Friday, May 31, 2013

Utopian and Naive Ideas of What is Best for Others

 James Padilioni writes HERE Adam Smith: The Early Modern Postmodernist?
A major theme in libertarian discourse is the elevation of the market as a hallmark of human progress. In a three-part video series titled “Trade is Made of Win,” Learn Liberty extols the benefits of the division of labor, not only for its ability to generate wealth, but also for its ability to enhance cooperation among individuals and conserve natural resources. Many libertarians believe that man is homo economicus, and as a result, rational calculation, efficiency, and operating on the bases of utility receive much attention and esteem within libertarian rhetoric. If progress is a worthy goal of society, then a sophisticated market economy is a necessary component to achieving its success. Humans “win” when we economize, and economization more often than not involves materiality – goods and services, capital and production, tangible realities that create affluence. The game of progress, then, can be measured by who has the biggest pile of stuff. …
… Adam Smith acclaimed the division of labor in The Wealth of Nations as his famous pin factory example illustrates. But far from extolling only the good that this division of labor provides materially, Smith questioned its effect on the interior soul of man. As Smith analyzed various economic modes of history, he praised agrarian, pre-commercial society because it could stimulate the minds of individuals better than a division of labor: “Invention is kept alive, and the mind is not suffered to fall into that drowsy stupidity which, in a civilized society, seems to benumb the understanding of almost all the inferior ranks of people.” He continued his critique on market society:
In the progress of the division of labour, the employment of the far greater part of those who live by labour, that is, of the great body of the people, comes to be confined to a few very simple operations, frequently to one or two…The man whose whole life is spent in performing a few simple operations, of which the effects are perhaps always the same, or very nearly the same…naturally loses, therefore, the habit of such exertion, and generally becomes as stupid and ignorant as it is possible for a human creature to become…The uniformity of his stationary life naturally corrupts the courage of his mind.”
Now, one must remember that Smith was writing in the 1770s, and “stupid” was not a pejorative in the way used today. What Smith was saying is that a market in which people only work in mechanized ways can dull the mind into a stupor and corrupt what otherwise would be a thoughtful, sentimental life  - the necessarily inventive life of premodernism – into a life of monotony.
In Leisure: The Basis of Culture, Joseof Pieper, described the fundamental importance leisure played to human well-being historically. …
… perception of idle time, leisure is a deeply spiritual and affirmative human tradition that stood in opposition to “useful work” as a means constructed towards an end. Pieper admonished that “the cultus, now as in the distant past, is the primary source of man’s freedom, independence, and immunity within society. Suppress that last sphere of freedom, and freedom itself, and all our liberties, will in the end vanish into thin air.”
James Padilioni has written a thoughtful article.  I have reservations about some of it, especially in relation to Adam Smith.
It is half-a-step too far to say that that the “elevation of the market [is] a hallmark of human progress”. 
The market is certainly the latest step in a long line of steps from mankind living and surviving in the forest and plains of the habited planet.   But humanity has experienced many forms and variations of ensuring its livelihood.  There is no ordained progression from one “lower” to another “higher” form of livelihood, especially in the sense that whatever happens later and differently is necessarily a “progression”.  Smith said there had been different “Ages of Man” throughout pre-history and history: hunting, shepherding, farming, and commerce. 
It is also obvious that the “Age of Commerce” can be associated with many forms of markets; indeed, pure markets have never existed, each was sui generis.  Moreover, markets since Smith’s day varied across Europe and have changed since then, displaying a great deal of different forms and degrees since he focused his critique on mercantile political economy. Commerce operated both from developing within and alongside various forms of farming tenure, and even quite differently in Asian and European experiences.
Development is uneven.  Markets are no exception. That is why numerous exponents of grand plans to reform markets that we read on the Internet and in various media are somewhat utopian (and a few are quite delusionary) because they assume that completely new forms of market organization can be designed and introduced by supposedly the better intentions of their designers.  I have commented negatively on several of them on Lost Legacy.
So whether the “elevation of the market [is] a hallmark of human progress” is something unique or but an instance in the constantly changing evolution of market organisation is open to question.
Next, I am profoundly unimpressed with James Padilioni’s assertion” that: ‘Many libertarians believe that man is homo economicus, and as a result, rational calculation, efficiency, and operating on the bases of utility receive much attention and esteem within libertarian rhetoric.”  Whatever the basis of the assertion in respect of some (extreme) “libertarians” it is definitely not true of Adam Smith or even rhetorically despite occasional claims to the contrary.  I am a moderate libertarian in Smith’s sense, but I have no illusions that individuals are motivated by “rational expectations” (what Deirdre McCloskey calls “Max U” theorising) and such an approach is not supported in Smith’s Works.
Contrary to the interpretation of the part quotation from Smith’s Wealth Of Nations (WN V.i.f.50: 781-2) given above, James Padilioni asserts that "far from extolling only the good that this division of labor provides materially, Smith questioned its affect on the interior soul of man” and was his “critique on market society”. We have discussed this theme of the dulling affects of the division of labour many times on Lost Legacy – as recently as last week – and I have always insisted that we should read Smith’s words in relation to the subject of the chapter in WN from where Smith makes the case of government action in respect of the education of youth, which he argued was in a deplorable condition in England (though less so in Scotland), and not the usual one claimed (see my posts on “Chomsky”) that it was solely about the division of labour or its alleged affects. 
The widespread lack of education of the children of labouring families meant they were serially ignorant and prey to wild ideas from “enthusiasts” and agitators that threatened social stability.  His book was read by the educated and upper class families and those reading it would be alarmed at the potential threat to their lives unless they subscribed to educational reform to spread socially stabilizing affects of preventing stunting the ignorant lives of those employed in these emerging modern industries.
James Padilioni closes with “Premodern man danced, and made merry, and in the process formed communiity”, complete with a merry, coloured, painting of country folk dancing and being merry.  Many authors imply such themes of merry folk dancing round may poles with explicit themes that contrasts with town folk lined up and slaving over banks of machines in the “dark satanic mills” of industrial capitalism.  This of course can give the impression of a once happy labouring population employed joyously on the land driven by poverty into smelly, crowded towns.  I suspect that such images are loaded with naivety about the realities of farming life throughout history for serfs, slaves, debt ridden peasantry, and country-folk across the world, then and today, over much of the pre-market millennia.
The migration of between countryside and town has always been one-way, which suggests the 'dismal life of cities', even for low relative pay and 12-hour plus days, are preferred to the illusions of country-life, with 18-hour days in all weathers and even lower to non-existent pay, still experienced in parts of today's world.  


Anonymous Anonymous said...

I just stumbled upon this and I have to say I'm flattered that anyone read and digested my article so thoroughly as you.

I would say that some of your reservations about my wording might just be about the semantics, I personally don't think in the terms of Homo Economicus, nor do I think that the market is a hallmark of progress. But many libertarians do, and if you are a libertarian who doesn't, then 1) awesome lol, but 2) you have to know that our opinion within libertarianism on these issues is a minority one. Pick up any Ayn Rand book and you'll see her slobbering all over the market as the highest achievement of civilization and purely economic calculation, even in the way she describes the valuation of loving another person.

As for the dancing in pre-modern Europe comment, perhaps I should have left out the word "merry." I don't mean to imply that life was a picnic before industrialization. I was under a word crunch so I had to truncate that last section, but if you read Pieper he talks about the ceremonialism of religion, which included dancing. Not as leisure, but as worship, and in the process community was formed, minds were stimulated instead of stupefied, etc. The pre-modern world was certainly not filled with leisure, but that's Pieper's point and the piece of it I tried (obviously not deftly) to pick up.

Dancing and merrymaking within the context of worship and religion is, IMO, completely different from the leisure activities of dancing and merrymaking that exist within affluent market societies.

Also, your note about markets being ontologically unstable, and not arriving in all places at the same time, or the mapping of capitalism, if you will, being uneven is totally on point. Again, though, I see too many libertarians lacking this spatial understanding of economics. One good example is "I, Pencil," which praises the finished product of the pencil, but never wonders what it's like for the graphite miner or tree feller in South America that helped bring the pencil into being. Positionality within markets is a concept that sort of flies over many libertarian heads.

I wrote that blog for Students For Liberty, and as such I was writing to the lowest common denominator "libertarian," certainly not libertarians as sophisticated and nuanced in their thinking as you seem to be.

Thanks again for analyzing my post. It was a pleasure to see that any inchoate thought of my mind can successfully (and somewhat) be articulated in the written form well enough for you to find it and get the overwhelming majority of my semantics haha.

Take care.

8:35 am  

Post a Comment

<< Home