Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site psuvax1.UUCP
Path: utzoo!decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!rochester!cmu-cs-pt!cadre!psuvax1!berman
From: berman@psuvax1.UUCP (Piotr Berman)
Newsgroups: net.politics.theory
Subject: Re: Newsflash! [Subsidized Education]
Message-ID: <1769@psuvax1.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 6-Sep-85 12:27:41 EDT
Article-I.D.: psuvax1.1769
Posted: Fri Sep  6 12:27:41 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 8-Sep-85 00:40:23 EDT
References: <955@umcp-cs.UUCP> <1110@umcp-cs.UUCP>
Distribution: na
Organization: Pennsylvania State Univ.
Lines: 61

> In article <1766@psuvax1.UUCP> berman@psuvax1.UUCP (Piotr Berman) writes:
> >> [quoting me]
> >> I repeat:  The western democracies, American and European, represent
> >> ideological arenas where the actual policies are an amalgam of free-
> >> market and socialist ideals.  Socialists may not legitimately claim
> >> any credit for the ameliorative effect of the resistance to their
> >> programs.  The Eastern European countries are valid demonstrations
> >> of where those programs would lead without such resistance.
> >> --JoSH
> 
> >  What is the resistance JoSH is talking about?  Who was against mixed
> >economy in Western Europe?  ...
> >Piotr Berman
> 
> Ah, come on!  You have got to be stupid as well as malicious to 
                                   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> misinterpret something that badly.  The mixed economy is the RESULT
> of the conflict of free market and command economy ideologies.
> 
> --JoSH

There are two points of view on ideologies and policies.  JoSH thinks 
that as the first thing an average person/politician/bissnessman 
establishes a philosophical basis of his opinions.  Subsequently, 
his/her actions are guided by the chosen ideology.
  My point of view is different.  According to my observations, poeple
encounter problems and then look for solutions.  In practice, the
professed ideologies have quite moderate impact on their decisions.
Of course, the prevaling ideologies, together with traditions, have
their impact.  One may point that in countries without democratic
traditions, like Russia, China, Yugoslavia, socialist ideology yielded
a dictatorship, while in Sweden, with its democratic tradition, 
there was no tendency toward dictatorship.
  As far as the mixed economy goes, one may notice that it emerged 
originally as a set of pragmatic solutions, not supported by any
socialist ideology.  Otto Bismark, who introduced the mixed economy
in Germany was a conservative with high contempt toward socialism.
Libertarians claim the Great Depression to be the result of the
inept state intervention by Hoover administration.  Again it is
difficult to trace the influence of socialism on Hoover.  Even
more difficult is to explain statist tendencies of Hamilton by
any socialist influence.  One may point that the mainstream
conservatives, like Eisenhower and Nixon, had nothing against the
mixed economy.
  In general, such element of state intervention like public works,
control over banking industry and utilities, are contested exclusively
by a highly ideological minority with no access to decision making
(if one exludes the venerated example of gen. Pinochet).  The "free
market" turned into mixed economy not because of the poisonous impact
of socialism, but because the leaders of industry could not copy with
some of the major problems faced by their economies.  No one was eager
to finance the interstate system with private funds, or to build it
without eminent domain, or patiently wait until private sector will
be able to accomplish it.
  I noticed that JoSH used the term "command economy ideology" instead
of "socialism".  In fact, it is difficult to pinpoit any general
ideology of this kind.  Moreover, in his previous postings, JoSH
referred to socialism (it was such a posting which I objected to
in a "stupid and malicious" fashion).

Piotr Berman