Competition? The “civilized” countries built their wealth through violent appropiation of other nations resources and enslavement of their people, not through “competition”.
That also happened before. Which country is not ruled by ‘winners’? The difference was that the slave owners lost out to the machine owners. The wealth comes from knowledge and investment decisions. Trade came before wars.
What enabled much of the scientific and industrial innovation since the early modern age was the wealth directly extracted from colonies and by European companies who established monopolies throughout the globe.
Colonialism and Slavery are central to Europe’s and, eventually, North America’s industrialization. Slave owners walked so machine owners can run. Marx talks about this as well.
To picture Europe’s wealth as the product of mere trade or ‘competition’ is simply inaccurate.
My point is that other countries with slavery and empires had the slave owners enjoy the profits uninterrupted. The more intense competition that we call capitalism made the difference that led to our civilization.
I don’t see how socialism can maintain our level of civilization without that competition.
You are more fundamentalist than christian fanatics themselves jfc. Competition only happens when new markets rise, and for a short period of time, it inevitably ends up as a monopoly. It is not a feature unique to capitalism, it has happened throughout history. Developments on production are what drive society forward, not the economic systems and classes that rise from that.
Also what “level of civilization” are you talking about? This is a “civilization” where you get killed for having a different skin color, a different facial feature, being born in land with resources, by demanding basic human dignity ffs.
Are AES countries good enough for you? Which ones?
I think we haven’t found a way to create our level of civilization without competition. It’s an open challenge.
Competition? The “civilized” countries built their wealth through violent appropiation of other nations resources and enslavement of their people, not through “competition”.
That also happened before. Which country is not ruled by ‘winners’? The difference was that the slave owners lost out to the machine owners. The wealth comes from knowledge and investment decisions. Trade came before wars.
What enabled much of the scientific and industrial innovation since the early modern age was the wealth directly extracted from colonies and by European companies who established monopolies throughout the globe.
Colonialism and Slavery are central to Europe’s and, eventually, North America’s industrialization. Slave owners walked so machine owners can run. Marx talks about this as well.
To picture Europe’s wealth as the product of mere trade or ‘competition’ is simply inaccurate.
I agree.
My point is that other countries with slavery and empires had the slave owners enjoy the profits uninterrupted. The more intense competition that we call capitalism made the difference that led to our civilization.
I don’t see how socialism can maintain our level of civilization without that competition.
Well, maybe “we” should reassess how “civilzed” “our level of civilisation” is.
You are more fundamentalist than christian fanatics themselves jfc. Competition only happens when new markets rise, and for a short period of time, it inevitably ends up as a monopoly. It is not a feature unique to capitalism, it has happened throughout history. Developments on production are what drive society forward, not the economic systems and classes that rise from that.
Also what “level of civilization” are you talking about? This is a “civilization” where you get killed for having a different skin color, a different facial feature, being born in land with resources, by demanding basic human dignity ffs.