Resolved: Capitalism Has Been The Exclusive Liberator From Grinding Poverty

I'm afraid Marxism is pertinent here and you must address it: no system can be called a 'liberator from grinding poverty', which produces grinding poverty and a status quo by which a subservient class tend to the needs of their superiors. This is counter-intuitive, which is why I raised the point. By the same logic, we can call ancient Athens a liberating society for empirically benefiting people through the 'polis' at the price of their enslavement, when in fact the rigid institutional economic system also limited people to poverty (something existent in Marx's day and in our own). This is not an ethical point, but a descriptive one. When the working class of industrial Britain were just given subsistence wages, as the ancient slaves were, in so that they could be continually utilised as a workforce, I do not call this liberation from poverty. I call this the extension of it, the iron law of wages. The restriction of freedoms at this time, call for you to change the resolve from capitalism being a 'liberator' to an 'abating force' of poverty. Of course, your definition of poverty seems to be material-based, the 'access to clean water' and 'adequate nutrition' and so forth ignoring socialist societies like Vietnam which were organised into villages and cotton industries where every member was sustained without free-trade capitalism. In other words, I accuse you of defining 'poverty' based on the lack of capital gain (capitalism) thereby using circular reasoning. What is poverty? The lack of capitalism! Thereby capitalism prevents poverty. Yay! "Free trade did not exist in the era of mercantilism.": this is incorrect. Undeniably, the state extended less authority over private companies trading abroad than it does today, allowing some tariff-free trade to occur between some private individuals and others. Take the Elizabethan privateers. If you knew the period well or even read that article in full that you presented, you would know that Holland and particularly the Antwerp markets were the biggest European trading ports of the Elizabethan period. The author pulls Holland out as an exception to regulation. People got rich and the Crown could not touch their profits unless they sponsored or owned part of the fleet used for trade. Ergo, free trade did exist in the era of mercantilism. But my point here was: why did the Industrial Revolution occur when it did? Why not in mercantilism, which held many of the practices of capitalism? Could it be that certain social forces were at play causing new innovations to happen? That the trajectory of humanism (etc.) proved to be the impetus for development and not capitalism? Raising the question of Newcomen, leads precisely to this difficult question: was capitalism ancillary to his success, or could the steam engine have been devised in a socialist state? Of course, resources and capital were required to realise the steam engine: it didn't run on thin air. So I turned your argument on its head to aver that, yes, a socialist state which invests resources in government-owned programmes and distributes resources to people can lead to concrete social advancements. The USSR undeniably made scientific progress under socialism by investing capital into social programs, most obviously being the space program. To state that socialist or quasi-socialist countries live in a static bubble of no progression is clearly erroneous. Ergo, I don't see the inventions of people in the Industrial Revolution as dependent on the system of modern capitalism but rather as dependent on people who have resources and an intellectual tradition, who just happen to be innovating within a capitalist framework. This is a fine distinction, I realise. Yet, technological and intellectual progression over time cannot be ignored either as preventing poverty to capitalism and free trade. To argue 'we live under capitalism and free trade' and that 'things have never been better' is fine: to make the former the cause of the latter over the gradual progression of societies and ideas over time needs to be proved. The onus is on you. Your reference to the 'telos' of capitalism being empirical development I find dubious as well: as if the development of minds was utterly inscribed onto the system of economy, ready to unfurl over time. There is no intrinsic purpose to capitalism, no essence by which capitalism must produce thus. I am arguing a constructivist account of human development, coming from individuals utilising their surroundings to solve problems. As such, I extend my arguments from R1 here, now better-explained (I hope). As to the other two points, you so charitably gave me space to write about: 2) The UK You make the claim here that economic growth caused by free-trade capitalism in the 19th century ensued in individual liberation from poverty. I agree up to an extent domestically, but at the cost of the wealth of foreign powers. Domestically, up until 1807, this of course did not extend to slaves in the British Empire who did not have the right of proprietorship. Women likewise were constricted in their ownership of property and right to work, many finding themselves in workhouses. But okay, the men were better off in general at least from industrial boom. More capital, more infrastructure, less poverty. Providing pay and employment goes up and prices and living costs decrease the impoverished are definitely better off, in that they have more capital. So what if some of our profits come from exploiting LEDCs and (economic) slaves, enhancing our freedom at their expense? We pious gain, they lose, in the full-swing of the Protestant work ethic. In the height of the industrial era we are imposing our technical infrastructure onto our colonies which we can exploit, as the USSR exploited eastern Europe via the Comecon scheme, and they are powerless. We gain profit from India, while the people suffer over our rule. In fact, with our unchallenged naval hegemony post-Napoleon and Russian decline, we can control most marine trade: China, Argentina (etc.) are all in our authority. We possess the seas. We can make trade deals with everyone because there is no one who can compete with us. Aren't we just the harbingers of liberty and wealth? Our industrialised economy, which is seeing decline in urban working class living conditions, is so much more expedient than other economies and our naval power is so dominant that we can freely trade with every nation, out-competing their lesser-developed economic systems entirely (selling cheaper and more mass produced goods) putting thousands of European manufacturers out of work and lowering the average price value of goods in these states. By freely-trading with everyone with a cost-cutting and more efficient manufacturing business, we undermine foreign economies and upholster our own. You can check my history if you like, but this explains how 19th century English economy came at the expense of the wealth of other nations they traded with as well as from the fact that they were the only mass free-trading capitalist society at the period, holding a better domestic manufacturing industry meaning they could dominate the foreign markets. It wasn't just the qualifications of 'capitalism' and 'free-trade' that led to their economic success. 3) Argentina Not my sphere of expertise, I will be brief on this topic highlighting parts of the article you gave than run contrary to laissez-faire free trade capitalism. It didn't say that free-trade capitalism was entirely the reason for economic growth: it spoke of a nation with a stable government investing in infrastructure, on the base of strong national education and agriculture, that became economically successful when it allowed private enterprise to catalyse its growth and make the national economy for efficient, within the framework of its laws (like the currency convertibility law). People using capitalism, over capitalism using them (my argument).