From: ml (mbtlehn@ix.netcom.com)
Date: Tue Jul 06 2004 - 22:42:08 BST
> ------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Platt stated July 5th: for instance, where did Pirsig say . . .
>
> . . . capitalism exploits sweat shop labor?
>
<snip>
>
> Moreover, in LILA (Chapter 17) it's stated that:
> The conservatives [i.e. read capitalists] who keep trumpeting about the
virtues
> of free enterprise are normally just supporting their own self-interest.
> They are just doing the usual cover-up for the rich in their age-old
> exploitation of the poor.
> ------------------------------------------------------------
<SNIP>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Platt stated July 5th:
>
> You and others (who you refer to) may believe these things about the
> capitalistic free enterprise system, and Pirsig may believe them, too.
But
> in the absence supporting quotations from the man himself, I don't see how
> you can legitimately present them as the "MOQ Perspective."
>
> Ant McWatt comments:
>
> Firstly, you've got to remember that Pirsig lived through the McCarthy
era. I therefore doubt that many people of his generation (though Chomsky
is a notable exception) are going to couch their arguments against
capitalism that explicitly.
>
> Secondly, Pirsig (very kindly) read through the Textbook twice to ensure
what it stated about the MOQ was, more or less, accurate. As far as
Section 7.2. (THE MOQ PERCEPTION OF CAPITALISM) is concerned he queried a
line in the Rader & Jessup quote which I consequently edited out (as far as
I remember) but that was all. Of course, it doesn't necessarily mean that
he fully endorses this section (as with any other part of the Textbook) but,
at the same time, it won't be that much out of kilter with how he
understands the MOQ either.
>
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.
> 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)
<snip>
Ant McWatt comments:
>
> Whatever his views when he was younger, I think Pirsig is presently a lot
more interested in establishing the MOQ and, through doing so, primarily
improve the Western quality of life. As I said previously, I think we
should move onto developing this rather than pondering which out-dated
SOM-based economic system Pirsig perceived as the most problematic. It's
pretty obvious that he recognised serious problems with both.
<snip>
All:
I have spent some time reading your exchanges and am greatly impressed by
their general thoughtfulness.
As someone new to your discussions I am struck by the implicit acceptance of
assumptions or definitions for terms (e.g. socialism and capitalism). All
of you are well aware that the solidity of any argument is most easily
cracked at its foundation, the assumption.
So, respectfully, I would like to rattle the bricks a bit. For today's
world both socialism and capitalism are misleading terms that conceal more
than they elucidate. I assume that the term socialism used is found
somewhere between
1- the centralized proposal/approval allocation by a representative
governmental council (semi-Scandinavian) .and.
2- the deterministic economic system based on narrow focus planning
committees as in the old Russian Military Empire or near-recent China of the
Mao Dynasty
In both cases the central characteristic is a generally merged semi-monolith
of the economic and political structures. This lacks of course the greater
dynamism of a divided structure of political authority on one pillar and
diverse markets on other pillars. This tends towards the structurally
static.
I would argue that Capitalism is also not a helpful term. It began to choke
on its own gorge in the 19th Century and was barely twitching in the 1950's.
It has been replaced by another system in reality, but I don't think it has
a single accurate term.
Today in North America (I cannot speak for elsewhere) the Economy is
constructed more as follows:
10-15% capitalist
10-20% multi-nationalist business (This appears to be larger than it is in
the media)
30-40% small cash-flow businesses
40-50% consumerist (today's biggest driver)
Dealing with the Economy in the aggregate is for most real-world purposes a
pointless exercise. It is very much an emergent system of markets and each
market behaves in wildly different way in time. It makes more sense to
think of the markets as analogs to ecosystems. It may even be that markets
are ultimately more complex than are ecosystems, no one is certain yet.
(Look at Bionomics for that argument.)
Before anyone speaks up and says that the capitalists own the corporations,
I'd point out that most often that is not strictly true. Retirement funds
and mutual funds are the 900 pound gorillas and they are owned by millions
of average working Joes and Janes in tiny pieces. Besides most of the power
of the stockholder is gone, diluted.
It might be more valid to ask if you want to have a limited number of static
markets weighed down by governmental employees who will only work so hard
and don't really care, on the one hand?
Or, do you want a more dynamic system of dynamic markets populated by more
efficient visions and dedicated people who have a passion for realizing
their small niches? (~70% of businesses)
Most of the "sins" of capitalism quoted in the prior discussions were really
just inferior and selfish uses of technology, which is equally bad in any
system, or the will by a small group to dominate others with a power
differential. This is always reprehensible under coercion whether as
slave-wages in a depressed area or as political prisoners in a non-free
system.
Sorry it is so long winded, but I hope it helps stimulate comments on three
points:
dynamic vs static economics
markets vs political authority
nasty little pink/brown/yellow/gray monkeys that use the Internet and
eat BIGMACS (sorry)
thanks--mel
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 : Tue Jul 06 2004 - 22:47:53 BST