Hi Rich,
I don't know about Marx and Lukacs, but I can tell you about neo-liberal
theory. and I sppose that might shed some light on later capitalism.
Might...
If you read J.M. Buchanan, on 'the costs of social interaction', you
will learn that for any decision the costs involved are the costs of
decision-making and the costs of the externalities created by that
decision. the costs of decision-making are assumed to be least when that
decision is made by one person, the costs of externaltiies are assumed
to be least when the decision is collective. The next move is that, if
the externalities can be allocated to individuals, all the externailties
will disappear, and the most efficient form of decision-making that of
the individual ( as opposed to the voluntary collective or the coercive
collective,i.e. govt ) can reign supreme.
therefore, externalites should be allocated to individuals.
( an externality is an effect which cannot be confined to the person who
created it, e..g. clean air, pollution, street art, 'freedom' , public
T.V. broad casts.
therefore all sorts of abstract rights should be transformed into forms
of property which can be exchanged, or otherwise managed by individuals
rather than collectives. the right to vote, for instance can become an
exchangeable property. the right to citizenship, the right to education,
the right to just about anything. In my country publicly owned utilities
have been distributed to the people who had accounts with them e.g.
electricity shares to people who paid for electricity - on the basis of
this argument. Mad? Yes, but that's how it is.
This to my mind is a pretty potent form of reification.
cheers,
Nesta
I don't know about Marx and Lukacs, but I can tell you about neo-liberal
theory. and I sppose that might shed some light on later capitalism.
Might...
If you read J.M. Buchanan, on 'the costs of social interaction', you
will learn that for any decision the costs involved are the costs of
decision-making and the costs of the externalities created by that
decision. the costs of decision-making are assumed to be least when that
decision is made by one person, the costs of externaltiies are assumed
to be least when the decision is collective. The next move is that, if
the externalities can be allocated to individuals, all the externailties
will disappear, and the most efficient form of decision-making that of
the individual ( as opposed to the voluntary collective or the coercive
collective,i.e. govt ) can reign supreme.
therefore, externalites should be allocated to individuals.
( an externality is an effect which cannot be confined to the person who
created it, e..g. clean air, pollution, street art, 'freedom' , public
T.V. broad casts.
therefore all sorts of abstract rights should be transformed into forms
of property which can be exchanged, or otherwise managed by individuals
rather than collectives. the right to vote, for instance can become an
exchangeable property. the right to citizenship, the right to education,
the right to just about anything. In my country publicly owned utilities
have been distributed to the people who had accounts with them e.g.
electricity shares to people who paid for electricity - on the basis of
this argument. Mad? Yes, but that's how it is.
This to my mind is a pretty potent form of reification.
cheers,
Nesta