Are you saying Marx's theories did not lead to Gulags, misery and poverty in China and North Korea?
Oops....doen't look like a free market (or, in China's case, a "free-er" market) guarentees an end to these things, does it????
You really need to reread my post: We see the logical consequences of the free market have been much higher standards of living in those countries which have freer markets as compared to those that have less free markets. I didn't say freer markets guaranteed an end to those things. Are you denying that the freer market activities in China have increased the standard of living?
Think you best double-think those "communist" labels you enjoy throwing around there Toddster, and take a long, hard look at reality.
You first. I was calling A. Pole, who grew up under Communism and who still seems to think it is somehow superior to capitalism, a communist. Wouldn't you call someone who believes in the superiority of communism a communist? If not, what would you call him?
. A pure "free-market" economy can be just as bad--if not worse--than communism in terms of it's effects on a population.
A laughable assertion, but let's examine it. How many millions were put into camps and killed by the robber barons?
Either you're being oppressed by the political class, or being oppressed by the robber-barrons.
Again, laughable. The Chinese communists killed what, 50 million? The Russians another 20 million. The Cambodians, a million or two. How many millions did the robber barons in the US kill again?
You are twisting what I said. I said that life in Communist Poland was better for the majority of people than life in Dickensian England and especially Ireland.
I think that capitalism with human face is better than socialism, but socialism with human face is better than capitalism without human face. Do you understand?
Those millions who were killed by the Russians and the Chinese (amongst a host of other commies) were killed for POLITICAL reasons, not ECONOMIC. Hence, not comparable.
But what we are comparing are standards of living. In that realm, communists are not that far behind the industrialists of the 19th century, with the exception of North Korea. In some cases, communism could even be preferable to the squalor and misery of life in 19th century industrial Europe. Just ask the Irish.
Has the free-er market of China helped raise the standard of living? Yes, to a certian extent...but not for everyone in China, probably not even for a majority. But it's difficult to determine given that the Chinese aren't exactly forth-coming with all sorts of untainted economic data. However, China is still a long, long, long way from having anything resembling free markets as you define them.
As for the superiority of communism to capitalism, I don't see ANYONE on these threads singing the praises of Communism, not even A.Pole. What is being said is that unrestrained free markets aren't the bag 'o gold that many here on these threads think they are. Labor unions didn't come about in free-market economies because they had nothing better to do....it was a direct result of the oppression they felt--and felt in a painful fashion--from the nice free-market capitalists in charge of their sweat-shops. There's a reason Marxism was born out of 19th century free-market Europe...
I am now, and have always been a Christian capitalist, never a Marxist nor very sympathetic towards Marxist ideology.
The reason I say Christian capitalist and not just "capitalist" is that capitalism, in order to work, must have the highest moral and ethical principles, and I haven't found any higher outside the realm of Christianity. Mix a moral, benevolent people with free markets and for the most part things will work, as they have in the West up to the 19th century. When Christianity began it's long, slow march towards marginalization after the Reformation, the ethical and moral limits on economic power started to decline as well...not that they were ever all that strong to begin with.
Absent strong ethics, morals or government control, a truly free-market, industrail based economy will exploit it's workers, no if's and's or but's. History is filled with examples. China is no better. And those on the short-end of the stick are the poor, working class who lack the MBA's and political connections to get out of the trap they are in. (I know, they should just go to college...like everyone else...)
Why do you think it was a Republican, Teddy Roosevelt, who was so much in favor of anti-trust regulation? Was it just that he got tired of creating national parks and needed a new hobby? Or maybe it was because he was responding to a national outrage as to the way the rich were consolidating their power, ala' Marx's prediction?