First, has there ever been an individual,
group, or even society that hasn't been
concerned about "economics?" Hardly. A
constant criticism of Marx has been that he
is a so-called "economic determinist"...that
his critique of capitalism was a reductionist
perspective that reduced everything to
economics. While there are many aspects to
this criticism (more specifically...in
answering it), I want to center in on just
one aspect here...just what did he mean by
saying that all else in a society results
from the economic arrangements of that
society? Admittedly, this "sounds" like a
reductionist or deterministic position.
However, when one asks just what is meant by
"economics" this seeming determinism tends to
evaporate. So, just what is economics?
Well, when one goes to the root of the issue
we find that there has never been a group of
any size that hasn't been concerned with the
"organization of their material circumstances
in order to survive." If one (individually
or a group) doesn't pay attention to
organizing their material realities in order
to survive, then one won't survive, right?
In other words, given the resources
available, their technological abilities, and
patterns of control, "survival" will turn out
in a variety of ways. If that organization
involves a very limited amount of resources
and technological abilities, then it is
doubtful that much beyond basic survival will
be on the minds of the people of that society
(i.e. they won't have much time or interest
in the "finer" things of life). In other
words, economics is nothing but the way or
means by which survival is achieved. It is
not a question of whether economics is of
concern...its always a matter of HOW to
organize it. Thus, Marx's observations that
economics is the "base" of all else in a
society is not a deterministic position, it
is a "radical" one (i.e. goes to the root of
existence)
Second, it is very common knowledge that
"order" is the opposite of "chaos"...right?
Therefore we have a bias in favor of order
and against chaos...again, as if they are
polar opposites. It also turns out that any
"given" order of a society is considered to
be "order"...itself. Any suggestion that
this given order should be changed is met
with cries and fears of...oh no, there will
be chaos and everything will fall apart. I'd
like to suggest that these two concepts
aren't opposites but two different labels for
the same thing. Maybe...just maybe "order"
is just another name for a certain kind of
"chaos" and that "chaos" is just another kind
of "order." Even further, maybe what we call
order is just an "ordered chaos"...at least,
as it applies to capitalism. Those invested
in getting people to believe in the polar
nature of these concepts will usually benefit
personally in the given arrangement that
exists and in devaluing any other
possibility...dah!!
Third, I've always considered, as a sign
of continuing hope about our society, the
existence of individual newspaper
containers...the kind you put in the money
and take a paper unsupervised. Think about
it, we dutifully put in the change and most
of us still take only ONE paper!! At least
in some places the honor system is still
viable. When these are taken off the street
we'll have a sure sign of change!!
Fourth, while I'm at it...libraries are
still an amazing reality, too. Where else
can we go and after being issued a card by
the Library, simply walk out with any of
their resources...free of charge...with the
"promise" we'll return them, hopefully on
time? There's not much comparable in our
society to that...eh?
Fifth, want to get rid of all crime
tomorrow? How? Well, abolish all laws
today, that's how. Contrary to popular
ideology, "crime" is not a "type of
behavior"...but rather, a DEFINITION ABOUT
BEHAVIOR brought to us compliments of written
laws by real people. Crime is what a law
says it is. Laws are written by people with
real self-interests and shared values.
That's why some behaviors are "criminal" and
some aren't. That's why "taking something
from someone" in some situations is
considered a crime and in other situations it
isn't. If you take $10,000 from a bank, its
robbery...but when a company takes $10,000
from a worker by paying them less than the
value their labor creates...well, that's
called "normal business." Again, crime isn't
a kind of behavior...its a decision about
behavior. Think of the implications of that
for a while.
Sixth, parenting is rather
interesting...to say the least. My take on
parenting is that its a process of "working
oneself out of a job." I consider that
process to begin the second the child is
born. What do I mean? I mean that my "job"
as a parent is to teach, guide, conjole, and
yes, sometimes demand that my child to grow
up and eventually leave...to live on their
own as undependent human beings with values
they've decided on for themselves. My job is
to provide them with values...but to let them
experience the world "as it is" and then have
the nerve to let them try it for
themselves...increasing that leeway
appropriately...along the way. Many parents
do the exact opposite...and that's why they
are so disappointed with their children and
why they are so hurt when their children
sneak around trying the things they need to
try (and even some they don't need to try).
Many do the whole thing half-ass
backwards...to be blunt.
There...that's the first installment.
I'll try hard to do this regularly. For now,
as usual, comments are encouraged...either by
e-mail or by posting them in the
Boardroom.
Thanks...David
