"Markets make kinder, gentler societies: study"

[Invincible Summer]

http://www.vancouversun.com/health/Markets+make+kinder+gentler+societies+study/2701442/story.html

Thoughts on this article? I'm not quite sure what to think of it. At first I thought it may be a jab at socialism/communism, but that would require a conceptualization of socialism that resembles primitive communism.

[bcbm]

this (http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2010/03/19/tech-psychology-market-fairness.html) and this (http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/03/evolution-of-fairness/) article goes in to a bit more depth on the experiments and the results. as i understand, their argument is that large-scale societies are made possible by social institutions that promote fairness and cooperation. interesting comment from the wired article:


When I asked the author whether the study could be interpreted as supporting the modern “free market,” he said it did nothing of the sort, and couldn’t provide any sort of policy prescription. However, he mention studies that have shown how, in the presence of massive inequality, general levels of trust and fairness collapse.


i don't think its a jab at socialism at all. the opposite, if anything.

[Invincible Summer]

this (http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2010/03/19/tech-psychology-market-fairness.html) and this (http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/03/evolution-of-fairness/) article goes in to a bit more depth on the experiments and the results. as i understand, their argument is that large-scale societies are made possible by social institutions that promote fairness and cooperation. interesting comment from the wired article:



i don't think its a jab at socialism at all. the opposite, if anything.
[/COLOR][/LEFT]


Thanks for those other articles. From the article I posted I felt it was framed much more in a "the market makes better people" way, and because "the market" wasn't really defined, intentionally or not it makes the reader assume (or at least I did) that they meant financial markets/free market.

And yeah, from the Wired article, it seems to almost support the notion that, in theory, a world-wide community should work out, which is unlike what reactionaries say.

I think the sociological concept of "strong/weak ties" plays into this: in small communities tend to have strong ties to each other, the members tend to be more intolerant of people in an "out group" because they may not share enough commonalities to create a strong tie; larger communities tend to have weaker but more diverse ties which allow them to be exposed to a variety of other social groups, therefore promoting tolerance.

[Dean]

Well, compared to previous feudal systems, and largely tribal / autocratic systems in the underdeveloped nations, market societies provide two distinct advantages:

-mutual dependency of economic actors
-some form of consumerism which provides for many of the basic needs of its constituency.

Of course, socialist societies provide the same except without many of the class antagonisms and competitive antagonisms which provide crushing blows to the security and advancement of market societies. In addition, the productive and distributive systems in many of these market societies (Sweden and the US are notable examples due to trade with China) rely heavily on foreign oppression, be it by domestic or foreign firms.

The article could be compared, partially, to a warm endorsement of feudal society because it produced a social class which relied on basic rules of social respect and engagement. The exploitation inherent in either system doesn't factor in to this narrow kind of analysis.

[Sam Da Communist]

The article is very pro all religions it seems. Analyses altruism, but doesn't mention communism or philosophy.

Jsut thought of a new thread idea, human evolution and non-altruistic genetics for science.

[bcbm]

Well, compared to previous feudal systems, and largely tribal / autocratic systems in the underdeveloped nations, market societies provide two distinct advantages:

-mutual dependency of economic actors
-some form of consumerism which provides for many of the basic needs of its constituency.

Of course, socialist societies provide the same except without many of the class antagonisms and competitive antagonisms which provide crushing blows to the security and advancement of market societies. In addition, the productive and distributive systems in many of these market societies (Sweden and the US are notable examples due to trade with China) rely heavily on foreign oppression, be it by domestic or foreign firms.

The article could be compared, partially, to a warm endorsement of feudal society because it produced a social class which relied on basic rules of social respect and engagement. The exploitation inherent in either system doesn't factor in to this narrow kind of analysis.

they aren't talking about markets in the "free market" sense, but in the "farmer's market" sense. the argument is that institutions like a market force one to frequently interact with strangers which seems to extend formerly kin-based generosity and fairness to non-kin, promoting the kind of social cohesion that allows large-scale societies to exist.

[Dean]

they aren't talking about markets in the "free market" sense, but in the "farmer's market" sense. the argument is that institutions like a market force one to frequently interact with strangers which seems to extend formerly kin-based generosity and fairness to non-kin, promoting the kind of social cohesion that allows large-scale societies to exist.

Are you saying it is only referencing central facilities wherein people gather and supply consumer goods and the like?

I've read the article to some degree (I am short on time atm or I would exhaustively speak on it) and it explicitly references trade "fairness" and free enterprise. While you may be right in what actually bonds people together with these markets, there is a lot more to contemporary markets, and the article recognizes that.

[bcbm]

are you saying it is only referencing central facilities wherein people gather and supply consumer goods and the like?


they found that even sharing of money with a stranger in a psychological experiment was more common in societies were people got most of their food from markets, rather than growing it themselves

[Meridian]

Now, I haven't read the article but,

they found that even sharing of money with a stranger in a psychological experiment was more common in societies were people got most of their food from markets, rather than growing it themselves
Seems rather fishy to me. Wouldn't a society where people grow most of their food themselves be vastly different, in a multitude of ways, to a society in which they get it from markets? So, how do they know the market is the cause and not just a correlation?