I have to confess, I’m a little confused. Strauss first condones the market economy as “maybe the only healthy way to structure interactions in economic life.”
He then moves on to (rightly) condemn capitalism as the encroachment of market dynamics on spheres of society that are not properly economic, an invasion also known as social darwinism.
The implication of these two points is that market dynamics can properly be applied to economics, but not to other spheres of life. But Strauss calls for a non-capitalist “economic way of life.” Isn’t this a little disingenous? Capitalism isn’t so bad when it’s economic. It’s much more dangerous if it is political, legal, or theological…
dunadan
Nov 07 2003
11:10 am
I have to confess, I’m a little confused. Strauss first condones the market economy as “maybe the only healthy way to structure interactions in economic life.”
He then moves on to (rightly) condemn capitalism as the encroachment of market dynamics on spheres of society that are not properly economic, an invasion also known as social darwinism.
The implication of these two points is that market dynamics can properly be applied to economics, but not to other spheres of life. But Strauss calls for a non-capitalist “economic way of life.” Isn’t this a little disingenous? Capitalism isn’t so bad when it’s economic. It’s much more dangerous if it is political, legal, or theological…