From: Jurriaan Bendien (adsl675281@TISCALI.NL)
Date: Wed Oct 18 2006 - 15:59:46 EDT
Thanks for your comment. I will try to give some replies. Well, a historical approach - historical thinking which traces the origins and development of things - is important and useful, I have no disagreement there. It is important to know that "things were not always this way, and will not always be this way" and that we can contextualise our lives in this way. It is just that I think market relations should be understood dialectically in the sense that they imply both autonomy and coercion. Precisely because there is this contradiction, you get plenty of ideologies about markets and their functioning. And "realistic" utopias should, I think, base themselves more on what is maximally achievable within the society that exists. But you are correct, in some stormy periods of the past people had much bigger and bolder ideas about what human beings could achieve. I wouldn't say so generally that "Markets are progressive compared to feudal institutions" - in some ways, e.g. a serf who was tied to the land could be better off than a propertyless proletarian. Moreover there were plenty markets in feudal societies as well. If we view markets historically, we can also see that markets themselves have changed a lot over time, in terms of what was traded, how it was traded, and under what conditions. Your wrote: "Here you talk about many things at the same time." True, it is a more complex argument but haven't written that up in great detail. I think Marx maybe thought the is-ought dichotomy was resolved in practice, through practical experience, and that ist was useless to discuss it outside of practical experience. However one can have a perfectly objective view of a situation without this necessarily implying one course of action over another. If it does imply this, that is just because we cannot "squat outside of society" etc. We have a position or interest to defend, even if just to survive etc. You argue: "All anti-capitalist-discussions can be traced back morally to the concept of mutual recognition or respect. This concept makes up the core of social ethics of anti-capitalism." I am not sure if that is true. Anti-capitalism in my experience can be motivated by many diffferent factors, some more honorable than others. You think utopian thought has had always something to do with emancipation rather than suppression. But how about the Zionist utopia? It seems to me that it contains both those elements. It has been argued e.g. that Zionism is a reactionary utopia insofar as it tries to build a Jewish home over the corpses of Palestinians. Or take Stalin's utopia of "socialism in one country" etc. or Hitler's Third Reich. Indeed there are authors who have argued that utopianism contains the seeds of totalitarianism. This is obviously going to far. But I think I am correct in believing utopias need not be progressive or emancipatory for everybody. You argue that "Utilitarian concept of ethics provides the ethical foundation of commercial exchange relations." But what is your proof? I travelled in quite a few countries, but in each country you find different postulated ethical foundations for the market. To engage in trade requires, to be sure, some basic behavioural norms such as consistency and reliability in making transactions, promise-keeping and so on. Otherwise there is no trust, and the trading system breaks down. But no specific ethical principles are implied by trade itself, other that what is required to settle transactions. Hence markets are compatible with all sorts of religions and ethical systems, and indeed all manner of property relations. If for example you compare the trading behaviour of the Dutch and the Moroccans, there are enormous differences, a world of difference, even although essentially the exchanges are of the same type. As long as people pay their bills and do not cheat too much, it does not matter what their precise ethics are for the purpose of trade. That is the basis of liberal philosophy, you can choose how you will live. Moreover an historical approach will show that perceptions of market ethics are subject to change with the evolution of markets themselves. Two hundred years ago it was perfectly acceptable to trade in slaves, now it is not. Happiness of the greatest number? "The establishment of market society requires the commodification of every thing." I am not sure about this either. In truth, market society is dependent on a lot of non-market activity to exist at all. If this non-market activity disappears, the society breaks down. A market society that reproduces itself on the basis of the economic laws of the market requires only that certain critical resources are commercially supplied. In Europe, this was the result of a long process of evolution and revolutions, through which obstacles to market trade in critical areas were gradually broken down. If strictly everything in life becomes commodified, however, it is likely society breaks down simply because we ordinary mortals cannot afford to buy it all. I am talking about a situation where e.g. everything I do, experience and consume depends on a commercial transaction. Regards Jurriaan
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Oct 31 2006 - 00:00:03 EST