<!doctype html public "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN"> <html><head><style type="text/css"></style><title>Re: war and the state</title></head><body> <div><br></div> <div>Wojtek Sokolowski wrote:</div> <div><br></div> <blockquote type="cite" cite> <blockquote type="cite" cite>You've put your finger on it. The problem with capitalism is that it is a system which stifles modern technology, preventing it from achieving its potential. Capitalism results in a constantly improving technology, but prevents this technology from being efficiently utilised to benefit humanity.</blockquote> </blockquote> <blockquote type="cite" cite><br></blockquote> <blockquote type="cite" cite>Every social-economic institution does that by making choices that create precedence, which in turn, reduce transaction of costs for those who follow their path, whereas those who do not face higher transaction costs (see for example Brian Arthur,<u> Increasing Returns and Path Dependence in the Economy).</u>   Attributing that exclusively to capitalism is distorting social/historical reality.</blockquote> <div><br></div> <div>This is true of all systems to a greater or lesser degree of course. Though material conditions in the development of the means of production will determine whether, on balance, any socio-economic system is doing more good than harm.</div> <div><br></div> <div>It can be said that under particular conditions even slavery as a system is a progressive force for the material good of society. Under other conditions, it holds back development, frustrating the uptake of new technologies which would make life better for everyone (even slave-owners.)</div> <div><br></div> <div>Plainly, capitalism is such an obstruction now. The technology of production is available which could potentially and sustainably eliminate world poverty, but such a goal is inconsistent with capitalism, which produces goods for profit, not to satisfy needs.</div> <div><br></div> <div>If it was profitable to eliminate world poverty, capitalism would do so (the technology exists) but by definition it is quite unprofitable to meet the needs of those living in abject poverty. So their needs are not and cannot be met under capitalism and in fact factories will shut down and stop producing the things they need.</div> <div><br></div> <div>Even vital goods which are almost free to produce, such as basic pharmaceuticals, must be denied to the poor under capitalism. Because it is unprofitable to supply their needs, they must sicken and die.</div> <div><br></div> <div>Some consumer items it is now possible to reproduce and distribute at no cost whatsoever with current technology. Information, music, entertainment etc. But the capitalist mode of economy instead strives to severely limit and curtail this potential boon for humanity in order to retain profitability.</div> <div><br></div> <div>So the capitalist system can clearly be seen to have become the most serious obstruction to both physical and social/intellectual development of humanity. Just one tiny illustration of this here, the producer of the LBO publication is obliged to artificially constrict the readership of his publication, in an attempt to make a profit. This is a classic microcosm of the failure of modern capitalist society.</div> <div><br></div> <div>Bill Bartlett</div> <div>Bracknell Tas</div> </body> </html>