From: Spudboy100@aol.com
Date: Fri Sep 29 2000 - 20:11:48 MDT
In a message dated 9/29/00 6:17:51 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
Dehede011@aol.com writes:
<< Spudboy,
It seems, after listening to you for awhile, that you are using a
somewhat unusual definition of capitalism. Can you point to any of the
classical capitalist that agree with your definition? In fact would you
mind
making an attempt to define capitalist as you use it.The people you point to
seem to be a combination of witch doctors and thugs but not capitalist at
all.
Ron H. >>
Ron, all I am doing is basically giving you the common descreiption-however
flawed of how captialism is usually described. When Adam Smith was stalking
the earth, I doubt he would have had trouble identifying slavery as being a
"capitalist" process. That is the exchange of money for goods and services,
products and commodities. In the case of slavery, it certainly was a
business, and a pathologically evil business, but a business never the less.
Capitalism by definition is the exchange, sale, barter, or payment of goods
and services, via privately-held property , in order to provide
"capitalisation" of these business processes. (pant pant) In the Soviet Union
you can rightly declaim the mass-murders, as you can in Cambodia and the
Peoples Republic of China, as the responsibility of the scoialist leadership
and their many followers. Similarly, the vicissitudes enacted bt the 3rd
Reich, or The Confederacy of America, were surely business practices--however
vile they may be.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:31:18 MST