re: capital must give way

Frederick R. Magdoff (fmagdoff@zoo.uvm.edu)
Mon, 21 Sep 1998 07:55:38 -0400 (EDT)

Cecile,
I'm not sure how we got from my mention of a "sustainable
economic/social system" to the issue of laws and rules. My main point is
that the very working of capitalism is incompatible with some basic
humanitarian goals. When decisions are made on the basis of trying to
produce profit - then social and ecological goals are not met. In fact,
they may be adversely influenced. The US (and other industrial societies)
have passed quite a few laws -social security, welfare, the clean water
act, etc. - to attempt to remedy the worst of the effects of the way the
system works. This usually happens in response to social forces (such as
union struggles and environmental movements).Then as forces that want the
unfettered ability of corporations to do as they see fit gain more
political clout - they try to reverse some of these laws or change them to
make them more favorable to their interests.
Its not a management issue - micro, meta, or mega - of regulating
peoples actions of morality. Its a power issue of who controls the
decision making process. Clearly corporations call most of the shots at
the state and national levels. They also control decisions about what to
invest in -and what not to invest in - and where to make the investment.
What I was trying to say was that when people are able to actively
participate in the both economic and political decision making - without
interference from moneyed interests - it is they may well be possible to
create a system that incorporates social and environmental goals into the
very decision making process.

FRED
******************************************************************************

On Sun, 20 Sep 1998, Cecile Mills wrote:

> >At 07:31 8/25/98 -0400, Frederick R. Magdoff wrote:
> >> Let's frame the discussion from the point of view of what
> >>type of a social system would we want. I suggest that a humane and
> >>sustainable system will create conditions and institutions that will:
> >> a) meet the basic needs of all people for comfortable housing,
> >>clothing, safe and adequate food, health care, and meaningful
> >>opportunities for personal fulfillment and enjoyment;
> >> b) dramatically narrow the gap between the wealthy and the poor;
> >> c) improve the condition of the earths non-human species as well
> >>as its soil, water, and air;
> > ....
> At 6:03 AM -0300 8/26/98, Daniel Worley wrote:
> >Fred, much of what you suggest here has been tried on a small scale in
> >communities across the country. Carefully planned developments with strict
> >rules about what residents can and cannot do, designs that force people to
> >walk rather than ride for certain daily activities such as collecting their
> >mail, and so on exist. And even Congress has gotten into the act
> >attempting to pass social legislation (and sometimes actually passing the
> >laws).
>
> snip
>
> > I am an individualist and I don't want some gov'ment burro crat telling
> >me how to live.
>
> I'd like to comment on two issues here: meta and micromanaging how people
> behave and legislating morality
>
> The first seems to me to be a spectrum of the fewest *laws* or *rules* to
> the *most* and Daniel gives us a grand example of telling people whether
> they could run to get their mail or not. That is an instance of
> micromanaging. Metamanaging would of course be the opposite: The golden
> rule: Do unto others that you would have done to you is a prime example.
>
> Creating a sustainable community in balance both internally and externally
> has been done before and can be done again. The considerations Frank
> mentions are important to the goal of sustainability.
>
> Maybe we on this list can think of some more metamanagement rules.
>
> Now, the second issue, of making people do things you think are *right*, is
> similar but not identical. I am thinking of the debates on legalization of
> drugs. The example that always comes to my mind is the 55-mile-an-hour
> speed limit. Few people, even the most law-abiding, honored that law. Why
> not? Similarly, the use of drugs not available legally is evidenced among
> most age groups, most racial groups, and most economic groups--perhaps this
> is a health issue rather than a legislative one and needs to be addressed
> as such. The moral issues of breaking laws interest me: do we create
> outlaws with poorly thought-out legislation or will there always be
> criminals?
>
>
>

To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with "unsubscribe sanet-mg".
To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command
"subscribe sanet-mg-digest".