I-P: Capitalism vrs. commies

Bill Stoddard bill@wstoddard.com
Wed, 6 Mar 2002 13:00:09 -0500

> On Wed, Mar 06, 2002 at 06:19:19AM -0800, Paul Prescod wrote:
> > Owen Byrne wrote:
> > >
> > >...
> > >
> > > Ok, so now you're arguing that the phrase "capitalism vs. commies" was never
> > > useful. I agree.
> > > I was born in 1960.
> >
> > No, I'm arguing that capitalism is a rough and tumble system. It is also
> > an imperfectly implemented system.
> >
> > That it is different from communism is easily verifiable through a visit
> > to Cuba or North Korea or through a book about the Soviet Union. Compare
> > the Enron "crisis" to the Ukrainian Famine. Now that's a crisis.
> >
> Sortof comparable to the potato famine, the genocide of North American
> aboriginals, the Great Depression, WW II,  The war in Vietnam (if you're
> vietnamese), the rust belt, slums, urban blight, "donut" cities, Its easy
> for rich Americans to sit in gated communities with private security guards
> and say their system is the best.

<Stiffler sez...> What the fuck?</Stiffler sez>
I don't live in a gated community and I think capitalism, though far from perfect, is the
best system. This phrase has been kicked around enough. Lets retire it.  On a related
note... IMHO, white collar criminals (like, I presume, many if not most of the Enron
execs) are as great a threat to capitalism as any communist menance. Think about it.

>  Sort of like mid-eighties communist
> party members sitting in their dachaus surrounded by NKVD security talking
> about how their system is the best.
> As some of my more socialist friends would say, take a tour through Arkansas,
> or Flint or the Bronx (or parts of Vancouver). I just go out my door,
> walk 4 blocks south and I'm in the third world (Except I'd probably feel
> safer in the third world).

Hardly the third world. Culture matters. If a cultural breeds contempt of knowledge and
education..., well, you finish the sentence. We, "humanity", should not subsidize cultures
of ignorance. Plenty of people in the third world would do nearly anything to have the
opportunity of the poorest citizens of capitalist nations.

> Communism is of course a failed system, while capitalism is "an imperfectly
> implemented system." I would argue that it was implemented completely in
> England of the 19th century, and that the results were abject poverty for 99%
> of the people and vast wealth for a few.
Well there you go!  Your definition of capitalism is "that which appeals to all that sucks
in mankind". Rather pointless in having a deep discussion till we all agree on definitions
of the language we are using :-)

The bottom line....  capitalism works better than communism if you define 'works better'
as 'providing a high standard of living to the most people'. To argue otherwise is to deny
reality. A good question is why?