File spoon-archives/heidegger.archive/heidegger_2003/heidegger.0311, message 444


From: "Anthony Crifasi" <crifasi-AT-hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: Liberal vs. social democracy - Gestell/Gewinnst
Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2003 08:07:27 +0000


John Foster wrote:

> > Gestell is essentially an ordering. The Rhine has no alternative when it
>is
> > dammed up, so it is totally ordered and stored on call. Capitalistic
>social
> > relations, on the other hand, are for the most part entered into freely.
> > What you are talking about would be more like the relationship between a
> > master and a slave, where one is truly ordered and stored on call, or 
>the
> > case of a true monopoly on some vital product, in which case we have no
> > alternative, like the Rhine when it is dammed up.
>
>Nature is order. The Universe is order. The chaos theory was put to rest a
>few years ago.

First, as a former theoretical physics major who keeps up on current 
advances, let me assure you that chaos theory is quite alive and 
flourishing, in everything from subatomic phenomena to population trends to 
weather models. Secondly, you are confusing natural order with the kind of 
ordering that Heidegger is talking about in his Rhine example. What 
Heidegger is talking about is the kind of ordering exhibited when the Rhine 
is dammed up into a power plant. That is hardly a natural order.

>Capitalism has many dimensions, and one of those dimensions does not
>unilaterally become a transaction 'entered into freely'. That would be
>giving capitalism a moral 'sentiment'. Capitalism is not a moral theory.
>There are 'sins' of Capitalism: "luxury consumption, pride of possession,
>and fraud." [Adam Smith, Theory on Moral Sentiments]
>
>Those who are screwed by  'capitalistic social relations' do not enter 
>into,
>'for the most part', these relations freely. For the most part the average
>person does not enter into relations freely these:
>
>1.    insurance
>2.    taxes
>3.    fees for any previous public goods in a restricted commons
>4.    involuntary fees

You are confusing capitalistic social relations and our relation with the 
government, such as payment of taxes and its involuntary enforcement.

>Anyone who does not own land, therefore, is not 'entering into freely' a
>super market to buy some lettuce; they have no choice but to buy food;
>therefore they pay more for their food because they have to pay for
>distribution, storage, and other labour in the selling.

Or they could go to a farmer's market, as I do here in Houston. Not to 
mention the HUGE diversity of choices when it comes to supermarkets. For 
example, here in Houston, I regularly shop at Chinese supermarkets because 
they offer a greater diversity of meats and vegetables for significantly 
lower prices. So the situation is quite free.

>Capitalism therefore is incredibly inefficient in many ways because it
>cannot properly price services and goods because the more scarce an item
>becomes, the greater the 'social and environmental impact' to obtain the
>scarce item. For instance under free market capitalism there is no 
>incentive
>to manage a natural resource when it becomes too expensive to manage it. A
>good example is the North Atlantic Cod fisheries. The more scarce the cod
>become, the less incentive is provided to 'rescue the stocks' because there
>is always another alternative species to commercially fish.

That's not limited to capitalism. Does nature herself provide any 
"incentive" for a scarce species to survive? Usually not, since it probably 
became scarce in the first place due precisely to the lack of a natural 
advantage. So if capitalism is "inefficient" with regard to such things, 
then so is nature herself.

>Secondly the
>rate of return on investment is too low to justify managing the stocks. The
>boats can simply be refitted and used to fish for more abundant lower value
>fish stocks. Eventually due to 'short rates of time preference' all
>commercial stocks are depleted (eg., now 90% of the world's fish stocks are
>depleted by free market capitalism).

And 99.999999 percent of all species that ever appeared on earth have been 
depleted into total extinction by natural selection. So if anything, 
capitalism is more efficient than nature herself.

>The opposite view of Capitalism is one regarding concrete relations. These
>concrete relations/existence (Dasein) refer to 'intergenerational'
>transfers. Not all goods and services need have a price to be effectively
>managed and sustained. Capitalism cannot price those goods and services
>which have 'intrinsic value'. Capitalism, as a market mechanism, can only
>value goods and services in a monetary exchange setting. Thus certain goods
>and services cannot be priced because there are 2 ways of pricing. 1) Some
>services and goods have only 'sentimental value': which are values which
>have very dear prices because they have intrinsic value (subjective, 
>family,
>or otherwise). Then there are the 'non-owned' values such as environmental,
>existence, bequest, option, et cetera., which have no market prices. These
>values are often the most cherished values which any person can hold. For
>example, wilderness solitude is free, and it is a value which supports the
>greatest happiness  for several reasons: it is held to provide all the 
>above
>values ranging from environmental, existence, bequest, option, and
>scientific. No price can be placed on 'wilderness' because the market place
>cannot replace it with something of equal value. Wilderness is shrinking,
>and it contains all the values that the earth has to provide.

The earth provides a myriad of values besides wildnerness, many of which are 
priced too. So it is not as simple as non-priced values provided by the 
earth versus priced values not provided by the earth.

> > Politicians become entrenched and begin to see different groups
> > and classes of citizens as standing reserves for tax revenue, ready on
>call.
> > The only difference is that we can vote them out (at least in a
>democracy),
> > and even that is possible only once in a while.
> >
> > Blameworthy, oui?
> >
> > Anthony Crifasi
>
>Not entirely true. Many corporations do not pay taxes, and many individuals
>do not pay taxes, particularly those making less than a certain amount.
>There are many tax shelters.

The vast, vast majority of both corporations and individuals pay taxes.

>The notion of 'standing reserve' refers to stocks within nature: timber,
>water, fish, metals, etc. The 'tap' analogy also refers to 'harnessed' and
>'mobilized' forms of natural resources already within the reserve. Some
>restrictions apply: concepts such as 'sustained yield', 'soil loss
>calculations', 'depletion', and 'social objectivess' which taken together
>'conserve' yields, and in some cases 'regenerate' and 'renew' natural
>resources.

Again, nature has been far more inficient with its stocks than capitalism, 
since 99.99999 percent of all natural species have been naturally depleted 
to extinction.

Anthony Crifasi

_________________________________________________________________
Groove on the latest from the hot new rock groups!  Get downloads, videos, 
and more here.  http://special.msn.com/entertainment/wiredformusic.armx



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

   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005