Yoshie Furuhashi quotes: ...Adam Smith, considered the apostle of the "free market," understood very well how capitalism could not survive a truly free market, if government was not big enough to protect it. He wrote. in the middle of the eighteenth century: "Laws and governments may be considered in this and indeed in every case, a combination of the rich to oppress the poor, and preserve to themselves the inequality of the goods, which would otherwise be soon destroyed by the attacks of the poor, who if not hindered by the government would soon reduce the others to an equality with themselves by open violence."... <http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Zinn/BigGovernWhom_Zinn.html> *****
It seems to me that the venerable political economist during the glorious days of the Scottish Enlightenment summed up the nature of capitalism very well above. Capitalism (a mode of production) dictates a form of rule ("a combination of the rich to oppress the poor").
+++++++++++++++++++
Apparently not, if the "...this and indeed in every case..." segment is also taken into consideration. Your post smacks of capitalism scapegoating, which I objected to earlier. Certainly capitalism has problems. The disparity in wages. Catering to moneyed interests, at expense of the whole of the people. I could go on, but do these problems not exist elsewhere? If the problems with capitalism are universal, then they are at most only a matter of degree, they are correctable to a similar degree. But what unique negative quality does capitalism possess, that is not embodied by other forms of production? What, of the unique problems with capitalism (if there are any), are attributable to capitalism itself, and what, to its proponents and practitioners? Capitalism also has benefits unmatched by any other form of politico-economism, so what exactly is the problem with capitalism, that is not reflected by other forms of production? What is the real objection to capitalism?!
Absence of safeguards to protect the lowest, and caps to limit that other end of the spectrum, perhaps?
You mentioned poor nations (aka the third world) earlier, the Black Book of Communism describes Cuba as interminable totalitarianism, Nicaragua as a failed totalitarian project and Peru as a hotbed of bloody insurgency, with a nod to communist insurgents. Afghanistan was on the way to democratic enlightenment. The women there saw the requirement of veils dropped and were given access to the schools, until the communist coup in April of 1978. That, and the subsequent soviet invasion laid waste to decades of progress and modernization. These are not even unforseeable, natural events (as described by Davis), they are wholey within the realm of human action and reaction. Need I go on?
Adam Smith correctly notes that governments will establish the means to protect themselves and their economies, this has occurred with all governments that survived any appreciable length of time, regardless of their economy, or mode of production (if you prefer). Therefore, critiquing a given country solely on a single factor, such as its choice of all possible economies, is an invalid indictment when the conclusion is as general as "millions of deaths resulting from ... " or the "Soviet Union and its satellites ... was not remotely comparable to the scale and savagery of repression". The same critiques, and likely, the same results, may be found with truly honest evaluation of all governments, not just those ascribing to capitalism. The ultimate success (or failure) is decided by the people involved, so, to throw in an analogy (and give a nod to Justin Schwartz), isn't the debate really about the destination, and not the mode of transportation? Nevermind how, where /do/ ! we go from here?
George Thomas
-- _______________________________________________ Get your free email from http://www.graffiti.net