From: dyfl@mullian.ee.mu.OZ.AU (Daniel Y Lam)
Subject: Re: Support What Property Rights???
Organization: Computer Science, University of Melbourne, Australia
Distribution: aus
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 1992 05:32:01 GMT

cwarren@peg.pegasus.oz.au writes:
>            Firstly, capitalism is a world system which creates
>            prosperity in some countries by propagating opposite
>            conditions elsewhere.  Averaged-out over time and over all
>            capitalist countries, capitalist economic success is
>            practically zero.  It amounts to no more growth that
>            obtained by any other economic system.  It only produces the
>            appearance of "miracle" economic growth by artificially
>            concentrating the benefits of natural economic development.

This is an amazing assertion.  No economist would agree with this;
Marx certainly did not.

>            What capitalist "success" there was such as British
>            capitalism, was built on colonial exploitation.  US
>            capitalism was based on, initially, cheap resources of a
>            virgin land which allowed it to deliver into the European
>            markets but subsequently based on exploitation of the third
>            world and weaker middle ranking economies.

How??  The productive base of British capitalism was in Britain.
Most of Britain's trade was with Europe and the US.  The British
Empire had very little to contribute to Britain's economic success.
The world's greatest "colonial exploiter", until recently, was
Russia.  The Soviet Union also had vast pieces of "virgin land".  Now
why didn't the Soviets achieve dashing economic success?  For that
matter, why didn't the Spanairds and Portuguese usher in the
Industrial Revolution?  Why not the Mongols?

>            Australian capitalism cannot possibly exist without either a
>            growing population, acquisition of fresh natural resources,
>            or a positive inflow of economic benefit from outside.

You seem incapable of recognizing that people -- human work,
ingenuity, and enterprise -- are capable of creating wealth.

>            Now capitalists demand that all production belongs to
>            capital and must not be shared between capital and labour.

Do we?  And who exactly are "capital"?  How do you join it?  Do I get
a membership card?  I demand nothing other than that social
relationships, including economic relationships, should be
voluntary.

>            But more than this, if wages can be induced to take less,
>            the rate of profit for capital rises above the growth rate.
>            Just because workers hone their skills so they produce a
>            certain amount does not, under capitalism, give them any
>            right to their production.  It belongs to capital.

Is there a law restricting ownership of property to "capital"?  If a
worker "really" produces a certain amount of wealth, he should be
able to find people willing to pay him that amount, whether those
people be employers or consumers.

You will reply, of course, that there is, according to the labour
theory of value, a measure of objective wealth which is independent
of what participants in the market are willing to pay.  It would be
terribly nice of you to show me how to make the measurement.

>            This process is similar to feudal property rights where
>            serfs' produce did not belong to serfs themselves but was
>            expropriated by a system of feudal property rights.  Some
>            went to the church, some to local lords and the rest went to
>            the monarch.  Under capitalism, capitalists may take no role
>            in production but still demand 10% augmentation of wealth
>            even when the economic growth rate is below 10%.

Can you not see the difference between a voluntary and a compulsory
relationship?  Can you not see the difference between trade and
taxation, between voluntary sex and rape?

Underlying your entire argument is the assumption that capitalism is
a "closed system".  It is not; economics is not a zero-sum game.
People can create wealth and people can destroy wealth.

--
	Daniel Lam
	Melbourne, Australia

In my opinion, the opinions expressed here are my personal opinions.
Newsgroups: aus.politics