[CLUE-Talk] Re: A Call to Action

[Jeffery Cann]

On Monday 15 July 2002 06:10 pm, Matt Gushee wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 15, 2002 at 05:33:32PM -0600, Jeffery Cann wrote:
> > On Monday 15 July 2002 01:35 am, Matt Gushee wrote:
> > > > Unfortunately, these experiments have mostly been flawed.
> > >
> > > In what way? How do you know?
> >
> > Well, how about communism?  Surely, it is hard to argue that its
> > implementation in USSR was successful.
>
> Jeff, Jeff, Jeff ... get a grip. I'm not talking about communism. You
> are.

I have a 'grip' -- I was responding to your question of the previous poster's 
assertion - that these 'experiments have been mostly flawed'.  I attempted to 
address your general sentiment as expressed in the following paragraph 
(quoted from your post that started this thread):

"As America's economic malaise drags on with no end in sight, it is becoming
increasingly apparent that our traditional economic institutions are not going
to help us out of this mess. Indeed, they have no intention of doing so: 
political and corporate leaders are far too busy trying to save themselves
and their nest eggs to worry about anyone else. In short, THE SYSTEM IS 
BROKEN."

So, I respond in a discussion about your unsubstantiated assertion that THE 
SYSTEM, i.e., capitalism, IS BROKEN.  If you wish to discuss how the system 
is broken and how you wish to fix it fine.  It is not clear to me that this 
is your goal.

My point is that capitalism is the best system within the poor context of 
human nature.  So, any system -- capitalism or whatever -- will never fair 
well enough to avoid criticism by individuals.  That's what makes the debate 
interesting -- no human is perfect.  Thus, no system implemented by humans 
will be perfect either.  For example, I'm sure you would agree that other 
individuals in other countries (with different economic systems) believe that 
their SYSTEM IS BROKEN as much as you do ours.

If you want to improve capitalism while working within its bounds, then I did 
misunderstand your point and I do apologize.  Maybe I misunderstood this 
paragraph above.  It certainly is likely given that email is such a bad 
format for debate.

Later,
Jeff