Commentary: On December 2, 2011 me and my blog were excoriated by a young "conservative" named Mike, who wanted to give me a hiding for my communist views on "unregulated" capitalism. He called me or more precisely my views "ridiculous" I'll let you decide who is ridiculous.
His tirade was quite lengthy so I am going to publish my response in nine parts under my:
"A Series of Letters from the Left to the Right: Dear Mike part 1-9.
Since his attack was full of vitriol I have taken off the gloves as I see no point of entertaining his bombastic rhetoric. In that vein I have used a graphic that is more in keeping with his more antagonistic tone.
He started with my "Thought for the Day" which are intended as a tongue in cheek rebuff of current obtuse conservative thinking. That will serve as Part 1-4 of my responses.
Parts 5-9 are in-response to the object of his real disdain—my critique of Adam Smith Re-examined.
I have color coded my blog post that he 'critiqued in red—his critique in blue—and my response to his critique in black.
On December 2, 2011, by Mike (last name unknown) responded to my blog
PART 2 Dear Mike, "A Series of Letters from the Left to the Right"
If Capitalism is the principle upon which we were founded— did our forefathers die for The United Corporations of America?
Not really, they died for a Constitutionally-limited federal government with specific enumerated powers that did not mandate which corporations you had to do business with, did not bail out businesses, and generally left everyone alone.
Dear Mike, At one point in your rebuttal you say: This guy can’t tell the difference between a free-market Capitalist and a crony capitalist, or monopolist. Not true, but, because there is not much difference between them—I choose to ignore the minuscule difference you find so compelling, but there is a glaring difference that you don't get—it's the difference between Capitalism and Representational Democracy which you seem to hate and are constantly attacking as the "government" the foundation of which, is the Constitution.
If you had stopped at "they died for a Constitutionally-limited federal government with specific enumerated powers" that's a rather dull but, acceptable answer, but then you add, "that did not mandate which corporations you had to do business with, did not bail out businesses" Your tortured logic aside. The Constitution doesn't say anything about capitalism being the economic model that had to be followed.
The point is there are many capitalists who equate Capitalism with Representational Democracy—treat them as though they are one and the same. When I have challenged capitalists and pointed out flaws of "unregulated" capitalism—I have been labeled anti-American, unpatriotic, a liberal, a socialist and a communist.
Nothing is further from the truth.
Its human nature to question the things we rely on the most, that's what always drives humans to reinvent everything that touches their lives and try to improve on them. That includes "unregulated" capitalism.
Because in the final analysis, all men are flawed in their thinking—and all products of their thinking are flawed. Therefore all ideologies of men are flawed. Scientific, spiritual, economic, and political. The human mind can not anticipate all the variables that surround him or all the variables that his mind cannot perceive—at best he can detect patterns from which he can extrapolate some but not all outcomes.
Scientific, economic, spiritual and political theory are at best—attempts to control the world of chaos that surrounds us—and eliminate as much of the uncertainty as we can. We attempt to "regulate" the chaos.
As a scientific theory E=MC2 is brilliant but, even it, explains only a small percentage of the known universe and when pushed to its extreme limits seems to fall apart.
Communism was deeply flawed an unsustainable theory which combined a unified economic and political theory. On the other hand, American Republicanism and Capitalism are two separate theories. One is—economic the other is political—they are ideologies that work in symbiosis, but under deeper analysis—are—at their extremes the antithesis of one another.
Democratic Republicanism guarantees the rights of individuals by choosing who represents "our" best interests and regulating the eventual conflict between competing interests. Unregulated Capitalism promotes self interests without regard for the interests of others.
Like Communism—Capitalism as a theory, when pressed to its ultimate logical conclusion—is unsustainable. It consumes everything and "conserves nothing." An obvious irony lost on the ultra right wing "conservatives."
Even more ironic, is that the "unregulated" consequences of both ideologies—in their final extremes, enslave the people and take away their liberties. One through brute force the other through economic enslavement. And both contain the seeds of demise for their political hosts. A critique of "Unregulated" Capitalism does not make me a socialist or communist.
I am an apologist for neither ideology. Only a critical observer of both—especially when they attack the foundation of "our government" and the Constitution".
So the real question is: Are Unregulated Capitalism and American Democratic Republicanism one and the same and therefore inseparable—as the ultra right unregulated free trading capitalists would have us believe?
The answer is no!
They are not inseparable! And a critique of one is not an attack on the other.
The real problem I have is between "regulated' and "unregulated" capitalism.
Ayn Rand styled, Darwinistic unregulated capitalism leads to economic anarchism—the recent history of the banking failure is proof. Which you dismissed as some kind of leap of logic—thereby glossing over the most devastating financial meltdown since the Great Depression by ignoring the preponderance of evidence to the contrary.
In another comment you called me a "statist"
In the Federalist #10 written by James Madison the second most brilliant of the founders, said:
"So strong is this propensity of mankind to fall into mutual animosities, that where no substantial occasion presents itself, the most frivolous and fanciful distinctions have been sufficient to kindle their unfriendly passions and excite their most violent conflicts. But the most common and durable source of factions has been the various and unequal distribution of property. Those who hold and those who are without property have ever formed distinct interests in society. Those who are creditors, and those who are debtors, fall under a like discrimination. A landed interest, a manufacturing interest, a mercantile interest, a moneyed interest, with many lesser interests, grow up of necessity in civilized nations, and divide them into different classes, actuated by different sentiments and views. The regulation of these various and interfering interests forms the principal task of modern legislation, and involves the spirit of party and faction in the necessary and ordinary operations of the government."
To put it more succinctly—the prime function of government as stated—is the "regulation of factions" or in modern jargon "special interests"—if my agreement with James Madison about the necessity for regulation—makes me a "statist" I wear that label proudly, as a mark of distinction and a badge of honor.
Finally Madison's words fly in the face of your contrived cockamamy idea that the government should leave you alone and unregulated.
This is the end of PART 2