Throughout the text, Macpherson singles out two dimensions of a well-formed society, both prerequisites of a viable political community, both culminating for him and for Hobbes in the institution of the state: (I) social cohesion; and (II), a common enough recognition of a fundamental equality spanning over the entire commonwealth so as to include each and every one. Both are deemed necessary ingredients of that quality of mind and spirit we call loyalty, a sentiment which typically expresses itself in a political obligation of sorts, an obligation to the sovereign, the state, whatever the sovereign’s form; an obligation, besides, which must be shared by all, if not most, of the citizens in order to sustain the state as a viable political entity it was designed to be, an entity one could believe in. Each, if found wanting, spells out a potential disaster, the state’s fall from grace. This much, I’m certain, is on the right track; I find no fault whatever here with Macpherson’s reasoning.
The problem of social cohesion arises for Macpherson as a direct consequence of a development which corresponds to extending universal franchise to include most everybody: Negroes, freemen, women and urban dwellers. Prior to the completion of this democratization process, the agrarian, propertied class held a virtual monopoly when it came to political/economic decision-making. Naturally, the kind of cohesion associated with such a society was limited to cohesion which revolved mostly if not solely around the common interests of the ruling class: no other kind mattered because those who were disenfranchised didn’t count as full-fledged members of the political community. Since universal suffrage had changed all that, the problem of social cohesion had become the perennial problem for any mature, fully-developed liberal democracy, laboring, besides, under the auspices of market relations which, routinely, trumped all other relations, political relations included. Hence Macpherson’s ultimate solution to the problem of social cohesion: full-scale socialism. In the event “...that market society could be abandoned [my emphasis], the problem of cohesion would be resolved...” is the direct quote.
Let’s turn our attention now to how Macpherson proposes to deal with the problem of fundamental equality to be accorded to each and every member of the commonwealth. On what grounds could a polity, whatever its form, survive, let alone prosper, against all manner of challenges and counterclaims?
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - troll
it remains unclear to me how the 'no state solution' can be conceptualized removed from its attending relations of production (and reproduction) and what the point might be of doing so...why does McP put state socialism up as the only 'economic solution'?
we live in a universe of chance these days => there's no linear relationship between seed and fruit - pesky externalities - leaving homo rationalis and his models in a pretty tenuous position
2 - troll
nice work Roger
3 - roger nowosielski
Thanx.
U though that Macpherson closes, however indirectly, with this kinda point, that we're more likely, as a species, to unite in response to a common external threat rather than be moved by a sense of, say, social justice. In fact, I don't think it'd be too difficult to imagine if only a provisional "world government," formed under dire circumstances, while the economic conditions among the member states would remain on hold. I think the whole idea of federalism needs revamping, to allow for a kind of unity amid diversity. Isn't that what anarchistic thought is about?
Further, it's precisely because the economic and the political are, in some cases/localities, in the US, for instance, so hopelessly intertwined, that there may a real benefit to treat both dimensions, for the duration of analysis, as conceptually apart.
4 - roger nowosielski
unity in spite of diversity may sound better
5 - Cindy
Roger,
I am reading your article at the moment. But my brain needed a break, so I thought I would share a little of the direction my interests have taken. I have begun with Quantum physics and I am now exploring the authors below.
Biocentrism: How Life and Consciousness are the Keys to Understanding the True Nature of the Universe
Orchestrated objective reduction (Orch-OR)
Fascinating, fascinating stuff!
Okay, back to your article.
6 - Dr Dreadful
BC Writer of the Week, I see, Roger.
Kudos!
7 - roger nowosielski
Shoot, Dreadful. Caught me by surprise given the convoluted style.
8 - Jet Gardner
Kudos Rog...
When I agree with your articles they are well-thought out, well written and unbiasedly researched.
However
When I don't agree with your articles they are STILL well-thought out, well written and unbiasedly researched.
...and that's saying something!
9 - roger nowosielski
Thanks, Jet. I'm surely glad we're not on a warpath. I just try to stay true to my thinking, going wherever it might lead.
10 - Cindy
I wrote you a comment yesterday, Roger. But my computer froze up (as it has taken to doing) and I lost it. I will be interested in the next one as I liked the link at the end.
11 - clavos
Props on the recognition, Rog! It's well deserved.
12 - Les Slater
Roger, I believe your acceptance of the pessimism of Robert L. Heilbroner is blinding you.
The world has changed greatly since 1974. The bourgeois optimism of the staying power of their system, reflected in Heilbroner's outlook, has given way to bourgeois pessimism. There is very little besides blowing bubbles for the capitalist to hang their hook on. -Les
13 - roger nowosielski
I read Heilbroner differently, Les, as being equally critical of the human capacity to respond, regardless of whether capitalism or socialism is the system in place. I’m not referring to the shift in his thought during the declining years: E.g.,:
though an outspoken socialist for nearly his entire career, Heilbroner famously wrote in a 1989 New Yorker article:
Less than 75 years after it officially began, the contest between capitalism and socialism is over: capitalism has won...Capitalism organizes the material affairs of humankind more satisfactorily than socialism.[3]
He further explained in Dissent in 1992 that "capitalism has been as unmistakable a success as socialism has been a failure"[3]and complimented Milton Friedman, Friedrich Hayek, and Ludwig von Mises on their insistence of the free market's superiority. He emphasized that "democratic liberties have not yet appeared, except fleetingly, in any nation that has declared itself to be fundamentally anticapitalist."[3] However, Heilbroner's preferred capitalist model was the highly redistributionist welfare states ofScandinavia; he stated that his model society was "a slightly idealized Sweden."[4] Wiki. There, I believe he’s getting senile.
BTW, Les, aren’t you contradicting yourself somewhat? Compare paragraphs one and two, for instance.
14 - Les Slater
"I read Heilbroner... as being equally critical of the human capacity to respond, regardless of whether capitalism or socialism is the system in place." I definitely got the same impression, deep pessimism. His view of socialism, really Stalinism, was quite Utopian.
Contradicting myself? I just pointed out that things weren't going according to his pessimism about humanity. His ultimate prostration before capital just reinforces that.
15 - roger nowosielski
I'm vs. socialism but for a different reason: it requires the state. As to his genuflection on the altar of capitalism, I agree, but I relegate it to his "senile" phase.
I still see your #12 as contradictory. Which Heilbrebner are you speaking of, the early or later phase. Certainly at the time of the initial publication of The Inquiry, the bourgeois optimism was not yet severely challenged, and Heilbroner's voice at the time was a voice of dissent, no?
As to his pessimism blinding me, I would disagree. A healthful dose is a good thing, but the anarchist in me calls for a stance of cautious optimism.
16 - Glenn Contrarian
But without the state, while we might all be living a quiet, pastoral, and perhaps happy life, we almost certainly wouldn't have anything approaching the technology we have now, from electrical systems to highways to cell phones, much less computers and the internet and all the manifold advantages they bring.
17 - Les Slater
Glenn, at least in the short run, the lack of a state would be more than a lack of some of the modern infrastructure. It would be chaos and starvation for a good part of the population.
18 - Les Slater
Roger, #15. I responded to the Heilbrebner of 1974. I hadn't read your follow up as of my #12.
Rather than senility for his 1989 and 1992 writings, I would say all the logic and groundwork were in his 1974 pessimism.
I saw pretty much the same thing happen starting in 1940 with James Burnham.
19 - Cindy
Something of interest in how others are handling the economic crisis.
Euros discarded as impoverished Greeks resort to bartering
20 - Cindy
Teaser:
"It's all about exchange and solidarity, helping one another out in these very hard times," enthused Ioanitou, her hair tucked under a floppy felt cap. "You could say a lot of us have dreams of a utopia without the euro."
21 - roger nowosielski
Experienced a slight setback, Cindy. Trying to quit smoking, besides, and my neurons aren't firing for lack of nicotine stimulation.
Yes, this is a positive development and provides an example of how we can wean ourselves off our dependence on global, all-comprehensive financial system on an as-need, case-by-case, basis.
Which poses an interesting problem of how and when to centralize and to decentralize. We should be able to utilize both approaches to our best possible advantage. For example, we can't just opt for the first, across-the-board, as it were, for that would mean going back to the Middle Ages in some sense (as per rather valid complaint by Glenn, #16), so we got to be judicious.
The medical profession, and organization of work in terms of stated goals and objectives, offers I think a promising model of how we might want to proceed. The objectives seem to dictate the level of centralization or decentralization required. For example, objectives related to, say, preventative medicine, could be said to require a lesser level of centralization (and be more amenable therefore to greater local administration and handling) than those which deal with crisis, life-threatening situations. So yes, sociology of work, in particular, sociology of the medical profession, promises to be a potentially-fruitful field of study, with possible applications to other vital areas of common/social endeavors (such as education, for instance), when it comes to organizing work and human resources, capital included, and I plan to pick up on this theme later in the presentation.
22 - Glenn Contrarian
Roger -
Concerning your quitting smoking, let me tell you a couple stories that might help. My uncle smoked since he was a teenager. He died in his 60's from emphysema. He was strong for so many years, but the last time I talked to him, he had to hang up because he was too weak to hold the phone to his ear.
My mother died last July at the age of 77. She had spent most of her last decade in a wheelchair - not because her legs couldn't carry her, but because her lungs were black with cigarette smoke - she couldn't catch her breath. In her last moments (in hospice care), I watched as her mouth filled with a brown liquid almost like gravy, and she essentially drowned in it, and she was alert as it happened. It's hard to watch it happen to your mother.
Cigarettes killed both of them, and they will kill you, too. Please, please try as hard as you can to quit - cold turkey's the most effective way, I'm told, but you've got to find what works best for you. I wish you the very best of luck in your efforts.
23 - roger nowosielski
I'm sorry, Cindy, you didn't find my comment provocative enough to merit a response.
Next time, perhaps.
24 - Cindy
Sorry, Roger. I had read and have been thinking about your comment. I should have left a note that I had been by. I sometimes forget people don't read minds. No harm intended.
I shall return.
25 - Igor
Capitalism and communism are two sides of the same coin. They do not comprise all possibilities, nor are they exclusive. More alike than different.