NP PRC-related

[calbert at tiac.net]

KWP:

> You needn't to be a marxist to see that
> 1.) capitalism can only exist as a world economy - or it cannot exist

Capitalism, has, to date thrived regionally.......

> 2.) it bases on everlasting growth - but nothing on this earth has no
> limits

This is a popular canard......As corps grow larger, they bog 
down.....consider that, in spite of an effective duopoly, Pepsi and 
Coke derive ZERO profits from selling soda in the US market - while 
controlling nearly 85% of it.....

Heard much about ITT lately?

there is nothing in economics or capitalism which DEMANDS 
perpetual growth - in fact, I would suggest that economic laws 
determine a practical size for any such organization, as well as the 
occasional disintemediation of market power.... 

 3.) it's a completely a-historical view that there can be no
> other principles of economy than "self-interest". The homo oeconomicus
> is an invention of capitalism  -feudalism or other economic formations
> didn't know that. Is it an accident that theories of "self interest"
> occured in the beginning of early capitalism and shortly before the
> industrial revolution?

Argue with those who formulated the discipline.....you're gonna need 
to go pretty far back though.....Feudalism is an odd duck - the 
symbiosis twixt asne and master depends to a large degree on the 
joining of the interests of the two parties, to wit, defense and 
production...


 4.) If this capitalism is really so "wonderful"
> as you see it - why is there so much resistance, why did the worker's
> movement exist, why the Soviet Union (whatever you think about it -
> but that's another question)? Just for fun?

You have made little effort to understand the part of capitalism which 
I celebrate - it permits opposing factions to struggle in search of 
resolution. Worker's resistance is a necessary element of such a 
process, and I am all for it........

Why the SU? In the course of a great "struggle", an opportunist 
managed to prevail. But Lenin also sent his henchmen across the 
pacific to still Trotsky's pen. Lenin, himself, fell out of favor, in part 
because he proposed maintaining elements of "private property and 
free markets", specifically in agriculture - because he recognized 
the hash being made of this critical sector of the economy by 
"collectivization".

Sadly, from there, it was all down hill....


 5.) I'm not speaking about
> the "human nature" - I don't know what this is like. Every ruling
> class in history argues with "human nature" which is always identical
> with their own "nature".  If I would live in another system, I would
> speak about this. But we're living now -  here. So we are speaking
> about capitalism and its contradictions.

I hate to be the one to tell you, but the idea of the "noble savage" is 
a scam.......Rousseau and Margaret Mead did the world an 
enormous dis-service....Should've listened to Gaugain.....


love,
cfa