Comment posted Economic Ignorance Among SF Writers and Reviewers by Graham.
It’s good to see a response to the review, even if I don’t necessarily agree with you.
You say: Why do I get the feeling he comes down on the statist side of [the smoking] argument?
I don’t know why, but you’re wrong; I find myself wanting a more libertarian position than either is implemented here in the UK or in those parts of the US I’ve visited. (The “sometimes they don’t even feel guilty about it” bit was the tip-off.)
Your central point is about the Morgan quotation, and my reading of it: that I’m characterising our current economic system as “capitalist” when, in your terms, it’s not because it’s not sufficiently laissez-faire/free-market to meet that definition; and that this shows ignorance on my part of what “capitalism” means.
First, I think you’re misunderstanding the quotation, and my interest in it, in the light of your own interests. (You might as well read the epigraph of John le Carre’s Single & Single as a statement about medicine: “Human blood is a commodity” – US Federal Trade Commission, 1966) Morgan’s quotation seems to me centrally about morality, and only about economics or politics as a consequence.
Secondly, though, about the meaning of “capitalism”: it’s a little difficult to tell who your paragraph beginning “he may be a left-libertarian” is directed at – the referent of “he” seems initially to be Richard Morgan, then me. Richard Morgan’s more than able to defend himself, so I won’t get into the details of his quotation. But, for my part, I think this is one of those issues where the academic and the everyday usage of a term have diverged so far that reading one with the context of the other causes problems. Your version of “capitalism” seems to be a more-or-less-entirely intervention or government-free free market. Whereas, I’d suggest, the term in common usage means, pretty much, where we are now: a largely free market, with private ownership of most means of production, some state intervention in fields like education and foreign policy, and a general presumption – at least in theory – that the lower trade barriers are, the better. (Or, even more crudely, “capitalism” is what won the Cold War over “communism”.) And, of course, in writing for Locus, my presumption was that others (my editors, for instance, who didn’t call me on this usage) would see the term much as I did. If your concern is that “capitalism”, in your terms, is misunderstood in the culture at large, then fine; but I think the term may be too far gone to rescue it for your meaning outside the academy.
Graham also commented
- Wow. I didn’t expect you to find my obscure little blog, especially so quickly, but I’m glad you did. (How did you find it, by the way?)
“You say: Why do I get the feeling he comes down on the statist side of [the smoking] argument?
I don’t know why, but you’re wrong; I find myself wanting a more libertarian position than either is implemented here in the UK or in those parts of the US I’ve visited. (The “sometimes they don’t even feel guilty about it” bit was the tip-off.)”
The “sometimes they don’t even feel guilty about it” wasn’t enough to interpret the paragraph as libertarian-leaning. Coupled with the previous remarks about capitalism and the tendency for being against smoking strongly enough to write about it in connection with public policy to be tied to the American left, the paragraph led me to believe you were probably in favor of more government interference in peoples’ lives. I’m glad I was wrong.
Regarding your first point about capitalism/free market, I don’t see economics or politics as being somehow separate from morality (although qua sciences they should be value-neutral). While capitalism as such allows for the expression of many different moral (or immoral) beliefs, and yes some businessmen might even view others as commodities (but certainly not all or even most), it would be bad for business if they acted like it. Moreover, for businesses to act like governments as a rule by enslaving and killing other human beings would be the end of capitalism. Capitalism could not exist if individual rights were systematically violated. The passage of Morgan’s novel that you quote is more of a caricature of the worst representatives of business (not of businessmen or capitalism as such) and is more accurately a portrait of governments. Would you judge the profession of professors by its worst representatives?
By the way, I see nothing wrong with a market for blood or even kidneys. It is not a bad thing for blood or kidneys to be commodities, so long as living human beings are not and the blood or kidneys are bought and sold on a voluntary basis.
Regarding your second point about the meaning of capitalism, you are right that I was objecting to your characterization of what Morgan describes as capitalism. However, I did not take it as merely a misuse of the term. I thought (with good reason) that you actually believed that is what capitalism is. You are correct about how it and the term ‘free market’ are currently used. However, they are used incorrectly (intentionally or not) to give the real thing a bad name by associating it with the politico-economic system we currently have. Then it could be said, like you did in your review, that laissez-faire will just be more of the same, but extrapolated beyond the level capitalism is at presently and therefore much worse. But such a view fails to understand economic theory as well as the ethical and cultural foundations of capitalism.
I hope the term capitalism is not too far gone to be rehabilitated, but even the term ‘free market’ is used in the same way and at the very least we cannot afford to let it continue to be perverted.
If you are indeed in favor of free markets, then my apologies, but it could not be inferred from your review and would be unexpected in any case.
Finally, I’ll clarify that ambiguous pronoun attribution you identified. Thanks.
And thank you for clarifying your position.
Recent comments by Graham
- Progressive Egalitarians Should Be Anti-IP
[...] at Is-Ought GAP. Geoffrey is an Aristotelian-Liberal political philosopher and an adjunct instructor for Buena [...] - Imperial Doublespeak About Iraq
RT @gplauche: New blogpost: Imperial Doublespeak About Iraq | http://bit.ly/cU2S1O - Imperial Doublespeak About Iraq
[...] at Is-Ought GAP. Geoffrey is an Aristotelian-Liberal political philosopher and an adjunct instructor for Buena [...] - Voting, Moral Hazard, and Like Buttons
[...] Cross-posted at Is-Ought GAP. [...] - Congressman Assaults Student on Washington Sidewalk
[...] Congressman Assaults Student on Washington Sidewalk (veritasnoctis.net) [...]
powered by SEO Super Comments
Political Science PhD
{ 2 comments }
It’s good to see a response to the review, even if I don’t necessarily agree with you.
You say: Why do I get the feeling he comes down on the statist side of [the smoking] argument?
I don’t know why, but you’re wrong; I find myself wanting a more libertarian position than either is implemented here in the UK or in those parts of the US I’ve visited. (The “sometimes they don’t even feel guilty about it” bit was the tip-off.)
Your central point is about the Morgan quotation, and my reading of it: that I’m characterising our current economic system as “capitalist” when, in your terms, it’s not because it’s not sufficiently laissez-faire/free-market to meet that definition; and that this shows ignorance on my part of what “capitalism” means.
First, I think you’re misunderstanding the quotation, and my interest in it, in the light of your own interests. (You might as well read the epigraph of John le Carre’s Single & Single as a statement about medicine: “Human blood is a commodity” – US Federal Trade Commission, 1966) Morgan’s quotation seems to me centrally about morality, and only about economics or politics as a consequence.
Secondly, though, about the meaning of “capitalism”: it’s a little difficult to tell who your paragraph beginning “he may be a left-libertarian” is directed at – the referent of “he” seems initially to be Richard Morgan, then me. Richard Morgan’s more than able to defend himself, so I won’t get into the details of his quotation. But, for my part, I think this is one of those issues where the academic and the everyday usage of a term have diverged so far that reading one with the context of the other causes problems. Your version of “capitalism” seems to be a more-or-less-entirely intervention or government-free free market. Whereas, I’d suggest, the term in common usage means, pretty much, where we are now: a largely free market, with private ownership of most means of production, some state intervention in fields like education and foreign policy, and a general presumption – at least in theory – that the lower trade barriers are, the better. (Or, even more crudely, “capitalism” is what won the Cold War over “communism”.) And, of course, in writing for Locus, my presumption was that others (my editors, for instance, who didn’t call me on this usage) would see the term much as I did. If your concern is that “capitalism”, in your terms, is misunderstood in the culture at large, then fine; but I think the term may be too far gone to rescue it for your meaning outside the academy.
Wow. I didn’t expect you to find my obscure little blog, especially so quickly, but I’m glad you did. (How did you find it, by the way?)
“You say: Why do I get the feeling he comes down on the statist side of [the smoking] argument?
I don’t know why, but you’re wrong; I find myself wanting a more libertarian position than either is implemented here in the UK or in those parts of the US I’ve visited. (The “sometimes they don’t even feel guilty about it” bit was the tip-off.)”
The “sometimes they don’t even feel guilty about it” wasn’t enough to interpret the paragraph as libertarian-leaning. Coupled with the previous remarks about capitalism and the tendency for being against smoking strongly enough to write about it in connection with public policy to be tied to the American left, the paragraph led me to believe you were probably in favor of more government interference in peoples’ lives. I’m glad I was wrong.
Regarding your first point about capitalism/free market, I don’t see economics or politics as being somehow separate from morality (although qua sciences they should be value-neutral). While capitalism as such allows for the expression of many different moral (or immoral) beliefs, and yes some businessmen might even view others as commodities (but certainly not all or even most), it would be bad for business if they acted like it. Moreover, for businesses to act like governments as a rule by enslaving and killing other human beings would be the end of capitalism. Capitalism could not exist if individual rights were systematically violated. The passage of Morgan’s novel that you quote is more of a caricature of the worst representatives of business (not of businessmen or capitalism as such) and is more accurately a portrait of governments. Would you judge the profession of professors by its worst representatives?
By the way, I see nothing wrong with a market for blood or even kidneys. It is not a bad thing for blood or kidneys to be commodities, so long as living human beings are not and the blood or kidneys are bought and sold on a voluntary basis.
Regarding your second point about the meaning of capitalism, you are right that I was objecting to your characterization of what Morgan describes as capitalism. However, I did not take it as merely a misuse of the term. I thought (with good reason) that you actually believed that is what capitalism is. You are correct about how it and the term ‘free market’ are currently used. However, they are used incorrectly (intentionally or not) to give the real thing a bad name by associating it with the politico-economic system we currently have. Then it could be said, like you did in your review, that laissez-faire will just be more of the same, but extrapolated beyond the level capitalism is at presently and therefore much worse. But such a view fails to understand economic theory as well as the ethical and cultural foundations of capitalism.
I hope the term capitalism is not too far gone to be rehabilitated, but even the term ‘free market’ is used in the same way and at the very least we cannot afford to let it continue to be perverted.
If you are indeed in favor of free markets, then my apologies, but it could not be inferred from your review and would be unexpected in any case.
Finally, I’ll clarify that ambiguous pronoun attribution you identified. Thanks.
And thank you for clarifying your position.