Full Version: The Abandoned Road
From The Road to Serfdom:
Questions for Debate:
1) Do you see a trend towards classical liberalism or socialism in today's United States?
2) How about worldwide?
3) Do you find that individualism (free market economics) is superior to collectivism (socialism) or vice-versa in terms of economics and governance?
QUOTE(F.A. Hayek)
When the course of civilization takes an unexpected turn—when, instead of the continuous progress which we have come to expect, we find ourselves threatened by evils associated by us with past ages of barbarism—we naturally blame anything but ourselves. Have we not all striven according to our best lights, and have not many of our finest minds incessantly worked to make this a better world? Have not all our efforts and hopes been directed toward greater freedom, justice, and prosperity?
If the outcome is so different from our aims—if, instead of freedom and prosperity, bondage and misery stare us in the face—is it not clear that sinister forces must have foiled our intentions, that we are the victims of some evil power which must be conquered before we can resume the road to better things?
However much we may differ when we name the culprit—whether it is the wicked capitalist or the vicious spirit of a particular nation, the stupidity of our elders, or a social system not yet, although we have struggled against it for a half a century, fully overthrown—we all are, or at least were until recently, certain of one thing: that the leading ideas which during the last generation have become common to most people of good will and have determined the major changes in our social life cannot have been wrong.
We are ready to accept almost any explanation of the present crisis of our civilization except one: that the present state of the world may be the result of genuine error on our own part and that the pursuit of some of our most cherished ideals has apparently produced results utterly different from those which we expected....
That democratic socialism, the great utopia of the last few generations, is not only unachievable, but that to strive for-it produces something so utterly different that few of those who now wish it would be prepared to accept the consequences, many will not believe until the connection has been laid bare in all its aspects.
If the outcome is so different from our aims—if, instead of freedom and prosperity, bondage and misery stare us in the face—is it not clear that sinister forces must have foiled our intentions, that we are the victims of some evil power which must be conquered before we can resume the road to better things?
However much we may differ when we name the culprit—whether it is the wicked capitalist or the vicious spirit of a particular nation, the stupidity of our elders, or a social system not yet, although we have struggled against it for a half a century, fully overthrown—we all are, or at least were until recently, certain of one thing: that the leading ideas which during the last generation have become common to most people of good will and have determined the major changes in our social life cannot have been wrong.
We are ready to accept almost any explanation of the present crisis of our civilization except one: that the present state of the world may be the result of genuine error on our own part and that the pursuit of some of our most cherished ideals has apparently produced results utterly different from those which we expected....
That democratic socialism, the great utopia of the last few generations, is not only unachievable, but that to strive for-it produces something so utterly different that few of those who now wish it would be prepared to accept the consequences, many will not believe until the connection has been laid bare in all its aspects.
Questions for Debate:
1) Do you see a trend towards classical liberalism or socialism in today's United States?
2) How about worldwide?
3) Do you find that individualism (free market economics) is superior to collectivism (socialism) or vice-versa in terms of economics and governance?
1. Neither. What I see is a very alarming trend towards what I might call "corporationism." (I am sure I am using this term incorrectly, but bear with me.) By this I mean the fact that gigantic corporations, often with the encouragement and financial aid of local governments, are gaining more and more power, at the expense of smaller businesses. It disturbs me that the single largest employer in my own state of Tennessee is Wal*Mart, the symbol of everything that is wrong with what I call "corporationism."
2. As far as I can see, things are a very mixed bag indeed around the world. I see no particular trend.
3. Let me dance around this question a bit by bringing up something that many people have said. When asked about communism, many anti-communists have said something like "It would be the perfect system, if people were perfect. That's why I oppose it."
I'd like to say something similar about "free market economics." If such a thing existed, it would be the best of all possible systems. Let me make it clear here that dog-eat-dog capitalism is not a free market, for several reasons. For one thing, under such a system, big business is likely to have a major influence on government. (Look at all the local governments giving tax breaks and other incentives in order to encourage Wal*Mart to build one of its stores in their community.) For another thing, under unrestrained capitalism, there are many people in the system who are not free.
Karl Marx got many things wrong, and indirectly created an irrational, crypto-religious philosophy which has led to human misery and death on an unprecedented scale. However, in his seminal book Capital, he got one thing right. His carefully documented analysis of the suffering caused by unrestrained capitalism in Great Britain in the nineteeth century cannot be disputed. As his facts and figures prove, the growth of industrialization in the UK led to workers earning less money, working more hours, and living under worse conditions.
The Marxist answer to this problem was horribly wrong, of course. But what is the answer? I submit to you that it must be "capitalism with a human face." It must be genuinely enlightened self-interest. And, in fact, the "West" has done a fairly decent job of doing this. (Although it is threatened by creeping Wal*Martism.) To quibble over whether the proper economic system is "American capitalism" or "European socialism" is to lose sight of the bigger picture; which is the necessity of a liberal, secular, representative government with some reasonable restrictions on unscrupulous business activities.
2. As far as I can see, things are a very mixed bag indeed around the world. I see no particular trend.
3. Let me dance around this question a bit by bringing up something that many people have said. When asked about communism, many anti-communists have said something like "It would be the perfect system, if people were perfect. That's why I oppose it."
I'd like to say something similar about "free market economics." If such a thing existed, it would be the best of all possible systems. Let me make it clear here that dog-eat-dog capitalism is not a free market, for several reasons. For one thing, under such a system, big business is likely to have a major influence on government. (Look at all the local governments giving tax breaks and other incentives in order to encourage Wal*Mart to build one of its stores in their community.) For another thing, under unrestrained capitalism, there are many people in the system who are not free.
Karl Marx got many things wrong, and indirectly created an irrational, crypto-religious philosophy which has led to human misery and death on an unprecedented scale. However, in his seminal book Capital, he got one thing right. His carefully documented analysis of the suffering caused by unrestrained capitalism in Great Britain in the nineteeth century cannot be disputed. As his facts and figures prove, the growth of industrialization in the UK led to workers earning less money, working more hours, and living under worse conditions.
The Marxist answer to this problem was horribly wrong, of course. But what is the answer? I submit to you that it must be "capitalism with a human face." It must be genuinely enlightened self-interest. And, in fact, the "West" has done a fairly decent job of doing this. (Although it is threatened by creeping Wal*Martism.) To quibble over whether the proper economic system is "American capitalism" or "European socialism" is to lose sight of the bigger picture; which is the necessity of a liberal, secular, representative government with some reasonable restrictions on unscrupulous business activities.
QUOTE(Victoria Silverwolf)
I'd like to say something similar about "free market economics." If such a thing existed, it would be the best of all possible systems. Let me make it clear here that dog-eat-dog capitalism is not a free market, for several reasons. For one thing, under such a system, big business is likely to have a major influence on government. (Look at all the local governments giving tax breaks and other incentives in order to encourage Wal*Mart to build one of its stores in their community.) For another thing, under unrestrained capitalism, there are many people in the system who are not free.
Well, I would disagree. I contend that one of the major reasons that big businesses have a major influence on government is because government tries to have some influence over business. For instance, when the ICC was created to regulate interstate commerce, who benefited the most from this? It wasn't the consumers but rather the railroad industry which had a government sanctioned monopoly on the shipping and transportation of goods in this country. The ICC was a tool used by the railroad industry to hurt their competition, mainly trucking. The ICC would grant a limited number of licenses that allowed businesses to ship goods from state to state and those licenses would be gobbled up by people who then in turn sold those licenses at a higher price to other businesses and made a huge profit. If the government did not give the railroad industry an avenue to maintain their power, then fair competition would have occurred all with the absence of government. IMO, government should only ensure that contracts are upehld and that no fraud is committed in regards to business.
Secondly, it really says something about this country when we scorn Wal Mart so. According to many people i speak to who are either from another country or have traveled extensively, people around the world LOVE Wal Mart. Why? Because they offer a large amount of goods for low, affordable prices. For all the criticism people have of Wal Mart, they wouldn't be in business is people didn't like what they were selling. While i would concede that the small business model of capitalism is favorable to the corporatism we have today, I see no major negative aspects. Corporations like McDonalds started as a single restaurant and as people liked their product, they expanded eventually becoming the business we know today.
Thirdly, i disagree when you say that there are people in the system who aren't free. I think that a distinction needs to be made between the choices that people make and whether or not those choices are supposed to be "fair." In an unrestrained capitalist system, nobody should be a "slave" to anyone since there is the choice to quit and/or go to a competitor who better fits your situation. I am sure we will debate that even more thoroughly soon.
QUOTE(Victoria Silverwolf)
Karl Marx got many things wrong, and indirectly created an irrational, crypto-religious philosophy which has led to human misery and death on an unprecedented scale. However, in his seminal book Capital, he got one thing right. His carefully documented analysis of the suffering caused by unrestrained capitalism in Great Britain in the nineteeth century cannot be disputed. As his facts and figures prove, the growth of industrialization in the UK led to workers earning less money, working more hours, and living under worse conditions.
I don't want to comment to much on Marx's book Capital, as I haven't read it, or on 19th century GB (need a bit more research), but from my limited knowledge of the subject I do not believe that the UK had a true capitalist system but rather a more mixed economy. Again, ill check up on that soon.
QUOTE(Victoria SIlverwolf)
The Marxist answer to this problem was horribly wrong, of course. But what is the answer? I submit to you that it must be "capitalism with a human face." It must be genuinely enlightened self-interest. And, in fact, the "West" has done a fairly decent job of doing this. (Although it is threatened by creeping Wal*Martism.) To quibble over whether the proper economic system is "American capitalism" or "European socialism" is to lose sight of the bigger picture; which is the necessity of a liberal, secular, representative government with some reasonable restrictions on unscrupulous business activities.
Ah, an important point. My question is, what is enlightened and who decides that? I think its a slippery slope. Furthermore, i cannot conceive the system of "capitalism with a human face" because the two concepts seem to be mutually opposed. There are reasonable restrictions that government can place on business, especially when it comes to unscrupulous activity...but there aren't many IMO>
1) Do you see a trend towards classical liberalism or socialism in today's United States?
No.
2) How about worldwide?
No.
3) Do you find that individualism (free market economics) is superior to collectivism (socialism) or vice-versa in terms of economics and governance?
No.
I see a trend toward a struggle among people wanting to make a living and those who collect money. I see a trend toward natural disasters and human-made disasters that force those who collect money to pony up or go down. The quaint little struggles about economics and governance are nothing compared to what's coming.
The 19th century is long gone. A world economy has developed as world communications and computing developed. Throw out the old economic textbooks; they no longer apply. It isn't labor and business but who has the economic leverage internationally. It isn't import and export but who has the economic leverage internationally. It isn't war and peace but who has the economic leverage internationally.
So, no, no, and no. Graduate to the 21st century.
No.
2) How about worldwide?
No.
3) Do you find that individualism (free market economics) is superior to collectivism (socialism) or vice-versa in terms of economics and governance?
No.
I see a trend toward a struggle among people wanting to make a living and those who collect money. I see a trend toward natural disasters and human-made disasters that force those who collect money to pony up or go down. The quaint little struggles about economics and governance are nothing compared to what's coming.
The 19th century is long gone. A world economy has developed as world communications and computing developed. Throw out the old economic textbooks; they no longer apply. It isn't labor and business but who has the economic leverage internationally. It isn't import and export but who has the economic leverage internationally. It isn't war and peace but who has the economic leverage internationally.
So, no, no, and no. Graduate to the 21st century.
Questions for Debate:
1) Do you see a trend towards classical liberalism or socialism in today's United States?
No and for the reasons stated by Hayek - “That democratic socialism, the great utopia of the last few generations, is not only unachievable, but that to strive for-it produces something so utterly different that few of those who now wish it would be prepared to accept the consequences, many will not believe until the connection has been laid bare in all its aspects.” With 80 million dead in the last century I think the experiment has failed in a big way.
2) How about worldwide?
There will always be those who feel Socialism is their only recourse when faced with extreme social disparity or massive corruption. Look at Venezuela.
3) Do you find that individualism (free market economics) is superior to
collectivism (socialism) or vice-versa in terms of economics and governance?
Undoubtedly. No system is perfect and corruption (both political and corporate) will always be with us, but overall free market capitalism has raised the living standards of billions of people. The same cannot be said for Socialism.
http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog/COUBLA.html
1) Do you see a trend towards classical liberalism or socialism in today's United States?
No and for the reasons stated by Hayek - “That democratic socialism, the great utopia of the last few generations, is not only unachievable, but that to strive for-it produces something so utterly different that few of those who now wish it would be prepared to accept the consequences, many will not believe until the connection has been laid bare in all its aspects.” With 80 million dead in the last century I think the experiment has failed in a big way.
2) How about worldwide?
There will always be those who feel Socialism is their only recourse when faced with extreme social disparity or massive corruption. Look at Venezuela.
3) Do you find that individualism (free market economics) is superior to
collectivism (socialism) or vice-versa in terms of economics and governance?
Undoubtedly. No system is perfect and corruption (both political and corporate) will always be with us, but overall free market capitalism has raised the living standards of billions of people. The same cannot be said for Socialism.
http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog/COUBLA.html
We better not be doing homework for you, Leder 
1) Do you see a trend towards classical liberalism or socialism in today's United States?
Neither. While we are certainly not trending toward classical liberalism, socialism isn't a legitimate target either. The general pursuit, the muddy mess of politics notwithstanding, is a balance between the two: reconciling the shortcomings of capitalism with a desire to keep the economic climate friendly for business.
2) How about worldwide?
This is difficult to trend, as it has some regional dependencies. Many countries are finding capitalism in a backwards fashion (Russia and China come to mind) from repressive states so I guess an argument could be made they are moving towards classical liberalism, but at an evolutionary pace. It is also a destination they will likely never achieve.
3) Do you find that individualism (free market economics) is superior to collectivism (socialism) or vice-versa in terms of economics and governance?
I find neither superior, though I suppose if forced to choose I would select the one that maximizes liberty. Each has severe problems, though admittedly socialism's ills are far more institutionalized.
1) Do you see a trend towards classical liberalism or socialism in today's United States?
Neither. While we are certainly not trending toward classical liberalism, socialism isn't a legitimate target either. The general pursuit, the muddy mess of politics notwithstanding, is a balance between the two: reconciling the shortcomings of capitalism with a desire to keep the economic climate friendly for business.
2) How about worldwide?
This is difficult to trend, as it has some regional dependencies. Many countries are finding capitalism in a backwards fashion (Russia and China come to mind) from repressive states so I guess an argument could be made they are moving towards classical liberalism, but at an evolutionary pace. It is also a destination they will likely never achieve.
3) Do you find that individualism (free market economics) is superior to collectivism (socialism) or vice-versa in terms of economics and governance?
I find neither superior, though I suppose if forced to choose I would select the one that maximizes liberty. Each has severe problems, though admittedly socialism's ills are far more institutionalized.
1) Do you see a trend towards classical liberalism or socialism in today's United States?
America is the least socialist major industrialised nation and always has been, with the possible exception of Japan (mainly because I know very little about it). For perhaps the past 60 years, though, I'd agreed with Victoria there has been a constant , but slow-moving, trend towards corporatism and away form classical liberalism. Boeing Corporation would have gone out of business a decade or more before the creation of Airbus if America had a classically liberal political-economic system, for example.
2) How about worldwide?
3) Do you find that individualism (free market economics) is superior to collectivism (socialism) or vice-versa in terms of economics and governance?
There is no true free market on the planet, any more than there is a "pure" Marxist collectivism. Every economy is a mixed economy - the differences are about the strength of the various flavours in the mix.
"Socialism" hasn't really worked anywhere, it's true - though a Marxist purist would say it's never really been aplied anywhere, and could only ever have worked had it been adopted in late Victorian England anyway - but social democracy hasn't done too much harm to Scandinavia. Even the UK, by comparions to the USA, ios institutionally more left-wing than the USA, and we're a growing thriving economy (this week) with many of the same strengths and problems as the USA.
Give it another decade, when the German and French economies have recovered from their self-inflicted wounds of reuinification and early adoption of the Euro, and (perhaps) America's debts have caught up with her, and maybe the left will be crowing about the triumph of their ideology. They'll be just as short-sighted as those on the right who crow about the triumph of American-style capitalism are today.
America is the least socialist major industrialised nation and always has been, with the possible exception of Japan (mainly because I know very little about it). For perhaps the past 60 years, though, I'd agreed with Victoria there has been a constant , but slow-moving, trend towards corporatism and away form classical liberalism. Boeing Corporation would have gone out of business a decade or more before the creation of Airbus if America had a classically liberal political-economic system, for example.
2) How about worldwide?
3) Do you find that individualism (free market economics) is superior to collectivism (socialism) or vice-versa in terms of economics and governance?
There is no true free market on the planet, any more than there is a "pure" Marxist collectivism. Every economy is a mixed economy - the differences are about the strength of the various flavours in the mix.
"Socialism" hasn't really worked anywhere, it's true - though a Marxist purist would say it's never really been aplied anywhere, and could only ever have worked had it been adopted in late Victorian England anyway - but social democracy hasn't done too much harm to Scandinavia. Even the UK, by comparions to the USA, ios institutionally more left-wing than the USA, and we're a growing thriving economy (this week) with many of the same strengths and problems as the USA.
Give it another decade, when the German and French economies have recovered from their self-inflicted wounds of reuinification and early adoption of the Euro, and (perhaps) America's debts have caught up with her, and maybe the left will be crowing about the triumph of their ideology. They'll be just as short-sighted as those on the right who crow about the triumph of American-style capitalism are today.
1) Do you see a trend towards classical liberalism or socialism in today's United States?
No trend evident at this time. Sad to say, both major parties are dominated by corporatists, and that's a far different thing than either classical liberalism or socialism.
However, I see a ray of hope from a new breed of free market activists, best exemplified by John Mackey, CEO of Whole Foods.
2) How about worldwide?
No trend evident at this time.
3) Do you find that individualism (free market economics) is superior to collectivism (socialism) or vice-versa in terms of economics and governance?
Vastly superior. The history of human progress, with the exception of technological leaps during WW II, is the history of individual liberty.
No trend evident at this time. Sad to say, both major parties are dominated by corporatists, and that's a far different thing than either classical liberalism or socialism.
However, I see a ray of hope from a new breed of free market activists, best exemplified by John Mackey, CEO of Whole Foods.
2) How about worldwide?
No trend evident at this time.
3) Do you find that individualism (free market economics) is superior to collectivism (socialism) or vice-versa in terms of economics and governance?
Vastly superior. The history of human progress, with the exception of technological leaps during WW II, is the history of individual liberty.
1) Do you see a trend towards classical liberalism or socialism in today's United States?
I see the exact opposite in fact- a new neo-fascism if you will, a type of oligarchy of competing corporate interests, that trump human and individual rights to the point we see implemented today. The only check and balance in corporate power seems to be thier own competing interests- and damn the employee at the bottom. An example would be the scape goating of enviromentalists for logging plant shut downs- when, to a large degree, industries like fishing joined in the battle for buffer zones, because logging was hurting fish spawning. I am sure there are far better examples out there, but that is one I am very familiar with.
2) How about worldwide? Absolutely not- once again, Islamo-fascism is still a type of fascism, the spectrum opposite of socialsim. It is Oligarchies of religious fascists vs oligarchies of western corporate interests.
3) Do you find that individualism (free market economics) is superior to collectivism (socialism) or vice-versa in terms of economics and governance?
It is pretty obvious that the overall standard of the Europeans, with thier blended or mixed economies, is healthier for the average citizen, creates a higher, happier quality of life, and a more educated population. But, it is still just as easy to become obscenely wealthy under those systems (think Ikea, what is he now, the fourth richest guy in the world, even surpasing Bill Gates at one point) - but the general population seems to have less problems with the bottom rungs of thier societies than we do. And, in the end, how a society treats it's weakest citizens determines how good the society really is.
I see the exact opposite in fact- a new neo-fascism if you will, a type of oligarchy of competing corporate interests, that trump human and individual rights to the point we see implemented today. The only check and balance in corporate power seems to be thier own competing interests- and damn the employee at the bottom. An example would be the scape goating of enviromentalists for logging plant shut downs- when, to a large degree, industries like fishing joined in the battle for buffer zones, because logging was hurting fish spawning. I am sure there are far better examples out there, but that is one I am very familiar with.
2) How about worldwide? Absolutely not- once again, Islamo-fascism is still a type of fascism, the spectrum opposite of socialsim. It is Oligarchies of religious fascists vs oligarchies of western corporate interests.
3) Do you find that individualism (free market economics) is superior to collectivism (socialism) or vice-versa in terms of economics and governance?
It is pretty obvious that the overall standard of the Europeans, with thier blended or mixed economies, is healthier for the average citizen, creates a higher, happier quality of life, and a more educated population. But, it is still just as easy to become obscenely wealthy under those systems (think Ikea, what is he now, the fourth richest guy in the world, even surpasing Bill Gates at one point) - but the general population seems to have less problems with the bottom rungs of thier societies than we do. And, in the end, how a society treats it's weakest citizens determines how good the society really is.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.