[Politics] Capitalism - for better? Or worse?

[symyjym]

Russia hasnt been communist for decades. China onlyreally politically communist while embracing market economy and capitalism, drag themselves from agarian impoverishment in 1970s to near worlds largest economy today.

Yep China are an example of using both communist and capitalist principles. They are not incompatible especially in a world where the future will be automated with more consumers than jobs.

 

[dingodan]

That maybe the case if only we could see the future as well as the past

Well we've seen the only alternatives to free markets and capitalism that people have been able to come up with in the past. I'd suggest we don't try them in the future.

 

[dingodan]

Yep China are an example of using both communist and capitalist principles. They are not incompatible especially in a world where the future will be automated with more consumers than jobs.

China would be an unfortunate model for us to follow, if you believe in freedom.

 

[symyjym]

China would be an unfortunate model for us to follow, if you believe in freedom.

No not as a model for us. A more progressive one without us losing our acquired values.

 

[Weststander]

I genuinely think that whoever Cameron handed the poisoned chalice over to would have struggled, wether Labour, Conservative or anyone else.

Forty years of intertwining cannot be undone in two. It was always going to be a shambles unless we rolled over and took any deal(s) they threw at us - or we appointed 3,000 new ministers and threw bodies at it. Neither has happened.

This. An untrendy view, it’s easy to slag off May, but any PM would’ve faced a pincer movement of Remain MP’s versus intransigent Hard Brexiteers.

 

[Blue3]

Well we've seen the only alternatives to free markets and capitalism that people have been able to come up with in the past. I'd suggest we don't try them in the future.

I suspect it will be a new form of community organisation, all the government models tried in the last 100 years have been based on ideas propositioned by individuals of that or earlier times it's akin to the model T car and never advancing

 

[Hastings gull]

I could discuss capitalism and socialism (rationally) for hours and hours, so I don't.

My thoughts are that in a capitalist society the brightest and most driven can have more of an opportunity to succeed financially. Hard work, study and determination is rewarded.

In a truly Socialist society the lazy and unambitious can be rewarded, usually at the expense of the hard working. You then get the hard working people resenting working 14 hour days to support the person who would rather stay in bed all day and do nothing.

That said, as an evolved society we have a duty of care to those who cannot look after themselves, or are unable to work for genuine reasons.

My thoughts are that capitalism is good, but only to the point before it becomes greed - or at the expense of the wellbeing of others. Like everything in life, there's a middle ground. I am not qualified to say what, or where this is mind you.

Good post, but how to find that middle ground-that is not easy. People are greedy and reluctant to pay taxes, but of course want the ambulance there in 8 minutes, should the unforeseen occur. Yes, we should look after those who are genuinely less fortunate, but again human nature will prevent that from being adequately funded. Once it is realised that a freebie is on offer due to a disability, you know what will happen; you only need to spend time watching the car park for the disabled to see how abused that is.

 

[Hastings gull]

This. An untrendy view, it’s easy to slag off May, but any PM would’ve faced a pincer movement of Remain MP’s versus intransigent Hard Brexiteers.

No, I don't think it is a trendy view; I suspect that it is one widely shared, as she is in the middle of opposing camps totally unwilling to compromise, and as a result, the rest of Europe must be laughing and weeping in equal measure.

 

[Hastings gull]

That's hilarious. Genuinely laugh out loud funny. Capitalism has undergone various forms, some compatible with democracy, others not. Democracy predates capitalism, but capitalism predates modern democracy. Ancient democracy was initiated against oligarchy and included Solon's cancellation of debt. I could go on but, in response to your ridiculous first sentence, democracy is a political form of power or organisation, whereas capitalism is an economic mode of organisation.

You're just giving more ammunition to my long-held suspicion that you're paid by some vile free market thinktank to write this drivel (probably, in turn, funded by the Koch brothers), alongside the Daily Mail tagline, and the affected sentence construction that you insist upon.

And this gives more than adequate suspicion about you and your motives.

 

[Hastings gull]

I'm not a Corbyn lover, but that really is a very jaundiced view.
Whether you're a Brexiter or a Remainer, it is the stunning incompetence of the Tories who have got us inbto the current mess, being laughed at by the rest of the world.

Whilst it is true that the Torie's inability to compromise must take their fair share of the blame, it is not only they who should be castigated; Labour MPs, who don't want to leave even though their constituents do, have thwarted every move and good old Vince Cable, is wanting people to join him in the clamour for a people's vote. And why do they want that? because they didn't like the result of the people's vote that we have had. It is not as simple as you would like to make out, though there is clear validity to your point. Go back to doing your hip exercises . .

 

[Hastings gull]

Well we've seen the only alternatives to free markets and capitalism that people have been able to come up with in the past. I'd suggest we don't try them in the future.

Exactly -whilst it has it's faults, not the least in that excessive greed and selfishness on the part of a minority can be encouraged/rewarded, it is still a hell of a lot better than what comes second. Trust me -my family lived in East Germany. The first free election there saw only 14% vote for the continuation of communism.

 

[maltaseagull]

capitalism or more importantly market economies are a form of democracy. vote with your money. want want to go to a gig you pay, or dont pay dont go. tickets are a scarce resource, not everyone can go, so the market determines what value people put on that thing. really its not capitalism, thats the ownership, its the market economy, and most are happy with that when it works in their favour. certainly there are excess and injustices, though the alternatives are worse. worst system except all others we've tried, as someone said.

In the modern world, you can usually see a download of the gig soon afterwards. Probably a better view than if you had been there. So if you are prepared to pay £90 to be able to say 'I was there' fair enough.
There seems to be plenty prepared to pay.
How much was a ticket to Glastonbury in the 70s?

 

[dingodan]

I could discuss capitalism and socialism (rationally) for hours and hours, so I don't.

My thoughts are that in a capitalist society the brightest and most driven can have more of an opportunity to succeed financially. Hard work, study and determination is rewarded.

In a truly Socialist society the lazy and unambitious can be rewarded, usually at the expense of the hard working. You then get the hard working people resenting working 14 hour days to support the person who would rather stay in bed all day and do nothing.

That said, as an evolved society we have a duty of care to those who cannot look after themselves, or are unable to work for genuine reasons.

My thoughts are that capitalism is good, but only to the point before it becomes greed - or at the expense of the wellbeing of others. Like everything in life, there's a middle ground. I am not qualified to say what, or where this is mind you.

You are right. As for the duty of care for people in genuine need, the only legitimate means through which that can be provided is private charity. Nobody has a right to take from you to give to someone else. If someone else needs your help, then it is your responsibility to help them. Two things happen when we "collectivise" that responsibility.

The first thing that happens is that those who are given the power to take resources from others and share them out to people in need start sharing them out based on maintaining their position of power. Welfare, both corporate and social, have become more a means of securing political support than a means of genuinely helping people in need.

The second thing that happens is that people lose sight of their own personal responsibility to help other people, they walk past a person in need and declare "something needs doing about his". But of course it's a politician's or bureaucrat's responsibilty, not theirs. So they walk on.

 

[dingodan]

No not as a model for us. A more progressive one without us losing our acquired values.

Our values are freedom. Try fitting that into the China model.

You know what you will find if you do that? You'll find that it fits with the Capitalist side of the model, and is completely at odds with the communist one.

 

[symyjym]

Our values are freedom. Try fitting that into the China model.

You know what you will find if you do that? You'll find that it fits with the Capitalist side of the model, and is completely at odds with the communist one.

Communism as an ideology that we know it was envisaged when we were still basically a horse and cart. Some Americans believe that the Welfare State is as close to Communism as we can get.

 

[beorhthelm]

That's hilarious. Genuinely laugh out loud funny. Capitalism has undergone various forms, some compatible with democracy, others not. Democracy predates capitalism, but capitalism predates modern democracy. Ancient democracy was initiated against oligarchy and included Solon's cancellation of debt. I could go on but, in response to your ridiculous first sentence, democracy is a political form of power or organisation, whereas capitalism is an economic mode of organisation.

You're just giving more ammunition to my long-held suspicion that you're paid by some vile free market thinktank to write this drivel (probably, in turn, funded by the Koch brothers), alongside the Daily Mail tagline, and the affected sentence construction that you insist upon.

thanks for noticing, it was intended to be provocative, and disappointed few bites. may be too mild. you completely missed "form of" before the history lesson, ignoring the context and observation markets are democratic in nature. im well aware that democracy is politics and capitialism is economics, though they are closely entwined. objection to capitialism formed the basis of well known political philosopher Karl Marx when he proposed an alternative political system, and had a marked impact on political and economic thinking.

 

[Bakero]

You are right. As for the duty of care for people in genuine need, the only legitimate means through which that can be provided is private charity. Nobody has a right to take from you to give to someone else. If someone else needs your help, then it is your responsibility to help them. Two things happen when we "collectivise" that responsibility.

The first thing that happens is that those who are given the power to take resources from others and share them out to people in need start sharing them out based on maintaining their position of power. Welfare, both corporate and social, have become more a means of securing political support than a means of genuinely helping people in need.

The second thing that happens is that people lose sight of their own personal responsibility to help other people, they walk past a person in need and declare "something needs doing about his". But of course it's a politician's or bureaucrat's responsibilty, not theirs. So they walk on.

What are your views on the funding of healthcare, schooling and infrastructure?

 

[DavidinSouthampton]

I genuinely think that whoever Cameron handed the poisoned chalice over to would have struggled, wether Labour, Conservative or anyone else.

Forty years of intertwining cannot be undone in two. It was always going to be a shambles unless we rolled over and took any deal(s) they threw at us - or we appointed 3,000 new ministers and threw bodies at it. Neither has happened.

I totally agree, but whoever was in power, in my view, should have been consulting broadly across party lines from the very beginning.

 

[DavidinSouthampton]

Whilst it is true that the Torie's inability to compromise must take their fair share of the blame, it is not only they who should be castigated; Labour MPs, who don't want to leave even though their constituents do, have thwarted every move and good old Vince Cable, is wanting people to join him in the clamour for a people's vote. And why do they want that? because they didn't like the result of the people's vote that we have had. It is not as simple as you would like to make out, though there is clear validity to your point. Go back to doing your hip exercises . .

I am not trying to make out it is simple. I am saying the current shower have made a complete and utter mess of it all, not that Corbyn would have done any better, or Cable, or Sturgeon....... although they couldn't have done much worse.

And I'm doing sufficient hip exercises, thank you. Walked over 4 miles today as well.......

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

The amount of wealth you have is PURELY determined by how hard you work. So how could anything be wrong with that?

Basically correct - with some provisos. I like capitalism. But I like regulation. And I like trade unionism. Unfortunately the pursuit of self interest is pernicious. Unfettered capitalism leads to low wages, insufficient to fund private health care, education and pensions since the most efficient system is to work the donkeys till they drop, then bring in younger donkeys. In contrast, unfettered socialism requires centralization and can only function if decentralization (via the ballot box) is abolished (oops! one party state). So we exist in a state of political adversity, which reduces to speed-dating every few years, with politicians titrating the biggest lie they can sell against the smallest opprobrium they will face when the lie is revealed. The public are of course to blame. If a party promises little the electorate says 'OK, **** off then, I'm voting for the free gift guy'.

This is why I am not in favour of 'democracy'. However I can't think of a better system. Democracy is disruptive, unpredicatable and adaptable. Humans are contrary. Capitalism with regulation, managed by laws, overseen by replacable politicians. I like it. By and large we already do it well.

The enemy of democracy, however is referenda. Especially referenda with imutable outcomes. Once in a lifetime, like. That is why Cameron is our worst ever PM. He gave up on politics; never the best plan for a politician.