From: gerald_a_levy (gerald_a_levy@msn.com)
Date: Mon Dec 30 2002 - 11:44:38 EST
Re Micahel E's [8244]: > If entrepreneurship as a function is part of the essence of capitalism, it > makes no essential difference how it is personified. I agree that 19th > century capitalism looks very different from 20th century capitalism. > The periodization of capitalism into early, middle and late in Marxism > is one of those alibis for overlooking and not understanding what the > essence of capitalism is. The essential character of capitalism can only be grasped as the subject matter itself develops. Thus a comprehension of capitalism could not be developed before the subject matter itself developed into a coherent form. This is the fundamental reason why Aristotle could not grasp the essential character of capitalism even if he wanted to. In any event, it is important to grasp not only what the essential character of capitalism is but also how it has developed and changed. More generally, we have to grasp contingencies in addition to essence if we are to comprehend the subject matter as something more than an abstraction. > The philosophical problem of understanding what capitalism is is passed > over in favour of the sociological-historiographical task of periodizing > stages of capitalism, which of course presupposes that one knows what > capitalism is. For the most part, the obvious is overlooked, including in > Marxism. See above. > Some workers enjoy their work, work willingly and well and do not need a > supervisor to "extract" work from them. Yes, indeed. Some prisoners also enjoy being in prison and can't imagine living outside of a prison. Some residents of insane asylums claim to be perfectly happy there and do not desire a change in residence. > After all, the workers agreed to work when they entered the employment > contract. This highlights the element of choice in the employment contract but does not grasp the *essentially* coercive character of the relation. > (snip, JL) Leadership, too, is professionalized in > the shape of top executives. You seem to want to deny the phenomenon of > leadership and creativity in a capitalist enterprise. There is certainly "leadership" just as there is any hierarchical social structure. By associating 'leadership' with 'creativity' you seem to assert this to be positive. Yet, 'leadership' -- accompanied as it is in this context by discipline and coercion -- is similar to 'leadership' in the military. > Yes, risk-aversion is a possible strategy, which may either enhance or > simply average out profitability. But to try to avoid risk presupposes > that there is a phenomenon we call 'risk' which can be avoided, i.e. > risk-_aversion_ is always _risk_-aversion. The dimension within which > something can be what it is must always be brought into view. Mostly it > is overlooked, taken for granted. I agree that risk is essential to the character of capitalism. > I think that exploitation has to be first > understood in a broad sense as exploiting an opportunity, a situation. I think that *capitalist* exploitation must be comprehended more specifically. I.e. we need to comprehend exploitation as it manifests itself within the subject matter in question. > To take another example, the vast majority of sellers, dealers, pedlars, > etc. in Istanbul, it seems, ranging from the shoe-shine boy through the > ticket-seller for public transportation to cafe and restaurant staff, the > oriental carpet dealers, etc. etc. all attempt to exploit tourists' > ignorance of the prices and the unfamiliar currency by shamelessly > ripping them off, > short-changing them, lying about the quality of their goods, offering one > price and demanding a higher price on payment, etc. etc. The human > tourist mass for exploitation is delivered from Istanbul airport. The > poor child even exploits the opportunity of a poor old street hawker > crossing a busy road in Istanbul with his barrow of socks by stealing > a pair as he passes by in the crowd. Who is to blame for this moral > degeneracy? The capitalist imperialists, of course. The poor themselves > are inculpable, even when they steal from each other. When they steal from > Western tourists, they are even performing an act of justice. Thus does > any understanding of justice become perverted, degenerate and depraved. The first task is comprehension. First, we must comprehend the causes before we apportion blame. And, yes, the value (and consequently class) relation must be comprehended before we can make sense out of the behavior of the others you cite above. In solidarity, Jerry
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Jan 02 2003 - 00:00:01 EST