Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: in-tree pristines fatally wounded (merge-fest etc)

[Roman Zippel]

Hi,

On Fri, 5 Dec 2003, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:

I really tried to stay out of this, but first seriously mentioning Ayn
Rand and now this, that's a bit too much.

> The fact is that in modern democratic societies the crisis of social
> responsibility is not among the powerful.[1]  It's among the _weak_, and
> especially the middle classes, who use their weakness as an excuse for
> turning a blind eye to the excesses of the powerful, which they could
> easily curb, simply by refusing the bribes offered by the rich.  And
> among the "moral left", who prefer to meaninglessly denounce the
> abuses of the powerful and demand "social responsibility", while
> themselves turning a blind eye to the hypocrisy of the majority.

This is the same ignorance of social realities as one can find with Ayn
Rand. It completely ignores the social effect of economic forces. Not
playing by the rules of the powerfuls can have drastic consequences, what
are the alternatives? We have reached a higly specialized society, which
requires years of education and socialization. One cannot simply abandon
this. What you call "bribes", is the choice between a comfortable life and
a failed existence. Easily giving up what one learned his whole life is
not something what is in the human nature.

The individualization of the capitalistic economy created the weakness and
destroyed traditional social mechanisms. Everyone is now responsible for
himself and the value of a person is merely measured by his income. This
leaves only very little room for failure and creates an enormous social
pressure, which is for most nearly impossible to escape from.

Social responsibility also implies the means to do so, without the
resources to act responsible, it cannot be much more than helpless
gesture. The individual has to learn again to act socially responsible,
what also includes a socially responsible use of available resources and
not that the majority of resources are used for a relative minority. This
will not be an easy process, as the "bribes" are so much more tempting.

On the other hand it might become a necessity soon, as the social paint of
the current economy is starting to peel off. Continuing increase in
productivy will set more and more labour free, while making labour cheaper
and cheaper, it so makes more labour less profitable and not worth
employing anymore. This gets us in contradicting situation as it also
eliminates possible consumers, which then have to live from less and less
support from other (still profitable) labour. So far it was possible to
cover up this contradiction by the economic growth of the globalization,
but that has reached its limits. It would be a big mistake to think that
with the burst of the "new economy" bubble the worst is already over.

> Sure it would be "nice" if we could each live in a village of 500
> people where "social responsibility" is easy to comprehend and
> socially enforceable, along with receiving the benefits of a global
> economy and (probably much higher in your priority list) access to the
> many cultural virtues of the world's many peoples.  But to propose
> achieving this balance by demanding that those labelled "management"
> consider the impact of their decisions on the welfare of each of the
> other 5,999,999,999 humans on the planet[2] "in appropriate
> proportion" is a dope dream.

The irony is that the free market philosophies wouldn't work in that
village at all, unless you assume a selected society of people with equal
abilities or you quickly had to make exceptions for the weak. That these
philosophies work in the global village still has to be proven, the next
few years will be quite interesting in this regard.

bye, Roman