". . .in a planned society the question can no longer be on what do a majority of the people agree but what the largest single group is whose members agree sufficiently to make unified direction of all affairs possible; or, if no such group large enough to enforce its views exists, how it can be created and who will succeed in creating it." Thus spake Hayek. It would make sense to read Hayek's analysis of "Why the Worst Get on Top" as operating instructions for a "Party of Rentier-Libertarian Socialism". Such a party differs from the traditional "dictatorship of the bourgeoisie" in that it actively recruits a broad mass base for narrow class rule. Hayek outlined three negative principles of targeting "people with low standards" who are the "least original and independent"; cultivating "the docile and gullible, who have no convictions of their own but are prepared to accept a ready-made system of values if it is only drummed into their ears sufficiently loudly and frequently"; and a negative program based on identifying and fighting against an enemy. The idea of a "rentier-libertarian socialism" whose ostensive enemy is "collectivism" is such an audacious self-contradiction that it simply dumbfounds its opponents. Who could fall for such a crock of shit? Who indeed. Imperialism is a kind of "planned society" in which many of the potential domestic challenges or obstacles to continued accumulation are displaced on to the international arena. The planning takes place at the level of trade agreements, international financial guarantees and interest and exchange rate intervention. (an old thread) Jim Devine wrote: >>>>Schumpeter was neither an econometrician nor a mathematical economist. >>>>He _was_ a conservative but open-minded economist who learned a lot >>>>from Marx. His belief that socialism -- by which he meant government >>>>planning of the economy -- is inevitable seems quaint these days. >Wojtek wrote: >>Ah Jim, don't be deceived by the appearances - the planning >>is progressing as planned - it is just being taken away from the hands of >>the government and placed in the hands of the people who "have something" >>i.e. corporate execs. After all, you cannot leave making important economic >>decisions to the popular vote - their rationality is too much bounded.< Jim Devine wrote: >Corporate planning is quite different from socialist-style planning, >because of the rampant competition amongst corporations. regards, Tom Walker http://www.vcn.bc.ca/timework/covenant.htm
