Howdy, Stranger!
Categories
Options
The Conservatives back in 10 Downing Street.
The materials in this website are in no way intended to replace the professional medical care, advice, diagnosis or treatment of a doctor, qualified personal trainer, therapist, dietitian or nutritionist Runners's World, Part of the Hearst UK well-being network © Copyright 2017
Comments
I see true communism as something that evolves out of the failure of Capitalism Corinth. I also think there will be perhaps something other that the "old" communism. Not that true communism had chance to evolve-did it? It was created on the ideological front rather than evolving wouldn't you say. China and USSR "come too soon " to put it in crude terms.
On human nature, I do not believe that we are out for ourselves purely and simply. We have a social side to us also. Culture would not arise on just one of those legs-so it echoes perhaps both.
Marx was spot on about Capitalism eventually killing itself and people seeing through it in the end. What he under-estimated and could not possibly predict was how the media developed and radio and telly being big hitting ideological tools.
All true enough Hoose (Re rise of mass media - he never had much to say about the rise of the limited company and stock market either)
The fact is, capitalism in its present form is fucked... totally fucked. When 'big finance' starts killing nation states (Greece, Spain, Portugal... UK?) and has its next crisis, there will have to be a new type of capitalism or the whole World could go up in flames...
Look, what is the definition of idiocy?
Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result - this is what is about to happen re big finance... you canot significantly lower the living standards of a few billion people and expect growth - it just will not happen.
And when the next crisis of Capitalism comes...
I am a tad more optimistic than you Corinth-only a tad mind. Yep they are like the daft flies that keep banging their heads on a window pain when above then it is ajar and they can fly out. Trouble is people(or flies) are not looking high enough in the assumption that this is the nature of things(ideology of course but...).
You are right you cannot lower living standards of billions and expect growth. What are they gonna consume if skint? Oh wait a minute Capitalism needs consumers : we need to make them cheaper then but we aint gonna suffer so we pay our workers low wages etc etc.. Result who are middle class now will be on lower and lower wages. Deskilling will justify that . Oh but what are they gonna consume? Capitalism is sliding a sharp knife around its throat IMHO.
Surely capitalism is an ever evolving system.
If it were static then all those saying we're fucked during the great depression would have seen their predictions come true. So in response to this crisis the system well change. Then the next crisis comes and it changes again.
Corinth, Hoose, I love you both. As you seem to be discussing fundamentals, let me tell you where I am coming from on this. I am not sure, tbh, what either of you really mean by "communism", "capitalism", or "socialism". My ignorance perhaps.
The problem I see, here and in even more the US, is government by an alliance of "the government" so-called and the heads of mega-large industry. They are, in effect, the same people, and they are dictators. If you nationalise industry, or have the state own it all, it just makes that worse. It's still one lot running everything: they employ you, they feed you, they make the laws, they run the media, and they teach your children. How can you win? If you argue they'll call you mad.
But we need government, and we need industry. (As far as I'm concerned, the bit about how posh they are, which school they went to, and which class (as defined about 100 years ago) they belong to, is a completely dead issue).
The ones I like are the people who run small to medium businesses. Who create jobs and wealth, but do not aspire to run the country. I've known a few. They generally work hundred hour weeks, mortgage everything they have, and 80% of the time they fail. When they succeed, they give other people jobs, and they pay plenty of tax. So at that point, I don't want a society that not only taxes them, but frowns on them, tells them they're bastards for being well off "bosses", mocks them for being middle class, and tells them they can spend their money on anything they want just as long as it's not their own health, or their childrens education or inheritance, just something stupid and vacuous like a big telly like the rest of us. God knows we're f***ed without those people.
The challenge we've got now is that capitalism is truly global and truly instantaneous - in the past capital could push its problems elsewhere; it always has in the past. Historically, capitalism hasn't solved problems; it merrily moves the problems to other places or changes the nature of the problem- but now... well... there is nowhere else to go!
We're in a situation now where capitalism either has to try to re-inflate the bubbles which have already been burst (Housing, borrowing etc) or create new markets.
I don 't think either of these solutions is an option anymore- I think we're in for an era of stagnation and eventual civic unrest - now, people will either swing to the right or the left.
Given that the mass media is owned and controlled by the ultra-right - I know who my money is on!
Hoose, just show me a country with a non-capitalist system that works.
In the UK the system definitely needs some fundamental changes but I cant see any reason to abandon it completely. For an example of a better system I would look towards the Scandinavian countries as examples were capitalism can work well. If you use Sweden as an example you have a relatively stable centre left government with a large welfare state (50% of GDP) and a prosperous country.
For me the main thing that needs to be added to the current system in the UK is a greater degree of social responsibility. Also an understanding by society that by supporting the less well off it enhances society for all. I for one would be perfectly willing to pay more in taxes if that money were then reinvested in a reduction in poverty and better education. As I feel a better educated population leads to a more skilled work force which has to be good for all, additionally less poverty leads to a reduction crime etc.
Timeout,
there are plenty of societies that have worked for millenia without a Capitalist system However, I am certain you definition of "worked" will be in terms of Western capitalism type values. To me "worked" would be living in an harmonious way with their fellow men,and environment sharing the goods they have and providing for all. Some traditional tribal societies did just that. The Mbuti pygmies led a content life and based on sharing, for example. Small scale "societies" or "communes" have functioned well in the terms "worked" that I use. China and USSR communism did not work because what they evolved out of was far from an advanced Capitalist society, Capitalism hd to have its day before any system evolves to produce more equality. Capitalism and equality do not mix.
Your recollection of the 70's is clearly different to mine, Corinthian - or possibly more selective.
I seem to recall union demagogues, wildcat strikes, block votes, secondary picketing and a Labour Party that was so in hock to the unions they forgot who actually elected them to office.
The post-war centralist govts gave us the expansion of the welfare state and the NHS. Big ticks there. However by the end of the 70's the pendulum had swung too far in favour of the union movement and they were strangling the country to death. Enter nursie with her axe and by 1985 and the miners strike it was all over. Blair recognised that the old socialist model wasn't sustainable any more and bingo 13 years of Labour govt, socialist principles almost entirely absent. No way would Labour have been elected on a prospectus like the one Michael Foot once put together. The world had changed and labour needed to change with it.
This is not a Big Finance bad, Public Sector good world any more. Big Finance may not be voted in, but neither is the vast regiment of public servants who are getting inflated salaries and pensions that make people in the private sector look on with envy. Gordon's generosity with the tax dollar didn't leave us in too good a position when the bankswent tits oop. With hindsight his second mistake was light touch regulation of the City - any suggestion the Tories would have done any different should be met wih hoots of derision.
I'm looking to this or any other government to clip the wings of the City boys and prevent a recurrence of the bubble.
Vince Cable may have a job on his hands.
The simple fact is that this coalition is the best opportunity the country has, ideology aside, based on the electoral arithmetic as it panned out.
A second election because the rainbow coalition falls at the first hurdle or because a few councils can't even organise a few polling stations and the economy will be down the pan at a rate of knots. To believe otherwise is potentially a fatal miscalculation.
It may not be fair that the markets have such an influence on matters, but as my old gran used to say, "Life's not fair. think on".
Sorry JB - this is where I get off
You've totally misrepresented what I posted
I'm just baffled as to why...
I didn't mean to misrepresent you.
I was just putting an opposing argument as someone who remembers the 70's (much as it pains me to admit it).
As someone who has worked in the private sector all his life I feel obliged to put arguments countering the view that "Business" is inherently selfish and outside of society.
We'll just have to agree to differ.
Hoose the problem I have is that people just aren't equal. While its a wonderful ideal it just doesnt work.
Some are more intelligent, others are physically stronger, more beautiful, or whatever. For me a fair society should allow everyone to be the best that they can be, and to support and aid those who are disadvantaged such as the old and infirm. Within that society those who are better at certain things would hopefully rise into positions of more responsibility, but if they were not rewarded why would they want the responsibility?
Ironically for a champion of the working class, Karl Marx did hardly a day's work in his life and sponged off Friedrich Engels for years. But early on he tried tapping his uncle, a businessman in Holland called Leon Philips, for cash. Leon gave him some at first and then sent him packing.
Leon's business prospered and is still with us today - Philips electronics.
Useless trivia, but I just thought I'd throw it in ...
Timeout,
I can agree that people are not equal in physical ,intellectually etc but that is no justification for social inequality. We all have different attributes to offer. How those attributes are valued and rewarded varies from society to society. Nothing in "nature" suggests that "socially defined" scarce goods should be unequally distributed. That is "man made" or a cultural thing. Being that mankind has the capacity to change it. Reward for responsibility can be to be held in great esteem and have more love you for what you do. Works in some societies. I am a bit of an idealist however, I feel that greater equality and good standard of living for all is worthy to persue. If you ideally would like to climb a mountain, a few steps up it is in the endeavour is better than just dismissing the idea as a dream.
Muttley is right about Marx-lolMarx's excuse was his boils, I think
My position is deceptively simple - I'm a democrat with inclinations towards socialism (Note the small 's'). I'm totally against all forms of power that do not have their source in the will of the majority of the people; through representative government; within a capitalist system - as long as this power is not wielded without a democratic mandate or is not counter to the human rights of the individual or groups within this society.
However, you cannot condemn unless you first seek to understand - The industrial unrest in the 1970s has as one of its sources the oil crisis of the mid early 1970s...
To paint the TU response as anything but a reaction is not only disingenuous it is downright misleading.
The Unions sought to displace government and they succeeded - as when Heath went to the electorate in 1974 under the slogan of 'who governs' it was the the people, not the unions who decided that it wasn't going to be him.
Some would argue (Me!) that the Unions had no place involving themselves in electoral politics unless it was to create and sustain a political party which represented their interests - this they did this with the creation of Labour party in the latter part of the C19.
Moving forward 110 years after the creation of the Labour party we are now in the situation where huge financial corporations wield disproportionate amounts of power over our lives.
They are not subject to election
They are not accountable to the will of the people
They do not usually act for the good of the people
They are not subject to de-selection
They are largely outside of the control of elected government.
The fact that you have worked in the private sector is neither here nor there... neither is the fact that I've worked for much of my career in the public sector - you are falling into the old 'big finance' trap of 'divide and conquer'.
But I'll bet you've as much in common with George Soros as I have with Charlotte Church.
So, if you want a debate - fine... but please do not misrepresent me for the purpose of scoring cheap points.
Big finance
Going back to the school topic ... a timely article about Eton on the Beeb news site.
Am I being cynical to think that Eton is a "charity" and that the 10 or so scholarships are the bare minimum it needs to provide to justify its charitable status and the tax perks that come with it?
Interesting article. Comment from the state school pupil there on the scholarship: "that's something that my friends back in Seaford said to me a lot, that Etonians would be rich, stuck up, but no, they're not at all really. "
Amazing
Hoose: how could I disagree with less poverty, and on the other hand less consuming for consuming's sake?
But the entrepreneur: if you tell him that, on the slim chance that he succeeds, you're then going to confiscate what he makes and "channel it into a more equal society", via government hands, he's not going to bother, is he? He's just going to queue up for his handout with everyone else.