:Russia, of course, is the paradise of "commerce without rules".
As we discussed before - without 'rules' which are enforcable (or somehow honorably observed) then organisation of people invent and enforce their own (it doesnt matter if they are capitalists or socialists). Russia has had lots of practice in black markets and distrust of regulative bodies during its 'communist' era do it is set up for what it has.
It seems the WTO sees itself as a 'rules base' for trade. That should be enough to concern anyone - just as much as some socialist organisation claiming to be the rules base for socialism.
Neither capitalism nor socialism requires a vangaurd.
: "Justice" is often a facade anyway, a promotional message of the bourgeois state. Al Gore claims to be strongly pro-environment, but his initiative at Kyoto and his coffee-table book are toothless photo-opportunities.
I'm glad you see through his 'trees are great' facade.
: SDF: Sorry, under capitalism justice is a commodity, O.J. Simpson bought some and it paid off, the cops who thrashed Rodney King bought some and it paid off, and Gee's argument is just gainsaying.
What surprises me is that you think the alternative produces better justice - it might. So might a better rules base in capitalism - but claiing that lots of people (democracy) will result in better justice is rather hopeful.
: SDF: If populations are "vulnerable," as they are when they are in debt to the tune of their annual GNPs as they are now, then the movement of their goods is not "free". Understanding this is perhaps a starting-point for understand how the nations of the South have subsidized the nations of the North to the tune of six Marshall Plans, or that nations such as Senegal could be net food exporters while at the same time being the recipients of famine relief. Hint: the South is not "freely" giving its labor-power and resources to the North in such a self-destructive way as it is doing today. And "free trade" is only going to help those who are already "free," i.e. the nations of the North, "free trade" isn't going to make anyone any "freer" if their choice is between immediate labor in a sweatshop and immediate starvation, or if the only commodity they can sell doesn't fetch them a price they can live on.
What I was suggesting is that a rule saying 'movement of goods an people must be unrestricted by law' is one that is either applied universally or has no meaning, rather than commenting on the horrendous loans 3rd world governments took on baord to build damns, palaces and 'modern' capitals for no reason other than 'nation' status.
: SDF: Big business is not the only thing that sucks about capitalism. It's just the most important thing.
I'm glad you recognise it isnt the only thing - and you do find it to be the singular most important one. But remember that no democracy is somehow expempted from interest groups, injustice and power broking.
: SDF: That's why it's best to discuss capital accumulation as a tendency.