Hullo Elliot, Platt, Squonk, others,
I think Elliot has made the key points in what is otherwise just a boring
regurgitation of dogma that doesn't interest me.
In his last paragraph Elliot points out that if we are going to judge
capitalism against socialism we need to understand that we are looking at
the quality of the outcomes from each. If creation of wealth is the only
criterion, capitalism would win. But as Elliot shows, there is more to life
than money. While it is important to have adequate resources, there is
little evidence that continuing to increase resources results in increased
quality for the recipients. Indeed, quite the opposite. The Irish, before
their recent 'Celtic Tiger' boom, were considerably happier, according to
surveys, than their wealthier relatives in countries such as the USA. Having
just been in Ireland, I was surprised by the amount of negative comment in
their newspapers regarding their newly affluent society. This is only an
indicator, I know, but does anyone seriously believe that increasing wealth
automatically increases happiness? (Remember Howard Hughes?)
The wealth created by capitalism is also often at the expense of two groups
that are inclined to be ignored by the bean counters. One is the poor, often
in the third world, who actually produce the goods that the affluent
consume. (Nike comes to mind, but the effects can be more insidious than
just running sweat shops in asia, such as african countries being pressured
to grow export commodities at the expense of food for their own people.) The
other hugely neglected group is our progeny, who will inherit a planet which
has been raped for resources to support our consumer lifestyles. Elliot
mentioned the production of unnecessary and shoddy products, and the poor
quality of life for those who labour soullessly to produce them.
If quality is taken seriously, then a country where intelligent debate about
quality influences what the market produces will have a better quality of
life than one where market forces run rampant. I think Roger perceives this,
though he and I would doubtless disagree as to how much intervention is
helpful. The threefold bottom line is increasingly used even in industry to
assess the less tangible outcomes of a business in terms of social equity
and environmental sustainability, since both these are aspects of quality.
The term 'goods' has become synonymous with products in our society, but
there are moral and social 'goods' that are equally important to the 'good'
life.
Elliot touched on the key issue when he says "The MoQ and mysticism are also
empirical practices which aim at alleviating (transcending) suffering. Any
society based solely on techological imparitives which deny Quality will
promote unfreedom and suffering, the next stage requires something else."
Maslow pointed to the hierarchical nature of our needs. Our needs for air,
water, food and shelter are hugely important, but once they are satisfied a
new level of needs emerges, and the suffering that occurs if they are unmet
is just as real, though of a different type, as the suffering caused by more
basic needs going unmet. (Hence the high suicide and drug abuse rates
amongst doctors, considered one of the elite groups in our society). Indeed
the hierarchy that Maslow identifies can be viewed as similar to Pirsig's
biological, social and intellectual (including artistic) levels, with a
further 'spiritual' level beyond the intellectual.
The other hierarchy that is relevant to assessing quality is the having -
doing - being hierarchy. Capitalism tends to focus on the joys of having.
These are real but limited. Giving people the best chance to do - to use
their abilities and talent in a productive way in society - may require
intervention in the marketplace. Many modern 'socialist' societies take this
very seriously. Indeed, the almost universal involvement of the state in
education, which is a redistribution of resources that can hardly be
explained in purely free enterprise capitalist terms, points to the
influence this value has had in even the most capitalist societies. Sadly,
the value of being is almost ignored in most societies, though it offers, so
I am told, even greater quality of life to those who pursue it. (Bhutan is
often held to be an exception, though I don't know if this is the case.)
So Platt, the problem with your understanding of capitalism is your too
narrow focus on wealth production as a measure of quality. A driven pursuit
of wealth can lead to a very low quality life, as can enforced pursuit of
the basics for survival. American culture tends to equate quality with
'success', narrowly defined, and to the almost total exclusion of 'being' as
a source of our highest values. As an artist you must have the ability to
comprehend this, surely?
John B
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
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 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:02:26 BST