| |
|
So, trying to move on from this godawful farrago before you all uncover some new way of qualifying an apology - infinitus, Nolte and petunia appear to be have been saying much the same thing. To quote myself:
The funny thing about that thread is that, as far as one can tell, all three of you are basically espousing much the same kind of pinkish centrism - that the only way to create a more just society is to take small steps through capitalism and onwards. Infinitus is actually being more radical, assuming as he does that capitalism's basic inequalities will lead to its collapse, but he hopes that the good things generated by capitalism (wealth? technological progress? he posits "civil society and social movement", although I'm not sure I'd associate either with capitalism) will be sufficient to see us through into a new society of justice. This is almost exactly the same as your hope that once everyone is rich as a result of capitalism, they will become socialists.
That is, there is an evolutionary process that moves through capitalism, and when capitalism reaches the point at which it ceases to function - through there being no more capital to generate (infinitus) or through a sufficiency of wealth having been created (petunia), there will hopefully be enough accrued capital and social good (wealth or social mobility) a shift into another way of living - socialism or eco-anarchism, or similar.
Where I'm confused by this is the idea that capitalism is basically an evolutionary force for equality - that it builds up wealth (petunia) or civil society and social mobility (infinitus) which trend towards the ultimate creation of a more equal society, although (infinitus) capitalism has the down side that it engenders classism, sexism, racism and other undesirable isms. However, I see no immediately convincing pattern whereby capitalism operates as this engine of good. The process of capitalism does not appear to me to generate these goods, either intentionally or unintentionally. Capitalism, after all, functions independently of democracy and equality, although arguably the power of dictators to create command economies is inimical to capitalism and therefore to be resisted. It does create a middle class, but the existence of a middle class does not seem ineluctably to lead to socialism or eco-anarchy.
As a practical example - In shareholder capitalism, a company's board is obliged to generate the greatest possible value for its shareholders. It has no obligation to those who are not its shareholders (or its customers) except insofar as it can be compelled by the interests of its shareholders (usually by avoiding fines) to behave as if obliged to them. Therefore, shareholder capitalism means, for example, that if there is profit to be made for shareholders in a practice that hastens desertification, the company is obliged by the morality of share ownership to continue with that practice for as long as it is able to make it profitable, i.e. until government legislation or public relations render it ultimately detrimental to share value. As such, how does shareholder capitalism avoid the profitable disenfranchisement of those who are not a part of the process of share ownership - which is to say, the poor? There is a missing step in the evolutionary narrative here because of which I fear tripping. |
|
|
