From: Mark Steven Heyman (markheyman@infoproconsulting.com)
Date: Sun May 08 2005 - 04:47:50 BST
Hi Sam,
On to points 2 and 3...
On 7 May 2005 at 16:33, Mark Steven Heyman wrote:
sam:
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.
msh:
I did some googling on de Soto and, so far, am unable to understand
why you are so impressed with him. The very first thing I read was
an interview where the first question was: "Why does capitalism fail
everywhere else and triumph in the West?" Talk about your softball
questions! Anyone who actually looks at the steadily increasing gap
between rich and poor in the West, who sees the third-world poverty
amidst elite splendor, rejects the notion that Capitalism has
"triumphed" for anyone other than the relative few who prosper from
it. Nevertheless, deSoto goes on to uncritically wax ecstatic re
western capitalism. In fact, he sounds more like an Objectivist than
an economist. But point me to something you find convincing, and
I'll give it a read.
sam:
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."
msh says:
There's also a difference between Rand/GWB and Chomksy in that
Chomsky is clearly further along the path to being a fully-realized
human being (FRH). And, for clarification, I see no problem with
small-scale "for-profit" operations, the corner mom-and-pops whose
influence does not extend beyond the communities they serve. Such
stores tend to be responsive to the needs of their communities
because, if they are not, they will go out of business. These I
exclude from my definition of capitalism.
sam:
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.
msh:
This again is an unrealistic understanding of how and why capitalism
works, and for whom. Furthermore, it forgets the role of the FRH.
Although the "congruence of laws and customs that enable free and
stable transactions to take place" might be necessary for a smooth-
running society, these things do not axiomatically give rise to
capitalism. Many non-FRH must be in positions of influence in order
for capitalism to arise, AT ALL.
sam:
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.
msh:
Yes. Except that I believe that capitalism would not arise in a
world of mostly FRH. So, IMO, the FRH would not be interested in
fixing the current inequities, in order to turn capitalism loose,
thinking that pure capitalism would then keep things on an even keel.
An FRH understands that exploitation of inequality is built into the
nature of capitalism and, therefore, that capitalism is hopeless as
an FRH-sponsored form of socio-economic organization.
sam:
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?
msh:
I'd say that Chomsky, being an FRH, would say that the first step
toward freedom is rectification of past inequalities, yes. But he
would not, and does not, think that capitalism, even if launched from
a platform of perfect equality, will result in a desirable socio-
economic outcome. His writings indicate that he would opt for a more
broadly participatory form of economy, perhaps along the lines of
Robin Hahnel's Participatory Economics, or ParEcon for short.
sam:
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.
msh says:
Well, I have accumulated over time a number of experiences that lead
me to this conclusion. And I think there is a lot of evidence that
children who are "blessed" with family and friends who are supportive
rather than competitive, who emphasize and cherish our common
humanity rather than exploit our differences, have a far better
chance of becoming FRH. That is, children who are heavily influenced
by FRH, almost always become FRH themselves.
But maybe that's a different thread.
sam:
This seems to me to be a highly political perspective.
msh says:
As above, it is empirically verifiable. Not political. But maybe
another thread.
sam:
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.
msh says:
You mean, as in the apple and the Garden of Eden, Padre? ;-)
sam continues:
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.
msh says:
Oops... may be a bit of Freudian slip showing... Who's hard-earned
workability is being questioned: the institutions, or the humans who
favor them? The viability of most powerful institutions is highly
questionable, except to the humans who benefit from them.
sam:
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.
msh says:
I've never read Sowell, other than the few words you pasted above.
But from those few words I immediately detected a a tone that is not
at all secular. See above, about apple and Eden.
sam:
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.
msh says:
Yep.
sam:
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.
msh says:
I agree. We may find that we disagree only in the words we choose.
You favor the less explicit poetic myth, which is often my artistic
preference as well. In matters of philosophy, my analytic side gets
the best of me and I tend to avoid metaphor whenever possible.
Well, let's see where it goes.
As always, Sam, it's a pleasure talking with you.
Best,
Mark Steven Heyman (msh)
-- InfoPro Consulting - The Professional Information Processors Custom Software Solutions for Windows, PDAs, and the Web Since 1983 Web Site: http://www.infoproconsulting.com "Tiger got to hunt, bird got to fly; Man got to sit and wonder 'why, why, why?' Tiger got to sleep, bird got to land; Man got to tell himself he understand." - Kurt Vonnegut, Cat's Cradle 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 - 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 2.1.5 : Sun May 08 2005 - 04:48:13 BST