Hi John and Platt
JB:
If creation of wealth is the only criterion, capitalism would win. But as
Elliot shows, there is more to life than money.
ROG:
Right. Free markets are ECONOMIC systems. There had better be a whole lot
more to life than economics. Even within economic systems though, wealth is,
as you have pointed out, not the only criterion of success. The economic
system must link up with the political system, the education system, etc,
etc. Together they must result in a harmonious, sustainable-yet-adaptable,
and creative social pattern.
JB:
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...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.
ROG:
Both points are valid, but let's keep them in perspective. First, the poor in
capitalist nations are invariably better off than the average in
non-capitalist countries. Heck, until recent free-market reforms, 30 years of
Maoism brought about an average per capita income of $1 in China. Second, the
3rd world poor that produce goods for western nations are better off than
those not hired for export production (wages and conditions are superior at
multi-national "sweatshops" than in the local labor market, and turnover is
quite low) Third, your comment about"african countries being pressured to
grow export commodities at the expense of food for their own people" is not
an indictment on free markets. Pressuring people against their will to do
something not in their interest is the antithesis of free enterprise. This is
actually an argument FOR more free markets and for less political influence
or use of force.
Finally, I have to take you to task on the spin you applied to the progeny
issue. Capitalist/democratic nations are clearly superior to any
alternatives when it comes to environmental sustainability (there is an
environmental sustainability index that makes this crystal clear).
Furthermore, they have cleaner environments and protect forests much better
than developing nations (again, data is widely available on this). The worst
pollutors and least sustainable nations have been SOCIALIST and those that
have completely rejected free markets (nor is it true that developing nations
deforest FOR wealthy nations. Most of their deforesting comes for firewood
or clearcutting for inefficient farming techniques (ones with little or no
exportable -- read free enterprise -- value).
Now, it is true that the poor and once-socialist nations (such as India or
China) probably can't ever rise to the standard of living of the West without
stressing the earth's resources. But to blame this on capitalism is absurd.
The problem here is too fricking many people. Poor nations tend to have
substantially higher birth rates (probably due in part to the crappy status
-- read non-free -- of women). The best these nations can hope for is that
capitalist/democratic/scientific nations of the west invent better and more
efficient means of production (and birth control).
It is also true that we need to solve the threat of global warming -- here
much of the stress IS from capitalist nations, but again, the solution isn't
to close down capitalism, it is to harness it to develop cleaner and less
stressful energy sources.
JB:
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.
ROG:
OK. No healthy society should let market forces run rampant. The degree of
planned intervention has proven to be much trickier than once thought though.
Excessive planning has routinely backfired and led to lower efficiency, more
bureaucracy, corruption and influence peddling, shortages, rationing etc.
Influences must be subtle and oriented toward free enterprise's clear
weaknesses.
JB:
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.
ROG:
The range of modern choices varies widely from China and Sweden's mixed
systems to the freer-markets of the US and Taiwan. Each of these can be like
mini-experiments. The future will show which delivers better results on
which parameter.
JB:
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.
ROG:
Personally, I will take free choice on a level playing field over political
influence any day. Furthermore, all the capitalist nations I am familiar have
various retraining programs, affirmative-action development plans,
scholarships, and decentralized corporate development activities. As an
aside, would you like to see a comparison of scientific accomplishments by
economic/political orientation? I think I saw one once and can dig it up.
However, you are again evaluating a social system on one dimension -- its
economic model. Education, environment, the judicial system, some
infrastructure, defense, social welfare, etc are best handled by solutions
that are not strictly economic. You act like this is some kind of
repudiation of capitalism (or of Platt?)
JB:
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?
ROG:
Are you suggesting that artistic expression or scientific thought or
religious awareness or moral sensibilities are lower in the US than
elsewhere? Could you support that with facts please?
Rog
PS -- Strange how we are communicating on the internet -- a predominantly
American (non-economic) creation -- about the moral works of Pirsig -- an
American writer -- with frequent sub-discussions on conscious development by
Wilber -- another American citizen -- and your view is that America has no
recognition of higher values.
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