Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site dciem.UUCP
Path: utzoo!dciem!mmt
From: mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor)
Newsgroups: net.politics.theory
Subject: Re: Overlooked contributions of the rich
Message-ID: <1461@dciem.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 16-Mar-85 17:55:20 EST
Article-I.D.: dciem.1461
Posted: Sat Mar 16 17:55:20 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 16-Mar-85 19:03:40 EST
References: <356@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP> <topaz.916>
Reply-To: mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor)
Organization: D.C.I.E.M., Toronto, Canada
Lines: 53
Summary: 


JoSH and Carnes have been having a little duel on the rights of
entrepreneurs to profit from their investments.  "Socialism" and
"Capitalism" have been bandied about as both derogatory and
laudatory terms.  The argument seems to be in the wrong field.

Large-scale enterprises, such as factories, cannot be built by a
single person or a group of friends whose links are conversational.
There has to be some organization that allows for planning and the
execution of the plan, and that is able to coordinate the acquisition
of the resources and labour required.  There are at least two ways
to construct this organization, and they are not mutually incompatible,
although one might be called "socialist" and the other "capitalist."

The socialist way uses the organizational structure inherent in
the state's administrative machinery to coordinate things.  Someone
decides that a factory should be built, and arranges to pay people
to plan it, to provide materials, and to do the actual work.  Perhaps
the workers are the people who originally thought that the factory
was needed, perhaps they are only doing the work because of the pay,
or perhaps they are coerced into working on the job.  The success of
the enterprise may well decline in that order, but the principle
that coordination is required is the same in each of the three cases.

The capitalist way uses the pooling of money to provide an coordinating
attraction for people who will develop the required organization. Someone
decides that a factory should .... [repeat rest of last paragraph here].

Which method is better for getting together the people with the
original idea and the ability to harness the organization is an
argument of pracitcality.  It probably is different for different
cases.  An individual is more likely to want to do something wild
and different (with a small chance of a big success).  An existing
bureaucracy (government or big company) is more likely to want to
do something in support of an infrastructure on which other things
can be built.  I see no contradiction in supporting both to do what
they can.  The infrastructure that the state builds is beneficial
to all; the wild idea on which an individual risks a life's savings
may well benefit us all.  Why shouldn't the entrepreneur be encouraged
with the prospect of great wealth?  Why shouldn't the great gray
state support the structure within which the entrepreneur makes
millions?

Why are socialism and capitalism seen as enemies, as swear-words or
banners?  I think it is from seeing them as polar opposites, rather
than as mutually supportive means to the same end.  Perhaps I misdefine
both, in the eyes of their zealous supporters (or opponents).  But
then, zealotry rarely builds much of anything.
-- 

Martin Taylor
{allegra,linus,ihnp4,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmt
{uw-beaver,qucis,watmath}!utcsri!dciem!mmt