| The right wing on here are not going to like Swans new manager politics. 07:24 - Aug 2 with 5514 views | trampie |
|  |
| |  |
| The right wing on here are not going to like Swans new manager politics. on 12:03 - Aug 5 with 728 views | Dr_Parnassus |
| The right wing on here are not going to like Swans new manager politics. on 11:41 - Aug 5 by londonlisa2001 |
“ The point I was making is that capitalism will always work to a sufficient enough degree wherever it is implemented, with or without socialism.”
Yes, I know that’s the point you were making. But it’s not true.
Capitalism failed in March 2020 or thereabouts. All over the world. And had to be rescued by the state, the very definition of socialism.
Capitalism works where people as a whole (not individuals, but society) prioritise their economic well-being before anything else. Once they don’t, it will collapse. |
It is true.
It doesn’t mean it’s infallible, hence why I said “a sufficient enough degree”. There may be the rare occasion where someone needs to step in and correct it, but day to day Capitalism works. Socialism doesn’t, which is why after the rare occasion it needs a bail out - we still use capitalism as a framework.
Socialism leads to a guaranteed, prolonged complete collapse of the state that nothing can quickly rescue and always leads to decades of recovery, sometimes it never recovers.
It’s not comparable. Not even in the same stratosphere. [Post edited 5 Aug 2021 12:10]
|  |
| |
| The right wing on here are not going to like Swans new manager politics. on 12:35 - Aug 5 with 696 views | Ajack_Kerouac |
Another nonsense not addressed so far on this thread is the discussion of Norway's Social policies divorced from the discussion of Norway's great oil wealth (relative to the size of their population).
Norway can afford a more generous State because they are a rural country with a small population that is sitting on a fortune.
The fact that Norway is Capitalist is good news for Norway, because it means that their enormous wealth has been allocated correctly, invested, so that the money works for the people of Norway efficiently.
It funds a more generous state, while the oil industry is still prosperous...when oil is finished Norway will be poorer and the generous state will have to be cut. |  |
| "It's what people know about themselves inside that makes them afraid" - "In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act" - "The further a society drifts from truth the more it will hate those who speak it" |
| |
| The right wing on here are not going to like Swans new manager politics. on 18:40 - Aug 5 with 607 views | londonlisa2001 |
| The right wing on here are not going to like Swans new manager politics. on 12:03 - Aug 5 by Dr_Parnassus |
It is true.
It doesn’t mean it’s infallible, hence why I said “a sufficient enough degree”. There may be the rare occasion where someone needs to step in and correct it, but day to day Capitalism works. Socialism doesn’t, which is why after the rare occasion it needs a bail out - we still use capitalism as a framework.
Socialism leads to a guaranteed, prolonged complete collapse of the state that nothing can quickly rescue and always leads to decades of recovery, sometimes it never recovers.
It’s not comparable. Not even in the same stratosphere. [Post edited 5 Aug 2021 12:10]
|
The complete collapse of the system is not an example of it working to a sufficient degree. It’s an example of it collapsing. The ‘rare’ occasion that someone needs to step in, is not to correct it but to rescue it.
It’s like saying someone walking a tightrope doesn’t need a safety net as it’s rare for them to fall and die - it’s only happened a few times…
Day to day it does indeed work. As I have already said. But it is fundamentally underpinned by the governments’ willingness to step in, manage resources, control production and feed its people when it fails or when other things become more important. It happens in pandemics. It happens in wars. And actually it happens in all sorts of smaller ways quite frequently.
What happened during the Covid pandemic was almost textbook socialism.
It doesn’t change the point that a purely socialist society doesn’t work. Because people are inherently greedy.
But a purely capitalist society doesn’t work either. Which is fine, because we don’t live in one. Some countries come at different points than others of course along the scale of pure capitalism to pure socialism. |  | | |
| The right wing on here are not going to like Swans new manager politics. on 18:58 - Aug 5 with 590 views | londonlisa2001 |
| The right wing on here are not going to like Swans new manager politics. on 12:20 - Aug 5 by Ajack_Kerouac |
Capitalism didn't fail.
The banking sector in America failed and all of the European banks were connected.
The banking sector in America failed because some politicians (of the Left in America, under Bill Clinton) interfered with Capitalism in order to increase home ownership among minority communities.
They twisted the arm of banks to make loans to people that they would not have made loans to under normal circumstances.
The banks in turn packaged up the bad loans and sold them off to European banks (to spread the risk).
When the beneficiaries of those loans stopped making their payments the whole shit show came down.
For anyone interested read this book or alternatively watch the film....
https://cdn-image.realsimple.com/sites/default/files/styles/rs_photo_gallery_ver
...and the Sovereign debt crisis in Europe was constructed by Left-Wing political ideologues as well.
Capitalism is under attack from politicians and movements of the Left.
Take the Covid crisis...never before in history have we responded to a public health crisis by shutting down business.
These were decisions taken by politicians, civil servants and bureaucrats...nothing to do with people engaged in Capitalism.
The 'safety net' you speak of started in Germany under Otto von Bismarck at the back end of the 19th century. Was taken to the logical conclusion by the Soviet Union from the 1920s onwards and has only been adopted in the UK and the West since the end of WWII...that's a short span of History, our Grandparents lifetimes...Capitalism being hamstrung by Socialists is a modern phenomenon. [Post edited 5 Aug 2021 12:46]
|
“ Take the Covid crisis...never before in history have we responded to a public health crisis by shutting down business.
These were decisions taken by politicians, civil servants and bureaucrats...nothing to do with people engaged in Capitalism. ”.
With respect, you quite obviously have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.
Taking the U.K. as an example, the government’s interventions are the only thing that saved literally tens of thousands of businesses. And continue to do so. ‘People engaged in capitalism’ had no staff, no customers, no money, no ability to pay lease costs, no money to pay salaries etc etc etc. The various schemes that were put in place, including tax and VAT deferrals, furlough, business loans (a few different types), changes in law on rent arrears, changes in laws on wrongful trading etc etc etc kept heads above water (not in all cases as shamefully there were thousands left high and dry, bu5 that’s not a matter for this discussion).
Your summary of the 2007/2008 financial crash is equally flawed btw.
And you are getting confused with a safety net for the individual (you are talking welfare state). The ‘State’ and various subsets of the ‘State’ have controlled the distribution of resources, utilisation of Labour and means of production and the collection and control of finances at various times for the whole of modern history. Capitalism is a relatively new concept in human history. | | | |
| The right wing on here are not going to like Swans new manager politics. on 22:46 - Aug 5 with 539 views | Ajack_Kerouac |
| The right wing on here are not going to like Swans new manager politics. on 18:58 - Aug 5 by londonlisa2001 |
“ Take the Covid crisis...never before in history have we responded to a public health crisis by shutting down business.
These were decisions taken by politicians, civil servants and bureaucrats...nothing to do with people engaged in Capitalism. ”.
With respect, you quite obviously have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.
Taking the U.K. as an example, the government’s interventions are the only thing that saved literally tens of thousands of businesses. And continue to do so. ‘People engaged in capitalism’ had no staff, no customers, no money, no ability to pay lease costs, no money to pay salaries etc etc etc. The various schemes that were put in place, including tax and VAT deferrals, furlough, business loans (a few different types), changes in law on rent arrears, changes in laws on wrongful trading etc etc etc kept heads above water (not in all cases as shamefully there were thousands left high and dry, bu5 that’s not a matter for this discussion).
Your summary of the 2007/2008 financial crash is equally flawed btw.
And you are getting confused with a safety net for the individual (you are talking welfare state). The ‘State’ and various subsets of the ‘State’ have controlled the distribution of resources, utilisation of Labour and means of production and the collection and control of finances at various times for the whole of modern history. Capitalism is a relatively new concept in human history. |
The only reason why businesses needed subsidising was because the government insisted on shutting the society down.
We know now that Boris didn't want to do it but every bureaucrat and Civil Servant advising insisted on it...and the press were prepared to flay him alive if he didn't.
The 'Opposition' didn't oppose, they have put pressure on for more lockdown measures every step of the way.
We have had multiple viruses and pandemics over hundreds of years.
This is the first time we have ever shut our country down in response...and that is a fact.
So be honest, with yourself at least, Capitalism was shut down by politicians, bureaucrats and Civil Servants.
Businesses didn't need bailing out and were prepared to adapt their business to help manage the risk...but politicians passed legislation making it illegal for most businesses to even open.
You don't get to shut down business and then claim "Capitalism failed". | |
| "It's what people know about themselves inside that makes them afraid" - "In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act" - "The further a society drifts from truth the more it will hate those who speak it" |
| |
| The right wing on here are not going to like Swans new manager politics. on 22:57 - Aug 5 with 535 views | Ajack_Kerouac |
| The right wing on here are not going to like Swans new manager politics. on 18:58 - Aug 5 by londonlisa2001 |
“ Take the Covid crisis...never before in history have we responded to a public health crisis by shutting down business.
These were decisions taken by politicians, civil servants and bureaucrats...nothing to do with people engaged in Capitalism. ”.
With respect, you quite obviously have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.
Taking the U.K. as an example, the government’s interventions are the only thing that saved literally tens of thousands of businesses. And continue to do so. ‘People engaged in capitalism’ had no staff, no customers, no money, no ability to pay lease costs, no money to pay salaries etc etc etc. The various schemes that were put in place, including tax and VAT deferrals, furlough, business loans (a few different types), changes in law on rent arrears, changes in laws on wrongful trading etc etc etc kept heads above water (not in all cases as shamefully there were thousands left high and dry, bu5 that’s not a matter for this discussion).
Your summary of the 2007/2008 financial crash is equally flawed btw.
And you are getting confused with a safety net for the individual (you are talking welfare state). The ‘State’ and various subsets of the ‘State’ have controlled the distribution of resources, utilisation of Labour and means of production and the collection and control of finances at various times for the whole of modern history. Capitalism is a relatively new concept in human history. |
Oh, and Capitalism was a word invented in revolutionary France to criticise the status quo, business practice...it wasn't an organised system.
If you really want to pin down the origins of 'Modern Capitalism' (more efficient business practice) you have to go back to Medieval times, to the Italian renaissance (1300-1550), the Medici's of Florence and the invention of modern banking and modern financial instruments.
Clue - There was no State underwriting the Medicis.
Please explain what was the actual cause of the '2008 Financial Crash' then...let's hear what I got wrong
I am very far from confused, I suggest you read some History. | |
| "It's what people know about themselves inside that makes them afraid" - "In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act" - "The further a society drifts from truth the more it will hate those who speak it" |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| The right wing on here are not going to like Swans new manager politics. on 04:16 - Aug 6 with 521 views | Dr_Parnassus |
| The right wing on here are not going to like Swans new manager politics. on 18:40 - Aug 5 by londonlisa2001 |
The complete collapse of the system is not an example of it working to a sufficient degree. It’s an example of it collapsing. The ‘rare’ occasion that someone needs to step in, is not to correct it but to rescue it.
It’s like saying someone walking a tightrope doesn’t need a safety net as it’s rare for them to fall and die - it’s only happened a few times…
Day to day it does indeed work. As I have already said. But it is fundamentally underpinned by the governments’ willingness to step in, manage resources, control production and feed its people when it fails or when other things become more important. It happens in pandemics. It happens in wars. And actually it happens in all sorts of smaller ways quite frequently.
What happened during the Covid pandemic was almost textbook socialism.
It doesn’t change the point that a purely socialist society doesn’t work. Because people are inherently greedy.
But a purely capitalist society doesn’t work either. Which is fine, because we don’t live in one. Some countries come at different points than others of course along the scale of pure capitalism to pure socialism. |
It’s like saying parachuting from a plane is fundamentally better than jumping with no parachute and pointing to a rare occasion where there is a fatality with a parachute as a reason why it’s no good.
The alternative is certain catastrophe, just a matter of when you hit the ground.
With it, it means 99.9% of the time everything is as it should be. | |
| |
| The right wing on here are not going to like Swans new manager politics. on 12:06 - Aug 6 with 477 views | londonlisa2001 |
| The right wing on here are not going to like Swans new manager politics. on 04:16 - Aug 6 by Dr_Parnassus |
It’s like saying parachuting from a plane is fundamentally better than jumping with no parachute and pointing to a rare occasion where there is a fatality with a parachute as a reason why it’s no good.
The alternative is certain catastrophe, just a matter of when you hit the ground.
With it, it means 99.9% of the time everything is as it should be. |
I have no idea what you are arguing?
No one has said socialism works (or at least I haven’t - I specifically said it doesn’t).
I pointed out that capitalism in its own doesn’t work either. And gave a recent example of where the state has needed to step in.
We don’t live in a purely capitalist society. We live in mixed market economies. All of us. Different countries have greater or lesser state intervention and state ownership as I said previously. | | | |
| The right wing on here are not going to like Swans new manager politics. on 12:20 - Aug 6 with 468 views | londonlisa2001 |
| The right wing on here are not going to like Swans new manager politics. on 22:46 - Aug 5 by Ajack_Kerouac |
The only reason why businesses needed subsidising was because the government insisted on shutting the society down.
We know now that Boris didn't want to do it but every bureaucrat and Civil Servant advising insisted on it...and the press were prepared to flay him alive if he didn't.
The 'Opposition' didn't oppose, they have put pressure on for more lockdown measures every step of the way.
We have had multiple viruses and pandemics over hundreds of years.
This is the first time we have ever shut our country down in response...and that is a fact.
So be honest, with yourself at least, Capitalism was shut down by politicians, bureaucrats and Civil Servants.
Businesses didn't need bailing out and were prepared to adapt their business to help manage the risk...but politicians passed legislation making it illegal for most businesses to even open.
You don't get to shut down business and then claim "Capitalism failed". |
Society started to shut itself down before the official lockdown (look at the transport stats if you don’t believe me).
The government would not have shut down anything if it wasn’t what society wanted. It wouldn’t have worked.
The thought that people would have carried on merrily going to work, shopping, eating out etc while the numbers in hospital quickly overwhelmed the capacity is genuinely ridiculous. Even by your standards.
‘Boris’ is an absolute idiot so using what he does or doesn’t want is a waste of time. | | | |
| The right wing on here are not going to like Swans new manager politics. on 12:46 - Aug 6 with 464 views | londonlisa2001 |
| The right wing on here are not going to like Swans new manager politics. on 22:57 - Aug 5 by Ajack_Kerouac |
Oh, and Capitalism was a word invented in revolutionary France to criticise the status quo, business practice...it wasn't an organised system.
If you really want to pin down the origins of 'Modern Capitalism' (more efficient business practice) you have to go back to Medieval times, to the Italian renaissance (1300-1550), the Medici's of Florence and the invention of modern banking and modern financial instruments.
Clue - There was no State underwriting the Medicis.
Please explain what was the actual cause of the '2008 Financial Crash' then...let's hear what I got wrong
I am very far from confused, I suggest you read some History. |
Telling someone to read some history in a post where you have written ‘Clue - there was no State underwriting the Medicis’ is genuinely funny, fair play.
The actual cause of the financial crash was the deregulation of the banks, first overturning Glass-Steagall in the Financial Services Modernisation Act allowing banks to use deposits to trade in derivatives, and then exempting derivatives from regulation in the Commodity Futures Modernisation Act. So contrary to your earlier post, it was actually the removal of state intervention in financial services that caused the crash not an increase.
The increase in mortgages, interest only mortgages, sub prime lending, securitisation of subprime mortgages are all symptoms of the problem caused by the deregulation not the cause. It all happened to support the banks being allowed to engage in stupidly risky behaviour to make more money.
I don’t have the time nor inclination to go into all the detail on why it all happened as it involved loads of different factors, notably including the actions of the Alan Greenspan at the Fed, and the point you made where the government wanted to encourage banks to lend to lower income areas, through a practice called green lining although note that had happened with legislation brought in a decade before the deregulation - a good 17 years before the crash, but all of it was fundamentally caused by the two pieces of deregulation legislation. | | | |
| The right wing on here are not going to like Swans new manager politics. on 13:28 - Aug 6 with 450 views | Lohengrin |
| The right wing on here are not going to like Swans new manager politics. on 18:40 - Aug 5 by londonlisa2001 |
The complete collapse of the system is not an example of it working to a sufficient degree. It’s an example of it collapsing. The ‘rare’ occasion that someone needs to step in, is not to correct it but to rescue it.
It’s like saying someone walking a tightrope doesn’t need a safety net as it’s rare for them to fall and die - it’s only happened a few times…
Day to day it does indeed work. As I have already said. But it is fundamentally underpinned by the governments’ willingness to step in, manage resources, control production and feed its people when it fails or when other things become more important. It happens in pandemics. It happens in wars. And actually it happens in all sorts of smaller ways quite frequently.
What happened during the Covid pandemic was almost textbook socialism.
It doesn’t change the point that a purely socialist society doesn’t work. Because people are inherently greedy.
But a purely capitalist society doesn’t work either. Which is fine, because we don’t live in one. Some countries come at different points than others of course along the scale of pure capitalism to pure socialism. |
” It doesn’t change the point that a purely socialist society doesn’t work. Because people are inherently greedy.”
Leaving human failings to one side (though I don’t think all people are as you describe) Socialism on its own terms has the seeds of its own failure baked in, it invariably leads to stagnation. Without competition and the innovation that drives, there is simply no motor for progress.
You and I have used the terms ‘syncretic’ and ‘synergy’ on here quite a bit and there’s good reason for that. Mixed economies are the only systems that hold out the possibility of achieving a mean that a majority of folk would regard as success. I’ve yet to study one that couldn’t be better managed, that couldn’t be improved on, but it’s where the best possibilities exist.
All historical attempts to implement a single ideology pure and untrammelled have ended in disaster and misery. We don’t need any more lessons. |  |
| An idea isn't responsible for those who believe in it. |
| |
| The right wing on here are not going to like Swans new manager politics. on 13:49 - Aug 6 with 445 views | londonlisa2001 |
| The right wing on here are not going to like Swans new manager politics. on 13:28 - Aug 6 by Lohengrin |
” It doesn’t change the point that a purely socialist society doesn’t work. Because people are inherently greedy.”
Leaving human failings to one side (though I don’t think all people are as you describe) Socialism on its own terms has the seeds of its own failure baked in, it invariably leads to stagnation. Without competition and the innovation that drives, there is simply no motor for progress.
You and I have used the terms ‘syncretic’ and ‘synergy’ on here quite a bit and there’s good reason for that. Mixed economies are the only systems that hold out the possibility of achieving a mean that a majority of folk would regard as success. I’ve yet to study one that couldn’t be better managed, that couldn’t be improved on, but it’s where the best possibilities exist.
All historical attempts to implement a single ideology pure and untrammelled have ended in disaster and misery. We don’t need any more lessons. |
I agree that all people are not. I meant people as a whole. Perhaps I should have said sufficient numbers of people are greedy.
But yes, I completely agree, a mixed market economy is the only possible solution. It’s only a matter of where along the line a country is.
People frequently get confused about where countries are, as well. Funnily enough, the Nordic model is probably further along the line towards pure capitalism than the US, although on here, and elsewhere, the reverse would be said to be true. It is because people get confused between socialism in its true sense of state ownership and control, and a more generous level of social equality and welfare policies enacted at an individual level.
There’s quite an interesting line of thought that believes the rise of the ‘too big to fail’ giants of US tech, is dragging the US further away from capitalism as it simply cannot allow the markets freedom as too much rides on the success of companies like Apple or Alphabet. [Post edited 6 Aug 2021 13:51]
| | | |
| The right wing on here are not going to like Swans new manager politics. on 14:01 - Aug 6 with 441 views | Dr_Parnassus |
| The right wing on here are not going to like Swans new manager politics. on 12:06 - Aug 6 by londonlisa2001 |
I have no idea what you are arguing?
No one has said socialism works (or at least I haven’t - I specifically said it doesn’t).
I pointed out that capitalism in its own doesn’t work either. And gave a recent example of where the state has needed to step in.
We don’t live in a purely capitalist society. We live in mixed market economies. All of us. Different countries have greater or lesser state intervention and state ownership as I said previously. |
I am not arguing anything, only stating the point that socialism doesn't work at all, its useless as a concept.
Any semblance of socialism that is claimed to ''work'' will be in a heavily capitalist framework in order to simply supplement a capitalist methodology. Simply that. | |
| |
| The right wing on here are not going to like Swans new manager politics. on 14:02 - Aug 6 with 441 views | Lohengrin |
| The right wing on here are not going to like Swans new manager politics. on 13:49 - Aug 6 by londonlisa2001 |
I agree that all people are not. I meant people as a whole. Perhaps I should have said sufficient numbers of people are greedy.
But yes, I completely agree, a mixed market economy is the only possible solution. It’s only a matter of where along the line a country is.
People frequently get confused about where countries are, as well. Funnily enough, the Nordic model is probably further along the line towards pure capitalism than the US, although on here, and elsewhere, the reverse would be said to be true. It is because people get confused between socialism in its true sense of state ownership and control, and a more generous level of social equality and welfare policies enacted at an individual level.
There’s quite an interesting line of thought that believes the rise of the ‘too big to fail’ giants of US tech, is dragging the US further away from capitalism as it simply cannot allow the markets freedom as too much rides on the success of companies like Apple or Alphabet. [Post edited 6 Aug 2021 13:51]
|
”There’s quite an interesting line of thought that believes the rise of the ‘too big to fail’ giants of US tech, is dragging the US further away from capitalism as it simply cannot allow the markets freedom as too much rides on the success of companies like Apple or Alphabet.
Too big to fail? Funnily enough I had my feet up out the back on Wednesday enjoying the Sun, listening to a Podcast that was making that exact argument, citing those same companies as examples. Pretty compelling stuff. | |
| An idea isn't responsible for those who believe in it. |
| |
| The right wing on here are not going to like Swans new manager politics. on 14:20 - Aug 6 with 435 views | londonlisa2001 |
| The right wing on here are not going to like Swans new manager politics. on 14:02 - Aug 6 by Lohengrin |
”There’s quite an interesting line of thought that believes the rise of the ‘too big to fail’ giants of US tech, is dragging the US further away from capitalism as it simply cannot allow the markets freedom as too much rides on the success of companies like Apple or Alphabet.
Too big to fail? Funnily enough I had my feet up out the back on Wednesday enjoying the Sun, listening to a Podcast that was making that exact argument, citing those same companies as examples. Pretty compelling stuff. |
Yes, there’s been a lot of talk about it recently, although I don’t know the podcast you were listening to.
Same thing happened here, of course, with the state takeover of RBS. People don’t really want unfettered capitalism is the truth. The funny bit is that those that argue the most for restrictions on movement of people, against outsourcing of jobs, true globalisation, all those things which would happen in a properly capitalist free market economy, are those that insist they are the biggest supporter of capitalism and ‘hate’ socialism. | | | |
| The right wing on here are not going to like Swans new manager politics. on 14:26 - Aug 6 with 425 views | londonlisa2001 |
| The right wing on here are not going to like Swans new manager politics. on 14:01 - Aug 6 by Dr_Parnassus |
I am not arguing anything, only stating the point that socialism doesn't work at all, its useless as a concept.
Any semblance of socialism that is claimed to ''work'' will be in a heavily capitalist framework in order to simply supplement a capitalist methodology. Simply that. |
We literally live in a mixed market economy.
So do you. In fact you live in a country with a significant level of state ownership and control. Particularly of energy, water, transport, ports etc. | | | |
| The right wing on here are not going to like Swans new manager politics. on 14:29 - Aug 6 with 422 views | Dr_Parnassus |
| The right wing on here are not going to like Swans new manager politics. on 14:20 - Aug 6 by londonlisa2001 |
Yes, there’s been a lot of talk about it recently, although I don’t know the podcast you were listening to.
Same thing happened here, of course, with the state takeover of RBS. People don’t really want unfettered capitalism is the truth. The funny bit is that those that argue the most for restrictions on movement of people, against outsourcing of jobs, true globalisation, all those things which would happen in a properly capitalist free market economy, are those that insist they are the biggest supporter of capitalism and ‘hate’ socialism. |
I don't think anyone claims to ''hate'' socialism do they?
Just recognise that socialism has never ever worked as a concept and so want to keep it at arms length, in tiny doses, and within an overwhelming dominant capitalist framework. Everywhere that has tried to have socialism be the main framework has failed immeasurably.
I would say that its usually the opposite argument that is heard, where it is a ''hate'' of capitalism and a desire for the destruction of it to make way for capitalism. As mentioned, they tend to be people with brightly coloured hair and an iPhone in their hand telling Tik Tok how evil everyone is, completely unaware of their irony. | |
| |
| The right wing on here are not going to like Swans new manager politics. on 14:37 - Aug 6 with 416 views | Lohengrin |
| The right wing on here are not going to like Swans new manager politics. on 14:20 - Aug 6 by londonlisa2001 |
Yes, there’s been a lot of talk about it recently, although I don’t know the podcast you were listening to.
Same thing happened here, of course, with the state takeover of RBS. People don’t really want unfettered capitalism is the truth. The funny bit is that those that argue the most for restrictions on movement of people, against outsourcing of jobs, true globalisation, all those things which would happen in a properly capitalist free market economy, are those that insist they are the biggest supporter of capitalism and ‘hate’ socialism. |
Probably a segment in The Fifth Column Podcast, Lis. Are you familiar with it? It’s an American thing where they get some of the more serious commentators and journalists from the centre left and right together to go through a variety of topics making the news over there...and throw whiskey into the mix!
Sometimes it’s a great listen, though not all of it will be of interest to those of us on this side of the pond. They do have UK guests on occasion from The Spectator and New Statesman which takes it back into the familiar.
Give it a go if you’re bored one evening, it’s better than the telly at any rate. | |
| An idea isn't responsible for those who believe in it. |
| |
| The right wing on here are not going to like Swans new manager politics. on 14:38 - Aug 6 with 414 views | Dr_Parnassus |
| The right wing on here are not going to like Swans new manager politics. on 14:26 - Aug 6 by londonlisa2001 |
We literally live in a mixed market economy.
So do you. In fact you live in a country with a significant level of state ownership and control. Particularly of energy, water, transport, ports etc. |
I haven't claimed otherwise. But Australia is a capitalist economy. Being ''mixed market'' doesn't mean you are not a capitalist state. Production is overwhelmingly controlled by private business, it will continue in that vein too.
Australia ranks in the top 5 when it comes to economic freedom. | |
| |
| The right wing on here are not going to like Swans new manager politics. on 14:41 - Aug 6 with 412 views | londonlisa2001 |
| The right wing on here are not going to like Swans new manager politics. on 14:29 - Aug 6 by Dr_Parnassus |
I don't think anyone claims to ''hate'' socialism do they?
Just recognise that socialism has never ever worked as a concept and so want to keep it at arms length, in tiny doses, and within an overwhelming dominant capitalist framework. Everywhere that has tried to have socialism be the main framework has failed immeasurably.
I would say that its usually the opposite argument that is heard, where it is a ''hate'' of capitalism and a desire for the destruction of it to make way for capitalism. As mentioned, they tend to be people with brightly coloured hair and an iPhone in their hand telling Tik Tok how evil everyone is, completely unaware of their irony. |
Oh quite a few do.
I think you have the ‘framework’ bit the wrong way round as it happens.
Capitalism flourishes within a framework of state regulation and intervention. If that gets removed, capitalism tends to eat itself (2007/8 financial crash as discussed earlier). Capitalism itself has no framework. It’s simply a free market, dog eat dog, only the most successful wins. Ultimately, if you take it to its logical conclusion, it ends up with just one enormous company, in total control of all resources, human and other, inseparable from the logical conclusion of socialism. A Dutch East India Company on steroids.
The people you mention, are, of course, despite what they may claim, merely calling for a shift along the continuum, not really calling for socialism, but calling for more social equality. It’s as I described earlier, where the two are frequently confused, leading to claims such as the Nordic countries are socialist. | | | |
| The right wing on here are not going to like Swans new manager politics. on 14:47 - Aug 6 with 407 views | londonlisa2001 |
| The right wing on here are not going to like Swans new manager politics. on 14:37 - Aug 6 by Lohengrin |
Probably a segment in The Fifth Column Podcast, Lis. Are you familiar with it? It’s an American thing where they get some of the more serious commentators and journalists from the centre left and right together to go through a variety of topics making the news over there...and throw whiskey into the mix!
Sometimes it’s a great listen, though not all of it will be of interest to those of us on this side of the pond. They do have UK guests on occasion from The Spectator and New Statesman which takes it back into the familiar.
Give it a go if you’re bored one evening, it’s better than the telly at any rate. |
No, haven’t heard of it. Sounds interesting. I’ll look it out. | | | |
| The right wing on here are not going to like Swans new manager politics. on 14:51 - Aug 6 with 406 views | londonlisa2001 |
| The right wing on here are not going to like Swans new manager politics. on 14:38 - Aug 6 by Dr_Parnassus |
I haven't claimed otherwise. But Australia is a capitalist economy. Being ''mixed market'' doesn't mean you are not a capitalist state. Production is overwhelmingly controlled by private business, it will continue in that vein too.
Australia ranks in the top 5 when it comes to economic freedom. |
Of course it is to an extent. But it’s a mixed market economy not a capitalist economy.
Australia has very high level of state intervention in aspects of production. Not least human capital. And energy production and distribution. It isn’t unfettered. | | | |
| The right wing on here are not going to like Swans new manager politics. on 14:53 - Aug 6 with 404 views | Dr_Parnassus |
| The right wing on here are not going to like Swans new manager politics. on 14:41 - Aug 6 by londonlisa2001 |
Oh quite a few do.
I think you have the ‘framework’ bit the wrong way round as it happens.
Capitalism flourishes within a framework of state regulation and intervention. If that gets removed, capitalism tends to eat itself (2007/8 financial crash as discussed earlier). Capitalism itself has no framework. It’s simply a free market, dog eat dog, only the most successful wins. Ultimately, if you take it to its logical conclusion, it ends up with just one enormous company, in total control of all resources, human and other, inseparable from the logical conclusion of socialism. A Dutch East India Company on steroids.
The people you mention, are, of course, despite what they may claim, merely calling for a shift along the continuum, not really calling for socialism, but calling for more social equality. It’s as I described earlier, where the two are frequently confused, leading to claims such as the Nordic countries are socialist. |
I disagree, the framework is very much capitalist. Venezuela and North Korea have a socialist framework, everything is built around those socialist ideals and as a result it capitulates. The frame work is simply the basis and foundation of the country itself which is production, entrepreneurship and innovation - something socialism stifles.
As for the people I am talking about, they are definitely not just calling for a shift. They are quite clear in what they want to happen, the destruction of capitalism and the introduction of socialism. As much as they annoy the hell out of me in their stupidity, I don't think we can tell them what they really mean. | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
