Number 96 : April 1999 |
Response to Paul Cadman, Commensal 95
Paul starts with the problem of apathy, traces its cause to money and capitalism, and suggests an alternative economic system. There is apathy particularly towards work, which is surprising because under our system work is supposed to reward the person doing it. Paul suggests that this is because we work for money, but money is unreal, "empty", so we are pursuing an empty goal, which makes us feel empty and apathetic. Secondarily, money is addictive and the cause of greed, debt, suffering, wars and rich/poor divides. The proposed alternative is the direct exchange of goods for the motivation of helping others without regard to self-benefit.
I would like to deal with the aspects of money and economic system.
The fundamental question is: do I own my life and work, or not ? If I belong to God, the community or the state then indeed I could be required to do as much work as I am capable of and make the product available to others, expecting nothing in return. If my life and energy are mine, then I can dispose of them as I choose - I can determine how many loaves of bread it is worth me to plough the field. Paul uses the term "compelled" when describing capitalism, when in fact it is the system based on mutual agreement. I am not forced to work, and no-one is forced to feed me (in pure capitalism rather than the mixed economy we have). If I make an agreement to do so much work for so much money, I am entitled to that money - I have earned it by my own effort and it is mine. I then make further agreements to buy goods and services with what I have earned. No-one is forced to supply them because I "need" them; I have no right to take them because the current possessor has plenty. I support and enjoy my own life by my own effort.
Money is thus the means of exchange between my work and others’. It is a common medium avoiding the problems of bartering for all the different goods that I want. My wages are determined by my employer’s demand for my ability. Money can be stored up - it is a means of my work and effort remaining mine. Money can also be leant at interest - I can promise future products of my work in exchange for another’s present products. Money therefore supports the notion of an individual’s life being his/her own, and differences in wages and savings are due to individuals’ different abilities and choices.
If a person is apathetic towards their work, it means they are not doing the work they love and do not respect the contract they made, when they agreed to work a certain amount for a certain reward. Whether an agreement should be kept is a separate issue from whether the agreement concerned money or goods. Of course a person may feel apathetic even while believing in an agreement, but then it is a moral decision whether to act on the feeling or the conviction (which in fact will change the feeling). I sympathise with Paul’s arguments on standardisation and the lack of feel for the individual. Perhaps these arise when all thought is of "getting a job" and "earning money" as such, and pursuing those goods urged on us by advertisers, rather than doing the work we love to support our life and pursue goals we have set for ourselves.
I do not think money causes greed and division - it merely puts a figure on them. If "greed" means the want for more, what is wrong with that? Why should I not use my own effort to support and enjoy my own life ? If "greed" means acting on this want by theft or murder, it is a system of property rights which protects your work against my use of force. Armed forces can (and surely have) covet and steal a farmer’s newly harvested crop, or steal others’ labour by enslaving them, without the use of money.
Motivation does not have to be self-benefit; there are people who act out of love or belief in the unity of humankind. Creating a system based on this will not, however, instil these other motives in those who do not have them. In my experience (though not in others’), a community based on the principle of doing what you can and having what you need engenders feelings of being both slave (working for the community without regard to self-benefit) and beggar (asking for the means of one’s livelihood from the community). There will always be "government", administrators, who will tend to support their pet projects rather than the good of the individuals in the community. That kind of system penalises those who care most about doing what is right with respect to the life and work of others. A morality which penalises its observers for observing it is destructive of the person and the principle of morality.
Paul asks whether money is the best motive to make "the public" work hard. Should people be made to work hard ? Who is "the public" ? Everyone except the philosophers ?
Ayn Rand attempts to give a rational, ethical basis for self-interest and capitalism. It was in her work that I found the concepts to express my intuition that we are all human beings together and no-one has the right to the effort of others. The best discussions of money and working for love of others are in her novel Atlas Shrugged (extracts in For the New Intellectual).
I hope to see further discussion on this topic. I cannot rationally justify forcibly taking a person’s legitimate earnings for use by others, but feel uneasy about closing the NHS, stopping state support for education or scrapping child benefit.
I would like to thank Albert Dean for his advice in C94, "publish and be damned... some will like it, some will not".
Nigel Perks
Nigel : an excellent exposition of a reasonable view ! Not that you need me to tell you that !
Theo