As regards capitalism itself, Akenaton....on what level?

What I mean is this. Capitalism on the LARGE level does always lead to massive corruption and waste, not to mention stark insanity. No doubt about it. On the other hand, socialism on the LARGE level has led to other forms of corruption and waste and stark insanity (when you look at socialism as practiced by Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, etc).

Now what about on a smaller level? I see nothing wrong with the fact that an artisan or a small business person or a farmer or an entertainer charges enough his or her product or service in order to generate a profit and thereby earn a living. That's capitalism on a small scale. A product or service that is honestly and well done and useful deserves to generate a profit, and indeed is unviable if it does not do so (in a money-based economy).

So when you say the word "capitalism", what are you talking about exactly?

I've visited a largely socialist society...Cuba...and I liked it a lot. I liked the complete lack of commercial advertising. I liked the fact that there were lots of little unique local businesses (stores, cafes, artisans, etc) who were all different from one another according to who ran then and how....instead of the soulless chains that we have in North America like McDonald's, Starbucks, etc.

And by the way, those little Cuban businesses and artisans were, in fact, engaging in a form of capitalist activity, because they were charging above cost for what they were selling in order to generate enough cash flow to make their activities profitable and worthwhile...despite the fact that they supposedly exist in a socialist society.

So what you really had there was a mix of capitalism (small scale) with socialism (large scale).

What we have in Canada is a mix of capitalism (large and small scale) with a mix of socialism (mostly large scale) although a series of conservatively influenced governments under orders from the corporates have been chipping away at the socialist institutions for about 3 decades now.

So how are you defining "capitalism" when you dismiss it as entirely evil?

As long as we have money at all, then I think we have to have a good deal of small-scale capitalism. We should find ways of severely regulating the activities of large scale capitalism so as to prevent its abuses.

I would love to see a society with no money at all, where things are done because they are good for people, not because they generate a profit, but I don't see any likelihood of that happening in the near term. (See the many episodes of Star Trek Next Generation for a demonstration of exactly how such a society would work...and YES, it is possible! It only requires the vision and the will to set it up, educate people to understand it, and then do it. If done, it would establish a genuine democracy and a genuinely fair and sane social system on this planet by freeing people from the tyrranny of the once useful tool they invented long ago...money...which in time became a devouring monster.)

*****

Moore is right to distrust social elites. Their primary purpose (in general, not right down to every individual in the elite) is to maintain and enlarge their already dominant position in a society and they do it on the backs of the ordinary public. Sometimes real reformers do come forth FROM the elite. They are notable exceptions to their class, and are probably viewed as traitors and subversives by the rest, I would think. Fidel Castro, for instance, was the son of a wealthy family. One thing about wealth...it gives you time to think about social theory, if you're so inclined to. An idealistic son or daughter of the wealthy can well become a revolutionary, but in so doing he or she must directly challenge the very power structure he was born in. Only a few do.