Dear Fran, I learned in politics in my own country, in my own language, every word can have lightly different meanings. One has to see them in their context. Dictionaries concern dead languages. But in the living language first of all we have to show our feelings. Politics are slightly different from stage at that point. ----- Original Message ----- From: frantheman To: "Minds Eye" Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2009 8:44 PM Subject: [Mind's Eye] Re: capitalism
Getting back to some fundamental questions regarding discussions, I remember one of the first rules I learned was, "first, define your terms". I posted here a couple of days ago about some problems in defining what is meant, or not meant, by socialism. Now I'd like to ask the question, what do the various participants in this discussion mean by "capital" and, consequently, "capitalism"? The following Wikipedia links serve primarily as an example of how complex the quest for an answer to this deceptively easy question can be - just for a start! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labour_Theory_of_Value http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marginalism I don't have any easy answers to a question which has occupied political economists and philosophers from at least the time of Adam Smith. If we leave aside squirrels (and other such animals) who lay down a store of energy for seasons when energy is not readily available, humans are unique among animals in their propensity to produce, store and accumulate energy (or potential sources of energy) surplus to their current subsistence requirements. We then go on to apportion varying "value" to this stored energy and establish mechanisms whereby this stored energy, or sources of energy are "owned", either individually or in shared ways of some kind and then exchange them continuously with each other. What we really "need" is quite modest - enough energy to be sufficently warm, nourished and secure. Everything above this is, strictly seen, surplus to basic requirements, although I suspect that our need for security is fundamental to our drive to accumulate and trade. But so are other factors, such as competitiveness within a group, or between groups, as well as status. The fundamental thing is energy; potential (eg. arable land), accumulated, stored. The end result of very complex social, sociological and cultural processes is the development of agreed monetary value (and the concept of money itself is a very complex one) for all sorts of commodities and services - potential or stored forms of energy - (and their manifold combinations and variations) and the mechanisms we develop to trade and exchange these with each other. As in all such products of our immensely complex socialisation and culturalisation, there is much in this whole process which is not logical or rational. I think we should also be cautious about regarding the mechanisms and concepts we have developed as being being written on tablets of stone. One of the things I value most about Neil's posts is his ability to cogently question many of our fundamental assumptions about the systems we currently use to (mal) organise our societies. I have a feeling that if we want to make things better - indeed to safeguard our future and that of our children - we need to think more creatively about fundamentals, to see if we can't work out (and implement) radically different ways of doing things. But all this presupposes such virtues as honesty and courage, virtues which are, unfortunately, rather scarce, particularly among the movers and shakers in our world. Francis On 27 Jan., 19:33, gruff <[email protected]> wrote: > "... On Jan 25, 4:58 pm, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: ..." > > > In the end I suspect we could go on forever Gruff - perhaps to > > discover we operate on similar definitions! > > Probably very true, especially the part about operating on similar > definitions. > > > The issue is that when people discuss "capitalism" they are often stuck in > > chronic, soaked-up positions they don't understand themselves. > > This could be said about most people who open their mouths about > economics, even many of those in government and the financial industry > (even myself at times.) Then there are those who only dig deep enough > to find a way to enrich their own pockets. I think very few are > actually interested in or understand much about economics and > capitalism. > > > One interpretation of your distribution and exchange stuff > > is that of parasitic behaviour and recent bwanking looks very much > > like massively extended middle-man work failing to add an value at all > > and eventually crashing the system. > > Okay, basics then. Any economic system and most especially capitalism > is, to my thinking, based in the simplicity of supply and demand which > requires capital to function. It has to begin here because we are all > on the demand side as we all need and consume goods and services to > function. And most of us are on the supply side as well, working to > produce those goods and services and deliver them (for a price of > course -- this is the capital in capitalist) to the end user -- the > consumer. I know consumer is a dirty word in some circles but it is > still an apt description of each of our functions in any type of > economy. We each need food, clothing, shelter and transportation to > live. They are the basics and we are well beyond the means of 6+ > billion of us to eke out our sustenance individually without the > support and cooperation of others. > > We live in a world that requires a great deal of trust in our fellow > men and women, whether we like it or not. We place a great deal of > trust in the individuals comprising society just by waking up in the > morning and walking out the door, let alone getting into a car and > driving to work. Without that mutual trust that each of us will > maintain and abide by the rule of law society would not function and > would have fallen apart a long time ago. Our economic environment > demands that same trust. Fortunately that trust is mostly well- > founded since we all manage to get along and keep things functioning > -- for the most part. > > > What I'm after is some grounded notion of what we actually get in transactions. > > Hmm. What do we get out of capitalist transaction? First of all via > possession of sufficient capital we get (demand) a means of acquiring > goods and services by returning a medium of exchange (capital in the > form of cash or credit) to the producer of said goods and services > (supply). This is a cycle or a closed system if you prefer, but I > think it defines what each of us actually get in these capitalist > transactions. > > The supplier, if operating under a credible principle of capitalist > business and a basic morality, will recover the cost of goods and > labor plus a profit which allows the supplier to expand business and > take home a livable income. But that supplier is also a consumer. > The supplier consumes goods and labor in the process of acquiring the > means to offer services and goods, thus adding one more link in the > supply & demand chain. The supplier also become demand in this sense > as well as when the supplier goes home and consumes shelter, food, > clothing and the other necessities and luxuries of life. > > However, if proper husbandry of this system is not maintained -- if > greed and corruption are not prevented from raising their ugly heads > -- the system gets out of balance ... it goes all higgledy-piggledy, > which I think aptly describes our current situation. > > > I have an argument > > that capitalism actually prevents wealth creation - it certainly did > > in the old Soviet areas and I think I see this every day here - but I > > don't see this as necessarily an anti-capitalist argument, just as an > > attempt to do "tropical fish realism" in terms of work and reward. > > I'm not sure what you mean by this statement. It does not appear to > be an argument that capitalism prevents wealth. I don't think it's > possible to call the old Soviet system capitalism in any way, shape or > form. I also have no idea what tropical fish realism is and how it > relates to work and reward (supply and demand). What I do know is > that morality plays a critical part in the proper functioning of any > economic system, but capitalism because of it's complex nature, is > ripe ground for greed and corruption to arise. > > > Around the world, there are shits who rip everyone else off - it may > > well be that we don't focus enough on stopping this and that it is > > this that allows work to create wealth. Economics is a phlogiston > > theory - it hasn't established basics on which to operate. > > Herein lies a defect of capitalism ... or rather a defect in the > practitioners of capitalism. A capitalist economic system devoid of > morality is merely smash and grab, each out for what he or she can get > and to hell with the rest of the world. The simple solution to our > current crisis is to figure out how to entice and encourage people to > behave morally, to take only a fair share and give a fair price for > reasonable quality services and goods. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/Minds-Eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
