Please explain how capitalism is responsible for war crimes and terrorism

Great Debates
101

CyberPundit: “The trouble is that you don’t seem to have a particularly good understanding of the past either. For one thing the labour regulations passed in Western countries at the turn of the century were passed at the national not supranational level and in the context of an international capitalist system freer than today.”

Gee CyberPundit, I must have wandered into another thread mistakenly. Because unless I’m dreaming, you’ve just professed to enlighten me by telling me something that I’ve been saying again and again in the last 10 posts or so. I argue that I expect to see citizens today, and in the future, working to build supranational mechanisms to replace the national mechanisms that no longer effectively rein in the power of supranational corporations, and you tell me that–duh–in the past the mechanisms were national!

And on what do you base your implicit assumptions about the impossibility of a suprnational citizens’ movement (though not necessarily in the form of a giant global bureaucracy), or on the spread of European-like economic alliances between nations?

As I said long ago, you are a luddite when it comes to social relations.

For your information: although I never was primarily an economic historian, my understanding of the past on this issue is pretty clear, and where Britain or even Germany is involved, extremely clear. I could provide you with lots of sources to support my claim that no nation in history ever was able to industrialize successfully under a neo-liberal policy (in other words, they relied upon “economic nationalism” including subsidies, protections, etc.). But these are books that you will have to get out of a library should you wish to read them.

Looking over your post I see that we’ve covered not only this ground again and again but also the other “points” you raise again and again (e.g., what I mean by a living wage, the history of NAFTA and its intended workers’ rights provisions, etc.). This gives me very little incentive to go further by answering some new questions you’ve posed (should trade sanctions be leveled against human rights violatiors?). This is an interesting question, but who reading this thread doesn’t already know that what your answer will be? We already know that you believe that China has become more free; and we already know that you’re not troubled by the fact that a country that executes 5,000 people every year (and this but one aspect of its total repression of workers’ rights) is now poised to compete with nations that provide more autonomy for workers. Yet you deny that this constitutes a race to the bottom. So why bother debating with you? When presented with irrefutable evidence of a social cost, you simply deny its relation to economic matters.

However, if you would like to keep up the debate by all means. But the burden is now on you. Tell us what kinds of regulatory mechanisms you envision (since you mention them). Tell us all about their economic cost and social impact. Tell us (if it matters) how they will help to alleviate the problems of a world in which the chief economic problem is oversupply and overcapacity (too many goods for too few buyers), while the chief social problem is hunger and privation. By all means tell us how you see your own prescriptions in relation to this context. Or tell us any other thing you support.

Because so far all you have done is defend the IMF on the grounds that it has not always failed, and dismiss its failures as due to extra-economic causes (yet still no response from you on The Nation’s in-depth analysis of Russia). You’ve provided no hard evidence that neo-liberalism was responsible for initializing a viable industrial economy in any Western country; nor have you explained how Western industrial democracies were able to stabilize themselves, and spread social welfare, through various state and labor-generated policies so successfully for so long.

You’ve argued, instead, that nothing anyone else proposes is possible, and you’ve implied that political action has no ability to change what you see as the inexorable economic fact of the status quo. All you’ve done in other words, is make clear what the limits of your worldview are. And I maintain that the difference between us–at least in this debate–is mainly that of worldview. Because none of your economic prescriptions are news to me.

So the ball is in your court. I am all ears. Tell us what you propose and what its benefits will be.

102

Mandelstam,

“I argue that I expect to see
citizens today, and in the future, working to build supranational mechanisms to replace
the national mechanisms that no longer effectively rein in the power of supranational
corporations, and you tell me that–duh–in the past the mechanisms were national!”
You keep arguing about the supposedly successful experience with regulation in Western countries and using that as an example for poor countries today. I have explained carefully why it does not in anyway imply that supranational mechanisms are necessary in a capitalist setting contrary to what you claim. There is no parallel in Western history to countries being forced to adopt labour standards their governments don’t want as a part of trade deals. I am not sure how many times I have to repeat this before it gets through.

“your implicit assumptions about the impossibility of a
suprnational citizens’ movement (though not necessarily in the form of a giant global
bureaucracy), or on the spread of European-like economic alliances between nations?”
Yawn I have already explained what I am for and against many times. Please don’t make up stuff about “implicit assumptions”

BTW in trade matters there is already an informal alliance between poor countries in trade negotiations lead by India. One of their big priorities is to oppose the linking of trade and labour standards. Why would you expect that to change if these countries ever get together to form European-like economic alliances. Their main priority will be to gain more access to rich-country markets not to have labour laws imposed on them.

“I could provide you with lots of sources to support
my claim that no nation in history ever was able to industrialize successfully under a
neo-liberal policy (in other words, they relied upon “economic nationalism” including
subsidies, protections, etc.)”
Most countries began with their industrialization process with many centuries of government interference and mercantilism behind them. That was their legacy just like non-democratic government. During the 19th century I think these trade barriers were reduced in many places. In the decades before WW1, a time of great industrial innovation, there was a global free-market freer than than what exists today with the gold-standard, free movement of capital and levels of taxation much lower than today. The international movement of capital, especially , has played a huge role in the industrialization of many countries including the United States.

                "Looking over your post I see that we've covered not only this ground again and again but
                also the other "points" you raise again and again (e.g., what I mean by a living wage, the
                history of NAFTA and its intended workers' rights provisions, etc.)."

All I remember are quotes about what Congress and Bill Clinton want. OK so let me assume that you want all the policies mentioned in those quotes . But then every time I ask you questions about specific labour regulations and their impact, you evade the issue and waffle about citizens’movements and trans-national alliances

“We
already know that you believe that China has become more free;”
You don’t believe this? Obviously your alleged historical expertise doesn’t extend to the Great Leap Forward or the Cultural Revolution.

“we already know
that you’re not troubled by the fact that a country that executes 5,000 people every year
(and this but one aspect of its total repression of workers’ rights) is now poised to
compete with nations that provide more autonomy for workers. Yet you deny that this
constitutes a race to the bottom”
Do you even understand what a “race to the bottom” means? Tell me since China entered the world market which country has been forced to reduce regulations as a result? What about the enormous benefits to China as a result of economic growth and the benefits to consumers from cheap imports?

“By all means tell us how you see your own prescriptions
in relation to this context. Or tell us any other thing you support.”
I already made two specific suggestions in my very first post and then repeated them later. Go back and read them; I have no intention of keeping on repeating myself.

                "Because so far all you have done is defend the IMF on the grounds that it has not always
                failed, and dismiss its failures as due to extra-economic causes (yet still no response
                from you on The Nation's in-depth analysis of Russia)"

Does the Nation analysis counter the points I have made? Do you think my points are invalid? You just ignore my fairly detailed arguments and then claim I haven’t addressed the issue.

103

CyberPundit, you’ve provided exactly the kind of reply that I expected from you. The only thing at all novel in your latest was your admission–at long last–that Western nations needed mercantilism to get their industrial economies off the ground. Just as Asian countries such as Japan and Thailand needed “economic nationalism” to get themselves off the ground in more recent times. As I said two posts ago, you’ve already told me everything that you know; I’ve already told you what I know. I won’t be answering any future posts of yours: in part, because I’m very busy right now; in part because it’s pointless for a person who belives that political action can change the economic status quo to argue with a person who doesn’t believe that; in part because I find you ultimately quite trollish. Happy holidays.

104

Mandelstam,
I can’t say that I will miss your posts. You are not much of a challenge and it’s pretty obvious you are not capable of answering my arguments or making a rigorous case for your policies aside from empty rhetoric about “political action”. Any one reading the exchange will be able to see the number of points you have left unanswered.
“your admission–at long last–that Western nations
needed mercantilism to get their industrial economies off the ground”
Oh dear. This is so far from what I wrote that I have to guess that you can’t understand plainly written English sentences which would explain a lot about this “debate”.
If you are representive of the intellectual quality of the American left, I can only say that I am glad that most of you are restricted to sniping impotently from the sidelines, more or less ignored by the Democratic party as well as the American public. Your lot deserves no better.

105

Pundit, you’d probably do much better as a debator if you didn’t insert silly little ad-hominem jabs everywhere. And if you were consistent: you argued that you believe that policy decisions should be based on “hard analysis”, endlessly calling for citations, without bothering to provide any yourself (aside from that “commentary” and a rebuttal of dubious value, both about the IMF issue that you basically conceded).

In any case, I think you’re missing one of my major points. I am not arguing that economic policy should produce liberal democracy and all the rights and freedoms that it grants to citizens. Precisely the opposite: capitalism can and does exist in parts of the world without any shadow of said rights. It is, however, a fact that in those countries I cited as examples of non-democratic capitalist economies (Singapore and China) unions are either curtailed or brutally suppressed, and that most of the countries in the third world that are being “globalized” are not liberal democracies. This creates real problems, because the internal democratic forces that would deal with any corporate-inspired curtailment of human rights (such as the massacre of activists on Shell’s behalf in Nigeria) are not present, and therefore the problems are amplified. The problem isn’t just the corporations, or the governments, but the interaction of both. As I said, there are certainly conditions attached to WTO status, and even drastic curtailments of governmental rights in some respects (witness the clause that allows corporations to sue governments for imagined damage to profits). Requirements for the respect of certain rights, such as the right to organize, are certainly not outside this paradigm.

My argument about stability, on the other hand, is much simpler, and is actually borrowed from Stratfor.com’s analysis of globalization’s interaction with geopolitics (I’d link, but I can’t access their old analyses), which basically comments that mass poverty caused by any force creates instability, and that instability can threaten the governing regime. Although there will no doubt be long-term benefits of globalization, the switch from substinence to cash-crop farming and manufacturing in many third world countries has created problems right now, and long-term benefits will not be realized if people start seeking remedies to percieved wrongs by force. I’m inclined to agree. As Keynes said, “in the long term everybody is dead”.

Are you an economic historian, and can you give me cites for this? Last I checked, the 19th century was also wracked by endless booms and busts and, um, mercantilism. Arguing in favour of the gold standard is odd enough…please don’t tell me you’re in favour of the economic benefits of colonialism. :smiley:

One last bit (I need to go to bed)

This is a personal belief, but yes. I believe it is the argument that is the important factor, and not the arguer. A highly respected scholar can say incredibly dumb things (as that other thread about language attests) and some shmoe at a thinktank can put out something brilliant. Einstein, after all, was merely a patent clerk.