Re: some thoughts on globalism/imperialism & class (fwd)

On Wed, 8 Aug 2001, Austin, Andrew wrote:

>[Snip ...]
 
> > AA: It is easy to develop a "construct" that eliminates social
> > class. The point is to eliminate it. (That sounds familiar...)
> 
> CR: Again, cannot be done.
> 
> AA: That's what the orang-u-tan said about flight.
> 

-- I've presented an empirical argument. Every mass society has access to
luxury goods -- artistic, technological, psychological. There must be a
way to distribute luxury goods. A luxury good is a good 95% of which is
consumed by 5% or less of the society's population. This means that all
mass societies have at least two social classes: a luxury-good consuming
class and a non-luxury-good consuming class. To get rid of the luxury good
consuming class, you have to get rid of luxury goods. Think about it. What
would be the consequences and side-effects of attempting to do
this? Which, by the way, is what Pol Pot tried to do.


> CR: -- Given the assumption of a multi-class society, one "sign" that
> disparities among the classes are diminishing is the ease of mobility
> between classes.
> 
> AA: This confuses structural and individual levels. Why could there not
> be
> increased mobility simultanenous with growing disparities among social
> classes?

-- This is a good point, and you probably have me on this one. We already
know that the number of billionaires can spike just as the number of those
living below poverty level can also spike, at the same time, even while
the disparity between the rich and the poor increases. I don't know if I
can save my argument, but let me try. In a capitalistic system, the only
value is "business success," so if business success is easier, then more
people in absolute numbers may join the rich so to speak, as more become
poor. But if we have other measures of merit, and success in these areas
increases, then we ought to expect that the absolute numbers of poor would
increase. Society must recognize other measures of merit and reward them
accordingly for this to occur. One way of accomplishing this is by
implementing an income-equalization policy that closes the gap between
what the lowest paid member of society and the highest paid member of
society gets. One does this through fiscal policy, transfer payments, and
union facilitation, making it easier for workers to fight for their own
interests. The objective is to reduce the income gap between what the
street cleaner and the investment banker or CEO, by recognizing that the
street cleaner performs a socially useful function and deserves a livable
wage. I believe your option says, "Kill off the investment bankers and
CEOs." This has already been tried, and it didn't work, and will never
work, in my view. My option says, value all forms of work and all human
beings in society, and make sure they have an income that meets their
needs.

> 
> CR: -- ...eliminating social classes being impossible, all attempts to do so
> will ultimately resort to genocide, since "eliminate" is the operative word.
> 
> AA: This confuses the elimination of coercive structures with the
> elimination of
> the people who occupy positions within that structure. We can eradicate
> poverty without eradicating poor people. 
> 

-- It is true that you can eradicate poverty without eradicating poor
people, but your cannot eradicate capitalism without eradicating
capitalists, and as I've argued, the required genocide to do so won't
work. It's already been tried. 

I would argue that we need to control capitalism by changing corporate and
contract laws, and empower workers by facilitating unionization, creating
a balance of power between the owners of capital and the workers who
produce the goods. As we know, such a balance of power does not now exist.

//CJR