orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) (01/22/85)
> > 2) The idea that, under ideal circumstances, the state would wither away did > not find its origin in Marxism. > > 3) It is also NOT what I was talking about. You're reading what you WISH I > had said, rather than what I ACTUALLY said. Let's try this again: > a) If political power were wrested from the hands of the elite, AND NOT > GIVEN TO ANYONE ELSE, a new power-structure might eventually arise, > but there would in the meantime be a period of liberty, and, even if > temporary, such a period is desirable to the Libertarian. So how do you propose to take away political power from Standard Oil, Mobil, IBM, General Motors, Mitsubishi, etc? Do you suppose that the power to put one's political viewpoint on the media, to determine what towns will get jobs, and which will not, is *not* political power? Is there anyway to disperse political power without dispersing economic power? And how do you propose to redistribute economic power from the 10% of the population that controls the vast majority of the nation's wealth? By saying they can do anything they wish with their wealth? I fail to see how this will lead to anything but *more* concentration of wealth and power in the hands of a few. Throughout history there has been an intimate bond between economic and political power. Who had political power in feudalism? The barons, lords and kings (as well as the Church) who controlled feudal territories and extracted the peasant's production for their own use. In the rise of Capitalism it was the burghers and capitalists who gained economic power--from that they then achieved the political power to support such things as Cromwell's revolution and the French revolution. Just as the barons, lords, and kings claimed ownership over the primary means of production, the land, and then extracted the peasant's production for their own use, so the capitalists control the modern industrial means of production and extract the worker's production for their own profit. A factory worker can no sooner go to work without a factory to work in, than a peasant could work without land to till. Unless a person possess capital then they must work for somebody who *does* posses capital. The percentage of people working for wages has steadily increased over this century. I would suggest you read C. Wright Mills "White Collar" if you wish substantiation of this fact. (not a theory, but fact). What is your advice to the vast majority of people who make their money by earning wages? Can they really be free so long as they must follow somebody else's dictates for wages? At least Marx studied history enough to see the intimate connection between economic and political power. That the solutions applied in his name have resulted in another form of economic and political power is unfortunate. But I fail to see that Libertarianism even addresses the fundamental problems of power and influence in the real world as we know it. Monopoly and oligopoly power is a fact. Moreover as I have already stated the control of the economy by the top 500 corporations is increasing. This is an economic fact. It has nothing to do with the polite theories of some economists who would rather dwell in a "ceteris paribus" fantasy. What is your proposed solution to this fact? Does it not pose a problem if trends continue to the point that only a few corporations run virtually the whole economy? What does this do to free market assumptions? I will be glad to take your elucidating economic lessons..... tim sevener whuxl!orb "the invisible hand often hides the trampling boot"