Re: The two essential features of the capitalist system
Dear Robert and f/w friends, all,
Thanks in abundance for this.
I strongly agree that a 'pre-design' analysis of values is worth doing.
(I've a values-selection list that I could e-send in this vein.)
A complimentary approach that I've played with is to craft a 'Needs-Based'
analysis, which might well lead to a 'Need-Based Politics' rather than the
'Rights-Based Politics' so beloved of many reformers.
(Again, I can e-send an essay on that - apologies that I've pre-worked on
these matters!)
At base of all, we need to dispense with the need for money to make its
maximum return in the minimum possible time, since this leads to the
following heirarchy:
Needs of money > Needs of people > Needs of the planet > Needs of
good/god/the moral way/whatever
(Omit the last if this god-stuff fraggles you!)
I'm strongly of the view that we need invert this ordering, and, that to do
this, the abolition of usury is key - and that can only be achieved thro'
appropriate legislation.
Abundant hugs to you all,
j
**
--
>From: "W. Robert Needham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: Re: The two essential features of the capitalist system
>Date: Wed, Dec 22, 1999, 9:34 AM
>
> re: your post of Tue, 21 Dec 1999 22:43:52 -0500
>
> A quick reponse.
>
> What do you mean by communism? Is the organizational form or your communism
> hierarchical as in the 'Etatism' of Stalin's Russia? What are the
> operational sets of values that are at work in capitalism (how about
> unconstrained liberty, inequality, and law of the jungle competition) and
> in your communism (how about liberty constained by state in all dimensions,
> inequality, and forced fraternity of war time trenches (see B. Crick,
> Socialist Values and Time, Fabian Society)?
>
> In defining an ideal system why not start with a base camp position that
> what we humans are all about or ought to be all about is to create the
> conditions for the free and full development of each person as the
> conditions for the free and full development of all (Marx and Engels).
> Subsequent logac may get one to the realization that the operational set of
> values that seems likely to best do that is: liberty morally constrained by
> not doing injustice to others; equality, defined as the eliimination of all
> unjustifiable inequalities (something society can't get by any other means
> would seem to be a justification for an inequality); and community
> mindfulness.
>
> The words of this 'trinity' of secular values seems preferable to the old
> fashioned liberty, equality and fraternity. Negative freedom or "freedom
> from something" fits in as freedom from injustice done to you by others.
> Note this puts the emphasis on the positive developmental freedom to do or
> to become of each that is missing in conventional liberalism, ie.,
> capitalism (private bureaucracy governs, including the government) and in
> etatism (state bureaucracy governs all) where unmorally constrained liberty
> dominates the argument in each and developmental freedom is assured only to
> those who dominate).
>
> What is 'left', I think, is a flatter participatory democracy which can be
> thought of as social democracy or a full democracy of human rights
> consistent with the UN UDHR.
>
> It helps to ask what sort of society do you want to live in and what sort
> of society would you like to leave to your children and grandchildren.
> Justice is impossible in both capitalism and etatism so we struggle,
> however slowly, for social democracy. Having the definitions straight seems
> to help in some sense.
>
>
>
>>Dear f/w friends
>>
>>Time, perhaps for a next step in this.
>>
>>My guess might be that few of us see capitalism as *the* last word in social
>>and global management ('That which has a start also has an end' and so on.)
>>
>>I think, that, if we are to have any chance of defining a better system (at
>>least one, practically, that we could get to within our? life-times!), then
>>defining 'where we are now' is one fair place to start.
>>
>>Ok, Ok, I accept that defining tangibles and intangibles is a slippery task.
>>tho' key to that is to try to untangle cause from effects (Dilbert:
>>"Capitalism; The harder I work, the fatter my boss becomes." - a description
>>of cansequences rather than cause - this definition is equally true of other
>>heirarchy-based systems!)
>>
>>Hence I accept, full well, that the operational level of definition that I
>>took from the Oxford Dictionary ("Private ownershi
Re: The two essential features of the capitalist system
Dear Bill and f/w friends,
Thanks, also, in abundance for this.
Firstly, I *absolutely* agree that we need to move from the concept (legally
enforced!) of 'Ownership' to one of 'Stewardship.'
("Possessions possess" and all that!)
Secondly, thanks Bill (Bill? William? Will?) for completing the Table
(below).
My thoughts had led me to name the third line as 'Totalitarianism' and the
last as 'Co-operative Socialism' with the thought around your stewardship
comment as being better than 'Ownership' there, tho' these are (?only?)
names.
Does this take us forward?
( "What, for example, practically are those 'Factors of production' that are
privately owned under capitalism?" might be one next question to ask, tho'
not necessarily the best one to ask next?)
More hugs
j
**
--
>From: William B Ward <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> John, it would appear, if my thinking is correct, that we already have a
> complete matrix [see end of the message below]. What we may need to do
> is add some other intervening variables which deal with other than
> ownership. For instance, AZT was developed with about a billion dollars
> of public taxes but the profit goes to a private company. The web itself
> is another example of public funding and private benefit to some extent.
>
> This is somewhat in line with a bumper sticker I saw the other day about
> Earth:
>
> If you can't take care of it, give it back. Proud to be
> a Cherokee.
>
> Maybe we need to add stewardship in here somewhere.
>
> Bill Ward
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> *
> **
>
>
Economic system Ownership of productive assets Ownership of Benefits
CapitalismPrivate Private
Communism Public Public
(Theoretical?)
>>
MonopoliesPublic Private
>>
Charities Private Public
>
Re: The two essential features of the capitalist system - on from Seattle?
Dear f/w friends
Time, perhaps for a next step in this.
My guess might be that few of us see capitalism as *the* last word in social
and global management ('That which has a start also has an end' and so on.)
I think, that, if we are to have any chance of defining a better system (at
least one, practically, that we could get to within our? life-times!), then
defining 'where we are now' is one fair place to start.
Ok, Ok, I accept that defining tangibles and intangibles is a slippery task.
tho' key to that is to try to untangle cause from effects:
(Dilbert: "Capitalism; The harder I work, the fatter my boss becomes." - a
description
of consequences rather than cause - this definition is equally true of other
heirarchy-based systems!)
Hence I accept, full well, that the operational level of definition that I
took from the Oxford Dictionary ("Private ownership of the means of
production and their use for private profit' - I paraphrase a bit) is a
start only, but this will get us along.)
(Consider, for example, the fact that the above has an 'ethical' component
behind it - that ownership of anything is realistically possible,which we
could challenge, *but* let's leave that to one side for while.)
So, the OD definition leads to the start of the following start to a table
of possibilities:
Economic systemOwnership of productive assetsOwnership of benefits
Capitalism Private Private
Communism PublicPublic
(Theoretical?)
OK, f/w friends, any others?
Hugs
john
***
Re: The two essential features of the capitalist system
John, it would appear, if my thinking is correct, that we already have a
complete matrix [see end of the message below]. What we may need to do
is add some other intervening variables which deal with other than
ownership. For instance, AZT was developed with about a billion dollars
of public taxes but the profit goes to a private company. The web itself
is another example of public funding and private benefit to some extent.
This is somewhat in line with a bumper sticker I saw the other day about
Earth:
If you can't take care of it, give it back. Proud to be
a Cherokee.
Maybe we need to add stewardship in here somewhere.
Bill Ward
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
*
**
On Tue, 21 Dec 1999 22:43:52 -0500 "john courtneidge"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Dear f/w friends
>
> Time, perhaps for a next step in this.
>
> My guess might be that few of us see capitalism as *the* last word
> in social
> and global management ('That which has a start also has an end' and
> so on.)
>
> I think, that, if we are to have any chance of defining a better
> system (at
> least one, practically, that we could get to within our?
> life-times!), then
> defining 'where we are now' is one fair place to start.
>
> Ok, Ok, I accept that defining tangibles and intangibles is a
> slippery task.
> tho' key to that is to try to untangle cause from effects (Dilbert:
> "Capitalism; The harder I work, the fatter my boss becomes." - a
> description
> of cansequences rather than cause - this definition is equally true
> of other
> heirarchy-based systems!)
>
> Hence I accept, full well, that the operational level of definition
> that I
> took from the Oxford Dictionary ("Private ownership of the means of
> production and their use for private profit' - I paraphrase a bit)
> is a
> start only, but this will get us along.)
>
> (Consider, for example, the fact that the above has an 'ethical'
> component
> behind it - that ownership of anything is realistically
> possible,which we
> could challenge, *but* let's leave that to one side for while.)
>
>
> So, the OD definition leads to the start of the following start to a
> table
> of possibilities:
> John
Economic system Ownership ofOwnership of
> productive assets
benefits
>
> Capitalism Private
Private
>
> Communism Public
Public
> (Theoretical?)
>
Monopolies Public
Private
>
Charities Private
Public
Re: The two essential features of the capitalist system
re: your post of Tue, 21 Dec 1999 22:43:52 -0500
A quick reponse.
What do you mean by communism? Is the organizational form or your communism
hierarchical as in the 'Etatism' of Stalin's Russia? What are the
operational sets of values that are at work in capitalism (how about
unconstrained liberty, inequality, and law of the jungle competition) and
in your communism (how about liberty constained by state in all dimensions,
inequality, and forced fraternity of war time trenches (see B. Crick,
Socialist Values and Time, Fabian Society)?
In defining an ideal system why not start with a base camp position that
what we humans are all about or ought to be all about is to create the
conditions for the free and full development of each person as the
conditions for the free and full development of all (Marx and Engels).
Subsequent logac may get one to the realization that the operational set of
values that seems likely to best do that is: liberty morally constrained by
not doing injustice to others; equality, defined as the eliimination of all
unjustifiable inequalities (something society can't get by any other means
would seem to be a justification for an inequality); and community
mindfulness.
The words of this 'trinity' of secular values seems preferable to the old
fashioned liberty, equality and fraternity. Negative freedom or "freedom
from something" fits in as freedom from injustice done to you by others.
Note this puts the emphasis on the positive developmental freedom to do or
to become of each that is missing in conventional liberalism, ie.,
capitalism (private bureaucracy governs, including the government) and in
etatism (state bureaucracy governs all) where unmorally constrained liberty
dominates the argument in each and developmental freedom is assured only to
those who dominate).
What is 'left', I think, is a flatter participatory democracy which can be
thought of as social democracy or a full democracy of human rights
consistent with the UN UDHR.
It helps to ask what sort of society do you want to live in and what sort
of society would you like to leave to your children and grandchildren.
Justice is impossible in both capitalism and etatism so we struggle,
however slowly, for social democracy. Having the definitions straight seems
to help in some sense.
>Dear f/w friends
>
>Time, perhaps for a next step in this.
>
>My guess might be that few of us see capitalism as *the* last word in social
>and global management ('That which has a start also has an end' and so on.)
>
>I think, that, if we are to have any chance of defining a better system (at
>least one, practically, that we could get to within our? life-times!), then
>defining 'where we are now' is one fair place to start.
>
>Ok, Ok, I accept that defining tangibles and intangibles is a slippery task.
>tho' key to that is to try to untangle cause from effects (Dilbert:
>"Capitalism; The harder I work, the fatter my boss becomes." - a description
>of cansequences rather than cause - this definition is equally true of other
>heirarchy-based systems!)
>
>Hence I accept, full well, that the operational level of definition that I
>took from the Oxford Dictionary ("Private ownership of the means of
>production and their use for private profit' - I paraphrase a bit) is a
>start only, but this will get us along.)
>
>(Consider, for example, the fact that the above has an 'ethical' component
>behind it - that ownership of anything is realistically possible,which we
>could challenge, *but* let's leave that to one side for while.)
>
>
>So, the OD definition leads to the start of the following start to a table
>of possibilities:
>
>
>Economic systemOwnership of productive assetsOwnership of benefits
>
>Capitalism Private Private
>
>Communism PublicPublic
>(Theoretical?)
>
>
>OK, f/w friends, any others?
>
>Hugs
>
>john
>
>***
Dr. W. Robert Needham
Director, Canadian Studies Program
St. Paul's United College
University of Waterloo
Waterloo Ontario N2L 3G5
http://arts.uwaterloo.ca/ECON/faculty/needham.html
Re: The two essential features of the capitalist system
Dear f/w friends
Time, perhaps for a next step in this.
My guess might be that few of us see capitalism as *the* last word in social
and global management ('That which has a start also has an end' and so on.)
I think, that, if we are to have any chance of defining a better system (at
least one, practically, that we could get to within our? life-times!), then
defining 'where we are now' is one fair place to start.
Ok, Ok, I accept that defining tangibles and intangibles is a slippery task.
tho' key to that is to try to untangle cause from effects (Dilbert:
"Capitalism; The harder I work, the fatter my boss becomes." - a description
of cansequences rather than cause - this definition is equally true of other
heirarchy-based systems!)
Hence I accept, full well, that the operational level of definition that I
took from the Oxford Dictionary ("Private ownership of the means of
production and their use for private profit' - I paraphrase a bit) is a
start only, but this will get us along.)
(Consider, for example, the fact that the above has an 'ethical' component
behind it - that ownership of anything is realistically possible,which we
could challenge, *but* let's leave that to one side for while.)
So, the OD definition leads to the start of the following start to a table
of possibilities:
Economic systemOwnership of productive assetsOwnership of benefits
Capitalism Private Private
Communism PublicPublic
(Theoretical?)
OK, f/w friends, any others?
Hugs
john
***
Re: [Brad] Re: The two essential features of the capitalist system
X-Envelope-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-Envelope-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Wed, 15 Dec 1999 20:00:13 -0500 From: "Brad McCormick, Ed.D." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Ed Goertzen wrote: [snip] > Brad wrote > 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. [snip] > Edward said: > The whole point about motivation in a capitalist society was "reward or > gain for effort." > When the "new labour demanding" capitalists found that no one would work > for them, there followed the "enclosure laws" depriving labour of a means > (rural, agrarian, mixed farming) of existance without wages. deprived of a > means of existance labour was swept into urban areas for exploitation by > capitalists who hired the lowest bidder. > > Since that time, the capitalist motivation has changed to "privation for > lack of effort." Perhaps this is stating the obvious, but probably a more accurate position would be something like: "privation for lack of effort, and for effort, too", or, less hyperbole: "disconnection of effort from reward" (else "coupon clippers" must really be building up their biceps!). But, seriously, I once heard a manager at one place I work reveal at least *his* ideology: "I want to see asses and elbows." My idea (and probably yours, too?): Work smart, *not* hard. === Hi Brad: I've no problem with your take on what I said. My real objection includes that corporate persons can own other corporate persons. Smacks of slavery to me! Peace and goodwill Edward G Peace and goodwill Ed Goertzen, Oshawa, L1G 2S2, + SIGNATURE - "Subsidiarity", Defined in the Papal encyclical "Quadragisemo Anno", as quoted in "The Age of Paradox" by Charles Handy". "It is an injustice, a grave evil and a disturbance of right order for a large and higher organization to arrogate to itself functions which can be performed efficiently by smaller, lower bodies...". +
[Brad] Re: The two essential features of the capitalist system
SNIP 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'). Jack Cole wrote: > 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. Brad wrote 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 Edward said: The whole point about motivation in a capitalist society was "reward or gain for effort." When the "new labour demanding" capitalists found that no one would work for them, there followed the "enclosure laws" depriving labour of a means (rural, agrarian, mixed farming) of existance without wages. deprived of a means of existance labour was swept into urban areas for exploitation by capitalists who hired the lowest bidder. Since that time, the capitalist motivation has changed to "privation for lack of effort." Regards Edward G ===
[Brad] Re: The two essential features of the capitalist system
SNIP 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'). Jack Cole wrote: > 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. Brad wrote 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 Edward said: The whole point about motivation in a capitalist society was "reward or gain for effort." When the "new labour demanding" capitalists found that no one would work for them, there followed the "enclosure laws" depriving labour of a means (rural, agrarian, mixed farming) of existance without wages. deprived of a means of existance labour was swept into urban areas for exploitation by capitalists who hired the lowest bidder. Since that time, the capitalist motivation has changed to "privation for lack of effort." Regards Edward G ===
Re: The two essential features of the capitalist system (Was Re:torn: Reply to Ed Wieck)
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.
Re: The two essential features of the capitalist system (Was Re: torn:Reply to Ed Wieck)
Sorry for this timewarp to Dec 6, when I first attempted to post the attached. I have changed servers (new email addr), and had difficulty setting parameters for list subscriptions. John C. makes his points well in this post. The commonweal, though, needs more than an apportionment plan for sustained well-being of humans and the Commons (habitat). Here's the dated post: -- I think Deborah Middleton's point about the unsustainability of developing (growing?) our way out of human problems should not be dismissed. Most know my position on current population overshoot of at least 300%. Brad noted this point. Arthur posted Chapmans recent piece from which I quote: > Furthermore, say the critics, the foundational premise of the WTO and > other advocates of globalization is unending economic growth and > consumption, with the single and unchallengeable model of the United > States as the paradigm that should be emulated around the world. This > points to environmental suicide. It's unthinkable that the billions > of people we expect to greet in the next century should all be > encouraged to strive for the American dream of a suburban house, a > car and everything that Wal-Mart or Sears sells. Under that model, > the human race would devour the Earth very rapidly, as we seem to be > doing already. > > The prospect that every person on Earth should be turned into a clone > of the average American middle-class consumer is terrifying and > abhorrent to many people who treasure the diversity of human culture, > which is rapidly eroding. > > When the promises of abundance and the easy consumer life are > combined with the realities of environmental constraints and > deepening income inequality, the critics say, we are setting > ourselves up for huge future conflicts, not sustainable world peace. It may boil down to choosing actions which make you 'feel better', or those which decrease probabilities of greater suffering (quantitatively and qualitatively) in the future. These can be the same, but my experience is that that is rarely the case. Taking in stray cats or dogs, for example, does little to reduce the numbers of them suffering in the future. Voluntary simplicity is a hard sell when the tidal wave of humanity seeks more secure material lives. Jay Hanson and I have quoted Garrett Hardin's idea regarding population reduction before (applies to wasteful living too): "mutual coercion, mutually agreed upon". The alternative is first coercion of the many by the few, then of all by all trying to survive in insufficient habitat. Nasty future of work. Steve
