0
I know life was hard for English workers a century ago but thanks to the economic development brought by capitalism they're prosperous now, quite like Irish immigrants in America who suffered misery in their homeland and whose life was very hard in America at first. It's easy to implement limited social democratic measures once capitalism has already created enough wealth --no social measures prevented masses of Swedes to emigrate to the US and elsewhere--, but only capitalism can take a country out of poverty.
How hard a work is doesn't make it slavery, slavery is forced labour. Serfs were nearly slaves not because their work was hard, but because they were tied to a piece of land and they couldn't abandon it or else they were killed. Serfdom = feudalism = forced labour = slavery; capitalism = free labour market = not slavery. Besides serfdom was way stronger in Eastern Europe, where it remained in place until the XIXth century, but it was in Western Europe where capitalism --and prosperity-- developed.
My grandfather earned his living breeding mules in a remote location of the Spanish deep countryside, and that business had no future, so my father had to leave his home at 17 and start from scrap. He worked hard, studied in the university while he was working to pay for it, and has good reasons to be proud of what he achieved. If he had been subsidized by the government because of his difficult position he wouldn't have created the great amount of wealth he's created. And adding what all Spaniards did during that period, if they hadn't needed to earn their living on their own because of some subsidies --the government couldn't have paid for them anyway--, Spain would still be a poor country.
Incas were poor because they were stuck with their ruling class mass control, and Nazi mass control made Germany efficient, rich and removed poverty? Make up your mind, I agree with the former, which seems a plea in favour of capitalism. Hitler didn't create any wealth, plus he robbed millions of innocent (yes innocent believe me) Jews; but capitalism did remove German poverty after the war. But you haven't explained yet why Europe was in the position to colonize the rest of the world in the first place, if she was richer only after the colonization.
Maybe it's you who's closing your eyes, I've already said that I'll believe the “poverty line” figures when I see Americans emigrating. Either those figures are unreal or reality itself is. According to them the American “working class” actually lives worse than the Cuban one. And yet there are thousands of Cubans risking their life to cross the Straits of Florida, and not a single American. Plus I know that they're based on a wrong assumption, that money's value is absolute, when it varies hugely from one country to another. The educated ones are sure to emigrate, but huge masses of uneducated ones emigrate as well.
If you like some things companies do out of their own will then we won't discuss about that. It has nothing to do with leftism, but if you want to call it leftist you can do whatever you like. Still you're right in saying that those companies are “clever” because “efficiency grows”. Right you are, they're being so nice only in pursue of dirty profits, and yet it benefits their employees, welcome to capitalism.
Yes, big companies may buy small new ones. But I can't see what's wrong with it if the small ones aren't forced to sell. They'll receive what they demand in exchange or else they won't sell. Plus they'll be able to invest anew the money they get out of the free exchange and so on and so on, creating wealth exponentially.
Sorry but Marx himself advocated for violence in his writings. Looks like I'm the only one over here who knows a thing about Marxism, it doesn't surprise me. But “how do we know they were innocent”? Well they were guilty of opposing a murderous totalitarian dictatorship and by the way, communism = forced labour (by the government) = slavery. Anyway in big fat capitalist countries anyone is innocent until it's otherwise proven.
About the Middle/Dark Ages. Thank you, I was aware anyway. The “Dark Ages” term isn't used in Spanish at all --if any it would refer to the period of Greek civilization from the fall of the Micenic culture until the Archaic period--, besides I find it extremely unsuitable, even “Middle Ages” is very unsuitable for what that period meant. And besides not all the regions can be classified with the same scheme, for example I heard that the Iron Age is considered to have ended in Scandinavia in the period you mention, around XIth century, while in Mediterranean Europe it ended during the Roman conquest, long before in Greece.
Juni Ori, on Jun 28 2006, 05:11 PM, said:
Decent socialism doesn't have to have planned economy. In current social liberal countries, there's no planned economy, only little guided. Also why didn't Europe get conquered? That's most likely due to common religion and even still muslims did invade and get some areas conquered and converted! Including parts of your home country! Also, even though Europe has natural resources, there's nothing too extraordinary in them, nor are they as rare as some resources in Far-East, for example. And small note: Venice was quite important trade nexus for very long time, getting richer and fatter by that... And I have to underline that there's a lot of different levels of socialism, which can be at worst be like it was in communistic countries! BUT! How did Nazi Germany get so efficient, rich and succeeded to remove poverty? Planned economy, btw...
Planned/little guided economy, that's my point. Social liberal countries are X per cent socialist --a little planning but only a little-- and (100-X) per cent capitalist. Common religion has little to do with (part of) Europe's not having been conquered, the Venetians and the French were always plotting with the Turks against their brothers in faith. Anyway what I'm still asking to you is --once more-- why the colonization went one way and not the other, if Europe was richer only thanks to and after the colonization.
And I agree that European resources aren't extraordinary, so that's not why it's rich and prosperous, nor is it why she was able to colonize the rest of the world; capitalism is why. And I also agree about Venice, I already told Tulac that I wouldn't call her backwarded. And Nazism planning didn't develop Germany, if you say it prove it. As I've said it was capitalism what after the war brought Germany from utter misery to present prosperity.
@Tulac,
I know about different kinds of shares, still it's all about free deals so there's no abuse. As I've said let's try your self-management formula, we'll end up like communist Yugoslavia.
Feudalism lacks a social part? What about the nobles/nomenklatura “providing” for the serfs/proletariat without their chance to access a free market? Explain me why “market was free at the time”? Serfs were so constrained they couldn't even move from their lands. There were wars between fiefdoms just like there can be wars between communist countries, China against Vietnam for example.
You can call certain dictatorships “right wing” if you like, still there's nothing their ideology and mine have in common. Besides as I've said public health care was implemented in Spain by “right wing” dictator general Franco, close friend to Castro and Peron. However you've taken my words out of their context, I wasn't saying that so as to call all leftist dictators as you accuse me, I was talking about labour unrest and saying that the only things that can amend it is either repression or prosperity brought by capitalism.
The discovery of the New World caused the prosperity? Then explain me why Spain, who got nearly all America, was surpassed by other countries whose colonialism started long afterwards. Plus prosperity started beforehand, take a look at later Middle Ages cities in certain regions.
No, England's territory didn't suffered wars, she fought plenty of them *abroad*, her homeland was free of them, that's the important thing. Countries were able to claim colonies because they were powerful, not the other way around. Belgium was already prosperous and industrialized long before his kind got some worthless huge territory near the Congo river.
Well if you didn't like Tito's self-management let's try yours—I predict the very same results. By the way I agree that it must have been pretty the same that in the rest of the communist countries, just like federalism means nothing if it's the central Party who appoints the federal authorities; but still everybody bought that nonsense.
I've already said that Nordic countries owe their prosperity to capitalism all the same, I repeat once more that the government didn't “provide” for the masses of Swedes who emigrated to the USA and elsewhere. As for the cancer drugs issue, companies develop drugs investing money, the formulae don't appear out of the blue. If the company spends money in a project it's because it plans to earn money with it, so it will sell the drug if it turns out effective. When the drug is researched the company is entitled to a patent and it sells the drug to the public. The company makes more money selling it for not so high a price to huge masses than for a high price to few people, and this is more true the bigger fatter the company is. Private charity, along with inefficient social democratic measures if you like, takes the drug to more people. And in the long run the patent expires and everybody can make the drug, there's competition and the price is even lower.
The pharmaceutical companies are always the bad guys, and yet they're the ones who invent the drugs that save lives. If they weren't allowed to make money out of it they wouldn't research and there would be no cure for diseases.
This is the last post I'll be able to write until tomorrow...
Some evil capitalist launched a hostile takeover bid on Tanaka © and I had to buy another name! Kidding... 
but now there will be tons --quite literally-- of arguments here from all sides which everybody will be able to read. I just don't feel like continuing this, besides it would turn even more repetitive. I'm sorry I won't read your likely response Juni, but I know myself, I would be tempted to answer back... However everybody else will be able to read it and may find it insightful.
