From: Mark Steven Heyman (markheyman@infoproconsulting.com)
Date: Sun May 08 2005 - 18:59:51 BST
Hi Sam,
Yes, I agree we need an understanding of what capitalism is, and
what it does, and how, and for whom. I don't see that anyone has
added much to this understanding since Smith and Marx, other than
some attempts to make the concept of exploitation for profit
palatable to more sensitive minds.
I appreciate the expanded presentation of De Soto's lake metaphor,
but let's see if we can cut it down to a few sentences.
De Soto's underlying assumption is that private ownership of land
(the lake) is the key to unlocking its potential as a capital asset.
That is, before this capital potential can be released, someone must
have clear title to the land. and this is why a formalized system of
property record management is necessary. A lake needs a dam to
release its energy, and assets need a formal property system to
release their potential surplus value.
Now, reading these few sentences, some obvious questions arise. On
what grounds does he assume that private rather than common ownership
is necessary for the release of economic potential? And, assuming
private ownership of land can be justified, how does one decide the
issue of clear title without considering the moral dimensions of land
ownership in the first place? That is, how do we decide the
legitimacy not only of claims to title, but to "legally" recognized
titles as well? If the moral legitimacy is not explored, and we
simply grant moral and legal standing to all existing titles and
claims, then we are merely entrenching the existing highly unequal
distribution of land, in which case there is no reason to believe
that capitalism will benefit everyone in equal proportion.
Does De Soto address these questions in his book? Does he address
the question of profit through surplus value? That is, how is
capital transmuted into more capital, simply by virtue of the
security of property titles? Landowners don't pay rent, which means
land (as space and resources) is speciously ignored as a factor in
production. So what, other than the exploitation of labor, is left
to account for the rise of surplus value?
If he addresses these issues, please point me in the right direction
and I'll give it a look. But as long as De Soto (and you apparently)
believe that private ownership of land is necessary to release the
land's economic potential, then his claim that capitalism is the best
form of socio-economic organization is nothing more than cheerleading
for the continued existence of large-scale private land holdings.
THAT is the ideology of capitalism we should be exploring in this
thread, IMO.
In fact, I think we need to resolve these issues before going on to
whether or not real-world capitalism finds moral justification in the
Metaphysics of Quality. So for now, I'll snip your your comments up
to De Soto's six points, with the understanding that I will be happy
to return to them once the issues above have been resolved.
<SNIP>
sam:
De Soto's main point, in fact, is that the problem in Third World
countries is not the presence of capitalism, but the absence, in
other words, that those countries are still operating at the social
level, and it is the absence of the intellectual level phenomenon of
capitalism (i.e. the abstract representations of economic assets)
which is hindering their economic development. De Soto's book is an
extended argument as to how and why this is the case.
msh says:
This simply reaffirms De Soto's status as an apologist for western
capitalism. He just ASSUMES it's the best way to go. This
completely ignores the historical reality behind imperialist
invasions of foreign lands, as well as modern western "interventions"
into third world countries, which continue to be carried out in order
to PREVENT them from establishing their own economic models if those
models deviate one iota from western capitalism. Apropos to your MOQ
comments, this is the suppression not the embrace of DQ. In the
process of preventing the realization of viable alternatives to
western capitalism, more markets are forced open, more resources are
privitized, and more cheap labor is secured. Western capitalism,
backed by western power, is indeed their problem.
sam:
Now, the foregoing is the conceptual analysis of 'capitalism', and to
summarise, it is my view that capitalism is the intellectual level
representation and organisation of economic assets in such a way that
new forms of Quality can come into existence. The question might then
be - is this the best or the only intellectual level organisation of
economic assets?
msh says:
Of course. And this is the question that should be answered before
we start cheerleading for capitalism. Although it's true that
capitalism sometimes has a hand in producing new forms of Quality,
your optimism seems to overlook the tremendous negations of Quality
that occur as a byproduct.
sam:
Leaving aside the question of open-ness to DQ, and associated
questions of human rights and liberty etc, (on which Pirsig is
reasonably clear IMHO) it seems to be the case that the existence of
capitalism has benefited the residents of those nations depending
upon it, and it can also be shown to have benefited the population of
the world as a whole. The following thoughts (from Lomborg) seem
pertinent:
<snip Lomborg numbers>
msh says:
As with any statistics, the value of Lomborg's numbers can be
debated, Much depends on the methods of data sampling,
verification, and interpretive modeling.
But let's assume that his numbers are accurate, and go right to his
conclusion:
'Things are not everywhere good [he's mainly concerned with Africa]
but they are better than they used to be". As he puts it, "All in
all, pretty incredible progress."
msh continues:
Saying that things are better than they used to be isn't saying much
about the reasons. I think a case can be made that science and
humanitarian aid, and other NGO involvement, play a major part.
Besides, if the positive change is a result of the spread of
capitalism, what accounts for the huge poverty levels in the richest,
capitalist countries in the world? If the capitalist model is the
most equitable, how do we account for the GROWING world-wide gap
between the rich and poor? That is, why aren't things getting better
for everyone in equal proportion?
sam:
But I'll give the last word here to De Soto again, because I agree
with it completely:
"I am not a diehard capitalist. I do not view capitalism as a credo.
Much more important to me are freedom, compassion for the poor,
respect for the social contract and equal opportunity. But for the
moment, to achieve those goals, capitalism is the only game in town.
It is the only system we know that provides us with the tools
required to create massive surplus value. When capital is a success
story not only in the West but everywhere, we can move beyond the
limits of the physical world and use our minds to soar into the
future."
msh says:
Nice words. Just like George Bush's and Ayn Rand's. Capitalism is
the only game in town because any viable alternatives are crushed in
the cradle. Such is the ideology of capitalism.
Best,
Mark Steven Heyman (msh)
-- InfoPro Consulting - The Professional Information Processors Custom Software Solutions for Windows, PDAs, and the Web Since 1983 Web Site: http://www.infoproconsulting.com "Capital is reckless of the health or length of life of the laborer, unless under compulsion from society." - Karl Marx MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org Mail Archives: Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/ Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html 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 2.1.5 : Sun May 08 2005 - 19:02:25 BST