important for individuals to balance persistence with critical evaluation and flexibility. Recognizing when a method isn’t working and being willing to change course can be crucial to long-term success.

Conclusion

Marxism, traditionally associated with critiques of capitalism and advocating for a classless society, might seem an odd fit for business success at first glance. However, some principles derived from Marxist theory can offer valuable insights and strategies for modern businesses:

Focus on Worker Empowerment:

Employee Engagement: Marxism emphasizes the role of workers in production. By prioritizing employee engagement, businesses can enhance productivity and satisfaction. Empowered employees who feel their contributions are valued are often more motivated and productive.

Participatory Management: Adopting management practices that involve employees in decision-making can improve morale and lead to innovative solutions. Participatory management aligns with the Marxist ideal of worker participation in the management of production.

Value Creation and Distribution:

Fair Compensation: Marxism critiques the exploitation of workers. A fair compensation strategy, where employees receive a larger share of the value they create, can lead to higher loyalty and retention. This also fosters a positive corporate reputation.

Profit Sharing: Implementing profit-sharing plans or employee stock ownership can align employees’ interests with the company’s success, motivating them to contribute more effectively.

Focus on Social Responsibility:

Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR): Marxism’s focus on the impact of business on society can inspire businesses to adopt more socially responsible practices. This includes ethical sourcing, environmental sustainability, and community engagement, which can enhance a company’s reputation and attract customers who value corporate ethics.

Long-Term Thinking: Prioritizing long-term social and environmental goals over short-term profits can lead to sustainable growth and resilience.

Innovation through Collaboration:

Collective Intelligence: Marxism values collective effort and knowledge. Encouraging collaboration and knowledge sharing within the organization can drive innovation and problem-solving, as diverse perspectives often lead to more creative solutions.

Cross-Functional Teams: Building teams that combine various skills and expertise can enhance creativity and efficiency, similar to how Marxist theory values collective production.

Addressing Inequality:

Reducing Hierarchies: Reducing hierarchical barriers within a company can foster a more collaborative and less divisive work environment. Flattening hierarchies can lead to more open communication and faster decision-making processes.

Inclusive Practices: Promoting diversity and inclusion aligns with the Marxist critique of systemic inequality and can lead to a more innovative and representative workforce.

While Marxism as a political theory might not be directly applicable to every business model, its underlying principles about worker value, fair compensation, and social responsibility can provide useful frameworks for building a more engaged, motivated, and ethical workforce, ultimately contributing to business success.