„Dincolo de socialism si capitalism se afla distributismul”.
Sau cum sa distrugi oligarhia coloniala sovietica dintr-un foc. Ei bine, daca v-ati intrebat vreodata cum am putea sa scapam de oligarhi, iata raspunsul: distribitismul economic. Poate v-ati intrebat daca exista pe lume o doctrina economica anti-coruptie, anti-furt. Iata ca exista. Cititi interviul de mai jos si veti afla ce inseamna piata libera si cum se poate distruge monopolul oligarhiei.
Un interviu in Ziarul Financiar despre distributism cu John Medaille:
Nici teoriile economice socialiste, nici cele neoclasice nu descriu complet economia reala
Raspunsul profesorului John Medaille dat lui MTVX pe blogul lui Claudiu Tarziu:
The essence of MTVX’s critique is this: The capitalism that we
actually see is not „real” capitalism. And in that, he may be correct,
but it is as real as capitalism ever gets. We can note how similar
this defense is to the defense raised by the Marxists: The socialism
of the Soviet Union and its satellites was not real socialism. Perhaps
not, but in both cases, it was a real attempt at real
socialism/capitalism. When an social experiement turns out the same
way every time, we may (as social scientists) assume that is the way
it will always turn out.
The claim that the failures of capitalism/communism are due to
imperfect implementations leaves two problems. The first is that if
the claim is true, then in all of human history, there is not an
actual example of either. And without seeing how a social system
actually works on the ground, it is impossible to say whether it works
at all. Both systems run smack-dab into the „Law of Unintended
Consequences,” which states that the unintended consequences of a
social/economic system will always be greater than the intended
consequences of their founders, and will overwhelm them. Hence, we can
only render a real judgment on real systems, not theoretical ones.
Statements like, „If the free market had been allowed to operate,
then…” are speculative at best. One may choose to believe in them,
but such a belief is not a persuasive argument. Such faith-based
systems may involve a touching piety, but they do not embody a
scientific attitude. As distributists, we work with systems that are
on the ground and functioning, and anyone who wants to know how
distributism works can go and examine these working systems. That is
to say, we are realists working with real systems, not ideological
romantics working with wishes.
The second problem is even more serious. There may never have been a
pure capitalism, but there was a time when capitalism was a lot purer.
The scale of government before the Great Depression was not one-tenth
of what it was after that event. And yet, in the period from 1853 to
1941, the American economy was in recession or depression an
astounding 41% of the time. It was the chronic chaos of capitalism
that was the cause of the rise of socialism, communism, and fascism,
all of which are mere varieties of the same liberal error.
MTVX seems to deny his own doctrine, for if self-interest is all, then
it is in the self-interest of the rich to subvert the government to
protect their interests. This is what happens in each and every case.
The accumulation of private wealth leads to the accumulation of
government power to protect that wealth: The higher the piles of
capital, the thicker the walls of government necessary to protect it.
The whole history of capitalism is this: government power and
corporate power grow together. In this process of building up the
corporate/capitalist state, the libertarians are the dupes and
fellow-travelers of the corporate power. They supply the arguments
against any limitation on this power, while closing their eyes to the
evidence of corporate excesses.
This process is evident in MTVX’s defense of corporate greed in the
current meltdown. It is true that the central bank enabled the greed,
but it did not cause it. Not one bank was forced to make even one bad
loan, sell one derivative, or take the insane risks that they took in
their quest for wealth without work. Of course, they all knew that
they were „too big to fail,” yet MTVX rejects any argument that we
should prevent any entity from growing so big that it can hold the
The pseudonymous MTVX makes other errors as well. For example, he
seems to confuse the cooperative with the collective, free-association
with forced association. I would have thought that this was an
important distinction in Eastern Europe.
I agree with him about the problems of licensing. However, we have
already tried his system in this country right up until the early 20th
century, and it was a disaster. It turns out that the free market
cannot solve the information problem: How does a layman judge the work
of a doctor or a lawyer? Certainly, I cannot do so. The current
situation is an over-reaction to the disasters of MTVX’s ideal state.
In the end, the truth is this: Both Marx and Mises promised a
whithering away of the state, but the practice of both actually
delivered states of gargantuan power, excess, and expense. In both
cases, a government clerk, in the course of a routing workday,
exercises more power than did any ancient tyrant in the course of his
reign. The clerk can take away your business, your property, your
children, your freedom, with a casualness that would have astounded
the ancient tyrants. MTVX decries this abuse, quite rightly; but his
system has always enabled it.
It is time to turn away from such failed ideologies, and look at
systems that actually work.