Teoria lui Henri Linguet, secolul 18

Teoria lui Henri Linguet, secolul 18 – 23 februarie 2015

Prospectiv A-z a distribuit postarea lui Mircea Platon.

.

One of the ideas embraced, especially after the end of the Cold War, by both historians of political economy and political pundits is that, if only left to itself, the “free market” would be able to provide us with both a “small government” and a cornucopia of high quality goods. In this narrative, regulation breeds “big government,” and vice versa, and results in the manufacturing of low quality goods. The smaller the government, the greater the freedom of the market, and therefore the higher the quantity and quality of the goods on the shelves of the supermarkets. The supporters of free market economy have never been able to offer a convincing explanation of the fact that their very enthusiastic “cheers” for global capitalism have always been accompanied by sobs for the growth of the “welfare/nanny state,” or “big government.” Neither could neoliberals offer convincing explanations of the fact that eugenic ideas, aiming to lighten the “burden” of the state by diminishing the number of those deemed socially, racially, intellectually or physically inferior or unfit, internal migration control, and racial segregation have always pleasingly haunted the liberal imagination, from La Beaumelle (Platon, 2011) in the eighteenth century, to certain neoconservatives who translated the plain, old-fashioned racism into fiscal conservatism during the Cold War (Glaser & Possony, 1979).
Beginning with the last decades of the eighteenth-century, the supporters of the free market economy have treated political economy as ontologically sealed against any historical contamination, as an ecosystem functioning according to its own laws. Today, neoliberals discuss the growth of the state with the moral outrage reserved to an ecological catastrophe, as the result of a greasy political spill into the pure ocean of economics. The resulting story is one of heroic “neoliberal” divers struggling and failing, for conjunctural reasons (the Cold War, the “liberal media/academia,” Greenpeace), to stop this spilling caused for contingent, self-serving reasons, by “liberal” (that is, “leftist” in American parlance) politicians who trade freedom for votes. Neoliberals do not seem to take into account any possible structural connection between the rise of the free market and the rise of “big government,” and therefore interpret the growth of the welfare state simply as an indication of the economic and political malaise fostered by a political class kowtowing to the masses. The discourse of “free market” is also a rhetorical tool used by “big business” to bully the state and convince the public that what is good for the big corporations is good for the people, and that no amount of regulation, planning or protectionism could do the amount of public good that corporate self-interest given free rein in an open market can do.
But beside theories that treat the rise of the welfare state as a result of “liberal” wrongdoings, that is as a political catastrophe that could have been avoided by not leaving the straight path of pure economics, a handful of historians have also highlighted the largely neglected possibility that capitalist economy is bound - for a variety of reasons, among which the collusion between the big corporations and the state - to lead to a bigger, more complex, and even more repressive, government, not to a smaller one (Beard, 1931; Higgs, 1987). Indeed, these arguments have found their first very cogent proponent in Simon-Nicolas-Henri Linguet (1736-1794), whose writings against Turgot’s attempt to suppress the guilds in 1776 explored this structural connection between market deregulation, the low quality of goods, and the oppressive size of the state, and pointed out to a different understanding of the nature and relationship between economic and political values than the neoliberal one.
Pentru restul, accesati: http://www.hipatiapress.com/…/…/hse/article/view/1367/pdf_11

Mircea Platon

Cam cum s-ar putea discuta istoria ideilor economice. Dar in Romania e imposibil din cauza de ignoranti incolonati neoliberal/neocon.
Am incercat aici (articolul poate fi descarcat gratuit) sa arat gaunosenia miturilor neoliberale care ne fac sa alergam dupa cai verzi pe pereti:
http://www.hipatiapress.com/…/index.p…/hse/article/view/1367

  Preda Mihailescu Când o idee in sine nu are falii grave, te uiti unde se ascunde minciuna sub pres. De fapt prima parte a promisunii are de-a face cu constatarea ca omul in structuri mari si intransparente sau se lasa pe tanjeala, sau se dedica unor munci mai putin productive, precum birocratia si lupta pentru tapitarea scaunului. Si identificand in stat acel tip de structuri, deduce ca se poate evita raul evitand statul. Cred ca a si mers la o vreme. Vremea este de mult depasita. Deoarece concernele si cu trusturile financiare au preluat de mult defectele care se doresc evitate in stat: lipsa de raspundere in primul rand.

 Smaranda Dobrescu ". The discourse of “free market” is also a
rhetorical tool used by “big business” to bully the state and convince the public that what is good for the big corporations is good for the people, and that no amount of regulation, planning or protectionism could do the amount of public good that corporate self -interest given free rein in an open market can do."

Un exemplu foarte clar al acestei aberatii neoliberale il ofera situatia din Romania dupa cativa ani de masuri neoliberale: Dacă în 2008 profitul declarat la nivelul ţării era de 66 mld € iar salariile însumau 59 mld €, în 2012 profiturile înregistrate la patroni au fost de 67 mld € şi salariile doar 48 mld €. Deci în timpul crizei profiturile au crescut totuşi cu 1 mld € în timp ce salariile au scăzut cu 11 mld €. (Sursa: Cuvântarea dlui. Florin Georgescu, prim-viceguvernator al BNR, cu ocazia aniversării a 150 de ani de la înființarea CEC,)
Adica ceea ce a fost bun pentru marile corporatii a fost deosebir de rau pentru popor.

  Prospectiv A-z .
Linguet este o revelatie pentru cei care cautam iesire din Criza a carui sfarsit este la fel de incert pe cat este de cert urmatorul puseu de criza. Intr-adevar, vedem cu ocazia lecturii acestui text ca am avut TOT timpul minti luminate si constiinte curate care ne-au avertizat din timp despre excesele ce aveau sa vina. Vocile acestor oameni-busola sunt acoperite in timpul vietii lor de corurile conformistilor sau interesatilor, aceleasi coruri care declara in timp de criza, 'nu ne-a spus nimeni altfel', respectiv 'cine are fi crezut?' Mai grav este cand oamenii-busola sunt ciomagiti, real sau figurativ, de cei care altfel sunt campionii binelui general/pluralismului de idei.

In spatiul discursiv romanesc contemporan, saracit de tranzitie, remarc existenta catorva oameni-busola ale caror voci au darul de a restabili ordinea lucrurilor. Acest spatiu, fiind debil de felul lui, face ca vocile acestea sa fie auzite ici si colo, iar cei care le auzim ii si pretuim pe acesti oameni. Nu destul pentru a face o diferenta la nivel mare, destul pentru a (ne) mentine speranta. Mircea Platon este un astfel de om-busola a carui voce ar face mai bine chiar si *pragmaticii* s-o ia mai des in calculele lor.

Revenind pe scurt la Linguet, ce s-a intamplat in astia +200 ani care sa nu fi pre/vazut el? Ar fi putut istoria noastra s-o ia pe alta cale? Cel mai probabil, NU. Dar luand in seama voci ca aceasta, chiar si implicit, a umanizat liberal democratia si i-a dat pana la urma zile. De ce sa nu facem lucrul acesta mai des/explicit?

  P.A-z .
Iata in ce termeni se pune problema, apropos de prajirea planetei:

SPIEGEL: You seriously want to eliminate the free market in order to save the climate?
...
SPIEGEL: Ms. Klein, that's nonsense, because it's illusory. You're thinking far too broadly. If you want to first eliminate capitalism before coming up with a plan to save the climate, you know yourself that this won't happen.
...

SPIEGEL: If you attempt to solve a specific problem by overturning the entire societal order, you won't solve it. That's a utopian fantasy.

Klein: Not if societal order is the root of the problem.
...

SPIEGEL: You don't appear to be counting on the collective reason of politicians and entrepreneurs.
Klein: Because the system can't think. The system rewards short-term gain, meaning quick profits.
If a person like Bloomberg cannot resist the temptation, then you can assume that the system's self-preservation capacity isn't that great.
SPIEGEL: A particularly unsettling chapter in your book is about Richard Branson, CEO of the Virgin Group.
Klein: Yes. I wouldn't have expected it.
SPIEGEL: Branson has sought to portray himself as a man who wants to save the climate. It all started after an encounter with Al Gore.
Klein: And in 2006, he pledged at an event hosted by the Clinton Global Initiative that he would invest $3 billion in research into green technologies. At the time, I thought it was truly a sensational contribution. I didn't think, oh, you cynical bastard.
SPIEGEL: But Branson was really just staging it and only a fraction of that money was ever spent.
Klein: He may well have been sincere at the time, but yes, only a fraction was spent.
SPIEGEL: Since 2006, Branson has added 160 new airplanes to his numerous airlines and increased his emissions by 40 percent.
Klein: Yes.
SPIEGEL: What is there to learn from this story?
Klein: That we need to question the symbolism and gestures made by Hollywood stars and the super rich. We cannot confuse them with a scientifically sound plan to reduce emissions.
.....

SPIEGEL: People like Bill Gates view things differently.
Klein: And I find their technology fetish naïve. In recent years, we've witnessed some really big failures where some of the smartest guys in the room screwed up on a massive scale, be it with the derivatives that triggered the financial crisis or the oil catastrophe off the coast of New Orleans. Mostly, we as people break things and we don't know how to fix them afterwards. Right now, it's our planet that we're breaking. [sau FUKUSHIMA...]
....
http://www.spiegel.de/.../global-warming-interview-with...
Iata si cateva comentarii:

Hostile interviewer
lms44 02/25/2015
Amazingly hostile interview. When did der Spiegel get purchased by Fox News?


Co2
grh12 02/25/2015
I once worked for a guy who said that the politicians will do nothing about air pollutants until every last CEO of a company that mines fossil fuels is choking with COPD in his alpine villa.


Human locusts
Albert Leo 02/26/2015
Homo Sapiens is proving the be the end of evolution. We are the ultimate invasive species. Unlimited consumption and competition are degrading the earth so much that the human species itself will be threatened. Before that, we will nearly destroy much of the other higher life on the planet. The only good news is that nature will survive mankind, which hopefully will extinguish itself so that the recovery process can begin. Maybe a more enlightened species will succeed us.


Is it Politics or human stupidity and greedinessrauno.laitalainen 02/26/2015China is under communist rule and has recently become the world's biggest consumer of coal. Capitalist countries are moving towards renewable energy albeit slowly but steadily. Both political blocks hesitate to take radical steps. Why? Not because of politics but because their citizens want the comfort, which electricity and other modern energy supplies offer. It's not politics, it's human stupidity and greediness. The solutions comes from moral and factual education and discipline. Unfortunately establishing these takes generations. Stop dreaming. Do yourself what you can and help others in it. There is no quick solution. Meanwhile you can make a study tour to Nordic Countries and find out what is going on there.

A Parody?normanfirnk 02/26/2015Tell me this is some kind of joke. Have you forgotten what the last non-capitalist system did to the environment. Why don't you and your writers go swimming in the Aral Sea.

SPIEGEL Interview with Naomi Klein: 'The Economic System We Have Created...

spiegel.de|De SPIEGEL ONLINE, Hamburg, Germany

  P.M  Eu as lua-o de semn bun, de semn ca o ia in serios ca o incercare de propunere reala - altfel nu ar ataca-o asa direct!

  P.A-z .
Ce mi se pare interesant este ca tipa este atacata cam la fel in Spiegel si mass media de aici. La chestiuni d'astea se pare ca se lucreaza conform ordinului pe unitate.

  P.M  Se pare! Mi-a placut constructia verbala "the reasoning of the corporate and political world", sau ceva asemanator. Mi se pare de milioane - un ecou la "banks create values" al lui Ackerman. Suna bombastica, dar simti ca de fapt este o reflex automat de a acoperi goliciunea.

Mihai Ion Turcu Societatea umana nu este un ecosistem cum omul nu este doar un animal. Societatea este un elaborat uman tendential rational,, parte a culturii (cultrura este tot ce nu este natura). Neoliberalismul a privatizat statul.


P. A-z .
"Societatea este un elaborat uman tendential rational,, parte a culturii (cultrura este tot ce nu este natura)."

Societatea vestica recenta este 'tendential rationala', domnule Turcu. Cand intram in CULTURI, rationalitatea regreseaza--de exemplu, in favoarea traditiei.

Privatizarea statului este inlocuirea vechiului contract social cu un contract comercial, pe ideea ca natura, oamenii si banii sunt fungibile (a se vedea Polanyi pentru absurdul unor astfel de pozitii). In felul acesta, statul este desacralizat...


Mihai Ion Turcu Si "traditia" este cultura. Din pseudodefinitia enuntata, cea mai generala formulare in uz, separa natura de edificarile umane.prin privatizarea statului inteleg acapararea statului de un grup oligarhic care dispune prin stat de societate cum ar dispune de o proprietate civila.