Parecon and egoism
October 30th, 2007
When I talk to people about parecon or creating a better planet in general, they always say, “Well, humans are just self-centered, egoists. So, they say, whatever kind of society we may have, we always have to keep in mind that someone is always gonna try to screw us over, shoot us in the back, get the most out of any kind of interaction.
I think parecon assumes that with a better system around us, humans would behave in solidarity and would look out for each other’s interests and not just their own.
What do you all think of that?
Answer from Charles:
Parecon takes the assumption that humans are good, and bad… it is the institutions that encourages either side to manifest- When I see a person getting abused by the police, who’s in great pain, my first reaction is “help him!”. But second thoughts come into my mind: “what would the police do to me then?”. The police has the power to imprison me, he has a stick and a gun in his hand given to him by the State.
So I think we are all born capable of sympathy, solidarity, but we are all prone to obey authority because we know our limitations and we can be scared. Milgram experiment and the Stanford prison experiment demonstrate this point rather well.
So instead of telling myself: “Almost all people are all good”, I’d say “All people are almost good”. Parecon purports to provide an institutional mechanism which encourages the good to come out of people.
I will give u an answer from Chomsky, and an answer from Michael Albert here as well:
‘’Q: The media seems to present us with a view of the world or a picture of the world that seems pretty hopeless. Where does action take place? Is human nature so flawed that we are unable to build ourselves out of this mess? How can we face the future without falling into the typical cynicism and despair?
‘’Michael Albert: Well, it’s certainly true that is what the mainstream media impact is. And it makes perfectly good sense, from their perspective. The best strategy of people who are benefiting from an existing institutional structure that’s hierarchical and oppressive to many is to convince everybody that there is no alternative. I mean that’s perfect strategy. And that’s what the powers that be, the media and everybody else bombard us with all the time. And regrettably, a great many people believe it. ‘’
‘’Of course there’s nothing about human nature that even bears upon this as far as I can see. Maybe we could have spent more time on that because it’s a very important issue because a great many people don’t identify with the Left because they feel like “well if human nature at bottom has characteristics that make oppressin inevitable” there is no point trying to fight against injustice. They feel that human nature is greedy, or human nature is evil, or human nature is aggrandizing, or human nature is this, or human nature is that. Of course they always feel that about everybody’s human nature except their own. They generally think that their human nature doesn’t have these ills. The reality of course is that human nature is hugely complex and, whatever its other attributes, does allow for both vile behaviors and socially constructive and positive ones. We know this because we see both. But we know or at least believe something more, too. Implicitly, when we aren’t alibing inaction, at any rate, we all tend to think that the vile outcomes, though possible given our natures, are contrary to their fullest and freest expression, even denials of their healthy expression.'’
‘’Chomsky has an example to demonstrate this that he likes to give. It’s a very very hot day. Somebody’s walking down the street. There’s a little child with an ice cream cone. The person walking down the street is hot. There’s nobody around to see. He’d really like an ice cream cone. He’s walking alone. He comes to the child. What does he do? So you’re up in the window and you happen to notice. He doesn’t know you’re there. Does he take the ice cream cone, swap the kid out of the way and keep walking? Or does he go right by and forego the ice cream cone even though he could easily take it as his own? Well everybody who saw somebody take the ice cream cone and swat the kid out of the way and keep walking would think there was something wrong with that person. That there was something… that they were just pathological. They would think that person was somehow deviant. And that tells you something about the fact that we really don’t, at heart, think that humans are bad, selfish, greedy, anti-social.'’
‘’What I believe, instead, is that human personnality is largely produced by markets and by market and competition and by various other institutional structures that mould and bend and push us and make it the case that nice guys finish last, so we all have to be “not nice” or finish last. Under those circumstances human personality gets distorted from what it might more naturally emerge as. I becomes, well, pathological. And so daily life is a kind of struggle against this situation. It’s a struggle to get good outcomes despite the fact that our personalities have been pushed and pressured and bent by bad institutions. But it’s not impossible. And then history is a kind of struggle to alter the institutions themselves, change the big picture. And indeed history is a catalog of progress on these axes, on axes of discovering human possibilities and aspirations and meeting them and fulfilling them. History shows progress from canibalism through feudalism through greater degrees of enfranchisement, to beginning to deal with racial and religious bigotry and gender bigotry, to confronting centers of economic and political power, and so on. And there’s no particular reason to think that that chronicle of advance can’t continue all the way to the point where corporate power and political power and sexism and racism have been replaced with instutions that instead serve human fulfillment and development.'’
‘’We have two choices. We can look at that possibility and we can say to ourselves: “Oh gee, I don’t think it will happen, so I’ll ignore the historic effort to make it happen.” Or we can say to ourselves: “It might happen so I’ll work for it ot make it just that much more likely.” I think one thing is perfecly clear: whatever the odds are, each person who says it might happen and I’ll work for it, makes the odds a little better. And that to me is all that you need to know. That’s enough to justify working for social change, to deal with the problem of which side should I be on. Yes, I also believe we can and will win a better world, but you don’t even need that – you just need to think your contribution makes it more likely we can win a better world. And once that’s the case, then it’s true that you have to think hard about “well what can I do in my life” and still live a life and not be a miserable, decrepit human being, but live a full and rich life and try and fulfill myself and the people around me but also contribute to this historic project as best I can. And to do that we have to educate ourselves and we have to join up with others in what are called movements, to fight for changes. And I think that’s what beats cynicism. What beats cynicism is collectivity. What beats cynicism is the nurturing of others who are fighting for justice with you. Not being totally isolated. Not having a viewpoint which is never ratified by anybody else. Having clear and positive aspirations and being able to express them and defend their logic and worth. Having a broad picture of how change might be achieved and what one’s role in it might be. You have to have interactions with others. You have to educate yourself and you have to aspire to something better. And if you do all that, even with all the bangs and the bruises that you might take, and there are plenty, I think you can maintain hope and aspiration and energy. I mean, I have for thirty years and there’s nothing special about me. ‘’