Tresy Kilbourne wrote:

>Thanks for the edifying remarks about socialism, but I'm still mystified.
>Your original comments said that one problem is that capital is mobile,
>but labor isn't. That formulation assumes that if it were otherwise,
>there would be one less problem. I offered a counterexample which on the
>face of it would seem to contradict that assumption, and I'm still
>waiting for someone to tell me what's wrong with it.

Incorrect assumption. I agree with you that such reform of capitalism is
fraught with difficulty.  I was simply rebutting the assertion that freedom
of movement is one of the advantages of capitalism. It seems not to be the
case. Although there is greater freedom of movement under capitalism than
under feudalism, or slave societies there are two big impediments. First,
as you point out in your post to Lawrence Libby, the freedom to migrate
FROM somewhere is a fraud without the freedom to move TO somewhere.

If we examine that 'freedom' closely we see that it is not a freedom for
PEOPLE, it is a freedom for employers. Here in Australia that manifests
itself as a freedom to undermine skilled workers wages and conditions by
proclaiming a skill 'shortage', so that skilled emigrants can be imported
to create an oversupply of labour (thus forcing down the market price for
particular skills). This allows an oversupply to be created without the
employers even having to go to the bother and expense of training workers
to perform the skills necessary.

Similarly, the freedom is useless if there are no jobs to go to. Yet again
this imagined freedom for people is a freedom only for employers, freedom
without any responsibility. Licence. But even if there were jobs, such
freedom is but the freedom to choose a master. It is not enough.

I am not arguing that if it were otherwise, there would be one less
problem. Just pointing out that it is a symptom of capitalism. In fact the
very NEED of the economic refugee for freedom of movement is often sign of
a malaise.

>Perhaps your remarks
>about socialism meant that the solution isn't increased mobility of
>labor, but restriction of capital, in that under socialism capital would
>be owned in common by its producers, the workers. If that's so, that's a
>start, but then we encounter all the usual objections and issues that
>planned economies generate. Certainly if wages are fair across the board,
>then there's no incentive for capital to go elsewhere.

We already have a planned economy. Modern corporations involve extensive
planning. The dispute between capital and labour is partly over WHO does
the planning and what the OBJECTIVES shall be. Under capitalism planning is
carried out by or in the interests of the the small minority who own the
means of production, their objective being solely profit. Socialism must
entail democratic control over planning, direct control by workers
themselves of their industry.

The "usual objections" to planned economies that you allude to are a real
issue. Obviously planning should serve society, not society serve the
planners, as was the case in the former Soviet Union. But I'll leave
further elaboration on that to another time or (better still) another
poster.

What kind of structures do you think is necessary to overcome the "usual
objections"?
>
>FWIW, Chomsky does point out that the so-called Tiger Economies of SE
>Asia flout the "rule" of free markets. I believe he cites Taiwan (?),
>which makes capital flight literally a "capital" offense and in general
>pursues extremely restrictive currency and profit repatriation policies.
>Sure, these are policies that serve primarily the interests of the
>country's ruling class (just as early US protectionism did), but at least
>they are domestic interests, rather than those of the multinational corps.

I'm sure the exploited workers of SE Asia would feel MUCH better being
exploited by LOCAL capitalists, rather than foreigners. But I'm not sure
that is the case. It appears to me (and I am far from an expert on SE Asia)
that the restrictions are designed simply to make sure that the local
elite, (ex-feudal princes and colonial lietenants all) get a cut of all the
action.

I guess this is more an overhang from feudalism, than anything new. But
jump on me if I've missed the point.


Bill Bartlett
Bracknell Tasmania