Current Affairs How old were you when you grew up and stopped voting Labour?

[magicjuan]

Isnt that a political decision though? Like, its not up to Microsoft to decide how the US should distribute its tax receipts.

But, assuming MS pay a few bob in tax, there is not a chance that they would have been invented by a state controlled economy.

No, no chance at all...

 

[roydo]

No, no chance at all...

Which bit!

 

[Bruce Wayne]

It isn't off the cuff. I've lived under a burgeoning capitalist system that has become unfettered and as a result has run roughshod over the most vulnerable. If the public are merely a commodity then how do people as individuals see others?

I'm not sure the public are a commodity at all, or indeed that capitalism is in any way unfettered. Indeed, we're currently leaving the EU precisely because many thought it fettered businesses too much.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

No, no chance at all...

To be quite honest with you, I reckon we'd be a better place with Bill Gates in charge than the current cabinet. He's certainly shown more of a social conscience than the likes of Boris Johnson. I find it odd that government can be lauded when that government could be a Marine Le Pen. This socialism is best mantra supposes that people who work for the government are somehow better people than those who don't. That they're more trustworthy and caring.

The reality is that you'll get good folk and bad folk in all walks of life, and when you accept that basic truth, you can then turn the conversation to how to promote the good behaviors and mitigate the bad. That's a fundamental 'law' of markets, in that if you have a monopoly, it doesn't matter if it's public or private, if that monopoly turns bad, then the public lose out big time.

 

[magicjuan]

Which bit!

Either. You tend to see a straight line when there is a web of interconnectivity and interdependence, which is why this particular system defends itself whatever the cost.
The practice isn't as important as the thinking and intent behind capitalism. You may think there is capitalism with a small 'c' that has some societal responsibility, but it has a fraction of influence or reach, diluted and existing on a much, much smaller level. The competition of conservative capitalism, much espoused by Thatcher, Reagan, Friedman etc, hid the known consequences of untethering market forces and small businesses still go to the wall. Some would argue they are being replaced by small start ups, but they too become swallowed up, ironically in a Marxist mentality of perpetual economic revolution, revolution in the term of a continuous treadmill, not necessarily in terms of advancement.
We obviously are at different positions on perspective, but I balance out the overall damage versus the 'good' capitalism creates, that is open to interpretation if you are not consistently reminded of the suffering of others for the benefit of a few.

 

[roydo]

You tend to see a straight line

Yep, I do.

 

[magicjuan]

To be quite honest with you, I reckon we'd be a better place with Bill Gates in charge than the current cabinet. He's certainly shown more of a social conscience than the likes of Boris Johnson. I find it odd that government can be lauded when that government could be a Marine Le Pen. This socialism is best mantra supposes that people who work for the government are somehow better people than those who don't. That they're more trustworthy and caring.

The reality is that you'll get good folk and bad folk in all walks of life, and when you accept that basic truth, you can then turn the conversation to how to promote the good behaviors and mitigate the bad. That's a fundamental 'law' of markets, in that if you have a monopoly, it doesn't matter if it's public or private, if that monopoly turns bad, then the public lose out big time.

I agree on the monopoly, I also agree in regards to Gates to an extent, limited though it may be. But the sticking point is the meansto change things. We are moving further away from being able to change anything, swept away on a consumerist tide that is depleting its own resources and is so dependant on perpetual conflict, with no regards to the consequences.
The political system and economic system, two sides of the same coin, serve themselves and tolerate life as an insignificance.
I can think of no reason for people to have faith in this system other than them believing its effects won't reach them. But a lot of homeless people thought that too, as did the unemployed, pensioners and the infirm.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

I agree on the monopoly, I also agree in regards to Gates to an extent, limited though it may be. But the sticking point is the meansto change things. We are moving further away from being able to change anything, swept away on a consumerist tide that is depleting its own resources and is so dependant on perpetual conflict, with no regards to the consequences.
The political system and economic system, two sides of the same coin, serve themselves and tolerate life as an insignificance.
I can think of no reason for people to have faith in this system other than them believing its effects won't reach them. But a lot of homeless people thought that too, as did the unemployed, pensioners and the infirm.

The cryptocurrency world is supposed to be very socialist in the sense that it removes the need for banks and gives people control, yet not only is it exerting a tremendous environmental cost but it also brings out some rather undesirable qualities in people. That is perhaps the nearest we have to an anarchic system in existence today, so if that's not exactly doing the business, then maybe we just need to accept that things won't ever be perfect (because humans are far from perfect)? I mean you talk about homeless people etc. and that is of course a terrible thing, but globally, mankind has surpassed nearly all of the millennium development goals many years ahead of schedule, and whilst that isn't to suggest that everything is hunky dory, neither should it suggest that things are not getting better.

 

[JimmyJeffers]

That is often the case when state and entrepreneurial capitalism meet on a mutual project, wether to replace or supercede.
Capitalism does indeed provide goods and services, for profit primarily and long term for capitalism itself, it has little to no desire to invest in society or the infrastructures of society or pay contributions to the betterment of society, which actually, eventually, will be to the detriment of its own wellbeing.

Up the toffees indeed.

Quite possibly. Socialism or barbarism it is then

 

[magicjuan]

Quite possibly. Socialism or barbarism it is then

We're trying barbarity now, but it's painted in nationalistic terms, sold as a panacea or the better of two choices and drip fed into the psyche of the masses as the new God.

 

[joey_macmo]

The cryptocurrency world is supposed to be very socialist in the sense that it removes the need for banks and gives people control, yet not only is it exerting a tremendous environmental cost but it also brings out some rather undesirable qualities in people. That is perhaps the nearest we have to an anarchic system in existence today, so if that's not exactly doing the business, then maybe we just need to accept that things won't ever be perfect (because humans are far from perfect)? I mean you talk about homeless people etc. and that is of course a terrible thing, but globally, mankind has surpassed nearly all of the millennium development goals many years ahead of schedule, and whilst that isn't to suggest that everything is hunky dory, neither should it suggest that things are not getting better.

Supposed being the operative world, Crypto has moved way beyond that now, the main driving force behind it now is...money in that people are mining and trading it like any other commodity. Even most of the people who are pushing for to be accepted in the wider world are only doing so to make their holdings increase in value.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

Supposed being the operative world, Crypto has moved way beyond that now, the main driving force behind it now is...money in that people are mining and trading it like any other commodity. Even most of the people who are pushing for to be accepted in the wider world are only doing so to make their holdings increase in value.

That's kinda my point. Human nature tends to get in the way a lot of the time, which is probably why socialism hasn't ever really worked. Even in those that are held up as exemplars (the Nordics for instance), they are still a mixed economy, just the mix is slightly more weighted in favour of the state than in other mixed economies.

 

[Adam-GOTTV]

There's a tendency to see only the media portrayal of socialism, attacked and undermined over decades as the cold war wasn't the US v USSR but capitalism v communism/leftish thinking (all buried in one pile), and then see the espousal of capitalist ideology as 'considered'. It is very biased, it serves profit above all else, see the state of the the US and the UK as examples of uncaring policies. There is no social cohesion, no community, no purpose other than the benefit of a shrinking and heavily protected minority at the cost of a growing disenfranchised majority, left with little to no means of defence.
If you coukd provide examples of capitalist benefits I'd be happy to debate them.

Alright @magicjuan?

I'm not sure there's an inherent bias toward capitalism mate, there's loads of anti-capitalist sentiment around atm. People are still skeptic of the alternatives though, and do you blame them really given some of the experiments that took place during the 20th century? I reckon it's tough to make the case for alternative politico-economic systems because we struggle to find examples of ones that actually work or provide the basis for human progress in the way that capitalism has/does. Is it perfect? Of course not. But then it doesn't claim that it is (unlike some other systems).

I suspect you'll know this already, but even Marx and Engles praised capitalism because it helped increase productivity and build industry, created open markets and therefore improved trade and freed the 'serfs' from their feudal bonds and all that. Ok, they saw it as something that could lead to socialism, but even they understood its benefits, so there's my answer to your question without even bringing up capitalisms ability to provide humanity with more innovations, choice or freedoms.

See, there's nothing that suggests centrally planned altruism is a given either, is there? Some of most eye-watering acts of human cruelty have occurred in centrally planned, non-capitalist states.

With all this said, though, that doesn't mean there aren't substantial issues with the current system. Like you, I'm concerned with an ever growing disenfranchised majority and huge gulfs between rich and poor. I suppose I'm just not interested in throwing the baby out with the bathwater and reverting back to systems that evidently don't work, if you get me?

 

[magicjuan]

Alright @magicjuan?

I'm not sure there's an inherent bias toward capitalism mate, there's loads of anti-capitalist sentiment around atm. People are still skeptic of the alternatives though, and do you blame them really given some of the experiments that took place during the 20th century? I reckon it's tough to make the case for alternative politico-economic systems because we struggle to find examples of ones that actually work or provide the basis for human progress in the way that capitalism has/does. Is it perfect? Of course not. But then it doesn't claim that it is (unlike some other systems).

I suspect you'll know this already, but even Marx and Engles praised capitalism because it helped increase productivity and build industry, created open markets and therefore improved trade and freed the 'serfs' from their feudal bonds and all that. Ok, they saw it as something that could lead to socialism, but even they understood its benefits, so there's my answer to your question without even bringing up capitalisms ability to provide humanity with more innovations, choice or freedoms.

See, there's nothing that suggests centrally planned altruism is a given either, is there? Some of most eye-watering acts of human cruelty have occurred in centrally planned, non-capitalist states.

With all this said, though, that doesn't mean there aren't substantial issues with the current system. Like you, I'm concerned with an ever growing disenfranchised majority and huge gulfs between rich and poor. I suppose I'm just not interested in throwing the baby out with the bathwater and reverting back to systems that evidently don't work, if you get me?

Understand completely, however Marx et al saw capitalism as a conduit to a more egalitarian system. As I suggested, under capitalism there has to be losers, besides the burgeoning untermenschen the system creates, it devours itself, there is no inkling for compassion, consideration or consequence save for a greater concentration of the wealth generated into the hands of fewer. It is their aims and direction that have an ill intent, greed, power, authority.
There seems to be a singular belief that A&R is what benefits us all, innovation to altruism, but also has lead to majorities paying the price. There is a global game that can only be played on capitalist terms, the World Bank forcing African nations into debt under despotic, western propped regimes, then forcing them to grow cash crops to meet repayments.
Other than grief, sporadic andvrare attempts, there has never been systems other than capitalism in existence, and they were usually crushed overtly or covertly like the Sandinista government in Nicaragua. It's just that now conquest is usually economic and subversive rather than armies and long ships. Anything other than capitalism cannot be allowed to succeed.
I see trade as essential. I see it as a means to build society, and innovation is central to that, but not to create disparity, to bring about prosperity and opportunity to everyone.
That, in itself isn't utopian, but it should be an ambition for all of us, because at one point the consequences will reach our own, our relatives and our children. That is the driving goal of capitalism, deluded complicity and all working in economic slavery beyond where we are now.

 

[Clint Planet]

The cryptocurrency world is supposed to be very socialist in the sense that it removes the need for banks and gives people control, yet not only is it exerting a tremendous environmental cost but it also brings out some rather undesirable qualities in people.

Not that it comes as any great surprise to me, but you don't seem to understand what Socialism actually is.

That is perhaps the nearest we have to an anarchic system in existence today, so if that's not exactly doing the business, then maybe we just need to accept that things won't ever be perfect (because humans are far from perfect)? I mean you talk about homeless people etc. and that is of course a terrible thing, but globally, mankind has surpassed nearly all of the millennium development goals many years ahead of schedule, and whilst that isn't to suggest that everything is hunky dory, neither should it suggest that things are not getting better.

You always trot this sort of claptrap out...

"Things won't ever be perfect, you moaning ninnies.... get on with getting on with it...blah blah blah ....so what if you're being shafted? Rise above it and work hard even if it is against enormous odds compared to my smug Tory mates.... blah blah blah.......'fairness'? you want 'fairness'? what is this - a primary school....? blah blah blah.....homelessness? well of course it's terrible but at least we don't have a leftie in power.....and what about Hugo Chavez......blah blah..."