From: Sam Norton (elizaphanian@kohath.wanadoo.co.uk)
Date: Wed Jan 26 2005 - 12:24:16 GMT
This didn't get through the first time, so I'm having another go, with some
more severe cutting!
Hi Mark,
Good to be back. Just to support your 'filament' point, I think that there's
been a latch between us on this Chomsky stuff (which I don't think you fully
picked up on), but I wanted to affirm your comment that "Quality is served".
Quite so.
msh asks:
Just curious, are you someone who DOES like state power in general?
And do you recognize that his criticism of state power applies as
well to the UK?
Sam:
I was the someone I was referring to, not Chomsky. So no, and yes to the
second question. The interesting point to explore (for me) is less about the
specifics of, eg, floating bombs into civilian harbours, than what is it
about the structure of the state that makes them 'overlords' rather than
servants. Have you read Philip Bobbit's book 'The Shield of Achilles'? I
think that's quite an important perspective, ie that the state has gotten
away with being an overlord because it has implicitly kept to a contract
saying 'we can protect you'. For lots of reasons the modern state can't
actually do that any more, so the contract is breaking down.
sam:
4. I think that he is significantly wrong about capitalism. In
particular I think his analysis is a) incoherent and naïve and b)
parochial to the US.
msh asks:
Funny, incoherent and naïve are not words I would normally associate
with Chomsky. But let's put that aside. Your a and b comments are
confusing. Is his analysis of capitalism incoherent and naïve as it
applies to capitalism in the US? Or is it correct as it applies
parochially to the US, but somehow incoherent and naïve as it applies
to the rest of the world?
Sam:
He he :o). Hoist on my own petard. Let me clarify. I think that his
criticism of capitalism is partial. By that I mean that - at least as far as
the rhetoric in UP goes - he was lumping businessmen into a class which can
best be described as 'short term capitalist', ie those which want to focus
primarily on raising the value of the shares/ increasing the year on year
profits, and everything else goes hang. Now such businessmen definitely
exist - in great numbers - and there's lots of ideological material
explaining why they do this, often referring to Adam Smith in ways that NC
quite rightly takes apart.
My point is that it is wrong to generalise from the existence of this type
of business person (let's call them 'uber-capitalists') to the nature of
business or capitalism more generally. In other words, there are lots of
different ways in which to conduct a business, and the existence of
uber-capitalists is not an inevitable consequence of capitalism per se (that
assertion would be the most interesting one to spend time on I think).
So my point about the different cultures, especially Euro/East Asia was to
make what I thought was the uncontroversial observation that the way in
which capitalism is conducted there is significantly different to the
uber-capitalist model. So in Germany there is legislation mandating union
representation on the boards of companies. And the role of the banks is
different there. More interestingly, so far as I understand it, the East
Asian strategy has been to concentrate on building up market share rather
than profit. (Microsoft has done the same).
And there are lots of ways we can talk about businesses being set up around
different priorities, eg where companies are owned by the staff, or where
the business is set up for specific ethical goals (Body Shop for example). I
just think there are vast areas of difference where Chomsky sees, or seems
to see, a uniform picture.
Now in all these different contexts we can have a good discussion about the
way in which power is still sought (and Chomsky is good on the way in which
the State subsidises these companies, and I especially liked his point that
Japan is simply more efficient at this than the US; one of the reasons why
US hegemony is temporary). I just wanted to say that the analysis offered in
UP was too broad brush to be convincing (for me). There are ways in which
his analysis can be rendered in finer detail, which I'm sure he'd welcome, I
just don't think he did it - or indicated a background of it - in UP.
<snip>
msh says:
Why not? Five years is not long term. Chomsky's idea of concern
for the long-term is is concern for what kind of world you leave your
kids, and their kids. I don't see how these two brief passages show
his analysis as incoherent or naïve.
Sam:
The incoherence was in claiming a one-year timeframe, and then pointing to a
longer than one-year timeframe. Whereas the East Asian models do precisely
seem to be done on a generational scale. The naivete point I've covered
above.
<snip>
msh says:
The point is, capitalists are rapacious. I guess I will need more
direct quotes to evaluate your position.
Sam:
Are capitalists rapacious by definition? Or is it that most capitalists, in
your view, happen to be rapacious (because that's the nature of the game
they're playing)?
msh says:
This particular book, UP, is not meant to provide a complete analysis
of business processes, except insofar as business decisions assist in
the maintenance and expansion of entrenched power.
Sam:
Fair enough. I'm interested to know if he has done something focussing on
capitalism as such (as opposed to state power). I'd be particularly
interested if he's ever given feedback on De Soto's book.
msh says:
Well, let's avoid the jargon. In fact, let's not even try to analyze
the flavors of Capitalism. Let's drop that label from our
discussion. Let's see if we can come to some agreement about whether
or not some existing profit-driven socio-economic system offers the
highest quality way of organizing an economy. Name the country you
most admire in this regard, and I'll analyze the comparative
economic conditions of the people who live in that country, and we'll
see if we can arrive at some agreement about "what is good and what
is not good" about that economic system.
Sam:
Do you mean highest quality as a comparative point amongst presently
existing arrangements? Or highest quality as compared to a hypothetically
realisable model (and by that I don't mean UNrealisable)? Why don't we look
at a handful for comparison purposes: say US, UK, Holland (Wim could
doubtless offer expertise to assist), South Korea, and maybe Botswana for a
real compare and contrast (Botswana being a comparatively well-governed
African country). This may take a little while to get going.... That'll
handle the former bit. We could probably tackle the latter afterwards.
msh says:
Most people are given little or no choice at all. <snip> Are you seriously
suggesting that we live in a world where everyone has a full range of
options regarding what they do in order to survive? That nothing is
brutally forced upon them? Say it ain't so, Sam.
Sam:
I think you've missed my point. I wouldn't at all want to minimise the way
in which we in the West have been grossly favoured by circumstance, nor that
it is the highest priority to change that disproportion - hence I'm quite
excited by the 'Make Poverty History' programme. Something to be hopeful
about.
My point was about the way in which the actions of those who support the
present western system is portrayed as the result of false consciousness (ie
brainwashed slaves to the system) rather than being represented as (at least
sometimes) the consequence of reasoned and informed deliberation. I don't
want to deny the role of systematic socialising and conditioning, I just
want to point out that a lot of left-wing language begs the question and
*presumes* a superior moral perspective (hence 'the vision of the
anointed' - have you read Thomas Sowell's book of that name? I doubt you'd
agree with any of it, but I found the typology he develops quite useful). I
think that the moral superiority of a left-wing perspective needs to be
argued for, not just asserted or implied, and the existence - even if only
as a hypothesis, for the sake of argument - of a morally based non-left wing
position needs to be accepted. Otherwise the mutual respect necessary for
civilised debate gets lost, and we end up in a rather sterile 'holier than
thou' sort of conflict, whereby disagreement is understood as grounded in
different levels of selfishness rather than different perspectives on the
world. I really don't think that would serve Quality.
msh says:
It's the idea that there is ONE indispensable leader that is
simplistic, and is anathema to any anarchist. <snip
People can have a vision without a hierarchy of power. See above.
Sam:
If we accept the existence of socialising and conditioning which preserves
the power of the state, then there is surely an ESSENTIAL role for something
(or someone) which "names the powers" and articulates an alternative point
of view, ie "it doesn't have to be like this". The fundamental underpinning
for state power - surely you'd agree - is the denial of an alternative.
(This, by the way, is the fundamental historical role of the prophets in the
Old Testament - see Brueggemann's "The Prophetic Imagination" - and one of
the things I consider most central to Christianity). Second, the person who
articulates a perspective doesn't have to be in a position of authority or
leadership; indeed, often the message can be made all the more compelling
when it is apparent that it isn't being put across as part of a bid for
explicit power. What I think Chomsky minimises is the need for a different
vision, and when I was talking of the need for a leader, that's what I had
in mind, not something about explicit control or a hierarchy of power. I
still think he's missed something important there.
sam:
7. Finally, he is admittedly focussed on the US, and to the extent
that "the great majority of state sponsored terrorism" is conducted
by the USG that's fair enough. But it reinforces the parochial point
I made above - I'm not sure how far his wider analysis and social
perspective is translatable across the oceans.
msh says:
It translates quite nicely eastward across the North Atlantic, thank
you very much. The US is currently the top dog when it comes to
state-sponsored terrorism, but this is an accident of wealth and
history. No powerful state, including the UK, is innocent in this
regard.
Sam:
I agree with what you say, but I don't think it meets my points. He is -
self-confessedly - someone who focusses on the US. I would like to explore
issues at the next level of abstraction, ie how far is the USG's present
activity (for example) rooted in factors which are common to the nature of
nation-state governance, and how far are they rooted in specific social
factors that are unique to the US (eg constitutional beliefs, history of
colonisation internally, rhetoric of 'open land' etc etc)? I think Chomsky
runs the two together, and that's a weakness - at least in the presentation
in UP. To get concrete about it, I think we'd agree that the Chinese state
government is concerned to maintain and extend its own power (and the
dynamics of that would be worth exploring). But how far is that search for
the maintenance of power analagous to the US state, and how far do
historical factors (eg respect for ancestors rather than a 'cult of youth')
play out? That's what I think would be interesting, and what this thread is
about?
Cheers
Sam
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries -
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jan 26 2005 - 13:22:57 GMT