Posted on 03/13/2012 7:45:35 AM PDT by ProgressingAmerica
In Friedrich Hayek's "The Road to Serfdom" he quotes(Page 124, first page of Ch 7) Stuart Chase as saying "political democracy can remain if it confines itself to all but economic matters" - which is a remarkably telling statement as to the aims of both Fabians and Progressives alike. Remember, Stuart Chase was a Fabian Socialist, and a member of FDR's braintrust. It was Chase who coined the term "The New Deal".
In "Road", Hayek cites Lippmann for the quote from Chase, but I prefer original sources. Chase wrote this in his book titled "The Economy of Abundance" - on Page 313 - but note how this book was written 1934, this is right around the beginning of the New Deal. This is important to note, as another one of Chase's books "The Road we are Traveling"(1942) notes, free enterprise is being replaced by a centrally planned society.(Page 95) The point of highlighting the dates, is that Chase never changed his beliefs while he was a part of the brain trust.
In regard to the original quote at the top of the post, "political democracy can remain if it confines itself to all but economic matters", what I want to highlight is what comes just after that. So on page 313 of the book "The Economy of Abundance", you will see this:
Political democracy can remain if it confines itself to all but economic matters; democracy in consumption will make enormous strides as standards of living are leveled upward; industrial individualism - anarchy is a better term - in the sense of each businessman for himself, each corporation for itself, must be disallowed.
As I noted just the other day, John Dewey says this, and Woodrow Wilson says this. But looking beyond mere words is the key: How do all progressives act? They all centralize government. They all attack free enterprise.
I am convinced this is a fundamental of progressivism. They all look upon capitalism as anarchic. This is just my opinion, but the thing about having their words directly sourced, is that it means that we necessarily develop the correct interpretation of their actions, and not just some interpretation that we find to be convenient. I encourage all to go digging into my archives and pick apart their words and actions, I don't see many people disagreeing with this notion I've developed.
If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle - Sun Tzu
Actually, we call that freedom. And the only alternative is totalitarianism.
Capitalism is a system by which a team member picks up for the one retiring in keeping the manufacture of goods and services for sake of the retiring one. What is selfish and individualistic about this?
On the other hand, a government that has a social security of redistribution that is dealt arbitrarily to whomever it deems in “social needs” is a self-serving theocratico-political entity which has no base of production but of collecting moneys through taxes for the next guy’s pension. This is false order, false charity, and, in fact, driven by some narcissistic political demoralization based self importance.
The government should ask and not take.
But losers manipulated by lawyers who want to insure their revenues whether the extorted party cooperates or not, want the government to pay that welfare so that the welfarite has money to spare for the lawyer despite being demoralized.
Socialists are morons and do not know what they are talking about, as their given (and not earned) “power” language of “who is going to be the sceptic tank of the other”, is a demeaning approach in and of itself. One does not need to be Zen scientist or confucian professional expert to figure that one out.
Indeed, only a sick liberal think it evil to be a child wishing to one day be able to build his own private jet.
The idea of professional and politician is oxymoronic. We might as well live on the planet of the apes, we’d be better off than this continued deception.
Capitalism is a pejorative term coined by
Marxists to describe Freedom and Liberty.
This in no way defines capitalism.
An unexamined assumption of “progressive” thought is that as societies become more complex, greater regulation and systematization is needed. That “simple economies” such as those of 1800 America can function without extensive government involvement, but industrial 1900 or post-industrial 2000 America require extensive government regulation because they are so much more complex.
This has it exactly backwards. The simpler the economy the more easily it can function with a command system. It isn’t all that difficult for the lord of the manor to use his 20 thugs (men at arms) to force his 200 peasants to grow and harvest stuff. And Stalin did indeed succeed during the 30s at greatly increasing the USSR’s degree of industrialization, albeit with enormous cost and suffering.
Modern economies, OTOH, are far too complex for anyone to “control” without damaging the system’s efficiency. To do so requires levels of knowledge and wisdom humans just don’t have. God could do it, but people can’t.
The ONLY way a modern economy can function is to use the “evolutionary” system of the free market. A market economy is not only morally superior because it provides for human freedom, it’s the only one that can work.
What capitalism or “Jesus” are you talking about?
Any private company that vests its own retirement program does it very successfuly out of raising capital. It is a system of trust at the bottom line, and that is why it is successful and not fiat.
Oh. Sorry to interrupt.
In the U. S. production is carried on by several million independent business interprises each of which is concerned with nothing but its own profit. Knowing this, and knowing nothing about economics, libtards might easily be led to think of such conditions as an "anarchy of production", which is how Karl Marx described them.
Libtards might easily be led to expect that because production was in the hands of a mass of independent, self-interested producers, the market would randomly be flooded with some items, while people perished from a lack of others, as a result of the discoordination of the producers. This, of course, is the image conjured up by those who advocate government "planning". It is the view of most advocates of socialism.
The uniformity-of-profit principle states that there is a tendency in a free market toward the establishment of a uniform rate of profit on capital invested in all the different branches of industry.
The uniformity-of-profit principle explains how the activites of all the separate business interprises are harmoniously coordinated, so that capital is not invested excessively in the production of some items while leaving the production of other items unprovided for. The operation of the uniformity-of-profit principle is what keeps the production of all the different items directly or indirectly necessary to our survival in proper balance.It counteracts and prevents mistakes leading to the relative overproduction of some things and the relative underproduction of others.
.
Without capitalism, who will the left steal money from?
ping
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.