RE: Non-DOGMATIC capitalists

"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."

This, fyi, is the definition of dogmatism. The failure of "my" system proves
it was "your" system that was at fault. Talk about your circular logic. And,
funnily enough, when it was convenient, just a short while ago we were
hearing how wonderful the Cuban economy was - I suppose somehow, by this
bassackward logic, its asserted successes prove the success of the global
capitalist model. That is another  example of dogmatic argumentation.
Spinning the same facts to make different arguments, depending on what best
suits one's dogma, rather than simply taking a critical perspective. What is
dogmatic, in short, is that it is easily predictable what each and every
self-described Marxist is going argue on a particular situation, or at least
I have found it to be the case, and recent debates here certainly affirm
that.

To the contrary, however, in the Cuban debate recently, it was shown that
this dogmatism does not have to be the case. Many assumed that because I was
critical of Castro's human rights record I was not critical of the U.S.'s
human rights record. They were wrong. Neither excuses the other and
comparing one to the other is irrelevant. Many assumed that because I was
critical of Castro's human rights record I was a right wing Miami extremist,
or so I seem to recall being told. This is why dogmatists love each other,
they fulfill each other's stereotypes. What they hate is those who take an
equally critical position and can both be aware of the injustices of
Castro's Cuba and those of the U.S.. When one is a dogmatist one holds one
side outside of a critical perspective, and reserves all criticism for one's
supposed enemy. That's fine for Yankee and Red Sox fans. For serious
intellectuals it's flat-out silly.

Anthony Chase


-----Original Message-----
From:   owner-wsn@csf.colorado.edu [mailto:owner-wsn@csf.colorado.edu] On
Behalf Of Elson
Sent:   Thursday, January 20, 2000 7:23 PM
To:     WORLD SYSTEMS NETWORK
Subject:        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