Hi, Charles!
I'll defend your right to contribute to this list.
I think Eva makes sense. The problem is that free market economists have
learned to think in a certain set of patterns -- accepting assumptions of
rattionality, utility, supply/demand, etc. -- that they cannot comprehend
the views of those who do not accept these assumptions, or who propose
alternatives. Free market economists are essentially defenders of
corporate interests and accumulation of wealth. When we live in a world
where 750 people have more wealth than 2.8 billion, most anyone with a heart
that pumps blood cannot but conclude that the system is morally
unacceptable. So is it natural that dissonances arise between views your
articulate and those of others on this list, since you essentially defend
an immoral system.
I think, however, that we need your views, because yours are the views we
need to refute. 1) We need to refute your use of rhetoric, like
references to Lenin and Stalin. (Marxists -- and I'm NOT a marxist --
know that Marx never outlined a system of political implementation of his
socialist vision.) 2) We need to point out that the ultimate stage of
capitalism is monopoly, both market monopoly and monopoly over resources,
unless legislators do what you accuse Eva of advocating: diluting the
ideology for practically reasons: in this case, passing short-term
anti-capitalist legislation to fend off revolution, as was done in the
1930s. 3) We need to point out that the FUTURE is moving in the direction
of a system you indirectly defend, namely, Corporate Feudalism, whereby the
scramble for market control leads to the anti-democratic corruption of
governments, and ultimate enslavement and environmental destruction.
(The emerging primacy of contract law over national constitutional law is a
sign of this evolution, along with all the political corruption that is
evident throughout the world.)
But there is one thing we do not need to do: we do not need to be afraid
of the positions you defend, because they are old and tired positions,
sustaining a system that benefits a few, and one which will not be
tolerated one way or another much longer, looking to our future work,
that is.
Therefore, let me take issue with Sally. While the 536 other participants
in the forum may ignore it, I'll certainly take more care to separate your
rhetoric from the facts, and debate the facts or new possible worlds with
you any time.
-- CJR
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Salus populi suprema est lex" (Cicero)
The welfare of the people is the highest law.
----------
"Genuine goodness is threatening to those
at the opposite end of the moral spectrum." (Charles Spencer)
---------------------------------------------
On Fri, 16 Jan 1998, charles mueller wrote:
> A year ago I would have thought that an Internet discussion
> comparing the relative merits of socialism versus capitalism was at best a
> waste of time. Now, after considerable experience with a number of lists,
> I'm no longer so sure. Any kind of reform requires a cadre of advocates, a
> group of people with a deep emotional distaste for injustice. This is not,
> alas, a universal or even common sentiment. When one encounters an
> individual or group that is keen on justice--however peculiar one might
> think the proposed remedies--congratulations are in order on that first
> basis alone.
>
> This list had, the last time I checked, 538 members. I have no idea
> how many of them are, like Eva Durant, Marxists. The objective of the
> members, though--if I understand their postings over the past months--is a
> luminous one, a society that is prosperous, nurturing of the environment,
> and just, i.e., one with a fair distribution of its income and wealth. I
> suspect, then, that each of our 538 members is trying to answer a key
> question: What 'system'--socialism, capitalism, or other alternative-- has
> the PRACTICAL potential to most closely approximate that ideal society we're
> all seeking?
>
> Notice the term 'practical potential.'
> Communism/socialism/collectivism has a tragic history--one that continues
> unabated in such countries as Castro's Cuba and North Korea--as I emphasized
> in my last post here. But is that terrible track record of the first
> historical test of collective ownership of the means of production just an
> error of judgment on the part of its first practitioners, a small mistake in
> the locus of management control? Eva Durant says yes. 'State monopolies
> that are not controlled directly by the EMPLOYEES have nothing to do with
> the Marxist principles, whether they are based on collective or on private
> property relations. THAT'S why they were a failure.' Control, she tells
> us, should also reside in 'the whole community democratically,' thereby
> motivating all to 'participate and innovate.'
>
> Her bottom line is this: 'With safeguards for democracy, built from
> the bottom with universal democratic control, SOCIALISM would be more viable
> and the NEXT logical step.' She 'knows where socialism WENT WRONG in the
> past and, with safeguards for democracy,' it can be fixed.
>
> So what exactly is Eva's case, her cure for what has been wrought so
> far by Marx's followers, e.g., Lenin, Stalin, Castro, et al? 'Employee'
> control, the 'whole community democratically,' and 'safeguards for
> democracy' can make socialism an effective engine for prosperity,
> environmental integrity, and economic equality in the world's 200 countries?
>
> In my view, it's an illusion. If I'm welcome here, I'll be happy to
> present the case for COMPETITIVE capitalism.
>
> I've been told, though, that I'm no longer welcome to post to this
> group (below) . I hope Sally Lerner and her colleagues will reconsider.
>
> Charles Mueller, Editor
> ANTITRUST LAW & ECONOMICS REVIEW
> http://webpages.metrolink.net/~cmueller
>
> ********************
>
> Charles - Can I ask you once again to stop posting to the Futurework lists.
> Your interests are important, but just not that relevant to our
> subscribers
>
> Sally Lerner
>
> ********************.
>
>
