independent action without restraint. Government is rarely seen, or if visible may be portrayed as the dark force for whom the bad guys work. But when Isabella said yes, Columbus' voyage became a government project. Most great New World explorations were under government charter; many colonies or enterprises were either bankrolled by government or established under government grant and protection. Trade was taxed and controlled, as tea leaves in Boston Harbor reminded citizens of both England and the colonies. Capitalist free enterprise was unusual in 1492; even by 1776, when Adam Smith wrote The Wealth of Nations, the “invisible hand” was indeed invisible in all but a very few national economies (2). Much international trade in those times was conducted by chartered monopolies like the British East India Company, an organization with virtually governmental powers. Indeed, historians refer to this period as one of merchantilism; use of government power to develop trade for the benefit of the State. When the great rival empires, Spain and Portugal, needed help to resolve their disputes over territory in the New World they went to the one great international organization of their time, the Catholic Church, for authoritative settlement of their claims. Nor can we ignore the continuing attempts, some successful, by new “have not” nations (England, the Dutch) to push their way into new worlds and new markets. There were indeed great leaders, important private companies, and plenty of daring deeds — and of collective endeavors as well. The US Government financed and controlled NASA program, combining government and private enterprise, is very much in the mainstream of patterns for frontier development (3). So are the European space program, privately-financed space programs, and the efforts of less developed nations to somehow assure themselves pieces of the action. What then is the ideological argument all about? Ideology and Policy Americans attribute Soviet economic problems to the pernicious influence of Communist ideology, which warps the ‘natural laws' of economics into inefficient shapes. In their turn, Marxist scholars have proven, to their satisfaction, that capitalists are prisoners of a “false consciousness” (ideology) created by capitalist relationships of production. Marxists usually admit that they subscribe to an ideology — which they may hold to be the only correct ideology — but Americans proudly claim to be nonideological pragmatists (!), concerned only with what works. Individuals will usually admit, if pressed, that perhaps some of their views are colored by ideological perspectives, but rarely do we admit the pervasiveness of ideology. A considerable literature exists to describe the scope and power of belief systems, all indicating that few people truly understand their own motives and values. Reality perception is largely determined by that information which makes it past a mental complex of data filters and coding systems created by education and experience, sometimes reinforced by ceremonies and symbols expressly manipulated by the society to strengthen the belief system (e.g., pledges of allegiance, national anthems, “junior achievement” or “Young Communist” training) (4). When belief systems are confronted by contradictory information people are uncomfortable and seek resolution of this “cognitive dissonance” (5) but alteration of basic beliefs is strongly resisted. Other adaptations will be made if possible, leading to rationalizations and such pathologies as “devil theory” in which problems are blamed on evil forces (“intervening variables”?) rather than the harder path of examining one's own possible flaws (6). Soviet explanations for their problems focus on capitalist plots or
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTU5NjU0Mg==