"Socialism is love" at least according to the half insane, buffoon dictator from Venezuela, Hugo Chavez. And, he has been acting accordingly by taxing the rich, socializing their businesses, and giving money and services to the poor. He is just a very loving, caring man, and, not coincidently, so are our American Democrats who would love to do the same things here if only they could get rid of the mean, loveless, self-interested Republicans.
The first of these self-interested Republicans was probably Adam Smith who published his capitalist bible "The Wealth of Nations" in 1776 just in time to see it incorporated into the new American Constitution which then proved to be the foundation of freedom and prosperity on earth. But, in perhaps one of the most unfortunate public relations omissions in human intellectual history Smith wrote "It is not from the benevolence of butchers, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest. We address ourselves not to their humanity but to their self love." So there it is, regardless of the results of Adam Smith's capitalism, whether seen in the comparison between North and South Korea, USA and USSR/Communist China, East and West Germany, East and West Berlin, Cuba and Florida, Nogales,AZ and Nogales, Mexico, and Hong Kong and Communist China, capitalism was created for the "self-love" or the "interest" of the capitalist and so it is just no damn good despite the supernatural results.
To be fair to Smith, the distrust of the rich started long before 1776. The Bible (Matthew 19:24) , after all, says, "it is easier for a camel to fit through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to get into heaven." That prejudice against the rich, however, should be largely discounted in part because it was, in fact, mostly justified at the time it was written, and in part because even today, despite the discovery and development of the science of economics, the Church, much like Hugo Chavez, has not been able to mature its economic thinking one tiny bit beyond pre-economic Biblical times.
Given the historic and long standing distrust of the rich it was indeed unfortunate for Smith to perpetuate this Biblical disapprobation for the rich by referring to self-love and self- interest at a time when it was widely believed among the masses that real love had to be wholly manifested toward another person; not the self. God, after all, magnanimously sacrificed his son for us; not for himself. But did the founding architect of capitalism really believe capitalists were selfish? Of course not. Smith, as it turns out, was also a moral philosopher equally famous for his "Theory of Moral Sentiments" which is a 500 page tome about the moral obligations that people naturally feel toward one another, and place at the heart of their lives.
So how did he reconcile man's natural moral and social sentiments with capitalism? Concentrate here if you are a Democrat, this is the place where the complexity may well grow too much for you. In Chapter One, page one, Smith says, "how selfish soever man may be supposed, there are evidently some principles in his nature, which interest him in the fortunes of others, and render their happiness necessary to him though he derives nothing from it, except the pleasure in seeing it. The greatest ruffian, the most hardened violator of the laws of society, is not altogether without it".
On Chapter 2, page 10, he says, "those who are fond of deducing all our sentiments from certain refinements of self- love" are mistaken. Another's "pleasure and pain are always felt so instantaneously, and often upon such frivolous occasions derived, that it seems evident that neither of them can be derived from any self-interested consideration."
Chapter 5 Sec. 1: "And hence it is, that to feel much for others, and little for ourselves, constitutes the perfection of human nature." As to love our neighbor as we love ourselves is the great law of Christianity".
Part 1, Sec. 3, page 70: For what purpose is all the toil and bustle of this world? What is the end of avarice and ambition, of the pursuit of wealth, of power, and pre-eminence? It is the vanity, not the ease, or the pleasure (of wealth), which interests us. But, vanity is always founded upon the belief of our being the object of attention and approbation." The poor man on the contrary is ashamed of his poverty. This disposition to admire, and almost to worship, the rich and powerful, and to despise, or at least, to neglect, persons of poor and mean condition, though necessary to maintain the distinction of ranks and the order of society, is, at the same time, the great and most universal cause of the corruption of our moral sentiments".
So there you have it, when all is said and done, Smith conceived of capitalism not as selfish, as Hugo Chavez, the Democrats, and the ubiquitous, delusive liberal press would have you believe, but as loving and Christian. If Smith had been clear about this; had he not provided this opening to Karl Marx there might not have been big gov't communists, socialists and Democrats.
As to the exact mechanism by which capitalism yields far greater wealth, for everyone, than socialism, Democrats should not trouble themselves with the level of complexity necessary to reach an understanding It will undoubtedly be beyond their abilities. Let it be sufficient for them to admit that if they somehow lost custody of a child to a capitalist country, rather than to a socialist one, they would sleep far better at night, not only because their child would be wealthier but also because he would be treated better on a personal level; in large part because capitalism teaches and requires a great deal of mutual respect on all levels from those who participate.
Oddly, in some quarters of the liberal world, self-love is permitted without animadversion, as for example, when the Clinton Administration informed us that self love or masturbation was an adequate substitute for mutual love, especially among the young. And then there is the army of, mostly liberal, coaches, guru's, social workers, therapists, analysts, and doctors who inform us that we must work really hard to love ourselves before we can love another. Isn't that odd? In what might be considered the most important aspect of social life, one must start on a foundation of self love? How anti-Christian and self interested is that? The theory purportedly is that only after you love yourself, presumably for legitimate reasons and after much work and preparation, will someone else find you worthy of love, or at least more worthy than someone who has not prepared as much or as successfully to love themselves. So let's not forget, in this version of liberal human nature, love is not a charitable socialist endeavor equally available to all, it is available only to those who love themselves first, and then, perhaps, extend that love to another person. That sounds sort of selfish doesn't it?
But then isn't the bargain between lovers similar to the bargain between capitalists? Perish the thought! But oh yes, you do want to be able to buy the best manifestation of the self interested man's labor as defined in a competitive environment. And yes, the seller does want to sell to the person most able to pay for what he is sure are the very valuable products of his self-love. And yes again, the buyer does delight in being able to afford to buy, with the fruits of her self-interested labor, the best that is sold. If it works in liberal love shouldn't it work for mere goods and services too? Who would expect a quality product or mate from someone who had no self-interest?
As interesting, the Democrats are so very superior and proud about their scientific realization that evolution is superior to creationism. But isn't that odd given that God created everyone to be equal, and to be loved equally, while evolution depends on a cruel social Darwinism in which the weak must perish? It is one thing to be at a slight disadvantage in the competitive capitalist arena but quite another to be at a disadvantage in the deadly "survival of the fittest" liberal evolutionary world isn't it? Isn't capitalism then just a minor manifestation of the dog eat dog evolutionary world of which liberals are so proudly enamored?
If that's too theoretical, here's another easy way to poke a huge hole in the liberal "socialism is love" moral bigotry: look at a wonderful new book called "Who Really Cares". It seems that a growing body of research indicates, among many other similar things, that Red State Republicans are 35% more likely to give to charity, 45% more likely to help a homeless person on the street, and 57% more likely to give blood than liberals. And that is only the beginning.
Perhaps it gives amplification to the book "Compassionate Conservatism" which muses about how liberals don't seems to care because their habit is to pay failed gov't bureaucrats to care in their place, while conservatives personally volunteer and care purposively through a huge variety of faith based initiatives?
So in the end is socialism love or is capitalism? Even without the practical hint provided by the USSR, Communist China, North Korea, East Germany, Cuba, Nogales, Hong Kong, "Who Really Cares", "Compassionate Conservatism", and The Theory of Moral Sentiments", Democrats should be able to get this right but, alas, even with perfect practical and theoretical evidence combined, they never can muster up the sentiency for this most simply of tasks, and so hundreds of years after Adam Smith and Karl Marx we still must countenance the moral bigotry of Hugo Chavez and the Democrats. What a pity.
bje1000@aol.com
Ted Baiamonte
A debate with Democrats who dare
is always welcomed.
th507
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment