Jack Cole wrote:
>
> On Mon, 13 Dec 1999, john courtneidge wrote:
> > >Part of Ed's post begs a reply.
> > >
> >
> >
> > Dictionary definitions of capitalism highlight two essential features of the
> > capitalist system: that the factors necessary for the production of those
> > commodities necessary for human life are in private ownership and that these
> > factors are used for private benefit (or 'profit').
>
> Maybe a new formulation, starting from scratch, or somewhere less
> convoluted than the outcomes of two centuries of tortured philosophy.
>
> Start with the concept of value and a concept of value transaction.
> Commerce, capital, common good, public and private, the information
> environment, and purposes of human interaction. See what you can build
> from those building blocks.
I know this is "utopian", but one of the main problems with
capitalism is the existence of *workers*.
If the renting of
persons was outlawed like the selling of them has been, then
we could have a market economy of *peers*, in which every person
was an independent or cooperative producer.
This would also put a lid
on income inequalities, since there are few persons who,
by their own labor, would be able to earn more than
a few hundred thousand dollars (US) per year [I'm thinking of
specialist medical doctors here, as examples].
If the ante-bellum Southern intelligentsia,
like Thomas Jefferson, couldn't figure out how to
deal with slavery, we shouldn't be too surprised if
Bill Gates and Donald Trump and Leona Helmsley
can't figure out how to deal with wage-labor.
\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/
