----- Original Message ----- From: "Jurriaan Bendien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, November 01, 2003 7:19 PM Subject: Re: [PEN-L] New rules for the primitive accumulation of capital - reply to Ian
> Ian, > > I think of it in the same way as intellectual property rights, about which I > have written already. IPR required an objective theory of property, and in > fact a true theory of capitalism as we know it. But if there is some facet > or relation of capitalism which you cannot admit in your theory, then this > impairs your concept of property rights so that your application of IPR > becomes problematic. ==================== I don't know what a non-problematic or objective theory of property is. Afaik, all theories/representations of capitalism are incomplete. This is not the same as a deliberate exclusion of some set of facts in order to maintain the integrity of one's theory, but by the same token, property and theories of property are based on the idea of exclusion, hence an asymmetry in bargaining power-ability to compel. Perhaps this is why, for so long, neoclassical econ. theory assumed away the issues of property and contract; theorists from that school did not want to look at the actual juridical history/theory of p & c and how they were used to exclude/marginalize people. > What they cannot admit is that the whole capitalist > system of private appropriation is based on "getting something for nothing", > i.e. formal juridical equality combines with economic unequality in > exchange; juridically transactors have equal status, but in the real world > their bargaining position is structurally unequal. ===================== Well it will take a lot more education to get people to believe that the entire history of contract law, as it relates to the structuring of labor markets, has been one of persistent, deliberate normative errors. And if they aren't all errors, and fraud is not involved............... >They hope that they will > get sex for nothing, and they hope that for the rest people will notice, and > they will say that according to the contract, employer is entitled to the > full labour-power of the employee, i.e. all potential and observable > behaviours. This shades off into slavery, such that the struggle against > corruption sets the stage for slavery, with the difference that the worker > can choose his exploiter. ===================== Incomplete contracts are very problematic, but after reading Robert Steinfeld's two volumes on the history of free and unfree labor, I'm hard pressed to think about substantive remedies regarding asymmetric bargaining power while remaining a contractarian. > > The same kind of idea applies to corruption, and therefore, somewhere along > the line you must end up saying that a corrupt practice in some sense is not > a corrupt practice, or at any rate that it is not immoral (i.e. it's honest > exploitation), with reference to a universal ethical principle. The > implementation of the new rules therefore once again effectively requires > enforcing a new morality which "naturalises" the unequal bargaining position > with certain legal norms, and it justifies itself by saying that > anti-corruption rules contain the social framework which provides the > freedom to "equalise" bargaining position with integrity, just as, in > educational theory, equality of opportunity is supposed to provide a > meritocracy. But as to the precise legal ramifications, you better ask > Justin, I am not a legal expert. > > Jurriaan ==================== Well, one person's corruption [in politics] is another person's free speech and due process and I don't think there's an Archimedean point/metahistorical baseline of norms that can serve to adjudicate and eliminate all potential asymmetric bargaining positions that might emerge in a dynamic social system that has some sort of property rights regime. Hence some group may always make assertions about systemic corruption. The Marx-Pashukanis notion that such institutionalized asymmetries of bargaining power are to be eliminated if we want to achieve a society of non-coercive mutual respect and freedom and an abundance so immense is fraught with the paradox of just who will have the power to eliminate such asymmetries of power.............Symmetrical bargaining power across all possible interactions in a money based production system is really an absence of power where corruption would simply be recognized by all agents as 'inefficient.' Achieving a future where the dialectic of power/resistance ceases may simply not be possible. Ian
