On Wed, May 14, 1997 at 10:30:34 (-0700) Max B. Sawicky writes: >> From: "William S. Lear" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> Subject: [PEN-L:10096] Re: Kasparov's defeat > >> On Wed, May 14, 1997 at 09:38:28 (PST) Wojtek Sokolowski writes: >> >As long as, for whatever reason, "peripheral devices" are allowed to feed >> >bullshit to the processing units, no processing system, even one with the >> >zillions-Deep-Blues processing capability, can solve the resource allocation >> >problem. That is true of both, central planning and Keynesian capitalism, >> >as we know them. >> >> Hence, perhaps an argument for democratic control intrudes? Perhaps >> if the "peripheral devices" were not deprived of their democratic >> rights (a very basic and fundamental human right), they would not be >> so inclined to feed in BS. Perhaps what central planning has hitherto >> been missing has been democratic participation, destroyed as far as I >> know in the former centrally-planned economies of Europe and the >> Soviet Union, and naturally, utterly absent in Keynesian (or other) >> capitalism. > >Actually I think it would be just the opposite. >Enterprises are intrinsically motivated to act out of >self-interest, not collective or national interest. >More democracy would afford them more avenues >for the exercise of this self-interest (e.g., lobbying, coalition >building, strategic voting, log-rolling, political bribery, etc.), >and no incentive for greater truth-telling. Ah, this depends on how democracy is structured, naturally. If corporations are treated as individuals and allowed to "participate" in politics as they are now, this *might* be true. On the other hand, were industries and the entire economy itself under broad democratic control, things could be quite different. Also, how is more democracy within a company (deciding on the products offered, perhaps steering investment and production strategies of the company to more humane and environmentally sensible uses, etc.) going to afford the company any more avenues for external political action? Is not the current political system (in the U.S., anyway) almost entirely run on corporate money? Is it not possible that a democratic society would decide that self-interest is not the way to run productive enterprises? Is it not true that the two concepts of unbridled self-interest and non-trivial democracy are anathema to one another? It seems like a very narrow view of democracy that is expressed by Max, one that by its very definition is guaranteed to be used instrumentally by the powerful to further their own interests. Bill
