I will be starting a new series on technology and its effect on society. Before I do so I want to take readers through some of my previous writing on ideology and character, and how they help form the societies we live in. Taking the time to read these articles (a short book’s worth), should vastly improve your understanding of the world and the articles to come. It should be worth your time even if you read the articles when they were published, as at the time they lacked both context and commentary, and were not collated to be read together so that the connections were obvious.Weekend reading.
The Role of Character and Ideology in Prosperity
Ian Welsh
4 comments:
It is not obvious, nor was it obvious to most societies that have ever existed, for example, that food should be distributed based on money; nor that ideas could be property. How we organize things; our particular ideas about markets, their role and who should lead us, are ideological.
That made me think of @Neil Wilson's "quid pro quo" ideology.
The Pacific NorthWest Native culture was just the opposite of quid pro quo -- the people held in highest esteem were the ones who gave the most away.
We are brainwashed from kindergarten onward. Most people believe what they are told to believe, and most people try to behave the way their peers expect them to behave.
Ian does a good job of reminding us that some of our cultural attributes are simply choices/teaching. We could make different choices if we wanted to.
An ideology which does not create believers willing to die; and to kill, on its behalf, will lose to those that do.
Who wants to die for a minimum wage dead end job?
This is one reason I keep hammering away at the JG's "more politically viable" claim. In the 45 years since Minsky began bragging about the ELR's political viability, it hasn't come close to becoming law. It may take a revolution to bring about more humane economic policies, and a revolution will require an ideology worth dying for. Ian nails it.
The Pacific NorthWest Native culture was just the opposite of quid pro quo -- the people held in highest esteem were the ones who gave the most away.
Not just the Pacific NorthWest Native culture. In many traditional cultures the hero was the great distributor rather than the great accumulator.
Your theory of human nature predicts your policies.
If you believe that human nature is driven by quid pro quo then you develop quid pro quo policies. (just picking on Neil but it goes for any policy).
This is Ian at his best.
Post a Comment