From: Dogan Goecmen (Dogangoecmen@AOL.COM)
Date: Wed Nov 29 2006 - 12:14:36 EST
Hi Jurriaan If we suppose capitalist business produces outputs only in order to sell them profitably, and no other reason, this does not necessarily mean that it is ipso facto irrational, because very clear means-ends relationships are involved. It means only that the commercial rationality governing capitalist business is limited to producing outputs for profitable sale. This an old question. What is the end of production? Smith arguing against mercantilists says if money is wanted it can be subsituted. But if material for production is wanted the production will stop and people will starve. The reason why I am refering to this is that there is a general and a particular aim of production. The general aim is to satisfy human needs. In capitalist society however as classical political economists pointed out the aim of production is to produce value in exchange rather than value in use. It is still this contradiction we are dealing with how to bring the general aim of production into harmony with the particular aim of production in capitalism. In my earlier email I was trying to say that even if we accept the very logic of capitalist production, it is irrational because it fails to meet its own end since it does not sell the goods produced. It destroys them in thousands and thousands of tons. Is this not irrational even on the basis of rationality of capitalist production? The argument about world hunger can and has been inverted also, by the defenders of capitalism: if we had more capitalism, there would be no hunger. In this case, the hunger exists because of obstacles to market trade, and if those were removed, there would be no hunger; the perceived irrationality here consists in the fact that obstructions to capitalism are maintained. I find these arguments of mainstream economist disgusting because how much capitalism do we still need to see it does not work as it promises. Half of the world population is literally speaking lives on collecting rubbish. Throughout the 20th century, millions have died from hunger every year, but it is not altogether clear to me that you can blame that simply on capitalism. But regardless of one's point of view on this, it is evident that capitalism flourished, despite these millions dying from hunger. Flourished? Where? The problem is that the resistance has been weak and spilit. In reality, when Marxists decry capitalism as an irrational system, what they are doing most often is that they make a moral argument about what human priorities should be (a hierarchy of values), except that they often do not make this explicit, and assume their case is self-evident. But it may not be self-evident at all. The issue about the irrationality of capitalism is not a Marxist decry. It is already explored in the works of Adam Smith and David Ricordo. Marxists just continue this line of thought on the basis of a new analysis. Putting aside Capital Marx and Engels refer to the irrationality of capitalism in Communist Manifesto. There they say that capitalism must permanently destroy to survive. One of the means of destruction is war: build and destroy, build and destroy. This is the game of capitalism. In Marxist terms if there is an hierarchy of needs then between material needs as the basis of human life and intellectual needs. Apart from that Marxism does not want prescribe any maxim on what should be seen as primary ad secondary needs. On the contrary, contemporary Marxists criticise liberal theories because they still differentiate between basic needs and derivative needs. Another frequent supposition in the talk about the irrationality of capitalism is that rationality is by definition a "good" thing. Capitalism according to Marxists is a "bad" thing, and, therefore, it must be irrational. But rationality is not necessarily a "good" thing at all. Rational thought and action may be applied for good or for evil. A given means-ends relationship can be judged quite rational, even although we object to the means and/or the ends on other grounds. I would think this is precisely one of the root causes of the postmodern condition, i.e. the lack of substantive, consensual and objective criteria about what is rational or irrational. The concept of rationality Iam refering to is developed in the philosophy of classical German philosophy and it is about harmonious relationship between general and particular. Marx and Engels applied this philosophical principle to social theory. Their maxim in Communist Manifesto express that very nicely: the satisfaction of the needs of one should be the need of all. The kind of rationality I am talking about expressed in this maxim. You seem to refer to also Heideggerian and Weberian concepts. Husserl and Plessner have already in the 1930s disqualified these kind of calculative thinking as irrational. When I sit here typing a mail, it is a rational activity. But someone might argue it is irrational, because I could better spend my time on other things. This is a value judgement which may be more or less informed by knowledge about my life. I could justify my activity rationally, but that justification might not be accepted by somebody else, operating with a different means-ends relationship and value-hierarchy. Adam Smith says if we judge whether others actions are rational or irrational we have to put ourselves in the situation of others and judge from there whether they act rationally according to their situation. Smith says in fact everybody has an inner judge who would tell him/her what is right and what is wrong if he/she listened to this inner judge (conscience). Suppose I have a little baby crying because he/she is hungry and I ignore this and continue typing my email. What would you say if you put yourself into my situation. So I mean if we include Smith's concept of situation into our considerations it is not as difficult as you seem to assume. Warm regards Dogan
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Nov 30 2006 - 00:00:06 EST