>Capitalism = Exploitation is a Marxist
>concept. In reality, if the
>market determines the wage/price etc.,
>then there is technically, no
>exploitation (including those making pennies
>a day, making soccer balls
>in Pakistan). Unfortunately, in reality,
>the market will leave some
>of in very, very poor
>conditions and others in very,
>very rich conditions. If you
>want capitalism, there is no
>other way about it. Of
>course, humane capitalism has been
>tried throughout the world, especially
>in Latin America and Africa.
>Unfortunately, these experiments have failed
>miserabley, and required a step
>away from true free market
>capitalism in order to even
>be attempted.

If you use a true free market economy then that disparity would not happen. In lassier faire economy the when wages/prices shift
the peoples work shift accordingly. Therefore there would never be people in total poverty, because everyone works. However there are no true lassier faire market economies, the closest one is in Hong Kong and we know how they are suffering...

>as long as you have private
>or corporate ownership of capital
>goods, by investments that are
>determined by private decision, and
>by prices, production, and the
>distribution of goods that are
>determined mainly by competition in
>a free market...you have capitalism.

That is not capitalism. If you really want to break it down your definition of capitalism is incorrect. And market econmies existed long before capitalism was defined in theory.

>The main point here, is that
>those with the most resources,
>get the most goods (ie
>the free market).

not correct. (I will attempt to break it down later)

>Your talking on a very simplistic
>micro micro level. The economic
>system has a life of
>its own. Not to mention
>how the economic system shapes
>our own ethics.

Markets grow with the demands of the people. This is why market economies work so effectively the strenght in the economy relies on the demands of the people. Everytning else is built around that demand.

>>Capitalism isn't evil by nature, evil
>>men can make it so.......
>
>It is "evil" by nature because
>it puts money above all
>other things (ie efficiency in
>economic theory) thereby necessarily leading
>to "evil" results.

No a culture puts money over everything. Again market economies are nothing new, Europeans put there cultural slant on them.

>>Take it further, economics did not
>>enslave Blacks so many years
>>ago...PEOPLE did......separate the actions of
>>man from.....from goals/concepts/resources.
>
>The economic system shaped the actions/ethics/goals
>of people/enslavers. The enslavers acted
>in a certain way because
>it profited them.

No there culture did. Slavery existed in Afrika, but never in the manner inwhich Europeans used it. Check Uta post on Walking Destruction for better illustrations on how culture can dictates actions.


>>Besides, we all know that it
>>has roots in Afrikan cultures
>>anyway.

>I thought collectivism and community were
>a large part of African
>cultures? These ideas go against
>capitalism which focuses on private
>property and competition.

Correct on the aspect of Afrikan culture. Incorrect with the definition on capitalism.

>In capitalism, there will always be
>a large group of poor
>people. Maybe you feel, as
>long as they're not Black,
>it's OK. In which case,
>I can understand your support
>of the capitalist system, because
>Blacks COULD theoretically take the
>place of another group. In
>that case you're no different
>than those who are currently
>in power and causing suffering
>on a mass scale.

That not Afrikan....