Bill Lear writes:
>[the] Manichean view that only "anti-capitalist elements ... within
>capitalism ... bring about social benefits" simply does not square
>with the facts. I happen to think slavery is a bad idea, but slavery
>was not destroyed in this society by "anti-capitalist elements".
The concrete social formation we encounter in our lives and in history is
not the same as the abstract capitalist mode of production. Slavery _per
se_ is non-capitalist, i.e., not an aspect of the capitalist mode of
production as Marx defined it in the three volumes of CAPITAL. However, on
a mass scale it persisted in a more complex capitalist social formation for
until 1861 or so in the US and until 1896 or so in Brazil (and persists in
a more scattered way in other places).
To some extent, slavery in the US was destroyed by anti-slavery elements
(slave revolts), while to some extent it was destroyed by pro-capitalist
elements (liberal Northerners). It was defended by pro-slavery,
pro-capitalist elements (slave-owners who also acted as merchant
capitalists and their merchant capitalist allies). It was also destroyed as
a side-effect of the process of creating a US nation-state (represented
best Lincoln's defense of the Union) following the infant-industry route
that was opposed by the free-trader slave-owners.[*]
This says what I think Sam was trying to say: evils go away not because of
the benevolence of the capitalist Invisible Hand but because people
struggled against them. However, I would add that capitalism by its very
nature disrupts the _status quo_ in society (here, Southern chattel
slavery); Lincoln's effort to develop a national capitalism is part of this
process. This disruption only creates a _potential_ for progressive change,
however. In order to actually _realize_ progressive change, there has to be
a struggle. In the case of the South, the struggle was incomplete (and the
Northerners were often more interested in profiteering), the "freedmen"
didn't get their 40 acres & a mule, and the ex-slaves ended up as debt peons.
[*] BTW, it's ironic that the folks (the slave-owners) who were so opposed
to the free trade in human labor-power (by the bearers of that labor-power)
were also so in favor of free trade in goods. It's similar to those trade
ministers from poor countries who are all in favor of free trade in
commodities (and argue for such at the WTO) but want their workers' status
to be as close to that of slaves as possible, since this will promote the
competitiveness of their capitalists.
>The
>Civil Rights movement was not driven by "anti-capitalist elements".
What happened is that the development of capitalism (e.g., the
mechanization of cotton picking) disrupted what had become the traditional
social relations in the Southern US so that more and more Blacks moved to
cities (especially in the North). The real world of capitalist
development (as opposed to the abstract tendencies described in CAPITAL)
also led to events like the Depression and WW2, which disrupted
long-established social patterns. This set the stage for the movement
against racism, which was able to win the Supreme Court's Brown vs. the
Board of Education of Topeka Kansas decision and the 1965 Civil Rights Act,
along with other victories.
Bill is right that this was not an anti-capitalist movement (though some of
ML King's later speeches leaned in that direction). However, Sam is right
if we generalize his view to say that "anti-status quo elements" are
crucial to realizing the potential that capitalism sometimes creates.
>Or health care system is not a product of such foes of the system, and
>as flawed and unfair as it is, it has brought great strides in
>understanding of how diseases work, how the human body breaks down,
>how to better treat injury, disease, and disability.
Living in L.A., I know that the magic of medical science -- and its "great
strides of how diseases work," etc. -- serves those with the bucks. You
should see how much the medical profession caters to the demand for plastic
surgery, laser vaginal rejuvenation, etc. The actual science has a certain
autonomy from capitalism, it's true, but it is more and more losing that
autonomy, with more and more scientists working for drug companies, etc.
Of course, nothing is inevitable: political struggles for a better health
system can reverse that trend. If the subordination of medical science to
the profit motive goes far enough, capitalist elites may even see it as
"suboptimal" from a capitalist perspective. However, this seems unlikely
unless there's a perceived competitive threat (as from the USSR during the
Cold War or from Japan in the early 1980s). I'd guess that the main
emphasis is going to be on hogging intellectual property rights rather than
promoting pure science.
> The Internet --- again, flawed though it is --- was not built by
> "anti-capitalist elements".
The Internet was of course originally built by Al Gore, so Bill's right.
;-) Seriously folks, it's more of a "pure science" enterprise, encouraged
by the Pentagon as part of the competition with the USSR. Whether it's a
"good thing" depends on the extent to which it's commercialized.
>Human beings working within an unjust social system are still capable
>of great creativity and can, despite the fetters, produce things of
>great human value.
right.
>The benefits of such exertions are often acquired
>through transaction (not to forget crucial concomitant externality
>benefits) but that does not make them any less real.
Capitalism is more than markets (transactions). Businesses try to
subordinate as much human creativity as possible to their top-down
hierarchies. Sometimes, that kills the creativity, as when a spontaneously
artistic rock & roll group goes "corporate," so that its image is crafted
(with reference to focus groups, etc.) to fit the right demographics to
maximize sales volume at existing prices.
Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] &
http://clawww.lmu.edu/Faculty/JDevine/JDevine.html
