Hey,
The question remains, the balance between inequality and incentives. Why
would you work really hard and try to be really productive if that extra bit
of work would not benefit you at all because all of your efforts went to the
poor? Even if an hour of your work would feed two poor families for a week,
you wouldn't think about that, you would just see your hard earned money
taken away. This is the main problem with communism in my opinion, that
people don't really feel like working really hard, they would rather take
time off because that's more of a reward.
There must be a way of removing inequality while at the same time having
people serve in their own self interests so they will still want to do it.
We are a really smart group of people here, we must have some ideas.
One of the things I was thinking is that we should have a year of mandatory
military service in Canada. It's more for the Social level than anything
else, to develop it but it seems to work in Switzerland and I never hear
about crime in Switzerland. What that will do for inequality? I don't know,
but I think there would be less inequality within our country with the kind
of work ethic that the military can instill. Another option to that one year
of service that a lot of young people who don't believe in the military
would chose to do could be working in a third world country for a year, for
a specific organization meant to deal with the 100,000 or so young people.
That more than anything would instill a real sense of connection to the
third world which more than anything, is required for the path to
inequality. I have no idea how much this system would cost, or the exact
numerical returns, but I can imagine that it would be worth it in the effect
on the psyche of the population. Furthermore, young people want to go to new
places and try new things, they need time do decide what they want to do
with their lives, I'm in that situation myself in fact. And It would be an
easy excuse to take a year off before hitting the workforce or going to
university.
Rob
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-moq_discuss@venus.co.uk
[mailto:owner-moq_discuss@venus.co.uk]On Behalf Of Wim Nusselder
Sent: Saturday, October 27, 2001 7:13 AM
To: MD
Subject: Re: MD Four theses
Dear Platt,
You asked me 24/10 14:36 -0400 to prove my statement "that the
'free enterprise global economics' is a
system of ideas developed on behalf of the privileged to
legitimize their (my and your) privileges".
You will agree that 'free enterprise global economics' is a
system of ideas. Its core is neo-classical economics as first
developed at the end of the 19th century by economists like
Menger, Walras, von Böhm-Bawerk, Jevons, Walras, Marshall and
Pareto. The neo-classical paradigm deviated from the classical
paradigm in economics (founded by Adam Smith in 1776 with "An
inquiry into the nature and causes of the wealth of nations")
by (among other things) founding the value of goods and services
not objectively (in costs made by the producers) but subjectively
(in preferences of the consumers). (Labeling this as "objective"
and "subjective" is not my idea. They did so themselves.) Some of
these early neo-classical writers explicitly stated their intent
to weaken Marxist argumentation, which was firmly rooted in the
classical paradigm. Stated purposes are not very relevant,
however, in my opinion. People have hidden agenda's and ideas
that are created for scientific reasons can be used and further
developed with other purposes.
Which leaves the task to prove that this system of ideas can be
and is used to legitimize (for instance) my and Rog's privileges.
For this proof I only need Rog's e-mails:
Rog wrote 23/9 12:36 -0400:
"I agree that gross imbalances can foster very unhealthy power
imbalances that can lead to exploitation. ... I don't think the
problem is success, it is failure. My goal ... is to export
recipes for others to create similar wealth, freedom, health etc.
... wealth, health, technology and knowledge are not (primarily)
re-apportioned, they are CREATED. The solution to imbalance is to
show others how to create it. If they choose to not follow the
recipe, ... they better be prepared to live with the results"
My summary: "Being wealthy is legitimate. The problem is not
being wealthy and choosing not to follow the example of the
wealthy."
Rog wrote 29/9 19:00 -040: "the true value of free enterprise,
which is that to make money, you basically have to offer your
self to the service of others. You have to make something or do
something that others value and will pay you for. Free enterprise
requires people voluntarily cooperating with each other in ways
that benefit both parties.
I work 40 hours because I value the reward more than my time. My
company pays me because they value my contributions greater than
the money My company makes products (with my help) that consumers
value more than the cost they pay for it So on and so on...
The brilliance of free enterprise is that it uses a distributed
control process that is extremely dynamic and responsive to local
conditions and values. Free enterprise does assume people know
best how to establish values and goals, and it is extremely
opposed to INTELLECTUALS that purport to know better than
everyone else what is the correct and incorrect amount of self
interest."
Do note Rog's subjectivist reasoning: as long as your wealth
derives from others valuing and paying for what you make or do,
it's alright.
A system of ideas that legitimizes Rog's and my wealth
legitimizes anyone's wealth. Quod erat demonstrandum.
Do stay a proponent of capitalism and free markets. It is in your
very best interests. "Free enterprise global economics" is a
"true" system of ideas, i.e. it is consistent with your
experience.
Please don't accept my views just on my authority until you have
broadened your range of experience by stepping in the shoes of an
Indian debt-slave or an illegal immigrant in the U.S.A. who is
forced on pain of exposure to work long hours in abominable
circumstances for a low wage or a woman traded into prostitution.
I suggested some second-rate short-cuts to Rog (the film
"Powaqqatsi") and Sam (history from the viewpoint of the losers
like "Bury my heart at wounded knee" by Dee Brown (1970)). I can'
t guarantee however that they would make you see things as I see
them.
In other words you might care to try and see the world from the
eyes of people whose products and services are NOT valued by
others and who consequently come to undervalue their very selves,
lose their self-respect, destroy themselves with alcohol and
other drugs and/or irrationally cling to any system of ideas that
promises to restore that self-respect. To them such a system of
ideas is consistent with their experience, not because it creates
wealth for them, but because it brings them something which is in
the end much more fundamental for a human being. Even suicide may
not seem too much of a sacrifice to attain it for some of them.
A lot of these people have ages of experience with being unable
to compete on world markets, being of the wrong ethnic group to
share in the spoils of an imperial power in whose sphere of
influence they happened to find themselves and being at the
receiving end of wars against "terrorists", "uncivilized",
"infidels" and "barbarians". Can you offer them a real
alternative to the systems of ideas they cling to or the alcohol
and other drugs with which they try to forget themselves?
Most Americans treat "Marxism" (and socialism and communism,
which are not the same) as a term of abuse. A suspicion of
"Marxist leanings" or "Marxist spectacles" entitles me to
disregard of my arguments and condemnation of my opinions. I
doubt whether those Americans have studied Marxism enough to know
its real defects (like I had to in my -European- studies in
economics):
- material determinism
- "objectivist" founding of values
- not developing an alternative to capitalism (Socialism and -in
the end- communism according to Marx were to develop
automatically from capitalism given material determinism. Not
detailing what these terms implied, enabled despotic
semi-peripheral states to claim the labels of "socialism" and
"communism" even before "capitalism" had fully developed there.
Fully developed "capitalism", like that in England, was for Marx
a prerequisite for the predetermined transition to "socialism".)
- not adequately analyzing the circumstances in
"not-yet-capitalist" part of the world and consequently
neglecting the international aspects of capitalism.
Rog admits as much by telling Davor 24/9 22:38 -0400 that Marxism
is at the bottom of his reading list.
"Emphasis on privilege, exploitation and inequality" (your
posting of 24/10 14:36 -0400) is not a valid definition of
Marxism. I guess Sam or Jonathan could provide you with a couple
of Old Testament quotations fitting this "definition" too. I have
never encountered it as a definition of Marxism by any-one having
studied it enough (either as a follower or as an opponent) to be
able to authoritatively define it. Please either don't accuse me
of Marxism unless you can show that my ideas fit a more
authoritative definition or stop using it as term of abuse and
reply to my arguments. As I am neither a Marxist, nor a
socialist, nor a communist in my own view, our discussion need
not revisit the issue of capitalism vs. socialism as discussed
previously in this mailing list.
With friendly greetings,
Wim
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
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 - 16:01:34 BST