Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site qantel.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!whuxlm!harpo!decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!umcp-cs!gymble!lll-crg!dual!qantel!gabor From: gabor@qantel.UUCP (Gabor Fencsik@ex2642) Newsgroups: net.politics.theory Subject: Re: What is "capitalism"? Message-ID: <470@qantel.UUCP> Date: Wed, 19-Jun-85 22:01:55 EDT Article-I.D.: qantel.470 Posted: Wed Jun 19 22:01:55 1985 Date-Received: Sun, 23-Jun-85 01:33:12 EDT Reply-To: gabor@qantel.UUCP (Gabor Fencsik@ex2642) Organization: MDS Qantel, Hayward, CA Lines: 25 In <194@ubvax.UUCP> Tony Wuersch writes: > Yes, socialism is a system where intellectuals gain relative to capitalism. > So what? Consider this: intellectuals would gain under ANY EXTENSION OF > DEMOCRACY. Simply because intellectuals have the communicative skills needed > to be more persuasive, and the value of persuasiveness increases as DEMOCRACY > increases. Intellectuals gain with every move toward an administered society. The question of democracy is orthogonal to whether businessmen or intellectuals make the decisions. In fact, businessmen and intellectuals-turned-administrators are not radically different animals. It is the incentives and penalties they face that makes them different. Compare a businessman misjudging, say, the demand for laptop computers to an intellectual predicting that MIRVs will improve U.S. national security or that TVA will end poverty in Appalachia. Retribution is much swifter and harsher in the first case than in the second. This gives us a low-cost utilitarian argument for leaving economic decisionmaking in the hands of cutthroat shortsighted businessmen who often would have a hard time articulating what the hell they are trying to accomplish. Note that such a pro-capitalist argument does not need libertarian-style assumptions about the magic of the marketplace or lack of coercion in market transactions. ----- Gabor Fencsik {dual,nsc,hplabs,intelca}!qantel!gabor