From: Sam Norton (elizaphanian@kohath.wanadoo.co.uk)
Date: Fri May 06 2005 - 19:29:14 BST
Hi Mark,
Time for a considered reply.
First, the point about Ayn Rand and 'selfishness'. Have a look at:
http://www.objectivistcenter.org/objectivism/faqs/jraibley_faq-virtue-selfishness.asp
I think you're misreading her. In fact, based upon a very superficial survey
of what Google led me to re: Gewirth, there doesn't seem much difference
between his "Principle of Generic Consistency" and elements of what she
claimed. But whether that is in fact true is presumably the substance of
this thread. But as a taster, consider this - the Adam Smith Institute
pursues "the principles of choice, competition, free markets, lower taxes,
minimal regulation, personal freedom, and smaller government." In terms of
underlying principle, there doesn't seem to be much between that and your
claims that a) freedom is universally desirable and accessible, and b) that
the highest values are attained by a free choosing (the existentialist
making of own values). That is what lay behind my original contention to you
that your rhetoric, to put it in an understated way, overlapped with that of
those pursuing what is conventionally seen as a 'right wing' agenda. But
there are some juicy issues to pick out here, and they build on our earlier
conversations about Chomsky and capitalism. So, let's get on with it.
First, I'll try and reflect, mainly in my own words, the position that you
hold, just so that we can be sure we understand each other. Your fundamental
belief is that the fully realised human being, envisioned as one which is
able to act without restraint (eg biological necessity, social constraint),
would not be exploitative: as you put it "a fully-realized, fully-informed,
unrestricted human being will not only refuse to be exploited, but will
CHOOSE not to exploit others". Given this, the logical and necessary
consequence is that restrictions to the exercise of that freedom must be
removed. Again, in your words, "The restrictions I speak of derive from
numerous and pervasive external forces like emotional and physical abuse, as
well as intellectual abuse such as relentless mass advertising and religious
dogma" - these are all the things which prevent the full flowering of full
realisation etc.
This language, it seems to me, is exactly what GWB uses in, eg, his
inaugural address this year: "Eventually, the call of freedom comes to every
mind and every soul. We do not accept the existence of permanent tyranny
because we do not accept the possibility of permanent slavery. Liberty will
come to those who love it" and "We go forward with complete confidence in
the eventual triumph of freedom. Not because history runs on the wheels of
inevitability; it is human choices that move events. Not because we consider
ourselves a chosen nation; God moves and chooses as He wills. We have
confidence because freedom is the permanent hope of mankind, the hunger in
dark places, the longing of the soul."
Now, I'm quite sure you'll say that this is disingenuous and is simply a
cover for corporate interests etc, which might very well be the case, but my
main point is that a politician uses this language because it is the
embedded and settled ideology of our age. Hence my original point "Is it not
at all disquieting that this ideology (the glorification of human choice)
should a) be born at the same time as SOM, b) be the dominant ideology of
US/Western culture and therefore, c) be a very good example of a socially
reinforced pattern of thought?" It is precisely this language of, and
emphasis on, human freedom which is ideological, which is structured into
our institutions and which is appealed to by all the politicians but
especially by those on the right of the spectrum.
So that's the first point.
The second point is about the nature of capitalism, about which we have had
conversations before, although I never did get a response to the Hernando de
Soto arguments - so let's bring them up again here.
It seems to me that possibly the most significant difference between your
and Chomsky's position on the one hand, and the Ayn Randian/ GWB type
position on the other, is about the status of capitalism. So far as I
understand Chomsky he sees capitalism as married to state power, and that it
is an indissoluble union. In other words, it is only through the support of
state institutions that capitalism obtains. As you put it: "I believe Marx
was right about this, and that massive state-subsidization of large-scale
capitalist institutions is the only reason they are still around" and
therefore "any flavor of uncontrolled capitalism leads to environmental,
natural resource, and human exploitation, and, eventually, to its own
destruction."
The Randian point of view would, I think, envision capitalism differently,
and more along the lines that de Soto describes. In other words, capitalism
is the product of a congruence of laws and customs that enable free and
stable transactions to take place. So, private property first and foremost,
but also the various legal protections for contract, the practice of
civility and trust, civil society as such, all these things form the context
within which capitalism can develop. Whether capitalism becomes corporate
and state controlled, or whether it is more like the mittelstand in Germany
are secondary questions. Interesting and politically important to discern,
but logically secondary to the founding structures.
Now from what you have said recently and in the further past, (and from
Chomsky) I would guess that the political questions are foremost in your
mind. In other words, if we allow the unrestricted freedom to trade etc,
then we are fixing the division of property that exists at the present
moment, and therefore entrenching an inequality that was built upon violence
and exploitation in the more or less recent past.
So where this second point brings us, I think, is to the view that the
language of freedom is common to Chomsky and Rand, but that Rand would not
necessarily wish to 'rectify the past', whereas Chomsky would say that
freedom is meaningless without such rectification. Is that fair?
If so, I would develop the third and most interesting point, which relates
to the vision of human nature. In the conception that you have outlined
there seems to me to be a tremendous trust in innate human goodness; ie, a
view that if all of the bad influences could be removed then the underlying
disposition of human nature is a positive and good one. Thus, if only we can
get the context right, that human goodness will be clearly displayed.
This seems to me to be a highly political perspective. Thomas Sowell, a
writer I've mentioned to you before, wrote a book called 'The vision of the
anointed' looking in some detail at this conception, and contrasting it with
what he called the 'tragic vision', which sees human nature as irretrievably
compromised. So the political contest is between those who would change
human institutions in order to remove barriers to human self-realisation and
expression, and those who wish to preserve human institutions due to a
desire to respect their hard-earned workability in the light of human
experience. We could pursue this in some detail over time, but I'm not
certain that we'll achieve much, for one very particular reason, and that is
that in many ways the division which Sowell describes is a recapitulation in
secular terms of the persistent clash in Christian theology between the
Augustinian vision of Sin and the Pelagian vision of human choice.
I - as you might expect - tend to the tragic vision side of the equation,
which is why I describe myself as 'basically conservative'. But it seems to
me that we are here dealing in matters of faith. That is, I see no way to
distinguish (in terms of scientific or empirical validation) your statement
that "a fully-realized, fully-informed, unrestricted human being will not
only refuse to be exploited, but will CHOOSE not to exploit others" from,
for example, my claim that "Jesus is the way, the truth and the life". And I
think those statements probably serve a parallel function in our lives.
Which, if I might be so bold, is the bit of this conversation that might
prove _really_ interesting.
This has taken us a little way from the ideology of capitalism, but as you
gave such a generous response, I thought you deserved a fuller reply.
Best regards - and thanks,
Sam
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 -
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 : Fri May 06 2005 - 19:34:35 BST