[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [ProgSoc] Drying up, hands or money



On Mon, 2007-08-13 at 15:24 +1000, John Elliot wrote:

> Lingering behind your question is the problem that the capitalists like 
> to sweep under the rug with their straw man argument that the free 
> market facilitates efficient production so therefore all "space" (real 
> estate, access, people, intellectual property) should be "for sale" on 
> the free market.

That's definitely confusing means with end. Free markets do facilitate
somewhat efficient production, but are not an end in themselves.

> I.e. if it has a name, then it's for sale. They say 
> that if we do this then we'll have a more efficient means of creating 
> "stuff", and they're probably right. Then again... if you want a really 
> efficient means of creating stuff, just rope up a few billion people, 
> make them your slaves, and put them to work. Hey... wait a minute!

That turns out not to be so efficient because people, even when
enslaved, take it upon themselves to control their destiny. Once a slave
population is [re-]freed, things get ugly; and very expensive for a very
long time (see L.A. riots in 1992).

> Well... the problem is that the public can't afford to pay for that 
> space, because it's owned by a small few who can, and subsequently being 

The public elects not to pay for it, and probably shouldn't, but we have
an historical "tertiary education is free" mindset (so no-one's saved
tuition for their kids) and an aging population (for whom free health
for the elderly is a more pressing use of taxpayer funds than educating
those pesky youngsters), so the opportunity for the members of the
public who are directly affected and could in principle effect control
(particularly students, they being the source of funds, in one way or
another) don't have the ability to exert that control.

I believe that this will remain the case in Australia for a very long
time.

> used against the public interest, by soliciting irrational purchasing 
> decisions, exploiting human capacity for emotional manipulation, wasting 

As previously, I don't believe this.

> human *life* by engaging people when they'd rather be left alone, etc., 
> etc.

This is a different issue, one that I feel is worth pursuing but, until
students are able to vote with their [parents'] wallets (and, say, place
a premium on campus amenity), university administrators will continue to
act as they do.

> Naomi Klein wrote an interesting book on this and related topics 
> called No Logo [1].
> 
> The capitalists would say: well, if the public can't afford to pay for 
> the space, or if the public *won't* pay for the space, then we're within 
> our rights to advertise here, so *tough luck*, *get stuffed*. But... 
> that's not very nice, is it? It's almost as if they thought that a human 
> life were a resource... and nothing more?

It's not nice, but is the wages of handing control to bureacrats.

> I think it would be fair to say that often public interests aren't 
> adequately defended or represented, and "more capitalism" won't help fix 
> that.

There are practical limits, yes (more is often no better, sometimes
worse), but the problem here is a different lack of capitalism: control
by students of the money (stored value, capital, means of production)
that is consumed in their education.

- Raz


-
You are subscribed to the progsoc mailing list. To unsubscribe, send a
message containing "unsubscribe" to progsoc-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
If you are having trouble, ask owner-progsoc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx for help.