Heilbroner’s was the first book that led me to Radical Centrism. I find in surprising how people argue about Smith like a philosopher, as if what he knew or meant was the most important thing.
I’d rather read him like a scientist, to figure out how to fix what he was unclear about. As a comment on my blog said, I’m thinking we need a better term than capitalism. Capital is a great Servant, but a horrible master. Some alternatives: - marketism - competism (competition) - flourishism - gloryism The basic idea is that ambition by itself is assumed neither good (as in capitalism) or bad (as in socialism). Rather, it is natural but needs to be aligned with the greater good. >From a practical perspective, both Big Business and Big Government tend to use >their power for self-protection, against which competition on multiple levels >is the best antidote. Thoughts on how to make that a rallying cry? E Sent from my iPhone > On Dec 26, 2018, at 18:57, Billy Rojas <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Mr Norman gets all this right, but he is not the first to do so. Robert > Heilbroner’s “The Worldly Philosophers”, published in 1953, offered a fairly > nuanced understanding of what Smith stood for. -- -- Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community <[email protected]> Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
