Re: The New Panglossianism and Baby's bathwater

 Good point Elson.

 If we add to that the uses of "Big Government" when the capitalists decide
THEY
 want to use Big Government, such as using !)Condemnation of private
 property, purchase by the government and then selling it to private
 interests; 2)price supports; 3) inflated defense and other government
 spending; 4)building infrastructure to help particular industries;
 5)government scientific research that gets handed over for free to
 corporations; 6) making some industries "public" (such as air traffic
 controllers) so that the force of the government can be used agains them if
 they strike; 7) banning workers from certain tactics, such as secondary
 boycotts, to protect companies; 8)coercing low income people "welfare" to
 work for very low wages for private companies; 9) renting out prison labor
 for very low wages; and of course 10) imperialism, breaking unions in other
 countries and supporting repressive government there --- add all these to
 the equation and we see how big business JUST LOVES big government when
they
 need it, AND how the accumulation of their wealth is not simply the result
 of the unfettered market.  Perhaps Starbucks' profits are partly due to the
 repression of workers by CIA-assisted forces, in the coffee-producing
 places.

 Can this system be reformed via elections? Lots of good people have tried.
 But things are actually getting worse for most people, even in the U.S.,
and
 that is now! Wait until the business cycle has another downturn (crisis of
 overproduction) and the war plans are put into effect.


 I know that violence is an unpleasant concept, but the everyday functioning
 of the system heaps massive violence on millions of people every week. The
 price of "wing tip shoes" is less important than the price of
anti-bacterial
 medicine. The right to vote is meaningless if you die at the age of 6
 months. The supposed victory of Ghandi (which is open to question) could be
 counter-argued by the disastrous consequences (mass death) caused by the
 failure of many to use violence against the Nazis. The U.S. civil war was
 also quite unpleasant, including the provocations by John Brown, but how
 many more would have died if opponents of slavery confined themselves to
 non-violence?

 In any case, any serious study of the economy would indicate that there is
 NO free market and can never be. Those who advocate "free market" only do
so
 when that slogan protects their interests. When "responsible government
 control" protects their interests, then they mouth that set of slogans.

 Alan Spector


> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Elson <facbolese@usao.edu>
> To: WORLD SYSTEMS NETWORK <wsn@csf.colorado.edu>
> Sent: Saturday, November 20, 1999 6:30 PM
> Subject: RE: The New Panglossianism and Baby's bathwater
>
>
> > > Dear WSNers: Elson Boles wrote, in defense of Alan Spector, and
> apparently
> > > contrary to my post that:
> > > ...snip...
> > > On workers' wages approaching
> > > owners', I'm not sure
> > > I would regard that as a just outcome given that the owners must
> > > be compensated
> > > for the risks they take and for their initial and on-going
> > > investment. (I say
> > > this as a person who has been on strike within the last two
> > > years)Besides, who
> > > wants to go around and tell the local Coffee Shop owner he must pay
his
> > > coffee-jocks roughly equal to what he or she makes?
> > ...snip..
> > >Let's not throw out the baby [the market] with the bathwater [the
> > unfettered market?]
> > >
> > > Randy Groves
> >
> > Capitalists and workers do not earn what they deserve and don't deserve
> what
> > they earn.   For instance, a Guatemalan coffee bean picker must work
about
> 5
> > days and pick about 500 pounds of coffee to earn enough income to
purchase
> > one pound of Starbucks coffee at US prices.   Of course, the worker's
> income
> > is spent in an region where prices are not as high on coffee, but it is
> > similar on the other goods that Guatemalans purchase, such as
electronics,
> > autos, etc.  One could go on all day about these inequalities;  Bill
> Gates'
> > earns about as much as the lower 100 million people in the US earn
> COMBINED.
> > Meanwhile the number of children in the US living in poverty increased
> from
> > 3.5 to 6.1 million between 1974 and 1996, and so on.
> >
> > We don't need capitalists; we need to change the relations of the
> > political-economy.   Economic decision making should be democratic, such
> as
> > through cooperatives, not dictatorial.   And the wealth of factories,
> land,
> > etc. should not be held by a tiny minority of the population, but the
> entire
> > population, since after all, it is this population which did most of the
> > work in creating this wealth.  (The facts for the US are about the same
> for
> > the entire world-economy: 20% of the pop own 80% of wealth.  And it gets
> > more concentrated as one moves up.  Is this is not all quite old news?)
> >
> > Capitalists' wealth and "their" associated risks have been accumulated
on
> > the backs of the masses.  Indeed who frequently bails out capitalists?
> Who
> > suffers when factories are closed down to protect profit rates?   I'm
> > reminded of a cartoon of a conversation between a bystander and a
> > capitalist:
> >
> > Bystander: What did you tell those workers?
> > Cap: I told them to work faster.
> > By:  How much do you pay them?
> > Cap: 50$ a day.
> > By: Where'd you get the cash to pay them?
> > Cap: I sold products.
> > By: Who made the products?
> > Cap: They did.
> > By: How many do they make?
> > Cap. About $100 a day per worker.
> > By: Then actually, they're paying you 50$ a day.
> > Cap:  Well, I own the machines.
> > By: How did you get the machines?
> > Cap.  From the profits of products I sold.
> > By: And who made those products, and who made the machinery?
> > Cap: Shut up, they might hear you!
> >
> > But of course, most aren't listening because they've been fed a load of
> crap
> > that capitalists have "risks" and deserve what they earn!  Poppycock!
> > Those who do most of the hard work get paid the least in part because of
> the
> > functioning of the market: competition among less-skilled workers, not
to
> > mention political forces,  drives down their wages.   It's plain stupid
> and
> > immoral to let the capitalist market (the relations among commodities)
> > dictate our lives.
> >
>