DavidF:
<In some places capitalism is not appalling. I pointed out the Arden enclave and also the Scandinavian version of capitalism. Marxism has shown itself to be bankrupt and murderous to a greater extent than capitalism. However, I think you are a good fellow. I have other friends who avoid reality. I wish you well.>

Dear Doctor Pangloss,
on the off chance you might still bother to scrutinise your own bankrupt convictions, or read my posts the least bit closely, I submit that there is no "some place" for capitalism that is isolated from the rest of the world. Arden is an insult to the memory of William Morris and all that he stood for---do you suppose for a moment he would approve of your twee little Arden, or our bipolar world? an endless Walmart of shallow consumerism juxtaposed by the equally endless sweatshops, death and rapaciousness that stocks the shelves. Obesity sustained by rape and starvation, ethically defended by a pathetic nationalism.
This is the "reality" that "I" do "not" avoid, that you turn a blind eye to.
Apart from your idyllic Kandor, or Arden or whatever, you cite the Scandinavian model as though it was sustainable or blameless.
Please do familiarise yourself with 'dependency theory':

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dependency_theory

As I've said elsewhere, capitalism knows no borders; everything is fair game.

*Development depends on a population's producing more than it needs for bare subsistence (a surplus). Further, some of that surplus must be used for capital accumulation - the purchase of new means of production - if development is to occur*

That comes from your URL, Squeers. Have you ever been to Africa,
to understand why the place stayed backward?

An African gave me his theory: When a European makes money, he
builds a business, invests the surplus to increase its size.
Soon its a small company, then a large company etc. When an
African makes money, he takes another wife.

Bankrupt convictions? Sweatshops? The reality is about 100,000,000 corpses and all the people who have fled to the democratic capitalist countries from the Marxist tyrannies. Were those millions all stupid and deluded? Trotsky, one of the most prominent and brilliant of the Marxist scum, spoke of people 'voting with their feet.'

I'm sure my Uncle Bill, the former Bolshevik, knew about the workings of the dialectic. He was an intelligent man. He was too intelligent to continue to be deluded by theory after confronting the Leninist reality.

Sure, one can find many faults with capitalism. However, Marxism simply is worse. It's that simple.

Dependency theory? I really do not need more of your theory that denies reality. That seems to be what you and grok have in plentiful quantities.

I would probably agree with many of your criticims of capitalism if we stuck to that topic. However, I do not agree with the failed alternative of Marxism. I also think human rights are vital. Having a social vision does not justify oppression.

See Squeers? These people are impervious to logic or inconvenient facts. Or facts, period, for that matter. They believe what their masters have fed them them entire lives -- and that is that. So let them be thrown to the wolves like the less fortunate before them -- who they don't give a fig about anyway, in their selfish delusions. It's their turn now to suffer capitalism's 'tender mercies'. (Can't wait, frankly.)

We can just forget about any genteel and fruitful discussion and analysis of hegelian vs. marxist dialectics here -- and this was the fate of this entire process from the very beginning anyway. Thus the whole blame for the tenor of everything that has gone on here ("Marxism Destroyed the Dialectic", yadda) rests entirely upon the shoulders of the pretentious petit-bourgeois and reactionary dilettante, Gilbert Holmes.

Go write your book now, Gilbert. It should be a hoot.
And be prepared to finance it entirely yourself.

David f,

You said, "Morris was a Marxist before Lenin and the other criminals took over. He was one of the Pre-Raphaelites who wanted to preserve the sense of community, craftsmanship and feeling for nature that was under siege by nineteenth century capitalism."

Some of us on this thread have been saying that the Soviet example was not a true representation of Marx's ideas...that the visions of men like William Morris were closer to the mark.
You still won't entertain the notion that your so-called "Marxism in practice" was a distortion, and more akin to rapacious capitalism than it was to the kernel of Marx's ideas.

In fact, stalinism is a debasement of marxism, which follows on the even earlier (pre-WWI) debasement of marxism by the self-seeking parliamentarians and trade union honchos of "social-democracy" who they resemble so so much, politically and ideologically: with their petit-bourgeois nationalism and lack of faith in the workers themselves as self-actors and the leading class in the struggle for socialism.

But I say this only for the record here. Actually trying to 'dialog' with most of the Reichwing commentators here is a waste of effort, obviously.