Re: [ox-en] Robinsonades (was: Re: Role of markets)
- From: "Franz Nahrada" <f.nahrada reflex.at>
- Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2008 09:11:47 +0200
"Patrick Anderson" <agnucius gmail.com> writes:
If I spend time and money to court a mate
and she gives me a kiss, then we have made an exchange. We have
traded. And other potential mates are the 'market' for that trading.
This is a moment when I almost feel like giving up, almost feeling there
is a clash of cultures beyond what we can solve by words. I honestly
believe that there is a kind of cultural gene in even the ability to see
the world through these concepts,
But for the sake of discussion, lets clarify. Lets say from the point of
view of a mid-European, comparatively agriculturally dominated worldview
with philosophical lenses.
1. "If I spend time and money to court a mate and she gives me a kiss"
this might be the proof for her "berechnende" = calculating nature, It
also might simply be the fact that her feelings tell her this is the right
person, The normal mind knows that there is a distinction between
calculating and loving, and that people in the capitalist society have a
sphere of calculating directly and another sphere where they are seemingly
allowed to follow their feelings (until they accept the "offer" of the
state to turn their feelings into a system of duties and rights). Hegel
described the fact of love in a way that mind be called idealistic, but
which is nevertheless systematically very important. While Kant was
apologetic of the economic aspect of marriage and called it "a contract to
use each others sexual organs" (and so had quite a similar view like you,
Patrick), Hegel knew that "there is a deep yearning in human beings to
substantially be one". He called all relations based on trading and the
form of life that Stefan characterized as monadic as the "spiritual domain
of animals", or the "mental animal kingdom" (geistiges Tierreich). In all
forms of human relations when we have not overcome this basic strangeness
to each other, we are nothing but thinking animals and have not reached
our human nature. This is why Marx said we are still in the "prehistory of
the human". I think neither Stefan nor anybody else here denies the fact
that humans ARE thinking that way, but its very controvesial to say this
is the nature of humans.
2. Of course after Nietzsche and Freud the simple thought of morality
dissolving this dilemma is dead forever also, even if popular, so
everybody knows at the same time morality has always a fake component.
3. John Nash found an mathematical solution and transcended Adam Smith by
proving that the optimum result in human actions will come about if any
action has a "selfish" and "altruistic" component at the same time(The
Nash-Equilibrum). This transgresses and destroys all economy since Smith
that only knows selfish actors and thinks the good of society will grow
out of the result of selfishness. Nash prove that competition is
destructive and actors can choose coopetition, which means to include a
cultural component in their action.
4. Hegel knew that long before. He proved the necessity of "corporations"
which is the exact opposite of what we call corporations today.
"Korporationen" are bodies that shape the cooperative components of our
behaviour and even of markets. This was politically used as the base of
fascism. Back to the start again. But keep that in mind, he was not wrong.
And it might be interesting to state that the cultural component of every
productive act has grown stronger in history. We are building on the work
of generations and our present dilemma is that economy (aka capitalism)
cannot survive in its current form without appropriating and thus
destroying the cultural component of our actions.
5. In a discussion with Helmut Leitner who is a strong supporter of market
economy but a very open mind, we terminologically agreed to differ between
exchange and exchange, in German its easier to say, between "Austausch" -
humans share their "out of work - results" with each other - and "Tausch"
- they trade equivalents. I think we need to introduce such a
terminological difference here, too. If we recognize the fact that there
is a wide scale of "Austausch" relations - Michael in his systematic zeal
knows at least four basic ones of them - we do not confuse them with the
"Foolishness of the Equivalent" in "Tausch"- relations. Of course no human
being wants to be wasted away simply for the sake of others that dont
care. But its absolutely different to the system where basically every
economic transacttion can only happen when in the SAME transaction an
"equal value" changes hand the other direction. Can you see and recognize
Contact: projekt oekonux.de