Postmodernism

[rwan]

----- Original Message -----
From: Eric D. Dixon <eric at termlimits.org>
To: <pynchon-l at waste.org>
Sent: Monday, May 22, 2000 5:15 PM
Subject: Re: Postmodernism


> kwp wrote:
> >American thinking of nowadays is fixed on "the state", the state is the
evil
> >for everything. The murderers of Oklohoma City thought that the State
> >Department was part of a "secret" UNO world government. The origine of
the
> >"American paranoia" is a mistrust against "the state" which 200 years ago
> had
> >its good reasons but nowadays is completely absurd. In reality there is a
> >"network" between "the state" and "the market" so that you can hardly
> >separate them. There are only changing regulation regimes but nowhere a
> >contradiction between "the state" and "the market". Both are illusions
and
> >ideology.
>
> This is largely true for modern big business, but when "American thinking"
> (libertarian thinking, actually) focuses on the evils of the state,
> business is included to the extent that it's in bed with government.  When
> markets are free, they're largely docile and beneficial -- it's the
> partnership with and extensive regulation by government that should be
> dreaded and avoided.
>
> Eric D. Dixon
>
> "What a lot of trouble to prove in political economy that two and
> two make four; and if you succeed in doing so, people cry, 'It is
> so clear that it is boring.' Then they vote as if you had never
> proved anything at all." -- Frederic Bastiat

The idea that (big) business would be docile and beneficial without state
intervention is rather....how shall I say it.... well, someone suggested
that hocus-pocus would be the right expression. The STATE and its
organizations can be a/many bitch(es): I should know, having come frome a
Communist country (Hungary). IRS, FBI, KGB, CIA, etc. But just imagine
IRS,Inc, FBI,Inc, Supreme Court, Inc, etc., all in the shape of big
business: without those - even now absolutely insufficient "checks and
balances" - they would probably be even worse than they are now. As would
most businesses existing presently within the framework of private
enterprise. They might not be killing their own mother for that extra penny,
but they would be quite willing to kill yours and someone else theirs and so
forth. What is the difference between "state", "country", "nation" and
"government"? Between legislature, executive power and representatives? Most
of it is fiction and the little that is real of it is itself defined by
fictional boundaries. I vastly prefer some kind of convergence and
coexistence of as many fictions as possibble to a bunch of gun- or
bomb-wielding idiots with a justifiable cause or grieveance (as someone has
formulated it: a nice counterpoint to the idea that even paranoids can have
real enemies or that paranoids are paranoids because they put themselfs
deliberately into paranoid situations). And anyway: what counts as
libertarian thinking in America (the US of A) of now? Is it still Ayn Rand,
representing a kind of radical conservativism or is it some kind of Black
Panthers off-spring or rather the idea of Corporate Identity somehow
(strangely combined) with rural bliss? Would such strictly defined
communities manage to function and interact better than it is now the case
without government intervention? Ghettos with suburbia, Chinese take-aways
with schools for the mentally handicapped? Not very likely.
I don't know who Frederic Bastiat is or was but trying to prove - especially
in political economy (what a bloody Marxistic term, anyway) - that two and
two make four is indeed a boring waste: first of all, you can not prove it:
it is rather a premise that one accepts as it appears to be a sound
foundation for further conclusions rather than a "truth". No conclusion can
however be justified solely on the grounds that it's based on that single
premise, so indeed, you hadn't proved anything at all and people go and vote
as they do, because their way of voting is their own blend of "two and two
make four". The STATE might equal Hitler or Stalin but the "people" can just
as well be a "mob". In the end it remains for the people to get the
state/government that in its turn can help the people remain people and help
turn the crushed "masses" into people again.

Richard





















>