A century and a half ago, Karl Marx observed that, given the inner logic of capitalism, a time would come when absolutely everything was for sale. Was he right?
Man, now you made my brain lock up at 9;40 in the a.m., halfway through my 1st pot of coffee, trying to think what can’t be bought. And remember, we’re not just talking about money.
Technically, “absolutely everything” can’t be for sale.
That obvious point aside, perhaps everything that can be owned and has value would be for sale in a 100% capitalist society (which does not exist on any grand scale).
Question is, would that be bad? Not to get too Rand-ian, but it could mean a fair trade of goods and services, rather than forced labor & the loss of individualism. Of course, it may be as idealistic as Marx’s ideas. Historically, it seems like a population cannot agree on one utopian vision.
Irrelevant quote from ‘The Zero Effect’.
“You can’t really buy someones silence, you can only rent it”.
I think no, and not because of some obscure religious artifact in the Vatican that they would never sell me, or something like that.
I think that somewhere in this world, there is a person - maybe an old lady somewhere in the more rural midwest - who has something which is a reminder of her life (say, her wedding band) and she will not sell that for all the tea in China even though it is only “worth” a buck forty nine.
Yer pal,
Satan
I HAVE BEEN SMOKE-FREE FOR:
Three months, two weeks, three days, 11 hours, 56 minutes and 56 seconds.
4339 cigarettes not smoked, saving $542.49.
Life saved: 2 weeks, 1 day, 1 hour, 35 minutes.
There are some things which cannot be sold, since changing the means of alienation changes the nature of the “good” in question.
You cannot sell your friendship, for example. You could sell a market substitute, companionship, but it is not that good a substitute.
Sometimes the act of selling degrades or destroys what is being transacted. Many would argue that things like prostitution and corporate “loyalty” bonuses fall into this category.
picmr
Everything tangible and of quantifiable value is/can be for sale.
You cannot sell friendship or love or devotion because it’s not a trade-able commodity. You cannot buy/sell the love of a child for his/her parents.
You can sell sex but you cannot buy love.
You can earn loyalty and trust but you cannot purchase it.
An object/commodity (no matter how mundane):
a)must be in demand thus giving it intrinsic value.
b)must have tangeable market valuation.
c)must lend itself to exchange.
Otherwise, even the hope diamond would be entirely worthless if nobody valued it.
…and frankly, Karl Marx was a myopic idiot w.r.t. capitalism. His most grevous error was underestimating capitalism’s ability to change and become more refined/benevolent/co-operative.
Just want to comment on Quicksilver’s statement, “Everything tangible and of quantifiable value is/can be for sale.”
I’m in the middle of reading George Catlin’s journal. He was an artist who went out West during the 1830’s and spent some time with the Indians sketching and painting them. As a collector for a museum he was starting back East, he was fascinated by their clothes, weapons, headgear, jewelry, etc. He was especially fascinated by their “medicine bags”, the little bag of special personal Spirit-things that each man carried on a thong around his neck.
He was rather irritated to find that, everywhere he went, while the Indians would sell him practically anything else he asked for (clothes, weapons, headgear, even magic rattles), nobody, not a single Indian, whether Plains, Pacific Northwest, or Oklahoma reservation Cherokee/Southeast agrarian, would sell him a medicine bag. Oh, sure, they’d open it up and let him see what was inside. But trade it for a blanket, a brass teakettle, even a gun? No way. He found this completely inexplicable.
I think that falls in the same category as the $1.49 ring described earlier. The object in question has more sentimental value than perhaps the value of labour and materials of which it’s comprised.
That would fall under the category of C) Must lend itself to exchange. Obviously, the sentimental/religious/spiritual value of the object in question was outside valuation in terms of money, blankets or guns.
As far as I can tell, anything which can be sold can be bought in Amsterdam.
Phobos said
“Question is, would that be bad? Not to get too Rand-ian, but it could mean a fair trade of goods and services, rather than forced labor & the loss of individualism.”
Fair trade: I don’t think so. The people who have more money get to decide how much something is worth, if their interests conflict with the interests of someone with less money, the true value may not be represented. There are many examples (mostly of the socialist/environmentalist vein), like a stretch of forest is worth a lot of money to a big company but worth perhaps more to the people (and non-people, but that’s an argument for a different thread) who make a living off it but can’t pony up the same amount of cash. Similarly with affordable housing (spare land: for the homeless or developers?), clean air etc. In short, I don’t think it would lead to a fair trade at all.
“Everyone has their price.”
Which is why I said it was an idealistic/unrealistic notion. Again, ideally, the rich person could ask for a high price, but others would have to be willing to pay - - if not, then the price would drop. Supply n’ demand in action.
As to your other examples, it’s still fair in the sense that everyone had a chance to purchase it. But here, “fair” means “just” (in the sense of morally/legally right), not “even”. In a communist society, no individual would have such a chance.
In the capitalist ideal, you work hard to afford the things you want (like a stretch of forest or a house).
From m-w.com (the only dictionary I have handy):
Main Entry: 1fair
Pronunciation: 'far, 'fer
Function: adjective
a: marked by impartiality and honesty : free from self-interest, prejudice, or favoritism <a very fair person to do business with> b (1) : conforming with the established rules : ALLOWED (2) : consonant with merit or importance : DUE <a fair share> c : open to legitimate pursuit, attack, or ridicule <fair game>
Capitalism allows the second defenition, ie providing a set of rules within which all trade will be equally governed. I’m suggesting that this doesn’t comply with defenition (a), since the very rules capitalism gives us don’t allow freedom from self-interest or prejudice, ie the only ‘interest’ that matters is monetary. Thus any exchange is automatically biased in favour of people whose interest is making more money, and so not ‘fair’ according to def. (a).
this is turning into a bit of a semantic debate …
I think Marx meant what he said as a criticism of capitalism, showing how reducing it to its basic tenets would produce an absurd situation. The problem as I see it is that a lot of people don’t see it as all that absurd.
QuickSilver wrote:
[QUOTEYou can earn loyalty and trust but you cannot purchase it.[/QUOTE]
A few years ago, a local Silicon Valley company had a record year. They rewarded their employees with a bonus equal to THREE TIMES their annual salary.
From that point onward, you have not seen such fierce loyalty as that exhibited by this company’s employees.
Money is a means to an end in capitalism. (i.e., money itself is not the goal, although current connotations of the word may suggest otherwise)