[MD] Speaking of intellectuals

[Ant McWatt]

Ant McWatt commented April 23rd:

>It was strange to see recently that Platt not only put forward George
>Orwell as one of his intellectual heroes but to also agree with the
>great socialist writer, Robert Tressell, that “those who work have a
>right to own what they work to produce.”

Platt Holden stated April 24th:

“Ant, you left out the following sentence. ‘Your work is compensated by
its value to others in a free market where goods and services are
exchanged through the medium of money rather than through a restrictive
and awkward barter system.’”

Ant comments:

Platt,

No, the sentence was quoted at the top of my post and is actually the whole 
focus of the Tressell piece which shows that for capitalists to make profit 
(rather than, for instance, just take a salary for their risk in setting-up 
a business etc) they _must_ take more than an equal share of the value of 
the worker’s production.  Moreover, as capitalist companies become more 
competitive, they are forced to take an increasing value share of their 
workers production hence Western corporations such as Nike and British banks 
now shifting to using Chinese sweatshops and Indian call centres (where 
labour costs are minimal).  In the long term, such policies aren’t going to 
improve the quality of life for anyone (either socially and especially not 
intellectually or aesthetically).

With due respect to yourself Platt (as an armchair philosopher/artist), the 
only person I know of who seriously applied the MOQ in the real “economic” 
world (from advising the oil giant BP downwards) was Dr Robert Harris.  Now, 
if you read his articles about the MOQ in an economic context, the optimal 
free market economy is not capitalism but a free market composed of 
privately-owned co-operatives.  Harris (‘The Evolution of Work & Sustainable 
Business Models’, an article for “The Futurist”, Paradigm Research 
International, Reston, Virginia. 1997, p.1) notes that such companies 
operate longer, provide a less alienating working environment and are more 
Dynamic (because they generate real teamwork, genuine loyalty, trust and 
therefore the increased sharing of information and new ideas from _all_ 
levels of a company).

Moreover, Harris provides evidence (in his papers) that privately-owned 
co-operatives are as successful financially, if not more so, than companies 
retaining the traditional capitalist structure.  Harris quietly encourages 
shareholders and directors to share significant control and equity of 
companies with their workers (for the benefit of _everyone’s_ long term 
interests) and I wish him well in this pursuit.

Platt stated April 24th:

“As for the excerpt from Tressell’s novel, he conveniently left out the
risk taken by the capitalist and the investors in the enterprise, not
to mention the sudden magical appearance of "all the machinery of
production," as if the "factories, tools and railroads" suddenly
dropped from the sky.”

Ant comments:

There’s no reason that if someone sets-up a co-operative that they shouldn’t 
take a larger percentage of the profits due to their initial risk-taking, 
investment and/or initiative.  That seems fair enough to me.  However, it is 
the idea of static salaries which must go (to be replaced by a Dynamic 
system of profit sharing for every worker) so how a corporation or company 
fares makes a real difference to all workers.

In other words, it’s all about generating genuine interest and commitment in 
a team framework where everyone is pulling in the same direction.  For 
instance, a co-operative dispenses with the typical two factions found in 
both capitalist and nationalised companies which are often vehemently 
opposed to each other i.e. the owners/government and the trade unions.  I 
can’t imagine the intellectual and financial waste that this dualism alone 
causes in the typical corporation but it must be considerable.  (And, no the 
answer is not just dispensing with trade unions as they protect the 
standards of living for the majority of people working in capitalist 
economies).

Platt asked April 24th:

“What’s the current rate of growth in socialist Europe vs. capitalist 
America?”

Ant comments:

Socialist Europe???  Where’s that?  Is that a small island off Sweden 
somewhere?  :-)

Platt then noted April 24th:

“About half if I’m not mistaken, due no doubt to ‘But what the socialists 
left out and what has all but killed their whole undertaking is an absence 
of a concept of indefinite Dynamic Quality.’ (Lila, 17) -- among other 
things.”

Ant comments:

That might be so (at least regarding Soviet Communism) but also *don’t 
forget* that the MOQ considers capitalism as a social level pattern and, in 
consequence, secondary to the more Dynamic intellectual values such as 
beauty, justice and freedom:

“In the MOQ making money is a social activity that should not dominate the 
higher intellectual goal of truth, or interfere with perception and pursuit 
of Dynamic Quality.”  (Robert Pirsig.  E-mail to Anthony McWatt dated June 
16th 2002.)

The MOQ (as a philosophy that recognises social structures as being composed 
of value patterns and, therefore, being as real as anything material) can be 
employed to challenge the alienating assumptions of capitalism (rather than 
just accept it uncritically as you do!) and, moreover, leads to solutions 
that point away from SOM solutions such as Soviet Communism (which was, in 
effect, just a very large capitalist corporation where an elite got the 
major benefits of economic production and the working majority received 
bugger all other than learning how to queue for bagel and climb fences).

Best wishes,

Anthony


www.robertpirsig.org


THE GREAT MONEY TRICK - edited (in dollars)

Owen proceeded to cut up one of the slices of bread into a number of
little square blocks.

‘These represent the things which are produced by labour, aided by
machinery, from the raw materials.  We will suppose that three of
these blocks of bread represent - a week’s work.  We will suppose that a 
week’s
work is worth $1000: and we will suppose that each of these cent coins is
also worth a $1000.

‘Now this is the way the trick works -’

Owen now addressed himself to the working classes as represented by
Philpot, Harlow and Easton.

‘You say that you are all in need of employment, and as I am the
kind-hearted capitalist class I am going to invest all my money in
various industries, so as to give you Plenty of Work.  I shall pay
each of you a coin [$1000 per week], and a week’s work is that you
must each produce three of these square blocks.  For doing this work you 
will
each receive your wages; the money will be your own, to do as you like
with, and the things you produce will of course be mine, to do as I
like with.  You will each take one of these machines and as soon as
you have done a week’s work, you shall have your money.’

The Working Classes accordingly set to work, and the Capitalist class
sat down and watched them.  As soon as they had finished, they passed
the nine little blocks [now worth $9000] to Owen, who placed them on a
piece of paper by his side and paid the workers their wages.

‘These blocks represent the necessaries of life.  You can’t live
without some of these things, but as they belong to me, you will have
to buy them from me: my price for these blocks is - $1000 each.’

As the working classes were in need of the necessaries of life and as
they could not eat, drink or wear the useless money, they were
compelled to agree to the kind Capitalist’s terms.  They each bought
back with a coin [worth $1000] and at once consumed one-third of
the produce of their labour.  [i.e. one block of bread]

The capitalist class also devoured two of the square blocks, and so
the net result of the week’s work was that the kind capitalist had
consumed $2000 worth of the things produced by the labour of the
others, and reckoning the squares at their market value of $1000
each, he had more than doubled his capital, for he still possessed three 
coins
($3000 in money) and in addition $4000 worth of goods [four square blocks].
As for the working classes, Philpot, Harlow and Easton, having each
consumed the $1000 worth of necessaries they had bought with their
wages of one coin, they were again in precisely the same condition as when 
they
started work - they had nothing [i.e. no square blocks].

This process was repeated several times: for each week’s work the
producers were paid their wages.  They kept on working and spending
all their earnings.  The kind-hearted capitalist consumed twice as
much as any one of them [two blocks] but his pile of wealth continually 
increased.
In a little while - reckoning the little squares at their market value
of $1000 each - he was worth about $10,000 and the
working classes were still in the same condition as when they began,
and were still tearing into their work as if their lives depended upon it.

After a while the rest of the crowd began to laugh, and their
merriment increased when the kind-hearted capitalist, just after
having sold a $1000 worth of necessaries to each of his workers,
suddenly took their tools - the Machinery of Production - the knives
away from them, and informed them that as owing to Over Production all
his store-houses were glutted with the necessaries of life, he had
decided to close down the works.

‘Well, and wot the bloody ‘ell are we to do now?’ demanded Philpot.

‘That’s not my business,’ replied the kind-hearted capitalist.  ‘I’ve
paid you your wages, and provided you with Plenty of Work for a long
time past.  I have no more work for you to do at present.  Come round
again in a few months’ time and I’ll see what I can do for you.’

‘But what about the necessaries of life?’ demanded Harlow.  ‘We must
have something to eat.’

‘Of course you must,’ replied the capitalist, affably; ‘and I shall be
very pleased to sell you some.’

‘But we ain’t got no bloody money!’

‘Well, you can’t expect me to give you my goods for nothing!  You
didn’t work for me for nothing, you know.  I paid you for your work
and you should have saved something: you should have been thrifty like
me.  Look how I have got on by being thrifty!’


Selection from Chapter 21, “The Ragged Trousered Philanthropist”, 1906,
by Robert Tressell.

(full text available on-line at: http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/3608)



.

_________________________________________________________________
Are you using the latest version of MSN Messenger? Download MSN Messenger 
7.5 today! http://join.msn.com/messenger/overview