From: Wim Nusselder (wim.nusselder@antenna.nl)
Date: Mon Jun 21 2004 - 07:30:13 BST
Dear Platt,
You wrote 18 Jun 2004 08:09:41 -0400:
'Your "types" of society raise a question: Do I detect a claim to improve on
Pirsig's ideas? :-)'
Unlike you and David B. I never denied the possibility of improving on
Pirsig's ideas by ordinary mortals. I even think that philosophizing rather
than philosophologizing should be the purpose of this discussion list.
Whether my ideas improve on Pirsig's in your experience is up to you to
assess. I trust that you will give them a fair trial if you can.
You continued:
'I would say "the biological need to PRODUCE food, shelter, clothing." The
necessities of life do not grow on trees. They require work by individuals.'
Doesn't 'provide for' include 'produce'? At least that's how I meant it.
From the very beginning homo sapiens -being a social animal- needed
collective work to produce the food, shelter & clothing it needed for its
survival. Groups/societies always could (and did) exclude high-status
individuals from the need to produce their own food, shelter & clothing by
providing it (at least partially) for them. (I wonder what's the principal
moral difference between social security for low-status individuals and
keeping up your local feudal lord??)
You continued:
'The term "socialism" appears many times in the Communist Manifesto as well
as in the name of the Nazi party, " National Socialist German Workers"
party. So it wasn't invented to name non-totalitarian versions.'
You are right. It was probably invented even before Marx. The Communist
Manifesto used it in a sense that did NOT include the 'communism' of the
nascent 'communist movement' led by Marx, but in a very broad sense
(including 'reactionary socialism') for all kinds of writers Marx severely
criticized.
As far as I know, in the beginning of the 20th century 'socialism' came into
use by parties who wanted to distinguish themselves from communists in that
they wanted 'reform' instead of 'revolution'. In order to emphasize that
they also wanted 'democracy' (i.e. not the Soviet version of
totalitarianism), most renamed themselves 'social democratic'.
Hitler revived 'reactionary socialism' and -after having been elected-
abolished democracy.
You continued:
'[If societies with socialists or social democrats in power don't do
significantly worse (or better) than societies with another type of
government in a comparable role in global market capitalism] you'll have to
explain why Sweden, if it were a U.S. state, would be the poorest state,
measured by gross household income, or why the typical middle-class Swede
earns less money and enjoys few material goods than the average
African-American in the U.S.'
Household income is not a good measure of standard of living if the degree
to which collective services meet part of one's wants differs. I would use
the Gross National Product (= Gross National Income) per capita or even
better: the Human Development Index. GNP per capita is higher for the USA
than for the Swedes (I haven't looked it up, but I guess not more than 20%),
but Sweden ranks somewhat higher on the HDI (see
www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0778562.html ).
Do you have statistics supporting your claim that average middle-class
Swedes have a lower household income than average African-Americans in the
USA? It surprises me, given what I read in a press release by the UNDP on
the occasion of the release of the 2003 Human Development Report (see
www.undp.org/hdr2003/pdf/presskit/HDR03_PR4E.pdf ):
'. The Human Poverty Index (HPI) for rich countries which ranks them
according to their national levels of poverty, illiteracy, unemployment and
life-expectancy. Sweden comes in at the top while the United States finishes
last. The Report notes that Sweden, despite a lower per capita income than
the United States, has, on average, more adults who are functionally
literate and fewer living in poverty. This Index shows that even in middle
or high income countries, inequity persists.
...
"For the highly developed countries, the GEM and the HPI are much more
meaningful measures of human development than the main Human Development
Index," said lead author, Sakiko Fukuda Parr. "These indices show that two
countries can have similar human development ranking, but still differ
sharply on the proportion of their citizens who remain excluded and lack
opportunities."'
You continued:
'["Societies with socialists or social democrats in power ... do seem to
have a more positive role in changing that global system to the better" is]
a rather bold assertion, unsupported by any evidence that I'm aware of.'
It depends on what we consider a 'change to the better'. A smaller role for
nations and a larger one for supra-national (but democratic) institutions
would be an important criterion for me, but not for you, I fear.
With friendly greetings,
Wim
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 : Mon Jun 21 2004 - 07:35:07 BST