Charles writes:
>Here I am criticizing, not supporting, the liberal notion of individual
self-interest, and proposing we replace it with a communist concept of
individual self-interest, i.e. one that coordinates each individual's
self-interest with that of everybody else's. All for one and one for all.
Got it. For me, the coordination of everyone's self-interest is just the acknowledgement of the interdependent nature of reality. It is the rediscovery of the nature of reality which most humans have forgotten.
> Liberalism or capitalism has failed because it is premised on class
exploitation and oppression which inherently undermines meeting the
self-interests of most.
I think they also fail because they believe in a clear, bright line separating one person's self-interest from another's.
> I know you have discussed it many times, but I am not sold on replacing
desires and their satisfaction.
Neither am I. What I am keen on replacing is the framework in which desires are understood and satisfied. Being human beings means we have desires. It also means we have the capacity to craft the framework within which we satisfy them.
> There's nothing inherent in self-interests that contradicts
others'-interests. Ergo, my advocating people be allowed to pursue their
own self-interest does not contradict advocating that they not be
indifferent to others' self-interests.
But you are assuming that a person's self-interest is clearly distinct from another person's. I do not believe this is true.
> In fact, it is in their self-interest to be interested in others'
self-interest. That's how humans originally enhanced the fulfillment of
everybody's self-interest.
I agree, but what proof do we have of this fact? For me, humans originally flourished because they lacked a notion of individual self-interest and saw reality for what it was - interdependent.
> The specific self-interest originally being discussed here was the
self-interest ( I said it was a natural self-interest) in not being
exploited.
I agree. While I acknowledge what Miles says, I do think there are universal moral bases. One of them is that no person wants to be exploited. Taking up the suggestion that was made to read some ideas formulated before capitalism (sorry, I have forgetten who made it), I have been reading about liberalism and what preceded it -- republicanism.
I think one of the problems is that liberalism changed the definition of freedom from "freedom from domination" to "freedom as non-interference." This lesser standard goes hand-in-hand with a notion of self as defined by one's self-interest/desires. This lesser standard allows Miles to say he is pro-queer, but, under the theory of freedom as non-interference, to support laws that persecute queers, since he does not want to interfere with the desires of others to outlaw same-sex marriage. I think this lesser standard also facilitated the spread/growth of capitalism.
Under a concept of freedom as "freedom from domination," laws persecuting queers would not be allowed since they imposed domination upon queers. Freedom from domination would also prevent majoritarian mob rule from gaining a foothold.
Also, freedom from domination could be used to justify a) universal healthcare and b) restrictions on wealth. Universal healthcare would be seen as necessary so people were not under domination where they had to seek and accept those types of jobs that offer health insurance.
As for wealth, the amassing of great wealth could be proscribed on the grounds that to allow such accumulation could lead to the possibility of domination. Under the "non-interference" theory, what right is there to interfere with the accumulation of wealth?
Finally, a non-domination approach to freedom can be argued for biologically. We know the deliterious effect of stress upon the human body. To live under domination/exploitation would cause stress which would cause harm to the human body. Does any culture advocate the degradation of the human body as being a good? If there is none, then Miles' objection would be satisfied about making universal moral staements.
>Communism seeks to reaffirm the original principle - communalism - that
differentiated humans from other species.
As a Buddhist I would say it was human beings' ability to correctly discern the nature of reality which is interdependence. Liberal self-interest is a theoretical concept that humans imposed on observable interdependent reality. Instead of your approach, which is to impose a countertheory of communal self-interest, I think it is better to closely observe reality, recognize its interdependence, and then act accordingly. It keeps humans out of the realm of theory and grounded in the world of experience.
> ...then sort of. The assertion "we must share the same self" is a bit, I
don't know...
Threatening . . . LOL?
> The self is rooted in the fact that there are individual members of the
species, individual bodies. There would have to be something to clarify that
we still have different, individual bodies.
There are individual bodies, that is an observable fact. Another observable fact is that these bodies are enmeshed in a reality that is interdependent. When one of these bodies acts, it affects the entire matrix of reality. So yes, the bodies are separate, but the actions undertaken by the bodies are interdependent. The mistake that is made is to theorize from separate bodies the existence of separate self-interests. This theory is not supported by observable reality.
Brian Dauth Queer Buddhist Resister