What I find interesting is that as countries throughout the world fall into crisis, highlighting the fact that capitalism (in many different forms) is increasingly unable to deliever any kind of stability much less growth much less human satisfaction, mainstream analysts continue to try and defend the capitalist market as the answer. Thus, the crisis in Asia is blamed on states that interfered too much in allocating capital. The crisis in Russia is because the old guard has successfully blocked the transition. etc. Thus, one question: how successful do you think they are in this country in promoting this understanding of the crises. How successful do you think they are in promoting this understanding in the countries in crisis. In South Korea, for example, many people remain uncertain as to what conclusion to draw from their crisis. They hate the chaebol (large conglomerates) and they blame the crisis on them and the government for protecting them. Some see greater market freedoms as a way to break up the state-chaebol connection and the monopoly. They reject left calls for more democratic social regulation of the economy as unworkable. What about in Russia. What kind of understanding do people think is building there? Do you think the ideological struggle is building to match the economic declines or does the political crisis trail way behind the economic crisis? Marty Hart-Landsberg
