Russell Brand rages at Rupert Murdoch and The Sun

[KelvinsRightGlove]

Russell Brand tweets Torrent links of his own DVD

 

http://www.musicweek.com/news/read/russell-brand-directs-fans-to-the-pirate-bay-to-download-new-dvd/056910

 

He's walking the walk, gotta give him that.

 

I really want to dislike him. But I just can't.

 

I think he talks nonsense half the time, but he is quite charming in doing so.

 

Plus he did shack up with Katy Perry, so LAD

[Grey Crab]

If you study for 10 years to obtain a qualification shouldn't you be entitled to some form of compensation?

 

What has that got to do with capitalism?

[Smirking_Saint]

If someone comes up with an original and brilliant idea don't they deserve to be rewarded? If you study for 10 years to obtain a qualification shouldn't you be entitled to some form of compensation?

 

What is the incentive for innovation if no competition exists? The "free rider" problem of economic game theory is the downfall of any socialist experiment as it appears to be impossible to motivate everybody by sheer altruism.

 

Capitalism is one of the few ways mankind has found to ensure an efficient (but far from perfect) allocation of resources, avarice as you term it is one of the few efficient ways to motivate people.

 

Basically this.

 

Not a masdive fan of capitalism but really what are the alternatives. The cry of everyone is equal for me is incorrect as in reality we are all different every one of us.

 

In all honesty Socialism in an extreme form has been practiced before, its known as Communism and look how that worked out.

[buctootim]

What has that got to do with capitalism?

 

I guess he didn't study economics. Maybe it was aged 5-15 for a GCSE.

 

Capitalism is one of the few ways mankind has found to ensure an efficient (but far from perfect) allocation of resources, avarice as you term it is one of the few efficient ways to motivate people.

 

Steve Jobs earned and deserved his billions as did all the others who created something from nothing. They are the exceptions. What we have now is largely corporatism. The managing elite of a company rewarding themselves highly for doing jobs in businesses they didn't create and have risked nothing in. If anything they are the antithesis of innovation and capitalism.

Edited 2 December, 2013 by buctootim

[Smirking_Saint]

define "works".

 

Quite difficult to argue that the NHS does not obviously improve the life expectancy and health of the UK compared to many other countries.

[bridge too far]

Basically this.

 

Not a masdive fan of capitalism but really what are the alternatives. The cry of everyone is equal for me is incorrect as in reality we are all different every one of us.

 

In all honesty Socialism in an extreme form has been practiced before, its known as Communism and look how that worked out.

 

No Socialist would subscribe to this. What s/he would say is that everyone should have an equal chance in life. Vastly different.

[buctootim]

Not a masdive fan of capitalism but really what are the alternatives. The cry of everyone is equal for me is incorrect as in reality we are all different every one of us. In all honesty Socialism in an extreme form has been practiced before, its known as Communism and look how that worked out.

 

Thats just the usual Saintsweb straw man stuff 'We have to have capitalism because its better than communism and thems the only alternatives'. Most of Europe has predominantly Social Democratic governments - a capitalist economy in a regulated market with a welfare state. They're easy to spot on the map - just look for the rich countries with the high standards of living, good housing and excellent health care. I'm surprised so many people appear to be blithely oblivious to them.

[trousers]

No Socialist would subscribe to this. What s/he would say is that everyone should have an equal chance in life. Vastly different.

 

Same as Thatcherism then...

[aintforever]

Same as Thatcherism then...

 

You have got to be joking?

 

I went to school during the Thatcher years and it was a f*cking disgrace.

[Smirking_Saint]

No Socialist would subscribe to this. What s/he would say is that everyone should have an equal chance in life. Vastly different.

 

How does everyone not have an equal chance in life in the UK ?

[aintforever]

How does everyone not have an equal chance in life in the UK ?

 

Of course people have better chances than others. I recently did some work for an expensive private school in Surrey, it was a completely different world to the Comprehensive I went to. It's not just about schools either, also your parents, surroundings etc.

[Bearsy]

Of course people have better chances than others. I recently did some work for an expensive private school in Surrey, it was a completely different world to the Comprehensive I went to. It's not just about schools either, also your parents, surroundings etc.

 

Everyone has an equal chance to be born rich.

[Smirking_Saint]

Of course people have better chances than others. I recently did some work for an expensive private school in Surrey, it was a completely different world to the Comprehensive I went to. It's not just about schools either, also your parents, surroundings etc.

 

Well obviously, but everyone has equal oppurtunities. I didnt have the wonderful options that some of our more distinguished families can afford for their children but still make a comfortable living and will be able to provide a better upbringing for my children in return. How have I achieved this ? Hard work and perhaps being more academic then a few other people. Thats life and I accept that. There are people better looking, more athletic, more intelligent and they reap the rewards for that.

 

None of us are equal but are all afforded much more oppurtunity then most other countries in the world. Explain to me how you will go about improving a society by moving away from capatilism and I will concede my arguement. Our society isnt perfect but it certainly isnt the hell on earth that Brand makes out whilst offering absolutely no alternatives.

[Bearsy]

There are people better looking, more athletic, more intelligent

 

i find that v.difficult to believe xx

[bridge too far]

Well obviously, but everyone has equal oppurtunities. I didnt have the wonderful options that some of our more distinguished families can afford for their children but still make a comfortable living and will be able to provide a better upbringing for my children in return. How have I achieved this ? Hard work and perhaps being more academic then a few other people. Thats life and I accept that. There are people better looking, more athletic, more intelligent and they reap the rewards for that.

 

None of us are equal but are all afforded much more oppurtunity then most other countries in the world. Explain to me how you will go about improving a society by moving away from capatilism and I will concede my arguement. Our society isnt perfect but it certainly isnt the hell on earth that Brand makes out whilst offering absolutely no alternatives.

 

It depends on how you define a perfect society. It's an oft-reported fact that the happiest societies are those where the gap between rich and poor is narrow. In the UK, that gap is widening quickly.

 

No-one would disagree that some are born more intelligent, athletic etc. but the sad fact is that many of those so born don't get the opportunity to exploit their talents.

[Verbal]

Well obviously, but everyone has equal oppurtunities. I didnt have the wonderful options that some of our more distinguished families can afford for their children.

 

Lesson one: how to contradict oneself within one and a half sentences.

[Lord Duckhunter]

It depends on how you define a perfect society. It's an oft-reported fact that the happiest societies are those where the gap between rich and poor is narrow. In the UK, that gap is widening quickly.

 

No-one would disagree that some are born more intelligent, athletic etc. but the sad fact is that many of those so born don't get the opportunity to exploit their talents.

 

Here in Poole some of the poorest do get a decent opportunity for social mobility through education. There are 2 schools that take the brightest , no matter where they live or what social background they come from.

The next best performing school has a catchment area which excludes the poorest families as they are unable to afford the house prices. Strange that the schools that judge people on ability alone are shunned by politicians who allow faith schools and schools set up by any Tom **** and harry.

[Smirking_Saint]

i find that v.difficult to believe xx

 

I know bear, if it wasnt for my personal trainer, private tutor and harley medical group membership Id be really upset.

[Smirking_Saint]

Lesson one: how to contradict oneself within one and a half sentences.

 

You know what I mean Verbal stop being pedantic.

[Smirking_Saint]

It depends on how you define a perfect society. It's an oft-reported fact that the happiest societies are those where the gap between rich and poor is narrow. In the UK, that gap is widening quickly.

 

No-one would disagree that some are born more intelligent, athletic etc. but the sad fact is that many of those so born don't get the opportunity to exploit their talents.

 

Whilst I dont disagree Im excited to hear how ways to make the system fairer can be implemented ?

[Jonnyboy]

Why rich people dont actually create jobs:

 

http://www.slate.com/blogs/business_insider/2013/11/29/rich_people_don_t_create_jobs.html

[trousers]

You have got to be joking?

 

I went to school during the Thatcher years and it was a f*cking disgrace.

 

Me too and it was blooming marvellous

[badgerx16]

Everyone has an equal chance to be born rich.

 

How does everyone not have an equal chance in life in the UK ?

 

No matter how rich or poor we are in life, at the end we all become equal.

[Verbal]

You know what I mean Verbal stop being pedantic.

 

I'm not really. The phrase "equality of opportunity" has lost its meaning - and its radical power.

 

If you were to say that the principle needed in all cases to apply to the selection of, say, members of the Cabinet, what would have to change? For a start, the power of Eton, Westminster, Harrow, Winchester, Oxford and Cambridge to "pre-select" political leaders. It also means the inhibition of closed political "clubs", such as the Bullingdon, where qualifications for membership are restricted to the odious criterion of "breeding". It means altering the powerful, pervasive middle-class sense of entitlement (this one still amazes me whenever I hear it, which, in my present place of work, is often). And most of all, it means empowering those without power, without presumptively aspirational parents, without inherited wealth, without private education, in such a way that they have good reason, based on equitable social and educational systems, to believe that they too can rise to the top.

 

To make the institutional and social changes needed to achieve this requires something close to, or maybe more than, a revolution. As an aspiration, at least, it's happened before, in 1776 and 1789. It was what the Enlightenment was in part about. And what, around the 1830s and 40s, was the last Great Idea of the Enlightenment? Socialism.

 

Are you ready to come out as a socialist, Smirking?

[Rasiak-9-]

Nicely written!

 

But, and here's the odd thing, I'm guessing that you formed the first paragraph thinking it in some way pejorative.

 

I've read it a few times now and can't help thinking that you've failed to quite hit the insult. Words that appear invective to those on the right hit their targets on the left as no more than moist kisses.

 

Also I like the idea that what is "fair" is subjective, but what "works" seems to be somehow empirical.

 

Works from whose perspective Rasiak-9- ?

 

I once heard Socialism defined as "Compassion" and that's not a bad place to start.

 

Sorry I'll try to expand on what I mean a little bit more.

 

What I'm saying is neither pejorative, right-wing nor meant as an insult.

 

I'm simply saying that concepts of fairness and justice are subjective as they rely on the presence of a subject to hold any meaning. Concepts of something 'working' or not are objective based on the purpose for which something is designed to do. A pair of scissors works or doesn't work depending on them fulfilling their designed purpose of cutting paper, whereas the question "are these a pair of 'fair' or 'just' scissors" can't be answered with either yes or no. Its a meaningless statement in the same way as "Saintbletch is identical" is a meaningless statement, its not right or wrong it just cannot by definition mean anything.

 

So when we talk about fairness' and 'justice', we know that we're going to be dealing with people's varying opinions of how those concepts are both defined and implicated relevant to the respective society we're talking about. That doesn't mean that we should dismiss justice or morality as non-existent! It just means that we need to realise that we're going to be dealing with some fairly murky political philosophy before we can draw workable conclusions.

 

The classic rhetorical question from Thomas Sowell: "People always say they're entitled to their fair share; tell me, what is your fair share of someone else's money?"

 

As I say thats obviously a rhetorical question and might seem like a bit of a straw-man in terms of arguing against things like taxation, but it does highlight the problem; there are a million and one different concepts of what a fair share of someone else's money or economic productivity might be. No matter how well-researched, well-argued and backed up by evidence/political science/economic theory a certain argument might be, it will eventually have to rely on a subjective, moral concept of what actually is fair.

 

Your last sentence is the main problem with a lot of socialist rhetoric and indeed what a lot of people on the left think of people who are more libertarian than conservative and actually share a great many of their views in terms of personal freedom and social liberalism; you assume that they don't have compassion.

 

When you define socialism as compassion you're attacking everything else as 'not compassion' by proxy. The reality of it is that most people, the vast majority of people, want a fair, compassionate society full of happy people. There are exceptions of course, but the vast majority of people want freedom, happiness and justice and simply differ in their views of what those things actually are, as well as how to get them.

 

You, Russell Brand and many other socialists are I'm sure, very nice people who I certainly take my hat off to in terms of your passion for a happier, more fair and equitable society. The problem is though, without a serious argument about how those can be implicated, all Russell Brand really said in his interview amounted to "Why can't the world be a nicer place?"

[aintforever]

The classic rhetorical question from Thomas Sowell: "People always say they're entitled to their fair share; tell me, what is your fair share of someone else's money?"

 

As I say thats obviously a rhetorical question and might seem like a bit of a straw-man in terms of arguing against things like taxation, but it does highlight the problem; there are a million and one different concepts of what a fair share of someone else's money or economic productivity might be. No matter how well-researched, well-argued and backed up by evidence/political science/economic theory a certain argument might be, it will eventually have to rely on a subjective, moral concept of what actually is fair.

 

I just find reading that thoroughly depressing.

 

Me and my other half earn comfortably more than the average in the UK. I have never been on the dole, apart from once when I was a kid never used a hospital. I don't give a moments thought as to how much of my tax goes to helping people out, financing schools and hospitals etc. I don't even see the tax I pay as being "my money" anyway, it's the governments money that they need to provide me with the opportunity to live my life in a decent place. If we didn't pay tax we wouldn't live in a society when we could earn so much money.

[bridge too far]

Going off at a tangent, but nonetheless germane to the discussion I think, is this article about Iceland. It's quite long and is mainly about the lack of violence in the country but it does make observations about Icelandic society and how there are no concerns about class.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-25201471

[buctootim]

Sorry I'll try to expand on what I mean a little bit more.

 

What I'm saying is neither pejorative, right-wing nor meant as an insult.

 

I'm simply saying that concepts of fairness and justice are subjective as they rely on the presence of a subject to hold any meaning. Concepts of something 'working' or not are objective based on the purpose for which something is designed to do. A pair of scissors works or doesn't work depending on them fulfilling their designed purpose of cutting paper, whereas the question "are these a pair of 'fair' or 'just' scissors" can't be answered with either yes or no. Its a meaningless statement in the same way as "Saintbletch is identical" is a meaningless statement, its not right or wrong it just cannot by definition mean anything.

 

So when we talk about fairness' and 'justice', we know that we're going to be dealing with people's varying opinions of how those concepts are both defined and implicated relevant to the respective society we're talking about. That doesn't mean that we should dismiss justice or morality as non-existent! It just means that we need to realise that we're going to be dealing with some fairly murky political philosophy before we can draw workable conclusions.

 

The classic rhetorical question from Thomas Sowell: "People always say they're entitled to their fair share; tell me, what is your fair share of someone else's money?"

 

As I say thats obviously a rhetorical question and might seem like a bit of a straw-man in terms of arguing against things like taxation, but it does highlight the problem; there are a million and one different concepts of what a fair share of someone else's money or economic productivity might be. No matter how well-researched, well-argued and backed up by evidence/political science/economic theory a certain argument might be, it will eventually have to rely on a subjective, moral concept of what actually is fair.

 

Your last sentence is the main problem with a lot of socialist rhetoric and indeed what a lot of people on the left think of people who are more libertarian than conservative and actually share a great many of their views in terms of personal freedom and social liberalism; you assume that they don't have compassion.

 

When you define socialism as compassion you're attacking everything else as 'not compassion' by proxy. The reality of it is that most people, the vast majority of people, want a fair, compassionate society full of happy people. There are exceptions of course, but the vast majority of people want freedom, happiness and justice and simply differ in their views of what those things actually are, as well as how to get them.

 

You, Russell Brand and many other socialists are I'm sure, very nice people who I certainly take my hat off to in terms of your passion for a happier, more fair and equitable society. The problem is though, without a serious argument about how those can be implicated, all Russell Brand really said in his interview amounted to "Why can't the world be a nicer place?"

 

Very good post. The Thomas Sowell quote - "tell me, what is your fair share of someone else's money?" - implies redistribution is implicitly wrong. Isn't profit just another form of redistribution? What is a fair share of someone else's money taken in profits when it comes to goods and services people must buy to live - eg food, gas, water, electricity, housing. You cannot have a debate about the appropriateness of levels of taxation without also having a debate about appropriate levels of consumer protection, profits and tax 'avoidance' (which would be classed as tax evasion if it wasnt simply playing accounting tricks bouncing one countries jurisdiction off against another).

[Rasiak-9-]

I just find reading that thoroughly depressing.

 

Me and my other half earn comfortably more than the average in the UK. I have never been on the dole, apart from once when I was a kid never used a hospital. I don't give a moments thought as to how much of my tax goes to helping people out, financing schools and hospitals etc. I don't even see the tax I pay as being "my money" anyway, it's the governments money that they need to provide me with the opportunity to live my life in a decent place. If we didn't pay tax we wouldn't live in a society when we could earn so much money.

 

Awesome! you sound like you're a very kind-hearted and generous person who's getting his just rewards in life!

 

However; if you're more than happy to pay your contribution to social spending to benefit others, wouldn't you prefer that you were able to make that contribution voluntarily? rather than having it forcefully and violently taken from you through taxation?

 

Oh? Whats that? Oh you'd be happy to pay for social services, donate to charity and suchlike, but most people aren't as nice as you and thats why things wouldn't work on a voluntary basis?* People would make bad, immoral choices if given too much freedom and ultimately a forceful government is needed to impose morality and righteousness from the top-down...

 

Right.

 

...well...to be honest, you might have a point and be entirely right.

 

But see now we're getting to the crux of how socialism works in practice, and indeed how it has to work in practice. If society as it is, is unjust, despite the fact we live in a representative republic in which there is no reason a socialist party can't be voted in if there was enough public support for it, what precisely is the social change we're looking for? How exactly will things be 'evened up'?

 

Invariably (following on from the taxation example) you have to have a 'vanguard party' to protect the 'will of the people'/'public interest'/'social justice movement'/however-the-entirely-fallible-yet-totalitarian-and-vastly-powerful-new-government-justifies-itself, and impose that perceived notion of justice against those deemed counter-revolutionaries (in pretty much every example throughout history this is how things turn out).

 

Politicians, rulers and positions of power (investment bankers etc.) inevitably attract and create a vile class of power-hungry, selfish, corrupted people, how precisely is the socialist beaureacracy that ends up being put in charge going to be any different?

 

This is how socialism works in reality, it sings and harps on about equality and social justice, but you only end up swapping one class of psychopathic, immoral rulers for another. The difference being that at least the old lot were competing with one another economically and vaaaaaguely morally accountable through what is at least supposed to be an impartial justice system and free press. Whereas the moral justification for taxation (people left to their own devices are generally immoral) can be used for pretty much everything else (censorship, banning free press, banning counter-revolutionary political parties) on account of it being 'for the good of the people'.

 

PS.

*(I know that little turn of phrase looks like I'm putting words in your mouth but bear with me! I'm just using the word 'you' for the sake of argument and anticipating the usual response to try and take my point forward within my limit of 3 post per day! No offence meant or anything)

[Smirking_Saint]

Awesome! you sound like you're a very kind-hearted and generous person who's getting his just rewards in life!

 

However; if you're more than happy to pay your contribution to social spending to benefit others, wouldn't you prefer that you were able to make that contribution voluntarily? rather than having it forcefully and violently taken from you through taxation?

 

Oh? Whats that? Oh you'd be happy to pay for social services, donate to charity and suchlike, but most people aren't as nice as you and thats why things wouldn't work on a voluntary basis?* People would make bad, immoral choices if given too much freedom and ultimately a forceful government is needed to impose morality and righteousness from the top-down...

 

Right.

 

...well...to be honest, you might have a point and be entirely right.

 

But see now we're getting to the crux of how socialism works in practice, and indeed how it has to work in practice. If society as it is, is unjust, despite the fact we live in a representative republic in which there is no reason a socialist party can't be voted in if there was enough public support for it, what precisely is the social change we're looking for? How exactly will things be 'evened up'?

 

Invariably (following on from the taxation example) you have to have a 'vanguard party' to protect the 'will of the people'/'public interest'/'social justice movement'/however-the-entirely-fallible-yet-totalitarian-and-vastly-powerful-new-government-justifies-itself, and impose that perceived notion of justice against those deemed counter-revolutionaries (in pretty much every example throughout history this is how things turn out).

 

Politicians, rulers and positions of power (investment bankers etc.) inevitably attract and create a vile class of power-hungry, selfish, corrupted people, how precisely is the socialist beaureacracy that ends up being put in charge going to be any different?

 

This is how socialism works in reality, it sings and harps on about equality and social justice, but you only end up swapping one class of psychopathic, immoral rulers for another. The difference being that at least the old lot were competing with one another economically and vaaaaaguely morally accountable through what is at least supposed to be an impartial justice system and free press. Whereas the moral justification for taxation (people left to their own devices are generally immoral) can be used for pretty much everything else (censorship, banning free press, banning counter-revolutionary political parties) on account of it being 'for the good of the people'.

 

PS.

*(I know that little turn of phrase looks like I'm putting words in your mouth but bear with me! I'm just using the word 'you' for the sake of argument and anticipating the usual response to try and take my point forward within my limit of 3 post per day! No offence meant or anything)

 

Excellent post

[trousers]

[video=youtube_share;7VlcjyNwA10]http://youtu.be/7VlcjyNwA10

[badgerx16]

"...censorship, banning free press, banning counter-revolutionary political parties..."

 

What a load of b0ll0x. These are not the features of a socialist government, they are the features of an extremist government - of either political wing. As has been previously posted, Social Democracy is a common form of government in Europe, and is proven to work. How many of these alleged 'features' do those Governments exhibit ?

 

As for the voluntary or compulsory taxation argument, I object to my taxes funding nuclear weapons, and foreign wars that benefit the American economy, but don't get a choice.

 

Unfortunately there is one maxim that holds true in all cases - "All power corrupts".

[pap]

"...censorship, banning free press, banning counter-revolutionary political parties..."

 

What a load of b0ll0x. These are not the features of a socialist government, they are the features of an extremist government - of either political wing. As has been previously posted, Social Democracy is a common form of government in Europe, and is proven to work. How many of these alleged 'features' do those Governments exhibit ?

 

As for the voluntary or compulsory taxation argument, I object to my taxes funding nuclear weapons, and foreign wars that benefit the American economy, but don't get a choice.

 

Unfortunately there is one maxim that holds true in all cases - "All power corrupts".

 

Agreed. While I'd encourage all posters to be as articulate as Rasiak-9- in expressing a view, can't help thinking that "socialism" as defined here is little more than the "temporary" re-organisational dictatorships arranged by the likes of Lenin, Stalin and Mao. I'm a little disappointed that the Nazis weren't brought in for added effect. After all, they have "socialist" in their name.

 

Thing is, you don't have to leave democracy behind to see examples of socialism. Such concepts are wheeled out whenever capitalism fails. FDRs post-depression New Deal? Socialist. The NHS? Socialist. Welfare systems around the world? Socialist.

 

If capitalism worked so well, you wouldn't need socialism to sort it all out every time it fell apart.

[Sour Mash]

"...censorship, banning free press, banning counter-revolutionary political parties..."

 

What a load of b0ll0x. These are not the features of a socialist government, they are the features of an extremist government - of either political wing. As has been previously posted, Social Democracy is a common form of government in Europe, and is proven to work. How many of these alleged 'features' do those Governments exhibit ?

 

As for the voluntary or compulsory taxation argument, I object to my taxes funding nuclear weapons, and foreign wars that benefit the American economy, but don't get a choice.

 

Unfortunately there is one maxim that holds true in all cases - "All power corrupts".

Can you name one example of a successful Socialist government?

[badgerx16]

Can you name one example of a successful Socialist government?

 

It depends on whether your definition of 'socialist' is limited, as some on here with narrow opinions seem to hold true, to Marxism/Leninism. Alternatively, Obama is seen as 'socialist' in the USofA.

[Sour Mash]

It depends on whether your definition of 'socialist' is limited, as some on here with narrow opinions seem to hold true, to Marxism/Leninism. Alternatively, Obama is seen as 'socialist' in the USofA.

Based on your own opinion/definiton, name a succesful Socialist government.

[pap]

Can you name one example of a successful Socialist government?

 

Hehe.

 

Wrong time to make this argument. City in capitalism's "capitol" declared bankrupt.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-25203691

 

Incidentally, the US is technically bankrupt too. We'll have the next round of horse-trading so that the debt ceiling can be raised again on January 15th.

 

Have a look at this list too. Nations in rank of external debt.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_external_debt

 

Hasn't capitalism served the UK well? We only owe $160K per person. Those successful capitalist countries, eh?

[Sour Mash]

Hehe.

 

Wrong time to make this argument. City in capitalism's "capitol" declared bankrupt.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-25203691

 

Incidentally, the US is technically bankrupt too. We'll have the next round of horse-trading so that the debt ceiling can be raised again on January 15th.

 

Have a look at this list too. Nations in rank of external debt.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_external_debt

 

Hasn't capitalism served the UK well? We only owe $160K per person. Those successful capitalist countries, eh?

So can you name a succesful Socialist government or not?

[saintbletch]

Sorry I'll try to expand on what I mean a little bit more.

 

What I'm saying is neither pejorative, right-wing nor meant as an insult.

 

I'm simply saying that concepts of fairness and justice are subjective as they rely on the presence of a subject to hold any meaning. Concepts of something 'working' or not are objective based on the purpose for which something is designed to do. A pair of scissors works or doesn't work depending on them fulfilling their designed purpose of cutting paper, whereas the question "are these a pair of 'fair' or 'just' scissors" can't be answered with either yes or no. Its a meaningless statement in the same way as "Saintbletch is identical" is a meaningless statement, its not right or wrong it just cannot by definition mean anything.

 

So when we talk about fairness' and 'justice', we know that we're going to be dealing with people's varying opinions of how those concepts are both defined and implicated relevant to the respective society we're talking about. That doesn't mean that we should dismiss justice or morality as non-existent! It just means that we need to realise that we're going to be dealing with some fairly murky political philosophy before we can draw workable conclusions.

 

The classic rhetorical question from Thomas Sowell: "People always say they're entitled to their fair share; tell me, what is your fair share of someone else's money?"

 

As I say thats obviously a rhetorical question and might seem like a bit of a straw-man in terms of arguing against things like taxation, but it does highlight the problem; there are a million and one different concepts of what a fair share of someone else's money or economic productivity might be. No matter how well-researched, well-argued and backed up by evidence/political science/economic theory a certain argument might be, it will eventually have to rely on a subjective, moral concept of what actually is fair.

 

Your last sentence is the main problem with a lot of socialist rhetoric and indeed what a lot of people on the left think of people who are more libertarian than conservative and actually share a great many of their views in terms of personal freedom and social liberalism; you assume that they don't have compassion.

 

When you define socialism as compassion you're attacking everything else as 'not compassion' by proxy. The reality of it is that most people, the vast majority of people, want a fair, compassionate society full of happy people. There are exceptions of course, but the vast majority of people want freedom, happiness and justice and simply differ in their views of what those things actually are, as well as how to get them.

 

You, Russell Brand and many other socialists are I'm sure, very nice people who I certainly take my hat off to in terms of your passion for a happier, more fair and equitable society. The problem is though, without a serious argument about how those can be implicated, all Russell Brand really said in his interview amounted to "Why can't the world be a nicer place?"

 

Excellent post Rasiak-9, and thanks for taking the time to expand on your previous post.

 

I have no detailed understanding of political systems, so in that respect I feel as though I've bought a knife to a gunfight, but I'll happily share my personal views.

 

I agree with much of your post and I think we're arguing from different side of the same coin, perhaps I see a little more grey than you though. Some thoughts for you...

 

The qualification about subjectivity and objectivity is valid and I understand what you meant about the subjectivity of fairness. I also understand the example of a sentence missing an object being incomplete. But surely we're too deep in the territory of semantics here? That said, I’m happy to debate semantics it with you.

 

The subjectivity in your excellent scissors example is provided by the scissors' statement of purpose. We might both agree that the scissors were created to “cut” and therefore we can be objective in deciding whether the scissors work. But if someone expected the scissors to cut thick paper, card, or even tin, do those scissors still “work”? If I’ve got a need to cleave paper, they certainly work, but if my problem involves snipping tin, then I might need a scissors of a different colour.

 

So if, let’s call him George, if George looks at an economic system and objectively expects it to be working if it creates economic growth, employment, features low government interference, low taxation, low social welfare costs and rewards people who create businesses and take risks, George will rightly feel that he can objectively decide if it the current economic system "works". Whereas Ed might look to an economic system to provide him with full employment, a living wage, affordable essentials and a safety net for when he or his family become old, sick or unable to work.

 

Now with something as simple as a pair of scissors you and I could agree on a statement of purpose that eliminates the discussion about what it is designed to cut. We could therefore pretty much eliminate the subjectivity - as you suggested above. But when we're dealing with something as complex and personal as ideologies, or economic and political systems, it’s subjectivity all the way down in my view.

 

The subjectivity in whether an economic system works or not comes from the people who define the statement of purpose - the George and the Eds of this world. It seems as though your statement of purpose for our economic/political system is different from mine. So, if we qualify our statement as “The economy works from George’s perspective”, we now have object, predicate and subject. I say again, fairness is subjective, and so is whether something like an economic system works.

 

I guess you could point to dramatic failure of totalitarian socialist systems, and I'd be the first to acknowledge that dogmatic socialism is fundamentally flawed. But, I’m not sure that I can look at capitalism and free market economics and see them as flawless either. If we take socialism to the extreme, it breaks; just as if we create an environment of unfettered capitalism, we see failure - sometimes on a global level and sometimes so serious that it takes many decades to put right. Did free market economics and capitalism 'work' in late 2000s when it took rather socialist intervention to save the world's financial systems from meltdown? If it did work, it wasn't its finest hour.

 

I was compelled to reply to your original post by what I saw as the arrogance of the assumption that there is only one way to judge if a system works. I can now see that there is more nuance to your view, but perhaps not as much nuance as I hold in my views. I should probably go on record as saying that I’m not a socialist, but I do feel drawn to many of the principles. I perhaps should also note that I’ve voted for each major political party during my time, and I could possibly conceive of doing so again.

 

Finally, my suggestion that “Compassion” might be a good place to start when defining Socialism in no way suggests that compassion only exists in within Socialism. It's simply that I see that social compassion is, or at least should be, a central tenet. All elephants are grey...etc.

[Bearsy]

I have no detailed understanding of political systems

 

I stopped reading here. I have enough ignorant views of my own without being subjected to bletch's.

[aintforever]

Awesome! you sound like you're a very kind-hearted and generous person who's getting his just rewards in life!

 

However; if you're more than happy to pay your contribution to social spending to benefit others, wouldn't you prefer that you were able to make that contribution voluntarily? rather than having it forcefully and violently taken from you through taxation?

 

Oh? Whats that? Oh you'd be happy to pay for social services, donate to charity and suchlike, but most people aren't as nice as you and thats why things wouldn't work on a voluntary basis?* People would make bad, immoral choices if given too much freedom and ultimately a forceful government is needed to impose morality and righteousness from the top-down...

 

Right.

 

...well...to be honest, you might have a point and be entirely right.

 

But see now we're getting to the crux of how socialism works in practice, and indeed how it has to work in practice. If society as it is, is unjust, despite the fact we live in a representative republic in which there is no reason a socialist party can't be voted in if there was enough public support for it, what precisely is the social change we're looking for? How exactly will things be 'evened up'?

 

Invariably (following on from the taxation example) you have to have a 'vanguard party' to protect the 'will of the people'/'public interest'/'social justice movement'/however-the-entirely-fallible-yet-totalitarian-and-vastly-powerful-new-government-justifies-itself, and impose that perceived notion of justice against those deemed counter-revolutionaries (in pretty much every example throughout history this is how things turn out).

 

Politicians, rulers and positions of power (investment bankers etc.) inevitably attract and create a vile class of power-hungry, selfish, corrupted people, how precisely is the socialist beaureacracy that ends up being put in charge going to be any different?

 

This is how socialism works in reality, it sings and harps on about equality and social justice, but you only end up swapping one class of psychopathic, immoral rulers for another. The difference being that at least the old lot were competing with one another economically and vaaaaaguely morally accountable through what is at least supposed to be an impartial justice system and free press. Whereas the moral justification for taxation (people left to their own devices are generally immoral) can be used for pretty much everything else (censorship, banning free press, banning counter-revolutionary political parties) on account of it being 'for the good of the people'.

 

PS.

*(I know that little turn of phrase looks like I'm putting words in your mouth but bear with me! I'm just using the word 'you' for the sake of argument and anticipating the usual response to try and take my point forward within my limit of 3 post per day! No offence meant or anything)

 

I don't actually disagree which what you say, Capitalism has worked so far but I just don't think it will for much longer. It needs to be controlled and at the moment because of the global nature of today's capitalism our governments our powerless. We just keep printing money like it's going out of fashion and getting more and more in debt by the day.

 

Last year 2,714 bankers in London 'earned' more than 1million Euros(£833,000), and their average pay was 2m euros (£1.67m). All this at a time when hardworking people who bailed them out are struggling to pay their heating bills to companies who also make billions. It has to stop somewhere because it's just going to get more and more extreme.

[pap]

So can you name a succesful Socialist government or not?

 

Clement Attlee's post-war government is surely the brightest example of British socialism in action. The NHS was born in its time. You can argue the merits of what socialism is, exactly - but the NHS was created for socialist, not capitalist concerns.

 

Similarly, you might look at New Deal America, in which Franklin Delano Roosevelt used socialist measures to get the people of the USA off their knees after their society had been smashed by the wrecking ball of capitalism.

 

If you want to go the whole Marxist-Leninist route, you can look at Cuba over the long term. Access to education and healthcare all massively improved under "socialism". They are the most literate nation in Latin America and have a booming tourist industry developed after Soviet subsidies dried up in 1989. They are at #74 on the national debt list. They owe $1780 per person in national debt. Is it perfect? Nope, but it has endured the ongoing trade embargo with the US, the collapse of communism and despite whatever the West has to say about them, has fostered good relations with other Latin American countries in the region.

 

Which brings me to the Bolivar movement in South America. Hugo Chavez improved the literacy and life chances of millions of Venezuelans ( #44 on the debt list - $1,906 owed per person ). Evo Morales, another socialist leader of an oil rich company, has presided over Bolivia's most successful economic period in its history. High prices of oil are undoubtedly a factor, but he has benefited his country by nationalising the industries. Bolivian oil benefiting the Bolivian people? There's an idea. It's probably no coincidence that this socialist country is at #106 in the external debt list. They only owe $275 per head.

 

So, loads of different definitions of socialism covered. Much success to be had, and they generally owe a lot less money than we do, even those that aren't overburdened with essential resources like oil. Hopefully that'll be enough to get you out of "Mr One Question" mode.

[badgerx16]

Based on your own opinion/definiton, name a succesful Socialist government.

 

Currently Denmark, and the French seem happy with theirs. Historically the post-war UK Government.

[buctootim]

Can you name one example of a successful Socialist government?

 

Based on your own opinion/definiton, name a succesful Socialist government.

 

So can you name a succesful Socialist government or not?

 

I'll name you you two for every one successful unbridled capitalist country you can name - ie without nasty 'socialist' regulation of the market.

[pap]

I'll name you you two for every one successful unbridled capitalist country you can name - ie without nasty 'socialist' regulation of the market.

 

In simpler times, Sour Mash's repetition would have been dealt with in one swift stroke.

 

[Sour Mash]

Clement Attlee's post-war government is surely the brightest example of British socialism in action. The NHS was born in its time. You can argue the merits of what socialism is, exactly - but the NHS was created for socialist, not capitalist concerns.

 

Similarly, you might look at New Deal America, in which Franklin Delano Roosevelt used socialist measures to get the people of the USA off their knees after their society had been smashed by the wrecking ball of capitalism.

 

If you want to go the whole Marxist-Leninist route, you can look at Cuba over the long term. Access to education and healthcare all massively improved under "socialism". They are the most literate nation in Latin America and have a booming tourist industry developed after Soviet subsidies dried up in 1989. They are at #74 on the national debt list. They owe $1780 per person in national debt. Is it perfect? Nope, but it has endured the ongoing trade embargo with the US, the collapse of communism and despite whatever the West has to say about them, has fostered good relations with other Latin American countries in the region.

 

Which brings me to the Bolivar movement in South America. Hugo Chavez improved the literacy and life chances of millions of Venezuelans ( #44 on the debt list - $1,906 owed per person ). Evo Morales, another socialist leader of an oil rich company, has presided over Bolivia's most successful economic period in its history. High prices of oil are undoubtedly a factor, but he has benefited his country by nationalising the industries. Bolivian oil benefiting the Bolivian people? There's an idea. It's probably no coincidence that this socialist country is at #106 in the external debt list. They only owe $275 per head.

 

So, loads of different definitions of socialism covered. Much success to be had, and they generally owe a lot less money than we do, even those that aren't overburdened with essential resources like oil. Hopefully that'll be enough to get you out of "Mr One Question" mode.

On the basis that the NHS continued to exist, in a larger form than under Atlee, does that mean that Thatcher's government was more socialist than Atlee's? Or that the provision of an NHS service does not directly qualify a government as successfully Socialist.

 

Cuba? Cuba is one of the better examples of Socialism at work, however, they are turning more and more to private enterprise to survive and prosper. And if it is such a Utopia, why do so many continue to try and leave for the United States and other "Capitalist" countries? And Bolivia, again, if it is such a great place to live why does it continue to have a significant net immigration deficit? And has had so much foreign aid pumped into it over the last 20 years?

[Sour Mash]

I'll name you you two for every one successful unbridled capitalist country you can name - ie without nasty 'socialist' regulation of the market.

Who is suggesting that completely "unbridled" capitalism is the best form of government?

[buctootim]

In simpler times, Sour Mash's repetition would have been dealt with in one swift stroke.

 

 

Or by this. The hugely successful largely unbridled capitalism Mexican drug market.

 

[buctootim]

Who is suggesting that completely "unbridled" capitalism is the best form of government?

 

You appear to since you equate the opposite with socialism - corporate taxes, workplace pensions, free education, sickness and unemployment benefits, healthcare, product safety etc.

 

Maybe you should list the features a successful socialism free government should have. Would any of the above be included? I dont want to see any 'socialist' policies in the list.

 

Or is is just possible perhaps that everyone knows unbridled capitalism works even less well than centralised state planned economies. Everything else is arguing about getting the exact mix of profit motive and social welfare right and the 'lefty' 'commie' labels are just juvenile?

Edited 4 December, 2013 by buctootim

[Sour Mash]

You must be since you equate the opposite with socialism - corporate taxes, workplace pensions, sickness and unemployment benefits, healthcare, product safety etc.

What are you on about? Which one of most posts have I advocated unbridled capatilism as the best form of governement? Are there any governments that actually use such as a system? I can't think of a single one, so it's a strange point for you to try and make.