The banker loving, baby-eating Tory party thread (regenerated)

[darrenm]

The way I've always seen socialism and capitalism is in the example of a group of plane crash survivors on a desert island.

Socialism is where they form a group, some people fish, some people look after the wounded, everyone is working for each other because no one survives on their own.

Capitalism is where everyone catches their own fish and uses that fish to give to someone who can look after them if they are sick. People who work harder at catching more fish have more bargaining power but if someone slips on a rock and can't catch fish they die because no one will give them anything.

[Mantis]

I don't agree entirely with that analogy but I've heard worse. Your summarisation of socialism though is precisely why communism for example hasn't worked and will never work because most people by nature will put self-interest first.

Edited March 19, 2016 by Mantis

[snowychap]

15 minutes ago, darrenm said:

The way I've always seen socialism and capitalism is in the example of a group of plane crash survivors on a desert island.

Socialism is where they form a group, some people fish, some people look after the wounded, everyone is working for each other because no one survives on their own.

Capitalism is where everyone catches their own fish and uses that fish to give to someone who can look after them if they are sick. People who work harder at catching more fish have more bargaining power but if someone slips on a rock and can't catch fish they die because no one will give them anything.

That's miles off, surely?

Under a capitalist system, you'd have fishing rights for certain areas (likely acquired by some ultimately nefarious means - probably, in your example, by violence) being licenced out to those people who owned all of the rods (often/largely appropriated from those who managed to make them one may suppose) who subsequently exploit all of the rest to catch the fish which are then distributed according to contracts made according to the balance of power between the fishing rights owners/licensees/labourers.

Obviously when it becomes too much of a threat to their supply of labour to just execute/exile/etc. those at the bottom that dispute the current hierarchy, the rights holders and the owners of the rods would use some of their surplus 'wealth' to create a form of governance and legal system that reinforced the property rights that they had and those others didn't.

[darrenm]

That's miles off, surely?

Under a capitalist system, you'd have fishing rights for certain areas (likely acquired by some ultimately nefarious means - probably, in your example, by violence) being licenced out to those people who owned all of the rods (often/largely appropriated from those who managed to make them one may suppose) who subsequently exploit all of the rest to catch the fish which are then distributed according to contracts made according to the balance of power between the fishing rights owners/licensees/labourers.

Obviously when it becomes too much of a threat to their supply of labour to just execute/exile/etc. those at the bottom that dispute the current hierarchy, the rights holders and the owners of the rods would use some of their surplus 'wealth' to create a form of governance and legal system that reinforced the property rights that they had and those others didn't.

Well, yeah, but I'm on my phone and couldn't be bothered expanding past the fully simplified version.

[CarewsEyebrowDesigner]

1 hour ago, Mantis said:

I don't agree entirely with that analogy but I've heard worse. Your summarisation of socialism though is precisely why communism for example hasn't worked and will never work because most people by nature will put self-interest first.

I think this is bollocks peddled by the Right in particular to make us feel better about doing what they want us to do.

 

[Shaw_nuff]

Capitalism is robbing as much productivity from the producers as possible and syphoning the proceeds off to the top - leaving the proles with just enough to survive to carry on working.

Socialism is the only thing that makes capitalism bearable - unions/pensions/holiday-maternity pay/sickness pay/improved working conditions etc. All these are an anathema to capitalism.

Don't believe me? read a Dickens novel or Les Miserables and you'll have some idea of what pure capitalism is like for the vast majority.

[Shaw_nuff]

9 hours ago, Mantis said:

I don't agree entirely with that analogy but I've heard worse. Your summarisation of socialism though is precisely why communism for example hasn't worked and will never work because most people by nature will put self-interest first.

While I agree that there is some truth to point about the selfishness human nature, it always leaves out one important part of altruism which is just as integral to human nature if not more so. There is no way our species (or any other from lions to ants) could have survived without cooperation. `Everyone has altruistic values honed into them from millions of years of natural selection. It's what makes you defend your friends and family or makes you give to charity, it's just those who want power always seem to to have less than most and sometimes it manifests itself in a Hitler or Stalin.

The real conundrum is trying to get someone in power who doesn't crave power (no mean feat). Corbyn, although not perfect, seems to fit this bill at least.

[Mic09]

11 hours ago, darrenm said:

The way I've always seen socialism and capitalism is in the example of a group of plane crash survivors on a desert island.

Socialism is where they form a group, some people fish, some people look after the wounded, everyone is working for each other because no one survives on their own.

Capitalism is where everyone catches their own fish and uses that fish to give to someone who can look after them if they are sick. People who work harder at catching more fish have more bargaining power but if someone slips on a rock and can't catch fish they die because no one will give them anything.

Socialism is when the majority of the resources will be taken away from everybody by one rightous group and divided (while the one rightous groups takes a cut)

Capitalism is when nobody is made to share anyhing with anybody, but guess what? They do, becuase they are free people and look after each other (as well as looking after own interest). They can either give in the way of charity, or trade their bread for some of their neighbours berries. Can they make a profit? Yes they can. But because every transaction is free, nobody will swap anything unless they see a benefit in it.

Edited March 20, 2016 by Mic09

[Mic09]

2 hours ago, Shaw_nuff said:

While I agree that there is some truth to point about the selfishness human nature, it always leaves out one important part of altruism which is just as integral to human nature if not more so. There is no way our species (or any other from lions to ants) could have survived without cooperation. `Everyone has altruistic values honed into them from millions of years of natural selection. It's what makes you defend your friends and family or makes you give to charity, it's just those who want power always seem to to have less than most and sometimes it manifests itself in a Hitler or Stalin.

The real conundrum is trying to get someone in power who doesn't crave power (no mean feat). Corbyn, although not perfect, seems to fit this bill at least.

Great video from Milton Friedman's interview. There are no angels who will run the country for you and me, trust me. It is only up to us to create a free market, anm have no restrictions put on us. 

[chrisp65]

From each, according to their ability, to each, according to their need.

Fair reward as agreed by consensus.

Political decision makers elected 40% by popular vote, 60% by random jury selection style system.

Anybody wanting to opt out and swim for another island are more than welcome to **** off.

 

.

[HanoiVillan]

59 minutes ago, Mic09 said:

Socialism is when the majority of the resources will be taken away from everybody by one rightous group and divided (while the one rightous groups takes a cut)

Capitalism is when nobody is made to share anyhing with anybody, but guess what? They do, becuase they are free people and look after each other (as well as looking after own interest). They can either give in the way of charity, or trade their bread for some of their neighbours berries. Can they make a profit? Yes they can. But because every transaction is free, nobody will swap anything unless they see a benefit in it.

No, it isn't. 

[Mic09]

9 hours ago, Shaw_nuff said:

Capitalism is robbing as much productivity from the producers as possible and syphoning the proceeds off to the top - leaving the proles with just enough to survive to carry on working.

Socialism is the only thing that makes capitalism bearable - unions/pensions/holiday-maternity pay/sickness pay/improved working conditions etc. All these are an anathema to capitalism.

Don't believe me? read a Dickens novel or Les Miserables and you'll have some idea of what pure capitalism is like for the vast majority.

how is it not?

[HanoiVillan]

Did you mean to address that to Shaw_nuff, or to me?

Anyway, the reason your explanation of socialism is lacking is that socialism doesn't necessarily involve redistribution of wealth. The only feature that truly unites socialisms is 'socialising control of the means of production', which in the past could mean everything up to nationalising industries and these days might mean little more than arguing for a trade union representative on corporate boards or encouraging worker ownership through the co-operative movement. Socialists can and do make many different arguments for wider control of the means of production, from its democratising effect, through the greater efficiency of investment when government organised, to 'fairness'. However, redistributive taxation is not actually a necessary part of socialism, and around the world you can find numerous socialist governments that have no interest in it, though redistributive taxation is more popular in mainland Europe. 

What your post actually said was that 'socialism is when a majority of the resources will be taken away from everybody', which just obviously isn't true, unless whatever government you live under is regularly in the habit of nationalising your house and your bank account. 

[penguin]

12 hours ago, CarewsEyebrowDesigner said:

I think this is bollocks peddled by the Right in particular to make us feel better about doing what they want us to do.

 

I think this is nonense. I'd say there is a consistency throughout history of self-interest. Even with just a quick google I've found countless studies documenteing how humans put self-interest first. It would make logical sense to me that we inherently act in self-interest, seems the most beneficial to the individuals survival. 

[Mic09]

5 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

Did you mean to address that to Shaw_nuff, or to me?

Anyway, the reason your explanation of socialism is lacking is that socialism doesn't necessarily involve redistribution of wealth. The only feature that truly unites socialisms is 'socialising control of the means of production', which in the past could mean everything up to nationalising industries and these days might mean little more than arguing for a trade union representative on corporate boards or encouraging worker ownership through the co-operative movement. Socialists can and do make many different arguments for wider control of the means of production, from its democratising effect, through the greater efficiency of investment when government organised, to 'fairness'. However, redistributive taxation is not actually a necessary part of socialism, and around the world you can find numerous socialist governments that have no interest in it, though redistributive taxation is more popular in mainland Europe. 

What your post actually said was that 'socialism is when a majority of the resources will be taken away from everybody', which just obviously isn't true, unless whatever government you live under is regularly in the habit of nationalising your house and your bank account. 

I get your point - however by what means, if not by re distribution of wealth (i.e taking away from some and giving to others) can government run ANY of it's projects? Government does not have any money to run any industry, unless it takes that money from the tax payer. Government does not create any wealth - the only source of it's funding is by taking away from the tax payers. 

[snowychap]

8 minutes ago, Mic09 said:

Government does not have any money to run any industry, unless it takes that money from the tax payer.

That is incorrect.

8 minutes ago, Mic09 said:

Government does not create any wealth

What do you mean when you say 'wealth'?

[Wainy316]

Necessities such as health, transport, water and electricity should be a service where the users only pay for its upkeep. Instead it's sold off to a few mercenaries who mark it up and profit ridiculously from our needs. I just don't get how anyone except for the profiteers can agree with that?

[blandy]

56 minutes ago, penguin said:

Even with just a quick google I've found countless studies documenteing how humans put self-interest first. It would make logical sense to me that we inherently act in self-interest, seems the most beneficial to the individuals survival. 

It's an interesting (and sort of unrelated) topic. It's also not the whole story. Humans are just about the only creature that oftentimes don't put self interest first. It is absolutely not the case that we always act out of self interest. The instances of this non self interest behaviour are so frequent, so universal, that it's like not being able to see the woods for the trees.

There's the headline stuff that's commonplace - do another google and look for, say, "good samaritan stories". Or think about the news - there's been a lot of stuff about the people who went to help with the Ebola virus in Africa. Or think about Charity - people working for charities, donating to them, fundraising for them - Sport Relief was on Friday. Think about acts of random kindness that happen all the time - lending someone a fiver, giving someone a lift, people looking out for old folk in winter. I was just in the shop, and the till broke. the operator at the next isle had their "lane closed" sign up, as it was her dinner break, but she said "it's alright come over here an use this one, and she was giving up her lunch break to keep people, including me able to buy their milk and bread. Think of the furore over the cuts to disabled people's payments.

So there's a consistency throughout history of both putting self interest first, and putting the interest of others first. The mistake, I think, is to demand or implement a system which relies on or is based around only one of those sides.

Basically, where people can help themselves, let them get on with it, and where they can't, then make sure others (including the state) are there to give them help.

[Xann]

6 minutes ago, blandy said:

Humans are just about the only creature that oftentimes don't put self interest first.

[blandy]

1 hour ago, Mic09 said:

...by what means, if not by re distribution of wealth (i.e taking away from some and giving to others) can government run ANY of it's projects? Government does not have any money to run any industry, unless it takes that money from the tax payer. Government does not create any wealth - the only source of it's funding is by taking away from the tax payers. 

Once upon a time, maybe hundreds of years ago, that was along the right lines of how things worked. What the current Gov't (and the coalition before it) did was kind of portray that as the way things still are. But they're not anything like that, and haven't been for a good while.

The simplest example is simply printing money. It mostly electronic now, but the government can put more money into the economy by just generating it with the press of a fancy computer key. Private banks can do the same (which in part is what caused the financial crash).

Another thing a government can do is sell things, whether that be publicly owned things, or services, or perhaps a nationalised industry will make a profit, and thus plump up Gov't coffers. Or the government can act as a kind of bank or building society might - so National Savings and Investment (NS&I) runs the Premium bonds, it runs other bonds where people put their money in, and get interest, or the chance of winning a prize. The Gov't then uses that money to do stuff.

But basically it's not simply about tax.

Another thing they could do is borrow money. At the moment the UK Gov't could borrow money at extremely low interest rates, and use that money to say build a road or a stadium or a power station or a school or a hospital or etc. At the end of the spending of the borrowed money, there is a kind of multiplication benefit - suppose it was a stadium they chose to build (it's just an example) builders would have been employed, and plasterers and electricians, and plumbers, and seat fitters, and girder makers and turf growers and health and safety inspectors and so on. And they'll all have paid tax (hopefully). And they'll be able to perhaps buy more meals in restaurants or whatever - and so waiters and chefs benefit..and they pay tax. And then there's the people who will get jobs working in the new stadium - turnstile operators, receptionists, groundsman and all the rest. And people will log to the stadium and go to the pub nearby and use the bus and trains and car parks and all that generates jobs and more tax revenue. And tourists will visit the stadium and ...

So the nation will benefit for the next 80 years or whatever from the gov't spending some money it borrowed at low rates. And the return on the investment will be many times what was borrowed.

Because of the way this Gov't has for party political reasons gone on about debt all the time, they are not doing what they should be doing to grow the economy and help people and create better roads, rail, and all the rest.

It's not all about spending tax.