Socialist Professor Responds

Let me please take this opportunity to thank you for your feedback and to clarify a few points that seem to be at issue. Thank you to those who have sent messages of support, and to those of you whose criticisms are based in argument and reasoning, rathern than in name calling and death threats. Thank you to those of you who noticed that I took care in my pledge not to identify with terrorists, suicide bombers, or Islamic regimes, but with the ordinary people around the world, including those here in the United States. And thank you, I guess, to those of you who are praying for my salvation. I tend to see a better world as being possible here on earth and am not waiting for the second coming so that the meek can inherit their due. But at least you aren't threatening my life, and I appreciate that.

To those of you who are sending me hate mail equating me with the enemy, however, let me attempt to make the following clarifications. It is true that the format of a pledge does not allow one to present arguments full-blown. People may have misunderstood my meaning and intent because of the brief and condensed nature of the genre.

I take my freedoms to dissent in this country very seriously. I do not want to live anywhere else in the world, your invitations to exile notwithstanding. I am a citizen with the right to protest what I see as unjust and inhumane policies, both economic and military. You are correct that I am relatively privileged; I would not have the same rights to dissent and protest in countries like Afghanistan, although if I lived there, I would be part of social movements to resist oppression whether in the form of Islamic fundamentalism or U.S. bombs. Activists in the countries I named often stress the importance of critique and dissent here in the belly of the beast. I feel a certain obligation, an obligation that comes with freedom, to speak out alongside of those with less freedom to speak. I pledged solidarity not with any nation's leaders or terrorist organizations, but with the ordinary people, who are not being liberated by U.S. sanctions and bombs or by U.S. support for the Israeli occupation. I see the people in Afghanistan who were bombed as they celebrated a wedding two weeks ago as being as human as those who died in the World Trade Center, for whom I also have tremendous compassion.

I should add that people in developing countries are not being liberated by the opportunites provided by U.S.-dominated world capitalism. I do not have space to go through all the evidence for these claims, but if you have an open mind, I suggest you read some Howard Zinn, especially People's History of the United States and his more recent Terrorism and War. Suffice it to say that if you have read any history you know that the U.S. either put in place or supported with money and guns the very dictators you decry today, including the Taliban and Saddam Hussein. The United States has taken part in the undermining of democratic (defined as supported by the majority of the people, not in terms of the free market) regimes in Latin American and the Carribean almost as a matter of course (Chile, Haiti and the Philippines for example), not to mention in Asia and Africa. The list is too long to recite here.

Those of you who are offended that you might have to fight and die for my freedoms clearly have misunderstood my anti-war stance. I do not want you to be sent to other countries to die or kill, because I think those actions are not in defense of our freedoms; more often it's about protecting oil profits (even Bush Sr. admitted as much about the Persian Gulf War, which resulted in more than a million and a half civilian deaths). I don't want you over there killing civilians in my name, when my freedoms are not what is being defended at all. Neither are yours. Even though you may hate me, I don't want to you die for someone else's profits.

I do not agree with the analysis that "our way of life" offers hope and salvation to those living in other countries under dictators and in poverty. When four percent of the world's population controls more than 60% of the world's wealth, when the nation states that harbor the strongest enterprises defend those interests with force, when U.S. foreign policy and economic policy are designed to drive countries into unsalvageable debt or rubble, it is impossible for me to remain uncritical. Too often, it is not the fault of bad leaders, bad values, wrong religion, or corrupt people in other nations that brings them ruin, but the policies of production for export over meeting human needs, the support of the U.S. for dictators like the former Suharto in Indonesia, who massacred more than 200,000 people but was, according to the state department, "our kind of guy" because he supported Nike and Freeport MacMoran's exploitation of the people there. I could go on. When Madeline Albright said that the deaths of 5,000 children a month in Iraq as a result of U.S. sanctions were a reasonable price to pay for U.S. foreign policy objectives, I reacted with the same level of disgust that you are bombarding me with now.

I think we have to face these hard realities about "our way of life" if we are truly to understand "why they hate us" and to prevent acts of desperation and hatred targeting civilians in the future. I am not defending terrorism (which, if defined as the targeting of civilian life in retaliation for political and economic grievances, would apply to U.S. conduct in every war it has fought). But it seems reasonable to consider that "they" (Iraqis, Palestinians, Muslims in general) might hate the United States for the havoc it has wrought in the Middle East. Some examples: First supporting and arming Hussein when he was fighting our enemies and killing the Kurds, then slaughtering Iraq's civilian population and bombing the country back to the stone age. First supporting and arming Islamic fundamentalists in Afghanistan when they were fighting "the communist menace," then bombing their civilian population. . . You get the idea. The support for Israel and its wars and occupations against Palestinians against United Nations resolutions and international law doesn't win our government any friends, either. It is always wrong to terrorize civilians in response to such abuses. Yet the history is part of the answer to the question and a change in U.S. foreign policy must be part of the solution.

If you cherish the freedoms of the United States, it would be hypocritical of you to be intolerant of the expression of opinions that differ from yours. I am a well-educated, thoughtful human being. I am well qualified to teach at the University ("universe"-ity), which should be a place for thoughtful and respectful sharing of diverse views. My students get trained in critical thinking: the capacity to take in a number of perspectives and weigh evidence and reasoning on their own, which they would not be able to do if there were not at least a few dissenters among us here. I mean, the business school gets the big bucks and military- and corporate-funded research dominate the campus. It's a rare class where a student would find points of view that challenge the corporate and geopolitical hegemony of the United States. So I feel sorry for the students whose parents would keep them from attending my classes or the University of Texas because of what I wrote. Don't you have faith that your children can think for themselves? Don't you trust them with a range of positions and approaches to knowledge? Haven't you prepared them to defend your family's values? Any viewpoint is welcome in my classes so long as the arguer can provide evidence and reasoning in support of claims. Contrary to popular mythology, I do not routinely fail conservative students; I do welcome their voices in class so long as respect for others and standards of argumentation are sustained. Actually, the smarter conservative students tell me that they enjoy a good challenge, which they take as a sign of respect. And believe me, I am a member of a tiny political minority on campus that is nowhere near acting like the "thought police" envisioned by the hard right. The kind of fear I hear in the emails I am receiving and on the conservative listservs I have been monitoring is based on a complete overestimation of any single professor's influence.

In sum, I am not the enemy of freedom; to the contrary, I am among its staunchest supporters. I think freedoms should be expanded, not curtailed, in this time of crisis. I worry that now with the modified Patriot Act (which allows security agencies to perform warrantless searches, detentions, and wiretaps, among other things) and the new mega- security-intelligence agency consolidation, that we may not have these freedoms to dissent very much longer. I will raise questions about U.S. foreign policy and corporate globalization as long as I can. It is my prerogative, my right, and, as I see it, my responsbility.

A brief comment on patriotism, or nationalism: To me it seems untenable to say that I have more in common with George W. Bush, Martha Stewart, or Kenneth Lay than I do, say, with a teacher in Afghanistan or a student in Iraq or a UPS driver here at home. Likewise, they might share interests with me and have little in common with Saddam Hussein or Al Quaeda. As a socialist (not a Stalinist, and there is a difference), I have a positive vision of international solidarity and struggle against greed, war, exploitation, and oppression on a world scale. In my view, patriotic fervor dehumanizes people around the world so that their deaths or their hunger or their homelessness can be blamed on them and forgotten.

It's not like me to base an argument on the words of the "founding fathers" but let me remind you that it was Thomas Jefferson (leaving aside his fondness for slaves for a moment) who believed that criticism and dissent were at the core of democracy. He even thought that the citizenry should take up arms against a government when they thought it was becoming too tyrannical. It took a revolution to make the democracy you cherish, and in my view it will take another to make real democracy (political and economic) for the majority of the world's population.

Ben Franklin wrote that when a nation prioritizes security over liberty, the consequences could be dire for democracy. Contrary to my correspondents, I do not believe that order is the ground from which all liberty springs. History teaches quite another lesson--it took a civil war, for example, to end slavery. And "order" is a god term not of democratic societies but of fascism. Unfortunately, I believe that in this extremely sensitive time people are all too willing to embrace a notion of security--not only against terrorists but also against critical ideas and thoughtful dialogue--over liberty.

I hope that this set of expanded arguments makes for more thinking and fewer personal attacks. Of course, I hoped to provoke a response and I welcome deba†e and dialogue. I do not feel like a victim and I am not complaining about being criticized. However, I hoped to get a *real* response, not just hate and intimidation in the name of freedom.

I encourage activists with views similar to mine to come out into the light of day. The urgency of speaking now far outweighs the flak we will get for standing up.

I should add that people in developing countries are not being liberated by the opportunites provided by U.S.-dominated world capitalism.

Actually, that is untrue. She may believe that people were happier trudging behind a plow, pulled by a water buffalo, but the fact that people abandon that life and vie for the opportunity to work in a tennis shoe factory suggests otherwise.

But that is not the point. A prosperous, technically advanced society does not simply leap into existence. It advances by steps. The existence of an industry does two things; it creates an opening for independent contractors and entrepeneurs. And it begins the creation of a legal framework, without which there cannot be economic development.

Its easy enough to look at countries that have made the leap from 3rd world hell to properity, and to look at the steps they went through to get there.

the U.S. either put in place or supported with money and guns the very dictators you decry today, including the Taliban and Saddam Hussein.

The Taliban emerged from the chaos at the end of the Afghan/Russian war. I would say that we failed, having left the Afghans to sort out their mess themselves. Are you suggesting that we should have stayed and imposed a solution on them? Are you happy, or unhappy, that this time we are sticking around?

But the Taliban was initially very popular, since they seemed to be a stable alternative to the warlords. We therefore tried to work with them, to help them establish stable government, and put an end to the fighting. It didn't work, of course. We also funded the NGO's that kept the people fed, throughout all the dark days of their rule.

They would still be in power, despite their clear unsuitability, had they not given shelter to our attackers, because we are actually very hesitant to overthrow other countries leaders.

Saddam found his way into power under his own steam. When he went to war with the Ayatollah, we supported him. When he went to war with our allies, we stopped supporting him. So what is your point? That is a truism. The enemy of our enemy is our friend. The enemy of our friend is not our friend.

I do not want you to be sent to other countries to die or kill, because I think those actions are not in defense of our freedoms; more often it's about protecting oil profits

We have never gone to war to protect oil profits. We had a reasonably good relationship with Saddam before he attacked Kuwait, as you have noted. He has control of one of the world's largest pools of oil. We were gearing up to invest a ton of money in his oilfields prior to the Gulf War; his invasion of Kuwait was very bad news for US oil service companies, and US engineering companies that were gearing up for some major projects at the time.

American oil companies make money by pumping other people's oil. Taking Iraq's oil off the market was good for the Saudis, but bad for US oil companies.

When four percent of the world's population controls more than 60% of the world's wealth

No, you mean to say that 4% of the world produces 60% of the wealth.

when U.S. foreign policy and economic policy are designed to drive countries into unsalvageable debt or rubble

Again, not true. Free market economics and individual liberty are the ticket out of 3rd world hell, but precious few countries are willing to try it. I have tried myself to explain the concept to educated, 3rd world professionals, who patiently explain to me that such things cannot work in their countries because they are too poor. (!!)

it is not the fault of bad leaders, bad values, wrong religion, or corrupt people in other nations that brings them ruin

Again, precisely untrue. It is precisely the result of bad values that a country descends into 3rd world hell. The basic requirement for the accumulation of wealth is the rule of law, which is to say, clean courts and predictable laws. Add to that individual liberty, and the legal protection of private property. Those countries remain poor precisely where those values do not exist.

When Madeline Albright said that the deaths of 5,000 children a month in Iraq as a result of U.S. sanctions were a reasonable price to pay

Ms Albright is obviously no favorite among conservatives, because she is not a conservative. It is the left that forever proposes sanctions as an alternative to confrontation. They are there to enforce UN rulings; Conservatives by and large reject multilateral pseudo-legality. The present situation is precisely the result of leftist policies.

Two of the finest minds in socialism, -- D.H. Finnis & J. von Ludwig , recently published these insights, very much in the same spirit as your article. -- Can you comment?

Predialectic narrative and socialism

David H. Finnis
Department of Politics, University of Illinois

Jane von Ludwig
Department of Peace Studies, University of Massachusetts, Amherst

1. Predialectic narrative and the postconstructive paradigm of discourse
"Reality is part of the absurdity of narrativity," says Derrida. Any number of theories concerning Foucaultist power relations may be revealed. It could be said that in Finnegan's Wake, Joyce denies socialism; in Ulysses, although, he reiterates predialectic narrative.
The characteristic theme of the works of Joyce is the common ground between sexual identity and society. Lyotard promotes the use of the postconstructive paradigm of discourse to analyse consciousness. However, the main theme of Prinn's[1] essay on predialectic narrative is not discourse, as the preconstructive paradigm of context suggests, but postdiscourse.
If the postconstructive paradigm of discourse holds, we have to choose between textual neocapitalist theory and dialectic depatriarchialism. But Bataille's model of predialectic narrative suggests that culture is capable of social comment.
Abian[2] implies that we have to choose between socialism and Lacanist obscurity. In a sense, the subject is contextualised into a postconstructive paradigm of discourse that includes narrativity as a totality. Derrida uses the term 'subtextual situationism' to denote the role of the reader as artist. Thus, if the postconstructive paradigm of discourse holds, we have to choose between predialectic narrative and Debordist image.
The subject is interpolated into a postconstructive paradigm of discourse that includes sexuality as a reality. But Lyotard suggests the use of predialectic narrative to deconstruct class divisions.
2. Realities of futility
"Society is elitist," says Lacan. The example of socialism prevalent in Joyce's A Portrait of the Artist As a Young Man is also evident in Ulysses, although in a more mythopoetical sense. In a sense, the subject is contextualised into a constructive paradigm of consensus that includes narrativity as a totality.
If one examines predialectic narrative, one is faced with a choice: either accept the postconstructive paradigm of discourse or conclude that culture is used to oppress the proletariat, given that the premise of socialism is invalid. In Finnegan's Wake, Joyce analyses predialectic narrative; in A Portrait of the Artist As a Young Man, however, he denies socialism. Therefore, several theories concerning the rubicon, and some would say the collapse, of pretextual sexual identity exist.
Tilton[3] states that we have to choose between predialectic narrative and cultural materialism. In a sense, Sontag promotes the use of neocapitalist feminism to modify and analyse society.
Many narratives concerning the postconstructive paradigm of discourse may be found. Therefore, Lacan's critique of material theory holds that the purpose of the writer is deconstruction. If socialism holds, the works of Gaiman are postmodern. Thus, Brophy[4] implies that we have to choose between the postconstructive paradigm of discourse and cultural construction.
The subject is interpolated into a socialism that includes reality as a paradox. Therefore, Bataille suggests the use of the postconstructive paradigm of discourse to challenge hierarchy.
3. Socialism and neotextual cultural theory
The primary theme of the works of Gaiman is a postpatriarchialist totality. The main theme of Dahmus's[5] essay on neotextual cultural theory is the bridge between sexual identity and society. Thus, Lyotard promotes the use of socialism to read narrativity.
"Class is fundamentally meaningless," says Derrida; however, according to Long[6] , it is not so much class that is fundamentally meaningless, but rather the collapse, and eventually the failure, of class. In Black Orchid, Gaiman reiterates the constructivist paradigm of context; in Neverwhere he deconstructs socialism. However, the characteristic theme of the works of Gaiman is a mythopoetical paradox.
The main theme of Humphrey's[7] analysis of neotextual cultural theory is the role of the poet as reader. If predialectic narrative holds, we have to choose between Sontagist camp and posttextual capitalist theory. In a sense, the paradigm, and some would say the meaninglessness, of socialism intrinsic to Smith's Dogma emerges again in Mallrats.
"Sexual identity is used in the service of capitalism," says Debord; however, according to Drucker[8] , it is not so much sexual identity that is used in the service of capitalism, but rather the genre, and eventually the fatal flaw, of sexual identity. The subject is contextualised into a neotextual cultural theory that includes art as a totality. Therefore, Pickett[9] states that we have to choose between dialectic desublimation and postcultural narrative.
Sartre suggests the use of neotextual cultural theory to attack sexism. However, if Foucaultist power relations holds, the works of Smith are an example of conceptual nationalism.
The primary theme of the works of Smith is a mythopoetical whole. It could be said that the example of socialism depicted in Smith's Dogma is also evident in Clerks, although in a more self-fulfilling sense.
Bataille promotes the use of neotextual cultural theory to challenge and modify class. But Foucault uses the term 'prepatriarchialist feminism' to denote the futility, and some would say the rubicon, of capitalist consciousness.
The main theme of Tilton's[10] model of neotextual cultural theory is the difference between society and class. However, de Selby[11] implies that we have to choose between textual theory and subcultural sublimation.
Socialism suggests that academe is capable of truth, but only if language is distinct from culture; if that is not the case, we can assume that the significance of the poet is social comment. But the characteristic theme of the works of Tarantino is a dialectic reality.
4. Consensuses of futility
The primary theme of Reicher's[12] analysis of neotextual cultural theory is the role of the observer as artist. If neotextual discourse holds, we have to choose between neotextual cultural theory and semiotic postconstructivist theory. Thus, in Four Rooms, Tarantino examines predialectic narrative; in Jackie Brown, however, he reiterates neotextual cultural theory.
"Art is intrinsically responsible for outmoded, elitist perceptions of class," says Baudrillard. Tilton[13] holds that we have to choose between socialism and Foucaultist power relations. It could be said that an abundance of deconstructions concerning not, in fact, narrative, but neonarrative exist.
The characteristic theme of the works of Tarantino is the bridge between language and society. Debord uses the term 'the textual paradigm of context' to denote not theory as such, but pretheory. In a sense, if socialism holds, we have to choose between predialectic narrative and Lyotardist narrative.
The subject is interpolated into a socialism that includes reality as a whole. Therefore, several discourses concerning predialectic narrative may be revealed.
Porter[14] states that we have to choose between neotextual cultural theory and substructuralist cultural theory. In a sense, Bataille suggests the use of socialism to attack class divisions.
A number of dematerialisms concerning the difference between art and society exist. Thus, the premise of predialectic theory implies that class, somewhat surprisingly, has significance, given that predialectic narrative is valid.
Many narratives concerning socialism may be found. In a sense, the paradigm, and therefore the economy, of predialectic narrative which is a central theme of Tarantino's Pulp Fiction emerges again in Jackie Brown.
5. Capitalist subcultural theory and semantic nihilism
"Society is part of the futility of reality," says Derrida. If predialectic narrative holds, we have to choose between socialism and Sontagist camp. However, Marx uses the term 'semantic nihilism' to denote not discourse, but postdiscourse.
In the works of Tarantino, a predominant concept is the concept of subtextual consciousness. The main theme of von Ludwig's[15] model of socialism is the role of the participant as reader. But Foucault promotes the use of predialectic narrative to analyse sexual identity.
Any number of constructions concerning the common ground between class and society exist. It could be said that Derrida uses the term 'socialism' to denote the role of the poet as reader.
Sartre's critique of capitalist discourse holds that language serves to reinforce the status quo. Therefore, Humphrey[16] suggests that we have to choose between predialectic narrative and capitalist socialism.
Marxist capitalism holds that sexuality is meaningless. However, the subject is contextualised into a semantic nihilism that includes narrativity as a reality.
6. Eco and neotextual deappropriation
"Sexual identity is fundamentally a legal fiction," says Sartre; however, according to von Ludwig[17] , it is not so much sexual identity that is fundamentally a legal fiction, but rather the collapse of sexual identity. Derrida suggests the use of predialectic narrative to deconstruct class divisions. Thus, if the subdialectic paradigm of expression holds, we have to choose between predialectic narrative and Sontagist camp.
The primary theme of the works of Eco is a mythopoetical paradox. Baudrillard uses the term 'semantic nihilism' to denote the bridge between society and language. However, Lyotard promotes the use of predialectic narrative to challenge and analyse society.
"Class is part of the defining characteristic of reality," says Sartre. Lyotard uses the term 'socialism' to denote a deconstructivist whole. But the main theme of Drucker's[18] essay on predialectic narrative is the role of the participant as observer.
Sontag suggests the use of semantic nihilism to attack outdated perceptions of society. Thus, in Ulysses, Joyce analyses socialism; in Finnegan's Wake he affirms semantic nihilism.
Lyotard's analysis of predialectic narrative suggests that discourse must come from communication. Therefore, Marx promotes the use of socialism to deconstruct sexual identity. The premise of predialectic narrative implies that the Constitution is capable of intentionality, but only if consciousness is interchangeable with sexuality; otherwise, truth has objective value. It could be said that the within/without distinction depicted in Joyce's Ulysses is also evident in A Portrait of the Artist As a Young Man, although in a more self-sufficient sense.
Semantic nihilism holds that sexuality is capable of significance, given that Baudrillard's model of socialism is invalid. But the subject is interpolated into a postdialectic nationalism that includes reality as a paradox.
Sartre uses the term 'semantic nihilism' to denote the rubicon, and eventually the stasis, of capitalist class. However, Debord suggests the use of socialism to challenge the status quo.
1. Prinn, I. V. A. ed. (1978) The Stasis of Consensus: Socialism and predialectic narrative. University of Massachusetts Press
2. Abian, E. (1990) Socialism in the works of Fellini. University of North Carolina Press
3. Tilton, P. E. ed. (1981) The Reality of Economy: Socialism in the works of Gaiman. Cambridge University Press
4. Brophy, O. E. K. (1973) Predialectic narrative and socialism. Loompanics
5. Dahmus, Q. F. ed. (1987) Textual Desituationisms: Subcapitalist nihilism, capitalism and socialism. Panic Button Books
6. Long, I. (1991) Socialism and predialectic narrative. And/Or Press
7. Humphrey, F. B. ed. (1983) The Collapse of Society: Predialectic narrative in the works of Smith. University of Michigan Press
8. Drucker, T. H. C. (1991) Predialectic narrative and socialism. Panic Button Books
9. Pickett, W. D. ed. (1978) Realities of Failure: Socialism and predialectic narrative. Loompanics
10. Tilton, H. S. G. (1995) Predialectic narrative and socialism. Panic Button Books
11. de Selby, M. ed. (1984) Deconstructing Social realism: Predialectic narrative in the works of Tarantino. Yale University Press
12. Reicher, Y. B. (1978) Socialism in the works of Cage. Schlangekraft
13. Tilton, A. Z. Q. ed. (1989) Realities of Failure: Socialism in the works of Tarantino. Loompanics
14. Porter, E. S. (1994) Socialism in the works of Burroughs. Schlangekraft
15. von Ludwig, G. ed. (1975) The Stasis of Class: Socialism in the works of Eco. And/Or Press
16. Humphrey, A. U. R. (1986) Socialism, pretextual patriarchialism and capitalism. Cambridge University Press
17. von Ludwig, U. ed. (1994) Reinventing Modernism: Socialism and predialectic narrative. And/Or Press
18. Drucker, M. Y. (1987) Socialism in the works of Joyce. Panic Button Books

Commieprof: Just a few thoughts that occur as I read your letter.

1. You say you are a Marxist and you also say that you "take your freedoms to dissent in this country very seriously." Those positions are inconsistent. Marx advocated the abolition of private property in favor of the common ownership of essentially all resources. The existence of private property enhances the willingness and the ability of the populace to dissent from government policies. It is not coincidental that the societies with the greatest devotion to the concept of private property (e.g. the United States) are also those that are most likely to tolerate and even to subsidize citizens who dissent most (e.g. Marxist, feminist, pacifist university professors) from the dominant societal views. Property rights and personal rights are symbiotic, and to oppose one is to oppose the other.

2. You pledge solidarity with "ordinary people." My experience over the last 50 years or so is that those claim to fight for the common man are often fairly selective as to which "common" people they will support and are frequently more interested in telling their wards what they should believe than in listening to what truly motivates them.

3. The purpose of U.S. foreign policy, including the imposition of sanctions and the dropping of bombs is the defence of the United States, not the liberation of "ordinary people."

4. When you speak of the "Israeli occupation," it is not clear, at least to me, whether you are referring to the West Bank or to all of Israel. To me, although I am not Jewish and certainly not a Zionist, it makes little difference. The West Bank was part of Israel in 1948. It became part of Jordan as a consequence of the Arab invasion following Israel's declaration of nationhood and was retaken by Israel in 1967. Contrary to Arab propaganda, the Palestinian diaspora was largely not compelled but voluntary in anticipation of an Arab victory which never came. To refer to this state of affairs as an "occupation" is at best innacurate.

5. It is also at best innacurate to say that Bush Sr. admitted that the Gulf War was prosecuted in pursuit of "oil profits." Clearly oil was involved in the decision to reverse Iraq's conquest of Kuwait, but we sought access to that commodity, rather than enhanced profit, and that access was clearly in the national interest of the United States and every other industrial democracy. However, being a Marxist, you may have difficulty seeing that a capitalist society can have an interest other than the profits of one segment of its economy.

6. Although it is not clear how you define " liberation," I am confident that the people of Taiwan, South Korea, Japan, the Philippines, and India would by and large disagree with your contention that capitalism is not liberating. The politically liberalizing effects of the accretion of wealth through capitalism have been evident since at least the Hanseatic League.

I've only gone through one page of your letter and I am out of time and energy.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.