Part 2 continuation I ended part 1 with the claim that capitalism was an intellectual pattern prior to the socialist reaction to it. Prior to going on one more clarification is needed about capitalism. Unlike all the others under discussion capitalism is NOT a political theory. It can and does work in almost any political system that allows it too. It is an economic theory that dependent on individual freedom, the right to own property and use it as you see fit.
What I just don't understand is why people who clamor for "social justice" lump Norway, Canada, Denmark,et al, who have good records on this but do not have socialist forms of government, with China, Russia, et al who have horrible records and do have socialist governments. RMP's claim 2- Socialism and communism are intellectual patterns. I agree. However the theories of Engel and Marx, which are the most widely applied, firmly link the theory of socialism to practice of communism by the necessity of bloody revolution. At least they were honest enough to see that any group of ruling elite and subgroups of "haves" are not going to hand over power and wealth to the "have nots" just by being asked for it. In practice, however, what always seems to happen during these revolutions is that "haves" are killed (along with a lot of collateral damage) and replaced by a different, very small group of relatively well off "have nots & "haves" and all the rest are worse off then before. So socialism just replaces one group of "haves" with another group of "haves." RMP's claim 3- Fascism is a non-intellectual, a reaction to socialism. Again let's start here; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism First we find seven major examples of political and economic theories labeled fascist all of them a little different in practice. But in general their common threads are: > Fascism, is a political ideology that seeks to combine > radical and authoritarian nationalism[1][2][3][4] with a corporatist economic > system. [Wikipedia] In addition, > In the economic sphere, many fascist leaders have claimed to support a "Third > Way" in economic policy, which they believed superior to both the rampant > individualism of unrestrained capitalism and the severe control of state > socialism. In theory fascism claims a middle position between excesses of capitalism and socialism both of which are intellectual patterns. So if capitalism is politically neutral, usable in most political systems, it would seem both fascism and socialism lie to the left of the spectrum both in theory and practice. The experienced results of both fill the history books with some of the most awful injustices of human existence. What this exercise has indicated to me is that it is very difficult in any meaningful way to use the MoQ social/intellectual level divide distinguish the value, the good, of modern economic or political theories. They are all intellectual patterns who's value must be weighed in practice. The weighing vehicle of practice that RMP proposes to use for this is pragmatism, of the Jamesian variety. Yet when you turn to those who claim to use this method, claim to be intellectuals, even in some sense hold themselves up as experts in it history, we find: [ In speaking about capitalism] dmb adds: > > There was this idea in Calvinism that said being rich was a sign of > righteousness, a sign that you were one of God's favorites. This "prosperity > theology" has been secularized but the basic attitude hasn't changed. You see > it in the doctrines of social Darwinism, where the poor and down-trodden are > NOT the victims of an unjust economic system, they're just losers. They are > poor, this reasoning goes, because they're inferior. Similarly, those guys > down on Wall Street tend to think that money is the best way to keep score. > Their big bank accounts, they tell themselves, prove that they're superior. > Everybody else, they figure, is just too stupid or lazy to get what they have. > > Personally, I think that if this doesn't bother you, if you don't think social > justice is more important than a buck, you're not a moral person. > > Sorry, but that's how I see it. In a similar vein, > [Arlo] > "Capitalism" is a theory. Like "socialism". Like "quantum physics". Where it > is immoral is that it proposes to allow social patterns to dominate >intellectual patterns. The "practice" or "system" of "capitalism" is a social system, as are all economic and market systems. Capitalism (the theory, an intellectual pattern) proposes that this market system (a social system) dominate intellectual patterns. THAT is Pirsig's argument, and its a valid one. What I cannot understand, from the perspective of pragmatism when comparing capitalism-socialism-communism-fascism in practice, is that one can arrive at the decision that the social justice of capitalism is immoral, less moral than the others. There seems to be only be a couple of reasons for this. One you are doing pseudo-pragmatism in which you already subscribe to a dogma which has made the decision before starting the process. Or two you really do not have a full understanding of what socialism and communism are as commonly practiced. Thus the reason I recommended "Mao, The Unknown Story". If you can read this account and still support socialism you are not only immoral, you are certifiably insane. Dave > Moq_Discuss mailing list > Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. > http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org > Archives: > http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ > http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/ Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
