Tuesday, April 17, 2012

Economics for April 17, 2012

The natural state of affairs at the beginning, where “at the beginning” refers to the period (this would be somewhere around the 19th century obviously) when capitalism first became the dominant system in Western Europe, was that of an open state, or condition. At this time capitalism was really becoming the major power within society. Such a beginning for capitalism corresponds to what Marx and Engels called "historical materialism." Here, for this period of time, at any rate, economics was determinative of the form of society. The "mode of production," as Marxian terminology has it, is determinative of the form of the society.
I call this period that we are discussing the “developmental period.” I think of it as one period within the historical scope of capitalism. During this period the open state came naturally. Openess, this necessary ingredient in capitalism, was not created intentionally, by anyone. So, for this period of capitalism, there is something in play that is a bit like what the "free market" theory says, it was something that no one planned; it was just there. It was, therefore, supplied naturally. 
     Openess was supplied by the nature of things and therefore we can say that it was history that was open not to mention several large continents. There were many openings, in fact, available in a developing system. In general, all the early developments of capitalism were enacted in tandem with a historical opening. This obviously is not going to happen again.
Perhaps the foregoing seems somewhat complicated. However, the consequence is simple. What is needed today is simple. We need to supply the openess, although openess is not going to just come out of nowhere. Still we need to find this quality: to supply what this originary openness once supplied. To do so would require some fundamental reforms, true, but, whether the political will is there or not, this is what we need to do. Capitalism can only be kept alive through such means. Then what kind of "openess" policies are those, exactly, that would do?
We know that capitalism has had the power to conquer the world, and we know of something called "globalization." Capitalism has come to dominate, all over the world. Many countries has small, successful elites, but these elites have joined a cosmopolitan elite and a global or world system, rather than created viable capitalist systems in their countries that are raising up their people. Yet, these persons, in the poorer countries, are not themselves immune to capitalist world domination they are members, but only in the sense of being the victims of this world system. When third-World persons (and peoples—make no mistake about it) are stuck with capitalism but are not benefiting from it we cannot really say that capitlaism is viable. They do not have any opportunity to work and make a living. They cannot create a life for themselves, either in their old, tribal cultures, or in the world as they find it. 
     Then we cannot really say that capitalism is viable at all. For this reason, these materially under served persons are actually the first line of defense for capitalism. Improving their condition would improve capitalism. Helping them is not simply a matter of charity. Why is that? This has to do with understanding what capitalism really is. 
     The system is the people in it. The point is that the progressive capitalistic decisions are decisions that extend the benefits of capitalism to more persons, and this is so, since it has always been the case that capitalism’s success depends on its ability to extend benefits to an entire populace. With the entire world globalized, capitalism of course has to help almost the entire human race! Including these persons in the comfortable, decently-nourished population of the world does not necessarily entail extracting a profit from them.
They need some of capitalism's benefits. What they need are material things, and the benefits of capitalism have to do with just that. These are benefits that basically come in the form of material goods. So, provide that benefit, and if that needs to be done by providing direct aid to the persons in those countries who are not receiving a big enough share of the wealth, then that is the method that should be used.

No comments:

Post a Comment