From: Arlo Bensinger (ajb102@psu.edu)
Date: Wed Jul 14 2004 - 20:55:52 BST
John and All,
Thanks for the reading suggestion. I'll get to it as soon as I finish the
Bhaskar book.
Way back and so long ago, this was pretty much what I've been hoping for.
Somehow the dialogue always seems to degenerate into stale "capitalism
versus socialism" false duality. I mentioned this early on, have been very
critical of the dichotomy, and mentioned again the other day that the
conversation has taken on this false duality. This, I fear, is a result of
a dialogue that sees *any* threat to privatization as socialist
anathema. When Marx was brought up in the MOQ a few years back, the same
degeneration occurred. I do, however, admit my share of the blame in
perpetuating the dialogue. It's hard "not" to argue, even when you know the
dialogue has pretty much stopped.
Let me point out, when Galbraith says:
>As a broad rule, privatization ranks with comprehensive socialism in
>irrelevance. There is a large area of economic activity in which the
>market is
>and should be unchallenged; equally, there is a large range of activities that
>increases with increasing economic well-being where the services and functions
>of the state are either necessary or socially superior.
This is exactly my point when I've said, repeatedly, that (1) the MOQ
supports free-enterprise, (2) that does not mean everything is reducible to
a market commodity, and (3) that there are Intellectual level morals
(concerned with "what is good", or "what contributes to greater freedoms
for all?") which must supercede the social level value of "wealth".
I can warn you, however, that Galbraith will be renounced as a "socialist"
for saying this (if I am understanding this quote correctly).
> Privatization,
>therefore, is not any better as a controlling guide to public action than is
>socialism.
Agreed.
> In both cases the primary service of the doctrine is in providing
>escape from thought.
Agreed.
>In the good society there is in these matters one dominant
>rule: decision must be made on the social and economic merits of the
>particular
>case.
I found an article on the Web on "Authentic Business" by John Wheeler, on
some of Galbraith's and Pirsig's ideas called "If Not Global Capitalism -
then what ?" which states:
It is possible to envisage a Society within which individuals are members
of a portfolio of Enterprises constituted as partnerships, whether limited
in liability or otherwise. Some will be charitable, or voluntary, to which
individuals give their services, or other value freely. Others will be
‘social’ where individual citizens will invest in and subscribe to (say)
health, education, transport and other utilities through functionally
decentralised partnerships operating at the neighbourhood, community, area,
regional or national levels. These will essentially be partnerships between
co-operatives of service providers and co-operatives of service consumers
ie the public. Finally, individuals will be Members of ‘Commercial’
enterprises of all kinds aimed at co-operatively working together to
maximise value for the Members.
He continues:
So perhaps in the “Open” Corporate form of the LLP – the unintended
consequence of a 21st Century UK legislative initiative arguably
implemented for the wrong reasons in the wrong way - we now have the means
to create a truly Co-operative alternative form of “Open” Capital which
will make obsolete the current “toxic” form of Global Capitalism.
http://www.authenticbusiness.co.uk/archive/llp/
It seems interesting, and worth pondering (although a lot of the "language"
is unfamiliar to me, and will take some time to fully understand).
Thanks!
Arlo
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 Jul 14 2004 - 20:58:22 BST