RO: . . .
I didn't forget, Max. I just wanted to try to bring you out of your
self imposed analytical shell. Your advice is to harass capital. I was
hoping you'd want to do something about capitalism.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
mbs: If capital is governed, rather than governing, capitalism is abolished.
New RO: No, it isn't. It's governed/regulated/state-affected capitalism. And who is this entity outside of capital capable of governing capital? And why would/should capital still exist if it was governed so as to prevent it from pursuing it interests? That is, why would/should capital own and control the means of production if it could be governed so that those means of production wouuld be used in the interests of labor? Do you think you, or something, or somebody can "govern" away capitalism without abolishing capital as a social relation (or more simply, without abolishing the ownership by one group of people of the means of production to the exclusion of all others)?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
RO:
So, does that mean you have no problem with the unequal labor market
exchange?. You know, where labor gets its social subsistence, and
whatever else it can wrench from capital, and capital gets to accumulate
profits and decide how they will be used, what jobs exist and who gets
them, and a whole host of other things.
>>>>>>>>>>>
mbs: You fix that w/taxation and regulation.
New RO: So you fix the problem of the monopoly over the means of production being in a few hands through state taxes and regulation? You're kidding aren't you? Tweaking me, so to speak? C'mon, Max you're going to have to come up with something at least tangentially plausible to get me going.
There are no taxes steep enough nor regulations strong enough (even if there was any chance you could really get everything you fantasize about) that would begin to address the problems of the control of *economic* life by capital. Do you see the difference between labor consuming its wages to live, and capital accumulating profits? Can you see the implcations of this for the control of labor by capital, starting with all the decisions that fall to capital due to its monopoly of the MOP?
But that's only the economics of it. Capital is a social relation and capitalism is a social system. As it has developed, capital's dominance, including its control of labor, is now probably accomplished more through the social sphere than by the direct economic struggle over things like wages and working conditions in the factory or office. Needless to say (I hope), capital's sociopolitical power and control are even further beyond your fantasy of taxes and regulation than is its economic power.
OK, so you don't want to be a marxist; you don't want to crusade against the "socialization of capital" whatever you mean by that. But, really, you have to come up with a better nonmarxist critique than this, one that at least has some hope of even addressing the implications of capital's monopoly of the MOP. If you do think seriously about it, I suggest you will be drawn inexorably to the same questions Marx confronted. Not that you have to agree with his take on those questions. To be sure, Max, these questions could use a fresh look.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
RO:
If you did want to consider doing something about capitalism, you
wouldn't pick a local restaurant as a focal point would you? You'd want
to find some entity that was exploiting labor on a worldwide scale to
match the transnational reach of capital. That was my point. It does
matter which windows you choose or we wouldn't be having this
conversation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
mbs: Re your first q., yes I would.
"Exploiting labor on a worldwide scale" is an example of an abstraction -- valid though it is -- that has says very little to most people.
New RO: Really? After NAFTA most people in the US don't understand that capital can shift jobs oversees, and has done so? They don't understand the need for global thinking and solidarity beyond national borders to confront capital's mobility? They don't get the purpose of the WTO? If all that were true, and for those who don't understand these things (they no doubt exist), wouldn't it be wise to explain it to them, rather than reduce your message to fit only what they already know? I understand you don't think you are advocating a truncated message, but look at what you said next.
mbs: By contrast, attacking a place where the big shots and swells do deals at our expense, eat on the taxpayer's nickel, break the law with impunity . . . etc. etc.
You're worried about what we're saying. I'm concerned about who is listening.
New RO: Harassing big shots can be fun, but the purpose and payoff is limited to say the least. You can't really ask these guys to stop making "deals at our expense", nor can you stop them by breaking a few windows. That is what they do; it's their job--expanding profits and limiting wages. To accomplish that, you have to abolish the function of "capitalist".
You can't hurt these guys directly like that and the symbolism you claim is extremely minimal. Instead you have to connect your actions to the source of their wealth--their exploitation of labor--and make that the focus of what you do, what your message is. Rather than trashing the place where they flaunt their profligacy.
RO