Responding to an anonymous comment on my recent blog post about RAW fans migrating to Bluesky, Brian at the RAW Semantics blog pens a new post, "Libertarian..? Scandinavian..? Excluded middle..!!"
Brian argues that RAW wanted a middle path between hard right economics and totalitarian socialism and lists several ideas that RAW promoted that most RAW fans would be familiar with, such as a universal basic income and the negative income tax. Brian sees one current country as a possible example of an "excluded middle":
"Sweden seems the best example, to me, of the 'Scandinavian' model, having rated highly over a long period (eg years/decades) on various economic and social well-being indicators (at the time RAW commented – some changes have occurred since then, so I’m writing about some of these things in the past tense; but it remains a stable mixed system of tech capitalism and extensive welfare benefits). Elsewhere, RAW has descibed this type of system as a 'mixed economy”' rather than as 'socialism' presumably because it combined strong private business sectors with 'humanitarianism, social conscience, equality, egalitarianism, and environmental concern' (to quote the chapter on Sweden from The Seven Cultures of Capitalism, by Hampden-Turner and Trompenaars)."
Brian is at Bluesky, by the way.
UPDATE: Brian says I missed his point, so please read his comments below and the full post I linked to.
7 comments:
Thanks, as always, for the kind mention, Tom. On the "middle" and "excluded middle" terms, RAW used the latter, of course, importing it from the logical usage ("law of excluded middle" etc) to economics in this case to make the point about the either/or dichotomy (monopoly capitalism/totalitarian socialism) that he wanted to transcend.
But "middle" seems an unfortunate term here - "middle path" sounds like something halfway between two extremes, which neither RAW (nor myself) suggest. Also, I don't see the Scandinavian model (eg Sweden) as an "excluded middle" - more a compromise mixed system.
My blog post can equally be seen as a critique of the right-libertarian economics that has obvious similarities to neoliberalism, and which I don't see as an "excluded middle" type alternative in RAW's sense... etc.
Also, if one says RAW wanted a "middle path" in economics, it makes him sound like Tony frigging Blair! Hence the distinction here between 'excluded middle' (in RAW's use wrt economics) and, say, "centrism" or "middle way", etc.
I appreciate the clarification. As always, I urge folks to read the original posting.
Perhaps the original anonymous commenter can offer his/her/their definition of an "excluded middle"?
"Brian says I missed his point..."
I don't think I put it that bluntly anywhere! I did say (on Bluesky) that I see a misunderstanding over the "middle" term (ie "middle path between") here - not surprising given what it generally refers to. FWIW, I find RAWIllumination.net (ie Tom) very receptive to these different points of view; not to mention the free PR you constantly give to a wide range of viewpoints on RAW.
https://www.amazon.com/Wake-There-Excluded-Middle-Anthology/dp/0932813828
Aristotle's logic is excluded middle. I don't think it took reading Korzybski for RAW to embrace non-A logic, but almost all of his influences don't dig Two-Valued Logic.
Something excluded from Socialism vs. Capitalism; Democrats vs. Republicans; Monotheists vs. Atheists; literature vs. TV, etc.
How many interesting or at least provocative stances are possible? Lots! Outside the binaries are many objects that have been "excluded" to some degree. The middle can be jam-packed with excludeds.
And these omnipresent binaries? In the interests of...who?
RAW knew we are social constructivists and many of us are anti-foundationalists and we co-create much of "reality" by communicating about it. He advocated for his own set of favored excluded ideas really well. How? Intellect, style, rhetoric, humor.
He voted Democrat in POTUS elections, mostly, from a young age, with brief "protest" votes for Libertarians. But he really was alienated from Democratic party politics - probably from at least 1964, maybe 1952? and I remember him mentioning Feinstein and "democrats" like that, and doing a raspberry and saying, "Phooey!" Like I didn't agree already.
The Republican Party was absolutely repugnant to him. Of course!
There's now a long & fascinating comments thread at my blog post, with several folks who post here also commenting there. I encourage further discussion (it's easy to comment there - can be anon). And maybe the RAW Facebook folks would be interested in the link too? - I don't use FB myself.
Post a Comment