Reisman in his “Capatalism” said:
“Mises showed how price controls destroyed the price system and resulted in the establishment of de facto socialism, of which Nazi Germany was leading example. He explained why socialism had to fail economically, because of its lack of markets and consequent inability to have a price system and thus to perform economic calculations. He showed how political freedom depended on economic freedom and thus why socialism, with its utter lack of economic freedom, was necessarily a system of dictatorship.”

But abolishing the market — having all wages and prices set by the federal government — would bring on an economic collapse that was obviously the fault of the state. The Democrats would be wiped out in the next election. They don’t want to lose their power. Their power-lust more than their reason will stop them.

However, as we move closer and closer to the line, at some point they might be forced (as they see it) by events to control all wages and prices by the central power. At that point we will be without question a fascist state.

1) Why are you so sure the left would understand the connection between abolishing the market and an economic collapse? If they do understand this, why have they taken things as far as they have already? They have abandoned reason in pursuing ever greater State control over society, and you expect them to hesitate from the really big steps because of their – reason?

2) I agree with you in your point about religion – and its’ place as a claim to knowledge outside of reason as another commenter made. Environmentalism is an obvious candidate for a religion of the left. Therefore the crises of which you speak when you say: “but it will take further crises to plunge us into dictatorship.” – could well be environmental crises (whether true or false), not economic crises.

“What will happen to children from poor families without education?” As if public schools are the only possible kind.

“What will happen to the unemployed and the poor?” As if the productive poor wouldn’t be earning twice as much, and the competent unemployed wouldn’t have a job in a healthy economy.

Government gets away with this systematic destruction of wealth because it is presented as that which must necessarily be. Maybe people need to recieve their untaxed paycheck in cash, only to get a visit from the police every week to take half of it away before they understand?

The statist system is built to be a siphoning leech attached from birth to death. Little old ladies in office buildings rob billions through the proxy of big men hiding behind uniforms. Drug addicts messing up perfectly good opportunities for production and self support recieve a cash of other people’s money directly onto their bank account every month.

It isn’t done this way because it’s practical. It’s done this way to be invisible. Have a child grow up in a swamp and he’d never know the air doesn’t have to stink.

I also think that Christina Patterson was a rank amateur compared to someone like Obama who is pretty much a pro. Your identification of how they use ‘narratives’ is also right on. They use these pre-packaged lines of reasoning for all occasions. They are of course rationalizations. Rationalizations are almost always approximations and maybes so that one cannot be held responsible for anything in particular. He will have a bromide for everything.

I agree that the left is intellectually bankrupt. But then, if they have no ideas to offer, what is it that people find so attractive that they keep voting for the Pelosis, Rieds, Kennedys and Obamas? It has to be the morality of sacrifice that they wrongly see as virtuous. Both the left and right believe in sacrifice and I think a non-sacrificial way of life will be a hard sell for anyone except the young. I do think there is time yet.

I don’t believe that’s quite true. I think that radical subjectivism is actually believed by very few. Living day in and day out in an academic department, I see how leftist academics use radical subjectivism when it suits them (when they want to avoid moral judgments for themselves and those with whom they are in solidarity) and drop it in an instant when they want to seem empirical or, especially, when they want to be moralistic.

“If you believe that individuals act from “narratives” instead of reason that corresponds to the facts of reality, then there is not much use in arguing ideas.”

Sadly, I think that most individuals I meet do act from narratives, and insulate themselves very well from reality. Nor do I acquit myself of this accusation. But I would like very much to act based on the facts of reality and reason and I try to.

Ayn Rand, “Faith and Force: Destroyers of the Modern World,” Ch. 7 in Philosophy: Who Needs It, pp. 76-77, concisely identifies the various species of mysticism.

Her title shows, as Myrhaf has indicated, that faith is the main form of mysticism, and certainly the one cited by conservatives — who are therefore enemies of capitalism, which stands on a foundation of egoism and reason.