The importance of ideals in a centrally controlled system
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.
I have been thinking about this move to the left, specifically towards socialism. While this would normally include the "new right", the military industrial complex, which is merely government control with a capitalist face, in this case I am more concerned with government control of consumption and it's implications for personal freedom. The below are my thoughts. This is not really intended to posit any answers, but merely to attempt to formulate the question. It is rough, and this is why I've posted it. For review, and to get help in refining the question, such that I can later find answers which actually matter. Thanks for your help.
What is capitalism?
Capitalism is not a system of government, but an economic and social system. It's value and it's greatest flaw is that in pure form it is a self-regulating meritocracy based on production, as measured by capital. Because of this, those who produce but are not able to convert their production to capital (proletariate, some artists, etc), or who do not produce (the sick, elderly, unemployed, etc) do not control resources.
How do communism and socialism compare with capitalism?
Communism and Socialism try to address this imbalance by centralizing control of economic and social values in the hands of a government which theoretically speaks "for the people". With Communism the primary "victim" which is being "empowered" is the prole, who works but does not convert their labor into capital. With Socialism, as far as I have seen it recently, the focus seems to be more on the sick, elderly, and unemployed. Either way, the focus is on those who do not possess financial capital.
Scope of this question
While we have historically seen a number of problems with centralized control, regardless of what ethos they claim, these are beyond the scope of this paper. Instead, I would like to look at what informs the decisions they make, and to examine how important these ideals are. Capitalism's driving forces are defined by the nature of capitalism, as noted above, and have already been covered at length by those opposed to it. It is worth noting that many of the opposition voices are correct in their assessment. I do not seek to disagree, but to apply that same type of analysis to the system which seems to be on the table to replace capitalism. One of the key issues with any politically controlled system is determining WHAT the driving force is.
Scale and stakes of free market capitalism vs central control
In Capitalist consumerism, the driving force of capital, and exchange of money, which the intelligent businessman can derive from any human desire. When a businessman fails, his business dies, and he either starts a new business, or returns to the working class to attempt to generate enough capital to begin again. In attempting to regulate this through government, we have stepped up the odds drastically, from a single business, to the entire community. Further, the leaders of the community face the same problem the businessman did, that of determining how to translate the desires of people into a means to control them, but with the added caveat, that the businessman may specialize, while the communal leader must address every aspect of the peoples lives which he attempts to control. In transitioning from a minimal government to a more providing, more controlling government, the stakes of success and failure increase to all those aspects of their constituents lives as well. In short, a capitalist economy can never achieve the same strength a unified system can, due to economy of scale, but it can also never collapse as suddenly, as no one failure can destroy the entire system.
Measuring success
So the communal leader is faced with the question of how to ensure a successful community. The first thing which must be done is to determine the markers of success. Many would argue the simple things like food and shelter are important, and these are areas we have seen great failures of both free market capitalism AND communism (witness the great depression of the US and pre-collapse USSR) but we are in the middle of a revolution taking place while both of these are fairly common. As we move towards the desire for central control, we are looking more at things like socialized medicine, national security, wealth insurance, and the like. We are asking for every aspect of our lives to be guaranteed to a certain minimal standard by those we put in power, but for this to work, we must all agree on what we want. The leaders must provide a common goal, a common definition of success, which the constituency as a whole can both be sated enough to not oust the leadership, and be driven enough to work towards the goals which the leadership has decided upon. Success can not just be determined by satisfaction poles, but must be measured in part by voluntary participation in the programs which the government creates, and also by the creation of goal based programs. A "war on terror" will not do. We must have programs which aim at measurable results. This isn't always easy to do. While "success" may be difficult to define, failure is not. A population which quits working towards the goals of it's leadership, or more strongly, which ousts it's leadership is a sure sign of failure.
Ideals inform goals.
For the communist to say their goal is "ownership of the means of production" is wonderful, but what when you have it? This is a point event, and not an ongoing goal. The Socialist has done slightly better, and we can see the very beginnings of this in the United states today, where the vague and airy term "humanism" could be used to define the underlying ideals which inform the specific goals. "Hate" crimes are punished to a greater degree than other crimes, and there are ongoing battles against "hate speech", which are constantly blocked by the first amendment. Much like the move towards firearms regulation, we see an increasing desire to rely on the government for protection, both physically and emotionally. If we can more firmly identify our underlying ideals, and the ideals of potential leaders, we can come to understand what their goals may be, and how we can work with the leadership to our mutual benefit. Without understanding the underlying ideals, we are left with a seemingly unrelated set of regulations, and this creates a disconnect between expectations and reality, which is a primary cause of unrest.
Using socialized medicine as an example
Socialized medicine is already a fact in much of the western world, and is looking more and more like it will soon be reality the US. What ideals drive this? Unfortunately, there are many contradictory messages being fed to us on both sides of the table, so please excuse me while i try to sum them up. I will try to work backwards from specific issues to the ideals which may allow one "problem" over another. I believe looking at the trade offs we make will clearly show the ideals which allow these trade offs to occur. Feel free to correct me where you feel it is relevant to the overall theme.
The resource allocation problem
Socialized medicine in other countries has created a system where medical care is available to those who often do not get care under our free market capitalist system. The trade off to this is often long waiting lists and a dearth of resources for more difficult procedures. In short, there is an imbalance of supply and demand. This has a few interesting implications. First is the question of IF anyone cares enough to correct this imbalance. If all we are concerned about is equal access to resources, and creating higher level resources, such as more advanced cancer care and advanced diagnostic tests are moot, then the system is successful. If this is seen as a problem however, then the question comes up of how to manage resources to correct it.
Resource management for equality, at lowest cost
Seeing as how this is an ongoing condition in both Canada and the UK, it is entirely possible that the two cultures closest to ours see this equality of treatment as being more important than having advanced treatment. Before crying foul, and saying I'm calling names, please step back and detach yourself from ideals you may be attaching to me. I may disagree, but I understand this as an ideological decision. This is complicated because we are in a transitory period. Taking care of those with the greatest need is a strong Christian ideal, and one which is still embedded in our collective ethics and morals, but much like allowing great people to rise above the rest, at the cost of those around them was part of the capitalist ideals this system fights against, the link is too strong to not at least mention and honestly examine.
Resource management for solving the toughest problems
If, however, this is seen as a problem, then we are faced with the question of resource management, and of how to motivate people to create the resources necessary to change the current state. Medical research can be moved from big chem to the schools, but still, it will require a lot of money, tools, and energy. The manufacture of advanced diagnostic equipment, the likes of which comes out of GE and other similar companies, we have not seen from anywhere except large private enterprise. Still, by resources, I do not just mean getting people to work, paying contractors, etc, but rather allocating resources to this end. Decisions which used to be made by hospital administrators and often forced by grants from wealthy individuals will now be in the hands of politicians, who may or may not understand the technology. (just as the wealthy grant makers may not understand it) They will be caught between experts, who often disagree, and the public, who is lead more by propaganda than experience. These people must make tough decisions, and these decisions will affect everyone they control, and hence may not be as diverse as we see in the private sector now. Their decisions will be motivated primarily by their ideals, and we must ask, what is more and less important, we are called upon to make a value judgment, from a central position, as a political leader, rather than from an individual position as a capitalist consumer. The decision we make as a political leader must be one which our base will not oppose. We are called upon then, to ask what the overarching ideals of those we lead is, whether this be a preexisting condition, or new ideals we attempt to instill in the populace.
So we are left to ask what these ideals and priorities are. We can ask this in the theoretical world of Plato's Republic, or in the small community world of the OTO, but we must also examine these in the larger world of the landed governments which currently rule the world. We must ask, as we hand them control, what are their ideals, as demonstrated by their historical actions, and by the way they currently handle resources in other fields.
Socialized medicine is just one example of the decisions which must be made as we move from independent capitalism to a more centralized control. We must also look at art and individual expression, we must look at personal mobility, and at what we eat, wear, and how we provide for ourselves. All of these are already under some type of central regulation, and it is worth our time to examine how WE wish to use these to the furtherance of our own Will, and with this in mind, what ideals and underling principles we want employed in rulership over them, be it through our own work, or through the work of those in power over us, who, let us not forget, we have the power to remove.
Whether it is done individually, through consensus, or through group leaders, decisions must be made. At any given point, there is a finite amount of resources, and the management thereof WILL be in accordance with the ideals and underlying belief structure of those making the decisions. The revolt against capitalism can not be a blind one, which only posits the failures of capitalism, but must put a real and working underlying philosophical guide in it's place. At present America has only the most vague ideals in place, and as such, our governments actions have been rash, and at divided purposes. A house divided against itself can only fall. What ideals do we wish to see in Government, what end purpose, and in reflection, what do we wish to see within ourselves?
Obviously very few peoples ideals are cut and dry, to the left or right, top or bottom, but a blend of these things. Still, we can determine underlying goals, and are called upon to make value judgments. In the private sector, the decisions are our own, but the resources we bring to bear on making these decisions is inherently limited. Leaders of a centralized system will have more resources at their disposal to make decisions, but will have to speak on our behalf, and once they have, we have little recourse against it, and change will come very slowly. This is why it is increasingly important that we understand what informs the decisions they make.
I have no answers, but I fear that many diving head first into a change, away from a known evil, have not taken the time to consider what it is they want in it's place. I ask not necessarily to stop the change, for I do not know what the change will bring, but merely to slow it enough that we might decide on a solid target, one which can stand up long enough that we might create real growth for our selves, for our community, and for humanity, whatever that "real growth" may mean. Only once we have some educated ideas as to what that may be are any of us in a real position to champion or oppose this change we seem to be in the middle of.
Love is the Law,
Love under Will.
-- James
I have been thinking about this move to the left, specifically towards socialism. While this would normally include the "new right", the military industrial complex, which is merely government control with a capitalist face, in this case I am more concerned with government control of consumption and it's implications for personal freedom. The below are my thoughts. This is not really intended to posit any answers, but merely to attempt to formulate the question. It is rough, and this is why I've posted it. For review, and to get help in refining the question, such that I can later find answers which actually matter. Thanks for your help.
What is capitalism?
Capitalism is not a system of government, but an economic and social system. It's value and it's greatest flaw is that in pure form it is a self-regulating meritocracy based on production, as measured by capital. Because of this, those who produce but are not able to convert their production to capital (proletariate, some artists, etc), or who do not produce (the sick, elderly, unemployed, etc) do not control resources.
How do communism and socialism compare with capitalism?
Communism and Socialism try to address this imbalance by centralizing control of economic and social values in the hands of a government which theoretically speaks "for the people". With Communism the primary "victim" which is being "empowered" is the prole, who works but does not convert their labor into capital. With Socialism, as far as I have seen it recently, the focus seems to be more on the sick, elderly, and unemployed. Either way, the focus is on those who do not possess financial capital.
Scope of this question
While we have historically seen a number of problems with centralized control, regardless of what ethos they claim, these are beyond the scope of this paper. Instead, I would like to look at what informs the decisions they make, and to examine how important these ideals are. Capitalism's driving forces are defined by the nature of capitalism, as noted above, and have already been covered at length by those opposed to it. It is worth noting that many of the opposition voices are correct in their assessment. I do not seek to disagree, but to apply that same type of analysis to the system which seems to be on the table to replace capitalism. One of the key issues with any politically controlled system is determining WHAT the driving force is.
Scale and stakes of free market capitalism vs central control
In Capitalist consumerism, the driving force of capital, and exchange of money, which the intelligent businessman can derive from any human desire. When a businessman fails, his business dies, and he either starts a new business, or returns to the working class to attempt to generate enough capital to begin again. In attempting to regulate this through government, we have stepped up the odds drastically, from a single business, to the entire community. Further, the leaders of the community face the same problem the businessman did, that of determining how to translate the desires of people into a means to control them, but with the added caveat, that the businessman may specialize, while the communal leader must address every aspect of the peoples lives which he attempts to control. In transitioning from a minimal government to a more providing, more controlling government, the stakes of success and failure increase to all those aspects of their constituents lives as well. In short, a capitalist economy can never achieve the same strength a unified system can, due to economy of scale, but it can also never collapse as suddenly, as no one failure can destroy the entire system.
Measuring success
So the communal leader is faced with the question of how to ensure a successful community. The first thing which must be done is to determine the markers of success. Many would argue the simple things like food and shelter are important, and these are areas we have seen great failures of both free market capitalism AND communism (witness the great depression of the US and pre-collapse USSR) but we are in the middle of a revolution taking place while both of these are fairly common. As we move towards the desire for central control, we are looking more at things like socialized medicine, national security, wealth insurance, and the like. We are asking for every aspect of our lives to be guaranteed to a certain minimal standard by those we put in power, but for this to work, we must all agree on what we want. The leaders must provide a common goal, a common definition of success, which the constituency as a whole can both be sated enough to not oust the leadership, and be driven enough to work towards the goals which the leadership has decided upon. Success can not just be determined by satisfaction poles, but must be measured in part by voluntary participation in the programs which the government creates, and also by the creation of goal based programs. A "war on terror" will not do. We must have programs which aim at measurable results. This isn't always easy to do. While "success" may be difficult to define, failure is not. A population which quits working towards the goals of it's leadership, or more strongly, which ousts it's leadership is a sure sign of failure.
Ideals inform goals.
For the communist to say their goal is "ownership of the means of production" is wonderful, but what when you have it? This is a point event, and not an ongoing goal. The Socialist has done slightly better, and we can see the very beginnings of this in the United states today, where the vague and airy term "humanism" could be used to define the underlying ideals which inform the specific goals. "Hate" crimes are punished to a greater degree than other crimes, and there are ongoing battles against "hate speech", which are constantly blocked by the first amendment. Much like the move towards firearms regulation, we see an increasing desire to rely on the government for protection, both physically and emotionally. If we can more firmly identify our underlying ideals, and the ideals of potential leaders, we can come to understand what their goals may be, and how we can work with the leadership to our mutual benefit. Without understanding the underlying ideals, we are left with a seemingly unrelated set of regulations, and this creates a disconnect between expectations and reality, which is a primary cause of unrest.
Using socialized medicine as an example
Socialized medicine is already a fact in much of the western world, and is looking more and more like it will soon be reality the US. What ideals drive this? Unfortunately, there are many contradictory messages being fed to us on both sides of the table, so please excuse me while i try to sum them up. I will try to work backwards from specific issues to the ideals which may allow one "problem" over another. I believe looking at the trade offs we make will clearly show the ideals which allow these trade offs to occur. Feel free to correct me where you feel it is relevant to the overall theme.
The resource allocation problem
Socialized medicine in other countries has created a system where medical care is available to those who often do not get care under our free market capitalist system. The trade off to this is often long waiting lists and a dearth of resources for more difficult procedures. In short, there is an imbalance of supply and demand. This has a few interesting implications. First is the question of IF anyone cares enough to correct this imbalance. If all we are concerned about is equal access to resources, and creating higher level resources, such as more advanced cancer care and advanced diagnostic tests are moot, then the system is successful. If this is seen as a problem however, then the question comes up of how to manage resources to correct it.
Resource management for equality, at lowest cost
Seeing as how this is an ongoing condition in both Canada and the UK, it is entirely possible that the two cultures closest to ours see this equality of treatment as being more important than having advanced treatment. Before crying foul, and saying I'm calling names, please step back and detach yourself from ideals you may be attaching to me. I may disagree, but I understand this as an ideological decision. This is complicated because we are in a transitory period. Taking care of those with the greatest need is a strong Christian ideal, and one which is still embedded in our collective ethics and morals, but much like allowing great people to rise above the rest, at the cost of those around them was part of the capitalist ideals this system fights against, the link is too strong to not at least mention and honestly examine.
Resource management for solving the toughest problems
If, however, this is seen as a problem, then we are faced with the question of resource management, and of how to motivate people to create the resources necessary to change the current state. Medical research can be moved from big chem to the schools, but still, it will require a lot of money, tools, and energy. The manufacture of advanced diagnostic equipment, the likes of which comes out of GE and other similar companies, we have not seen from anywhere except large private enterprise. Still, by resources, I do not just mean getting people to work, paying contractors, etc, but rather allocating resources to this end. Decisions which used to be made by hospital administrators and often forced by grants from wealthy individuals will now be in the hands of politicians, who may or may not understand the technology. (just as the wealthy grant makers may not understand it) They will be caught between experts, who often disagree, and the public, who is lead more by propaganda than experience. These people must make tough decisions, and these decisions will affect everyone they control, and hence may not be as diverse as we see in the private sector now. Their decisions will be motivated primarily by their ideals, and we must ask, what is more and less important, we are called upon to make a value judgment, from a central position, as a political leader, rather than from an individual position as a capitalist consumer. The decision we make as a political leader must be one which our base will not oppose. We are called upon then, to ask what the overarching ideals of those we lead is, whether this be a preexisting condition, or new ideals we attempt to instill in the populace.
So we are left to ask what these ideals and priorities are. We can ask this in the theoretical world of Plato's Republic, or in the small community world of the OTO, but we must also examine these in the larger world of the landed governments which currently rule the world. We must ask, as we hand them control, what are their ideals, as demonstrated by their historical actions, and by the way they currently handle resources in other fields.
Socialized medicine is just one example of the decisions which must be made as we move from independent capitalism to a more centralized control. We must also look at art and individual expression, we must look at personal mobility, and at what we eat, wear, and how we provide for ourselves. All of these are already under some type of central regulation, and it is worth our time to examine how WE wish to use these to the furtherance of our own Will, and with this in mind, what ideals and underling principles we want employed in rulership over them, be it through our own work, or through the work of those in power over us, who, let us not forget, we have the power to remove.
Whether it is done individually, through consensus, or through group leaders, decisions must be made. At any given point, there is a finite amount of resources, and the management thereof WILL be in accordance with the ideals and underlying belief structure of those making the decisions. The revolt against capitalism can not be a blind one, which only posits the failures of capitalism, but must put a real and working underlying philosophical guide in it's place. At present America has only the most vague ideals in place, and as such, our governments actions have been rash, and at divided purposes. A house divided against itself can only fall. What ideals do we wish to see in Government, what end purpose, and in reflection, what do we wish to see within ourselves?
Obviously very few peoples ideals are cut and dry, to the left or right, top or bottom, but a blend of these things. Still, we can determine underlying goals, and are called upon to make value judgments. In the private sector, the decisions are our own, but the resources we bring to bear on making these decisions is inherently limited. Leaders of a centralized system will have more resources at their disposal to make decisions, but will have to speak on our behalf, and once they have, we have little recourse against it, and change will come very slowly. This is why it is increasingly important that we understand what informs the decisions they make.
I have no answers, but I fear that many diving head first into a change, away from a known evil, have not taken the time to consider what it is they want in it's place. I ask not necessarily to stop the change, for I do not know what the change will bring, but merely to slow it enough that we might decide on a solid target, one which can stand up long enough that we might create real growth for our selves, for our community, and for humanity, whatever that "real growth" may mean. Only once we have some educated ideas as to what that may be are any of us in a real position to champion or oppose this change we seem to be in the middle of.
Love is the Law,
Love under Will.
-- James