Reply #236: sure

[William Z. Foster]

At issue here is just how we can get to the improved conditions you describe.

We got to regulated Capitalism in the past because and only because there was a powerful left wing in the country advocating a much more radical change than you are promoting. That counterbalanced the opposition - the wealthy and powerful few and their sycophants and wannabes and shills - who wanted no interference whatsoever in the affairs of the wealthy and powerful few. The result, after much struggle and sacrifice, was the compromise of regulated Capitalism.

You are advocating that result, that compromise, as an oppositional argument to those who are calling for building a powerful left wing in the country and to those calling for much more radical change. You are fighting against the one vital and essential ingredient that leads to the result you say you want. That is like wanting the ribbon without running the race; wanting the crop without the planting, tending and harvesting. You want the fresh ripe vegetables to eat - you favor and support that, you say - but then are telling people that you oppose them doing any plowing, planting, weeding, fertilizing and harvesting. This is a way to convince yourself and others that you want the harvest when you really do not - until and unless it is handed to you.

All of the regulated Capitalism that you gaze on so fondly, the benefits from that which you enjoy, has been handed to you on a silver platter. Someone else - people fighting for the exact same program that you are now speaking against so stridently - did all of the work and made all of the sacrifices, paid the steep price. They did not achieve that result by calling for moderation, by advocating compromise before the struggle had begun, by attacking radicals and the left.

You claim to want the result, but are opposing the only methods for getting to that result.