Thursday, January 12, 2012

Peter Cooper — Opposing Visions of the Future


The debate initiated by John Carney's suggestion that MMT advocates and Austrian schoolers engage in finding common ground instead of focusing on what divides them kicked off a debate that veered off into a heated debate about the MMT job guarantee. That debate in turn elicited questions about what kind of economic goals should be included in economics as an effective policy instrument in addition to being an investigation into efficiently achieve those goals.

Peter observes,  "In one of Cullen Roche’s recent posts, there is a passage that can serve as a good basis for discussion:"

Cullen: "Modern day economists seek the holy grail of macroeconomics which has come to be price stability and full employment. These two features of modern macro are held up on pedestals as if giving a person a job and a steady wage is all one needs to live a happy and prosperous life. I say these goals entirely miss the point and steal the potential lives that future generations can live. What we should seek is the way in which we maximize our living standards. In doing so we reach the true holy grail of macroeconomics – the thing that every human seeks – the fountain of youth, hence, more TIME. After all, it is only through increased productivity, innovation, creativity and ultimately higher living standards that we are able to attain this."

Peter continues, "Parts of this passage resonate quite strongly with me, although the level of generality conceals major differences in perspective...."

Read the rest a heteconomist.com
Opposing Visions of the Future
by Peter Cooper

Good comments up there, too.

Peter pretty well sums up my views, at least initially. I would expand greatly on this, and I imagine that he likely will in subsequent posts. 

Many consider the present system to be obsolescent, if not already obsolete, in view of potential opportunities and taking into account looming challenges. Present conditions call for new thinking and fresh institutional arrangements.

The debate that John suggested is getting interesting in unexpected ways. The dialectical method is at work stimulating thinking.

As I wrote in a comment recently, the dialectical method that seeded Western thought through the character of Socrates in the Dialogues of Plato has gone globally interactive, and the dialectic is now proceeding at the speed of light. Good stuff.

24 comments:

Anonymous said...

I won't add a lot here to my comment at Peter's site, other than to say that I think Peter is leaning too much on a kind of free lunch techno-utopia, in which there are apparently rights but no corresponding duties, as the only alternative to capitalism.

Clonal said...

Dan,

Human beings in general, do not like being idle, they like "doing things."

What would you define as a "productive" activity? Growing food, providing clothing and shelter? If that is it, then today, 90% of humanity is not "productive." They are not directly involved in those activities. By that definition, most of us are idlers -economists particularly so! ;)

In fact, I would go so far as to say, that those involved in such activities, are among the least remunerated in our society.

So please clarify what you mean. I think what Peter implies is that capitalism actually demeans "real" human productivity. Your example of entrepreneurs leaves much to be desired. Having started many enterprises, I would go so far as to say that the nickname "vulture" capitalists for VC's is very well deserved. Capitalism pays just mere lip service to a competitive environment, and reveres "competitions" exact opposite. In a competitive environment with a level playing field, there can theoretically be no economic profits. But that is not the world we inhabit.

The world we inhabit is not governed by a "normal distribution, but rather by the extremes of the Boltzmann-Gibbs distribution, and even worse, the Pareto distribution. In the dog-eat-dog world of the B-G, at least the poor have some chance, but the world of the Pareto is the world of the ruling aristocracies!

Tom Hickey said...

My view is that the conversation is tipped way too much the other way, so we need to be emphasizing potential instead of moralizing, which is much of what the present economic and political debate is about. It's a distraction.

This debate is still in the very early stage, so I think it is premature to get critical at the outset about such a balance. Given the imbalance of the scales presently, it is natural to emphasize one side of the balance, when the other side is already way to heavy relatively.

There are two ways to approach this. The first is in terms of the present economic and political debate, in which one side denies or ignores the imbalance while the other side addresses it through redistribution that involves "winners and losers." Since those who perceive themselves as the losers are TPTB, we know where that debate is headed based on who controls it.

The second option is to advance the debate by expanding the pie, so that the result is better for all involved. I prefer the second approach. There are various ways of approaching this. Cullen's approach is one way, essentially dismissing the importance of distribution. Peter's way makes distribution central.

The left v. right poles on the political compas can be characterized based the approach to distribution, while the libertarian v. authoritarian poles can be characterized based on approach to the role of government.

What Peter did not mention and which I think is determinative, is that the present system is unsustainable in a variety of ways and is the process of breaking down. It must be transcended, or else. There is no need to wait for a crisis that forces this, other than due to inability to overcome the inertia of the status quo — that is driving us over a cliff as a species.

I don't like to sound like an alarmist, but there is some heavy stuff coming down hard and not in the far distant future as some who at least admit there is a problem would like to pretend. I probably won't be around to experience the brunt of this, at least in this body, but younger people here will, and all of our children and grandchildren will be heavily affected, if they survive, unless the unsustainable course is changed.
(continued)

Tom Hickey said...

(continuation)
I have previously cited Meher Baba's discourse "The New Humanity included in Discourses." If you haven't read it and don't plan to, at least consider this (p. 17-18).

"Ultimate cause of chaos is in egoism and self-interest

"At present the urgent problem facing humanity is to devise ways and means of eliminating competition, conflict and rivalry in all the subtle and gross forms which they assume in the various spheres of life. Military wars are, of course, the most obvious sources of chaos and destruction. However, wars in themselves do not constitute the central problem for humanity, but are rather the external symptoms of something graver at their root. Wars and the suffering they bring cannot be completely avoided by mere propaganda against war; if they are to disappear from human history it will be necessary to tackle their root-cause. Even when military wars are not being waged, individuals or groups of individuals are constantly engaged in economic or some other subtle form of warfare. Military wars, with all the cruelty which they involve, arise only when these underground causes are aggravated.

"The root-cause of the chaos which precipitates itself in wars is that most persons are in the grip of egoism and selfish considerations, and they express their egoism and self-interest individually as well as collectively.

"This is the life of illusory values in which men are caught. To face the Truth is to realise that life is one, in and through its manifold manifestations. To have this understanding is to forget the limiting self in the realisation of the unity of life.

"With the dawn of true understanding the problem of wars would immediately disappear. Wars have to be so clearly seen as both unnecessary and unreasonable that the immediate problem would not be how to stop wars but to wage them spiritually against the attitude of mind responsible for such a cruel and painful state of things.

"In the light of the Truth of the unity of all life, co-operative and harmonious action becomes natural and inevitable. Hence, the chief task before those who are deeply concerned with the rebuilding of humanity, is to do their utmost to dispel the spiritual ignorance which envelops humanity."

Matt Franko said...

Dan,

I would like to hear more from Marxists/Anarchists along this line.... but I have a hunch they are realists as far as the "free lunch" but in their own way.

FD: I have a "blindspot" to class. I just have a very hard time seeing "class". That said, I believe Marxists/Anarchists really take class into account as a defining principle.

These are the Libertarians of the Left. I think they can be subject to each other, on a cooperative, level playing field, and still get done the things that a society needs to get done (work). Not necessarily "free lunch".

If you watch some movies depicting the revolutionary era, they would say in greeting each other something like: "Your servant, sir", they would approach each other as each others servant, I think this is similar to how marxists/anarchists think/feel today.

Libs. of the Left seek not to be subject to other human beings, as in a vertical power relationship, but seems they can be subject to each other at a horozontal level thru the mediacy of some form of representative government.

Libs. of the Right seek not to be subject to government, but seem to have no problem with "working for the man" at corporations, etc... and seem to seek to cultivate climates where vertical power relationships can develop and flourish....

Some observations.

Resp,

PS Dan great Adam Smith quote over at Cullens wrt these issues... I think Cullen is going to have to consider that coming from A Smith..

Tom Hickey said...

Well said, Matt.

Libs of the left are into individuals freely associating in groups that they choose to belong to and voluntarily cooperating based on consensus building. They reject authoritarian vertical social relationships as unnatural, while recognizing and acknowledging natural leadership. People naturally line up behind natural leaders to accomplish specific tasks. Libs of the left tend to emphasize cooperation and coordination over competition and consolidation. Libs of the left are into distribution. win-win, and sharing. Libs of the self tend to think and feel holistically and universally.

Libertarian of the right are against authoritarian governments, but they are OK will other hierarchical structures and don't mind joining them and participating in them, including the authoritarian aspects, if they see personal benefit in it. Libs of the right tend to emphasize competition and consolidation over cooperation and coordination. Libs of the right are into accumulation, zero-sum wrt rival goods, and exclusive use of private property. Libs of the right tend to think and feel individualistically and particularly.

These are different personality types determined by different mindset, norms, and behavioral characteristics that is a manifestation of different brain functioning.

Tom Hickey said...

Clonal: Human beings in general, do not like being idle, they like "doing things."

I would just add to that "and doing things together with others."

Anonymous said...

Matt, I see anarchism and libertarianism as really just two different cultural styles drawing on the same deficient outlook on human history, human nature, human flourishing and social nature of human beings.

Discourse on the left has been dominated by 40+ years by some variant or other of Chomsky's so-called "libertarian socialism" - also known by and referred to by him and others as "anarchism". That same period has seen almost a uniform march of failure by the left, and the continued successful advancement of right-wing ideas.

Perhaps, then, its time for the left to consider that they are making a profound philosophical error, and that a political orientation based mainly on sporadic and haphazard dissent on behalf of the defense of personal freedom against various oppressors is no long-term formula for the triumph of a more democratic and equal society.

The positive social ideals put forward by this fundamentally reactive and alienated camp of the libertarian left are thoroughly unrealistic, based on a picture of a kind of spontaneous voluntarism of thoroughly autonomous individuals, without any tincture of coercive law, moral heteronomy and social organization, which nevertheless manages to preserve justice and equality over time. It's an illusion. And the anarchists' intrinsic hatred of government and law means that they never seek to govern themselves or prepare themselves to govern. Such people will always be governed.

There is no route to justice and equality that denies the nature of human beings as political animals, who always and everywhere create systems of law and government. There is no such thing in the real social world as libertarian socialism. One might as well aim for round squarism.

My view is that a failure of the earlier 60's uprising is due to its excessive emphasis on personal freedom and liberation, and insufficient attention to social solidarity and mutual commitments and obligations. The do-you-own-thing hipsters of the 60s evolved into born-again laissez faire market fundamentalists of the 80's and 90s. This should not be surprising, because the two outlooks are just age-appropriate variants of the same theme.

I worry that the Occupy movement is poised to repeat the same errors as their forbears. They resent the power of the 1%, but don't seem to be penetrating through to a critique of the radically individualistic cultural roots that make a 1% possible and inevitable. Their dalliances with anarchism and libertarianism are planting the seeds for the perpetuation of the very kind of inequality and injustice that so irks them now.

We can only preserve justice, decency and the democratic sharing of social power in the context of a genuine society that is deeply committed to such values, morally and institutionally, and puts its power where its ideal are. Sustaining such a society requires, I believe, sustaining and promulgating a code of social obligation, and criticizing one another for violations of the code. It also requires a rule of law that gives certain essential aspects of the code the force of law.

It might seem like a kind of liberating move toward some free form post-capitalism to promote the right to a modest income with no work in return. My fear is that going in that direction will only perpetuate the "new normal" of 8%+ unemployment, and the increasing social class chasm and caste system that is destroying the country. America has now reached pathological levels of inequality that are rapidly destroying the foundations of what's left of our democratic social order and our future prosperity. We're poking huge social holes in our national lifeboat.

Tom Hickey said...

Dan K: Sustaining such a society requires, I believe, sustaining and promulgating a code of social obligation, and criticizing one another for violations of the code. It also requires a rule of law that gives certain essential aspects of the code the force of law.

From the anarchist point of view, this position is part of the problem, not the solution. Historically, when any form of authoritarianism is embraced out of expediency, or compromise is made with it, the result has inevitably been more authoritarianism, as Bakunin noted in his dispute with Marx over the dictatorship of the proletariat. Even in the US, the republicans that took power as "the founding fathers" extirpated the popular democrats, using military force when they thought it necessary. The American Revolution are lost before it was won.

Tom Hickey said...

I should clarify my statement that the American Revolution was lost before it was won as meaning that the popular democrats (centered in Pennsylvania) who had been instrumental in the lead up to the revolt were largely excluded from the power structure and not given a seat at the table in drawing up the founding documents and institutions. Later, they were suppressed when they objected to Hamiltonianism, and military forces was mounted against the Whiskey Rebellion. Their views never died out and are enshrined in Tom Paine's work for example, as well as many things that Jefferson said. It's an important strain of US history, with both left and right cohorts.

Anonymous said...

Tom, I know what the anarchists say, but I think they are just mistaken and that no human society of any realistic kind can function the way they imagine such a society can function. We have to distinguish between the coercion exerted in vertical social hierarchies of command and subornation from the kind of balanced coercion exerted within democratic communities of equals on their own members. To me, that makes a huge difference.

Bakunin was certainly right about the "dictatorship of the proletariat". No society run by a dictatorship of any one class, or a vanguard, or a revolutionary committee or a politburo or a group of self-appointed philosopher kings can be democratic. I think the ideal we should commit to is democracy: governance of all the people, by all the people, for all the people in a community of equals. That doesn't mean a life free of coercive social pressure exerted by others though both law and moral standards; but it does mean a life in which no one in the society wields a share of that kind of social power that is greater than the share wielded by anyone else.

I agree that as social solidarity grows, the need for formal institutional forms of coercion diminishes. Some of the most successful contemporary societies have strong social-moral codes, but very low rates of criminality. People in such societies feel very much bound by rules and the expectations of others, but they generally accept the rules as reasonable and legitimate, and are not much disposed to violate them.

I think anarchism is the ultimate expression of the kind of egoism identified by Meher Baba in the passage you cited. It's the desire to be free of all the sometimes onerous ties of duty, social inhibition and fealty that bind people into a genuine society. I think the notion that we can get rid of these constraints, and still have well-functioning societies, is an illusion.

Tom Hickey said...

Dan, I agree with you on this (mostly). True freedom is only available to those who are truly free, and as all spiritual teachers have said, to be free means to be free of limiting self. Selfhood is limited by egoism, which is based on ignorance of the unity of all beings that underlies the manifestation of diversity and difference in the phenomenal world.

Libertarians who adhere to individualism exhibit one type of this ignorance, but anarchists who have not fully transcended "me and mine" exhibit another type.

Arise, awake, and learn by approaching the exalted ones, for that path is sharp as a razor’s edge, impassable, and hard to go by, say the wise. Katha Upanishad – 1.3.14

One can look neither left nor right while treading the path. On must be centered on the goal of unity and universality.

This, of course, is the opposite of Ayn Rand's Objectivism. It also conflicts with American "rugged individualism."

As a result many Americans either dismiss genuine spirituality as nonsense, or they adopt immature views of spirituality and misunderstand the teaching of their own religion, let alone that of others. Nor does one have to be a "believer" to be a genuinely spiritual person.

But it also conflicts with any concept of freedom that fails to grasp that real freedom is self-determination, and that self-determination is an ordering (governing) principle — which the ancient Greeks had already realized in the West and wrote about it, the Stoics in particular. It is must older in the East.

The wise have said that this ordering principle is the law of love, which based on apprehension of the essential unity of all. The spiritual path involves increasing one's apprehension of this unity, a consequence of which is intuiting the values associated with it.

So while political freedom is desirable as an aspect of freedom, it is only very partial. Moreover, the degree of its manifestation is limited to the level of collective consciousness of the society.

In this sense, the libs of the left are pursuing an ideal whose time has not yet come, and they do not recognize that it cannot be forced, which they should, since they are against forcing things. However, it is fine to nudge it.

The more intelligent folks of the previous countercultural revolution recognized this and eventually formed groups and networks that continue to exist in the larger society, contributing to the larger society insofar as possible but not looking to it for what it is incapable of providing owing to the collective mindset. One of these contributions was seeking Occupy and fertilizing it.

What I find promising about Occupy as this generation's countercultural revolution is that like the last one it will radicalize a lot of people and some of them will come closer to understanding and appreciating the issues around freedom, which is essentially a spiritual concept intimate to human beings, because humans are essentially spirit and realize this at least subliminally. Every desire for freedom is a step toward real freedom.

As I have said, history is dialectical, and there is no ending point to it. It is a contant evolving of forms of life, all of them striving to attain the next more advanced state. Since there are always so many beings on so many levels, there is no end point to history — although there is for individuals in the realization of who and what they really are. And that is the real freedom.

peterc said...

Dan wrote:

"I think anarchism is the ultimate expression of the kind of egoism identified by Meher Baba in the passage you cited. It's the desire to be free of all the sometimes onerous ties of duty, social inhibition and fealty that bind people into a genuine society."

The motive is to free others - everybody - to explore their potential, including (obviously) in connection to others. If our aim was just to free ourselves to live how we want, I'd imagine many of us here - through no merit of our own - would have had the problem solved before it was posed.

"Peter is leaning too much on a kind of free lunch techno-utopia, in which there are apparently rights but no corresponding duties."

What are we all doing here? We are contributing to an effort for which most of us are not paid and would not want to be paid. What is the "opportunity cost" for many of us in spending an hour attempting to disseminate MMT? If we thought like that, we wouldn't spend a single moment's thought on this or any other project that didn't pay the big bucks.

But I guess the poor unwashed are different. Unlike us, they only do something as long as they're not handed something for nothing? And they are surely not interested in helping out another.

Matt Franko said...

Tom/Peter,

I think the chances for any success by marxists/anarchists to establish a thriving sub-culture is reduced greatly by current tax policy.

They cannot "opt out".

Systems like co-ops, collectives, etc are meant to run without net income/transaction based taxes imo. The tax code jams it all up. It forces a bastardization of these two disparate systems (collectivism & "capitalism") that prevents success.

Perhaps if we could go back to a "poll tax", ie a tax just on the person, and then let these folks just "opt out". That would be like a small/reasonable once a year tax on the person payable in USDs. The person or some sort of a syndicate of people within the collective would go out into the "regular" economy and earn enough USDs for everyone who has "opted out" to pay the poll tax, bring those USDs back in to some how equitably distribute that for everyone else to use to retire their individual poll tax.

Otherwise, within the sub-culture, all transactions would be free of USD taxes and it would be a wide open free economy to let it rip. People would be free to transact without the taxman being inserted in between each transaction.

Short of this sort of "tax-free" environment or being stuck with the current "bastardized" environment to host a true trial of these systems, I think you are perhaps being hard on yourselves for thinking any previous attempts have been less than successful... you have one hand tied behind your back.

Resp,

Anonymous said...

Peter, I am not arguing that the time people have that is not "on the clock" is not frequently filled with activity that is both beneficial to themselves and to others. We obviously want to make sure people continue to have off the clock time to pursue their avocations - both for the sake of their own well-being and ours.

But I do think there is something mistaken about the idea that people should have an right to an income no matter what they choose to do with the entirely of their time. I don't see how anyone can have an obligation free claim on the work of others. If some people are going to be willing to deliver part of the product of their hard work to other people, they should have some say in what those others will be expected to do in return. This applies to any viable social model, not just a market-based one.

The people producing all of the health care, automobiles and restaurant meals are sometimes doing kinds of work that keep them from what they would prefer to do too. If they are producing these things in sufficient quantities so that there is enough for both themselves and for others, then they are going to have to get something in return, or else they will quite justifiably want to reduce their labor so that they can have more free time, thus eliminating the surplus of automobiles, restaurant meals and health care. What they get in return will have to be something that they value, rather than whatever the people they are delivering their output to unilaterally decide to deliver. Their needs and desires and expectations have to be communicated to others.

I'm not talking about the poor unwashed. I don't know why you keep going back to that. I think our current practices that allow some people to draw massive incomes for very little work are unjust. This is about creating a sustainable social contract among equals. That requires attention to systems of reciprocity and obligation, and not just the individual pursuit of fulfillment.

peterc said...

"I'm not talking about the poor unwashed. I don't know why you keep going back to that. I think our current practices that allow some people to draw massive incomes for very little work are unjust."

What's this got to a BIG? People on the BIG will not be drawing massive incomes.

Anonymous said...

Peter it has nothing particularly to do with BiG. But I thought what we were talking about here is what kind of social future we should aim for, not just what policy measures we should take in the near term. And I was arguing against a conception of the social future in which people are formally entitle to an income derived from the work of others but are not formally bound by reciprocal obligations.

I was also arguing against one anarchist conception of the future in which there are no enforced formal rights or duties, but in which the purely voluntary determination by each individual of how they want to spend their time nevertheless results in a fairly happy world in which everything works out.

Tom Hickey said...

peterc: The motive is to free others - everybody - to explore their potential, including (obviously) in connection to others.

Meher Baba: "In the light of the Truth of the unity of all life, co-operative and harmonious action becomes natural and inevitable. Hence, the chief task before those who are deeply concerned with the rebuilding of humanity, is to do their utmost to dispel the spiritual ignorance which envelops humanity."

I see the true "anarchist" mission to be a spiritual mission, one that brings everyone under the inner law of love, which is entailed by realization of unity. Living in accordance with this inner law of one's own (enlightened) heart is genuine self-determination.

Otherwise, self-determination is iaw the inner drive toward what economics calls max u, that is, maximizing individual pleasure-gai.. How selfish is that? Where can that possibly lead? As Meher Baba rightly observes, toward chaos, and history is the record of repetition of chaotic events in pursuit of fame, fortune, power and pleasure.

The aim of philosophical (well-thought out) anarchy is to break that mold and move humanity up a notch on the ladder of evolution. Any politics and economics that doesn't take this into account is deficient in living up to human potential.

An oft heard objection is that humanity is not yet ready to take that step. OK, so form your own network and do you best to expand it while also doing your best to be a grain of yeast leavening the larger loaf that is national and now global society. This is the anarchist project and it is going along pretty well on the internet in addition to many networks and physical groups in various locations.

This started in earnest in the Sixties and Seventies and receded into the background in the Eighties. Some believe it disappeared but it did not and it is very perceptible on the Internet. Now it is making its voice heard through Occupy, which is not to say that everyone associated with Occupy is no this level yet. But that is what the radicalization process is about.

Tom Hickey said...

Matt, I have generally not seen taxes or government to be an obstacle to intelligent anarchists, certainly not an insurmountable one.

The anarchists at the bottom are aware that they have a corresponding shadow at the as TPTB. TPTB has crafted their own freedom from and freedom to by gaining control of the governing process and creating a double standard in which they are privileged and above the law and the rules of the system.

Anarchists at the bottom realize that the people at the top are like them only they think 180 degrees opposite. They want freedom for themselves and no one else, who they see as their slaves. How weird is that?

The "slaves" or "serfs" are controlled not only by positive law but also cultural conventions that TPTB use to keep them in check and working hard to keep them occupied so they don't think to much. And just enough bread and circuses to keep them docile. And a constant barrage of media propaganda like" this is classless society." Most people look at North Korea and are amazed at how the people there can be a brainwashed as they are. Well, guess what.

I am not saying anything new here. This kind of thought as been out there for hundreds of years. A lot of people think that the present US ultra-left is Marxist. That is not the case. It is more in the tradition of Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, with whom Marx had a falling out. Unfortunately, Marx became much more influential, but Proudhon's ideas were more in tune with genuine anarchism. Marx compromised with expediency.

In The Confessions of a Revolutionary Proudhon asserted that, Anarchy is Order Without Power, the phrase which much later inspired, in the view of some, the anarchist circled-A symbol, today "one of the most common graffiti on the urban landscape."[2] He unsuccessfully tried to create a national bank, to be funded by what became an abortive attempt at an income tax on capitalists and stockholders. Similar in some respects to a credit union, it would have given interest-free loans.[3]

***

Proudhon published his own perspective for reform which was completed in 1849, Solution du problème social("Solution of the Social Problem"), in which he laid out a program of mutual financial cooperation among workers. He believed this would transfer control of economic relations from capitalists and financiers to workers. The central part of his plan was the establishment of a bank to provide credit at a very low rate of interest and the issuing exchange notes that would circulate instead of money based on gold.

****

Visiting the barricades personally, he later reflected that his presence at the Bastille at this time was "one of the most honorable acts of my life". But in general during the tumultuous events of 1848, Proudhon opposed insurrection by preaching peaceful conciliation, a stance that was in accord with his lifelong stance against violence. He disapproved of the revolts and demonstrations of February, May, and June 1848, though sympathetic to the social and psychological injustices that the insurrectionists had been forced to endure.

Tom Hickey said...

Dan K: I was also arguing against one anarchist conception of the future in which there are no enforced formal rights or duties, but in which the purely voluntary determination by each individual of how they want to spend their time nevertheless results in a fairly happy world in which everything works out.

Mischaracterization of much anarchism. Anarchism does not argue against a governing principle but rather one backed up with political power resting on a monopoly on violence. Consolidated power ALWAYS gets hijacked by the powerful, who then use it for their own selfish purposes. Source: history.

peterc said...

Tom, I have been reading and very much appreciating the Meher Baba links you provided.

Matt Franko said...

Tom,

Do you think Anarchists would do "accounting" if it were not for it being required to compute USD tax liabilities?

ie If you ran a coop, somebody traded a case of wax beans put up in jars for few jars of honey or whatever, IRS is in there and you have to account for the value of the beans vs the honey and any net "profit" incurs a tax liability payable in a currency that wasnt even involved in the transaction... now the person with the "profit" has to come up with USDs to stay out of jail... do you see how this would have a tendency to screw things up?

If it wasnt for the Govt tax coercion, perhaps these two Anarchists trading ag products would just look at each other and say: "Even" or "I'm good." and go on with their day.... same could happen with services, etc..

Would "accounting" even be necessary? Once you start keeping track of such things, probably invariably the "comparisons" start, ie "who is doing their fair share" etc..

It's hard to imagine how that system would really run without evaluating it based on the paradigm of the status quo... iow when someone looks at that and says: "how are you going to keep track if everybody is "working"? "Everyone has to do their fair share", etc.. Then right there you are in the present paradigm in terms of even thinking to evaluate things on those terms seems like...

Resp,

(PS: You guys gotta figure out a way to just opt out of all of this chaos! ;)

Tom Hickey said...

peterc: Tom, I have been reading and very much appreciating the Meher Baba links you provided.

Glad to hear that Peter. In my estimation, and this is my professional field, Meher Baba provided the clearest articulation of perennial wisdom for our time. The basis of perennial wisdom is he teaching that reality is one and the purpose of life is realizing this experientially not only intellectually.

For example, this is the basis of the Mosaic teaching that God is one (Deuteronomy 6:4). According to the Zohar, "one" means one in being, not in number. "You are one but not according to number." This is basic to the mystical traditions of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. A similar teaching is found in the East that is even more ancient.

In the modern West, where science holds sway today, the goal of the science is to unite understanding under a single set of equations, if possible, and it has already been shown that mass can be expressed in terms of energy. While the development of thought has been in the direction of discovering greater unity and universality, from time immemorial mystics have reported experiencing unity directly as the nature of consciousness-reality.

This is not merely an abstract teaching. As this debate unfolds, it should be clear that a progressively greater realization of unity underlies not only the approach to individual life but also collective life in and through society, which is the expression of the prevailing collective consciousness made up of individual consciousenesses.

The gives deeper meaning to the ideal set forth in the Declaration regarding "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" as "inalienable rights." All expression gets interpreted at the level it it understood and different levels of conscious result in different understandings. "Liberty" understood as freedom from constraint and and license to do whatever one wishes is juvenile, as its equating the pursuit of happiness with the pursuit of physical pleasure. Most people, I would hope, recognize this. However, very few realize even intellectually what the higher meaning of these fine sounding words really is.

That is revealed through the testimony of the mystics and the teaching of the masters from time immemorial — those whom most people recognize as the wise and pay lip-service to, but fail to understand, much less follow. These are not pious sayings to be mouthed or filed away in memory. Rather they are invitations to experience individually and live together in creating an ideal society based on true values that are written in the heart but covered by the dross of selfish desires.
(continued)

Tom Hickey said...

(continuation)
Creating an appropriate vision for society requires understanding human potential and human purpose, as well as the spectrum of ways this expresses itself in different consciousnesses and various levels of consciousness, individual and collective. The teachers of humanity from pre-history have been imparting this wisdom of life.

Anthropologists discover it among so-called primitive tribes. Marx recognized this from the work of Lewis Morgan, for instance, and built his philosophy and economics on it, which is why it has had a strong appeal to so many.

In this endeavor to produce an economics worthy of human potential and purpose, max u fails miserably because it is based chiefly on material consciousness. Of course, thinking economists try to qualify this, but when it comes to model building the proof is in the pudding. It's purely material. Quality is absent because it cannot be quantified.

Aquinas begins De Ente et Essentia with the observation that a small mistake in the beginning become a great one in the end, paraphrasing Aristotle a thousand years before him. Failure to take unity into account and the potential for progressively realizing it intellectually through reason and experientially through love results in all kinds of nonsense that deflects human beings from gaining what they inherently seek — abiding fulfillment, which is what real happiness is. Material satisfaction is incapable of providing this abiding fulfillment, and it results in social chaos to boot.

A society based on materiality is doomed to failure wrt to both private and public purpose. Unless the nature of the culture and the chief institution are changed to reflect human nature and its real aspirations, individual and social life are merely distractions. But this change can only come about by raising collective consciousness. This is what my MA thesis in social and political philosophy was about. I am happy to see us discussing this. It's basic.