From: Wim Nusselder (wim.nusselder@antenna.nl)
Date: Thu Jun 17 2004 - 08:47:29 BST
Dear Platt,
You wrote 10 Jun 2004 09:55:34 -0400:
'Agree ["Economic dependence holds societies together (e.g. maintains the
social patterns of value of international trade that hold together global
society) that would otherwise disintegrate into smaller societies providing
their members less freedom from biological restrictions."]. But I don't
understand where "conversation" comes in. Pirsig's point was that you can't
talk bio-criminals out of being bio-criminals. You deal with them with the
military and police. You've changed the ground by referring to something you
call "biological restrictions" which I take to mean the biological
necessities of human life--food, shelter, clothing. But that's not what
"conversation" in the MOQ is about. Further, it's economic
"interdependence," not "dependence" that holds societies together.
Naturally, a lot of conversation goes on in the marketplace.'
Pirsig used "conversation" as an ironic metaphor: pointing a gun at a
criminal to make him behave is not exactly what I would call "conversation"
either. Pirsig's point was that the only way to induce bio-criminals to go
along with social patterns of value is by force. I would rather about
'people participating in lower quality social patterns of value' insteat of
'bio-criminals' and I agree that convincing them to participate in higher
quality social patterns of value usually doesn't work. Partly because the
(low quality) social patterns of value they participate in are too stable
and versatile (and being social: too slow to change compared to intellectual
patterns of value) and resist change by patterns of value from other levels.
Partly because social patterns of value based on convictions (belonging to
my fourth type of society as described in 'economics of want and greed')
differ too much from theirs (belonging to my first and second types of
society). The most effective way of inducing people to participate in higher
quality social patterns of value is by making them experience only slightly
higher quality ones, ones that don't differ too much from the ones they
already participate in and 'understand'. So, military and police can be the
best way to deal with the social patterns of value of my first type of
society or the lower quality ones that belong to their own (second) type of
society (e.g. Mafia-like criminals, groups of brigands or terrorist
organisations without a political strategy).
With "biological restrictions" I mean the restrictions (from a social level
perspective) imposed by the biological need to provide for food, shelter,
clothing etc. on social activity.
'Dependence' is almost always part of 'interdependence' (mutual dependence).
Theoretically extremely one-sided interdependence can also hold (parts of)
society together (e.g. between children and parents, between slaves and
slave-owners or between people living in slums without public transport and
the few sources of employment at walking distance).
You continued:
'I cannot think of a single society that has tried Marxist theory that
hasn't become totalitarian nor has come anywhere near equalling the standard
of living provided by free market capitalism. I cannot help but wonder why,
in view of history, you and others believe communism can ever fulfill its
ideals. Perhaps you can explain.'
I know of no states that have tried to apply versions of Marxism that
assign a dominant role to the state and haven't become totalitarian or have
improved the standard of living beyond that in the core states of market
capitalism, either. I don't believe communism that assigns a dominant role
to the state can fulfill any ideals beyond doing slightly better than first
type societies and low-quality second type societies.
Marxism and communism can be and have been adapted to reduce the role of the
state, increase the role of market mechanisms and allow for voluntary
associations (civil society) to have a sizable role. The terms 'socialism'
and 'social democracy' have been invented to name such adapted versions.
Given a political system that prevents socialists or social democrats to
stay in power against the wishes of a majority of their subjects, such
governments have never become totalitarian as far as I know. The standard of
living that can be attained by a society depends primarily on its role in
global market capitalism. Societies with socialists or social democrats in
power don't do significantly worse (or better) than societies with another
type of government in a comparable role in global market capitalism as far
as I know. They do seem to have a more positive role in changing that global
system to the better.
With friendly greetings,
Wim
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 - horse@darkstar.uk.net
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 : Thu Jun 17 2004 - 11:32:42 BST