I'm greatly enjoying this discussion. Thanks to all. Who is the Alice you refer to, Ray?
Cheers, Lawry On Jul 22, 2012, at 11:14 AM, Ray Harrell wrote: > Arthur, if corporations are individuals then what kind of individuals are > they? I would also point out as the late Louis Castaldi president of IBM > world in the 1960s said to me. "IBM is a socialist organization." Lou was > speaking as to the system of all corporations as governing structures. He > didn't see a corporation as an individual but as a type of government. I > said to Lou, "why is it not a feudal government?" He said: "Look around > you, they are into community." He was speaking of the beautiful atrium > with the string quartet that all of the management and employees were > sharing. Lou was the last of the CEOs to make under a million dollars a > year. After he retired all hell broke loose and the angry Jewish girl from > Russia that had lost everything and escaped to America began to justify her > anger and her need to fight to live. Alice became Ayn Rand and being > selfish was the highest good. She was the antithesis to Karl Marx. Not > one tenth as smart but perfect for a nation of wounded souls and scars. > Lou had been a partisan in the Italian underground during WWII and he too > had lost everything but somehow the scars only made him a realist. Perhaps > it was the Italian culture. Alice's culture had been taken over by a group > that venerated a Jewish Messiah (Marx) but that didn't like individual Jews. > What a strange world it has been these 2000 years with people blaming others > for what they themselves then choose to do as they make excuses for their > bad behavior. Unfortunately greed is addictive and most of Rand's wealthy > followers are like an anorexic looking at their bank account and screaming > that their ideal is never enough. Whether skinny or billionaire it is > still a pscho-pathology that has wounds and sin at its root. > > REH > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Arthur Cordell > Sent: Sunday, July 22, 2012 10:33 AM > To: 'RE-DESIGNING WORK, INCOME DISTRIBUTION, EDUCATION'; > [email protected] > Subject: Re: [Futurework] FW: New Blogpost: The Mobile Revolution and the > Rise and Rise of Possessive Individualism > > We may be seeing an indication of technology and economic development. > Economic development, it seems, may be --in some ways--about moving away > from community to the individual. And in this case, without other > institutions that develop trust, development may be at odds with social > cohesion. > > arthur > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of michael gurstein > Sent: Sunday, July 22, 2012 10:17 AM > To: [email protected]; 'RE-DESIGNING WORK, INCOME DISTRIBUTION, > EDUCATION' > Subject: Re: [Futurework] FW: New Blogpost: The Mobile Revolution and the > Rise and Rise of Possessive Individualism > > Thanks Mike, you've carried the argument forward into some interesting and > unexpected areas... > > Macpherson's discussion was based on a deep analysis and critique of the > foundation documents of political "liberalism" (whiggery)... Locke, Hume, > Hobbes, although it linked into and closely paralleled the somewhat earlier > discussions (Maine, Toennies, Durkheim... describing the fall of medieval > society and the rise of modern "contract" based social relations. > > The Sociologists however, were focusing at the "social" level and Macpherson > and the Anglo's were discussing individuals and individual rights. They were > basically arguing the same thing but Macpherson seems somehow more > appropriate in this context since he (and those he discusses) aren't > beginning from the notion of a decline but rather are looking at the role > that individual property rights played in the broader social (and political) > transformation. > > (The underlying notion I'm trying to present in the blogpost is the highly > corrosive role that individualized and property defined information (as > determined through mobile communication) will likely play in many currently > somewhat "communally" structured rural environments.) > > Best, > > M > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Mike Spencer > Sent: Saturday, July 21, 2012 11:07 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: [Futurework] Re: FW: New Blogpost: The Mobile Revolution and the > Rise and Rise of Possessive Individualism > > > Mike G. wrote: > >> http://gurstein.wordpress.com/2012/07/21/the-mobile-revolution-and-the >> -rise- >> and-rise-of-possessive-individualism/ > > and in the referenced paper wrote: > > An example, in a recent excursion here in Ghana I happened to notice > that the local artisanal in-shore fishery consists largely of boats > with up to a dozen fishermen. When it comes time to haul in the nets > up to 30 or so villagers may be involved. These folks don't need to > know as individuals what the local price of fish might be in a > particular market (they aren't selling the fish as individuals).... > > .... > > So, in the vast majority of instances (and the design of both the > mobile systems and the individual applications almost require this) > the information is made available only on a one-to-one (individual to > individual) basis. Any follow-on as for example through the sharing of > this information with others say in the village is solely at the > discretion (and the responsibility) of the individual without there > being any formal or informal (let alone technical) structures to > support this (in fact community radio often becomes a means for > "community"integration of mobile communication but that is a subject > for another blogpost). > > In a village there's no privacy. So if Cousin Alice sends word to Bob that > fish prices are better up-town than down-town, everybody in the village > knows Bob had a visitor. They probably know from whom the message comes and > what it's about. In fact, the messenger may deliver the message in public. > > So getting private info on the fish market will require deviousness and > subterfuge which will themselves be noticed by other villagers. > > Now Alice calls Bob on his mobile. No one knows what he learned and > probably can't guess who the call was from. > > Taking the Devil's Advocate role here, if the *possibility* of private > information leads to individuals abandoning communitarian behavior in favor > of maximizing personal gain, shouldn't we assume that "possessive > individualism" is the natural thing a la Friedman -- that communal behavior > was the result of surveillance, not of any deeply felt commitment to > community? If there were such a commitment, Bob would immediately go tell > Claire & Dennis the news and pretty soon everybody would know. > > So is the moral here that privacy enables deviance and a local but > distributed panopticon ensures conformity to community values? > > Well, I haven't read Macpherson (whom you cite [1]) but perhaps I should. I > did read the cited Wikipedia page: > > WikiP> For Friedman, economic freedom needed to be protected because it > WikiP> ensured political freedom.[9] Friedman appeals to historical > WikiP> examples that demonstrate where the largest amount of political > WikiP> freedom is found the economic model has been capitalist. In > WikiP> Friedman's words, "history suggests...that capitalism is a > WikiP> necessary condition for political freedom."[10] Macpherson > WikiP> counters that the 19th-century examples that Friedman uses > WikiP> actually show that political freedom came first and those who > WikiP> gained this freedom, mainly property owning elites, used this new > WikiP> political freedom for their own best interests which meant to > WikiP> open the doors to unrestrained capitalism. It follows then, that > WikiP> capitalism will only be maintained as long as those who have > WikiP> political freedom deem it worthwhile. As the 19th century > WikiP> progressed and suffrage was expanded, there were corresponding > WikiP> restraints placed upon capitalism which indicates that political > WikiP> freedom and capitalism are at odds with one another. "At any > WikiP> rate", Macpherson contends, this "historical correlation scarcely > WikiP> suggests that capitalism is a necessary condition for political > WikiP> freedom. > > which makes sense to me as do the rest of the ideas attribute to him. [2] > > Is the village panopticon a necessary political constraint on economic > activity? How does it scale to modern nation states and transnational > corporations? > > OTOH, how do the tangible, best-case benefits of ICT in the village context > scale to help we'uns sitting alone at our computers and already more or less > wedged in possessive-individualism mode? > > - Mike > > > [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C._B._Macpherson > > [2] Except for two sentences that I can't parse. > > -- > Michael Spencer Nova Scotia, Canada .~. > /V\ > [email protected] /( )\ > http://home.tallships.ca/mspencer/ ^^-^^ > _______________________________________________ > Futurework mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework > > _______________________________________________ > Futurework mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework > > _______________________________________________ > Futurework mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework > > _______________________________________________ > Futurework mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework _______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [email protected] https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
