I wrote:> > What defines capitalism is not really unemployment, but the class system, i.e., existence of proletarianization, in which the vast majority lack the bonds of feudalism or slavery and also lack direct control over the means of subsistence and production.<<
Zbigniew Baniewski writes: > Isn't it a bit (or a lot) marxist-like definition?<
Yes. Since the pen-l list is mostly a Marxist group of people, it shouldn't suprise you. However, there are people who use the (non-Marxist) definition, seeing capitalism as simply involving the prevalence of markets.
> Perhaps we can define capitalism in "economic way": the conditions are more capitalistic, when the amount of national product, which is redistributed by government, is low. More redistribution -> less capitalism (100% redistribution = pure communism).<
There's a basic problem with this: capitalism inherently involves a redistribution from workers to capitalists, as the capitalists control the means of production ("capital" goods) and means of subsistence (consumer goods) so that workers have to pay profits+interest+rent (surplus-value) to the capitalists in return for being allowed to survive.
You're only talking about a secondary redistribution, by the government, which only sometimes involves a redistribution from capitalists to workers. Mostly, it's like unemployment insurance, which (in the United States) involves a redistribution from employed workers to unemployed workers or social security which (again, in the U.S.) redistributes from currently-working individuals to the retired, dependents, etc. Mostly, the government uses its resources to preserve the power of the capitalists.
...
I wrote:
>> It's always a mistake to quote Friedman, since he's so often wrong.<<
Zbigniew:
> Why? Wasn't Chile his (and his "Chicag boys") big success?<
I don't consider the forced abolition of democracy (using bayonets & murder & torture), the forced imposition of free markets, and the extreme increase in the inequality of income along with a totally inhumane system to be a "big success." It's true that Friedman and his "boys" endorsed this "success," but the real victors were the U.S. power elite and its CIA, the transnational corporations that were operating in Chile (ITT, Kennakott, etc.), General Pinochet, and the local groups of rich folks. Further, Friedman and his "boys" also lied about the true nature of this "success" and the nature of their involvement, avoiding any kind of responsibility for the costs of the imposition of their program.
I wrote that MF >>didn't realize (or rather, he didn't include in his presentation) that if Poland followed that strategy, it would be competing with South Korea and a lot of other countries.<<
>Good example! In 1985 national income "per capita" in South Korea was a half of today's in Poland (they had about 36 millions population in 1985, today in Poland we have about 37 millions). But today average income "per capita" in Korea is about two times higher than we have in Poland. So, in 17 years they made 4x multiplication of their income "per capita", although their today's population is about 47 millions. And it's the result of setting their market still more and more free. Their government is redistributing about 25% of their national income. Our polish government - about 43%. Do you see the difference?<
I don't know where you get the "percentage of redistribution" (25% for South Korea). Is it simply the percentage of taxes in their GDP? In any event, it's silly to over-emphasize that percentage, especially since a lot of it (such as military spending or spending on education) isn't really "redistribution" as most people use that term. What's important is that the SK government used its taxes intelligently to promote economic development (within the context of capitalism). They pursued a non-market/non-free-trade strategy of subsidizing private busineses in a way that would allow them to eventually beat foreign competition, at the same time they "invested" in education and land reform (so that the program ended up being They also got a lot of help from the United States, because SK had to look good in comparison to North Korea and China as part of the Cold War. It also helped that the U.S. pumped a lot of money into SK as part of having a lot of troops there. Further, during the crucial years from the 1950s to the 1970s, the world economy was growing, along with the U.S. market for SK goods, allowing that country to escape its previous poverty.
the MF is saying that Poland can simply imitate SK, without any of the historical conditions listed above being present. He also is wrong to see SK as a free-market success, even though it is a capitalist success (until 1997 or so).
regards/pozdrawiam,
Jim Devine
