Whoever said they "always" are? There is no perfection in this life. The point is that in a framework where the laws are race neutral, the economy will work to eliminate economic disparities based on race. Jeffrey Apfel wrote: > Calm down, David. I was in a sense taking your point of view. Note > that I wrote it "would be facile" to say no discrimination exists, not > that you denied its existence. I was emphasizing the good elements of > Mark's post, which rightly argued that economic theory does not always > guide human action. If you bothered to read to the end of my short > post, you'd note that I agree that market forces tend to be > indifferent to such things as skin color, and thus have formed the > backdrop for progressive notions that people typically think of as > divorced from, or antithetical to, capitalism. > > So two cheers for capitalism, as they say. But, c'mon, just because > market forces are allied with "the good" in this instance is no > guarantee that they always are. The market is just a big, dumb force, > sometimes sweeping away segregation and sometimes contributing to the > dumbing down of the culture. That's my problem with the Hayek set, > with which I assume you are now affililiated. Capitalism is perfectly > able to tear down gods that I happen to worship. In such cases I have > no obligation to pray at the altar of market forces--indeed I would be > foolish to do so. > > Jeff Apfel > > David Horowitz wrote: > >> Whoever said anything about no discrimination. The point is that >> those who discriminate lose, because it means they pay more for >> poorer quality workers and force discriminated against workers to >> work for lower wages thus increasing the profits of competitors who >> don't discriminate. Unless you think all employers are racists, then >> in the long run those who are not will benefit from the uneconomic >> bigotry of their rivals. Get it? >> >> Jeffrey Apfel wrote: >> >> > Mark Bunster wrote: >> > >> > > We do not, as people, generally walk around executing perfect >> > theoretical capitalism. My boss >> > > may be working (and thriving) under capitalist principles, but >> > he's not using a playbook. Did >> > > the owner of the lunch kitchen in Greensboro say to himself, "By >> > golly, it just doesn't make >> > > good capitalist SENSE to turn away business! Here, sit right down >> > and have some coffee! What >> > > can I get you?" >> > >> > I agree with both Mark and David, sort of. Mark is correct that >> > pure supply and demand >> > capitalism only exists in theory. Capitalism's operations are >> > conducted in the real world by >> > slabs of meat with gooey grey matter in their skulls and odd >> > impulses inherited via natural >> > selection. So it would be facile to say that since we exist in a >> > capitalistic economy, voila, no >> > discrimination is possible since it is not logical. We are not Mr. >> > Spocks. >> > >> > On the other hand, I would guess David's broader point is that the >> > creative/destructive aspect of >> > capitalism may have played, and continues to play, a significant >> > role in the movement toward >> > "equality". We flatter ourselves to think that our noble motives >> > are divorced from history. In >> > fact, good Marxists must certainly agree that capitalism's force >> > puts pressure on cultural values >> > to reorder themselves to suit its demands. Sometimes it's violent >> > video games for ten year olds; >> > sometimes it's a cry for justice that seems on its face divorced >> > from the world of filthy lucre. >> > >> > Jeff Apfel >>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 10/06/00 EDT