Socialists and Libertarian free market capitalists are engaged in a battle of competing myths. Early in Harris's article he articulates the capitalist myth: "the only way to help the poor in the third world is to get the bloated bureaucratic state off their backs, and permit them to use their own creative initiative to do what so many poor immigrants to the USA were able to do in our past -- to start out as micro-entrepreneurs, and to work their way up to wealth and often fabulous riches."

There are, of course, "true believers" for whom this appears to be a rationally arrived at truth. It is, after all, the official American Dream that we all learn in school. More pernicious, however, are those like Harris who don't really believe the capitalist myth but, like the Straussian Neo-Cons, perceive a "myth gap." From this perspective, the real problem in a "populist democracy" is to reformulate the myth so that the unwashed masses will buy it.

While I'm more interested in economic freedom than in whether myths have been promulgated to advance it, your assertion that Harris is engaged in mythology is offered without an explanation. Calling something a myth does not make it a myth.

But even if we assume that myths are used to sell freedom as well as socialism, don't free economies have a better track record?

(I can't speak for anyone else, but I would not want to live in Cuba, nor in the former Soviet Union.)

Myths are narratives that give us a normative framework by which we make meaning of our lives (personally or culturally). To say that the story of poor immigrants in America is one of micro-entrepreneurs working their way to wealth and fabulous riches is to engage in myth-making. To believe that this is THE narrative of American immigration is to be a "true believer" who sees this story (myth) as the taken-for-granted "way things were."

You notice the irony here. If you don't see that story as a myth (but as THE TRUTH), then it would not matter what "facts" I present to you that counters the myth. You will not be open to rational argument.

By the way, the idea that there are "free economies" or "free markets" is also a myth.

I used the term "free economies" in the general free market sense of the word (and in the historic sense) -- to contrast them with socialist economies, which are controlled and not free. I think there is more opportunity under a market economy. Whether all immigrants become rich entrepreneurs is irrelevant (and of course they do not).

I think you're missing the central point here: that free markets work better than socialist ones, and socialists can't bear to admit it.

What you describe as the central point- "free markets work better than socialist ones"- is a myth in the sense that the pure constructs you set up in your story do not exist except as idealizations. There has never been a free market economy in an "historic sense" nor has there ever been a socialist economy. All economies are and have been "mixed" and the idea of a free market economy is as utopian as the idea of a socialist economy. All economies are on some relative scale between those two pure abstractions. I agree that there is more opportunity under a market economy. I also believe those who control resources tend to oppress those without resources when there is no governmental restraint. Both beliefs cannot be similtaniously held in the normative framework of free market= good, socialism=bad.

The problem with operating on the level of myth is that it avoids dealing with the messy complexity of people's lived experience. It allows us to label those who frame those experiences differently as irrational and illogical.

But, my original comment was in response to your statement that you should abandon reason and logic because socialism is a religion and believers are not persuaded by reason. Harris's article was patronizing because it advocates that capitalism construct a "better" myth rather than attempt to change minds rationally. This, as I mentioned above, is an elitist, hypocritical argument like that used by Straussian Neo-Cons.

The poor, both here and in Latin America, don't reject the free market story (myth) because of some sort of a "myth gap." They reject it because it doesn't match their lived experience. Reason changes people's beliefs, but it has to be anchored in experience.

DrBlues,

The lack of an idealized free market or socialist economy in the world or its history doesn't render the words meaningless. To say so strikes me as the pedantic picking of nits.

While I agree that Harris is being hypocritical in calling for an anti-socialism mythology, I also don't really believe that it is mythology to believe that the facts bear out the idea that free market capitalism is objectively better than any currently postulated alternatives.

Socialism, on the other hand, is objectively, both from my experiences and my study, while not the worst system, also not nearly as good as capitalism, for anyone, including the poor.

While the rich (people with resources) might try and oppress the poor (those without), as long as government constrains physical coercion, the ability of the rich to gain oppressive power over the poor is limited to non-existent.

I'm honestly of the opinion that, in an attempt to run a moderate, "a pox on both your houses," statement, you've had to advance the idea of capitalism's mythology, even though you don't seem to be putting forward a strong argument on that point. While it is wisdom to realize both sides in an argument have some value, it is also wisdom to know that one side can, genuinely, be right.

John,
Notice the definition I gave to "myth" earlier- Myths are narratives that give us a normative framework by which we make meaning of our lives (personally or culturally).

Myths are not "lies" and are certainly not "meaningless." On the contrary, they are probably necessary to give coherence to our lives and to our culture.

The problem, as I see it, is when the myth is reified- when it becomes THE objective and absolute truth- and any other narrative is absolutely false. Once you have made that move, rational dialogue and reasoned argument are futile.

You say that socialism is "objectively, both from my experience and my study...not nearly as good as capitalism..." Well, your experience and your study are subjective, are they not? By claiming objective "truth" and genuine "right", you close off others who might have come to different conclusions through their experiences and study.

Reasoned dialogue is impossible when concepts like "free markets" and "socialism" are frozen in time and space. Like all living ideas, they are open to negotiation.

To be honest, I occasionally visit this blog because it IS open to reasoned discourse. As you undoubtedly know, there are plenty of sites where those who disagree are shouted down and those sites exist on both the left and right of the political spectrum. I made my initial comment to Eric because I was alarmed that his reading of Harris's article caused him to consider giving up on reason as persuasive.

I applaud you and Eric and anyone else who has a narrative framework (myth) that gives meaning and coherence to your thinking. I, too, have a strongly-held normative framework. I make no claim to absolute truth, however. I realize that tensions exist between some things I believe and, in some cases, I may even hold somewhat contradictory beliefs. That is why dialogue is important to me. I know my personal experience and study is limited and that I often learn the most from those whose experience is quite different from my own.

My disdain is towards those hypocrites who believe nothing but see themselves as rational "philosopher-kings" whose job it is to create the noble lie, the "transformative myth" that will, in Harris's words, "tap into something deeper and more primordial than mere reason and argument" in order to reach the irrational "people."

Attacking socialism is worthwhile even if converting socialists is not generally possible. Those who oppose socialism have other issues which also concern them when they vote or engage in other political activity. The more people like yourself bring the issue to their attention, the more likely those opposed to socialism are to consider this opposition to be the deciding factor. Preaching to the choir is important.

DrBlues,

I appreciate the points you have made, and I would like to thank you for making your point, in regards to your disagreement and dislike of Harris, exceedingly clear. I would go so far as to say that lying for the sake of convincing people of things you believe they should think is one of the most pernicious problems facing the world today.

However, I need to say I do disagree with one thing you said. While I would certainly agree that I must listen to other rational arguments, you seem to be arguing that there is no such thing as objective truth. Considering that the primary purpose of the socialist system is clear and simple (though it has, I'll admit, been changed over the years, starting with the idea that the socialist state would simply produce more than the capitalist one, and then moving the idea that it would produce more for the average worker, than the median, and now, the bottom ten percent), you can look at facts, numbers, and statistics, and begin to find the truth of the matter.

And I believe it exists. The truth, that is. While I can't say what would happen in any situation, it really isn't hard to prove that, given every example we have, all of our theory, and our experiences, objectively, socialism fails at its intended goal while having no forseeable benefits outside of that and a great number of costs.

I'm afraid, at some point, without some new evidence (and I'll admit that new technologies or industries might change the way the socialist system operates), continuing to claim that I'm being subjective after reaching a conclusion just seems to strike me as an attempt to be open-minded to the point of absurdity.

I'd also add that, while many people use the words carelessly, I don't mean them that way, and so anyone else's renegotiation of the language of political or economic theory is really of little concern to me.

Eric,

I'd also like to quickly add that I disagree with the idea that arguing against socialism, or any political or economic theory with roots in in faith, is never pointless. As I pointed out in my exchange with DrBlues, socialism's claims have changed as new data has come in. And socialism (as I meant it in that exchange) is essentially dead in most of the world; welfare-state capitalism is really the popular alternative to free-market capitalism today. Though others may lump them together or confuse them for political benefit, it is worth noting that even that system has slowly bowed (going through the same set of revisions as to its purpose as socialism) to new facts.

First, investment in human capital was supposed to spur growth across the board. Then, it was supposed to increase the average quality of life; then the median income. Now, welfare-state capitalists can only claim that the bottom ten or twenty percent are better off, and even that claim may be in jeopardy.

Any faith based on events in the real world can, in the end, be swayed by facts. That's why, even though many people believe rather interesting items about the afterlife, no one believes you can rub your hands together a million times while praying and sprout wings here on Earth, for example. Facts matter. Arguments matter.