Reply+to+Blackmur+letter+in+Business+Day

From: Dominic Tweedie, 36 Byron Road, Lombardy East, 2090. Tlephone 011 882 0752

 * Dear Editor,**

Doug Blackmur's pain and bafflement are obvious in his response to Neva Makgetla (A fuzzy case for state meddling, Business Day Letters, September 13), but Makgetla was right to counterpose industrialisation against redistribution.

The ancient Greek meaning of "economy" is "the arrangements". We all agree that arrangements must be made for the poor. Therefore it is absurd to suggest, as Blackmur does, that a policy of putting people to work is "meddling", while a policy of redistribution of wealth is not.

Karl Marx pointed out that the ancient Roman proletariat (sustained with bread and circuses) was idle, while the modern working class is the source of all our wealth. Doug Blackmur seems to want to have it both ways. He wants one proletariat to be supported by redistribution, and another one regulated by incomes policy. In other words he wants not just one, but two simultaneous kinds of state meddling.

His concern is not for an economy as such but for capitalism in particular, and he would be happy for the state to meddle, but only if it meddles in the interest of capital.

Professors and supporters of capitalism pay lip service to the goal of full employment. Yet capitalism has failed to arrange everybody in productive work in this or any other country. Capitalism's partisans should not be so scared of other people's points of view on the subject. Makgetla's concern for the jobless is at least as genuine as theirs, and is not "camouflage", as Blackmur calls it.

The socialisation of the whole population in productive activity is a moral goal as well as a practical one. The doctrinaire capitalists among us are unfortunately shy to discuss this question in depth. They should be prodded and urged to do so, because expansion of employment will be just as good for capitalism as it is for everybody else.

Yours,


 * Dominic Tweedie.**



Business Day, Johannesburg, Letters, 15 September 2005
=Source of wealth=

Doug Blackmur’s pain and bafflement are obvious in his letter in response to Neva Makgetla, A fuzzy case for state meddling (September 13), but Makgetla was right to counterpose industrialisation against redistribution.

The ancient Greek meaning of “economy” is “the arrangements”. We agree that arrangements must be made for the poor. Therefore it is absurd to suggest, as Blackmur does, that a policy of putting people to work is “meddling”, while a policy of redistribution of wealth is not.

Karl Marx pointed out that the Roman proletariat was idle, while the modern working class is the source of all our wealth. Blackmur seems to want to have it both ways. He wants one proletariat to be supported by redistribution, and another regulated by incomes policy. He wants two simultaneous kinds of state meddling.

His concern is not for an economy as such but for capitalism in particular, and he would be happy for the state to meddle, but only if it meddles in the interest of capital.

Professors and supporters of capitalism pay lip service to the goal of employment. Yet capitalism has failed to arrange everybody in productive work. Capitalism’s partisans should not be so scared of other people’s views. Makgetla’s concern for the jobless is at least as genuine as theirs, and is not “camouflage”, as Blackmur calls it.

The socialisation of the whole population in productive activity is a moral and practical goal. Doctrinaire capitalists are shy to discuss this question in depth. They should be prodded and urged to do so, because expansion of employment will be just as good for capitalism as it is for everybody else.

Lombardy East
 * Dominic Tweedie