Are you responsible for the damage your '-ism' causes?

This might be a bit batty.

I was reading about Maurice Bishop and the American invasion of Grenada in 1983 and about Marxism and the London school of Economics.

If your 'ism whether its capitalism or socialism or Marxism influenced someone who might have been young and impressionable to start a revolution in which people are killed are you just as responsible for the deaths as the person with the guns.

For the sake of argument you could be a right wing economist at a university in north America telling some poor country in south America that capitalism is the way forward or you could be a die hard Marxist sociologist in a uk university telling some one socialism is the only way, are they responsible for what their thinking has inspired people to do?

28064212

mariaalice wrote: »

This might be a bit batty.

I was reading about Maurice Bishop and the American invasion of Grenada in 1983 and about Marxism and the London school of Economics.

If your 'ism whether its capitalism or socialism or Marxism influenced someone who might have been young and impressionable to start a revolution in which people are killed are you just as responsible for the deaths as the person with the guns.

In the vast majority of cases, no. Promoting an economic system has no violent instructions in it whatsoever. If you proclaim that green is the best colour, and someone takes that as a declaration of "death to blue jumper-wearers", you are not at fault.

However, if you preach that, for example, black people are sub-human, and someone goes out and hurts a black person because they're sub-human, then of course you bear some responsibility.

That's an excellent answer I hadn't though of it like that.

AhSureTisGrand

28064212 wrote: »

In the vast majority of cases, no. Promoting an economic system has no violent instructions in it whatsoever.

Unless you're advocating class conflict, dictatorship of the proletariat and all that

ed2hands

mariaalice wrote: »

For the sake of argument you could be a right wing economist at a university in north America telling some poor country in south America that capitalism is the way forward

To use this very good example, i would say yes, the economist Milton Friedman and his Chicago boys were directly responsible for the massive poverty, suffering and death their system inflicted in South America.

Manach

I'd disagree about Milton Friedman. He was responsible for the foundations of the turnaround of Chile from a proto-Marxist failed state to one of the most dynamic economies in the region.

28064212

AhSureTisGrand wrote: »

Unless you're advocating class conflict, dictatorship of the proletariat and all that

But those aren't economic systems. If you advocate violent overthrow, results of that overthrow are partly your responsibility. If you advocate a particular system as the 'best' one, and people use violent means to attempt to achieve it, you bear no responsibility

ed2hands

Manach wrote: »

I'd disagree about Milton Friedman. He was responsible for the foundations of the turnaround of Chile from a proto-Marxist failed state to one of the most dynamic economies in the region.

I couldn't go with that analysis i'm afraid. Allende was a democratically elected socialist; proto-Marxist is hardly an accurate term. Nor is "failed state" when it had the best health and education in the region and a sound industrial base. Chile's "dynamic" economy was held up as an example of Reaganomics, but it masked the true level of hardship the country underwent under the economic shock tactics instigated by Pinochet after adopting Friedmans policies. Pinochet was forced to abandon his policies eventually, during which time the industrial sector was decimated, public assets had been plundered, unemployment had risen tenfold, and poverty and the national debt had exploded. Wealth had certainly been created in that time, but only for a small section of society at the expensive of the majority. The only winners with Friedmans policies there in the long term were the ruling elites, the wealthy sections of society, and the corporations.