Dennis-
<<your definition ofsocialism 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?>>
Your jibe about Franco is intellectually unworthy and personally repugnant. Perhaps we can be grateful that Lawrence is not of Spanish Republican descent. Comments like that can destroy a thread.
As far as the growth of Western Europe is concerned, of course they have capitalism. They also, unfortunately, have elements of socialism. The word "socialism" has become a bit overloaded in popular usage- mea culpa in that regard- and has come to connote a system of controls placed by the coercive state on the non-coercive, mutually-agreed-upon actions of business people. W. European economies have a meaningful, albeit diminished, sense of private ownership that applies to at least the majority of productive assets. That is the essence of capitalism. Their practice of state ownership and controls placed on the free, non-coercive interactions of business people mean they also have elements of socialism, and their economic and spiritual growth has suffered accordingly. Thus, they have- as do we in the USA- an intellectual, moral, and economic contradiction. Truly, it is neither fish nor foul, and can claim no moral stature more elevated than the expediency of the ballot box.
Larry
|
