Dear Grim,

Thanks for the flattery.

I read your article and questioned its premises. It is tremendously unfair to buy a painting of an Aborigine’s painting for $300 and sell it for much more. Capitalism allows that. However, whenever there is a transaction whether capitalist or not where one party has better information or more power than the other there is the potential for exploitation. Milovan Djilas, a Yugoslav communist, wrote a book called “The New Class” where he pointed out that members of the sole party had the ability to exploit others and did so. Capitalism is inherently discriminatory, but so is any other system where there are inequities. I know of no system that eliminates inequities.

Since capitalism is the only system most of us know we tend to think that its evils are unique to capitalism.

However, what we think is a natural outgrowth may simply be because one system follows another. Capitalism/imperialism followed the feudal system in Europe. It did not in China. In 200 BC the Chinese developed blast furnaces. This succeeded in arming mass armies which ended the feudal system maintained by the armoured knights. Armour was no longer expensive. Europeans got blast furnaces around1500. This also eliminated the armoured knights, and capitalism followed. It did not follow in China because of the class structure. The Chinese class structure had Mandarins at the top followed by peasants, merchants and artisans in that order with artisans above bandits. Inventions by clever artisans were adapted for use by the governing mandarinate. A Chinese counterpart of James Watt could not get financing to do anything. He could only turn his invention over to the mandarinate and get a pension or other reward.

One can make the case that the industrial revolution would not have happened if capitalism had not already started to develop.

In the Manifesto Marx recognized the productive nature of capitalism and assumed that this could be transferred to the workers, and production could be devoted to need rather than to profit. As we know from the former USSR it doesn’t work that way.

David, I certainly don't believe capitalism is the root of all evil; but I think there is a connection.
The wonderful thing about the feedback mechanism of blogging is learning about how other people read the things you write, or at least how the background of the reader must play a decisive part in what they take from your writing. I have found it remarkable how often a reader will latch on to a point I thought rather trivial, and just as often overlook a point I thought fairly crucial.
The point of the article (which I probably should have emphasized more strongly), and what struck me forcibly when I spoke to the gentleman in question, was how he felt justifiably proud of his profit margin.
I believe Friedman made the point that the only moral obligation a business has, is to ensure the best outcome for the shareholders.
A true blue Capitalist would have to think a markup 10 times the purchase price was pretty good.
Wasn't that the basic rationale for colonialism/imperialism?
Isn't that why Australia doesn't have much of a manufacturing sector?
Why pay your own workers, when you can get 'them' to do it for a bowl of rice.
With regard to the current article David, you didn't address the question of America's motives for 'helping' so many countries onto the path of free enterprise.

Grim

I also read your article.

"The point of the article....., and what struck me forcibly when I spoke to the gentleman in question, was how he felt justifiably proud of his profit margin."

Chilling isn't it? Like being at a party enjoying a conversation when someone makes a point that is the complete antithesis of your entire moral code, they continue on, blithely unaware that your are edging away. They may even read articles like yours and never even include themselves as exploiters. There is always the justification "well at least they're (workers) earning something".

Fair reward for a fair day's work does not have to conflict with energy from competitive capitalism. However, the default position for capitalism is exploitation unless there is reasonable regulation. Such as limiting monopolies and in the case of indigenous painters. Your acquaintance is incapable of discerning 'fair'. He would still have made profit if he had paid the artists more, there is no way to convince this type of personality that s/he has done anything wrong.

The group of American men who created the New American Century Project believed that if it was good for them, then it must be good for everyone - that is how they manage to sleep at night.

To explain the differences between a normal Christian and a philosophical Christian.

The wonderful tale of the young Jesus, expressed so much in the Sermon on the Mount, but finishing humanly so sadly, yet so gloriously religiously in the Spiritual Outcome beyond the Crucifixion.

To be sure in philosophy we tend to follow history and the early growth of Christianity with minds mixed somewhat between legend and spiritual reasoning, mindful of the Thou Shalts of the disciples, heartful of the cruelty of the pagan Romans against the Christians, as well as experiencing a mixture of historicism and religiosity as the Roman emperor Constantine never himself a Christian, not only gave the order to treat the Christians as normal citizens, but also took control over the Council of Nicea in which Christianity was declared not only spiritually powerful by Constantine but politically powerful.

However, as Christianity became more political, it was realised that the young Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount never talked about doing down or killing off the unbelievers, but even putting ourselves in the position of the so-called enemy, as was said to try and Understand our Enemies.

It is also interesting that it was that St Thomas Aquinas was also a philosopher, having not only gained a Sainthood as well as accepting Hellenistic Reasoning from early Islamics as a way to release early Christianity from the Dark Ages.

Aquinas was also the philosopher who organised the study which became the forerunner of all Western universities.

It is well to also remind that it was not long before the Thousandth Year after the Death of Jesus, it was decided to fake a document giving the now dead but Spiritual Constantine the gift giving Christianity the right to declare war, a document still held by the Catholic Church.

As every political historian should know, the fake document since known as the Donation of Constantine, also gave the illegal right for Christian nations to practice the colonialism that has made Anglo nations in particular so strong ever since, and people like our own Aborigines so helpless.

Regards, BB, WA

Bushbred, you stated

As every political historian should know, the fake document since known as the Donation of Constantine, also gave the illegal right for Christian nations to practice the colonialism that has made Anglo nations in particular so strong ever since, and people like our own Aborigines so helpless.

What's your point. Would another dominant nation/entity behaved any differently?

Do I really have to bring up atrocities by other political entities?

It is all to easy to blame the dominant power of the day and drwam of if only...

Dear Grim,

Imperialism predates capitalism so capitalism cannot be the cause of imperialism. If capitalism were the basic rationale for colonialism/imperialism, colonialism/imperialism would not predate capitalism.

The US favours countries adopting a capitalist system because it benefits the US. Since capital can move across national boundaries much easier than labour can countries adopting capitalism will be places where enterprises in the developed world can more easily exploit labour. However, this will not be a permanent situation if there is democracy. Workers can organise, form unions and can withhold labour to force the employer to pay better wages. Unfortunately union organisers can be driven away, tortured or murdered. CIA or CIA sponsored death squads have done this many times. In 1987 a meeting of former CIA men in Switzerland estimated that 6,000,000 people had been killed in this manner. Cooperative boards, schoolteachers etc. anybody challenging the status quo.

However, the problem is deeper than capitalism. It is industrialisation and corporatism. A worker by him or herself is helpless against the power of the corporation. Whether the corporation is privately owned as in capitalism or state owned as in socialism is immaterial. After Lenin took over the USSR the power of the unions which was severely limited under the tsars disappeared completely as they were converted into transmission lines for party propaganda. The workers were told the factories now belonged to them. They were exploited worse than in the capitalist countries as there were no longer effective unions to stand up for their rights.

In the late 60s a bunch of us working or studying at the University of Pennsylvania used to get together every Thursday for lunch. One of the group was a Soviet engineer studying management at the U of P. The Soviet managers avoided giving raises except as a last resort. They thought it would encourage more demands for wages. They adopted distractions such as painting the cafeteria to deal with worker unrest since workers might be happier with a change of scene.

We need strong democratic unions whose leaders cannot be bought off & an aggressive work force.