Re: How would _you define the problematique?

This is a *much better* text. A primer for the citizen!
Please tell us the web address, once you upload it.

Petros

-----Original Message-----
From: Richard K. Moore <richard@cyberjournal.org>
To: World Systems Network <wsn@csf.colorado.edu>
Date: Σάββατο, 27 Ιανουαρίου 2001 9:10 μμ
Subject: How would _you define the problematique?


>
>Dear wsn,
>
>With all your good critiques and comments, I'm forced to
>revise my material.  One of the trickiest issues to deal
>with, I think, is to clarify what 'capitalism' is about, and
>to treat 'capitalism' and 'elites' in a balanced way, as
>related but distinct phenomena.  I doubt if you will all
>agree with my attempt here, so blast away. Central to the
>piece is the question "Can capitalism be significantly
>reformed?"  As I deal with this question, you'll find
>considerable new material. There is no mention of heirarchy
>or decentralization, or movement structure, in this section
>since that would be controversial, and is immaterial here.
>That topic will get its own section, and your
>various comments will be very helpul.  I hope you will find
>much to agree with here, but remember - this is not an academic
>paper, but is intended for the general public.
>
>
>cheers,
>rkm
>
>   --------------------------------------------------------------
>
>   II.b. The revolutionary imperative
>
>        "Governments are instituted among Men, deriving
>        their just powers from the consent of the
>        governed... whenever any Form of Government becomes
>        destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the
>        People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute
>        a new Government, laying its foundation on such
>        principles and organizing its power in such form,
>        as to them shall seem most likely to effect their
>        Safety and Happiness."
>        - U.S. Declaration of Independence, 1776
>
>        "Capitalism is the relentless accumulation of
>        capital for the acquisition of profit. Capitalism
>        is a carnivore. It cannot be made over into a
>        herbivore without gutting it, i.e., abolishing it."
>        - Warren Wagar, Professor of History, State
>        University of New York at Binghamton
>
>   According to mainstream consensus reality, 'capitalism' is
>   the same as competitive free enterprise - and the only
>   alternative to capitalism is centrally-planned state
>   socialism. This is in fact nonsense. Free enterprise,
>   competition, entrepreneurial endeavors, the pursuit of profit
>   and wealth, international trade and specialization - these
>   have all been part of human societies, in varying mixtures,
>   for thousands of years. Socialism and capitalism, on the
>   other hand, are both rather recent inventions. Capitalism
>   didn't become significant until the late 1700s, when it
>   emerged along with the Industrial Revolution in Britain.
>   Socialism came along still later, as a reaction to the
>   exploitations of capitalism. These two recent upstarts are
>   not the only possible economic systems. Humanity got along
>   without them both until only two centuries ago, and there are
>   many other options available for us to choose from today.
>
>   What distinguishes a _capitalist society is something very
>   specific - a capitalist society relies on _private investors_
>   to fund and manage its economy. The reasoning is that
>   investors - as they pursue their own interests - will
>   generate economic activity, create a healthy economy, and
>   society will benefit. To some extent this is indeed what
>   happens - but to the investor, the healthy economy and social
>   benefit are only accidental by-products. What investors care
>   about is _maximizing the return on their investments through
>   economic activity.
>
>   This pursuit of maximum returns led to the early and rapid
>   evolution of the _stock corporation_ as the primary vehicle
>   of capitalist operations. Such a corporation is a
>   finely-tuned money-making machine, designed to deliver
>   returns to its investors - and the primary mission of
>   corporate management is always to maximize those returns.
>   There are two ways investors can benefit from their stock
>   ownership in a corporation. They can either take out a
>   _profit stream_ (as dividends) or they can achieve a _capital
>   gain_ (by selling their stock at a profit when it goes up in
>   value).
>
>   A common misperception is that capitalism is primarily about
>   maximizing corporate profits. On the contrary - capitalists
>   soon learned that maximizing their returns was better served
>   by capital gains, than by ongoing profit streams. Early in
>   the Industrial Revolution capitalists learned that wealth
>   accumulation was best served by investing in new
>   technologies, and in enterprises which showed promise of
>   growth. Stock markets were soon developed so that investors
>   could move their money easily from one corporation to
>   another, chasing those corporations whose growth prospects
>   seemed most promising. A rapidly growing company might not
>   pay any dividends at all, and it might sell some products at
>   a loss - as it expands its production capacity and seeks to
>   capture markets. Investors who bought stock in a small,
>   growing enterprise could multiply their capital many times
>   over by selling their stock when the enterprise achieved
>   major success and expansion. Dividends and profits were not
>   the most effective way to accumulate wealth - growth
>   investments were.
>
>   As a result of tendencies such as these, a capitalist economy
>   is always dependent on continual economic growth. If
>   corporations generally stopped growing, then investors
>   generally would try to sell their holdings - markets would
>   collapse and the whole economy would come to a grinding halt.
>   If growth isn't occurring, a capitalist economy doesn't
>   merely slow down - it stops functioning altogether. The Great
>   Depression of the 1930s was an example of such a collapse,
>   and nothing short of a world war was able to get the system
>   going again.
>
>   With this background, I suggest we can now approach a
>   question which is of crucial importance: "Can capitalism be
>   significantly reformed?" Presumably, 'significant reform'
>   would include things like major reductions in global warming,
>   radical elimination of toxic pollution of food, air and
>   water, prohibition of near-slave labor and child
>   exploitation, a fair deal for poor countries, major
>   reductions in our use of fossil fuels, etc. etc. What we must
>   recognize, however, is that all of these 'bad things' are
>   happening precisely because they each contribute in some way
>   to economic growth. Carelessness with toxins, if permitted,
>   reduces costs. High energy consumption is coupled with
>   increased auto sales, and increased employment. Exploitation
>   of labor in poor countries enables transnational
>   manufacturers to decrease their costs and expand their
>   markets. And so on.
>
>   Capitalism can be compared to an automobile, and growth to
>   its petrol (gasoline). If we want to use the automobile to
>   get around, then we must provide petrol. Similarly, if we
>   want to base our economies on capitalism, then we must permit
>   growth - and the societal changes that go with it. To think
>   we can reform away the growth or the changes, while retaining
>   capitalism, would be like sitting behind the wheel of our car
>   and expecting it to run on an empty tank.
>
>   Perpetual economic growth is simply not compatible with a
>   healthy environment nor with healthy societies. Growth
>   requires always 'more' and 'new' - more resources, more
>   markets, new kinds of products, more exploitation, new kinds
>   of infrastructures. Growth itself is what needs to be
>   'reformed' out of capitalism, and yet growth is the lifeblood
>   of capitalism. Capitalism is our Shylock: we cannot extract
>   the pound of flesh we require without killing the patient.
>
>   What is required, quite simply, is that control over our
>   economies and societies be taken out of the hands of private
>   investors. Perhaps, for a century or so, the interests of
>   ambitious investors and society were somewhat aligned, and
>   benefits were enjoyed by many from the capitalist path. But
>   now that the irresistible force of growth has met the
>   immovable object of a finite life-support system, it is time
>   to call a halt and reassess our options as a global
>   community.
>
>   When you think about it, there is very little to be said for
>   the proposition that "Society shall run in such way that the
>   wealthy can accumulate more wealth as rapidly as possible."
>   And yet, that is exactly what it means to live in a
>   capitalist society, where growth is always the economic
>   imperative. And the extent to which we might regulate
>   capitalism is precisely the extent to which we would hamper
>   its functioning. In the end, as we have seen in the years
>   since Reagan and Thatcher, the irresistible pressure of
>   growth erodes all attempts at regulation. That's the nature
>   of the beast. You can ride it, but you can't tame it, and it
>   is always hungry.
>
>   If we want to base our economies and societies on something
>   other than growth, and to take control out of the hands of
>   the ruling wealthy elite, then we are talking about changes
>   which can only be described as revolutionary. 'Taking away
>   control' will be a monumental revolutionary project of a
>   political nature, but 'basing our economies and societies on
>   something else' may turn out to be the more formidable
>   project in the long run - and the one with the more
>   revolutionary consequences.
>
>   But I submit to you - these projects are both possible and
>   necessary. The direction capitalism is taking us - as it must
>   - is simply unacceptable. If we permit the elite regime to
>   bring about their WTO-controlled Dark Millennium - a world in
>   which we will make every sacrifice so that capital coffers
>   can pile ever higher - then future generations will curse us.
>   Now, while our nations still have some semblance of order and
>   openness - this is the time to take our stand. Our prospects
>   for success will only decline, as the regime consolidates its
>   centralized systems. We must not be like the frog who waited
>   too long to jump out of the cooking pot, sealing his fate
>   through inaction.
>
>   I suggest that we have several urgent projects before us, as
>   a global community. We need to learn how to build the 'right
>   kind' of movement and develop a strategy for victory on a
>   global scale. We need to develop a common vision of what kind
>   of world we want to create. We need to find a way to avoid
>   chaos in the transition, and a way to arrange for a smooth
>   process of transformation to sane, sustainable societies.
>   Most of all we need to find a way to come together, somehow,
>   as a global community and learn how to find our 'collective
>   voice' as we approach these formidable yet necessary
>   projects.
>
>   This is the _revolutionary imperative_ - to join together as
>   free men and women in these common endeavors. Either we stand
>   together now, or we doom ourselves and our descendants -
>   until who knows when - to living in societies that are too
>   horrendous to contemplate. In science fiction we have
>   experienced such nightmare worlds, and from this nightmare we
>   could not awake. Our imperative is not for violent
>   revolution, but for something even more revolutionary - to
>   set humanity on a sane course using peaceful means. The
>   current regime is serving the interests of only a tiny elite,
>   the rest of us have nothing to lose but our chains - and we
>   have a livable world to gain.
>
>   --------------------------------------------------------------