Why do socialists in America refuse to admit they are socialists?

[BeBMan]

They weren't that bad, and necessary actions sometimes have to be taken. Every country does this, including the US...why single out Franco and Salazar?

Yeah, or why not kill you because I don't like your opinions. That wouldn't be so bad, why should anyone have a prob with it?

[C0ckney]

They weren't that bad, and necessary actions sometimes have to be taken. Every country does this, including the US...why single out Franco and Salazar?

bebro puts it very well

They were the poorest in western Europe when Franco and Salazar took over, and economically and politically were a mess. Franco and Salazar effectively modernized their economies and transitioned them from backwards agrarian economies to modern industrialized ones with an amazing amount of stability, much more so than economic development under liberal, laissez-faire capitalist regimes. They did this without shocks, market fluctuations, or serious hardship to the farmers or the urban workers. This, to me, constitutes effective economic development.

notwithstanding the fact that what you say is extremely inaccurate. what major event happened in western europe between salazar and franco coming to power and the end of their regimes? think carefully now, one which might rather have hindered economic development and affected every country in western europe except spain and portugual (well ok, and switzerland). any ideas yet? let me know eh.

And as for 'wading through the wrongness,' it was two paragraphs. That's not long.

yes, i agree, it's quite incredible the amount of crap you managed to fit into a relatively small space.

Also, it appears that neither country has the endowment factors of a successful economy like other nations in western Europe: both saw lots of gains in the 90s and 00s, but they were essentially based on the credit glut and speculatory economic activity that created an unsustainable boom in asset prices. That's why they have been hit hard by the crisis. In light of this, both nations did VERY WELL under Salazar and Franco respectively.

this contradicts the first part of your post completely, and is also a very incomplete account with a ridiculous conclusion. well done.

[NoodleNaught]

13"

[curtis290]

Yeah, or why not kill you because I don't like your opinions. That wouldn't be so bad, why should anyone have a prob with it?

Sometimes a few need to be sacrificed for the good of the nation if they're not onboard with what needs to be done. Again, this is done in every place and time, in the US as well, so why single out Franco and Salazar for that? A minor detail considering the good they did for their respective countries.

bebro puts it very well



notwithstanding the fact that what you say is extremely inaccurate. what major event happened in western europe between salazar and franco coming to power and the end of their regimes? think carefully now, one which might rather have hindered economic development and affected every country in western europe except spain and portugual (well ok, and switzerland). any ideas yet? let me know eh.

Come on. Economic development is characterized by extreme market fluctuations unrelated to war. Do you think Britain's economy was completely stable, without market shocks, from the 18th century until 1914? Most of the time the urbanization/industrialization process is a painful one for society. It tears up the countryside, destroys the traditional fabric of society, and creates a new class of poor workers, forced from their homes in the countryside, who are squished together in with terrible standards of living in a city, who have awful working conditions. It creates the conditions for a revolution. And this process of course is characterized by extreme market fluctuations. It certainly isn't stable. There will be periods of tremendous growth (whose gains aren't enjoyed by most of the populous) followed by sever recessions and sometimes depressions. But in Spain and Portugal, industrialization was slow, steady, and stable, without fluctuations or destroying the countryside and the traditional way of life, exactly how it should be IMO.

yes, i agree, it's quite incredible the amount of crap you managed to fit into a relatively small space.





this contradicts the first part of your post completely, and is also a very incomplete account with a ridiculous conclusion. well done.

Again, just because you disagree doesn't make the other's opinion crap. And as far as your last sentence, you're wrong and obviously didn't read closely enough. I pointed out that maybe Spain and Portugal don't have the inherent conditions for a successful economy within Western Europe (by Western European standards of course), so maybe Franco and Salazar did a great job, as good of a job as they possibly could have. It seems that most of the gains brought by their liberal governments were short-term and speculatory, instead of a coherent, long-term economic plan, like Franco's or Salazar's. Very typical of liberal governments.

[Dinner]

I like Curtiss. He's dumb as a rock and throws stones in his glass house like Loinburger but he's amusing.

[Barnabas]

He isn't that wrong with regards to Spain, Franco was a better ruler than any ruler Spain has had before in the XX century or during the whole XIX century, and once he stopped being blockaded because being anti-commie became more important than being formerly pro-azis, the Economy of Spain begun to grow at very high rates, that only stopped in the late 70's because of the Oil crisis, when Franco was already dead.

The European Union didn't have anything to do with Franco and the high economic growth and development Spain had under him.

[Hauldren Collider]

Wait, people think Franco was good?

Or do you mean he was just better? From what I've read he was a brutal dictator...

[Barnabas]

I am not saying he was a nice dude, I am saying that the standard of life of Spaniards increased greatly under his rule using the most materialistic concept you can think of for determining standard of life, and that the economy and infreastructure became modern.

[KrazyHorse]

I like Curtiss. He's dumb as a rock and throws stones in his glass house like Loinburger but he's amusing.

Loinburger is immensely intelligent, though not always rational. And loinburger is much funnier than this ****.

[Barnabas]

He is also right with regard to Spain and Portugal being poorer than all other Wester European Countries before Franco (although Ireland was the poorest one back then) Spain has been poorer than most other Western European Countries since the middle XVII century, they recovered nicely in the XVIII century, but Napoleon invaded them, ****ed up Spain, and the Spaniards spent the XIX century going from civil war to civil war.
Franco finally put an end to that disorder that had lasted more than a century.

[curtis290]

He isn't that wrong with regards to Spain, Franco was a better ruler than any ruler Spain has had before in the XX century or during the whole XIX century, and once he stopped being blockaded because being anti-commie became more important than being formerly pro-azis, the Economy of Spain begun to grow at very high rates, that only stopped in the late 70's because of the Oil crisis, when Franco was already dead.

The European Union didn't have anything to do with Franco and the high economic growth and development Spain had under him.

I am not saying he was a nice dude, I am saying that the standard of life of Spaniards increased greatly under his rule using the most materialistic concept you can think of for determining standard of life, and that the economy and infreastructure became modern.

He is also right with regard to Spain and Portugal being poorer than all other Wester European Countries before Franco (although Ireland was the poorest one back then) Spain has been poorer than most other Western European Countries since the middle XVII century, they recovered nicely in the XVIII century, but Napoleon invaded them, ****ed up Spain, and the Spaniards spent the XIX century going from civil war to civil war.
Franco finally put an end to that disorder that had lasted more than a century.

Thank you...probably the best sh*t I've read on Apolyton so far. I'd add that not only did he increase their standards of living and modernize their economy, his government was one of the few to have done so in a stable, steady manner, while maintaining order and traditional societal structures and preventing cultural decay (something hard to measure).

[curtis290]

Loinburger is immensely intelligent, though not always rational. And loinburger is much funnier than this ****.

If I'm a DL as you claim, than I am doing this as a joke, and I wouldn't believe in anything I'm writing. I wouldn't be a ******. If I'm a serious poster, than this isn't supposed to be funny, but since my views differ from yours, than in your eyes I must be a ******. Like many other intelligent people here. You, however, are certainly not one to be accusing people of being retarded. Your posts on Speenhamland in the other thread show that you don't even have basic reading comprehension skills, or the ability to simply look it up on the internet or in an encyclopedia.

[curtis290]

Wait, people think Franco was good?

Or do you mean he was just better? From what I've read he was a brutal dictator...

Though liberals such as yourself cannot fathom it, in many places in the world people do not have the same dogmatic worship of liberal doctrine, and many view non-liberal regimes as very successful and liberal ones as failures (usually because of a lack of coherent leadership, poor economic management, or for more important cultural reasons). For example, many older Spaniards and Portugese will reminisce about the Franco and Salazar years, just as many Argentines will tell you that the military coups in the 60s and 70s (especially the government from 78-83) were necessary and that the liberal, democratic regimes of the period were characterized by corruption and bad governance.

[BeBMan]

Sometimes a few need to be sacrificed for the good of the nation if they're not onboard with what needs to be done. Again, this is done in every place and time, in the US as well, so why single out Franco and Salazar for that? A minor detail considering the good they did for their respective countries.

You already posted it, but repetition doesn't make it a better argument. First it's nonsense to claim that every political system uses systematic torture and killings to suppress political opposition.

But hey, let's play the game, so I'll repeat my point too: Assume I set up a government that provides economic growth, but will kill people like you who may disagree with my system, cool? I mean, Stalin did industrialize the Soviet Union -- if that doesn't prove him right....

The whole "Franco and Salazar are great examples of stability/whatever" argument reads absurd given their kind of rule didn't last that long, while a lot of the (in your view) less stable or inefficient political systems are still in place.

[Dinner]

He isn't that wrong with regards to Spain, Franco was a better ruler than any ruler Spain has had before in the XX century or during the whole XIX century, and once he stopped being blockaded because being anti-commie became more important than being formerly pro-azis, the Economy of Spain begun to grow at very high rates, that only stopped in the late 70's because of the Oil crisis, when Franco was already dead.

The European Union didn't have anything to do with Franco and the high economic growth and development Spain had under him.

Meh, you're using the classic post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. The reality is the period between 1936-1972 was one of tremendous technological and economic advancement for the whole world and it really doesn't matter who was in charge in Spain because as a western European country it was set to see big changes during that period. If the Republicans had won the Spanish Civil war then you'd be telling us what a great job they did between 1936-1972. The reality is that when Franco died and Spain entered the EU Spain was pretty much a **** hole. It was the poorest state in western Europe (even losing to Ireland and Portugal at the time, ouch) by PPP per capita income and it's infrastructure was so bad the EU has spent the last 40 years giving them subsidies to try to modernize the place. Let's be honest and say Franco wasn't much of a positive factor.