Communism makes rich nations poorer....capitalism makes poor nations richer...

Examples of the first: Russia, Czechoslovakia to name a few; examples of the second: the East Asian 'tiger' economies, many European post-communist states...

But capitalism comes in many varieties, as I have often pointed out. Socialism/communism comes in one shape and size...it is a dogma, an article of faith and immutable.

What is worrying in the European context is that the failure of moderate Parties of right and left to offer an alternative to the free market model has led far too many people to cast a vote for extremist parties, parties which if elected would plunge the nation even deeper into social and economic crisis.
The majority of those who voted Front National in France, for New Dawn or the Communists in Greece or for IU in Spain are not fascists/nazis or socialists....they are the disillusioned who understandably have no faith in the moderate parties.
If they really were socialists or fascists, all who believe in the democratic process should either head for the hills or prepare for self-defence....

__________________
'The Owl of Minerva spreads her wings only at the onset of dusk'.

So where in their manifesto do they advocate the overthrow of the ruling class and workers taking over the means of production?

The IU contains former PCE members, disillusioned PSOE members, greens, feminists, republicans, humanists and many others who are trying to change society for the better. You're always saying that the best way to achieve social change is to join a party and do it from within the existing democratic structure. That's just what the IULV-A is trying to do, isn't it?

__________________
Read about life in the pueblo: La Vida Alcalaina

Yes, they are and it is their democratic right to do so, however much I disagree with their philosophy and programme. I also extend the same rights to prties of the hard right as long as they do not advocate violence. That view is not shared by many hard-leftists who would if they could silence these parties.

That description you give, no doubt accurate, of the composition of IULV-A,underlines my description of it as a ragbag of assorted groupuscules. How on earth can an agglomeration of such groupings with widely diverging objectives and principles possibly be expected or expect to govern? You skip over the fact that the IU is Communist -led which it is. Since when has communism recognised gender politics? Or environmental politics? What on earth is the shared political faith of the secular religion of humanism? Humanists come from all points on the political spectrum.

Of course I advocate people joining political parties and it is their democratic right to choose which they join - a right that could be curtailed under a hard-left communist influenced state, as history shows.. But these parties have no realistic platform for a functioning government and hopefully, like their kin on the hard right, will never have the opportunity to get into a posiotion where they will run a country.

So the IU slogan is : 'Vote communist/socialist/green/feminist/humanist/generally well-meaning but naive person with vaguely leftist sympathies'????

The reason for the slight surge in support for these hard right and left parties is the dismal failure of the moderate left and right parties to produce a credible alternative economic model.

As for stating openly their belief in 'overthrowing the ruling class' and all that nonsense....firstly, how could they when they are as you say such a motley crew who may not all support such an aim and secondly since when has the Communist Party of any state been honest about its objectives?

__________________
'The Owl of Minerva spreads her wings only at the onset of dusk'.

Yes, they are and it is their democratic right to do so, however much I disagree with their philosophy and programme. I also extend the same rights to prties of the hard right as long as they do not advocate violence. That view is not shared by many hard-leftists who would if they could silence these parties.

That description you give, no doubt accurate, of the composition of IULV-A,underlines my description of it as a ragbag of assorted groupuscules. How on earth can an agglomeration of such groupings with widely diverging objectives and principles possibly be expected or expect to govern? You skip over the fact that the IU is Communist -led which it is. Since when has communism recognised gender politics? Or environmental politics? What on earth is the shared political faith of the secular religion of humanism? Humanists come from all points on the political spectrum.

Of course I advocate people joining political parties and it is their democratic right to choose which they join - a right that could be curtailed under a hard-left communist influenced state, as history shows.. But these parties have no realistic platform for a functioning government and hopefully, like their kin on the hard right, will never have the opportunity to get into a posiotion where they will run a country.

So the IU slogan is : 'Vote communist/socialist/green/feminist/humanist/generally well-meaning but naive person'????

The reason for the slight surge in support for these hard right and left parties is the dismal failure of the moderate left and right parties to produce a credible alternative economic model.

As for stating openly their belief in 'overthrowing the ruling class' and all that nonsense....firstly, how could they when they are as you say such a motley crew who may not all support such an aim and secondly since when has the Communist Party of any state been honest about its objectives?

__________________
'The Owl of Minerva spreads her wings only at the onset of dusk'.

REFILE-FOREX-Euro hits 3-month low as fears rise on Greece, Spain | Reuters The latest news

Jo xxx

__________________

for your information: if you are following the news, you must know that the neo fascists don't won the election, they just won 21 seat in the greek PM from 300 seats.

To return to the thread title: there is no realistic comparison between these three countries.

Greece is insolvent. Its Government borrowed recklessly and spent the money unproductively by increasing the already bloated public sector and raising public sector wages and benefits. Tax evasion is as much a part of Greek life as the Acropolis as are unstable Governments and military dictatorships. Many Greek people are able to retire at fifty on generous state pensions. A ridiculous number of quite mundane jobs -hairdressing, postperson -are categorised as 'dangerous' and attract wage supplements.
Exports are low, money is fast flowing out of the country and productivity generally is near to zero. The country cannot repay its debts and remain in the eurozone.

Spain is illiquid. The Zapatero Government did not need to borrow until the crisis hit. Spain's problems lie in the banking sector which took advantage of cheap euro-credit to fuel the construction boom, lending recklessly to companies and private individuals. The boom has now bust leaving these banks with sour loans that cannot be repaid, plus of course the high unemployment which in turn has increased Government borrowing to pay for the paro.
The Spanish people and immigrants who rode on this artificial construction boom must take some share of the blame. No-one put a gun at the heads of companies or individuals who gorged on this cheap credit. The 'pulse and passport' culture is a big culprit in the current mess.
Spain has prospects for growth once the banks are recapitalised and closed or merged. But if Spain comes through the crisis it will do so at the expense of its neighbour and main competitor, Portugal.

The UK is in a totally different position. Unlike Spain and Greece- Greece's bonds have junk status and Spain's yields hit 6.5% this week - the UK's yields are low, around the 3% mark. It makes a profit by lending to stricken countries such as Eire at rates 2 points higher than it borrows at. The UK, inspite of its current difficulties, made worse by an incompetent Government, has a thriving financial sector and is still the world's leading financial centre.
We still manage to export and our unemployment rate is under 9%.
The danger for the UK is that the private sector, because of the squeeze on bank lending, may not be in a position to pick up the slack when the cuts which have not started in earnest yet really begin to impact on employment and the benefit bill.

__________________
'The Owl of Minerva spreads her wings only at the onset of dusk'.