I'm not done with this topic, just a bit tied up, but Craig brought up something earlier where Capitalism, statistically, often surprisingly comes out way ahead, and that's in the arena of charity. The Tsunami relief is a good example. Many people criticized how little the US government gave towards that relief, but that's because in a capitalist society, charity is more considered the responsibility of the private sector. I'll pull you the specific data, but our private sector contributions were overwhelmingly larger than anywhere else in the world.
On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 10:03 AM, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > I like to think I would have had a few pints with Marx Craig - no > doubt I would have paid and perhaps stopped him in the odd act of > vandalism when he'd had his fill. Beyond this, marxism (the capital - > somewhat ironically is now dropped) still has uses in teaching > research methods, but is way short on answers in practice. I rarely > direct students towards his works - Habermas is the modern alternative > along with Gramsci and postmodern witter. I don't think capitalism is > the only game in town, but this is often said and assumed in public > commentary. Much business literature beyond undergrad textbooks > (which are very bad) actually agrees with Marx - not surprisingly as > Richardo got to a lot of the places before him from the opposite > social-political stance. One of these areas is competitive advantage > where even Michael Porter's classics can take a marxist reading > without too much stress, though I'm inclined to ask for a reading > coloured by Darwin - deep questions about how we establish strong > positions without smashing the very competition we will need to retain > competition seem key. Marxism never really took root anywhere, but > casting the Sino-Soviet experiments as state capitalism and trapped in > the 'dictatorship of the proletariat', whilst part of the story, is > facile in the end. > Academic concerns tend to have been about anything that is totalising > - from 'total war' to the 'total organisation' and 'totalising > ideologies' - the latter is what the postmodernists have tended to > accuse Habermas of. He wants to strip everything of ideology, yet > this seems rather too passionate and potentially ideological itself. > The logical positivists' last breath was to announce that their aim of > extirpating metaphysics was itself metaphysical. > I have been a socialist politically, but no longer believe much can be > practically addressed at these ideological levels. The Labour party > in the UK is now a dreadful mess. I have long preferred Scandinavian > attitudes, but again see no real model to operate. I'm certainly no > marxist, though can write in that style. My view is that we need new > forms of leadership and leadership control - set against a backdrop of > it being very hard to herd cats and avoid the worst of anarchism and > free-riding, along with simplified systems of contribution to what > needs doing. We have, at some point, to get to grips with peace - but > not in a way that exposes us to the "Hun" or any group of idiots with > guns etc. My guess is that even in the West we lack representation > and distrust government for good reasons. I do believe there is a > capitalist pathology based on paranoid-schizoid positioning > strengthened by lack of community and fellowship. Making the poor > relatively poorer as technology should allow freedom from want seems > particularly invidious. Public choice theories have more to offer us > than Marx, but we also need to confront lying in public office and our > fears about the truth and inclinations to abandon truth-seeking in > favour of regimes of truth. There is a lot of academic work in these > areas, and science is beginning to let us know just how badly we cope > with bias. Managerialism is a key evil that one can identify across > cultures, politics and legal systems, along with propaganda and > sophism in place of dialogue. We lack grace, and to be honest, I have > not met many graceful marxists. This said, I was a slugger and > nurdler as a batsman, lacking graceful strokes. The rules were about > putting runs on the board and I was prepared to be ugly to watch. > We need public works programmes again and to do something about so > much work being unfulfilling and environmentally disastrous. > Capitalism, whatever it is, seems to give me glimpses of trinkets > being offered for women and sex by European conquerors - the academic > line is about commodity fetishism (Lukacs) or the flaneur. Freedom is > equally difficult to pin down once one asks "whose freedom" and > recognises much we freely do impinges on the lives of others, or even > takes them away. > > On 30 Jan, 05:03, Kierkecraig <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Jan 29, 8:44 pm, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > 1987's use of Churchillian glibness is more or less right. Yet > > > capitalism needs critique and somehow we need to have genuine > > > competitiveness that keeps competitions alive and well, rather than > > > leaving only the winner with all. I played in a game against > > > Doncaster Rovers towards the end of their spectacular run of 157 > > > defeats and for a cricket team who were the rubbing rags of the > > > competition for many years until we won it. I agree with Francis (and > > > I think Gabby if I have the enigma at all) that ethics is key. My own > > > view is that capitalism lies too often and is based on this lying. > > > When something is the only game in town one usually finds legs have > > > been broken to establish this - at some level worse than having to > > > break eggs to scramble them. In short I sense that much we should do > > > for ourselves gets taken away from us in order for capitalist > > > mechanisms to make profit and the expense of individual well-being and > > > communicative action. Peter is robbed to make an obscenely wealthy > > > Paul. > > > > Neil, > > I agree with your principle of healthy criticism, but I disagree with > > your assumption that Capitalism is the only game in town. Even in > > America Capitalism has been relegated the south 40 after such programs > > as the new deal and a federal reserve. I'm as sensitive as you are to > > the fact that a philosopher must fight against the tides of their > > time, but I disagree with you that the tides of our time favor free > > market capitalism. On the contrary, the tides our time very much > > favor a more socialist approach to economics. > > > > > > > > > We need some kind of "fresh start" - but this clearly cannot be some > > > repeat of docile body creating experiments that have already failed > > > (hence we need a proper understanding of Sino-Soviet experimentation - > > > not glib commie bashing). Too many profess beliefs in markets without > > > knowing how markets work and who really benefits from them. We need > > > to be able to make real choices, yet are often offered highly > > > expensive rot as the products we need advertising to make us want and > > > so on. I have the choice not to fancy women covered in smelly and > > > oily products they have come to relish and believe make them > > > attractive and, of course, the choice not to live in such a manner > > > that I regard women as to be chosen by the likes of me! I want a > > > world of less forced choice, not to have to play the games on offer > > > and not to live in a world of keeping up with the Jones' and ahead in > > > the arm's race. I tend to a belief that our knowledges and > > > technologies can now provide plenty and that "capitalism" is an > > > archaic "undead" parasitic on a system we could now structure better. > > > None of this entails Marxism or anything else other than in > > > understanding such mistakes and being prepared not to be simple > > > believers of propaganda. > > > > I believe that you are now speaking pure Marxism. In fact one of the > > arguments of many of the Marxists today is that the failure of > > communism is that it was premature. Marx never intended to start the > > revolution, he only prophesied of what was to come. Unfortunately his > > prophecies became self fulfilling, and many jumped the gun. So today > > the Marxists say, now that Capitalism has run its course, now we are > > truly ready for an ushering in of Marxism and Socialism. Capitalism > > has provided us with the technology and knowledge necessary to make > > socialism work. So I think what you are saying really is Marxism. > > > > > > > > > On 29 Jan, 22:47, student1987 <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > I believe that Winston Churchill put it best when he said that > > > > Capitalism is the worst form of government... except for all the > rest. > > > > There are many errors with capitalism, but it is the best of the > > > > worst. > > > > > > On Jan 19, 11:16 pm, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > I've always had trouble with "capitalism" - the word hardly appears > in > > > > > Marx and I've never seen any satisfactory definitions of it as a > > > > > phenomena. I have long thought we have an entirely stupid, sick > way > > > > > of doing business with each other, and that one could really only > > > > > guess this was more sick in countries without democracy and lead by > > > > > crazies and beaten with the hammer of state capitalism. > > > > > I've always had trouble with "management". Essentially, one had to > > > > > wonder how these not very bright people make themselves so > valuable. > > > > > I suspect they are thieves. The Guardian is running a string of > > > > > conferences on why no one saw the current mess coming (not true - > some > > > > > of us did), ending with questions about the corruption of character > > > > > underlying the mess. > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/Minds-Eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
