The problem for ‘dissident economics’

I have no problems with arguments made over a long period against capitalism.  I find much of my own reasoning in this area moral.  I believe in freedom, so I find allowing individuals to amass wealth that defies equality of opportunity and equality  under law wrong.  This, of course, is not the end of the argument, as in most civilized attempts at ‘communism’, vile parties arise screwing freedom even better than ‘money’.  We write off the vile Sino-Soviet ‘experiments’ at our peril.  Plato’s communism was to be based on slavery.

Freedom is a very difficult concept.  We want it for our children, but do not leave them free to test out fire or strangers.  Argument on human rights do not ‘ground’ – they tend to deconstruction.  We cannot, even in argument, create a perfect society.  Even Plato admitted his elaborate training and precaution would eventually fall to corruption.

Dissident economics really only point to how ignorant we are and how consumed we are in false consciousness.  We are perhaps sophisticated enough now to recognise that transforming consciousness is a danger.  One can teach the management speak of this, in which leaders are key players in creating reality for others.  Hardly democratic stuff. Dissident arguments often seek to establish a new consensus, but consensus is not what we think.  It’s an animal system, not one of free thought.  The dissident economist has as much chance as the dissident cockroach wiped out by its fellows in the hygiene of consensus.

What we might offer is genuinely different, practical operating systems that evade banks and traditional leadership costs, in order to expose the extent of the parasite, and see if we can form another capital and people who understand what this is (this is happening to some extent).  Yet hierarchy and other biologically built-in patterns emerge.  What we are trying to deal with is both animal and mad.  I suspect any real change can only come by getting rid of the ballot box and extending voting to matters that matter on a world basis.  Dialogue on this is almost impossible, challenging real power.

Currently, we can’r keep Rooney at Manchester United or bwankers in Britain without allowing massive salaries and bonuses.  The answer is a genuinely international competition, that can enforce salary caps.  The economic question is how they keep us from such a society.  Technology and knowledge have changed and I see little on how we might change our arguments as as result.  Instead, we are on the march to war.