On Thu, December 17, 1998 at 14:24:29 (-0800) Brad De Long writes: >> >>And his definition of economic development was clearly that of the >>development of capitalism. >> > >We prefer to talk about the "mixed economy," or "social democracy," or >"social-market economy," or the "political-economic arrangements that >produced the fastest generation of economic growth that the world has ever >seen." The alternatives--whether laissez-faire during the Great Depression, >Cuba in the era of the ten million ton sugar harvest, Yugoslavia under >Tito, or the Soviet Union under Brezhnev--do look rather dismal, don't they? Ah yes, "The alternatives" --- there can be no other in this Manichean world --- to US-style "democracy" (as in, say Vietnam where we installed one client regime after another, or perhaps in Chile or Indonesia, ad nauseum, take your pick) is a command economy, the Gulag. If we *really* believed in self-determination, democracy, human rights, etc., we would have aided *pro-democracy* forces, and not have turned our backs on them when they would not cater to our needs. We would have fought *with* Ho Chi Minh, we would have fought *with* the Jesuits in El Salvador, we would have fought *against* Noriega when he was doing our dirty business, we would have fought *against* Suharto when he massacred hundreds of thousands of people first in Indonesia and then in East Timor, we would not have overthrown Mossadegh in Iran and installed the Shah. >Social democracy isn't utopia, but it is a lot closer to it than the >available alternatives have been... Again, social democracy, as in Vietnam, or Indonesia, or Guatemala, or El Salvador, Chile, Iran? Why don't you address these issues, Brad? Why didn't we fight with the good guys there? Bill
