![]()
|
Jewish World Review Feb. 28, 2006 /30 Shevat, 5766
Creators versus critics
By Paul Johnson
![]() | |
|
| |
http://www.JewishWorldReview.com |
One of the fascinating things about studying history is to see the
way in which man's extraordinary creative and inventive faculties
are in a continual battle with his critical and destructive
faculties. If only the first were in operation, humanity would have
advanced far more rapidly. We'd now be enjoying living standards we
won't reach until 3000 to 4000. We'd be making regular
trips to our solar system's planets (and exploiting them) and
possibly to the stars beyond.
CLEVER CRITICS
GOVERNMENT'S ROLE
But the other aspects of man's nature act as a continual brake on
progress. I'm not thinking so much of war, since it's as effective
at promoting invention and creativity as it is at destroying
existing wealth. World War II, for instance, accelerated enormously
the development of radar, electronics, jet propulsion and nuclear
energy. What I mean, rather, is our negative propensity to find
reasons — especially moral or scientific ones — to oppose the creative
forces in the world. A primary example of this was the
mid-19th-century reaction to the capitalist Industrial Revolution.
Just as a disruptive and painful period of capital accumulation was
coming to an end in advanced economies such as Britain's — wages were
rising, working hours decreasing and factory conditions
improving — along came thinkers like Karl Marx, who argued that
capitalism was an unprecedented threat to human happiness. They
succeeded in setting up a collectivist counterforce to capitalism
that maintained itself intellectually for a century and at one time
controlled nearly a quarter of the world's surface area, killed
scores of millions and wasted untold trillions of dollars of wealth.
This force was not discredited until the late 1980s, when Soviet
Communism began to collapse and its Chinese cousin embraced
capitalism.
During the 20th century a series of revolutions in technology again
made it possible to accelerate the production of wealth and improve
the ways in which it is distributed to reach even the poorest
enclaves of the world. But once again the negative critical and
destructive forces have combined to put the brakes on and, if
possible, reverse this process. Clever people calling themselves
environmentalists, human rights campaigners, tort lawyers, etc. have
played on fears and superstitions and employed ingenious arguments
based on science and pseudoscience to mount a counteroffensive
against capitalist advances. They have used the courts, media,
international conferences and laboratories — all with enormous
cunning and effrontery — to win many partial and some absolute
victories.
One of their biggest successes has been to halt the building of
nuclear power plants in the U.S., Britain and other countries. This
has seriously increased the destructive impact of the oil shortages
brought on by China's and India's industrialization. At the same
time environmentalists, claiming that global warming is the result
of industrial activity, seek to force compulsory limits on
greenhouse gas emissions, which will hugely reduce industry's
efficiency and profitability. This frontal attack on the production
and profitability of the capitalist system is, in its own way, as
dangerous as Marxism was.
Capitalism is also being slowed down and damaged by tens of
thousands of lawyers who have discovered they can use the courts to
transfer vast sums of money from business to individuals who believe
they've been harmed by business, in the process enriching the legal
profession and its more active entrepreneurs. In this war between
business and its enemies, the brains are evenly divided on both
sides of the trenches. There are as many clever young men and women
pouring out of college and going into jobs that make them critical
of capitalism as there are going into junior-executive work in
finance and industry — a fact of life likely to continue.
Criticism is a luxury advanced civilizations can afford, but
creativity is an essential. Government must uphold the rule of law.
But if it becomes too evenhanded in the battle between the creative
and the critical and leaves the creators to fend for themselves,
it's certain that growth will eventually slow down and the economy
stagnate.
This is what's happened in the Eurozone over the past decade. The
result: huge unemployment and about zero growth. This also happened
in Britain in the 1960s and 1970s, until Margaret Thatcher took
office. By swinging government heavily onto the side of wealth
production, she changed Britain from a low-growth to a high-growth
economy. But the positive effects of this are now wearing off. The
impact of New Labour — in power for nine years — has been to align
government behind the critics and negative forces in society. The
economy is slowing, and bad times are ahead for capitalism in
Britain.
U.S. administrations over the past 25 years have, on the whole,
given business a square deal, and the American economy has continued
to grow. President Bush's refusal to sign the Kyoto treaty was
symbolic, a signal act of courage reflecting the economics of common
sense. But there are many signs that the critics are gathering
strength. More regulations being imposed at state and federal
levels, rising antibusiness litigation and hostility in the media,
fueled by criminal trials and scandals, bode ill for growth.
Left to themselves, the creative forces in society will always
deliver, but keeping them reasonably free to do so is a perpetual,
grinding battle. It is one that must never be lost.