From: "John Foster" <borealis-AT-mercuryspeed.com>
Subject: Re: Liberal vs. social democracy - Gestell/Gewinnst
Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2003 16:08:49 -0800


When Marx wrote his early works on Capitalism he was influenced by an
economic and legal reality somewhat different then from now. Today we have
Corporate Capitalism, and State capitalism. Capitalism then was 'industrial'
to a large extent. International trade was not as great as it is now, and
commercial and state forms of capitalism did not really exist such as they
do today. Then technological innovation proceeded at a slower pace. There
were fewer social, or public goods for workers than today (except in some
developing nations).

An anthropological assessment of the economic relations of societies would
therefore resemble much of what Marx reported in terms of primitive forms of
communism. Marx's response therefore was somewhat idealistic and more real
then than now. Where the basic unit of production in industrial capitalism
was the 'worker', in the commune the basic unit of production is communal,
an extended family. The difference is that the worker in a factory exchange
his labour for only one thing, which was a monetary wage, from which he was
able to spend on anything. In the case of a communal arrangement this would
be less likely, since the 'wage' would include shelter, entitlement to
shelter, limited private ownership of shelter, and other amenities of a
communal nature (infrastructure).

In each case the worker and the member of the commune are applying their
labour (this includes all labour) in the form of an exchange. But in the
case of the communal extended family only a small amount of the labour is
exchanged for money. For instance the reindeer herders of Siberia. These
people live in small extended family groups and tend their herds of reindeer
within a relatively large area of communal lands (these extend for about
100-300 square kilometers); the whole family unit works together to tend the
reindeer, and much of the food, clothing and other needs are obtained
directly from the lands within their commons. However during the 1950-1980's
the herders were 'organized' into larger units, resulting in a division of
labour which separated women from men, herders from other workers. The
purpose was to obtain a higher output of trade from Siberia for the purposes
of the state. The herders therefore lived separate from the extended family,
worked harder, had less direct contact with their own families, and had less
wildfoods, and time to find forest products (such as firewood, building
materials, et cetera). Thus the amount of labour which needed to be expended
by the herders was increased, more reindeer were put into the grazing units,
and so on.

The primary or leading principle in 'stone age economics' [I simply refer to
Sahlins' term for the economics of neolithic societies] was to reduce labour
where it was believed to be unnecessary. The ideal arrangement for the
neolithic extended family unit, he argues, was to possess less things, and
be able to travel lighter, rather than in accumulating possessions which
become burdens when travelling. It is therefore entirely possible that the
modern Mongolian society which depends on horses exclusively, is highly
nomadic, is an evolutionary cultural adaptation to the ecological landscape,
so as to say, an example of form matching function.

In corporate capitalism, what we see all the time as 'set up' too 'quickly',
effacing of landscapes, and effacting of cultural identity of traditional
first peoples, and natural processes. Recently for instance Ecuadorian
government has initiated a law suit to claim damages from Shell Corporation
for the destruction of rainforest after 30 years of oil and gas extraction
which left water unfit to drink, contaminated soils, and degraded habitat.
Mod tech is 'self-effacing' in that it's function is to deplete natural
resources in short time so as to maximize not it's own labour, but the
labour of others whose communal rights to property have not been adquately
defined in law.

The owners of newspapers, the media, are quite open about what they do. They
don't sell news, they sell advertising. Which is true, if we were to pay for
the printing of the news directly we would have to pay 2-3 times more for
the news. Indirectly we all pay for the news, but it is only a small
percentage of the total print media we pay for. Certainly there is an
incredible inefficiency here; while 100's of hectares of primary rainforest
is used to print the daily New York Times each day, only a few paragraphs of
each paper are actually read by the average reader in New York. This is a
tremendous wast considering one newspaper weighs as much as kilogram. The
country of Chad consumes on a per capita basis about 0.1 - 0.3 kilogram per
year, and the average American consumes about 300 kilogram per year
(Canadian Pulp and Paper Institute).

Corporate capitalism as an abstract organizational arrangement of special
laws and rules; and therefore is highly inefficient because it cannot exist
without a massive and rapid communication and transportation system....as an
economic system of governance. Certainly the consumption of wood in Peru,
which is also very low (0.3 kg per capita per year), could be justified on
the basis that very little wood is used in construction there. This
dependency on global communications and rapid distributional systems makes
corporate capitalism only relatively efficient as long as it is 'built'
every form of local and regional governance. For instance the only true
barriers to effective trade now left in the world is 'terrain' and 'access'.
The fact is that much of the Andes where there is a huge potential for the
production of agricultural products, there is no way of economically getting
commodities to market; the mountains and valleys are too steep, the roads to
treacherous, and only airplanes actually can ship commodities like tropical
hardwood to market. Interesting since if we take a much closer look here it
is not that time that is a limiting factor but rather 'labour' costs which
are a constraint, despite the very low wage rates in Peru, and in Bolivia.
This means that fine alpaca wool will cost much more here than it would cost
if produced in British Columbia (where it is now being produced). Good
quality cheeses made in the Andes never get into foreign markets, but it is
very good.

Corporate capitalism once attempted to take the Sierran Andes and turn it
into a single sheep pasture. A policy to remover all the cameloids was
initiated, the pampas were burned to remove the stippa grass (Icchu spp.)
and then the sheep were increased. The result was that there was a gult of
sheep wool on the market and the profits were small, indigienous people
suffered from that, and eventually the sheep were removed and the alpacas,
llamas, were re-introduced. Where once earthquakes were the most dangerous
phenomenon in the region, killing up to 70,000 people in one instance, the
effect of converting to sheep cumulatively had more far reaching effects.
The corporate capitalist arrangement is predicated on the notion of creating
wealth through improving scales of efficiency; the larger then the better,
leading to uniform application of a technology, laying waste to the unvalued
and low market value found in it's pathway.

In corporate capitalism it makes economic and perfect moral sense to flood
hundreds of square kilometers of rich ecological heritage, which for
millenia has feed and supported a series of civilizations, just for the sake
of producing some exchangeable wealth for the term of less than 40 to 50
years (Yantze Dam). As long as the investor can reap a good return in a
relatively short term of 5-10 years, then it is seen as right, rather than
wrong by the proponent. Since many corporations act as 'nation states' (GM
is larger in terms of revenues than 20% of all countries in the world),
there is every real belief that 'environmental and social justice' will ever
be realized in most of the world....


chao


john foster





----- Original Message -----
From: "John Foster" <borealis-AT-mercuryspeed.com>
To: <heidegger-AT-lists.village.Virginia.EDU>
Sent: Friday, November 14, 2003 2:46 PM
Subject: Re: Liberal vs. social democracy - Gestell/Gewinnst


>
>
> > If your line of reasoning here is that Newton's laws of motion work from
> an
> > insight into causal relationships whereas statistics merely shows
> > significant correlations, I still have a question then. First, aren't
> > Newton's "laws" at bottom just significant (VERY significant)
correlations



     --- from list heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---