and should be more efficient than pure market societies because they avoid wasteful competition (10). The Record vs. Ideology Table 1 summarizes some of the arguments in the ideological debate. For arguments based on history we must remember a key fact: neither market nor collective societies began as democracies, nor was achievement of Western-style democracy a primary goal of any society until recently. Track records of both market and collectivist societies are quite mixed, making judgments as to their innate democratic virtues or lack thereof very arguable. We find plenty of rhetoric, but little proof. Nor is the record on “efficiency” entirely clear. We know that collectivist economies can produce prodigiously in selected areas, and that market societies often resort to governmental enterprise in “crash programs.” But in collectivist societies there is always some degree of decentralized, private market activity, from Soviet or Chinese “garden plots” to the large market sectors in Sweden. There are in fact no pure cases of large, long-term market or collectivist economies to support empirical proof of superior efficiency for either system. Indeed, it has proven impossible to agree on criteria by which to evaluate efficiency, given different premises in basic ideologies. It can be shown that markets have their foibles, and that government is essential to provide the framework without which the market cannot work — as Adam Smith himself accepted. Experience shows that private interests may pursue self-interest to the point of violating the spirit and practice of the market model, creating monopolies or capturing government agencies and manipulating them to avoid the market. Often this is done with rhetorical flourishes about “preserving the free market,” as in the recent case of the Great Chrysler Bail-Out. In societies dominated by the market ideology, government is frequently assigned tasks which the private sector cannot or will not do but which are in the general interest. It has been asserted by skeptics that private business skims the profitable cream, leaves the unprofitable dregs to government, and then points to deficit-ridden government programs as “proof' of the superiority of the market. Or government may finance expensive front-end investment in research and development, thus removing or reducing much of the risk associated with entrepreneurial enterprise. SI is an excellent illustration of precisely this pattern. It will be noted that the previous paragraph refers to a ‘general interest,” as distinct from individual interests. The market ideologue will reply that this is a nonsense formulation: there is no such thing as a general interest, unless we are willing to define the general interest as whatever results from the working of the market, the adding-up of individual interests. For government to declare something “in the general interest” is a tyrannous act, denying the democratic right of the individual to choose for himself. (Note: exception is made for a “general interest” in national defense, enforcement of contracts, “law and order,” and of course the preservation of the market.) But collectivists assert that a major purpose of government is to define “general interests” and to pursue them on behalf of its citizens. If defined by a democratic process, these “general interests” are legitimate and binding upon all members of the society, and take precedence over any “market” workings or outcomes. There is a further difficulty: the market responds attentively and “democrati-
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTU5NjU0Mg==