Re: Keeping focus after the WTO

[Rod Hay <rodhay@xxxxxxxxxx>]

There is a strand of thought in economic history that backs Nathan's point.
Comparison of Argentina, Canada and Australia, look for differences to explain
the different paths of development. All have similar resource bases, all had
close economic ties with England, but Canada and Australia developed but
Argentina didn't. One thing that has been pointed to is the much more equal
distribution of land in Canada and Australia. A more equal distribution creates
a larger domestic market and higher domestic savings rates.

Nathan Newman wrote:

> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-pen-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > [mailto:owner-pen-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Carrol Cox
>
> > No doubt. But equality is a tricky concept. In traditional
> > liberal thought, for example, it is often argued that equality and
> democracy are
> > incompatible, that the drive for equality dissolves freedom. And
> (depending on how, in
> > actual practice, "freedom" and "equality" are defined) there is an element
> > of truth in that argument. (Others have argued, and I would agree, that
> > equality is a precondition of freedom, but in terms of getting there the
> > contradictions posed by bourgeois idealogues still are very real.)
>
> I go by the old stand-bys: freedom without equality is just privilege.
> Socialism is the pursuit of the universalization of privilege where freedom
> is privilege made universal.  In fact, the fight for democratic reform has
> always been one of taking privileges of the elite -- their definition of
> freedom -- and making them universal.
>
> > Also, note that I did not include in my short list of forms of
> > authoritarianism that exercised by a revolutionary movement. That would
> have moved me
> > from posing questions to writing recipes for the cookshops of the future.
>
> But those forms of authoritarianism are exactly at issue, since the Right
> wants to argue that "their" authoritarianism is better and the only
> alternative.  And a lot of Leftists fall into the debate on those terms
> feeling that if "their" left authoritarians are attacked, that means that by
> definition capitalist authoritarianism is being defended.
>
> The point is to argue that it is equality that drives progress -- economic,
> political and cultural -- and the debate is over how best to pursue that.
> This changes the map of debate quite a bit, since it focuses on the
> occasional successes of authoritarianism not as an end in itself but as
> merely a contingent means that happened on equality as a means.  But that
> also implies that equality without authoritarianism would do the job as
> well.
>
> -- Nathan Newman

--
Rod Hay
rodhay@xxxxxxxxxx
The History of Economic Thought Archive
http://socserv2.mcmaster.ca/~econ/ugcm/3ll3/index.html
Batoche Books
http://members.tripod.com/rodhay/batochebooks.html
http://www.abebooks.com/home/BATOCHEBOOKS/
52 Eby Street South
Kitchener, Ontario
N2G 3L1
Canada