Wage Against the Machine: Marx V. Ander$on Remix
Upon reading Anderson’s section about pre- and post- industrial revolution pro-market theory I was drawn to compare how Karl Marx and Anderson describe capitalism.
First off: ideology. According to Anderson, “Ideologies do not simply describe and evaluate what exists. They promote ideals yet to be realized, diagnose the obstacles in the way, and suggest ways to remove those obstacles.” (122) Karl Marx frames ideology as a set of beliefs which rationalize oppression. These ideologies are determined by the means of production and spread through the ruling class. Ideologies change in response to changes in the means of production. Conversely, Anderson does not appear to view the same connection between the means of production and ideology.
Instead, she separates capitalism as an ideology between the pre- and post- industrial revolution versions. Pre-industrial revolution and economics of scale, she seems to largely respect capitalism highlighting how early pro-market thinkers did not support modern-day problematic beliefs, such as a “narrow focus on efficiency, economic growth, consumer satisfaction, and profits as the sole criteria for evaluating markets” (120). She criticizes early capitalism for its focus on white men; however, given her reform-based approach to capitalism, she seems to want to resurrect early pre-industrial revolution capitalism. She argues that capitalism as we know it “arose to rationalize these outcomes ignored most of the criteria my early thinkers used to evaluate markets” (121). While this does reflect a more Marx-like perspective on how ideologies evolve, her narrative on how capitalism originally developed as an ideology via Locke and Smith does not reflect this Marx-like perspective. For example, she describes Locke and Smith as being “troubled by the emerging wage labor system, and of the immiseration and stultification suffered by those subjected to it and to even worse conditions, such as slavery and unemployment” (122). They attributed this suffering as “stemming from a corrupt system by which the state unjustly favored the powerful” thus they advocated for “freeing up markets and ending forms of state regulation” (122).
She undoubtedly respects capitalism to a level which Marx would never. She believes that “a market society, with appropriate reforms, could liberate workers” (122). Marx conversely believed that capitalism was not the final system, rather communism is. I think Marx would take issue with the fact that even given her reforms Anderson still allows for the means of production to reside in the hands of the bourgeoisie. However, I think Marx would agree that the market by themselves would dictate such economies of scale which necessarily results in the bourgeoisie’s control of the means of production. Instead, Marx would advocate for government intervention to correct for that. Anderson instead would limit government intervention by providing basic rights (ranging from bathroom breaks to freedom of speech to management representation) to workers. While both would largely agree with Anderson’s claim of governance in the workplace, Marx would never accept public or private governance in firms, but Anderson would allow for public governance in firms.
Hey Bika, your post provides a super interesting comparison– I enjoyed your breakdown of Anderson and Marx’s contrasting takes on ideology. I also like how you traced that divergence across how they each understand capitalism and the evolution of market structures. I wanted to build on your insights, particularly around Anderson’s vision of reforming capitalism, and specifically push on her response to Tyler Cowen in the last chapter. I think there are some important points in her defense of worker voice that makes her more than just a believer in pre-IR capitalism.
ReplyDeleteAnderson responds to Cowen’s more economist-minded concerns about balancing costs and benefits in different governance structures. But Anderson doubles down on two things:
1. That even if you're well-off, being subject to arbitrary power is a problem in itself, and
2. That autonomy and standing aren’t luxuries—they’re baseline moral needs in a just society. For example, her discussion of the Skylab astronauts taking a one-day strike, not because their physical labor was unbearable, but because the experience of being micromanaged and not allowed to take a break was so degrading that it “demeaned [their] agency” (128).
.
I think Anderson is doing something really interesting here. While Marx would see the firm as a site of unresolvable domination (hence the need to abolish wage labor entirely), Anderson argues that workplace domination could be mitigated by embedding democratic norms within the firm. Her model is less about state redistribution or seizing the means of production and more about restructuring internal governance. She wants workers to have rights, but she also wants them to have standing. That’s republican freedom, not just liberal freedom, which I think you agree with.
That said, I think you slightly mischaracterize Anderson’s stance when you suggest she wants to “resurrect early pre-industrial revolution capitalism.” I read her less as wanting to bring back a historical moment and more as using early pro-market ideology to show how far we've strayed from its egalitarian promises. In her reply to commentators, she makes it clear that the Levellers and Smith were mistaken in thinking that markets would always lead to self-employment and autonomy, but she insists that their ideals (including freedom from domination and equality of standing) are still worth supporting. She’s exposing how the ideology of market freedom twisted into what we now take for granted as capitalism.
This discussion also made me wonder: If Smith’s view that economies of scale were negligible was “dashed by the industrial revolution” and Locke’s premise of unlimited land ended by population growth, what unpredictable shifts might derail Anderson’s views too? One of her key premises is that workers can meaningfully participate in firm governance if they are granted standing and voice—but what happens when AI systems or performance trackers (like Amazon’s ADAPT technology to track worker productivity) increasingly replace human supervisors and make decisions around termination? If workers are governed by machine logic instead of a human boss, does democratic voice even have a place to intervene? Her vision might be challenged by a depersonalized form of domination that’s even harder to resist.