Politicians have discovered that slaves are more productive when allowed to choose their own profession, and have that taxed. That does not make it capitalism.
If we stick to Marx’s original meaning of capitalist, it was someone who provided capital (financing) for industry.
This surely means that the capitalist had a choice of who would receive that investment. How could it mean the investor did not?
So, capitalism is freedom.
Compare that to socialism, where the state (assuming the place of society, causing that to whither away) determines everything for you. You have no influence on the policies that control your life (yes, this means that all democracies are socialistic).
… is leave you alone, protects property rights…
Protects property rights from what? From theft by the government. Which is what governments always do, because they can not produce anything. So to protect against the institutional thievery, businesses have to grow big. What use is government, if all it does is steal from you? And if not-stealing is considered laudable, why government at all? If it doesn’t exist, it can not steal from you. So non-existence must be the most desirable form of government.
At approx. 14:00 in this vid: https://youtu.be/5nuD_CIUJzM
No, “we” won’t. The mechanical looms didn’t make everyone unemployed, instead they ensured that more people could buy cheaper clothes. And still have money left over to spend on other stuff, like food and drink, housing, hygiene (soap, toothpaste, toilets), arts, etc. Which had to be made by people, so the mechanical looms were a boon to the entire population (yes, in the end even to the people that make clothes now).
Oh, there was a time, when almost everyone worked on a farm. Live there was so horrible that people fled into cities, and almost nobody fled back to the farm, no matter how Dickensian life in the city was.
But on the farm, food production was so mechanized by combine harvesters etc. that ever fewer people were needed to grow food. And still, in spite of all those jobs being gone, the entire population is not exactly unemployed, now, is it?
This demonstrates one upside of a HW maker also making its own SW: faster turnaround times.
Of course, monopolies have their downside also: imagine duppliers/customers getting locked into an OS platform, which starts lagging behind.
Just came across a post on Facebook, blaming Africa’s poverty on colonial exploitation. I’m sure that has played some sort of role in the past, but Hong Kong was also a colony, and is incredibly wealthy (and that with scant few natural resources if its own to exploit). Why the difference between the two? African leaders have dragged the continent down the socialist rabbit hole.
Socialism is a political system of theft, not production: so will only cause poverty once there is nothing left to steal.
The socialist’s view of how wealth is created is probably similar to this:
A great cloud of wealth is floating through the universe, capitalist pigs pluck wealth from it and get richer, while the poor masses are left to starve, and “only ever get poorer”.
Not a word about where wealth really comes from: production (& investment in it, to increase productivity).
Also not a peep about how capitalism has, millennia ago, gotten people out of mud huts and socialism is pushing people back in today.
Back to the title: the yammering of socialists about “It’s unfair!” does nothing to drag Africa out of poverty.
Once again: the left only cares about its own petty pleasures and sacrifices the interests of millions of Africans to keep them in tact.
Whereas #communist (#socialist) #China sought refuge to a draconian one-child law to limit fertility (amount of children spawned per family), elsewhere in the world, capitalism made people so rich, that they do not need so many #children.
Reasons for having many children:
- Living in squalid conditions, #mortality is very high, not just among adults, but particularly among children. So, in order to have at least one child survive, people have many; they play the numbers game.
- Children are a means of providing for the parents past the working age. Thanks to #pension funds (that invest their #money in exchanged #stocks – another feature of capitalism), people in capitalism do not need many children to work for them/to feed them.
Richer societies have (better access to) better healthcare, so they survive child birth, infancy and old age better (as well as the bits in between).
The reason Africa has such high rates of childbirth, is because of the socialistic policies there, resulting in situations mentioned above.
And to think its socialists who (wrongly) embraced Ehrlich and Malthus.
- Because capitalism is responsible for: sufficient food production, whereas the natural state of affairs is to be on the brink of starvation.
- Also: it gave the world light after . Which gives people an opportunity to learn (by reading)allowing them to enrich themselves. In nature, there is no light after sunset.
In socialism, hunger is the de facto mode of existence.
Also: satellite photos of DPRK show that people in communism aren’t supposed to read, for fear of learning.