C. G. Estabrook wrote:

>Chomsky, 2/26/98:
>
>       Suppose we focus on "the root of the problem," not the suffering
>       and travail of innumerable human beings here and abroad, and what
>       we might try to do about it. They'll really thank us, while we are
>       contemplating our navels.
>       There is no such thing as "the root of the problem." There are
>       lots of problems, and lots of roots. "The root of the problem"
>       can't be "capitalism," because nothing remotely resembling that
>       exists, as the CATO Institute will be happy to explain
>       (correctly). Nor could it exist (as they won't explain).

Now hang on there Noam! To say that capitalism is not the root of the
problem is quite arguable, but to give as your reasoning that capitalism
does not, and cannot, exist, is simply bizarre.

I can only guess this argument is dependant on some narrow definition of
"capitalism", but the everyday meaning of words cannot be brushed aside so
casually.

My dictionary defines capitalism simply as a system under which the means
of production, etc. are mainly privately owned. This seems like a common
sense definition to me, what's your definition Noam?

So I would have to correct Noam there, capitalism is not THE root of the
problem, but it certainly can be, and IS one of the main roots.

Bill Bartlett
Bracknell Tas.

PS: Thanks a lot to C. G. Estabrook for all these great Chomsky writings,
keep them coming.