From: "Eric" <ericandmary-AT-earthlink.net> Subject: Ken MacLeod Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 10:10:46 -0600 I confess I never heard about MacLeod until the recent discussion about him at this site. Intrigued, I got his first book "The Star Fraction" out of the library yesterday and I was surprised to read the following comments in his "Introduction to the American Edition": "One constraints on the possible arrangements of a future society was indicated by the Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises. He argued that private property was essential to industrial civilization: "without property, no exchange; no exchange, no prices; no prices, no way of telling whether any given project is worthwhile or a dead loss." Given that every attempt to abolish the market on a large scale has led o the collapse of industry, his Economic Calculation Argument seems vindicated. Unfortunately, there's no reason why the Economic Calculation Argument and the Materialist Conception of History couldn't both be true. What if capitalism is unstable, and socialism is impossible?" What was so surprising about this is the way it echoed so precisely exactly what I was attempting to say in my most recent posts. It has been encouraging for me to see the international scope of the protests against the war this weekend and coupled with the recent upsurge of populist movements in Latin America, the reluctance of Turkey and Jordan to allow their countries to be used as military bases may portend that a serious shifting is occurring within the Global Scene. Yes, certainly, capitalism obviously remains unstable, but what is the alternative? I say this, not to argue cynically ala Thatcher that there is none; nor even to suggest it is impossible, but to raise the question so that we can think more concretely about such things. Isn't this the real issue today? For all its vaunted efficiency and innovation, capitalism remains unjust and like a lethal goldfish may 'piss in its drinking water' to the extent that its 'civilization' is no longer able to maintain itself. On the other hand, how do we know that legitimate demands for justice and economic redistribution may not simply lead us into new tyrannies. I have been reading quite a bit of Orwell lately, not the famous Orwell or "Animal Farm" and "1984" but the earlier Orwell of the essays, journalistic writings and the other novels. He made the following comment discussing Hayek: "In the negative part of Professor Hayek's thesis there is a good deal of truth. It cannot be said too often - at any rate, it is not being said nearly often enough - that collectivism is not inherently democratic, but, on the contrary gives to a tyrannical minority such powers as the Spanish Inquisition never dreamt of." Gaia save us from the enactment of such powers and also from Das Homeland Security Act. eric
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005