Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site gargoyle.UUCP
Path: utzoo!lsuc!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!gargoyle!carnes
From: carnes@gargoyle.UUCP (Richard Carnes)
Newsgroups: net.politics.theory
Subject: Re: capitalism vs. democracy???
Message-ID: <267@gargoyle.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 9-Dec-85 18:59:41 EST
Article-I.D.: gargoyle.267
Posted: Mon Dec  9 18:59:41 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 11-Dec-85 22:26:09 EST
References: <261@gargoyle.UUCP> <286@frog.UUCP>
Reply-To: carnes@gargoyle.UUCP (Richard Carnes)
Organization: U. of Chicago, Computer Science Dept.
Lines: 60

>> Each proposes a radical cure for the ills of society which
>> they perceive as deriving from this incompatibility:  (1) Smash the
>> state, abolish politics, and establish a "pure" form of capitalism.
>
>You are writing of anarcholibertarianism, not
>libertarianism.

I think all forms of libertarianism wish to replace politics by the
market (perhaps not totally), but I am interested in hearing
arguments to the contrary.  "Politics" means the struggle for
authority.  Libertarians of all stripes seem to want to keep politics
from "meddling" with the market.

>Democracy is only a means of peacefully arriving at
>decisions.  It does not specify what those decisions are to
>be.  It is therefore by itself inadequate as a political
>philosophy.

"Democracy" could be described as a Greek translation of "power to
the people."  I don't think it entails a particular method of making
social choices, but this is worth discussing.  "Democracy" is an
essentially vague word.

>I suspect that most Libertarians share the position that
>democracy is necessary.  But democracy in the U.S., even as
>constrained by a constitution, already has complete control.
>It is nonsense to speak of extending it over a wider realm.

I don't think so.  Large private corporations, which are basically
anti-democratic institutions, wield a lot of power in the US.

There is a profound book that explores the questions we are raising
here:  *Politics and Markets:  The World's Political-Economic
Systems* by Charles E. Lindblom.  Much of the nonsense in this
newsgroup could be eliminated if everyone would read this book; but
recommending it on the net is probably the best way of guaranteeing
that no one will ever read it.  One of its themes is what is wrong
with both classical liberal and pluralist thought.  Sample quote:

  The executive of the large corporation is, on many counts, the
  contemporary counterpart to the landed gentry of an earlier era, his
  voice amplified by the technology of mass communication.... More than
  class, the major specific institutional barrier to fuller democracy
  may therefore be the autonomy of the private corporation.
  
  It has been a curious feature of democratic thought that it has not
  faced up to the private corporation as a peculiar organization in an
  ostensible democracy.  Enormously large, rich in resources, the big
  corporations, we have seen, command more resources than do most
  government units.  They can also, over a broad range, insist that
  government meet their demands, even if these demands run counter to
  those of citizens expressed through their polyarchal [roughly,
  democratic] controls.  Moreover, they do not disqualify themselves
  from playing the partisan role of a citizen -- for the corporation is
  legally a person.  And they exercise unusual veto powers.  They are
  on all these counts disproportionately powerful, we have seen.  The
  large private corporation fits oddly into democratic theory and
  vision.  Indeed, it does not fit.
-- 
Richard Carnes, ihnp4!gargoyle!carnes