Re: Conclusions

Dear Richard:
Thanks for considering my viewpoints as rational, even if you do not share
them.

In the same spirit I should like to comment on some of the arguments of
your latest postings. In one or them you eloquently described the dramatic
and unfortunate changes, brought about by the Reagan-Thatcher revolution
and then you go on describing them as irreversible in the following paragraph:

The high water mark of Western reform, in its relationship with capitalism,
was in the postwar era -       1945-1980. During that era prosperity was
widespread, and continued good times were anticipated by most people.
Significant gains were made in regulating anti-social corporate behavior,
opening up governmental processes, and protecting the environment 

But that was not to be. In 1980 Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher led a
counter-offensive that stopped reform dead in its tracks and began driving
it into retreat in the US and UK. The Maastricht Treaty carried the
neoliberal plague across the channel to Europe, and it has since become the
dominant global doctrine. The postwar reform era survived only as long as
it remained compatible with capital growth. When growth opportunities began
to dry up, elites promptly and effectively changed the rules, beginning
with Britain and the US - so that new growth opportunities could be created.

On this I should like to make 2 comments:
1. Far from drying up, opportunities for growth increased enormously around
1980, because in this very year the personal computer burst onto the scene
and a host of new and very dynamic industries came into being.
2. The neoliberal system promoted by Reagan/Thatcher, which drives the
profit motive to it extremes, came into being, because ordinary citizens
paid no attention and allowed the influence of wealth on decisonmaking to
become all-important. This was unfortunate, BUT IS NOT IRREVERSIBLE:
3. To overcome this trend, it would be necessary to direct the energy of
the activists, who protested in Seattle, Davos and many other places into
more positive channels and to gain the adherence of the great majorities
who have suffered from the policies of the WTO; IMF; MAI etc.
I am willing to participate in discussions on the best strategies for such
a movement towards a more just and livable world, which ought to be a
REFORMED CAPITALISM; similar to the existing Scandinavian models, that have
proved their worth

You on the other hand are promoting an as yet undefined alternative,
without giving us details on the following points:
1. Who should own most means of production?
2. Who is going to save the money needed to keep them going?
3. How to distribute the income from economic activities?
4. How to promote technological innovation?

Marxists have answers for such questions and, up to a point have been able
to prove that their answers can work. Nevertheless the downfall of the
Soviet Empire proved, that their methods were no match for capitalism.

In my opinion this was due to human nature, meaning that very few people
work well and make their best efforts because of altruistic reasons.
That is why the Soviets were unable to implement the principle
FROM EVERYONE ACCORDING TO THEIR CAPACITY
TO EVERYONE ACCORDING TO THEIR NEEDS
and why they had to rely on force and repression to meet their objectives.

Regards                Paul