Re: New rules for the primitive accumulation of capital - reply to Ian

[Jurriaan Bendien <bendien@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Ian,

I think of it in the same way as intellectual property rights, about which I
have written already. IPR required an objective theory of property, and in
fact a true theory of capitalism as we know it. But if there is some facet
or relation of capitalism which you cannot admit in your theory, then this
impairs your concept of property rights so that your application of IPR
becomes problematic. What they cannot admit is that the whole capitalist
system of private appropriation is based on "getting something for nothing",
i.e. formal juridical equality combines with economic unequality in
exchange; juridically transactors have equal status, but in the real world
their bargaining position is structurally unequal. They hope that they will
get sex for nothing, and they hope that for the rest people will notice, and
they will say that according to the contract, employer is entitled to the
full labour-power of the employee, i.e. all potential and observable
behaviours. This shades off into slavery, such that the struggle against
corruption sets the stage for slavery, with the difference that the worker
can choose his exploiter.

The same kind of idea applies to corruption, and therefore, somewhere along
the line you must end up saying that a corrupt practice in some sense is not
a corrupt practice, or at any rate that it is not immoral (i.e. it's honest
exploitation), with reference to a universal ethical principle. The
implementation of the new rules therefore once again effectively requires
enforcing a new morality which "naturalises" the unequal bargaining position
with certain legal norms, and it justifies itself by saying that
anti-corruption rules contain the social framework which provides the
freedom to "equalise" bargaining position with integrity, just as, in
educational theory, equality of opportunity is supposed to provide a
meritocracy. But as to the precise legal ramifications, you better ask
Justin, I am not a legal expert.

Jurriaan