Hi Platt and David,
I couldn't resist jumping in. David's post was a classic.
DMB:
You never fail to miss the point. For the million and oneth time, its all
about distinquishing between social and intellectual values. No meaningful
difference between socialism and communism? Of course there are real
differences, but yes, they are both programs for the intellectual control of
society. So was the New Deal. So is liberalism. I'm sure there are more 4th
level political ideologies. Take your pick. But don't pretend capitalism is
a 4th level ideology.
ROG:
Perhaps you are a bit behind in your reading. In 1776, the intellectual
theory and concept of labor markets and economics was created by a certain
Adam Smith in the book *An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth
of Nations.* In it he explained how it was that division of labor and free
market exchange could lead to the efficient creation of wealth. Smith's
theory depended upon liberal concepts of freedom, property rights,
individualism and the absence of interference by government interference.
Smith saw that governments deluded themselves into believing that they had
the knowledge to direct the economy, but that their interference was actually
more likely to lead to distortions in markets and capital flows.
Extending the liberal enlightenment thinking of Locke and Montesquieu, the
free market concept was specifically built into the first true democracy as
intellectually and deliberately established by the American Constitution.
(See Federalist Papers No. 12.) The theory has been expanded and refined over
the years, including the recognition by F. A. Hayek that a decentralized
framework capitalized on substantially more information -- knowledge
pertaining to individual values and to the distributed knowledge of time and
place. Furthermore, market price fluctuations conveyed enormous amounts of
information within the system.
In the late 20th century, the scientific theories of complexity and chaos
"caught up" to the theory of free markets, provideing new insights into why t
hey were so effective. Intellectuals and economists recognized that free
markets were an example of a spontaneously emerging complex adaptive system.
By the close of the century, it became obvious to even the most ardent
zealots of central economic planning and social engineering that attempts to
make the markets more rational actually tended to dumb them down and make
them dysfunctional.
Those that followed the free market theory found that they were able to
increase their economic growth rate by 10 to 20 times the prior rate. Where
economies previously took 1000 years to double in per capita income, those
following the liberal model were able to accelerate the doubling of wealth to
a period of less than 55 years! (The socialist models often went nowhere or
even backward in wealth generation)
In other words, David, your argument that capitalism isn't an intellectual
theory is absurd. It is in fact a direct extension of liberalism, encoded
directly into American democracy, refined and improved over time and
empirically tested and proven. Contrast this with Socialism, which has led to
widespread abandonment and universal failure even though it was tried
numerous ways by 60% of the people on earth.
DMB:
But
socialism is easy to see. There is Canada, which has the best human rights
record on earth.
ROG:
Don't forget those other socialist (or once socialist) human rights notables
such as Rwanda, Cambodia, China, North Korea and the USSR. If I am not
mistaken, in their pursuit of the socialist vision, they exterminated three
times as many people as there are inhabitants in Canada.
DMB:
France and England are examples of a good mix. They were
the home of the Enlightenment and have the longest traditions of modern
democracy.
ROG:
Gee, I thought it was England and the United States. I could have sworn that
the declaration of 1776 and the subsequent republic established by the
constitution was considered the first true democracy (at least since the
failed attempts back in ancient Greece). I also seem to remember hearing
about how the French revolution turned into the reign of terror, thousands of
heads without bodies, the Emperor Napoleon and the attempted conquest of
Europe. Correct me though if I am wrong.
As for your description of GB as a good mix, I would agree that it has done
fine, especially since they rewrote the Socialist Clause IV of the Labour
party and Blair implemented his program of Thatcherism-light.
DMB:
its unreasonable to expect perfection with something as
messy as the distribution of money, power and authority. Boys will be boys,
you know. These things are still being worked out. Historically speaking,
programs for the intellectual control of society are still very young.
ROG:
The fat lady sang when China and the USSR dumped Socialism. Now all that is
left are illiterates, a few old hippy professors too ashamed to admit they
contributed to the dumbest idea in history, Fidel, and that child-molestor
dictator in N Korea. The other models which you speak of have little to do
anymore with state control of land and the means of production. Most are
just various degrees of free markets with strong safety nets.
Give it up David. A 100 million murders (Stalin and Mao sure were boys!) and
a lost half-century of social progress for over 60 countries is enough
evidence.
Rog
PS -- I just noticed that Platt responded too, but will send this anyways. I
see we noticed similar inconsistencies in David's rhetoric.
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:02:26 BST