LK
>Your message bears repeating again and again. The notion that the exploitation of workers is a viable means to drive productivity and production increases, in America, in Asia, or anywhere else, is a nutty populist pinko fantasy. If a country is in the midst of an economic expansion, it is incredibly difficult for the average worker to somehow not share in this prosperity. If GDP increases by 5%, the average worker is better off by... 5%. Sure, some industrialists may make off like bandits. They may even be cronies. Whatever. If GDP isn't growing, no one wins. The only caveat, as Mr. Rogers has so perceptively explained, is a futile feudalism, which of course, generates no growth, just like socialism. Capitalism, even some of the glaringly imperfect versions, does create growth.<
Having read a number of your previous posts and believing that your definition of socialism seems quite broad, like anyone to the left of Francesco Franco is a socialist, how do you explain the "growth" in the economies of western European countries that would probably fit your broad interpretation of socialist?
Could it be possible in your view, that the unfettered growth in the United States during the early and mid 19th century might have been aided somewhat by the "employ" of certain "average workers" who did not share in the bounty of that era? Was this an example of "futile fueudalism"?(your spelling)... Have you ever heard of the Emancipation Proclamation? I know, an isolated incidence, couldn't possibly happen anywhere else, not in the 20th-21st century.
I'm not stupid enough to say that exploitation of workers is the norm, as you seem to want to infer, I'm just trying to say that it happens, it's wrong, and it doesn't contribute to the economic or political long term stability of a country or region. I guess that qualifies me as a fellow traveler in the 50's sense of the term.
Lawrence, things are not quite as black and white (or red) as you see them.
Now I'll drag my pinko butt to bed. |
