“소득주도성장 정책 중 최저임금 인상은 임금근로자와 저소득층 등 일부에 영향을 준 것이고 나머지 정책들이 수없이 많기 때문에 정책효과를 바로 규정 짓기는 어렵다" --- 세계일보
세계일보에서는 위의 기사 소제목을 <정책 효과 오래 걸려>로 뽑았다. 그러니까 장하성의 변명은 소득주도 성장이 효과를 내려면 몇 년을 기다려야 한다는 것이다.
하지만 자유주의 정책을 쓰면 당장 다음 달부터 효과를 볼 수 있다. 최저 임금을 철폐하고, 고용주와 피고용인 사이에 그들의 계약에 따라 시간당 천원이든 만원이든 정하게 한다면, 그 효과는 다음 달에 당장 볼 수가 있다.
또 기업가들에게 노동자와 동등한 권리를 주어서, 파업에 대해 공장 폐쇄나 대체 근로자 투입 등을 하게 한다면, 경기 활성화가 금방 눈에 띄게 나타날 것이다. 그런데 이런 분명한 정책들을 모두 버리고, 부작용과 역효과만 나는 소득주도 성장을 고집하는 이유는?
------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------
소셜 미디어에서 언론의 자유를 보장하게 해달라는 백악관 청원. 구글이나 페이스북 등이 우피 언론을 통제하고 있다.
---------------------------------------------------------
나치들은 막시스트는 아니었지만 그들은 사회주의자들이었다.
막시스트 사회주의자들은 이탈리아의 파시스트 사회주의자, 독일의 국가 사회주의자 등과 함께 분류되는 것을 반대하지만, 그들 사이의 차이는 표면적일 뿐이고, 경제적으로 보면 그들은 하나이다.
Nazis Were Not Marxists, but They Were Socialists
Guido Hülsmann
The abject practical failure of the Marxist revolutionaries in the post-WWI period had done much harm to their image as the vanguard of social progress.
The explanation for this failure in the writings of Mises, Max Weber, and Boris Brutzkus had led many economists to revise their views about the suitable scope of government within society. But others remained unrepentant advocates of the total state. They merely rejected the specifically egalitarian agenda of the socialists.
The uncontested leader of this group was Werner Sombart, the greatest star among the interwar economists in Germany. Sombart had started his career popularizing Marxism in academic circles with his 1896 book Sozialismus und soziale Bewegung im 19. Jahrhundert (Socialism and Social Action in the Nineteenth Century).1 Later editions testified to Sombart’s increasing estrangement with his initial Marxist ideals. The tenth edition, which appeared under a new title in 1924, featured an outright demolition of Marxist socialism.2 Sombart had turned back to the mainstream Schmollerite socialism, which advocated the total state without an egalitarian agenda.3
Sombart’s intellectual qualities had gained him a place of preeminence. Where most Marxist intellectuals held dogmatically to the tenets of Marx and Engels, Sombart sought to analyze and develop their doctrines with a critical mind in quest of objectivity. This made his work the perfect target for a thorough criticism of the intellectual current of anti-Marxist socialism, and Mises provided such a criticism in an article with the title “Antimarxismus” (Anti-Marxism).4
Already in his article on price controls, Mises had pointed out that the shortcomings of interventionism did not result from the egalitarian agenda that some governments pursued, but from the very nature of government intervention itself, namely, the infringement of private property rights. Socialism and interventionism were destructive economic systems whether explicitly egalitarian or not. They would be unsuitable forms of social organization even if they pursued some other ideal of distribution—even meritocracy. There might be certain superficial similarities between a free society and a non-egalitarian one controlled by a total state, but these two would still be essentially different:
On the surface the social ideal of etatism does not differ from the social order of capitalism. Etatism does not seek to overthrow the traditional legal order and formally convert all private property in production to public property. . . . But in substance all enterprises are to become government operations. Under this practice, the owners will keep their names and trademarks on the property and the right to an “appropriate” income or one “befitting their ranks.” Every business becomes an office and every occupation a civil service. . . . Prices are set by government, and government determines what is to be produced, how it is to be produced, and in what quantities. There is no speculation, no “extraordinary” profits, no losses. There is no innovation, except for that ordered by government. Government guides and supervises everything.5
Mises showed that the error in the idea of the omnipotent state has nothing to do with the state’s particular agenda. The government is not omnipotent if its goal is to improve “collective life” (as opposed to that of mere aggregates of individuals). But neither is it omnipotent if it seeks to enhance the welfare of the totality of individual citizens. In both cases, government intervention is counterproductive. It follows that the time-honored and seemingly significant distinction between individualism and collectivism is of only secondary importance. The primary distinction is between policies that work and policies that do not work, which leads in turn to the distinction between a social order based on private property (which works) and those social orders that depend on infringements of private property rights (and do not work). It is therefore beside the point whether individuals or collectives run the economy—provided only that the property rights of all individual members of the collectives are preserved. It also follows that the size of the firm is of no importance. As long as private property is respected, the buying decisions of the consumers reward only those companies that offer the best products. If these companies are larger than others, so be it.6
Mises emphasized this fact against the doctrines of Dietzel, Karl Pribram, and Spann, which had a great influence on interwar political thought in Germany and, after World War II, in the wider western world. Dietzel and Pribram sided with individualism, whereas Spann championed collectivism, but they all agreed that these were the ultimate categories and that all political points of view derived from them.7 Mises disagreed.
He argued that there was a point of view that was derived from neither individualism nor collectivism, namely, the utilitarian method of social analysis.8 He had already proved how successful this method was in analyzing the static and dynamic problems of social “wholes” such as language communities, and he emphasized that the analysis of such wholes is the very point of theoretical social science.9 It was fallacious to believe that individual action could be understood out of its wider social context, just as it was false that the proper understanding of social wholes required that the social analysis itself be holistic.
The utilitarian method alone was a truly scientific one because it traced all social phenomena back to facts of experience:
The utilitarian social doctrine does not engage in metaphysics, but takes as its point of departure the established fact that all living beings affirm their will to live and grow. The higher productivity of labor performed in division of labor, when compared with isolated action, is ever more uniting individuals to association. Society is division and association of labor.10
Each person seeks to enhance his welfare, and cooperative labor is more productive than isolated labor. Therefore, insofar as the growth of a person’s welfare presupposes greater quantities of material goods, the person can best attain his ends by engaging in a division of labor. This is how society comes into being.
All elements in this economic explanation of society are ascertainable facts. In contrast, the doctrines of individualism and collectivism do not lend themselves to any such causal explanation of the origin of society because they are based on postulates rather than on analysis of fact. And Mises proceeded to show that the same criticism also applied to the Marxist theory of proletarian class struggle. He did not deny that human history featured many group conflicts and that they often had great importance for the course of events. Rather, he argued that the fashionable struggle theories—of which the Marxist theory of class struggle was but one particular instance—purported to be much more than they really were. Group conflicts were not, and could not possibly be, the basic elements of human life. The real question was how any group could come into existence in the first place. One first had to explain the formation of groups before one could explain the struggle between them. But all struggle theorists, Marx included, failed on this front.
The reason for this negligence is not difficult to detect. It is impossible to demonstrate a principle of association that exists within a collective group only, and that is inoperative beyond it. If war and strife are the driving forces of all social development, why should this be true for classes, races, and nations only, and not for war among all individuals? If we take this warfare sociology to its logical conclusion we arrive at no social doctrine at all, but at “a theory of unsociability.”11
Mises pointed out that Marx’s theory of class struggle even failed to give an empirical account of its most basic concept. What is a “class” in the Marxist sense? Marx had never defined it. “And it is significant that the posthumous manuscript of the third volume of Das Kapital halts abruptly at the very place that was to deal with classes.” Mises went on:
Since his death more than forty years have passed, and the class struggle has become the cornerstone of modern German sociology. And yet we continue to await its scientific definition and delineation. No less vague are the concepts of class interests, class condition, and class war, and the ideas on the relationship between conditions, class interests, and class ideology.12
Werner Sombart, along with the great majority of German sociologists of whom he was the undisputed leader, had adopted the Marxist view that proletarian class struggle was the ultimate driving force in modern societies. He was now an opponent of Marxist ideology, but his analyses still remained Marxian. He merely refrained from drawing all the practical conclusions, which Marx and the Marxists had consistently deduced, from the theory of class struggle. He did not and could not provide an alternative to the Marxist scenario of social evolution. His only objection came in the form of a postulate: things should not happen as they would happen according to the theory of class struggle, therefore government should resist such developments. Yet with this admission, Sombart and the bulk of the German sociologists had again left the realm of science and entered that of religion and ethics. Sombart in fact championed a return to medieval forms of social organization—the guilds—just as Keynes in England proposed “a return, it may be said, towards medieval conceptions of separate autonomies.”13 Similarly, the few theorists who had thoroughly criticized Marx’s concept of class struggle, like Othmar Spann, marveled at the alleged blessings of national socialism in the middle ages.
Mises concluded:
for every scientific thinker the objectionable point of Marxism is its theory, which seems to cause no offence to the Anti-Marxist. . . . The Anti-Marxist merely objects to the political symptoms of the Marxian system, not to its scientific content. He regrets the harm done by Marxian policies to the German people, but is blind to the harm done to German intellectual life by the platitudes and deficiencies of Marxian problems and solutions. Above all, he fails to perceive that political and economic troubles are consequences of this intellectual calamity. He does not appreciate the importance of science for everyday living, and, under the influence of Marxism, believes that “real” power instead of ideas is shaping history.14
“Anti-Marxism” caused outrage among the Marxists. What was Mises’s sin? First, he had dared criticize the great master with a penetrating analysis of the incurable shortcomings of Marx’s theory of class struggle. Second, he had again contended that from an economic point of view Marxist socialism was not essentially different from the various new brands of national socialism that had begun to spring up in the 1920s, mostly in reaction against Marxist movements. Thus a fraction of Italian socialists, who rejected the teachings of Marx and called themselves “Fascists,” rose to power under the leadership of Benito Mussolini. There was also a movement of non-Marxist “National Socialists” in Germany. The father of this movement was Friedrich Naumann who, by a strange coincidence, later came to be regarded as the godfather of twentieth-century German liberalism.15 The leader of the National Socialists from the 1920s until their bitter end was, of course, Adolf Hitler.
Marxist socialists vociferously object to being classified under the same heading that includes Fascist Socialists and National Socialists. But as Mises showed, all distinctions between these groups are on the surface. Economically, they are united.
Excerpted with minor revision from Mises: Last Knight of Liberalism
주석
1. Before Sombart’s appearance, the German universities received Marx’s writings very critically. In the United States, too, the rise of Marxism encountered the same reservations in academic circles until, some forty-five years after Sombart, Joseph Schumpeter popularized Marx as an important thinker in his Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy (New York: Harper & Row, 1942).
2. Werner Sombart, Der proletarische Sozialismus (“Marxismus”), 10th ed., 2 vols. (Jena: Gustav Fische
3. Here is the most favorable thing Mises had to say about Sombart: “He was highly gifted, but at no time did he endeavor to think and work seriously. . . . And yet, it was more stimulating to talk to Sombart than to most other professors. At least he was not stupid and obtuse.” Mises, Erinnerungen (Stuttgart: Gustav Fischer Verlag, 1978), p. 68; Notes and Recollections (Spring Mills, Penn.: Libertarian Press, 1978), p. 103.
4. Mises, “Antimarxismus,” Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv 21 (1925) reprinted in Mises, Kritik des Interventionismus, pp. 91–122; translated as “Anti-Marxism,” in A Critique of Interventionism, pp. 107–38.
5. Mises, Kritik des Interventionismus, pp. 124f.; A Critique of Interventionism, pp. 140f.
6. Keynes was convinced that, in attacking and criticizing individualism, he had destroyed the case for laissez-faire. See John Maynard Keynes, The End of Laissez-Faire (London: Hogarth Press, 1926), pp. 39f. The postulate of a dichotomy between individualism and collectivism led Keynes to anticipate the now-famous Coasean view on the problem of optimal social organization. Thus Keynes surmised that the “ideal size for the unit of control and organization lies somewhere between the individual and the modern State” (ibid., p. 41). The Coasean theory is best expressed in Ronald Coase, The Firm, the Market, and the Law (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1988).
7. Heinrich Dietzel, “Individualismus,” Handwörterbuch der Staaswissenschaften, 4th ed. (1923), vol. 5; Alfred Pribram, Die Entstehung der individualistischen Sozialphilosophie (Leipzig: Hirschfeld, 1912); Othmar Spann, Der Wahre Staat (Leipzig: Quelle & Meyer, 1921).
8. Mises, Kritik des Interventionismus, pp. 95f., 111. He stated:
In the final analysis, there is no conflict of interest between society and the individual, as everyone can pursue his interests more efficiently in society than in isolation. The sacrifices the individual makes to society are merely temporary, surrendering a small advantage in order to attain a greater one. This is the essence of the often cited doctrine of the harmony of interests. (A Critique of Interventionism, pp. 112f.)
9. 2“What society is, how it originates, how it changes—these alone can be the problems which scientific sociology sets itself.” Mises, Socialism: An Economic and Sociological Analysis (Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 1981). To be perfectly clear, Mises believed that the positive analysis of the emergence and transformation of social wholes had to rely on methodological individualism. Based on this analysis, one could apply the utilitarian method, that is, raise the question whether any given policy was suitable to attain its goals. Othmar Spann rejected not only individualism as a political orientation, but also as a methodological device.
10. Mises, Kritik des Interventionismus, p. 96; A Critique of Interventionism, p. 112.
11. Mises, Kritik des Interventionismus, p. 100; A Critique of Interventionism, p. 116. Mises quotes here Paul Barth, Die Philosophie der Geschichte als Soziologie, 3rd ed. (Leipzig: Reisland, 1922), p. 260.
12. Mises, Kritik des Interventionismus, pp. 101f.; A Critique of Interventionism, pp. 117f.
13. Keynes, The End of Laissez-Faire, pp. 42f.
14. Mises, Kritik des Interventionismus, p. 121; A Critique of Interventionism, p. 137.
15. See Ralph Raico, Die Partei der Freiheit (Stuttgart: Lucius & Lucius, 1999), chap. 6.
----> 미제스, 하이에크 등 히틀러를 직접 경험했던 사람들은 모두 나치가 사회주의자들이었다고 주장하고 있다. 그들이 극우라는 주장은 좌파들의 선전선동일 뿐이다.
-------------------------------------------
[출처] [속보] 태양광발전소때문에 강원도주민 산사태위험 긴급대피!
방금 SBS8시 뉴스에 나왔더라...
강원도인데 산중턱을 깍아서 태양광발전소를 지었는데 그거 이번 폭우에 완전히 망가지고 산사태우려때문에 인근주민들 긴급 대피했다고 하더라
강원주민 노인인터뷰도있었는데... 자기가 평생 살면서 산사태위험으로 대피하기는 처음이라더라... "전에는 이런적이 없었는데..." 이러면서...
딱보니 산중턱에 태양광패널 설치한다고 멀쩡한 나무 다 뽑아버리니 비 많이오면 무조건 산사태나게 생겼더라 ㅉㅉ
이게 나라냐!
[출처] [속보] 태양광발전소때문에 강원도주민 산사태위험 긴급대피!
------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
굳이 통계 조작이 아니더라도, 경제적 파산은 이미 예정되어 있다.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
지금 국회의원은 대부분 운동권 출신
운동권이 뭐냐?
의식화 교육, 위장취업, 전경들에 화염병 쇠파이프 공격
그러면서 북한에 갔다오기도 하고
일부는 고문을 당하기도 하고 투옥되기도 하고
일부는 백골단에게 폭행도 경찰에 성폭행도 당했다.
그들 입장에서는 최소한 그당시에는 이가 갈리고 철천지 원수로 여겨졌을 것이다.
그 중 일부는 지금도 그렇게 생각하고 있을 수도.
누구를 ? 박정희 전두환 노태우 등등
그런 그들이 새누리당에서 모든 것을 잊고 박근혜에게
담담히 협조하리라고 생각했던 것이 너무 순진한 생각이었던 것이다.
TV 대담 프로에서 새누리 출신 국회의원이
+억울하다+는 표정으로 자신도 대학생 때 데모도 했다 라고 말하는 걸 봤다.
그렇다 국회의원들 사이에서는 아직도 대학생때 NL이니 PD니 하면서
정부 저항운동한 것이 자랑거리이고 별인 것이다.
즉 좌 우를 떠나 지금 국회의원들은
대부분 젋어서의 반독재 운동과 함께 교육 받은 공산주의 사상이나 주최사상(김일성종교)에서
깨어나지 못했거나
아직 혼란 스러운 상태인듯한다.
박정희-- 전두환-- 노태우 까지는 우파라 할 수 있었지만
김영삼 이인간 이전 정치 행보를 고려할 때
정권 쟁취를 위해 적진영이었던 노태우와 연합을 한 거지.
김영삼은 좌파의 트로이의 목마였던 것이다.(그당시 시점에서는 노태우가 정치를 잘해서 좌파를 분열시켰다고 할 수도 있었지만)
김영삼 518 특별법 만들어 주기도 하고
전두환 노태우 병신 만들고
이후 김대중 노무현 이명박으로 넘어갔지
그럼 이명박이 우파냐?
한나라당 공천파동을 일으켜 친이 친박 대결구도를 만들었던
이명박 따까리 이재오 및 그 패거리가 (이재오 : 남민전. 남조선민족해방준비위원회, 전혀 새누리에 안어울리는 인물)
이명박과 박근혜 사이를 이간질 했을 가능성이 높다.
(개인적으로 이명박은 기업가 출신으로 그냥 정치는 모르는 좌도 아니고 우도 아닌 아니 좌좀에게 조종당한 부패 기업인이 아닌가 판단된다)
결국 박근혜는
선거때 박근혜 덕을 본 새누리 국회의원들의 보물 덩어리였지만
새누리 국회의원들(대학 때 데모에 열심이였던) 속으로는
맘이 편치 않았을 것이다. (자신들의 투쟁 대상이고 자신들을 박해 하던 박정희의 딸에 고개를 숙이려니.)
속으로는 저주 하는 인간들도 있었을 것이다. (이재오는 틀림없이 그중에 하나일 것이고)
결국 박정희-전두환-노태우-김영삼-김대중-노무현-이명박-박근혜-문죄인
이렇게 써놓고 보면
우파는 정권은 노태우 이후 없었다고 봐야한다.
김영삼 이후는 그냥 보수좌파(운동권 출신들) 진보 좌파의 여당 야당 싸움으로 봐야 한다.
노태우 퇴임 1993년 이후
공무원이든 국회의원이든 다 좌파로 채워진 상태에서
2013년 20년 만에 박근혜는 대통령이 된 것이다.
고위 공무원들의 물은 어땠을까?
국회의원들은?
이것이 탄핵의 원인이라고 생각된다.
왜 새누리에서 지들 대통령을 배반한 인간들이 그렇게 많았을까? 의 대답이 아닌가 생각한다.
그렇게 많은 60명이나 되는 새누리 국회의원이 탄핵 찬성이라는 배반을 때린 이유는?
1. 박근혜는 20년 만에 우파 대통령
2. 이미 정부 관료 국회의원은 대부분 좌파
3. 새누리 내 국회의원도 대부분 좌파(박정희 딸 박근혜를 꼽게 보는, 아문법등 어이 없는 법들이 통과되는 것을 봐도)
4. 대한민국에는 진정한 우파 국회의원은 극소수이다.(지금 자한당은 우파 코스프레하는 좌파)
5. 자한당이 건재하면 우파는 결집될 수가 없다.(자한당은 트로이 목마를 타고 들어온 좌파에 점령당한 상태)
-- 김성태 : 한국노총 사무총장 출신
[출처] 박근혜 탄핵당한 이유. (김영삼은 트로이의 목마)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[출처] 박근혜 탄핵당한 이유. (김영삼은 트로이의 목마)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
댓글 없음:
댓글 쓰기