nettime Vice, Freedom and Capitalist Market Expansion
Folks: This is a post I made on the _Points: The Blog of the Alcohol and Drugs History Society_ (http://pointsadhsblog.wordpress.com/) blog -- Hello: Vice regulation is, of course, an *economic* topic which is at the heart of capitalism -- as it has been at least since early 18th century and the publishing (at first anonymously) of Bernard de Mandeville's Fable of the Bees: Private Vice and Publick Benefit. The consumption of vice is, after all, the basis of the FREE MARKET. Here, you could refer to the defense of the British Opium Wars in front of Parliament by Riccardo as *required* by the free market -- using Adam Smith as his authority. The vigorous defense of the Fable by free-marketeer F. von Hayek and the publishing of the two-volume ur-text of the Fable by Liberty Books firmly makes that connection -- as does, perhaps, the copious funding support for drug legalization by free-marketeer George Soros. Capitalism really makes no sense without vice and, indeed, those who have been responsible for expanding its range have consistently argued for more vice. Vice makes the market work. And, arguably, those attempts to curtail the expansion of vice, like the prohibition of alcohol occurred at just those moments when new technologies were expanding the market further -- as radio/newspapers/movies were opening the era of mass-media advertising in the early 20th century. My question is a simple one. If the world (or even parts of it) have become or, as many wish, will become *post-capitalist* and, therefore, *post-market* economies, does that mean that the expansion of VICE=MARKET will move in the other direction? Mark Stahlman Brooklyn NY This was in response to a post on Regulating Vice, by Jim Leitzel, who teaches a course with that title at University of Chicago and recently gave a TEDxChicago talk on the topic. _http://pointsadhsblog.wordpress.com/2012/09/12/teaching-points-jim-leitzel- comments-on-regulation-of-vice/#comment-3228_ (http://pointsadhsblog.wordpress.com/2012/09/12/teaching-points-jim-leitzel-comments-on-regulation-of-vice /#comment-3228) _http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s_Px4nYbJoQ_ (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s_Px4nYbJoQ) More broadly, the whole topic of *freedom*, including freedom of speech, assembly and the whole range of freedoms associated with democracy, need to be discussed in relationship to capitalist market expansion. And, does our understanding of human rights make any sense outside of the need to expand these capitalist markets? If one is opposed to capitalism and the market economy, then were do you stand on vice? Mark Stahlman # distributed via nettime: no commercial use without permission # nettime is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets # more info: http://mx.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nett...@kein.org
Re: nettime Debt As A Public Good, Berlin #BeautifulTrouble Book Launch w/ @AndrewBoyd @Info_Activism // Attn @BTroublemakers
Hey Kieth,
Whether I would advocate a return to a national economy or not, there
is no path back, that ship has sailed.
In anycase, The sectoral ballances approach is used by many modern
economists, i.e. Wynne Godley, L. Randal Wray, etc. The accounting
identities are facts that are true by definiation, and thus certainly
apply. Peter Cooper explains it as follows:
When a sector, in aggregate, spends more than its income, it is
said to be in deficit.
If it spends less than its income, it is in surplus. We can write
the identity as:
(G – T) + (I – S) + (X – M) = 0
This makes clear that the deficit of the government sector plus
the deficit of the
domestic private sector plus the deficit of the external sector
(foreigners, including
both foreign private sectors and governments) must sum to zero,
balancing each other out.
This is an identity, true by definition. It tells us that whatever
the net positions of
two sectors, the other sector must offset them exactly. {1}
Dispute emerging economic relations which may be off the books. The
social reality of debt, whether that of US students or Eurozone nations,
and is very much on the books and thus understood by way of the
macroeconomic identities described.
If you're studying emerging economic practice these formulations may
seem obsolete, however they still shape the big politics of the day. The
fact remains that student debt and bond debt alike must be paid in
government currency, the availability of which is governed by the
accounting facts described. Thus, in terms of political organization,
these identities help understand and analyze the policies of existing
governments.
Now, one day we may transcend the national economy even more than today
so as to make it completely irrelevant to everyday life. Perhaps at some
higher level of society we will have so much available wealth and
spontaneous co-operation that we wont need to count anything at all.
However we are a long way away from there, and in the meantime we still
need to confront society as we encounter it.
And even looking forward, certain questions like how do we collectively
achieve economic and social outcomes, and no matter how we define the
collective form, no matter how we view the constitution of the public
after the national form has receded in importance, our new public still
need means, at least for some time, by which to withdraw productive
capacity from the service of private consumption towards the service of
public good. In other words, the need for these new publics to have
fiscal and monetary policy is likely to remain for some time, and thus
the understanding of macroeconomic identities remains far away from
being a relic.
Best,
{1} http://heteconomist.com/?p=2360
On 11.09.2012 18:17, Keith Hart wrote:
Hi Dmytri.
I agree with: Organizing around debt means uniting against insane
policies that promote the interests of rich corporations and rich
countries against common households and poorer countries. Much of the
debt born my households and the debt born by peripheral nations is a
result of bad government and bad economic policy. But I don't understand
why you stick with this Keynesian analysis which, if it ever applied
anywhere, partly illuminated the national economies of Europe during *les
trente glorieuses* of social democracy. The approach doesn't offer much
insight into the current global system of money where most of it goes off
the books. Do you advocate a return to national economy? There must be
some rhetorical purpose for exhuming this relic.
--
Dmytri Kleiner
Venture Communist
# distributed via nettime: no commercial use without permission
# nettime is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,
# collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets
# more info: http://mx.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l
# archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nett...@kein.org
nettime Stand with Occupy
Here's a letter for Intellectuals, Academics, and Artists Call To Support OWS Anniversary Actions at http://standwithoccupy.org/ Please sign, circulate, and participate. # distributed via nettime: no commercial use without permission # nettime is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets # more info: http://mx.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nett...@kein.org
Re: nettime Vice, Freedom and Capitalist Market Expansion
Vice may be our only chance. The problem is really not the capitalism. The problem is that we are too efficient. In the first world only 10-15% need to work to provide all goods and services. The fact that the rest is not happy with unemployment employs another 20% in various thugs with guns occupations - security, police, military. It looks like the productivity required to fulfill all needs invented in the last millenia (food, shelter, basic entertainment, cheap sex etc.) was reached some time in 20th century. After that, the increasing advertising managed to manufacture new needs (generally by infantilizing the public, as infants need more), which worked for the next few decades. In other words, the jobs were created either in the security apparatus or for fulfillment of artificial needs. But it doesn't work any more. There are no jobs because no one needs their output. Capitalism producing super-rich is a secondary issue. The primary issue is that no one really gives a flying fuck for what most of population would produce. To create job demand, you need either to annihilate the existing need-fulfillment infrastructure, or to design new needs. I personally prefer new vices to war. And, does our understanding of human rights make any sense outside of the need to expand these capitalist markets? If one is opposed to capitalism and the market economy, then were do you stand on vice? Mark Stahlman # distributed via nettime: no commercial use without permission # nettime is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets # more info: http://mx.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nett...@kein.org
