CHOMSKY Archives

The philosophy, work & influences of Noam Chomsky

CHOMSKY@LISTSERV.ICORS.ORG

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Harry Veeder <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Discussions on the writings and lectures of Noam Chomsky <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Sat, 3 May 1997 16:48:34 -0400
Content-Type:
TEXT/PLAIN
Parts/Attachments:
TEXT/PLAIN (52 lines)
I said,

> > There is only "anarchy" with in a small domain: free market capitalism.
> > The existing world wide network of banks is designed to sastify the
> > requirements of captilasm. This is not a conspiracy, IT IS JUST A
> > POLITICAL FACT.
> >
> > True (economic)anarchy will only happen when different banking systems
> >are allowed to thrive and coexist. This will require a democratic
> > autocratic approach to banking.

On Fri, 2 May 1997, DDeBar replied,

> A capitalist economy is RIFE with anarchy.

Sigh...Unfortunately there seems to be little consensus about the meaning
of the term anarchy. I guess most believe people the term indicates moral
and environmental decrepitude; "a world where anything goes". This is NOT
what I was suggesting by the term. Also, my choice of words was not
intended as an apology for the real suffering brought about by an
irrational attachment to "free-market" principles. Maybe I should just
stop using the term. Anyway I generally hate labels and I do my best to
avoid them. I just believe in a free and open society.


> Duplication, redundancy,
> starvation and waste, unemployment and underemployment, huge disparities of
> wealth and poverty, crises of over- and under-production, irrationality in
> resource allocation, etc., etc., i.e., economic anarchy.

Economic anarchy, for me, means a condition of living whereby individuals
a free to come together and form any sort of economic relation they desire.
Democracy is the framework by which conflicts between conflicting
economic systems are resolved. A democracy has to recognize
individual desires for BOTH competitve and non-competitve systems.
Indeed, from a moral AND a social engineering standpoint, there are
advantages to supporting both.

I was trying to point out in my last post that the banking system is
responsible for the "sucess" of global capitalism, and not just the
politicians or the "state". I believe that if we want to improve the
state of humanity and the planet, then we should devise alternative
banking systems which reflect *other* important values needed for living a
good, healthy life inaddition to those values represented in the current
banking system.

Banks have a very very important role in regulating the moral and social
norms of society. Only strong agricultural and hunter gatherer
communities can intelligently ignore the banking system.

Harry

ATOM RSS1 RSS2