Re: [ox-en] Re: Role of markets
- From: "Samuel Rose" <samuel.rose gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2008 10:20:18 -0400
[Converted from multipart/alternative]
[1 text/plain]
Hey y'all, chiming in again:
On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 8:58 AM, Stefan Meretz <stefan.meretz hbv.org>wrote:
My main point is: markets are not always the same ones over history.
On 2008-08-12 09:58, Michel Bauwens wrote:
Why would markets be indistinguishable from capitalism, since they
have existed outside of it, much longer than within it.
Yes, but before (non-capitalists) C-M-C-markets have only existed
without capitalism. This was the pre-condition. A turn-back is thus not
possible at all. Today, all market-approaches, independent from what
moral premises they start, must integrate and thus accept the global
rules of the global capitalist market as long as they want survive
using these conditions. It's a "law".
Until we have a better way that is proven, I think most people
will choose market approaches, and I do not have, nor wish for, to
have the coercive power to impeach them to do this.
You may be right with this assumption. Nevertheless, by choosing markets
those people are on the wrong track. And we are responsible to told
them instead simply accepting what they are doing. It is not a question
of coersive power, but of truth.
The real problem, a problem that has existed with humans pretty much
throughout human existence, is that ****when you tell people what you
perceive to be the truth, they often will not understand what you are
telling them in the way that you intend****
They will filter it through **their** world view, dismiss the parts that
they think collide with **their** version of the "truth", and accept those
that resonate with their fundamental assumptions about reality.
That is what you are dealing with here: fundamental, deep assumptions about
reality, withing humans.
These are not easy to change. Telling people who have a worldview, a deeply
rooted fundamental assumption that capitalism is the "best way to do things"
that the truth is otherwise will not result in those people eventually
realizing you are right. Even if you have an airtight, extremely strong
argument. Even if you see it as your duty to tell them, and you are very
ernest and focused on communicating honestly and transparently. Why? Because
no matter what, they will filter what you are saying through their
worldview, what *they* think is the truth. They will accept the parts that
resonate with their worldview, and rationalize away the parts that do not.
You will have done your duty by telling them the truth, but it will not have
helped them *understand* nor *believe to be true* that which you are telling
them. Their worldview will be so different from what you are communicating
that it will be almost as if you are speaking another language.
Even when you can show a *working example*, they will struggle to
understand, and will believe that this working example system will probably
just fall apart, that this is all just a "fad" etc. Try to explain giving
sftware away for free, or giving a design away for free to people that are a
generation or two behind us. Many of them cannot understand why you would
not immediately patent the software, or design, or copyright the artwork or
writing. They think you are crazy. They think this is a big "hippy" prank to
"stick it to the man", and they think you'll grow tired of it eventually,
like they grew tired of protesting once the late 1970's, early 1980's rolled
around.
There are huge, sprawling swaths of these people existing here in the US at
least. They, along with many of the working poor, outnumber everyone else.
Some of them are starting to understand the idea that you can't exploit
resources, plunder the earth and other people forever. But they are still
struggling very much as to how you can disconnect from markets and
capitalistic systems to solve these problems. At least as many if not more
are incredulous to the very notion that anything but capitalistic markets
will work.
So, how can you deal with this?
Let's pretend that you are working with a distribution system that employed
huge combustion engine trucks to transport items around. Let's say that you
have figured out through logic and reason that you could increase
productivity and decrease costs by using electric trains to transport goods.
Let's say that you have figured out a plethora of advantages to using those
electric trains.
Now, let's pretend that the problem you are confronted with is that there is
absolutely no infrastructure for those electric trains. Furthermore,
everyone you talk with is unwilling to even discuss using anything but the
trucks, period. None of them want to take the plunge and try electric
trains, even though you were able to convince an investor to create a train
system that could start serving some of them. The refusers will wait until
the "new" system becomes equal to the existing system, and then see if it is
"better" in their eyes. So, really, they are not ready for change. They will
instead wait for "Change" to morph and conform back to their way.
So, why not instead *present* the change from the beginning in a way that
looks and feels like it conforms to their "way" but in fact *helps them
accept a transitional change* by helping to create the conditions for
change?
Tune your transmitter to their receiver, if you want to help them change.
There is no other way.
[2 text/html]
_________________________________
Web-Site: http://www.oekonux.org/
Organization: http://www.oekonux.de/projekt/
Contact: projekt oekonux.de