From: ant.mcwatt@ntlworld.com
Date: Sun Jul 04 2004 - 18:32:00 BST
Arlo asked July 4th 2004:
> Hopefully this won't appear as to novice of a question. How is using the MOQ to
> illuminate a higher quality view of economics (to speak very broadly) any
> different from Pirsig himself using the MOQ to illuminate a higher quality view
> of anthropology?
Ant McWatt comments:
There is none.
Arlo asked July 4th 2004:
>
> I did not take the conversation to be about the MOQ supporting "capitalism" or
> "socialism", but about how applying the priniciples of the MOQ can illuminate
> shortcomings or oversights *in both idealogies* in the discussion. After all,
> were not the founders of these "idealogies" operating from a SO mindset?
Ant McWatt comments:
Yes.
Arlo asked July 4th 2004:
Would
> it not be natural, then, to gather that they built SO duality into these
> systems?
Ant McWatt comments:
Yes.
Arlo asked July 4th 2004:
(For example, and feel free to dispute this, I am coming to believe
> that "alienation of labor" is a result of a SO duality in the production
> system, whether discussed by Marx or Pirsig.
Ant McWatt comments:
I am as well though this needs fleshing out as I don't think any other political or philosophological commentators have noticed this yet. Possibly, Gav knows more about this than I do from his studies of the situationists.
Arlo asked July 4th 2004:
>If using the MOQ to highlight
> alienating activities inherenet in our system as a result of SO duality, and
> using this as a basis for criticizing the current economic idealogy is against
> the spirit of the MOQ, I'm not sure I understand what the purpose of the MOQ
> is?)
Ant McWatt comments:
I wouldn't know either.
Arlo asked July 4th 2004:
> Furthermore, and I hope I am not out of place making this observation, but why
> must this be about something VERSUS something else?
Ant McWatt comments:
It doesn't.
Arlo asked July 4th 2004:
Isn't the purpose of the
> dialogue to transform an understanding within ourselves as to the object of
> discussion?
Ant McWatt comments:
Yes.
Arlo asked July 4th 2004:
>This notion that both "capitalism" and "socialism" must be accepted
> or rejected as huge chucks "as is" is ridiculous.
Ant McWatt comments:
Agreed.
Arlo asked July 4th 2004:
>If we start with the notion
> that free markets are more moral, and (as Anthony has indicated) that
> employee-owned companies are more moral, is it not possible to build a
> MOQ-based criticism against the instantiations of any economic system?
Ant McWatt comments:
Yes, now we're getting somewhere.
Arlo asked July 4th 2004:
>This is
> rightfully, I think, just what Gav was doing.
Ant comments:
Indeed he was.
Arlo asked July 4th 2004:
>
> Is it not in the spirit of the MOQ to ask why, if employee-owned companies are
> more moral the current economic system disfavors them?
Ant McWatt comments:
It is indeed.
Arlo asked July 4th 2004:
Or why, in the current
> system, is it still the norm for labor to be disconnected from Quality (as
> Pirsig laments in ZMM)?
>
> Perhaps these are naive questions, if so, my apologies.
Ant McWatt comments:
No, I don't think so. I certainly think capitalism and socialism are SOM based.
As observed in my Textbook in Chapter 7 (see the sections quoted below), capitalism tends to treat workers as objects and socialism tends to cut out the Dynamic element found in free markets. Though, in fact, in practice I think both systems share these faults though to differing degrees. Maybe this shouldn't be too surprizing as both systems are derivatives of the same Enlightenment SOM thinking.
Best wishes,
Anthony.
--------------------------------------------
7.2. THE MOQ PERCEPTION OF CAPITALISM
The subjective-objective division also facilitates capitalist relations where workers are perceived essentially as mechanical objects (rather than beings of intellectual value) to be exploited by a subject i.e. the owner of capital.[272] As Marx correctly noted, this causes the workers to be alienated from each other, from the products of their labour and from the means of production. To use a phrase from situationism,[273] the workers become spectators of their own working lives. Twenty-first century capitalist companies may have developed more sophisticated management structures, but they still tend to follow the Marxist model where control is located in a few managers (or owners) while everyone else is instructed what to do, what their salary will be, what the company policy is and what operating structures the company will have.
Further problems with capitalism include industrial pollution, the depletion of Third World natural resources and the exploitation of sweat shop labour (especially by multi-nationals). Moreover, there is the support of unjust regimes by the arms trade which has often led to the violation of human rights; a recent example being the export of fighter jets to Indonesia to subjugate the people of East Timor.
'The Gross National Product standard takes no account of the kind and quality of the goods and services produced. It does not consider whether the products are needed or not needed, whether they are beautiful or ugly, whether they are instruments of peace or implements of war. It takes no account of the spillover effects that are deleterious to the environment. It is not a measure of justice and equity in the distribution of products. It is not a measure of freedom or a measure of health.' (Rader & Jessup, 1976, p. 376)
Moreover, the freedom we currently enjoy in the West is limited by the ideology of the capitalist economic system. As such, there is an irritating tendency in the West to put everything in a commercial context even when it’s inappropriate e.g. instead of being a student or a patient, I become a customer: ‘I buy therefore I am.’ Other than the hollow goal of material success (as a customer), there is a lack of modern guidance to what really entails the ‘Good Life’. SOM science, though Dynamic (in that its beliefs are updated), dismisses ‘Quality of Life’ issues as low priority while the established religions[274] offer relatively static advice largely based on what was beneficial a thousand years ago or more.[275] Some people have also turned towards New Age religions and philosophies in search for an answer but these are often based on pseudo-science and don’t specifically challenge the status quo of capitalism. One proposed solution to modern alienation that, at least, does this is socialism but, like
capitalism, is limited by SOM ideology. This issue is examined next in the context of the MOQ.
7.3. THE MOQ PERCEPTION OF SOCIALISM
According to Pirsig, the MOQ perceives socialism as a more intellectually based type of economic system than capitalism:
'From a static point of view socialism is more moral than capitalism. It’s a higher form of evolution. It is an intellectually guided society, not just a society that is guided by mindless traditions. That’s what gives socialism its drive.' (Pirsig, 1991, p.224)
On the other hand, the MOQ perceives socialism as SOM orientated as there is little allowance for the Dynamic in the system. As such, this can result in new opportunities being overlooked because there is a strict adherence to static rules. Moreover, a top heavy controlled system (as found in state socialism) will tend to be slower to react to market changes and be slower to introduce new improvements.
What people buy and what people sell, in other words what people value, can never be contained by any intellectual formula. What makes the marketplace work is Dynamic Quality. The market is always changing and the direction of that change can never be predetermined. (Pirsig, 1991, p.225)
Hayek (1944, p.4) also notes the danger with state socialism (with its emphasis on ordered central planning):
'Few are ready to recognise that the rise of Fascism and Nazism was not a reaction against the socialist trends of the preceding period but a necessary outcome of those tendencies. This is the truth which most people were unwilling to see even when the similarities of many of the repellent features of the internal regimes in communist Russia and national-socialist Germany were widely recognised.'
I doubt that Fascism and Nazism were a necessary outcome of 1920s socialism but there’s certainly some truth in what Hayek asserts. If communist Russia was considered socialist (which is an arguable point), it did have more central control, less freedom of movement and less freedom of speech (in addition to its material shortages) than Western countries between 1945 and 1990. The comparison between West Germany and East Germany (a Russian ‘satellite’ up to 1990) is probably a good illustration of the differences between the two cultures.
'The free market… (prevents) static economic patterns from setting in and stagnating economic growth. That is the reason the major capitalist economies of the world have done so much better since World War II than the major socialist economies.' (Pirsig, 1991, p.225)
Finally, one aspect that the socialist countries of the Eastern bloc did share with the West was a poor environmental record.
-------end---------
-----------------------------------------
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 : Sun Jul 04 2004 - 18:34:54 BST