Lauren, That's the best anti-capital argument I've heard yet, but try to go to the poorest parts of the world and take away their few pennies and they will fight to the death for them. Any good system redesign starts with the human relations that already exist and then makes many small changes that spread power out and down. The problem with many socialist experimants were that they were radical all or nothing experiments that ignored existing economic and power relationships and tried to replace the whole system at the same time. Its like trying to rip out the entire NYC subway on the same day and replace it with air tube cars the next. Air tube cars may be great but real change takes time.
On 11/08/11, Lauren<firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
What alternative has even been allowed to run unimpeded?
Socialism? Social-capitalism is merely a stopgap to make the european
and latin american working class shut up.
Communism? Communism in Russia died in 1921. Maoism is confucianism
with a coat of red paint.
Anarchism? Yes, I guess being beaten by the combined might of Hitler,
Stalin, Mussolini and Franco, despite there being a war between each
other, could count as an objective measurement of failure, assuming
that your ethical standards are those of a jackbooted thug.
Where is the success of capitalism in Africa? Why do we keep being
reminded about the kulaks, but never about the millions who died
during the rubber boom, never about the millions who died during the
dust bowl, never about the millions who died because of Britain's
laissez-mourir approach to famines in India, Ireland, Africa?
Capitalist wealth is the wealth of empire. It's the illusion brought
about by concentration, by homogenization of societies that used to be
heterogenous even there; wealthy countries with wealthy regions with
wealthy cities with wealthy neighborhoods. Hey, some of the country
doesn't have electricity and running water? It's okay, we have
billionaires in the capital who are really enjoying the success of