Dear Roger,
In my posting of 16/4 16:57 +0200 I wasn't scolding you 5 pages long for
forgetfulness, as you suppose 20/4 21:30 -0400. I was criticizing you for
inconsistency and for putting less effort in defining progress than I do.
Having a bad memory is a bad excuse if you have a computer. Even if you
don't want to invest enough energy to file important e-mails (primarily
including your own of course) in a way that enables you to easily find them
back when you need them, you can always fall back on the archives.
If you are 'reluctant to solidify so much specific theory into [our!]
methodology' it seems a waste of energy to go on fine-tuning what I wrote
(on our method to define the path of a society toward absolute quality, i.e.
on our methodology of defining social progress).
If you think 'the path cannot be defined in advance', just do it in
retrospect
in enough detail to enable us to extrapolate some possible scenario's for
the future. Don't just 'strongly endorse studying past progress'; please
describe that study and show the results.
You react positively to my suggestion 'to try to describe paths of primary
and secondary social progress for specific social patterns of values and
additionally paths of primary intellectual progress to the extent that this
"mediates" these two types of social progress', but I don't see you doing
it. You might start by elaborating on your 'positive sum interactions':
exactly which variables are summated by these interactions? Which of the
four different types of 'best results' I described 4/4 23:00 +0100 are
distributed between whom (the 'interactors') in a way that leaves everyone
with more than they had before by what types of interactions?
Part our differences of opinion are obviously due to narrow (you)
versus broad (me) definitions of who are interacting in a specific
situation. In your words of 20/4 21:30 -0400:
'Those that [I, Wim] see as victims [you, Roger] see primarily as non
participants.'
If I 'freely' enter into a contract with a specific employer to
do a specific job for a specific monthly salary (I happen to be searching
for a new job at the moment), the 'interactors' are not only me and that
employer, but also the other competitors for that same job and the employers
whose job-offers I refuse.
Compare this for instance with what you wrote 29/9/01 19:00 -0400:
'I believe, all things considered, that globalism is beneficial to all
parties. You already know my worries about the dangers of gross power
imbalances, but overall international firms in 3rd world countries pay more
on average than do local firms, they create jobs at a faster pace, and they
improve the lot of workers (per OECD studies). The people that get hurt are
those that are bypassed by globalization.'
I think that globalization IMPLIES investments > employment > wealth
creation > favorable conditions for political involvement of populations in
general and democracy in particular in those places where the conditions for
investments are best (making them even better) and PASSING BY those places
where these conditions are worst (making them even worse). The people living
in places that are bypassed by globalization DO buy the products of the
investments in more privileged places (even in famine areas people wear rags
that were originally produced in modern textile factories and eat grain of
which a fair percentage is produced by modern farms) and they DO know about
better living conditions elsewhere and (if they get a chance) study hard to
get a chance to successfully emigrate to those places (creating brain
drain). The success of the investments in the privileged, globalized parts
of the world (e.g. USA and Netherlands) depends on the high social status
people in the rest of the world give to products/jobs/living conditions in
these privileged, globalized parts. Without colonialism and unfair trading
practices (backed by warships) the former colonizing countries would not
have been able to create their present favorable investment climate. The
privileged areas of the world still can't sustain their wealth without less
privileged areas (both those bypassed by globalization, the sources of brain
drain and consumers of surplus products, and those who do -on average-
profit from world trade and investments but at a cost of uprooting rural
populations to insecure low-income jobs or unemployment in mushrooming
cities, political instability, environmental cannibalization etc.). The
underprivileged areas of the world can't follow the historic paths of social
progress of the privileged areas, because there is no scope any more for
colonialism, unfair trade to profit from and globalization with them as the
core.
It eludes me what's wrong with 'drifting away from the methodology and
toward specific, testable theories' when we are answering the questions '1b.
What path follows from applying that method?' and '1bI. What is the best
intellectual pattern of values with which to judge the balance between
stability and versatility of a social pattern of values?'. We ARE talking
about a THEORY about which type of social patterns of values (which combines
in a specific way stability and versatility) is (probably) best at
'maximizing positive sum interactions', aren't we? Question 1a is about
methodology; 1b is about the results of applying the methodology. Maybe you
are also reluctant to solidify much specific theory in the results of
applying methodology?!?
Your results seem to be limited to a suggestion to 'find ways to export
modern liberal free enterprise democracy' and doing even better ourselves
(reducing inequality of opportunity, reducing environmental destruction,
taming excesses of technology etc.). It occurs to me that this is exactly
what the Western world has been doing for the past 50 years and that the
results are disappointing if we are still debating whether global society
has on average made progress in that period.
'To look at these (mostly UN) trends [you mentioned] and not see progress
because of economic inequality seems somewhat pompous.'
I do see primary social and intellectual progress (even on average) very
clearly (as I stated). What's at issue is secondary social and intellectual
progress, the development of better social and intellectual patterns of
values FOR THEIR OWN SAKE and not for the sake of biological survival.
What's the use of living longer and being more literate if you are -globally
speaking- even more of an outcast and excluded from where the real progress
is going on than before?
I do have the gut feeling (as I stated) that -primary and secondary progress
taken together- global society is making progress, but to make sure and to
speed it up, we do have to develop our methodology further than you seem
willing to do.
You wrote: 'Quite a few countries adopted democracy and free enterprise and
progressed to a better category (Taiwan, Korea, etc).'
I think most countries are either trying to be democratic or are fighting
their citizens who want more democracy. Nearly all countries are competing
for international investment and accept global free enterprise (within
limits, naturally). Only a few progressed beyond being 'developing
countries'.
I don't agree that 'the problem has never been that some moved forward and
others moved back'. Most of Africa, Afghanistan and I guess a few other
countries around the world have been moving back for 2 or 3 decades now, the
former Soviet Union and former Yugoslavia have been moving back for at least
a decade... all in terms of the statistics you mentioned.
To the extent that 'more modern liberal free enterprise democracy' and less
'exploitative dictators, communists and theocracies' are correlated with
(primary) social and intellectual progress, the former can just as well be
seen as the outcome of the latter. In an important case like Russia the
correlation is simply not there unless as an inverse correlation: the
statistics for Russia have gone down since they imported 'modern liberal
free enterprise democracy' in the last decade. If they applied your ideas
wrongly, it was not for lack of advice of Western economists...
Do you understand that your
'Nobody wants dead, starving or illiterate kids.'
is not an answer to my
'I think we need to differentiate between the different types of progress
and the different social patterns of values that hold global society
together to really, rationally, evaluate whether (global) society is really
making social progress. Could you give it a try?'?
You only refer to primary social and intellectual progress, without
differentiating and you don't refer to social patterns of values that hold
global society together but only to social patterns of values that hold
national societies together (if I interpret you rightly; please explain to
me if it is otherwise).
You agreed 24/3 8:41 -0500 with my 23/3 18:36 +0100 interpretation of
'maximizing quality across the greatest span' as 'balanced maximizing of
stability and versatility of global society [being] the most relevant scale
for identifying social progress'. You seem to me to be talking only about
balanced maximizing of stability and versatility of NATIONAL societies (by
'exporting the tools' we invented to them). Shouldn't we be talking about
processes and forms of organization (utilizing distributed control and
central command) that hold together global society like UN agencies,
international conferencing, TransNational Corporations, standardization of
international trading/payment/communication/transport etc. procedures,
globally operating NGO's, world religions and the like?
I agree that 'we must be VERY careful with foreign aid'. I have maybe
slightly different reasons for agreeing than your stated reasons.
Of course we shouldn't put our aid in the hands of oppressors. Aid that gets
into the wrong hands is usually aid that is given for the wrong reasons: own
foreign interests (often security or trade interests) instead of the
interests of the populations who allegedly 'get' the aid. I'm sorry to say
that US foreign aid (little as it is compared to its GNP) is given for the
wrong reasons to a much larger extent than European foreign aid and
especially the foreign aid of the 5 countries that are giving more than 0,7%
of their GNP (see my 12/3 23:41 +0200 statistics). Most of US foreign aid
goes not to the poorest developing countries, but to middle income countries
that happen to be in areas where the US has oil interests or where its drugs
imports originate. Opposition to (US!) foreign aid in the US may be well
founded! If the US would give foreign aid in the way the Netherlands does,
this opposition would lose a lot of its justification.
If governments can't be trusted as recipients of foreign aid, usually NGO's,
religious organizations etc. can be found who can. A more serious problem
seems to me that aid makes people dependent, damages self-esteem and doesn't
empower them to develop on their own.
I think that international trade and investment are to be preferred to aid
as means promoting social progress in developing countries. The problem is
that trade with and investment in the countries that need it most is the
least profitable and the most risky. If we leave it to 'the market' to
distribute the benefits of globalization, this distribution will become more
and more skewed. Aid -much more aid than now- is essential to offset this
effect.
I already stated that 'I am not very inclined to take the risk' of
'centrally commanded socialism on a world scale, with a central command
subject to a system of democratic elections', but I don't agree that it
would imply 'confiscation of all [means] of production'. Central command by
a modern state can be much more subtle than that of a peripheral or
semi-peripheral state like China in 1949 or Russia in 1918.
I am very glad that you agree in principle with
'voluntary renunciation from competitiveness on the part of ... successful
economies'
and with
'global capitalism tempered by voluntary restraint inspired/mediated by an
intellectual pattern of values stressing long-term global common interests
(like preventing a pattern of global terrorism) that in turn is
inspired/mediated by some replacement for traditional religion (lending
Meaning to renunciation of short-term national interests)?'.
Maybe we can build further on that. How could we stimulate that?
I don't understand what you mean with 'profit repatriation can backfire and
lead to unintended and unpleasant results'. I wasn't promoting profit
repatriation, but its opposite, re-investment of profits in developing
countries!
You did put a lot of effort in '[taking] Israel and its neighbors as an
example'. I'm not sure however if you really answered my question 'What
types of inequality exist in that region and what social patterns of values
(potentially) hold together these peoples and prevent all-out war and
destruction?'. I will reply to your postings on that subject in the proper
thread however.
With friendly greetings,
Wim
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 - 16:02:16 BST