Alan Spector makes a good point about being comparative and looking at context.
Capitalism is responsible for a lot of exploitation and misery in the Third
World, no doubt about it. But consider:
"Socialism" has not been successful at developing a single Third World country
to any decent level at all.
The most successful Third World countries in recent decades are capitalist,
namely, South Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Singapore. They are way ahead of
China and Cuba, and on some measures of development (such as infant mortality)
are nearly even with the core.
Even if we look at the rest of the Third World, we see that things have been
improving in many respects. For example, infant mortality is way down, and
literacy is up. Capitalist Third World countries today generally have infant
mortality rates that are lower -- in some cases much lower -- than the rate
for the US in the mid-19th century. Although Wallerstein sees capitalism as
producing absolute immiseration in the Third World, I think the evidence
supports only relative immiseration -- relative, that is, to the core.
I know, I know, to some this will sound like cheerleading for capitalism. But
it seems to me it is just facing facts, whethr we like them or not. Compared
to "actually existing socialism," capitalism wins. It may be possible to build
a system that is better than current capitalism, but so far it hasn't been
done.
Stephen Sanderson