The above is a link to the London Review of Books. The argument made
is fairly sound and reminds me how little Marx and rival American
writing on economics of his time have been understood. It starts with
a bit on Microsoft - for me a classic case in modern economics and the
creation of "rent" - a concept put forward in Marx's time by Henry
George in "Poverty and Progress". There's a compelling logic in the
argument made most in here will get. My own view has long been that
the needed arguments don't exist in economics or politics because we
won't face up to them. "Rent" is key in this, but the real issue is
we cannot free ourselves of ideology because of the comfort it gives
us - a perverse comfort that leads to much obscene discomfort in the
world.
Most of us think that it's fair for someone to work hard and take what
reward comes. We like simple dross like this. It has a compelling
logic as long as we don't examine it too closely. The problem, of
course, is that our cosy belief in this prevents us looking at what it
produces - rich people with inordinate political and other power over
the lives of others and what constitutes "hard work", "smart work" and
"reward". We can easily note the compelling logic of modern marxism
rather suits the interests of - gosh - the modern marxist industry. I
know quite a few who live very easily on what I consider glib
critique. Habermas sought to establish (as an ideal type) a form of
dialogue with the only interest at work being Reason - but that's
rationalist fantasy.
The questions we need to address are about bureaucracy and human
nature. One conundrum is that most of us can see that most
accumulated wealth has not been fairly acquired, but also that handing
over supervision of this to a set of commissioners is likely to be
worse than leaving things alone - though I don't think most of us
realise quite what modern reality is.
0 comentários:
Postar um comentário