RE: understanding Ed

Randy I agree. Ed began by making a 'criticism' of the globalisation of
capital:

>...this had me wondering whether the sorry state of the world could indeed
be
>attributed to a particular source - the owners of capital.  It would seem
>that two words, "capital" and "capitalism", have become synonyms for all of
>the evils of the world...

Though I think this is in fact an excerpt from the mailing list message to
which he refers to? As for the 'Third World' (I hate that term as well as
'developing country'), he 'asserts' that capital:

>...must surely be playing a role in the falling water tables of densely
populated >third world countries, the pollution from automobiles in densely
populated >cities...

though this is obviously 'tongue in cheek' as Ed then offers that
capital(ism) actually offers salvation from the aforementioned problems.

>...It provides the water pumps that drain the water tables, the cars and
buses that >provide the transportation, and the hoes and other equipment
needed for subsistence >agriculture...

That is a bit like seeking a remedy for a melanoma, when one would have been
better off listening to advice and staying out of the sun in the first
place.

>...but, surely, if rich world people were aware of this they would stop
drinking >coffee and stop eating hamburgers.  Wouldn't they?...

Well no Ed, they wouldn't and do not, which is the point of my posting
(though of course many individuals do - I am being generalistic). As you
noted Randy, Ed's post shows how  capitalism affects everything in the world
and at every level. My point was that free-markets, the material wealth that
they produce (for some), and consumerism have infected people around the
world to such a degree that many do not realise when they are aiding and
abetting the enemy - such as contributing to the profits of Disney and Coca
Cola. Even when they do, the attraction of material wealth and the comfort
that it offers is too strong to resist. Given this, I do not see how you can
mold markets to regulate themselves under the present international system -
it is a complete new system that is required.

Regards Ed's last paragraph, this seemed a criticism of the WTO protests and
to argue that civil protest/action is nothing more than a knee-jerk
reaction, and ineffectual at best. My point was that if you want to contest
globalisation and the imperialism of western fiscal and 'development'
programmes, words are not going to be enough - as some in both Seattle and
London seem to have decided. 

So whilst I 'agreed' with some of the contents of Ed's mail, I was actually
arguing against it on the whole. Maybe I was also being a bit facetious in
kind?

Regards, Paul.

-----Original Message-----
From: John_R_Groves@ferris.edu [mailto:John_R_Groves@ferris.edu]
Sent: Sunday, December 05, 1999 4:52 PM
To: WORLD SYSTEMS NETWORK
Subject: understanding Ed


Paul,  are you sure you got Ed's point? Didn't I detect a bit of
facetiousness
in Ed's post? Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think Ed is saying we should hunt
down capitalists, even to the extent of little coffee shop owners. His post
also
showed how deeply capitalism (a term I find almost useless in the
post-communist
era) or rather more precisely, markets, are involved in everything that
happens
in the world. Thus the proper response is to try to mold markets o mitigate
markets' worst effects, not to eliminate them. But I may have misunderstood
Ed.
Ed will let us know.  Randy Groves