My basic thesis is that the inherent (or "natural") dialectic over the ownership of the additional wealth created by labor produces the creative energy that in turn produces the good life of the Capitalist environment when it is allowed to be kept in dynamic equilibrium by the democratic process.
Some principles are obviously true according to "our" values. One of these is that persons who work fulltime deserve enough in payment for their labor to sustain a defined minimum quality of life for themselves and their dependents. This is "a living wage".
Most--if not all--of us agree that fulltime work deserves a living wage.
Our areas of contention seem to be over the definitions of "fulltime work", "minimum quality of life", and the number of "dependents" that can be reasonably supported on one living wage.
Beneath the surface of the discussions involved in determining a living wage are the fundamental questions:
Who should be the recipient or "owner" of the wealth created by the labor of the worker?
How do we determine what wealth is created by labor?
Let's pause for a moment and reflect on the importance of this inherent dialectic or creative tension in Capitalism, that of who ought to be the beneficiary (or owner) of the wealth produced by labor.
From my view, the economic struggle is between (1.) the owner of existing wealth, and labor comprised of (2.a.) the worker necessary to produce/maintain the wealth, and (2.b.) the inventor of the new idea to produce a new type of wealth, produce wealth more efficiently, or maintain it more efficiently, for shares of the additional wealth created in the dynamic Capitalist economic environment, which in turn has created the good life of the people (broadly speaking).
Taking this a step further, it seems to me that the main "political" component of the economic struggle is the "conflict" between the owners of existing wealth and labor producing the additional wealth as to how the additional wealth is divided between the parties to the economic struggle.
Following on that idea, we can easily see from history that whenever the balance moves too far away from some "vibrating" equitable equilibrium, the good life of the owners or of labor disappears. Shifting too far to the right, labor's economic and political conditions worsen. Shifting too far to the left, it is the owners' economic and political conditions that worsen.
If the good life for labor disappears in the face of an increasingly better life for the owners of existing wealth--or vice versus for the owners--the tension of the dialectic will also increase.
Equilibrium will be restored either (1.) through the cataclysmic process of reactionary forces responding to the fears of the owners or of labor resulting in a corresponding reaction on the part of the other party producing a violent struggle for political power over the economic environment, or (2.) a democratic process.
Note: The democratic process requires definition. Another point is that the violent struggle can end with the suppression of the "natural" dialectic by overwhelming force such as by the institution of economic and political slavery imposed by the right or the left with the eminent threat of punishment or death for disobedience, thereby obstructing the restoration of equilibrium.
Some principles are obviously true according to "our" values. One of these is that persons who work fulltime deserve enough in payment for their labor to sustain a defined minimum quality of life for themselves and their dependents. This is "a living wage".
Most--if not all--of us agree that fulltime work deserves a living wage.
Our areas of contention seem to be over the definitions of "fulltime work", "minimum quality of life", and the number of "dependents" that can be reasonably supported on one living wage.
Beneath the surface of the discussions involved in determining a living wage are the fundamental questions:
Who should be the recipient or "owner" of the wealth created by the labor of the worker?
How do we determine what wealth is created by labor?
Let's pause for a moment and reflect on the importance of this inherent dialectic or creative tension in Capitalism, that of who ought to be the beneficiary (or owner) of the wealth produced by labor.
From my view, the economic struggle is between (1.) the owner of existing wealth, and labor comprised of (2.a.) the worker necessary to produce/maintain the wealth, and (2.b.) the inventor of the new idea to produce a new type of wealth, produce wealth more efficiently, or maintain it more efficiently, for shares of the additional wealth created in the dynamic Capitalist economic environment, which in turn has created the good life of the people (broadly speaking).
Taking this a step further, it seems to me that the main "political" component of the economic struggle is the "conflict" between the owners of existing wealth and labor producing the additional wealth as to how the additional wealth is divided between the parties to the economic struggle.
Following on that idea, we can easily see from history that whenever the balance moves too far away from some "vibrating" equitable equilibrium, the good life of the owners or of labor disappears. Shifting too far to the right, labor's economic and political conditions worsen. Shifting too far to the left, it is the owners' economic and political conditions that worsen.
If the good life for labor disappears in the face of an increasingly better life for the owners of existing wealth--or vice versus for the owners--the tension of the dialectic will also increase.
Equilibrium will be restored either (1.) through the cataclysmic process of reactionary forces responding to the fears of the owners or of labor resulting in a corresponding reaction on the part of the other party producing a violent struggle for political power over the economic environment, or (2.) a democratic process.
Note: The democratic process requires definition. Another point is that the violent struggle can end with the suppression of the "natural" dialectic by overwhelming force such as by the institution of economic and political slavery imposed by the right or the left with the eminent threat of punishment or death for disobedience, thereby obstructing the restoration of equilibrium.
No comments:
Post a Comment