Gordon Fitch wrote:
> >Yet capitalist development in the United States has
> >progressed to a point where the per capita income is many,
> >many times what is necessary to sustain life -- everyone's
> >life -- in relative comfort, indeed, in luxury compared to
> >pre-industrial standards. But this situation has not led to
> >relief from insecurity but, apparently, an increase in it.
billbartlett at dodo.com.au:
> You seem to be under the impression that I was arguing that
> a highly developed means of production would necessarily lead
> to the elimination of insecurity. I wish you had paid more
> attention to what I actually said. The US obviously has the
> material capacity to completely eliminate insecurity, but
> eliminating poverty and insecurity is not compatible with the
> capitalist system. And of course I did not in any way suggest
> that merely having the technological capacity to provide
> universal economic security meant that it would inevitably
> happen.
>
> You are arguing with me on a totally fictional basis. Which is very sad.
I would think it would be amusing.
I wasn't referring only to what I quoted above. Other people have said roughly the same thing -- that socialism couldn't be instituted properly, or at all, in un- or underdeveloped countries, where "developed" means "developed by and for industrial capitalism". The reason often given is that there won't be enough stuff to go around. But as Joe pointed out previously, there is only a little stuff to go around in tribal societies, and they often practice communism, maybe for that very reason. On the other hand, as people get more and more stuff, they become more and more glued to capitalism (usually). They seem _more_, rather than less insecure. So the route to socialism or communism by means of capitalism appears obscure; something is missing from the map. Or it may be that high capitalism isn't the best way to get rid of or move beyond capitalism. I'm proposing a question, not issuing a prescription. I'm observing that certain received ideas don't entirely match up to what we observe.
> >In any case, you seem to be talking about Welfare rather than
> >socialism, defined by me as "the means of production owned or
> >controlled by the workers, or by the people generally." Even
> >-- maybe especially -- an insecure people might feel impelled
> >to see to their means of production. And this may be why we
> >see socialism enjoying more popularity in poor countries than
> >rich ones where, according to the theory given above, it is
> >supposed to be more appropriate.
> I have no idea what you are trying to say there. You appear
> to be merely stringing together bits of plausible jargon. Do
> you ever think about what you're saying? Do you ever think at
> all?
Your inability to understand a message is not necessarily a defect of the message.
> ...
-- Gordon