There are certain other philosophical currents, politically & economically, that have
surfaced over the years that have sought to mitigate the obvious absurdity of the
Marxist Leninist paradigm.
Chiefly economically was Keynesianism and politically it is "do-gooding liberalism"
in America. They go by other names elsewhere, but we are after all, interested
primarily in America. The rest of the world's problems are so deep that only a
paradigm shift in the West will cause a similar shift elsewhere in the world.
Considering that even Eastern Europe is considered "Western" by most of the
world's standards, there is more signs of the drift towards libertarianism all across
the globe.
Keynesiamisn, macro economic theory, monetarism, investment incentives, Paul
Samuelson in his mainstream text -- all operate within the belief systems of
socialism. That is, that capitalism must be flawed and hence compensated for
through government action. The entire economic analysis efforts by the big banks,
the Federal Reserve Board, the Congressional Budget Office, the office of
Management of Budget in the White House, and economics professors, think
thanks, analysts -- that is the mainstream in theory and practice -- all percolate
around the idea that by tinkering here and there with the government's involvement,
then we can save capitalism. The first mistake in their analysis is that they can alter
this or that measure and produce a known result. They go the assumption that "all
else remaining equal" by doing A- B will happen -- it ignores totally the fact that for
all political decisions, economic decisions will be made. The larger and broader
reaching the political decision, the larger the number of people who will be making
countervailing economic decisions in order to preserve a person's economic
position to obtain the best value in his eyes as to survival and labor.
These broad brush economic theories can never produce the desired results. The
freer people are to make countervailing measures the less likely an action
produces the desired result.
Cultural conditions affect the severity of countermeasures by people in different
countries. The time frame of the efforts at countervailing measures here is
dependent on the sweep and reach of the government action.
Precipitous governmental action -- such as a decree to seize property -- results in a
near panic to remove one's wealth from the clutches of the government. The more
measured action by the US government to alter tax codes results in a more studied
effort to get wealth beyond the government.
The failure of any economic action by the government to result in the desired way
has not forestalled such further action.
The socialist paradigm itself holds that the recalcitrant are in false consciousness,
troublemakers, greedy people, people to take advantage of the system, exploiters,
anti-social people, near criminals, evaders, dodgers and avoiders -- and hence
additional activity is needed to corral in these types.
In fact, these people are following the intuitive realization that their wealth in
whatever amount is theirs, and is a product of their labor. It is their labor in a usable
form, like a battery is for electricity, and that the government is taking their money
for reasons wholly separate from legitimate reasons.
It should be noted that I keep the indictment on income tax, entitlement programs
and the Federal Reserve Board. There are legitimate reasons to have government,
and even taxes/fees. It is in the make up of these in which the difference lies.
People are congregational, social animals, and hence there is a need for rules in
an ordered society. The philosophical examination of whether in the past humans
somehow or another existed and in what order socially, whether in the nasty brutish
and short atomism of Hobbes, or the gentile nature of Locke or the social compact
or Rousseau, is irrelevant. With 5 billion or more people on the planet of what
consequence is it if we examine the hypothetical supposition? More interestingly,
even these supposed pillars of western or individualistic thought, still viewed the
issue as one of control by society of the action of a few. That somehow individuals
within a society were really apart from it if they did not match the prerequisites of
that society. They assumed organization comes first, then economic activity. That
man's place individually is within a society, that is his reason for being, to function
within a society, and then that the society was there to create the economic
relationships. Supposedly we are here to ensure society exists. None could posit a
reason to exist for individuals apart from society. And that merely being in society
made one human -- and any system of ordering politically, and hence economically
as a follow-up, would be OK.
They ignore that the reason for existence is nothing more than survival itself. It is
physically possible to survive by oneself. Difficult perhaps, but doable. Survival is
work, labor, and man's only resource is labor -- his own labor. It is only to ease his
labors that he joins with others, and rules become obviously necessary to the
existence of all. The only concern of the individual is that he does not put in more
than he gets back. Otherwise it is more prudent to either function alone, or better,
go join others.
It is the disallowal of work -- the prevention of getting what one puts into a society
back in some form, which spurs immigration. The wanderlust is among few people.
Especially so with the idea of moving far from one's home -- to a foreign land.
Nations with a fairer distribution between what individuals put in and what they
perceive they get back have little outward migration. This, too, can be put on a left --
right continuum, and put in correlation with political systems.
surfaced over the years that have sought to mitigate the obvious absurdity of the
Marxist Leninist paradigm.
Chiefly economically was Keynesianism and politically it is "do-gooding liberalism"
in America. They go by other names elsewhere, but we are after all, interested
primarily in America. The rest of the world's problems are so deep that only a
paradigm shift in the West will cause a similar shift elsewhere in the world.
Considering that even Eastern Europe is considered "Western" by most of the
world's standards, there is more signs of the drift towards libertarianism all across
the globe.
Keynesiamisn, macro economic theory, monetarism, investment incentives, Paul
Samuelson in his mainstream text -- all operate within the belief systems of
socialism. That is, that capitalism must be flawed and hence compensated for
through government action. The entire economic analysis efforts by the big banks,
the Federal Reserve Board, the Congressional Budget Office, the office of
Management of Budget in the White House, and economics professors, think
thanks, analysts -- that is the mainstream in theory and practice -- all percolate
around the idea that by tinkering here and there with the government's involvement,
then we can save capitalism. The first mistake in their analysis is that they can alter
this or that measure and produce a known result. They go the assumption that "all
else remaining equal" by doing A- B will happen -- it ignores totally the fact that for
all political decisions, economic decisions will be made. The larger and broader
reaching the political decision, the larger the number of people who will be making
countervailing economic decisions in order to preserve a person's economic
position to obtain the best value in his eyes as to survival and labor.
These broad brush economic theories can never produce the desired results. The
freer people are to make countervailing measures the less likely an action
produces the desired result.
Cultural conditions affect the severity of countermeasures by people in different
countries. The time frame of the efforts at countervailing measures here is
dependent on the sweep and reach of the government action.
Precipitous governmental action -- such as a decree to seize property -- results in a
near panic to remove one's wealth from the clutches of the government. The more
measured action by the US government to alter tax codes results in a more studied
effort to get wealth beyond the government.
The failure of any economic action by the government to result in the desired way
has not forestalled such further action.
The socialist paradigm itself holds that the recalcitrant are in false consciousness,
troublemakers, greedy people, people to take advantage of the system, exploiters,
anti-social people, near criminals, evaders, dodgers and avoiders -- and hence
additional activity is needed to corral in these types.
In fact, these people are following the intuitive realization that their wealth in
whatever amount is theirs, and is a product of their labor. It is their labor in a usable
form, like a battery is for electricity, and that the government is taking their money
for reasons wholly separate from legitimate reasons.
It should be noted that I keep the indictment on income tax, entitlement programs
and the Federal Reserve Board. There are legitimate reasons to have government,
and even taxes/fees. It is in the make up of these in which the difference lies.
People are congregational, social animals, and hence there is a need for rules in
an ordered society. The philosophical examination of whether in the past humans
somehow or another existed and in what order socially, whether in the nasty brutish
and short atomism of Hobbes, or the gentile nature of Locke or the social compact
or Rousseau, is irrelevant. With 5 billion or more people on the planet of what
consequence is it if we examine the hypothetical supposition? More interestingly,
even these supposed pillars of western or individualistic thought, still viewed the
issue as one of control by society of the action of a few. That somehow individuals
within a society were really apart from it if they did not match the prerequisites of
that society. They assumed organization comes first, then economic activity. That
man's place individually is within a society, that is his reason for being, to function
within a society, and then that the society was there to create the economic
relationships. Supposedly we are here to ensure society exists. None could posit a
reason to exist for individuals apart from society. And that merely being in society
made one human -- and any system of ordering politically, and hence economically
as a follow-up, would be OK.
They ignore that the reason for existence is nothing more than survival itself. It is
physically possible to survive by oneself. Difficult perhaps, but doable. Survival is
work, labor, and man's only resource is labor -- his own labor. It is only to ease his
labors that he joins with others, and rules become obviously necessary to the
existence of all. The only concern of the individual is that he does not put in more
than he gets back. Otherwise it is more prudent to either function alone, or better,
go join others.
It is the disallowal of work -- the prevention of getting what one puts into a society
back in some form, which spurs immigration. The wanderlust is among few people.
Especially so with the idea of moving far from one's home -- to a foreign land.
Nations with a fairer distribution between what individuals put in and what they
perceive they get back have little outward migration. This, too, can be put on a left --
right continuum, and put in correlation with political systems.
| CHAPTER 12 |
| Jim Hlavac |
The Socialist Era
| Poltics, Theory & Economics |
