Date: Sun, 2 Sep 2001 21:44:35 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Harry M. Cleaver" <hmcleave-AT-eco.utexas.edu>
Subject: AUT: Economy, desires and oranges


On Mon, 3 Sep 2001, Harald Beyer-Arnesen wrote:

> All concepts are abstract. It is a question of degrees. That the
> specific term economy was non-existent, in no way implies that
> people did not at all think in economical terms, what ever
> the words used to express such concerns. As far as I can see,
> it would impossible not to do so, as long as we live in a
> material world.

That you cannot imagine other ways to think about things like farming
and eating, house building and so on is but a measure of the hegemony of
"economic" concepts at this point in time. A partial antedote is to read
anthropologists' accounts of how "pre-capitalist" peoples dealt with
things but unfortunately anthropologists mostly just tell us how they
understand things to be and do not help us to listen to how people
actually talk. A few do. A fascinating book is Carlos Lenkersdorf's LOS
HOMBRES VERDADEROS: Voces y testimonios tojolabales about the tojolabals
in Chiapas and their language (where everything is alive) and
interactions with the various elements of their world.

>
> Furthermore, this question should not only be posed
> on the terrain capitalism or not, but also between (a high degree of)
> self-subsistence or not. I would entirely agree though that most
> of the specific terms and concepts used by economists by profession
> today are not very useful for talking about a post- (or pre-) capitalist
> society. More than often they are not too useful for talking about
> the world we are living in either.

I would say they are useful in talking about how the various moments of
our world are "supposed" to fit into the logic and circuits of capital.
They fail (as do Marxist terms as I have argued elsewhere) when dealing
with things that do not fit and have other meanings. When I eat with my
friends I do not "consume" the food/commodities I have purchased
with my wage, I do not "gain utility" -- I engage in a complex social
activity with many levels of meaning, most of which escape such "economic"
labels.

> Added to this, some degree of "cultural-imperalism" seems to me
> a good thing.

I wouldn't call what you say next "cultural-imperialism." I would reserve
that term to describe what happens when British imperialists imposed new
meanings on Nigerians and destroyed the fabric of existing meanings.(Ever
read about Nigerian market women "sitting on a man"?)

> A person from a village in Nigeria might put words
> on things I had not seen clearly in the "norwegian" society, using
> concepts that had been unknown to me.

Exactly my point, and why diversity that escapes and contains capitalist
sameness is so enriching to our lives. Words are interesting and fun
precisely in as much as they are rich with meanings and reveal things we
had not seen before. And why, inversely, jargon is not only precise but
limited.

>
> But I expect I use the word economy in a far broader sense
> than you. To me economy is foremost a reality imposed by
> the need to feed ourselves etc, as well as to satisfy a diverse
> spectrum of desires,  and not a science or some mathe-
> matical construction. I also has to do with how we organise
> ourselves to satisfy these needs and desires. As such economy
> is something that largely escapes the confines of science,
> even if some things are measureable: such as tonns of potatoes,
> acres sown, numbers of washing machines and kilometers
> of railroad-lines and roads, and then in these days, lot of
> (if not all) financial transactions (to mention a capitalist-specific
> domain.)

I just wonder why you want to keep using the term "economy" when talking
about these things? Clearly these things --fulfilling our needs and
desires-- are important, but why use such a term that is so loaded with
historical meaning, so loaded with capitalist meaning. Why not just talk
about "fulfilling our needs and desires" and then about what "needs" are,
and what "desires" are and what "fulfilling" means? Which leads to things
like the work of Deleuze and Guattari on "desire." (Of course their work
too is marked with the sign of the beast: I really don't like the notion
of "desiring machines.")

>
> I am sure you will have a thought-provoking reply to this, Harry,
> though I sort of doubt we will reach an agreement on the topic.

He he. There is no need to "reach agreement." I once thought people could
--a vestige of St.Thomas no doubt-- but now I just enjoy the dialog
amongst those of us striving to change the world. After all if we agreed
we'd lose precisely the rich variety of expression and words that makes
conversation and encounter so interesting.

>
> But anyway, what I am really interested in is thinking about
> how to organise to satisfy our material and spiritual needs
> and desires in ways that does not recreate hiearchical structures
> and takes us back to class society we just left behind.

Aye. These things we need to do. All I would say at this point is: I'm
sure there are many ways "to satisfy" --as many ways as there are needs
and desires.

> In
> my mind this means we have to think about things as for
> instance logistics and what I might call economics in space,
> about flexibility, warehouses, as well as horisontal human
> links as travelling, festivals and love-making, oranges and
> timber.
>
> ... all for now
>
> Harald
>

"flexibility, warehouses, as well as horisontal human links as
travelling, festivals and love-making, oranges and timber."

All good things to think about but nowhere do I see any need to think
about them in terms of any kind of "economy." After spending a month
backpacking in Norway I can imagine Norwegians thinking seriously about
"timber," playfully about travelling, festivals and love-making and
dreaming wistfully of oranges. :-)

Harry




............................................................................
Snail-mail:
Harry Cleaver
Department of Economics
University of Texas at Austin
Austin, Texas 78712-1173  USA

Phone Numbers:
(hm)  (512) 442-5036
(off) (512) 475-8535
Fax:(512) 471-3510

E-mail:
hmcleave-AT-eco.utexas.edu
PGP Public Key: http://certserver.pgp.com:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=hmcleave

Cleaver homepage:
http://www.eco.utexas.edu/faculty/Cleaver/index2.html

Chiapas95 homepage:
http://www.eco.utexas.edu/faculty/Cleaver/chiapas95.html

Accion Zapatista homepage:
http://www.utexas.edu/students/nave/
............................................................................



     --- from list aut-op-sy-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---