Is this biased reporting?

[Occhidiangela]

How does Capitalism = violence? Because it demands war, for one. That is self-evident.
[right][snapback]93521[/snapback][/right]

In the last few pages, you have been taken to task for your flawed logic trails, and you now attempt to assert a piont as self evident. Is it any wonder your utterances are treated with disdain?

Captialism is not a system of governance, it is a model of an economic system. As an economic system, it thrives when there is no war, since war significantly raises risks and costs and diverts resources to other than commercial purposes: it hurts the bottom line.

A capitalist scheme is better off under a regime of unrestricted trade, and a series of treaties and contracts supporting that trade, with the threat of sanction to back those treaties and contracts up: sanction varying from embargo, to boycott, to threat and even on occasion force. The very nature of trade is competitive as soon as two merchants deal in the same commodity. Trade is one the universal habits of human beings across the globe, one of the few things we all have in common, be it barter or esoteric financial transactions on the Tokyo Exchange.

"Capitalism = War" (You use "Violence," a poor word choice, far too imprecise. You could tne argue that Socialism = Violence since Unions have often used strikes that turned violent to influence a negotiation.). Not hardly. War (or armed suasion) for a capitalist economic system must be a "last resort" due to the extraordinary expense of war. That is a slightly different rationale than war as a last resort under the view that war as a step backward in the progress of relations among nations.

Capitalism = violence is also false when applied in micro: a man farming his own and benefitting from the produce thereof is hardly a path to violence. He owns the means of production, and may hire some help to bring in the sheaves. He need not use violence, but rather a deal/contract, to arrange fair quid pro quo for labor and service provided. A carpenter running his own shop and providing chairs and tables to all and sundry is a capitalist, yet he need not resort to violence to ply his trade.

The practical last resort feature of war/force is based on the opportunity cost problem: resources allocated to war cannot be invested into making a buck via trade, or improving the means of production. (See the problems of the English in the age of sail in terms of keeping up their fleet over the course of two centuries.) When the risk versus reward calculus shows a positive cost benefit for the expense of war with a big payoff (calculations which are often proven wrong once the war is undertaken and fought, a habit Clausewitz commented on in some detail) that materialistic approach has sometimes led to some conflicts being resolved via war or armed force.

Peel the onion back a bit further, and you find that the competitive nature of commerce, a fundamental interaction between people, often produces conflict arising from the natural problem of competitive edge. Conflict resolution does not always yield war. Sometimes it yields a new treaty, a new deal, sometimes it yields trade pattern changes, sometimes it yields embargoes, and sometimes it has come to war as conflict resolution.

Trade does not always take place between capitalist entities, yet trade does lead sometimes to conflict. If you were to assert that commerce often leads to conflict, and conflicts require resolution, you'd be correct. Sometimes commerce leads to war, force, or violence, as a method of conflict resolution.

That logic train is not reducible to capitalism = violence.

There were trade based conflicts long before capitalism emerged as an economic model, and there was and is violence and war based on many factors that are not commercially based. Wars are fought for reasons other than commerce, all due respect given to Smedley Butler's observation that, vis a vis the Banana Wars of the early 1900's, "War is a Racket."

Your comment on Unions losing strength since the 1800's is simply wrong, as the first half of the 20th century saw Unions grow in strength and political, and social, influence throughout the industrialized world. I have watched Unions lose their power withn my lifetime, (I am 46) and my father has seen them both wax and wane over the course of his lifetime. (He's 77.)

Occhi