> Ant McWatt stated August 22nd:
>
> >For genuine freedom for the majority of individuals in the world (rather
> >than a neo-con minority in the West) and a reduction in government
> >interference (one of your pet desires), I'd look towards some MOQ
> >orientated system of political anarchy with a small dose of Northrop and
> >environmentalism. (Note the absence of the word Liberal).
>
> Platt then asked August 22nd:
>
> I've tried for 10 years on this site to get you and others on the left to
> spell out in detail the political system you would like to see that you
> think would reflect the MOQ. ("Political anarchy" sounds like Noam
> Chomsky). Will you now?
>
> Ant McWatt replies:
>
> Not too sure I like the description that I'm on the political left or the
> implication that theres much wrong with the ideas of Noam Chomsky but the
> following section from my MOQ Textbook should give you a good start in what
> an MOQ based political system would look like:
>
> 6.2.1. THE MOQ SOLUTION TO CAPITALISM
>
> The MOQ (as a holistic philosophy that recognises social structures as
> being composed of value patterns and, therefore, being as real as anything
> material) can be employed to challenge the alienating assumptions of
> capitalism. For instance, it considers money as a social value and, in
> consequence, recognises that its secondary to more Dynamic intellectual
> values such as beauty, justice and freedom.
>
> In the MOQ making money is a social activity that should not dominate the
> higher intellectual goal of truth, or interfere with perception and pursuit
> of Dynamic Quality. (Pirsig, 2002d)
All economic activity is a "social activity." Economics is about the
production and distribution of goods and services with money being a
medium to facilitate distribution. "Truth, perception and pursuit of DQ,"
which are required to create goods and services, are not affected by the
medium of distribution except when the motivation to create is squelched
by the forcible taking of earned wealth from the creator to redistribute
as government dictates. Pirsig knows as well as anyone that pure
intellectual pursuits such as philosophy are made possible by those in
society who "make money."
> Such MOQ principles are applied by Paradigm Research International
which
> encourages companies to operate on co-operative lines and to be sensitive
> to their biological and social environments (locally and globally).
> Paradigms C.E.O., Dr Robert Harris (1997, p.1) notes that such companies
> operate longer, provide a less alienating working environment, and remain
> more in harmony with the local and global environment. Moreover, he
> further suggests that they are as successful financially, if not more so,
> than companies retaining the traditional capitalist structure. However,
> there are relatively few MOQ based companies and, not surprisingly, there
> are considerable difficulties in convincing shareholders and directors to
> share significant control and equity with their workers.
I know of no MOQ principles that suggest that companies are best operated
and controlled by employees. In fact, the highest moral principle of the
MOQ -- freedom -- suggests that the free market applies as well to the
production of goods and services as well as distribution so that
individuals are free to become employers by creating a business or sell
their talents to employers in a free labor market. Of course this also
means that employees should be free to attempt to convince shareholders
and directors that the company would be better off if employees took
charge. For the government to dictate such an arrangement would violate
MOQ principles.
> 6.2.2. THE WORK OF MARY PARKER FOLLETT
> Its interesting to note that Harris is interested in the work of Peter F.
> Drucker (who promotes socially-conscious economic systems) who in turn, is
> an advocate of the work of Mary Parker Follett (1868-1933). In the 1920s,
> Follett was a well known American political scientist and management
> thinker who thought a proper sharing of power within business organisations
> was the key to social progress and commercial success:
>
> Genuine power can only be grown, it will slip from every arbitrary hand
> that grasps it; for genuine power is not coercive control, but coactive
> control. Coercive power is the curse of the universe; coactive power, the
> enrichment and advancement of every human soul. (Follett, 1924,
> p.xii-xiii)
>
> According to Drucker, Follett was a prophet of management though her
> ideas were largely ignored in the States during the 1930s and 1940s because
> her conceptualisation of power with rather than power over others was
> contrary to the dominant capitalist ideology. However, her ideas never
> really went out of favour in Britain and after becoming especially popular
> in Japan during the 1960s, American interest in her work returned. Her
> ideas are similar to those advocated by Harris in that both think business
> organizations should be flat networks rather than hierarchical
> structures.
>
> Follett was able to advocate the fostering of a self-governing principle
> that would facilitate the growth of individuals and of the groups to which
> they belonged. By directly interacting with one another to achieve their
> common goals, the members of a group fulfilled themselves through the
> process of the groups development. (Smith, M. K., 2002)
>
> Like Pirsig, Folletts philosophy also draws from the work of William
> James, especially in its pragmatic sentiment. As far as I can ascertain,
> Pirsig and Follett also have the same notion of the individual and both
> place higher value on the creative rather than the rational aspects of
> experience.
> It would be fair to say that Follett is a precursor of many of the MOQ
> ideas applied by Harris to business.
>
> The Metaphysics of Quality does definitely imply that, other things being
> equal, an employee-owned company is more moral than a privately owned
> company for the same reason that a democracy is more moral than a
> dictatorship. Both enhance intellectual freedom within a traditional
> static social pattern and thus are a higher form of evolution. Employee
> ownership also appeals to the old Indian idea of community of equals that
> allows maximum freedom for all. (Pirsig, 1991a)
I don't think an employee-controlled company necessarily enhances
intellectual freedom or is a higher from of evolution, especially since
you relate it to the old Indian idea of community which has been left
behind by societal evolution and which never succeeded in promoting
intellectualism because it was mired in static religious practices.
>
> 6.3. CONCLUSION
> It seems that, in essence, that the MOQ advocates a more balanced economic
> structure retaining the advantages of (intellectually orientated) socialism
> and capitalisms Dynamic free market.
Why am I not surprised that you find the MOQ supports British-style
socialism? Must be pure coincidence. :-)
> >From a static point of view socialism is more moral than capitalism. Its
> >a
> higher form of evolution. It is an intellectually guided society, not just
> a society that is guided by mindless traditions. Thats what gives
> socialism its drive
>
> On the other hand
a free market is a Dynamic institution. 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.
>
> 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.224-25)
>
> Pirsigs analysis is interesting because though capitalism has serious
> faults (such as Third World sweat shops and poor environmental records) its
> free market element is successful in an economic context. The critical
> issue then is the level of control that should be applied to a free market
> to obtain as much of its benefits without the degeneracy it causes (to
> higher values such as justice) when its given too much freedom. The
> ideal is obtaining a balance between freedom and order and in which context
> they should be applied.
>
> ===============================
>
> I dont how much detail you want but Ive also mentioned Northrop numerous
> times in the context of the international political arena and, more
> recently, Tom Hodgkinson (How to be Free) who espouses an anarchist
> philosophy reminiscent of the MOQ at the local level.
>
> All around us we see stressed out workers competing for the best parking
> space, snatching at every opportunity and consuming with a vigour that
> would put most drug addicts to shame - Hodgkinson, with a broad sword that
> takes in medieval merrymaking and our 21st century tax burden (higher now
> than in fuedal times according to the author) puts forward an almost
> unarguable point that we all need to slow down, consume less, laugh more
> and stop striving for the next big thing. As most people deep down know
> this to be true it took How to Be Free for me to finally stop and, like
> being gently slapped in the face with the fish of happiness and quit
> rushing around like an idiot.
>
> It's rare for books to actually stop you in your tracks (The Corporation
> - Bakan, Stupid White Men - Moore, The Culture of Fear - Glassner, How
> Mumbo Jumbo Conquered the World - Wheen) but I was the road rage, drag the
> dog around the park, five meetings a day, make more money screaming bundle
> of stress that somehow defines modern man. How to Be Free points to an
> alternative way of life that drags the absurdity of this modern capitalist
> lifestyle out into the bright sunshine and stabs it repeatedly with
> observations, facts and comparisons. Buy this book or alternatively, on Tom
> Hodgkinsons advice, buy a ukulele .. or was it a banjo. Buy two, one for
> yourself and one for someone you know who screams at cyclists.
>
> J. D. Mulder
>
> (http://www.amazon.co.uk/How-Be-Free-Tom-Hodgkinson/dp/0241143217)
There has always been those who concentrate on the negative aspects of
capitalism without ever acknowledging its benefits. Fortunately, Pirsig
doesn't fall into that category. Rather he blames the problems of Western
civilization on the defect in scientific intellectualism which dominates
Western thought.
But, for making the effort to apply the MOQ to politics, I thank you. I
hope others will chime in.
Platt
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
