manis@ubc-cs.UUCP (Vincent Manis) (03/03/87)
John Chapman raises a dichotomy between leftism and participation in
business. I'm afraid that this dichotomy is a false one, much like the
dichotomy between eating soup and waxing the floor.
There are many versions of leftism (even the notion of a left-right spectrum
is incredibly simplistic), ranging from the psychopaths in Cambodia who
exterminated people because they were intellectuals, as shown by the fact
that they wore eyeglasses, to social democrats of various stripes.
Similarly, the right embraces people whom I highly respect (such as Garry
Wills) on the one hand, and the Nazis on the other.
If you look at the spectrum of opinion held by responsible leftists (say the
range from neo-Marxists such as Michael Harrington to social democrats such
as Ed Broadbent), a number of issues predominate:
a) a belief that traditional capitalism, although encouraging innovation,
deals harshly with those who do not fit.
b) an emphasis on state action to ensure that everyone has reasonable
equality of opportunity.
c) a belief that individual riches are not the sole indicator of virtue,
with a corresponding attempt to ensure some equality of political
power.
d) a commitment to a mixed economy, with public, private, and cooperative
sectors.
These are hardly concerns peculiar to leftists. Ronald Reagan talks of a
``safety net'' (even though his actions hardly enhance the position of the
disadvantaged). It is also worth noting that the founder of the modern
welfare state was Otto von Bismarck, who was hardly a leftist.
Nowhere is there a belief among these people in a form of communism in which
private enterprise is forbidden (or even discouraged). Of course, thanks to
glasnost, even the USSR is experiencing legalised private enterprise. The
real issue is whether to believe in an ``invisible hand'' of the
marketplace, or whether private enterprise should be seen as something which
can be regulated for the public good, just as air quality is.
However, private enterprise has a very important role in any socialist
society. While the state should regulate the use (and abuse) of resources,
and should act as a buffer against the abuse of corporate (or, for that
matter, union) power, there are many situations in which private enterprise
is the most efficient way of accomplishing a particular goal.
In Scandinavian countries, the governments of which alternate between
socialist on the left and mild social democrat on the right, the state does
indeed determine overall goals. However, the fulfillment of these goals is
left to private enterprise, such companies as Volvo and Saab. Here in
Canada, if you look at the supporters of the NDP, you will find many in the
public or cooperative sector. You will also find many proprietors of small
businesses, independent professionals, and even (shock!) a few entrepreneurs.
On the other hand, if you look at some public sector organisations, you will
find many rabid free-enterprisers (I once taught in a secondary school where
the principal was reviled by some of the teachers for being a Liberal, and
therefore a communist).chapman@fornax.uucp (John Chapman) (03/03/87)
> John Chapman raises a dichotomy between leftism and participation in
Well that wasn't exactly my intent; it was more or a rebuke to Brad for
making simplistic assumptions based on scant evidence. I agree with the
thrust of your article though.