> In order to grasp what the Japanese have done, it is worth comparing
> it to
> Western attempts to achieve the same thing. For example, the Japanese
> have understood that the ambition of the advocates of the "mixed
> economy,"
> like Hugh Gaitskell in the UK, to socialize the "commanding heights" of
> the economy, has some rational basis, in that it embodies the
> desirability
> for some government direction of the economy without a total
> Gosplan-style
> takeover.
It's a shame that "socialize" has been misused for so long by mainstream economists/political "scientists"/journalists in this fashion, but perhaps it is not too late to teach them some sense.
Plainly speaking, for a government or a cartel or trust, etc., to own a chunk of the economy is not "socialism" in the sense of "a social system in which the means of producing and distributing goods are owned collectively and political power is exercised by the whole community" (definition in American Heritage College Dictionary, 3rd ed.). Not unless the "whole community" really has effective power to control the production and distribution of goods, which it does not, or ever has, in Japan or the UK or anywhere else that I can think of.
What part of this do these guys not understand?
On Friday, January 9, 2004, at 01:23 AM, dredmond at efn.org wrote:
>> [Japan] is a socially conservative, hierarchical, technocratic,
>> orderly,pagan,
>> sexist, nationalist, racially pure, anti-communist, non-capitalist and
>> anti-Semitic society.
>
> I find it difficult to believe that Nintendo, Miyazaki, Evangelion,
> Beat Kitano
> movies, rampant environmentalism, the Zainichi, diplomatic pacifism
> and the JCP
> are just figments of my fevered Western imagination.
The Robert Locke quote is pretty bizarre, all right. "Socially conservative" -- compared to what? Anyone who saw "Lost in Translation" got a glimpse of plenty of non-socially-conservative behavior, which of course is not a complete picture of contemporary Japan, but not fictitious, either. "Hierarchical" -- what does that mean? Just about any society, except for a purely anarchist, utopian one, could be called that. "Technocratic" -- I can't even begin to fathom the meaning of that. "Orderly" -- well, yes, the level of violent crime is lower than in the U.S., if that's what he means. "Pagan" -- yes, it's not a Christian-based culture. "Sexist" -- can't quarrel with that, but then it's probably better in this respect that Saudi Arabia. "Nationalist" -- compared to what? "Racially pure" -- compared to the U.S., perhaps, but now we're getting into Nazi ideology territory, and I'd rather not follow him there. "Anti-communist" -- a staunch U.S. ally in the cold war days, but what meaning does "anti-communist" have these days? "Non-capitalist" -- that's just silly, of course. And finally, "anti-Semitic" -- I haven't the slightest idea where he gets that. Perhaps because Japanese foreign policy is too Arab-friendly for his taste?
Jon Johanning // jjohanning at igc.org __________________________________ Belinda: Ay, but you know we must return good for evil. Lady Brute: That may be a mistake in the translation.
-- Sir John Vanbrugh: The Provok’d Wife (1697), I.i.