Citing the past does not say much about the future. No one disputes that capitalism has made contribution to human civilization, although a debate to evaluate the balance between positive and negative impacts is still open. Marx acknowledged capitalism as a necessary phase in economic history, just as theocracy and monarchy once did. The question is whether capitalism has a future. There are indisputable data to support the conclusion that in order for capitalism to continue, it needs either a new imperialism or recurring depressions or recurring wars, none of which represents a price the majority of the world's population seem prepare to pay. Modern capitalism was saved not by New Deal progressive measures, but by WWII. After the War, the Cold War's militarization of the peace kept capitalism going with recurring but relatively mild recessions. Since the end of the Cold War, capitalism has been seeking to launch a new economic imperialistic regime. The regime is given the benign name: "globalization" which essentially describes the globalization from the West on behalf of its moneyed class, at the expense of the rest of the world. Of course, as with its earlier version of imperialistic colonialism, the new economic imperialism leaves some room for elevating the absolute living standards of the oppressed, so that its apologists can make misleading arguments of its merit, while the gap between rich and poor continues to widen as with the gap between the powerful and the oppressed . Quoting the Communist Manifesto in praise of capitalism is the height of sophistry. I can also selectively quote from the Bible out of context to praise the devil, except fortunately for you I don't own a Bible.
Peace with progress
Henry
Enzo Michelangeli wrote:
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Henry C.k. Liu <hliu at mindspring.com>
> Date: Monday, December 07, 1998 11:15 PM
>
> >Enzo:
> >
> >Lets cut to the chase.
> >If market/finance capitalism is so effective and globalization so
> desirable,
> >what caused the current global economic/financial crisis that started in
> >Thailand on July 2, 1997?
> >Is the whole world merely hallucinating?
>
> Oh come on, this must be a "fin-de siècle" thing: right-wingers keep
> fretting about Y2K catastrophes, and leftists about the Forthcoming Great
> Economic Crash. We have just gone through a financial panic: it was not the
> first and, unfortunately, it won't be the last. But even if it did, that
> would hardly be proof that industrial revolution and capitalism have been
> bad for the world: they have already delivered a lot. Before the eigtheenth
> century, the average growth in the world GDP was around 3% per century;
> after that, in the industrialized countries that figure changed to 400% per
> century. Which explains why Malthus, who was not stupid after all, failed so
> spectacularly in his dire forecasts: the poor guy based his analysis on the
> data he had, reflecting how the world had been until then and missing what
> was coming. Nowadays, we should feel a little more optimistic.
>
> Cheer up!
>
> Enzo
>
> "The bourgeoisie has disclosed how it came to pass that the
> brutal display of vigour in the Middle Ages, which Reactionists
> so much admire, found its fitting complement in the most slothful
> indolence. It has been the first to show what man's activity can
> bring about. It has accomplished wonders far surpassing Egyptian
> pyramids, Roman aqueducts, and Gothic cathedrals; it has
> conducted expeditions that put in the shade all former Exoduses
> of nations and crusades."
> K.Marx, Manifesto of the Communist Party