History Greatest debate in modern history? Socialism(not Stalinism) vs Capitalism

[vici10]

There is another important reference that I just have missed.

http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/intlrel/hfa72638.000/hfa72638_0.HTM

 

[AlexES16]

Mixed economy a viable solution for third world countries?

 

[AlexES16]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_market_economy sound good.

 

[russ_watters]

The problems in Africa are not cultural. The problem that it has a lot of natural resources. And it is well known that US will support any dictator in third world country if it means profit for its corporations.

While I agree that to some extent the existing problems in Africa are due to bad colonialism from Europe and mixed-message support from Europe and the US, that doesn't have anything at all to do with what I said in my previous post and is off topic for this thread.

Why? Because even if the western world treats Africa perfectly (however that will look), there are still cultural problems that will hinder development. Even if we swoop in and crush the dictators and install democracies and then shepard them for a few years until they reach a certain level of stability (see: Iraq), it will take generations for the cultural problems to go away.

This works the same for cultural problems anywhere: in many parts of the US, the racism culture was deeply ingrained in society and legal(or at least overlooked) until the '60s. Only after the people involved in the civil rights era are dead can the issue really die completely.

 

[Sea Cow]

Because even if the western world treats Africa perfectly (however that will look), there are still cultural problems that will hinder development. Even if we swoop in and crush the dictators and install democracies and then shepard them for a few years until they reach a certain level of stability (see: Iraq), it will take generations for the cultural problems to go away.

Do you understand just how patronising and arrogant this sounds? (And either hopelessly naive or outright hypocritical.)

Even if 'we' swoop in and crush dictators etc etc.

Do you not know the recent history of your own country (assuming you're American) in setting up and supporting dictators around the world over the last half century? I could furnish you with a list if you like.

Bringing up Iraq, a country that the US and their allies have done their level best to destroy, is a sick joke in this context.

 

[Count Iblis]

The long term future is clear: Capitalism will slowly evolve into a communist system due to automization. In the future everything we need will be produced without human labor by machines. The whole system can maintain itself but it will grow out of control leading to the infamous http://www.wired.com/medtech/health/news/2004/07/64235" , unless strictly controlled.

 

[russ_watters]

Do you understand just how patronising and arrogant this sounds? (And either hopelessly naive or outright hypocritical.)

Even if 'we' swoop in and crush dictators etc etc.

Do you not know the recent history of your own country (assuming you're American) in setting up and supporting dictators around the world over the last half century? I could furnish you with a list if you like.

There is no need to furnish me with a list. I know the history of my country and what you are talking about is irrelevant to the issue of this thread and irrelevant to the point I was making. I will not permit this to become another random US-bashing thread. You've been warned: stay on topic.

 

[zomgwtf]

russ not to drag this thread further off topic but I don't think it's right for you to blame Africa's condition on internal cultural problems. I've studied African culture and ancient African cultures and I can definitely say that while they did have their fair share of cultural difficulties the majority of their problems came from Europe and friends. Most of their problems have to do directly with the greed of the 'developed nations'.

So while it IS fair to say that Africa has cultural problems that it would need to get over I have to disagree in the way you attempt to make it look as though Africa is just one big problem in the world full of difficulties that can never be corrected. Which is what I get from your post.

 

[russ_watters]

russ not to drag this thread further off topic but I don't think it's right for you to blame Africa's condition on internal cultural problems.

I did no such thing. You didn't read my post either!

I've studied African culture and ancient African cultures and I can definitely say that while they did have their fair share of cultural difficulties the majority of their problems came from Europe and friends.

Then we are in agreement!

What I said was that that they can take advantage of and prosper under democracy/capitalism like the west. It won't be easy - because of those cultural problems you acknowledge they have - but they can do it. That's it. That's all I said. Everything else being brought up here was generated by people with a chip on their shoulder about the US.

 

[Sea Cow]

What I said was that that they can take advantage of and prosper under democracy/capitalism like the west. It won't be easy - because of those cultural problems you acknowledge they have - but they can do it. That's it. That's all I said. Everything else being brought up here was generated by people with a chip on their shoulder about the US.

I don't think that is a fair characterisation at all. What I said in response to your post suggesting that somehow it was the US and the West in general's job to bring freedom to Africa was not due to a 'chip on my shoulder'. I would say exactly the same about my own country, the UK, and the poisoned legacy it has left behind in its former colonies in Africa and elsewhere. I'm new here, so I don't know the culture of the place yet, but it seems an odd way to go about things to tell someone they are dragging a thread off-topic for pulling them up directly on what they themselves have posted.

It is the west that has messed up Africa in 200 years of colonialism, shaping the various economies there to fit the needs of the 'mother country' rather than the needs of the various countries' own people. The same goes for Latin America and US intervention there.

I see optimistic signs in Bolivia, Venezuela and elsewhere that people are starting to come up with their own regionally and culturally appropriate solutions. They don't need an enlightened West to show them the way. Quite the opposite – they need real fair trade with the West and beyond that to be left alone. Just as Britain, as the former colonial master, is the last country in the world that can help Zimbabwe, so the US is the last country to be trying to sort out its former 'backyard', Latin America. Real democracy can mean the dismantling of capitalist modes of production, which have left the majority population destitute. Capitalism ≠ democracy. Pinochet was an extremist monetarist capitalist loon. In Chile and many places elsewhere, democracy was overthrown in order to preserve/impose capitalism.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

What I said in response to your post suggesting that somehow it was the US and the West in general's job to bring freedom to Africa

You might note (underscored text)...

Why? Because even if the western world treats Africa perfectly (however that will look), there are still cultural problems that will hinder development. Even if we swoop in and crush the dictators and install democracies and then shepard them for a few years until they reach a certain level of stability (see: Iraq), it will take generations for the cultural problems to go away.

He did not suggest that it is "the West's job" to do anything. He seems to theorize that what ever change in relationship between Africa and the West occurs there will still be cultural hurdles to overcome for the people of those nations. You somehow read into this that the West ought to "bring freedom" to Africa and went off on a tangent from there.

 

[AlexES16]

I don't think that is a fair characterisation at all. What I said in response to your post suggesting that somehow it was the US and the West in general's job to bring freedom to Africa was not due to a 'chip on my shoulder'. I would say exactly the same about my own country, the UK, and the poisoned legacy it has left behind in its former colonies in Africa and elsewhere. I'm new here, so I don't know the culture of the place yet, but it seems an odd way to go about things to tell someone they are dragging a thread off-topic for pulling them up directly on what they themselves have posted.

It is the west that has messed up Africa in 200 years of colonialism, shaping the various economies there to fit the needs of the 'mother country' rather than the needs of the various countries' own people. The same goes for Latin America and US intervention there.

I see optimistic signs in Bolivia, Venezuela and elsewhere that people are starting to come up with their own regionally and culturally appropriate solutions. They don't need an enlightened West to show them the way. Quite the opposite – they need real fair trade with the West and beyond that to be left alone. Just as Britain, as the former colonial master, is the last country in the world that can help Zimbabwe, so the US is the last country to be trying to sort out its former 'backyard', Latin America. Real democracy can mean the dismantling of capitalist modes of production, which have left the majority population destitute. Capitalism ≠ democracy. Pinochet was an extremist monetarist capitalist loon. In Chile and many places elsewhere, democracy was overthrown in order to preserve/impose capitalism.

I think you are right my friend. Here in my country US monopolies come and treat the left, they like to do extorsions to the country. Thanks to 80s war, the guerrila bringed democracy and freedom of expression. The ANEP that is the private sector even buyed death squads to mass murder inocent people and people that was against the right wing capitalist dictadorship. By the way the dictadorship was suported by US with millions of dollars and military equipment. But at the end the people united can't be defeated by imperialism.

 

[AlexES16]

Cuba has high human development and they have an embargo. Venezuela is improving his human development and Russia after the fall of USSR is now a mess, racism, poverty, violence. There is an increasing nostalgia for the communist times. Now this doesn't mean that the iron courtain was wrong or that dictadorship is good but looks like even the bad aplicated socialism has is advantages. Capitalism looks like it needs an abundancy of resources, imagine an alien invation or another ice age, or the light of a supernova burn the surface of planet earth. That will live millions more in hunger and i don't think capitalism has the tools to save people that is already in poor state. You talk about competition, how can a person with brain damage of years of malnutrition can compete with a guy with resources?. I find in the same level of utopia the "invisible hand of the market" and the "communist society". The importance sectors of the economy should be own by workers, water, food, health, education, heavy industry.

This sounds pretty much reasonable to me:
http://www.slp.org/res_state_htm/socialism_m_p.html

 

[AlexES16]

What about a future with nanotechnology, super nuclear reactors, robots, genetic engineering, clones, cyborgs, brain chips to make you smarter. How can you let all that withouth regulation and the hope that the "invisible hand of the market" will use it good?

History shows that capitalist are as bad as communist dictators. But Socialism has never been aplied, capitalism yes, and with horrible consecuenses.

 

[AlexES16]

So how will work capitalism in a great shortage of resources?

 

[AlexES16]

Look Venezuela they nationalilized the oil and they are building many things with. Capitalist powers are totally angry becouse of that and they strongest government ally is the USA government with such military. In the Human rights there is a part that says "Every nation is free to choose its form of government and the free determination of nations".

End the Cuban Embargo to see if its communism that have them like that.

 

[russ_watters]

I don't think that is a fair characterisation at all. What I said in response to your post suggesting that somehow it was the US and the West in general's job to bring freedom to Africa...

I happen to believe it is our responsibility, in part because of the hand we've had in causing the problems, but again, that piece of this is irrelevant. However democracy can come to Africa, Africa can be capitalist/democratic. That was my point. Yes, I suggested a way that capitalism/democracy could come to Africa and if you don't like it, fine! Maybe Africa's dictators will some day choose to hand over their countries to the people. Maybe the people will revolt. I really don't know nor do I care - for the purpose of this thread - how it could happen. The point, again, is that Africa could prosper under democracy -- but it can't happen overnight because of their cultural problems. That's it!

...was not due to a 'chip on my shoulder'.

The fact that you are still harping on a minor and irrelevant part of my post while ignoring the main point shows that that part of my post hit a sorespot for you. Get over it.

 

[Al68]

The ANEP that is the private sector even buyed death squads to mass murder inocent people and people that was against the right wing capitalist dictadorship. By the way the dictadorship was suported by US with millions of dollars and military equipment. But at the end the people united can't be defeated by imperialism.

You seem to be using a very very different definition of capitalism than commonly used. Those on this forum advocating capitalism are talking about free market capitalism, ie capitalism practiced by people voluntarily as a result of individual liberty, not a government imposed economic system at all.

No one here is advocating anything resembling a "capitalist dictatorship", or any type of capitalism imposed or organized by any government. We advocate individual liberty, and that means the freedom of each person to choose to engage in capitalism or socialism as they see fit.

The results of economic freedom are obvious: higher standard of living for middle class and poor people. The inevitable result of government controlled economies is just as obvious: Mass poverty.

 

[noblegas]

I happen to believe it is our responsibility, in part because of the hand we've had in causing the problems, but again, that piece of this is irrelevant. However democracy can come to Africa, Africa can be capitalist/democratic. That was my point. Yes, I suggested a way that capitalism/democracy could come to Africa and if you don't like it, fine! Maybe Africa's dictators will some day choose to hand over their countries to the people. Maybe the people will revolt. I really don't know nor do I care - for the purpose of this thread - how it could happen. The point, again, is that Africa could prosper under democracy -- but it can't happen overnight because of their cultural problems. That's it!

I think that a large bulk of Africa's problems are the result of western interventionism. For example, If the aid provided by western governments that is intended to be directed to assist the africans in poor living conditions did not go to the hands of the corrupt dictators who of course will not spend the money on who it was directed at, they would not remain in power. The spread of malaria could be partly blamed on the environmentalists in western countries that persuaded governments to banned the ddt vaccine that would have prevented malaria from spreaded and 40 million africans would not have unnecessarily died from malaria. Yes the problems that exist in africans stem directly from africans themselves, but western governments and western environmentalists exacerbated many of the problems in Africa

 

[Sea Cow]

No one here is advocating anything resembling a "capitalist dictatorship", or any type of capitalism imposed or organized by any government. We advocate individual liberty, and that means the freedom of each person to choose to engage in capitalism or socialism as they see fit.

What does that mean? Your freedom to do whatever you want may be impinging on another's freedom not to be acted on by those such as you behaving how they want.

Where do you stand on freedom of ownership. Should I be free to own an essential, limited resource and charge you rent to use it? That's a strange kind of freedom – the freedom to exploit and be exploited.

ETA: With such essentially social animals as humans, it makes no sense only to advocate individual liberty. The individual human can only survive as part of the group. And with the benefits gained from the group come responsibilities towards the group.

 

[mheslep]

Since mheslep demanded references, I provide some references. They show that war in Congo was mostly fueled by desire of corporations to make profit from mineral resources of Congo, that it is not about culture.


The references:

Friends in high places; Richard C. Morais, Forbes Magazine 08-10-1998
http://www.forbes.com/global/1998/0810/0109038a.html

I took a look at your first reference. It doesn't support your thesis. Yes people are attempting to make profit from mineral resources there, even through corrupt means. People also make profits from mineral resources in Canada, the US, and Australia, yet they don't have civil wars.

 

[AlexES16]

You seem to be using a very very different definition of capitalism than commonly used. Those on this forum advocating capitalism are talking about free market capitalism, ie capitalism practiced by people voluntarily as a result of individual liberty, not a government imposed economic system at all.

No one here is advocating anything resembling a "capitalist dictatorship", or any type of capitalism imposed or organized by any government. We advocate individual liberty, and that means the freedom of each person to choose to engage in capitalism or socialism as they see fit.

The results of economic freedom are obvious: higher standard of living for middle class and poor people. The inevitable result of government controlled economies is just as obvious: Mass poverty.

You mean this?

 

[Al68]

What does that mean? Your freedom to do whatever you want may be impinging on another's freedom not to be acted on by those such as you behaving how they want.

Of course no one should have the freedom to do whatever they want, only those things that don't violate the rights of others. In this context, voluntary trade of goods and services obviously doesn't violate anyone's rights. Using force or fraud clearly would, and should be illegal.

Where do you stand on freedom of ownership. Should I be free to own an essential, limited resource and charge you rent to use it?

Again, no, but the question isn't relevant to the issue, since the resources in question aren't limited. At least not in the U.S., where even unused land is plentiful.

If we were talking about some resource that was essential and limited, it might be a different story. Do you have an example?

That's a strange kind of freedom – the freedom to exploit and be exploited.

If you're using the words "freedom to exploitand be exploited" to refer to the voluntary exchange of goods and services, then it's not strange at all. "Exploiting" opportunities is how poor people escape poverty.

What is strange about recognizing that a person has ownership rights to the product of his labor, and therefore the right to sell or trade it as he sees fit?

 

[Al68]

You mean this?

Sorry, I was too lazy to watch it all. So I can only say I agree with the first two minutes of it.

 

[Sea Cow]

Those on this forum advocating capitalism are talking about free market capitalism, ie capitalism practiced by people voluntarily as a result of individual liberty, not a government imposed economic system at all.

This simply isn't true. Have a read of some literature about the labour movement in the US in the first half of the 20th century and how it was brutally and often illegally suppressed. Socialism appears to have been largely written out of US history, but up to the 1940s, it was very much there and a force among the many who worked in industry, who sold their labour in a 'market' that screwed them if they did not come together and fight collectively for better conditions.

You might also wish to consider the fairness of the price that slaves and the descendants of slaves received for their labour right up to living memory in the US, which only ceased to be a formally racist state just over 40 years ago.

Once you move away from the US and look at the position of, for instance, the Indian builders who died in their hundreds building the Burj Dubai, all for the princely sum of $5 per day, your position becomes simply ludicrous. Those who control capital impose their terms on those who have no leverage. There is nothing free about such a market.

 

[mheslep]

This simply isn't true. Have a read of some literature about the labour movement in the US in the first half of the 20th century and how it was brutally and often illegally suppressed.

Yep. It also includes brutal and often illegal coercion of labor by the union leadership. The film 'On the Waterfront' is a dramatic fictional account but reflective in many ways of reality.

You might also wish to consider the fairness of the price that slaves and the descendants of slaves received for their labour right up to living memory in the US, which only ceased to be a formally racist state just over 40 years ago.

That's an overstatement of localized Jim Crow laws.

Once you move away from the US and look at the position of, for instance, the Indian builders who died in their hundreds building the Burj Dubai, all for the princely sum of $5 per day, your position becomes simply ludicrous. Those who control capital impose their terms on those who have no leverage. There is nothing free about such a market.

In may be in those places that people are coerced by the government to work there, but that condition aside, why do they have no leverage? Were those people forced at gunpoint to work there? Why can't they go elsewhere? Who is to say that $5/day in some parts of the world is extortion? Perhaps they left 5 cents/ day elsewhere for those jobs.

 

[Sea Cow]

In may be in those places that people are coerced by the government to work there, but that condition aside, why do they have no leverage? Were those people forced at gunpoint to work there? Why can't they go elsewhere? Who is to say that $5/day in some parts of the world is extortion? Perhaps they left 5 cents/ day elsewhere for those jobs.

Are you really that naive? The have no leverage because they are poor and they have no collective organisation to represent them.

Perhaps they did leave even worse-paid jobs to go there, but the fact remains that most of the value of their labour was not paid to them. It was taken by the developers to make their millions – how? because they are the ones in control of capital, that's why. This idea that the poor would better themselves if only there were more free trade is laughable nonsense. Try looking beyond your own borders occasionally to see how other people live.

 

[Sea Cow]

That's an overstatement of localized Jim Crow laws.

Overstatement, you say?

How would you then explain to me and my wife that our marriage would have been illegal in several states of the US until the late 1960s.

That's racist, mate. Pure and simple racist laws extending across several whole states.

 

[CRGreathouse]

Perhaps they did leave even worse-paid jobs to go there, but the fact remains that most of the value of their labour was not paid to them. It was taken by the developers to make their millions – how? because they are the ones in control of capital, that's why. This idea that the poor would better themselves if only there were more free trade is laughable nonsense. Try looking beyond your own borders occasionally to see how other people live.

I have an idea. Let's boycott the companies that pay people only $5 per day! That way all the workers can go back to their $1 per day jobs.

Or maybe we can go the "fair trade" route. 90% of those formerly making $5 per day get laid off, with the remainder making $25 per day (but being 5x as productive, thanks to better machinery &c.).

It should be a simple exercise to calculate the first-order effects of these on consumers, assuming that the affected industry is small. Extra credit: calculate the effects on the workers and consumers if this happens across all industries, remembering to re-normalize the money units used.

 

[Sea Cow]

That's such an idiotic answer – sorry, your son is going to have to die because you can't afford that medicine he needs as the free market doesn't value your work highly enough.

All I ask is that millionaires should pay proper wages to those who build their homes for them. These people are screwed over for nothing. Paying a fair price for cocoa, for instance, a price that would allow poor farmers to educate at least one of their children, and so add future value to their economy, would add the equivalent of about 1 cent to the price of chocolate bars. If the workers were paid a fair wage, your shoes might cost you $1 more, that's all. Your argument doesn't stand up to close examination. Workers aren't paid terrible wages because goods would be too expensive to produce otherwise. They are paid terrible wages to increase profits by a little bit.

You seem to forget that capitalist companies do not operate for the benefit of workers or customers. They operate for the benefit of their shareholders. of capital in other words. So: the effects on workers and consumers if workers across all industries were paid a fair wage would be enormously beneficial.

 

[mheslep]

Overstatement, you say?

How would you then explain to me and my wife that our marriage would have been illegal in several states of the US until the late 1960s.

That's racist, mate. Pure and simple racist laws extending across several whole states.

You are changing the goal posts. Above you stated that the "US [...was] a formally racist state", not that "several [local] states" were formally racist, as was the case in many places in the world 50 years ago.

 

[Sea Cow]

You are changing the goal posts. Above you stated that the "US [...was] a formally racist state", not that "several [local] states" were formally racist, as was the case in many places in the world 50 years ago.

Forgive me, but if several of the states were racist, to me that makes the whole country racist. The federal government permitted, and thus condoned, it.

Which places do you have in mind as having racist laws 50 years ago?

 

[CRGreathouse]

Overstatement, you say?

I suppose this could be quantified. Find the number of marriages that had been illegal as a percentage of total marriages. Multiply this by twice the number of marriages in states where this had been illegal. This is the number of affected people.

You could go further, summing this over the years -- although this would probably overstate the effect somewhat, since I imagine the increase of such marriages has more to do with the change in culture than the change in laws (and in any case, seems to have more than nothing to do with the change in culture).

You could also take it a different direction by computing the change in welfare. Presumably, some chose to marry another (suboptimal) person, decreasing their welfare; some chose to live with the person they could not marry, losing the legal benefits of marriage; and some chose to move to a place allowing such marriages. Assuming that people chose the best course of action for themselves, and with some appropriate (Chicago-school) measure of the first case, taking the minimum of the three across some distribution of preferences for the number of affected people would give a rough estimation of the monetary equivalent of the loss suffered.

Let's say that in all cases, option #2 is best (stay with the person, but don't marry). If the number of such marriages would be about 50,000 per year (for a total of perhaps a million such marriages at any given time), and 3% of those were made illegal, and the lost legal benefits of marriage were $10,000 per year, then that's a loss of $10 billion dollars per year. Of course the societal (dead weight) loss may be less, as some of that is recouped (wrongly) by the government. But I imagine most of the loss would be real, and only a small portion would be transferred to the government in fees and taxes.

But, even assuming my calculations are reasonable, that doesn't say whether it's an overstatement or not -- it would just reduce that to a question of whether $10 billion is a lot of money.

 

[CRGreathouse]

Forgive me, but if several of the states were racist, to me that makes the whole country racist. The federal government permitted, and thus condoned, it.

You're clearly not a federalist.

What would you say if a European country had such laws, but Brussels didn't overrule it? Would that make all of the EU racist?

 

[vici10]

I took a look at your first reference. It doesn't support your thesis. Yes people are attempting to make profit from mineral resources there, even through corrupt means.

These corrupt means fueling civil war in Congo and this is what I have said. It is difficult to talk to people who live in a complete denial of the facts because of their ideology. You probably have not read Forbs article very closely, therefore I cite from it.
http://www.forbes.com/global/1998/0810/0109038a.html

Hiring a Turkish pilot to fly a Challenger 601R into rebel headquarters in Goma on Mar. 27, 1997, Boulle and an associate, Joseph Martin, gave Kabila a boost by buying diamonds produced in Kabila- captured territory.

Boulle put at Kabila's disposal AMF's Learjet and "advanced" $1 million worth of "mineral taxes" and "fees" to the guerrilla leader.

So if providing money and jet to the rebels just before their attack on the government is not fuelling the civil war, then I do not know what is.

A week before Kinshasa fell to Kabila -- and he gained U.S. recognition -- AMF flew a group of investors and analysts to meet the new Congo rebel leader in the area he controlled. On that Boulle-sponsored trip were high-powered Washington guests: Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney (Democrat, Georgia) and, from the White House, Robin Sanders, Director of African Affairs for the National Security Council. Congresswoman McKinney says she and Sanders were on a "fact-finding" mission on behalf of the U.S. government and simply hitched a ride on Boulle's plane.

In the garden of a local house Kabila talked grandly to his American visitors about the need to bring democracy and economic opportunity to the people of the Congo. "It was like meeting George Washington," says Robert Brisotti, a Wall Street investment banker flown in by AMF.

Also note the fact:

Well, not quite. Kabila's forces have been condemned by the U.N. for their role in the Hutu massacres, and as the new "president," Kabila has shown no sign of bringing anything even remotely resembling democracy to his suffering country. The best that can be said for him so far is that he and his associates are not pillaging the country Mobutu-style.

Notice what Forbes (not a commi left wing radical magazine thinks of it):

FORBES is certainly not the first to discover the intimate connection between political contributions and official favors. What makes Boulle's story possibly sinister is that he is profiting essentially from Africa's misery.

Also this is not the only trouble place that Boulle profits from:

Laurent Kabila's Democratic Republic of the Congo is not America Mineral Fields' only troubled African hunting ground. The company has been heavily involved in Angola, the former Portuguese colony that for decades was a battleground between a Soviet-backed Marxist government and Unita, a rebel force backed by the U.S. government. In 1993 the U.S. switched sides in Angola -- as it did later in the Congo -- recognizing the Marxist government. Guess who made out in the switch? Jean Boulle.

Mercenaries and mining often go together in Africa, and Boulle has ties to providers of what are believed to be military mercenaries.

So he also has connections to the mercenaries.

Here's the murky tale: Paul Beaver, a consultant to the reputable Jane's defense publications who specializes in mercenaries, says the Clinton Administration forced the Angolan government to ditch mercenaries it had been employing and replace them with groups of Washington-approved mercenaries. One such security company to emerge was a Brussels-based outfit called IDAS Belgium S.A. (International Defense & Security). The Angolan government granted a Netherlands Antilles IDAS subsidiary 50% of the diamond rights in more than 36,000 square kilometers of rebel- controlled bush. Think of it as an incentive contract: Clear out the rebels, and a share of the diamonds is yours.

Starting in May 1996, Boulle's AMF began buying the IDAS affiliate with the diamond rights, paying $2.3 million in cash and shares, plus a back-end share of profits capped at $84 million if enough diamonds are produced.

Besides Forbes articles, there are other references that I have provided. All together they provide clear picture who fuels and benefits from the civil war in Africa.

 

[Sea Cow]

You're clearly not a federalist.

What would you say if a European country had such laws, but Brussels didn't overrule it? Would that make all of the EU racist?

Ok, I take the point that in the US, the concept of the country is different as different states have different laws. However, since racist laws did exist in the US until the 1960s, you certainly could not say that the US as a collective entity was not racist. In the same way, if some European countries had racist laws, you would not be able to say that the EU was not racist. Of course, the EU does in fact have a court of human rights that covers such things as racial discrimination in great detail. There may be various levels of racism in different parts of Europe, but there are no racist laws, and the EU would not permit membership to any country that did have racist laws. There is a fight on at the moment in Italy against Berlusconi's attempts to introduce laws that discriminate against the Roma, but even these disgusting laws are not framed in explicitly racist terms.

 

[mheslep]

These corrupt means fueling civil war in Congo and this is what I have said.

No that is not what you have said, which was:

The problems in Africa are not cultural. [...]

Listing reference after reference about mineral hunters in the Congo does not support your thesis. I'll grant that this is a difficult thesis to support (most negatives are), but I won't go along with a change from subject A to subject B that along the way purports to prove A.

 

[mheslep]

[...] Of course, the EU does in fact have a court of human rights that covers such things as racial discrimination in great detail. ...

Not fifty years ago they didn't.

 

[CRGreathouse]

There is a fight on at the moment in Italy against Berlusconi's attempts to introduce laws that discriminate against the Roma, but even these disgusting laws are not framed in explicitly racist terms.

Compare the poll taxes in the US. They weren't [generally] explicitly racist, but were [generally] designed specifically for racist ends.

 

[Sea Cow]

Not fifty years ago they didn't.

So what?

In any case, I'm not here defending the EU or anyone else for that matter. The UK has never had racist laws, but it was not until the 1970s that anti-racist laws were introduced and before that, discrimination in such things as housing and jobs was widespread.

I'm also not condemning the US for ever for its past, but it remains true that a great many of the descendants of slaves in the US are still at the bottom of the pile economically. The free market has been anything but fair to them over the generations.

If you start your life at the bottom, it is more than likely that you'll end it there too, no matter how hard you work – escaping poverty requires more than just work, it also requires luck. And there are reasons some people are born at the top and others at the bottom. They're not nice reasons, either – and that doesn't just go for the US, in case you think I'm just US-bashing again.

 

[CRGreathouse]

I'm also not condemning the US for ever for its past, but it remains true that a great many of the descendants of slaves in the US are still at the bottom of the pile economically. The free market has been anything but fair to them over the generations.

It's a complex issue. Correlation isn't causation, and it is by no means clear that a system other than the free market would have been more beneficial, either in relative or absolute terms. I know of many cases where an *intermediate* result ('free' but heavily taxed or regulated markets) have had disproportionately bad results for blacks in the US. My guess is that, in absolute terms, they would do best in a free market, and that they would do best, in relative terms, in a socialist society.

 

[vici10]

mheslep, if by culture you mean the culture of the West to habitually break humanitarian laws to make outrageous amounts of profit (sociopathic kleptomania) as these articles show then you are of course correct. Your continued statements supporting your position has reminded me of a comment made by Mahatma Gahndi. When asked what he thought of western civilization, he replied,"I think it would be a good thing."

 

[CRGreathouse]

mheslep, if by culture you mean

I wasn't able to find a post my mheslep on this thread mentioning "culture". Quote?

Otherwise, it will be very hard to determine what was meant by the reference to "culture".

 

[mheslep]

So what?

I read your above statements as comparison between the US of fifty years ago and today's EU. Otherwise why mention them that way in adjoining sentences.

In any case, I'm not here defending the EU or anyone else for that matter. The UK has never had racist laws, but it was not until the 1970s that anti-racist laws were introduced and before that, discrimination in such things as housing and jobs was widespread.

Never? That wipes out a good bit of readily available UK history. Even the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_Abolition_Act_1833" act officially sanctioned some remaining slavery directly under UK control, not to mention what was on the books centuries beforehand.

I'm also not condemning the US for ever for its past, but it remains true that a great many of the descendants of slaves in the US are still at the bottom of the pile economically. The free market has been anything but fair to them over the generations.

Better in the US than elsewhere, for the most part, as President Obama has stated numerous times, or as I expect, say, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magic_Johnson" would say (net worth $0.7 billion). As for those that are chronically at the bottom, I point first to government programs that provide incentive for them to stay there such as welfare and the war on drugs, not flaws in the free market.

If you start your life at the bottom, it is more than likely that you'll end it there too, no matter how hard you work – escaping poverty requires more than just work, it also requires luck. And there are reasons some people are born at the top and others at the bottom. [...]

Ok, though I'd add that mainly escaping poverty requires opportunity. So far free market capitalism, flaws and all, seems to be far and away the best at providing opportunity.

 

[Sea Cow]

Never? That wipes out a good bit of readily available UK history. Even the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_Abolition_Act_1833" act officially sanctioned some remaining slavery directly under UK control, not to mention what was on the books centuries beforehand.

In the UK there have never been racist laws. The British Empire was fearfully racist – it produced South Africa, after all – so much so that the people on the receiving end of that racism would sometimes try to seek redress in the UK.

But I'm not defending the UK as a bastion of racial equality. It isn't and hasn't been historically – the British were bollock-deep in the North Atlantic slave trade.

 

[mheslep]

mheslep, if by culture you mean the culture of the West to habitually break humanitarian laws to make outrageous amounts of profit (sociopathic kleptomania) as these articles show then you are of course correct. Your continued statements supporting your position [...]

My only 'position' is that you are not supporting yours.

 

[Sea Cow]

As for those that are chronically at the bottom, I point first to government programs that provide incentive for them to stay there such as welfare and the war on drugs, .

War on drugs, certainly, but blaming continued poverty on welfare is bizarre. The countries with the least inequality, in which the poorest have the highest standard of living in absolute terms anywhere in the world, are the high-tax, high levels of social provision and welfare Scandinavian countries.

 

[CRGreathouse]

The countries with the least inequality, in which the poorest have the highest standard of living in absolute terms anywhere in the world, are the high-tax, high levels of social provision and welfare Scandinavian countries.

Which way does the arrow of causation point? It would be easy to imagine that wealthy countries can afford more welfare.

The 'right' amount of welfare, and how to properly design a system to encourage people to work, seems a quite difficult question to me.

 

[mheslep]

In the UK there have never been racist laws. The British Empire was fearfully racist – it produced South Africa, after all – so much so that the people on the receiving end of that racism would sometimes try to seek redress in the UK.

But I'm not defending the UK as a bastion of racial equality. It isn't and hasn't been historically – the British were bollock-deep in the North Atlantic slave trade.

OK let's just use common definitions. The UK first came into existence in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acts_of_Union_1707" , under what would historically be called the British Empire.

 

[Sea Cow]

Which way does the arrow of causation point? It would be easy to imagine that wealthy countries can afford more welfare.

The US is a very wealthy country. But it is a very wealthy country with a very large gap between richest and poorest. Why, and what are the social consequences? How is inequality related to the enormous numbers of people that the US locks up? To put that in context, the UK, to its shame, locks up a higher percentage of its citizens than any other EU country. The US locks up about 5 time more people as a percentage than the UK.

These are the questions I'd be addressing. A more equal society is a healthier, happier, more peaceful society.