On Mon, 26 Jan 1998, s_sanderson wrote:
> 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.
For most people in the world, state socialism, as it actually existed,
produced a world far better, on equality and quality of life measures,
than capitalism has produced. Capitalism, on the other hand, has produced
a world of misery for more people than any other social formation in
history. The death and destruction caused by capitalism out shines all
other forms of tyranny. Your statement is ideology, Stephen. It is not
factual.
> My argument is not one-sided, all in favor of capitalism.
"After carefully laying out the pros and cons of capitalism and socialism,
I was naturally led to select capitalism over socialism." The selection of
capitalism is guaranteed by the structure of the argument. This is
transparent. "Objective" balance sheets are just more effective
propaganda.
> I am certainly not saying, as would a republican, that capitaism is all
> good. Of course not.
I don't see why the claim that you aren't a Republican should help you
any; it is liberals and progressives who have been the front lines of
capitalist domination and anticommunism. It was liberal Democrats who
thwarted worker movements in Europe and Asia. It was liberal Democrats who
launched the Cold War. It was liberal Democrats who purged communists from
labor unions, governments, and the educational system. It was liberal
Democrats who perpetrated the Korean and Vietnam wars. You don't have to
be a Republican to be a cheerleader (Republicans are only a little more
vulgar, white, and well-fed).
> The critical issue involves the semiperiphery and the periphery. In the
> core it is clear that capitalism wins.
It depends on who you talk to. Has capitalism made life better for Native
Americans in the US? And if you mean core-periphery in a transnational
sense then your argument is lost anyway, since people in the core of the
periphery often live better than people in the periphery of the core. And,
given that the majority of the world's population lives outside the core,
I don't know what relevance such a claim would hold even if it were true
(a problem you seem to acknowledge).
> 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.
It is clear, at least from the facts of the 20th century, that if
peripheral or semiperipheral countries pursue state socialist development
they develop. It is also clear that if peripheral or semiperipheral
countries establish economic ties with core socialist countries they
develop and benefit from this association on average. The loss of these
beneficial relations with the fall of the socialist world system has been
damaging to state socialist countries. This is not the case in the
capitalist world system, as we know, where relations with the core may
lead to devastating effects. The jury can always be out, you know; that is
one of the tenets of scientism.
> 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.
For who? It is better to stay with capitalism than to foment revolution
everywhere? Is this your advice to Third World peoples? And what problem
was it that the bourgeois revolution did not solve? Hasn't the bourgeois
revolution generally been the problem? And how should we solve the problem
of the bourgeois revolution?
I am still amazed that somebody can brag on the "success" of capitalism in
the "core" knowing full well that that "success" is so fundamentally based
on the exploitation of the planetary masses and the biosphere.
Andy