Ed Weick wrote:
>
> >WILL A SOCIAL CLAUSE IN TRADE AGREEMENTS ADVANCE INTERNATIONAL SOLIDARITY?
> >By David Bacon
> >
> >The flaw in the social democratic argument is that its assumption and
> >purpose is wrong. Society exists to serve the social needs of people, not
> >the productivity needs of capital. Those two needs are in basic conflict -
> >a conflict of class interest.
> >
>
> But surely these things can't be separated. Since our productivity downturn
> in the mid-1970s, unemployment has risen, real wages have risen only very
> slowly, if at all, and poverty and homelessness have become part of everyday
> life. My point is that increasing product belongs to society as a whole,
> not only to capital, and is shared by society by legislatively or
> contractually established rules.
Isn't the problem that, when a society plans itself (I choose
those words pointedly to emphasize my ever increasing conviction
that "free markets" are a form of social planning -- just,
paradoxically, not
a form that is very empathic to most human beings'
needs and aspirations...) -- isn't the problem that, when
a society plans itself in terms of the metric of the productivity
needs of capital (which I presume means "return on investment"),
then the society locks itself into a predicament in which, in
truth, all values must be subordinated to the logic of capital
accumulation, because the only way any social value can be
realized is as a *byproduct* of profits. No profits,
no nuthin. Isn't this the problem?
\brad mccormick
--
Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. (1 Thes 5:21)
Brad McCormick, Ed.D. / [EMAIL PROTECTED]
914.238.0788 / 27 Poillon Rd, Chappaqua NY 10514-3403 USA
-------------------------------------------------------
<![%THINK;[XML]]> Visit my website: http://www.cloud9.net/~bradmcc/
