buctootim Posted 4 December, 2013 Posted 4 December, 2013 (edited) 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. Okay. So what are you on about? You're quite practiced with the 'socialism is crap' routine (even though the majority of people are talking about Social Democracy). What are you actually advocating? Edited 4 December, 2013 by buctootim
pap Posted 4 December, 2013 Posted 4 December, 2013 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? Thatcher would have ditched the NHS if she could have done so. Cameron, someone who claims to follow her principles, is certainly having a go. This is why you're seeing so many negative news stories about the NHS right now. Private industry are all set to be the saviours, and they'll likely never leave. I'm going to assume that your question, while stupid, was not rhetorical. Attlee's government created the NHS. Thatcher's lot suffered it and closed a load of hospitals. I find it f**king amazing that this is even offered up as a legitimate question. We're left with:- Why did so many people leave Cuba? Why do so few people move to Bolivia? Before I answer, can I just enquire as to whether these are serious points?
Sour Mash Posted 4 December, 2013 Posted 4 December, 2013 Okay. So what are you on about? You're quite practiced with the 'socialism is crap' routine (even though the majority of people are talking about Social Democracy). What are you actually advocating? That the status quo, for all its faults, is currently proven as the best, most successful form of government. Fundamentally capitalist economies, with some government intervention and provision of selected, essential services such as health care and education.
pap Posted 4 December, 2013 Posted 4 December, 2013 That the status quo, for all its faults, is currently proven as the best, most successful form of government. Fundamentally capitalist economies, with some government intervention and provision of selected, essential services such as health care and education. The status quo that has us as second most in debt in the world, with each person owing $160,000 to the worlds' central bankers?
Sour Mash Posted 4 December, 2013 Posted 4 December, 2013 Thatcher would have ditched the NHS if she could have done so. Cameron, someone who claims to follow her principles, is certainly having a go. This is why you're seeing so many negative news stories about the NHS right now. Private industry are all set to be the saviours, and they'll likely never leave. I'm going to assume that your question, while stupid, was not rhetorical. Attlee's government created the NHS. Thatcher's lot suffered it and closed a load of hospitals. I find it f**king amazing that this is even offered up as a legitimate question. We're left with:- Why did so many people leave Cuba? Why do so few people move to Bolivia? Before I answer, can I just enquire as to whether these are serious points? Yes, they are serious points, along with explaining why, if Bolivia has been so successful it has relied on so much foreign aid? You seem to miss my point re. Atlee/Thatcher. Simply by providing services such as Health or Education doesn't make a government socialist. Thatcher's governement still spent many, many millions on both, did that make it socialist? Of course not. I take it from your rant, government spending, as a percentage of GDP dropped massively under Tory governements?
buctootim Posted 4 December, 2013 Posted 4 December, 2013 That the status quo, for all its faults, is currently proven as the best, most successful form of government. Fundamentally capitalist economies, with some government intervention and provision of selected, essential services such as health care and education. I doubt there are many people who would disagree with that. But the British version as it stands needs reform. imo most people who welcomed Brand's little speech did so because they are sick of double speak in politics and too much power weilded by large corporations and much of media - not because they actually want a revolution. Much of the talent has left both politics and journalism, what we're lefty with isnt healthy.
pap Posted 4 December, 2013 Posted 4 December, 2013 Yes, they are serious points, along with explaining why, if Bolivia has been so successful it has relied on so much foreign aid? You seem to miss my point re. Atlee/Thatcher. Simply by providing services such as Health or Education doesn't make a government socialist. Thatcher's governement still spent many, many millions on both, did that make it socialist? Of course not. I take it from your rant, government spending, as a percentage of GDP dropped massively under Tory governements? Ok, 1) Cuba. Revolution. Lot of people moved away for fear of their lives, or to be near relatives who fled, or to enjoy the numerous individual fruits that one gets living in Florida that one might not necessarily get in Castro's Cuba. 2) Bolivia. Landlocked country in South America with a relatively high proportion of people who can claim indigenous roots. Not exactly top of anyone's "I'm going to move there forever" list. I'm not missing any point. The Thatcher/Attlee comparison is utterly ridiculous. Thatcher's legacy still lives with us today. It's why "unprofitable" state-owned industries are creaming billions in profits at the UK taxpayer's expense, the only real difference being the nation that money goes to. Enjoy giving your money to France, do you? Given that Thatcher was willing to have millions on the dole in order to destroy British industry, I wouldn't be at all surprised if government spending went up during that period, financed with the short term gains from selling off the crown jewels.
Sour Mash Posted 4 December, 2013 Posted 4 December, 2013 The status quo that has us as second most in debt in the world, with each person owing $160,000 to the worlds' central bankers? But you're talking about management of the existing system, not the system itself. How much has this nation earnt out of banking and financial services in the last 30 years? Ultimately, a capitalist economy, with a social conscious, as practicesed by the majority of the developed world is the best form of government. Yes, things like the banking crisis are bad news and you would hope some lessons are learnt, but the answer is to tweak the current system, not overhaul it.
Sour Mash Posted 4 December, 2013 Posted 4 December, 2013 Ok, 1) Cuba. Revolution. Lot of people moved away for fear of their lives, or to be near relatives who fled, or to enjoy the numerous individual fruits that one gets living in Florida that one might not necessarily get in Castro's Cuba. 2) Bolivia. Landlocked country in South America with a relatively high proportion of people who can claim indigenous roots. Not exactly top of anyone's "I'm going to move there forever" list. I'm not missing any point. The Thatcher/Attlee comparison is utterly ridiculous. Thatcher's legacy still lives with us today. It's why "unprofitable" state-owned industries are creaming billions in profits at the UK taxpayer's expense, the only real difference being the nation that money goes to. Enjoy giving your money to France, do you? Given that Thatcher was willing to have millions on the dole in order to destroy British industry, I wouldn't be at all surprised if government spending went up during that period, financed with the short term gains from selling off the crown jewels. People are still moving away from Cuba and Bolivia, why is that? And the continued increase in use of private enterprise in Cuba? And you haven't answered the question about all the foreign aid Bolivia has received? What does giving money to France have to do with anything? Or do you only ever buy things that are made in Britian. The nationalisation of our utilities industries were badly managed, but the principle of opening them up to competition is sound in my opinion. Again, you're considering mis-management of a process, rather than the system itself.
pap Posted 4 December, 2013 Posted 4 December, 2013 People are still moving away from Cuba and Bolivia, why is that? And the continued increase in use of private enterprise in Cuba? And you haven't answered the question about all the foreign aid Bolivia has received? What does giving money to France have to do with anything? Or do you only ever buy things that are made in Britian. The nationalisation of our utilities industries were badly managed, but the principle of opening them up to competition is sound in my opinion. Again, you're considering mis-management of a process, rather than the system itself. Do me a favour and source some of your assertions. Show me figures for this mass exodus of people from Cuba and Bolivia, and then show me that those people are leaving to pursue capitalism. From this net migration chart, what you say is true, but not very. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_net_migration_rate In Bolivia, net migration is at -0.84 per thousand people. Cuba is slightly higher at -3.59 per thousand people. By your brilliant net migration standards, Iraq is a better place to live. As for foreign aid, what on earth do you think our debts are?
Sour Mash Posted 4 December, 2013 Posted 4 December, 2013 Do me a favour and source some of your assertions. Show me figures for this mass exodus of people from Cuba and Bolivia, and then show me that those people are leaving to pursue capitalism. From this net migration chart, what you say is true, but not very. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_net_migration_rate In Bolivia, net migration is at -0.84 per thousand people. Cuba is slightly higher at -3.59 per thousand people. By your brilliant net migration standards, Iraq is a better place to live. As for foreign aid, what on earth do you think our debts are? Right, so what I say is true, thank you. Does Britain receive Foreign Aid? I didn't know that.
badgerx16 Posted 4 December, 2013 Posted 4 December, 2013 Does Britain receive Foreign Aid? The only way we could finance the next gen nuclear stations was with Chinese, ( aren't they SOCIALIST ? ), money.
Smirking_Saint Posted 4 December, 2013 Posted 4 December, 2013 I doubt there are many people who would disagree with that. But the British version as it stands needs reform. imo most people who welcomed Brand's little speech did so because they are sick of double speak in politics and too much power weilded by large corporations and much of media - not because they actually want a revolution. Much of the talent has left both politics and journalism, what we're lefty with isnt healthy. Whilst many could not argue that the current form of government is not working (and Im not going to start debating labours merits over the tories etc as they are systematically as bad as each other in reality) what other options are there ? Brands rant was exactly that, a rant. If he believes that there is a serious case for a socialist movement to revolutionise the political systems why does he not go about lending his name to a suitable party ready to deliver a viable alternative instead of making a rediculous statement such as 'stop voting'. Dont get me wrong brand is a very intelligent and articulate man, (though as I have said before I fully believe his eloquence is such to steer the average person away from realising his points have little to no actual volume to them whatsoever) but I think he should stick to seriously discussing what he knows, I do like him but he seems to have made an assumption he is the peoples mouthpiece at the moment. As I said, Im all for change, but how do you propose making things better exactly ? For one I expect renationalisation of the energy industry is likely high on the agenda, I work in that industry and its been discussed to death, it wont work. But what else ? Its one thing to say that one way is not working, its entirely another thing to describe how to change it.
Sour Mash Posted 4 December, 2013 Posted 4 December, 2013 The only way we could finance the next gen nuclear stations was with Chinese, ( aren't they SOCIALIST ? ), money. That isn't foreign aid.
Smirking_Saint Posted 4 December, 2013 Posted 4 December, 2013 The only way we could finance the next gen nuclear stations was with Chinese, ( aren't they SOCIALIST ? ), money. The only current british owned company SSE said it was interested in developing nuclear power but did not feel it had the correct expertise to carry out the build. The reason we went for chinese money (I think its a joint venture between China and France actually) is due to their expertise in delivering nuclear power, safety records and possibly some political posturing in building ties in China. So no its not a case of the 'only way of funding' the energy industry is not state owned and so the funding comes from outside, keeping it off of any government budgets, ok, so promises have been made to 'pay back' due to future energy prices but essentially this will reward us as energy users as it 'should' keep prices lower. This is essentially why this industry was sold off, it cost too much, essentially every year the government went over its budgets propping up the old district operators as they were not allowed to turn a profit and could never efficiently run the network to approved budgets. Oh and yes, communism is a socialist form of government I suppose, but not one Id wish to govern us, would you ?
badgerx16 Posted 4 December, 2013 Posted 4 December, 2013 That isn't foreign aid. Well, we wouldn't be building them without it.
Smirking_Saint Posted 4 December, 2013 Posted 4 December, 2013 Well, we wouldn't be building them without it. Thats one of the most ill informed arguements Ive read on this thread.
Sour Mash Posted 4 December, 2013 Posted 4 December, 2013 Well, we wouldn't be building them without it. It isn't foreign aid.
pap Posted 4 December, 2013 Posted 4 December, 2013 Right, so what I say is true, thank you. Does Britain receive Foreign Aid? I didn't know that. Britain receives "foreign aid" every day. We call it "borrowing", and unlike genuine altruistic aid, we have to pay it back.
Bearsy Posted 4 December, 2013 Posted 4 December, 2013 Its one thing to say that one way is not working, its entirely another thing to describe how to change it. As one of societies bottom feeders i would probably be ok with violent regime change + installation of socialist dictator. We will need a suitable well respected person to be figurehead of the revolution and then it could be quite easily arranged. David Beckham would be ideal. After we've run through whitehall, knives dripping with blood and installed D.Beckham as new socialist over-lord we could really get things moving! First we would tell the world bank to do one, as I was shocked to find out earlier that i owe them $160K. They can spin for it. I don't remember signing nothing, and neither did david beckham. Then I'll start in on all your bank accounts and share it amongst the Party. Then I'll sell off some stuff I don't need like Radio 4 and Cycle paths and wind turbines to generate some capital which I will use to buy nuclear bombs which i will need for when the world bank send the heavies round. Then I will open the borders, people can come and go as they please. It won't be a problem with law enforcement cos i probably won't bother having laws anymore. It will be laws of jungle.
buctootim Posted 4 December, 2013 Posted 4 December, 2013 Im all for change, but how do you propose making things better exactly ? For one I expect renationalisation of the energy industry is likely high on the agenda, I work in that industry and its been discussed to death, it wont work. But what else ? Its one thing to say that one way is not working, its entirely another thing to describe how to change it. It is easy to say and harder to rectify. Its much better to not fall into deep holes in the first place than to try and climb out of them. I dont pretend to have all the answers but here some things I'd like to see happen. 1. A reformed house of Lords. Some independently appointed life peers but majority elected. No political parties permitted in the house. Voting to conscience on legislation proposed by House of Commons. 2. More free votes in House of Commons 3. A statutory requirement for newspapers to provide balanced and fair coverage of politics 4. A 'top up' system for the house of Commons to make parliament more representative of the votes actually cast. Perhaps 10% of seats would not be tied to a constituency and would be allocated depending on total votes cast nationwide.
Smirking_Saint Posted 4 December, 2013 Posted 4 December, 2013 As one of societies bottom feeders i would probably be ok with violent regime change + installation of socialist dictator. We will need a suitable well respected person to be figurehead of the revolution and then it could be quite easily arranged. David Beckham would be ideal. After we've run through whitehall, knives dripping with blood and installed D.Beckham as new socialist over-lord we could really get things moving! First we would tell the world bank to do one, as I was shocked to find out earlier that i owe them $160K. They can spin for it. I don't remember signing nothing, and neither did david beckham. Then I'll start in on all your bank accounts and share it amongst the Party. Then I'll sell off some stuff I don't need like Radio 4 and Cycle paths and wind turbines to generate some capital which I will use to buy nuclear bombs which i will need for when the world bank send the heavies round. Then I will open the borders, people can come and go as they please. It won't be a problem with law enforcement cos i probably won't bother having laws anymore. It will be laws of jungle. I vote bear You just need a slogan
bridge too far Posted 4 December, 2013 Posted 4 December, 2013 He already has one This might win him a few votes
Bearsy Posted 4 December, 2013 Posted 4 December, 2013 Lowering age of consent and mandatory genital flashing are only two of the wide reaching reforms under consideration by the Bear Party.
Halo Stickman Posted 4 December, 2013 Posted 4 December, 2013 On a visit to Havana in 2004 a bloke presented me with a portrait he’d scribbled of me. I hadn’t asked him to, and it wasn’t very good, but I gave him a dollar regardless. This turned out to be a big mistake: I spent the next 2 hours surrounded by numerous furiously scribbling ‘street artists’, and couldn’t see any of the sights. The tour guide told me that a dollar represented roughly the weekly wage in Cuba. I’ve no idea if she was telling the truth; it did, however, seem to be a lot of money to them. Sorry, this adds nothing to the Socialism v Capitalism debate – I just wanted to show off that I’ve been to Cuba and what a generous man I am.
pap Posted 4 December, 2013 Posted 4 December, 2013 As I said, Im all for change, but how do you propose making things better exactly ? For one I expect renationalisation of the energy industry is likely high on the agenda, I work in that industry and its been discussed to death, it wont work. But what else ? Its one thing to say that one way is not working, its entirely another thing to describe how to change it. Number one on the list of priorities? Change the mission. As far as I can make out, humanity's raison d'etre seems to be endless production for a profit motive. To me, and I suspect others, that's an entirely unsatisfactory enterprise for the dominant species on the planet, especially as the chief proponents of this mission country-wise have done so poorly out of it. Take a look at that national debt list. Those most invested in the system are those most crippled by it. What would happen to the US if the debts were ever called in? Why is the US in so much debt in the first place? I'd sooner be aiming for a society based on Roosevelt's Four Freedoms; freedom of speech, of worship, from want and from fear - something every society fails on to some degree. To do that, I guess you'd have to ensure that keeping everyone fed, housed and healthy was a priority. You'd need food and energy security. Ultimately, you'd need something autonomous and self-sufficient. I think the biggest problem people face when trying to set the world to rights is the sheer size of the task. As someone who professionally copes with enormous volume, I'd offer this from my expertise - every large problem I've solved started by solving a smaller version of the problem first. Things are tested on a small scale and ramped up once proven. I'd like to see something similar tried in relation to sustainable living. Try to solve the problem of being able to keep say, 10K people alive in a purpose-built environment - then scale it up in whatever works best. To me, that'd be a far loftier endeavour for human effort than getting a slightly faster iPhone out of a Chinese factory door each year.
badgerx16 Posted 4 December, 2013 Posted 4 December, 2013 Thats one of the most ill informed arguements Ive read on this thread. Would the UK be building the new nuclear stations if the Chinese Government wasn't investing ?
Smirking_Saint Posted 4 December, 2013 Posted 4 December, 2013 Would the UK be building the new nuclear stations if the Chinese Government wasn't investing ? No but as I explained earlier its not how the industry works, its not going to be building any starbucks either without outside investment.
Smirking_Saint Posted 4 December, 2013 Posted 4 December, 2013 Number one on the list of priorities? Change the mission. As far as I can make out, humanity's raison d'etre seems to be endless production for a profit motive. To me, and I suspect others, that's an entirely unsatisfactory enterprise for the dominant species on the planet, especially as the chief proponents of this mission country-wise have done so poorly out of it. Take a look at that national debt list. Those most invested in the system are those most crippled by it. What would happen to the US if the debts were ever called in? Why is the US in so much debt in the first place? I'd sooner be aiming for a society based on Roosevelt's Four Freedoms; freedom of speech, of worship, from want and from fear - something every society fails on to some degree. To do that, I guess you'd have to ensure that keeping everyone fed, housed and healthy was a priority. You'd need food and energy security. Ultimately, you'd need something autonomous and self-sufficient. I think the biggest problem people face when trying to set the world to rights is the sheer size of the task. As someone who professionally copes with enormous volume, I'd offer this from my expertise - every large problem I've solved started by solving a smaller version of the problem first. Things are tested on a small scale and ramped up once proven. I'd like to see something similar tried in relation to sustainable living. Try to solve the problem of being able to keep say, 10K people alive in a purpose-built environment - then scale it up in whatever works best. To me, that'd be a far loftier endeavour for human effort than getting a slightly faster iPhone out of a Chinese factory door each year. Of course, I would love that too but lets be frank what your talking about is a Utopia, of course that would probably be everyones dream on the surface, but in reality it will have its pitfalls. The only way really for that to be sustainable would to follow a communist like policy, 'for the people, by the people' as we have all seen before those societies just dont really work, true socialism will never work anyway as a people if we had no overall leadership we would crumble and many will succumb to put themselves first instead of helping out their fellow man, of course Id like to think it wouldnt, but it would as its in our nature. As per the destruction of capatalism be careful what you wish for, as much as I agree with you in the fact that most major capatalists will stop at nothing to boost profits etc it generally pushes technological and socialogical advances, I know you like your gadgets, as do I, even China embraces capatalism to some extent. As per your project, I agree, I have worked in R&D and integration of new communication protocols into the industry I work in aswell as new gear, you do that slowly. But will this work in a real time social experiment ? And what will you do if this mini environment fails ? Its hard. And this is my point, Id love a 'Utopia' but its not possible. What we need is to change the way we do things, capitalism wont go anywhere, nor will our type of government, but small changes can be made to how we work our current system.
Sour Mash Posted 5 December, 2013 Posted 5 December, 2013 Britain receives "foreign aid" every day. We call it "borrowing", and unlike genuine altruistic aid, we have to pay it back. That's not foreign aid is it.
Sour Mash Posted 5 December, 2013 Posted 5 December, 2013 Number one on the list of priorities? Change the mission. As far as I can make out, humanity's raison d'etre seems to be endless production for a profit motive. To me, and I suspect others, that's an entirely unsatisfactory enterprise for the dominant species on the planet, especially as the chief proponents of this mission country-wise have done so poorly out of it. Take a look at that national debt list. Those most invested in the system are those most crippled by it. What would happen to the US if the debts were ever called in? Why is the US in so much debt in the first place? I'd sooner be aiming for a society based on Roosevelt's Four Freedoms; freedom of speech, of worship, from want and from fear - something every society fails on to some degree. To do that, I guess you'd have to ensure that keeping everyone fed, housed and healthy was a priority. You'd need food and energy security. Ultimately, you'd need something autonomous and self-sufficient. I think the biggest problem people face when trying to set the world to rights is the sheer size of the task. As someone who professionally copes with enormous volume, I'd offer this from my expertise - every large problem I've solved started by solving a smaller version of the problem first. Things are tested on a small scale and ramped up once proven. I'd like to see something similar tried in relation to sustainable living. Try to solve the problem of being able to keep say, 10K people alive in a purpose-built environment - then scale it up in whatever works best. To me, that'd be a far loftier endeavour for human effort than getting a slightly faster iPhone out of a Chinese factory door each year. That is all very nice and might be what you would like to see, but the majority of people in this world don't. That's why the current system and similar variations of it will continue for the foreseeable future at the least.
Rasiak-9- Posted 5 December, 2013 Posted 5 December, 2013 Very worth watching these videos (and a fair few others) from a Russian-born, well-educated Youtuber who left the USSR aged 29 and who having lived in America, has seen both sides of the communism/capitalism debate.
Rasiak-9- Posted 5 December, 2013 Posted 5 December, 2013 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. Pap you're clearly an articulate and intelligent man, but you really need to stop using this method of argument whereby you use nothing but sarcastic rhetoric to manipulate your opponent's argument into something simplistic, pejorative and naive; and trying to create the image that you're the only one who's actually thinking about things rationally. https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman Furthermore, your post is evidently an accusation that I'm cherry-picking socialism's repeated failures; yet you then come up with a list of what you feel are successful examples of socialist government policies conducted within a capitalist paradigm and then in essence cherry-pick them as "real socialism." https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/no-true-scotsman This is precisely what I said from the get-go; that when socialism is proven and demonstrated to meet with catastrophic failure and the misery, suffering and deaths of millions, much of the extreme-left will pout their lips, fold their arms, shake their heads and attempt to pawn you off as ignorant by saying that you simply don't understand what socialism really is. 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). Phew! We're getting into some pretty hench philosophy/economic theory here! All I can really do is point you in the direction of an absolute library of books from Marx and Engels on one hand to Rothbard, Friedman, Bastiat, Hayek and Mises on the other (and loads of others between the two extremes.) Ultimately, capitalism is designed to be built on win-win exchanges. If I'm starving and you're dying of thirst, and you have loads of jugs of water and I have a load of sandwiches and we swap, that is in essence capitalism. Money is only designed to serve as a medium representing actual objects of value (i.e backed up by gold/precious metals/or rather, sadly, oil as it is now but thats another story) enabling more flexible exchange to be facilitated (labour for goods etc.etc.). The price of something is variable according to how people value it. If you and I agree on the price of a chocolate bar; we only make the money/goods swap on the basis that we accept the deal once we reach a medium where you want the money more than the chocolate bar and I want the chocolate bar more than the money. Of course, theres a million other issues that affect trade and exchange in the complex world we live in today, industrial restrictions/false advertising/cartelisation/price-fixing/monopolies/wages and minimum wage laws etc. Anyway, the point I'm making is that as long as people exchange things at even the most fundamental levels, we live in a capitalist world. The problem however, is that the global monetary system is really on its knees, and the money we earn and spend isn't backed up by, and as such doesn't really mean anything. This is an awesome documentary and explains the money/banking system very well, and certainly shows that what we're living in is nowhere near what capitalism is supposed to be as a representation of free trade, but a complete perversion of it using a combination of banking and government power. I really do highly recommend it, its only ~45 minutes long and this (the first installment) was actually made back in 2007 before the banking crisis really came to a head. Its just made by an independent filmmaker, but he's evidently very-well researched and presents what he's saying very well. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jqvKjsIxT_8
pap Posted 5 December, 2013 Posted 5 December, 2013 Pap you're clearly an articulate and intelligent man, but you really need to stop using this method of argument whereby you use nothing but sarcastic rhetoric to manipulate your opponent's argument into something simplistic, pejorative and naive; and trying to create the image that you're the only one who's actually thinking about things rationally. https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman Furthermore, your post is evidently an accusation that I'm cherry-picking socialism's repeated failures; yet you then come up with a list of what you feel are successful examples of socialist government policies conducted within a capitalist paradigm and then in essence cherry-pick them as "real socialism." https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/no-true-scotsman This is precisely what I said from the get-go; that when socialism is proven and demonstrated to meet with catastrophic failure and the misery, suffering and deaths of millions, much of the extreme-left will pout their lips, fold their arms, shake their heads and attempt to pawn you off as ignorant by saying that you simply don't understand what socialism really is. I think it'd help immeasurably if you defined what socialism is. You keep speaking of millions dying, which can only really point to events like Stalin's purges or Mao's Cultural Revolution. If you're framing socialism in those terms, then you're using extremes to make a general case. Lenin, Stalin and Mao all operated brutal dictatorships. They may have been guided by collectivist principles, but they were still dictatorships. With that in mind, I can confirm that I don't fancy living in a dictatorship. So let's robustly deal with the cherry-picking points and the millions dead point at the same time. Do you have an example of a "socialist" government that killed millions that wasn't a dictatorship?
aintforever Posted 5 December, 2013 Posted 5 December, 2013 Ultimately, capitalism is designed to be built on win-win exchanges. If I'm starving and you're dying of thirst, and you have loads of jugs of water and I have a load of sandwiches and we swap, that is in essence capitalism. The problem is today's capitalism I would flog my sandwiches, buy some cheap water from another more efficient source, make a profit and sit back laughing while you starved to death.
Verbal Posted 5 December, 2013 Posted 5 December, 2013 Ultimately, capitalism is designed to be built on win-win exchanges. If I'm starving and you're dying of thirst, and you have loads of jugs of water and I have a load of sandwiches and we swap, that is in essence capitalism. If you're starving you're also likely to be dying of thirst - and have no money to buy food or water. The essence of capitalism is that you're therefore dead. The amelioration of this is what social democratic ideals and institutions (not socialistic ones - the terms of this debate are off) are about.
buctootim Posted 5 December, 2013 Posted 5 December, 2013 (edited) Ultimately, capitalism is designed to be built on win-win exchanges. If I'm starving and you're dying of thirst, and you have loads of jugs of water and I have a load of sandwiches and we swap, that is in essence capitalism. The problem however, is that the global monetary system is really on its knees, and the money we earn and spend isn't backed up by, and as such doesn't really mean anything. Mom and Pop capitalism runs as you describe - small traders provide goods and services to people and compete for trade. Trouble is in many sectors we increasingly have a late stage capitalism - Corporatism where markets are controlled by a few very large players who have more power than the governments that are supposed to regulate them. They achieve success by smothering competition by paying low, charging high and avoiding tax by methods not available to local or regional traders. As Aintforever says - global corporates wont swap sandwiches and water. One will kill the other off, buy up its assets cheap and and then put the prices up having first agreed a non compete pact with their last remaining rival firm in China. Edited 5 December, 2013 by buctootim
Rasiak-9- Posted 8 December, 2013 Posted 8 December, 2013 As Aintforever says - global corporates wont swap sandwiches and water. One will kill the other off, buy up its assets cheap and and then put the prices up having first agreed a non compete pact with their last remaining rival firm in China. A lot of the time this doesn't come without government regulation, which contrary to popular belief very often benefits the well-established and well-connected corporations far better than it does the smaller companies which aren't able to compete in the market playing by the same rules that are made for multi-national corporations that are in cahoots with big, powerful governments. Failing businesses should be allowed to fail, and very often cartelisation/price-fixing could be avoided in a free market where a company making superior products would have no reason not to break rank and sell at a more competitive price, or indeed be able to monopolise any one major resource in a way that prevents any other small company or individual being able to come up with a new, more efficient, more useful and productive way of harvesting or producing said resource. Of course, the regulation that is introduced always ends up being passed off as the government protecting the people from the evils of free market capitalism. Like pretty much all socialist governments end up doing, justified as being 'for the good of the people who know no better'. "I'll be the one to protect you from Your enemies and all your demons I'll be the one to protect you from A will to survive and a voice of reason I'll be the one to protect you from Your enemies and your choices son They're one in the same I must isolate you Isolate and save you from yourself" - A Perfect Circle. (Perfect lyrics for this debate!) I'm just very guarded against that mentality I suppose; my ancestry is East-European so perhaps that has something to do with it! HAVING SAID ALL OF THAT. You guys do have a point and 'The Tragedy of the Commons' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons ...is a well-acknowledged problem with free-market capitalism and does illustrate how unrestricted free-trade between agents operating on a purely rational basis can inevitably lead to ruin for all involved. Another argument in favour of the existence of government/a form of mediating/top-down supervision ruling over free individuals is 'the prisoners dilemma'. So I certainly realise that a completely anarchist/anarcho-capitalist society seems a fair distance away for now. I suppose what I'm saying (and what is my general point I'm trying to make overall) is just that a lot of the time, what ends up happening with socialism in reality and in practice away from the realm of debate and ethics, is simply massive expansion of government and government power, which I guess I have (what I feel is) a healthy distrust of. Obviously we won't be able to thrash out a solution on an internet mongboard! (and I really ought to get back to applying for a real job ) but hopefully you guys can sort of understand where I'm coming from even if you might not agree with what I'm saying or even my general outlook.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now