This is just the sort of seductive stuff Sowell pushes in his *Conflict of Visions*. On the premise that one's being determines one's consciousness, this is appealing to those who ain't really doing all that badly out of the status quo. Of course it puts absolutely everybody else right out of the picture. How Sowell, of all those 'who ain't doing all that badly', misses that, I just can't fathom.
I think, for instance, that it might be true that capitalism is withering away in many respects (the relations of production are not really necessary any more; there is now necessarily much socialism for the rich and capitalism only for the poor; volatilities are raising their heads that market assumptions can't address etc) but all the stronger in others (I'll sum it up as hegemony and coercion). Comes a time in such contradictory developments when prudent respect for extent institutions and aspirations entails the wholesale overthrow of a heap of others, eh?
Anyway, I'm with you. Rob.
>OTOH:
>
>"The Path of Excess Leads To The Palace Of Wisdom"
>
> -- William Blake
>
>"A modest, cautious, amelioratory progress" would never have freed the
>slaves. This is what many of the Founders hoped when they accepted it
>into the framework of the Constitution. They forsaw a withering away of
>slavery, which of course did not happen.
>
>Thus, the belief in gradual change can be every bit as irrational as the
>belief in radical change. In either case, one should ask the simple
>question, "Who REALLY benefits from this perscription?" Not to mention,
>"Is this just?"