RE: Democracy?

[Greg Peisert <gpeisert@jamesgregory.com>]

Margaret;

   What you advocated was Marxism. Indeed, one reason I withheld my answer 
(which sits in one of my mailboxes, unsent), is that I want to get copies 
of two books and have a look at them, in light of your response. One is 
"The Communist Manifesto" by our friend Karl, and the other is "Mein Kampf" 
by that sterling paragon of logic, the then imprisoned German corporal. The 
other reason is that I share in that message some of the fact of life of 
what it is like to try to survive in today's America as a small 
businessman. I'm not sure I want to burden this list with it, although it 
aptly illustrates my points.

   I've read a fair bit of the Manifesto. I haven't had time to skim 
through the slavish, nearly incoherent prose of Mein Kampf. But what I find 
interesting is that the Manifesto could be very easily "updated" or 
modernized, and it would provide the perfect party platform for today's 
modern liberals. Indeed, I've been thinking about whether to lift a few 
salient paragraphs, modernize them a bit, and put them up against any of a 
number of speeches by Conyers, Kennedy, Gephardt, Boxer, Feinstein, or any 
number of other liberal dimwits in congress. The logic is identical. 
Indeed, I'll wager that if I took the Manifesto, modernized it a bit, and 
stood before the Senate and read the modernized version as a speech, I'd 
get a standing ovation by the entire left side of the isle.

  Do I consider that a terrible indictment of our society and of the 
Democratic Party? You bet! I think the way of Karl Marx is fatally flawed 
and roundly proven to be so. I think the Austrian school (Von Mieses in his 
masterpiece "Socialism" for example) represents a crushing indictment of 
the false premises that underlie socialism and hence, modern liberalism.

  I of course utterly reject this nonsense that the purpose of a society is 
to "take care of it's members." I believe the purpose of a society is to 
help ensure that its members retain the freedom to "take care of 
themselves." These two perspectives are at the opposite ends of the 
spectrum. The first approach leads, repeatedly, unfailingly, and throughout 
history, to misery, universal poverty, tyranny and death. The second has 
proven, time and again, wherever it is implemented, to lead to economic 
prosperity, a better standard of living for all strata of a society, a more 
benevolent, peaceful society (I provided specific numbers on that contrast 
some months ago on this list), and vastly more opportunity for all.

  For me, the underlying economic theory, the overwhelming evidence of 
history, the "in our faces" evidence of the massive failure of the welfare 
state, (so massive that is has Clinton and the Democrats claiming a 'great 
victory' that there are now fewer people on welfare...talk about IRONY!), 
all of this is so crushing to the notion of the nanny state, to the idea 
that it is somehow the purpose of a society to guarantee OUTCOME versus 
OPPORTUNITY, that to ignore it, one must either accept the doctrine of 
socialism "by faith alone" or be intellectually dishonest. Nothing else 
supports it.

  So, will I ever send that other reply? I think not. Consider this message 
my reply. And have a look at The Manifesto. If you really believe the ideas 
you expressed in your last message to me, I think you will find yourself in 
hearty agreement with Marx. When I read his material, I am struck by the 
simple-minded naivete and the logical fallacies that riddle Marx and 
Engels' work. I read it and I say to myself, "My god, is THIS bunch of 
tripe what the masses actually FELL for? How pathetic!" But, when I watch 
what is going on in Washington, when I watch the U.S. Senate act like a 
bunch of cockroaches caught in the sudden glare of the light, when I watch 
the sickening sham of the Chief Perpetrator beating his bongos in 
celebration of his richly deserved impeachment, and when I see an American 
public utterly indifferent to it, I realize that we as a people are 
fundamentally no different than the Russian peasants in 1917. And if we 
keep acting as we are, we deserve no better an outcome, nor should we 
expect it.

--Greg







On Friday, February 05, 1999 5:01 AM, Margaret Tarbet 
[SMTP:tarbet@swaa.com] wrote:
> On Thu, 4 Feb 1999 11:30:40 -0500, Greg wrote:
>
> >So, what would you advocate as an alternative?
>
> I would advocate your responding to my earlier message as you said
> you would do, Greg.  :-)   You have not yet said what you believe
> the purpose of a society is, or who should have the right to define
> it and control its direction.  Those are pretty simple questions!
> I can and have answered them in a few sentences.  Surely you can do
> the same?