2023-11-21 11:34:25
Capitalism is under attack and needs someone to defend it. Under this premise, the sociologist and historian Rainer Zitelmann has adopted a task that may not be very popular: defend a system that today is associated with the problems facing humanity.
Zitelmann, aligned with historian Deirdre McCloskey, has been making a strong defense of capitalism, ensuring that it is the main cause of countries’ progress. The author is in Colombia promoting his book “In defense of the free market”, with which he seeks to dismantle the 10 common criticisms of so-called anti-capitalism.
But why do you decide to do it? Why do you defend such an unpopular system?
I committed to going to each and every country where the book is published and I see that capitalism is under attack. If you compare the 1990s, after the collapse of socialism, everyone knew that capitalism was a better system. We had Ronald Reagan, in the United States; to Margaret Thatcher; in the United Kingdom; Deng Xiaoping, in China; Even in countries like Argentina, in the 90s, we had some free market reforms, but today the situation is totally different.
What I want to say is that capitalism is under attack all over the world and, of course, I don’t have to tell you, in Latin America. Most countries are governed by socialists, even in Chile. What’s the crazy story why Chile was so successful in Latin America, because of capitalism, but they voted for a socialist?
You claim that it is the most efficient system, but is it perfect?
What is perfect? I’m going to say why I’m pro-capitalist. 200 years ago, before capitalism, 90% of the world’s population lived in extreme poverty, today it is less than 9%. This has never happened before in history, that so many people came out of poverty. This is the main reason why I defend capitalism. It is seen everywhere in the world: When you have private property and more free markets, people are better off..
Compare Chile and Venezuela. Why did Chile become such an economically successful country? For capitalism. Venezuela was one of the 20 richest countries in the world in the 70s and then they started with regulation, later, they voted for Hugo Chávez and you know what the result is.. You can see it here in Colombia. I think they have about two million refugees.
This always happens, that people leave socialism to other countries. Nobody goes from South Korea to North Korea and nobody went from West Germany to East Germany and nobody goes from Miami to Cuba. It is always the other way around and that is why I think this is a very successful system, especially in the fight against poverty.
Pierre Ancines / LR
With all these advantages, why do you think it is so unpopular among younger people?
Fortunately not for the youngest. We saw the elections in Argentina, with many young pro-capitalism people. But of course you are right in the United States and in Western Europe. I tell you what the reason is.
I spoke at the beginning of the 90s, everyone knew that socialism did not work. I have this experience. I’m old enough for this. I’m 66 now, but the new generation doesn’t have that experience. They don’t have it and, of course, they can learn about it through history books, schools or universities, but they don’t learn anything about it..
But maybe it’s not because they don’t feel that it is a system that meets their needs?
I understand but Don’t you think it’s a little crazy to sit in a Starbucks with an iPhone in your hand, using Facebook, to write a post about how bad capitalism is? To me this is a little crazy.
Should the government intervene to correct failures in the markets?
I’m not against everything, but today all over the world, we have a lot of state, a lot of state intervention. I believe that there is no pure capitalism anywhere in the world. So, in reality, there is no 100% capitalism nor 100% socialism., but I think the current problem is that the State should focus on the things in which the State is possible. For example, the safety of people. I think the state is too strong, it should be weak in the economy and it is too weak, where it should be strong. For example, I think there is a lot of crime in a country like Colombia. I think this should be the main concern of the State, that is what it should focus on and not intervene in the economy.
Is inequality the wrong priority?
I think the question is whether we focus on poverty or inequality. They are two totally different issues. I give an example: in China, in 1981, 88% of people lived in poverty, today it is less than 1%.
I was in China and I didn’t find anyone who told me: Oh, let’s go back to the time of Mao, because we were more equal. No, I think we should focus on poverty and not equality.
In successful countries there are billionaires because the reason for reducing poverty, and for making some people very rich, is the same: economic growth. The only way to fight poverty is economic growth. And if there is economic growth, some people become very rich and poverty is reduced, and this is exactly what has happened in the last decade.
Pierre Ancines / LR
Should businessmen take a more active position in defending capitalism?
Absolutely. The problem is that we don’t have enough people to defend capitalism, especially among entrepreneurs. They should do it. They should explain why entrepreneurship is important. They should participate in the debate. They should go to school or university and tell people what it’s like to be an entrepreneur, but they don’t. I think it should be the rich people who say: okay, businessmen, let’s do something to defend capitalism.
How do you analyze Javier Milei’s triumph in Argentina?
Time is the problem with Milei, maybe some of her approaches and ideas seem good to me, but Will people in Argentina be patient enough to wait years and years? I think that now in Argentina it is a slightly different approach, because Milei is not the typical right-wing politician.
Of course, they call it right-wing, but it’s more of a libertarian. The big problem is that you have to change and it is, of course, It is much more difficult to change people’s mentality than to change the law and this is a big problem. I have seen this especially in Argentina, where people want everything from the government. I think it is a big mistake on the part of pro-capitalists that they do not know how to explain their ideas well.
Can Milei’s triumph change Latin America?
It will depend on whether it is successful or not. If you have it, everyone in Latin America will be Milei, I can see a strong “Milei movement” here in Colombiabut on the other hand if it does not succeed and he fails, of course, this will not only be a problem for him, or for Argentina, but it will be a problem for the entire libertarian movement in the world.
What are the factors on which whether it will be successful or not will depend? One thing is how patient people are in Latin America, in Argentina, because, I know from history, whenever you start with economic reforms, the way he does, first things get worse for a year or two years.
In Colombia we have a president who promulgates more public investment to reactivate the economy, what do you think?
It just never worked in history. You know, I’m a historian and socialists always have only three answers. They don’t have more. The first answer is higher taxes, the next more debt, and they have a third answer: printing more money. Have you heard of any nation that was successful with printing more money, with higher taxes? No, it’s an old idea.
Pierre Ancines / LR
What advice would you give to the president or our economists?
You would never hear this: less state, more market. This is always the solution, but I think it’s not just about economists and the government, I think that what we need around the world is a change in attitude, not expecting things from the State, from the government, but expecting things from oneself and the entrepreneurial spirit..
What vision do you have about the Colombian economy?
I think that for Colombia, there is another problem, but this is something that, of course, cannot be done alone. I think they have been fighting drugs for 50 or 60 years, the United States did everything and they spent billions of dollars. And what is the effect? Zero, nothing. So it didn’t help at all and I’m in favor of legalizing.
But in this case the intervention of the State would be needed…
No, government intervention must be stopped because the government is a means of intervention to prohibit drugs.
1700573441
#Businessmen #active #position #defending #capitalism