My Reply to an Advocate of Democratic SocialismSubmitted by Shaka on Mon, 09/15/2008 - 14:28
At Debate Politics I had the following exchange with an avowed socialist, Mentork. There, I am “Onion Eater,” not “Shaka.”
I am not a communist, and I agree the Soviet Union was an evil dictatorship that killed hundreds of thousands of people.
But, I still think we should be a socialist nation, we are a republic, and that's why we can do it right.
And what are your thoughts on a compromise, like a social democracy?
“If some demagogue were to offer us, as a guiding creed, the following tenets: that statistics should be substituted for truth, vote-counting for principles, numbers for rights, and public polls for morality – that pragmatic, range-of-the-moment expediency should be the criterion of a country’s interests, and that the number of its adherents should be the criterion of an idea’s truth or falsehood – that any desire of any nature whatsoever should be accepted as a valid claim, provided that it is held by a sufficient number of people – that a majority may do anything it pleases to a minority – in short, gang rule and mob rule – if a demagogue were to offer it, he would not get very far. Yet all of it is contained in – and camouflaged by – the notion of ‘Government by Consensus’…
“The advocates of that notion would declare at this point that any idea which permits no compromise constitutes ‘extremism’ – that any form of ‘extremism,’ any uncompromising stand, is evil – that the consensus ‘sprawls’ only over those ideas which are amenable to ‘moderation’ – and that ‘moderation’ is the supreme virtue, superseding reason and morality.
“This is the clue to the core, essence, motive, and real meaning of the doctrine of ‘Government by Consensus’: the cult of compromise. Compromise is the pre-condition, the necessity, the imperative of a mixed economy. The ’consensus’ doctrine is an attempt to translate the brute facts of a mixed economy into an ideological – or anti-ideological – system and to provide them with a semblance of justification…
“The only danger, to a mixed economy, is any not-to-be-compromised value, virtue, or idea. The only threat is any uncompromising person, group, or movement. The only enemy is integrity.”
Source: Any Rand, Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, 1967, pp. 228-232.
If any DPers would like to join this discussion, please do. You will find Debate Politics to be a lively, civil forum with a variety of viewpoints. I posted Is the collapse of the dollar inevitable? two weeks ago and it has received 622 visitors and 37 comments.
People’s political lean and party affiliation are posted in their public profile. There are about a dozen libertarians, including myself. Mentork is a newbie who leans very liberal. There is a pseudo-intellectual called Scucca who is a socialist, and a rude one at that. I crushed him in a previous thread and he is punishing me with his silence – Thank God! – at the quoted thread, in spite of his having previously called GE Theory “capitalist hegemonic invention,” which I clearly disagree with.