The material value of a thing is not reducible to the labor required in its production. It's reducible to the amount of work it does for society—it's value as an organizing concept which enables the welfare of others. This is the value. The exchange value is not the same as the value, but it is similar: it involves the willingness of society to support the thing created. Capitalism is all about the centralization of wealth; when wealth is centralized, it has the potential to become capital, which is then used to create more wealth. The wealth takes on the trappings of an organizing concept, or a commodity, something with material value, as defined above. This is the positive virtue of capitalism: it creates more wealth for everybody. It creates an endless cycle of more wealth, for everybody.
Communism, on the other hand, does not involve the centralization of wealth at all. Wealth should not be centralized, because such can only be done through labor extraction. I think this is based on flawed arguments, and anyway is not the case. Wealth should be centralized, to a certain extent, because concepts are centralized, so decentralized wealth is the sign of an economy devoid of concepts—an ignorant economy. Concepts are centralized because they organize thought—they are the central elements which allow us to organize the way we think.
Let me make a couple of qualifying statements. Capitalism, by definition, should be the continued production of capital, as defined above. Any production of capital which does not produce a net increase of value, or the potential to create more capital, as a system, should not be regarded as capitalism. Therefore, when a factory owner creates wealth for himself and condemns his workers to a never-ending cycle of oppression, he is not a capitalist, because he is not creating net wealth. Rather, he is contributing to the decline in well-being and perhaps death of his workers. Also, when Goldman Sachs bets on mortgage securities which are designed to fail, it is far from capitalist. It produces a relatively small amount of wealth for a very few number of people, and a drastically huge decline of wealth for a very large number of people. How can something be called "capitalist" when it destroys more capital than it produces?
Capitalism, as an ideal, is a worthy ideal, when aligned with generosity. If "capitalism" ignores real, meaningful generosity, the kind of generosity which lifts people out of poverty and lends them creative capacity, it is not capitalist, because it is destructive. Capital is inherently creative by virtue of its definition. Capital can only be used to create goods, or it isn't capital, it's just money.
I, for what it's worth, am a capitalist.
No comments:
Post a Comment