[iDC] Re: a critique of naturalized capitalism

[Edward Cherlin]

On 4/8/07, Jonathan McIntosh <jonnyrebellious at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> My favorite arguments against the "selfish gene"

The selfish gene theory is a tautology, that is, a statement that is
correct by definition, which thus provides no information. It is
exactly the same concept as "survival of the survivors" as an
interpretation of "survival of the fittest".

> or "human nature is greedy"

Clearly false, although greed is certainly in there. Evolutionary
genetics has established a multitude of mechanisms for cooperative,
even altruistic behavior toward members of the same community, with
possibilities ranging from symbiosis to instant death to outsiders,
and a multitude of mechanisms for greed to overwhelm these trends
under some circumstances. Examples: bees, ants, and naked mole rats
have the same genetic foundation for their societies; ravens have a
special call, known as a "yell", used only whene there is far more
food than one raven can eat; humans live in families and tribes in
every known society, although those relations can be very strongly
frayed, as happened to the Ik in Uganda when the British tried to
convert them into farmers, and failed utterly.

Poor human societies, notably the !Kung of the Kalahari, often share,
a trend reinforced by common survival. The wealthy, notably in
aristicratic cultures, often obsess about wealth, power, and position,
and regard everybody else as less than human, a trend reinforced by
family survival and maintaining their position in society. These are
by no means universal traits or trends, since they oppose each other,
and there are many other factors involved.

> come from chapter 24 of the book ParEcon: Life After Capitalism by Michael
> Albert. The two arguments are framed in terms of Participatory Economics
> specifically which I personally advocate, but can be understood in the
> larger context of modern social systems. Below is the link to that
> chapter...my favorite is the "short answer" or the "kid with the ice cream
> cone" analogy made famous by Noam Chomsky from MIT.

A large part of the question is whether we are trying to describe
behavior, or to change it, and whether we want to change behavior by
means of ideas (religions or ideologies) or by changing the conditions
in which people live, particularly the economic conditions determined
in large part by available technology. All of these enterprises have
their place.

> http://www.zmag.org/books/pareconv/Chapter24.htm#_VPID_133
>
>
> -Jonathan McIntosh
> Capedmaskedandarmed.com
>
>
> On 4/8/07 4:39 AM, "Simon Biggs" <simon at babar.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > I'd agree with Ryan's analysis completely. It is also well articulated.
> >
> > Dawkin's selfish gene idea, along with his concept of the meme, are simply a

Simply?

> > restatement of the popular notion that Capitalism has been successful due to
> > its appeal to basic human instinct whereas, in contrast, Communism failed as
> > it could only function when people behaved in an idealised manner.

I fail to see the connection between theories of political economy and
genetics, in spite of the well-known (and perfectly idiotic) example
of Social Darwinism.

Nobody, as far as I know, has attempted the experiment of Communism or
Socialism with full public ownership combined with governmental and
popular checks and balances. China is currently the nearest thing to
an example, even though it is operating more on the model of Market
Socialism these days, and only allows limited recourse against Party
officials. But it did perform the valuable experiment of organizing
competition between multiple state-owned enterprises in the same line
of business, with considerable success.

> > Of course this argument about Capitalism is totalising. In both its form and
> > its basic components it resembles the same totalising narrative of early and
> > medieval Christian theology/ideology. We should reject these arguments and
> > again

When was that?

> > establish a critique of our socio-economic structures that recognises
> > the complexity of its subject. This brings us back to our earlier
> > discussions of Baudrillard.

On the nature of terrorism? As far as I am concerned,
anarchist-nihilism and Muslim suicide jihadism are different faces of
the same kind of Fascism that says that we have to destroy Vietnam or
Chechnya or wherever in order to save it. From itself. In each case,
the PR about destroying the unbelievers is only convincing to the kind
of believers who already considered the unbelievers to be less than
human. Capitalist, Communist, National Socialist, Fascist, Taiping
rebels, Sepoy mutineers and British colonial forces, Belgian
mercenaries, the Stern gang murderers, the IRA and the Royal Ulster
Constabulary, Hamas, Hezbullah, Hindutva, Sinhalatva, State Shinto,
the Spanish Inquisition, King Gyanendra of Nepal and his Maoist
rebels, all same pidgin. Read the book of Amos for a similar opinion.
"For three crimes of Damascus, yeah, for four...of Tyre (Lebanon)...of
Gaza...of Egypt...of Judah...of Israel, for they have sold the poor
for a pair of shoes."

Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose. (A bas l'ASCII!)

> > Regards
> >
> > Simon
[snip]

--
Edward Cherlin
Earth Treasury: End Poverty at a Profit
http://wiki.laptop.org/go/Earth_Treasury
WIRE AFRICA  http//www.wireafrica.org/
http://www.linkedin.com/in/cherlin