Tottenham riots

[chaosmachine]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zmo8DG1gno4

 

there's the next gybe album right there --^

 

[youtubehd]pP8XBJc2p_g[/youtubehd]

[perunamuusi]

government should do something arbitrary and disproportionate about rioters

[kakapo]

oh yeah. anyone who has ever torrented a bunch of films or SLSK'd some records can STFU about looting

 

I agree. Anybody who downloaded Variance in 2003 should be prevented from commenting on this:

 

 

"I will probably have to close because I haven’t got insurance and I can’t afford the repairs,” - Aaron

 

Aaron has been in the Tottenham area for 41 years and at 89 is devastated by the damage to his livelihood. Aaron lost his wife last year. Born in Cable Street, he built up his businesses in Tottenham High Street over several decades and is a popular figure in the local community.

He arrived at his shop on Sunday morning to find the place smashed up, with windows broken and hairdryers looted. Even his kettle had been stolen.

 

 

 

 

In fact to prevent them commenting on it we should probably burn down their home, run over them in a car and then kick them to death.

[goDel]

Torrenting equals looting? How many places have you trashed&burned via the internet?

 

*don't know if being serious*

[awepittance]

IS there any truth to the UK government considering using a semi permanent dye cannon to mark protestors/looters so they can more easily identity them after the fact?

[chenGOD]

Ok, sarcasm aside - the point that I'm trying to make with the South Korean/Taiwanese example is that government interference in the market is not necessarily bad. Additionally, the US government interferes plenty with production and allocation of resources - one example I gave was of agricultural policy. There are of course plenty of others.

The problem with China/USSR is that they attempted to practice what is known as Import Substitution Industrialization, which basically means you try to become a self-sufficient nation. This leads to short-term gain, but then long-term failure as markets become saturated, companies become uncompetitive and corruption becomes more and more obscene. The means of production (collective farms/factories), and the sharing of revenue is not the issue (as proved by the case in Korea/Taiwan - where the government directed revenue streams appropriately). In China's case, there was a wildly inefficient allocation of resources and capital (when Mao sent the city workers to the farms, and then they used scrap metal to make iron of shitty quality) which led to their collapse. The Soviet Union was full of corruption in terms of reporting (kind of like the credit rating agencies in the mortgage crisis).

 

Finally, the idea that you have in your head about being "free" to conduct "private" enterprise is a gross misinterpretation of what actually goes on in capitalism.

you're going bread on me, you don't address the most important points.

i simply don't believe that you'd brush off collectivization that easily in any other argument, it is a big deal. im not a human nature expert but it does seem more than reasonable that people would invest more in their own than in somebody else's, state's for example, and this was an essential element of communism as we witnessed it.

i specifically chose events prior to the great leap forward where you can see gradual collectivization and an attempt to equalize people was followed by a loss of motivation and a lack of correlation between labor involved and reward. starvation began even before the official start of the great leap forward, it was just that mao thought that even further collectivization and heavy propaganda would fix things. of course you can argue that this is management's fault and a better leader would make it work as essentially communes are much easier to control. i simply believe that this system is just very susceptible to error, there are just too many ifs and too many ways for it to go wrong.

 

you can go on deconstructing what i call capitalism of the west ad infinitum, the point is a degree of financial freedom and its effects (and its effects are clearly seen in the restoration period after the great leap) not the difference between reality and rhetoric.

 

You're a fucking retard. The west's succes was not built on free markets and private property. It was built on exploitation of others and extraction of resources from colonies specifically for the benefit of the colonizing nations. China is doing the same thing in Africa today. If you think China is a free market where the government doesn't redirect revenue, I suggest you actually study these things rather than just go on generalizations and fairy tales. And yes I would brush off collectivization - for example I haven't brought it up once in regards to Israel's economy, yet kibbutzim make up something like 30% of Israel's GDP. Combine that with American subsidies and favored nation status and your idea of "free markets" (they're not free with that amoutn of subsidy) and "private property" (since the kibbutz are collectives, they're not private) as means to success disappears in a hurry.

[SR4]

Eugene, I think the problem is that you are assuming the position you are accusing chen of, that is to assume the ideology as reality.

 

The people in the Western world have benefited from what you say is the free market, yes, without a doubt.

 

But what of the people that do not live in the West? The funny thing is that Friedman (probably the most eloquent and intelligent conservative intellectual and economist Ive read) would say its exactly this kind of thinking that prevents such a true free market system from becoming a reality.

[eugene]

where exactly am accusing chengod of this ? i only say that he focuses on hammering his (seemingly faultless) knowledge of the root of success of my idea of capitalism without addressing a very clear point im making, namely a single example of failure of collectivization in china in a particular period of time, and its reverse that rejuvenated the economy. im not saying that what happened there is applicable to the whole world but to ignore it like he does is foolish. i am being very specific about this particular example without trying generalize from it, but if that's how it looks like from your chair, well i really dunno, i think my english is not that bad.

 

now regarding kibbutzim making up 30% of israeli gdp..i really hope it's a typo on your part, because presenting this nonsense knowingly is a bad sign for you, besides, kibbutzim are voluntarily, which makes a huuuge difference. you also underestimate israeli economy in general, and i am being truly objective about it.

 

i really hope i'm not the only one who sees total failure of chengod as an arguer..

[SR4]

where exactly am accusing chengod of this ? i only say that he focuses on hammering his (seemingly faultless) knowledge of the root of success of my idea of capitalism without addressing a very clear point im making, namely a single example of failure of collectivization in china in a particular period of time, and its reverse that rejuvenated the economy. im not saying that what happened there is applicable to the whole world but to ignore it like he does is foolish. i am being very specific about this particular example without trying generalize from it, but if that's how it looks like from your chair, well i really dunno, i think my english is not that bad.

 

now regarding kibbutzim making up 30% of israeli gdp..i really hope it's a typo on your part, because presenting this nonsense knowingly is a bad sign for you, besides, kibbutzim are voluntarily, which makes a huuuge difference. you also underestimate israeli economy in general, and i am being truly objective about it.

 

i really hope i'm not the only one who sees total failure of chengod as an arguer..

 

you are saying free market capitalism works, see the western world and their quality of life. We dispute this by claiming it very rarely is free market in theory, but in fact very opposed to it (Friedman's critique of imperialism), and there are too many other tenuous factors to organize into this argument...one namely being that yes, the western world's life quality increases, but at the expense of foreign populations, and the stability of their allegedly sovereign nations.

 

I don't think chen ignores your point, but I think we can all agree that the Great Leap Forward was probably one of the stupidest, idiotic policies ever conceived and implemented in human history. That said, he has already named Soviet and East Asian examples that show government interference does not necessarily equal a lesser "quality of life." In addition, the Great Leap Forward was a Maoist idea, and I think, justifiably so, you will see that Maoist ideologues have been on the decline since his death.

 

I don't know anything about the Israeli economy, so I won't challenge you there and assume what you said as valid. But don't expect anyone to believe your claimed objectivity if you cannot link to any form of hard proof.

[Guest Super lurker ultra V12]

[SR4]

that is one chubby bobbie

[Guest Gary C]

They're Simon Pegg and Nick Frost from 'Hot Fuzz'.

[lumpenprol]

I don't even understand what you guys are arguing about (re: eugene, chen, sr4). Chen and sr4 have brought up a lot of interesting ideas that nonetheless seem secondary to the central "argument" (if there is one?). Isn't eugene just saying that communism (as it has been practiced in the real world) sucks at generating prosperity when compared with capitalism (in the real world)? Can there even be a debate about this? Communism has failed or is failing in all the large states that practiced it. Who knows, capitalism may end up failing in the end too when we gobble up the earth, but by god it was a good run, lol. All the stuff about free market vs. controlled market seems to be clouding this basic point, no?

 

Incidentally I also think there is an interesting distinction to be made between prosperity and quality-of-life. Seems people tend to focus on the material quality of life, but there is a spiritual quality of life that I think most people in capitalist economies yearn for. Why? Because capitalism has turned all of us into whores in some very subtle way. Capitalism is essentially like constant pornography, it's vulgar. I think it's totally natural to dream of "money not mattering." But we get the system we deserve.

[eugene]

where exactly am accusing chengod of this ? i only say that he focuses on hammering his (seemingly faultless) knowledge of the root of success of my idea of capitalism without addressing a very clear point im making, namely a single example of failure of collectivization in china in a particular period of time, and its reverse that rejuvenated the economy. im not saying that what happened there is applicable to the whole world but to ignore it like he does is foolish. i am being very specific about this particular example without trying generalize from it, but if that's how it looks like from your chair, well i really dunno, i think my english is not that bad.

 

now regarding kibbutzim making up 30% of israeli gdp..i really hope it's a typo on your part, because presenting this nonsense knowingly is a bad sign for you, besides, kibbutzim are voluntarily, which makes a huuuge difference. you also underestimate israeli economy in general, and i am being truly objective about it.

 

i really hope i'm not the only one who sees total failure of chengod as an arguer..

 

you are saying free market capitalism works, see the western world and their quality of life. We dispute this by claiming it very rarely is free market in theory, but in fact very opposed to it (Friedman's critique of imperialism), and there are too many other tenuous factors to organize into this argument...one namely being that yes, the western world's life quality increases, but at the expense of foreign populations, and the stability of their allegedly sovereign nations.

 

I don't think chen ignores your point, but I think we can all agree that the Great Leap Forward was probably one of the stupidest, idiotic policies ever conceived and implemented in human history. That said, he has already named Soviet and East Asian examples that show government interference does not necessarily equal a lesser "quality of life." In addition, the Great Leap Forward was a Maoist idea, and I think, justifiably so, you will see that Maoist ideologues have been on the decline since his death.

 

I don't know anything about the Israeli economy, so I won't challenge you there and assume what you said as valid. But don't expect anyone to believe your claimed objectivity if you cannot link to any form of hard proof.

will it be a mistake to claim that the system(s) that defined the western bloc during the 20th century were much closer to the ideals of capitalism than to ideals of communism, to put it bluntly ?

even without having much clue about those issues, i feel that that theory about west's awesomeness because of imperialism and colonialism is not unchallenged..

 

im either going blind or there is really nothing regarding issues such as loss of private property and lack of labor and wage correlation and its effects in the last two chengod posts. you too like chengod ignore what i said exactly regarding policies LEADING to great leap forward, not the campaign itself which obviously has more than just mindless collectivization as a reason for its failure, i believe i was rather accurate there.

 

chengod brought up china's involvement in africa as a reason for chinas economic success, now the focus of my courses about china wasn't economy but im pretty sure that at least in the first decade after mao there wasn't any colonial like involvement and yet the economic growth and standard of living were increasing dramatically, as a result of deng's policies, which i think many would agree to call capitalistic minded (and no, you don't need to yell that china's system isn't free market capitalism).

 

regarding israel's economy, fair enough, but i think its better to start off from wiki than chengod's statements.

[eugene]

@lumps, the major argument was indeed something like "communism vs capitalism" but i wanted to direct chens attention to the effects of collectivization as practiced before the great leap, that was "the argument" i was referring to.

[SR4]

My argument is challenging the notion that any of these "failed states" were not even close to communist ideologically. I could just as easily claim that Nazi Germany was communist or any other nation that ever existed that at one time practiced a centralized economic model. The only exception is that those that are "communist" are called "communist" because they said they were communist.

 

Is North Korea a democratic republic? The Congo? During and after the Russian Civil War (prior to the rise of Stalin), collective communes were formed in Sibir and other areas more decentralized and farther away from the reach of the Kremlin. These communities, research attests, were incredibly functional and self-sustaining. Their downfall is that they were not highly militarized and expecting to be pincered between the Monarchists and the Bolsheviks.

 

I would say on a global or state level, communism never failed because it never existed. Not even close to existing. Anyone with even a basic understanding of Marx and Engels would know this.

 

Which is an offshoot of my main point, which you pretty much said verbatim in your sixth sentence. I think it would be far more sufficient to say that Western global hegemony has provided a better quality of life for Westerners, than non-Western hegemony has for its inhabitants...and even then, we may be witnessing the first bubbles in a damn about to burst and show the failure of the Western systems....

 

I guess my point is that this kind of hubris in that we have somehow reached an end phase (which Fukuyama even doubts nowadays) in the construction of our society, and when confronted with this impending sense of collapse, the only argument given validation is "well communist countries had it worse."

[Guest Ranky Redlof]

start a new thread about this shit plox

 

ANARCHO COMMIE REPRESENT

(ill post chomsky vids to prove my point)

[lumpenprol]

im pretty sure that at least in the first decade after mao there wasn't any colonial like involvement and yet the economic growth and standard of living were increasing dramatically, as a result of deng's policies, which i think many would agree to call capitalistic minded (and no, you don't need to yell that china's system isn't free market capitalism).

 

don't be shy, at this point I'm pretty confident in saying China is more exemplary of free-market capitalism than the west. With all the attendant complications, which will be rearing their heads shortly (and are already being felt)

 

My argument is challenging the notion that any of these "failed states" were not even close to communist ideologically. I could just as easily claim that Nazi Germany was communist or any other nation that ever existed that at one time practiced a centralized economic model. The only exception is that those that are "communist" are called "communist" because they said they were communist.

 

This is my biggest disagreement with you, sure they were as much communist as US capitalism is capitalist, why not? I read Marx and Engels in University. I also read Locke, de Tocqueville, Paine, etc. I'm not going to start arguing that just because the current state of US republican democracy doesn't quite live up to Thomas Paine's vision, we're not a Republic. Or that we don't practice some sort of "pure" capitalism. Semantics, it's close enough. Cinderella might hate the generalization, but they can't avoid being labeled an "80's hair band."

 

I think one issue is that Marx and Engel's "communism" seems quite vague. Going from memory, it's more a description of the ills of capitalism than a prescription for how to right them. So capitalism creates exploitation which is bad and some day the proles will rise up and then history will end and we'll all be in an idyllic post-history period where everyone works collectively, men and women are equal, etc. Well...ok. And you know what? Part of that just might happen - capitalism may exhaust the world's resources or cause too much class warfare, that leads to the collapse of society. But my bet is, when we shake off the rubble, we go back to...capitalism. Though hopefully with a bit more maturity. Point being, I think it's no accident that "pure" communism was never realized, because it's more like a religion than a system of government.

 

I guess my point is that this kind of hubris in that we have somehow reached an end phase (which Fukuyama even doubts nowadays) in the construction of our society, and when confronted with this impending sense of collapse, the only argument given validation is "well communist countries had it worse."

 

I agree with your sentiment of cynicism here, though I wonder how many in the west are feeling hubris at this moment? Seems most people are very worried...

[BCM]

IS there any truth to the UK government considering using a semi permanent dye cannon to mark protestors/looters so they can more easily identity them after the fact?

 

lol

[chenGOD]

Exactly - they never practiced communism. Much like the West never practiced "free market capitalism". So to say that communism vs capitalism is the crux of the argument is misleading. Collectivization does not necessarily equate with failure. As I explained before - China practiced ISI (like many of the latin american nations that claimed they were communist) - which is an obviously flawed system as it does nothing to promote competition and over-saturates the market. I'm not ignoring your point about Mao's collectivization movement - I'm saying it is not primarily communist, which I explained in an earlier post. Sure the west has a higher quality of life, but they got there not because of capitalist ideals, but rather because of slavery, exploitation of colonies, and unequal treaties. I think that's the third time I've typed this.

Economic history is very different from what is commonly believed in both the west and the east.

Capitalist and Communist systems alike are rife with corruption and abuses of power - there's nothing in that comparison. If you don't believe me - just look at Standard and Poor's (the ratings agency which just downgraded the US), Moody's and others ratings of the junk mortgage bonds in 2008.

 

yes I made a mistake in the numbers for the kibbutz - they produce something like 9% of industrial GDP and 40% of agricultural output.

 

Oh yeah and I'd like to invite you to take a look at China's growth since 1969 (when Mao was still alive).

 

Lastly go to the World Bank site: http://data.worldban...N?display=graph and look at when China's GDP per capita started to take off - that's right..in the 90s, when they were....wait for it.....beginning to exploit the fuck out of African countries (the chart holds the same if you take it in GDP current US dollars).

 

Oh and Lumpy - come on - China is not a free market state - the majority of the enterprises there are SOEs, government controls all foreign trade (through the Bank of China - which controls all the foreign currency), and there is still a large degree of directed planning. Sure there's a market - but it's hardly what you would call "free", as the hand is very much visible. China is in fact copying much of the Korean method under Park Chung Hee.

[SR4]

im pretty sure that at least in the first decade after mao there wasn't any colonial like involvement and yet the economic growth and standard of living were increasing dramatically, as a result of deng's policies, which i think many would agree to call capitalistic minded (and no, you don't need to yell that china's system isn't free market capitalism).

 

don't be shy, at this point I'm pretty confident in saying China is more exemplary of free-market capitalism than the west. With all the attendant complications, which will be rearing their heads shortly (and are already being felt)

 

My argument is challenging the notion that any of these "failed states" were not even close to communist ideologically. I could just as easily claim that Nazi Germany was communist or any other nation that ever existed that at one time practiced a centralized economic model. The only exception is that those that are "communist" are called "communist" because they said they were communist.

 

This is my biggest disagreement with you, sure they were as much communist as US capitalism is capitalist, why not? I read Marx and Engels in University. I also read Locke, de Tocqueville, Paine, etc. I'm not going to start arguing that just because the current state of US republican democracy doesn't quite live up to Thomas Paine's vision, we're not a Republic. Or that we don't practice some sort of "pure" capitalism. Semantics, it's close enough. Cinderella might hate the generalization, but they can't avoid being labeled an "80's hair band."

 

I think one issue is that Marx and Engel's "communism" seems quite vague. Going from memory, it's more a description of the ills of capitalism than a prescription for how to right them. So capitalism creates exploitation which is bad and some day the proles will rise up and then history will end and we'll all be in an idyllic post-history period where everyone works collectively, men and women are equal, etc. Well...ok. And you know what? Part of that just might happen - capitalism may exhaust the world's resources or cause too much class warfare, that leads to the collapse of society. But my bet is, when we shake off the rubble, we go back to...capitalism. Though hopefully with a bit more maturity. Point being, I think it's no accident that "pure" communism was never realized, because it's more like a religion than a system of government.

 

I guess my point is that this kind of hubris in that we have somehow reached an end phase (which Fukuyama even doubts nowadays) in the construction of our society, and when confronted with this impending sense of collapse, the only argument given validation is "well communist countries had it worse."

 

I agree with your sentiment of cynicism here, though I wonder how many in the west are feeling hubris at this moment? Seems most people are very worried...

 

 

Good reply. Ill try my best to answer these in order.

 

You are absolutely correct in your evaluation of what I said about USSR being communist, this is precisely what I am getting at. If the U.S. market economy hasn't been close to "free market" in almost a century, then why is this success referred to as free market? Because it is "freer" than centrally planned economies? How would the populations of those affected in industrializing nations assess this statement? I mean at this point we are veering off into metaphysics; if I were to agree with the premise that the Western economy is free market, I might as well start considering that tables are chairs.

 

Don't get me wrong, capitalism is an incredibly powerful structure in any form; that is the heart of what most intellectuals and economists laud most about capitalism, and that is its elasticity. It has an ability to adapt to circumstances regardless of its original ideologues. Now, the difference between this and the "reality" of communism is massive. In every single country that had a "Communist" Revolution and established a government under that ideological premise, there was little to no high-level industrial development. Marx thought the United States was the perfect blueprint for communism, not the hinterlands of Russia, where serfs used 16th Century technology in the First World War, nor was it China or Vietnam. Secondly, communism is the end stage of a highly-industrialized capitalism. That is why the two ideologies as "reality" are different. Capitalism was confronted with crisis and adapted. Communism is the end result of capitalism, so how could one possibly consider the USSR as an example of a communist country?

 

It would make more sense to me to say we are talking about policies of market imperialism (Capitalism) versus modern totalitarianism (Communism). If we agreed to those terms, I would absolutely agree with Eugene's premise. Yet he seems incapable of letting go of his free market fantasies.

 

As for the hubris line, I would say that the hubris is not necessarily with the public at large, rather it is perpetuated upon them and sublimated into them. This is done via media channels asserting America's uniqueness to the rest of the world, its vanquishing of its strongest foes, market equality for all, etc etc.....do countries in Western Europe have this same kind of saturation? I would not be surprised if the situation worsens, that this hubris will switch from desperation to religious zeal.

[lumpenprol]

Exactly - they never practiced communism. Much like the West never practiced "free market capitalism". So to say that communism vs capitalism is the crux of the argument is misleading. Collectivization does not necessarily equate with failure. As I explained before - China practiced ISI (like many of the latin american nations that claimed they were communist) - which is an obviously flawed system as it does nothing to promote competition and over-saturates the market. I'm not ignoring your point about Mao's collectivization movement - I'm saying it is not primarily communist, which I explained in an earlier post. Sure the west has a higher quality of life, but they got there not because of capitalist ideals, but rather because of slavery, exploitation of colonies, and unequal treaties. I think that's the third time I've typed this.

Economic history is very different from what is commonly believed in both the west and the east.

 

but...the exploitation the west did is also..."free market". Being rapacious and ripping off the vulnerable for their resources is free market. I mean, how do you define free market? Does it have to have a stock market and a very clear legal framework? I doubt the East India Company functioned like Google, but still it seemed to embody capitalism in some fundamental way...Free-market capitalism doesn't imply fairness or moral "good." It's brutal but it does tend to be efficient, and it can collapse, sure - eg. East India company

 

Capitalist and Communist systems alike are rife with corruption and abuses of power - there's nothing in that comparison.

 

I think nobody would disagree with you there. But isn't the main point - closed, non "free-market" economic systems (in the sense of not being exposed to the global marketplace, whether you agree with their founder's calling themselves 'communist' is sort of besides the point) suck - see for ref cuba, north korea, china before Deng - . and free-market systems do what they are intended to do, which is create wealth for either a vast swath or a select few, in varying degrees.

 

This is completely separate from a discussion of right and wrong...

[chenGOD]

That's the problem - exploitation through colonization is by no means "free market". There is a definite intervention by the government in that case.

 

Eugene brought up the bit about Maosim being open to corruption. Simply replying to one of his points.

[lumpenprol]

That is why the two ideologies as "reality" are different. Capitalism was confronted with crisis and adapted. Communism is the end result of capitalism, so how could one possibly consider the USSR as an example of a communist country?

 

But that's what I'm saying about communism being more like a religion, where the post-capitalist period is like the rapture and everyone floats up to heaven. It's like you have a guy carefully building some huge structure out of jenga blocks over the years, and another guy comes up and says "you know, some day that will collapse under its own weight, just remember I told you so." That second guy would be Marx. Dude might be right, but just being a "naysayer" is not enough - propose some alternative that is detailed, sensible, and viable. To my knowledge, Marx and Engels never did. And if capitalism ever collapses under its own weight, I'm hardly going to say "communism was right." My overall feeling is communism is less a distinct belief system (economics-wise) than it is the "anti capitalism-ism." "the means of production need to be in the hands of the people!" "vast inequalities of wealth are bad!" - well yeah, all good and valid points, but how do we actually create an alternative? Lately the Zeitgeist guys seem to be giving it a shot, you have to give them credit for trying. But from what I've heard it seems they too aren't fully taking into account human nature...(as you can probably guess, I don't think there is an alternative to capitalism, though controlling its excesses is always a good idea).

 

It would make more sense to me to say we are talking about policies of market imperialism (Capitalism) versus modern totalitarianism (Communism). If we agreed to those terms, I would absolutely agree with Eugene's premise. Yet he seems incapable of letting go of his free market fantasies.

Not sure what this means, "market imperialism" sounds like an economic system, totalitarianism sounds like a system of govt. By the way, I think before you asked something along the lines of "what would the exploited people in the 3rd world think about capitalism?" I think most of them feel the same combination of excitement at making money, and anxiety about not having enough, that the rest of us feel. It's the "capitalist MMO", and just as addictive. Have to keep gold farming...that's what I meant about the vulgarity of capitalism...it turns all of our desires into money transactions, which is truly disgusting. I think the worst by-product of capitalism is losing all our innocence, but there's no system that will help us regain it. I'm watching that happen in China in real-time and it's pretty sad, but also inevitable.

[SR4]

Exactly - they never practiced communism. Much like the West never practiced "free market capitalism". So to say that communism vs capitalism is the crux of the argument is misleading. Collectivization does not necessarily equate with failure. As I explained before - China practiced ISI (like many of the latin american nations that claimed they were communist) - which is an obviously flawed system as it does nothing to promote competition and over-saturates the market. I'm not ignoring your point about Mao's collectivization movement - I'm saying it is not primarily communist, which I explained in an earlier post. Sure the west has a higher quality of life, but they got there not because of capitalist ideals, but rather because of slavery, exploitation of colonies, and unequal treaties. I think that's the third time I've typed this.

Economic history is very different from what is commonly believed in both the west and the east.

 

but...the exploitation the west did is also..."free market". Being rapacious and ripping off the vulnerable for their resources is free market. I mean, how do you define free market? Does it have to have a stock market and a very clear legal framework? I doubt the East India Company functioned like Google, but still it seemed to embody capitalism in some fundamental way...Free-market capitalism doesn't imply fairness or moral "good." It's brutal but it does tend to be efficient, and it can collapse, sure - eg. East India company

 

Capitalist and Communist systems alike are rife with corruption and abuses of power - there's nothing in that comparison.

 

I think nobody would disagree with you there. But isn't the main point - closed, non "free-market" economic systems (in the sense of not being exposed to the global marketplace, whether you agree with their founder's calling themselves 'communist' is sort of besides the point) suck - see for ref cuba, north korea, china before Deng - . and free-market systems do what they are intended to do, which is create wealth for either a vast swath or a select few, in varying degrees.

 

This is completely separate from a discussion of right and wrong...

 

 

Smithian economics went by the wayside a long time ago (at least in terms of what economists professed): he gave way to Schumpeter, Keynes, and Friedman. The idea of Smithian economics proposing that economies compete by maximizing the resources they HAVE contrasts with HOW these resources are originally obtained..this somewhat leads to a rift and different modes of thought on accumulation and perpetuation of capital...Smith was a god in his time, but his ideas, though genius for his time, were wide open to criticism by his successors.

 

Your comparison of the East India company, unfortunately falls flat. It could be argued that the company was "free market imperialism" for perhaps a little over a century, but after the passage of the Government of India Act and others in the 19th Century, the government was planting officials into the company left and right. In fact, it could even be argued that the East India company was only allowed to exist because of the British providing the capital to the pirating vessels against the French in the Indian Ocean, and the involvement of the British military at the Battle of Plassey and others.

 

This brings up another important problem, and a major problem I find with free market philosophy espoused by Friedman. If government is to have the most minimal intervention in businesses and economics, this assumes that no delegating member of these companies has ties with the government. If that is assumed to be true, we must also assume that these individuals would then act in the interest of one side in complete independence from the other. History has proven this to be false, and to an alarming degree. This then leads to a troubling problem: How does one solve this WITHOUT the direct interference of the government?