Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site psuvax1.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!rochester!cmu-cs-pt!cadre!psuvax1!berman
From: berman@psuvax1.UUCP (Piotr Berman)
Newsgroups: net.politics.theory
Subject: Re: Changing ideas
Message-ID: <1803@psuvax1.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 19-Sep-85 12:40:50 EDT
Article-I.D.: psuvax1.1803
Posted: Thu Sep 19 12:40:50 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 22-Sep-85 14:01:39 EDT
References: <8509171814.AA23399@ucbopal.Berkeley.Edu>
Organization: Pennsylvania State Univ.
Lines: 71

> In article <269@pedsgd.UUCP> pedsgd!bob writes:
> >In article <3632@topaz.RUTGERS.EDU> josh@topaz.UUCP (J Storrs Hall) writes:
> >>A study of intellectual history will show you that it was around 
> >>1900 that socialist ideas began having their greatest impact 
> >>on leading political thinkers, though it took time for them to 
> >>"trickle down" to the mass of second-hand idea dealers such as
> >>politicians and the press.
> >
> >This reply begs the question, which is 
> >How is it that the people of Scandinavia (and the rest of Western Europe, and
> >the US ) allowed themselves to be decieved into accepting democratic 
> >socialism when it was clearly contrary to their best interests?
> 
> The answer to this question can be found in a 130 year old quote from Thomas
> Macaulay (British historian, circa 1857):
> 
>         The day will come when (in the United States) a multitude of
>         people will choose the legislature. Is it possible to doubt
>         what sort of a legislature will be chosen? On the one side is
>         a statesman preaching patience, respect for rights, strict
>         observance of public faith. On the other is a demagogue ranting
>         about the tyranny of capitalism and usurers asking why anybody
>         should be permitted to drink champagne and to ride in a carriage 
>         while thousands of honest people are in want of necessaries.
>         Which of the candidates is likely to be preferred by a workman?
>         . . . When Society has entered on this downward progress, either
>         civilization or liberty must perish.  Either some Caesar or
>         Napoleon will seize the reins of government with a strong hand,
>         or your republic will be as fearfully plundered and laid waste
>         by barbarians in the twentieth century as the Roman Empire in
>         the fifth; with this difference, that the Huns and vandals who
>         ravaged the Roman Empire came from without, and that your Huns
>         and vandals will have been engendered within your country, by
>         your own institutions.
> 
> 
>  >How is it that the people of Scandinavia (and the rest of Western Europe, 
> >and the US ) allowed themselves to be decieved into accepting democratic 
> >socialism IF [when] it was clearly contrary to their best interests?

The question as it was posed presumed that humans are usually irrational 
as voters.  However, the very same people who expose this point of view
frequently adher to a theory assuming that peoples behavior may be 
explained as the rational pursuit of their objectives.

As I see it, this theory must assume that some objectives (like 
consumption of goods, assuring education of children, protecting
health) are rational and some are not.  The envy of "workmen"
would be irrational.  What about power, fame, status etc.?
These would be characteristic "irrational" objectives of the
well-to-do.  Still, they influence the economical and political
decisions as well.  My claim is that the contemporary free-market
economics is based on flawed assumptions on human nature, or, more
plausibly, on a value judgement similar to Macaulay's: "socialist"
motives (like egalitarian impulses) are labelled "irrational",
striving for power and status is labelled "rational".

P.B.