--- Charles Brown <charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> wrote:
>
> It's pretty obvious that if capitalism were not
> causing significant
> problems for a large number of people, there would
> not occur a
> revolution to change it fundamentally.
[WS:] This is an altogether different argument than "capitalism has contradictions that will lead to its demise." Capitalism can be a perfectly stable system i.e. the bosses can have the material means to shore up any challenges to their profits, and yet one can argue to overthrow it on the normative grounds e.g. bcause it deprives a great number of people of thier human potential.
Likewise, socialism proved to be unstable because it created a situation that led to its demise e.g. it created the intelligentsia that demand a higher social and economic status and not being able to get under socialism, conspired with the forces of reaction to overthrow socialism. Yet, despite it sinstablity, one can argue that socialism is worth preserving on the normative grounds, e.g. because it provides stability and freedom from exploitation for a great number of people.
The "contradictory" nature of a political system i.e. an assertion that a system inadevertently produces consequences that may undermine its existence may be helpful in political rhetoric, but it is not a necessary condition to argue against that system, let alone a prediction that the system will eventually fall. A system can be conflict ridden and survive.
Wojtek
____________________________________________________________________________________ Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ