From: Michael M. Butler (butler@comp-lib.org)
Date: Fri Jun 07 2002 - 04:52:49 MDT
Isms are tricky things.
I've noticed a recent resurgence of a recurrent problem here. Malcom says
capitalism might need re-engineering, and someone else accuses him of seeking
Stalinoid megadeaths.
State-supported/state-enforced commercial oligarchies are called "capitalist",
as is the guy who started rolling an ice-cream hand truck around his
neighborhood last Friday. Are both equally good? Equally evil? Did Union
Carbide get off easy for what happened at Bhopal? What would have happened to
an individual found directly responsible for the negligent homicide of those
people? Why was Union Carbide treated differently?
I do not personally consider it inarguable that the way multinationals play
the game (even if the game is strictly defined as "maximize shareholder
value", which it isn't, always) is seriously distorted from any ideal of a
truly free market. Governments and corporations co-evolve; corporations seek
regulations that raise the bar of entry; etc., etc.
Also, it's human nature to wish for a monopoly--life would be so much easier
(for the monopolist).
Terms drift. Is "mercantilism" just fascism with dividends? I dunno.
"If they can keep you asking the wrong questions, it doesn't matter what
answers you get."
--
butler a t comp - lib . o r g
I am not here to have an argument. I am here as part of a civilization.
Sometimes I forget.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:14:38 MST