This is Capitalism: Child Labor & Child Death
Nathan Newman
Robert Metcalf <bob...@steamer.clam.com> wrote:
>okayed it. And while we're at it, let's repeal those anti-marketplace
>child labor laws that are so harmful to the economy. And the National
>Labor Relations Act of 1935, well, Old Tom Jefferson is still spinning
>over that...
Don't worry. We already have repealed those laws on an international
basis, which is how our multinationals operate. 1 million children under
12 labor in Pakistani carpet factories just as Bangldeshi children work
in garment factories as part of the world capitalist economy.
For those who praise the standard of living of workers under capitalism,
remember that these child workers are just as much a "typical" capitalist
worker as a self-satisfied computer programmer in Silicon Valley.
Capitalism kills children by the millions. I am no fan of Stalinism, but
if we want to play numbers games, just read the following and recognize
that if half the child workers of Pakistan die or are maimed by the time
they are 12, then the crimes of capitalism in that country alone will soon
make Stalin's deaths look small in comparison.
In today's SF CHRONICLE, the following article appeared:
"EXPLOITATION OF CHILDREN INCREASING IN SOUTH ASIA"
ASSOCIATED PRESS- Washington:
"Child labor is increasing dramatically in South Asia due mainly
to the expansion of garment and carpet exports to the West, human rights
groups said yesterday.
The problem has become a primary human rights concern in India,
Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nepal and other nations of the subcontinent.
About 1 million children younger than 12 are employed in
Pakistan's carpet industry, along, said Zohra Yusuf, head of the Human
Rights Commission of Pakistan.
A recent study predicted that almost half of them will be maimed
or die of diseases contracted in the workplace before they are 12, she
said at a briefing organized by Freedom House, a human rights organization.
Other countries on the subcontinent are affected to an even
greater degree, other reports said.
In Bangladesh, hundreds of thousands of children work as bonded
laborers in garment factories producing apparel for sale in American
discount store chains, said Salma Ali, co-founder of that country's
Committee for the Preservation of Human Rights.
Paid the equivalent of 5 cents an hour, they are constantly
indebted to their employers, making it impossible for them to quit a
job. Typically, they work 70 to 80 hours a week.
This was a direct result of the rapid growth of apparel exports,
particularly shirts and blouses, to Western countries including the
United States, she said.
A bill pending in Congress would prohibit importing into the
United States any product made by children under 15."
--- 30 ---
--
**************************************************
* Nathan Newman: new...@garnet.berkeley.edu *
* UC-Berkeley *
GLASS ; JF ; Jim Glass ;x586-0375;(W);634-000
|> In article <304okr$3m...@caviar.clam.com>,
|> Robert Metcalf <bob...@steamer.clam.com> wrote:
|>
|> >okayed it. And while we're at it, let's repeal those anti-marketplace
|> >child labor laws that are so harmful to the economy. And the National
|> >Labor Relations Act of 1935, well, Old Tom Jefferson is still spinning
|> >over that
|
=============================
Well it is evident that you ARE a fan of Stalinism, based on this posting.
"Capitalism kills children by the millions", eh?
What an absurdity. Only from the People's Republic of Berkeley could we see
such rot.
Reminds me of posters that appeared from the radical left while I was a grad
student in Boston. At the time, there were problems with the windows in the
John Hancock building, which popped out during heavy winds and fell on unsuspecting
citizens walking below. The posters screamed that the problem with the Hancock's
falling windows was the fault of Capitalism. How's that? Well, in unintentionally-
revealing logic, they pointed out that if it were not for Capitalism, the building would
never have been built; therefore there wouldn't have BEEN windows to fall on people!
Do you suppose that if the Workers' Paradise were magically instituted worldwide
tomorrow that children would cease dying? Have you learned NOTHING from the spectacle of
the wreckage of the People's Republics in Europe? Does the remarkable enthusiasm of
the former subjects of socialism/communism never again to return to those days tell you
anything?
Are you so naive that you believe that the motivations that lead to exploitation of
children would disappear "if only" the politically-correct economic system were chosen?
Or perhaps--just perhaps-- exploitation of children's labor has more complex and
intractable causes than the catch-all villain of "capitalism" can explain..
Capitalism is indeed the worst economic system ever invented--with the exception of all
the others...
Jim Glass
Emil T. Chuck
In a previous article, new...@garnet.berkeley.edu (Nathan Newman) says:
>Robert Metcalf <bob...@steamer.clam.com> wrote:
>Capitalism kills children by the millions. I am no fan of Stalinism, but
>if we want to play numbers games, just read the following and recognize
>that if half the child workers of Pakistan die or are maimed by the time
>they are 12, then the crimes of capitalism in that country alone will soon
>make Stalin's deaths look small in comparison.
Without a moral framework, capitalism is simply exploitation.
Then again, to you, our country should remain without morals...
--
"My specialty is being right when other people are wrong."
George Bernard Shaw
Emil Thomas Chuck (e...@po.cwru.edu) Department of Genetics
CWRU School of Medicine and Rainbow Babies & Children Hospital
Nathan Newman
Emil T. Chuck <e...@po.CWRU.Edu> wrote:
>
>In a previous article, new...@garnet.berkeley.edu (Nathan Newman) says:
>>Robert Metcalf <bob...@steamer.clam.com> wrote:
>>if we want to play numbers games, just read the following and recognize
>>that if half the child workers of Pakistan die or are maimed by the time
>>they are 12, then the crimes of capitalism in that country alone will soon
>>make Stalin's deaths look small in comparison.
>
>
>Then again, to you, our country should remain without morals...
Interesting. Why would you maintain that someone attacking capitalism is
against morality. Capitalism is a system that states that what is
valuable is not determined by any objective moral standard but is worth
whatever people are willing to pay for it.
A socialist on the other hand argues that we need a moral debate on the
worth of health care versus luxury automobilies and if we have too many
luxury cars and too few hospital beds for the poor, then we should
reallocate resources based on that moral decision.
Capitalism can never have a moral framework since it is based on the
Golden Rule: those with the gold, rule.
Emil T. Chuck
In a previous article, new...@garnet.berkeley.edu (Nathan Newman) says:
>Emil T. Chuck <e...@po.CWRU.Edu> wrote:
>>In a previous article, new...@garnet.berkeley.edu (Nathan Newman) says:
>>>Robert Metcalf <bob...@steamer.clam.com> wrote:
>>>Capitalism kills children by the millions. I am no fan of Stalinism, but
>>>if we want to play numbers games, just read the following and recognize
>>>that if half the child workers of Pakistan die or are maimed by the time
>>>they are 12, then the crimes of capitalism in that country alone will soon
>>>make Stalin's deaths look small in comparison.
>>
>>Without a moral framework, capitalism is simply exploitation.
>>
>>Then again, to you, our country should remain without morals...
>
>Interesting. Why would you maintain that someone attacking capitalism is
>against morality.
No, I'm making a sweeping assumption about your opinion about separation of
church and state.
>Capitalism can never have a moral framework since it is based on the
>Golden Rule: those with the gold, rule.
And you have tested my assumption quite well.
Charles Kalina
Nathan Newman <new...@garnet.berkeley.edu> wrote:
>Capitalism can never have a moral framework since it is based on the
>Golden Rule: those with the gold, rule.
Capitalism is not a moral or social system. It isn't even a
political system (what you describe as the golden rule is plutocracy).
It's an economic system.
But to say it can't exist in a moral framework is false. It
neither presumes nor denies the existence of a moral framework.
--
Charles P. Kalina, Feared Scourge of the USENET
"I have done no harm. But I remember now I am in this earthly world,
where to do harm, is often laudable, to do good sometime accounted
dangerous folly..." (MacBeth via Shakespeare, both dead white males)
Andrew Hall
Nathan> Robert Metcalf <bob...@steamer.clam.com> wrote:
>> okayed it. And while we're at it, let's repeal those
>> anti-marketplace child labor laws that are so harmful to the
>> economy. And the National Labor Relations Act of 1935, well,
>> Old Tom Jefferson is still spinning over that...
Nathan> Don't worry. We already have repealed those laws on an
Nathan> international basis, which is how our multinationals
Nathan> operate. 1 million children under 12 labor in Pakistani
Nathan> carpet factories just as Bangldeshi children work in
Nathan> garment factories as part of the world capitalist economy.
Nathan> For those who praise the standard of living of workers
Nathan> under capitalism, remember that these child workers are
Nathan> just as much a "typical" capitalist worker as a
Nathan> self-satisfied computer programmer in Silicon Valley.
Nathan> Capitalism kills children by the millions. I am no fan of
Nathan> Stalinism, but if we want to play numbers games, just read
Nathan> the following and recognize that if half the child workers
Nathan> of Pakistan die or are maimed by the time they are 12, then
Nathan> the crimes of capitalism in that country alone will soon
Nathan> make Stalin's deaths look small in comparison.
Yes, totally unregulated capitalism encourages all sorts
of abuses. Child labor, unsafe (deadly) working conditions,
total waste of the environment, false claims about product
effectiveness that rips off consumers...
So pure capitalism is utopian. So is pure socialism
or pure communism. None of these pure economic systems
work.
IMO the closest we can get to any of these utopias
is a lightly regulated capitalism. Punish the items
listed above, break up anti-competitive monopolies,
then leave the markets alone. The better run companies
will rise to the top and society will be better off.
Maybe if the social sciences were exact, and central
controllers had perfect information and very large
well programmed computers communism or socialism
would work, but I am not holding my breath.
ah
=======================================================================
We'll let the sunshine in and shine on us, because today we're
happy and tomorrow we'll be even happier.
-- Ex Vice President Dan Quayle, 1988
Andrew Hall
Emil> In a previous article, new...@garnet.berkeley.edu (Nathan
Emil> Newman) says:
>> Robert Metcalf <bob...@steamer.clam.com> wrote: Capitalism kills
>> children by the millions. I am no fan of Stalinism, but if we
>> want to play numbers games, just read the following and
>> recognize that if half the child workers of Pakistan die or are
>> maimed by the time they are 12, then the crimes of capitalism in
>> that country alone will soon make Stalin's deaths look small in
>> comparison.
Emil> Without a moral framework, capitalism is simply exploitation.
I would restate this slightly: Without a moral framework (in
regulation), some capitalists will ruthlessly exploit.
Emil> Then again, to you, our country should remain without
Emil> morals...
No where did he say anything like that. Where do you come
up with such claptrap.
ah
=======================================================================
I hope I never have to deal with it. But obviously I would counsel her
and talk to her and support her on whatever decision she made.
-- Ex Vice President Dan Quayle responding to Larry
King's question of how he would react if his 13-year-old
daughter chose to have an abortion. (CNN, July 22, 1992)
Marilyn Quayle later remarked that her daughter would
'take the child to term.'
Darrell Roy Hougen
it somewhat difficult to comment. However, capitalism is the economic
expression of the moral principles of liberty and justice. Therefore,
it is the system of a just society. However, I don't see anything
just about the treatment of children in Mr. Newman's post:
new...@garnet.berkeley.edu (Nathan Newman) writes:
% "Child labor is increasing dramatically in South Asia due mainly
% to the expansion of garment and carpet exports to the West, human rights
% groups said yesterday.
% The problem has become a primary human rights concern in India,
% Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nepal and other nations of the subcontinent.
% About 1 million children younger than 12 are employed in
% Pakistan's carpet industry, along, said Zohra Yusuf, head of the Human
% Rights Commission of Pakistan.
I don't think that age by itself should be considered that important.
Many such children might die of starvation or disease if they are
unable to find employment. So *if* the factories were to treat them
humanely, they would be providing a service to the children. We in
the West should hesitate to criticize factory conditions until we know
the home life conditions in the places mentioned. Many people live in
huts with dirt floors and many people are on the brink of starvation.
% A recent study predicted that almost half of them will be maimed
% or die of diseases contracted in the workplace before they are 12, she
% said at a briefing organized by Freedom House, a human rights organization.
How many of the nonworking children in the same age group die from
diseases?
% Other countries on the subcontinent are affected to an even
% greater degree, other reports said.
% In Bangladesh, hundreds of thousands of children work as bonded
% laborers in garment factories producing apparel for sale in American
% discount store chains, said Salma Ali, co-founder of that country's
% Committee for the Preservation of Human Rights.
Bonded labor is contrary to the principle of liberty and can hardly be
a fact of a capitalist society as defined above. This sounds more
like Feudalism. I wonder who sold them into bondage? Their parents?
Is buying and selling people a fact of a free society? I don't think
so.
% Paid the equivalent of 5 cents an hour, they are constantly
% indebted to their employers, making it impossible for them to quit a
% job. Typically, they work 70 to 80 hours a week.
% This was a direct result of the rapid growth of apparel exports,
% particularly shirts and blouses, to Western countries including the
% United States, she said.
We should encourage the employers of South East Asia to treat their
employees more humanely. However, we should also encourage U.S.
businesses to support economic development in those countries. The
sooner those countries acquire needed wealth, the sooner people in
those countries will be able to find nonexploitative employment. No
one would work for an exploiter if a job with a nonexploiter was
available. So the best way of reducing exploitation is to put the
exploiters out of business by increasing opportunities and creating
competition.
Darrell R. Hougen
drhg...@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu
Michael Carley
>People have different interpretations of the word `capitalism' making
>it somewhat difficult to comment. However, capitalism is the economic
>expression of the moral principles of liberty and justice. Therefore,
That's nice. Go from a reasonable statement (different interpretations) to
an undefendable position. With nothing in between. I'm impressed.
hen...@dsp.com
IA>I would restate this slightly: Without a moral framework (in
IA>regulation), some capitalists will ruthlessly exploit.
Without a moral framework, no society (except a police state) can
endure. Classical economic theory is based on the premise that society
is moral.
Mailed from DSP Communications ** Internet Access for Northern Cal
(415)647-3213 San Francisco . . . serving Peninsula & Marin
(510)865-9778 Oakland . . . . . . serving East Bay
(510)937-9246 Walnut Creek . . . serving Contra Costa
Vidar Hokstad
ah...@fmrco.com (Andrew Hall) wrote:
>Yes, totally unregulated capitalism encourages all sorts
>of abuses. Child labor, unsafe (deadly) working conditions,
>total waste of the environment, false claims about product
>effectiveness that rips off consumers...
>So pure capitalism is utopian. So is pure socialism
>or pure communism. None of these pure economic systems
>work.
"Pure communism" and "pure socialism"? I suggest that you read
some Marx (his major works is even available on the Internet now).
Communism isn't a ready made system. Communism is an egalitarian
society, not more, not less. Any additional ideas about what
communism will look like is more or less derived from that
definition.
When I say communism must be stateless, I claim that because it is
my belief that no society with a state will be truly egalitarian.
In the same way, Marxism claim communism to be a classless society,
because a system with classes is by definition a system with
social division; a non-egalitarian system.
But we may be wrong. This won't make the communism that arises
more or less "pure" than our ideas. All that really matters is
whether or not this society gives all people the same rights and
possibilities, _and_ that these rights and possibilities are good
enough to prevent new class struggles (for if there is need, somone
will inevitably fight to receive more than his share).
The same way it is with capitalism. Capitalism isn't a finite,
clearly defined state, but a process. To say that one kind of
capitalism is "purer" than another, is meaningless, since the
different kinds of capitalism have are called capitalism because of
a few fundamental principles they share. Among these the accumulation
of capital.
>IMO the closest we can get to any of these utopias
>is a lightly regulated capitalism. Punish the items
>listed above, break up anti-competitive monopolies,
>then leave the markets alone. The better run companies
>will rise to the top and society will be better off.
You are right that the companies that are run best will rise, but
it won't be for the best of society. The companies that will rise
will be the ones that are most effective. This will be:
1) Companies that are powerful enough to ignore the regulations
(using corruption etc.)
2) Companies that are good at working their way around regulations
without breaking the law (in effect those with lots of money
to spend on expensive law-firms etc.)
3) Companies that are good at hiding their crimes for the public.
(again through corruption etc.)
4) Companies that are big enough to buy the competing firms, or
to put them out of business by temporarily dumping their
products.
Most probably, it will be the companies that combine all of these
to different extents, since these will get away with paying lower
wages, paying less attention to security etc., and at the same time
get more, and better, contracts.
Look at Italy for one of the more extreme examples. Now it even
looks as though many of the crooks will get away because one of
them apparantly won an election using his media-empire... :(
Remember that large parts of the world have tried the "lightly
regulated capitalism" for a long time, with the results mentioned
above. Capitalism doesn't award the nicest guys, it awards the guys
that make most money without getting arrested, no matter _how_.
>Maybe if the social sciences were exact, and central
>controllers had perfect information and very large
>well programmed computers communism or socialism
>would work, but I am not holding my breath.
Why should one need that? Communism is as capitalism based on the
_egoism_ of the individuals. However, communism is based on the egoism
of the majority, instead of the minority.
Instead of a small minority getting everything they want, it gives
the people that are poor today, or that will become poor thanks to
capitalism, a possibility to get a decent life through fighting the
rich together, instead of hoping that a few of them will manage to
work their way up by following the rules of capitalism.
A game is always easiest to win if you write your own rules. That's
what communism is all about: Instead of playing by the rules of the
capitalists, we want people to create their own rules; to take control
of their own lives.
> We'll let the sunshine in and shine on us, because today we're
> happy and tomorrow we'll be even happier.
> -- Ex Vice President Dan Quayle, 1988
Why is it that that quote reminds me of Aldous Huxleys "Brave new
world"? I guess Huxley must've described capitalism and other oppressing
systems almost too good... ;)
//-- VIDAR HOKSTAD --- RED FORUM / INTERNATIONALISTS COMMITTEE --\\
// e-mail: vid...@powertech.no/pp...@oslohd.no - tel: +47 638 170 35 \\
Subscribe to "Breakaway - Debates on modern Marxism" - mail me for info
hen...@dsp.com
IM>>People have different interpretations of the word `capitalism' making
IM>>it somewhat difficult to comment. However, capitalism is the economic
IM>>expression of the moral principles of liberty and justice. Therefore,
IM>That's nice. Go from a reasonable statement (different interpretations) to
IM>an undefendable position. With nothing in between. I'm impressed.
The connection between capitalism, liberty, and justice seems perfectly
logical and defendable to me. The basic characteristics of capitalism:
individual ownership of assets, the freedom to do what one wishes with
those assets, and the market system, which rewards merit, are quite
similar to the definitions of liberty and justice. Liberty is the
freedom to do what one wishes, and justice is an impartial merit-based
system of assigning rewards and punishments.
Alex Stephens
hen...@dsp.com
IV>"Pure communism" and "pure socialism"? I suggest that you read
IV>some Marx (his major works is even available on the Internet now).
IV>Communism isn't a ready made system. Communism is an egalitarian
IV>society, not more, not less. Any additional ideas about what
IV>communism will look like is more or less derived from that
IV>definition.
The most important aspect of communism, which you left out, is the
abolition of private property, with production of goods based on
ability, and consumption of goods based on need. The obvious flaw with
this form of production/consumption is that there is no direct incentive
to produce anything, and there is every incentive to consume as much as
possible (before someone else does).
IV>When I say communism must be stateless, I claim that because it is
IV>my belief that no society with a state will be truly egalitarian.
IV>In the same way, Marxism claim communism to be a classless society,
IV>because a system with classes is by definition a system with
IV>social division; a non-egalitarian system.
Communism cannot exist without a state, as you've said, but it's
extremely naive to assume that society will function without a state to
enforce laws. As such, the likelyhood of communism coming into
existence is extremely small. And even if it were to come into
existence, it would almost certainly be very short-lived, eventually
resulting in anarchy, and the collapse of civilisation (although
civilisation would certainly rise again over time). As I see it,
communism is nothing more than a fool's dream, not a viable societal
option comparable to capitalism, socialism, or fascism.
IV> All that really matters is
IV>whether or not this society gives all people the same rights and
IV>possibilities, _and_ that these rights and possibilities are good
IV>enough to prevent new class struggles (for if there is need, somone
IV>will inevitably fight to receive more than his share).
In other words, a capitalist system with a strong educational system
available to all who are willing to learn.
IV>The same way it is with capitalism. Capitalism isn't a finite,
IV>clearly defined state, but a process. To say that one kind of
IV>capitalism is "purer" than another, is meaningless, since the
IV>different kinds of capitalism have are called capitalism because of
IV>a few fundamental principles they share. Among these the accumulation
IV>of capital.
The basic principles of capitalism are individual ownership of property,
and the freedom to do what one wishes with one's resources (land,
labour, capital, and management).
IV>>IMO the closest we can get to any of these utopias
IV>>is a lightly regulated capitalism. Punish the items
IV>>listed above, break up anti-competitive monopolies,
IV>>then leave the markets alone. The better run companies
IV>>will rise to the top and society will be better off.
IV>You are right that the companies that are run best will rise, but
IV>it won't be for the best of society. The companies that will rise
IV>will be the ones that are most effective. This will be:
IV>1) Companies that are powerful enough to ignore the regulations
IV> (using corruption etc.)
IV>2) Companies that are good at working their way around regulations
IV> without breaking the law (in effect those with lots of money
IV> to spend on expensive law-firms etc.)
IV>3) Companies that are good at hiding their crimes for the public.
IV> (again through corruption etc.)
IV>4) Companies that are big enough to buy the competing firms, or
IV> to put them out of business by temporarily dumping their
IV> products.
IV>Most probably, it will be the companies that combine all of these
IV>to different extents, since these will get away with paying lower
IV>wages, paying less attention to security etc., and at the same time
IV>get more, and better, contracts.
Your theories of who will prosper under capitalism aren't supported by
history. In a capitalist system, those who provide what the people want
at a price the people are willing to pay prosper. Those who provide
goods and services that are unwanted, or priced too high fail. How good
a company is run is less relevant than the demand for the goods/services
provided by that company.
A good example of the the way capitalism functions can be found be
examining has examined to the computer industry over the last 15 years.
the largest, most powerful computer company in the world. They
produced mainframe computers, which were the dominant form of computer
at the time. In 1976, the Apple computer was developed and marketed by a
couple of teenagers working in a garage. The Apple Computer represented
a new type of computer, which came to be known as the 'personal
computer'. The demand for the Apple computer led to the formation of
Apple Computer, Inc. In 1977, Apple Computer, Inc. introduced the Apple
II which was followed by numerous other personal computers (including
the IBM's PC in 1981, and Apple's Macintosh in 1984).
A few years ago, Apple surpassed IBM as the number-one computer maker in
the world. This year, Compaq (which was started in the '80's) has moved
past Apple to number one (leaving IBM third). It's unclear whether
Apple or Compaq will be first at the end of the year, but it is clear
that the once-mighty IBM won't be.
The demand for mainframes is declining relative to the the demand for
personal computers. Therefore, regardless of IBM's size and power, they
continue to lose market share to competitors.
The demand for powerful computers that are easy to use allowed Apple to
become number-one because the Macintosh is easier to use than MS-DOS.
However, many people wanted ease of use and compatibility with MS-DOS
and the Intel 80x86 processor line. In order to meet this demand,
Microsoft introduced Windows, which, while less advanced and harder to
use than the Macintosh OS, is easier to use than MS-DOS, and retains
Intel/MS-DOS compatibility. The competition between the Mac and Windows
has brought continual improvements to both, resulting in better
operating systems for consumers.
The situation on the hardware side of the computer market is similar.
Competition between the Intel Pentium and the Motorola PowerPC line of
processors has resulted in a better choice for consumers. The PowerPC
is faster and cheaper, but the Pentium is compatible with previous 80x86
processors, as well as MS-DOS and Windows. Intel is working to catch up
on speed, while the PowerPC makers are working to improve compatibility. As
with software, the benefits go to the consumers.
IV>Remember that large parts of the world have tried the "lightly
IV>regulated capitalism" for a long time, with the results mentioned
IV>above. Capitalism doesn't award the nicest guys, it awards the guys
IV>that make most money without getting arrested, no matter _how_.
Capitalism has led to better technology, higher standards of living for
all segments of the population, and the information revolution. The
'results' you've mentioned are fantasy, not fact.
IV>Why should one need that? Communism is as capitalism based on the
IV>_egoism_ of the individuals. However, communism is based on the
IV>egoism of the majority, instead of the minority.
IV>Instead of a small minority getting everything they want, it gives
IV>the people that are poor today, or that will become poor thanks to
IV>capitalism, a possibility to get a decent life through fighting the
IV>rich together, instead of hoping that a few of them will manage to
IV>work their way up by following the rules of capitalism.
You claim that communism is egalitarian, and then go on to say that it
enables the 'poor' to fight the 'rich' together. Isn't that a little
inconsistent?
On the other point of 'people ... that will become poor thanks to
capitalism', the fact is that people don't become poor 'thanks to
capitalism'. People become rich or poor based on how well they fill
market demand. A person with desired skills or resources who offers
those skills/resources at a reasonable price will be rewarded.
IV>A game is always easiest to win if you write your own rules. That's
IV>what communism is all about: Instead of playing by the rules of the
IV>capitalists
Please explain these 'rules' that 'capitalists' are forcing everyone to
play by.
IV> we want people to create their own rules l
What type of 'rules' would you have people create? What if these
'rules' violate the rights of others?
IV> we want people ... to take control
IV>of their own lives.
In that case, you should support capitalism.
Tim Starr
Nathan Newman <new...@garnet.berkeley.edu> wrote:
>In article <304okr$3m...@caviar.clam.com>,
>Robert Metcalf <bob...@steamer.clam.com> wrote:
>
>>okayed it. And while we're at it, let's repeal those anti-marketplace
>>child labor laws that are so harmful to the economy. And the National
>>Labor Relations Act of 1935, well, Old Tom Jefferson is still spinning
>>over that...
>
>Don't worry. We already have repealed those laws on an international
>basis, which is how our multinationals operate. 1 million children under
>12 labor in Pakistani carpet factories just as Bangldeshi children work
>in garment factories as part of the world capitalist economy.
>
>For those who praise the standard of living of workers under capitalism,
>remember that these child workers are just as much a "typical" capitalist
>worker as a self-satisfied computer programmer in Silicon Valley.
>
>Capitalism kills children by the millions. I am no fan of Stalinism, but
>if we want to play numbers games, just read the following and recognize
>that if half the child workers of Pakistan die or are maimed by the time
>they are 12, then the crimes of capitalism in that country alone will soon
>make Stalin's deaths look small in comparison.
Pakistan. Capitalist. Right. And I'm Arnold Schwarzenegger.
>In today's SF CHRONICLE, the following article appeared:
>
>"EXPLOITATION OF CHILDREN INCREASING IN SOUTH ASIA"
>
>ASSOCIATED PRESS- Washington:
>
> "Child labor is increasing dramatically in South Asia due mainly
>to the expansion of garment and carpet exports to the West, human rights
>groups said yesterday.
> The problem has become a primary human rights concern in India,
>Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nepal and other nations of the subcontinent.
India: socialist Hindu theocracy. Pakistan: socialist Islamic theocracy.
Bangladesh: socialist. Nepal: ruled by communist China.
Where are the examples of children being killed by factory owners in
capitalist countries?
> About 1 million children younger than 12 are employed in
>Pakistan's carpet industry, along, said Zohra Yusuf, head of the Human
>Rights Commission of Pakistan.
So how the fuck does he/she know that?
> A recent study predicted that almost half of them will be maimed
>or die of diseases contracted in the workplace before they are 12, she
>said at a briefing organized by Freedom House, a human rights organization.
What kind of study? Where did it get its data? How did it arrive at
that figure? What are the credentials of this so-called "human rights"
organization, anyways? Where does it get its money?
Tim Starr - Renaissance Now! Think Universally, Act Selfishly
Assistant Editor: Freedom Network News, the newsletter of ISIL,
The International Society for Individual Liberty,
1800 Market St., San Francisco, CA 94102
(415) 864-0952; FAX: (415) 864-7506; 71034...@compuserve.com
Liberty is the Best Policy - tims...@netcom.com
Tim Starr
Andrew Hall <ah...@fmrco.com> wrote:
>
>Yes, totally unregulated capitalism encourages all sorts
>of abuses.
Does not. State "capitalism," i.e., fascism, does.
Tim Starr
>>Robert Metcalf <bob...@steamer.clam.com> wrote:
>>if we want to play numbers games, just read the following and recognize
>>that if half the child workers of Pakistan die or are maimed by the time
>>they are 12, then the crimes of capitalism in that country alone will soon
>>make Stalin's deaths look small in comparison.
>
Exploit: to derive benefit from.
Oh, how AWFUL! People deriving benefit from each other! This MUST be
stopped. I know, let's violently abolish capitalist acts between consenting
adults!
Tim Starr
Nathan Newman <new...@garnet.berkeley.edu> wrote:
>...Capitalism is a system that states that what is
>whatever people are willing to pay for it.
The two aren't mutually exclusive. Capitalism could be interpreted as
saying that the best way to determine the objective worth of things is
to let each individual decide for themselves, then see what things they
prefer the most.
>A socialist on the other hand argues that we need a moral debate on the
>worth of health care versus luxury automobilies and if we have too many
>luxury cars and too few hospital beds for the poor, then we should
>reallocate resources based on that moral decision.
Not quite. This could be done under capitalism, too. In order for it to
be socialist, you have to collectivize ownership of the means of production
and then allocate them by some form of majority rule, which is inherently
abusive to minorities not to mention the fact that it renders rational
calculation of where to allocate resources impossible.
>Capitalism can never have a moral framework since it is based on the
>Golden Rule: those with the gold, rule.
Nonsense. Of course it can have a moral framework. All social systems
can.
Darrell Roy Hougen
% drhg...@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Darrell Roy Hougen) writes:
% >People have different interpretations of the word `capitalism' making
% >it somewhat difficult to comment. However, capitalism is the economic
% >expression of the moral principles of liberty and justice. Therefore,
% That's nice. Go from a reasonable statement (different interpretations) to
% an undefendable position. With nothing in between. I'm impressed.
Sorry, I was a little tired when I wrote that. What I meant to do was
to differentiate between capitalism as a social phenomenon and
capitalism as an economic system. In the early days, capitalism was
mainly performed by former Feudalists, landholders with indentured
servants working for them. They had money so they were the early
investors. Unfortunately, many of them had the bad habit of treating
their workers like indentured servants.
However, capitalism as an economic system has nothing to do with the
behavior of a few Feudal barrons. In fact, capitalism is both the
expression of the priniciples of liberty and justice and a great
motivator of the trend towards greater personal liberty. Liberty
means freedom to interact peaceably and capitalism is the mechanism by
which people interact peaceably in the economic sphere. Thus the
growth of capitalism is basically a transformation from systems such
as Feudalism and Communism in which people interact by force to a
system of peaceful coexistence.
Darrell R. Hougen
drhg...@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu
Tim Starr
>
>IA>I would restate this slightly: Without a moral framework (in
>IA>regulation), some capitalists will ruthlessly exploit.
>
>Without a moral framework, no society (except a police state) can
>endure. Classical economic theory is based on the premise that society
>is moral.
No, it isn't. Classical economic theory a la Adam Smith is based upon
the theory that as people's material conditions improve they will be
more moral.
Whether you disagree with this or not is secondary. That's the theory.
Tim Starr
>
>IV>"Pure communism" and "pure socialism"? I suggest that you read
>IV>some Marx (his major works is even available on the Internet now).
>IV>Communism isn't a ready made system. Communism is an egalitarian
>IV>society, not more, not less. Any additional ideas about what
>IV>communism will look like is more or less derived from that
>IV>definition.
>
>The most important aspect of communism, which you left out, is the
>abolition of private property, with production of goods based on
>ability, and consumption of goods based on need. The obvious flaw with
>this form of production/consumption is that there is no direct incentive
>to produce anything, and there is every incentive to consume as much as
>possible (before someone else does).
Right. That's the incentive problem. The non-obvious problems are the
knowledge problem - how do you tell who has what abilities/needs? - and
the institutional stability problem: how do you keep the institution
stable?
Communism/socialism/statism/fascism all run afoul of all three of these,
more or less. Capitalism doesn't.
Anton Sherwood
Tim Starr <tims...@netcom.com> wrote:
> Pakistan. Capitalist. Right. And I'm Arnold Schwarzenegger.
Evidence in favor:
Tim and Arnold both like to shoot guns.
Tim and Arnold have never been seen together.
Tim and Arnold are both able to speak English with a thick accent.
Evidence against:
Tim more usually speaks English without a thick accent.
(But who says Arnold's accent is genuine?)
Tim is about half Arnold's apparent size. (Makeup.)
Tim is much hairier. (Disguise for incognito?)
> India: socialist Hindu theocracy. Pakistan: socialist Islamic theocracy.
> Bangladesh: socialist. Nepal: ruled by communist China.
That's Tibet, the former Buddhist theocracy. Nepal is a Hindu kingdom.
--
Disclaimer: The above is likely to refer to anecdotal evidence.
Anton Sherwood *\\* +1 415 267 0685 *\\* DAS...@netcom.com
Libertarian candidate for California Assembly, district 12 (S.F.)
Christopher R. Dunlea
>
>Pakistan. Capitalist. Right. And I'm Arnold Schwarzenegger.
Your sig. states you're Tim Starr...no problem. Point is, can you go to
Pakistan and open up a business? Certainly. Is the government heavily
involved in regulating most industries? No. Therefore, can you operate
a business with few (approx. the same amount as in US) restrictions,
make money and run it the way you like? The answer is yes. That's capitalism.
>
>India: socialist Hindu theocracy. Pakistan: socialist Islamic theocracy.
>Bangladesh: socialist. Nepal: ruled by communist China.
Have you been to any of these places, or are guessing? India is not a
theocracy, nor is it any more "socialist" than the USA. Hindu priests
don't rule there any more than people like the Reverend Billybob rule
here. What's so socialist about a place where 1/3 of the people are
moderately well-off, and the other 2/3 are left to starve?
Your comments on Pakistan reveal a misunderstanding of what a theocracy
is. Simply because they observe Islamic religious civil law does not
make them a theocracy. Does the federal govt.'s observance on Christmas
make us a theocracy? And what does that have to do with capitalism anyway??
Finally, having been to Nepal, I can assure you they have their own king,
police, and sovereignty. I saw no Red Army soldiers there--a dead
givaway that a place is "ruled by Communist China". Perhaps you are confusing
Nepal with Tibet. Whether China figures largely in Nepalese foreign
policy (if a superpower bordered your country, don't you think you'd
consider how they would view your country's actions??) is irrelevant.
I don't know about the merits o either side of this argument, but do
try to post about what you know, instead of guessing.
Chris
Christopher R. Dunlea
>
>However, capitalism as an economic system has nothing to do with the
>behavior of a few Feudal barrons. In fact, capitalism is both the
>expression of the priniciples of liberty and justice and a great
>motivator of the trend towards greater personal liberty. Liberty
>means freedom to interact peaceably and capitalism is the mechanism by
>which people interact peaceably in the economic sphere. Thus the
>growth of capitalism is basically a transformation from systems such
>as Feudalism and Communism in which people interact by force to a
>system of peaceful coexistence.
>
of freedom and liberty (I won't get into "justice", however). Compared
to manorial and Marxist models, this is true. The problem arises when
that liberty is taken to the point of license, ie. the capitalist's
enterprise begins to unduly affect society for the worse. For example,
the capitalist has the freedom to buy land, announce intent to build a
widget factory, hire workers and begin manufacturing widgets. The problem
comes in if the owner owns all the available housing and charges the
workers rent that strips them of most of their wages (and lowers their
standard of living), requires them to work excesively long hours 6
days a week to make that rent, and entices the workers through said bad
wages to end their children off to work. Furthermore, getting fired
means eviction. The result is a system of perpetual pauperization.
The question is, Does the capitalist have the freedom to conduct his
business in this way, a way that many would agree was detrimental to
society? Let me add quickly that all this was supported by the free market
system, that other options for the workers were decreasing, so simply
getting up a quitting was not a viable option as either A) there were
no jobs available that provided for a better standard of living, and
B) most other capitalists operated in the same way.
Finally, all this comes not from my head but from standard Victorian
British business practice. There's a reason why labor laws are on the
books today curtailing a businessman's freedom to make a buck any
way he likes.
Chris
Michael Carley
>to differentiate between capitalism as a social phenomenon and
>capitalism as an economic system. In the early days, capitalism was
There is no such difference. Economies are inseperable from their societies.
>investors. Unfortunately, many of them had the bad habit of treating
>their workers like indentured servants.
In the way that "flexible labour practices" now do the same thing.
>motivator of the trend towards greater personal liberty. Liberty
>means freedom to interact peaceably and capitalism is the mechanism by
>which people interact peaceably in the economic sphere. Thus the
They do not interact peaceably. Why is it that violence and repression are
used against trade unions, for example?
Darrell Roy Hougen
% I'd agree with your assessment of capitalism as the economic expression
% of freedom and liberty (I won't get into "justice", however). Compared
% to manorial and Marxist models, this is true. The problem arises when
% that liberty is taken to the point of license, ie. the capitalist's
% enterprise begins to unduly affect society for the worse. For example,
% the capitalist has the freedom to buy land, announce intent to build a
% widget factory, hire workers and begin manufacturing widgets. The problem
% comes in if the owner owns all the available housing and charges the
% workers rent that strips them of most of their wages (and lowers their
% standard of living), requires them to work excesively long hours 6
% days a week to make that rent, and entices the workers through said bad
% wages to end their children off to work. Furthermore, getting fired
% means eviction. The result is a system of perpetual pauperization.
I guess I don't understand how this system of "perpetual
pauperization" is supposed to work. Let us say we started with a
community of farmers and small shop keepers. Along comes a large
company and buys up some land near town and places ads for new
employees. If the wages that the new business offers are lower than
those earned by the residents of the existing town, no one will work
there. So, the wages must be higher. If the working conditions are
worse than what people are used to, they won't work there either. So
the working conditions must be better. Well, either the wages must be
higher or the working conditions better if the business wants to
attract workers. So, it would seem that instead of making things
worse, the existence of the business makes things better.
The worst condition for the workers is if they are starving to death
and have no place to live. In this case, the business can offer them
wages which are barely subsistence level and keep them poor by
offering them apartments with relatively high rents making it
difficult for them to save money. However, they are still better off
than before. Moreover, if the economy is growing quickly, more
businesses will move into town and they will have to offer higher
wages and lower rents than those already present to attract people
that are working at some other place. In fact, from the workers
viewpoint, the beauty of capitalism is the competition for workers.
The shrewd worker continuously markets himself to different employers,
always moving to that business that is willing to offer the best
package of wages and benefits. The employers, in turn, are forced to
offer higher and higher wages and better benefits to attract and
maintain a viable work force. Rather than "perpetual pauperism" I see
an upward spiral of wages and benefits as the natural result of
capitalism.
I agree that some protections are necessary, but these are mainly
protections of liberty. For example, people need the legal right to
declare bankruptcy and postpone payments or cancel indebtedness.
Without this right, the average person suffers the danger of becoming
indentured. An indentured person is a person without liberty.
Liberty must, in my view, be considered an inalienable right that
cannot be lost even if someone agrees to give it up. The only way
that it can be lost is through the commission of a crime.
Darrell R. Hougen
drhg...@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu
Darrell Roy Hougen
% There is no such difference. Economies are inseperable from their societies.
Conceptually, they are separable.
% In the way that "flexible labour practices" now do the same thing.
What has this to do with servitude?
% They do not interact peaceably. Why is it that violence and repression are
% used against trade unions, for example?
There are several ongoing labor disputes in Illinois and I have yet to
see any evidence of employers using violence or repression against the
striking workers.
Darrell R. Hougen
drhg...@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu
Christopher R. Dunlea
>I guess I don't understand how this system of "perpetual
>pauperization" is supposed to work. Let us say we started with a
>community of farmers and small shop keepers. Along comes a large
>company and buys up some land near town and places ads for new
>employees. If the wages that the new business offers are lower than
>those earned by the residents of the existing town, no one will work
>there. So, the wages must be higher. If the working conditions are
>worse than what people are used to, they won't work there either. So
>the working conditions must be better. Well, either the wages must be
>higher or the working conditions better if the business wants to
>attract workers. So, it would seem that instead of making things
>worse, the existence of the business makes things better.
In a closed model, yes, for the locals. However, historicall what has happened
is that most of the workers are drawn from neighboring or distant towns.
See, in the period I study (1500-1700) Manchester, Birmingham and Liverpool
were scrub villages, but by 1800 they were three of the largest cities in
Britain, all due to fantastic economic growth caused by migration from
overcrowded farm areas to the cities where there were jobs to be had.
Low wages which won't attract locals are still better than no wages at
all, so there were major demographic shifts with the rise of industry.
The pauperization bit comes from the fact that children working 18 hours
a day have no time to go to school or even learn to read, so they are
stuck forever in low-wage jobs with no hope of rising out of what was
a standard of living below poverty.
>
>The worst condition for the workers is if they are starving to death
>and have no place to live. In this case, the business can offer them
>wages which are barely subsistence level and keep them poor by
>offering them apartments with relatively high rents making it
>difficult for them to save money. However, they are still better off
>than before. Moreover, if the economy is growing quickly, more
>businesses will move into town and they will have to offer higher
>wages and lower rents than those already present to attract people
>that are working at some other place. In fact, from the workers
>viewpoint, the beauty of capitalism is the competition for workers.
>The shrewd worker continuously markets himself to different employers,
>always moving to that business that is willing to offer the best
>package of wages and benefits. The employers, in turn, are forced to
>offer higher and higher wages and better benefits to attract and
>maintain a viable work force. Rather than "perpetual pauperism" I see
>an upward spiral of wages and benefits as the natural result of
>capitalism.
You're assuming certain things:
1) The worker has time to look for another job with better wages.
2) Unemployment was not very high. In reality, it was astronomical, and
the classic formula of wages/labor market guaranteed that wages could be
pitifully low.
3) The owners don't talk to each other (of course they did; they ran
said town) and actually compete. No Smithian law _says_ the owners
must compete with each other for workers, especially when there's a glut.
Why fight when all the owners can make money working in concert? It was
called the Whig party.
furthermore, there always existed the distinct possibility of a blackball.
There was no reason for an owner or manager to be kind to their labor;
if a worker seemed "ungrateful" he could be fired for NO reason. Then
just try getting work locally. Remember, no $$ = no food, since there
was no social net. Oh, by the way, you're evicted, get out on the
street. And starve to death, thank you very much. Most workers just
shut up and put up rather than face that very real prospect. The law?
The owner's brother is in Parliament and his in-law is a local JP; you
think you can take them on? You can't even sign your own name.
>I agree that some protections are necessary, but these are mainly
>protections of liberty. For example, people need the legal right to
>declare bankruptcy and postpone payments or cancel indebtedness.
>Without this right, the average person suffers the danger of becoming
>indentured. An indentured person is a person without liberty.
>Liberty must, in my view, be considered an inalienable right that
>cannot be lost even if someone agrees to give it up. The only way
>that it can be lost is through the commission of a crime.
No argument here. But in the context of 19th C Britain (maybe US? Don't know)
the system of debt laws ensured that if a person owed a debt of any type,
and could not pay, they went to jail until able. If your ex-owner/ex-l
landlord decided you owed him back rent after eviction, guess what
happened to you. The system was stacked against the common man,
necessitating labor laws.
Chris
Michael Carley
>mjca...@maths.tcd.ie (Michael Carley) writes:
>% There is no such difference. Economies are inseperable from their societies.
>Conceptually, they are separable.
It is the conceptual separation that makes so much economic theory
utterly nonsensical.
>% In the way that "flexible labour practices" now do the same thing.
>What has this to do with servitude?
If someone is kept in line through fear (of not having a job next week)
it is servitude.
>There are several ongoing labor disputes in Illinois and I have yet to
>see any evidence of employers using violence or repression against the
>striking workers.
Try looking at the history of trade unionism. On my side of the Atlantic
that means the 1913 lockout, the miner's strikes in the UK in 1983, 1974
and 1945. If you really want to go back, it gets you to Tolpuddle.
Darrell Roy Hougen
% Try looking at the history of trade unionism. On my side of the Atlantic
% that means the 1913 lockout, the miner's strikes in the UK in 1983, 1974
% and 1945. If you really want to go back, it gets you to Tolpuddle.
The point is that this type of labor repression is not an artifact of
capitalism, per se. In fact, throughout most of human history people
have been repressing each other. Almost all human societies had
slaves and the people of those societies were considered the subjects
of the monarch. When capitalism started growing in Europe, indentured
servitude was already a fact of life for a large percentage of the
population. The feudal barrons had their peasants, who were generally
tied to the land, and when it became obvious that there was money to
be made in manufacturing industries, it was natural for the barrons to
try to implement similar systems in the factories.
However, that is all beside the point because indentured servitude is
not a necessary condition for the working of a capitalist economy.
Capitalism is perfectly consistent with a political system in which
liberty and justice is guaranteed to all people. The same cannot be
said of socialism, by the way.
The fact that governments of the past tended to side with employers
rather than employees is an historical artifact of the transition from
a basically feudalist political and economic system to a democratic
political system with a capitalist economy. The landlords of the past
were simply trying to hold on to their political power. And it is the
political, not economic, structures of the past which allowed the
sometimes violent repression of workers to exist.
Darrell R. Hougen
drhg...@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu
Darrell Roy Hougen
>In article <30u84v$3...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu> drhg...@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Darrell Roy Hougen) writes:
% > ... Well, either the wages must be
% >higher or the working conditions better if the business wants to
% >attract workers. So, it would seem that instead of making things
% >worse, the existence of the business makes things better.
% ...
% See, in the period I study (1500-1700) Manchester, Birmingham and Liverpool
% were scrub villages, but by 1800 they were three of the largest cities in
% Britain, all due to fantastic economic growth caused by migration from
% overcrowded farm areas to the cities where there were jobs to be had.
% Low wages which won't attract locals are still better than no wages at
% all, so there were major demographic shifts with the rise of industry.
So, I think we basically agree with each other here. Low wages are
better than no wages.
% The pauperization bit comes from the fact that children working 18 hours
% a day have no time to go to school or even learn to read, so they are
% stuck forever in low-wage jobs with no hope of rising out of what was
% a standard of living below poverty.
A sad fact of a low tech economy is that it may take generations to
produce enough wealth to lift it out of poverty. I agree that many
early industrialists were unnecessarily demanding of their workers,
but the best cure for low wages and long hours is a booming economy
which can only be purchased with hard work. Recall also, that for
many people, the conditions on the farms were even worse than in the
factories. Even today, farming is considered one of the most
dangerous and demanding occupations.
% >... Rather than "perpetual pauperism" I see
% >an upward spiral of wages and benefits as the natural result of
% >capitalism.
% 1) The worker has time to look for another job with better wages.
% 2) Unemployment was not very high. In reality, it was astronomical, and
% the classic formula of wages/labor market guaranteed that wages could be
% pitifully low.
A capitalist economy tends to a state of full employment. So, if
there are lots of unemployed people, they all have to be hired before
wages start upward. But, is it better to have everyone working at a
low wage or some people working at a higher wage and others with no
chance of finding a job? Of course, one can devise schemes for taking
care of unemployed people, but these tend to retard the rate of wealth
production. If everyone is working, wealth is created at the maximum
rate. If some people are not working while those that are working are
being taxed to support those that are not, wealth is created at a
lower rate. So, it takes longer for the society to move to a higher
living standard. In fact, if the social welfare programs are too
burdensome, the economy may stagnate or even deginerate for failure to
replace old structures and equipment.
% 3) The owners don't talk to each other (of course they did; they ran
% said town) and actually compete. No Smithian law _says_ the owners
% must compete with each other for workers, especially when there's a glut.
% Why fight when all the owners can make money working in concert? It was
% called the Whig party.
When there is a glut of workers, the owners don't need to talk to each
other. They can all get all the workers they can use. In the absense
of a glut, its going to be hard to get them all to collude. Afterall,
they have egos. They might collude in a small area, ie., one town,
but the world is a big place and word of high wages gets around.
% furthermore, there always existed the distinct possibility of a blackball.
% There was no reason for an owner or manager to be kind to their labor;
% if a worker seemed "ungrateful" he could be fired for NO reason. Then
% just try getting work locally. Remember, no $$ = no food, since there
% was no social net. Oh, by the way, you're evicted, get out on the
% street. And starve to death, thank you very much. Most workers just
% shut up and put up rather than face that very real prospect. The law?
% The owner's brother is in Parliament and his in-law is a local JP; you
% think you can take them on? You can't even sign your own name.
I think this is the real problem here. If the government sides with
the employers then there can be no justice. So, this is really a
political problem and not so much an economic problem. I am willing
to entertain the idea of certain restrictions on businesses for the
purpose of protecting the rights of workers, but only if there seems
to be no other way of accomplishing the goal of providing justice.
So, I might be willing to agree, for example, that employers should
not be allowed to fire workers merely for organizing on their own
time.
% >I agree that some protections are necessary, but these are mainly
% >protections of liberty. For example, people need the legal right to
% >declare bankruptcy and postpone payments or cancel indebtedness...
% No argument here. But in the context of 19th C Britain (maybe US? Don't know)
% the system of debt laws ensured that if a person owed a debt of any type,
% and could not pay, they went to jail until able. If your ex-owner/ex-l
% landlord decided you owed him back rent after eviction, guess what
% happened to you. The system was stacked against the common man,
% necessitating labor laws.
Debters prison is exactly what I was thinking of when I wrote the
above paragraph. However, I'm not sure what labor laws have to do
with debt laws. They may be historically linked, but I don't think
they are conceptually linked.
Darrell R. Hougen
drhg...@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu
Andrew Hall
Tim> Andrew Hall <ah...@fmrco.com> wrote:
>> Yes, totally unregulated capitalism encourages all sorts of
>> abuses.
Tim> Does not. State "capitalism," i.e., fascism, does.
Revisionism does not help state your case. Child
labor abuse was common in the US before it was
regulated away.
"Pure" capitalism does reward a lot of abuse. It
needs regulation to prevent abuse.
Without regulation do you think the waters of
this country would not still be flammable?
ah
=======================================================================
I don't know whether I'd call it `cashing in'. I expect every
president has written his memoirs and received money for it. Indeed,
I read that a former president -- was it Grant? Grant got half a
million bucks -- that's when half a million really meant something.
-- Ex President George Bush, defending Ronald Reagan's $5
million autobiography deal.
Andrew Hall
Tim> Nathan Newman <new...@garnet.berkeley.edu> wrote:
India> socialist Hindu theocracy. Pakistan: socialist Islamic
India> theocracy. Bangladesh socialist. Nepal: ruled by communist China.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I think you mean Tibet. Nepal is quite independent from
China, they are economically dominated by India.
Tim> Where are the examples of children being killed by factory
Tim> owners in capitalist countries?
Western countries were rife with it until they were
regulated.
>> About 1 million children younger than 12 are employed in
>> Pakistan's carpet industry, along, said Zohra Yusuf, head of the
>> Human Rights Commission of Pakistan.
Tim> So how the fuck does he/she know that?
How do you know better?
ah
=======================================================================
It has been said by some cynic, maybe it was a former president, `If
you want a friend in Washington, get a dog.' We took them literally
-- that advice -- as you know. But I didn't need that, because I have
Barbara Bush.
-- Ex President George Bush.
Christopher R. Dunlea
>So, I think we basically agree with each other here. Low wages are
>better than no wages.
...to the extent that the unemployed farmhands don't outright starve.
But they were no improvement on the traditional livelihood, that's for
certain. See below.
>
>A sad fact of a low tech economy is that it may take generations to
>produce enough wealth to lift it out of poverty. I agree that many
>early industrialists were unnecessarily demanding of their workers,
>but the best cure for low wages and long hours is a booming economy
>which can only be purchased with hard work. Recall also, that for
>many people, the conditions on the farms were even worse than in the
>factories. Even today, farming is considered one of the most
>dangerous and demanding occupations.
Two things:
First, Britain was in a state of boom relative to the 18th and 20th
centuries all throughout the 19th. Conceptually wages should have been
much higher than they actually were, if the economic model you give is
correct.
Second, and my main point, is that most historians who study the
transition from agrarianism to industrialism in the 18th-19th C see the
exact opposite relationship between farming and factory work. On the farm
you lived in a village with families you knew for years, you worked in
the fields with them, you set your own hours, you took breaks when you needed.
You and the village set up a communal work system reinforcing traditional
bonds. If you were sick you didn't work; why not stay home and rest?
The landlord knew your grandaddy and vice versa; he wouldn't likely through
you out off the land to starve. In the factory, though, you worked 18 hours
straight with a minimal (if any) break, when the boss authorized it; if
you were sick you not only got no pay but could lose the job; you knew
few if any other people there, who were not likely to help you if
you fell behind; and the owner didn't care about your family a bit.
By the way, today factory work is considered safer only because of hardhat
laws, safety goggles, mandatory shutoff guards in machinery, fire
systems, fire/electrical codes in buidings, heating/air systems, mandatory
breaks, and the like. It wasn't unheard of people in the 19th C falling asleep
from exhaustion in from of a loom, only to lose their hair or a limb (or
life) when they fell on the machine...
>A capitalist economy tends to a state of full employment. So, if
>there are lots of unemployed people, they all have to be hired before
>wages start upward. But, is it better to have everyone working at a
>low wage or some people working at a higher wage and others with no
>chance of finding a job? Of course, one can devise schemes for taking
>care of unemployed people, but these tend to retard the rate of wealth
>production. If everyone is working, wealth is created at the maximum
>rate. If some people are not working while those that are working are
>being taxed to support those that are not, wealth is created at a
>lower rate. So, it takes longer for the society to move to a higher
>living standard. In fact, if the social welfare programs are too
>burdensome, the economy may stagnate or even deginerate for failure to
>replace old structures and equipment.
True, in our modern world. But in the golden days of capitalism there
was no socialnet. No health care, no old age pension, no retirement, no
welfare, no free food, no free housing, no free/mandatory education.
The "social welfare" was cetainly not burdensome to anyone. Freed from this
contraint, how do you explain the dreary conditions of the workers?
>
>When there is a glut of workers, the owners don't need to talk to each
>other. They can all get all the workers they can use. In the absense
>of a glut, its going to be hard to get them all to collude. Afterall,
>they have egos. They might collude in a small area, ie., one town,
>but the world is a big place and word of high wages gets around.
Yes, but going straight to history and away from theoretical models, two
things emerge:
1) Unemployment was high and the labor force was cheap
2) The capitalists DID talk to each other--because they were the 5% than
ran the country. They were the voters, the elected, the judges, in
Parliament, at Court. They dined with eavh other frequently. Even
rival political factions entertained one another; it was nothing to
spend hours in Parliament sarcastically carping at each other, adjourn
to the same gentleman's home for dinner, toast each other, emerge with
the Leaders locked arm in arm in friendship, then go back to arguing.
Egoism was downplayed because they knew in the end they still would be
quite well-off.
>
>I think this is the real problem here. If the government sides with
>the employers then there can be no justice. So, this is really a
>political problem and not so much an economic problem. I am willing
>to entertain the idea of certain restrictions on businesses for the
>purpose of protecting the rights of workers, but only if there seems
>to be no other way of accomplishing the goal of providing justice.
>So, I might be willing to agree, for example, that employers should
>not be allowed to fire workers merely for organizing on their own
>time.
I think you're right. We agree on this. It's not so much the economic
and theoretical model of capitalism/laissez-faire I don't like, but
the way it often seems to work out in the real world. Oftentimes
economics is conceived in a vacuum; the application in the social
sphere, often strangely different.
>
>Debters prison is exactly what I was thinking of when I wrote the
>above paragraph. However, I'm not sure what labor laws have to do
>with debt laws. They may be historically linked, but I don't think
>they are conceptually linked.
Yeah, except for as they connect when the owner is your landlord...but
that meanders onto real estate/rental law, really.
Chris
Nathan Newman
>>
>>Don't worry. We already have repealed those laws on an international
>>basis, which is how our multinationals operate. 1 million children under
>>12 labor in Pakistani carpet factories just as Bangldeshi children work
>>in garment factories as part of the world capitalist economy.
>>
>>For those who praise the standard of living of workers under capitalism,
>>remember that these child workers are just as much a "typical" capitalist
>>worker as a self-satisfied computer programmer in Silicon Valley.
>Pakistan. Capitalist. Right. And I'm Arnold Schwarzenegger.
With one million children (and millions of other workers) producing goods
by US and European-owned companies for export to consumers in those
countries, are you arguing that those workers are not part of the world
capitalist system?
Pakistan is a signatory to GATT and other international trade agreements
that govern capitalist trade in the world.
So why would you argue that Pakistan is not capitalist?
>>In today's SF CHRONICLE, the following article appeared:
>>
>>"EXPLOITATION OF CHILDREN INCREASING IN SOUTH ASIA"
>>
>>ASSOCIATED PRESS- Washington:
>>
>> "Child labor is increasing dramatically in South Asia due mainly
>>to the expansion of garment and carpet exports to the West, human rights
>>groups said yesterday.
>> The problem has become a primary human rights concern in India,
>>Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nepal and other nations of the subcontinent.
>
>India: socialist Hindu theocracy. Pakistan: socialist Islamic theocracy.
>Bangladesh: socialist. Nepal: ruled by communist China.
Pakistan is not the same as India. To argue that is to defy reality (and
India is rapidly allowing large sectors to become completely capitalist).
And if the US and Europe can only sustain their economies by importing
goods from socialist countries (as you seem to argue), doesn't that show
a rather large weakness in capitalism?
>Where are the examples of children being killed by factory owners in
>capitalist countries?
I see. If you are a poor country, you are going to define it as
socialist, otherwise it's capitalist. Is Indonesia capitalist by your
definition? Lot of child death there and across southeast Asia.
>> About 1 million children younger than 12 are employed in
>>Pakistan's carpet industry, along, said Zohra Yusuf, head of the Human
>>Rights Commission of Pakistan.
>
>So how the fuck does he/she know that?
I see. Since you don't have evidence to counter this article, you'll just
deny it. By the way, do you know what Freedom House is? (which was the
source of the study). It is the long-standing conservative human rights
outfit which for forty years condemned human rights abuses in the Soviet
Union.
If you want to argue that children aren't dying, let's hear your evidence.
This report contained its arguments and proof.
>> A recent study predicted that almost half of them will be maimed
>>or die of diseases contracted in the workplace before they are 12, she
>>said at a briefing organized by Freedom House, a human rights organization.
>
>What kind of study? Where did it get its data? How did it arrive at
>that figure? What are the credentials of this so-called "human rights"
>organization, anyways? Where does it get its money?
I suggest you learn about Freedom House and other human rights groups
before you go spouting off.
You just make yourself look foolish.
--
***** Nathan Newman: new...@garnet.berkeley.edu *******
Jonathan Dunham
Darrell Roy Hougen <drhg...@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu> wrote:
>What I meant to do was
>to differentiate between capitalism as a social phenomenon and
>capitalism as an economic system.
> [Early ] investors... had the bad habit of treating
>their workers like indentured servants.
>
>However, capitalism as an economic system has nothing to do with the
>behavior of a few Feudal barrons.
>Darrell R. Hougen
>drhg...@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu
>
Oh, cool. Now I get it.
BTW, does socialism as an economic system have anything to do
with the behavior of a few socialist barons?
Just curious. :)
Phil Ronzone
>A sad fact of a low tech economy is that it may take
>generations to produce enough wealth to lift it out of
Well, maybe two generations at the most. Japan and Korea were utterly
devastated countries two generations ago. Today, they are humongous
world class economies.
--
"I didn't do it, nobody saw me, and you can't prove it!" - B. Simpson
These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em! (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)
Phil Ronzone
>Revisionism does not help state your case. Child labor abuse
>was common in the US before it was regulated away.
Really? Gee, I don't think so. I notice a conspicous lack of "facts".
Phil Ronzone
>In article <timstarrC...@netcom.com>
>tims...@netcom.com (Tim Starr) writes:
>
>>Pakistan. Capitalist. Right. And I'm Arnold Schwarzenegger.
>>
>Your sig. states you're Tim Starr...no problem. Point is, can
>you go to Pakistan and open up a business? Certainly. Is the
>government heavily involved in regulating most industries?
>No. Therefore, can you operate a business with few (approx.
>the same amount as in US) restrictions, make money and run it
>the way you like? The answer is yes. That's capitalism.
1. No, foreigners are severely restricted in Pakistan (in running a
business). They are not allowed to own more than 49% (rather,
51% must be owned by a Pakistani).
2. Pakistani is a socilaist state. All businesses are heavily regulated.
3. Taxes are confiscatory in Pakistan.
Let's try this -- can you open up a bookstore, staff it with women,
and sell the "Satanic Verses" in Pakistan? No. Can you do it in America?
Yes.
Bad try - get some facts next time.
Gordon Fitch
| >Revisionism does not help state your case. Child labor abuse
| >was common in the US before it was regulated away.
ph...@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone):
| Really? Gee, I don't think so. I notice a conspicous lack of "facts".
I don't have any Wahrheit available at the moment, so here's
a little Dichtung:
The golf links lie so near the mill
That almost every day
The children can look up from work
And see the men at play.
-- Sara Teasdale
--
>< Gordon Fitch >< g...@panix.com ><
Phil Ronzone
>I'd agree with your assessment of capitalism as the economic
>expression of freedom and liberty (I won't get into
>"justice", however). Compared to manorial and Marxist models,
>this is true. The problem arises when that liberty is taken
>to the point of license, ie. the capitalist's enterprise
>begins to unduly affect society for the worse. For example,
>the capitalist has the freedom to buy land, announce intent
>to build a widget factory, hire workers and begin
>manufacturing widgets. The problem comes in if the owner owns
>all the available housing and charges the workers rent that
>strips them of most of their wages (and lowers their standard
>of living), requires them to work excesively long hours 6
>days a week to make that rent, and entices the workers
>through said bad wages to end their children off to work.
>Furthermore, getting fired means eviction. The result is a
>system of perpetual pauperization.
What you've described, while it happen a lot in socialism (i.e., the
entire USSR), has never happened under capitalism.
You assume an amazing situation where people can not leave. That can
not happen unless coercive restrictions are in place -- which,
by definition, are not situations that can exist under
capitalism.
Michael Carley
>You assume an amazing situation where people can not leave. That can
>not happen unless coercive restrictions are in place -- which,
>by definition, are not situations that can exist under
>capitalism.
You claim that, by definition, there is no coercion under capitalism. This
gives me a whole new understanding of "amazing situation".
Michael Carley
>Well, maybe two generations at the most. Japan and Korea were utterly
>devastated countries two generations ago. Today, they are humongous
>world class economies.
And, like the "traditional" industrialised powers, they did it with
amssive state intervention, rather than practice what the Western powers
preach ("free" markets and so on).
Christopher R. Dunlea
>1. No, foreigners are severely restricted in Pakistan (in running a
> business). They are not allowed to own more than 49% (rather,
> 51% must be owned by a Pakistani).
This is a restriction? Setting up a dummy partner? Anyone with half a
brain will go into business there with a Pakistani partner, even the
multinationals, since a) anybody who wants to produce, market and
sell products must have local help in getting labor and negotiating
land rights, taxes and govt. regulations and b) in the case of the
Big Boys the Pakistani "owner" is a figurehead, put on the corporate
charter for legal purposes, while decisions are made and money taken
by other people. Having lived overseas for 5 years, I can assure you
this is _standard practice_.
>
>2. Pakistani is a socilaist state. All businesses are heavily regulated.
Yes, well Dupont here is not allowed to dump raw sewage into the rivers
due to government regulations. Are we a socialist state? By the way,
didn't you just say that 49% of a business can be owned by a foreigner,
and 51% can be owned by a national? That adds up to 100% to me. Where's
the socialist part, you know, the state's ownership? Because that's what it
means to operate a socialist economy. Private ownership means capitalism.
>3. Taxes are confiscatory in Pakistan.
Uh, what the heck does that mean?? The IRS "confiscates" taxes here, as
does the DOR. Every state revenue service is confiscatory; they take taxes.
>
>Let's try this -- can you open up a bookstore, staff it with women,
>and sell the "Satanic Verses" in Pakistan? No. Can you do it in America?
>Yes.
Nice try. Can you open up a drugstore, staff it with children, and sell
hashish in America? No. In Pakistan? Yes. And even if you claim that
hashish is technically illegal now in Pakistan, do you really
think that the local police commandant can't be bought??? Have you ever
been overseas before??
>
>Bad try - get some facts next time.
I suggest you either read up on Pakistan or visit it sometime. While
you're at it you might read up on socialism. Government regulations
do not necessarily a socialist state make.
Chris
Christopher R. Dunlea
>What you've described, while it happen a lot in socialism (i.e., the
>entire USSR), has never happened under capitalism.
Just how are you an authority on what has or has never happned? Assuming
you went to college (the minimum requirement to listen to anyone on
economic theories throughout history), Did you ever study economic history?
>
>You assume an amazing situation where people can not leave. That can
>not happen unless coercive restrictions are in place -- which,
>by definition, are not situations that can exist under
>capitalism.
Why don't you get back to me when you've actually read a history book
instead of pie in the sky theory. Theory is lovely but should rarely
be discussed in the context of what ACTUALLY HAPPENED. Read, for
example, Landes' _Unbound Prometheus_, which supports with facts
the above description (now deleted).
Chris
Christopher R. Dunlea
> >Revisionism does not help state your case. Child labor abuse
> >was common in the US before it was regulated away.
>
>Really? Gee, I don't think so. I notice a conspicous lack of "facts".
It is unnecessary to post facts on the Internet and waste bandwidth when they
are quite easily available in your local library. If you are so interested
in facts rather than hyperbole, why don't you go check them yourself?
Simply saying something is wrong without supporting your argument won't
make things so.
Chris
Christopher R. Dunlea
into the bottom of a Shakenbake bag in WWII; they'd be nowhere today
without US economic aid in the 1950's. To what does the original
poster ascribe the Far East's resurgence as world economic powers after WWII?
Chris
David M. Pfarrer
drhg...@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu writes:
>The point is that this type of labor repression is not an artifact of
>capitalism, per se. In fact, throughout most of human history people
>have been repressing each other. Almost all human societies had
>slaves and the people of those societies were considered the subjects
>of the monarch. When capitalism started growing in Europe, indentured
>servitude was already a fact of life for a large percentage of the
>population. The feudal barrons had their peasants, who were generally
>tied to the land, and when it became obvious that there was money to
>be made in manufacturing industries, it was natural for the barrons to
>try to implement similar systems in the factories.
Your argument would be more persuasive if it didn't sound like the
reflux of a poorly digested Intro to Econ textbook. Do you really
think the feudal system was in place up until the late 18th/early 19th
centuries? Or are you under the impression that feudal "barrons[sic]"
started the industrial revolution circa 1400?
David M. Pfarrer
Christopher R.
Dunlea writes:
>The problem comes in if the owner owns
>all the available housing and charges the workers rent that
>strips them of most of their wages (and lowers their standard
>of living), requires them to work excessively long hours 6
>days a week to make that rent, and entices the workers
>through said bad wages to end their children off to work.
>Furthermore, getting fired means eviction. The result is a
>system of perpetual pauperization.
Phil Ronzone replies:
>>What you've described, while it happen a lot in socialism (i.e., the
>>entire USSR), has never happened under capitalism.
>>You assume an amazing situation where people can not leave. That can
>>not happen unless coercive restrictions are in place -- which,
>>by definition, are not situations that can exist under
>>capitalism.
Unless you want to postulate that capitalism has never existed outside
of an ideal your statement above is pure nonsense. Read any account of
the industrial revolution -- or any general history of the west in the
19th century (and early 20th cent. for that matter) and you will see
the scenario C. Dunlea describes played out again and again.
Patrick J. McGuinness
I cannot speak for the original poster but I will add a few points:
(1) In 1960, the GNP of Japan was no greater than the Phillipines.
(2) From the 1950's to the present the tax burden on Japanese
people and the share of GNP consumed by Government spending has overall
been less than that in the U.S. and Western Europe.
(3) Japan, like Singapore, has pursued a policy of having a Government
that tries to aid the interests of Japanese business and supports the
development of the private sector businesses. It is not exactly
free enterprise, but these Governments are smaller and less burdensome
than the social Welfare states of Western Europe and America.
BTW, Japan's best success stories, Sony and Honda, both were maverick
companies headed by their founders that did not get favorable
Government treatment.
It was not merely aid that helped Japan. It was a set of deliberate
policies allied with a strong work ethic that over 40 years has transformed
them. Calling these policies "massive state intervention" fails to
distinguish it from the kind of (failed) Socialist/nationalizing policies
pursued in France and Britain that might also be called "state intervention".
Christopher R. Dunlea
>
>Your argument would be more persuasive if it didn't sound like the
>reflux of a poorly digested Intro to Econ textbook. Do you really
>think the feudal system was in place up until the late 18th/early 19th
>centuries? Or are you under the impression that feudal "barrons[sic]"
>started the industrial revolution circa 1400?
Actually, his statement is hardly radical compared to what historians
have found. First, many vestiges of the feudal system were in
place in various parts of Europe in the late 1700's; for example,
one of the major changes during the French Revolution was the
abolition of feudal dues, taxes in kind, and the "corvee", or
forced military service to the local landlord which in peacetime became
forced road/infrastructure repairs (at no charge to the king or
local baron). That was without question "feudal".
Second, during what historians call proto-industrialism, certsin
industries originated on the feudal manor ca. 1450-1500. Wool
spinning, dyeing and weaving shops were set up to process the raw
wool from the landlord's flock, since finished wool products commanded
much higher prices than raw wool. These small village-level shops
were the first factories, and were the basis for the great engine
that built the Empire, the textiles industry.
Chris
>
>
Phil Ronzone
Really? Hmm, do also have trouble believing that say, a happy and
supportive marriage does not have, by definition, spousal rape?
Capitalism is a system that requires mutual, voluntary property
exchanges by adults.
Coercion is anti-capitalistic, and is destructive to capitalism.
Phil Ronzone
Looks like the Irish are as ignorant as most Americans.
No, they did not. The State intervention in both countries has consisted
mostly of telling companies what they couldn't do -- which didn't
work out so well. MITI told Honda to stay out of making cars.
Look what happened.
All in all, the miracle in both countries was due to PRIVATELY OWNED
companies engaging in private enterprise -- fettered to a degree by
the State, but still free in many areas.
Now, if you want to see what happens in Japan when there IS massive
state intervention, look at all the Japanese civil and military
aircraft around the world (there ain't much -- the Japanese State
has made the C5A overruns look like pocket change, and they still
didn't get any major Japanese civil or military designs).
Sorry (or, sol solly) -- you wrong.
Christopher R. Dunlea
>In article <315qbi$e...@newstand.syr.edu> crdu...@rodan.syr.edu (Christopher R. Dunlea) writes:
> >In article <philCtK...@netcom.com> ph...@netcom.com (Phil
> >Ronzone) writes:
> >>1. No, foreigners are severely restricted in Pakistan (in
> >>running a business). They are not allowed to own more than
> >>49% (rather, 51% must be owned by a Pakistani).
> >>
> >This is a restriction? Setting up a dummy partner? Anyone
> >with half a brain will go into business there with a
>
>Hmm, stupid as well I see. Nope -- what happens is that the 51% CONTROLLING
Calling another debator "stupid" without convincing us all of your
brilliance reeks of arrogance and endears you to no one. You do not
impress me with your sophistry or childish games. I'm willing to debate
adults; if you want to be treated like an adult, please show others the
respect you presumably would like in return.
>interest partner(s) "let" you take the investment risk, and if things
>start to go well, steal the company. of course, you can sue in Pakistani
>courts ... (snicker).
I take it you've had experience in this? Once bitten twice shy, and
it's very bad business to screw someone over like that. How much foreign
investment do you really think Pakistan would get if it became
common knowledge that they squeeze foreign business like this?
>
> >>2. Pakistani is a socilaist state. All businesses are heavily
> >>regulated.
> >>
> >Yes, well Dupont here is not allowed to dump raw sewage into
> >the rivers due to government regulations. Are we a socialist
> >state? By the way, didn't you just say that 49% of a business
> >can be owned by a foreigner, and 51% can be owned by a
> >national? That adds up to 100% to me. Where's the socialist
> >part, you know, the state's ownership? Because that's what it
> >means to operate a socialist economy. Private ownership means
> >capitalism.
>
>Well, gee, to make it illegal to dump your garbage onto your neighbors
>property is a valid law in any situation. But, unless you being
Not true. YOU think it's valid, but someone else might think it's a
regulation. And it is; regulations are enacted to govern the way something
is done. PS, your "valid law in any situation" was nonexistent forty
years ago. Think about it.
>obtuse on purpose, you know we talking about freedom of property
>exchange, of which Pakistan, like most socialist countries,
>has little of.
Where are you getting this? What qualification do you have to discuss
Pakistan with anyone? I'm serious. Are you shooting your mouth off
with these wild statements, or do you have something to back this up
besides opinion??
>
> >>Let's try this -- can you open up a bookstore, staff it with
> >>women, and sell the "Satanic Verses" in Pakistan? No. Can you
> >>do it in America? Yes.
> >>
> >Nice try. Can you open up a drugstore, staff it with
> >children, and sell hashish in America? No. In Pakistan? Yes.
> >And even if you claim that hashish is technically illegal now
> >in Pakistan, do you really think that the local police
> >commandant can't be bought??? Have you ever been overseas
> >before??
>
>Hmm, compare a safe and moral situation to a dangerous one. Must
>be a different Pakistan -- not the one that's been busy beheading
>drug dealers.
When you get into morality you are dealing with opinion. See, your
view that selling a book that pokes satire at certain tenets of Islam
may be "moral" is a Western one; to a devout Muslim there is no
morality in what they see as blasphemy. And where is the real danger in
selling hashish in a country whose society (if not law) condones it??
I think my example safely stands.
>
>Oh really? Regulations DO make a socialist state. Laws based on
>morality don't. And, BTW, we are a mixed mode, mostly socialist
>country in the USA.
Somehow I think you perceive every state with a law on its books
as "socialist", in which case arguing with you as to what makes a
socialist state socialist is pointless. You are welcome to your
opinion as to the nature of a socialist state but you'll find that
you are vey much alone in your belief. By the way, name me one law
that is NOT based on morality.
Phil Ronzone
>In article <philCtK...@netcom.com> ph...@netcom.com (Phil
>Ronzone) writes:
>>1. No, foreigners are severely restricted in Pakistan (in
>>running a business). They are not allowed to own more than
>>49% (rather, 51% must be owned by a Pakistani).
>>
>This is a restriction? Setting up a dummy partner? Anyone
>with half a brain will go into business there with a
Hmm, stupid as well I see. Nope -- what happens is that the 51% CONTROLLING
interest partner(s) "let" you take the investment risk, and if things
start to go well, steal the company. of course, you can sue in Pakistani
courts ... (snicker).
>>2. Pakistani is a socilaist state. All businesses are heavily
>>regulated.
>>
>Yes, well Dupont here is not allowed to dump raw sewage into
>the rivers due to government regulations. Are we a socialist
>state? By the way, didn't you just say that 49% of a business
>can be owned by a foreigner, and 51% can be owned by a
>national? That adds up to 100% to me. Where's the socialist
>part, you know, the state's ownership? Because that's what it
>means to operate a socialist economy. Private ownership means
>capitalism.
Well, gee, to make it illegal to dump your garbage onto your neighbors
property is a valid law in any situation. But, unless you being
obtuse on purpose, you know we talking about freedom of property
exchange, of which Pakistan, like most socialist countries,
has little of.
>>3. Taxes are confiscatory in Pakistan.
>>
>Uh, what the heck does that mean?? The IRS "confiscates"
>taxes here, as does the DOR. Every state revenue service is
>confiscatory; they take taxes.
Taxes of 110% (no joke, even England and Sweden have had 'em) are
conficatory. Typical, accoridng to the Economist, are rates in
the 70-80& range.
>>Let's try this -- can you open up a bookstore, staff it with
>>women, and sell the "Satanic Verses" in Pakistan? No. Can you
>>do it in America? Yes.
>>
>Nice try. Can you open up a drugstore, staff it with
>children, and sell hashish in America? No. In Pakistan? Yes.
>And even if you claim that hashish is technically illegal now
>in Pakistan, do you really think that the local police
>commandant can't be bought??? Have you ever been overseas
>before??
Hmm, compare a safe and moral situation to a dangerous one. Must
be a different Pakistan -- not the one that's been busy beheading
drug dealers.
>Government regulations do not necessarily a socialist state
>make.
Oh really? Regulations DO make a socialist state. Laws based on
morality don't. And, BTW, we are a mixed mode, mostly socialist
country in the USA.
Michael Carley
>Oh really? Regulations DO make a socialist state. Laws based on
>morality don't. And, BTW, we are a mixed mode, mostly socialist
>country in the USA.
Excuse me? The US is socialist.
Michael Carley
>In article <3157a7$9...@salmon.maths.tcd.ie> mjca...@maths.tcd.ie (Michael Carley) writes:
> >You claim that, by definition, there is no coercion under
> >capitalism. This gives me a whole new understanding of
> >"amazing situation".
>Really? Hmm, do also have trouble believing that say, a happy and
>supportive marriage does not have, by definition, spousal rape?
Could you please explain to me what exactly are the points of similarity
betweeen a happy and supportive marriage and a capitalist economy?
>Capitalism is a system that requires mutual, voluntary property
>exchanges by adults.
No it is not. It is a system that requires that a small number of people
control most of the wealth and most of the power. In order to be maintained
it requires force and repression (eg anti union laws).
>Coercion is anti-capitalistic, and is destructive to capitalism.
It is the only thing that keeps it in place.
Michael Carley
>Looks like the Irish are as ignorant as most Americans.
Oh Lord I hope not.
>No, they did not. The State intervention in both countries has consisted
>mostly of telling companies what they couldn't do -- which didn't
>work out so well. MITI told Honda to stay out of making cars.
It also consisted of repressing the unions (because the US didn't want to
"lose" Japan to "communism") so that businesses would not be hampered
by "restrictive work practices". When the police are on the streets
beating union protestors, I think we can call that state intervention.
>All in all, the miracle in both countries was due to PRIVATELY OWNED
>companies engaging in private enterprise -- fettered to a degree by
>the State, but still free in many areas.
They were not fettered by the state, they were actively aided by it. In
Japan's case the (first?) Korean war also helped as the US bought
vehicles produced in Japan.
>Sorry (or, sol solly) -- you wrong.
I really do hope that last remark was just an afterthought you regret.
David M. Pfarrer
>>
>>Your argument would be more persuasive if it didn't sound like the
>>reflux of a poorly digested Intro to Econ textbook. Do you really
>>think the feudal system was in place up until the late 18th/early 19th
>>centuries? Or are you under the impression that feudal "barrons[sic]"
>>started the industrial revolution circa 1400?
Christopher R. Dunlea <crdu...@rodan.syr.edu> (not the original
poster) replied:
>
>Actually, his statement is hardly radical compared to what historians
>have found. First, many vestiges of the feudal system were in
>place in various parts of Europe in the late 1700's; for example,
>one of the major changes during the French Revolution was the
>abolition of feudal dues, taxes in kind, and the "corvee", or
>forced military service to the local landlord which in peacetime became
>forced road/infrastructure repairs (at no charge to the king or
>local baron). That was without question "feudal".
>
>Second, during what historians call proto-industrialism, certsin
>industries originated on the feudal manor ca. 1450-1500. Wool
>spinning, dyeing and weaving shops were set up to process the raw
>wool from the landlord's flock, since finished wool products commanded
>much higher prices than raw wool. These small village-level shops
>were the first factories, and were the basis for the great engine
>that built the Empire, the textiles industry.
>
>Chris
>
>
You would appear to know a great deal more on the subject than I do,
but I think my original response was appropriate. Vestiges of
feudalism at the end of the 18th century and "proto-industrialism" in
the form of cottage industries in the middle of the 15th don't add up
to feudal "barrons[sic]" switching from a feudal form of agricultural
management to a feudal form of managing workers in one fell swoop.
At question here is the difference between the condition of feudal
serfs or indentured workers and industrial workers in mid 19th C
England and America. Both economies were drastically stacked against
the interests of the worker in favor of the owner. But in the feudal
scheme there was at least some overlap -- that is, the baron would
have a vested interest in keeping his serfs healthy enough to be
productive. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think the feudal,
agricultural economy was characterized by a big pool of surplus labor.
The 19th century industrial economy *was* one of surplus labor.
Workers could be treated as a commodity by management. If one wore out,
it could be replaced. Ditto if it made trouble.
****************************************************
| David Pfarrer | "Respect means, put |
| pfa...@isr.harvard.edu | yourself out" |
| pfa...@harvunxw.bitnet | - Pascal |
****************************************************
David M. Pfarrer
>
>Looks like the Irish are as ignorant as most Americans.
>
>Sorry (or, sol solly) -- you wrong.
>--
>"I didn't do it, nobody saw me, and you can't prove it!" - B. Simpson
>
>These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em! (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)
And we're suppose to take opinions seriously? Why don't you take your
cheap netcom soapbox and your nasty little bigotries and get lost.
Danny Low
: Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think the feudal,
: agricultural economy was characterized by a big pool of surplus labor.
: The 19th century industrial economy *was* one of surplus labor.
: Workers could be treated as a commodity by management. If one wore out,
: it could be replaced. Ditto if it made trouble.
If true, it is only an effect and not a cause. In an era of high
infant mortality and no Pill, people tend to breed as much as they can.
If agricultural societies have fewer surplus workers that
means either every person borned was desparately needed as a
worker or there was a very high mortality rate or both.
The surplus workers in an industrial economy implies that workers
were more productive and so fewer were needed. Or else life in
an industrial society meant a better life and a lower mortality
rate causing a surplus. Higher productivity results in a lower
cost of living which improves the quality of life.
So the general implication of this condition is life was better
in an industrial society. Otherwise all those surplus workers
would die and the surplus would vanish. This implication is
also supported by another fact. The number of famines that
are not the direct result of wars is much greater in an agricultural
society.
Danny Low
"Question Authority and the Authorities will question You"
Valley of Hearts Delight, Silicon Valley
HP NSD dl...@ppg01.sc.hp.com
Eric Mankin
#the local gentry family often went back several generations. And with a
#very notable exception (after the Black Death) there was no surplus of
#labor available before 1700.
#
#Chris
One-quarter of the population died, producing a labor *surplus?* I don't
think so.
Eric Mankin
Phil Ronzone
>It is unnecessary to post facts on the Internet and waste
>bandwidth when they are quite easily available in your local
>library. If you are so interested in facts rather than
>hyperbole, why don't you go check them yourself? Simply
>saying something is wrong without supporting your argument
>won't make things so.
1. So you don't have any facts but engage in bluster (duh, I'm right and
go look it up). If you're right, PROVE IT.
2. You've described bizarra scenarios which happen under coercive systems
but not under capitalism. I can't prove a negative, but, you opened
your mouth, so prove the positive.
Phil Ronzone
>Not to mention massive foreign aid in these two cases. We
>turned Japan into the bottom of a Shakenbake bag in WWII;
>they'd be nowhere today without US economic aid in the
>1950's. To what does the original poster ascribe the Far
>East's resurgence as world economic powers after WWII?
Japan received NO economic aid from the US in the 1950s.
Neither did Taiwan or Korea.
Phil Ronzone
>>>What you've described, while it happen a lot in socialism
>>>(i.e., the entire USSR), has never happened under capitalism.
>>>
>>>You assume an amazing situation where people can not leave.
>>>That can not happen unless coercive restrictions are in place
>>>-- which, by definition, are not situations that can exist
>>>under capitalism.
>>>
>Unless you want to postulate that capitalism has never
>existed outside of an ideal your statement above is pure
>nonsense. Read any account of the industrial revolution -- or
>any general history of the west in the 19th century (and
>early 20th cent. for that matter) and you will see the
>scenario C. Dunlea describes played out again and again.
As if never existed under capitalism, I obviously can't "find" it.
For the same reasons, neither can you.
I notice a CONSPICOUS lack of "well, in locale XYZ, in the year NNNN,
the following happened ..."
Christopher R. Dunlea
Oops, you caught me on that one. No, there certainly was no surplus labor
then; in fact, it reinforces the idea that things could be very nice indeed
for workers during the late medieval period. The "exception" I should
have noted was not an improvement in the labor supply but rather the
peasants' standard of living, which rose markedly after the Black Death.
Apologies to all affected....:)
Chris
>
Christopher R. Dunlea
>Japan received NO economic aid from the US in the 1950s.
>Neither did Taiwan or Korea.
Prove it.
Frankly, since i lived for 5 years in those countries, the proof of
massive US aid was overwhelming. I could mention the power plants,
the TV stations, the infrastructure and not to mention the KOrean
War and subsequent US economic aid that rebuilt Korea.
But you'll pretend none of that ever happened, so I won't.
Chris
Christopher R. Dunlea
>
>For the same reasons, neither can you.
>
>I notice a CONSPICOUS lack of "well, in locale XYZ, in the year NNNN,
>the following happened ..."
New to the English language, Phil??
I take it you were asleep during English Writing as well as your History
classes...
Chris
Michael Carley
>In article <317pm2$h...@salmon.maths.tcd.ie> mjca...@maths.tcd.ie (Michael Carley) writes:
>with capitalism. Just as one small example: the unions in the USA
>have committed large numbers of murders, arsons, and other coercive
>acts to "coerce" their way. Unions are, because of the coercibe methods,
Could you please detail some of these acts for me. I'm not too bright I
guess.
>While a capitalistic company at worst hires private detectives to
>follow Ralph Nader.
Chicago Stockyard Massacre. Tolpuddle. 1913 Lockout.
>So, when was the last time General Motors sent tanks out to roll over
>demonstrators?
It doesn't need to. It has the state to do it instead (see above).
Michael Carley
>And as any student of Japanese history knows, MacArthur explicitly
>set up Japanese unions in 1947, much to the chagrin of people who
>had seen the abuses of unions in the USA.
Tow points here. First setting up a union is a standard way of keeping
unions under control (it took a long time to get rid of company unions).
Secondly, the unions were repressed when it looked as if East Asia would
"fall" to "communism" (in Korea for example).
Tim Starr
Andrew Hall <ah...@fmrco.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Tim Starr writes:
>
> Tim> Andrew Hall <ah...@fmrco.com> wrote:
> >> Yes, totally unregulated capitalism encourages all sorts of
> >> abuses.
>
> Tim> Does not. State "capitalism," i.e., fascism, does.
>
>Revisionism does not help state your case. Child
>labor abuse was common in the US before it was
>regulated away.
Please provide an objectivie definition of "abuse." It is true that child
labor was legal in the US (and England) until Tories, Romantics, and labor
unions got together to ban what they saw as immoral, unpleasant, and unfair
competition, respectively, but saying it doesn't make it so. Even Karl
Marx admitted that child labor helped children to become empowered in
their family lives.
>"Pure" capitalism does reward a lot of abuse. It
>needs regulation to prevent abuse.
Vacuous until "abuse" gains objective definition.
>Without regulation do you think the waters of
>this country would not still be flammable?
If people had been allowed to own the waters, no other regulation would ever
have been necessary, and they would never have become flammable.
Tim Starr - Renaissance Now! Think Universally, Act Selfishly
Assistant Editor: Freedom Network News, the newsletter of ISIL,
The International Society for Individual Liberty,
1800 Market St., San Francisco, CA 94102
(415) 864-0952; FAX: (415) 864-7506; 71034...@compuserve.com
Liberty is the Best Policy - tims...@netcom.com
Tim Starr
Christopher R. Dunlea <crdu...@rodan.syr.edu> wrote:
>In article <philCtK...@netcom.com> ph...@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
>>In article <AHALL.94J...@slothrop.fmrco.com> ah...@fmrco.com (Andrew Hall) writes:
>> >Revisionism does not help state your case. Child labor abuse
>> >was common in the US before it was regulated away.
>>
>
>It is unnecessary to post facts on the Internet and waste bandwidth when they
>are quite easily available in your local library.
Factual data about child labor is indeed available from many libraries, just
not data which supports the claim that children were abused by being permitted
to work. "Child Labor and the Industrial Revolution" by Clark Nardinelli is
a good example.
>...If you are so interested
>in facts rather than hyperbole, why don't you go check them yourself?
I have.
>Simply saying something is wrong without supporting your argument won't
>make things so.
Quite correct. So why do you believe that child labor is or was inherently
abusive so as to necessitate State regulation/prohibition?
Tim Starr
>> go look it up). If you're right, PROVE IT.
>
>here but you still should have learned that in school. Frankly, I can't
>be bothered teaching you history you obviously slept through in school.
There is plenty of objective evidence for the voyages of Columbus which is
disputed by no one except perhaps some Flat Earthers. There is no such
evidence for the abusive nature of child labor in a free society.
>>2. You've described bizarra scenarios which happen under coercive systems
>> but not under capitalism. I can't prove a negative, but, you opened
>> your mouth, so prove the positive.
>
>The only thing "bizzara" [sic] about this whole conversation is your
>refusal to either be persuaded by my argument
You have made no argument.
>...OR crack a book to tell me where I'm wrong.
Nardinelli, Clark, "Child Labor and the Industrial Revolution." Look it up.
Tim Starr
Michael Carley <mjca...@maths.tcd.ie> wrote:
>>...Liberty
>>means freedom to interact peaceably and capitalism is the mechanism by
>>which people interact peaceably in the economic sphere. Thus the
>
>They do not interact peaceably. Why is it that violence and repression are
>used against trade unions, for example?
Partly because these are made readily available by the State in the form of
cops and soldiers, partly because trade unions use violence and repression
themselves sometimes to get coercively what they can't get through voluntary
negotiations and bargaining.
Christopher R. Dunlea
> go look it up). If you're right, PROVE IT.
I can't prove Christopher Columbus sailed to Hispaniola from my desk
here but you still should have learned that in school. Frankly, I can't
be bothered teaching you history you obviously slept through in school.
>
>2. You've described bizarra scenarios which happen under coercive systems
> but not under capitalism. I can't prove a negative, but, you opened
> your mouth, so prove the positive.
The only thing "bizzara" [sic] about this whole conversation is your
refusal to either be persuaded by my argument OR crack a book to tell
me where I'm wrong. You have so far proven nothing, and I now doubt
you can; the only thing you have proven is that you have an Internet
account and have lots of spare time to use it.
To quote a classic film: "I'm really glad we had this conversation. It
showed me just how fucking crazy you really are."
Chris
Tim Starr
David M. Pfarrer <pfa...@isr.harvard.edu> wrote:
>Darrell R. Hougen
>drhg...@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu writes:
>
>>The point is that this type of labor repression is not an artifact of
>>capitalism, per se. In fact, throughout most of human history people
>>have been repressing each other. Almost all human societies had
>>slaves and the people of those societies were considered the subjects
>>of the monarch. When capitalism started growing in Europe, indentured
>>servitude was already a fact of life for a large percentage of the
>>population. The feudal barrons had their peasants, who were generally
>>tied to the land, and when it became obvious that there was money to
>>be made in manufacturing industries, it was natural for the barrons to
>>try to implement similar systems in the factories.
>
>Your argument would be more persuasive if it didn't sound like the
>reflux of a poorly digested Intro to Econ textbook. Do you really
>think the feudal system was in place up until the late 18th/early 19th
>centuries?
Russian serfs weren't freed until the 1860s.
>...Or are you under the impression that feudal "barrons[sic]"
>started the industrial revolution circa 1400?
Not the industrial revolution, no, but capitalism did arise in some parts
of Europe around that time in its commercial form, if not its industrial.
Tim Starr
>>
>>However, capitalism as an economic system has nothing to do with the
>>behavior of a few Feudal barrons. In fact, capitalism is both the
>>expression of the priniciples of liberty and justice and a great
>>motivator of the trend towards greater personal liberty. Liberty
>>means freedom to interact peaceably and capitalism is the mechanism by
>>which people interact peaceably in the economic sphere. Thus the
>>as Feudalism and Communism in which people interact by force to a
>>system of peaceful coexistence.
>>
>I'd agree with your assessment of capitalism as the economic expression
>of freedom and liberty (I won't get into "justice", however). Compared
>to manorial and Marxist models, this is true. The problem arises when
>that liberty is taken to the point of license, ie. the capitalist's
>enterprise begins to unduly affect society for the worse. For example,
>the capitalist has the freedom to buy land, announce intent to build a
>widget factory, hire workers and begin manufacturing widgets. The problem
>comes in if the owner owns all the available housing and charges the
>workers rent that strips them of most of their wages (and lowers their
>standard of living), requires them to work excesively long hours 6
>days a week to make that rent, and entices the workers through said bad
>wages to end their children off to work. Furthermore, getting fired
>means eviction. The result is a system of perpetual pauperization.
>
>The question is, Does the capitalist have the freedom to conduct his
>business in this way, a way that many would agree was detrimental to
>society? Let me add quickly that all this was supported by the free market
>system, that other options for the workers were decreasing, so simply
>getting up a quitting was not a viable option as either A) there were
>no jobs available that provided for a better standard of living, and
>B) most other capitalists operated in the same way.
How did they get the land?
>Finally, all this comes not from my head but from standard Victorian
>British business practice.
In England? Where land ownership was monopolized at least since Norman
times?
Michael Carley
>If people had been allowed to own the waters, no other regulation would ever
>have been necessary, and they would never have become flammable.
Given what happened to land (which people are allowed to own) when those
with economic power got hold of it, how can you make such an assertion.
Michael Carley
[the state acts to repress unions, etc.]
>Partly because these are made readily available by the State in the form of
>cops and soldiers, partly because trade unions use violence and repression
So the state is a vital part of capitalism, providing the resources to
coerce unwilling workers into worse conditions.
>themselves sometimes to get coercively what they can't get through voluntary
>negotiations and bargaining.
For example? Given that unions are in a weaker position than their employers,
how else are unions ever going to get anything? I can't think of many examples
of unions being repressive, as it happens.
Tim Starr
>a day have no time to go to school or even learn to read, so they are
>stuck forever in low-wage jobs with no hope of rising out of what was
>a standard of living below poverty.
1) Where were children working 18 hours a day?
2) How would they have time to attend school or learn to read working 18
hours a day in the fields, or cottage industry?
>2) Unemployment was...astronomical, and
>the classic formula of wages/labor market guaranteed that wages could be
>pitifully low.
True, because the infant mortality rate went down as a function of increased
prosperity and because the Industrial Revolution made many forms of high-
skill labor obsolete, with low-skill labor becoming most remunerative,
allowing the masses to make a good living for themselves for the first time
in human history. How could State intervention have improved upon this?
>3) The owners don't talk to each other (of course they did; they ran
>said town) and actually compete. No Smithian law _says_ the owners
>must compete with each other for workers, especially when there's a glut.
>Why fight when all the owners can make money working in concert? It was
>called the Whig party.
Price-fixing contracts are unenforceable under Anglo-American common law,
and anti-combination laws remained on the books until Sir Robert Peel's
stint as PM in the 1820s-30s. So, not only would collusion between bosses
have been unenforceable, it was actually illegal for the first fifty years
of the Industrial Revolution. How could the State have intervened so as
to have improved upon this?
>furthermore, there always existed the distinct possibility of a blackball.
>There was no reason for an owner or manager to be kind to their labor;
>if a worker seemed "ungrateful" he could be fired for NO reason. Then
>just try getting work locally. Remember, no $$ = no food, since there
>was no social net.
False. There was no State welfare. There were private insurance associations
formed by groups of workers.
>...Oh, by the way, you're evicted, get out on the
>street. And starve to death, thank you very much.
Instead of going into the workhouses?
>...The law?
>The owner's brother is in Parliament and his in-law is a local JP; you
>think you can take them on? You can't even sign your own name.
Clearly a case of State failure, not the market.
Tim Starr
Michael Carley <mjca...@maths.tcd.ie> wrote:
>ph...@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
>
>>Well, maybe two generations at the most. Japan and Korea were utterly
>>devastated countries two generations ago. Today, they are humongous
>>world class economies.
>
>And, like the "traditional" industrialised powers, they did it with
>amssive state intervention, rather than practice what the Western powers
>preach ("free" markets and so on).
Nonsense. They did it with far less State intervention than there is in the
USA today, for instance, or than there is in Europe.
Tim Starr
>>ph...@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
>>
>>>Well, maybe two generations at the most. Japan and Korea were utterly
>>>devastated countries two generations ago. Today, they are humongous
>>>world class economies.
>>
>>And, like the "traditional" industrialised powers, they did it with
>>amssive state intervention, rather than practice what the Western powers
>>preach ("free" markets and so on).
>>
India has gotten the lion's share of foreign aid from the USA since WWII. How
come it isn't booming? It's had lots of State intervention, too. What's the
problem?
>...We turned Japan
>into the bottom of a Shakenbake bag in WWII; they'd be nowhere today
>without US economic aid in the 1950's.
How come "made in Japan" was a joke until the late 1970s, then? How long does
it take for the benefits of this aid to take effect, 20 years? I suppose
India's just beginning to reap the benefits of the aid it got in 1974?
Tim Starr
>>Japan received NO economic aid from the US in the 1950s.
>>Neither did Taiwan or Korea.
>
>Prove it.
He doesn't have to. You have to prove that they did.
>Frankly, since i lived for 5 years in those countries, the proof of
>massive US aid was overwhelming.
That's funny, I know people who've lived in them, too, and they didn't
find this alleged "proof" so "overwhelming."
>...I could mention the power plants,
>the TV stations, the infrastructure and not to mention the KOrean
>War and subsequent US economic aid that rebuilt Korea.
Why not throw in the steel, car, and electronics factories, too? Yes,
Japan, Korea, and Singapore all built western-style buildings, factories,
power & TV stations, etc. after WWII. That does nothing to show that
they were built because of US foreign aid to the Japanese government.
Michael Carley
>False. There was no State welfare. There were private insurance associations
>formed by groups of workers.
If by that you mean the friendly societies, remember that they were not
allowed to organise nationally. Any form of workers' organisation was
repressed in ways ranging from violence to simple legal intimidation.
Michael Carley
>In article <317pm2$h...@salmon.maths.tcd.ie>,
>Michael Carley <mjca...@maths.tcd.ie> wrote:
>>Could you please explain to me what exactly are the points of similarity
>>betweeen a happy and supportive marriage and a capitalist economy?
>Both consist of mutually beneficial relations between consenting adults.
Hardly. Nobody has a choice about joining a capitalist economy and very
few people have the option of leaving it. Secondly, a marriage is based
on the idea of two people who are of equal "power" (for want of a better
word). A capitalist economy contains a small number of very powerful
people and a large number of comparitively weak people.
>>No it is not. It is a system that requires that a small number of people
>>control most of the wealth and most of the power.
>Check your Marx. He coined the word, after all, and there is nothing in
>his definition of capitalism that says anything about how many people
>control most of the wealth and power. All it says is that that capital
>must be privately owned.
What about your definition? And I'm referring to the world as it is now,
one which is called capitalist.
>England's anti-combination laws which were similarly used were repealed
>during Sir Robert Peel's ministry in the early 19th century. As far as I
>know, England has yet to replace them with similar laws against unions.
>Unions are still legal there, aren't they?
They have been repressed heavily over the past fifteen years. Check your
favorite Thatcher hagiography and you'll find where she boasted about
breaking the unions.
Michael Carley
>>>While a capitalistic company at worst hires private detectives to
>>>follow Ralph Nader.
>>
>>Chicago Stockyard Massacre. Tolpuddle. 1913 Lockout.
>There was a similar event in Colorado, but those were cases in which the State
>was called in to do the bosses dirty work for them.
Which is exactly what I said it was. The state exists to keep capitalism
going.
Tim Starr
>
>>In article <3157a7$9...@salmon.maths.tcd.ie> mjca...@maths.tcd.ie (Michael Carley) writes:
>> >You claim that, by definition, there is no coercion under
>> >capitalism. This gives me a whole new understanding of
>> >"amazing situation".
>
>>Really? Hmm, do also have trouble believing that say, a happy and
>>supportive marriage does not have, by definition, spousal rape?
>
>Could you please explain to me what exactly are the points of similarity
>betweeen a happy and supportive marriage and a capitalist economy?
Both consist of mutually beneficial relations between consenting adults.
>>Capitalism is a system that requires mutual, voluntary property
>>exchanges by adults.
>
>No it is not. It is a system that requires that a small number of people
>control most of the wealth and most of the power.
Check your Marx. He coined the word, after all, and there is nothing in
his definition of capitalism that says anything about how many people
control most of the wealth and power. All it says is that that capital
must be privately owned.
>...In order to be maintained
>it requires force and repression (eg anti union laws).
What anti-union laws? The closest thing to an anti-union law that was
ever passed in the USA was the Sherman anti-trust act, which was used at
first to try to suppress unions as unfair restraints upon trade. Since
the Wagner Act of 1937, labor unions have been exempt from anti-trust law.
England's anti-combination laws which were similarly used were repealed
during Sir Robert Peel's ministry in the early 19th century. As far as I
know, England has yet to replace them with similar laws against unions.
Unions are still legal there, aren't they?
If so, then neither England nor America meet your condition for capitalism,
and thus aren't subject to your criticisms.
>>Coercion is anti-capitalistic, and is destructive to capitalism.
>
>It is the only thing that keeps it in place.
Why?
Tim Starr
Michael Carley <mjca...@maths.tcd.ie> wrote:
>ph...@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
>
>>In article <317pm2$h...@salmon.maths.tcd.ie> mjca...@maths.tcd.ie (Michael Carley) writes:
>
>>with capitalism. Just as one small example: the unions in the USA
>>have committed large numbers of murders, arsons, and other coercive
>>acts to "coerce" their way. Unions are, because of the coercibe methods,
>
>Could you please detail some of these acts for me. I'm not too bright I
>guess.
Look up a bio of Clarence Darrow, and find the chapter on the union leaders he
defended against charges of having firebombed a building owned by an LA
employer they were struggling with. He got 'em off, but they admitted to
doing it. Then get the video of "Hoffa," and see how casually they show the
very same "negotiating" tactic being used in the beginning of the film.
>>While a capitalistic company at worst hires private detectives to
>>follow Ralph Nader.
>
>Chicago Stockyard Massacre. Tolpuddle. 1913 Lockout.
There was a similar event in Colorado, but those were cases in which the State
was called in to do the bosses dirty work for them.
>>So, when was the last time General Motors sent tanks out to roll over
>>demonstrators?
>
>It doesn't need to. It has the state to do it instead (see above).
Then it's the State's fault, not the markets. Capitalism entails separation
of economy & state.
Tim Starr
Bingo!
Christopher R. Dunlea
>It doesn't change.
Oh, I get it now. Laws you like are "moral", laws the rest of us
like and ones you don't are not, is that it? Just how are you fit
to judge the morality of whole cultures?
>I'm sorry -- obviosuly my points have hit home and left you with no
>possible rebuttal.
You're lucky I'm rebutting you at all. I usually don't answer posters
with the arrogance of a Pharaoh and the knowledge of a pea.
But if you want a rebuttal, I'll start by saying you have demonstrated
by your inability to show me that you know ANYTHING about what
you're talking about that your opinions are worth what it cost me to
read them--nothing. Otherwise, tell me how you come by this
information.
>Sorry, there are absolute moral systems. If you do not believe there
>is an absolute morality, then of course you won't mind the relativistisc
>system that a thug uses when he murders you (it's OK in his book you
>see).
Which we haven't even touched upon. You mention selling books, I
mention selling contraband, and to prove your position you drag out
murder. There being no society in the world which condones muder
by thugs, you now must tell me whether you really think selling a
pound of dope can be as morally absolute as murder. It seems you're
rather desperate to prove something here, so you pull out murder
as soon as possible.
>If some religious nut decides that XYZ book is blah-blah, that's fine.
>But it is immoral for him to coercively interfere with say, two
>other people reading/buying it.
Censorship is an Absolute Immorality?? Which of the Ten Commandments
is that covered under? See, if you're going to make the case that
freedom to read is an Absolute Right, you must prove a) God said
that somewhere, b) people somewhere have ALWAYS believed that, or
c) EVERYONE believes that without really ever thinking about it.
Otherwise, that's just your late 20th century opinion talking--
another form of relativist thinking, since only in the 20th century
have people really stretched the right to read anything.
So you're really a relativist, Phil.
> >Somehow I think you perceive every state with a law on its
> >books as "socialist", in which case arguing with you as to
> >what makes a socialist state socialist is pointless. You are
> >welcome to your opinion as to the nature of a socialist state
> >but you'll find that you are vey much alone in your belief.
> >By the way, name me one law that is NOT based on morality.
>
>The Federal law that controls who can grow hops (the plant).
Sorry, you put your foot in it. See, the whole idea of plant grower
legislation is tricky, because that same federal government also
legislates who can grow cannibis--exactly NO ONE save the
Fed for research. Because the very act of passing a law saying
who might grow such a plant implies that growing it is legal, and
therefore OK, because beer (the main reason for its growth) is OK.
On the other hand, there is no real good reason to crminalize the
_growing_ of cannibis, but the govt. has decided that it is in effect
immoral; ergo, you can't even own a pot plant for decoration, even
if you don't smoke. *Every* law has a basis in morality.
Christopher R. Dunlea
>with capitalism. Just as one small example: the unions in the USA
I'm sorry--you have obviously confused fascism/socialism/communism with
each other.
Shooting for zero credibility, hmm?
Chris
Christopher R. Dunlea
>In England? Where land ownership was monopolized at least since Norman
>times?
Not supported by research. By the Tudor period (1485) most of the old
Norman families were extinct due to revolt and civil wars, and their lands
confiscated and given to newly created peers. Also, sales were extremely
common as they are today; rich merchants wanting to move up in society
typically bought a manor and become squires. The very idea of the
yeoman farmer was that of a prosperous landowner, and many of them
set up the first woolworking shops. And let's not forget the Dissolution
of the Monasteries in 1538, flooding the English market with 1/3 of
the arable land in the kingdom, which had been held by the Church...
Chris
Danny Low
: Hardly. Nobody has a choice about joining a capitalist economy and very
: few people have the option of leaving it. Secondly, a marriage is based
: on the idea of two people who are of equal "power" (for want of a better
: word). A capitalist economy contains a small number of very powerful
: people and a large number of comparitively weak people.
From the statistics most marriages are NOT between two people who
are equal in any manner. In the typical two wage family, the husband
earns significantly more. When a job promotion involves moving
to a new locale, the family moves if it is the husband and the wife
has to find a new job. When it is the wife, the family stays and
the wife has to find a new job. When it comes time to take care of
the children, it is the wife who takes the maternity leave. Studies
have shown that in a two wage family, the wife still does most
of the housework and child care in addition to holding down a
job. The option to enter or not enter into marriage is as open as
the option to enter or leave a capitalistic society. Every day
thousands of Mexicans exercise that option with their feet.
A large number of comparatively weak people can be a very strong UNION
because of their numbers. These same people can also gain power by
virtual of their numbers when it comes to election time. As a result,
they can buy just as many politicians as any industrialist.
Union PACs contribute just as much money to the politicians as anyone
else.
Danny Low
"Question Authority and the Authorities will question You"
Valley of Hearts Delight, Silicon Valley
HP NSD dl...@ppg01.sc.hp.com
Christopher R. Dunlea
>>
>>Prove it.
>
>He doesn't have to. You have to prove that they did.
A little joke, since this guy says "prove it prove it prove it." Now
I ask him to prove a statement he makes and evades the question, Tim.
I'll stick to Korea and Taiwan. I lived a two minute ride to the
KORI -II nuke plant, built by KECO with US Dept. of Energy funds and
Westinghouse tech assistance. An hour outside Pusan. Not to mention the
massive aid we give Korea in defending their country and providing finds
to plice the nation. Or the loans we gave them to build infrastructure
and schools. And you can't discount the State Dept. and military
presence there either.
In Taiwan we gave them plenty of money to build the country out of
fear of the Communists. The city of Taipei was built with OUR
economic aid dollars after 1949 from a village.
There's more, but since I lived there years ago I'll have to think about
it some more to give you details, but there's no doubt in my mind the
US was responsible for building those countries up. Americans were
not subject to certain laws, by the way; you think that's just a coinicidence?
By the way, your friends' views of Korea and Taiwan's development says
more about your friends than it does about either place. Sure, there
are no McDonald's everywhere, but you know...
David M. Pfarrer
> >>>
> >>>You assume an amazing situation where people can not leave.
> >>>That can not happen unless coercive restrictions are in place
> >>>-- which, by definition, are not situations that can exist
> >>>under capitalism.
I replied:
> >Unless you want to postulate that capitalism has never
> >nonsense. Read any account of the industrial revolution -- or
> >any general history of the west in the 19th century (and
> >early 20th cent. for that matter) and you will see the
> >scenario C. Dunlea describes played out again and again.
Phil Ronzone then replied:
>As if never existed under capitalism, I obviously can't "find" it.
>
>For the same reasons, neither can you.
>
>I notice a CONSPICOUS lack of "well, in locale XYZ, in the year NNNN,
>the following happened ..."
The following is from "Nation of Nations: A Narrative History of the
American Repulic," by Davidson, Gienap, Heyrman, Lytle, Stoff,
published by McGraw-Hill, 1990, ISBN 0-07-557213-3, pp. 679-80:
A broader confrontation between labor and capital took place
just two years later [1895]. George Pullman, inventor of the plush
Palace Car and owner of the company that built it, was a
benevolent despot. He was determined to ensure efficiency on
the job by controlling the lives of his workers. In the 1880s
he built for his 5000 workers a model town south of Chicago on
the shores of Lake Calumet. Pullman was a clean and pretty
town, free of alcohol but never free from discontent. In
addition to difficult working conditions, residents resented
Pullman's relentless control over this compulsory heaven. "We
are born in a Pullman house," one of them complained, "fed
from the Pullman shop, taught in the Pullman school,
catechized in the Pullman church, and when we die, we shall be
buried in the Pullman cemetery and go to the Pullman Hell."
As the depression of 1893 deepened, Pullman laid off workers,
cut wages five times in one year, and refused to reduce the
high rents charged for company houses. In 1894 frustrated
workers struck. They managed to convince Eugene V. Debs'
American Railway Union to support them by boycotting all
trains that used Pullman cars. The General Managers
Association, an organization of 24 midwestern railroads,
appealed to President Grover Cleveland for federal help. On
the slim pretext that the strike obstructed delivery of the US
mail (strikers had actually been willing to handle mail trains
so long as they contained no Pullman cars), Cleveland secured
an injunction halting the strike and ordered several thousand
special deputies into Chicago to enforce it. In the rioting
and looting that followed, 12 people died and scores were
arrested. Debs and other union leaders were eventually sent to
jail for defying the injunction. After his release, a bitter
Debs became the foremost socialist leader in America.
At Pullman and in other labor disputes the central question,
whatever the public issues, was power. Employers always
enjoyed the advantage. They hired and fired workers, set the
terms of employment, and controlled the workplace. To most of
them, unions were a curse they fought to destroy with a
formidable arsenal. "Yellow dog" contracts forced workers to
forswear union membership. "Blacklists" circulated the names
of labor agitators. Lockouts kept protesting workers from
plants, and labor spies infiltrated their organizations.
Workers were paid with "scrip," company money redeemable only
at company stores charging inflated prices. With abundand
migrant and immigrant labor, employers could replace strikers
and so break their strike. "I can hire on half the working
class to kill the other half," Jay Gould once remarked.
Do you get it? You take a job because you have no money. The
conditions of employment are that you live in company housing, accept
company scrip for wages, and spend those wages at the company store.
Since the wages aren't sufficient to pay for the rent and food you end
up in dept to the company and can't leave.
There are your facts Mr. Ranzone, from a run-of-the-mill college
history text book. It takes considerable effort to go to the shelves,
find the volume, and type it into this post. I won't be bothering
again because you're not worth it. The Robber baron period of our
history is a given -- most literate, educated people are aware of it
and your dismissal of any information that doesn't fit your tunnel
vision of the world is disengenuous at the least.
****************************************************
| David Pfarrer | "Respect means, put |
| pfa...@isr.harvard.edu | yourself out" |
| pfa...@harvunxw.bitnet | - Pascal |
****************************************************
Larry M Headlund
>
>I'm sorry -- you have obviously confused fascism/socialism/communism
>with capitalism. Just as one small example: the unions in the USA
>acts to "coerce" their way. Unions are, because of the coercibe methods,
>
>While a capitalistic company at worst hires private detectives to
>follow Ralph Nader.
>
company, or you are amazingly innocent at of what the worst practices
of companies have been. Note I didn't didn't say typical, but am following
your "at worst" statement.
>
>So, when was the last time General Motors sent tanks out to roll over
>demonstrators?
say Republic Steel, Chicago, IL, Memorial Day 1937 (10 dead) as one counter
example amongst many.
But I assume you are touching on Tianemen Square, just the most
recent in a mournful list. To point out business abuses is not to
excuse state terrorism. Just as critisizing Stalin does not excuse
Hitler, nor vice versa.
From another post I gather you believe that pure capitalism
has never been tried, hence cannot be held accountable for any
historical abuses. By the same token pure capitalism cannot be
creditted with any successes. This tends to make the discussion
pretty ahistorical, as well as giving an opening for anyone to
say "my pet ism has never been tried"
--
Larry Headlund l...@world.std.com Eikonal Systems (617) 482-3345
Unix, X and Motif Consulting Motif on Ascii Terminals!
Larry M Headlund
Tim Starr <tims...@netcom.com> wrote:
>In article <31ag8a$k...@salmon.maths.tcd.ie>,
>>>follow Ralph Nader.
>>
>>Chicago Stockyard Massacre. Tolpuddle. 1913 Lockout.
>
>There was a similar event in Colorado, but those were cases in which the State
>was called in to do the bosses dirty work for them.
>
>>>So, when was the last time General Motors sent tanks out to roll over
>>>demonstrators?
>>
>>It doesn't need to. It has the state to do it instead (see above).
>
>Then it's the State's fault, not the markets. Capitalism entails separation
>of economy & state.
>
year (1934). I happen to have reference in front of me, which is why
I picked that year.
Frick goons shoot down union miners emerging from the shafts
Kohler, Wi 2 killed, 35 wounded by strikebreakers
(Ref. _The Glory and The Dream, William Manchester)
Tim Starr
>>1. No, foreigners are severely restricted in Pakistan (in running a
>> business). They are not allowed to own more than 49% (rather,
>> 51% must be owned by a Pakistani).
>
>This is a restriction?
Did they start letting illiterates into Syracuse?
>...Setting up a dummy partner? Anyone with half a
>brain will go into business there with a Pakistani partner...
Thus making the particular form of restriction a subsidy to Pakistanis which
is financed though business mandate.
>...a) anybody who wants to produce, market and
>sell products must have local help in getting labor and negotiating
>land rights, taxes and govt. regulations
In other words, dealing with the State.
>>2. Pakistani is a socilaist state. All businesses are heavily regulated.
>
>Yes, well Dupont here is not allowed to dump raw sewage into the rivers
>due to government regulations.
You sure about that? India forced Union Carbide to do something similar
in Bhopal. Or, if you were talking about the USA, then why don't you
check on that plant Al Gore got an exemption for back in '92 when he was
running for Veep as an eco-fascist.
>...Are we a socialist state?
Halfway.
>...By the way,
>didn't you just say that 49% of a business can be owned by a foreigner,
>and 51% can be owned by a national? That adds up to 100% to me. Where's
>the socialist part, you know, the state's ownership? Because that's what it
>means to operate a socialist economy. Private ownership means capitalism.
Private ownership with such regulation means _fascism_, not capitalism.
>>3. Taxes are confiscatory in Pakistan.
>
>Uh, what the heck does that mean?
That the security of property which is a precondition of capitalism is
absent.
Tim Starr
Nathan Newman <new...@garnet.berkeley.edu> wrote:
>In article <timstarrC...@netcom.com>,
>Tim Starr <tims...@netcom.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>Don't worry. We already have repealed those laws on an international
>>>basis, which is how our multinationals operate. 1 million children under
>>>12 labor in Pakistani carpet factories just as Bangldeshi children work
>>>in garment factories as part of the world capitalist economy.
>>>
>>>For those who praise the standard of living of workers under capitalism,
>>>remember that these child workers are just as much a "typical" capitalist
>>>worker as a self-satisfied computer programmer in Silicon Valley.
>
>>Pakistan. Capitalist. Right. And I'm Arnold Schwarzenegger.
>
>With one million children (and millions of other workers) producing goods
>by US and European-owned companies for export to consumers in those
>countries, are you arguing that those workers are not part of the world
>capitalist system?
There is no world capitalist system, only a whole lot of more or less
socialist or fascist police states.
>>>In today's SF CHRONICLE, the following article appeared:
>>>
>>>"EXPLOITATION OF CHILDREN INCREASING IN SOUTH ASIA"
>>>
>>>ASSOCIATED PRESS- Washington:
>>>
>>> "Child labor is increasing dramatically in South Asia due mainly
>>>to the expansion of garment and carpet exports to the West, human rights
>>>groups said yesterday.
>>> The problem has become a primary human rights concern in India,
>>>Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nepal and other nations of the subcontinent.
>>
>>India: socialist Hindu theocracy. Pakistan: socialist Islamic theocracy.
>>Bangladesh: socialist. Nepal: ruled by communist China.
>
>Pakistan is not the same as India. To argue that is to defy reality (and
>India is rapidly allowing large sectors to become completely capitalist).
I never said they were the same. India is Hindu, Pakistan Islamic. That's
a big difference. To pretend that I said they were the same is to defy
reality and reason.
Yes, India is becoming less of a socialist police state, and all to the good.
That still doesn't mean it's not still a Hindu theocracy.
>And if the US and Europe can only sustain their economies by importing
>goods from socialist countries (as you seem to argue), doesn't that show
>a rather large weakness in capitalism?
It would if the US and Europe were capitalist, which they aren't.
>>Where are the examples of children being killed by factory owners in
>>capitalist countries?
>
>I see. If you are a poor country, you are going to define it as
>socialist, otherwise it's capitalist.
Nonsense. I'm not "defining" anything, I'm going by the original definition
of capitalism a la Marx, who coined it: private ownership of the means of
production, meaning freedom to acquire, possess, use, enjoy, and dispose of
private property so long as you don't violate the life, liberty, or property
of anyone else in doing so.
>...Is Indonesia capitalist by your definition?
Nope.
>...Lot of child death there and across southeast Asia.
And in most fascist/socialist police states.
>>> About 1 million children younger than 12 are employed in
>>>Pakistan's carpet industry, along, said Zohra Yusuf, head of the Human
>>>Rights Commission of Pakistan.
>>
>>So how the fuck does he/she know that?
>
>I see. Since you don't have evidence to counter this article, you'll just
>deny it.
Nope. Since I don't know how the data was generated, I have no reason to
accept it. I neither confirm nor deny it.
>...By the way, do you know what Freedom House is?
I thought I'd already said that I didn't.
>...(which was the
>source of the study). It is the long-standing conservative human rights
>outfit which for forty years condemned human rights abuses in the Soviet
>Union.
Good for them. I'm no conservative.
>If you want to argue that children aren't dying, let's hear your evidence.
>This report contained its arguments and proof.
1) I make no such argument, I argue that those countries aren't capitalist.
2) The report contained no such arguments or proof, only rhetoric.
>>> A recent study predicted that almost half of them will be maimed
>>>or die of diseases contracted in the workplace before they are 12, she
>>>said at a briefing organized by Freedom House, a human rights organization.
>>
>>What kind of study? Where did it get its data? How did it arrive at
>>that figure? What are the credentials of this so-called "human rights"
>>organization, anyways? Where does it get its money?
>
>I suggest you learn about Freedom House and other human rights groups
>before you go spouting off.
Thanks for telling me something about it.
>You just make yourself look foolish.
Not as foolish as someone who accepts anything said by any old group
claiming to champion human rights.
Christopher R. Dunlea
>You would appear to know a great deal more on the subject than I do,
>but I think my original response was appropriate. Vestiges of
>feudalism at the end of the 18th century and "proto-industrialism" in
>the form of cottage industries in the middle of the 15th don't add up
>to feudal "barrons[sic]" switching from a feudal form of agricultural
>management to a feudal form of managing workers in one fell swoop.
True. What I think we both agree with here is the time frame; I hope
I didn't imply that late medieval barons operated the same sort of
capitalist economy as the tycoons of the 19th century did! Nor was the
same degree of feudalism to be found in Western Europe in the late
1700's as was prevalent in the 1300's (Poland and Russia being notable
exceptions to the rule). My only point was that the embryo of industrialism
can be traced back to late 15th C England, and that laissez-faire economics
still needed justification in the latter 18th Century--hence Adam Smith.
The whole process took centuries to develop.
>At question here is the difference between the condition of feudal
>serfs or indentured workers and industrial workers in mid 19th C
>England and America. Both economies were drastically stacked against
>the interests of the worker in favor of the owner. But in the feudal
>scheme there was at least some overlap -- that is, the baron would
>have a vested interest in keeping his serfs healthy enough to be
>productive. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think the feudal,
>agricultural economy was characterized by a big pool of surplus labor.
Indeed. The Tories often were seen as the country party in the 18th-19th
century because they were typically more concerned with maintaining
traditional moral economy laws, such as those regulating the grain
trade (to protect peasants against unscrupulous profiteers). And there
were serious social bonds--the relationship between local workers and
the local gentry family often went back several generations. And with a
very notable exception (after the Black Death) there was no surplus of
labor available before 1700.
Chris