Re: Private Property and Capitalism

Suresh Naidu (
Mon, 14 Oct 1996 11:58:25 -0400 (EDT)

Suresh Naidu
occaisonal student
math 1a, computer science

Ask not what your brand name can do for you,
but what you can do for your brand name.

On Sun, 13 Oct 1996, John K Clark wrote:

> On Thu 10 Oct 1996 Suresh Naidu <> Wrote:
> >in low-skill menial labour, which is usually allocated to
> >people based on geography or class, not skill.
> If companies "usually" have people with great skills digging ditches, then
> the few that don't do this are the ones that will be successful and become
> huge corporations, the foolish prejudice companies will end up in the very
> ditch it asked the genius to dig.

When a company becomes big enough to export labour to other lands, it has
no neccessity for anything other than raw products, labour and markets.
Look at United Fruit. They get cheap labour and produce from central
america, and they have a rich market here. Buy low, sell high, a maxim of
capitalism. Doesn't atter how many people they suppress
down there, as long as we get our cheap fruit. How many children don't
get an education because they have to work in sweatshops in order to
support themselves. India is a good example of capitalism running amuck. Government, although it is a
coalition of many parties, including the communist one, is giving a nod
to any and all international businesses. Businesses can come in, and
because illegal labour is so rampant, and people are willing to work for
whatever, they can produce cheap. I don't think Gap jeans loses a lot by
keeping kids working.

> >Most of our crap jobs are given to people in other lands
> Yes, and that's because most people in advanced countries don't want those
> crap jobs, I see absolutely nothing immoral in giving them to those that do.

The reason they want it? Because we have kept them so destitute that they
will do anything to survive. I see something immoral in keeping a section
of populace as cheap reserve labour for our needs. Like those Pocahontas
shirts made in Haiti by women paid seven cents an hour and sold for twenty
seven dollars. Where does the money go? I see something immoral there.

> >Okay, call me one of those crazy idealists, but what about
> >if people worked to better each other rather than only
> >themsleves. Everybody is working for the benefit of all.
> In other words, if everyone was a nice person it would be a better world.
> So what else is new? One (of many) problem with Socialism is that it assumes
> that everyone is a saint, it expects people to adapt to it, The Free Market
> on the other hand, adapts to people. I think the fundamental question you must
> ask yourself is, what do you intend to do with the people who disagree with
> you? Millions of people, like me and the "evil" men running corporations,
> don't like your ideas at all. Would you let us heretics do our own thing and
> permit people to choose which camp to join, or will people like me end in
> re- education camps until we see the error in our ways and make a public
> recantation of our views.

Nope, you can do what you want. But you can't infringe on anybody else.
That means you can't take property and keep it from everybody else.
Putting up electric fences and hoarding resources with superior firepower
is not accepted by most people.

Answering a question of who determines need:
In small scale operations, it's quite easy to spot who's not carrying
their fair share or is hoarding too much and to have a chat with them. If
you don't like it, leave the commune. This is made easier because there is no tie to

> >The farmer supports the builder of houses with food, while
> >the builder of houses builds for the farmer
> I'm a farmer, I grow rhubarb, I give it to the house builder, he loves
> rhubarb. I already have a good house, my car however is broken. A good car
> mechanic I know hates rhubarb, but he needs work done on his house, so I
> tell the builder to fix the mechanic's house not mine and tell the mechanic
> to fix my car. Everybody is happy and if there were just 3 of us on a desert
> island that would be the end of it, but in a modern society with billions of
> people in complex relationships things get very complicated very fast. We
> need something to keep track of all this, fortunately we have such a device,
> its called money.

Okay, sure. Money's fine as a reprensentative device. But currently it is
not doing a good job. And, our system demands that everybody gets as much
money as possible. Within a commune, people grow a lot of stuff, instead
of haing backyards that just look pretty, they can grow food. What they
can't grow they get from other communes. But the thing is, everybody does
what they can. One thing I like about both
sides of Anarchy is that they are totally dynamic. A system can change
easily to meet needs. If one commune screws up, the people can leave and
go their individual ways.

> I can't say I agree with that. If you were chasing me with a bloody ax,
> I would feel very little guilt about using quite strong coercion to stop you.
And chasing you with an ax isn't a form of coercion? Well....

> >Noam Chomsky, definitely on my most admired list.
> I've read a little of his work as a social criticism, well...
> he's a fine linguist.

First time I read anything, I dismissed it as silly conspiracy theory,
but I did check his references. The four or five I did check were true,
which made me rethink a lot of things.

The fact that all his stuff is built on the information the establishment
feeds is amazing. A wonderful example of biting the hand that feeds.

> >I think cooperation can produce the best item for the lowest
> >price
> Fine, you have a perfect right to think that and act on it. I presume
> everyone on this list believes in the Scientific Method, so let's put it to
> the test, start your socialist commune today, I'll stick with business,
> and we'll see which one turns out to be freer and more prosperous. I have no
> desire to stop you, and anyway I have a pretty good idea which one of us
> will win the contest, but by all means, try to prove me wrong. If you do then
> you will have beaten me fair and square in the marketplace of ideas.

Hmm, maybe. Co-ops don't work well on a large scale, unlike cults or
corporations. Where they do work, however, is in the industries that are
the most exploited. Agriculture, for example, has always worked better
with labour coops than corporate farming. As I said before, I am looking
into starting a software co-op, but who knows what may happen.

But you, with your business, are not hampered by anything like morals. So it is perfectly acceptable for you to fire anyone who tries to
campaign for better working conditions. You may be more properous, and
you may be freer. But the people you employ won't be, and they are far
more numerous than you.

> I get the impression that our positions are not symmetric, that you do have a
> strong desire to stop me. If I'm wrong about that then I apologize and we
> have no disagreement over morality, only over the technical points of
> economics, and there is no need to worry about that, nature will let us know
> which one of us is correct, no doubt about it.

Maybe it's both. Boy, I'm spending way too much time defending my
views...Oh well, that's what the Net is for I guess.

> John K Clark
> Version: 2.6.i
> iQCzAgUBMmG7g303wfSpid95AQGHMgTwswnVQjaL2BMQ0EdoRms04eAuAGAzemYh
> c/HkTtfe6mCcAuViqmyAU5KXN8HyxJI5bs3uucDIDnnE5vOLCD8ilNPNgkfaXXcZ
> WLZI6yFjH/l/1tiWDQ3eEubZ/bPsY+lvFaYY/Ai/JORCbiSrYn+BvZqrHEvfZ0Mv
> 1O5R3R5yL2gbA/TC0hCMs+mn7I4I3RqK/C333qb4U/Lw/DCN7ko=
> =QJsc