|
J Groves wrote:
"Let me eliminate one standard response to such questions: It isn't ok to
just
say capitalism causes its own share of violence. Maybe so, but that is merely the fallacy of ad hominem tu quoque." ------------
How convenient to eliminate "one standard response" that utterly destroys
the "market/capitalist" argument by simply asserting that such a response is
fallacious. Do we have to go back to one of the most basic concepts of Marx'
writings? Agree or disagree, but don't misquote Marx. When Marx (and Lenin) used
the term "dictatorship", they simply meant that ANY society that had inequality
(classes) would have to enforce that class inequality, and that such enforcement
ULTIMATELY depended on some use of force. If you resist paying a parking ticket,
you might be visited by a police officer. Resist the officer and you might
be met with force, jail, and, if you continue resisting, possibly lethal force.
So all class societies are dictatorships in that they have to rely on some use
of violence to keep from being overthrown. Marx and Lenin were just trying to be
HONEST about it -- in contrast to those who say: "Marx and Lenin believed in the
dictatorship of the proletariat, so therefore, they were for dictatorship. I
support capitalism because it is for democracy, rather than dictatorship."
Groves asks: "But can one eliminate them (meaning markets) without resort
to unacceptable amounts of violence and dictatorship?"
The reason why it is acceptable and important to discuss capitalism's
massive violence, which has killed hundreds and hundreds of millions, is because
it is quite appropriate to ask the counter question: "Is it possible to maintain
markets without resort to unacceptable amounts of violence and
dictatorship?"
In logic, it is sometimes inappropriate to answer a challenge by
challenging the challenger. That is Groves' point. But in the real world, we are
often forced to choose between alternatives within limits. And it is quite
appropriate to discuss the real-world consequences of each of the choices,
rather than trying to conveniently eliminate one side's right to critique.
Capitalism is responsible for "its share of violence." However, the
phrase "its share of violence" has a ring to it that seems to down play the
enormity, severity, and massive brutality of that violence and turn the whole
discussion into a philosphy debate so abstract as to block out the sounds of the
screams of the millions of victims.
Alan Spector
|