Two decades ago I used to love arguing about the rights and wrongs of capitalism, socialism, social democracy, collectivism, communism, etc. Now, I don’t have the adrenalin for it. Now I prefer to offer observations, big or small, and let others fight about them while I cook up my next observations. Thank God (by which I of course mean Perry de Havilland and his editorial confreres – thank goodness might be a better way of putting it) for Samizdata.net, because here I can do just that.
But if you want a good old libertarians-versus-collectivists row to join in on, this Chris Bertram post together with all the comments it has provoked could be just your ticket.
Chris Bertram says this about the Morecambe tragedy in which nineteen Chinese cockle pickers perished:
But one thing that needs saying is that such tragedies are a normal and predictable consequence of capitalism and not simply the result of coercion and abuse by a few criminals.
Bertram’s piece is a classic example of what one might term Implied Collectivism. Capitalism, says Bertram, regularly causes violent deaths. The clear implication is that therefore “capitalism” needs in some way to be severely hobbled, if not done away with altogether, and that if that happened, poverty would likewise be diminished or even done away with too. But he doesn’t dare come out flat with the claim that capitalism ought to be cut back, still less got rid of, on poverty relief grounds, because that would be too daft. He doesn’t even think this, because he does have more than a trace of intellectual efficacy and moral sanity in that befuddled head of his. Nevertheless he allows the implication to float in the air, because he wants it to be true, or seems to. Not admirable. He ends his piece thus:
But we mustn’t forget that the root cause of many such tragedies is that poor people need to risk themselves in order that they and those they love may live. Unless they cease to be poor, and cease to face such unpalatable choices, such events will happen again and again.
There is as much truth in that bit of writing as in any where the words “root” and “cause” are to be found next to each other and in that order, but so what? Why blame “capitalism” for that? This is like blaming oxygen for forest fires.
And if poor people are to cease to be poor, what they need is more capitalism, different bits of capitalism to choose between, not less of it. If those wretched cockle pickers had had more and consequently better choices, they might not have chosen the risk of drowning for the sake of £1 a day. And … oh, but I’ve said all this, argued all that. If you want to read more denunciations of Bertram, as I say, read the comments, of which this one from Steve Carr (any relation I wonder?) is one of the better ones:
Forgive the naivete of this question, but how is poverty “a consequence of the normal operation of capitalism”? Chris argues that capitalism “creates great poverty,” which in turn presumes that there is a pre-poverty state that capitalism transforms. Where is the evidence for this? Have there ever been any non-capitalist socities in which the vast majority of people were not poor?
It won’t do to answer this question by pointing to the enormous wealth that capitalism generates for those at the top, or invoking the question of exploitation. To say capitalism “creates poverty” means that it makes things worse, in absolute terms, for poor people, who would be better off had capitalism never existed.
Exactly.
I’m also baffled by the assertion that in a non-capitalist society mineworkers would be paid more for their labor than other workers. Certainly one of the defining characteristics of most socialist societies has been relatively equal pay across fields of labor. And pace Ophelia, I have a very hard time believing Cuba or Tanzania ever paid its farmworkers hazard pay.
Capitalism is doing well. There are now people called things like Ophelia arguing for it.
I also don’t understand Chris’ point about Sweden. If “not all capitalisms” are red in tooth and claw, then we can’t say that what happened to the cocklers was a “normal and predictable consequence of capitalism.” It’s what happened under a particular variant of capitalism, and in fact I think it probably has a great deal to do with “coercion and abuse.” It also has to do with the still-desperate condition of rural China, which is in no small part the result of thirty years of complete economic destruction wreaked by Mao’s policies.
And my only objection to that is that Steve Carr tosses the misery of China in almost as an afterthought. Britain is not Sweden (Sweden’s answer to the poverty of the world’s poor being to shut them all out completely, because, I guess, that way, your teeth and your claws get to stay white). Oh and “also”: China is China. If you want a “root cause” of the Morecambe horror, China’s Chinaness seems to me a far better bet than Britain’s alleged insufficiency of Swedenness.
I think we’ll have to be patient. In about ten years Chris will see the light, and do a Paul Johnson on us all, out-rightwinging even me.
It’s only a matter of time.
Attacking the question of poverty in terms of root causes etc itself seems to have a collectivist spin to it. Does one individual have ‘poverty’? An individual is said to live ‘in poverty’ but no one specifically defines what that is other than a bright line (e.g. $13,000) put forth by the collectivists themselves. Poverty itself is a description of a population and therefore instantly you are on the collectivist’s ground.
Libertarians should look at the question in terms of each individual and their ability to ‘progress’. Capitalism certainly has problems as the associations created under it will stultify just as any association will over time. But true capitalism has a built in mechanism that will flush static associations from the system fairly easily, while collectivist models this is not the case. Individuals then are free to move from one association to another, or are forced to move as the association they are a part of disappear, guided by their value judgements, in hopes of increasing their well being. In a collectivist model, there is a central reservoir of ‘value’ and bureaucrats to make value judgements, and the individual disappears.
So, in the end, and at the risk of be too simplistic, all there is are individuals, resources (everything not regarded as a person), value judgements, and force. I have yet to know of any amalgam of these elements that was heavenly, but capitalism is the best of the bunch as it allows a majority of individuals to make their own decisions, and utilize their own values in living their lives, for good or bad (freedom itself is never a guarantee of positive outcomes). I never assert that capitalism will create the best outcome for all, it merely allows for the greatest amount of power for the individual to make choices.
I need to work on this Swedish thing social democrats keep throwing at us, as their last throw of the dice when we’ve thrown Cambodia, North Korea, Cuba, at them. I’ve read the ‘Good Socialism’ chapter of P.J.O’Rourke’s ‘Eat the Rich’, but is there any other good book out there worth purchasing, or web-linked study, which can help me refute the goodness of Swedish socialism, when next this argument comes my way? Or is it, as Mr O’Rourke says, simply a whites-only close-shared-family-values based socialism, on a long slow road to decline, which needs no further thought to debunk it?
What causes Death is Living. The question isn’t why some people in capitalistic areas die in high-risk, low-reward jobs but rather why far fewer die in such jobs under capitalism than in any other real world system.
Bertram unconsciously compares Capitalism not to real world existing or historical systems but to a fantasy socialistic utopia. In his fantasy, nobody is poor or oppressed so he must feels he must explain the “failure” of capitalism.
I posted the following to the board in question will see what the reply will be.
‘Chris,
What those us who disagree with you about your statement that, “such tragedies are a normal and predictable consequence of capitalism,” object to is not that it a formaly untrue statement (though “normal part of” would be more true than “consequence of”) , but that its implications are false. (i.e. that some other social system could have both the shellfish and not the risks)
Now you propose that a minimum state provided income would mean that people would have to be paid more for this job. But that does not follow. In fact a negative income tax or basic income provided by the state would probibly mean lower real wages across the board. This is because the money for such a program is going have to come from somewhere. This mostly likely means from capitalists.
Now capitalists use their capital for three purposes, their own consuption, investment in the means of production, and wages. Now the socialist always seems to assume that the tax money will come from the capitalists consumption, but why should it? If the capitalist has to chose between his limo and havana cigars and maintaining his investment or labor spending at curent levels why would he chose the former instead of the latter, especialy since the increase in taxes makes his capital less secure. Now most likely he will cut back on all three forms of expediture. To the extent that he cuts back on investment and wage payments, the wage earners will be harmed, real wages will fall. This is true as long as capital is privately owned, but by your own admission (if I understand you corectly) the social ownership of the means of production is not a workable system. As long as capital is privatly owned, laissez-faire capitalism is actualy more in wage erners interest than sort of intervension you propose. By the way I have had a large chunk of rock fall from the roof of a mine seconds after I passed under it and am not indiferent to working conditions.”
I admit to being perplexed and depressed by the crap I read and hear in the British media about this story. People living and working illegally in the UK (because conditions are so abysmal in their native land) die because they lacked the sort of local knowledge that might have saved them. Obviously, HM’s Govt MUST be to blame.
As often as I smack my forehead with a brick, the logic of all this still manages to elude me.
Now, the Govt is to share blame with Capitalism itself. It’s a fair cop, I’ve no doubt, but the brick has gone missing and I’m still lost.
But my favorite argument for sheer muddleheadedness is the one (was it in the Guardian? by a backbencher or a private practice bleeding heart?) that maintains, if only the Govt had insisted upon the gang leaders obtaining a LICENSE, none of this would have happened.
I mourn the death of Albion.
Andy, apropos Swedish socialism, would you say a 40 year eugenics program is good enough to show the real evil behind the welfare state? Even the
BBC has some info.
Why does the phrase bass-ackward come to mind immediately?!
Kelli – I’m with you. England’s dead. Nice to see you posting again!
“But one thing that needs saying is that such tragedies are a normal and predictable consequence of capitalism and not simply the result of coercion and abuse by a few criminals.”
No. Excuse me. Not a consequence of capitalism. Tony Blair’s slappers don’t know from capitalism, given that not one of them has ever been involved in the market. Rather, a consequence of un-guarded borders and a determination to dilute the British identity.
Britain could withstand the might of the intelligent, sophisticated and disciplined German war machine for six years (with the help of our allies, but the people taking the pounding and deaths on the ground and having their children evacuated with British) but can’t get its politically Blairy head round 19 illegal immigrants gathering cockles.
Blair is criminally liable. The families in China should sue him under the Human Rights Act, or whatever the latest EU instrument, for the illegal seduction to Britain of their relatives. They’re dead. Blair’s probably preparing a new press release about how one of his ghastly children has lost sleep about dead cocklers.
James A. H. Skillen, Crikey!
Thanks for the info.
There is something deeply distasteful about the way Chris, and others, have responded to this tragedy. All this eager squirming forward to make a vulgar political point which, in the event, could be cut down by a fifth former. Even Norm Geras took the bait, which disappointed me.
One thing about poverty, though. The dead fishermen were taking £6 to £7 per hour, according to the Guardian. That’s not a bad rate of pay for most of England, let alone Morecombe, and is not much less than what I’m in receipt of. Now, at the very least, this would make the story more complicated than Chris B’s childish reaction would indicate.
Ta, Verity.
Upon further reflection, it occurs to me that we’ve all missed the point here. The cockle-picking tragedy stems not from too much capitalism, but not enough of it. What we have here is a variation (no pun intended–this is a sad story) on the tragedy of the commons. In a nod to ancient usage rights, cockles are free to all comers in Morecambe Bay (you just have to know when to leave). Had the cockles belonged to anyBODY, these poor exploited Chinese pickers wouldn’t have been there (or, if they had, they would have been under contract and/or some sort of responsible oversight by an actual stakeholder with something to lose–s/he would thus have been damn sure no one died on their watch).
Hence, the solution: privatize the bay. No more commons, no more tragedies thereof.
Of course I’m joking, but it’s no more inherently assinine than anything I read on rotted timber.
I’m sure if you go across to the ASH website you’ll find that it was all a conspiracy from Big Tobacco.
This guy makes me think of Bertram Scudder.
In any case, here’s a quote by Jean Fourastié (my translation from French):
Until somebody comes up with a better system than capitalism, we’ll stick to it. The South East Asian experience offers more than enough evidence of the folly of socialism in terms of economic policies.
The Wobbly Guy