It would be nice if there were something better than capitalism, and capitalism
certainly has some serious flaws,
but my argument is simply that socialism, as it
has actually existed in the twentieth century, has not produced that something
better, and in fact in many respects has produced worse. My argument is not
one-sided, all in favor of capitalism. In Chapter 9 of my Social
Transformations I list a balance sheet of capitalism, in which I
identify some 5 or 6 deficiences of capitalism (e.g., overcommercialization of
economic life, negative impact on the environment) along with some of its
positive features (e.g., has created an extremely high standard of living, at
least in the core). I also list a balance sheet for socialism. It seems to me
that, on balance, capitalism wins. I am certainly not saying, as would a
republican, that capitaism is all good. Of course not.
The critical issue involves the semiperiphery and the periphery. In the core
it is clear that capitalism wins. Does the core produce greater
underdevelopment in the semiperiphery and periphery, or does development take
place there nonetheless? The jury is still out on that, to judge from the
latest empirical studies.
Under these circumstances, it would seem that, right now, it is bdtter to stay
with capitalism than to foment revolution. I tend to agree with Jack Goldstone
that revolutions don't solve problems, but generally ARE the problem.
Stephen Sanderson
Stephen Sanderson