hello rog:
Well, the starbucks thing wasnt really a point i was emphasizing but...
Yes, technically it is consensual labor, and yes, the threat of starvation
is not impoised (but rather alleviated) by starbucks. But, the market
system sets up this framework of acceptability which ignores what many
(myself included) would consider Good. Starbucks makes tremendous profit
off thrid world people making less than 2 dollars an hour. According to the
market, factoring in the economic conditions of vietnam (hey, wonder why
their economy isnt doing so well, but im not suggesting conspiracy), and the
various supply and demand curves, its a good deal for everyone.
But are the farmers as happy and free as they could be? could the profits
of their labor, if shared equally by them and starbucks entreprenuers,
provide them with the means to be happier and more free? Because market
organization (with scarcity one of the few factors determining how people
get treated) determines the current way is acceptable, we ignore the fact
that were this taking place on a small scale and we could witnees both sides
and how they lived right next to eachother, we would be abhored by how
unfair and against the Good it is. Imagine i get a job making 10 dollars an
hour because of someone i know. now suppose i find some vietnamesse kid
(whom i know is very poor and desperate for money) and pay him 5 dollars an
hour to do most of my work for me.
Technically, no one is getting screwed, i create an opportunity and pass
some money into the hands of a poor worker (and make 5 dollars an hour for
doing very very little). its all consensual and both of us are better off
than we had been before. but if i knew i guy who did this i would think he
was an outrageous jerk, depite what market economics says is an acceptable
way to treat people.
But this is old old marxism, this is proletariots and oppressive, exploitive
higher classes. What im really concerned with is what happens after this
obviously unfair system evolves. what happens to production when labor is
no longer underpaid and alienated. When it isnt the market alone which is
determining how we should treat eachother and the world, but this all
pervading efficent Reason (which the market is a result of) to which we
subordinate our spontinaity. since you only questioned the old school
marxist problem and left out this question, i'll assume i made that point
clear enough for the sake of brevity (can i call it that) of this post.
That is however the central argument against the market, not the
exploitation of thridworld workers which can easily be fixed while still
under a market system (and not even nessicarily through government
intevention), but the "irrationality of the rationality" of the entire
apparatus.
capitalism is a powerful organizing system, my fear is not its weakness but
it strength in homoginizing individuals to one single perception of Quality
(efficency). And most (ideally all) problems in the pubilc and private
buisness sphere become technical problems rather than Qualitative ones.
Which road to choose, the shortest and fastest of corse, you dont even have
to know anything about the roads nor expierence them yourself to know the
straightest, fastest most efficent road is the best. but ZAMM shows us
there is other criteria.
Elliot
_________________________________________________________________
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:02:27 BST