|
i suppose there is an alternate dimension in which that would be understood as witty, suave, but whatever....read the end of tarl's rant and you will see what i am responding to at least.
the redistribution of wealth (legal plunder in your terminology) was an adaptation to modern warfare and the requirements that put on nation-states.
it also was central to funding the entire infrastructure that neo-liberal ideology likes to exclude from its "thinking" about capitalism.
income taxations was in significant measure a response to systematic inequities generated by capitalism that far outstripped the ability of "private charities" to address and that formed a basis for political threats to the system by the early 20th century...but i suppose that these adaptations are something that you oppose, as you seem to imagine that inequities in wealth are normal and that basic freedoms only really apply to the holders of capital.
but you should at least keep in mind that yours is not the only interpretation of basic freedoms and that other understandings have been at the basis for the instituting of other forms of capitalism that have proven to be less barbaric than the american model over the course of this century.
now you have had a conservative political offensive against the other forms, and the only coherent result of it so far has been to demonstrate that the only reason more equitable variants of capitalism have emerged is out of political fear of a threat from the left.
you should maybe recall that one of the main reasons for setting up not just the un but bretton woods, the imf, nato seato, etc. were as various reactions to fascism. the understanding that motivated them was that poverty, exacerbated by problems of currency, were the causes of fascism. all these mechanisms were set up to provide transnational sources of stabilization to nation states. maybe that is what makes them all "communist"? because in trying to do other things that might make the international distrubtion of wealth a little more equitable--in the case of the un--it messes with the natural order?
sounds like ned beatty's speech in the film "network" without the satire part.
i do not understand what point you were trying to make in the second part of your last post. best i can figure it, what you are saying is a tautology. more economically powerful countries exploit their power acorss bilateral arrangements with less economically powerful ones. well obviously. but following the logic of the first part of your post, i would imagine that you would think this too is part of the "natural order" of things.
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear
it make you sick.
-kamau brathwaite
|