« Legalize Organ Sales | Main | Bonus podcast on health care costs» Russell Roberts
November 14, 2007
"Christ, Marx, Wood, and Wei Led Us to this Perfect Day"
Don Boudreaux
Ira Levin died on Monday. One of his least-known works is one of my favorite novels: This Perfect Day, first published in 1970. It's in the same genre as Orwell's 1984 and Animal Farm, and Huxley's Brave New World. In my opinion, This Perfect Day should be ranked with these three important classics that do so much to make readers feel in their guts the dangers of collectivism.
Posted by Don Boudreaux in Books | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/23120/23348928
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference "Christ, Marx, Wood, and Wei Led Us to this Perfect Day":
Comments
What a blast from the past! I read this years and years ago and completely forgot the title it until now. It's a GREAT book.
Posted by: The other Eric | Nov 14, 2007 3:07:49 PM
This book appears to be out of print. Other than trusting to get it online through Amazon, not my favorite way to go, any suggestions on how to obtain a copy? Many thanks.
Posted by: Chicagoan | Nov 14, 2007 5:43:54 PM
Amazon works. I've bought out-of-print books through them before -- they seem to be partnered with a bunch of used book retailers, and the business is quite legit.
Posted by: cpurick | Nov 14, 2007 8:08:20 PM
My local (Democratic Socialist Peoples Republic of Boulder) library had it. I checked it out after seeing it mentioned on some other blog and found it unreadable.
Posted by: Bruce H. | Nov 15, 2007 12:17:46 PM
Seems a bit "Orwellian" to suggest Orwells novels were specifically about the dangers of collectivism. I'm quite certain this is a mis-characterization.
“ The Spanish war and other events in 1936-37 turned the scale and thereafter I knew where I stood. Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism, as I understand it. ”
George Orwell
The fact is we are all living to our benefit in a society that is far more properly considered a collective or a social democracy which Orwell's supported. Likewise he seemed opposed concentrations of power and wealth and their ties to fascism.
Posted by: muirgeo | Nov 15, 2007 2:22:02 PM
Thanks for the thread. Somehow I had missed Levin although I somewhat follow writers and literature. It happens.
His obituary in the paper this morning amazed me. I will certainly locate That Perfect Day. According to other comments it isn't for everyone.
Posted by: K | Nov 15, 2007 3:06:10 PM
Okay muirduck,
You let your gushing little girl emotions rush you into writing when you should have been reading....I mean really reading, muirduck, not just looking at words.
In your halting limited intellectual way please tell us all how you drew your response (exhibit B) from reading Don's blog comments (exhibit A)
Exhibit A: (Don)
"It's in the same genre as Orwell's 1984 and Animal Farm, and Huxley's Brave New World. In my opinion, This Perfect Day should be ranked with these three important classics that do so much to make readers feel in their guts the dangers of collectivism."
Exhibit B: (muirduck)
"Seems a bit "Orwellian" to suggest Orwells novels were specifically about the dangers of collectivism. I'm quite certain this is a mis-characterization."
If you can find anything remotely relating to democratic socialism in 1984 or Animal Farm, enlighten us.
Perhaps you chewed on too many of those chinese painted toys in your childhood, I understand from reading Roman history that lead destroys the mind first.
Posted by: vidyohs | Nov 15, 2007 9:27:22 PM
Muirego,
Don't you find it strange that fascism, in the last century, always succeeded socialism? Do you think that it would have been possible for maniacs to seize power over a state that had none to begin with?
And, please do remind me which corporate alliance was it that brought Stalin, Mussolini and Hitler to power?
Oh, yeah, I guess all those people who supported them on the way in weren't doing it to create new peaceful collective societies, but just greedy businessmen looking out for their self interests.
Nazi.. was is "national socialist", or "national alliance of zionist industrialists"?
Posted by: Wojtek Grabski | Nov 16, 2007 10:09:28 AM
Do you think that it would have been possible for maniacs to seize power over a state that had none to begin with?
Posted by: Wojtek Grabski
Do you think that statement makes practical sense? Have you ever heard of a state with NO power and NO ONE stepping in to fill the void??? How would that work? Can you site one example throughout all of recorded history? Again libertarian forms of government DO NOT exist in a natural state. They decay into something worse EVER TIME!
The non-sensical nature of your statement is why the power needs to rest with the people (NOT with the Corporations or monied interest) and why Orwell was in favor, IN HIS OWN WORDS, of democratic socialism over libertarianism.
Libertarian leads to corporatism which leads to fascism...every time weather it's a dictatorship, a banana republic or a totalitarian state...THOSE are the end products of libertarianism that Orwell wrote against.
Posted by: muirgeo | Nov 16, 2007 10:22:52 AM
I think Orwell made the same mistake of oversight that you're making. "People" does not equal "government".
I don't know how many times someone has to say this to you so that it sinks in. Monied interest has NO power without the ability to purchase government. And the more power government has, the more of it is up for sale. Do you disagree with that?
Also, nobody (I hope) here is advocating a completely anarchist society. But do pay mind to the fact that all of the horrific regimes resulted from your version of "the people" having more power than they do in the west. Germany was the shining light of Europe before things went horribly wrong, Marx rode to power on "the people" train, as did Mussolini. Can you at least entertain the notion that by advocating "power to the people", NO MATTER HOW WELL INTENTIONED, you are advocating power to the greedy, corrupt bureaucrats that always seize it, and then put it up for sale to the highest bidder?
I don't care what unique system you have in mind where this inevitability has been removed. I can assure you, it has been thought of before, and it has made things worse.
All we are saying, is that any increase in state power has to be assumed to result in an increase in the misuse of that power and its sale to special interests, at the expense of everyone else. Period. Doesn't matter whether that increase happens in one branch of government or fifty, if a "special commissioner of government integrity" reads over all the policy, if an "independet commission for the virtuous action of government" has to approve all the laws, or if Socialists, Communists, Democrats, Republicans, or Liberatarians are in power.
We advocate less of all of them, and more in the hands of people, not through government, but in their everyday actions. Without the ability to use force to coerce others, and so with no power for sale to anyone.
Unless, of course, you're one of those select individuals who receive a daily from visit from the Walmart police, who take you at gunpoint each day to make your purchases -- then I agree with you that evil corporations wield to much power outside of that which they get from corrupt bureaucrats.
Posted by: Wojtek Grabski | Nov 16, 2007 10:43:11 AM
We advocate less of all of them, and more in the hands of people, not through government, but in their everyday actions. Without the ability to use force to coerce others, and so with no power for sale to anyone.
Posted by: Wojtek Grabski
This is totally unteneable....A fairy tale. How do you believe what you say can actually work??? Either you have anarchy or you have a government. If you have a government it will need to use force to enforce its laws or its simply a matter of time until a militia takes over and enforces its rules.
The government needs to be held accountable by the electorate and not by people with money. The way to weaken the government is to return power to the people by taking away all ability for money to corrupt the system. If the elected officials our truly representing the people and not only those with money the corruption will decrease.
The current trends of increased money influence on policy, government secrecy and constitutional abuses are the wrong way to go. We are on a path to an Orwellian society because of those with money and their corrupting influence.
You sound like you have no true solution and indeed are asking for MORE of the same that will lead us to an authoritarian society all because you want a tax cut.
Posted by: muirgeo | Nov 16, 2007 1:04:33 PM
I believe the point is that you can say all you want that there is some magical way to separate monied interests from corrupting politics, but there is no example at any time in history of that actually happening. Why? Because it is impossible.
WG was correct in saying that the more power government has, the more it invites intervention by monied interests. That is the way it is in even the most democratic and in the most communistic states.
Posted by: Reach Upward | Nov 16, 2007 1:32:17 PM
You believe that the problem is the influence of money, and in that you are partially right, but you extend that to claim that the fix is to remove the influence directly by forcing it out. What you are not seeing, and what should be evident, is that corruption is a trait of all government and the more power it has, the more corrupt it becomes. There is no way to deal with it but to remove the power of individuals to coerce others -- as much as possible while still maintaining law and order.
Now, you rightly point out that removal of one power might result in it being seized by others. So you say that an absence of government will lead to a militia seizing power and.. what? Forming a government? Isn't that funny that the worst case scenario for you is that one government is replaced with another -- perhaps one you disagree with?
How about this possibility (a good measure of which already exists in the west): a government that is strong enough to exist and provide those services that people deem necessary -- i.e., courts, roads, protection of property (individual functions up for debate), but severely limited in its power by a stronger constitution than that which exists today? You will, I am sure, concede that there already exists a wide range of government power across the world; what then is the problem with reducing its power over it's citizens further? Are we really at the apex? Any less and we descend into chaos?
The truest test of government is to ask yourself this question: "Do you trust your government in the hands of people whose views you find morally objectionable?"
My suspicion is that you don't think about this problem directly, but you somehow hope that if you force the removal of corruption (even if such a thing were possible), the people you disagree with might not come to power at all. Let me reassure you, no matter what you do, no matter how you fight corruption, two things you can always be sure of:
1. People who you abhore will come to power OFTEN.
2. When in power, they will use every means at their disposal to further their private, morally reprehensible, goals.
I'm not even going to touch the problem of morally sound individuals using all that power to try to do good; the difference between one and the other is just a matter of political persuasion.
I can guess a few things you dislike about the Bush administration, e.g.,
snooping on citizens
sending the army abroad to kill on behalf of its citizens
coercion of media, etc.
Consider these solutions:
no power of government to snoop on its citizens
no power to collect money for the military from any citizen who has a problem with the legitimacy of the conflict
no right to censor anything
Please explain to me how these solutions would increase corruption and lead to fascism and chaos?
Posted by: Wojtek Grabski | Nov 16, 2007 1:51:46 PM
"What you are not seeing, and what should be evident, is that corruption is a trait of all government and the more power it has, the more corrupt it becomes."
Wojtek
I'm not trying to be argumentative but this is a fine and important point that you keep glossing over.
We both agree we need some government as anarchy doesn't work. So who better to be in charge then the citizens. If not the citizens who? Diffusing power through the citizens decreases corruption and spreads out power. We need more democracy not less.
Posted by: muirgeo | Nov 16, 2007 3:27:13 PM
Ah, but there's the crux of the disagreement. Democracy means people vote some schmuck into power, schmuck sells policy to friends. And the more power you grant to that schmuch, i.e., "the holy majority" the worse it becomes, because that schmuck then has more power to sell. No way around this problem. I know you don't believe this; you believe democracy means some uncorrupted representation -- I want to assure you, this does not exist. Moreover, the additional powers that you think might help it come about, such as oversight, commissioners, ombudsmen, are just more corrupt people, with more power to sell.
The only solution is to 1) have more schmucks wielding no increased power collectively (diffuse is a little), 2) make that schmuck only have power over those willing to have it imposed on them.
I struggled with this question for a long time; I support military intervention on principle, but i find it inexcusable that someone should have to pay for killing foreigners if they don't support the cause. The only alternative I can imagine, that would work, is to have the government engage only in local defensive operations, and having funding only given to the military with explicit consent from every individual, i.e., you want to support he military, check this box.
It's true that less people might do it, but it would remove possibility that this horrific power be wielded on behalf of those who oppose it -- what better solution can you see?
W.r.t. taxation, no matter what you think of it, and whatever term you come up to describe it, such as "payment for social contract", taking, by force, from those who do not wish to give is theft. Period. Now, you can argue over the aims, but the means are still objectionable. Additionally, making one person pay for the choices of another is wrong - just as it is wrong to steal someone's car because you need to go get groceries. If you can describe for me the difference between that and collective theft, you're welcome to try.
Posted by: Wojtek Grabski | Nov 16, 2007 4:39:32 PM
"Democracy means people vote some schmuck into power, schmuck sells policy to friends. "
My gosh you are cynical of humanity. I do not think 50% of my fellow countrymen are smucks. If I did I'd be on your side too.
Ideally democracy means you vote in a Jefferson, a Lincoln, a Roosevelt (Teddy or FDR), a JFK or an Eisenhower.... a Ron Paul or a Barak Obama. I think the smucks come cause money over powers the true leaders the voters would put in if their wishes were honored.
But just think about your proposal to strictly limit the powers of government. How are you going to do it. As far as I know you have 2 choices...the vote or force. Which do you choose?
Posted by: muirgeo | Nov 16, 2007 5:55:20 PM
Not claiming it's at all likely that any of what I suggest will happen; but that doesn't speak at all as to whether it's the better option.
As to the proportions of decent people, that's not really an issue -- I believe a vast majority of people are decent. The questions you need to answer is.. what portion of people in politics are decent, what portion are there just for the influence? Can you tell just by watching them on TV? Also, what will a decent person who is very strong in his convictions do to stay in power if 1) he knows the next guy is morally reprehensible, and, 2) the thing he must do is less reprehensible and likely to help him stay to achieve his political goals? What would you do? If you knew that the difference between achieving your agenda, or your opponent achieving his, was merely who paid to keep your campaign afloat? And if you did them a few favours in return?
Would you trade the welfare of your country, and what I presume you believe to be the lives of many people for something as silly as political cleanliness (which doesn't exist anyway)? Would you lie to the electorate if it meant swinging just a couple of percent of people to your side and letting you do "the right thing"? How 'white' of a lie would it take? How strong are your political convictions?
I'm not saying I would, but rather that I would avoid having to make that choice. It's wrong to have any individual be let in a position where such a choice results in real consequences for a vast number of others.
Posted by: Wojtek Grabski | Nov 16, 2007 9:41:32 PM
Poor muirduck, so obvious, and so thoroughly known by this blog's readers and participants.
It truly becomes entertaining just like watching the village idiot dance to the tune he alone hears.
Posted by: vidyohs | Nov 16, 2007 10:24:16 PM
One other thing, muirgeo, if you think you would withstand the pressure. How about having to face that decision week-in, and week-out. And then being the noble character you are, you always take the honorable route; But your opponent does not. He takes all the money and makes all the moral concessions. And just keeps on winning victory after victory at the polls, because people just can't tell the difference between you and him on the TV!
Each election you see his influence creep. His funds seem never to end, but people have ceased to bet on you because, well, you just never win. It doesn't matter that you have trash on him, because everyone hears about corruption all the time, so they tune it out. Worse, they all think you're corrupt too! The public cries for an oversight committee; they get one, the majority favour your opponent. Now not only are you losing, but people think you're a sore loser, and a sniveling accusatory liar.
So, now where do you stand. The lone, honorable politician. The honest, uncompromising, well-intentioned one. The loser.
How long until you cave? How long before you see the sacrifice of your career, your health, and your money a complete waste?
How long do you think you would last, and how much faith do you think a party with millions riding on a win would place on your uncompromising shoulders?
Now tell me how many politicians you think could possibly be honest.
Posted by: Wojtek Grabski | Nov 16, 2007 11:12:50 PM
"Ideally democracy means you vote in a Jefferson, a Lincoln, a Roosevelt (Teddy or FDR), a JFK or an Eisenhower.... a Ron Paul or a Barak Obama. I think the smucks come cause money over powers the true leaders the voters would put in if their wishes were honored." - Muirgeo
In between and after some of those 'ideal-to-Muirgeo' politicians were (among others): Jackson, Harding, Johnson, Nixon, Carter, Reagan, Clinton, and Bush; and I'm sure there are at least three in that list that Muirgeo detests, and I know there are three that I detest. The difference is that when Lyndon, Jimmy, and Billy were elected, I didn't assume that they stole the elections as Muirgeo implies happens ("I think the smucks come cause money over powers the true leaders...") when his guys lose. And because I believe Clinton was elected fair and square, I understand that the only way to limit the damage a Clinton can do is to limit the power ALL politicians have.
But, Muirgeo believes in the dictatorship of the proletariat, unless the proletariat wants to tax him to build roads.
Posted by: brotio | Nov 17, 2007 1:25:55 AM
Yes, complete democracy. Unless, of course, the majority don't hold the same views as you do -- which must mean they've been duped by the lying scoundrels.
A 'progressive' member of my lab told me recently that what makes something right is whether the majority thinks that it is so; and that if they made a decision, she would cede to their will -- even if she disagreed. I didn't think to bring up Nazi Germany because i was busy scraping by bottom jaw off the floor.
Posted by: Wojtek Grabski | Nov 17, 2007 11:37:08 AM
The comments to this entry are closed.
