Aditya is Wrong

And here is part two of the ongoing series: Articles From When David Was Actually a Competent Writer.

This posting isn't actually in my Xanga, but a response to somebody’s response to an article I had in it. I know, it's very complicated, but I'm sure you'll be able to handle it. I'm not reproducing the article I wrote, but here's the response that my esteemed colleague, Aditya Dasgupta (Cambridge University) wrote on my Xanga:

Those technical jobs are really just a part of basic production of goods like anything else, except that its kind of a capitalistic streamlined process of being more efficient. So as opposed to everybody performing basic services and producing goods that society depends on, the task is performed by some, and streamlined to be much more efficient by others. Its kind of like an economic production line. That’s why global GDP for example is infinitely higher than say it was back in ancient times when everybody was farming, because of the introduction of technology and specialization.

I'm not saying its the best system, and its somewhat unjust, but all jobs do serve some purpose I think somewhere in a larger scheme of economic production--otherwise they wouldn't exist. Even stock brokers are just making trade between people, between farmers and households just for example, more efficient on the large scale. Yet they don't seem to serve any tangible purpose.

Of course there’s the problem of the unfair reward system for various peoples' jobs, so its not equal. But I do think the system can be fixed without a total system change.

And no I am not being a capitalist tool.....

First of all, I would like to say that Aditya is in fact being a capitalist tool. That being said, he does seem to make some good points. First of all, assuming you could compare the post-industrial global economy to the production of isolated agrarian economies, the global GDP would probably be much (though not infinitely, as Aditya seems to believe) higher now than when it was back in "ancient times". Hell, I might even go so far as to say that the per capita GDP is much higher now than it was "back then". The problem with this clearly capitalist view is that a Ferrari contributes about as much to the GDP as, say, 40,000 loaves of bread. Now, far be it from me to denigrate the contribution of the luxury car industry in making the world a better place, but I think don't think those two commodities should be treated equally.

Aditya also is correct in establishing that in any modern economy (not just capitalist ones) all production is social. Everyone plays a certain part in contributing to the economy. And even if someone may not contribute anything useful or even a tangible object at all, they are still an integral part of the economy. Whether or not this particular method of division of labor, the "capitalistic streamlined process", actually makes production of goods more efficient is debatable. What is clear is that, despite the mainstream capitalist view that "efficiency is the ultimate goal", efficiency doesn't necessarily translate into tangible benefits for society at large. Even assuming this particular system manages to autonomously produce the right stuff, "efficiency" doesn't guarantee that these products will be distributed evenly (or even at all).

The biggest problem in Aditya's little treatise, however, is actually quite a common myth accepted by capitalist apologists. It's contained in the first sentence of his second paragraph, "all jobs do serve some purpose I think somewhere in a larger scheme of economic production--otherwise they wouldn't exist." Aditya seems to accept the bizarre semi-tautology that the existence of a position justifies... its existence. The theory in its more extreme form is that the market left to its own devices will maximize happiness, freedom and equality. However, no rational person with any knowledge of the world would accept that bullshit, so Aditya has adopted the more moderate theory that the organization of the economy is justified by the completely unregulated and unaccountable market, and that the only things that are produced are--if not completely necessary--at least beneficial to the populous at large.

Although I can't successfully refute any of Aditya's points, I feel that explaining the rationale behind his statements is enough to expose the serious flaws in his argument. Interestingly, many of his points don't need to be seriously examined to be shown to be completely false.