RE: Non-DOGMATIC capitalists

>UNDOGMATIC CAPITALISTS, like myself, admit hat Socialism has many excellent
>features and that the undue influence of wealth on decision-making must be
>curbed. On the other hand we cannot fail to see, that most attempts to
>create a successful Marxist Society have failed, while there are many
>democratic and capitalist countries with a reasonably happy population.

>From the world-systems perspective, the assumption that socialism has 
>failed -- as
you understand it -- is highly problematic on empirical grounds.  First of 
all, the
First World (core) socialist policies -- the welfare states of Europe and 
to a much
lesser extent, the US -- have succeeded brilliantly.  Of course, even this 
success is
a failure due to the nature of capitalism as a world-economy.  That is, you 
are
assuming that there are capitalist or socialist countries. There are not.  
States are
juridical units which are part of the larger capitalist world-system.  So, 
the
failure of the welfare state stems from its structural limitation that it 
cannot be
extended to the entire system.  If that were to happen, we'd have a 
socialist
world-system.

Capitalism as a system has hinged on, and is defined in part by, world 
inequality:
the creation of a First and Third World as areas with different 
specializations and
rates of remuneration in a thus hierarchical world-economy.

The Communist form of socialism, such as in the Soviet Union and other 
Third World
states, could not succeed because no single state can transform the entire
world-system (yet alone a Third World state) -- which is indeed a key to 
the success
and longevity of capitalism.  That is the Soviet Union could no more "catch 
up" to
the West than could India (though it is true that Russia's chances were 
better when
it was incorporated into the system).

In other words, the assumption in your argument that any country can 
achieve wealth
if it's government just pursues the right polices is mistaken and disproved
empirically by the very failure of Third World socialism.  The unequal 
structure of
the world-system has not changed in 500 or so years.   Only about 20% of its
population is wealthy, and this is precisely because the surplus of the 
entire system
accrues there because of its monopoly on technology, finance, and the means 
of force
and rule.  That leaves 80% of the population with just 20% of the pie.  And 
that is a
big reason why capitalism is a lousy system.  It has not, and cannot, live 
up to it's
promises.  Indeed, there is probably sufficient evidence to claim that this 
is among
the most unequal and destructive historical social systems ever.

Whatever you label yourself, if you support the elimination of world 
inequality, then
I think you are on the side I'm on.  But if you think that the issue is 
just a matter
changing a government here and there, then your not.

elson