Comments on: Tragedy at Morecambe

By: M. Simon

M. Simon — Thu, 12 Feb 2004 20:28:52 +0000

The wealthy are leaving America. http://www.actionamerica.org/taxecon/ticktick.html This is what happens when you have a beggar the rich policy. Money and the jobs the money provides leaves the country. Marx had it right. The only way to improve the lives of the poor is capital accumulation. The best method (and Marx said it would hurt) of capital accumulation is capitalism. Marx’s prescription was what to do after capitalism no longer produced profits (improvements in the production process). In modern terms what Marx wrote was science fiction. Which is why Marx said he was no Marxist.

By: Steph Houghton

Steph Houghton — Thu, 12 Feb 2004 16:05:08 +0000

Chris What those us who disagree with you about your statement that, “such tragedies are a normal and predictable consequence of capitalism,” object to is not that it a formaly untrue statement (though “normal part of” would be more true than “consequence of”) , but that its implications are false. (i.e. that some other social system could have both the shellfish and not the risks) Now you propose that a minimum state provided income would mean that people would have to be paid more for this job. But that does not follow. In fact a negative income tax or basic income provided by the state would probibly mean lower real wages across the board. This is because the money for such a program is going have to come from somewhere. This mostly likely means from capitalists. Now capitalists use their capital for three purposes, their own consuption, investment in the means of production, and wages. Now the socialist always seems to assume that the tax money will come from the capitalists consumption, but why should it? If the capitalist has to chose between his limo and havana cigars and maintaining his investment or labor spending at curent levels why would he chose the former instead of the latter, especialy since the increase in taxes makes his capital less secure. Now most likely he will cut back on all three forms of expediture. To the extent that he cuts back on investment and wage payments, the wage earners will be harmed, real wages will fall. This is true as long as capital is privately owned, but by your own admission (if I understand you corectly) the social ownership of the means of production is not a workable system. As long as capital is privatly owned, laissez-faire capitalism is actualy more in wage erners interest than sort of intervension you propose. By the way I have had a large chunk of rock fall from the roof of a mine seconds after I passed under it and am not indiferent to working conditions.

By: Andy Duncan

Andy Duncan — Thu, 12 Feb 2004 15:32:26 +0000

But one thing that needs saying is that such tragedies are a normal and predictable consequence of capitalism and not simply the result of coercion and abuse by a few criminals. Socialism pushed these people onto the beaches at Morecambe, Chris, to be drowned by the tide, not capitalism. These people were here in Britain to escape the Nirvana of socialist China, in common with most asylum seekers escaping their own home countries’ brands of poverty-inducing socialism, and they were driven to this extreme way of earning a living due to socialist David Blunkett’s policy of preventing them from working legally. If people are forced into such corners, because of the forces of socialism, they’re always going to be at very great risk in their bid for personal survival, and they’re always going to be forced onto the very fringes of existence, and quite possibly into the clutches of such tragedies. But what were their alternatives to being on that beach? Being back in the happy safe motherland of socialist China or being in a Blunkett’s socialist Gulag awaiting deportation back to the happy safe motherland of socialist China. I think it speaks volumes that given the three choices, they chose the one they did, to avoid the other two. It wasn’t state control that they were seeking. It was state control they were willing to risk so much, to avoid. I must also ask, Chris, that given you think capitalism is so dangerous, why do you think it is that asylum seekers keep flocking towards it so much, in the form of desired immigration into the US, Canada, the UK, and Australia, the world’s most capitalist countries? Are all these people stupid masochists? Or do they see that capitalism offers them and their families a far better future than the socialist hell-holes they’re usually escaping from? Aside from various rhetorical formulations, Marx’s view is that, unlike, say, feudalism, capitalism does depend upon voluntary exchange and that people do generally choose in (at least their) immediate interests. No, it is under socialism where people generally choose actions in their immediate interest. Given the particular level of socialism a particular country is suffering from, there is often little point doing anything else. Capitalism, as its very name implies, is all about the foregoing of immediate consumption of resources, and the retention of these, in the form of capital, for investment, to gain remote benefits in the distant future. The more capital you do not consume immediately, the more you can invest, and the more you can invest, the greater the benefits you will have in the future. Socialism, on the other hand, drives totally against this. For what is the point saving anything? For if you acquire too much by saving, the state will step in and take it from you, and cut you off from any benefits you may have been receiving. Indeed, under socialism it is not even a neutral choice. For you are best off, personally, if you do the least amount of work you can get away with, or be seen to be doing by the tax authorities, and immediately consume everything that comes your way, in order to continue being at least nominally poor, except for any black market cash, in order to keep receiving state benefits taken from those stupid enough to work, save, and invest, in the full view of the socialist tax authorities. Capitalism is about saving capital to have a better future, Chris. Socialism is all about living off the back of society, right now.

By: Ironchef

Ironchef — Thu, 12 Feb 2004 13:56:43 +0000

It is NOT my fault someone else exposes themself to risk. Do not punish me for other peoples choices.

By: Doug Muir

Doug Muir — Wed, 11 Feb 2004 09:37:15 +0000

No, I’m not. I once was, a long time ago. But I take it I’m allowed not to be a Marxist and also to think that Marx has a great deal of interest and value to teach us. “Allowed”? It’s OK by me, Chris. I do think it leads you into some potentially embarrassing situations—intellecutally embarrassing, that is—but you’re a big boy and can take care of yourself. One thing, though. I’ve noticed more than once that you express a certain snarkiness towards entrepreneurs, Cf. “the image of the heroic risk-taking entrepreneur, who typically risks a great deal less than any of these workers do.” My wife and I have both been entrepreneurs, in the strict sense of being self-employed. No, we neither of us had to place ourselves at physical risk—true enough. There’s nothing in our experience remotely comparable to the Morehouse cocklers. Nevertheless, the implicit sneer in this sort of comment is annoying. “The comfortable tenured academic, who typically risks a great deal less than any of these workers do.” What think you? Doug M.

By: Jonathan Wilde

Jonathan Wilde — Mon, 09 Feb 2004 22:44:35 +0000

Chris, First, “capitalism”. For some reason Jonathan seems unwilling to use the term as does someone else above. This is peculiar since this form of social organization has been with us for 2-300 years and others of his co-thinkers don’t seem to be so squeamish. (Example, Johan Norberg with his book In Defense of Global Capitalism .) Anyway, you can’t have it both ways: if you think that such tragedies are going to happen from time to time as a result of people’s free and voluntary exchanges (as you seem to) you ought to allow me that they will happen as a consequence of the normal operation of capitalism. I don’t understand. Please tell me how my definition of capitalism is incorrect. Are you saying that in a society with voluntary exchanges, private individuals will not be able to acquire capital? Further, how about addressing the thrust of my argument – that you have to give an alternative if you are going to claim that “capitalism creates poverty”. Capitalism as opposed to what? Otherwise, I take your statement to simply mean, “Life sucks” (no doubt true). Any activity involves risk. The man walking towards you on the street might be a thief. If you keep walking toward him, he could steal from you. Thus, “capitalism creates poverty”. The salesman might try to defraud you. Thus if you try to improve your own life by exchanging with him, you take the risk of having been defrauded. Thus, “capitalism creates poverty.” If that’s what you’re really saying, then, I guess I don’t see the point. Risk is a fact of everyday life. If you advocate using coercion to prevent people from carrying out voluntary exchanges to alleviate this risk, you have to show that such coercion results in less poverty. Otherwise, you are simply saying, “Life involves risk”. Thanks for setting me straight on Marx.

By: Doug Muir

Doug Muir — Mon, 09 Feb 2004 13:01:29 +0000

The four young men who were convicted seem to have started the fire out of pique after an argument with the bouncer. The one who confessed claimed that they just wanted to “make some smoke and scare people”. The initial fire was small; it was the sort of silly incident that occurs at discos around the world every weekend. However, the fire got out of control so quickly—and proved so lethal—because the disco was grossly overcrowded. This, in turn, was because immigrant kids weren’t welcome at any of the other discos in Gothenburg. (Note that the problem was one of immigrants generally, not Macedonians in particular; the victims were a cross-section of recent immigration to Sweden, with former Yugoslavs, Turks, Iranians and Gypsies all well represented.) And, of course, it was the cheapest show in town. I’ll concede in advance that being forced to pick a cheap, dangerous disco for your Halloween party is not the same thing as being forced to work in a cheap, dangerous job. OTOH, dead is dead, and the Gothenburg fire didn’t take place at an upper-middle-class disco charging native Swedish kids $30 a pop. Doug M.

By: Steve Carr

Steve Carr — Mon, 09 Feb 2004 12:05:15 +0000

I was perplexed by the Gothenburg story, too. I don’t think even the most fervent advocates for Scandinavian capitalism would claim a more humane system would preclude the existence of arsonists.

By: Chris Bertram

Chris Bertram — Mon, 09 Feb 2004 11:14:44 +0000

I’m not sure I understand how the murder by arson of 63 people is germane to a discussion of the risks people run in order to earn money in different types of economy Doug.

By: Steve Carr

Steve Carr — Mon, 09 Feb 2004 11:12:25 +0000

Chris, just a couple of points. My citation from the Manifesto and the end of the first volume of Capital was not a response to your point about coercion, so much as it was a response to your use of Marx in your original post and your apparent surprise that people consider Marx outmoded and not especially worth taking seriously. In fact, Marx is outmoded and not especially worth taking seriously. As is true of so many thinkers, most of Marx’s arguments that were right were not original, and those that were original were desperately wrong. Quoting someone who understood nothing about capitalism’s real economic impact on the lives of most workers weakens your argument. It doesn’t strengthen it. And you don’t need to quote Marx to make the point that our current system should be more humane and just. In a broader sense, any left that at this point continues to imagine itself as Marxist or opposed to capitalism as a system is a left that is both politically and economically irresponsible, since it is essentially advocating an economics that would make things far worse for most people. Social democracy is not Marxist in inspiration, and it does not need citations from Marx to remain healthy today.

By: Doug Muir

Doug Muir — Mon, 09 Feb 2004 11:04:00 +0000

I doubt the poorest in Sweden face life-threateningly risky choices quite so starkly as the poor in some of the countries with a more anglo-Saxon model of capitalism. …you might want to google up the Gothenburg disco fire. 63 dead, almost all of them young, foreign, and either un-, under- or illegally employed. Doug M.

By: Chris Bertram

Chris Bertram — Mon, 09 Feb 2004 10:50:35 +0000

I mean, you’re a Marxist,… No, I’m not. I once was, a long time ago. But I take it I’m allowed not to be a Marxist and also to think that Marx has a great deal of interest and value to teach us. As for going all squishy, I ought to acknowledge my limitations. I am interested in social democratic models, in market socialist ones, in Rawls’s idea (following Meade) of a “property-owning democracy”, in universal basic income schemes etc. But do I, Chris Bertram, have a fully-worked-out alternative to capitalism? No, of course not. But I do have ideas about the moral desiderata for a just society, that ours (both locally and globally) fails by those desiderata and hope that, collaboratively with our sociologist and economist friends, we political philosophers may advance the political agenda.

By: Doug Muir

Doug Muir — Mon, 09 Feb 2004 10:37:44 +0000

A systemic socialist alternative to capitalism is off the agenda. I’d be truly, sincerely curious to hear what you have in mind. I mean, you’re a Marxist, so I assume you mean some sort of Marxist state. But when pressed for specifics, you go all squishy. (Talking about past posts here, though the present one is following the same pattern.) You did mention Sweden; but Sweden is a capitalist state with a free market economy. It just has the safety net set rather higher than most other capitalist states. This has costs (as the Swedes themselves will readily admit); furthermore, it may not scale up very well. (I’m very fond of Singapore, and think it has much to teach the world; but I also acknowledge that the world does not consist of small city-states of a few million people each.) Still, Sweden is a functioning modern country, so I’d be perfectly willing to discuss the pros and cons of the Swedish model with you. And if you’re pleading for a safer, more humanist form of capitalism in the Anglo-Saxon countries, then we can definitely find some common ground. But that’s not what you’re on about. You’re using the death of the cockle collectors to make a point about the wickedness of capitalism—fine; but you’re not seriously proposing any alternative. You cite Sweden; that’s relevant to a discussion of capitalism, but it’s almost entirely irrelevant to a discussion of Marxism. Do you really think that a Marxist state would result in the end of poverty? If so, how? I’m sincerely curious. Doug M.

By: Chris Bertram

Chris Bertram — Mon, 09 Feb 2004 09:33:47 +0000

Steve, of course Marx was wrong about absolute immisserisation. My point was the narrow one, that Marx’s theory of exploitation does not depend upon coercion, but is perfectly compatible (indeed depends upon) the ability of workers to contract freely with their employers. I’ll quote in extenso the end of Capital I ch. 6 href=”http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch06.htm” rel=”nofollow”>http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch06.htm bq. This sphere that we are deserting, within whose boundaries the sale and purchase of labour-power goes on, is in fact a very Eden of the innate rights of man. There alone rule Freedom, Equality, Property and Bentham. Freedom, because both buyer and seller of a commodity, say of labour-power, are constrained only by their own free will. They contract as free agents, and the agreement they come to, is but the form in which they give legal expression to their common will. Equality, because each enters into relation with the other, as with a simple owner of commodities, and they exchange equivalent for equivalent. Property, because each disposes only of what is his own. And Bentham, because each looks only to himself. The only force that brings them together and puts them in relation with each other, is the selfishness, the gain and the private interests of each. Each looks to himself only, and no one troubles himself about the rest, and just because they do so, do they all, in accordance with the pre-established harmony of things, or under the auspices of an all-shrewd providence, work together to their mutual advantage, for the common weal and in the interest of all. bq. On leaving this sphere of simple circulation or of exchange of commodities, which furnishes the “Free-trader Vulgaris” with his views and ideas, and with the standard by which he judges a society based on capital and wages, we think we can perceive a change in the physiognomy of our dramatis personae. He, who before was the money-owner, now strides in front as capitalist; the possessor of labour-power follows as his labourer. The one with an air of importance, smirking, intent on business; the other, timid and holding back, like one who is bringing his own hide to market and has nothing to expect but — a hiding.

By: Steve Carr

Steve Carr — Mon, 09 Feb 2004 09:14:25 +0000

“Aside from various rhetorical formulations” is quite nice. But I’m not sure that Marx’s problem with capitalism was really that it restricted workers’ choices. In the Manifesto, at least, he’s rather explicit: “The modern laborer, on the contrary, instead of rising with the process of industry, sinks deeper and deeper below the conditions of existence of his own class. He becomes a pauper, and pauperism develops more rapidly than population and wealth.” This is quite clear. It’s 1848, Marx is convinced that capitalism is making and will continue to make (at an even faster pace) things worse, in absolute terms, for workers. There is no “thank God for capitalism!” from Marx in 1848. He wants communism—of his conception, not Lenin’s, obviously—and he wants it now. And he has little doubt that things will be better, materially, for the vast majority of people if communism comes into effect. This was wrong. It was so wrong, in fact, that we can hardly imagine how different—and how much worse for the vast majority of people, period—the world would be today had Marx gotten what he wanted in 1848. And in the simplest sense, that’s why Marx is outmoded, because he did not understand the most important fact about the economic system he studied so assiduously: it would generate more wealth, and distribute it more widely, than any other in the history of the world (including the system Marx himself believed held the answer to humanity’s ills). It’s totally understandable and fair to attack libertarians for their naive ideas of freedom and their neglect of human embeddedness. But on the big question, they’re a lot closer to right than Marx was. And yes, I know Marx revised his position on the “iron law of wages.” But at the end of Capital, Vol. I, he wrote, “In proportion as capital accumulates [which he saw as the inevitable result of the system’s functioning] the condition of the worker, be his wages high or low, necessarily grows worse . . . Poverty grows as the accumulation of capital grows.” Still wrong.