symyjym
Banned
Yep China are an example of using both communist and capitalist principles. They are not incompatible especially in a world where the future will be automated with more consumers than jobs.
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
[Politics] Capitalism - for better? Or worse?
- Thread starter Withdean and I
- Start date
Yep China are an example of using both communist and capitalist principles. They are not incompatible especially in a world where the future will be automated with more consumers than jobs.
dingodan
New member
- Feb 16, 2011
- 10,080
Well we've seen the only alternatives to free markets and capitalism that people have been able to come up with in the past. I'd suggest we don't try them in the future.
dingodan
New member
- Feb 16, 2011
- 10,080
China would be an unfortunate model for us to follow, if you believe in freedom.
symyjym
Banned
No not as a model for us. A more progressive one without us losing our acquired values.
This. An untrendy view, it’s easy to slag off May, but any PM would’ve faced a pincer movement of Remain MP’s versus intransigent Hard Brexiteers.
I suspect it will be a new form of community organisation, all the government models tried in the last 100 years have been based on ideas propositioned by individuals of that or earlier times it's akin to the model T car and never advancing
Hastings gull
Well-known member
- Nov 23, 2013
- 4,635
Good post, but how to find that middle ground-that is not easy. People are greedy and reluctant to pay taxes, but of course want the ambulance there in 8 minutes, should the unforeseen occur. Yes, we should look after those who are genuinely less fortunate, but again human nature will prevent that from being adequately funded. Once it is realised that a freebie is on offer due to a disability, you know what will happen; you only need to spend time watching the car park for the disabled to see how abused that is.
Hastings gull
Well-known member
- Nov 23, 2013
- 4,635
No, I don't think it is a trendy view; I suspect that it is one widely shared, as she is in the middle of opposing camps totally unwilling to compromise, and as a result, the rest of Europe must be laughing and weeping in equal measure.
Hastings gull
Well-known member
- Nov 23, 2013
- 4,635
Hastings gull
Well-known member
- Nov 23, 2013
- 4,635
Whilst it is true that the Torie's inability to compromise must take their fair share of the blame, it is not only they who should be castigated; Labour MPs, who don't want to leave even though their constituents do, have thwarted every move and good old Vince Cable, is wanting people to join him in the clamour for a people's vote. And why do they want that? because they didn't like the result of the people's vote that we have had. It is not as simple as you would like to make out, though there is clear validity to your point. Go back to doing your hip exercises . .
Hastings gull
Well-known member
- Nov 23, 2013
- 4,635
Exactly -whilst it has it's faults, not the least in that excessive greed and selfishness on the part of a minority can be encouraged/rewarded, it is still a hell of a lot better than what comes second. Trust me -my family lived in East Germany. The first free election there saw only 14% vote for the continuation of communism.
maltaseagull
Well-known member
In the modern world, you can usually see a download of the gig soon afterwards. Probably a better view than if you had been there. So if you are prepared to pay £90 to be able to say 'I was there' fair enough.
There seems to be plenty prepared to pay.
How much was a ticket to Glastonbury in the 70s?
dingodan
New member
- Feb 16, 2011
- 10,080
You are right. As for the duty of care for people in genuine need, the only legitimate means through which that can be provided is private charity. Nobody has a right to take from you to give to someone else. If someone else needs your help, then it is your responsibility to help them. Two things happen when we "collectivise" that responsibility.
The first thing that happens is that those who are given the power to take resources from others and share them out to people in need start sharing them out based on maintaining their position of power. Welfare, both corporate and social, have become more a means of securing political support than a means of genuinely helping people in need.
The second thing that happens is that people lose sight of their own personal responsibility to help other people, they walk past a person in need and declare "something needs doing about his". But of course it's a politician's or bureaucrat's responsibilty, not theirs. So they walk on.
dingodan
New member
- Feb 16, 2011
- 10,080
Our values are freedom. Try fitting that into the China model.
You know what you will find if you do that? You'll find that it fits with the Capitalist side of the model, and is completely at odds with the communist one.
symyjym
Banned
Communism as an ideology that we know it was envisaged when we were still basically a horse and cart. Some Americans believe that the Welfare State is as close to Communism as we can get.
beorhthelm
A. Virgo, Football Genius
- Jul 21, 2003
- 35,288
thanks for noticing, it was intended to be provocative, and disappointed few bites. may be too mild. you completely missed "form of" before the history lesson, ignoring the context and observation markets are democratic in nature. im well aware that democracy is politics and capitialism is economics, though they are closely entwined. objection to capitialism formed the basis of well known political philosopher Karl Marx when he proposed an alternative political system, and had a marked impact on political and economic thinking.
Last edited:
What are your views on the funding of healthcare, schooling and infrastructure?
- Jan 3, 2012
- 16,569
I totally agree, but whoever was in power, in my view, should have been consulting broadly across party lines from the very beginning.
- Jan 3, 2012
- 16,569
I am not trying to make out it is simple. I am saying the current shower have made a complete and utter mess of it all, not that Corbyn would have done any better, or Cable, or Sturgeon....... although they couldn't have done much worse.
And I'm doing sufficient hip exercises, thank you. Walked over 4 miles today as well.......
Basically correct - with some provisos. I like capitalism. But I like regulation. And I like trade unionism. Unfortunately the pursuit of self interest is pernicious. Unfettered capitalism leads to low wages, insufficient to fund private health care, education and pensions since the most efficient system is to work the donkeys till they drop, then bring in younger donkeys. In contrast, unfettered socialism requires centralization and can only function if decentralization (via the ballot box) is abolished (oops! one party state). So we exist in a state of political adversity, which reduces to speed-dating every few years, with politicians titrating the biggest lie they can sell against the smallest opprobrium they will face when the lie is revealed. The public are of course to blame. If a party promises little the electorate says 'OK, **** off then, I'm voting for the free gift guy'.
This is why I am not in favour of 'democracy'. However I can't think of a better system. Democracy is disruptive, unpredicatable and adaptable. Humans are contrary. Capitalism with regulation, managed by laws, overseen by replacable politicians. I like it. By and large we already do it well.
The enemy of democracy, however is referenda. Especially referenda with imutable outcomes. Once in a lifetime, like. That is why Cameron is our worst ever PM. He gave up on politics; never the best plan for a politician.
Last edited: