 |
| Image credit. |
Below is my comment on this blog entry Workplace Coercion.
The lesson to be learned: ideologies have difficulties coming to grips with "intermediary conditions" - they tend to rely on certain universal explanatory patterns and apply them on a consistently high level of abstraction, , passing over much of the concrete details by which reality would stop or deflect their intended journey toward Utopia.
The (ModernMoneyTheory's) Job Guarantee proposal is absolutely worth being seriously considered. It could lead to extraordinary improvements.
But what it won't lead to is the abolition of tensions between management and workers.
It appears that free societies such as yours and mine (Germany), whose freedom has been brought about by people of quite divergent political agendas, continue to provide the best framework in which to bring to the fore and resolve management-labour tensions.
As for, classical liberals and right-libertarians, they tend to subscribe to an ideology, a form of commitment that is ill-advised no matter what the flavour of your ideology.
Libertarians strike me as more concerned with a sense of being in possession of a calculus that ensures they are always consistent and right - I see intellectual conceit as their most fundamental driver. They tend to be inactive mopers, playing a negligible role in the real work.
Being effective in the real world (of work relations, e.g.) tends to require pragmatism, which ever side you are on, and thus is not dominated by ideology but by interest(and compromise).
Those who let ideology trump interest, are likely to lose out or underachieve in considerable measure relative to their desiderata. Which is what Marxism's real regimes have done in a big way.
And this, in turn, is related to Marx's inability to understand evolved forms of social cooperation.
But what it won't lead to is the abolition of tensions between management and workers.
It appears that free societies such as yours and mine (Germany), whose freedom has been brought about by people of quite divergent political agendas, continue to provide the best framework in which to bring to the fore and resolve management-labour tensions.
As for, classical liberals and right-libertarians, they tend to subscribe to an ideology, a form of commitment that is ill-advised no matter what the flavour of your ideology.
Libertarians strike me as more concerned with a sense of being in possession of a calculus that ensures they are always consistent and right - I see intellectual conceit as their most fundamental driver. They tend to be inactive mopers, playing a negligible role in the real work.
Being effective in the real world (of work relations, e.g.) tends to require pragmatism, which ever side you are on, and thus is not dominated by ideology but by interest(and compromise).
Those who let ideology trump interest, are likely to lose out or underachieve in considerable measure relative to their desiderata. Which is what Marxism's real regimes have done in a big way.
And this, in turn, is related to Marx's inability to understand evolved forms of social cooperation.
Evolved forms of social cooperation can be a good basis for consciously designed forms of social cooperation, and these, in turn, may make it possible to increase the effectiveness of evolved forms of social cooperation, and these, in turn, may evolve further - perhaps on a path dependent course, which profits from the increased interaction of evolution and design.
I happen to read a book ("Evolution of the Social Contract," by Brian Skyrms) where I found this quote:
"On June 18, 1862, Karl Marx wrote to Friedrich Engels, "It is remarkable how Darwin has discerned anew among beasts and plants his English Society ... It is Hobbes' bellum omnium contra omnes.""
(No source of the Marx quote)- p.43, Second Edition, Cambridge University press, 2014)
So, by definition, from such a perspective, workplace tensions must be of a vicious nature and do not admit amelioration and less agonistic trade-offs between the involved parties. That, however, is neither a good description of history, nor a good programme for the future.
I happen to read a book ("Evolution of the Social Contract," by Brian Skyrms) where I found this quote:
"On June 18, 1862, Karl Marx wrote to Friedrich Engels, "It is remarkable how Darwin has discerned anew among beasts and plants his English Society ... It is Hobbes' bellum omnium contra omnes.""
(No source of the Marx quote)- p.43, Second Edition, Cambridge University press, 2014)
So, by definition, from such a perspective, workplace tensions must be of a vicious nature and do not admit amelioration and less agonistic trade-offs between the involved parties. That, however, is neither a good description of history, nor a good programme for the future.
No comments:
Post a Comment