Would you mind defining capitalism? I am still unclear about what you mean. Are you talking about our current economic system? The world's? Complete economic freedom?

But I will respond to your post anyhow.

Have we controlled the rich, or have we been controlled by the rich? Let's take a tour of American history. The Founding Fathers whom we worship so much were primarily rich, white, slave-owning planters. In the United States' early days, only those who owned property could vote for fear that the masses would skew the voting system. In the 1800s, the South seceded in favor of the rich through the argument that taking away slavery would "destroy the economy" (or plantation farming for valuable products such as cotton) and be a major loss of investment--and even afterward, the Southern governments found ways to subjugate poor blacks. The United States made some gains during the late 1800s and early 1900s for labor, but only after absolutely horrendous working conditions as a result of industrialization were exposed by muckrakers. Into the 1920s, some of the richest investors and bankers fought for deregulation of the financial market, allowing unhealthy purchases on margin to occur and eventually helping to create the worst financial crisis in the history of the world and leading to the Great Depression. Starting in the 1980s, the rich have fought for similar deregulation and lower tax rates. "Deregulation" and "no tax raises" remain shorthand for "strong economy" among many voters. And whom do both of those policies benefit? Business owners and those with high incomes, both of which are, unsurprisingly, quite moneyed. Yet, we are left with an ever-rising national debt and a sub-par economic situation. And speaking on a global scale, the world's rich continue to exploit labor resources in developing nations. Note that they too are capitalist, but they have had remarkably different results.

Your gut reaction may be, "But 12AngryHens, it makes sense that developing nations are poorer--they have had a lower initial endowment!" Correct. Indeed they have. But hasn't the same been true for other nations you call communist? (And that word is very broad to begin with--it fails to encompass all of the variations between Maoism, Leninism, and Marxism, for example) Imagine a state like China. Prior to the 1900s, the Qing dynasty had been hurtling toward collapse, in part at the hands of the West. In the early 1900s, it did. For years, it remained in a state of perpetual civil war, then faced horrifying destruction during the Second World War, and then faced renewed civil war until 1949 when Chiang Kai-shek fled to Taiwan. It was after more than half a century of human disasters when the Maoist regime took power. Can you imagine the issues they had to resolve?

And now, let's take a peek at capitalist nations across the globe. Many third world nations are capitalist, yet where are their riches? The answer is that they're mainly in the hands of the West. I wrote a paper on the neocolonial legacy in Nigeria, a nation which is capitalist by our standards. In fact, the nation is lucky in that it is sitting on some of the best oil in the world. It could very easily be a bastion of wealth in a continent of impoverished states. Yet, it isn't. Why is this? Much of the oil is not drilled by the Nigerian government or Nigerian oil companies (which are generally nonexistent). Instead, the Nigerian government sells contracts to Western oil companies such as Shell which inevitably end up with all of the profits. While Shell and other companies must also pay for such contracts, does the money end up constructing schools, roads, and sanitation systems in the Niger River delta? No, it does not. Instead, it ends up in the hands of the Nigerian wealthy--also the ones holding the highest positions in the Nigerian government. Meanwhile, the rural poor continue to be exploited for their labor value and the people enjoying the oil are not ready to care. So nothing gets done.

What do we conclude from this? The economic health of a state is not dependent on the economic system that state has, but what its initial endowment is. In a capitalist nation, this means that those with the greatest amount of capital will continue to be prosperous because they place themselves at the head of the economic system. In a world where every nation is now interconnected in the vast economic system run by a few, the states which possess the greatest amount of resources will continue to be that way at the expense of nations without capital. What does this mean? It means that the world's rich must be more closely regulated. Until that happens, don't expect much change.