RE: Non-DOGMATIC capitalists

I don't think you quite grasp the argument.

The world-system perspective asserts -- contra conventional Marxism and 
supporters of
capitalism (such as yourself) -- that capitalism is not a phenomenon of 
countries,
but rather that all states are political units of the capitalist 
world-system.  Cuba
nor the US are "systems", but are rather parts of this system.  That workers
movements seized power in some states did not suddenly "de-link" them from 
the system
of which they are part.  On the contrary, the very constraints of the 
system would
limit their success, even lead to collapse, as with the USSR (and hence the
deterioration of Cuba).  China is another example: by switching from 
socialistic to
capitalist policies, and by being at the right place at the right time (to 
receive
massive Japanese, US, and European capital and access to those markets) 
China has
survived, indeed, is flourishing (though with a multitude of 
contradictions).  Will
China become a core state.  No.  But, in the world game of musical chairs, 
will it
undermine the success of competing states of similar standing, e.g. Brazil. 
 It
already has.  In short, it is the entire system (along with those states 
that pursue
socialistic policies) that changes, not individual countries independently 
of each
other.

This argument is quite different from conventional Marxist arguments, 
including
Leninism, which presumed that socialism -- as a social system -- could be 
created
within a nation-state, and thus that states do or can develop 
independently, and
thus, states which pursue the right polices will "catch up" to the rich 
countries.
To reiterate, conventional Marxists don't like this argument either, so 
you're not
alone.  It's hard to face up to evidence that undermines one's most basic 
assumptions
about where and what is constitutive of a social system.

But the literature of the world-system perspective which makes this claim 
is based on
strong historical and empirical evidence.  That is why today in most 
standard
anthropology, sociology, (and some political science) textbooks, you'll 
find a
section or a chapter devoted to the world-system perspective.  It is hardly 
dogmatic.

In sum, "your" system is the same as "my" system: we both live in the same 
capitalist
world-system, which includes states that pursue socialistic policies.  
Those policies
could (had to?) succeed in the core (First World), even if they never 
resolved the
basic inequalities.  They couldn't succeed in the periphery (Third World), 
since they
simply couldn't be afforded.  The demise of capitalism (all historical 
systems arise
and decline) does not, however, guarantee a better system(s) will emerge.  
That
hinges on the success of the progressive social movements.  You, as a 
supporter of
the current system, and I (and I suspect most participants of this list), 
as an
opponent of the system, are not on the same side.   In the final analysis, 
we have
really little to argue about, unless you think you have an argument based 
on better
empirical evidence as to what constitutes the capitalist 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."
>
>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.
>
>Anthony Chase