>
> > Anyone who uses the winners/losers biological
> > evolution argument for the development of human society
> > is ready to blame the failures of social structure
> > on human characteristics, and ready to condemn
> > sections of society, rather than to condenm
> > inefficient social structures. A straight
> > and sinister road to fascism.
>
> Interesting thought but the economists who wrote the "Winner Take All Society"
> define this issue in the reverse. The ones pushing Winner/Loser or Social
> Darwinian "Creative Greed" solutions blame the social governmental structures
> as not
> being efficient in their very nature. According to them, only the private
> companies
> that have to live by the free market "natural selection" competitive process
> have the
> potential for efficiency, which is often interchanged with "productivity"
> although
> that is a confusing use of the two words.
>
Because they think without the intrusion of govrnments,
the winners/losers separation would be more perfect
for them. So that they can blame then every ill
on just their "inefficiently evolved" victims.
...
>
> The propaganda of the left is amply criticized in the media in the West but a
> truly
> non-military economic competition between structures of the far left and right
> has never
> happened so we can't really call Capitalism, Socialisms, Communism or any other
>
> economic ism scientific or Darwinian in that sense IMO.
>
you lost me here. Just because they haven't competed,
doesn't mean we cannot draw conclusions, even scientific
conclusions. Your examples that I deleted show the shortcomings
of the competitive setup for sustainability and R&D.
Even just these two problems cannot be solved
based on market compotition system and there are more
such fatal flows. So surely, you try to achieve
a society without these flaws.
>
> As Ed Weick pointed out last year on this list. Such "scientific" economic
> writings as Marx and others are less science and more philosophy in spite of
> the Complexity Engineer's love of Huyek's writing structures. If I remember
> right Ed said that they didn't really qualify being called Economists in the
> modern scientific sense. But Ed will have to say whether my memory is correct
> or just all in my head.
>
I find Marx's analysis scientific, because he manages
to point out the features of capitalism that
are unable to achieve a balanced economical
and social development. It makes sense to leave
them out from a future structure. This
is what he proposed with very good reasoning, using all
the historical and scientific data he had.
That he had also had the philosophical support of
dialectic materialism is just an extra plus.
Eva
> REH
>
>
>
