Darffot. This is an excellent discussion, as I think we share many viewpoints, but perhaps differ in emphasis on some others.
From the vantage point of producing economic growth, capitalism as a form of social organization truly does shine. If this is the primary objective of a society, it has a very good historical track record. It extraordinary power to produce and innovate, actually, makes it a tool for both great potential good, yet also can result it quite horrible exploitation. This isn't so much from institutions within capitalist frameworks, as it is in maintaining fascist forms of social organization to supply capitalist production with cheap labor and raw materials.
So I absolutely agree that Capitalism is a powerful tool for economic progress and innovation. However, one society's economic power can indeed be built on the back of another society's exploitation, and this is particularly the case when a society is a supplier of cheap labor and natural resources to capitalist economies. Of course, liberal economic theory's answer to this is contained in the comparative advantage of nations approach, where each country specialized in that which it is uniquely suited to offer, wealth trickles down, and everyone lives happily ever after (umm, did I over simplify that? (smile)).
Unfortunately, things never work out quite that way for societies/commodities at the low-end of the value chain - specifically, providers of cheap labor and raw materials. Thus, the fascist tendencies that has been witness in many developing countries is precisely Capitalism's "shadow" side ... an unfortunate consequence to an otherwise relatively benign situation.
And really, any society that has pulled itself up into the ranks of competitive capitalist nations has precisely had to protect its domestic strategic industries, and adopt a very "non-liberal" approach to capital formation. Unfortunately, these societies too needed access to cheap labor and raw materials to compete with the western capitalist powers, so there is continual exploitation at the lower-end of the valuation chain.
Our difference in emphasis I think is here. You stated:
"the point i was making is whether "liberal" as defined or "democracy" as defined are useful in terms of real economic growth. and the historical evidence shows property rights are more important democracy per se in this regard.
That is a very valid perspective. However my point is that economic growth does not equal a "good" society, and I'm not sure why a society can't make choices which for a time place a greater emphasis on democracy and social justice, which lay a foundation for a future emphasis on economic growth and capital formation. To me, if a society chooses this path, such as the Arbenz government of Guatemala did in the 1950's, I don't see why the Western world response should be to immediately overthrow this government and replace it with a fascist state.
I had asked, "what does the use of the word "property rights" above really mean?", and you replied:
"it means, e.g., a person can acquire property which cannot be arbitrarily taken by the state; and the property is alienable, i.e., can be transferred or sold. only with these assurances will owners increase productivity."
... Boy, that's a curious mixture of sentiments. I agree with the first part, providing that "arbitrary" be understood as "that which was fairly allocated in the first place cannot be taken without preferably mutual consent, or at least fair compensation". However, if "property" was unfairly apportioned in the first place, such as United Fruit land in Guatemala, then I believe a people's government should have the constitutional authority to redress the situation as a matter of law, and mechanisms should be provided to redress the situation through negotiation, and that the overthrow of a societal's constitutional government should be considered criminal and subject to significant and punative financial redress.
Regarding "property rights" being subject to "assurances" of productivity? I feel productivity is a important factor to consider, but must be balanced against other social goods. My god, if the Canadian Government ever sold the property rights to Banff National Park to Exxon because its current use as a national park was not meeting criteria of "assured expectations of productivity" ... I would join a Canadian revolutionary force (providing of course, that I felt my society shared my PoV).
But, I really do think we are probably just arguing different sides of the same coin, that on a different day, we could well be taking the opposite point of view. When I commented:
It's corrupt elite sold off core components of the societal commons - mining rights, water, land - to local and foreign investors. What about the people who live on this land? What are their "rights" vs. the "rights" of the new owner of the local river's water supply. Do they have any?
You replied,
these are a few of many examples where, in today's more complex world, the concept of what should be open for individual property and what should remain collectivized is difficult to answer. basically, what you can say is that, at a minimum, there are resources in which we are all "stakeholders". the environment is such an area. so when a capitalist pollutes on his own property, it damages the collective. and the theft of collective resources in kleptocratic states like Argentina and FSU is another case.
This is really exactly my feelings. Perhaps my initial post did not properly convey the respect I have for the productive capabilities of capitalism as a form of economic organization. But this power must be balanced by at least an equal respect, IMO, for a society to at times make choices that do not primarily promote economic growth, but seek greater emphasis on issues of social justice. But in the end, both are indeed important.
Best wishes,
Glenn |
