The Capitalism Debate!!!! - Page 5

If your fear is dependancy on capitalism you should cry now, for we are already extraordinarily dependant. So many things that seem impossible to live without : cars, TVs, computers, telephones, refrigerators, the lightbulb (and soon MP3 players) just to name a few.

The simple fact is, we are dependant upon technology and upon the capitalism which gives us the wealth to use that technology. If you don't like it, capitalism gives you the freedom to buy an eco-village.

yes you can can become a capitalist & buy your own island in the sun?
Which is one reason I don't accept the right to force anyone into capitalism or force capitalism upon anyone.
Should the right to life be contingent upon the ways of others?

When do we force capitalism on people? Perhaps South Korea? Actually you are right. We should have let North Korea liberate and reunite South Korea with the North.

Absolutely.

What of WWI or WWII or how about Iran?
I was reading the paper today & as I finished an article on Afganastan, I stopped to look at the last paragraph again.
Slick one liner saying (implying) we overran afganastan for the sake of the people there?
Still trying to white wash (justify) our actions with the notion that we are liberating the people from an oppressive government, to help them fight for independence
just as we did back in 1776?
Hey you statements indicate that you spent some time in Europe so I wonder? Did you hear about the light private plane shot down in South America with Americans aboard?
Ya some countries air force shot it down but we couldn't say to much because they were following our orders to do so.
Some Christian minister lost his wife & kids but
that's just the price of the War on Drugs, right?

Thanks for totally missing my point. Of course the US forced capitalism on countries like : France, Japan, West Germany, Italy, South Korea. In fact the use used subversive methods to insure that communists would not come to power.

I am asking you two questions :
- Today, are those countries better off because the US enforced capitalist democracy?
- Was the action therefore justified?

What of those with whom they war?
Do those people have a right to exist?
Are not they part of the voice of the people?
Should they have consideration as being human
or they the capitalist demons?

Who is "those whom they war" and please answer my questions.

Dumbteen - I think you have a different idea of what a better world is.

I think C Turtle is referring to those we killed in Vietnam and Iraq, but I would have to go further and add those soldiers we sent to die to enhane the bank accounts of a select few.

I think Capitalism controlled by government is good, or as good as the government is good. Capitalism has not yet ruled a country, but it tries and when it does and gets to loose, there is trouble.

I do not believe that Capitalism can save this world from our destruction but is the cause of. Think about what consumerism is. If consumers do not consume then capitalists don't profit. What happens when all the natural resources are consumed? We're all happy enjoying our air conditioning today, will our great grand children enjoy the same thing tomorrow?

Confucious taught that government, not capitalism could be good.

Confucious's China was defeated, practically colonized and economically dominated by Great Britain. The British Isles are a bunch of small rainy islands off the coast of Europe, China is the largest civilization in the world. How did Britain win? Industrialisation, brought on by economic (as opposed to political) freedom made Britain a superpower (a democratic one at that). Confucious? Only a backward, inward looking and despotic China.

And still both of you dodge the vital question : was forcing capitalism on France and Italy a good thing? Was killing Koreans a good thing in order to avoid communism?

Since you do not answer, I will for you. The answer is of course yes, frenchmen today are of course in the vast majority happy that the US forced them on the right path (as opposed to a soviet one). Just as South Korea is pleased that the US temporarily forced upon it an undemocratic capitalist regime, because if the US had not, they would starving under an undemocratic communist regime.

You cite the example of Vietnam, but not Korea. This to me shows the flaw in your reasoning. In both cases the USA supported undemocratic capitalist regimes to fight a communist counterpart. The only difference between Vietnam and Korea was the degree of success in military terms, not moral.

I will reiterate my question so that one of you will answer : was forcing capitalism on Korea a good thing? And if it is good, why is forcing capitalism on Vietnam a bad thing?

quote:

---

Confucious's China was defeated, practically colonized and economically dominated by Great Britain.

---

It wasn't Confucious's China, it almost was though, but he refused to raise taxes on the poor.

quote:

---

was forcing capitalism on France and Italy a good thing?

---

I did not know we did that. I know that Germany took France and we took it back.

quote:

---

Was killing Koreans a good thing in order to avoid communism?

---

I don't know a whole lot about the Korean war, I suppose I should study it.

quote:

---

will reiterate my question so that one of you will answer : was forcing capitalism on Korea a good thing? And if it is good, why is forcing capitalism on Vietnam a bad thing?

---

Origanilly Vietnam was a good thing. From what I understand it was about the same idea a Korea. They asked for help and we came in and helped. But Vietnam changed. A war machine had grown powerful and didn't want to give up that power so Vietnam was artificially extended. I'm sure you heard of hamburger hill.

Exactly, Vietnam and Korea were more or less the same. In both cases America supported undemocratic regimes to contain communism. The difference between them is that in Korea the US won the war, and although capitalism was forced upon the Koreans, no one cares because this allowed them to be rich and democratic in the long run.

People criticize Vietnam because the war was a failure, the motives were the same as in Korea (neither country has anything of value really), the only difference is that there was no victory (and therefore, no economic victory). Thus you cannot critcize the USA's morals for invading Vietnam, or at least, no more then you can criticize it for invading Korea.

" A war machine had grown powerful and didn't want to give up that power so Vietnam was artificially extended."
I think LBJ had good intentions, Nixon I'm not so sure about. In any case, I do not think it was artificially extended. It was simply that its very hard for a president to say "I'm the first to have America lose a war".

quote:

---

Exactly, Vietnam and Korea were more or less the same. In both cases America supported undemocratic regimes to contain communism.

---

Don't confuse one with the other because they did end very differently, didn't they?
Which might bring to question why?

quote:

---

Funny thing I heard that stale old Lie, We were defeated by polticians allowing us to do the job, the other nite on a televised talk with some general.

---

The people of Nam where tired of the killing,
something you could see in their eyes. The history of the region shows that they had been at war with others under the French (etc) long before we became involved;
the remote farming region is less than ideal breed ground for capitalism; {If any truely middle class was present, they were probably liveed in the urban communities}; etc

quote:

---

Thanks for totally missing my point. Of course the US forced capitalism on countries like : France, Japan, West Germany, Italy, South Korea. In fact the use used subversive methods to insure that communists would not come to power.

---

May be it is capitalist teachings but I thought Fraance and England {demaocratic monarchy?} fought their own wars of independence?
Each had choosen to form their own version of democracy?

quote:

---

I am asking you two questions : 1) Today, are those countries better off because the US enforced capitalist democracy? 2) Was the action therefore justified?

---

Well actually no, I am not in favor deciptions & lies,
nor am I in favor of any flavor of despotism!

" The history of the region shows that they had been at war with others under the French (etc) long before we became involved; "
And the Koreans had been oppressed by the Chinese, then the Russians, then the Japanese and then the Americans. Both were historically abused countries by larger countries.

"the remote farming region is less than ideal breed ground for capitalism; {If any truely middle class was present, they were probably liveed in the urban communities}; etc"
Korea was the same. Today, South Korea is industrial, North Korea backward. 50 years ago, North Korea had the factories, South Korea was the populous but overwhelmingly peasant part.

"May be it is capitalist teachings but I thought Fraance and England {demaocratic monarchy?} fought their own wars of independence?"
England wasn't fighting for its independance, it was one of the War Leaders. France? Pffft no. Granted, DeGaulle (the french leader) did lots of Great Power posturing, but really the french did very little during the war (apart from roll over after the germans got to Paris). It is true that french democracy is very different from American (the notion of a Federal state is alien, everything is very centralized). France could have easily slipped into a communist regime, one of the reasons the USA and Great Britain put up with Degaulle was because he was firmly anti-communist (not to mention popular with the french).

"Well actually no, I am not in favor deciptions & lies,
nor am I in favor of any flavor of despotism!"
Ah! So we should have left Korea decide its own fate? If the USA had let Korea the freedom of choice, it would today still be a Communist state. Openly hostile to the rest of the world with a stagnant economy and a starving people.

But they will have chosen their destiny. I don't know if it is better.

quote:

---

Ah! So we should have left Korea decide its own fate? If the USA had let Korea the freedom of choice, it would today still be a Communist state. Openly hostile to the rest of the world with a stagnant economy and a starving people.

---

Cturtle was referring to Capitalism not democracy. If you carefully read over your post you will realize that you're mixing the two.

I don't know a lot about Korea but I do know a lot about Vietnam. I grew up with it, and in my 14 years in service I've heard every story that has ever been told by a Vietnam Vet. I haven't met a single Vietnam vet who could say that Vietnam was a good war. Cturtle is correct, if it was just like Korea we wouldn't have lost. The worst story is the story in time magazine of the helicopters picking up the last of our troops from the roof of the embasy. It almost made me cry. Capitalism is responsible for that. Just like you getting capitalism and democracy mixed up, Vietnam started out being about politics and ended up being about capitalism. Though its not the same capitalists who sell us bandaids and milk, but it was born from the same idea (PROFITS).

Teen I noted that you precieve that post WWII as the point where people turned to (democracy) capitalism. But France & England revolted against the lords of their respective governments (monarchies) about the same time as the US & England formed a constitutional monarchy, right?
But in a sense I can see your point that they accepted capitalism more as result of WWII & the cold war.

quote:

---

but I wonder if there could be a capitalistic society without democracy.

---

It was brushed over previously, when the question arose as to the USA was a democracy or a capitalist republic. In Western culture the advent of an educated middle (merchant) class may be a primary factor in democracy (Ancient Greece?) as opposed to the Roman (elite) Citizenship?