John Vertegaal wrote: > ... The evil of capitalism in a nutshell is the power to impose > rents, without even able to turn the proceeds into a greater standard of > living for themselves.
The essence of the argument that Gary Dymski and I launch against John Roemer's theory of exploitation under capitalism is that he sees "surplus-value" (a.k.a. property income) as merely scarcity rent. I'm not going to repeat that argument here. Our papers appear in _Economics and Philosophy_, 7(2), October 1991: pp. 235-275 and _Review of Radical Political Economics_, 21(3), 1989: pp. 13-17. > ... Is there anybody on this list who doesn't equate capitalism with > free-enterprise? To my mind, "free enterprise" is only a slogan, essentially the same as "laissez-faire." It means "allow profit-seeking businesses to do what they want." In practice, it involves subsidies when businesses get themselves into trouble. (This is especially true when the businesses have good political connections.) This is not the same as capitalism _per se_, which might be state-managed instead, as in Japan. In that case, businesses have to follow a lot of rules and regulations, while (of course) they usually receive subsidies when they get into trouble. > Capitalists are as much the enemy of entrepreneurs as they > are of workers. The overwhelming majority of start-ups fail, causing many of > them [entrepreneurs?] to lose their home and more; all due to the evil > tactics of > capitalists, extracting purchasing power far beyond their own embezzled > lifestyle. I don't get the distinction. I follow Schumpeter to see entrepreneurs as a species of "capitalist," i.e., those who introduce some new product or process. That new product or process may not be a good thing: whoever introduced "crack" cocaine was an entrepreneur. Some non-capitalists are would-be entrepreneurs and wannabe capitalists . A small minority actually make it. Usually those who are already capitalists are able to diversify their resources, so that failure does not lead to disaster. They are thus more likely to be successful entrepreneurs. John seems to be following a non-Schumpeterian definition of "entrepreneur" entrepreneurs are simply small business-owners. I prefer the term "petty bourgeois" for them, though to some extent definitions are merely a matter of taste. (BTW, I distinguish the petty bourgeoisie from the professional-managerial "middle layers.") -- Jim Devine / "Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your own way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante. _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
