Dear Wim:
> You asked me 24/10 14:36 -0400 to prove my statement "that the
> 'free enterprise global economics' is a
> system of ideas developed on behalf of the privileged to
> legitimize their (my and your) privileges".
>
> You will agree that 'free enterprise global economics' is a
> system of ideas. Its core is neo-classical economics as first
> developed at the end of the 19th century by economists like
> Menger, Walras, von Böhm-Bawerk, Jevons, Walras, Marshall and
> Pareto. The neo-classical paradigm deviated from the classical
> paradigm in economics (founded by Adam Smith in 1776 with "An
> inquiry into the nature and causes of the wealth of nations")
> by (among other things) founding the value of goods and services
> not objectively (in costs made by the producers) but subjectively
> (in preferences of the consumers). (Labeling this as "objective"
> and "subjective" is not my idea. They did so themselves.) Some of
> these early neo-classical writers explicitly stated their intent
> to weaken Marxist argumentation, which was firmly rooted in the
> classical paradigm. Stated purposes are not very relevant,
> however, in my opinion. People have hidden agenda's and ideas
> that are created for scientific reasons can be used and further
> developed with other purposes.
Yes, I agree that free enterprise eonomics (global and/or national) is a
system of ideas. To your list of economists I would add Ludwig Von
Mises and F.A. Hayek. Of course there are many more "authorities"
who have written about the virtues of free enterprise, including our
friend Pirsig. (-:
> Which leaves the task to prove that this system of ideas can be
> and is used to legitimize (for instance) my and Rog's privileges.
> For this proof I only need Rog's e-mails:
> Rog wrote 23/9 12:36 -0400:
> "I agree that gross imbalances can foster very unhealthy power
> imbalances that can lead to exploitation. ... I don't think the
> problem is success, it is failure. My goal ... is to export
> recipes for others to create similar wealth, freedom, health etc.
> ... wealth, health, technology and knowledge are not (primarily)
> re-apportioned, they are CREATED. The solution to imbalance is to
> show others how to create it. If they choose to not follow the
> recipe, ... they better be prepared to live with the results"
> My summary: "Being wealthy is legitimate. The problem is not
> being wealthy and choosing not to follow the example of the
> wealthy."
> Rog wrote 29/9 19:00 -040: "the true value of free enterprise,
> which is that to make money, you basically have to offer your
> self to the service of others. You have to make something or do
> something that others value and will pay you for. Free enterprise
> requires people voluntarily cooperating with each other in ways
> that benefit both parties.
> I work 40 hours because I value the reward more than my time. My
> company pays me because they value my contributions greater than
> the money My company makes products (with my help) that consumers
> value more than the cost they pay for it So on and so on...
> The brilliance of free enterprise is that it uses a distributed
> control process that is extremely dynamic and responsive to local
> conditions and values. Free enterprise does assume people know
> best how to establish values and goals, and it is extremely
> opposed to INTELLECTUALS that purport to know better than
> everyone else what is the correct and incorrect amount of self
> interest."
> Do note Rog's subjectivist reasoning: as long as your wealth
> derives from others valuing and paying for what you make or do,
> it's alright.
> A system of ideas that legitimizes Rog's and my wealth
> legitimizes anyone's wealth. Quod erat demonstrandum.
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it a fallacy to argue that a
person's interest or circumstances have a bearing on the truth or falsity
of a claim being made? My old college textbook calls that a
Circumstantial Ad Hominem argument, and the example given is: "Bill
claims that tax breaks for corporations increases development. Of
course, Bill is the CEO of a corporation." So the fact that you and I and
Rog are wealthy (we wish) is irrelevant to issue of whether the free
enterprise system works to improve the lives of human beings. Further,
to support your view, the economists mentioned above should have
been wealthy, greedy, rapacious capitalist businessmen. From what I
can gather from their biographies on the Internet, they were rather
poorly paid academics.
> Please don't accept my views just on my authority until you have
> broadened your range of experience by stepping in the shoes of an
> Indian debt-slave or an illegal immigrant in the U.S.A. who is
> forced on pain of exposure to work long hours in abominable
> circumstances for a low wage or a woman traded into prostitution.
> I suggested some second-rate short-cuts to Rog (the film
> "Powaqqatsi") and Sam (history from the viewpoint of the losers
> like "Bury my heart at wounded knee" by Dee Brown (1970)). I can'
> t guarantee however that they would make you see things as I see
> them.
> In other words you might care to try and see the world from the
> eyes of people whose products and services are NOT valued by
> others and who consequently come to undervalue their very selves,
> lose their self-respect, destroy themselves with alcohol and
> other drugs and/or irrationally cling to any system of ideas that
> promises to restore that self-respect. To them such a system of
> ideas is consistent with their experience, not because it creates
> wealth for them, but because it brings them something which is in
> the end much more fundamental for a human being. Even suicide may
> not seem too much of a sacrifice to attain it for some of them.
> A lot of these people have ages of experience with being unable
> to compete on world markets, being of the wrong ethnic group to
> share in the spoils of an imperial power in whose sphere of
> influence they happened to find themselves and being at the
> receiving end of wars against "terrorists", "uncivilized",
> "infidels" and "barbarians". Can you offer them a real
> alternative to the systems of ideas they cling to or the alcohol
> and other drugs with which they try to forget themselves?
Well, maybe you should broaden your experience by putting yourself in
the shoes of an immigrant who arrived in this country penniless (as
many of those who passed through Ellis Island did) and starting from
nothing built a business and became wealthy thanks to hard work,
some luck, and the opportunities afforded by the free enterprise
system. Even today thousands of immigrants arrive and build
successful lives free of drugs and alcohol, the latest group of "can-do"
people coming from Vietnam. No group has been more persecuted
throughout history than the Jews, yet given the opportunities of
freedom, they have managed to succeed against all odds and become
leaders in almost every worthwhile field. Instead of a politics of "I feel
your pain," I subscribe to a politics of "Ask not what your country can do
for you, ask what you can do for your country." Does this encapsulate a
difference of outlook between us?
> "Emphasis on privilege, exploitation and inequality" (your
> posting of 24/10 14:36 -0400) is not a valid definition of
> Marxism. I guess Sam or Jonathan could provide you with a couple
> of Old Testament quotations fitting this "definition" too. I have
> never encountered it as a definition of Marxism by any-one having
> studied it enough (either as a follower or as an opponent) to be
> able to authoritatively define it. Please either don't accuse me
> of Marxism unless you can show that my ideas fit a more
> authoritative definition or stop using it as term of abuse and
> reply to my arguments. As I am neither a Marxist, nor a
> socialist, nor a communist in my own view, our discussion need
> not revisit the issue of capitalism vs. socialism as discussed
> previously in this mailing list.
As I read your post I was struck by the number of times you used the
terms "exploit" and "exploitation" which reminded me very much of the
Communist Manifesto where the term is also used frequently. Further,
in the Manifesto you'll find numerous references to the "bourgeois" and
"proletarians" i.e., the oppressor and oppressed or in your words,
"privileged" and "underprivileged." Finally, "inequality" is the driving
force behind the Manifesto. So my suspicions were aroused. For a
valid "authority" on the definition of Marxism, I turned to the Random
House Dictionary:
"Marxism: The doctrine that throughout history the state has been a
device for the EXPLOITATION of the masses by a dominant class
(PRIVILEGED), that class struggle (INEQUALITY) has been the main
agency of historical change, and that the capitalist system, containing
from the first the seeds of its own decay, will inevitably, after a period of
the dictatorship of the proletariat, be superceded by a socialist order
and a classless society." (Caps added showing where the definition
matches my words and yours.)
My only reason for pointing this out is NOT to bolster an argument that
you are a closet Marxist, but to explain how I got the idea that you were
looking at the world through Marxist glasses. I would be the first to
admit that using the same words as a Marxist doesn't necessarily
make one a believer in Marxism. Based on your denial, I'm happy to
retract my statement and its implication.
Since this post you have sent two more of great interest. I hope to reply
to them soon. As a prelude I ask now why Pirsig, the author of the
MOQ, shouldn't be considered its most credible and valid "authority."
(I can see that what constitutes an "authority" may be a bone of
contention betweeen us. I would be interested in your definition of
"authority.")
Best regards,
Platt
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 - 16:01:34 BST