On Thursday, June 7, 2007 at 16:00:44 (-0700) David B. Shemano writes:
>Obviously, typing slowly didn't help. ...
Gee, you are so very, very clever.
>On this list, there is a constant criticism of "capitalism" and
>countries that are allegedly "capitalist." Many of the criticisms
>are quite cogent. However, agreeing that a criticism of capitalism
>is correct does not mean, ipso facto, that "socialism" is the answer.
Obviously.
>One does not follow from the other. Similarly, if you point out an
>insitutional problem common to capitalist countries, and I were to
>point out an example of a socialist country that suffered the same
>ill, that does not mean your argument is invalidated.
Again, obviously. But you were not saying here's a capitalist
country, here's a socialist country. You said Venezuela was, because
it was socialist, trampling on freedom. I found that
characterization, buttressed by Friedman's inanities, utterly
preposterous. Name one capitalist country that has a better record on
dissent than the TARGET of this argument (does the U.S.? I can't
believe that, after reading McChesney, among others). We have a real
live, self-professed ("revolutionary") socialist government, no
hypothesis, no fancy econometrics here. You are the one who said they
are driven to their crimes by abstract necessity. I pointed out that
this was vacuous, as all (not one, but all) do this as a matter of
course, by definition of a state. You ignored this. Not only was
your point vacuous, there is no crime to consider, as far as I can
see.
>You really seem to be confused about this. Do you really think the
>fact you can point to an example of a capitalist country that killed
>citizens and repressed freedom of speech negates a hypothesis that
>there is something inherent in revolutionary socialist institutions
>that results in the repression of freedom of speech? Is that the
>best you can do-- everybody does it, so what's the problem?
Which country suffers "the same ill"? Venezuela does not, aside from
your vacuous pseudo definition. What, exactly is the crime we are
talking about? Upholding the law? Giving license out to broaden
dissent is treated as "squashing dissent". You gave a concrete
but empty example by dragging in Venezuela. I just want evidence.
Does this supposed crime exist in the real world, or only in some
fevered right-wing ideologue's deranged mind?
>And you have to criticize poor dead Milton. If I thought you had
>read the pages of Capitalism and Freedom that I referenced, let alone
>understood them, I would ask you to explain the flaw in Milton's
>argument. But since I don't think you have any idea what his
>argument was, I won't bother.
Yes, poor Milton, who lived the good life while his buddies around the
world shed the blood of tens of thousands of dissidents while he
cheered them on and urged their support, meanwhile stabbing at
anything that smacked of concern for the poor. I have read this book,
largely worthless, and cowardly in the extreme. Friedman is an arch
crank, someone who is selective and manipulative, and I can't offhand
think of more than a handful of sentences in this book that were not
utterly loathsome.
However, I'll make this deal: as my copy of this is buried in some
unknown spot, post some quotes that you find well-supported and worth
discussing, and I will ignore his blatant hypocrisy (and support for
Pinochet, for example) and try to find whatever worth there might be
in his critique of "revolutionary socialism". I'm as keen as the next
to burst pretentious bubbles, whether they be knee-jerk free market
extremists, or so-called leaders of the people, whatever stripe.
Bill
