Evo, uključujem se i ja u onu diskusiju o odnosu političara i birača. Slažem se da je Caplanova analiza odlična kritika, ili bar značajna redefinicija, konvencionalne public choice analize. Da ne postoji "politička paralela nevidljivoj ruci" znamo još iz rane teorije Buchanana i Tullocka. Ali, problem je što odsustvo "optimalnog ishoda" nije proizvod delovanja interesnih grupa već samih birača. Srednji birač, a ne neki lobi, hoće ekonomski štetne politike. Srednji birač ima ono što Caplan zove "anti-market bias".
Ali, to je tek početak problema, gde Caplan čini mi se staje. On postupa slično Marksu. Iz Marksove sopstvene teorije sledi da postoji određena dijalektika između evolucije proizvodnih snaga i revolucionarne aktivnosti avangarde, pri čemu ostaje nejasno šta je starije. Tako ni kod Caplana nije jasno da li je starija preferencija birača ili preferencija političara, i šta šta detemriniše, i na koji način. Marks rešava svoju inkonzistenciju solomonski: "u krajnjoj instanci" proizvodne snage odlučuju, dakle objektivni faktor. (Zbog toga je i sama ideja da se komunizam uvede u zemlju poput Rusije mislim s pravom kritikovana kao ne-marksistička, barem u ovom smislu). Isto po meni radi i Caplan. On kaže da u "krajnjoj instanci" birači imaju takve i takve preferencije, a političari im se prilagođavaju. U tom smislu, njegova redefinicija klasične teorije je dosta ograničena. No, kakva je evidencija za takvo gledište? Zašto bi birači u demokratiji imali anti-market bias?
Kod ovih pitanja ja se vraćam staroj, konvencionalnoj teoriji. Ne, birači nemaju antimarket bias, kao što nemaju ni pro-market bias. Mediji, intelektualci i političari imaju "biase" i oni oblikuju birače. Birači u XIX veku nisu imali anti-market bias. Kada smo došli dotle da je istaknuti poslanik Konzervativne stranke u Britaniji početkom XX veka rekao da smo "svi mi pomalo socijalisti" anti-market bias kod birača je već bio očigledan. Ali, on nije samonikla biljka nego proizvod ideja koje su filozofi i novinari zastupali jednu ili dve generacije ranije.
U tom smislu meni Hajekova teorija, s kojom se slaže i Kejnz, zvuči najrazumnije kao objašnjenje, i ona je bliža onome što je Marko označio kao moje gledište, nasuprot ostaloj trojici na Tržišnom Rešenju. Samo što Hajek ne misli da političari bukvalno ispiraju mozak biračima. Mehanizam je nešto složeniji: filozofi formulišu apstrakne ideje, a intelektualci i novinari kao "preprodavci ideja iz druge ruke" dugotrajno indoktriniraju javnost dok ova pojmove, kategorije i vrednosti njihove filozofije ne usvoji. Intelektualci, a donekle i političari deluju kao neka nevidljiva ruka koja ukuse birača prilagođava doktrini u koju oni veruju, ili koju su nasledili, a da toga i ne moraju da budu potpuno svesni. Kad postavke neke doktrine postanu opšta predrasuda koja se neupitno prihvata, proces je završen. Na to misli Kejnz kad o političarima govori kao o bukačima koji samo ponavljaju predrasude nekog "pokojnog profesora".
Prevedno na naš slučaj, ja ne mislim da srpski birač ima bilo kakvu "endogenu" antizapadnjačku predrasudu. Tu predrasudu su stvorili ili barem dramatično pojačali i etablirali intelektualci i novinari koji su u nju verovali iz "idealističkih", ideoloških razloga. Akademici mrze Zapad i Ameriku, ne srpski birač. Političari koji su pod velikim uticajem antizapadnjačkih intelektualaca koji dominiraju u Srbiji su preuzeli njihovu priču i njome zasipaju birača. U Srbiji, svi smo mi pomalo...akademici SANU...
5 comments:
Koliko ja znam, Kaplan nikada nije izasao sa "poreklom" svih pristrasnosti koje navodi u svojoj knjizi, ali je u jednom postu na svom blogu podrzao "evolutivno psiholosko" objasnjenje za jednu od pristrasnosti, za anti-foreign bias. Ideja je u tome da su ljudi prirodno skepticni prema strancima jer je u najvecem delu istorije i praistorije kontakt sa strancima (sa ljudima koje ne poznajes) obicno znacio rat, pljacku i neciju smrt. Oni koji su voleli strance nisu poziveli dovoljno dugo da prenesu svoje gene na sledecu generaciju.
Sto se pessimistic biasa tice, cuo sam objasnjenje i za to u slicnom smislu. Kazu da, vrlo jednostavno, oni koji su bili optimisti u praistoriji su bili pojedeni od strane zivotinja i ubijeni od strane drugih ljudi, tako da su preziveli oni koji su bili oprezni i koji su se svega plasili, a mi smo njihovi naslednici.
Pokusacu da dam slicno objasnjenje i za anti market bias. U malim skupinama, u kakvim su ziveli nasi pretci, razmena je vrlo retko bila sasvim dobrovoljna. Takodje, mogucnosti za specijalizaciju su bile male, a specijalizacija je sustinski znacila monopolizaciju - kada u selu ima 100 ljudi, moze da postoji samo jedan kovac, jedan vrac i jedan ucitelj. Zato su ljudi voleli da znaju da rade sve po malo. Oni koji bi se specijalizovali bi rizikovali da umru od gladi (i po mojoj teoriji JESU umirali od gladi).
Naravno, za ovu teoriju nemam nikakve dokaze.
Da, mislim da Caplan prihvata evoluciju kao objašnjenje, iako se ne bavi posebno time. Ali recimo na više mesta se zahvaljuje Paulu Rubinu koji ima članke i knjigu o tome. Pošto smo na milione godina živeli u malim grupama od 30-150 ljudi, naši instinkti su kolektivistički. Zato je ekonomija kontraintuitivna - naš default je kolektivistički. Ne shvatamo kako tržište može radi samo od sebe bez centralne kontrole, ne shvatamo da je trgovina na obostranu korist jer je primitivni svet bio zero-sum game, ne shvatamo značaj inovacija jer ih je tokom evolucije, ustvari sve do pre 500 godina, bilo vrlo malo.
Zanimljivo je da Hayek ima i to u svojoj poslednjoj knjizi, the Fatal Conceit -- ne znam kako to uklapa sa teorijom o intelektualcima, odnosno šta je mislio da je važnije.
Problem je što ovo ne objašnjava razlike među grupama, nacijama. Svi smo instinktivno kolektivisti, ali kako objasniti da su neke zemlje više, a neke manje?
Уверен сам да просечан Србин-грађанин, бирач не мрзи никога. Постоји наравно неповерење, а у неким случајевима и одвратност према Америма и западу. '99 нису бомбардовали само Слобу и војску, него и тај обичан народ, гласаче. Иначе бомбардовали су они раније и Србе у републици Србској, а и неке друге акције су на штету Срба. Мислим да се ту полако појављује шаблон. Зашто је то тако? Мислим да је то, проблем наших политичара а не Академије Наука.
Питање је како би се Срби уопште могли приклонити ѕаспаду и Америци, бар док су при здравој памети.
*-Гаврило'с Принцип'с-*
Mislim da je za razumevanje uloge političara, intelektualaca i stanovništva zanimljiv i Malcolm X odnosno njegova metafora o kućnim i poljskim robovima (house-slaves and field-slaves). Kaže Malkolm:
To understand this, you have to go back to what [the] young brother here referred to as the house Negro and the field Negro -- back during slavery. There was two kinds of slaves. There was the house Negro and the field Negro. The house Negroes - they lived in the house with master, they dressed pretty good, they ate good 'cause they ate his food -- what he left. They lived in the attic or the basement, but still they lived near the master; and they loved their master more than the master loved himself. They would give their life to save the master's house quicker than the master would. The house Negro, if the master said, "We got a good house here," the house Negro would say, "Yeah, we got a good house here." Whenever the master said "we," he said "we." That's how you can tell a house Negro.
If the master's house caught on fire, the house Negro would fight harder to put the blaze out than the master would. If the master got sick, the house Negro would say, "What's the matter, boss, we sick?" We sick! He identified himself with his master more than his master identified with himself. And if you came to the house Negro and said, "Let's run away, let's escape, let's separate," the house Negro would look at you and say, "Man, you crazy. What you mean, separate? Where is there a better house than this? Where can I wear better clothes than this? Where can I eat better food than this?" That was that house Negro. In those days he was called a "house nigger." And that's what we call him today, because we've still got some house niggers running around here.
This modern house Negro loves his master. He wants to live near him. He'll pay three times as much as the house is worth just to live near his master, and then brag about "I'm the only Negro out here." "I'm the only one on my job." "I'm the only one in this school." You're nothing but a house Negro. And if someone comes to you right now and says, "Let's separate," you say the same thing that the house Negro said on the plantation. "What you mean, separate? From America? This good white man? Where you going to get a better job than you get here?" I mean, this is what you say. "I ain't left nothing in Africa," that's what you say. Why, you left your mind in Africa.
On that same plantation, there was the field Negro. The field Negro -- those were the masses. There were always more Negroes in the field than there was Negroes in the house. The Negro in the field caught hell. He ate leftovers. In the house they ate high up on the hog. The Negro in the field didn't get nothing but what was left of the insides of the hog. They call 'em "chitt'lin'" nowadays. In those days they called them what they were: guts. That's what you were -- a gut-eater. And some of you all still gut-eaters.
The field Negro was beaten from morning to night. He lived in a shack, in a hut; He wore old, castoff clothes. He hated his master. I say he hated his master. He was intelligent. That house Negro loved his master. But that field Negro -- remember, they were in the majority, and they hated the master. When the house caught on fire, he didn't try and put it out; that field Negro prayed for a wind, for a breeze. When the master got sick, the field Negro prayed that he'd die. If someone come [sic] to the field Negro and said, "Let's separate, let's run," he didn't say "Where we going?" He'd say, "Any place is better than here." You've got field Negroes in America today. I'm a field Negro. The masses are the field Negroes. When they see this man's house on fire, you don't hear these little Negroes talking about "our government is in trouble." They say, "The government is in trouble." Imagine a Negro: "Our government"! I even heard one say "our astronauts." They won't even let him near the plant -- and "our astronauts"! "Our Navy" -- that's a Negro that's out of his mind. That's a Negro that's out of his mind.
Just as the slavemaster of that day used Tom, the house Negro, to keep the field Negroes in check, the same old slavemaster today has Negroes who are nothing but modern Uncle Toms, 20th century Uncle Toms, to keep you and me in check, keep us under control, keep us passive and peaceful and nonviolent. That's Tom making you nonviolent. It's like when you go to the dentist, and the man's going to take your tooth. You're going to fight him when he starts pulling. So he squirts some stuff in your jaw called novocaine, to make you think they're not doing anything to you. So you sit there and 'cause you've got all of that novocaine in your jaw, you suffer peacefully. Blood running all down your jaw, and you don't know what's happening. 'Cause someone has taught you to suffer -- peacefully.
The white man do the same thing to you in the street, when he want [sic] to put knots on your head and take advantage of you and don't have to be afraid of your fighting back. To keep you from fighting back, he gets these old religious Uncle Toms to teach you and me, just like novocaine, suffer peacefully. Don't stop suffering -- just suffer peacefully. As Reverend Cleage pointed out, "Let your blood flow In the streets." This is a shame. And you know he's a Christian preacher. If it's a shame to him, you know what it is to me.
There's nothing in our book, the Quran -- you call it "Ko-ran" -- that teaches us to suffer peacefully. Our religion teaches us to be intelligent. Be peaceful, be courteous, obey the law, respect everyone; but if someone puts his hand on you, send him to the cemetery. That's a good religion. In fact, that's that old-time religion. That's the one that Ma and Pa used to talk about: an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth, and a head for a head, and a life for a life: That's a good religion. And doesn't nobody resent that kind of religion being taught but a wolf, who intends to make you his meal.
There you have it, in a nutshell. Btw, iz nekih razloga, u koje sad ne bih ulazio, Malkolm je smatrao da je za oslobađanje američkih crnaca "rajinskog mentaliteta" korisno da budu islamizovani. Zanimljivo.
Dobar tekst.
Zanimljivo je to sa Islamom i nikada mi nije bas bilo jasno zasto su neki Afro Amerikanci smatrali prihvatanje Islama "vracanjem korenima"....
Post a Comment