George Rebane
KVMR news director Paul Emery commenting on ‘Right Wing Extremism in Action: Tea Party Houston’ introduced Riane Eisler’s Caring Economics into the wide-ranging discussion in that post’s comment stream. Paul Emery’s concern there was that Eisler’s ideas are so compelling and, at the same time, revolting to conservatives, that they find it too hot to handle and simply want to change the subject instead of confronting head on its solutions to society’s problems. I personally was accused twice of doing so after answering Paul’s charges (BTW, readers should know that Paul is a friend, the ‘editor’ of my regular KVMR commentary, a student of the human condition, and one of the leading light’s in the local left’s intellectual pantheon. I am grateful that his observations and critiques generously grace RR’s comment streams.)
By any measure, Eisler is a left-wing economist with strong feminist overtones. The above link provides an excellent summary of her Caring Economics. The purpose of this post it to provide a forum for a discussion of Eisler’s ideas for a brave and caring new world. We begin appropriately with Paul’s most recent lament about capitalism –
One of the problems with capitalism as it is heralded by the self described conservatives is that it places no value on the work being done, only on whether it turns a profit. To place a value on the importance of the work being done is an evolution that Ms. Eisler embraces. Doesn't the work of raising intelligent, educated and responsible children have more value than the manufacturing of cigarettes for example? How is the true value of the work we do established? It's a huge question that no one wants to talk about.
So let’s begin by talking about the ‘true value of work’. (I have the honor of being not only a “self-described conservative”, but an ascribed conservative who has enjoyed that appellation from far and wide, bestowed over many years.) Value itself is usually understood to be “the worth of something in terms of the amount of other things for which it can be exchanged or in terms of some medium of exchange.” The ‘other things’ may be person-to-person specific, or person-to-market specific – here it takes to two tango.
‘True value’ of anything is a general concept foreign to most people, except perhaps those contemplating the workings of command economies. Most progressives quickly tend toward command economies when in such discussions they are invited to bare their souls. So in this sense, there exists no ‘true value of work’ that can be applied in the large where people are free to bargain and trade. It has and continues to be a socialist shibboleth.
Now to the value of “the work of raising intelligent, educated and responsible children”. In dollars and cents that value is already expressed precisely by the parents of the child as they invest in his support and education while he remains in their household. From an economic perspective, the kid returns little beyond the hopefully net joy that is provided for by the human relationships involved. And the little darlin’ doesn’t even provide that to the rest of us.
We stand still for transfer payments to benefit another’s child in the hope that the present value of the kid’s future economic contributions will somehow make worthwhile today’s expenditures. As a taxpayer, I don’t need to pay for the parents’ marginal labor in bringing up their kid. If they have wealth generating jobs, they already charge enough for their labor there to account for such ‘home expenses’. The last thing that we need is an armed and uniformed marshal at my door to collect the marginal tax for paying some mother to raise her kids. To an extent, I think we already have a foot in such a world.
Eisler’s new brand of command socialism would have us succumb to exactly such government assignations of the ‘true value of working mothers’ to be an added cost borne by the (all together now) ‘rich’.
Let me conclude this post by bringing forward the relevant comment thread from ‘Right Wing Extremism …’ to Paul’s above opening salvo. Notice that Paul will introduce a new idea, “true capitalism”, in his response below. This is another notion inaccessible to most of us.
" Doesn't the work of raising intelligent, educated and responsible children have more value than the manufacturing of cigarettes for example."…
It depends on how much they're worth on the open market.
If you view children as a capital investment and, if anything, the human race is entirely too good at producing them, raising good ones would have the same effect as any other infrastructure. There's an upfront cost followed by a payoff over time, and cultures who are bad at it will be overtaken by those that aren't, everything else being equal.
Going forward, I suspect that the value of your average person will drop over time. In a country made of up 'consumers' rather than 'citizens' (tip o' the hat to James Howard Kunstler), perhaps the average person's main job will be to behave themselves, watch the 3d telescreen, and eat their soy loaf with as little fuss as possible. In US society, it certainly looks like increased efficiencies in work combined with the increased size of a welfare state produces that result.
The basic problem of providing a minimum standard of living really is an interesting sort of conundrum. If one is supplied, how do you avoid sapping the energy from most of the people receiving it? There'll always be a group who through disability or otherwise, simply can't do their part of course.
The few times and places that have made an attempt seem to substitute the tyranny of having to make your own way with either religion (Mormons perhaps) or the peer pressure that goes along with homogeneity (Sweden). That being said, the US is a big place. There's really little to stop someone from starting their own exercise in utopia (Thorntonville?), where the rubber hits the road is when that utopia is imposed on others.
Posted by: wmartin | 31 May 2011 at 02:51 PM
Paul, I have brought up a similar issue countless times. I believe that our experiences help create our values (as individuals and as a nation). Our values drive our decisions/actions. Experiences (education) is paramount. Check this out: http://www.johnadamsacademy.com/
Your logic concerning "one of the problems with capitalism… it places no value on the work being done" doesn't make sense.
By definition any product/service must provide value or it would be worthless. How could a biz be profitable without providing good/service of value? Or said another way, how could a biz be profitable via providing a worthless good/service?
(excluding tax payer funded entities)
Posted by: Mikey McD | 31 May 2011 at 02:59 PM
Mikey, wmartin
What you say is true but it only has to do with Marketplace capitalism. True capitalism would place a value on work that is being done that currently has no compensation. As more and more jobs disappear because of automation and exportation of manufacturing we need to look at new and expansive definitions of the true value of work and labor and just compensation for that work.
This is just an example: an executive in a tobacco company makes a product that kills people and may have a salary of millions but a mother of two children, which is a full time job for at least 20 years receives no compensation for her work in raising the next generation of productive citizens.
Posted by: Paul Emery | 31 May 2011 at 03:21 PM
"This is just an example: an executive in a tobacco company makes a product that kills people and may have a salary of millions but a mother of two children, which is a full time job for at least 20 years receives no compensation for her work in raising the next generation of productive citizens."
Sorry, but when I was a widowed father of one son, I never thought I was raising a son 'for no compensation', nor have I ever desired to have my taxes be paid to someone else to raise their child.
If they're raising their children to be productive and honorable citizens that should be compensation enough. If it isn't, I'd suggest she should have found a different line of work.
While I might not like tobacco, pictures of tobacco farmers remain on several denominations of our currency, and it remains a legal product. Addicts might have a love/hate relationship with the leaf, but no one forced them to start the habit and if they need help to quit, there is help available. However, we shouldn't be so quick… cigarette addicts tend to die young and have fewer lifetime medical bills and Social Security payouts. They're doing us a service.
Posted by: Greg Goodknight | 31 May 2011 at 04:05 PM
Please continue the discussion of Caring Economics in the comment stream of this post.
rebanesruminations.com 
Leave a comment