capitalism & massacres

[Charu datt <charu@ix.netcom.com>]

Sanjeev Sabhlok wrote:

> Capitalism maximizes human liberty. Show me massacres (apart from the
> brutal treatment of slaves) in capitalist societies.
>

Evidently capitalism is very efficient, at least at operating propaganda
machines.You want a listing of massacres? Well since you ask .....

Let's see, there was the Spanish invasion of the Americas, even a cursory
reading of history will show you the brutality of the massacres. Standard
operating procedure was to land, burn everthing in sight, kill as many
people as
possible and look for gold. There is Columbus's landing in Salvador and the
"capitalist, free enterprise" activity that followed very well documented
by the
jesuit priest des las Casas. Briefly, Columbus required every male to turn
in a
certain amount of gold per month, failure to do so resulted in having a
hand
chopped off. Women were sent back to Europe to be sold as slaves to offset
operating expenses. Within 50 years the native peoples of what is now Hiati
&
the Dominican Republic, the Arawaks, ceased to exist. Then there is the
massacre
of the native peoples of North America. If you have trouble looking this
up,
search for the term "Manifest Destiny". That's what the genocide was
termed. I
might add that much of the genocide was accomplished by free enterprise:
the
governement offered a bounty of of $5 for a head and 50 cents for a scalp
of a
native person. In 1820 the state of California paid out over a million
dollars
in bounties. I'm sure such encouragement of individiual enterprise, as
opposed
to the state organized  extermination by the German National Socialists in
the
1930's and 40s, will warm the cockles of Sanjeev's capitalist's heart.

Ok, Ok, so you'll say that was ancient history, last century, bygone. Well
consider this: American bombing of North Korea caused over 2 million
civilian
casualties. Still too ancient? OK, moving right along, In Indochina
[Vietnam,
Laos, Cambodia], US financed, and later directly conducted war that was
directly
responsible for the deaths of between 4 and 10 million people. the
motivation
was clearly stated in state depatment  briefings and well summarized in the
pentagon papers: these countries were to serve as sources of raw materials
and
markets for western capital. the South Vietnamese countryside was bombed
extensively because the entire population was seen as "communist", and the
country was under "threat of aggression" by its own people. Read: they
wanted to
benefit from their own resources.

OK, so you might argue this is a faraway and obscure land. Well,
conveniently
for Sanjeev, not too far away from LA are the countries of Nicaragua, El
Salvador, Guatemala, Panama, and Honduras. I won't describe the genocide in
each
one but here's a representative sample. During the early eighties El
Salvador
was bombed at the rate of 200 tons of bombs per month. The reason was that
the
local populace was in insurgency wanting the basics of life and this
threatened
US capital investments in the wealth controlled by the very small wealthy
minority. Another shining defender of capitalism was in the Guatemala. An
army
officer, Victor Gramajo, came up with the brilliant 70-30 rule which he
explained when he was awarded an advanced degree by Harvard's Kennedy
School of
Government: Earlier, for capital to operate freely in the villages of
Guatemala,
it was necessary to kill 100% of the inhabitants. Gramajo, came up with the
doctrine that if only 70% were killed, the remaining 30% would obediently
serve
the needs of capital- and he implemented this policy with great success.
Rather
fitting that this happened at the Kennedy School, considering that the
genocidal
terror networks in Central America were at least partly setup under the
Kennedy
regime.

> Capitalism maximizes fraternity. The major cause of wars in the world in
> the 20th century has been the great urge of communists and socialists to
> impose their stupid ideas on others. They are not satisfied by
> massacring their own people. They want to kill others too. They do not
> believe in discussion and debate. This thing that I am doing here is
> capitalist. If I were a communist I would adopt secretive methods, form
> a gun-toting group, and threaten your life if you spoke against me. That
> is what the "Scientific Socilists" called ULFA, in Assam, do.

No doubt then, that that the death squads in Central America that murder
priests, nuns, journalists, opposition politicians, or even groups of
villagers
who try to hold meetings to discuss their problems, and bomb newspaper
offices
and burn crops must be socialist. So why does the CIA train and fund these
"socialists"? Someone in Langley really messed up.

> I rest my case, and also my painful fingers. These attempts to change
> the meaning of words into OPPOSITE meanings cannot go unchallenged.
>
> Sanjeev

Sorry, you'll have to make a much better case than that.

-Charu


----------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is a posting to India_Policy Discussion list:  debate@indiapolicy.org
Rules, Procedures, Archives:            http://www.indiapolicy.org/debate/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------