From: yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: Wage Slavery (Was: BIG LIE about the market)
Date: 11 Apr 92 02:53:40 GMT
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst

In article <9204101620.AA00214@xuucp.ch.apollo.hp.com> nelson_p@APOLLO.HP.COM writes:
>
>From: yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken)
>
>>>  I've advocated for libertarians, communists,
>>>  etc that they set up small experiments first as proof of concept
>>>  before they start telling us how 240-million-person nations ought 
>>>  to organize themselves.
>>
>>Note that such experiments in worker self-management and radical 
>>syndicalism as the C.N.T. control of Catalonia in the mide 1930's have
>>been interesting but cut short by the intemperate reaction of those
>>who disagreed with the experimental goals.
>
>  Nonetheless there are ample opportunities for a very wide range
>  of perfectly legal experiments at the level of the town or state.
>
Nonsense. We live in a unified worldwide economic system. Those who chose
to live outside ofthe monetary world will starve, those who chose to 
pretend that the state does not exist will go to jail.

>
>>So, everyone who takes a moral stand is, by your logic, an intellectual
>>fraud. That's a pretty interesting stand itself. Do you have any
>>rigorous scientific backing for it?
>
>  In logic it's up to the person making a positive assertion to back it 
>  up.   All I'm saying is that I've never seen any evidence that any 
>  moral position can be defended on rigorous grounds.  Indeed, except
>  for Randians, I didn't think anyone in 1992 seriously believes that
>  an intellectually rigorous underpinning for any of various ethical
>  positions can be stated.   Morality seems, to me, to be a social
>  construct like music or language.  

And logic is not a social construct? 
>
>
>>people of the "developing nations" etc.). It's not particularly "rational"
>>or brave to conclude that since one is personally doing quite well at this
>>moment, things are working quite well.
>
>  Actually, it is, since ultimately rational self-interest would compel
>  me to analyze events in terms of their impact on me personally.  But

What's rational about self-interest? And even if self-interest were
rational, it does not follow that selfishness is rational.

>  that aside, it is in no ways clear that because my standard of living 
>  depends on cheap IC's made in Maylasia or oil imported from Saudi
>  Arabia, or office cleaning services provided my mexivan immigrants, 
>  that all of those nations would be better off it we DIDN'T employ 
>  them. 

It may not be clear to you, but there are strong arguments to be made for
that position. Of course, it's debatable, but you seem to be just dismissing
an argument rather than refuting it.

>  "Quite well" is RELATIVE.   I'm not saying that things are "quite
>  well" in the 3rd world.  All I'm saying is that I see no evidence
>  that any proposed alternatives are likely to do better.

But, those less well off than you, or less comfortable with the sufferings
of others might be more prepared to take a chance. 


>  I'm not saying this kind of system will dominate forever; indeed
>  I've stated many times on the net that a major crisis for our
>  entire concept of the relation of *work* to *wealth*, which is
>  the cornerstone of our economy, will come when technology becomes
>  so advanced that a machine can do just about anything a human
>  can.  I expect this to occur in a century or two and it will promote
>  a serious cultural and economic crisis.   There may be a few tiny
>  things which machines won't be able to do, but this probably won't
>  be enough to employ everybody, even a few hours a week. 
>

Talk about mysticism. The science of cognition is barely started, yet
you make a confident prediction about what machines will be able to do in 
a century or two. 

>
>>>  is in a genuinely desperate situation.  But it is unclear WHAT sort
>>>  of government or economic scheme might address that situation given
>>>  that many of the problems he faces are due to individual CHOICES that
>>>  people in his community make (drugs, crime, pregnancy, etc).  If we
>>
>>This is remarkably ignorant. I suggest that those who grow up in a
>>neighborhood without civil law, educational or economic opportunities, 
>>basic services, or adequate nutrition, might not be in the best position
>>to make choices about which graduate school to attend or whether to go for
>>an M.B.A. or a M.S.
>
>  Hyperbole.   Consider a poor, black person living in a ghetto.  Being poor
>  he has (by definition) no money.  Being poor and living in the city he
>  has limited access to health care; and being poor, black, and living in the
>  city he can expect limited help from the police.   Consider then this
>  person's decision to use heroin or crack:  They cost money, which he 
>  doesn't have; they risk his health, for which he can expect little help,
>  and they put him into contact with dangerous criminals, from whom he can
>  expect little protection by the police.   He may not be an MBA but is it
>  unreasonable to expect *a little* rational self-interest?    Consider

Since so many MBA's also chose drugs, it would be a little odd to find a
much greated degree of self-restraint among those who do not have the option
of going to Europe for the weekend instead.

>  These social wounds are self-inflicted!  It's hard enough being poor

Keep telling yourself that. It must make you sleep better at night.

>  and just surviving.  Most poor people, in most societies throughout
>  human history have not engaged in the orgy of self-destruction that
>  poor people in the US do, despite the fact the even poor Americans 
>  are better off than the poor of most other nations.   There is 

False and false again. The crime and drug use rates in Irish Five Points and 
the Jewish Lower East Side, not to mention the East End of London 
have been famous at times.  Of course, Americans do seem to be more into
drugs and violence than many other people, but that's not particular to 
poor americans. And with an infant mortality rate in the
range of Bangladesh, it is not at all clear that people in Harlem are
much better off than people in other nations. 

>  something *cultural* going on and it is very unclear WHAT sort of 
>  government response might correct it.

The same sort that has worked before. Housing, jobs, and education. Nothing
very mysterious. 

-- 


yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu