|
Post by metalhead on Sept 6, 2018 11:08:29 GMT
Capitalism isn't a government. Capitalism doesn't legislate. Governments legislate. The fact people were burned to death at GF is a failure of government, local authorities, the private/public sector etc. Capitalism enforced with legislation is the key. Companies will always look for methods of cutting costs, but that doesn't mean that the subsequent end result is dangerous to the public. In the case of GF, the cladding used was already known to be dangerous. It just needed banning and a law that ensures it didn't make its way onto a building. The Soviet Union manufactured cars in the 80s... Were they a haven of safety and luxury compared to their capitalist competitors? No, they were a pile of unreliable uncomfortable shit. The FSO Polonez vs MK2 Golf, I rest my case.... The point being that Capitalism itself is now more powerful than Governments or has so much influence over them it often refuses to be legislated, refuses to have a conscience. Look at how quickly Bankers remuneration not only returned to pre crash levels but rapidly surpassed them. Casino banking still exists and all the time Capitalism points over there and blames weak people and cries benefits cheats. Don't believe me, these are the headlines we saw in the aftermath of the crash, selling us the reasons for austerity. Capitalism isn't a physical entity. You can't touch it, smell it, eat it or drink it..... Once again, you are talking about the implementation rather than the concept. If the government is corrupted by capitalism, then it is the people who are corrupted; those who are willing to look the other way for a brown envelope etc. That is simply the corruption of those in high positions.... You are also asserting that communism/socialism isn't prone to corruption. History has shown that is demonstrably false. If we accept that the corruption is of the human implementation rather than the textbook definitions, then you realise it's not capitalism that's the issue here.
|
|
|
Post by sheikhmomo on Sept 6, 2018 11:17:07 GMT
The point being that Capitalism itself is now more powerful than Governments or has so much influence over them it often refuses to be legislated, refuses to have a conscience. Look at how quickly Bankers remuneration not only returned to pre crash levels but rapidly surpassed them. Casino banking still exists and all the time Capitalism points over there and blames weak people and cries benefits cheats. Don't believe me, these are the headlines we saw in the aftermath of the crash, selling us the reasons for austerity. Capitalism isn't a physical entity. You can't touch it, smell it, eat it or drink it..... Once again, you are talking about the implementation rather than the concept. If the government is corrupted by capitalism, then it is the people who are corrupted; those who are willing to look the other way for a brown envelope etc. That is simply the corruption of those in high positions.... You are also asserting that communism/socialism isn't prone to corruption. History has shown that is demonstrably false. If we accept that the corruption is of the human implementation rather than the textbook definitions, then you realise it's not capitalism that's the issue here. Capitalism is the embodiment of the full market economy and therefore the opportunities of corruption are inherent within its very structures, regardless of good or bad intentioned implementation.
|
|
|
Post by musik on Sept 6, 2018 11:28:03 GMT
Capitalism is the embodiment of the full market economy What are the advantages of capitalism? Are there any? To me, as long as there is an extreme lack of some certain goods or services on a particular market, the market economy solution will be a bad outcome. Called market imperfection. For instance, in Sweden the market of Housing. Enormous lack, 25 years of queues. Extremely Higher rents would lead to an equilibrium price eventually. But with no use.
|
|
|
Post by bathstoke on Sept 6, 2018 11:37:21 GMT
The point being that Capitalism itself is now more powerful than Governments or has so much influence over them it often refuses to be legislated, refuses to have a conscience. Look at how quickly Bankers remuneration not only returned to pre crash levels but rapidly surpassed them. Casino banking still exists and all the time Capitalism points over there and blames weak people and cries benefits cheats. Don't believe me, these are the headlines we saw in the aftermath of the crash, selling us the reasons for austerity. The fact that we've lost over 1 million public sector jobs since 2008 and aren't eating off the streets is proof of Labour's economic mismanagement. They couldn't afford to pay these people without borrowing during the good times so what chance did the Tories have. It's never been austerity - it's simply making the best of what we can afford. Are you ignorant, stupid, an nasty b@$t@&d or a troll, cause that is some ill informed $#!t...
|
|
|
Post by trickydicky73 on Sept 6, 2018 11:58:50 GMT
I'd just like to end this discussion now by informing you all that there's no doubt whatsoever that capitalism makes everyone better off. It suffers from peaks and troughs and needs to be managed properly but it is the only game in town. Socialism is the natural home for the envious, bone idle fucksticks who like the idea of getting more for doing less and those who don't want to see hard work, risk and brains getting a reward. You know that capitalism is working and that the poor and feckless are getting more than enough to live on when the word 'equality' is banded about. The term equality is used by socialists to hide their real aim which is to enjoy life with more of other people's money. There'll never be the equality that socialists pander for because they fail to understand that we're not equal and that there's a layer of society that fails to contribute despite being given the services and tools to do so. The funny thing is that the Corbyn supporting loons out there think that him and his party are real socialists but fail to understand that if he ever gained power he'd be more reliant than anyone on the capitalist system providing the massive tax income he'd need to fund his populist giveaways. Socialism is the natural home of the left wing fool. And this is the problem with Capitalists. No empathy, no conscience, no sense of community, greedy, pernicious, empty. Morally bankrupt. I think that's too simplistic, Momo. I know Labour voters who spout the values you mention, but actually do nothing to back it up, whereas I know people who have voted for the Tories, UKIP and the Liberal Democrats who have been more active in helping people.
|
|
|
Post by harryburrows on Sept 6, 2018 14:06:59 GMT
The point being that Capitalism itself is now more powerful than Governments or has so much influence over them it often refuses to be legislated, refuses to have a conscience. Look at how quickly Bankers remuneration not only returned to pre crash levels but rapidly surpassed them. Casino banking still exists and all the time Capitalism points over there and blames weak people and cries benefits cheats. Don't believe me, these are the headlines we saw in the aftermath of the crash, selling us the reasons for austerity. Capitalism isn't a physical entity. You can't touch it, smell it, eat it or drink it..... Once again, you are talking about the implementation rather than the concept. If the government is corrupted by capitalism, then it is the people who are corrupted; those who are willing to look the other way for a brown envelope etc. That is simply the corruption of those in high positions.... You are also asserting that communism/socialism isn't prone to corruption. History has shown that is demonstrably false. If we accept that the corruption is of the human implementation rather than the textbook definitions, then you realise it's not capitalism that's the issue here. As saint maggie once said the problem with socialists is eventually they run out of other people's money
|
|
|
Post by metalhead on Sept 6, 2018 14:17:15 GMT
Capitalism isn't a physical entity. You can't touch it, smell it, eat it or drink it..... Once again, you are talking about the implementation rather than the concept. If the government is corrupted by capitalism, then it is the people who are corrupted; those who are willing to look the other way for a brown envelope etc. That is simply the corruption of those in high positions.... You are also asserting that communism/socialism isn't prone to corruption. History has shown that is demonstrably false. If we accept that the corruption is of the human implementation rather than the textbook definitions, then you realise it's not capitalism that's the issue here. Capitalism is the embodiment of the full market economy and therefore the opportunities of corruption are inherent within its very structures, regardless of good or bad intentioned implementation. Once again, you are not describing capitalism, rather the corruptable nature of the human race. The fact history has proven socialism and communism to be as equally corruptable, you are either suggesting that they are inherently flawed systems or acknowledging humans are easily corrupted by power, greed and ideology.... No different to capitalism there mate. Contrary to hard left propaganda, capitalism is the only real meritocracy. It's a shit meritocracy, whereby billionaire shareholders can benefit from the Labour of others, however it's also the only system where a working class lad with the right amount of drive and motivation can make something of their life. Young people raised in working class homes CAN be successful.... How much do you want it? That's the question and that's up to you and the amount of time you are willing to dedicate to achieving your goals. I worked in a McDonald's and then later a pub, serving people who looked down their noses at me to fund my university tuition. That tuition hugely benefited me in my career and further hard work and dedication at work allowed me the chance to earn more than my parents earned between them at their peak.... I'm only 28. And you want to implement a system where that effort and dedication wasn't rewarded? No thanks, I'll pass. Answer me this.... I know nothing about you at all. I don't know where you live, what your lifestyle is like, but I suspect it's better than it would be under communism. How much would you be willing to give up, to implement communism/socialism? Say you live in a nice 4 bed house that you worked all your life for, would you be willing to give that up? Your nice car? Your nice TV? Your nice gadgets? Private tuition for kids so they can enjoy a better life for themselves? I ask because a lot of people support strong wealth redistribution and welfare states when they know there is a 0% chance of it ever happening...... Like the hard left in the UK. By the way, please don't take any of this personally as it's not aimed in that way. I'm enjoying the debate and it's what makes the EE board arguably more interesting than the SCFC board.
|
|
|
Post by metalhead on Sept 6, 2018 14:21:20 GMT
Capitalism isn't a physical entity. You can't touch it, smell it, eat it or drink it..... Once again, you are talking about the implementation rather than the concept. If the government is corrupted by capitalism, then it is the people who are corrupted; those who are willing to look the other way for a brown envelope etc. That is simply the corruption of those in high positions.... You are also asserting that communism/socialism isn't prone to corruption. History has shown that is demonstrably false. If we accept that the corruption is of the human implementation rather than the textbook definitions, then you realise it's not capitalism that's the issue here. As saint maggie once said the problem with socialists is eventually they run out of other people's money I'll be honest, Maggie can do one imo. She damaged this country irreparably and we are still picking up the pieces. Stoke on Trent is the kind of place Maggie utterly despised.
|
|
|
Post by harryburrows on Sept 6, 2018 14:31:29 GMT
As saint maggie once said the problem with socialists is eventually they run out of other people's money I'll be honest, Maggie can do one imo. She damaged this country irreparably and we are still picking up the pieces. Stoke on Trent is the kind of place Maggie utterly despised. Maggie transformed this country from a shithole to a modern wealthy successful place to live , I agree she didn't do enough in the heartlands but I don't think she despised the industrial economy anymore than I think stokes problems are down to her .
|
|
|
Post by metalhead on Sept 6, 2018 14:42:18 GMT
I'll be honest, Maggie can do one imo. She damaged this country irreparably and we are still picking up the pieces. Stoke on Trent is the kind of place Maggie utterly despised. Maggie transformed this country from a shithole to a modern wealthy successful place to live , I agree she didn't do enough in the heartlands but I don't think she despised the industrial economy anymore than I think stokes problems are down to her . I didn't live through Thatcherism so I can only take your word for it. Considering her lack of fondness for UK manufacturing, I find it quite hard to believe.
|
|
|
Post by harryburrows on Sept 6, 2018 14:58:55 GMT
Maggie transformed this country from a shithole to a modern wealthy successful place to live , I agree she didn't do enough in the heartlands but I don't think she despised the industrial economy anymore than I think stokes problems are down to her . I didn't live through Thatcherism so I can only take your word for it. Considering her lack of fondness for UK manufacturing, I find it quite hard to believe. I did live through it and remember the 60s and 70s vividly 3 day weeks , power cuts , endless strikes , rubbish uncollected for weeks on end , bodies not being buried. We were in a terrible mess . As you say you didn't live through it yet you hate the greatest prime minister in living memory . The country was bankrupt we needed bailouts from the IMF .The bullying Marxist union barons destroyed our manufacturing not thatcher . This was the result of unfettered socialism
|
|
|
Post by wizzardofdribble on Sept 6, 2018 15:14:39 GMT
I didn't live through Thatcherism so I can only take your word for it. Considering her lack of fondness for UK manufacturing, I find it quite hard to believe. I did live through it and remember the 60s and 70s vividly 3 day weeks , power cuts , endless strikes , rubbish uncollected for weeks on end , bodies not being buried. We were in a terrible mess . As you say you didn't live through it yet you hate the greatest prime minister in living memory . The country was bankrupt we needed bailouts from the IMF .The bullying Marxist union barons destroyed our manufacturing not thatcher . This was the result of unfettered socialism I lived through it too in Stoke on Trent. An area absolutely decimated by Thatcherite Economic Polices. A price some are still paying for. And just for the record Ted Heaths Conservative Government of 1970-75 had the worst economic record of any post war government. And it was the Ford Motor Company that broke the 1978 wage agreement not the unions.
|
|
|
Post by sheikhmomo on Sept 6, 2018 15:32:09 GMT
Capitalism is the embodiment of the full market economy and therefore the opportunities of corruption are inherent within its very structures, regardless of good or bad intentioned implementation. Once again, you are not describing capitalism, rather the corruptable nature of the human race. The fact history has proven socialism and communism to be as equally corruptable, you are either suggesting that they are inherently flawed systems or acknowledging humans are easily corrupted by power, greed and ideology.... No different to capitalism there mate. Contrary to hard left propaganda, capitalism is the only real meritocracy. It's a shit meritocracy, whereby billionaire shareholders can benefit from the Labour of others, however it's also the only system where a working class lad with the right amount of drive and motivation can make something of their life. Young people raised in working class homes CAN be successful.... How much do you want it? That's the question and that's up to you and the amount of time you are willing to dedicate to achieving your goals. I worked in a McDonald's and then later a pub, serving people who looked down their noses at me to fund my university tuition. That tuition hugely benefited me in my career and further hard work and dedication at work allowed me the chance to earn more than my parents earned between them at their peak.... I'm only 28. And you want to implement a system where that effort and dedication wasn't rewarded? No thanks, I'll pass. Answer me this.... I know nothing about you at all. I don't know where you live, what your lifestyle is like, but I suspect it's better than it would be under communism. How much would you be willing to give up, to implement communism/socialism? Say you live in a nice 4 bed house that you worked all your life for, would you be willing to give that up? Your nice car? Your nice TV? Your nice gadgets? Private tuition for kids so they can enjoy a better life for themselves? I ask because a lot of people support strong wealth redistribution and welfare states when they know there is a 0% chance of it ever happening...... Like the hard left in the UK. By the way, please don't take any of this personally as it's not aimed in that way. I'm enjoying the debate and it's what makes the EE board arguably more interesting than the SCFC board. Not taking it personally at all MH and if you notice, I'm not exactly extolling the virtues of Socialism more decrying the suggestion that Capitalism is necessarily the best of a bad bunch. My biggest problem, fear and hatred (yes hatred) of the Capitalism the West have run with is best summed up in this quote from The Happiness Industry by William Davies. "Our society is excessively individualistic. Markets reduce everything to a question of individual calculation and selfishness. We have become obsessed with money and acquisition at the expense of our social relationships and our own human fulfillment. Capitalism spreads a plague of materialism, which undermines our contentedness, leaving many of us isolated and lonely. Unless we can rediscover the art of sharing, our society will fragment altogether, making trust impossible. Unless we can recover the values associated with friendship and altruism, we will descend into a state of nihilistic ennui." Maybe it is able to reward effort from the 'tough end' better than any other system but what a price to pay a destruction of community and collectivism. A charter for the abuse of the means of production
|
|
|
Post by partickpotter on Sept 6, 2018 15:38:19 GMT
I did live through it and remember the 60s and 70s vividly 3 day weeks , power cuts , endless strikes , rubbish uncollected for weeks on end , bodies not being buried. We were in a terrible mess . As you say you didn't live through it yet you hate the greatest prime minister in living memory . The country was bankrupt we needed bailouts from the IMF .The bullying Marxist union barons destroyed our manufacturing not thatcher . This was the result of unfettered socialism I lived through it too in Stoke on Trent. An area absolutely decimated by Thatcherite Economic Polices. A price some are still paying for. And just for the record Ted Heaths Conservative Government of 1970-75 had the worst economic record of any post war government. And it was the Ford Motor Company that broke the 1978 wage agreement not the unions. Why did Ford break the agreement? It might have something to do with the strike the unions called after they rejected Ford's initial offer that was within the then Labour Goverment's incomes policy. Ford of course capitulated which stimulated the feeding frenzy that resulted in the infamous winter of discontent. As to Heath's 1970s conservative Government - no doubt that was a shambles but so was the Labour government that preceded it and the Labour one that followed it. Those were truly terrible days - economically speaking. Not so bad from a football and music perspective - well the latter from 76 onwards.
|
|
|
Post by partickpotter on Sept 6, 2018 15:41:53 GMT
Once again, you are not describing capitalism, rather the corruptable nature of the human race. The fact history has proven socialism and communism to be as equally corruptable, you are either suggesting that they are inherently flawed systems or acknowledging humans are easily corrupted by power, greed and ideology.... No different to capitalism there mate. Contrary to hard left propaganda, capitalism is the only real meritocracy. It's a shit meritocracy, whereby billionaire shareholders can benefit from the Labour of others, however it's also the only system where a working class lad with the right amount of drive and motivation can make something of their life. Young people raised in working class homes CAN be successful.... How much do you want it? That's the question and that's up to you and the amount of time you are willing to dedicate to achieving your goals. I worked in a McDonald's and then later a pub, serving people who looked down their noses at me to fund my university tuition. That tuition hugely benefited me in my career and further hard work and dedication at work allowed me the chance to earn more than my parents earned between them at their peak.... I'm only 28. And you want to implement a system where that effort and dedication wasn't rewarded? No thanks, I'll pass. Answer me this.... I know nothing about you at all. I don't know where you live, what your lifestyle is like, but I suspect it's better than it would be under communism. How much would you be willing to give up, to implement communism/socialism? Say you live in a nice 4 bed house that you worked all your life for, would you be willing to give that up? Your nice car? Your nice TV? Your nice gadgets? Private tuition for kids so they can enjoy a better life for themselves? I ask because a lot of people support strong wealth redistribution and welfare states when they know there is a 0% chance of it ever happening...... Like the hard left in the UK. By the way, please don't take any of this personally as it's not aimed in that way. I'm enjoying the debate and it's what makes the EE board arguably more interesting than the SCFC board. Not taking it personally at all MH and if you notice, I'm not exactly extolling the virtues of Socialism more decrying the suggestion that Capitalism is necessarily the best of a bad bunch. My biggest problem, fear and hatred (yes hatred) of the Capitalism the West have run with is best summed up in this quote from The Happiness Industry by William Davies. "Our society is excessively individualistic. Markets reduce everything to a question of individual calculation and selfishness. We have become obsessed with money and acquisition at the expense of our social relationships and our own human fulfillment. Capitalism spreads a plague of materialism, which undermines our contentedness, leaving many of us isolated and lonely. Unless we can rediscover the art of sharing, our society will fragment altogether, making trust impossible. Unless we can recover the values associated with friendship and altruism, we will descend into a state of nihilistic ennui." Maybe it is able to reward effort from the 'tough end' better than any other system but what a price to pay a destruction of community and collectivism. A charter for the abuse of the means of production I think he is talking pish!
|
|
|
Post by sheikhmomo on Sept 6, 2018 15:45:50 GMT
Not taking it personally at all MH and if you notice, I'm not exactly extolling the virtues of Socialism more decrying the suggestion that Capitalism is necessarily the best of a bad bunch. My biggest problem, fear and hatred (yes hatred) of the Capitalism the West have run with is best summed up in this quote from The Happiness Industry by William Davies. "Our society is excessively individualistic. Markets reduce everything to a question of individual calculation and selfishness. We have become obsessed with money and acquisition at the expense of our social relationships and our own human fulfillment. Capitalism spreads a plague of materialism, which undermines our contentedness, leaving many of us isolated and lonely. Unless we can rediscover the art of sharing, our society will fragment altogether, making trust impossible. Unless we can recover the values associated with friendship and altruism, we will descend into a state of nihilistic ennui." Maybe it is able to reward effort from the 'tough end' better than any other system but what a price to pay a destruction of community and collectivism. A charter for the abuse of the means of production I think he is talking pish! Fair enough. You don't recognise at least some of that in the society we have created this past few decades?
|
|
|
Post by harryburrows on Sept 6, 2018 15:50:19 GMT
I did live through it and remember the 60s and 70s vividly 3 day weeks , power cuts , endless strikes , rubbish uncollected for weeks on end , bodies not being buried. We were in a terrible mess . As you say you didn't live through it yet you hate the greatest prime minister in living memory . The country was bankrupt we needed bailouts from the IMF .The bullying Marxist union barons destroyed our manufacturing not thatcher . This was the result of unfettered socialism I lived through it too in Stoke on Trent. An area absolutely decimated by Thatcherite Economic Polices. A price some are still paying for. And just for the record Ted Heaths Conservative Government of 1970-75 had the worst economic record of any post war government. And it was the Ford Motor Company that broke the 1978 wage agreement not the unions. Ok what did thatcher do to decimate stoke
|
|
|
Post by partickpotter on Sept 6, 2018 17:33:28 GMT
I think he is talking pish! Fair enough. You don't recognise at least some of that in the society we have created this past few decades? He is describing the human condition - or at least one aspect of it - and ascribing that condition to capitalism. Selfishness, self centred behaviours certainly exists in capitalism, as it does in all forms of society. Likewise, generosity and fairness also exists in capitalism, as it does elsewhere. It's a bit like shooting the messenger, blaming capitalism for mankind's failings.
|
|
|
Post by sheikhmomo on Sept 6, 2018 17:47:08 GMT
Fair enough. You don't recognise at least some of that in the society we have created this past few decades? He is describing the human condition - or at least one aspect of it - and ascribing that condition to capitalism. Selfishness, self centred behaviours certainly exists in capitalism, as it does in all forms of society. Likewise, generosity and fairness also exists in capitalism, as it does elsewhere. It's a bit like shooting the messenger, blaming capitalism for mankind's failings. So are you saying that Capitalism and Socialism trigger the same human reaction/condition? I disagree if so.
|
|
|
Post by metalhead on Sept 6, 2018 18:20:30 GMT
Once again, you are not describing capitalism, rather the corruptable nature of the human race. The fact history has proven socialism and communism to be as equally corruptable, you are either suggesting that they are inherently flawed systems or acknowledging humans are easily corrupted by power, greed and ideology.... No different to capitalism there mate. Contrary to hard left propaganda, capitalism is the only real meritocracy. It's a shit meritocracy, whereby billionaire shareholders can benefit from the Labour of others, however it's also the only system where a working class lad with the right amount of drive and motivation can make something of their life. Young people raised in working class homes CAN be successful.... How much do you want it? That's the question and that's up to you and the amount of time you are willing to dedicate to achieving your goals. I worked in a McDonald's and then later a pub, serving people who looked down their noses at me to fund my university tuition. That tuition hugely benefited me in my career and further hard work and dedication at work allowed me the chance to earn more than my parents earned between them at their peak.... I'm only 28. And you want to implement a system where that effort and dedication wasn't rewarded? No thanks, I'll pass. Answer me this.... I know nothing about you at all. I don't know where you live, what your lifestyle is like, but I suspect it's better than it would be under communism. How much would you be willing to give up, to implement communism/socialism? Say you live in a nice 4 bed house that you worked all your life for, would you be willing to give that up? Your nice car? Your nice TV? Your nice gadgets? Private tuition for kids so they can enjoy a better life for themselves? I ask because a lot of people support strong wealth redistribution and welfare states when they know there is a 0% chance of it ever happening...... Like the hard left in the UK. By the way, please don't take any of this personally as it's not aimed in that way. I'm enjoying the debate and it's what makes the EE board arguably more interesting than the SCFC board. Not taking it personally at all MH and if you notice, I'm not exactly extolling the virtues of Socialism more decrying the suggestion that Capitalism is necessarily the best of a bad bunch. My biggest problem, fear and hatred (yes hatred) of the Capitalism the West have run with is best summed up in this quote from The Happiness Industry by William Davies. "Our society is excessively individualistic. Markets reduce everything to a question of individual calculation and selfishness. We have become obsessed with money and acquisition at the expense of our social relationships and our own human fulfillment. Capitalism spreads a plague of materialism, which undermines our contentedness, leaving many of us isolated and lonely. Unless we can rediscover the art of sharing, our society will fragment altogether, making trust impossible. Unless we can recover the values associated with friendship and altruism, we will descend into a state of nihilistic ennui." Maybe it is able to reward effort from the 'tough end' better than any other system but what a price to pay a destruction of community and collectivism. A charter for the abuse of the means of production I don't actually hate socialism, and I do (as strange as you might find it) believe in social welfare. I think it's unacceptable that while the wealthiest live in mansions and hide huge amounts of money in tax havens, other people are so poor they are unable to feed their kids, live their lives, or worse still have nowhere at all and live on the streets. If I was a politician, I would make it one of my missions to ensure that homelessness was completely eradicated. Interesting quote and there's definitely some truth to it. There are two kinds of materialism imo: - Materialism because you are in a position to be materialistic. - Materialism irrespective of your position to be materialistic. I think you know where I'm going with this.... There are obviously people out there who earn enough money that they are happy to splash it on material possessions. Like it or not, many of these people have earned their right to be materialistic. People who have worked for 30 years and decide rather than buying another family hatchback, decide they're going to buy a Porsche. The other type of materialist is (imo) closer to the one described in your quote. This is about being materialistic to present a different exterior to peers and friends. It's why people in poorly paid jobs get ultra expensive TV's and cars and are intimidated, effectively, by what are perceived societal norms. If you don't have a 55 inch 4K bells and whistles TV, you're just a povvo. These are the people who are actually falling foul of capitalism, because they want to be seen as successful, when unfortunately, they are not. You forget however, not all people are victims of capitalism: the non-materialists. I am a non-materialist. OK, I don't drive a 30 year old banger (although I did until about 6 months ago) and I own my house (through a little bit of choice and a lot necessity) and I also don't walk around in clothes I bought from the charity shop, but material possessions do not make me happy, at all. Social inclusiveness and the pursuit of knowledge is what makes me happy. Seeing my friends and family is what makes me happy. The things that make me happy are, in effect, externalised instead of owned and while I don't mind occasionally treating myself, material possessions do not usually contribute to my overall personal happiness. If they do, it is either very short lived or because they enhance something else that I do enjoy..... I play guitar for example and there is something rather nice about playing an expensive guitar compared to a cheap one. If you've never done it, you won't understand, but trust me on that one..... However, if I bought a new TV, I wouldn't spend the day telling my friends or splashing it all over Facebook like some people do. When I bought my new(er) car, I actually didn't tell anyone because I bought it for me, nobody else. Materialists are often pretentious and too busy chasing the latest fad or technology; they miss out on the most important things in life.... Furthermore, as ironic as it sounds: materialism is in itself, promotes pseudo-judgement and therefore you are continually being judged by those around you. If you are that guy who wears the expensive shirts and brags about it, you naturally raise eyebrows when you wear the same one two weeks in a row..... a bad example, but a valid one nonetheless. I suspect the stereotypical materialist is one that is afraid of being judged negatively, yet they are desperately advertising their life in what is essentially a paradoxical shop window. By not telling people I had replaced my car, nobody was able to tell me that I should have bought a better one, or that I had paid too much, or that someone else had a better one....... or that I could have got the same car for less at another dealer or that I didn't go for the right brand etc, etc, etc, et cetera. I bought it for me, I was happy with my purchase and went on my merry way. Eventually, my friends and family found out organically (i.e. I gave them a lift) and because it was not fresh news, there was no judgement to be had. That said, most of my friends know that telling me I'm wearing a shit Polo today doesn't bother me in the slightest..... I am far more self conscious at the thought of being disliked by people. I've massively digressed here and you're probably bored to death, so let me bring it round by finishing with this: Materialism may be a concept encouraged and entrenched in capitalism, but it is once again human nature that allowed it to thrive. The desire to be Number 1 in/at life, the drive to be 'loved' for your material possessions instead of your personality, the desire to be able to say "well your house is nice but mine is nicer". None of that is 'written' in Capitalism, it is once again one of the human traits. If we bin off Capitalism though, the competition will simply switch from materialism to something else. I can't say what, but as I said, we will not link arms and start dancing around. I've said this for years: getting one over your fellow man isn't just seen as desirable.... it's actively encouraged. Fuck knows why though.
|
|
|
Post by partickpotter on Sept 6, 2018 19:40:36 GMT
He is describing the human condition - or at least one aspect of it - and ascribing that condition to capitalism. Selfishness, self centred behaviours certainly exists in capitalism, as it does in all forms of society. Likewise, generosity and fairness also exists in capitalism, as it does elsewhere. It's a bit like shooting the messenger, blaming capitalism for mankind's failings. So are you saying that Capitalism and Socialism trigger the same human reaction/condition? I disagree if so. No - I'm saying the inherent human condition can be realised under capitalism or socialism.
|
|
|
Post by wizzardofdribble on Sept 6, 2018 22:10:38 GMT
I lived through it too in Stoke on Trent. An area absolutely decimated by Thatcherite Economic Polices. A price some are still paying for. And just for the record Ted Heaths Conservative Government of 1970-75 had the worst economic record of any post war government. And it was the Ford Motor Company that broke the 1978 wage agreement not the unions. Ok what did thatcher do to decimate stoke Jacked up interest rates to close to 15%..which makes the pound stronger on the international currency markets. This means exports become more expensive and imports become cheaper. Industries that export goods (like the pottery industry) have huge drops in sales that lead to redundancies and eventual liquidation. In 1979 over 50,000 people were employed in the pottery industry (when Thatcher was elected)in Stoke on Trent. By 1980 (when she left) roughly 8,000. That not only decimated the pottery industry but the local economy because people who'd lost their jobs had fuck all to spend. Oh almost forgot, Thatcher closed the entire mining industry down, 10,000 mining jobs were lost in Stoke on Trent. No doubt whatsoever that a lot of these industries were in decline and needed massive investment to improve productivity but the people who suffered the most during the 1980s were the people of Stoke on Trent employed (sic) in these industries, and that was a direct result of Thatchers Monetarist/Supply Side Economic Policies..in particular from 1983 to 1987.. No doubt you'll say that it was inevitable given the economic circumstances leading up to 1979 and I would agree with that but there is no doubt that the economy of Stoke on Trent was decimated during the 1980s
|
|
|
Post by wizzardofdribble on Sept 6, 2018 22:45:24 GMT
Socilaism?
What the fucks that?
If your going to slag something off at least spell it right
|
|
|
Post by wizzardofdribble on Sept 6, 2018 23:18:27 GMT
Once again, you are not describing capitalism, rather the corruptable nature of the human race. The fact history has proven socialism and communism to be as equally corruptable, you are either suggesting that they are inherently flawed systems or acknowledging humans are easily corrupted by power, greed and ideology.... No different to capitalism there mate. Contrary to hard left propaganda, capitalism is the only real meritocracy. It's a shit meritocracy, whereby billionaire shareholders can benefit from the Labour of others, however it's also the only system where a working class lad with the right amount of drive and motivation can make something of their life. Young people raised in working class homes CAN be successful.... How much do you want it? That's the question and that's up to you and the amount of time you are willing to dedicate to achieving your goals. I worked in a McDonald's and then later a pub, serving people who looked down their noses at me to fund my university tuition. That tuition hugely benefited me in my career and further hard work and dedication at work allowed me the chance to earn more than my parents earned between them at their peak.... I'm only 28. And you want to implement a system where that effort and dedication wasn't rewarded? No thanks, I'll pass. Answer me this.... I know nothing about you at all. I don't know where you live, what your lifestyle is like, but I suspect it's better than it would be under communism. How much would you be willing to give up, to implement communism/socialism? Say you live in a nice 4 bed house that you worked all your life for, would you be willing to give that up? Your nice car? Your nice TV? Your nice gadgets? Private tuition for kids so they can enjoy a better life for themselves? I ask because a lot of people support strong wealth redistribution and welfare states when they know there is a 0% chance of it ever happening...... Like the hard left in the UK. By the way, please don't take any of this personally as it's not aimed in that way. I'm enjoying the debate and it's what makes the EE board arguably more interesting than the SCFC board. Not taking it personally at all MH and if you notice, I'm not exactly extolling the virtues of Socialism more decrying the suggestion that Capitalism is necessarily the best of a bad bunch. My biggest problem, fear and hatred (yes hatred) of the Capitalism the West have run with is best summed up in this quote from The Happiness Industry by William Davies. "Our society is excessively individualistic. Markets reduce everything to a question of individual calculation and selfishness. We have become obsessed with money and acquisition at the expense of our social relationships and our own human fulfillment. Capitalism spreads a plague of materialism, which undermines our contentedness, leaving many of us isolated and lonely. Unless we can rediscover the art of sharing, our society will fragment altogether, making trust impossible. Unless we can recover the values associated with friendship and altruism, we will descend into a state of nihilistic ennui." Maybe it is able to reward effort from the 'tough end' better than any other system but what a price to pay a destruction of community and collectivism. A charter for the abuse of the means of production And as an old bloke with a beard once said 'Those who own the means of production also control the ideological means of production'
|
|
|
Post by Huddysleftfoot on Sept 6, 2018 23:28:01 GMT
|
|
|
Post by thevoid on Sept 6, 2018 23:42:52 GMT
If it's a call to socialism, why should I buy it? It should be free.
|
|
|
Post by Huddysleftfoot on Sept 7, 2018 0:00:38 GMT
If it's a call to socialism, why should I buy it? It should be free. Some things are worth the effort.
|
|
|
Post by Pricey on Sept 7, 2018 2:12:00 GMT
If it's a call to socialism, why should I buy it? It should be free. I'll send you my copy for free if you like?
|
|
|
Post by Pricey on Sept 7, 2018 2:46:33 GMT
Capitalism is the embodiment of the full market economy and therefore the opportunities of corruption are inherent within its very structures, regardless of good or bad intentioned implementation. Once again, you are not describing capitalism, rather the corruptable nature of the human race. The fact history has proven socialism and communism to be as equally corruptable, you are either suggesting that they are inherently flawed systems or acknowledging humans are easily corrupted by power, greed and ideology.... No different to capitalism there mate. Contrary to hard left propaganda, capitalism is the only real meritocracy. It's a shit meritocracy, whereby billionaire shareholders can benefit from the Labour of others, however it's also the only system where a working class lad with the right amount of drive and motivation can make something of their life. Young people raised in working class homes CAN be successful.... How much do you want it? That's the question and that's up to you and the amount of time you are willing to dedicate to achieving your goals. I worked in a McDonald's and then later a pub, serving people who looked down their noses at me to fund my university tuition. That tuition hugely benefited me in my career and further hard work and dedication at work allowed me the chance to earn more than my parents earned between them at their peak.... I'm only 28. And you want to implement a system where that effort and dedication wasn't rewarded? No thanks, I'll pass. Answer me this.... I know nothing about you at all. I don't know where you live, what your lifestyle is like, but I suspect it's better than it would be under communism. How much would you be willing to give up, to implement communism/socialism? Say you live in a nice 4 bed house that you worked all your life for, would you be willing to give that up? Your nice car? Your nice TV? Your nice gadgets? Private tuition for kids so they can enjoy a better life for themselves? I ask because a lot of people support strong wealth redistribution and welfare states when they know there is a 0% chance of it ever happening...... Like the hard left in the UK. By the way, please don't take any of this personally as it's not aimed in that way. I'm enjoying the debate and it's what makes the EE board arguably more interesting than the SCFC board. Capitalism is not a meritocracy, not even close. The market economy has led to there being a "precariat" at the bottom of the social and economic ladder. Many people at the bottom will never "make something of their life" no matter how hard they work or how much drive and motivation they have. Also, where are these people meant to derive their drive and motivation from? And what if they have bags of drive and motivation but low intelligence and can only ever hope to be a cleaner or care worker or waiter, for example? Are you saying they should be happy with the low wages the capitalist economy has foisted on them and that their occasional holiday or meal out is adequate compensation for working their arses off? What happens further up the social ladder is that wealth and privilege becomes completely entrenched through generations of wealthy people helping out their children and peers. These people might pay way more in tax than those lower down the income scale but recent history has proven beyond doubt that trickle down economics in a capitalist economy does not work. Plus beyond a certain level there all kinds of loop holes for people to avoid paying their share of tax. The poor remain poor and the rich remain rich, regardless of the odd person moving up or down the ladder. A true meritocracy would see total equality of opportunity, as you suggest capitalism provides. You've swallowed the kind of false "anyone can do anything they want to if they work hard enough" narrative the likes Tony Blair and David Cameron used to bang on about to make people believe in capitalism's hype. No they can't. Most people end up with a shit load of debt because they think that's what everyone does. The system is rigged against millions of people and rigged for millions of others and needs a total re-think. A Universal Basic Income would be a good place to start but even Labour didn't have the bollocks to put anything about that in their manifesto last year, despite being as left-wing as they now supposedly are. Automation is coming and it will have an impact on a lot of highly-paid jobs, such as lawyers and doctors. Very soon computers and machines will replace specialised skills and knowledge, as well as manual labour and a lot of jobs in the so-called "service industry" that employs a big chunk of our population. I don't believe in the UK as a progressive, forward-thinking country so I expect we'll realise the consequences way too late and bodge it. Hopefully the bodge globally is big enough for the whole lot to be ripped up and we can start again from nought because that's what we need.
|
|
|
Post by harryburrows on Sept 7, 2018 5:50:56 GMT
Ok what did thatcher do to decimate stoke Jacked up interest rates to close to 15%..which makes the pound stronger on the international currency markets. This means exports become more expensive and imports become cheaper. Industries that export goods (like the pottery industry) have huge drops in sales that lead to redundancies and eventual liquidation. In 1979 over 50,000 people were employed in the pottery industry (when Thatcher was elected)in Stoke on Trent. By 1980 (when she left) roughly 8,000. That not only decimated the pottery industry but the local economy because people who'd lost their jobs had fuck all to spend. Oh almost forgot, Thatcher closed the entire mining industry down, 10,000 mining jobs were lost in Stoke on Trent. No doubt whatsoever that a lot of these industries were in decline and needed massive investment to improve productivity but the people who suffered the most during the 1980s were the people of Stoke on Trent employed (sic) in these industries, and that was a direct result of Thatchers Monetarist/Supply Side Economic Policies..in particular from 1983 to 1987.. No doubt you'll say that it was inevitable given the economic circumstances leading up to 1979 and I would agree with that but there is no doubt that the economy of Stoke on Trent was decimated during the 1980s How about the closure of Shelton iron and steel , 10,000 jobs lost . Closed by a labour government . The decimation of the industrial base in stoke was disastrous but there were many factors 15% interest rates were crippling for everybody in the country . You are right in saying the productivity in the pits was in decline. Pit closures were usually recommended to the the trade minister by the coal board for this reason . Harold wilsons labour government closed more than double the amount of pits during his time . If I remember the majority of the pits in stoke closed years after thatcher left office . The last one during blairs government . To constantly blame her for all of today's problems is nonsense. She left office nearly 30 years ago .
|
|