You're viewing a single thread.
Matt Bruenig has a great and short tutorial on personal finance and investing, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Efr2UORgO2w
the graphic at 17:30 summarizes the hierarchy of savings (1. Emergency fund 2. employer-matched retirement 3. high-interest debt 4. other tax-advantage accounts 5. low-interest debt 6. taxable brokerage account) - he notes that he and most others will never make it to 6.
The graphic at 31:00 summarizes common pitfalls to avoid, unless you have a deep passion. 1. individual stocks 2. crypto 3. house flipping/renting (don't be landlord ... for financial reasons!) 4. expensive homes 5. private k-12 education
I unironically love federation
Your post is clearly in good faith so I won't shit post or try to dunk, just so you know this instance is full of tankies and anarchists, investing is antithetical to our beliefs and any post about investing you see from this community is mocking the whole concept
investing is antithetical to our beliefs
I don't believe the Proletariat having a 401k and/or a Roth IRA in order to survive retirement is antithetical to leftist belief, but I am willing to be convinced otherwise. Even Marx speculated in the stock market. Ultimately, Leftists refusing to invest will do nothing at all to further expedite the end of Imperialism and eventually Capitalism, all it will create is homeless leftist seniors (if America lasts that long).
It's not about doing it or not doing it as an individual, it's about the very concept being ridiculous. It's almost like a magick ritual to people that buy into all the market bullshit.
Marx sometimes envisioned Capital as a Real God, in the sense that its will is served regardless of the beliefs or individual actions of those in Capitalism, and in that manner sustains "itself" and ensures "its" existence.
Of course, this was based in Materialism, it was always a metaphor.
For me the difference is between survival and personal gain, those funds are a forced compromise
So then, where is the barrier? Is this an argument based in Moralism, or Materialism? The Proletariat can and must do whatever it can to improve its own conditions, and in the absence of a state that provides for it, this must be done via the Market.
I agree that Workers, especially Marxists, should try to reduce their harmful footprints as much as possible. Boycott union busters and supporters of genocide. However, when it comes to retirement savings, there exist no ethical ways to move forward, except to live entirely off the grid and refuse to use banking systems.
Unfortunately, this can lead to reactionary behavior, a turning back of the clock to an earlier stage of Capitalism. That's why homesteading has a huge fascism problem.
I guess what I am trying to say is that I don't think it's productive to say investing is antithetical to leftism, considering the context. That would be like saying purchasing video games is antithetical to leftism, as they are for personal enjoyment yet support Capitalists. I try to think in terms of Dialectics and what materially benefits the proletariat, and ultimately if it becomes a matter of purity testing I believe we lose sight of the goals of Communism.
I dunno, this became a bit of a ramble. I'll end this with a fun quote:
“The moment anyone started to talk to Marx about morality, he would roar with laughter.”
I guess I haven't been clear enough in this thread, I completely agree with you
Retirement funds are an example of unavoidable participation in capitalism, but that doesn't mean that it's compatible with a socialist world view
Investing is and will always be antithetical to the immortal science, the goal is to make gains from other people's work
I have money on pension and insurance funds that use all available investment vehicles to maximize their profits, I have to compromise my values to get a (significant) portion of my produced value back because some libs thought that everyone should be an investor instead of feeding and housing old people as a right
Investing is and will always be antithetical to the immortal science, the goal is to make gains from other people's work
Yes, in principle, however in the context of the western proletariat who must engage with the market to ensure their own existence, I do not consider it anti-leftist to give investment advice. Only if it supports landlordism or business ownership outright.
I have money on pension and insurance funds that use all available investment vehicles to maximize their profits, I have to compromise my values to get a (significant) portion of my produced value back because some libs thought that everyone should be an investor instead of feeding and housing old people as a right
I don't believe this structure is because of Liberal ideas, but an attempt by Capitalists to tie Workers' futures to the same mechanism that enriches Capitalists, therefore reducing revolutionary pressure. This is a consequence of Imperialism, it's an effort to turn the Proletariat into complicit Labor Aristocracy.
Yes, in principle, however in the context of the western proletariat who must engage with the market to ensure their own existence, I do not consider it anti-leftist to give investment advice.
I completely agree, the whole point I've tried to make in this thread is that A) investment is antithetical to leftist thought and B) most of us are still forced to participate in it
If you try to optimize your forced investments, I will look down on you
So you can have retirement accounts, but moving money in those accounts to a better fund is immoral?
Any capital gains from the work of others is immoral, the forced participation in investments is (currently) unavoidable
Billionaires and politicians have addresses
What do you mean by forced?
i really do not understand how you're making that distinction. is it "anything specifically earmarked for retirement" is okay and all other investments beyond that aren't okay? what about college funds for children?
another point: it's perfectly conceivable to invest for the future outside a retirement account and still use those proceeds for survival. What if you need expensive medical treatment in your old age and that's the only way you're able to pay for it?
Oh, if it's for your kids' college fund, invest in whatever you want, they obviously deserve more off the value the workers produce than the workers, they are so cute
???? do you think that if someone doesn't invest in a company that share of surplus value is just given back to the worker? it's never going to the worker in the first place under capitalism.
do you think that if someone doesn't invest in a company that share of surplus value is just given back to the worker?
100% of the value the worker produces belongs to the worker, this is at least my basis for Marxist thought
it's never going to the worker in the first place under capitalism.
And this is the first reason for our activism, it should
I don't know if you have read Marx's Critique of the Gotha Programme, but if not I want to quote this part that feels relevant to what your saying. Mainly just that even under a socialist state, the value produced by the worker isn't gonna 100% belong to them.
Do not the bourgeois assert that the present-day distribution is "fair"? And is it not, in fact, the only "fair" distribution on the basis of the present-day mode of production? Are economic relations regulated by legal conceptions, or do not, on the contrary, legal relations arise out of economic ones? Have not also the socialist sectarians the most varied notions about "fair" distribution?
To understand what is implied in this connection by the phrase "fair distribution", we must take the first paragraph and this one together. The latter presupposes a society wherein the instruments of labor are common property and the total labor is co-operatively regulated, and from the first paragraph we learn that "the proceeds of labor belong undiminished with equal right to all members of society."
"To all members of society"? To those who do not work as well? What remains then of the "undiminished" proceeds of labor? Only to those members of society who work? What remains then of the "equal right" of all members of society?
But "all members of society" and "equal right" are obviously mere phrases. The kernel consists in this, that in this communist society every worker must receive the "undiminished" Lassallean "proceeds of labor".
Let us take, first of all, the words "proceeds of labor" in the sense of the product of labor; then the co-operative proceeds of labor are the total social product.
From this must now be deducted: First, cover for replacement of the means of production used up. Second, additional portion for expansion of production. Third, reserve or insurance funds to provide against accidents, dislocations caused by natural calamities, etc.
These deductions from the "undiminished" proceeds of labor are an economic necessity, and their magnitude is to be determined according to available means and forces, and partly by computation of probabilities, but they are in no way calculable by equity.
There remains the other part of the total product, intended to serve as means of consumption.
Before this is divided among the individuals, there has to be deducted again, from it: First, the general costs of administration not belonging to production. This part will, from the outset, be very considerably restricted in comparison with present-day society, and it diminishes in proportion as the new society develops. Second, that which is intended for the common satisfaction of needs, such as schools, health services, etc. From the outset, this part grows considerably in comparison with present-day society, and it grows in proportion as the new society develops. Third, funds for those unable to work, etc., in short, for what is included under so-called official poor relief today.
Only now do we come to the "distribution" which the program, under Lassallean influence, alone has in view in its narrow fashion – namely, to that part of the means of consumption which is divided among the individual producers of the co-operative society.
The "undiminished" proceeds of labor have already unnoticeably become converted into the "diminished" proceeds, although what the producer is deprived of in his capacity as a private individual benefits him directly or indirectly in his capacity as a member of society.
Just as the phrase of the "undiminished" proceeds of labor has disappeared, so now does the phrase of the "proceeds of labor" disappear altogether.
Within the co-operative society based on common ownership of the means of production, the producers do not exchange their products; just as little does the labor employed on the products appear here as the value of these products, as a material quality possessed by them, since now, in contrast to capitalist society, individual labor no longer exists in an indirect fashion but directly as a component part of total labor. The phrase "proceeds of labor", objectionable also today on account of its ambiguity, thus loses all meaning.
A single worker doesn't produce 100% of the value, but 100% of the value is produced by the workers and 0% by the investors
I think you're missing my point. I'm not arguing value isn't produced by the workers. I'm more saying if you think that surplus value is gonna go back into the workers that made it, that not entirely correct. Since as Marx points out, there would be deductions made and such like for the total working class, but someone making surplus-value isn't gonna get 100% of it back. Also to point something else out. Nature is a source of value to just as much as labor is.
lol what a mature way of dealing with active questions that play a factor in our daily life, and could be the thing blocking a parent from being a communist.
The parents couldn't be communists if they can't agree with the most basic tenets of Marxism
investing is antithetical to our beliefs
Are you saying that personal gain from the work of others fits in the socialist world view?
Depends, are you a believer in means/ends unification a la Anarchism, or are you more of a Marxist? Socialism will not be brought about by personally abstaining from retirement accounts and whatnot, and the State does not provide enough of a welfare net to avoid this issue. Workers must invest to survive, as they must consume products of Capitalism.
have been trying to write a reply but both of yours ITT make the point much better than I can
Thanks, comrade!
The forced participation in the investment market is a way to make people believe like they own capital while only giving back a pittance from the stolen value
Yes, I agree.
I'm not saying that having a 401k makes you a bad communist, I'm saying that it's against our beliefs
In the absence of a real alternative, I don't think offering investing advice goes against leftist beliefs. After the Revolution, we can do away with investing altogether. But that Revolution is not yet here, and neither is the welfare of Retirement that brings.
If you are willing to leech from other workers, go for it
All Workers must leech from each other to survive in Capitalism, so long as it exists, unless their wages are high enough that they may ensure their future subsistence through savings alone.
I agree that we must move against it, but participation is a necessary sin.
I don't necessarily disagree and have retirement accounts myself.
But how do we draw the line between this and buying property to rent to others? Is being a landlord acceptable as a communist if we realize we are forced to participate in the system and need the extra income?
But how do we draw the line between this and buying property to rent to others? Is being a landlord acceptable as a communist if we realize we are forced to participate in the system?
Directly and purposefully shifting from Proletarian to Bourgeoisie is probably not a good move for a Communist. Materially, one could become a Landlord and intentionally take no profit, which would benefit the Proletariat, but would merely be charity work within a dying system. Instead, joining a Renter's Union or owning your own home outright is better, the former helping all of your local proletarians and building up power.
When it comes to investing, it's important to think of aggregates. A Proletarian clawing back some of the wealth stolen from all of the Proletariat does not mean said Proletarian has taken back more Value than they have had taken from them in the first place.
Finally, we must consider what it means to behave Morally in Capitalism. Yes, we all can and should boycott the worst of the system, but unfortunately, we are forced to engage with it. The only path out is to organize, no amount of self-flaggelation and rejection of wealth will change this process. Moralism is a dead-end, Materially.
It's a complicated subject philosophically, so you must consider what your goals are, and why. Communism isn't about being the most morally upstanding victim of Capitalism, but a path to eliminate and replace the system altogether.
Index funds are surprisingly close to market socialism and can be flipped to the benefit of society with little change.
Just like national socialists were actually socialists
Seems a rather harsh comparison for a state-owned index fund that's operated for the benefit of society!
Market socialism is just social democrats in a bad makeup
You're welcome to dunk, I don't mind.
Assuming you engage in wage labor (despite it being antithetical to all of our beliefs) and your employer offers you a greater portion of the fruits of your labor via a matched savings account, is it wrong to accept it? I think it's not wrong at all, and workers should accept and make the most of their 401k.
Bruenig's video is a framework for understanding personal finance from a leftist perspective, or the "personal welfare state" as he calls it. These are things the state should handle, but instead has created a mess of rules we have to decipher.
Assuming you engage in wage labor (despite it being antithetical to all of our beliefs)
I do, and it's not antithetical to my beliefs, it's the only acceptable form of wealth accumulation offered to me right now
is it wrong to accept that?
Yes, it's called solidarity
Bruenig's video is a framework for understanding personal finance from a leftist perspective
It would work better if they actually had a leftist perspective
Most employers offer a match on 401(k) contributions. For example, you contribute $500 per paycheck and the employer contributes $250. By turning down this money, you are literally letting the company you work for keep extra money that would otherwise go to you. Fuck companies. Accept the match, so they can’t keep that extra money. You worked for it.
I’m a Marxist and want the downfall of capitalism. However, I’m investing in total market index funds in case capitalism remains the dominant economic system for the rest of my life, because I don’t want to be a wage slave when I’m tired, old woman.
You are free to do whatever you want, and you are not a bad leftist if you invest
But if you claim that you are not going against the most basic principles of socialism while investing is just sad
The most basic principles of socialism like checks notes letting your employer keep extra value from you by turning down extra money and having to work as a wage slave when you’re 80.
It's not extra money, it's a portion off the money they stole from you
I don't see how this contradicts the point.
But if you claim that you are not going against the most basic principles of socialism while investing is just sad
A whole lot of things in our lives go against basic principles of socialism, not sure how this is that much different.
The difference is between capitulating on principles and capitulating for survival
The difference is between capitulating on principles and capitulating for survival
Thanks for explaining. I won't be joining you in the boycott of retirement accounts, but I understand your issue of profiting from other's work.
I'm not boycotting retirement accounts, I have one myself, I just wanted to try to explain my ideology
Thanks for a good faith reading of my comment
We live in a capitalist economy, at this point it is absolutely dominated by finance and speculation rather than real growth and production, and it is pretty hard to survive long term without investing, particularly if you ever want to buy a house. House prices tend to rise faster than inflation, so you're losing on both inflation and appreciation. I don't think this should be the way it is, but it is the way it is. House prices and the rental market are linked by future cash flows so there's no escaping it unless you are homeless.
I'm not talking about survival, I'm talking about principles of the ideology
Investments are like haram in Islam, you don't wrong anyone if you are forced to it
spoiler
some people here absolutely invest, you see it come up occasionally, always goes along the lines of "well you should at least do index funds for retirement/etc. or you're just losing your money to inflation".
I've always felt a bit reticent about those style posts. Also the person you're replying to probably thinks of themselves as on the left, given the citing Matt Bruenig. Shame that bruenig actually really sucks (iirc?)
In an ideal world I wouldn't have to mess around with weird abstract passive income in general since the concept and the means mostly just irritate me, but I do already have a 401k as a job perk and I may need supplementary income.
Living in the imperial core it's almost impossible to avoid being involved in investments, be it pension or social security funds
It's the age old question of ethical consumption under capitalism, personally I draw the line between surviving with the cards you were dealt and trying to gain advantage
The person you replied to knows all that.
Could be, but I won't assume bad faith if they haven't given me a reason
I found a YouTube link in your comment. Here are links to the same video on alternative frontends that protect your privacy: