Closing for this evening, probably. Here is an issue to which we will have to return. Having summarized the local economy (see here), Hollister reflects that:
even the pre-World War III communist countries had not gone as far as this new Federation on Venus now does;
on Venus, everything is government property;
this system is communist although, for obvious reasons, it does not call itself that;
probably there is no choice because private enterprise would require a much larger surplus;
it is not Hollister's business to criticize internal arrangements on Venus;
indeed, he is not fanatical about economic systems.
This is clear enough as far as it goes. We should all have questions coming from different directions although I am trying to rein those in at least until later. But two questions come up right now. On the very next page, Hollister reflects on the completely undemocratic system of government on Venus. We remember from previous readings that Hollister's mission on the planet is somehow to overthrow that political system. Does that contradict his saying that it is not his business to criticize internal arrangements? Or can a democratic government manage the "communist" economy which is said to be probably unavoidable? These really are just questions, not rhetorical questions, i.e., disguised statements, at present but they oblige us, editorially speaking, to reread with renewed diligence.
13 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
A free enterprise system requires not just a larger "surplus," but also the right kind of socio-political system. Here I mean the limited state, under whatever form, and the rule of law.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
No. Free enterprise economics is compatible with military dictatorship.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Granted, up to a point, such as the "reforms" introduced by Teng in China, in 1980. But the Communist Party still claimed to have the final say in what was to be done or allowed. And that led not only to demands for real political reforms being crushed by the Party at Tienanmen Square in 1989, but also to the state more and more manipulating the economy, with increasingly bad results, as Stirling has discussed here.
A really successful free enterprise system in any nation still requires the right kind of State.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Capitalist economics and military dictatorship are perfectly compatible. Maybe your meaning of "free enterprise" is more specific than capitalism in general?
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
State managed "capitalism" can work only up to a point, as the Maoist dictatorship in China has shown. A real free enterprise still requires the right kind of state, usually a regime which more and more accept the logic of such a system, as was the case of the UK in the 18th/19th centuries.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
But generals can rule politically while big companies make profits economically. The generals do not have to get involved in economic management.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
But military rule, even by generals who believe in the military virtues, is no substitute, in the long run, for some kind of regime commanding a broad base of support and legitimacy.
Ad astra! Sean
Of course it is not!
In practice don't dictatorships, monarchies etc. tend toward 'mercantilism' in practice?
Ie: the cronies of the king get special preferences. See the oligarchs in Putin's Russia.
Necessary regulations also have a tendency toward 'regulatory capture' so incumbent businesses manipulate things to make it harder for new competitors to move into 'their' market. However, my impression is that tends to be more blatant in various sorts of authoritarian government than in more democratic systems.
Kaor, Jim!
It's no different in the US, and every other country in the world. Every nation has politicians whose cronies, relatives, and hangers on use their connections to get favors and preferences from the gov't. Just look at how "Josip's" sleazy son used his doddering father to leverage getting millions in kickbacks and bribes from foreign gov'ts and businesses.
That is a problem, long established businesses using gov't connections in attempts to squeeze out tough new competition. And that's even more true in nations with corrupt or tyrannical regimes, such as Maoist China.
Ad astra! Sean
So you agree that democracies have more obstacles to corruption than authoritarian regimes.
For within the US, my impression is that Trump is worse than Biden for corruption.
Kaor, Jim!
Sometimes, yes, esp. if the rule of law is not too hopelessly ragged and tattered in nations like the UK and the US.
Disagree, the monstrous Democrat Party is corrupt thru and thru all over the US. Just look at the recent news from Chicago, which has been a one party dominated by the Democrats for nearly a century! News about both the corruption and stupidity of left wing Democrats in both methods of policing and their slavery to the "teachers" union.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
I think you read news slanted that way.
Paul.
Post a Comment