Rhian,

You got something against feudalism?

"...the bourgeoisie "rescued a considerable part of the population from the idiocy of rural life"."
.....and replaced it with the idiocy of factory life...bravo!

imajulianutter,

Very droll, sir.

"Tell me how you fit the political theory and actions of the National Socialists and the political theory and actions of Liberal Democrats and conservatives into the Venn diagrams?"

I have no idea what a Liberal Democrat is, nor where he sits on the political spectrum. But a liberal democrat sounds like a lefty liberal to me, and thus falls into the left-wing ideologies circle - the all important use of upper-case letters in the words 'L/liberal' and 'D/democrat' may, of course, drastically alter the meaning of those words.

Conservatism is definitely a right-wing ideology, and thus falls into the right-wing ideologies circle.

This ain't really rocket science, champ... get thee to a class in politics.

Rhian,

What is wrong with the 'idiocy of rural life'? It features a lot in More's 'Utopia', and I really like most of the ideas put forward in Utopia (obviously, ideas such as capital punishment aren't so sound).

The Acolyte Rizla

Thankyou, but I would much prefer larconic.

Why would I want to attend the class that you have obviously attended ? It hasn't taught much.

'I have no idea what a Liberal Democrat is, nor where he sits on the political spectrum',

of course you don't but I'd bet, at odds shorter than those about Black Cavier, you'd know plenty of social democrats and exactly where they sit.

But, mate, seriously you haven't yet stated the policy held by National Socialists or the policy commonly held by traditional conservative and liberal parties, so that we can understand your thought process in placing them in the same Venn diagrams.

Did your class not emphasis a rational thought process to enable critical evaluation of assertions/hypothesis?

Poirot

I admit I always find the self-awarded halo of Marxist economic illiterates to be extremely provoking.

You have not begun to establish that capitalism is exploitative which is why you have evaded and evaded and evaded the question that proves you wrong:
if the legislature in 1842 had mandated the minimum wage be 50 pounds a day in 1842 money, would that have made the condition of the working class better or worse?
If the Chinese government mandated the minimum wage in China be equal to the Australian average, would the Chinese working class be better off or worse?

Let's face it, the reason you won't answer the question is because it's obvious that you're wrong.

Therefore:
a) the poverty of the workers is not caused by capitalism, it's caused by nature (which is why in all other societies those people died)
b) it is relieved by capitalism more than any other economic system
c) state interventions do *not produce a net benefit, but only a net increase of the poverty and hardship
d) the impression otherwise is caused by ignorantly disregarding the negative consequences of state interventions, just as you have done.

Your technique of blaming capitalism for states’ ham-fisted manipulation of the means of production is also self-evidently flim-flam.

The population growth under industrial capitalism speaks for itself. You apparently think yourself competent to decide for other people that their life is not worth living or that their values are not worth satisfying but then as an admirer of Marx you are only proving the point.

In any event, like Squeers, you have not begun to turn your mind to *how* the private ownership of the means of production could be replaced by public a.k.a. state ownership with all its consequential chaos and abuses; or how, in the absence of the state, it could happen at all? If it were voluntary, no problem - are we all to live as monks?

(cont,)

But it's not voluntary, that's the whole point. You just need to understand that you hold a flame for the most anti-liberty and violent belief system in the history of the world.

All your argument boils down to is asserting that billions of people would be better off dead than gainfully employed. This anti-human illogic also explains how you are able to simultaneously complain that capitalism makes the masses too poor ("exploitation") and that it makes them too rich ("unsustainable").

But go ahead and complain how dreadful it is that capitalism by gainfully employing people means they are alive not dead, and how the Chinese have the effrontery to want to live at the same standard you do.

You could always do what you blame the capitalists for not doing, and send third-world workers the difference between their market wage and what you consider to be the fair wage? The capitalist no more gains any benefit above their market rate than you do.