>> They
>>> don't include in the category "workers" the billions
>>> in the Third World who maybe absolutely worse off
>>> under capitalism than they were under their
>>> traditional economies.
>>
>>How? I mean, I'm willing to be proved wrong on this,
>>but It seems to me that, bad as conditions are in the
>>third world today, they are somewhat better than they
>>were before - or is subsistance agriculture, endemic
>>disease, and locally-based despotism superior to a
>>first world capitalist making a buck?
>>
>>Jim Baird
>
>Life expectancy does seem to have doubled. And fertility suggests
>vastly improved nutritional status since, say, 1900...
But there was this time in the ur-past, when work was unalienated, love was rampant, and everyone was happy all the time, even if you were lucky to hit 35.
Doug