(no subject)
Oct. 5th, 2005 02:03 amSince i can't sleep, i thought i'd reply to a locked conversation that took place with a friend regarding my free market post. This friend is a free-market supporter, but was not one of the true targets of my sentiment, since i do not question hir compassion and commitment to genuine human freedom.
In a subtle way it was a Hurricane Katrina entry, because i am still fighting anger and disgust towards those who have sought to argue that the plight of the poor in the hurricane's aftermath was basically their own fault; or, alternatively, that it was the fault of the welfare state for putting people in a state of "learned helplessness." I am still angry and indignant towards victim-blamers who can't stand to see direct evidence of class oppression and exploitation in our society.
If ever there was proof of it, there it is.
I feel strongly that no free market exists, and furthermore that the free market cannot possibly exist (except possibly in a post-scarcity world). In my opinion the dehumanizing effects of commodification, the coersion exerted by creature needs for necessities, and involuntary participation in the labor market by anyone not independently wealthy, are fatal flaws.
That said... i am short on proposals to the contrary. I have leaned of late towards anarcho-socialism. Criticisms of government along the lines of those offered by the mutualists have stuck with me; also the thoughts of the Austrian school regarding cronyism and corruption as a human failing preventing implementation of just free markets; and i have written about the tendency for problem-solving edifices to become problems in their own right for future generations. I am aware of the failures of attempts to institute a socialist government that protects human liberty or civil rights. So i am under no illusions that socialism is necessarily the best antidote for market injustice.
I am also concerned about the potential for intellectual dishonesty that is brewing in my thoughts. To say that the failure of a free market to exist is due to an inherent flaw in the idea of the free market itself, while the failure of socialist democracy to exist is not due to a similar inherent flaw but rather of incidental problems, does not rest easily with me.
I feel i know where i stand, but just yet i feel uncomfortable walking in any one direction.
The idea has been lurking in the back of my mind that a culture which genuinely values life and accepts and celebrates diversity would find ways to alleviate the effects of inequality among its people regardless of the political or economic system it used. So perhaps our foremost goal should be the nurturing of such a culture. I fear, though, that commodification and starvation present insurmountable obstacles in the development of such a culture. (Perhaps i should be less willing to say never with regards to socio-political theories.)
Where does it begin? Where does it end?
In a subtle way it was a Hurricane Katrina entry, because i am still fighting anger and disgust towards those who have sought to argue that the plight of the poor in the hurricane's aftermath was basically their own fault; or, alternatively, that it was the fault of the welfare state for putting people in a state of "learned helplessness." I am still angry and indignant towards victim-blamers who can't stand to see direct evidence of class oppression and exploitation in our society.
If ever there was proof of it, there it is.
I feel strongly that no free market exists, and furthermore that the free market cannot possibly exist (except possibly in a post-scarcity world). In my opinion the dehumanizing effects of commodification, the coersion exerted by creature needs for necessities, and involuntary participation in the labor market by anyone not independently wealthy, are fatal flaws.
That said... i am short on proposals to the contrary. I have leaned of late towards anarcho-socialism. Criticisms of government along the lines of those offered by the mutualists have stuck with me; also the thoughts of the Austrian school regarding cronyism and corruption as a human failing preventing implementation of just free markets; and i have written about the tendency for problem-solving edifices to become problems in their own right for future generations. I am aware of the failures of attempts to institute a socialist government that protects human liberty or civil rights. So i am under no illusions that socialism is necessarily the best antidote for market injustice.
I am also concerned about the potential for intellectual dishonesty that is brewing in my thoughts. To say that the failure of a free market to exist is due to an inherent flaw in the idea of the free market itself, while the failure of socialist democracy to exist is not due to a similar inherent flaw but rather of incidental problems, does not rest easily with me.
I feel i know where i stand, but just yet i feel uncomfortable walking in any one direction.
The idea has been lurking in the back of my mind that a culture which genuinely values life and accepts and celebrates diversity would find ways to alleviate the effects of inequality among its people regardless of the political or economic system it used. So perhaps our foremost goal should be the nurturing of such a culture. I fear, though, that commodification and starvation present insurmountable obstacles in the development of such a culture. (Perhaps i should be less willing to say never with regards to socio-political theories.)
Where does it begin? Where does it end?