Re: MD In Defense Of Socialism?

From: marco (
Date: Tue May 29 2001 - 12:27:52 BST


> What many people do not understand about the US is that
> there are many underlying "socialist" programs and
> practices integrated into this supposedly PUREST of
> capitalistic societies.

[following examples snipped]

> What makes it all work, however, is that our democracy
> allows all these systems to operate in parallel and
> the "freedom" of the market allows it to make end
> runs around the slower moving "socialist" government
> institutions.

I think it is completely obvious that a lot of programs are controlled by the government. This is IMO another evidence that to a certain extent it is moral to have few centralized plannings. As you rightly point out, the main point is that the systems has to work in parallel. I think the equations Socialism=Serial and Capitalism=Parallel is forced.

You have not talked of federal investments. Correct me if I'm wrong, but a lot of technologies have been developed thanks to military/federal researches: Internet, Aerospace industry, Laser technologies.... It seems to me that it is perfectly moral that an immense project like the Moon or Mars colonization is public. Actually, a private company (whose main goal is profit) will hardly invest trillions USD just to go to the Moon and see what's there. And it is also perfectly moral that, once the project will be no more innovative, private companies will organize , for example, touristic trips to the space (here the Russians seem to be more innovative right now!); or mining campaigns on the Moon.

This makes me think. USA is very powerful, and, in this times, a very advanced project like space colonization is necessarily public. On the other side, let's consider a very poor African country; a very advanced project, there, is to feed the children, cure AIDS, build schools, develop a market. Seen from this view point, it seems to me perfectly moral that in a poor nation welfare is driven and developed with public efforts; only in a second time it could be opened to private companies... so the public investments could go on with innovative (there) projects: electricity, telecommunications and so on.....

> Why do poor people of other countries literally
> risk death to get here? Because with less effort
> than in their native lands, they can eat better,
> have shelter almost always with electricity,
> potable water, and indoor plumbing, educate their
> children, be better protected from those who would
> subjegate them, and most importantly have the hope
> of progressing to a higher quality existence.

But you also have to admit that

a) South Americans often risk their lives to escape from nations where the American foreign politics have created and supported dictatorships. Ever heard of Allende?

b) The actual presence of low-payed poor refugees helps many American companies to keep low costs. It is to a certain extent an unfair competition to those countries (like mine) where there is a basic legal payment for workers (here it is illegal to employ someone and pay him, so to say, 1 dollar per hour; even if he signs a private deal with the company).

Roughly speaking, Capitalism does not find advantages in developing poor nations. Instead of creating there "new markets", it tends to create "new products" in the old markets.


Mail Archive -
MD Queries -

To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:01:18 BST