From: ant.mcwatt@ntlworld.com
Date: Wed Jun 30 2004 - 01:54:15 BST
Platt stated June 28th 2004:
The problem here is that a free enterprise society is already "intellectually guided." Simply read Noble prize winner Milton Friedman on the subject, or Hayek, or Hazlitt or [any] other free enterprise economist.
Ant McWatt comments:
Yes, it is a problem because as far as a free enterprise economy becomes ‘intellectually guided’ it correspondingly loses its Dynamic advantage. In other words, by definition, a free market is a Dynamic based system so the minute it is ‘intellectually guided’ in a particular way it becomes (as with most, if not all, states in the world) some type of controlled mixed economy rather than a ‘true’ free economy.
Anyway, as far as mixed economies are concerned, it seems that the MOQ emphasises democratic control at the “flattest levels” possible (as in Gav’s permaculture farm experience illustrated recently in his illuminating MOQ Discuss posts) irrespective of whether ownership is ultimately state or privately based. This is espoused by the American writer Mary Parker Follett and the only corporate business promoting MOQ business philosophy, Paradigm Research International (based near Washington D.C.). See a joint paper by Paradigm’s CEO/Managing Director (Dr Robert Harris) for BP at:
http://www.indigodev.com/BPclim.html#busimod
I’ve also attached below the relevant sections from my MOQ Textbook (at www.anthonymcwatt.co.uk) which expands on these points (note especially Pirsig’s 1991 letter to Dr Harris about Employee ownership corresponding to the old Indian idea of a community of equals that allows maximum freedom for all):
------------------------------------------------------------
7.4. THE MOQ SOLUTION TO THE PROBLEMS OF CAPITALISM & SOCIALISM
Pirsig’s analysis of capitalism is interesting because though the system has serious faults its free market element is successful in an economic context. The critical issue then is the level of control that should be applied to a free market to obtain as much of its benefits without the degeneracy it can cause when it’s given too much freedom.
‘This creates the problem of getting maximum freedom for the emergence of Dynamic Quality while prohibiting degeneracy from destroying the evolutionary gains of the past. Americans like to talk about all their freedom but they think it’s disconnected from something Europeans often see in America: the degeneracy that goes with the Dynamic.’ (Pirsig, 1991, p.227)
Hayek (1944, p.246) concludes that ‘a policy of freedom for the individual is the only progressive policy.’ Certainly freedom (and personal responsibility) of the individual is given emphasis in Pirsig’s philosophy. However, Hayek does note that this is a difficult ideal to strive for and his suggestions of the best way forward such as a Western European federation (i.e. what became the European Union) and an international upholder of human rights (i.e. what became the United Nations) have certainly had some success as far as peace and economic co-operation in Western Europe is concerned.
Another important factor in maintaining social progress and commercial success is a proper sharing of power within business organisations, as noted by Mary Parker Follett (1924, p.xii-xiii):
‘Genuine power can only be grown, it will slip from every arbitrary hand that grasps it; for genuine power is not coercive control, but coactive control. Coercive power is the curse of the universe; coactive power, the enrichment and advancement of every human soul.’
Follett thought the best way to promote coactive power in business organizations was to use ‘flat’ networks of employees (as found in co-operatives) rather than hierarchical structures (as found in most capitalist corporations).
‘The Metaphysics of Quality does definitely imply that, other things being equal, an employee-owned company is more moral than a privately owned company for the same reason that a democracy is more moral than a dictatorship. Both enhance intellectual freedom within a traditional static social pattern and thus are a higher form of evolution. Employee ownership also appeals to the old Indian idea of community of equals that allows maximum freedom for all.’ (Pirsig, 1991a)
Like Pirsig, Follett’s philosophy also draws from the work of William James, especially in its pragmatic sentiment. As far as I can ascertain, Pirsig and Follett also have the same notion of the individual and both place higher value on the creative rather than the rational aspects of experience.
Follett was able to advocate the fostering of a ‘self-governing principle’ that would facilitate ‘the growth of individuals and of the groups to which they belonged’. By directly interacting with one another to achieve their common goals, the members of a group ‘fulfilled themselves through the process of the group’s development’. (Smith, M. K., 2002)
7.4.1. PARADIGM RESEARCH INTERNATIONAL
In the business sector, MOQ principles are consciously promoted by Paradigm Research International which encourages companies to become “Employee-Owned” in order to share corporate vision (or ethos), management control, resources, and financial rewards on a more equable (and, therefore, a less alienating) basis.
Paradigm’s C.E.O., Dr Robert Harris (1991, p.9) notes that a company’s ethos should be constructed from the collective beliefs and values of all its employees. If the
vision of a company is only held by its management, the rest of its employees will be alienated from it and its power will be reduced as a force for good and growth. On the other hand, Harris (1991, p.10) notes that:
‘If a company has a shared sense of its Vision, even if it is not written down, employees will work to accomplish the seemingly impossible over and over again to the amazement of its competitors.’
Management control (or power) is what brings a company’s vision to life and, if shared will increase the good will of employees to work for the benefit of a company. This helps establish mutual trust which actually gives a company a competitive edge by increasing openness with information and flexibility of response. In addition, the potential intelligence of the company is increased because the knowledge of what each individual knows is more easily shared.
‘Not having an Employee-Owned form of organization in today’s world is like a company using only a few percent of its brain.’ (Harris, 1991, p.10)
As power will be distributed co-actively in such an organization, it will tend to have a flatter management structure. This should be more efficient as mutual trust and responsibility will reduce the requirement for supervisory roles.
Harris (1991, p.10) thinks that if a company’s resources (i.e. ideas, staff, money, information, space, equipment and customers) are distributed for what’s best for the shared company vision rather than for a particular individual, the company will perform more efficiently. As far as financial rewards go, he notes that if a company operates just to make a few people wealthy, this will again create alienation and, undoubtedly, lead to employees not giving their best.
Harris (1997, p.1) further notes that, in general, Employee-Owned companies operate longer, provide a less alienating working environment, and (being more holistically minded) are more responsible for their local and global environment. Moreover, he claims that even though such companies are primarily designed to produce value (rather than money) they are as successful financially, if not more so, than companies retaining the traditional capitalist structure.
‘The living sustainable company is driven by the value it adds to the whole of society: it puts more value into society than it takes out, and it takes out more money than it puts in: money flows from value and not the other way around.’ (Harris, 1997, p.4)
------------------------------------------------------------
E-mail formatting ruined by NTL World
-----------------------------------------
Email provided by http://www.ntlhome.com/
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 : Wed Jun 30 2004 - 01:57:08 BST