|"But we're not talking about force here. We're talking about an entrepreneurial venture (the Grameen bank) offering the option to poor communities to embrace capitalism, and rewarding them for it. If you could find an argument that this is a forceful procedure, I would appreciate the insight."|
Hmm. Well, I don't think ze was trying to say this it was a forceful venture -- instead to say, perhaps, that a forced implementation of capitalism, while nasty, is probably a more or less "complete" implementation thereof. So, if such a "complete" implementation doesn't facilitate these services, why would we believe that banks coaxing smaller communities into capitalism would necessarily lead to these positive ends? After all, one would think that the parties pushing for capitalism in countries like Africa have more to prove than ostensibly altruistic bankers, no? Give more of their hearts to the capitalist cause with hope that benefits would trickle down to the lower classes in the end?
"Also, could you specify to what areas in Africa you are referring? And are you saying that capitalism in Africa has failed to lead to the construction of schools? Many places in Africa are run under the auspices of capitalism, but really are run by gangs. Are they not?
The latter is sort of an interesting point. This seems to me like the line of reason that ascribes any good things that happen Iraq, for instance, to the generous gift of "democracy", while the bad things are surely caused by factions and "insurgents".
One could easily turn the point around to say that it is exactly capitalism that allows things in some areas of Africa to be run by gangs, yes?