From: cwarren@peg.pegasus.oz.au
Newsgroups: aus.politics
Subject: CAPO PROPERTY RIGHTS REHASH
Date: 16 Oct 92 02:02:00 GMT
Nf-ID: #N:peg:996200276:000:8543
Nf-From: peg.UUCP!cwarren    Oct 15 21:02:00 1992


            IRRELEVANT QUERY ON CAPITALIST PROPERTY RIGHTS

            In a previous topic (where it was irrelevant) D Suter
            introduced the following;
            
            ----------------------------------------------
            "Gee - rising to the defence of small business Cris! That
            reminds me
            (yes - boring old suter wants to keep you honest) - you
            still haven't
            delivered your promised definition of capitalist property
            rights
            (remember, you used that term just after berating others
            for not
            defining thier terms). I await your definition with
            interest
            (presumably it will also explain why the small business
            people aren't
            capitalists and why their business possessions aren't
            capitalist
            property)."
            ------------------------------------------------
            
            As I don't seem to be able to locate the actual reference
            perhaps Suter might like to oblige us with a copy.
            
            However, should I have said once that I would define
            capitalist property rights, then the following thumb-nail
            sketch should suffice.
            
            "Capitalist property rights are rights given to 'means of
            production' which enables such property to now
            expropriate wealth produced by other producers.  No
            expropriation - no capitalism; no capitalism - no
            capitalist property rights".
            
            I clearly remember having said all this before in August.
            
            I don't regard small business (which only seeks
            to make a living wage according to the
            hours they work) as capitalism.  It would be a
            misunderstanding of capitalism to do so.
            
            Natural business, economic growth, investment, and profit
            should all exist under free-market socialism.  It is
            capitalism that is the problem, NOT sensible and natural
            economic activity.
            
            Perhaps it would be easier for suter if he tried to stop
            looking at things upside down.  Before trying to fathom
            what is, or is not capitalist "business" or capitalist
            "property rights" would it not be desirable to have some
            idea of what capitalism is - THEN try to define phenonema
            which are the subsequent effects of capitalism.
            
            Suter has in fact put the cart before the horse.   Maybe
            this is why you can lead rednecks to facts but you can't
            make them think.  Their ideological baggage-cart blocks
            their view.
            


            Capitalism is easy to define.  It is; "the use of capital
            to expropriate wealth produced by others" as
            distinguished from other means of expropriating wealth
            produced by others.
            
            The free market, credit, monetary phenonema, profits,
            entreprenuers, etc are not capitalist phenonema - they
            are forms of natural economic activity which can quite
            easily exist under, slavery, fuedalism, merchantilism,
            socialism or capitalism.  

            However we should note that the particular form
            of economic phenonema, although general,
            has specific characteristics under different forms of
            political economy.  There is a capitalist form of credit,
            a capitalist form of free market and a capitalist form of
            profit.  Getting rid of capitalism willl in fact improve
            our economy, free markets, and rehabilitate credit, and
            profit seeking activity.
            
            The differences by which we charcterise an economy as
            slavery, fuedal, capitalist or socialist, are rooted in
            the mechanism by which producers surplus (what they
            produce above what they must consume in order to produce)
            is expropriated from the producer to others.
            
            Under slavery the slave had no rights to property and
            could be killed for disagreeing.  Expropriation was based
            on naked violence.
            
            Under fuedalism, expropriation was based on fuedal
            tenancies, tithes, manorial customs, and taxation.  To
            some extent, market profits were also relevant.
            
            Under mechantilism, merchants charged what the market
            could bear.  They used the fact that they had a useful
            good or service to sell to obtain more than they expended
            to obtain it.  They perpertrated all manner of frauds,
            connivances, and adulterations.  They lied and cheated
            and their Colonial empires returned great wealth to
            mother/father lands.  Arguably, Say's Law applied???
            
            Capitalism emerged out of merchantilism.  Merchants will
            remain in business if they can cover their costs, and
            obtain enough margin to live reasonably.  Capitalists
            demand more.  They demand a return on their capital
            invested ABOVE the reasonable returns for outlay of
            skilled labour.  This means that here, expropriation is
            based on Capital.  Only this is Capitalism.
            
            In particular capitalists  argue that if they can receive
            10% return from Bank deposits then they must receive at
            least 10% as a cost (opportunity cost) before they will
            produce and supply.
            
            However as we know, real growth rates are normally only
            around 3-6%.  The only way a 10% return can be obtained
            is if value is expropriated from others, through having
            to pay artificially high prices for commodities in a
            supposedly free market.

            Capitalist property is property (assets) which is
            used in this obnoxious way.  It is Capitalised ie 
            misused as capitalist property.  It may or may not
            be private property BUT it must be used publicly.   
            
            I do not think small business people, even in todays
            hyper-capo world, necessarily do this.  Many small
            businesses own a shop or truck, make the repayments,
            repairs etc, and quite rightly expect to receive a living
            wage for a normal working week.  They do not capitalise
            on their assets, so that the more capital they have sunk,
            the higher their prices.  A shopkeeper with $150,000
            assets in premises and inventory will happily stay in
            business if he can obtain $30,000 annual "profit".  So
            will a middle-man even though his assets might only be
            $20,000.
            
            Of course the above is an objective analyis.  The reason
            they do not capitalise on their assets is probably that
            they are prevented from doing so because huge capitalist
            combines have such economies of scale that small
            capitalism would be bankraupted and cannot charge the
            higher price stuctures.  Small business survives by not
            being capitalist ie by simply making ends meet.  They may
            subjectively want to make mega-profits but the reality is
            that over extended periods they do not.
            
            Small business people are not necessarily capitalists and
            their business possessions aren't necesssarily capitalist
            property.
            
            This means we can conceive of abolishing capitalism
            without detracting from an economic future for all those
            who simply want prosperity through reasonable work.  In
            fact it is necessary for both an individuals freedom to
            engage in natural economic activity, to access, through
            work, wealth, and to recover the nation's economic
            sovereignity.
            
            While suter may like to demand definitions, let him define
            what  the hell he is on about in the first place.
            
            
            CHRIS WARREN
            
            13 October 1992.
Newsgroups: aus.politics