In Reply to: Re: About Capitalism posted by Paul Nolette on December 31, 1996 at 15:48:07:
> I'd like to remind you that capitalism is the only
> economic system which allows for true economic freeedom --
> one of the most important virtues which, thank God, is
> recognized by a great deal of people across the world.> Capitalism certainly does NOT exploit -- it extends freedom,
> much unlike socialism, or especially Communism, in which the
> government exploits everybody. Capitalism is the natural extention
> of Democracy; freedom does not only mean social freedoms but freedom of
> the economic variety as well. If capitalism was not the right
> path, then why is it that the countries of the world
> today which have high levels of economic freedom (e.g. USA, UK, Japan)
> also the countries with the strongest economies and the highest
> per-capita income?> In addition, why is it that people who embrace left-wing
> economics always the ones to advocate violence (e.g. the current
> terrorist situation is Peru)? I've never heard of a free-market
> group going around terrorising innocent people. I suppose that
> is due to the fact that Communism and Marxism is dying around the
> world and the left-wing fanatics can't find any way to advance their
> agenda, so they find it nessacary to resort to violence.
>
> I'm glad I live in the United States, the only superpower left in
> the world, and (not coincidently) owner of one of the most free economies
> in all the world. We in the U.S. enjoy some of the highest levels of freedom
> in the world, and we have our long-standing tradition of democracy and
> capitalism to thank for our success.> Three cheers for Capitalism, Adam Smith, and the Entrepreneurial spirit!
You cannot substantiate your argument that "capitalism is the only economic
system which allows for true economic freedom," unless you explain exactly what
"true economic freedom" means. If you believe that "true economic freedom"
exists when a human being has the "right" to sell themselves on the labour market,
then capitalism brings freedom. However if you believe conversely that freedom
exists when one is emancipated from all forms of coercion, domination and
authority, and free from compulsion to perform undesirable, monotonous and
soul-destroying work, then capitalism fails miserably.If, "Capitalism does NOT exploit ...unlike socialism, or especially communism,
" why then is exploitation ubiquitous and omnipresent in the modern world.
Starkly put, capitalism thrives on exploitation just as did its predecessors -
feudalism and slavery. The form of exploitation under capitalism may differ,
but it is as entrenched, and important to its continuity. There would seem
little point in arguing for socialism, if the current society was free from
exploitation. But the form of exploitation which exists under capitalism
is economic. The integral component of capitalism is profit - which can't
be accrued without exploitation. Those who produce the goods and services
receive less than the price received upon sale at the market - the difference
accruing to the boss, manager or owner. Thus the boss exploits the worker
for material gain.Countries which have "the strongest economies and the highest per-capita income"
rarely evoke laudable description when it comes to the levels of prosperity for
the majority of the population. My own country - Australia - has had record
consecutive periods of economic growth yet at the same time has stagnant levels
of unemployment, real wage erosion, accerelated earning gaps between rich and poor,
and rising levels of homelessness and poverty. However such factors rarely accord
much attention when economists glowingly describe "economic miracles."In comparison to groups that advocate right-wing economics, left-wingers pale into
insignificance when it comes to the perpetration of acts of violence. Was the U.S.
advocating left-wing or right-wing economics when it invaded Indochina in the process
killing millions of people, wrecking three countries and leaving literally no chance
of substainable development (The U.S. government's goal in general)? The contra rebels
in Nicaragua: armed and financed by the U.S. government, were they defending "communism"
and left-wing economics when they tortured and mutilated civilians? Could the 140 000
dead Guatemalans testify that the government which was installed, financed and armed by
the U.S., was advocating left-wing economics? Would the Indonesian invasion of East Timor
which led to over 200 000 dead or a third of the population - again supported and armed by
Western governments - constitute a defence of left-wing ideals. We could go on, but
the point is that those who advocate genuine socialist ideas, barely rate a mention in
terms of the atrocities committed to "advance their agenda."To cheer Adam Smith is at odds with your affirmation of the United States, U.K. and Japan
as ideal capitalist societies. If the U.S. was truly free-market capitalist it would have
no motor-vehicle, computer or electronics industries to name but a few. The U.S. governments
spends over 1.5 times on protection for big business than it does on welfare. McDonald's a
few years ago received a handout of half a million dollars to promote its Chicken McNuggets.
The levels of protection have increased with each new administration. The Reagan administration
boasted of giving more in protection to business than all most of its predecessors in sum.
Those who advocate the free-market are dreamers. What government in the world is going to
eradicate all forms of protection from the realities of the free market, whether it be subsidies,
quotas, tariffs or any other variety? Hearing his name used in reference to modern capitalism,
Adam Smith would turn in his grave.