(U.S.) Imperialism

[Chumpsky]

Imperialism, specifically western imperialism (which is mostly U.S. imperialism today), is the overwhelming factor in world affairs today, and has been for several centuries.

One of the most important propaganda achievements in American society over the past eight decades is to shroud the nature of imperialism in a mist behind which it operates its brutal machinery. Many people are aware of imperialism, either as a sort of Marxist joke, or as so-called "cultural imperialism," as if it were nothing more sinister than the opening of Euro-Disney in France or Starbucks in the Forbidden City. When imperialism becomes too obvious to ignore, such as in attacks on Yugoslavia or Iraq, the propaganda apparatus goes into overdrive, to paint these acts of aggression as "humanitarian intervention," and to very tightly control the limits of debate so that the question of imperialism never arises. The corporate media does a very good job of shielding the public from the abuses of imperialism, such as the slaughter of labor organizers, priests and other "communists" in Latin America, or CIA backed coups to overthrow democratic governments to install fascist dicators, the imposition of harsh "re-structuring" conditions by the IMF, etc.

The propaganda effort reveals a serious flaw in the system, however, namely that it is necessary to enroll the public in the imperialist program, a program that the public would never support if the facts were known. But, since we pay for the imperialist wars, the killing of peasants in Latin America, the Middle East, East Asia, etc., it behooves us to understand the nature of the system, and help others to understand it. It is in our interests to oppose imperialism and its wars, not only because it is the only moral position, but because the primary enemy of the state is the domestic population. The goal of the imperialists is to turn the whole world into the Third World. They want to get rid of those annoying, irritating tendencies of democracies toward egalitarianism, respect for human rights and the environment, and so on. The goal is to create a world where there are no annoying labor unions or environmental regulations, where there are no "fifth columns" of dissident intellectuals, where there are just atoms of consumption and production sitting in their apartments watching sports, only venturing outside to work in the 10 corporations that rule the world, or to buy stuff from these same 10 corporations. Then every 4 years the atoms of consumption will be asked to ratify the selection of one or another member of the ruling class to rule them, and we will call this "democracy." That is the ideal, at least, and progress toward this ideal is being made with mixed success.

There are many fine essays on imperialism. Here is one by Michael Parenti which you might find useful as an introduction:
Imperialism 101 (http://www.michaelparenti.org/Imperialism101.html)

At any rate, I would like to debate the nature of imperialism: whether it is good or bad, whether it is as described by Parenti, etc. I welcome every effort to point out flaws in the Parenti essay, or anything I have written, so that we may understand it better.

[Fang]

OP's that just ain't so O...

[js_africanus]

From Robert Conquest's "Reflections on a Ravaged Century," W.W. Norton, 2000, pg 251-252: (It's late & I'm tired--I make no apoligies for any typos in the following quote)

In the ex-colonial countries, to a considerable degree, the "anti-imperialist" Idea [the book covers some nasty dogmatic "Ideas"] persists in ritualistic form, or as an increasingly unpersuasive way of transferring some of the responsibility for present troubles from the local political leadership--nothing to be either shocked or suprised at.

But this natural sentiment is also a basis for a view of all Western influence as a continuation of imperialism--with "colonialism" replaced by "neocolonialism"; under this rubric, any local politician who can claim to be less subservient to the West can accumulate some ideological capital.

This approach thus sees current relations between the ex-colonies and "advanced" countries as still of an essentially imperial type, with the United States in the major imperial role.

The United States is, true enough, the only surviving superpower. As such, its "interests" include a worldwide foreign policy and commitments. To call such arrangements "imperialistic" is a natural demagogy in anticivic circles. And that implies an American "Empire"--which is indeed a phrase sometimes used; but, as we have said, the image is metaphorical. Nor does the hoped-for civilization and democratization of the world mean its subjection to American power. On the contrary, it implies the withdrawal of American power in favor of a congeries of mutually friendly nations.

...

The Idea of Anti-imperialism is thus to be considered on several grounds. First, it is traditionally pervasive in the United States, though given its most extreme form in anti-Western academe. Second, it is used as a negative label for any effort by the United States, or the West, to encourage liberties, to block fanaticism, and to make aid dependent on positive economic policies. Those concerned with the future development of their countries, and of the world, cannot affort to let obsolete resentments distort their aims.

So what purpose is served by the ususal employment nowadays of the words "imperialism" and "colonialism"? First, it implies a malign force with no program but the subjugation and exploitation of the innocent peoples. Second, it implies that this is something like a singe undifferentiated entity. Third, it implies that there were in no case ever any real benefits, to the world or to the colonized regions. Fourth, it implies that the continuing troubles of the former colonies are due not merely to the heritage of foreign rule but also to its continuation, or revival in a new but essentially indistinguishable form, after the dissapearance of the former rulers.

Only the second part of the fourth probosition is at least arguable, but if so, it requires a reformulation. The rest of the implications are untenable, with the terms "imperialism" and "colonialism" serving mainly to confuse, and of course to replace, the complex and needed process of understanding with the simple and unneeded process of inflammation.

All this is only to say that "imperialist" and "colonialist" are nowadays to a large degree mind-blockers and thought-extinguishers....

In other words, the U.S. ain't trying to build an empire, but help the world move to a more enlightened political & social state. Even where the U.S. is failing to live up to its core values of freedom & democracy & whatnot, it is still not acting as an imperial power; there is a big difference between an emperor and a hegemon.

As for the article, I'm too tired to read a great big load of crap, and since a skim brought me to this passage: "A central imperative of capitalism is expansion. Investors will not put their money into business ventures unless they can extract more than they invest. Increased earnings come only with a growth in the enterprise. The capitalist ceaselessly searches for ways of making more money in order to make still more money. One must always invest to realize profits, gathering as much strength as possible in the face of competing forces and unpredictable markets," it appears obvious that this is a big load of crap, indeed! I'll worry about it tomorrow.

p.s. Is "Chumpsky" a play on Chomsky?

[chula]

I have a hard time finding much to debate here, though I don't think you'll find much support around here. It seems blatantly obvious that the Unites States is an empire; it's widely accepted by people who aren't even left-wing. The post by js africanus presents nothing in the way of argument. I can't imagine how s/he can dismiss the idea of capitalism being focused on making profits.

The only real argument I've heard against the idea that the Unites States is an empire is from Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri's book Empire. (I haven't read it, so this is my interpretation of a friend's interpretation of the book.) Basically, they argue that the rulers of the global apparatus are not exactly American but rather the international elite. It's a global empire, not a U.S. one, as rulers in different countries have essentially the same interests and cooperate to impose policies that increase their power. I'm not sure if the argument holds water. After all, every empire I can think of has depended on the co-optation of the local ruling classes to maintain power. Also, the importance of U.S. military power in maintaining hegemony is not insignificant.

[Chumpsky]

Originally posted by js_africanus
As for the article, I'm too tired to read a great big load of crap, and since a skim... What is the point of replying to a post if you are not going to even go to the trouble of reading the freakin' essay!?

The points Conquest makes are mostly dealt with in the Parenti article, which you didn't bother to read, apparently dismissing out of hand. For example, Conquest writes,

"First, it implies a malign force with no program but the subjugation and exploitation of the innocent peoples. "

This is the main point Parenti deals with. The point is that imperialism is about obtaining wealth, or rather extracting wealth from the rest of the world. The subjugation and exploitation of peoples (innocent is used as a red-herring) is a by-product. It is not that the imperialists like to slaughter peasants in El Salvador, or blow up the dissident press in Guatemala, or assassinate the Chilean head of state, etc. Rather, it is that these are seen as necessary steps for maintaining the system of exploitation which allows for the extraction of wealth from the Third World and the maintainence of the position of privilege of the ruling class.

"Nor does the hoped-for civilization and democratization of the world mean its subjection to American power. On the contrary, it implies the withdrawal of American power in favor of a congeries of mutually friendly nations."

Withdrawal of American power!? Democratization!? Jeezuss! There is nothing so blindingly apparent from even a cursory glance at the world that the U.S. has been doing anything but withdrawing! Furthermore, the main goal of U.S. foreign policy has been, and continues to be, the deterrence of democracy.

"Second, it is used as a negative label for any effort by the United States, or the West, to encourage liberties, to block fanaticism, and to make aid dependent on positive economic policies. "

Acch! What can you say to these oft-repeated fantasies? The imperialists do not, and never have, "encouraged liberties" or "block fanatacism." Unless you consider only the liberties of multi-national corporations, and think that the liberties of the people of Chile, Guatemala, Iran, Congo, Dominican Republic, Haiti, etc., are unimportant. Block fanatacism!? The CIA virtually resurrected the concept of "jihad" to mean "holy war" in the 1980's, as it was recruting the most fanatical Islamic fundamentalists it could find to fight against the Soviets in Afghanistan. They then went on to commit vast acts of terrorism, such as killing school teachers who abided by the Soviet impositions of allowing girls into the schools.


Well, I could go on, but I will stop here. I hope those who would like to debate this issue will at least read the article I linked to, and offer some evidence for their assertions.

[js_africanus]

Originally posted by Chumpsky
What is the point of replying to a post if you are not going to even go to the trouble of reading the freakin' essay!?

Gosh, sorry. I had the book handy, you asked for thoughts on colonialism, I thought you might enjoy the quote. I guess I was mistaken. I promise, I'll never try to do something quick for you just to be nice again. That was a terrible error on my part.

As for the article, I merely applied Bayes' rule. When the first thing that I see as I skim is an assertion that is completely ignorant of actual economics, and the text following seems to be expanding on the aforementioned flawed idea, then it's safe to assume that it isn't too important--because it never has been in the past.

[furt]

Originally posted by chula
[B]I have a hard time finding much to debate here, though I don't think you'll find much support around here. It seems blatantly obvious that the Unites States is an empire; it's widely accepted by people who aren't even left-wing.

EMPIRE:
n 1: the domain ruled by an emperor or empress 2: a group of countries under a single authority: "the Roman empire" 3: a monarchy with an emperor as head of state 4: a group of companies run as a single organization [syn: conglomerate] 5: somewhat resembles a McIntosh; used as both an eating and a cooking apple [syn: Empire]

If you wish to use the term metaphorically to mean "vast and extensive influence," you may of course do so; but it does not aid communication.

[Bryan Ekers]

Y'know, if you read a Chumpsky thread backwards, you get your job back, you get your freedom back, you get your democracy back....

He's half-correct in one sense, though:

Imperialism, specifically western imperialism (which is mostly U.S. imperialism today), is the overwhelming factor in world affairs today, and has been for several centuries.

Several centuries? Bosh! Imperialism has been around for several millenia and started arguably with Sargon of Akkad, circa 3800 BCE, and has since been practiced by (just to hit the highlights) the Romans, the Mongols, the French, the British and the Soviets. The Americans are rank amateurs at empire-building. Their tactics are the merest pillowfight compared the excesses of the old empires.

How many of these threads do you plan on starting, anyway? Ever thought about visiting Café Society? It's kinda fun and a lot more varied.

[chula]

Originally posted by furt
EMPIRE:
n 1: the domain ruled by an emperor or empress 2: a group of countries under a single authority: "the Roman empire" 3: a monarchy with an emperor as head of state 4: a group of companies run as a single organization [syn: conglomerate] 5: somewhat resembles a McIntosh; used as both an eating and a cooking apple [syn: Empire]

If you wish to use the term metaphorically to mean "vast and extensive influence," you may of course do so; but it does not aid communication. Funny, I came back to this thread to make some remarks about the definition of "empire." Those who reject the label tend to use a narrow definition of the word and require that there be a formal and direct domination of political institutions. I'm not sure why they feel this is the only correct definition. Empires have varied greatly in the degree of domination of the cultural, political, and economic realms.

You appear to be using Wordnet as your dictionary - not the best source. There's no need to speak metaphorically; just use a better dictionary. I submit these as possible working definitions of "empire":Imperial or imperialistic sovereignty, domination, or control (with imperialistic defined as "of or relating to... the policy of extending a nation's authority by... the establishment of economic and political hegemony over other nations.") - American Heritage DictionarySupreme power; sovereignty; sway; dominion.
Any dominion; supreme control; governing influence; rule; sway - Webster's Unabridged Revised DictionaryBy "imperialism" I mean the process whereby the dominant politico-economic interests of one nation expropriate for their own enrichment the land, labor, raw materials, and markets of another people. - Michael Parenti

[chula]

Originally posted by Bryan Ekers
Several centuries? Bosh! Imperialism has been around for several millenia and started arguably with Sargon of Akkad, circa 3800 BCE, and has since been practiced by (just to hit the highlights) the Romans, the Mongols, the French, the British and the Soviets. The Americans are rank amateurs at empire-building. Their tactics are the merest pillowfight compared the excesses of the old empires.Maybe the sentence you quoted wasn't worded perfectly, but it's not so unclear as to excuse your inability to understand it. Western imperialism has been the overwelming factor in world affairs for centuries. The United States is currently the dominant empire. The empires you cite are either not Western or not ancient, with the exception of the Romans. But it wasn't until the past few centuries that empires went global. The vast majority of people living at the time didn't even know the Romans existed.

[Bryan Ekers]

Originally posted by chula
The empires you cite are either not Western or not ancient, with the exception of the Romans.

Why does an Empire have to be ancient or Western to "count"?

In any event, empires have always existed as powerful countries dominate weaker ones. I just don't hold with Chumpsky's take that the American version is somehow worse than everything that preceeded it. Quite the contrary, actually. As imperialists go, the Americans are relatively benign. They certainly weren't the worst (in terms of mass slaughters and whatnot) in the 20th century. Putting a "Starbuck's" in the Forbidden City is downright trivial compared to, say, any of the various pogroms the Russians were so fond of.

Trouble is, Chumpsky makes no distinction between building a McDonald's and building Auschwitz. They're apparantly of equal evil in his world. This makes him fun to ridicule (so I will), but pointless to debate (so I won't).

[Chumpsky]

Originally posted by Bryan Ekers
Putting a "Starbuck's" in the Forbidden City is downright trivial compared to, say, any of the various pogroms the Russians were so fond of. ummm... You seem to have missed the point.

I pointed out the example of Starbucks as an example of exactly the kind of trivial "cultural imperialism" that we are led to believe is the extent of U.S. imperialism. The point is that U.S. imperialism IS savage and barbaric, and is NOT characterized by Starbucks in the Forbidden City, but rather by mass killings of peasants in Third World countries, the forced underdevelopment of the Third World, undermining of democracy and human rights, continual war, and environmental catastrophe.

[Bryan Ekers]

Wow, Starbuck's is savage and barbaric?

Well, maybe if you order the "Coffee and Mace Combo".

As for your other, serious points, what savagery the U.S. has perpetrated is still pretty minor compared to the brutality and slaughter that were casual instruments of policy in empires past. I've never seen evidence of "forced underdevelopment" and the Soviets were much better at "environmental catastrophe" than the Americans were, or likely ever could be.

I just have to pick out your most ridiculous points and run with them. There isn't really any need for me to address your obvious and monomaniacal agenda, which has something to do with proving how icky the U.S. is. Got any suggestions for reforms? That should be good for a few laughs.

[Chumpsky]

Originally posted by Bryan Ekers
Wow, Starbuck's is savage and barbaric? Let's be serious for a moment. Do you have trouble reading? Or are you being deliberately obtuse?

[chula]

Originally posted by Bryan Ekers
Why does an Empire have to be ancient or Western to "count"?No one said that. You're the one who claimed there was something wrong with his statement. It's just a simple, factual statement to introduce the topic, not some grand conclusion.I just don't hold with Chumpsky's take that the American version is somehow worse than everything that preceeded it.I don't hear him making this argument. I wouldn't, and it's not necessary to establish the U.S. imperialism is worse than all others in order to establish that it's bad. The reason why people focus on the U.S. empire rather than Hitler is because Hitler is dead and the United States currently engages in policies that cause suffering.This makes him fun to ridicule (so I will), but pointless to debate (so I won't).It's sounds like you need to be reminded of what forum you're in.

[Uzi]

Originally posted by chula
No one said that. You're the one who claimed there was something wrong with his statement. It's just a simple, factual statement to introduce the topic, not some grand conclusion.I don't hear him making this argument. I wouldn't, and it's not necessary to establish the U.S. imperialism is worse than all others in order to establish that it's bad. The reason why people focus on the U.S. empire rather than Hitler is because Hitler is dead and the United States currently engages in policies that cause suffering.It's sounds like you need to be reminded of what forum you're in.

One of the reasons Hitler is dead is because of the US. One 'empire' destroyed another. Do you doubt the better one won? The main reason that the USSR doesn't exist anymore is because of the US. One 'empire' destroyed the other. Do you doubt the better one won? What would the world be like if either of the other two had prevailed?
If the US has influence on other nations it is because those nations allow it to happen. They want US greenbacks, nothing more, and are willing to subjegate their own citizens to get them. That is the US's fault?

[Liberal]

Ah, you young'uns!

Where were you when we were marching in the streets, pumping our fists, and chanting, "Down with the Amerikan imperialist capitalist fascist pigs waging war against the innocent Vietnamese people!"?

[Latro]

My, Lib, you must have one mighty strong right arm, if you have been pumping over every US nasty since then. ;)

[cckerberos]

Originally posted by Libertarian
Ah, you young'uns!

Where were you when we were marching in the streets, pumping our fists, and chanting, "Down with the Amerikan imperialist capitalist fascist pigs waging war against the innocent Vietnamese people!"?

You forgot 'running dog' :D

[puddleglum]

I read the articl mentioned in the OP and think Cecil needs to pay Mr Parenti a visit.
His point seems to be that:
Wealth is transferred from Third World peoples to the economic elites of Europe and North America (and more recently Japan) by direct plunder, by the expropriation of natural resources, the imposition of ruinous taxes and land rents, the payment of poverty wages, and the forced importation of finished goods at highly inflated prices.
Appartently while no one was looking large companies have been invading third world countries and carry the plunder back to the US. These companies also set the tax rates and control the rents in these countries. They then force these countries to buy their products.

I thought the dumbest thing in the whole article was that he equates conquering a nation and enslaving its people with opening a factory in a poor country.

[js_africanus]

Originally posted by chula
The post by js africanus presents nothing in the way of argument. I can't imagine how s/he can dismiss the idea of capitalism being focused on making profits.

Boy, you got that right! :D

I wanted to put that quote from Conquest up, because I had read it a few months ago and thought it interesting, but I didn't want to leave the article hanging. I figured that if I had posted an article that I thought was interesting and someone said that from skimming it it looked like shi*, I would have been honored that she planned to consider it anyway even though she felt it had no face validity. The Golden Rule always gets me into trouble.

Anyway, I did not imply that capitalism is not motivated by the profit motive. Let me reprint the quote I took issue with for reference:
A central imperative of capitalism is expansion. Investors will not put their money into business ventures unless they can extract more than they invest. Increased earnings come only with a growth in the enterprise. The capitalist ceaselessly searches for ways of making more money in order to make still more money. One must always invest to realize profits, gathering as much strength as possible in the face of competing forces and unpredictable markets.

This is simply a mischaracterization, at best. I've read similar remarks in some Communist literature, in John Weeks' Capital and Exploitation, for example. Every time it is stated without much explanation or proof, so it is hard to even put it into a frame of reference in order to take a good look at it.

Capitalism is motivated by profit. It does not, however, have expansion as a central imperative. It seems natural that if your business is doing well, you would want it to grow by gaining more market share, moving into new markets, or offering new & different products. But that seems more an aspect of the human condition, rather than a necessary component of a capitalist enterprise.

Parenti's proof, such as it is, that expansion is a necessary component of capitalism is that investors invest to get back more than they put in. Notice his language: investors "extract" money from the firm. He seems to be caught in the class-warfare dogma. Let's leave that aside for now. Surely investors will not put money into a business from which they expect to get back less than they put in. But this does not imply that a firm must constantly expand to pay back the investors. To illustrate this, consider a simple model of pricing common stocks. The discounted-cash-flow model simply holds that the value of a stock is equal to the value of the future dividend stream discounted back to the present time. (Discounting is adjusting the value of some amount in the future to what it "should" be worth today.) That is, the dividends for this year, plus next year (discounted), plus the next year (discounted) on to infinity is the value of the stock. The value of the stock then depends on the profitability of the company, but not its propensity for expansion. So a firm that never expands (it will have to invest some for upkeep) can still be an attractive investment choice if it makes a profit (and therefore pays dividends).

Of course, growth opportunities can and should be figured into the value of a stock. See, for example, Brealy & Myers "Principles of Corporate Finance" for more on stock pricing and discounting.

Regardless, the idea that fruitful investment requires constant expansion of the enterprise is simply unfounded. That's not to say that the market is a rough place where jostling for position is often important--merely that expansion is not a necessary condition for capitalist enterprise.

Parenti states further that "one must always invest to realize profits." It is hard to see where this is coming from. I wish he had more argument and explanation behind this. It sounds like the sort of remark I alluded to earlier, e.g. Weeks' book. So let me address something that will hopefully clear this up. Communist theory in general is predicated on an important assumption: the labor theory of value. The labor theory of value, put simplistically (but not too inaccurately), tells us that labor should be paid the value of the average output. That makes sense, right? Ten workers make ten widgets valued at $1 apiece, therefore each worker should make a dollar.

But if the $10 goes to the workers, how does the capitalist survive? By exploiting the worker, paying him less than he deserves. That is the root of class warfare, at least between the capitalist and the worker.

The problem here is that the labor theory of value tries to solve a calculus problem using arithmetic. Like Zeno who tried to solve calculus problems using geometry, confusion can obtain when not using this imporant mathematical tool. A way to consider the problem is that first, the market sets the price and increased output leads to decreased price (generally), and second that output will often exhibit diminishing returns to increases in one onput, labor in this case. These tendencies will bring down the marginal value produced by labor. (Marginal being the last unit of whatever you're dealing with.) With a decreasing marginal value product, a mathematical artifact is that the average value product is more than the marginal.

The thing is that when I work, the value that I actually bring to the company is my marginal value product--not the average of everybody working. That's what everybody brings: his marginal product. (Surely there is some interesting philosophical ground here, but I'm going to avoid that at all costs.) If the value I create is my marginal value product, the the payment I deserve is equal to that. Everybody gets paid what they're "worth."

But, what about the money left over? If the marginal value product of labor is less than the average, and if everybody gets paid their marginal value product, then there must be money left over. It turns out that this value "left over" is the value that the other major input has earned, that input being capital. Indeed, if you flip the problem around and look at the marginal value of capital and pay it its marginal value, then there is money left over--money that labor has earned. This money going to capital is what, in a very non-economic sense, profit. It is the money that goes to the investors. Do you follow me? The company, without any need to expand, can pay back the investors (in the form of an income stream) the money that it borrowed! The need to expand to make profits is a fiction.

Now granted, the real world is sloppy and not so easy to see. That's why we have models. Business compete for place and markets and whatnot, but none of that implies that perpetual expansion is a necessary component of the capitalist enterprise.

That, dear Chula, is why the passage mentioned is bunk.

Parenti goes on to use an example as proof of capitalism's need for expansion. Let me note that capitalism is a big affair, encompassing many people of many backgrounds and many moral standings. That myriad examples of reprehensible behavior exists is not an indictment of capitalism, simply because in any institution that large there are going to be lots of abuses. Does Parenti prove that capitalism is as bad as he says it is in the article? I surely don't care. His basic understanding of capitalism is so flawed that anything he has to add is of little concern to me. I was going to take a closer look at it, but after certain reactions it simply doesn't seem worth the effort.;)

-jsh

[Bryan Ekers]

Originally posted by chula
I don't hear him making this argument. I wouldn't, and it's not necessary to establish the U.S. imperialism is worse than all others in order to establish that it's bad.

Every single post Chumpsky has written has been political in nature, with most of them focussing on the evils of American imperialism/capitalism. Even I was surprised when I went through his profile. He is the epitome of the one-trick pony, with a saving grace that at least he is far more articulate than his pony brethren, though no less single-minded.

It's when he drops preposterous facts that my sarcasm-o-matic jumps to maximum, and he did invite us to "point out flaws in the Parenti essay, or anything I have written". Here's a flaw: Yugoslavia is an exercise in American imperialism? HA! If that were true, why haven't the Americans done what imperialists have always historically done: annex the conquered territory?

I'm not sure building a Starbuck's should count as "imperialism", or if it does, than the word "imperialism" loses all negative meaning, since I'd be hard-pressed to equate selling people coffee with the "rape, pillage and plunder" of olden days. Chumpsky seems to think that selling people coffee does count as a form of slavery and it's this inability to make distinctions that I find the most humourous.

And also kinda sad.

[Latro]

Jeez, Bryan read the ffing post again and the re-post.

[Soup_du_jour]

From the essay linked to in the OP:When not ignored outright, the subject of imperialism has been sanitized, so that empires become "commonwealths," and colonies become "territories" or "dominions" (or, as in the case of Puerto Rico, "commonwealths" too).Here's a major flaw. The cited territory, Puerto Rico, has had repeated referendums (http://welcome.topuertorico.org/history6.shtml) on whether or not to retain commonwealth status, become the 51st state, or declare independence. The Puerto Ricans decided to remain with the status quo on every occasion.

To imply that Puerto Rico continues to be exploited in an imperialistic sense, as the author does, is completely false.

[Bryan Ekers]

Originally posted by Latro
Jeez, Bryan read the ffing post again and the re-post.

I did Why even mention Starbuck's and Euro-Disney in a thread about imperialism except that Chumpsky can't resist grinding his little anti-corporate axe?

Actually, the original post has a much bigger flaw, seen when he expresses admiration for the masses (they have tendencies "toward egalitarianism, respect for human rights and the environment") and contempt for them (calling them "atoms of consumption" twice) in the same paragraph.

Evidently the masses are okay when they agree with Chumpsky (i.e. they wish to overthrow the corporate elite), and mindless drones when they don't (i.e. they would rather sit in their homes and watch sports).

And there a lot more than 10 corporations, by the way. If you're going to wildly exagerate, at least do so with a smile.

[Daoloth]

Originally posted by Chumpsky
The CIA virtually resurrected the concept of "jihad" to mean "holy war" in the 1980's

Got some cites for that assertion?

[Bryan Ekers]

Originally posted by Daoloth
Got some cites for that assertion?

I'm surpsied the CIA had time, what with inventing AIDS and crack and everything.

[Mr. Svinlesha]

js_africanus:

I’ve not had a chance to read the linked article (yet), but in the spirit of open critical investigation, I’d like to point out a couple of mistakes in the chain of your argument. You react to the following statement by Parenti: ”A central imperative of capitalism is expansion.” In your response, your write: This is simply a mischaracterization, at best…. Capitalism is motivated by profit. It does not, however, have expansion as a central imperative.So far, so good, but then you continue: It seems natural that if your business is doing well, you would want it to grow by gaining more market share, moving into new markets, or offering new & different products. But that seems more an aspect of the human condition, rather than a necessary component of a capitalist enterprise…. Parenti's proof, such as it is, that expansion is a necessary component of capitalism is that investors invest to get back more than they put in……and by this point, you have also neatly transformed Parenti’s claim from that of a ”central imperative” into that of a ”necessary component.” In addition, you seem to interpret the phrase ”necessary component” in a formal sense – that is, as a logically undeniable necessity for capitalism to operate.

I suppose that it is conceivable that a capitalist system could be developed such that its survival was not necessarily predicated on expansion. If, for example, a small society occupied an island in the middle of the ocean, cut off from all contact with the rest of the world, it might possibly display a ”capitalistic” form of economic organization even though it lacked opportunities for geographic expansion.

But this is not what our world looks like, and just because some capitalist enterprises are not geared towards expansion does not necessarily imply that capitalism as a whole is free from dynamics that compel it to expand. If you reflect upon the matter, I’m sure you can easily discern pressures within companies that drive them towards policies of aggressive expansion, especially in a situation of cut-throat market competition – in fact, you mention some of them in your response. Thus, I disagree with this claim: Regardless, the idea that fruitful investment requires constant expansion of the enterprise is simply unfounded.…for a couple of reasons. First off, while it is conceivable that in some cases expansion is not a requirement for ”fruitful investment,” there are also other ventures in which the exact opposite is true; that when expansion founders, investors loose capital. In addition, you seem to have restated, and mischaracterized, Parenti’s argument: your field of view is too narrow.

One can equate ”expansion” with ”economic growth.” The GNP of capitalist countries must constantly grow, if those countries are to remain healthy. This growth cannot be predicated on stock-market tricks like the one you elucidated in your post if it is to be economically meaningful. In contrast to your claim that this dynamic is “unfounded”, these facts are well established empirically, as is the general tendency towards expansion displayed by the capitalist world system.

[erislover]

Bryan, cripes[quote]I pointed out the example of Starbucks as an example of exactly the kind of trivial "cultural imperialism" that we are led to believe is the extent of U.S. imperialism. The point is that U.S. imperialism IS savage and barbaric, and is NOT characterized by Starbucks in the Forbidden City...[quote]He even 'shouted' it.

[RobertTB]

But there are no specific examples of US 'barbarism' given. Only broad accusations...

[Jackmannii]

Chumpsky is absolutely right, and the OP is terrific!

Especially the part about all the plunder we've hauled out of the former Yugoslavia. Why, I must have 50 kegs of slivovic* still sitting in the backyard!










*plum brandy. Also good as an alternate energy source.

[DrDeth]

Originally posted by chula
I have a hard time finding much to debate here, though I don't think you'll find much support around here. It seems blatantly obvious that the Unites States is an empire; it's widely accepted by people who aren't even left-wing.

I know of very few dudes that truly consider the USA an "Imperialist" power. "Blatantly obvious" seems to equate to "I have no proof, but if I say it loud enough maybe everyone will believe me".

True, the USA & it's corps do have some ASPECTS which are somewhat imperialistic. But many of the Corps are Multi-National, thus calling their "Imperialism" = to USA is specious. If we define what the USA currently does as "Imperialism" then every nation that has any significant power is "imperialistic", whereupon the word loses all meaning.

The Soviet USSR, Nazi Germany, and of course preWWII Great Britain are classic "Imperialistic powers". The USA doesn't even come close.

[msmith537]

Originally posted by DrDeth
I know of very few dudes that truly consider the USA an "Imperialist" power. [/B]

I know of a few:

- Poor foreigners who believe (or are told) that its the USAs fault that they are poor
- Foreign warlord types who don't like the USA coming in and wrecking their raping and pillaging
- Self righteous college students looking for yet another cause to do nothing about
- Muslims who are pissed off about Israel
- Foreign competitors

I guess that's about it.

[Chumpsky]

Originally posted by RobertTB
But there are no specific examples of US 'barbarism' given. Only broad accusations... Parenti mentions several examples in his introduction, such as the rape of Borneo. The essay, keep in mind, is an introduction to a book, which is replete with examples.

In my mind, one of the best examples of U.S. imperialism's savagery is in the case of Nicaragua. The following is from memory, but I can dig up references if necessary. However, all of this information is readily available from an internet search. I encourage people to verify what I write and correct any errors.

Nicaragua was a virtual colony of the U.S. until the 1920's and 30's, when, under the leadership of Augusto Cesar Sandino, Nicaraguans briefly enjoyed a modicum of success against the U.S. and its proxies. In 1934, Sandino was murdered by the U.S. favorite, Anastazio Somoza. The Somoza family ruled Nicaragua with an iron fist for the next 45 years, with lavish support from the U.S. In the late 70's, the Nicaraguan people revolted against the bloody rule of Somoza and liberated the country. The group that led the revolt and took power called themselves the Sandinistas after Sandino.

When Somoza was forced to flee the country the U.S. flew his National Guard out of the country in airplanes disguised with Red Cross markings, a war crime. Then, the U.S. immediately began attacking Nicaragua. You see, the crime the Sandinistas committed was that they had instituted very effective reforms and had the highest economic growth rate in Latin America. Their ambitious literacy programs, health care programs and other social programs were making significant progress in alleviating the mass suffering of the poor. For this crime, they were ruthlessly attacked. The attacks were vastly escalated by the Reaganites when they took power and organized Somoza's ex-National Guardsmen into a terrorist force called the Contras to destroy Nicaraguan society. The backward peasant country of 4 million was subjected to an embargo and a ruthless terrorist campaign which took 50,000 lives in the 1980s according to some estimates.

In 1984 the Sandinistas held an election which still stands as one of the most remarkable examples of democracy in history. Under attack from a foreign superpower, they provided funds and free media time for all opposition groups, including the front group for the Contras which was attacking Nicaragua. Nothing even remotely similar has ever occured in any European country under attack. The 1984 election was the most intensely monitered election in history, and was universally acclaimed as free and fair. With over 70% of the electorate voting, the Sandinistas won 67% of the vote.

However, the Reaganites declared that Nicaragua was a "Marxist dictatorship."

Under the ongoing attack from the U.S., Nicaragua took the U.S. to the World Court for its international terrorism, and won a victory in 1986, in which the U.S. was ordered to cease its murderous attacks and pay $17 billion in reparations. The ruling was dismissed with contempt and then the U.S. stepped up its terrorist attacks, giving explicit orders to the Contras for the first time to attack "soft targets"--undefended or lightly defended civilian targets. The degree of support given to the Contras far exceeds the amount of foreign support given to a so-called "guerrilla" group, save one, the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan. The proxy terrorist army was trained and supplied by the U.S., stationed out of U.S. bases in Honduras, and were the beneficiaries of CIA recon flights in order to avoid the Nicaraguan army and attack only "soft targets."

By the late 1980's Nicaragua's economy was devastated by the embargo, natural disasters and the necessity of diverting precious resources into defending the country against a superpower attack. The Sandinistas held another election in 1990. Days before the election, Bush #1 held a press conference at the White House in which he declared that if the U.S. favorite, an extreme rightist named Chamorro, won the election that the attacks would cease, the embargo would be lifted, and aid would flow to the country. Otherwise the attacks would continue. Under this threat, the U.S. puppet won the election by a slim margin, placing the country back under U.S. control. Basically, the people of Nicaragua had a choice: vote for the U.S. candidate or watch your children starve. Independent development had been thwarted. Although the Reaganites were prevented by popular resistance from carrying out their deeply held desire to invade the country outright, the terrorist and economic attacks succeeded in the end.

Nicaragua is again a virtual U.S. colony, where labor unions have been destroyed, where everything has been privatized, where the poverty rate is absolutely ridiculous. All of the progress made by the Sandinistas in the early 1980's has been reversed as Nicaragua has been forced back into the "Central American mode" of suffering and privation. U.S. corporations enjoy free reign to exploit the natural resources and the people, and there is nothing the people can do about it. They understand the consequences of defying the bully on the block.

The case of Nicaragua is typical. In general, the U.S. acts to prevent independent economic development. Whether the development is leftist, as in the case of Nicaragua, or rightist, as in the case of Iraq, no country can be allowed to develop outside the economic system organized and dominated by the U.S.

[Chumpsky]

Originally posted by Bryan Ekers
Actually, the original post has a much bigger flaw, seen when he expresses admiration for the masses (they have tendencies "toward egalitarianism, respect for human rights and the environment") and contempt for them (calling them "atoms of consumption" twice) in the same paragraph. The only problem with this is that I never called "the masses" "atoms of consumption." I wrote:

"The goal [of the imperialists] is to create a world where ... there are just atoms of consumption and production sitting in their apartments ..."

It is the imperialists who want to turn the people into atoms of consumption. It is the imperialists who want to degrade civil society to the point where people are only units of consumption and production, where every human relation is replaced with economic transactions.

Far from having contempt for "the masses" as you put it, I believe that it is exactly what are called the "common people" who make positive change.

POWER TO THE PEOPLE!

[Chumpsky]

Originally posted by Daoloth
Got some cites for that assertion [that the CIA resurrected the concept of jihad to mean holy war in the 1980's]? Here is a transcript of a talk by the late scholar Eqbal Ahmed given in 1998:
Terrorism: Theirs and Ours (http://www.indiatogether.org/opinions/talks/ahmad01.htm)

It is an excellent talk, especially remarkable for the fact that it was given in 1998. He says, regarding jihad:
Let me see if I can be very short on this. Jihad, which has been translated a thousand times as "holy war," is not quite just that. Jihad is an Arabic word that means, "to struggle." It could be struggle by violence or struggle by non-violent means. There are two forms, the small jihad and the big jihad. The small jihad involves violence. The big jihad involves the struggles with self. Those are the concepts. The reason I mention it is that in Islamic history, jihad as an international violent phenomenon had disappeared in the last four hundred years, for all practical purposes.

It was revived suddenly with American help in the 1980s. When the Soviet Union intervened in Afghanistan, Zia ul-Haq, the military dictator of Pakistan, which borders on Afghanistan, saw an opportunity and launched a jihad there against godless communism. The U.S. saw a God-sent opportunity to mobilize one billion Muslims against what Reagan called the Evil Empire. Money started pouring in. CIA agents starting going all over the Muslim world recruiting people to fight in the great jihad. Bin Laden was one of the early prize recruits...

[Bryan Ekers]

The irony, of course, is that one would think the collapse of the USSR would allow the Americans to go hog-wild and annex virtually every country in sight if they were as arrogant and greedy as the op implies. Oddly, they never seem to get around to it.

Nicaragua is a truly awful case of U.S. interference, but there is a larger context; namely the perceived need to limit increasing Soviet influence. The Soviets were really really good at that imperialist thing. Just ask the Latvians, Lithuanians, Estonians, Poles, Hungarians, Bulgarians, etc.

Did the U.S. act harsher than necessary? Of course they did. But that doesn't qualify them as the worst imperalist power of the 20th-century, nor do I believe they're likely to earn that title in the 21st. Hyperbole doesn't equal proof.

[Neurotik]

Jihad had disappeared until the 1980s? What?

During post-WWI, jihad was declared several times during uprisings against the British in what was to become Iraq and in Syria.

That drivel about the US reviving it is just that - drivel.

[Bryan Ekers]

Originally posted by Chumpsky
It is the imperialists who want to turn the people into atoms of consumption. It is the imperialists who want to degrade civil society to the point where people are only units of consumption and production, where every human relation is replaced with economic transactions.

Far from having contempt for "the masses" as you put it, I believe that it is exactly what are called the "common people" who make positive change.

POWER TO THE PEOPLE!

Well, why haven't they made "positive change" yet? What's stopping them (by which I mean just the Americans, for the sake of argument) from changing all of Congress in one swoop? They're given the opportunity to do so every two years, rain or shine.

Let me guess: the imperalists are stopping them. Don't worry, I'll take your word for it and not ask for evidence or proof or logic or anything. Let's say the imperialists really have prevented the masses from exercising their power to casually change Congress, the Senate and President through the vote. Here's the $64 dollar question:

The masses not yet risen up in glorious revolution because:
A - They're crushed down by jackbooted thugs.
B - They're far too stupid and apathetic to act for their own good.
C - They're actually pretty satisfied with the system as it stands.

I know your posts suggest A, but I kinda think you actually believe B, and get kind of annoyed whenever anyone suggests C.

Personally, I'd go with C. It's rather arrogant to asssume B and paranoid to believe A. How many jackbooted thugs have you seen today?

[Chumpsky]

Originally posted by Bryan Ekers
The irony, of course, is that one would think the collapse of the USSR would allow the Americans to go hog-wild and annex virtually every country in sight if they were as arrogant and greedy as the op implies. Oddly, they never seem to get around to it.You are missing a very important point.

The imperialist system maintained by the U.S. and other imperialist countries is different from the "classic" imperialist systems in that it does not seek to annex territory. As Parenti explains, it is not the territory that the imperialists are after, but rather the wealth. The system that is maintained is one of support for compradors who serve Washington and allow for the exploitation of a country's internal resources. This system is much more efficient than the old system of occupation and annexation. If the U.S. were to annex, say Saudi Arabia for example, then it would have to extend some rights to the people of Saudi Arabia. It is much better to have a subservient government in power that keeps the people down and the profits flowing to the west. With this system you get all of the benefits in terms of wealth extraction without any of the downsides, like allowing the people of the colonized to benefit from the wealth of their countries.
Nicaragua is a truly awful case of U.S. interference, but there is a larger context; namely the perceived need to limit increasing Soviet influence. The Soviets were really really good at that imperialist thing. Just ask the Latvians, Lithuanians, Estonians, Poles, Hungarians, Bulgarians, etc. The Cold War was merely the pretext for carrying out the same policies that have always been carried out under various pretexts. The U.S. was intervening in Latin America long before the 1917 revolution, and continues to intervene today, under different pretexts.

Although frightened little men might scurry under their desks at Reagan's pronouncement that the Sandinistas were only "two days march from Texas," the idea that Nicaragua posed a threat to the U.S. was ludicrous.

Also, if you want to compare the imperialist behavior of the U.S. and USSR, just look at, say, Guatemala and Poland in the 1980's.

[Neurotik]

So how do you explain OPEC and the oil embargo of the '70s?

[Chumpsky]

Originally posted by Bryan Ekers
Well, why haven't they [the people] made "positive change" yet? What's stopping them (by which I mean just the Americans, for the sake of argument) from changing all of Congress in one swoop? They're given the opportunity to do so every two years, rain or shine. THEY HAVE!

Every progressive change that has been made in the U.S. (and elsewhere) has been the result of popular struggle.

It wasn't the capitalists who pushed for the 8-hour day--they fought it tooth and nail. It wasn't the capitalists who won the right to free speech, or the right to vote, or the right to organize, etc. All of the liberties we enjoy today are the result of decades of bitter popular struggle against the capitalists.

[Uzi]

Originally posted by Chumpsky
You are missing a very important point.

This system is much more efficient than the old system of occupation and annexation. If the U.S. were to annex, say Saudi Arabia for example, then it would have to extend some rights to the people of Saudi Arabia. It is much better to have a subservient government in power that keeps the people down and the profits flowing to the west. With this system you get all of the benefits in terms of wealth extraction without any of the downsides, like allowing the people of the colonized to benefit from the wealth of their countries.

What you fail to mention is that the government, such as Saudi Arabia, gets paid for the resources it sends to the US. The Saudi government then chooses what it does with that wealth. It can choose to spend it on palaces, or it can choose to spend it on its people. So, if the money doesn't filter down to the people then that isn't anyone else's fault other than the Saudi government and the people who let them stay in power.

[Chumpsky]

Originally posted by Uzi
What you fail to mention is that the government, such as Saudi Arabia, gets paid for the resources it sends to the US. The Saudi government then chooses what it does with that wealth. It can choose to spend it on palaces, or it can choose to spend it on its people. So, if the money doesn't filter down to the people then that isn't anyone else's fault other than the Saudi government and the people who let them stay in power. True, but if the Saudi government started investing profits from oil in its country, instead of funneling it to the west, it would quickly become an enemy.

Case in point: Iraq.

[Chumpsky]

Oh, and it isn't the people of Saudi Arabia who "let" the government stay in power. They maintain their power by force, with lots of help from the U.S.

[Uzi]

Originally posted by Chumpsky
Oh, and it isn't the people of Saudi Arabia who "let" the government stay in power. They maintain their power by force, with lots of help from the U.S.

And the US used to be owned by Britain until the American people did something about it.

[Bryan Ekers]

Originally posted by Chumpsky
Every progressive change that has been made in the U.S. (and elsewhere) has been the result of popular struggle.

It wasn't the capitalists who pushed for the 8-hour day--they fought it tooth and nail. It wasn't the capitalists who won the right to free speech, or the right to vote, or the right to organize, etc. All of the liberties we enjoy today are the result of decades of bitter popular struggle against the capitalists.

Not ALL of the liberties Americans enjoy today can be attributed to struggle against capitalists. A great many of them, including the rights to free speech and the vote, are enshrined in the U.S. Constitution and have nothing to do with capitalism. And popular struggles can and do go too far, as with Prohibition. the problem I see with your posts is that there doesn't seem to be any catch point to your "power to the people" approach, where you would put some limits on what "the people" can do.

What agenda is ultimately driving your politics? The abolition of private property? The seizure of factories and land? Believe it or not, included the Constitution are protections of property ownership and the free use thereof and prohibitions against confiscation without due process and excess fines (ref: the 3rd, 4th, 5th, 8th and 14th amendments). If "the people" continue to make gains in their struggle against the capitalists, are these amendments to be abolished?

"Power to the people!" makes for a nice platitude, but what do you mean when you say it?

Incidentally, the oppression of the Saudi people by their own government is the fault of the Americans? I fear I must offend Miss Manners and call BULLSHIT on you, yet again. The monarchical system in Saudi Arabia (and its brutal tactics) has been around much longer than the United States.

I heard it snowed in Oslo today. Is that the Americans' fault, too?

[Uzi]

Originally posted by Chumpsky
True, but if the Saudi government started investing profits from oil in its country, instead of funneling it to the west, it would quickly become an enemy.

Case in point: Iraq.

Is Canada an enemy of the US? We supply lots of resources to the US and then invest it in our people.
The UAE invests in local infrastructure and education, but it isn't a US enemy.
Why would the US care if Saudi invested in its people? If they are happy they are less likely to cause problems or rock the boat as it were. If the Saudi citizens were freer to pursue their own interests and received the benefit from the resources leaving the country they would probably purchase more things from the west even more profits would funneled back.

[Chumpsky]

Originally posted by Bryan Ekers
Not ALL of the liberties Americans enjoy today can be attributed to struggle against capitalists. A great many of them, including the rights to free speech and the vote, are enshrined in the U.S. Constitution and have nothing to do with capitalism. Yes, ALL. When the U.S. was founded, 1/6 of the population was enslaved and less than 1/3 of the free population had the vote.

The right to free speech has not existed in this country until very recently. As late as the 1950's, people were jailed for saying the wrong thing. Seditious libel was still illegal until popular pressure forced the state to grant the right of free speech to the citizens.

Rights are never protected by pieces of paper. They must be won and protected by popular struggle.
What agenda is ultimately driving your politics? The abolition of private property? The seizure of factories and land? Believe it or not, included the Constitution are protections of property ownership and the free use thereof and prohibitions against confiscation without due process and excess fines (ref: the 3rd, 4th, 5th, 8th and 14th amendments). If "the people" continue to make gains in their struggle against the capitalists, are these amendments to be abolished?Yes.

[Uzi]

Originally posted by Chumpsky
Yes.

This reminds me of the Monty Python sketch 'Dennis Moore'.
http://www.blakeneymanor.com/moore.html
Steal from the rich until they become poor and the poor become rich!

[ISiddiqui]

Yes, ALL. When the U.S. was founded, 1/6 of the population was enslaved and less than 1/3 of the free population had the vote.

Frankly that is BS. The CAPITALISTS were the ones that pushed free speech and the Bill of Rights. Why? Because just about all the Founding Fathers would be called 'capitalists'. They were supporters of the Enlightenment that took capitalism as it's economic system.

Capitalist struggle continued throughout the 1800s. The fight against tariffs was a capitalist fight, and they were against the government. I find it hard to believe that if the capitalists could not get one of their most imporant goals (free trade) pushed on the government, how did a struggle against capitalists create all these rights.

It is simply BS communist propaganda.

[Bryan Ekers]

Originally posted by Chumpsky
Yes.

Well, I'm glad we cleared THAT up. Yeesh!

By the way, the people called and you're wasting too much electricity on your internet activities. They need it to run the community hot tub. So stop using your computer or they'll bust in there and take it!

[Chumpsky]

Originally posted by Uzi
Steal from the rich until they become poor and the poor become rich! Who said anything about stealing from the rich?

What I favor is the elimination of authoritarian structures that allow the rich to steal from the poor. I don't think anybody should steal from anybody.

[Bryan Ekers]

Question-begging time: does the Chicago Reader, a corporation, count as an authoritarian structure? If so, wouldn't eliminating it also eliminate the medium by which you disseminate your views, i.e. this message board?

[Chumpsky]

Originally posted by Bryan Ekers
Question-begging time: does the Chicago Reader, a corporation, count as an authoritarian structure? If so, wouldn't eliminating it also eliminate the medium by which you disseminate your views, i.e. this message board? Yes and no.

The corporate structure is an authoritarian structure. Actually, the growth of corporate power is one of the most important events of recent history, and is almost completely absent from history books. The growth of corporate power took place mostly through judicial activism, not through any democratic process. These structures were set up precisely to keep power immune from the democratic process. Corporations are some of the most totalitarian structures ever invented by Mankind. They operate mostly in secret and are totally unaccountable to the public. The enjoy incredible protections and privileges from the capitalist state, protections that are anathema to democracy.

There is no reason for corporations to exist in the form they do now.

As for the second point, there is no reason why corporations have to control the internet, or why a group couldn't maintain a website that isn't corporate controlled. This same wonderful website (I am not being sarcastic) could still exist if corporations were granted the status of immortal persons and granted extraordinary rights that people don't enjoy.

Basically, I don't think that artificial entities like corporations should have any rights at all. Only people should have rights.

[Soup_du_jour]

Originally posted by Chumpsky
True, but if the Saudi government started investing profits from oil in its country, instead of funneling it to the west, it would quickly become an enemy.

Case in point: Iraq.Didn't Iraq invade Kuwait? Didn't Iraq fire off scud missiles at Israel, the US's biggest ally in the region, during the Gulf War?

Doesn't his regime's particular propensity toward torture (http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/spl/hi/middle_east/02/uk_human_rights_dossier_on_iraq/pdf/iraq_human_rights.pdf) have something to do with it? How about its WMD program (http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/spl/hi/middle_east/02/uk_dossier_on_iraq/pdf/iraqdossier.pdf), flouting binding Security Council resolutions?

Saddam Hussein's regime is an enemy because they invest in social programs? Bah.

[Neurotik]

Originally posted by Chumpsky
The enjoy incredible protections and privileges from the capitalist state, protections that are anathema to democracy.

Such as?

[js_africanus]

Originally posted by Bryan Ekers
I heard it snowed in Oslo today. Is that the Americans' fault, too?

Yes. And my cousin Bjorn crashed into a ditch because of it. Gosh darn Americans.

Originally posted by Mr. Svinlesha
This growth cannot be predicated on stock-market tricks like the one you elucidated in your post if it is to be economically meaningful.

Tricks? Would you flesh that out a little more, please. (I was so honored by your thoughtful reply, by the way. Thank you!:) )

[Chumpsky]

Originally posted by Soup_du_jour
Didn't Iraq invade Kuwait? Didn't Iraq fire off scud missiles at Israel, the US's biggest ally in the region, during the Gulf War?

Doesn't his regime's particular propensity toward torture (http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/spl/hi/middle_east/02/uk_human_rights_dossier_on_iraq/pdf/iraq_human_rights.pdf) have something to do with it? How about its WMD program (http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/spl/hi/middle_east/02/uk_dossier_on_iraq/pdf/iraqdossier.pdf), flouting binding Security Council resolutions?None of these can possibly have anything to do with why Iraq became an official enemy, for obvious reasons.
Saddam Hussein's regime is an enemy because they invest in social programs? Bah. Saddam and the Ba'ath Party became official enemies only when Saddam became an economic nationalist. As long as he was just murdering and torturing leftists and killing lots of Iranians, he was a valued ally. It was only when he unexpectedly became an economic nationalist that he became the next Hitler. (We are always being confronted by the next Hitler--from Qaddafi to Noriega to Saddam to Milosovic to bin Laden to Saddam--there is always a new Hitler who must be stopped before he takes over the world.)

What went on in Iraq could not have been predicted by anybody. Here you had a ruthless CIA-sponsored killer in Saddam Hussein, put on the CIA payroll to wipe out the left in Iraq. His years of torture and murder kept him in excellent standing with the U.S., which was sending delegations of Senators to Iraq to kiss Saddam's ass through the 1980's. Here is the funny thing, though: Saddam started taking the profits from oil and investing in the country. He put major funding into education, health care and other social programs, developing Iraq into an "emerging first world country" according to the World Bank. Furthermore, the benefits to the people were quite egalitarian relatively, in that they were not limited by class or gender--women had their education paid for by the state up through the Ph.D. level. Iraq had built up the most advanced society in the Arab world by far.

Who would a thunk it?

This was the real crime: economic nationalism. Saddam started developing the country outside of the economic system organized and dominated by the U.S. For this crime the country has been devastated.

[Dewey Cheatem Undhow]

Originally posted by Chumpsky
The growth of corporate power took place mostly through judicial activism, not through any democratic process.I'm calling bullshit here. Most of the key features of the corporate form (limited liability, etc) are statutory by nature. Before the states passed general corporation laws, to get a corporate charter you had to have one granted by the legislature, not the judiciary. And judicial pronouncements on the corporate form (e.g., legal "personhood") are made in furtherance of state policies allowing the corporate form of business -- IOW, they further a democratically-decided policy. These structures were set up precisely to keep power immune from the democratic process.How, exactly? Corporations are some of the most totalitarian structures ever invented by Mankind.Why, exactly? They operate mostly in secret and are totally unaccountable to the public.They act in no more secrecy and have no less accountability than a sole proprietorship or partnership. Indeed, corporations that are publicly traded operate with far more public scrutiny and accountability than other business forms. The enjoy incredible protections and privileges from the capitalist state, protections that are anathema to democracy.Such as...what? Limited liability to investors? So what? Do you really want to abolish that? Do you really think it'd be a good thing to make the average schmuck holding 100 shares of IBM personally liable for every debt incurred by the company?There is no reason for corporations to exist in the form they do now.And what, exactly, would you change?Basically, I don't think that artificial entities like corporations should have any rights at all. Only people should have rights. The extent to which corporations have rights are only a reflection of and protection for the underlying rights of the shareholders. IOW, the legal treatment of corporations is necessary to protect the rights of real flesh and blood people.

[Daoloth]

Originally posted by Chumpsky

This was the real crime: economic nationalism. Saddam started developing the country outside of the economic system organized and dominated by the U.S. For this crime the country has been devastated.

Or maybe he decided to invade Iran. And then Kuwait. And lose.

[Chumpsky]

Originally posted by Daoloth
Or maybe he decided to invade Iran. And then Kuwait. And lose. The invasion of Iran was totally supported by the U.S. Also, the invasion of Kuwait may have been green-lighted by the U.S. ambassador to Iraq, which is the message the Iraqis were given.

Furthermore, the U.S. has no problem at all with invasions in principle. The U.S. itself invaded Panama only a few months before Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, and it has supported a whole string of illegal invasions, from Israel's numerous invasions, to Turkey's invasion of Cyprus, to Indonesia's invasion of East Timor, and so on. So, clearly it was not the principle of invasion that put Iraq on the enemies list.

[Daoloth]

Originally posted by Chumpsky
The invasion of Iran was totally supported by the U.S. Also, the invasion of Kuwait may have been green-lighted by the U.S. ambassador to Iraq, which is the message the Iraqis were given.

Furthermore, the U.S. has no problem at all with invasions in principle. The U.S. itself invaded Panama only a few months before Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, and it has supported a whole string of illegal invasions, from Israel's numerous invasions, to Turkey's invasion of Cyprus, to Indonesia's invasion of East Timor, and so on. So, clearly it was not the principle of invasion that put Iraq on the enemies list.

Even if supported by the US, it devastated the nation. And if these invasions didn't make Iraq an enemy, then, what do you think did?

Of course, maybe the administration just loathes the Iraqi's and needs quick cash. Afterall, racism and greed are the only TRUE motives the US has ever used. :rolleyes:

[o42cDeadBeef]

<Evil Imperialistic Hat On>

Okay, here’s a thought to ponder. The US decides to:
•close its’ borders,
•withdraws all humanitarian aid to all of those ‘needy’ countries in the world,
•brings home all of the troops who risk their lives to maintain peace in developing nations et al,
•kicks out everyone living here illegally or with expired visa’s and denies entry to anyone else,
•keeps all of the tax payers dollars and gives zilch to the UN and in turn invests the money into its’ own people,
•returns to being a Republic and stops its’ capitalistic/imperialistic march into world domination (sarcasm)
•and its’ people sit at home enjoying the spoils of living in the greatest, freedom loving country on earth?

Then every time a Hitler or a Saddam shows up in the world, well tough shit folks. Deal with it because we’re not going to get involved, help, rebuild, and offer aid - nada. Pick up your stones and fight your way out.

Now, what if all of us on this small green planet demanded that our respective countries did the very same thing? Would we all develop and prosper at the same rate as our neighbors? Would the benefits (and YES they exist) from sharing in ideas, products, and services on a global level continue to exist? The same benefits that allow some underdeveloped nations gain in prosperity and improve the lives of their people?

Power to the people? In the US, we call that the right to vote. And to think that the US is the only ‘empire’ in the world to not play by the ‘rules’ is pure Barbara Streisand (BS).

[Bryan Ekers]

o42cDeadBeef: actually, if you read Chumpsky's posts long enough, you'll see that he blames the U.S. for violent suppression of civil rights and cold indifference leading to famines and whatnot, i.e. they're guilty for ther actions and their inactions.

Coming up with premises is so much easier when you have an unshakable conclusion in mind.

[Liberal]

DeadBeef wrote:

Power to the people? In the US, we call that the right to vote.The hubris.

You have designed and legislated the voting system so that the choice is a dichotomy — Tweedle Dee or Tweedle Dum. It is the ethical equivalent of Iraq's Yes or No for Saddam. You have assigned rights to those who have the most political clout. Those without power have their rights usurped.

The vote of an individual is like a snowflake in a blizzard. Great wealth and exposure is required for access to power. Boundless bureaucracies entomb the hopes of struggling minorities whose issues earn no sympathy from oblivious and apathetic majorities.

Power to the people my red ass.

[js_africanus]

Originally posted by Libertarian
You have designed and legislated the voting system so that the choice is a dichotomy — Tweedle Dee or Tweedle Dum. It is the ethical equivalent of Iraq's Yes or No for Saddam.

Power to the people my red ass.

I would enjoy reading a sound, prima facie argument making that case. Would you please provide one?

That's a sincere request, not a veiled attack. ;)

p.s. Why is your ass red? Are you a Libertarian communist, or do you wipe too hard?:D

[o42cDeadBeef]

Originally posted by Libertarian
[Power to the people my red ass. [/B]

Inquiring minds want to know – why is your ass red? :D

Okay, just a little levity Lib.

________________

Opinions are like assholes – everyone has one and they all stink! Rodney Dangerfield

[Liberal]

I am a Cherokee Indian.

The voting system is designed to coerce a two-party government. Those who legislate, enforce, and interpret the rules are themselves nearly one-hundred percent Republican or Democrat.

Because of their rules, a Libertarian Party candidate in New York, for example, must collect 50,000 signatures before he can even run. Each time he wants to run. Some states place even heavier burdens. And in Wyoming, each signatory may sign only once for any party's petition.

They force anyone who is not one of them to beg to participate in the system, jump through hoops that Republicrats never have to jump through, and then be ignored in national debates even when they have met all objective criteria.

See this report from the Cato Institute, How the Republicans and Democrats Maintained Their Market Share (http://www.cato.org/dailys/8-14-98.html). There is much more documentation online if you care to search.

[o42cDeadBeef]

“It is the ethical equivalent of Iraq's Yes or No for Saddam.”

Last time I checked, Bush hasn’t ordered people in the room to be taken out back and shot in the head as Saddam did on television. Well wait; there was that whole Clinton & Vince Foster thingy. Gee, how could I forget that? :smack:

“The vote of an individual is like a snowflake in a blizzard.”

Regardless of your comment, I still take my voting rights seriously and exercise them often. Remember, each snowflake is unique and unlike any other – or so they say. Kind of makes me feel special when I think about your comment. Thanks for making my day Lib!
;)

[o42cDeadBeef]

Originally posted by Libertarian
I am a Cherokee Indian.

Hey I think that's great! My grandmother told me that my great, great, great... grandfather was an Indian Chief which I happen to be proud of. Apparently they settled around the southern Indiana and/or Northern Kentucky areas years ago and my family sort of married into the Indian tribe during that time. Cool!

See this report from the Cato Institute, How the Republicans and Democrats Maintained Their Market Share (http://www.cato.org/dailys/8-14-98.html). There is much more documentation online if you care to search.

I enjoy learning, reading, debating and educating myself on politics, so I'm going to click on the link and read what you have offered. Thanks!

[Liberal]

If you wish to educate yourself on libertarian politics, the Libertarian Party (http://www.lp.org) and Free-Market (http://www.free-market.net) are good places to begin. And welcome to Straight Dope Great Debates.

[randy054]

Originally posted by Chumpsky
The invasion of Iran was totally supported by the U.S. Also, the invasion of Kuwait may have been green-lighted by the U.S. ambassador to Iraq, which is the message the Iraqis were given.


Saddam (or one of his ministers) was meeting with our ambassador, April Glaspie(sp). He complained about Kuwaiti theft of Iraqi oil via slant drilling. IIRC, he said something along the lines of needing to deal with it. Glaspie, not having any instructions on the matter, basically said the US did not wish to get involved in the dispute.

This meeting has become the famed "green light for an invasion".

Somehow, a vague hint about needing to deal with stolen oil and a
somewhat vague reply about not wanting to get involved in that
dispute became a direct request for permission to invade and just as
direct permission to go ahead.

[js_africanus]

Originally posted by Libertarian
If you wish to educate yourself on libertarian politics, the Libertarian Party (http://www.lp.org) and Free-Market (http://www.free-market.net) are good places to begin. And welcome to Straight Dope Great Debates.

Have you read "The Road to Serfdom"? It's a great book. I read it because I saw Milton Friedman interviewed on an anniversary of the book's publishing, and he said that reading that book is what made him a libertarian. Brian Lamb referred to it as "the conservatives bible." Anyway, I was suprised by the extent and force of Hayek's arguments that fairly extensive government regulation was required to have a sound economy, i.e. the 'free market' is bunk, the competitive market is da bomb, as the kids say. ("Free market" appears no where in the proof of the First Fundamental Theorem, after all....)

Does this post qualify as a "hijack"? I've been seeing that term around. What is "IIRC"?

[Shodan]

I would like to save myself a lot of typing.

Participants in the thread will please re-read all of Chumpsky's posts, and insert the following after every sentence.

Cite?

Regards,
Shodan

PS -IIRC = If I Recall Correctly. Welcome to the SDMB.

[Liberal]

Africanus wrote:

Have you read "The Road to Serfdom"?Yes, indeed. It was in the course of writing that book that Hayek developed his Theory of Spontaneous Order, and that eventually led to his Nobel prize in economics for proving that socialism is indemically unfeasable.

But do not misunderstand Hayek's points about the free-market. The only ethical government interference is suppression of coercion (initiated force or fraud). Any other interference is harmful to the economy. But that particular kind of interference is necessary. It is called a "noncoercive free-market". And it is the very heart of libertarianism, i.e., the Noncoercion Principle.

Incidentally, for what it's worth, the book that led me to libertarianism was Human Action (http://www.mises.org/humanaction.asp). At the link, hosted by Cato, you may read the entire text.

[Liberal]

Oh, and IIRC is "if I recall correctly". Welcome to Straight Dope.

[Mehitabel]

Interesting article (http://www.nyobserver.com/pages/story.asp?ID=6622) by Ron Rosenbaum (author of EXPLAINING HITLER among other books) in last week's NY OBSERVER.

A quote:

"...Pardon me if I return to that sign: "BUSH IS A DEVIL … HANDS OFF N. KOREA, IRAQ," etc. Pardon me if I ask what might seem like a naïve question, but isn’t the Left supposed to be on the side of oppressed people, rather than on the side of the police states, such as North Korea, or the vicious theocracies, such as Iran, that oppress them? That’s why I used to think of myself as part of the Left. How did it all turn around so that if Mr. Bush opposes a police state, that particular police state is then taken under the nurturing, protective wing of the Left—and those oppressed people don’t count. Police states like Iraq and North Korea must be worth protecting even though they torture their citizens, murder their dissenters, repress women and gays, because—well, because Bush is the devil, and if the devil opposes something, it must have something going for it."

[Milossarian]

There are perfectly jamming rock bands out there besides Rage Against the Machine, Chumsky.

[Soup_du_jour]

Of course, Milo.

But Rage is still a bloody good band! :D

[obo]

Well, after reading the posts here, the main difference between American imperialsm an the more ancient versions is that the American version hasnt finished yet. All of the others mentioned can be reviewed through history, what they achieved or failed at, whether they were good, bad or indifferent. The American Empire is in its early stage, no one really knows how it will finish.

[Captain Amazing]

Originally posted by Libertarian
IBecause of their rules, a Libertarian Party candidate in New York, for example, must collect 50,000 signatures before he can even run. Each time he wants to run.

Well, IIRC, only the first time. Then, after that, as long as the party gets at least 5% of the vote (in the race for governor, I think?), the party stays on the ballot.

[MSU 1978]

Originally posted by Chumpsky
Withdrawal of American power!? Democratization!? Jeezuss! There is nothing so blindingly apparent from even a cursory glance at the world that the U.S. has been doing anything but withdrawing! Furthermore, the main goal of U.S. foreign policy has been, and continues to be, the deterrence of democracy. ]


Excuse me? What about Nazi Germany? What about Imperial Japan? The United States defeated these enemies and then helped them back on their feet and helped them institute democratic governments. Would a truly ruthless imperial country come up with the Marshall Plan to rebuild the economy of fallen enemies?

[Chumpsky]

Originally posted by MSU 1978
Excuse me? What about Nazi Germany? What about Imperial Japan? The United States defeated these enemies and then helped them back on their feet and helped them institute democratic governments. Would a truly ruthless imperial country come up with the Marshall Plan to rebuild the economy of fallen enemies? It's funny how apologists for U.S. imperialism always have to go back to WWII to point to a good example of U.S. intervention.

The U.S. has never cared about democracy. What they did after WWII was to create societies in Germany and Japan that were capitalist. The forms of democracy that existed were secondary, and always subject to veto if the people made a wrong decision in the eyes of their masters.

After WWII, the U.S. went to work undermining the anti-Fascist resistance in Europe, recruiting a whole host of Nazis to help them carry out this work, such as Klaus Barbie. The goal was to re-institute capitalist governments in Europe, and consolidate its position as the most powerful imperialist state. The U.S. basically took over all of the old European colonial systems, pushing out the European powers from their old positions.

The Marshall Plan, which came about in 1948 by the way, was not about rebuilding the countries destroyed in WWII, but in consolodating the capitalist powers being threatened by communist movements. You see, it was mostly communists and other leftists who defeated the Nazis. About 80% of the war in Europe was fought on the Eastern front, and the anti-Fascist resistance in France and Italy had won a great deal of respect from the populations. They were threatening to take power in numerous European governments through the democratic process.

Italy was one of the first victims of U.S. interventionism after WWII. The communists in Italy looked like they were headed to victory in Italian elections. The U.S. stepped in with massive funding to capitalist candidates, with various propaganda campaigns, and outright disruption and electoral fraud, to ensure that Italians would not choose the wrong side.

It was the same around the world. While U.S. leaders proclaimed their commitment to national independence, they were making promises to France that they would support their reconquest of Indochina. The amount of aid sent to France was approximately the same amount that France was spending in its reconquest of Indochina. This, of course, led to the U.S. invasion of Vietnam.

It is a funny thing how people can believe that the U.S. was this benevolent power out to help people with the Marshall Plan.

[Daoloth]

Originally posted by Chumpsky


Italy was one of the first victims of U.S. interventionism after WWII. The communists in Italy looked like they were headed to victory in Italian elections. The U.S. stepped in with massive funding to capitalist candidates, with various propaganda campaigns, and outright disruption and electoral fraud, to ensure that Italians would not choose the wrong side.


Thank heavens. Even if it was underhanded, a capitalist democracy is preferrable to any communist nation. Just look at the track record.

[Chumpsky]

Originally posted by Daoloth
Thank heavens. Even if it was underhanded, a capitalist democracy is preferrable to any communist nation. Just look at the track record. LOL

A capitalist democracy? When democracy is undermined, it is still a democracy?

Who knows what would have happened if Italian democracy hadn't been undermined? Perhaps it would have been a far more just society. At any rate, it is quite interesting how you apparently feel no qualms about undermining democracy, as long as it is for capitalism. Democracy is just fine, as long as the people make the right decision.

And, the statement that capitalism is preferable to any commuist nation is obviously false. Simply compare, say, Yugoslavia, to Guatemala in the 1980's. (I realize that Yugoslavia was not a communist state, but I will use the term "communism" in the technical sense used by capitalist ideologues to mean "any country that is not dominated by western capital.")

[Daoloth]

Originally posted by Chumpsky
LOL

A capitalist democracy? When democracy is undermined, it is still a democracy?


I don't see how free trade undermines the freedom of people to select their leaders.

[Saen]

Originally posted by Chumpsky
It is a funny thing how people can believe that the U.S. was this benevolent power out to help people with the Marshall Plan.

It's not very funny how people weasel that everything the US does is anathema to every person in the world.

Just a little bit of advice from a small patron of the planet and the country you seem to froth at the mouth about. When you have a single minded agenda, mixed with hate, the blinders can rub your eyes so raw that you can't see through the scabs and pus from the inevitable infection the hate brings.

Realpolitik is a foundation of every soveriegn government worthy of the name. Of course the US looks after itsown interests. It is absurd to even suggest that would somehow lessen its virtue just by trying to point out that it does happen.

In your diatribe, the only thing you have proven was that does happen. And no matter how vehemently you postulate that any benefit the US recieves from her actions is to the detriment of everyone else, it does not make it so just because you said so.

MSU 1978 Claimed that the US helped rebuild those countries. Instead of refuting that assertion you only tried to undermine the actions with hidden agendas and speculation.

To me, that is pretty weak and pathetic. His statement still stands. The US did help those other countries and it is pretty obvious they are the better for it. Unless you have prrrof to the contrary?

[Chumpsky]

Originally posted by Saen
Realpolitik is a foundation of every soveriegn government worthy of the name. Of course the US looks after itsown interests. It is absurd to even suggest that would somehow lessen its virtue just by trying to point out that it does happen.Again, I must point out the obvious. The U.S. does look after its own interests. But, what is it that we are speaking of when we say "the U.S."? Who was "the U.S." looking after in 1948? Was it southern blacks? Or women? Or gays? Or the American working classes?

No, it was the ruling class of the U.S. When I speak of "the U.S." I use it to mean the ruling class. It is not us whose interests are being looked after, but the 1% of the population which owns and runs the country. Their interests are not our interests.
In your diatribe, the only thing you have proven was that does happen. And no matter how vehemently you postulate that any benefit the US recieves from her actions is to the detriment of everyone else, it does not make it so just because you said so.This is true. The benefits that accrue to the ruling class of the U.S. are almost always to the detriment of everybody else.
MSU 1978 Claimed that the US helped rebuild those countries. Instead of refuting that assertion you only tried to undermine the actions with hidden agendas and speculation.The U.S., meaning the U.S. ruling class, helped to re-organize these countries along lines that would support their own interests. What, you don't think they plan and think about their own interests?
To me, that is pretty weak and pathetic. His statement still stands. The US did help those other countries and it is pretty obvious they are the better for it. Unless you have prrrof to the contrary? I disagree. I don't think Italy was better off for having its democracy undermined. I don't think Germany was better off as a divided nation, as opposed to a united, un-aligned nation as the Soviets proposed. I don't think any of these nations were better off by the maintainence of the capitalist hierarchy. And, I certainly don't think Indochina, or the other colonies, was better off when the U.S. undertook to put them back under imperialist rule.

[Bryan Ekers]

Originally posted by MSU 1978
Excuse me? What about Nazi Germany? What about Imperial Japan? The United States defeated these enemies and then helped them back on their feet and helped them institute democratic governments.

To be fair, we Canadians helped a little with Nazi Germany.

By the way, if the U.S. ruling class is opposed to Chumpsky, then I'm with them all the way.

[Saen]

Originally posted by Chumpsky
Again, I must point out the obvious. The U.S. does look after its own interests. But, what is it that we are speaking of when we say "the U.S."? Who was "the U.S." looking after in 1948? Was it southern blacks? Or women? Or gays? Or the American working classes?

Well, considering these people you speak of are a hell of alot better off today than they were in 1947, I would guess.. probably. But what does that have to do with Germany and Japan?


No, it was the ruling class of the U.S. When I speak of "the U.S." I use it to mean the ruling class. It is not us whose interests are being looked after, but the 1% of the population which owns and runs the country. Their interests are not our interests.


The only ruling class I know of here would be the ones the citizens voted for for a term to represent thier own interests. If those representatives failed then that was the voters problem. And "our" interests are pretty much well taken care of by the ruling class that I vote for. Sure I disagree with some things on the agenda, but I know I wount get my wayy all the time.

This is true. The benefits that accrue to the ruling class of the U.S. are almost always to the detriment of everybody else.


Hyperbole...and a lie.


The U.S., meaning the U.S. ruling class, helped to re-organize these countries along lines that would support their own interests. What, you don't think they plan and think about their own interests?

You repeating what I said confuses me. But how does that coincide with your hyperbole and..lie?

I disagree. I don't think Italy was better off for having its democracy undermined. I don't think Germany was better off as a divided nation, as opposed to a united, un-aligned nation as the Soviets proposed. I don't think any of these nations were better off by the maintainence of the capitalist hierarchy. And, I certainly don't think Indochina, or the other colonies, was better off when the U.S. undertook to put them back under imperialist rule.

LOL.. oh I know. The Soviets had Germanys interest at heart all along and it was the imperilaistic "ruling class" of the west that created East Germany and was responsible for all of the attocities they commited. :rolleyes:

Again, your false assertions, anti-American rhtoric and mouth frothing does not make it so just because you wish it to be.

[Daoloth]

Originally posted by Chumpsky
I don't think Germany was better off as a divided nation, as opposed to a united, un-aligned nation as the Soviets proposed.

That's funny. West Germany was more prosperous and free, whilst East Germany was restrictive, murderous, and an economic pit of despair. The Western nations backed the West, and the USSR the east. Go figure.

[Bryan Ekers]

Originally posted by Daoloth
That's funny. West Germany was more prosperous and free, whilst East Germany was restrictive, murderous, and an economic pit of despair. The Western nations backed the West, and the USSR the east. Go figure.

Ah, but the West Germans only thought they were free. They were actually ruled by American crypto-fascists.

And those people who were killed by the secret police in East Germany? Why, those were unpersons, of course. They don't exist. They never existed.

I really wish you'd learn to think properly about this. Perhaps you need re-education.




Funny how there's no objective difference between sarcasm and parroting Chumpsky's beliefs.

[js_africanus]

Originally posted by Bryan Ekers
crypto-fascists[/sub]
Is there really such thing as a crypto-fascist? If so, what is it? I mean, there really is anarcho-syndicalism ("You there, Old Woman." "Man!" "Man, sorry."...)

[Daoloth]

Originally posted by js_africanus
Is there really such thing as a crypto-fascist? If so, what is it? I mean, there really is anarcho-syndicalism ("You there, Old Woman." "Man!" "Man, sorry."...)

As someone noted here, IIRC, "crypto" in this sense refers to "secret."

I thought this was a recent concoction, until I read that George Lincoln Rockwell called JFK a "crypto-communist" as early as 1962.

[js_africanus]

Originally posted by Daoloth
As someone noted here, IIRC, "crypto" in this sense refers to "secret."

I thought this was a recent concoction, until I read that George Lincoln Rockwell called JFK a "crypto-communist" as early as 1962.
Oh, okay. That makes perfect sense. Some might say that Ashcroft is a crypto-fascist because he wants to create a fascist fundamentalist theocracy here in America, but claims to be acting in American interests.

No offense, Mr. A., that was just an example.

[MSU 1978]

Originally posted by Bryan Ekers
To be fair, we Canadians helped a little with Nazi Germany.


Of course, Bryan. I didn't mean to leave out our friends the Canadians. Or the British.

[Chumpsky]

Originally posted by Saen
Well, considering these people [blacks, women, gays, the working classes, etc.] you speak of are a hell of alot better off today than they were in 1947, I would guess.. probably. But what does that have to do with Germany and Japan?Various groups are much better off today because they organized and fought for their rights. The ruling class fought tooth and nail against every progressive reform.

The point of this is that in 1948 there was plenty of injustice in the world, and they didn't have to go far to find it. Seeing as how the ruling class showed a depraved indifference to injustice at home, is is absurd to think they cared about democracy half-way around the world. No, they cared about the interests of their own class.
The only ruling class I know of here would be the ones the citizens voted for for a term to represent thier own interests.hmmm

...oh never mind.

[Saen]

Originally posted by Chumpsky
Various groups are much better off today because they organized and fought for their rights. The ruling class fought tooth and nail against every progressive reform.

The point of this is that in 1948 there was plenty of injustice in the world, and they didn't have to go far to find it. Seeing as how the ruling class showed a depraved indifference to injustice at home, is is absurd to think they cared about democracy half-way around the world. No, they cared about the interests of their own class.


More Hyperbole and outright lies. Sure you can give me an example of how the "ruling class" denied certain rights here and there. But I know you cannot show me evidence of where these groups had to pull nails and teeth to get reform. I seem to remember a highly publicized event where the "ruling class" had to forcefully defend the "southern blacks" against some of your "American working classes" so that thier rights would not be denied them. Then worked to reform state laws that denied them rights. That is not fighting tooth and nail.

Seeing as how the ruling class showed a depraved indifference to injustice at home, is is absurd to think they cared about democracy half-way around the world.

Seeing as how you dont think the US does anything at all to further anything but themselves, it is absurd to even try to discuss an issue with someone who only has halftruths, innuendoes, and a fetish for spin.



hmmm

...oh never mind.

What? Did you realize I dont believe in the Illuminati or other types of shadow government just because I saw it on a tv show?

[Chumpsky]

Originally posted by Saen
More Hyperbole and outright lies. Sure you can give me an example of how the "ruling class" denied certain rights here and there. But I know you cannot show me evidence of where these groups had to pull nails and teeth to get reform.Here and there? So, for example, blacks were only denied rights here and there? It was just some minor events that happened once in a while?

It is the case that every progressive change has only come after decades of bitter popular struggle. This is true with every liberty we enjoy today. It is always struggle against the ruling classes that brings liberty and justice.
Seeing as how you dont think the US does anything at all to further anything but themselves, it is absurd to even try to discuss an issue with someone who only has halftruths, innuendoes, and a fetish for spin.The ruling classes of the U.S. serve their interests only. Why is that so surprising? Why would they work against their own interests? We are talking about the most concentrated power that has ever existed? You don't think they very carefully think about what they are doing? They have a lot to lose, and they don't want to take chances: of course they work for their own interests!

[Uzi]

Originally posted by Chumpsky
No, it was the ruling class of the U.S. When I speak of "the U.S." I use it to mean the ruling class. It is not us whose interests are being looked after, but the 1% of the population which owns and runs the country. Their interests are not our interests.

Are you suggesting that Democracies like the USSR :rolleyes: ever had more than 1% of its population in control of things? I would suggest that it was far less than that. Please name any other society where the majority controlled things. It has always been a small group of people who ran things. That is the nature of Chiefs and Indians. There are always more Indians than Chiefs (except in the company I work for, of course). The difference being in the US is that you, a peasant, can become one of the 1%!

[smiling bandit]

Here and there? So, for example, blacks were only denied rights here and there? It was just some minor events that happened once in a while?

It is the case that every progressive change has only come after decades of bitter popular struggle. This is true with every liberty we enjoy today. It is always struggle against the ruling classes that brings liberty and justice.

Well there is where you got it wrong. You see, those "masses vliantly fighting against the ruling class" ain't so noble.

In fact, those low-class people were just as complicit in racism and segregation as the upper classes - in fact, often more so. Guess who really was at the forefront of the intergration movement? College students. You know, those college students who have every reason to to protect their own upper-class interests. Guess who ended segregation? The Supreme Court. You know, those nine wealthy white guys.

Once again, the forces of ignorance are crushed!

The ruling classes of the U.S. serve their interests only. Why is that so surprising? Why would they work against their own interests?

Ah, so here we come to the heart of it. Your ignorance is astounding. You think of everything in terms of classes. Obviously, anyone richer than you must be in the ruling class.

Well, I have news for you. There IS NO RULING CLASS! Theres just a bunch of people who happen to have money right now. Half of them didn't have it 25 years ago, and some won't have it 25 years from now. They don't have the same interests. Some of them are old money, some new. Some of them have investments (most, actually) and some own businesses. Some have good jobs, and some are retired. More importantly, they don't agree on anything at all. Some are liberal, some libertarian, some conserative, and some fall into that lovely category of "other".

We are talking about the most concentrated power that has ever existed?

Apparently you've never taken a history class. Perhaps Imperial China, Japan, Rome, and Britain mean nothing to you but names on a book.

[Chumpsky]

Originally posted by smiling bandit
Well there is where you got it wrong. You see, those "masses vliantly fighting against the ruling class" ain't so noble.There is nothing so ignoble as blaming the victim.
In fact, those low-class people were just as complicit in racism and segregation as the upper classes - in fact, often more so.The ruling classes have worked very hard to create dissension and hatred in the lower classes. Sometimes it works, but not always. In the days of slavery and Jim Crow, poor whites and blacks would often unite together in common cause.
Guess who really was at the forefront of the intergration movement? College students. You know, those college students who have every reason to to protect their own upper-class interests. Guess who ended segregation? The Supreme Court. You know, those nine wealthy white guys.You mean the Student Non-Violent Coordinating Committee? Yes, this was a very important group that accomplished a lot of good. The students who worked for desegration and for civil rights sometimes came from the upper classes, but usually they did not. There were a lot of students from poor backgrounds, as well as minorities who pressed for their rights.

Oh, and you may have heard of a little thing called the "civil rights movement" where, I hear, quite a number of black people got together to press for their rights.

The rich white guys who made up most of the SCOTUS have never worked for civil rights, but have always lagged far behind the populace. It was only after mass popular pressure forced the state to change the laws that they were changed. The SCOTUS went along just fine for 170 years denying rights to black people, as long as there was no popular resistance.
Ah, so here we come to the heart of it. Your ignorance is astounding. You think of everything in terms of classes. Obviously, anyone richer than you must be in the ruling class.No. Anyone who is a part of the ruling class is in the ruling class.
Well, I have news for you. There IS NO RULING CLASS! Theres just a bunch of people who happen to have money right now. Half of them didn't have it 25 years ago, and some won't have it 25 years from now. They don't have the same interests. Sure they do. They all share an interest in protecting their position of privilege. They are protected by a very powerful state, and are always trying to use it to further their own ends. They are always waging a vicious class war, and will put you in a soccer stadium and torture you to death if you threaten their wealth.

Here is an excellent overview of class structure in capitalism:
What classes exist within modern society? (http://flag.blackened.net/intanark/faq/secB7.html)

[Chumpsky]

Originally posted by Uzi
Please name any other society where the majority controlled things.Revolutionary Spain (http://flag.blackened.net/intanark/faq/secI8.html)

There are always more Indians than Chiefs (except in the company I work for, of course). The difference being in the US is that you, a peasant, can become one of the 1%! The same was true in the USSR. The fact that there can be some movement between classes in a hierarchical structure does not mean that it is not highly oppressive and exploitative.

[Shodan]

I am still awaiting proof of practically anything you have ever claimed.

Dogmatic reassertion of a claim does not establish it.

You claim that we had to go back to WWII to find an example of a positive US intervention in world affairs. This after the Gulf War was already cited.

In the days of slavery and Jim Crow, poor whites and blacks would often unite together in common cause. Please give some examples.

The students who worked for desegration and for civil rights sometimes came from the upper classes, but usually they did not. Please cite your source on the socio-economic backgrounds of those who worked for desegregation.

I don't think Germany was better off as a divided nation, as opposed to a united, un-aligned nation as the Soviets proposed. Please explain the economic, environmental, and social disparities between East and West Germany, and how they demonstrate the superiority of East Germany. Also, please explain the Berlin blockade by the Soviets as a demonstration of their desire for a neutral, un-aligned nation.

They are always waging a vicious class war, and will put you in a soccer stadium and torture you to death if you threaten their wealth. Please explain how the mind rays are penetrating your tinfoil hat.

Regards,
Shodan

[Soup_du_jour]

The ruling classes of the U.S. serve their interests only. Why is that so surprising? Why would they work against their own interests? We are talking about the most concentrated power that has ever existed? You don't think they very carefully think about what they are doing? They have a lot to lose, and they don't want to take chances: of course they work for their own interests!The black civil rights leaders worked partially in their own self-interest, too. Does that make it a bad thing on face?

[zoid]

On a positive note, I would like to thank Chumpsky for one of the most entertaining threads I can remember reading. If nothing else I now have a more complete understanding of the various viewpoints held on this subject.

I apologize for having nothing else to offer - carry on.

[Grim_Beaker]

This is all well and good but I'd like to see Chumpsky address the points brought up by Dewey. Well Chumpsky?

[smiling bandit]

There is nothing so ignoble as blaming the victim.

The ruling classes have worked very hard to create dissension and hatred in the lower classes. Sometimes it works, but not always. In the days of slavery and Jim Crow, poor whites and blacks would often unite together in common cause.

In the holy name of JESUS CHRIST?! Will you please read some books rather than spitting on them since they were "obviously creatiosn fo the "ruling class"?!

and will put you in a soccer stadium and torture you to death if you threaten their wealth.

Are you talking about the Taliban now? Are you insane?

The rich white guys who made up most of the SCOTUS have never worked for civil rights, but have always lagged far behind the populace. It was only after mass popular pressure forced the state to change the laws that they were changed. The SCOTUS went along just fine for 170 years denying rights to black people, as long as there was no popular resistance.

Law. History. Two subjects Chumpsky has repeatedly proven he knows nothing about.

Anyone who is a part of the ruling class is in the ruling class.

ROFLAO! This is one for the record books. Which I would record, but its too depressing.

Chumpsky, may I ask what education you have? I'm very interested... I'll even be willing to respond.

[Daoloth]

Originally posted by Chumpsky
In the days of slavery and Jim Crow, poor whites and blacks would often unite together in common cause.
[/url]

Revisionist tripe. Most whites during the slavery era, regardless of class membership, were hostile towards black and harbored one degree of racism or another. Many notable abolitionists thought blacks inferior, for instance (i.e. Hinton Helper). Even many northern Republicans considered blacks to be inferior, and many considered abolitionism no more than a mere political tool (cite: historian Carl Van Woodward).

[Dewey Cheatem Undhow]

Originally posted by Grim_Beaker
This is all well and good but I'd like to see Chumpsky address the points brought up by Dewey. Well Chumpsky? As would I, but that would require actual knowledge about the corporate form vs. other business forms instead of a knee-jerk hatred for business. I wouldn't hold your breath waiting.

[smiling bandit]

Most whites during the slavery era, regardless of class membership, were hostile towards black and harbored one degree of racism or another.

While this is only a slight nitpick, I'd say that there was less hostility in the slave era than in the later Jim Crow era.

[Daoloth]

Originally posted by smiling bandit
While this is only a slight nitpick, I'd say that there was less hostility in the slave era than in the later Jim Crow era.

At least in the South, that's true. However, to assert that in those two periods blacks and whites voluntarily worked together for their causes is largely ludicrous and unfounded.

[js_africanus]

Originally posted by smiling bandit
While this is only a slight nitpick, I'd say that there was less hostility in the slave era than in the later Jim Crow era.
I took a black history course in college and was taught that absent Jim Crow, the poor southern whites really weren't any better off than the poor southern blacks. One of the important functions of Jim Crow was to take the pressure off the white southern elite; should the poor whites question their crappy position, the elite could always say, "Well, at least y'all ain't niggers." That jibes with an earlier comment, that the southern working class so bitterly opposed the death of Jim Crow: whether it was schadenfreude, or a desperate desire to remain (barely) above the bottom of the social ladder, the poor southern whites did have something to lose.

The irony, of course, is that they were too ignorant to see what they had to gain. Unfortunately, many in the world, including many Americans, are still gripped in the same sort of ignorance. Pat Buchanan and his protectionist policies are a prime example. That is where Chumpsky is at least partially right: there are a lot of ignorant boobs who are still stuck in the mercantalist paradigm. Hundreds of millions suffer because of it. I once read an anti-trade pamphlet that complained that free trade both increased the disparity between rich and poor, and exported manufacturing jobs out of the U.S. Go figure...exporting jobs from the richest country in the world to the poorest increases the disparity between rich and poor. The logic behind that is not obvious. The second irony is that Chumsky is stuck in that paradigm as well. Firmly ensconced in a world view that was killed in the 18th century (not to mention an apparent adherence to an ideology that has been dead for a century as well), he blasts those who are still stuck in the same world view--all the while mistaking it for something else altogether.

That's the third irony: capitalism may be the first ism that explicitly recognizes that when others do well, you do well, but so many still advocate anti-capitalist and neo-mercantalist policies because they can't understand that simple fact. The economy is no longer a zero-sum game. If South America were rich, we Americans would be richer than we are today. If the contrary were true, we would have never had the Marshall plan--whether is was a capitalist tool, or democratic coup--because a poor Europe means a rich America. But the opposite is the case. Unfortunately, realpolitik, ignorance, and the cold war have thrown a wrench in the works. Now that the cold war is dead, we only have two more demons to slay. But there are so many without the balls and intelligence to do the right thing that the future looks glum. Eight-hundred million people don't get enough to eat. We could have lowered that by eight million, but the administration decided to give a tax cut to dead people (www.pkarchive.org/column/053102.html) instead. We could be lowering trade barriers (www.pkarchive.org/trade/wto.html), yet some continue to insist that people from other nations shouldn't be allowed to trade with us simply because they're not Americans. How racist! Even my cousin the anthropologist has said that NAFTA has been good for Mexico, not to mention the political benefits (www.pkarchive.org/trade/nafta.html) for Mexicans. I guess breaking the strangle hold of the PRI was not a victory.

That's not to say that there aren't corrupt capitalists. Heck, there's corrupt everything. The whole function of Tibetian Buddhism was to get more Lamas, to get more money, to build more opulent structures, to get more students, to get more Lamas, to get.... Yet capitalism is the first ism I've heard of where the corruption is not inherent in the system. Some, such as communists, say it is--but that's because they're too busy proselytizing to apply calculus to a calculus problem; arithmetic won't do. Do the math and the class conflict dissolves into the fiction it is. That's not to say that greed doesn't play a role: sweatshops in America were real, and it took labor unions to get labor what it deserved. But that's a human failing, not an institutional failing. Unfortunately, that is just too difficult for many people to understand.

It's a damn shame.

[Chumpsky]

Originally posted by js_africanus
That's the third irony: capitalism may be the first ism that explicitly recognizes that when others do well, you do well, but so many still advocate anti-capitalist and neo-mercantalist policies because they can't understand that simple fact. The economy is no longer a zero-sum game. If South America were rich, we Americans would be richer than we are today. The exact opposite is the case. You may have noticed that quite a lot of wealth has been generated in the U.S. in the last two decades, and that, concurrently, a lot of poverty has been created in the Third World. In fact, U.S. policy is dedicated to maintaining this position. They understand exactly what they are doing, and plan very carefully how to go about it. For example, George Kennan, one of the most important policy planners in the post-WWII era, wrote, in an internal planning document (http://www.firethistime.org/georgekennanpps23.htm) in 1948:

"Furthermore, we have about 50% of the world's wealth but only 6.3% of its population. This disparity is particularly great as between ourselves and the peoples of Asia. In this situation, we cannot fail to be the object of envy and resentment. Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity..."

It IS a zero-sum game. The only way there can be fabulous wealth is if there are a lot of miserably poor people. The luxurious lifestyles of the slave-holder in the mansion could only exist when there were slaves working dawn-to-dusk creating his wealth. The robber barrons on Wall Street only amass their huge amounts of wealth when there are millions of people in the Third World working dawn-to-dusk creating that wealth.

I mean, JUST TAKE A LOOK AT THE FREAKING WORLD, MAN! Poverty and wealth grow side by side. One cannot exist without the other!

[smiling bandit]

That's the third irony: capitalism may be the first ism that explicitly recognizes that when others do well, you do well

Most of the time. Capitalism may be the first "-ism" that doesn't guarrentee you anything beyond your own luck, skill, and talent.

You may have noticed that quite a lot of wealth has been generated in the U.S. in the last two decades, and that, concurrently, a lot of poverty has been created in the Third World.

By any material standard, the third world is doing better than ever. CMpared to the rest of the world, no. But then, much of the 3rd world lacked, by chance or fate, the tools with which to build themselves up economically. Essentially, they haven't had till recently the human capital (i.e., educate citizenry) and the science and the

Well, before AIDS came along, which may yet kill them all off, sad to say. Looking at the numbers for some Asian and African countries, I see some of them ay cease to exist some years from now.

"Furthermore, we have about 50% of the world's wealth but only 6.3% of its population. This disparity is particularly great as between ourselves and the peoples of Asia. In this situation, we cannot fail to be the object of envy and resentment. Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity..."


I.E., he wanted to keep being the top dog. If we (pick one Asian state and America) were to grow our economies at the same rate, we'd always be richer, and increasingly so.

Chumpsky, loking at the rest of your post, you remind me of a philosophy techer I once had. His tagline: " 'They' think there is something seriously wrong with the world." He liked to advance this opinion without really giving any evidence. You do the same.

Your thesis requires several assumptions to be proven:
1) There is finite "wealth" quotient available.
2) The Rich become so by taking more than their even allotment.
3) This is morally wrong.

I mean, JUST TAKE A LOOK AT THE FREAKING WORLD, MAN! Poverty and wealth grow side by side. One cannot exist without the other!

Why? Thre is no iron law of history which states this. Despite impending doom-and-gloom liberal fears about the supposedly expanding gap between rich and poor, there remains over a macroeconomic scale an ever decreasing difference. America dumps huge portions of money overseas into other countries' economies. We import more than anywhere else. Yet these countries remain "poor". We're practically giving them wads of cash, and it does not help them.

Or does it? Many Asian countries are slowly or more quickly becoming high-tech powers. Others are manufacturing giants. Africa has not prospered, but is this due to pernacious economic deeds or to their own inadequate adaptation? I know what answer you'll give, so there is no point in answering that.

I get the feeling as well that Chumpsky, once again, ignores history in favor of an arbitrary time standard. In other words, he does not look at trends over time and ignores any reasons for things not being perfect (in his view) immediately.

[Mr. Svinlesha]

smiling bandit: By any material standard, the third world is doing better than ever.Cite? Compared to the rest of the world, no. But then, much of the 3rd world lacked, by chance or fate, the tools with which to build themselves up economically. Essentially, they haven't had till recently the human capital (i.e., educate citizenry) and the science…Cite? Your thesis requires several assumptions to be proven:

1) There is finite "wealth" quotient available.
2) The Rich become so by taking more than their even allotment.
3) This is morally wrong. I’m not sure what you mean by the phrase ”wealth quotient.” But think about it like this: at any given moment, in a given society, there exists a finite amount of wealth. At that given moment, this wealth is distributed within the society according to the rules of its economy. Granted, in the next moment, or month, or year, that amount of wealth may increase. But how is it going to be distributed to the members of the society that have participated in producing it, in the next moment, or month, or year? That is the central issue.

Chumpsky is trying to argue that capitalism, by its very nature, structures the distribution of wealth in an ”inequitable” manner. The fundamental idea here is that capitalism stratifies society into classes – workers, small businessmen, intelligensia, and owners. Although all of them participate in the production of wealth, the system is predicated on the right of the ”owners” to skim ”a little off the top” of the wealth being produced by the workers. This is done by selling products for more than they cost to produce, the difference of which is then pocketed by the owners as profits. In a recent thread on this topic, I calculated in a somewhat off-the-cuff manner that for the employees of Wal-Mart, the owners skim off about a 1000 bucks per employee and year.

The subject isn’t too difficult, really, and is taken for granted in, for example, modern marketing and advertising practices, which are themselves based on a kind of limited class analysis.

If you accept this first, fundament proposition, then it is not to difficult to take a step back and apply it in a larger context, such as that of the global economy. Here we see that in addition to impacting on the internal structure of societies, global capitalism also impacts on the overall structure of international relations. To simplify somewhat, certain societies play the role of ”exploited worker,” while others, particularly the US, play the role of ”wealthy owner.” Of course, that’s a vast oversimplification, but maybe it communicates the gist of the model.

I agree with you, however, that the question of the morality of such a system is a major stumbling stone. ”Inequality” and ”exploitation” are clearly not empirical concepts, but value judgements. Even granting that, however, it is not hard to understand how someone observing such a system from the outside, and noting the astounding inequalities in income it seems to produce, might feel that it is an unjust, or immoral, method of distributing the wealth produced by a society – or, in this case, by the global economy. As far as I can tell, Chumpsky has been given a lot of grief in this thread merely because he is acutely aware of this dynamic and its influence on US foreign policies.

One of the most formidable proponents of the view Chumpsky advocates in this thread is Immanuel Wallerstein, an old-time Africanist gone neo-Marxist. World System Theory (http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/wallerstein.html) is still to this day one of the most influential paradigms in the field of Development Studies, despite some weaknesses. In a nutshell, Wallerstein argues that capitalism represents a ”world system,” and a rather unique one, as well; the first world system based on an economic, rather than a political, order. In its historical development, capitalism has structured societies into a three primary categories: core, semi-periphery, and periphery. Wallerstein argues that the core has developed and maintained its ascendancy by expropriating wealth from the periphery: The core regions benefited the most from the capitalist world economy. For the period under discussion (1450-1670), much of northwestern Europe (England, France, Holland) developed as the first core region. Politically, the states within this part of Europe developed strong central governments, extensive bureaucracies, and large mercenary armies. This permitted the local bourgeoisie to obtain control over international commerce and extract capital surpluses from this trade for their own benefit….

On the other end of the scale lay the peripheral zones. These areas lacked strong central governments or were controlled by other states, exported raw materials to the core, and relied on coercive labor practices. The core expropriated much of the capital surplus generated by the periphery through unequal trade relations. Two areas, Eastern Europe (especially Poland) and Latin America, exhibited characteristics of peripheral regions. In Poland, kings lost power to the nobility as the region became a prime exporter of wheat to the rest of Europe. To gain sufficient cheap and easily controlled labor, landlords forced rural workers into a "second serfdom" on their commercial estates. In Latin America, the Spanish and Portuguese conquests destroyed indigenous authority structures and replaced them with weak bureaucracies under the control of these European states. Powerful local landlords of Hispanic origin became aristocratic capitalist farmers. Enslavement of the native populations, the importation of African slaves, and the coercive labor practices such as the encomienda and forced mine labor made possible the export of cheap raw materials to Europe….

The capitalist world economy, as envisioned by Wallerstein, is a dynamic system which changes over time. However, certain basic features remain in place. Perhaps most important is that when one examines the dynamics of this system, the core regions of northwestern Europe clearly benefited the most from this arrangement. Through extremely high profits gained from international trade and from an exchange of manufactured goods for raw materials from the periphery (and, to a lesser extent, from the semi-peripheries), the core enriched itself at the expense of the peripheral economies.

Naturally, such an economic system would also produce a specific political dynamic – if you accept this argument, it seems clear that states at the core of the system will act to safeguard their status, regardless of how such acts affect the periphery. This implies, for example, that in many instances, the US government will act to maintain the system, even if such action might be detrimental to populations at the edge of the world economy. Certainly, at the very least, important economic actors in the core will apply pressure on the US state to act in their interests, and that pressure will make itself felt in a variety of ways, even if doesn’t always win the day. From this perspective, one can understand the US government as the political, and strategic, arm of the current economic order. Chumpsky argues that one can make sense of, or better understand, US foreign policies in terms of such a perspective, and although I might disagree with some of the specifics he’s posted, in general I think he has a valid point.

[clairobscur]

Originally posted by smiling bandit

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
and will put you in a soccer stadium and torture you to death if you threaten their wealth.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Are you talking about the Taliban now? Are you insane?








I think he might be refering to Chile...

[Shodan]

That isn't a whole lot better, clairobscur.

If Chumpsky wants to be taken seriously, he better start talking like it. The US "ruling classes" aren't the root of all evil in the world.

Regards,
Shodan

[smiling bandit]

Cite? -by Mr. Svinlesha

Oh boy. I am not going to go digging through a thousand web pages to find support. Nor am I going to go digging through history texts located some 30 miles away for it.

Simply put, the 3rd world has less infant mortality, more high-tech material goods, and are exporting more goods (and importing more money...) than ever before. That they are not as wealthy as the West has been a given for at least 300 years.

This actually has created the second-tier problem: there are a lot more people in the 3rd world (more births, fewer deaths) and that means thourhg various means they are getting manufacturing jobs no longer economical in the 1st world.

That capitalism does not guarrantee everyone economic equality is obvious; whether this is bad thing is not. There are successful 3rd world states.

think about it like this: at any given moment, in a given society, there exists a finite amount of wealth.

All waelth is not money. Money is finite. Wealth at any one time may be finite, but IT CHANGES! And often very rapidly. The US has been growing in wealth very quickly over the past 200 years.

[El_Kabong]

It IS a zero-sum game. The only way there can be fabulous wealth is if there are a lot of miserably poor people. The luxurious lifestyles of the slave-holder in the mansion could only exist when there were slaves working dawn-to-dusk creating his wealth. The robber barrons on Wall Street only amass their huge amounts of wealth when there are millions of people in the Third World working dawn-to-dusk creating that wealth.

Just wanted to say that that this is most direct and concise explanation I've seen yet of Chumpsky's peculiar, 19th-century Marxist, view of the world. It also, IMHO, gets things completely wrong, but, like, whatever. Carry on.

[js_africanus]

Originally posted by smiling bandit
Capitalism may be the first "-ism" that doesn't guarrentee you anything beyond your own luck, skill, and talent.
Interesting thought. Of course, I should have offered some caveats unrelated to that point, but they are minor. For example, if my competitor gobbles up market share, I'm not really benefitting--I do in that she is a better business person and/or has a better product or prices, to the benefit of society. But I'm still losing market share. However, if everyone outside of my market does well, then I do well because they can more easily consume my products. This is true in the international scene as well: if Mexicans can consume more American goods we benefit from the income, and if we can consume more of their goods we benefit from having Mexican goods. Another caveat, of course, is that naive free-marketism really isn't that good for the world. We need a government to make sure the market is competitive as possible, in the economic sense of the word. Some will contest that statement.
America dumps huge portions of money overseas into other countries' economies.
A rhetorical note: the U.S. is more or less the stingiest of the industrialized nations. Foreign aid is a small portion of GDP, and much of that goes to support the ethnic cleansing of Palestine (or to support the beleagured zionists, depending on your view). Either way, against an informed opponent you'll be setting yourself up for an argumentative bloody nose with that line of reasoning.
Originally posted by Chumsky
JUST TAKE A LOOK AT THE FREAKING WORLD
Isn't that what Aristotle did when he concluded that heavy objects fall faster than light objects, that an object in circular motion will continue in circular motion even after being released from the constraint creating centripetal force (www.phy.ntnu.edu.tw/java/circularMotion/circular3D_e.html), and that women have fewer teeth than men? For that matter, I've known a few creationists who maintained that merely looking out the window proves that the world was created in its present form less than ten-thousand years ago by their christian god. That is another piece of logic that is not obvious to me.
The exact opposite is the case. You may have noticed that quite a lot of wealth has been generated in the U.S. in the last two decades, and that, concurrently, a lot of poverty has been created in the Third World.
Cum hoc ergo propter hoc (www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#cumhoc). Even if this were true, that would not imply that capitalism, per se, was the cause. I mentioned before the existence of factors such as realpolitik, neo-mercantilist ignorance, and the realities of the cold war. If the U.S. is supporting a bastard like Pinochet because they can use him to fight communist efforts in Chile, that's not an action inherent in the system of economic organization known as capitalism, that's a political issue. Whether one wishes to frame it as "fighting for freedom from communism," or "imposing our corrupt way of life on the innocent Chileans," the fact remains that it is not an economic phenomena. It is political.

Chumsky also provides a document regarding the internal planning of future politics, I guess. Regardless of the reference's validity, which I am not questioning, it remains moot. From the fact that George Kennan was a neo-mercantilist doofus, it does not follow that capitalism is inherently corrupt. The two are completely unrelated. This mistake seems to be pandemic. Consider for example the quote offered by Mr. Svinlesha. It says, "The core regions benefited the most from the capitalist world economy. For the period under discussion (1450-1670), much of northwestern Europe (England, France, Holland) developed as the first core region." The problem is that capitalism, as a system of economic orgainzation, simply didn't exist at that point in time. The good Mr.Wallerstein is confusing mercantilism with capitalism. One of the central principles of mercantilism was that trade really is a zero-sum game. Hence, any benefit they (the Europeans) gain from a colony, is equally offset by the harm done to the colony in the process. That doesn't explain why they chose to embrace it so fully--I would have used it as a guide for caution and moderation. Go figure.

Let's take a moment to consider the proposion that alot of poverty has been created in the third world recently. I know that the ad hominem attacks are going to fly with this one, but I have asked a number of environmentally minded economists, and they all say that this reference is spot on. Indeed, the author's handling of statistical information is quite impressive, and the only way to really contest the conclusions is to prove that the data are incorrect. So put your indignance away and check out The Skeptical Environmentalist (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0521010683/qid=1039647590/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/104-3700380-4390349?v=glance&s=books) by Bjorn Lomborg. Specifically chapter six: Prosperity.
--Figure 31 shows GDP per capita rising for the West European core, the European periphery and Latin America since about 1820, with a steep increase circa 1950. Asia and Africa stayed flat from 1820 to 1950, and have increased since then.
--Figure 32 shows GDP per capita, taking into account purchasing power parity, growing steadily for both the developing and developed worlds since 1950.
--Figure 33 shows the relative poverty, as a percentage of the world population, falling steadily since 1950, from about 50% to about 25%. Lomborg notes, "Here it is evident that although the total number of poor has remained at about the same number (1.2 billion), the proportion of poor people has more than halved from about 50 percent in 1950. Thus, over the past 50 years, some 3.4 billion more people have become not-poor. (Emphasis mine.)
--Figure 34 shows the ratio of the richest 20% to the poorest 20%, and ditto for the 30% mark, measured in GDP per capita in terms of purchasing power parity. Both have remained approximately steady since 1960, with a slightly declining trend since 1980.
--Figure 35 shows the ratio of GDP per capita, in purchasing power parity, for the developed to the developing world. It rises from about 1800 to its peak in circa 1950, but then begins a sharp decline after that.

It goes on from there. The rich may be getting richer, but the poor aren't getting poorer. That's not to say that there isn't alot of suffering, poverty, and repression. Quite the contrary. But things are getting better, not worse.

Getting back to this zero-sum idea. As I mentioned before, the mercantile world view was that trade is a zero-sum affair. Adam Smith, with his analysis of absolute advantage showed that was false for many circumstances. David Ricardo, with his analysis of comparative advantage, showed the zero-sum concept of trade to be dead in the water. That was quite some time ago, yet it still lingers for some reason. Steven Landsburg (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0324059795/qid=1039649045/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/104-3700380-4390349?v=glance&s=books) has a nice discussion of comparative advantage for individuals, if you're interested. I don't understand how this notion can continue to haunt us. If anybody can give me a good coherent, prima facie defense of the proposition that economic activity is a zero-sum game, I'd like to read it.

Mr. Svinlesha made explicit something I've been hinting at, for fear of imposing a belief on someone that he did not have, that Chumpsky is a communist. He says,
Chumpsky is trying to argue that capitalism, by its very nature, structures the distribution of wealth in an ”inequitable” manner. The fundamental idea here is that capitalism stratifies society into classes – workers, small businessmen, intelligensia, and owners. Although all of them participate in the production of wealth, the system is predicated on the right of the ”owners” to skim ”a little off the top” of the wealth being produced by the workers. This is done by selling products for more than they cost to produce, the difference of which is then pocketed by the owners as profits.
And goes on to note that "The subject isn’t too difficult, really...." Indeed. Not difficult at all. What is difficult is trying to understand why someone would continue to adhere to a dead (www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0060928832/qid=1039649824/sr=2-1/ref=sr_2_1/104-3700380-4390349) economic postulate such as the labor theory of value. The simple fact is that the capitalist's need to skim off the top is a fiction. In fact, it isn't even a primitive in the communist model, it is an intermediate result from taking the labor theory of value as an axiom. It follows it quite naturally. But the axiom is not true, hence the conclusion is not true. I actually discussed it in this thread, back on page 1, but since I hate it when people make me hunt for a passage:
Communist theory in general is predicated on an important assumption: the labor theory of value. The labor theory of value, put simplistically (but not too inaccurately), tells us that labor should be paid the value of the average output. That makes sense, right? Ten workers make ten widgets valued at $1 apiece, therefore each worker should make a dollar.

But if the $10 goes to the workers, how does the capitalist survive? By exploiting the worker, paying him less than he deserves. That is the root of class warfare, at least between the capitalist and the worker.

The problem here is that the labor theory of value tries to solve a calculus problem using arithmetic. Like Zeno who tried to solve calculus problems using geometry, confusion can obtain when not using this imporant mathematical tool. A way to consider the problem is that first, the market sets the price and increased output leads to decreased price (generally), and second that output will often exhibit diminishing returns to increases in one onput, labor in this case. These tendencies will bring down the marginal value produced by labor. (Marginal being the last unit of whatever you're dealing with.) With a decreasing marginal value product, a mathematical artifact is that the average value product is more than the marginal.

The thing is that when I work, the value that I actually bring to the company is my marginal value product--not the average of everybody working. That's what everybody brings: his marginal product. (Surely there is some interesting philosophical ground here, but I'm going to avoid that at all costs.) If the value I create is my marginal value product, the the payment I deserve is equal to that. Everybody gets paid what they're "worth."

But, what about the money left over? If the marginal value product of labor is less than the average, and if everybody gets paid their marginal value product, then there must be money left over. It turns out that this value "left over" is the value that the other major input has earned, that input being capital. Indeed, if you flip the problem around and look at the marginal value of capital and pay it its marginal value, then there is money left over--money that labor has earned. This money going to capital is what, in a very non-economic sense, profit. It is the money that goes to the investors.
The class warfare alleged to be endemic to capitalism does not exist as an inherent product of capitalism. The class warfare is simply a logically valid product of a flawed axiom. But the axiom is still flawed, so the result does not follow.

I'll search around for a good elementary discussion of the topic. If Hawthorne is reading this, he may have some ideas. You can find two really good discussions of the role the boss plays in these two articles: The first is titled "What Do Bosses Do?" by Stephen A. Marglin, published in The Review of Radical Political Economics, Vol. VI, No. 2 (Summer, 1974). The second is titled "What Do Bosses Really Do?" by David S. Landes in The Journal of Economic History, Vol. XLVI, No. 3 (Sept., 1986). Both these articles are non-technical; the first is a Marxist treatment of the role of the boss in factory production, the second is the (neo-classical?) response. I advise you to read them in order, though the first may be difficult to find. They don't discuss the labor theory per se, but Landes does a great job explaining exactly why the boss doesn't need to skim to earn her money. I cannot recommend those articles strongly enough.

[TheSquirrelfish]

Actually, unfortunately this is entirely based off of my memory of 4th grade US History and a Politics 101 course(so please correct me), the creation of the US & the US Constitution was very much a capitalist issue. I am not in any way saying that it was a part of a fight against 'the capitalists' but "no taxation without representation" was THE rallying cry. The rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is quite close to Locke's rights to life liberty and property. The creation of the USA was politicizing capitalism, from the decision to unify in order to have a better market/trade situation to the decisions of what to enshrine in the constitution.

As for American neoimperialism -- it exists. It isn't the all consuming monster that it is made out to be, but there is a definite dominant role played by international, largely American, corporations on the international scene. These corporations can export the natural resources(mineral/labor/agricultural) of one area to their head offices, but this should be held as separate from the governments' foreign policy. That movements is not a goal of American foreign policy, it is a goal of American corporations. As far as I can tell, the Presidents whose actions are pointed out as imperialist are largely those who would really like it if the rest of the world just stopped. They want to protect American interests, and believe the have the right to deal anywhere in the world(perhaps an imperialist idea), but really don't want to commit themselves overseas in ways that would be actually imperialist. The goal isn't governments the US controls, but governments they can forget about. Big distinction.

And the American people are choosing all of this by buying what they buy, voting for who they vote for and holding stock and enjoying the priveledges of being American. The rest of the world isn't choosing it and that might be imperialist -- or it just might be being the sole superpower.
:)

Capitalism is an economic system that seems efficient. The US supports it abroad in the theory that the (at least semi)liberal (at least semi)capitalist (at least semi) democracies will be more friendly and peaceful. This is not some plot to control the world. It is Democratic Peace Theory. Kant is credited with some of the ideas, they really gained speed in the 1980's, but it has been around for a long time in the "contain communism" ideals.

Next, wealth and poverty. Wealth does not guarentee poverty unless you speak entirely relatively, which is just silly. In a world where every possible resource was used and there was only enough for absolute equality of enough(above poverty, below wealth, where everyone has a minimally comfortable existence), wealth would equal poverty. But since we don't exist in that world.... or at least I don't... people always seem to say I'm in my own world though...
:)
Originally posted by Bryan Ekers
Not ALL of the liberties Americans enjoy today can be attributed to struggle against capitalists. A great many of them, including the rights to free speech and the vote, are enshrined in the U.S. Constitution and have nothing to do with capitalism. And popular struggles can and do go too far, as with Prohibition. the problem I see with your posts is that there doesn't seem to be any catch point to your "power to the people" approach, where you would put some limits on what "the people" can do.

What agenda is ultimately driving your politics? The abolition of private property? The seizure of factories and land? Believe it or not, included the Constitution are protections of property ownership and the free use thereof and prohibitions against confiscation without due process and excess fines (ref: the 3rd, 4th, 5th, 8th and 14th amendments). If "the people" continue to make gains in their struggle against the capitalists, are these amendments to be abolished?
:)

[Daoloth]

js_africanus, you are simply awesome.

[js_africanus]

Originally posted by Daoloth
js_africanus, you are simply awesome.
Thank you!:) You made me blush, if you can believe that. It means alot!

Hey is that the dragon of Cymru on your web page?! I went there Nov. of 2001. My first trip overseas--and to the beautuful land of Wales. Wonderful! The Welsh accent is a delight to hear.

[js_africanus]

Oh, and welcome, TheSquirrelfish!

[Chumpsky]

Originally posted by js_africanus
For example, if my competitor gobbles up market share, I'm not really benefitting--I do in that she is a better business person and/or has a better product or prices, to the benefit of society. But I'm still losing market share. However, if everyone outside of my market does well, then I do well because they can more easily consume my products. This is true in the international scene as well: ...There are several tacit assumptions in the preceeding which are not true. You are assuming that public policy is determined by what is best for the majority. It isn't. If capitalism consisted merely of small businesses competing at a more or less equal footing, then this would be true. This, however, is not what I am talking about when I talk about capitalism. I am talking about the actual system that exists in the real world, namely the system that is dominated by enormous concentrations of capital and power, and that are protected by an enormously powerful state with world-wide reach.

In this system, the interests that are protected are those that represent these concentrated power centers. Now, every extra dollar that they have to pay a 9 year old girl in an Indonesian seatshop is one less dollar of profit for them. Every annoying environmental regulation is a drain on their profits. Every annoying workplace safety law is a drain on their profits. Any power the workers gain to organize and press for their interests is a threat to their profits.

This is the actual world that we live in.

In this world, capitalist imperialism searches around the globe to push down wages, eliminate environmental and workplace safety regulations, and generally to keep the world prostrate so that they will be willing to work for $0.19 an hour.
Even if this were true [that wealth and poverty grow together], that would not imply that capitalism, per se, was the cause.Nothing in the real world is proven. All we can do is look at what happens and what follows and try to draw conclusions based on what we would expect to see and what we actually do see.

It is part of capitalist theology, stated so often that it becomes simply an article of faith, that capitalism is good for everybody. You said, "when others do well, you do well..." This is clearly not the case. Indeed, you have declined to offer any evidence to back up this claim after being challenged on it. It is circumspect of you to try to avoid doing so, since it is so obviously false.

Most of the world is capitalist. Yet, most of the population of the world lives in poverty, and more than a billion live in extreme poverty, meaning that they are on the very edge of survival. There is no hard and fast rule, but the situation is more or less this: where capitalism is least free from regulation, the situation is worse. There are, of course, other factors to consider, such as natural resources, access to trade routes, and other given facts that are unaffected by the economic system. But, in general the rule holds true. The countries that are the most capitalist, such as Indonesia or Guatemala, the situation is a horror show.
I mentioned before the existence of factors such as realpolitik, neo-mercantilist ignorance, and the realities of the cold war.The most intelligent people the state can produce are recruited to run the state and the corporations. The very cream of the crop is directing the capitalist system. They certainly know exactly what they are doing. And they certainly are no less ignorant than yourself.

U.S. policy has been amazingly consistent, remarkably consistent. The same policies have been carried out for at least 100 years with regard to the major policy decisions regarding the role of capital and foreign intervention. What does change are the pretexts. So, before the 1917 revolution, there were various pretexts that were used to justify U.S. intervention, such as aggressive Germans in Latin America, or the Spanish in Cuba, or civilizing the barbarous Filipinos, etc. The Cold War was a supremely useful fiction for a long time that allowed the U.S. to carry out its aggressive policies. After the Cold War various pretexts have been used to justify the exact same policies which continue to this day, without change. Again, amazingly consistent policies.
If the U.S. is supporting a bastard like Pinochet because they can use him to fight communist efforts in Chile,...The U.S. was not fighting communists in Chile. Well, actually they were, as long as you use the technical term for "communist," which is any agent that objects to the unregulated dominance of western capital. The fight against communism was a wonderful pretext for rounding up all of the leftsists in the soccer stadium and torturing them to death while consolidating the power of the U.S.'s favored fascist.
Chumsky also provides a document regarding the internal planning of future politics, I guess. Regardless of the reference's validity, which I am not questioning, it remains moot. From the fact that George Kennan was a neo-mercantilist doofus, it does not follow that capitalism is inherently corrupt. The two are completely unrelated.Kennan a doofus? Riiight. At any rate, it is somewhat moot because Kennan simply echoes a very consistent theme of U.S. foreign policy.

As for capitalism being corrupt, it depends on who you are. If you are one of the capitalists, then it is a wonderful system. For the other 99% it isn't so great, though.
The Skeptical Environmentalist by Bjorn Lomborg.Kabooom! Well, there goes your credibility. Next time try to avoid referencing a well-known liar.
The rich may be getting richer, but the poor aren't getting poorer. That's not to say that there isn't alot of suffering, poverty, and repression. Quite the contrary. But things are getting better, not worse.But why? It is clearly the case that in countries where there are fewer regulations on capital, there is more poverty, other things being equal. Compare Guatemala to Sweden, for instance.

You are claiming that capitalism is causing a decrease in poverty. But, if this were true, we would expect that Guatemala would have a very low level of poverty by now, since it has had capitalism forced upon it since 1953.
If anybody can give me a good coherent, prima facie defense of the proposition that economic activity is a zero-sum game, I'd like to read it.It is very simple. Every extra dollar I have to pay to one of my employees is one less dollar for me. Every extra dollar I have to pay in order to adhere to an environmental or safety regulation is one less dollar for me. Your problem is that you always pose the problem as one of trading between equals, a situation which has never existed and will never exist. Indeed, capitalism simply accentuates the gulf between rich and poor. In the hierarchical structure, it is in the interests of concentrated power to keep those at the bottom as powerless as possible so that they will be anxious to work from dawn-to-dusk creating wealth for those at the top.
Mr. Svinlesha made explicit something I've been hinting at, for fear of imposing a belief on someone that he did not have, that Chumpsky is a communist.How very Cold War of you. Of course, "communist" has long been used as a scare word to silence debate and discussion. Through eight decades of propaganda, the idea has been driven home time and time again that "communism = gulag." I interpret this statement of yours as mere demogoguery. You hope that by labelling me as a communist the debate will be over, that the connection will be made that "Chumpsky = communism = gulag." This tactic is quite insulting to the reader (not to mention myself.)

Actually, though, I have made no secret of my political leanings. I consider myself to be an anarchist (http://flag.blackened.net/intanark/faq/index.html). I am not a communist, although I agree with 99% of communist analysis of capitalism.
The class warfare alleged to be endemic to capitalism does not exist as an inherent product of capitalism. The class warfare is simply a logically valid product of a flawed axiom. But the axiom is still flawed, so the result does not follow.It is clearly in the best interests of the ruling class to pretend that there are no classes and that we are all just one big happy family working together for the national interest. However, why don't we take a look at what the capitalists say? Take, for example, James Madison, the primary architect of the U.S. constitution. He wrote, in Federalist Paper Number 10 (http://memory.loc.gov/const/fed/fed_10.html):

"The protection of these faculties is the first object of government. From the protection of different and unequal faculties of acquiring property, the possession of different degrees and kinds of property immediately results; and from the influence of these on the sentiments and views of the respective proprietors, ensues a division of the society into different interests and parties.

The latent causes of faction are thus sown in the nature of man ... But the most common and durable source of factions has been the various and unequal distribution of property. Those who hold and those who are without property have ever formed distinct interests in society."

Simply substitute "class" for "faction" and you have a perfect Marxist class analysis, the difference being that Madison thought it was a good thing. Madison's class analysis seems pretty spot-on to me. Perhaps you would like to enlighten us as to why it is so absurd to think that there are classes in capitalist society.

[Neurotik]

And yet you do not address js_africanus's cites on poverty and GDP.

And you produce none of your own. In fact, you provide no cites whatsoever.

What a surprise.

[Neurotik]

Originally posted by Chumpsky
It is very simple. Every extra dollar I have to pay to one of my employees is one less dollar for me. Every extra dollar I have to pay in order to adhere to an environmental or safety regulation is one less dollar for me.
Ah, but that is not necessarily the case. Ford paid his workers above what was expected. By doing this, he increased the market for cars, because more people could afford them. In this case, we see that the extra dollar he paid his employees resulted in more dollars for the business. Hence, by helping to alleviate a bit of poverty, Ford increased his own business.

And your simplistic house of cards falls on its face with but one case to the contrary.

[Soup_du_jour]

Ah, but Neurotik, the average third-world worker isn't really in the market to buy the stuff that they produce. Tennis shoes, for instance, are mostly for sale in rich countries, and are made in poor countries.

Now, if only Bush and the EU would stop their idiotic protectionism, maybe third-world poverty could be alleviated, but no...

Bush is a dork in trade policy. There's one thing I agree with Chumpsky on. I just happen to believe he's not being capitalist enough.

[Chumpsky]

Originally posted by Soup_du_jour
Bush is a dork in trade policy. There's one thing I agree with Chumpsky on. I just happen to believe he's not being capitalist enough. No, no, no. This is not some mistaken policy carried out by one or two idiots in power. It is a deliberate policy formed with a great deal of thought. It is a consistent policy. Bush is not an idiot, and his trade policies are perfectly consistent with the Washington consensus.

These policies are not a mistake, and they are not a failure. In fact, they are spectacularly successful. That is the whole point! From the point of view of the ruling class, U.S. foreign policy has been a smashing success.

My critique has never been that these policies are a mistake or are stupid. Quite the contrary! They do exactly what they are intended to do, namely to keep most of the world poor.

Look, if you looked at just one country, like Argentina say, and you see what an incredible disaster the various IMF-World Bank-WTO (the real axis of evil) policies have been for the country, you might say, "well, yeah, it failed here, but that's just because of some morons" or something else. OK, that might be true if it happened once, or twice, or even a dozen times. But it doesn't. It happens all the time. These policies have contributed to the forced poverty of most of the world. They are perfectly consistent, and perfectly rational by the standards of the ruling class.

Likewise, if you look at U.S. interventionism in isolation you can make a mistake. For the longest time I could never figure out why the hell the U.S. went to war in Vietnam. I just said, "What a bunch of idiots. Look at all those people they killed, and for what!?" OK, if it was just Vietnam, you could maintain that. But, then you take a broader view, look at Guatemala, Iran, Chile, Indonesia, Grenada, Panama, Iraq, Yugoslavia, etc., and a consistent pattern emerges. This pattern explains why the U.S. went to war in Vietnam.

If you look at all of these cases you see that there is a common thread. In each of these cases the country was attempting an alternative form of economic development, one that took place outside of the system organized and dominated by the U.S. This is why these (and other) countries had to be destroyed. The U.S. didn't go to war in Vietnam to "defend democracy" or any of that other crap they so often proclaim. The reasons they always give are obvious lies. No, the U.S. went to war in Vietnam because Vietnam was attempting to develop along an alternative path. For this, Vietnam had to be destroyed.

This also explains why the Vietnam War was a partial success. It wasn't a total success, obviously, but it was a partial success. What the U.S. showed is that any country, no matter how backward, no matter how negligible a threat it posed to the U.S., will be destroyed if it dares to step outside of the U.S. dominated system. This is a perfectly rational policy for those who run the state. It also explains why a speck like Grenada, a country of 100,000 people, had to be invaded and destroyed, another example of U.S. interventionism that is difficult to understand in isolation.

We must not make the mistake of viewing U.S. policy as a mistake, or underestimating the intelligence that goes into public policy formation. We should look at the consistent patterns that emerge and try to understand policies in the broader context of perfectly rational, consistent policy.

[Bryan Ekers]

Neither Vietnam nor Grenada were "destroyed". If your ridiculous hyperbole were to be believed, what did the U.S. not deploy nuclear weapons and truly destroy both nations?

That's the biggest problem with trying to demonize your opponents. If it's done for shrieking propaganda purposes, you can get away with it, but trying to do so in a calm reasoned manner fails because if they were as bad as you describe, then anyone who points out any good that your opponents do or any evil that they didn't do demolishes your position.

So, if the American ruling classes are ruthless and bloodthirsty and will stop at nothing, why haven't they stopped at nothing, already? Why are we not now living in a global American empire? You've never sufficiently explained why the U.S. government didn't go on a massive orgy of land-grabbing after the fall of their main 20th-century rivals, the USSR, if they were as ruthless as you claim.

[Chumpsky]

Originally posted by Bryan Ekers
Neither Vietnam nor Grenada were "destroyed". If your ridiculous hyperbole were to be believed, what did the U.S. not deploy nuclear weapons and truly destroy both nations?Nixon contemplated using nuclear weapons in Vietnam, but decided against it because of the backlash it would caus at home. He feared a revolution. However, Vietnam was demolished: two million dead; bridges, damns and other infrastructure destroyed; forests coated in cancer causing chemicals; crops poisoned; livestock killed; the countryside littered with unexploded ordnance that still explodes to this day; and so on. After the war was over, the U.S. followed a policy of punishing Vietnam, doing their best to make sure that Vietnam could not develop.

True, they weren't destroyed in the sense of their being a big hole where the country used to be. However, the civil society was demolished. Basically, the lesson was made very clear: step out of line and this will be your fate. The government of Grenada was simply ousted when the U.S. invaded.
So, if the American ruling classes are ruthless and bloodthirsty and will stop at nothing, why haven't they stopped at nothing, already?They are. Just look at the savage attack on Iraq in 1991, followed by a decade of murderous sanctions. Look at the merciless attack on Yugoslavia to break it up into small, powerless right-wing republics. They do stop at nothing. They are planning at this very moment how best to destroy what remains of Iraqi society.
Why are we not now living in a global American empire? You've never sufficiently explained why the U.S. government didn't go on a massive orgy of land-grabbing after the fall of their main 20th-century rivals, the USSR, if they were as ruthless as you claim. Because, as I explained on the first page of this thread, the imperialists are not interested in the territory. Rather, they are interested in the wealth that can be extracted.

[Bryan Ekers]

Originally posted by Chumpsky
Nixon contemplated using nuclear weapons in Vietnam, but decided against it because of the backlash it would caus at home. He feared a revolution.

You mean a president actually took the masses' feelings into account? Wow. Imagine that. You've gone to great lengths to describe how presidents are evil and they are only interested in pleasing the power elite that support them. Then you say he was concerned about the masses? You're arguing a contradiction.

However, Vietnam was demolished: two million dead; bridges, damns and other infrastructure destroyed; forests coated in cancer causing chemicals; crops poisoned; livestock killed; the countryside littered with unexploded ordnance that still explodes to this day; and so on. After the war was over, the U.S. followed a policy of punishing Vietnam, doing their best to make sure that Vietnam could not develop.

"Demolished", sure. "Destroyed", no. Don't use words incorrectly. It undermines your arguments. As for the post-war "punishment", don't your arguments suggest an embargo helps the people of Vietnam by keeping them from being victimized by heartless American corporations? After all, if American companies are prevented from dealing with Vietnam, how can they force a 12 year-old girl to make sneakers for $1.00 a day?

True, they weren't destroyed in the sense of their being a big hole where the country used to be. However, the civil society was demolished. Basically, the lesson was made very clear: step out of line and this will be your fate.

Ironically, North Vietnam's victory actually teaches the exact opposite; that if a nation resists long enough and hard enough, the Americans will eventually pull out. If teaching a "lesson" was the only real motivation for American involvement, why not drop a nuke? How could a lesson be any clearer?

The government of Grenada was simply ousted when the U.S. invaded.

Government? It was a Marxist junta that had seized power less than a month before the Americans stepped in.

They are. Just look at the savage attack on Iraq in 1991, followed by a decade of murderous sanctions.

That attack was prompted by an attack of equal savagery by Iraq on the people of Kuwait. As for sanctions, there are all indications that acts of good faith on the part of the Iraqis after 1991 could have gradually lifted them.

Look at the merciless attack on Yugoslavia to break it up into small, powerless right-wing republics.

I guess you believe it preferable that the Yugoslavs should have been allowed to continue mercilessly killing each other. Are you contending that life is worse now than it was when Milosovic was in power?

They do stop at nothing. They are planning at this very moment how best to destroy what remains of Iraqi society.
Because, as I explained on the first page of this thread, the imperialists are not interested in the territory. Rather, they are interested in the wealth that can be extracted.

Are you under the impression that Iraqi society is some noble enclave of freedom? In truth, the "ruling elite" of America are the mildest amateurs compared to the ruling elite of Iraq, who casually use torture and murder and poison gas as instruments of policy.

And if they were so eager to get at Iraq's oil resources, why are they not staging invasions of Venezuela, Canada, Mexico and other oil-rich states that are relatively accessable? If they stop at nothing, why haven't they even started yet?

I posed this question in a similar thread, but I'll just toss it out again: if the so-called "ruling elite" of America was to vanish tomorrow (all major industrialists, senior government officials and anyone with a net worth of $10 million or more), what's your plan for implementing paradise?

Do you have any constructive ideas or just blind hatred?

[Mr. Svinlesha]

s. bandit: Oh boy. I am not going to go digging through a thousand web pages to find support. Nor am I going to go digging through history texts located some 30 miles away for it.I see.

Every time Chumpsky posts a line in this forum, half a dozen belligerents jump down his throat screaming ”Cite! Cite! Cite!” But apparently, these same belligerents reserve for themselves the right to post unsubstantiated claims, and to do so unchallenged. I guess when Chumpsky writes something, we are to expect that he be held to virtually unreasonable standards of evidential support, but when his opponents post counter-arguments, we are to accept their claims as true, a priori. That seems fair.

On a more serious note, this is after all Great Debates, and participants in these threads are reasonably expected to back up factual claims with some sort of evidence – even those who espouse ”politically correct” perspectives on world affairs. In other words – put up or shut up!

;)


js:

First off, thanks for your kind words regarding my previous response!

In reference to this: Cum hoc ergo propter hoc. Even if this were true, that would not imply that capitalism, per se, was the cause (of increasing poverty). I mentioned before the existence of factors such as realpolitik, neo-mercantilist ignorance, and the realities of the cold war.I agree with you that poverty has more than one causal determinant. But your argument here does not negate the possibility that the dynamics of capitalism are a significant contributing factor to endemic, third-world conditions of poverty, even if they aren’t the only factor. In fact, Chumpsky’s claims are not based solely on some sort of internal logical reasoning, but also have an empirical basis. In other words, at the risk of sounding Popperian, they are potentially falsifiable.

Chumpsky’s model of capitalism predicts that in a capitalist economy, all other things being equal, wealth will tend to accumulate upwards, concentrating in fewer and fewer hands; and that, without recourse to redistributive mechanisms, such a system will produce increasing disparities of income as time goes on. I argue that there exists very little empirical evidence that falsifies this fairly straightforward, common-sense conjecture. A glance at the income and wealth distribution curves of the US certainly seems to confirm the reasonableness of his claims. I’ve not had the opportunity to pursue the cites you’ve provided, but I know that at least some macroeconomic research (http://www.prospect.org/print/V13/1/weller-c.html) suggests that the principle holds at the global level as well: For better than two decades, the orthodox recipe for global growth has been embodied in the so-called Washington Consensus. This approach, advocated by the United States and enforced by the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF), holds that growth is maximized when barriers to the free flow of capital and commerce are dismantled and when individual economies are exposed to the discipline, consumer markets, and entrepreneurs of the world economic system. Proponents of this view have contended that the free-market approach to development will also alleviate poverty, both by raising overall growth rates and by bringing modern capitalism to the world's poorest.

Yet the actual experience since 1980 contradicts almost every one of these claims. Indeed, the free-trade/free-capital formula has led to slower growth and more vulnerability for poor countries--and to greater income disparity among individuals. In 1980 median income in the richest 10 percent of countries was 77 times greater than in the poorest 10 percent; by 1999 that gap had grown to 122 times. Progress in poverty reduction has been limited and geographically isolated. The number of poor people rose from 1987 to 1998; in many countries, the share of poor people increased (in 1998 close to half the population in many parts of the world were considered poor). In 1980 the world's poorest 10 percent, or 400 million people, lived on the equivalent of 72 cents a day or less. The same number of people had 79 cents per day in 1990 and 78 cents in 1999. The income of the world's poorest did not even keep up with inflation.With respect to this: If the U.S. is supporting a bastard like Pinochet because they can use him to fight communist efforts in Chile, that's not an action inherent in the system of economic organization known as capitalism, that's a political issue. Whether one wishes to frame it as "fighting for freedom from communism," or "imposing our corrupt way of life on the innocent Chileans," the fact remains that it is not an economic phenomena. It is political.Well, that’s a claim you need to support with some sort of evidence, I think. As far as I recall, word on the street is that it’s no longer kosher to arbitrarily separate politics and economics from each other. The two fields are so inextricably intertwined that most serious analysts have returned to the old, classical concept of the ”political economy.”

I wonder as well where you ever got the idea that mercantilism and capitalism are completely unrelated economic systems. From the fact that George Kennan was a neo-mercantilist doofus, it does not follow that capitalism is inherently corrupt. The two are completely unrelated. This mistake seems to be pandemic. Consider for example the quote offered by Mr. Svinlesha. It says, "The core regions benefited the most from the capitalist world economy. For the period under discussion (1450-1670), much of northwestern Europe (England, France, Holland) developed as the first core region." The problem is that capitalism, as a system of economic orgainzation, simply didn't exist at that point in time. The good Mr.Wallerstein is confusing mercantilism with capitalism.To begin with, Wallerstein is one of the most influential and respected economic historians of the 20th century, so it would be absolutely stunning to discover that he had made such a bumbling, simple-minded mistake. And in fact, most of the economic historians with whom I am familiar date the advent of capitalism to somewhere around the early 1500s, in conjunction with the development of ”modern” financial institutions in Italy. In addition, most of them view mercantilism as an early form of capitalism. Consider, for example, this definition (http://www.bigchalk.com/cgi-bin/WebObjects/WOPortal.woa/wa/HWCDA/file?fileid=169685&flt=CAB) of the term in question: Capitalism is a difficult, problematic term; it applies to a diversity of phenomenon spread across disparate historical cultures with substantially variable world views. However, the term is an Enlightenment European term used to describe European practices; so the term "capitalism" means more than just a body of social practices easily applied across geographical and historical distances, it is also a "way of thinking," and as a way of thinking does not necessarily apply to earlier European origins of capitalism or to capitalism as practiced in other cultures.

The earliest forms of capitalism—which we call "mercantilism"—originate in Rome, the Middle East, and the early Middle Ages. Mercantilism might be roughly defined as the distribution of goods in order to realize a profit.…

As time went on in Europe, mercantilism gradually evolved into economic practices that would eventually be called capitalism. Capitalism is based on the same principle as mercantilism: the large-scale realization of a profit by acquiring goods for lower prices than one sells them.One final note: mercantilism is a kind of economic praxis, and not a model of macroeconomic analysis, as some of what you’ve written seems to imply. It goes on from there. The rich may be getting richer, but the poor aren't getting poorer.I would say that this is a contested idea, but it is possible that the research you’ve cited points in that direction. As noted, other research seems to lead to the opposite conclusion. But the discussion gets quite complicated after that. Some apologists for a capitalist system claim that even if there are increasing disparities in income between rich and poor, the overall wealth of all income levels is enhanced, and that this fact therefore justifies capitalism. There are a lot of ins and outs to this argument, and I don’t have time to pursue it further here, other than to say that I’m not fully convinced by it. (Needless to say, if it turns out that capitalism actually leads to an overall increase in poverty levels, as is asserted in the article I quoted from above, then the counter-argument is moot.) What is difficult is trying to understand why someone would continue to adhere to a dead economic postulate such as the labor theory of value. The simple fact is that the capitalist's need to skim off the top is a fiction. In fact, it isn't even a primitive in the communist model, it is an intermediate result from taking the labor theory of value as an axiom. It follows it quite naturally. But the axiom is not true, hence the conclusion is not true.I failed to address that point earlier, in your last post, and for a simple reason: it’s a strawman. If you go back and look at my argument, you will find nary a word about the labor value of a commodity. In fact, I state quite clearly that the ”value” of the commodity is determined by the market, and that the excess wealth “skimmed off” by the capitalist is equal to market value of a product minus production costs. (In addition, in your version of the labor theory of value, you seem to argue for the same mechanism, strangely enough. In my understanding of the “labor theory of value,” the value of a commodity is determined by the sum total of its labor inputs [however one might calculate that], not by its value on the market. I agree with you that such an axiomatic proposition is misleading.)

My analysis, like that of virtually all neo-Marxist economists, is based on the simple premise that a portion of the market value of an item is pocketed by the owners of the means of production, even though they did not have a hand in the actual work of manufacturing the item in question. The idea that you sell items for more than they cost to produce is one of the fundamental principles of capitalism, is it not?

Finally:

It seems that the original topic of this thread – i.e., constructive criticism of Parenti’s essay Imperialism 101 – has been long forgotten. But I would like to second Chumpsky’s original request, and ask that those who are critical of this perspective to review the article and point out to us the flaws in Parenti’s analysis. I am genuinely curious, as I have read the article now and can’t find anything substantially wrong with Parenti’s basic arguments.

[Maeglin]

Marvelous post, Mr. Svinlesha.

In fact, Chumpsky’s claims are not based solely on some sort of internal logical reasoning, but also have an empirical basis. In other words, at the risk of sounding Popperian, they are potentially falsifiable.

I think this is an overly charitable view of Chumpsky's analysis. Perhaps his view has a superficial empirical basis, but I simply do not see how you could strip away enough context to falsify it. Could you elaborate further here? Some attempt to apply empirical rigor might be interesting.

Chumpsky’s model of capitalism predicts that in a capitalist economy, all other things being equal, wealth will tend to accumulate upwards, concentrating in fewer and fewer hands; and that, without recourse to redistributive mechanisms, such a system will produce increasing disparities of income as time goes on. I argue that there exists very little empirical evidence that falsifies this fairly straightforward, common-sense conjecture.

I don't believe that this is entirely correct.

Using income as your sole measure of evidence is misleading. While it may be common sense that those most equipped to thrive in a capitalist society will earn more money, it is not clear that their increased earnings are entirely pulled from the pockets of the poor. It may be easy to produce examples in which this has happened, but I await an argument which demonstrates that this is inherent in the system. A free (or better yet, competitive) market creates wealth: though its distribution may be unequal, I don't think it is a large stretch to demonstrate that it creates wealth for all participants, especially in the long term.

Furthermore, even if you believe that the total value of wealth in circulation is zero-sum, increases in productivity do produce increases in wealth due to the marginal propensity for people to boost consumption during periods of increase in productivity, even in the thirld world. Even though the rich inarguably get richer, there is empirical evidence to support that the conditions of the poor are improving as well.

Hence I believe that using income curves as the sole piece of evidence is inadequate. We must also examine real prices and spending habits over the long term to get a good picture of the conditions of the world's poorest. Unfortunately, this is extremely difficult to do given the paucity of available data.

With respect to your cite on macroeconomic research, I find the idea that "virtually every experience" since 1980 has undermined the Washington Consensus. I think this requires some serious factual backup.

I do agree that at least in your case, arguments against the labor theory of value are straw men.

I'll try to have a look at the Parenti article shortly.

[Maeglin]

I have to add, I read Parenti's first paragraph. His second sentence:

Yet, it is seldom accorded any serious attention by our academics, media commentators, and political leaders.

...is so risible that I find it hard to believe that there is any truth to what follows. The very idea that for the past 40 years poststructuralist, postmodern, postcolonial academics have been ignoring imperialism practically brings a tear to my eye.

[Shodan]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So, if the American ruling classes are ruthless and bloodthirsty and will stop at nothing, why haven't they stopped at nothing, already?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

They are. Just look at the savage attack on Iraq in 1991, followed by a decade of murderous sanctions.This ventures into the realm of parody.

By all means "just look" at the Gulf War - where the US drove Iraq out of Kuwait, back to their own territory - and then stopped.

If the US is so ruthlessly imperialistic, why didn't we conquer Baghdad?

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Skeptical Environmentalist by Bjorn Lomborg.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kabooom! Well, there goes your credibility. Next time try to avoid referencing a well-known liar.
You simply dropped this into the thread, and moved on. Could you flesh it out a bit? Based on what you have posted to date, I am not willing simply to dismiss Lomborg because you tell us to.

Your posts, as usual, tend to be long on assertion, and quite short on evidence.

Quite short.

Regards,
Shodan

[js_africanus]

Originally posted by Mr. Svinlesha
First off, thanks for your kind words regarding my previous response!
My pleasure. Although I really do hate reading the responses to my posts, is there anybody who doesn't hate being proven wrong, if I'm going to post then honor says that I must. I have so far tended to disagree with you, but you have been respectful and rational. I owe you the same. If my style has fallen below that standard, please let me know so that I can apologize and correct myself.

I do hope that I haven't behaved as a belligerant toward Chumpsky. I must admit that his rhetorical style seems to have its flaws, in my opinion, but he is playing a valuable role. He also has the courage to come back again and again to defend his beliefs--I consider that to be a honorable trait, no matter how much I disagree with them. In WWI the black American troops fought so well that the Germans gave them the honorable nick-name The Harlem Hellfighters. I can't say that I'm a big believer in loving my enemy, but I feel I should respect him.

Since this is a strictly personal post, will you grant me an extra paragraph? I think that Chumpsky would be far more formidable if he'd refine his rhetorical style. That's not a personal attack--it is intended to be strictly constructive, so please, don't be offended by it. Sometimes such things need to be said, and this appears to be one of those cases. Chum. obviously cares about the plight of the poor and injustice and all those good things. It would be nice to see him become a better advocate of his position. Of course, I strongly disagree with his analysis of the world--but I think he'd be suprised at how much (and where) our common ground may lie.

Anyway, I have to go to my sister's place. I'll be looking forward to seeing how this thread develops.

[Estilicon]

Js Africanus, I don't want to congratulate you but to damm you to hell :), you see I try to think that my english is good enough to understand complex issues. I just spent the better part of an hour reading your last couple of post. 15 minutes into it I realized you were speaking about Economy.

I think that you and Chumspy are speaking of two different worlds, he is talking about Earth in the 21 century and you are speaking of Smith-Ricardo land.
Something that it always surprised to me about this board is the almost total absence of debate about capitalism. That is why Chumpsky is always so much fun to read (eventhough he quotes Chomsky a bit too much).
I don't have your expertise about economy africanus but it seems to me that all of your exposition refers to a "perfect economy system" (sorry trasnlation from the spanish) where:

1) There are a lot of actors in the market
2) No actor can establih by himself either the price of a good or aservice or the price of a labor, capital, or land (again I lack the technical vocabulary)
3) All the actors in the system have all the information in order to act according to their best interests.

Sadly this is not the case. There isn't such a thing as a perfect market, in fact there isn't even a "free market". Something is not working in this planet, I have examples but no solutions:

Let me introduce you to the once proud Argentina, a country capable to produce food (of top quality) to feed 300 millions human beings, it's population? Barely 35 millions, 10% of it's "feeding capacity", and people are literally starving.
I know there is corruption in Argentina, but that cannot be the only answer. After all the same happens in say... U.S.A (Enron, to name the worst offender) and the situation is not quite the same.
All I know that ten years ago (before the washington consensus) unemployment was less than 8% and all our social and economic numbers were the envy of Latin Americaa. All I know is that in the eyes of Washington anf the I.M.F (they are the same thing) we were "the best pupils". All I know is that in 2002 the unemployment is 25%, poverty is in the order of 53%... All I know is that something is quite wrong.

[Bryan Ekers]

Originally posted by Estilicon
All I know that ten years ago (before the washington consensus) unemployment was less than 8% and all our social and economic numbers were the envy of Latin Americaa. All I know is that in the eyes of Washington anf the I.M.F (they are the same thing) we were "the best pupils". All I know is that in 2002 the unemployment is 25%, poverty is in the order of 53%... All I know is that something is quite wrong.

Well, if that's all you know, then you certainly don't have sufficient evidence to blame Washington or the IMF. What's your point?

[Mr. Svinlesha]

Maeglin: Marvelous post, Mr. Svinlesha.Thank ye kindly.

Two compliments so far! This must be my lucky thread! I think this is an overly charitable view of Chumpsky's analysis. Perhaps his view has a superficial empirical basis, but I simply do not see how you could strip away enough context to falsify it. Could you elaborate further here? Some attempt to apply empirical rigor might be interesting.T’would be my pleasure. Before beginning, however, I’d like to tease apart two claims that seem to get all too easily entangled with each other during discussions of this sort. I think that each of them needs to be addressed separately.

The first claim is the following: Left to its own devices, Capitalism tends to create growing disparities in income distribution as time goes on. This is a pretty straightforward assertion.

The second claim is: The disparities in income distribution produced by Capitalism result in an increase of wealth at one end of the scale, and in an increase in poverty at the other end of the scale, as resources are reallocated upwards. I guess this is what is being continually referred to in this thread as the ”zero-sum proposition.” In contrast to this claim, it is possible to imagine that in a dynamically growing capitalist economy everyone is becoming wealthier, even the poor, but that, at the same time, income disparities are increasing, as the incomes of the wealthy rise faster than those of the poor. This is, in fact, probably the most commonly-cited argument against the Marxist/Neo-Marxist perspective, and the point I believe you’re trying to make.

Regarding the first proposition, it should be relatively easy to ”test,” empirically. One could, for example, investigate long-term trends in income disparity in countries that rely more or less exclusively upon the so-called ”free market” as a mechanism for economic redistribution. If in such cases we discover that as time goes on, markets tend to distribute wealth more and more equitably, then the hypothesis would be falsified, which would in turn reflect poorly on the Chumpskian model. If we see the opposite effect, on the other hand, then we can say that, at the very least, this model remains in the running as a possible theoretical explanation for the effects we observe.

Luckily, Chumpsky has already linked to a cite above that provides information of the sort we are looking for. Since the info is handy, since much of it is taken from the US Census Bureau, and since I doubt anyone will object to the raw figures, I’ll simply reproduce some of it here.

To begin with, taking the US domestic economy as our test case, we observe extreme discrepancies in both income and wealth holdings as we move up the economic scale. For example, we note that the .5% wealthiest members of American society in 1983 (about 14 million people) owned approximately 45% of the nation’s entire wealth, including 47% of all corporate, privately-held stock. At the same time, the bottom 60% of all US families owned $5000 or less in assets. In fact, if this web page is to be believed, ”The bottom 90% of the US population ha[d] (in 1992) a smaller share (23%) of all kinds of investable [sic?] capital than the richest 0.5% (who own 29%).” At the very least, assuming that this disparity of wealth reflects the operation of the US economy over time, we can say that it does not contradict the predictions of our model.

If we observe the trends in US income distribution between 1974 and 1994, again as presented by the US Census Bureau, we note the following: in 1974, the poorest 20% of the US population (in terms of households) shared among themselves 4.3% of the total US aggregate income. The top 20%, on the other hand, shared 43.5% of that income. (Interestingly, the wealthiest 5% of the US population received 16.5% of the aggregate income, which was more than the total earned by the bottom 40% (15.1%).) By 1984, the figures were: bottom 20%, 4.0% of aggregate income; top 20%, 45.2%; top 5%, 17.1%. And in 1994, it looked like this: bottom 20%, 3.6 % of aggregate income; top 20%, 49.1%; top 5%, 21.2 %. The entire change over time (from 1974 to 1994) can be charted as follows: first quintile, -16%; second quintile, -16%; third quintile, -11.7%; fourth quintile, -4.9%; fifth quintile, +12.9%; top 5%, + 28.5%. By 1994, the top 5% earned almost double the entire income of the bottom 40% (21.2% vs. 25%).

I suggest that these figures lend weight to the first claim, above; at the very least, they do not falsify it.

So then we move on to the second claim, which is somewhat trickier. This trickiness lies in the fact that it also involves a kind of value judgement.

It would of course be easiest to simply assert that the evidence we have shows that the poor are getting poorer, at the expense of the wealthy. I think there is evidence that supports such a claim, at least at the global level, which I cited earlier, above. But then again, as you point out, in a slightly self-contradictory fashion: Even though the rich inarguably get richer, there is empirical evidence to support that the conditions of the poor are improving as well… We must also examine real prices and spending habits over the long term to get a good picture of the conditions of the world's poorest. Unfortunately, this is extremely difficult to do given the paucity of available data.If the data is equivocal, then neither you nor I can really make any categorical claims regarding it, can we?

But let us take the stronger thesis. Let’s address the argument that in fact, despite increased income inequity, the economy is growing such that everyone, both rich and poor, are gradually becoming better off. If that’s the case, one might ask, then what’s the problem? Or, as you put it: While it may be common sense that those most equipped to thrive in a capitalist society will earn more money, it is not clear that their increased earnings are entirely pulled from the pockets of the poor. It may be easy to produce examples in which this has happened, but I await an argument which demonstrates that this is inherent in the system.Well, with regard to arguments that demonstrate such a dynamic is ”inherent in the system,” there are a few, as any macroeconomist will probably tell you. One dynamic of primary importance is profit motive: corporations are under pressure to squeeze as much wealth out of their systems as possible. High profits are valuable because they allow high levels of reinvestment (which will hopefully lead to even higher profits) and because they attract more investment capital.

This has both positive and negative effects. On the plus side, it tends to make corporations very effective with regard to resource use. But on the minus side, and more to the point, this dynamic exerts a downward pressure on wages. Obviously: if I sell my product on the market at the price the market sets for it, then the less I pay for labor, the higher my profits. The higher my profits, the more money I have to reinvest, and the more attractive my company is to investors with capital. Clearly, such a dynamic is ”inherent in the system.”

This pressure is further exacerbated by market competition, which is also rather obvious, when one pauses to reflect upon it. If several similar products are competing for the same market, then this will tend to exert a downward pressure on the price of the product. This dynamic also has both positive and negative effects – competition can be good for the consumer, for example. But again, it puts pressure on the corporation to cut production costs as much as it possibly can, in order to realize a profit; and this in turn creates a downward pressure on wages.

These effects are also empirically falsifiable, at least in a general sense. Of course, when looking at a potential workforce, wages and benefits are not the only variables that concern large corporations. They also look at such factors as the level of discipline the workforce exhibits, the social/political stability of the country in which the workforce is located, and so forth. But assuming that all other things are equal, and the that only question facing the corporation was the actual cost of two equally stable, well-disciplined workforces, market dynamics constrain corporations to chose the least expensive of those workforces. These considerations can be used to explain, for example, the current transfer of manufacturing facilities to the so-called third world. They can be falsified by a set of examples, taken from the real world, in which (all other things being equal) corporations choose less productive, more expensive workforces over more productive, less expensive workforces. I challenge you to find such examples.

Both of these pressures, it can be argued, tend to force wealth upwards, towards the top. They create a class of individuals, investors and businessmen, who possess fantastic amounts of wealth, who work ruthlessly to protect that wealth, and who are constantly on the lookout for the next, most profitable investment. Does this mean that they are ”picking the pockets of the poor?” Well, to a certain extent, that depends on one’s perspective, but one can certainly contend that this is the case. Even in an expanding economy, if the benefits of growth are not spread equitably, then it is not unreasonable to claim that one group is profiting at the expense of another.

Regarding this: have to add, I read Parenti's first paragraph. His second sentence...is so risible that I find it hard to believe that there is any truth to what follows. The very idea that for the past 40 years poststructuralist, postmodern, postcolonial academics have been ignoring imperialism practically brings a tear to my eye.Agreed, in general. There are details in Parenti’s essay that are questionable, but I haven’t found any weaknesses in its major thesis, even if some examples are perhaps poorly chosen, and so forth.


js: I have so far tended to disagree with you, but you have been respectful and rational. I owe you the same. If my style has fallen below that standard, please let me know so that I can apologize and correct myself…. I do hope that I haven't behaved as a belligerant toward Chumpsky.On the contrary. You’ve been a perfect gentleman (gentlewoman?), and my jibe was in no sense directed towards you personally. Unfortunately, I cannot say the same for a whole slew of other participants in this discussion. (Y'all know who you are.)

Looking forward to your return. Say hi to your sister from me!

[Chumpsky]

Mr. Svinlesha
Excellent analysis, as always.

You point out an a priori argument for the creation of poverty under capitalism that I think holds. That is, just the workings of the market, without any nefarious activity, tend to push wages down, and create a more impoverished underclass. This is also exactly what we observe. I think this is a crucially important point. That is, just taking the sort of bare-bones capitalist system, we can make a good argument that poverty will increase. Thus, the only true saving grace of capitalism, namely that it creates wealth, is lost. Before we even enter into discussions of the other evils of capitalism, such as those that are endemic to any authoritarian system, and those that are uniquely capitalist, we have good cause to reject it.

The component of the capitalist system which you did not touch upon is imperialism. That is not a criticism, I am just pointing out that imperialism only accentuates the bad aspects of an evil system. We can reject capitalism without talking about imperialism, but when we do look at the horrific effects of imperialism, capitalism looks worse and worse. One component of imperialism is that it aids in the enterprise of forcing wages down around the world, and hence at home. Imperialism also has other benefits for the ruling class, obviously, with the extraction of wealth from the Third World, and the creation of a foreign underclass which the domestic underclass can participate in exploiting. It is also a form of class warfare that goes under the heading of "divide and conquer."

Originally posted by Bryan Ekers
You mean a president actually took the masses' feelings into account? Wow. Imagine that. You've gone to great lengths to describe how presidents are evil and they are only interested in pleasing the power elite that support them. Then you say he was concerned about the masses? You're arguing a contradiction.He was concerned about the masses in exactly the same manner that Hitler or Stalin were concerned about the masses.
Ironically, North Vietnam's victory actually teaches the exact opposite; that if a nation resists long enough and hard enough, the Americans will eventually pull out.Sort of reminds me of the old saw: One more victory like that and we're done for.

Many around the world were euphoric at the victory of the Vietnamese, but this soon turned cold when they looked at the price the Vietnamese had to pay. The lesson learned is that if you are going to attempt to develop along an alternative path, you will have to fight against the fury of the most powerful state on Earth.
That [U.S.] attack [on Iraq] was prompted by an attack of equal savagery by Iraq on the people of Kuwait. As for sanctions, there are all indications that acts of good faith on the part of the Iraqis after 1991 could have gradually lifted them.I wonder if I am even speaking the same language as you if you can write that the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait was of "equal savagery" to the U.S. attack on Iraq. The Iraqis killed about 240 people in their invasion and did very little damage to the infrastructure. On the other hand, the U.S. killed a couple hundred thousand people, and also destroyed the necessities of life, such as water treatment facilities, damns, bridges, etc. The attack on Iraq was a systematic attempt to destroy Iraqi civil society, with the certain knowledge that it would lead to hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths. The Iraqi invasion of Kuwait is not even comparable.

Furthermore, since 1991, it has been official U.S. policy that the sanctions will not be lifted unless Saddam is out of power.

"President Bush said today that the United States would oppose the lifting of the worldwide ban against trading with Iraq until President Saddam Hussein is forced out of power in Baghdad".
Source: "Bush Links End Of Trading Ban To Hussein Exit" The New York Times, May 21, 1991

Similar statements have been repeated in the ensuing decade. At no point has the U.S. ever said that the sanctions will be lifted if Iraq complies with U.N. resolutions.

This is simple terrorism, on a massive scale. Any definition of terrorism includes the targetting of the civilian population for political purposes. That is exactly what the sanctions are doing. They target the civilian population, while leaving the ruling class untouched, for a political purpose, namely removing Saddam from power. This brand of terrorism, the terrorism of economic sanctions, has cost the lives of at least 500,000 civilians, most of whom are children. Furthermore, the sanctions don't just kill, they torture you to death. People die a slow, agonizing death of starvation or easily treatable diseases. It makes the attacks of 9/11/01 look like a picnic.

[Bryan Ekers]

Originally posted by Chumpsky
He was concerned about the masses in exactly the same manner that Hitler or Stalin were concerned about the masses.

Exactly the same as Hitler or Stalin, hmmm? Funny, I don't recall the Nixon administration starving tens of millions of people or shipping entire ethnic groups off to concentration camps. The casual comparison to Hitler sounds like a perfect Godwin violation to me.

I wonder if I am even speaking the same language as you if you can write that the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait was of "equal savagery" to the U.S. attack on Iraq. The Iraqis killed about 240 people in their invasion and did very little damage to the infrastructure. On the other hand, the U.S. killed a couple hundred thousand people, and also destroyed the necessities of life, such as water treatment facilities, damns, bridges, etc. The attack on Iraq was a systematic attempt to destroy Iraqi civil society, with the certain knowledge that it would lead to hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths. The Iraqi invasion of Kuwait is not even comparable.

They saved all their infrastructure damage for the spiteful oil-well fires they touched off during their retreat. Their initial invasion killed relatively few people because Kuwait was mostly defenseless and could be clobbered in a matter of hours. The U.S. counteroffensive was to drive out an actual army, with actual tanks and actual guns. And none of it would have been necessary had the Iraqis pulled out prior to the Jan. 15th deadline. If the American government was determined to destroy "Iraqi civil society" (such as it is) why didn't they invade Iraq? Carpet-bomb cities? Deploy nukes? The widespread strategic attacks on bridges and whatnot were to weaken Iraqi command and control. You're ascribing petty revenge motives to something that was actually pretty straightforward, and while you claim the U.S. government is an instrument of absolute evil, you never seem to address the checks it puts on itself, by not actually behaving in an absolutely evil way. I'm sure you're bitterly disappointed that the U.S. hasn't nuked Baghdad, because that would really give you something to kvetch about.

Furthermore, since 1991, it has been official U.S. policy that the sanctions will not be lifted unless Saddam is out of power.

You really ride the sanctions horse a lot, don't you? It's an easy way to blame U.S. capitalists for being greedy for exploiting some countries and heartless for not trading with others. How convenient for you.

This is simple terrorism, on a massive scale. Any definition of terrorism includes the targetting of the civilian population for political purposes. That is exactly what the sanctions are doing. They target the civilian population, while leaving the ruling class untouched, for a political purpose, namely removing Saddam from power.

So it's bad that they want to remove Saddam from power, and bad that they haven't done it already? There you go again, taking both sides.

You are entertainingly misguided. Keep it up. It's fun.

[smiling bandit]

I see.

Every time Chumpsky posts a line in this forum, half a dozen belligerents jump down his throat screaming ”Cite! Cite! Cite!” But apparently, these same belligerents reserve for themselves the right to post unsubstantiated claims, and to do so unchallenged. I guess when Chumpsky writes something, we are to expect that he be held to virtually unreasonable standards of evidential support, but when his opponents post counter-arguments, we are to accept their claims as true, a priori. That seems fair.

On a more serious note, this is after all Great Debates, and participants in these threads are reasonably expected to back up factual claims with some sort of evidence – even those who espouse ”politically correct” perspectives on world affairs. In other words – put up or shut up!

Its very simple. I am unwilling to spend the time and effort to do so in a thread like this one (and I'm sure you all understand what I mean by that) while in Finals Week.

Chumpsky came in and made claims, thus far without any evidence. I am not going to spend any effort to disprove him until he comes up with some sort of evidential justificaion.

[Bryan Ekers]

Originally posted by smiling bandit
Chumpsky came in and made claims, thus far without any evidence. I am not going to spend any effort to disprove him until he comes up with some sort of evidential justificaion.

All I know is that his ass must be getting tired from having opinions pulled out of it ten times a day.

[Shodan]

The Iraqis killed about 240 people in their invasion and did very little damage to the infrastructure. You have made this claim before, Chumpsky.

I don't believe you. Prove it.

Regards,
Shodan

[Mr. Svinlesha]

Very well, let’s just count them up then, shall we?



Poster.............................Number of Cites (in this thread)


Shodan.....................................0

smiling bandit...........................0

Bryan Ekers..............................0

Chumpsky................................7



Anyone else notice a pattern here?

But I think I recognize the technique: a group of like-minded posters gang up on one with an unpopular opinion, and demand cites of him until he finally gives up in exhaustion. During the process, they obtusely misconstrue his arguments, demand responses to claims that he never made, and mock him under the guise of presumed superiority. I mean anything other than engage him in honorable debate, with respect for the fact that he presents an alternative perspective. All I know is that his ass must be getting tired from having opinions pulled out of it ten times a day.:rolleyes:

Ah yes, Bryan Ekers: master of projection.

You should know that your performance in this thread reflects much more poorly upon you than it does upon your opponent.

[smiling bandit]

None of his cites, however, actually act as direct or indirect evidence for his position unless one accepts Chumpsky's assumptions. The number is irrelevant; he has been unable as of yet to show any clear supporting evidence.

[Bryan Ekers]

Originally posted by Mr. Svinlesha
Ah yes, Bryan Ekers: master of projection.

You should know that your performance in this thread reflects much more poorly upon you than it does upon your opponent.

That's okay, I'm a vampire.

Chumpsky is the one making absurd (or at the very least, unlikely) claims. The onus is on him to provide evidence, and when his agenda/bias is so extreme, the onus is even stronger because we're challenging a set of beliefs that have more of an air of dogma than reason to them. As with Witnessing, he's making absolute claims and declines to address the exceptions we casually point out. Nixon viewed citizens exactly the same way Stalin and Hitler did? Puh-leeze.

As for my low cite total, I find that I don't actually need the writings of others to support my observations that Chumpsky's opinions are, to be as generous as possible, kinda nutty. With such a high bullshit-to-reason ratio, I can calmly pick out just his looniest statements and still have more than enough material to display my own sparkling wit. My "performance," incidentally, is primarily for my own amusement and that of others, in which I feel I have succeeded. Converting Chumpsky into an Ayn Rand fan is, at best, an extremely distant second, though were it to happen I'd consider it a Nobel Prize-worthy accomplishment and would include it in my signature line.

If you're not amused, that's your problem.


And I'm not really a vampire, so please don't ask for a cite.

[Mr. Svinlesha]

sb:None of his cites, however, actually act as direct or indirect evidence for his position unless one accepts Chumpsky's assumptions.Really? None? Not a single one? Would you care to back up this assertion with an argument, an example, a demonstration, or...dare I say...a cite?

Anyway, as I understand it, that was the whole point of this exercise. Chumpsky introduced an essay and asked others to participate in a critical analysis of it, for the purpose of seeing whether or not it could stand up to such scrutiny. So far, I’ve heard two critical comments: 1) Puerto Rico was poor choice for an example of US imperial influence, and 2) there is more freedom of thought in US universities that Parenti gives credit for. The remainder of this thread has been little more than a Chumpsky-bashing free-for-all. And amazingly, through its entirety, I have yet to see Chump respond to anyone in a mocking, sarcastic, or disrespectful manner. Had it been me, I would have washed my hands of this discussion long ago.

Anyway, if the man is so far out to lunch as many here seem to believe, it should be a cakewalk for those who disagree with him to refute his claims in a sensible, respectful, rational manner.

Or perhaps they're afraid that he might have a point?

Bryan: With such a high bullshit-to-reason ratio, I can calmly pick out just his looniest statements and still have more than enough material to display my own sparkling wit. You mean, like his earlier claim that there’s no distinction between ”building an Auschwitz and building a MacDonalds?”

I see. How very adult of you.

I agree with chula: sounds like you need to be reminded of which forum you’re in.

[Maeglin]

I'm glad you separated your claims, Mr. Svinlesha, as they really should be treated separately.

Left to its own devices, Capitalism tends to create growing disparities in income distribution as time goes on

This I agree with. However, I think that several factors not necessarily related to capitalism contribute to the growing income disparity.


The bequeathment of family assets maintain and exacerbate existing privilege.
Advances in finance have made it easier to turn large amounts of money into gigantic amounts of money than to turn small amounts of money into moderate or even large amounts of money.
Unintended consequences of governmental fiscal policy have created a "culture of poverty," in which botched attempts at wealth redistribution have made the problem of poverty more intractable.
Economic protectionism has severely increased the cost of many vital consumer goods. The high prices of these goods fleece the poor much more than the affluent.


There are many, many more.

The problem I tend to have with Chumpsky's analysis (and yours, to a lesser extent), is that it only seems to make room for systemic criticisms, rather than criticisms levelled at specific flaws, inadequacies, or failures. For the record, I tend to be quite liberal, and often favor programs which redistribute wealth in order to combat poverty. But I tend to see poverty as the product of individual political and market failures rather than as a flaw in the entire system.

The disparities in income distribution produced by Capitalism result in an increase of wealth at one end of the scale, and in an increase in poverty at the other end of the scale, as resources are reallocated upwards

You rightly acknowledge that this is much trickier.

One could, for example, investigate long-term trends in income disparity in countries that rely more or less exclusively upon the so-called ”free market” as a mechanism for economic redistribution. If in such cases we discover that as time goes on, markets tend to distribute wealth more and more equitably, then the hypothesis would be falsified, which would in turn reflect poorly on the Chumpskian model

I'd love to give that a shot. How does one distinguish whether a country relies more or less on the "free market"?

If we see the opposite effect, on the other hand, then we can say that, at the very least, this model remains in the running as a possible theoretical explanation for the effects we observe.

Yes and no, because I believe that a study of the data would depend on the time frame and on the prevailing conditions of the world economy. Let's say we are examining the data for Ghana, whose cash crop happens to be cocoa. Let's pretend that Ghana has relied heavily on globalization and free marketeering. But if the price of cocoa plummets, all the capitalism in the world won't keep it from poverty. Contrast that with a nation in the middle east, whose oil industry is entirely nationalized. Comparing the levels of poverty between the two countries while oil prices are high and cocoa prices are low is no way to falsify this model. The problem is the ceteris paribus.

I won't dispute the Census Bureau data, which seems to point to a disturbing trend of upward flow of capital. Yet I feel that some of my above explanations plus American's very special brand of cronyism contribute more to this problem than a system of free enterprise and private ownership.

It would of course be easiest to simply assert that the evidence we have shows that the poor are getting poorer, at the expense of the wealthy. I think there is evidence that supports such a claim, at least at the global level, which I cited earlier, above.

Alternatively, there is evidence to the contrary. This week's Economist reports, regarding formerly impoverished East Germany:

By virtually every material yardstick, life has improved. Rivers and air are incomparably cleaner. More than 800,000 new houses have been built since 1993, and the old central squares of just about every eastern town have been fastidiously restored. The new telephone system is as good as any in Europe. New motorways link up every corner of the region. Even the poorest and most isolated little towns have shops stocked with a range of foods that would have been unimaginable in communist times. Car ownership has nearly trebled since 1989, and the wheezing old Trabant, old East Germany's family car for which eager buyers had to wait an average of nine years, is now a museum-piece.

(Link requires subscription, I will post it if you can read it.)

To be honest, I think it cuts both ways. Good policies have caused regions to flourish, bad policies have the opposite effect.

If the data is equivocal, then neither you nor I can really make any categorical claims regarding it, can we?

The data may be insufficient and difficult to work with, but we can make all the categorical claims we want using whatever data is available. I don't think a black hole full of economic data will ever provide is with enough information to make universal generalizations like the rate of gravitational acceleration in physics. We simply have to work with whatever we have.

The rest addresses your analysis with respect to the profit motive.

This has both positive and negative effects. On the plus side, it tends to make corporations very effective with regard to resource use. But on the minus side, and more to the point, this dynamic exerts a downward pressure on wages.

Yup, this is absolutely true. However, it is only half the picture. While the demand curve for labor slopes downward, the supply curve slopes upward, putting an upward pressure on wages. To wit, there are many more people (presumably talented people with skills and experience) who are willing to work for $50k who would not be willing to work for half that. Wages are determined equally by those who supply it: that is to say, at equilibrium, where the two curves meet. If wages are in equilibrium, this benefits firms the most, because at this point they maximize their consumer surplus. Its benefits to employees are obvious, for at equlibrium, the greatest number of people are employed at the highest wage.

Furthermore, as you admit, the profit motive causes firms to produce goods efficiently. This has pushes prices downward . Although individuals might not be making as much money as they would really like, they are paying a relatively low price for goods, which lowers the opportunity costs of using their money.

There are, of course, a few problems with this. There are all sorts of distortions that get in the way of equilibrium, some good, some not so good. These are generally imposed by the government: taxes, mandated benefit costs, pension costs, etc. This results in wages lowered further, though certainly employees may ultimately reap the benefits of medical insurance and social security.

The bigger problem is caused by "sticky wages." I am a salaried employee, and I make a fixed amount for an entire year. The pace of the economy changes faster than this, obviously. Firms have to weather extremely quick changes but are unable to pass these changes on to employees, for good and for ill. I would be pretty pissed off if business took a downturn next month and I saw my check cut in half.

On the other hand, if wages were more flexible, firms wouldn't have to lay off so many people when times were tough, and lowered wages would have a further downward pull on prices.

This pressure is further exacerbated by market competition, which is also rather obvious

Once again, you are missing half the equation. Competition has an equally positive effect on wages. If firms are going to produce the highest quality goods at the lowest prices, they need to employ the most talented and experienced people. This upward push on wages balances the need to produce goods cheaply until equilibrium is reached.

These considerations can be used to explain, for example, the current transfer of manufacturing facilities to the so-called third world.

And this is as it should be. In the increasingly service-oriented economy of the western world, there are simply less people who are willing to work relatively low-paying jobs in manufacturing. As the labor supply shrinks and the cost of living in the west continues to increase, it makes perfect sense for firms to redistribute their resources to maximize comparative advantage.

Both of these pressures, it can be argued, tend to force wealth upwards, towards the top.

No, I believe it is other factors that force wealth upwards. Although third world employees obviously aren't as well off as their western counterparts, they have certain demonstrable material advantages. From The Economist, August 15, regarding a "capitalist" health care initiative that cost a mere $.80 per person per year:

The results of all this were stunning. In Rufiji, infant mortality fell by 28% between 1999 and 2000, from 100 deaths per 1,000 live births to 72. The proportion of children dying before their fifth birthdays dropped by 14%, from 140 per 1,000 to 120. The figures for Morogoro are thought to be equally good, although TEHIP is still trying to confirm their accuracy. In nearby districts, and in Tanzania as a whole, there is no evidence of a similar improvement over the same period. And anecdotal evidence suggests that better health has made Morogoro and Rufiji less poor...

Mustapha Dangeni, a young peasant, recalls that his two children used to be smitten with fever almost every month before he got a bednet. Now, he says, they have been healthy for a whole year. Mr Dangeni and his wife have been able to spend more time tending their fields, so they have produced more spare maize and millet at a time when their expenditure on anti-malarial drugs is at an all-time low. With the extra cash, they have bought a radio, a bicycle and some furniture. “Things are continually improving,” says Mr Dangeni, smiling as he leans against a sack of charcoal.

This is, sadly, not universal. But I believe that the failures of private ownership and free enterprise are not flaws in the system itself, but are very human failures of short-sightedness, insensitivity, and stupidity.

Even in an expanding economy, if the benefits of growth are not spread equitably, then it is not unreasonable to claim that one group is profiting at the expense of another.

This begs the question as to whether the benefits of the growth should be spread equitably.

Agreed, in general. There are details in Parenti’s essay that are questionable, but I haven’t found any weaknesses in its major thesis, even if some examples are perhaps poorly chosen, and so forth.

I read it yesterday, and I do have some issues with it. I will post them shortly.

[smiling bandit]

Really? None? Not a single one? Would you care to back up this assertion with an argument, an example, a demonstration, or...dare I say...a cite?

I am neither responsible nor interestd in any other poster inthis case save myself and Chumpsky. I have taken a look at his "sources" and have found none of them worthy of reconsidreing any views I hold, assuming his sources supported him (several of which I believe do not). He has utterly failed to make me even blink, except at his untenable "logic."

Anyway, if the man is so far out to lunch as many here seem to believe, it should be a cakewalk for those who disagree with him to refute his claims in a sensible, respectful, rational manner.

Or perhaps they're afraid that he might have a point?

As I said before, he doesn't actually respond with anything of substance. And for the most part it is uninteresting to whack away at a large, empty ballon with a Louisville Slugger.

Aside from which, he is an exceptionally prolific poster, often creating several replies before I've even seen a thread. The result is that I, much less any other poster, cannot adequately respond to every post and point he tries to make. SO we pick and choose the most egregarious examples of shody thinking to demolish. That he does not notice his arguments are false, overly simplified, rely on wild assumptions, or that he refuses to acknoledge he's been beaten is hardly our fault.

[smiling bandit]

I'm sorry, I realized my spelling in that last post was truly horrific. I really can spell correctly, just not when I'm typing.

[Shodan]

The Iraqis killed about 240 people in their invasion and did very little damage to the infrastructure.

Little damage to the infrastructure, eh?

Releasing oil slicks - cite. (http://www.usatoday.com/news/index/iraq/nirq050.htm)

Setting oil wells on fire - cite. (http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_War)

Baghdad estimated the number of civilian deaths at 35,000 - cite. (http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat6.htm#Gulf)

The Guardian says there were 600 missing from Kuwait after the invasion - cite. (http://www.observer.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,348632,00.html)

OK, I violated the "person making the assertion has to prove it" rule - but all I need to do is throw in a couple of links to ridiculously bogus sites to bump my cite count, and I will have won the argument.

Right?

Chumpsky has very little credibility on this board, based primarily on the number of unsupported claims he makes and will not prove. I am not willing to take his word for it.

Twenty paragraphs of warmed-over cant from the latest policy statements of the Glorious People's Revolutionary Cadre For the Liberation of Indigenous Proles does not a debate make. You claim something (the US government kills people in soccer stadiums, Adolf Hitler and Roy Kroc had exactly the same life goals, etc., etc.), you gotta back it up.

Them's the rules. So far, he ain't doing it.


Regards,
Shodan

[smiling bandit]

Since Shodan has shamed me by her (his?) willingness to help, I will go ahead and justify myself in part, though I don't even need a cite to do it.

Svinlesha asked me for a cite on why I thought the 3rd world is doing beter. This is why: population. Its blatantly obvious to me that most of the 3rd world is eating better and living better. They are surviving in numbers now, and living long enough, that the population is skyrocketing. In some places, government mismanagement has been so incompetant as to ruin that (North Korea). The reasons for this explosion is pretty simple. They are getting better water, often more food, and experiencing some advanced medical care.

[Mr. Svinlesha]

maeglin:

Thanks for the excellent reply! It will require a detailed response, so I will get back to it (I hope!) as time allows. That might take a day or two, as my plate is rather full now over the coming weekend.

That said, please post the links to the articles if you have the time – not because I doubt you, but because they sound like interesting reading.


Shodan:

Chanting ”Cite, Cite, Cite,” at the end of every paragraph Chumpsky posts does not make a debate either, you know.

You’ve missed my point. If you feel that the Parenti article, for example, is nothing more than ”Twenty paragraphs of warmed-over cant from the latest policy statements of the Glorious People's Revolutionary Cadre For the Liberation of Indigenous Proles,” then I (and other readers out there, I suppose) would sincerely like to hear why.

By the way, you may note that Chumpsky wrote that the Iraqis killed about 240 people, and did little damage to the Kuwaiti infrastructure, ”in their invasion” – i.e., during the act of invading Kuwait. The oil slicks and well fires occurred during their retreat – that is, as Iraqi forces were forced out of the country. A heinous act carried out at the behest of a heinous man, as I’m sure Chumsky would agree. But in conflating these two events, you are simply twisting Chumpsky’s words to fit your eye, yet again.

If we compare the brutality of the Iraqi invasion – with a casualty rate somewhere between 240 and 600 people, apparently – to the brutality of the US retaliation, both against military and civilian targets, then, at least as far as I am aware, the US has factually been much more brutal. The actual number of deaths that can be attributed to US-imposed sanctions and military air raids must, of course, be a hotly debated topic, but is almost certainly higher than 600. And even if we do not know with certainty that all 500,000 deaths of children in Iraq during the last 10 years can be attributed to the sanctions (as some studies have indicated), we do know that US decision-makers would not balk at that number. Madeline Albright, speaking on the US TV news show 60 Minutes, was asked if she supported a US policy that led to the deaths of so many children, and responded, approximately, ”That is a sacrifice we must make.”

You may wish to rationalize away that statement in some way or another, but to me, it speaks volumes.

[smiling bandit]

Your post's last segment begins with an errroneous premise and proceeds from there into ruin. (Although, now this thread is getting interesting)

Point analysis:
But in conflating these two events, you are simply twisting Chumpsky’s words to fit your eye, yet again.

I suspect Shodan mistook the actual language; the word invasion can mean the literal advance of the armed forces or the overall military schema of an offensive campaign. Iraqi troops performed those acts while returning from an offensive campaign. Shodan was not incorrect, bu the language was not perfectly clear. Moreover, its not clear what was done and who was killed (and you ignored Baghdad's own numbers in your last post) and when.

Now for the beef:

The US being brutal in waging Desert Storm? Hardly so. It was arguably the least brutal war of all time until the Afganistan war recently. Since you pulled up this point without actually developing it or defending it, I must take offense. That is not a charge to make so lightly.

All war is hell, or perhaps war is all hell, but the US has done its level best to efficiently wage war and to cause as much pain as possible and still cause as little damage as possible.

1) Iraq itself has caused any deaths by malnutrition or starvation or lack of medicine. There has been sufficient funds and food made availabel, but Hussein himself has done everything to refuse it so he can get sympathy.

we do know that US decision-makers would not balk at that number

Which is irrelevant. War is designed to make your opponent hurt. Its sad that children suffer (and your numbers are so far off it isn't even funny), but that war for you.

You may wish to rationalize away that statement in some way or another, but to me, it speaks volumes.

Ah yes, the way to insult your opponent without insulting them openly. At least be open in your denunciation.

Its quite obvious you consider any war to be worthless. Well, that ain't so, just because you says its so. And just because I accept war when it becomes neccesary doesn't mean I enjoy it.

[Chumpsky]

Originally posted by Maeglin
The problem I tend to have with Chumpsky's analysis (and yours, to a lesser extent), is that it only seems to make room for systemic criticisms, rather than criticisms levelled at specific flaws, inadequacies, or failures. For the record, I tend to be quite liberal, and often favor programs which redistribute wealth in order to combat poverty. But I tend to see poverty as the product of individual political and market failures rather than as a flaw in the entire system.If I concentrate on the systemic flaws of capitalism, it is because I want to understand the system itself. Simply looking at various abuses and individual flaws doesn't tell you much, unless they are a part of a consistent pattern.

Liberal capitalists will defend the system as being inherently good, despite its many flaws, imputing the bad aspects to "individual political and market failures," as you put it. However, this can only go so far. It could perhaps explain one failure in isolation, or two, or even a dozen. However, it cannot explain the overall tendency, nor can it explain the entirely consistent pattern we see throughout the world.

There are two basic points of view one can adopt when looking at the mass poverty that exists in the world today. One way to look at it is to see it as a series of individual failures that can be corrected within the existing framework. Another way to look at it is to see it as the perfectly predictable consequence of a system that works exactly as it is supposed to.

I adopt the latter viewpoint. I don't see the utter failure of the capitalist system, which by this point has succeeded in conquering most of the world, to provide a decent life for the majority as a failure of the system. Rather, this is exactly what we would expect to happen.

The most important question to ask is, Who benefits? Who benefits from the current situation? If concentrated power centers do not benefit from it, then we can propose that the situation is a failure. However, if concentrated power centers do benefit, then the system is a success, from their point of view.

It is quite clear who benefits from the globabl capitalist system. The largest beneficiaries are the ruling classes of the imperialist powers in North America and Europe. They essentially run the system. Another class which benefits from the system is the comprador class in the Third World, those who hold power in Third World countries. They benefit it terms of power and wealth, and their job is to maintain the system. They must show proper obeisance to their masters in the imperialist countries, and in return they are rewarded with power and wealth.

Who loses? The losers in this system are most of the population of the world. The biggest losers are the working classes of the Third World. They create the wealth that is expropriated, while they spend their lives toiling in miserable labor usually for subsistence wages.

What is often missed, though, is that WE are also losers in this system. By "we" I mean the majority in the imperialist countries. We lose for several reasons. For one thing, the same class war that is waged globally is waged locally. The same market pressures that force wages down around the world work at home also. There is thus a constant struggle for livable wages, for environmental and workplace safety regulations, and so on. So, there is the class war aspect of it, where we are the losers.

We also lose when the rest of the world is forced to be poor. We lose not only because of the depraved immorality of it, but we miss out on the benefits of living with others from different cultures who have decent lives. We are greatly impoverished from the lack of the potential contributions that could be made to our own culture by those abroad. We further lose by the creation of hatred at our country for what has been done to the poor around the world.

In short, the beneficiaries of the system represent a very narrow sector of society.

[Shodan]

Oh please.

The "invasion" of Kuwait covers from the time they invaded, until the time they were driven out. Since the invasion was unjustified, all casualties inflicted on both sides should be chalked up to the Iraqi account.

By your rationale, a burglar is blameless for stealing from my house, because he only took my TV with him as he retreated.

And you accuse me of being the one who is "twisting" words.

The absurdity of the reasoning is obvious. Iraq invades Kuwait, murdering (by your own admission) "only" some hundreds of innocent persons. The minute they get possession, none of the deaths and destruction they cause can be counted against them.

Apply your logic to another situation. Three escaped convicts break into a house, killing the homeowner. The police set up a siege, kill two of the convicts, and capture the third. By your logic, the police have been twice as "brutal" as the escaped convicts, since they only murdered one person and the police killed two.

The moral knots you people have to tie yourselves into to justify blaming everything on the US!

Chanting ”Cite, Cite, Cite,” at the end of every paragraph Chumpsky posts does not make a debate either, you know.
Obviously not. On the other hand, making a contentious statement, and refusing to provide any evidence for it, does not make a debate either.

I have seen instances where Chumpsky simply made something up, and presented it as if it were a fact. Accordingly, I am not willing to discuss his accusations unless and until he can show that he is not doing so again.

It was a tactical error on my part to be sucked into attempting to disprove his unfounded assertions, rather than requiring him to do his own research. Obviously, I believe he does not attempt to back up his assertions because he cannot do so - accepting his kind of evidence requires a twisted view of the role of America and the West found only in the fever swamps of the loony left. But I fell for it anyway. So now the subject has successfully been changed from "What evidence do you have that America is the Great Satan?" to a bait and switch on "that wasn't really an invasion, and anyway it wasn't so bad after all, and isn't the US a terrible country for putting an end to it all".

Of course, I could counter by asking why his posts are evaluated by sheer number of cites, even if they don't prove anything, whereas mine require trying to define his discrepancies away.

Be that as it may - I will continue to regard every word of his posts as suspect until proven - and very little by way of proof seems to be forthcoming.

Regards,
Shodan

[Bryan Ekers]

What is often missed, though, is that WE are also losers in this system. By "we" I mean the majority in the imperialist countries.

Wow, talk about living in the here-and-now. As soon as I finish bulding my Wayback Machine, I'll invite Chumpsky for a little trip back to the 19th-century and he can how much life really sucked for the majority. Compared to that, living in houses with televisions and refrigerators seems downright civilized. Poverty exists in the United States, and will continue to do so, but how is the "majority" living in misery, or even serious discomfort?

From what I've seen, Chumpsky can't challenge claims that capitalism does more good than evil, but he'd rather concentrate on the evil for personal reasons. At the very least, he's never suggested a viable alternative (abolishing private property strikes me as very unviable).

And wealth is not a zero-sum game, no matter how many times he claims it is. Were there a finite supply of gold coins in the world, and all commerce was conducted using these coins, he might have a valid argument. A simple look at the growing GNP of the United States since World War II would show a growing national wealth, not simply a grab from the poor to the rich.



Svinlesha:
You mean, like his earlier claim that there’s no distinction between ”building an Auschwitz and building a MacDonalds?”

I see. How very adult of you.

I agree with chula: sounds like you need to be reminded of which forum you’re in.

My rhetoric (that Chumpsky makes no distinction between capitalism and fascism) was prompted by Chumpsky's rhetoric (in which he makes no distinction between capitalism and fascism) in similar threads, including this little charmer from his opener for this thread (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=143396):

What I can't understand is what the rest of the world is thinking when they appease the U.S. in its bloodthirsty ambitions. Don't they understand that when you demolish international law, that your own security is reduced? After all, it was only 60 years ago when another British head of state appeased a different aggressive state bent on world-wide domination. Or perhaps they are all just cowards, afraid to stand up to the bully on the block.

As for being reminded of what forum I'm in, I'd like to remind you of what message board we're on. The tone of the Straight Dope has always been one of facts but also of irrevererence for dogma and a low tolerance for hooey. Chumpsky tosses around the hooey pretty freely and invites challenge and ridicule (though not blatant personal attacks while in GD) when he makes wild claims without support.

[Maeglin]

Take your time, Mr. Svinlesha.. I don't usually have a chance to post on weekends, anyway. Drop me an email if the thread drops and I haven't yet replied.

If I concentrate on the systemic flaws of capitalism, it is because I want to understand the system itself. Simply looking at various abuses and individual flaws doesn't tell you much, unless they are a part of a consistent pattern.[/quick]

While this may make sense on a certain level, Chumpsky, I don't think it is all that helpful to bringing serious analysis to bear. If you want to understand the system itself, you are best served learning about it the good old fashioned way.

First of all, you are conflating two different concepts when you refer to capitalism. Capitalism is a system of private ownership. To be perfectly honest, who actually owns the goods is of less importance to me than how they are distributed, that is to say, in free, competitive markets. Believe it or not, I don't care all that much who owns the goods. Just how they get traded around.

There are lots of good arguments against capitalism, and I am receptive to most of them. Arguments against a competitive market, however, generally arise from a certain ignorance with respect to their operation.

[quote]Liberal capitalists will defend the system as being inherently good, despite its many flaws, imputing the bad aspects to "individual political and market failures,"

No, no, and no again. There is nothing good or bad about it, either intrinsically or extrinsically. I happen to like competitive markets because they are demonstrably useful, and quite frankly, they look pretty when you draw the graphs right.

However, this can only go so far. It could perhaps explain one failure in isolation, or two, or even a dozen. However, it cannot explain the overall tendency, nor can it explain the entirely consistent pattern we see throughout the world.

This is fundamentally contradictory to your assertion that the vast majority of the world's wealth is controlled by a tiny minority of people. The fact that such patterns may exist should come as no surprise, since it is the same people screwing up and exploiting others over and over again. If you want to relate this to capitalism or free marketeering, it will require a much stronger argument.

Another way to look at it is to see it as the perfectly predictable consequence of a system that works exactly as it is supposed to.

And this is where we fundamentally disagree. Every failure you see you can integrate in your internally consistent worldview, and no amount of data is going to change that. This is manifestly not an argument I wish to broach, especially if your knowledge of the nuts and bolts of competitive markets is insufficient.

It is quite clear who benefits from the globabl capitalist system. The largest beneficiaries are the ruling classes of the imperialist powers in North America and Europe.

You take the existence of a "ruling class" for granted. How does one become a member of the ruling class? What are the criteria? According to some theorists I am probably a member of the elite, to others, perhaps not. I sure as hell don't look or feel particularly elite.

They essentially run the system.

How exactly does anyone run a system as gigantic, complex, and unpredictable as the world economy? Especially in which prices adjust at the speed of thought? If this is the case, how do any of them ever lose, which they do with astonishing frequency. I think your understanding of the "system" as anything so monolithic is in error.

Another class which benefits from the system is the comprador class in the Third World, those who hold power in Third World countries. They benefit it terms of power and wealth, and their job is to maintain the system.

Who are these people, exactly? Government leaders? Businessmen? Somewhere in between? Please list a few names, if you would, so we can attack this problem with empirical rigor.

They must show proper obeisance to their masters in the imperialist countries, and in return they are rewarded with power and wealth.

If the masters are so powerful, they don't have to reward the compradors at all. Once again, can you please offer some examples of this system in action?

Who loses? The losers in this system are most of the population of the world. The biggest losers are the working classes of the Third World. They create the wealth that is expropriated, while they spend their lives toiling in miserable labor usually for subsistence wages.

In a lot of ways, this is true, but perhaps not for all of the reasons that you may think. For example, innovations and changes in the global economy are very fast. This requires constant reallocation of goods, services, and priorities. Due to generally accepted rules concerning intellectual property, firms have near monopolies on new processes for a substantial period of time. This tends to warp their business procedure to take maximum advantage of this period of monopoly. Third world works often take it in the ass due to this lack of competition.

We lose for several reasons. For one thing, the same class war that is waged globally is waged locally. The same market pressures that force wages down around the world work at home also. There is thus a constant struggle for livable wages, for environmental and workplace safety regulations, and so on. So, there is the class war aspect of it, where we are the losers.

Without which pressure downwards we would not enjoy the high quality of life, the affordable consumer goods, and the substantial jobs in the service industries. Life is full of trade-offs, Chumpsky, and that is the bottom line. Every action, every policy, every trade has an opportunity cost. The fact that you may not like the result is due to society having different priorities than you do, not due to the fact that we live in a somewhat capitalist society which flourishes in a somewhat competitive market.

Nations that have more mixed economies approach problems of wealth and poverty differently, but the bottom line is that they face exactly the same tradeoffs. A dollar you give to Person A is a dollar you cannot give to Person B.

We also lose when the rest of the world is forced to be poor. We lose not only because of the depraved immorality of it, but we miss out on the benefits of living with others from different cultures who have decent lives. We are greatly impoverished from the lack of the potential contributions that could be made to our own culture by those abroad. We further lose by the creation of hatred at our country for what has been done to the poor around the world.

You are missing the most obvious point of all, Chumpsky. If you believe Parenti's article that capitalism must expand, and if you believe that capitalistic firms must constantly seek new markets to invest in, then you come to the inarguable conclusion that poverty in the third world does not benefit the rich. If most of the world's laborers are poor, who will buy their goods?

That's the biggest problem with your analysis, as I see it. It is useful to have limitless sources of cheap labor....for awhile. But investment will continually increase, processes will undergo continuing refinement, and high quality goods will be produced more cheaply. It's the enormous markets of the third world that provide the greatest potential for growth. Hence elimitating poverty should be a priority for every major far-sighted capitalist. Why this is not always so is intrinsically linked to short-sighted stupidity, not the idea of the competitive market or private ownership.

MR

[Maeglin]

Oops, mind the code error in paragraphs 2-6, please.

[Mr. Svinlesha]

Maeglin:

Well, I can’t sleep, so I might as well write.

To start with, I’ll just assume that you are more knowledgeable in this subject than I am, since you appear to be. But let me nevertheless begin by pointing out what I perceive to be a contradiction in your argument.

You state that you agree with my claim that, as time goes on, Capitalism tends to create growing disparities in the distribution of wealth – which is clearly a systemic critique. You follow this admission with a list of other factors that tend to exacerbate Capitalism’s tendency towards unequal distribution. But then you conclude: The problem I tend to have with Chumpsky's analysis (and yours, to a lesser extent), is that it only seems to make room for systemic criticisms, rather than criticisms levelled at specific flaws, inadequacies, or failures. For the record, I tend to be quite liberal, and often favor programs which redistribute wealth in order to combat poverty. But I tend to see poverty as the product of individual political and market failures rather than as a flaw in the entire system.My response is this: I have no problem at all with the view that other factors, beyond those that we might refer to as ”systemic,” have an impact on wealth distribution. Some of them, like those you’ve listed, may tend to have a negative impact on distribution, while others, conceivably, might even have a positive impact – such as, for example, the philanthropic gestures of the very wealthy. However, it seems to me that with this argument you attempt to both have your cake and eat it, too – first by agreeing with my systemic critique, and then by concluding that ” poverty the product of individual political and market failures rather than … a flaw in the entire system.”

So – which is it?

You continue:[i] I'd love to give that a shot. How does one distinguish whether a country relies more or less on the "free market"?Touché! I was afraid someone might ask that question. I agree – this issue becomes very complex when we subject it to a detailed analysis.

I can only suggest a kind of general outline. It might be possible to differentiate states, in terms of the policies they pursue, along a continuum between neo-liberal on the one end and socialistic on the other. But even that sort of typology might be too crude to rely upon. If I were to discover that in some ways, or in certain sectors, the Swedish economy is more ”capitalistic” than its US counterpart, I wouldn’t be surprised.

Anyway, I mentioned the above as means of setting up my presentation of income distribution trends in the US. I figured that most readers wouldn’t disagree too strongly with the assertion that the domestic economic policies of the US government are more neo-liberal in orientation than, say, those of most European states (with the possible exception of Britain).

Regarding your Ghana example: Let's pretend that Ghana has relied heavily on globalization and free marketeering. But if the price of cocoa plummets, all the capitalism in the world won't keep it from poverty. Contrast that with a nation in the middle east, whose oil industry is entirely nationalized. Comparing the levels of poverty between the two countries while oil prices are high and cocoa prices are low is no way to falsify this model. The problem is the ceteris paribus.Several points: To begin with, my claim regarding falsifiability does not require cross-country comparisons. You will note I didn’t suggest that we needed to compare countries in order to falsify my predictions: I suggested that we needed to look at the trends in income distribution, over the long run, in one country that is ”particularly capitalistic.” (I would like to rephrase that clumsy statement into something like ”the domestic economy of a state that implements relatively neo-liberal financial policies,” but you get my drift I hope.)

On the other hand, you do bring up an interesting point that I hadn’t considered, namely, context. Of course, in the face of a contracting economy, poverty will increase, both in terms of depth and numbers – that almost goes without saying. To my mind, however, the important question is the following: how do these fluctuations in growth and decline affect income distribution? When the cocoa market bottoms out, are the losses to Ghana’s economy spread evenly across groups? Or do some groups bear the brunt of the economic contraction, and the resulting increase in poverty, while others slide by, relatively unscathed? And finally, can we say anything about the impact of the reigning economic system in Ghana on how these losses are distributed across the population?

This leads back to my original assertion in a way, and one possible kink in my claim of falsifiability: when presenting evidence of increasing disparity in the US economy, I failed to take into account the growth rate of the GNP over the same period. And this leads in turn to a whole gaggle of interesting questions about the relationship between GNP growth and income distribution. I had assumed that between 1974 and 1994 the US had undergone a relatively robust period of economic growth. But is it possible that sluggish growth was also played a role in the increasing levels of disparity? And for those of you who are critical of what you call the ”zero-sum” theory: how fast does an economy have to grow, exactly, in order for poverty to be significantly alleviated? Yet I feel that some of my above explanations plus American's very special brand of cronyism contribute more to this problem than a system of free enterprise and private ownership. Again: does this mean that you disagree with the ”systemic critique?” Then what of your previous agreement with it, above?

Regarding East Germany: it has been the object of a massive rebuilding project, with an incredible level of investment, has it not? A sort of mini-Marshall Plan? I’m not sure how this helps your claims regarding income distribution.

Well, I better wind down for tonight. I just want to conclude with some brief observations regarding wages.

I was aware that I wasn’t providing a full picture of the way wages work in my last response, but that was because you claimed that you did not know of any arguments that demonstrate that ”taking money from the poor” was ”inherent in the system” of capitalism. So I thought I would offer you a couple. I agree, as you point out, the labor market functions on basically the same principles as any other market. Regarding this: If wages are in equilibrium, this benefits firms the most, because at this point they maximize their consumer surplus. Its benefits to employees are obvious, for at equlibrium, the greatest number of people are employed at the highest wage.Could you explain this statement a little further? Once again, you are missing half the equation. Competition has an equally positive effect on wages. If firms are going to produce the highest quality goods at the lowest prices, they need to employ the most talented and experienced people. This upward push on wages balances the need to produce goods cheaply until equilibrium is reached.I disagree with this claim, especially in a global context. As I understand it, wage levels in a free market depend primarily upon the amount of labor available. It is only when shortages of labor make themselves felt that we observe an upward pressure on wages. You should see the way the ordinary working stiff is treated out on the market: ”Take it or split! There are 10 more at the door, waiting for your job!” And so on. I have an interesting case example concerning this, by the way, but I will have to try to post it later.

Finally: may I ask, for the sake of future reference, whether I’m addressing a man or a woman? Rather embarrassing, really, but I can’t quite make it out from your user name.

[Chumpsky]

Originally posted by Maeglin
First of all, you are conflating two different concepts when you refer to capitalism. Capitalism is a system of private ownership. To be perfectly honest, who actually owns the goods is of less importance to me than how they are distributed, that is to say, in free, competitive markets. Believe it or not, I don't care all that much who owns the goods. Just how they get traded around.

There are lots of good arguments against capitalism, and I am receptive to most of them. Arguments against a competitive market, however, generally arise from a certain ignorance with respect to their operation.I think it might be yourself who is misunderstanding what capitalism is. Capitalism is not merely a system of private ownership. Private ownership has existed in almost every economic system since the beginning of what we call "civilization." Yet, we do not consider all of these systems to be capitalist.

What is capitalism? Well, capitalism is usually associated with three essential characteristics:

(1) An economy that produces for the market. The existence of a market, or the trading of goods does not make a capitalist economy. Rather, in the capitalist system, goods are produced for the market and production is determined by what the market will bear. This is distinguished from a system where production is determined by what people need. For example, in Haiti in the early 1990's, Haitians were working for agribusiness enterprises which produced exotic fruits for the yuppie market in the U.S., while Haitians were starving to death. The market determined where profit lie, namely in the yuppie market, and so production was oriented toward this market, as opposed to feeding the population.

(2) Monopoly of the means of production. In the capitalist system a small minority possesses the majority of the means of production, while the rest own very little. In the U.S., for example, this has reached ridiculous heights. The conservative writer Kevin Phillips wrote a book recently, Wealth and Democracy: A Political History of the American Rich (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0767905334/qid=1039844195/sr=2-1/ref=sr_2_1/104-2326537-3919140), discussing the concentration of wealth in the U.S. and its effects on democracy (all negative). Roughly, 1% of the population controls 40% of the wealth, 2% control 60%.

(3) The existence of wage labour. In the capitalist system, labour itself is a commodity to be sold on the market. The worker no longer owns the means of production; he cannot make use of his labour power for the conduct of his own enterprise; if he wishes to avoid starvation, he must sell his labour power to the capitalist. Alongside the markets where food, CD's and SUV's are sold, there also is the labour market where the working class must sell its labour power in order to live. As with other products, the capitalist seeks to buy cheap and sell dear, pushing the price of labour ever downward, cheapening working life more and more.
No, no, and no again. There is nothing good or bad about it, either intrinsically or extrinsically. I happen to like competitive markets because they are demonstrably useful, and quite frankly, they look pretty when you draw the graphs right.The tendency of capitalist markets is that they become less competitive. The ruling class ever seeks cooperatives, cartels and other interlocking mechanisms of cooperation among themselves. You see, everybody believes in socialism in reality, it is just that the ruling class wants socialism for themselves, and market discipline for the rest.

To quote from Robert McChesney's book Rich Media, Poor Democracy (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1565846346/qid=1039844854/sr=2-3/ref=sr_2_3/104-2326537-3919140):

"News Corporation heir Lachlan Murdoch expressed the rational view when explaining why News Corporation is working closely with Kerry Packer's Publishing and Broadcasting Ltd., the company that with News Corp. effectively controls much of Australian media. It's better, contends Murdoch the younger, if we are not 'aggressively attacking each other all the time.' In the global media market the dominant firms compete aggressively in some concentrated oligopolistic markets, are key suppliers to each other in other markets, and are partners in yet other markets. As the headline in one trade publication put it, this is a market where the reigning spirit is to 'Make profits, not war.' In some respects, the global media market more closely resembles a cartel than it does the competitive market-place found in economics textbooks."

McChesney is talking just about the mass media, but the rule is quite general. Among the top corporations, you have a vast web of interlocking boards of directors, where the same people sit on a number of boards. They are not interested in competing as much as in making money, and they have learned that the market is highly destructive. Here is the first page brought up by google when I do a search for "interlocking boards directors corporations":
http://www.verdant.net/corp.htm
The material is quite standard.

The market is fine for you, but not for me, in the capitalist ideology. The poor and the powerless need market discipline, but the powerful get plenty of help from the sort of inverse Marxism that is the norm in the ruling class.

[Beagle]

As with other products, the capitalist seeks to buy cheap and sell dear, pushing the price of labour ever downward Wages are going ever downward?

What about the many (middle class) people who own stock? Do they have no "ownership of the means of production"?

[Chumpsky]

Originally posted by Beagle
Wages are going ever downward?Yes, in the absence of any corrective mechanism. If left to its own devices, the market pushes wages ever downward, until you have ideal of just bare subsistence, where the worker earns just enough to stay living in order to work for the capitalist. This is basically the situation in capitalist paradises like Guatemala or Indonesia.

It is only by mass popular pressure and organizaition that wages for the working class are pushed upward. Wages tend, more or less, to be proportional to the amount of power the working class has. Where the labour movement is weak, wages are low; where it is strong, wages are high. This is not exact, obviously, but it is true to a first approximation.
What about the many (middle class) people who own stock? Do they have no "ownership of the means of production"? Very little. An even tinier percentage of the population controls the vast majority of the stock. I don't have the cite on me, but I think it is something like 5% own 80% of the stock.

At any rate, the middle class family who owns a few shares of Microsoft really has no power over public policy decisions, whereas Bill Gates has an enormous influence. The capitalists maintain an overwhelming share of ownership and control over the means of production.

[Bryan Ekers]

Originally posted by Chumpsky
I think it might be yourself who is misunderstanding what capitalism is.

Well, he's closer that you are. Your first "essential characteristic" is pretty close, but the second and third are lacking.

(2) Monopoly of the means of production. In the capitalist system a small minority possesses the majority of the means of production, while the rest own very little. In the U.S., for example, this has reached ridiculous heights. The conservative writer Kevin Phillips wrote a book recently, Wealth and Democracy: A Political History of the American Rich (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0767905334/qid=1039844195/sr=2-1/ref=sr_2_1/104-2326537-3919140), discussing the concentration of wealth in the U.S. and its effects on democracy (all negative). Roughly, 1% of the population controls 40% of the wealth, 2% control 60%.

This is not an essential element of capitalism, though it often ends up this way. It is, however, an essential characteristic of hierarchical systems, including pre-capitalist aristocracies and monarchies generally. Capitalism didn't invent the practice of a small minority controlling most of the resources. It's actually the best system to give an individual a chance to increase his wealth, using his own talent, drive and luck. Compare that to the rigid caste systems that still exist today.

(3) The existence of wage labour. In the capitalist system, labour itself is a commodity to be sold on the market. The worker no longer owns the means of production; he cannot make use of his labour power for the conduct of his own enterprise; if he wishes to avoid starvation, he must sell his labour power to the capitalist. Alongside the markets where food, CD's and SUV's are sold, there also is the labour market where the working class must sell its labour power in order to live. As with other products, the capitalist seeks to buy cheap and sell dear, pushing the price of labour ever downward, cheapening working life more and more.

Well, of course a worker can make use of his labour power. he can seek other employment if he finds his present employer unsuitable. The worker can also educate himself and gain experience to make his skills more desirable in the marketplace. I'm not sure at what point you thought slavery became an essential element of capitalism. It may have been, once.

Wage power does vary, naturally. While a factory worker in the post war economic boom (i.e. 1945-1965 or so) may have earned enough to own a house and keep a family, a more modern family may find they have to have two wage-earners to support their lifestyle. I don't see an inevitable downward spiral, though, nor do I envision a return to Bob Cratchet-ish wages.

The tendency of capitalist markets is that they become less competitive. The ruling class ever seeks cooperatives, cartels and other interlocking mechanisms of cooperation among themselves.

Well, that's one of those "every philosophy has the seed of its own destruction" arguments. Conglomerates can and do grow in the interest of economies of scale, but they often collapse in the interest of efficiency, plus the freedom of a capitalist democracy allows the creation of newer, leaner companies that can challenge the establishment.

You see, everybody believes in socialism in reality, it is just that the ruling class wants socialism for themselves, and market discipline for the rest.

Ooooookay. What's your point?

[Chumpsky]

By the way, it is not just me who is claiming that the capitalists seek dominion over the entire Earth. They say it themselves. Check out, for example, the National Security Strategy (http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss.html)
(By the way, most of the lies in this document can be deciphered if, after every instance of the word "freedom" you insert the phrase "for capital.")

This document is a prescription for achieving total global dominance of western capital.

"The U.S. national security strategy will be based on a distinctly American internationalism [i.e. imperialism] that reflects the union of our values and our national interests [i.e. ruling class interests]."

Funny enough, they feel a need to point out that capitalism has won:

"That great struggle is over. The militant visions of class, nation, and race which promised utopia and delivered misery have been defeated and discredited."

This is why there is no misery in capitalist countries like Indonesia or Guatemala.

The most important statement, however, is this:

"The great struggles of the twentieth century between liberty and totalitarianism ended with a decisive victory for the forces of freedom—and a single sustainable model for national success: freedom, democracy, and free enterprise."

"Free enterprise," yes indeed. You see! Right there on the White House web site--exactly what I have been saying! Any nation that attempts an alternative path must be brought back into the fold, by whatever means necessary. There is only ONE single sustainable model for national success: capitalism.

The great journalist John Pilger has an excellent article about the new, more aggressive U.S. imperialism:
America's Bid for Global Dominance (http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=15&ItemID=2744)

[Chumpsky]

Originally posted by Bryan Ekers
Well, of course a worker can make use of his labour power. he can seek other employment if he finds his present employer unsuitable. I.e., he can sell his labour power on the market.

Really, Bryan, I get the feeling that you aren't even trying any more.

[Bryan Ekers]

Originally posted by Chumpsky
I.e., he can sell his labour power on the market.

Really, Bryan, I get the feeling that you aren't even trying any more.
Funny, I could make the same observation about you, except that I'd be correct. Do you have a job? Are you free to quit that job and get another job, if it offers a higher salary, more benefits, better working conditions, or any combination of the above? If you are self-employed, are you free to start doing other tasks? If you are not employed, are you free to send out resumés in an attempt to secure employment? And would you be free to choose which employer to work for?

If you are not free, please let Amnesty International know that slavery is still being practiced in America.

[Daoloth]

Chumpsky, do us a favor. Go to a bookstore or library and get a copy of Reflections on a Ravaged Century by Robert Conquest. Read it with an open mind. Then continue. Thanks.

[js_africanus]

Originally posted by Mr. Svinlesha
Two compliments so far! This must be my lucky thread
I'm not so sure luck has anything to do with it. I'm thinking about making a rule to not engage you in debate because I can't shake the sinking suspicion that you are giving me just enough rope....**
I guess this is what is being continually referred to in this thread as the ”zero-sum proposition.”
I think I brought up the notion and I should have gone into more detail. I apologize for not doing so. I'm going to use this post for a brief digression on the concept of the zero-sum game as it is not only a useful tool for viewing the world, it also bears on the issues at hand.

In mathematics and economics there is a branch of study known as game theory (levine.sscnet.ucla.edu/general/whatis.htm). A game, in economic parlance, is any situation that has three elements: a set of "players", a set of strategies for each player, and a set of payoffs for each possible combination of player strategies. This is actually a very loose definition. For example, a possible game would be whether to punt on a third down in American football, or even whether to put your heavy infantry in the center or on the wings of a battle formation. A well known game is the Prisoner's Dilemma (serendip.brynmawr.edu/bb/pd.html).

A zero-sum game (levine.sscnet.ucla.edu/Games/zerosum.htm) is a game where the payoffs always sum to zero. To put another way, what one player wins is equal to and opposite of what the other player loses. Poker (not in a casino) is a good example: if Mr. Svinlesha and I play a hand of poker, the money I lose will be exactly equal to the money he gains--always.

So, in context of the current thread, if international trade, for example, were a zero-sum game, then the amount of benefit that country A receives from trading with country B is always equal to the amount of harm country B receives from the same trade. This, as I understand it, is what informed mercantilist trade policies. I suppose it makes a certain amount of sense if one's conception of a nation's wealth were limited to the amount of gold it had--if Indian carpet weavers sold carpets to Britons, then the gold going to pay for the carpets was wealth lost to India. That, of course, does not justify the cutting of the thumbs off Indian carpet weavers (a real event as I understand). Who know what people were thinking?

Anyway, a long time ago, Adam Smith and David Ricardo showed that trading between nations could actually be mutually beneficial. Consider this simple example (as I mentioned before, Landsburg (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0324059795/qid=1039904750/sr=1-4/ref=sr_1_4/002-7007901-6781661?v=glance&s=books) has a good discussion): State A is located in a steep, rocky valley with a raging river at the bottom, and State B is located in a plain with good moisture, but no concetrated water resources. If each state produces and mills it's own grain they will both do poorly. State A can't grow much grain, though it has plenty of power for mills; State B can grow lots of grain, but must mill by hand. However, if State B puts all its efforts into growing and State A into milling, then together they can grow and mill more than they could do on their own. This is where trade is beneficial. It is not a zero-sum game...if they cooperate and each do what it is good at, then the total grain grown and milled is greater than the the sum of their individual efforts. That's absolute advantage. Regarding comparative advantage, it turns out that even if one state is better at producing both, they can still benefit if their domestic price ratios are different. In economics this is Basic Stuff, that's why I'm not providing cites. There are plenty of resources in the library, etc., just search for "comparative advantage."

Anyway, when I remarked that economic activity isn't a zero-sum game I was saying that cooperating and trading and so on actually makes more available. I mentioned Landes' paper "What do Bosses Really Do?" That is a good illustration.

Consider for a moment a common misconception. If I buy a Big Mac, I pay $3.00, let's say. The naive view is that this is a zero-sum trade: I pay $3.00 and I get a burger "worth" $3.00; McDonald's gets $3.00 and loses a burger worth $3.00. Seems clear. However, since demand is a decreasing function with respect to quantity, and since the market as a whole only faces one price, there remains alot of people who would have been willing to pay more than $3.00 for a Big Mac. Abstracting for simplicity, there is only one person who purchased a Big Mac who felt that the Big Mac was worth exactly $3.00. Everybody else who purchased Big Macs felt they were worth more. Those people enjoyed what is called consumer surplus: the difference between what they were willing to pay and what they did pay. Likewise, producers enjoy producer surplus. This component of welfare is intangible (for lack of a better word), but it is real. Hence, market trading is not a zero-sum game. Consumer & producer surplus inherent in market activity makes more welfare available. Again, this is Basic Stuff. Any principles of microeconomic text book should contain a discussion of these concepts.

I doubt that there is a simple proof that economic activity is zero-sum. The hurdles to overcome start with Smith and Ricardo and go from there.

If you are interested in game theory, Thinking Strategically (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0393310353/qid=1039905477/sr=2-1/ref=sr_2_1/002-7007901-6781661) is a good introduction.

[js_africanus]

Originally posted by Daoloth
Chumpsky, do us a favor. Go to a bookstore or library and get a copy of Reflections on a Ravaged Century by Robert Conquest. Read it with an open mind. Then continue. Thanks.
Didn't I open with a quote from that book? Talk about going full circle...:)

[js_africanus]

Originally posted by Chumpsky
Well, there goes your credibility. Next time try to avoid referencing a well-known liar.
I am my own Cassandra (education.yahoo.com/search/be?lb=t&p=url%3Ac/cassandra).:rolleyes: Seriously though, for a well-known liar, Lomborg has done something very odd. On his web site (www.lomborg.com) he has placed easy to follow links for not only his supporters, but also his detractors. He may be a liar, but at least he's an honest liar. No matter, no need to really comment on such an ad hominem (www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#hominem). Lomborg's book is one of the best referenced I've ever encountered, with plenty of web pages for ease, so any third parties can check the figures themselves.
You hope that by labelling me as a communist the debate will be over, that the connection will be made that "Chumpsky = communism = gulag." This tactic is quite insulting to the reader (not to mention myself).
Again, not too much need for comment. Let me merely note first that the act of putting a debate into clear theoretical light is hardly accusatory. Second, being an anarchist is orthogonal to one's leanings on communism & capitalism. Consider David Friedman's (www.daviddfriedman.com/index.shtml) interesting paper on the defense of anarchy & law (www.daviddfriedman.com/Academic/Anarchy_and_Eff_Law/Anarchy_and_Eff_Law.html). For the opposite end of the scale, consider Dennis, the Constitutional Peasant, in Monty Python's Holy Grail. Yes, anarchosyndaclism is a thread in the tapestry of Marxist thought.
Originally posted by Estilicon
damm you to hell
I hope god has a sense of humor.:) I think your English is quite good, by the way.
I think that you and Chumspy are speaking of two different worlds, he is talking about Earth in the 21 century and you are speaking of Smith-Ricardo land.
Good observation. Let me more explicitly stake my primary ground with an analogy. Now this is merely an analogy for illustration, not for proof, so please, nobody bother poking holes in it.

Consider democracy. Democracy comes in many different forms. The democracy of ancient Athens would be completely foreign to us today. Likewise, even though Yuri Avnery (www.avnery-news.co.il) has noted that Arafat is the only Arab chief of state who was chosen in free elections, under close international supervision, personally overseen by ex-President Jimmy Carter (www.gush-shalom.org/archives/article200.html), few self-respecting zionists would acknowledge that the PA is a democratic institution. In spite of these variances, I'm sure that most people on this thread would agree that democracy is a Good Thing. The idea that the government should represent the will of the people through voting in free elections hardly seems like a concept that is inherently corrupt. Yet, in the U.S. at least, many problems do exist. Rich people, for example, can use their wealth to increase their influence by giving disproportionate amounts of money to campaigns. Incumbents can use the power of incumbency to get their names out and maintain their offices.

The thing is, these problems aren't problems inherent in democracy, they are problems in the laws governing a particular state's expression of democracy. Campaign finance laws and (the lack of) term limits are the problem; not democracy. When one sees the corruption inherent in current U.S. campaign finance laws, one does not say, "Democracy is corrupt!" One says, "Our campaign finance laws are corrupt!" It would be deceptive to blame democracy loudly, then quietly add, "Well, it's the current expression of democracy that I have a problem with." To blame democracy one needs to craft a general argument as to why democracy, in and of itself, is corrupt. Otherwise, leave democracy out of it.

I am defending capitalism itself, in the same way I would defend democracy itself, even though campaign finance laws, for example, are corrupt.

Now Chumpsky notes that he is "talking about the actual system that exists in the real world," even though he clearly blames capitalism in the same way that democracy is blamed in the example above. If he has a problem with trade policy, lax anti-trust laws, and the political motives of private and public individuals, inter alia, then he should be saying so explicitly and leave capitalism out of it. If he is going to mention capitalism, then he should come up with a general argument as to why capitalism is bad. He really doesn't seem to have done so. That's fine if his goal is to talk "about the actual system that exists in the real world." But if that is his goal, then he should explicitly state where his beef lies and leave capitalism itself out of the argument.

In fact he seems to be trying to eat his cake and have it, too. He goes on to say that "[he] agree[s] with 99% of communist analysis of capitalism." If I thought he was of low character, I'd suggest that he trying to argue like a creationist. Regardless, the time has come for Chumsky to either fish or cut bait. If he wants to agree with 99% of what communists say about capitalism, then he needs to present a clear argument as to why capitalism, in general, is bad. I offered one for him, the labor theory of value. I also showed him why it was false. He must either drop capitalism as an object of protest and focus merely on the laws and institutions that are the problem, or he must provide a general argument as to why capitalism is inherently corrupt. And he must do so explicitly.

(Mr. S. & Maeglin: Labor theory of value a straw man (www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#strawman)?! I'm hurt.)

Mr. Svinlesha if you are suspicious of my characterization of the labor theory of value, you have a right to be. My characterization was simplistic and very ugly. The labor theory of value does have a long and rich history pre-dating Marx by a very long time. Marx's version is confusing. Nevertheless, I apologize for imposing that theory on you.

You state that the capitalist skims off the difference between the market price and the production costs. I disagree with this characterization. I am having real trouble thinking of a way to discuss it in this forum.

Okay, here's one way. Suppose I have a sum of money and that I can spend it on something for me, I can buy a shotgun and a Doberman and put the rest in a safe, or I can start a business. With my first option I'm enjoying the consumption of my money. With the second, I'm enjoying the security of my money. With the third, I get neither the enjoyment of consumption (since it goes to starting a business) nor the security (since the business probably won't succeed for very long). I'm giving up consumption and security to start a business, and in the process providing jobs to the people I employ and goods to my customers. For what?! To say that I'm merely "skimming off the difference between the market price and the production costs" is to say that I should give all my consumption and security for no reward at all! That hardly sounds like a just and equitable system and, with all due respect, I am a little bit outraged.

Here's another example: my mother has stock in Ford. She could just sell the stock and spend the money. She could just sell the stock and put it in an FDIC insured account. Instead she keeps it in Ford--at great risk. She's lost alot of money recently (and my folks aren't rich). But by taking that risk and giving up current consumption she is providing jobs and quality Ford products (if everybody sold their Ford stock the price would go to zero and Ford would be in a right mess). But by your characterization, she is just skimming off the difference between the price and the cost of production.

Here's another way to look at it. Optimization happens on the margin--it is a calculus problem. Do you know how nature always tries to either maximize or minimize something, hence bubbles are round for example? Well, we can think of economic actors doing the same thing. Indeed, let's assume that producers seek to maximize profits. That seems fair, no? To do that she subtracts her cost function from her revenue function to get her profit function and she takes a bunch of derivatives. These derivatives are the marignal thingies I mentioned earlier. If we look at her revenue function and take the marginal revenue for labor we get the marginal revenue for a worker. That value is the value that a worker brings to the table--and as that is the case, that is the value that she deserves to be paid. It is the difference between "the value produced by all labor" minus "the value produced by all labor minus her". That is the value that she brings to the firm, do you see? The "value produced by all labor" minus "the value produced by all labor but her" gives the value that she produced. (Since the world is imperfect and unfair, we are assuming that everybody is equally productive.)

Okay, here's the deal. Since price is a decreasing function of quantity, and since production generally exhibits decreasing returns to scale for a single input, the marginal product of labor is less than the average product. Let's take the first part of that last sentence for illustration. Suppose there is a 7-foot tall person alone in a room. The average height is seven feet. Suppose a 6-foot tall person enters the room. Now the average height is 6.5 feet. Supposes a 5-foot tall person now enters. Then the average height will be 6 feet. See how since we have each person entering being shorter than the previous person, the newest person, that is the marginal person, is shorter than the average of the whole room. Well, we have a "similar" thing happening when price is a decreasing function of quantity. As we add more labor we get greater output, but since the price of the good is falling as output increases, the marginal value of the labor is less than the average value. If we took the average value of labor multiplied by the total amount of labor, we would have the total value produced. But each unit of labor only produces value equal to the marginal product of labor, which is less than the average. Thus the marginal product of labor multiplied by the total amount of labor is less than the total product. That difference seems to be the "skimming" you are speaking of.

Do you see how it isn't "skimming" at all? Each unit of labor is being paid its maginal product, i.e. what it earns, and yet there is money left over. That is the money that the capitalist gets for a) giving up current consumption, b) taking a risk, and (for Ayn Rand) c) providing jobs and goods. Seriously, does this make sense??

Okay, if we flip the problem and consider capital instead of labor, the whole analysis fits perfectly. Just replace capital with labor, and machine with worker, and you end up with capital being paid its marginal product and money being left over. Yet the workers do not "skim" money off, do they? They, like the capital, are paid what they earn.

I've tried to be lucid and not obfuscate the argument. I don't know if I have succeded.

My final, last ditch, repsonse is this: aren't you shifting the burden of proof (www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#shifting)? After all, you say that the capitalist skims off value, but it shouldn't be up to me to prove that she doesn't. It should be up to you to prove that she does. But I won't advance that postion just yet, since it seems rude. But it may come up in the future....

Let me note something about mercantilism. I guess I was wrong about the dates & whatnot. I've taken several course on the history of economic thought and was quite confident that mercantilism predated capitalism as I mentioned before. So I stopped by the library and got out The Evolution of Economic Thought by W. E. Kuhn. He states that "from about the thirteenth century onward, capitalist enterprise slowly began to attack the framework of feudal institutions...." pg. 394. Well I'll be buggered. I could have sworn that I have never heard of capitalism predating the time circa Adam Smith. C'est la guerre.

Being a good debator, I hope, I have left other avenues of assault for when one fails. To wit, the work of Smith and Ricardo still represented a watershed in economic thought. The discovery and analysis of absolute and comparative advantage, for example, really changed the paradigm. Unfortunately, as the perverse popularity of Pat Buchanan can attest, it has yet to change the Zeitgeist. Indeed, speaking of early "capitalistic" enterprise, Kuhn says that "the industrial and commercial evolution was marked by monopolistic public policy and private business practice and was thus inimical to the true spirit of capitalism." pg. 395 (Italics his, bold mine.) He has some more explanation that I don't think is really vital right now.

Let me end by touching on the issue of the rich gaining at the expense of the poor. First off, just saying it and throwing out data points really doesn't prove anything. That's why my reference to Lomborg carries weight; he gives long-term data and a clear understanding of how to deal with numbers. This is a big world and we can throw out data points to the end of time and nothing will be proven. Real statistical analysis must be offered before any empirical conclusions can be (tentatively) reached. With that in mind, here is an article from The Economist (www.economist.com/displayStory.cfm?Story_ID=334693) and the original article (econ.worldbank.org/files/1696_wps2587.pdf) that it references. Notice that the original article takes a sample of 92 countries over 40 years. This is nothing to sneeze at. Unless someone can offer a better data set...well, you know, it is good evidence, although I'm sure a few ad hominems will fly because of it.

Another approach would to be to find time series data for Gini coefficients. If you don't know what that is, look it up. For example, this site (www.panix.com/~dhenwood/Gini_supplement.html) notes that the census finds that the "increase" in the Gini coefficient, which maxed in 1991/1992, is not stastically significant, i.e. there is no evidence that it has risen. Here is some country Gini figures (www.wider.unu.edu/wiid/wwwwiid.htm) that I really didn't want to take the time to look at, but somebody else can if they really want to. Here is another ad hominem prompter (www.worldbank.org/poverty/inequal/econ/distrib.htm) that shows that "there appears to be little systematic relationship between growth and changes in aggregate inequality." Be sure to check out figure 3. Here is a data set (www.worldbank.org/research/growth/dddeisqu.htm) that I haven't analyzed, but you are welcome to. Maybe I will tomorrow. Anyway, while it is possible to lie with statistics, it is much easier to lie with a few well chosen examples, and that's what, in my experience, a few data points are: well chosen examples.

Whew. I'm beat.

[Chumpsky]

Originally posted by js_africanus
Lomborg's book is one of the best referenced I've ever encountered, with plenty of web pages for ease, so any third parties can check the figures themselves.Some comment regarding your reading habits seems to be in order here...

There are so many things wrong with Lomberg's theses one hardly knows where to start. One of his central claims is that natural resources have not been declining, and have in fact been increasing! He buttresses this claim by pointing out that we continue to discover new oil reserves, etc. This facile argument is typical of Lomberg. While it is true that we do, in fact, continue to discover new oil reserves, and our capacity for exploiting nature increases with technological advances, the fact still remains that natural resources are finite. What is important are the rates of discovery, which have been declining in the case of oil.

Lomberg's rabid anti-environmentalism has assured him a platform to put forward his views. His views satisfy the fundamental requirement for mainstream distribution: they serve the powerful. Never mind that actual environmental scientists overewhelmingly reject his views, the important thing is that he supports power. Look, for example, at the reviews of his book on his website. There are fawning reviews from all the mouthpieces of power, the Washington Post, The Economist, and so on, and even from power itself, a World Bank executive.
Second, being an anarchist is orthogonal to one's leanings on communism & capitalism. Consider David Friedman's (www.daviddfriedman.com/index.shtml) interesting paper on the defense of anarchy & law (www.daviddfriedman.com/Academic/Anarchy_and_Eff_Law/Anarchy_and_Eff_Law.html). For the opposite end of the scale, consider Dennis, the Constitutional Peasant, in Monty Python's Holy Grail. Yes, anarchosyndaclism is a thread in the tapestry of Marxist thought.This paragraph suggests that your knowledge of anarchism consists of nuggets gleaned from a Monty Python movie. Indeed, if your knowledge of anarchism is akin to Friedman's, than you have a very distorted idea of what it means. When I read through Friedman's essay I could not discern anything that even remotely connected with anarchist thought. He seems to use the term "anarchy" in the sense of "chaos," not in the sense that anarchist thinkers and actors have thought of the term. Here is a good place to start for learning about anarchism:
http://flag.blackened.net/intanark/faq/index.html
It is a virtual certainty that you have not bothered to read through this FAQ, else you would have read, "Anarchism is, essentially, a revolt against capitalism."

Anarcho-syndicalism is not a "thread in the tapestry of Marxist thought." Indeed, Bakunin was Marx's prime opponent in the First International. Marxist and anarchist ideas have always been diametrically opposed regarding revolutionary theory.
I am defending capitalism itself, in the same way I would defend democracy itself, even though campaign finance laws, for example, are corrupt.You defend it by simply repeating a whole series of myths of capitalist economics.
What are the myths of capitalist economics (http://flag.blackened.net/intanark/faq/secCcon.html)
Now Chumpsky notes that he is "talking about the actual system that exists in the real world," even though he clearly blames capitalism in the same way that democracy is blamed in the example above.Perhaps you have not been reading carefully enough. Either that, or you decline to address my contention that the problems with capitalism are systemic. That is, they arise from the system itself.
What's wrong with the current system? (http://flag.blackened.net/intanark/faq/secBint.html)
In fact he seems to be trying to eat his cake and have it, too. He goes on to say that "[he] agree[s] with 99% of communist analysis of capitalism."Yes. I do. I agree with communist analysis of capitalism on most points. Recall that Marx's magnum opus was not called Communism. It was called Capital. His prime concern was with the evils of capitalism. I share these concerns with Marx and other communists. Where I disagree with "Marxist" thought is regarding revolutionary theory. I disagree with the whole "dictatorship of the proletariat," and "vanguard party" business. I am highly skeptical of any authority. The essential difference between communists and Marxists is that Marxists believe that the ends justify the means, whereas anarchists believe that the means are the ends. The main tendency in anarchist thought is that you have to create the revolution in the society, by changing minds and attitudes, after which the revolution becomes merely a consumation of this work. The Spanish Revolution of 1936, for example, was preceeded by decades of organizing and education. Marxists believe (I realize that I am highly oversimplifying things here, but just to make a point) that a Vanguard Party can take state power and act to institute a dictaroship of the proletariat, from which will flow the new socialist society. We saw how well that worked in Russia.

(By the way, I put "Marxist" in quotes to distinguish a particular body of thought that is commonly associated with Marx, but is not necessarily implied in Marx's own thought. Marx himself once famously declared, "I am not a Marxist.")
Okay, here's one way. Suppose I have a sum of money and that I can spend it on something for me, I can buy a shotgun and a Doberman and put the rest in a safe, or I can start a business. This is exactly the problem with your approach. You are taking these simple situations of individual actors acting in a hypothetical system in which all actors are relatively equal.

This is not the system I am talking about when I am speaking of capitalism.

Again, when I talk about capitalism, I am talking about the actual system that exists in the world today. I am talking about a system that is dominated by huge concentrations of power protected by an enormously powerful state with world-wide reach. If you wish to address capitalism, then you must address the problems that exist in the real world, not whether or not you are going to buy a shotgun or not. To quote from Estilicon above in this thread,

"I think that you and Chumspy are speaking of two different worlds, he is talking about Earth in the 21 century and you are speaking of Smith-Ricardo land."

I would have no problem with capitalism if it actually existed in the form you have imagined in your head, where the most serious problem is regarding shotguns and dobermans. What I do have a problem with is the highly authoritarian, hierarchical and oppressive system that turns people into commodities, to be used up so as to create wealth for a narrow ruling class.

If you want to address the real problems with capitalism, as it exists in the actual world, then address the problems that are created by concentration of wealth and power. Address the problems that are created when people are reduced to a commodity, and so on.

Imperialism, the highest form of capitalism, has encircled the globle, turning people and nature into commodities to be sold on the market. Everything must be geared toward creating profit for concentrated power, and no state must be allowed to develop an alternative to this system, as it is, in the words of our President, the "single sustainable model for economic development."

[Chumpsky]

Originally posted by js_africanus
So, in context of the current thread, if international trade, for example, were a zero-sum game, then the amount of benefit that country A receives from trading with country B is always equal to the amount of harm country B receives from the same trade.The nice thing about defining your terms in the course of a debate is that you can define them in order to support your point of view.

First of all, this evils of imperialism are NOT limited to one country exploiting another. You seem insistent on taking these highly simplified models, instead of addressing the problems in the actual world.

Allow me to refer you to the essay linked to in the initial post. To quote from Parenti:

"By 'imperialism' I mean the process whereby the dominant politico-economic interests of one nation expropriate for their own enrichment the land, labor, raw materials, and markets of another people."

It is actually kind of amazing that in 4 pages of debate, nobody has addressed any of the points raised in the initial post.

When I say that it IS a zero sum game, it is clear what I mean. I obviously do not mean, for example, that there is a finite amount of money in the world that must be divided up amongst the varioius actors. No, it simply means that the creation of fabulous wealth requires the creation of incredible poverty. The tendency of capitalist markets is that they push wages down. The tendency of imperialism is that the imperial powers seek out states where wages are low, where regulations are minimal, and where profits are high. The role of the state in this enterprise is in creating and optimizing these conditions in the third world.

I will now break a rule I have maintained up until now on this message board, and I will quote from Chomsky. In the late 1970's, Edward Hermann, Professor Emeritus of Finance of the Wharton School, did a study of the relation between U.S. intervention and human rights. What he found was that where the U.S. has intervened more, in terms of foreign aid and related factors, the human rights situation tends to be worse. There is a direct correlation between U.S. aid to a country and a poor human rights record. (This was in the 1970's, when the situation wasn't nearly as horrific as it is now.) The findings of this study are detailed in a book co-written with Noam Chomsky, The Political Economy of Human Rights (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0896080900/qid=1039937415/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/102-9967864-8477723?v=glance&s=books) They wrote,

"Whatever the attitudes of the U.S. leadership toward freedom at home--and as noted, this is highly ambiguous--systematic policies towards Third World countries, described in detail below, make it evident that the alleged commitment to democracy and human rights is mere rhetoric, directly contrary to actual policy. The operative principle has been and remains economic freedom [note: see the link to the National Security strategy I linked to above]--meaning freedom for U.S. business to invest, sell, and repatriate profits--and its two basic requisites, a favorable investment climate and a specific form of stability. Since these values are disturbed by unruly students, deomcratic processes, peasant organizations, a free press, and free labour unions, "economic freedom" has often required political servitude. Respect for the rights of the individual, also alleged to be one of the cardinal virtues of the West, has had little place in the operating procedures applied to the Third World. Since a favorable investment climate and stability quite often require repression, the United States has supplied the tools and training for interrogation and torture and is thoroughly implicated in the vast expansion of torture during the past decade."

The U.S. empire is the most sophisticated and powerful that has ever existed. Its requirements are that a states resources are open to exploitation by western capital. It thus seeks to change the internal policies of a state just enough to satisfy these conditions. Sometimes this requires very little in the way of direct intervention, as in the case of the more pliant client states like Costa Rica. Other times it requires the destruction of an entire country, like Vietnam. The rule is quite general though: every state must fit into the "one sustainable model for economic development."

[Mr. Svinlesha]

Oy oy oy… the more I read, the more confused I get.

Clearly, ”Capitalism” is itself a disputed concept. Part of the problem we experience in discussing Capitalism seems to be related to the various meanings different people attribute to the term. For example, most of the participants in this thread would agree that, left to its own devices, Capitalism tends to produce monopolies. In addition, most of us would agree that monopolies are bad. But are monopolies a ”pathological product” of the capitalist system, or are they merely a true expression of its modus operandi?

I suspect that different commentators would give different answers to that question. Those who defend Capitalism will argue that monopolies are distortions of the true spirit and aim of a capitalist economic system; those who criticize it will claim that monopolistic control of the economy is one of the actual goals that motivates capitalists.


Maeglin:

To condense my previous reply, I would like to ask you the following:

Imagine a perfect capitalist system, one in which there are no market failures, cronyism, political distortions, protectionist tariffs, inheritance bequethments, and so forth. In addition, this system contains no labor unions (to affect wage levels through collective bargaining) or redistributive programs to the poor (beyond those supplied via the system itself, i.e., no welfare payments). Is it your contention that under such conditions a Capitalist economic system would tend over time to distribute wealth more and more equitably?

I admit this might not be a very fair way to frame the issue, but I’m just trying to get a sense of the basics of your argument. For what it’s worth, as a critic, I would contend that under the conditions stated above, Capitalism would tend towards ever-increasing income disparities, in the traditional manner as predicted by Marx.

By the way, while I’m glad to read about an effective health care program in rural Tanzania, I’m not sure of how such a program is relevant to our discussion of the dynamics underlying the labor market and wages. I’d be interested in hearing why you’ve labeled the program ”capitalistic” as well: is it some sort of privately-run-for-profit health insurance system?

On a final note, I want to address this point, which you originally directed towards Chumpsky: If you believe Parenti's article that capitalism must expand, and if you believe that capitalistic firms must constantly seek new markets to invest in, then you come to the inarguable conclusion that poverty in the third world does not benefit the rich. If most of the world's laborers are poor, who will buy their goods?

That's the biggest problem with your analysis, as I see it. It is useful to have limitless sources of cheap labor....for awhile. But investment will continually increase, processes will undergo continuing refinement, and high quality goods will be produced more cheaply. It's the enormous markets of the third world that provide the greatest potential for growth. Hence elimitating poverty should be a priority for every major far-sighted capitalist. Why this is not always so is intrinsically linked to short-sighted stupidity, not the idea of the competitive market or private ownership.You broach a very important question here. It is a conundrum, I believe, that Marx would refer to as one of the internal contradictions of Capitalism.

Actually, one of my primary criticisms against Capitalism is precisely the fact that it is ”short-sighted.” I believe that conditions of intense market competition constrain economic actors in such a way that they cannot really think about the long term results of their actions, not at least if they wish to survive (let alone flourish) in the marketplace. In fact, when you think about it, your argument would seem to lead to some fairly strange conclusions. If it is in the best interests of capitalism for workers to earn more, thus increasing demand and expanding the market for commodities, then why does management, in negotiations with labor, always strive to hold wages as low as possible? Would it not make more sense for them to simply raise wages, spontaneously, so as to generate more income via the market? And if that’s the case, how do we explain the existence of labor unions at all? Why was the working class forced to struggle so violently for improved working conditions, higher wages, and so forth? Furthermore: why this movement towards outsourcing manufacturing to less developed countries, where wages are lower? By your logic, doing so would represent little less than corporate suicide – and yet, there can be no doubt that this is precisely what we observe occurring these days, on a massive scale.

I would like to suggest that the solution to this apparent paradox can be found in the realization that the dynamics which drive decision-making at the level of individual companies, or corporations, are not the same as the dynamics which shape the world economy at a macroeconomic level. While I agree with you that capitalist production also requires a market for its goods, I suggest that it is far from obvious that such considerations motivate the day-to-day business decisions of individual corporations. As long as they have a market for their goods in the first world, they have no reason whatsoever to increase wages or working standards in the third.

Not to harp, but this is where World Systems Theory comes in handy as a useful analytic tool (I linked a brief introduction to WST on page 3 of this thread). According to this model, the interesting and lucrative markets are found in the capitalist core, where the wealth expropriated from the periphery is floating about. Volvo, for example, owns a car factory in Sao Paulo, Brazil; but the workers employed in that factory are most emphatically not members of Volvo’s target market. However, those of us privileged enough to live in the capitalist core definitely benefit from the low wages Volvo’s Brazilian employees are paid when we decide to buy a Volvo, and so do those who own stock in the company.


js:

Welcome back! How was your sister?

:)

Thanks for the lecture on the concept of the zero-sum game (”ahem”), but I think I have a pretty good idea of what the term means.

In addition, I’m well aware of the theory of comparative advantage. You may be surprised to learn, however, that in the history of development economics comparative advantage has proven to be a resounding failure. Development policies in the third world that attempted to employ comparative advantage strategies simply failed to produce improvements in the host country’s economy. Granted, most of them rested upon the presupposition that developing countries had comparative advantages only in the field of agricultural production – like Maeg’s Ghana example, above. Unfortunately, the global markets for coffee, cocoa, tea, etc., proved too volatile to provide a solid basis for stable, long term economic growth, IIRC.

Oh, by the way, since you mentioned Adam Smith – did you know that he was the originator of the Labor Theory of Value?

Regarding Lomborg: I was also of the impression that his work has been generally discredited. I remember reading a whole list of web articles that more or less dismembered his research, and I believe this topic has been discussed in GD before. Perhaps a topic for a new thread?

With regard to this: You state that the capitalist skims off the difference between the market price and the production costs. I disagree with this characterization. I am having real trouble thinking of a way to discuss it in this forum.Yeah, this discussion is a bit more complicated than I suspected it would be. I'm giving up consumption and security to start a business, and in the process providing jobs to the people I employ and goods to my customers. For what?! To say that I'm merely "skimming off the difference between the market price and the production costs" is to say that I should give all my consumption and security for no reward at all! That hardly sounds like a just and equitable system and, with all due respect, I am a little bit outraged.Look, I happen to think that small businesses and entrepreneurship are great. I’ve worked a small business myself, and enjoyed wheeling and dealing, buying and selling, negotiating business agreements, and trying to outsmart the competition. (I’m American. What can I say? I guess its in my blood.) If ”capitalism” consisted primarily of small business entrepreneurship of that sort, I doubt I would have a problem with it. My problem starts – I know this might sound a bit paradoxical – because I believe that capitalism is, in actuality, inimical to small business interests – especially capitalism in its pure form. When I ran a small bookstore over here in Sweden, I experienced this problem first hand; we had no chance, really, in competing with larger chains. We simply couldn’t squeeze out a profit, and in fact the store has gone belly-up since I left it about a year ago.

Everyone deserves a reasonable wage for the work they do. But what we see in a capitalist system, at the macroeconomic level, is a situation in which a very small portion of the population (say 1 or 2%) have access to, and control over, vast amounts of wealth. When they start a business, they sacrifice very little – the equivalent to what you might consider pocket change, for example. You have the resources to chose between a Doberman and a shotgun, with a safe, or a business. They can easily do both, and then travel the Côte d’Azur for an exclusive vacation.

I’ll try to get back with more commentary on your reply as soon as I get the chance. I’m not sure I follow your argument for what I suspect is the neo-classical concept of marginal utility, but we can return to that. And I’ll look over the links you’ve posted (I see that your Economist article mentions the Kuznet ”inverted U” – ah, the good old days!) as well.

Finally, regarding this: Well I'll be buggered.My God. I certainly hope not.









:D

[Shodan]

Some comment regarding your reading habits seems to be in order here...

There are so many things wrong with Lomberg's theses one hardly knows where to start. One of his central claims is that natural resources have not been declining, and have in fact been increasing! He buttresses this claim by pointing out that we continue to discover new oil reserves, etc. This facile argument is typical of Lomberg. While it is true that we do, in fact, continue to discover new oil reserves, and our capacity for exploiting nature increases with technological advances, the fact still remains that natural resources are finite. What is important are the rates of discovery, which have been declining in the case of oil.

Lomberg's rabid anti-environmentalism has assured him a platform to put forward his views. His views satisfy the fundamental requirement for mainstream distribution: they serve the powerful. Never mind that actual environmental scientists overewhelmingly reject his views, the important thing is that he supports power. Look, for example, at the reviews of his book on his website. There are fawning reviews from all the mouthpieces of power, the Washington Post, The Economist, and so on, and even from power itself, a World Bank executive.
One comment about your debating tactics seems to be in order here.

You have not provided an instance of Lomberg lying, which is what you mentioned as the reason why his arguments should be dismissed out of hand.

What you have provided is another reason why your arguments should be dismissed out of hand - you cannot, or will not, present your evidence.

Instead, we get references to the Black Flag website. You will excuse me if I don't take their word as gospel, either.

Oh wait, I forgot - any reputable cites would mean that you had sold out to the seats of Power.

Regards,
Shodan

[js_africanus]

Chumsky, it is amazing to me that you would actually have the nerve to assert first that "the nice thing about defining your terms in the course of a debate is that you can define them in order to support your point of view", and then quickly follow with, "When I say that it IS a zero sum game, it is clear what I mean." Your hypocrisy is the last straw. I have gone to great lengths to treat you with respect. Yet you continue practice a style fitting of Duane Gish (www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/d_gish.asp). Well, I'm done engaging you. Good riddance.

Mr. Svinlesha, I'm glad to be back; my sister is well. Thank you!

Sir, you write Clearly, ”Capitalism” is itself a disputed concept. Part of the problem we experience in discussing Capitalism seems to be related to the various meanings different people attribute to the term. For example, most of the participants in this thread would agree that, left to its own devices, Capitalism tends to produce monopolies. In addition, most of us would agree that monopolies are bad. But are monopolies a ”pathological product” of the capitalist system, or are they merely a true expression of its modus operandi?Oy vey!:) That was the point of my democracy analogy. Let me press forward with it so that I may make myself clear. You'll recall that I noted that democracy has been expressed in many different ways. Some decidedly corrupt, in my opinion. The democracy of ancient Athens would probably appear pretty corrupt to us today. Personally, I would say that the democracy of Israel, where the P.M. must hobble together a government that can be smashed at leisure by extremist groups, is quite corrupt. And there are probably alot of people who would say that U.S. democracy, with its campaign finance laws, is corrupt.

But none of those examples are of Democracy, the idea and ideal. To look at U.S. democracy and say, "A-ha! Democracy is corrupt!" is simply false, because it only represents on particular sect of democracy.

Let me try another tack. Suppose an atheist and a christian were to debate the morality of christianity. To do so, they would have to take a very general view of the religion. They could not claim to discuss christianity and yet only debate Catholic doctrine. That would leave out all the Protestants. Similarly, they could not discuss biblical literalism, and yet claim that their discussion represents christianity in general. I think a very good example of how christianity needs to be defined for a general discussion is the one used by Bertrand Russell in his piece Why I Am Not A Christian (www.positiveatheism.org/hist/russell0.htm): a christian is one who believes in god and immortality, and that Jesus was, if not devine, at least the best and wisest of men. He is giving a minimalist definition to which all christians can at least agree meets a minimal standard. Of course, some sects may not like such a relaxed definition, but the fact remains that their sectarian views are probably not considered very christian by others.

Russell's lecture is useful here in a second sense: he provides a clear and general argument as to why there is no good reason to be a christian. One does not have to be convinced by it. But that's not the point, the point is that he says that he shall explain why he isn't christian, and does so, rather than explain why he isn't Catholic or Seventh Day Adventist or Mormon. Analogously, to say that capitalism is bad, one must provide a Russell-esque definition of capitalism and argue that capitalism by that general definition is bad. Nobody has done that--except you, Mr. Svinlesha with your skimming argument. I thank you for that.

It's easy to prove that some forms of capitalism are bad. Sudhartho's (sp?) crony capitalism in Indonesia is a prime example. I would say that the libertarian view of capitalism is bad. But neither of those represent capitalism per se in the same sense that Catholicism doesn't represent christianity per se.

So, as you say, I would tend to agree that when capitalism is left to its own devices, monopolies tend to accumulate. But "capitalism left to its own devices" doesn't fit the Russell-esque definition of capitalism. It is merely an extremist sect of capitalism. It cannot be used as proof that capitalism is corrupt.

An example of a Russell-esque definition of capitalism might be a system with at least some rights to private property, where one may purchase plant & equipment and hire workers in order to supply goods in a market. That is a very general definition, indeed. Yet to discuss capitalism as an idea & ideal, then that is the sort of definition we need.

This definition makes almost no statement about the legal environment in which capitalism is expressed, in the same way that Russell's definition of christianity makes almost no statements about the specific dogmas in which christianity is expressed. It is the sectarian dogma that produces extremism and violence as a pathological product of christianity. Similarly, it is the legal environment that produces the monopolistic enterprises that are the pathological product of capitalism.

Do you see how it is not capitalism that is inimical to small producer oriented competitive markets? Rather it is the legal (and political) environment that allows the concentration of wealth to such a great degree. To what degree such laws and regulations should be made and enforced is a "sectarian" discussion, and not a question of capitalism itself.

Does that make sense? If not let me know and I will try again. I never claimed to be a great writer and I appreciate your already ample patience.

Now please let me break up the narrative to note a few quick things:

Sorry about giving a redundant discussion of the zero-sum-game concept. I wasn't sure if there was confusion, so I took a chance.

I don't think that comparative advantage is on as shaky of footing as you may have been led to believe. Consider this article by Krugman (www.pkarchive.org/trade/ricardo.html) for example. I actually received my masters in econ. in 1998, and I have never really heard that comp. adv. was in any crisis. You're right that agricultural commodities are probably not the most stable thing in the world--but I think that discussion ultimately belongs in another thread.

Regarding Lomborg, I've read many pros and cons, along with discussions with biologists and environmental economists, and he seems to come out quite well. His book, after all, is really just listing data. Since I have experience in econ. and statistics, I can attest that his handling of data is good, for example looking at long data sets and using purchasing power parity. Plus, in 2001 he was honored by the World Economic Forum and in 2002 he was named director of Denmark's Environmental Assessment Institute. Most critiques I've read really boil down to attacking him rather than his numbers. For example, Matt Ridley's response to Scientific American's critique notes that SA "confirmed many of Lomborg's statistics, and found only a few trivial misquotations and ellipses...." My favorite critique of the book was the BBC online reporter who said that the book's biggest problem was that it was so "damnably reasonable." As if a few hundred pages of unreasonable panic would have been better.

The irony here is that all the data he cites are publicly available and much of them online, yet we discuss second hand critiques when we could just check some randomly chosen facts ourselves.

Finally, I just wanted to note that I kind of threw out those Gini references in a rather rude manner in my previous post. It was late and I was frusterated. That is now excuse, however, and I apologize for losing patience.

Oh, and I'll try not to get buggered.:D

[Chumpsky]

Originally posted by js_africanus
I have gone to great lengths to treat you with respect. Yet you continue practice a style fitting of Duane Gish (www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/d_gish.asp). Well, I'm done engaging you.When one encounters an irony like this, one can only sit back and bask in it. Yes, you have gone to great lengths to treat me with respect, while comparing me to Duane Gish. What more could you ask for?

Oh, and in order to finish something, you first have to start.
An example of a Russell-esque definition of capitalism might be a system with at least some rights to private property, where one may purchase plant & equipment and hire workers in order to supply goods in a market. That is a very general definition, indeed. Yet to discuss capitalism as an idea & ideal, then that is the sort of definition we need.This clearly will not do as a definition of capitalism. Your quasi-definition will not do, for the simple reason that it fits virtually every economic system that has ever existed. Perhaps you might take a gander at the three characteristics of capitalism I proposed above in this same thread.
Do you see how it is not capitalism that is inimical to small producer oriented competitive markets? Rather it is the legal (and political) environment that allows the concentration of wealth to such a great degree. To what degree such laws and regulations should be made and enforced is a "sectarian" discussion, and not a question of capitalism itself.Clearly false. Huge monopolies grew virtually without bound in the 19th century when there was no regulation to speak of. In fact, 19th century America is about as close to a "pure capitalism" as has ever existed on Earth. Yet, all of the negative aspects of capitalism expressed themselves, write large.

Apparently, our respectful js_africanus is under the impression that the task of writing a detailed refutation of capitalism has yet to be undertaken. Well, allow me to suggest a few things for your reading pleasure. For background on political economy, capitalism and its evils, here a few places to start:
The Wealth of Nations (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/smith-adam/works/wealth-of-nations/index.htm), by Adam Smith
Discourse on the Origins of Inequality (http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/fr/ineq1.htm), by Jean-Jacques Rousseau
The Philosophy of Poverty (http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/economics/proudhon/index.htm), by Pierre Proudhon
Capital (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0140445684/qid=1040025934/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_1/102-9967864-8477723?v=glance&s=books&n=507846), by Karl Marx
The Capitalist System (http://flag.blackened.net/daver/anarchism/bakunin/capstate.html), by Mikhail Bakunin [Note: short, and highly recommended]
Why do anarchists oppose the current system? (http://flag.blackened.net/intanark/faq/secBcon.html), Anarchist FAQ

For information on the current state of affairs, Znet maintains a huge repository of essays and articles on global economics:
Global Economics (http://www.zmag.org/CrisesCurEvts/Globalism/GlobalEcon.htm)
They also host a site which lays out an alternative path:
Participatory Economics (http://www.parecon.org/)

[smiling bandit]

By the way, it is not just me who is claiming that the capitalists seek dominion over the entire Earth. They say it themselves. Check out, for example, the National Security Strategy
(By the way, most of the lies in this document can be deciphered if, after every instance of the word "freedom" you insert the phrase "for capital.")

This is quite possibly the most inane comment I have ever seen. Mayhap thou hast not noticed it, but yes, Americans do love their government and economic systems and think every would be better off for them. There's neither shame nor shadow in it.

When one encounters an irony like this, one can only sit back and bask in it. Yes, you have gone to great lengths to treat me with respect, while comparing me to Duane Gish. What more could you ask for?

You've been begging for insults this whole thread with your lack of adequate debate. js_africanus has tried to debate and you've done nothing.

Clearly false. Huge monopolies grew virtually without bound in the 19th century when there was no regulation to speak of. In fact, 19th century America is about as close to a "pure capitalism" as has ever existed on Earth. Yet, all of the negative aspects of capitalism expressed themselves, write large.

But capitalism never exists in a vaccuum. Moreover, you've looked at a few very large examples and ignored all the counter evidence: there were and are thousands of fields and companies and markets that have never gotten near a monopoly. There was a Standard Oil. But there were also a bunch of food companies that were not a monopoly at all.

Chumpsky, you are looking only at what you wish to see.

Have you actually read "Das Kapital"?

[Chumpsky]

Originally posted by smiling bandit
This is quite possibly the most inane comment I have ever seen. Mayhap thou hast not noticed it, but yes, Americans do love their government and economic systems and think every would be better off for them. There's neither shame nor shadow in it.That depends on who you mean by "Americans." It is common in today's intellectual culture to equate the ruling class with "Americans." So, by this convention, you are correct, obviously.

However, if we depart from convention and use the term "Americans" to mean "citizens of the United States of America," then you are surely wrong. Indeed, for several presidential elections now, the majority has either voted "none of the above" or boycotted the process entirely. The majority of Americans feel so disconnected with the political system that they don't participate in it at all.

Furthermore, I would like to see some documentation showing that the majority of Americans think it is OK to force a certain type of economic system on other countries. I seriously doubt that you can show a majority support for the forced privatization in countries like Nicaragua.

[smiling bandit]

However, if we depart from convention and use the term "Americans" to mean "citizens of the United States of America," then you are surely wrong. Indeed, for several presidential elections now, the majority has either voted "none of the above" or boycotted the process entirely. The majority of Americans feel so disconnected with the political system that they don't participate in it at all.

Actually, I take that same lethargy as evidence of satisfaction in the political and econmic process. People who feel safe and comfortable in the system feel no need to change it.

Aside from which, American politics are boring. Often, individual races are more important than ones in Europe, but just as often, they are less dramatic. Americans worked out the science to campaign management too well. We can't even have some good, old fashion mud-slinging anymore!