This is an interesting thread. It seems that, a few posts back, Bill,
you read my response to you as a defense of what gets called "socialism"
--i.e., the state-socialist Communist bloc countries-- as part of my
criticism of capitalism. [I also sensed that my comment about your
"buying into" the 2-alternatives dichotomy rubbed you the wrong way
--apologies if it seemed inflammatory; it wasn't meant to!] That would
by no means be the primary thrust of my criticism. I consider the
state-socialist/authoritarian systems to be a very clearly 'failed
experiment.' Not only did they fail to produce adequate material
comforts for their populations (for a variety of reasons, including
those that others have mentioned --i.e., their perceived need to
mobilize for massive economic take off, their perceived need to match
the hostile West in military development, etc.), but more important,
they were at times horrifically brutal and authoritarian in their
control of their populations.
So, let's put that aside, ok? I'm sure no one on this list (well, maybe
no one) would embrace those systems. I also believe that Marx himself
would have shuddered at what his theories and predictive work has turned
into. On the other hand, your comment, ("By every measure of human
welfare --life expectancy, health, education, whatever -- people are
better off in the "developed" capitalist countries than anywhere else")
puts, I think, too quick a spin on things. For one thing, with respect
to the developed (vs. 'non-developed') part of this statement, one has
to bear in mind the fundamental fact at a good piece of the development
you speak of comes about because it is grounded in exploitation of the
'undeveloped' world. That has alot to do with these statistical
advantages. Second, with respect to capitalism-'communism,' I think you
too quickly dismiss the actual human welfare accomplishments of at least
some of these systems --e.g., the improvements in human health,
nutrition, education, etc. that have been brought into effect in places
like Cuba & Nicaragua under diverse leftist regimes. Check out, for
example, what happened to infant mortality rates, literacy levels
housing after the Sandinistas took power in Nicaragua --then compare
what's happened since they lost power and the market-friendly (US
sponsored) regimes took over.]
But more importantly, I think it's also the case that capitalism is a
'failed experiment.' At least any 'capitalism' that we can see &
recognize. I have not been convinced that markets of all kinds should
be thrown out (as Michael Albert of Znet argues, for example), though I
realize they contain within them the seeds of what we have today. There
are, however, many reasons to think imaginatively and organize
politically to move beyond capitalism (and I believe that real
democracy/ 'deep democracy'/ 'radical democracy' should be our guide in
this project.
To expand just a bit. In rejecting what Paula has said about
"syndicates" & worker-owned cooperatives, etc., Bill commented: "As to
workers' collectives or co-ops, there is a long history, with a very
rich literature, pertaining to the Soviet Union, the United States, and
other countries, showing that industry
functions best when a single individual gives the orders. Unpleasant but
true. Production and workers' collective co-ops may last a decade or
two. They usually don't. Absolutely none have the longevity of the
greatest corporations..."
Two points: (1) I'd like to hear more about this literature showing that
the "single-individual giving orders" is what "functions best" (in what
sense? economic productivity? efficiency? worker satisfaction?). The
literature that I'm somewhat familiar with (e.g., Bowles & Gintis, and
works they've cited in Capitalism & Democracy) points to the higher
levels of productivity in a number of the worker-owned collectives/
cooperatives. (2). You're probably right about longevity, vs.
corporations. BUT, one has to take into account the context (heavily
imbalanced marketplace) within which this is all taking place. Existing
heavily capitalized corporate conglomerates will and do consistently
take whatever steps they can --with considerable influence over the
political process-- to shore up their competitive advantages.
Undercapitalized industries (and poor regions & localities) are at a
huge competitive disadvantage in a 'market' in which they compete
against these mega-corporations. Among the many tactics corporations
pursue are (a) controlling innovation, (b) engaging in 'price wars'
(recall the airlines & trucking industries after deregulation) which
have the effect of reducing profitability in smaller-scale enterprises
that can't live off accumulated capital as long, leading to (c) buying
out these "economic losers" and thus further accumulating market
control, etc. It should come as no surprise then, in a 'market' system
defined by these political rules, that these experiments, etc. find they
can't compete in selling their goods. It's the same thing today, in a
sense, within globalizing capitalism. Why DO Vietnam, China, etc.
'embrace' the "market?" Why do a "socialist government" in France, and
more recently social-democratic parties in control in the UK, Germany,
etc. move in the direction of neo-liberalism? Two reasons, really, for
the latter: (a) they are heavily influenced by the corporate money
they've come to rely on to achieve political success, and (b) external
forces have shaped the rules they have to play by to succeed --i.e., if
the UK doesn't want to go down the tubes, it needs to "attract capital,"
etc. To do that, they "must" lower their labor protection, their
environmental protections, their social welfare spending, etc. This
cannot all be attributed to some economic/efficiency 'superiority" of
corporations (though it does provide the basis for powerful & persuasive
propaganda to that effect).
Finally, Bill, you and Marty bring up the unchallenged fact that people
all over the world clearly "want" the kind of material goods that our
system can bring them.
Again, I think there is something in this, but it's too quick a gloss.
Consider (a) the atrocious conditions they live under, and the degree to
which, so some extent, those are due to colonial/imperial/post-imperial
exploitation, (b) the fact that there is a great deal of "advertising"
for the great things they will gain by coming to the US, by buying all
sorts of stuff, etc. In fact, it's pretty constant 'advertising' that
is spreading more and more throughout the world, shaping people's
expectations of what is 'worth while.' But there's a huge gap between
the advertisement and the 'product' --in so many ways-- and this IS
crucial in evaluating this system we live under. Consider (only one of
several applicable examples) the immigrants lured to American shores by
the promise of a better life. Yes --true, no doubt-- in many
circumstances (back to #1). But, it's also false: slum squalor, brutal
exploitation, horrific conditions, etc. in a system which makes it
extremely difficult to hold on to the cultural richness & traditions
they bring with them. And this system REQUIRES this exploitation of
SOMEONE, even as some are able, in a generation or two, to move up into
the middle class. I'm reminded (since this is a sixties list) of
Bernice Reagon's quote: "The Civil Rights Movement exposed the basic
structure of the country, which, as it's set up, cannot sustain itself
without oppressing someone."
I think we need to organize for something different! I don't consider
this a "running down" the United States argument --though that's, of
course, how the Right (and Center) like to spin it.
Ted Morgan
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jul 17 2000 - 20:00:09 CUT