All you need is a whole bunch of money.

Of course the poor ain't got no money .... but there's no helping some people.

8-p

I prefer the term "predatory capitalism," I find it more descriptive.  And in a broad sense every economic system is "capitalism" as every economic systems needs to defer immediate gratification and invest for the future.  

Which leads to the odd fact predatory capitalism devalues the future.  The most advanced (sic) capitalist nation - the US - has a creaky, falling apart, infrastucture.  Jane Jacobs noted, in one of her books, a city works better the more storefront space there is along the streets.  Yet in most US cities the street spaces are minimized to maximize near-term rents.  Modern corporations, the poster boy for Taylor's ideas, are notorious for seeking the immediate.  

Another odd fact is the take-over of supposedly non-profitable factories by the workers succeeds more often than it fails.  It seems without the cash draw of absentee owners and the dumping of the "professional" management things go along much better.  

These are odd only because they go against Modern and Approved Management Techniques© as taught in all the chic business schools.

And who am I to argue with a Harvard?


She believed in nothing; only her skepticism kept her from being an atheist. -- Jean-Paul Sartre

I would be very surprised if the "Spanish Revolution" as it is called in English had been peaceful and non-coercive in the countryside as the Anarchist propaganda depicts

Hum.  How can I put this?

From what I've heard, directly from FAI/CNT people who were there at the time ... you don't have to be surprised.  Neither was it the bloodbath depicted by all Right Thinking people either.  From what I've been able to gather the local history of interaction(s) between the landlord(s) and the general populace of an area counted far more than ideological/political position.

She believed in nothing; only her skepticism kept her from being an atheist. -- Jean-Paul Sartre

From browsing the "policy" chapter, Orwell himself doesn't talk about landowners being shot ; only priests. But he certainly talks about land seizures. (I'm not sure how and why an self-respecting Anarchist would recognise property rights dating from feudal times, anyway)

And reading the book puts a different emphasis on the way Stalinists source are to be believed about revolutionary behaviour ; or on how propaganda was impressive at the times : he notes an accusation that the Fascists used live children to build barricades, a "most unhandy thing to build barricades with"...

Un roi sans divertissement est un homme plein de misères