Barry Brooks wrote:
Capitalism doesn't necessarily have cheating and
violence......
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My comment:
We run into that same false dichotomy when using the word "necessarily". If
used in an ABSOLUTE sense, then there is nothing that is "necessarily" caused by
anything, since to say that is to make a statement about Absolute Inevitability,
which, of course, is the hallmark of dogmatism and against the core of
scientific investigation (as it should be practiced, most would agree.)
But the choice is not between using the word
"necessarily" in an Absolute sense versus not using it at all.
It can be used in a probabilistic sense, meaning: "Here on Earth,
given its history and the factors that surround it and saturate it, it is
difficult to see how it could be otherwise." That is how I am using the word,
and in that sense of the word, I would say: "Yes it
does."
Capitalism must maximize profits as surely as
players in a Monopoly board game must charge rent. Any group of
capitalists who fail to do whatever they can to maximize profits will eventually
stop being important capitalists. Maximizing profits means paying workers less
than the value of what workers produce. That's the only way to make profit.
Maximizing profits means segmenting the labor force, by sex, by invented "race",
by age, nationality, ethnicity, citizenship, ability/"disability", and many
other ways. It means protecting those profits by suppressing the working class
(and often other capitalists) when necessary. It means starting wars if
necessary to protect profits or to secure political-military advantage to
protect profits somewhere else.
The capitalists may have laws, but they break
them with impunity. The laws it "used to have" banned unions,
prevented women from voting, jailed radicals, enslaved black people and then
failed to protect them after slavery was abolished........and the list goes on
and on. The good old days were pretty bad. It might have eased up a bit for a
couple of decades (see explanation below), but now it is getting worse again,
not simply because of Bush, but because the crisis of the system is
intensifying. It is not the case that they don't "understand" how they are
destroying so much of humanity. Some of them don't and some of them do. But
mainly, they don't care. They have a moral philosophy that says that "they are
entitled" to do what they want and take what they want. I have no problem
with people who want to try to convince the capitalists. Good luck! Really. I
don't want to put anyone down for trying. But I feel a responsibility to warn
people that every single attempt to fundamentally change capitalism has been met
with mass violence by the capitalists. And the only places where capitalism
(temporarily) softened up a bit, were in places where: 1) imperialism -- the
oppression of workers in other countries--was bringing in enough profits that
the capitalists could soften things a bit (temporarily) for some workers at
home; and/or 2) right after a war, when so many people died, but the capitalist
system was able to again expand, bringing a short term prosperity, unfortunately
paid for by the people who were killed in the war.
I admire your optimism. Better to have faith in the system than to have
confidence in nothing, I guess. But better yet to have no confidence in the
capitalist system and yet maintain confidence in our ability to create a world
free from exploitation, greed, and violence.
Alan Spector
============================================
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, July 07, 2003 8:00 PM
Subject: Re: No revolution will be needed
to...
>
> On 7/7/2003 at
2:10 PM Alan Spector wrote:
> >They just "might" consider using
>
>force to prevent that evolution......as they did in Indonesia, Chile and
a
> >hundred other places.
> >
> >Just a
thought:
>
> Maybe our guardians will be able to prevent
significant reform for a while. If so they are going to
> hurt
themselves as much as the little guys. They wouldn't suppress reform if
they knew that
> they are going to be worse off for their efforts.
>
> Our gang of guardians believe in their own BS propaganda about
growth, the magic market,
> infinite resources/substitution, and how they
escaped being bungled and botched. Their
> mirror is broken, and
their brains are on vacation. Wealth is more easily inherited that brains
> when upper class (in)breeding goes for beauty and strength.
>
> The only hope for them and us is to inform them about the
problems they are causing and
> the solutions that are just waiting under
their perfumed noses. They need to pull their heads
> out of their macho
...
>
> >What I ask is: But really, does capitalism work
any better.......would a system
> >that institutionalizes cheating and
violence somehow be able to work?
>
> Capitalism doesn't
necessarily have cheating and violence anymore that communism must
> have
Joe Stalin. Capitalism may be based on greed, but it also used to have
laws. No system can
> function well without some legal and moral
limits on selfishness. The strong tendency for people to be
> greedy
seems to be human nature, but for normal people greed just an adaptation to the
the
> insecurity of wage dependence and the threat of poverty needlessly
imposed on the masses by
> our guardians who stupidly still believe we
have a labor shortage. (while they create labor surplus)
>
>
Without reform the guardians will drop the ball. It will hurt us all, and
a few of them know it. How
> does anyone run the system
better? How could they run it differently? No one has a plan for
today's
> problems. Will we ever have influence or hope if we are
just against what our foolish guardians are doing
> without any positive
vision for an alternative? Are the workers going to be ready to
rule? Will anyone be
> ready? I doubt it if we don't make some
progress in these discussions.
>
> The hundred places you mentioned
above had revolution (elected or not) and met strong opposition.
>
That's why I am proposing reform using elements that are in place now, with a
guiding vision to make
> them work for people instead of
folly. Making some different connections can lead to different
results.
>
> Barry
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Good engineering uses
evolution. Consider the Japanese car designs that are improved, not
replaced, when better designs are available. Here's an outline of goals
and policies that I advocate. We have the components of a successful
economy, as I define it below, already in place. Small changes can make a
big difference.
>
> In my humble opinion we want our economy to
provide sustainability, an abundance of goods and services, economic security
for everyone, and leisure. These goals are synergistic and are hard to separate
or rank.
>
> Various economic arrangements could provide those
wants, and the economic designers, who ever they are, must choose between those
alternative arrangements. That is the hardest part of the design
process.
>
> The easy part is knowing the things that can not
work. To be sustainable an economy must not need growth in scale, because
any rate of growth in scale will finally make any economy un-sustainable.
All the sustainable alternative economies will not need to grow in
scale.
>
> Also, leisure will require the acceptance of automation
into every possible part of the economy. Economic arrangements that don't
use technology can't meet the want for leisure. All the alternative economies
will use technology, and they will not need to grow in scale.
>
>
Economic security requires some arrangement to provide basic food and shelter to
everyone without qualification. With a little bad luck anyone can end-up
needing help, and automation will finally cause widespread unemployment. Pure
market capitalism, private charity, and "opportunity" can not provide economic
security. Some form of transfer payments (welfare or guaranteed income)
will be part of any economic arrangement that provides economic security.
All the alternative economies will use technology, they will not need to grow in
scale, and they will care for the poor.
>
> Caring for the poor in
an economy that values leisure will not focus on making jobs for them.
Wage dependence leads to the need to make jobs, the need to compensate for
automation, and the need for growth in scale. Unearned income is basic to
capitalism, but it's not democratic capitalism when most people are dependant on
wages. A guaranteed income could be adjusted to stabilize wages in an
economy that doesn't need its full productive capacity.
>
> The
need for growth and waste of our consumer economy will finally make providing an
abundance of goods and services impossible. When we make jobs and tolerate
waste to be busy, or to avoid the need to provide welfare, we are in denial
about the power of today's automation to replace human labor, and where we
going.
> The waste of the consumer economy will not provide
abundance, security, or leisure; not for long.
>
> The wish to seek
and hold power leads to the establishment of a system which features the
insecurity of wage dependence and the threat of poverty. If it weren't for
politics even today's economic arrangements could work, for a while. We could
stimulate demand so effectively that our wants for abundance and security, at
least for workers, could be meet. That's why our want for sustainability
is important. It's not enough to nurture the market, to end corruptions, to
implement the most advanced policies in pursuit of unsustainable levels of
hyper-activity. The short-term fix of more consumption is not a
long-term fix, but any long-term fix applies now. For sustainability the
long-term fix is to cut resource consumption, not to increase it.
>
> When we combine the known requirements of our engineered economy we get
something that would seem unworkable without consideration of additional
details. For example, an economy that doesn't grow requires a stable
population, and an economy that is sustainable avoids waste. So, if we
make all products long lasting many goods can be provided by inheritance.
Long-lasting houses combined with population stability will provide houses
without much labor, without economic growth, without excessive resource
consumption, and without a need for large income. Security,
abundance and leisure are all supported by such arrangements.
>
> Last time I checked no revolution will be needed to institute
inheritance, or family planning, or automation, or even transfer payments.
We already have those things in our society. It may take a revolution to
get the media to explain how those existing social features can make the goals
of sustainability, an abundance of goods and services, economic security for
everyone, and leisure a reality. If we could agree we could just use
the internet and forget the corporate media.
>
> Barry
Brooks
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>