Max writes: > >Is there some abstract, ethical distribution of capital? What if >there was? It wouldn't matter. One should ask, instead, what sort >of working class activity moves in the right direction. I would >suggest everything that brings capital under more democratic control-- >that regulates markets for the sake of equity and social advance. >>From a global standpoint, you would seek arrangements that allowed >progress for all workers, albeit not necessarily at the same rate or >from the same level. What's fair and what is practical are not >necessarily the same.
What if what's practical does not allow progress for all workers? >International solidarity in this sense would be founded on agreements >for balanced trade and labor standards that permit advances in living >standards on all sides. No Robin Hood-type redistribution with >respect to rich and poor nations, meaning static subtractions from one >financing additions to another, has a political chance on the advanced >side. Max do you think the US is Robin Hood? What did you think of Krugman's Christmas Day column? > It just hands the entire debate to the Right. In textiles, for >instance, an agreement to share growth in the industry among countries >makes sense. No it doesn't if the only industry in which one country has comparative or absolute advantage is textiles. That is, this nice sounding sharing is just a way of stifling industrialization in the rest of the world. > Fairness is possible in the dynamics. I can more readily >accept somewhat less growth in living standards than I can an outright, >absolute reduction. An arrangement to eliminate the industry in one >place because another enjoys comparative advantage makes no sense, except >to a neo-classical economist. We could admit in some aggregate sense >such a change might be seen as fair, but any such perspective ignores >what happens to individuals and cannot be accepted as fair in any >meaningful sense. If you say so. As I said, it's not possible to argue with this because it's not an argument but an announcement of a prerational commitment to national solidarity. > Everybody knows the >unfettered movement of capital is the bane of working class organization. >Marx said such freedom would hasten the revolution, a "the worse/the better" >formulation. Not one of his better moments, but one that some people seem >to want to live in. As usual, you don't understand what Marx was saying. Rakesh
