WS writes:
> Yes, I am a statist, but not of the Hobbesian variety - if I read him
> correctly, he argued for a contractual origins of the state i.e. individuals
> enter a contract by which they vest their right to do violence to the
> sovereign to avoid a war of all against all. It is too individualistic, or
> neo-classical if you will, to my taste.
he was quite individualistic in terms of method, though the implications of his "methodological individualism" are that Leviathan-led collectivism is needed.
> I favor a more collectivist
> approach (cf. Max Weber or Emile Durkheim) who argue that the collective
> produces (so to speak) individuals and the contents of their minds, not the
> other way around.
(second set of parentheses added. -- JD)
BTW, Marx also thought that the "collective" produces individuals and the contents of their minds (though not exactly as it pleases, of course) -- but that the individuals also create the collective (though not exactly as they please and often as organized groups).
BTW2, it's important to distinguish "the collective" (society) from "the state." The state need not reflect the democratic wishes of the collective. It might instead reflect those of a Leviathan like the one led by Kim Jong Il.
> Since it is the social structure and institutions that determines individual
> behavior, the best is such structure/institutions that minimize negative
> aspects of such behavior, such as war of all against all, abuse of one
> individual by another, etc., as well as provide for effective coordination
> of the collective effort. When large and diversified human assemblies are
> involved, such social structure/institution is the state and mediating
> institutions (such as interest groups, professional/labor associations,
> political parties, etc.). Without such structures, we would have an
> Afghanistan or an Ethiopia all over the world, where "justice" would be
> meted out by tribal elders, warlords, and assorted gangsters, as they see it
> fit.
As critics of statism have long noted, having a state is necessary to avoiding the kind of "justice" to which you refer, but not sufficient. The state and its ancillary institutions can declare war on the people (e.g., Mobutu Sese Seko).
> I may also add that I like the Hobbesian concept of Leviathan for a
> different reason - namely its universalism. It stresses the rule of the
> Leviathan/State over everyone else, thus precluding capturing it by any
> particular interest group e.g. the business party as it is the case of the
> US.
Hobbes' conception of the Leviathan does not preclude the rule of the Leviathn by any particular interest group -- except by definition. He doesn't really deal with the "who rules the state?" question very well.
> My ideal is the centrally planned state (with limited market niches
> circumscribed by careful planning) whose officers are appointed rather than
> elected in foolish popularity contests, and can be removed from office at
> any time; the appointing/removing bodies being the aforementioned political
> parties, professional/labor associations and interest groups. The European
> parliamentary system comes close.
that's a kind of democracy, I guess, which is an improvement over Hobbes (who in essence wanted Law 'N' Order at any cost). But even European parliamentary systems don't seem to rule out government by the business party. If business isn't ruling Europe, what explains the neo-liberal monetary and fiscal policies of the last few decades?
> Of course I understand that such a concept is an anathema to Homo Americanus
> who has no concept of the collective and the public good, is incapable of
> seeing the forest among the trees, and thus fancies himself with illusions
> of individualism and social groupings that cannot hold more than seven
> individuals and still function.
I don't understand why you like to insult straw men so often. Do you think that anyone on lbo-talk fits this model of having no concept of the collective and the public good, being incapable of seeing the forest among the trees, and thus fancying himself or herself with illusions of individualism?
The whole issue of the "public good" is problematic. Who determines what it is? The conservative mag THE PUBLIC INTEREST? Me? You?
As far as I can tell, the only way to determine what the public good is would be to institute a much more democratic political and economic system than we have in the US or Europe at present. -- Jim Devine "He should take it easy." -- my cat's vet.