Houghton preaches COMMUNIST football

[Orford65 0]

and you lot reckon our football team is boring............Jeeezzzzzzz!

[nutty nigel 7,539]

[quote user="Feathers"]What are they talking about on the binner boards I wonder, X Factor? TOWIE? OTBC[/quote]

 

The third division I believe...

 

Nice to see you posting Feathers.

 

 

[Badger 2,406]

Monty - "who rules us then?" Those who own and control the means of production, distribution and exchange - finance capitalists at present.

Jimmy Carr is hardly rich in these terms (although he may well have a few million salted away, this is relative "peanuts") and certainly not part of any ruling elite. He may try to minimize his tax liability - he is not alone in that, but it is small beer relative to the evasion of taxation by finance capital that own and control multinational corporations. Through the use of transfer payments, they are asset stripping entire continents, particularly Africa.

The market certainly is not "free." This is just blind ideology from those that believe in the theoretical concepts of perfect competition - free markets do not exist, except as a slogan - try and find one! With regards, capitalism never being challenged, it is a relatively new system, three or four hundred years, and feudalism was until quite recently a more dominant force. This is why talk of the "failure of communism" is such nonsense - I can''t believe that it is likely to happen for some while in the most advanced countries and the idea that it should happen first in backward ones, like Russia, is completely at odds with Marx''s observations - the "theory of deepening revolution" is just political convenience.

Re your point about the financial crisis, you continue to labour under the misapprehension that Governments are more powerful than financiers - when the opposite is the case.

Feathers, a very interesting contribution - I agree that capitalism is the enemy of democracy, and the existence of the former is almost certain to prevent the latter and vice versa.

[Feathers 0]

I always wonder how Holty the Tory likes taking orders from Hoots the Trotskyist...

[walkern canary 0]

You are all harbouring anti-soviet thoughts ,this has been noted

[4th floor 4]

Perhaps the biggest misapprehension amongst the general public about capitalism is the notion that banks only lend out money which has been deposited with them. On the contrary, banks can actually create new money when they make new loans, rather than solely relying on lending from existing deposits.Perhaps the biggest misapprehension about democracy being a good thing is that the majority can get to a position whereby a minority is persecuted. Attempts in the past to counter this flaw include giving citizens a basic set of rights (interestingly our present government is in favour of scaling back legal aid and withdrawing from the Human Rights Act).

[Monty13 2,235]

Badger while I don''t disagree totally with everything your saying, your spouting a very Michael Moore-esque one sided opinion of a huge issue.

Your totally skewing the definition of the word rule! I''m sorry we are not ruled by finance capitalists. Your going to have to expand your point further because I''m not sure the point your trying to imply, that a capitalist system affects the lives of all within it? of course it does, there will be rich and poor and many in-between, just because the finance within that system is skewed with few with much and many with little does not directly confer power over the many by the few.

People seem to think that free should mean fair? Of course it doesn''t, freedom is purely the removal of restraints. If you have no restraint than the powerful will bully the weak. That is the outcome we have, that is our free market. That is capitalism.

Governments are more powerful than financiers, governments control policy while financiers can only control the market. The problem you have is that at present financiers are more active lobbying government than the people the governments represent. You continue to blame those with money, where as the reason for the lack of accountability is the apathy of the represented within western democracies.

That''s because as much as we all complain, the reality is for most in the western world, life is eminently more preferable to that elsewhere and the lives of generations before us, so we really can''t be bothered to upset the status quo.

I agree the world isn''t fair, it could be so much better, but then I look at my big TV and nice car, my pay from my steady job and think, what do I really care? It''s not a perfect system but I''m doing ok out of it.....

I like this quote as we seem to be doing a lot of them:

"It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest."

While I love the ideals of Marx''s writings, I''m not sure anyone will be able to explain to me how they could ever be realistically realised, apart from a society where mankind wants for nothing. Please, that''s not an invitation to try, just my view.

[Badger 2,406]

1. Marx’s work is widely misinterpreted - It is quite possible to be a conservative voter AND a Marxist.

The strongest and most interesting parts of Marx’s work are:

1. His model of how history evolves as a result of the power relationships within in, determined by the ownership of the means of production - e.g. feudalism was controlled by the aristocrats because they owned the main means of production (i.e. land).

2. His critique of capitalism, which even allowing for the non-predicted evolution of welfare is a powerful one, predicting accurately over 150 years ago the necessary concentration of wealth, which is so evident today when a few multi-national companies dominate the world economy.

Idealism should be removed from the equation and is really the consequence of human weakness on Marx’s part - a failing that his “disciples” worked so hard to avoid!

2. The free market is not "free" because of the constraints placed upon it. I suspect that you and I would agree that many of these are desirable to prevent what you describe as bullying. Some right-wing thinkers, starting with Hayek, argue that these lead to distortions in the market which cause it to operate less effectively ultimately to our cost. There are, however a whole series of other barriers to entry which are far less altruistically based - barriers to entry which prevent perfect competition and are essentially designed to protect the interests of the powerful against consumers and weaker suppliers. Your quotation illustrates this well:

"It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest."

You find very independent butchers, brewers and bakers anymore – they have been undercut by large producers selling below cost to destroy the competition – small suppliers destroyed by larger one as predicted by Marx.

Free market economists, like Hayek, are hopelessly idealistic. Markets will never be “free” – they face twin assaults from those that are dominant within the market trying to maintain their dominance on the one side; whilst progressives try to promote some forms of social justice and minimum standards.

3. There is no western government that could resist the combined forces of international capital and indeed none try to do so. As for lobbying, it is largely the other way round to how you describe it - government goes to business for favours rather than the other way round: all politicians are fawning in the presence of big business in a bid to bring "jobs and prosperity" as they put it, in a similar way that we have seen illustrated with the press.

You only have to look at the way in which currently we have governments falling over themselves trying to undercut each other with lower and lower rates of corporation tax. However, for large multinationals this makes no difference as they use transfer payments to avoid paying tax at anything above very low rates – its why so many are based in Luxemburg, Switzerland, the Bahamas etc. In short, they “move” their profits offshore.

Governments can’t control markets: it is the other way round. As Mrs T is quoted as saying – “you can buck the market.” Governments don’t even try to do anything that “the markets” as they would describe them, would not like – the markets would punish them very quickly. They operate within a framework that is acceptable to the very rich and those that operate on their behalf – the “rule” of government is only within this very limited framework.

[Badger 2,406]

Your point is correct Jonny H and as you say widely misunderstood. Please correct me if I am wrong but I think that banks have to retain about 5% of deposits. In other words, they can use £100 deposited to create £1900 of lending!

The "tyranny of the majority" was one of the arguments used against the spread of democracy and your point about the need fo rbasic rights as a consequence is well made.

Feathers – “I always wonder how Holty the Tory likes taking orders from Hoots the Trotskyist...” I suspect that he is working on a carefully worded paper suggesting that “Call me Dave” should reevaluate his position with regards the Human rights act, particularly in relation to workplace rights.

[Monty13 2,235]

"Marx’s work is widely misinterpreted - It is quite possible to be a conservative voter AND a Marxist."

I don''t in anyway disagree,

Haha I doubt Adam Smith would agree with your interpretation of his quote! He was demonstrating the principles of capitalism, that business (production) only exists to fulfil its own interests (profit). Without the desire for continued wealth, why would the baker bake? For the good of his fellow man?

I think you have misunderstood my point re free markets, and to say free market economists are hopelessly idealistic while quoting Marx left and right is amusing to say the least. The free market principle is purely one of competition, of course a company wishes to maintain its market share, this isn''t an assault, it is the systems essence.

Governments are fulfilling their role in contradiction of the principles of Laissez-faire model of economics, because they have to. They are trying to promote an environment in which business will thrive within their own country''s. As the world grows smaller in geographical terms,due to the ever increasing technological revolution, each country must compete to promote its fertility to business.

Governments don''t control markets, by controlling markets they would be going against the very principles of capitalism. But they do regulate business, that is their role.

Of course big business in a capitalist society affects our lives, but it doesn''t rule them. Does business determine how much income tax you pay? The time you spend in prison for committing crimes? Whether your Healthcare is free or not? How much your education will cost?

A governments "rule" of its people is far more than that of its interaction with business. Our world is shaped by economics, but it is not ruled by it.

[Monty13 2,235]

Johnny banks have always worked this way, the relatively simple principles of banking are not that much of a mystery, but most probably don''t know. The principles of banking are not directly linked to the capitalist model. Whatever your economic system as long as money was required banking would work by the same principle.

In fact what people don''t understand is the money they have in the bank doesn''t exist either.

When your pay arrives in your bank account its just a number in a ledger, as soon as you deposit any physical money in a bank it again disappears.

Banks work purely on assets, money they have lent to people (and they are therefore owed) and the small amount of physical money they actually have. This is then set against their liabilities, mainly the money you think you have in your account!

As long as these remain around equilibrium everything is ok. When loans get defaulted on the assets disappear and suddenly the bank doesn''t have the assets to cover your deposits. When a bank starts to go under people try and withdraw their money and make the situation worse. The bank has to start selling its assets (the loans) off cheap to cover its liabilities (your money). Because the loans were originally going to make more money over the length of the loan, by having to sell early the bank ends up with less assets than it had accounted for and suddenly not enough to cover its liabilities.

Boom - bank goes under, you lose your money.

[ron obvious 1,511]

Or - boom, bank doesn''t go under ... guess who ends up paying??

[Monty13 2,235]

Haha yes Ron very true. But the governments choice are use your money to stop you losing your money, or just let you lose your money. No real choice there, poor regulation at work.

[Feathers 0]

[quote user="Monty13"]

Haha I doubt Adam Smith would agree with your interpretation of his quote! He was demonstrating the principles of capitalism, that business (production) only exists to fulfil its own interests (profit). Without the desire for continued wealth, why would the baker bake? For the good of his fellow man?

A governments "rule" of its people is far more than that of its interaction with business. Our world is shaped by economics, but it is not ruled by it.[/quote]

The baker bakes in order to pay the capitalist AND the tax man who owns his house and the necessary essentials such as utilities etc. Of course we''re ruled by economics. Capitalism is an economic system opposed from above. The motivation in capitalism is fear of destitution. nobody gets up at 6am 5 days a week and commutes to work on their own free will. And governments and business are in bed with each other as badger said- corporations were originally sanctioned by the state and written into law.

Look at this vid of old Chommers on Adam Smith. Very interesting

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eaZORYaygo0

[4th floor 4]

Badger, you are right that the £100 loan once it passes through the

banking system does turn into something ridiculous like £2000. This happens after compounding of interest and the loan being spent and made into a new loan multiple times.Monty, yes banking has to one extent or other worked this way from the time goldsmiths found out that they could issue receipts for gold that they didn''t physically have (the forerunner of bank notes).But today the proportion of the money supply that is private bank credit is something like 95%, far higher than it has ever been in modern times. Thus most of our money supply today is interest bearing debt, as opposed to previous years when a far greater proportion was government issued.What happens today is that there is a massive overproduction of cheap tat and a pressure on all countries to export, all driven by a need to repay the compounded interest payments owed to banks.Like a pyramid selling scheme, the world financial system relies on an ever increasing amount of new debt to keep afloat, but the problem is that production is having trouble keeping up with an exponential growth rate under these circumstances.New markets for goods and moneylending are needed and more cheap sources of natural resources need to be exploited to be able to expand production. Under these circumstances closed markets tend to need to be opened by force (aka war).What we see today is a world that is literally saturated in debt, everyone from nation states to individual consumers and private businesses. The proportion of debt to GDP is higher than even the levels that were reached prior to the 1929 Wall Street crash (which was followed by the Great Depression and WWII).The banks are in effect oligopolists who profit from this huge debt and make money from what is essentially gambling in a huge casino rigged in their favour.

[Monty13 2,235]

Feathers, the baker is the capitalist, he bakes to make money out of his customers because they all want bread. Given the choice none of us would work at all.

What on earth would we all do? Sit around while someone else heats, clothes, waters and feeds us? What will their motivation for doing that be?

The motivation of capitalism isn''t fear of destitution, it is the generation of wealth. I don''t go to work because I''m scared of the consequences of not working, I go to work to live in comfort, buy nice things, go on holiday (watch football?) and basically enjoy myself when I''m not working.

Economics is the structure in which we live, it doesn''t rule us. Since the time man started bartering, economics has existed. Until someone finds a better way of measuring are individual worth other than the wealth we hold, this will always exist.

Interesting line in that video "In any civilised society the government must intervene to prevent division of labour" an understanding that it is Governments role as our representatives to uphold our rights.

And as the people being represented if we are unhappy we have the fundamental responsibility to change the way things are. Unfortunately as I have said the vast majority of us are apathetic, comfortable paying for someone else to provide us power, water, electricity, shelter, food etc etc. in return for the money we earn.

We live in a society where the principles we are talking about, Capitalism, Democracy and Socialism are all intertwined and all effect are lives without one dominating it.

It''s a world in which I can buy a big ass TV from any of the competing manufacturers, while getting free healthcare and voting green party if I really fancy it.

[Monty13 2,235]

Johnny, that''s a very succinct analysis.

But whose role is it to regulate the banks? It''s Governments, and they have been happy to watch this happen, encourage it in fact, in the pursuit of national growth. Now its all collapsed and the entire worlds economy is barely being held together by duct tape, it seems that we blame only the Banks, when our governments were happy for the game to be played while they were able to borrow and while their economy''s were growing.

[Badger 2,406]

Sorry Monty, perhaps I wasn''t clear enough in my point - the baker doesn''t bake anymore in the sense that Smith meant - he reheats part-cooked dough prepared in a food factory elsewhere. The small business, free market of perfect competition that Smith envisaged was already under threat when Marx wrote - it is nearly gone now. You only have to look at the high street shops to see the domination of the big chains. (Although retail isn’t a great example.)

I know that governments don''t control markets, it was the point that I was making. I suggested that they don''t do so because they are unable to do so - you suggest that it is because it would "be going against the very principles of capitalism." I agree with this but it seems inconsistent with what you are saying - if a government was against capitalism why would it worry about that? Or are you suggesting that only a capitalist government would ever be elected?

I am not sure that I get your point about regulation and laissez faire economics. Regulation is an attempt to control behaviour – not always successfully, I would agree but this is because of a desire to be “soft touch” – the monkey doesn’t want to upset the organ grinder!

You ask "Does business determine how much income tax you pay? The time you spend in prison for committing crimes? Whether your Healthcare is free or not? How much your education will cost?" I might want to throw in a few caveats and words of explanation (especially about prison/ crime) but fundamentally "yes" would be my answer. There are, of course, variations between western governments, with the United States often the farthest from the norm, but what is quite striking is the general uniformity over time. As you identified yourself “the amount of money in terms of percentage GDP that has been spent on the various social and public enterprises has either remained fairly constant or steadily increased.” I am not sure whether you intended this as sole in the UK or as an international comparison but both would apply – despite your assertion of democracy, which you suggest is genuine, most western governments seem to be off the same template, doing similar things at similar times. Within particular countries, the heat of debate is strong and there are variations between parties – but the real differences are small in terms of historical development.

Fundamentally, however, I suspect our differences stem from our perception of the role of economics: you believe it is a “shaper” whereas I believe it is the key determining force.

[Badger 2,406]

I see that the baker analogy has moved on since I started writing my post!

It is a good quotation because it shows how far we have moved from the ideals expounded by Smith. Bakers don''t bake anymore (or very few do). That sort of small enterprise has been taken over by oligopolistic capitalists that control the markets, the economy and society. The model of free market, democratic, small business capitalism is a romantic representation presented to delude the population that we live in a free and meritocratic society.

The reality is the food scandal that is beginning to emerge at the moment, with hugely complex food chains as we manufacture food on an industrial scale controlled by finance capital. As I am sure you are aware, we don''t have farmers anymore either but agribusiness. Small farmers have gone the same way as other small business - they cannot compete with the control of capital that enables large corporations to produce on a scale and at a cost that is simply beyond the ability of smaller businesses to compete with. Smaller businesses can become involved as suppliers but are ruthlessly exploited by large corporations, and are little more than slaves to them, totally dependent upon their business.

It is all in Marx''s work- increasing concentration of ownership; alienation of man(kind) from his/her nature etc.

The baker analogy shows just how wrong Smith''s dreams are. There might be a temporary niche market for specialty bakers - but we all know what happens to niche markets - remember the Tie Shop?

[Monty13 2,235]

But Smith didn''t care about small business, any more than Capitalism does. It only cares about success. You talk of high street businesses, these are small businesses in the modern global economy. The world has grown in population while simultaneously getting smaller geographically. Think how many car companies there are, realistically how many different versions of a competing product do you need for competition? 3, 4, 20? How many businesses offer insurance products? Communications? Electronics?

When one company can now effectively span the entire planet how much competition is required to be competitive? One would argue, not much. If your a small independent with a niche, good luck to you, but it better be good or we will just go to Amazon, Tesco etc.

My point Badger is that the main principle of pure capitalism is little to no interference from governments. Governments shouldn''t be for or against capitalism, it is not their role, capitalism doesn''t want interference from governments or it changes the game. If government regulates a market it closes it, you can''t have free markets and government control, that''s why governments do not control markets, they can''t because then it won''t be free.

Badger the point i''m trying to get across is all our western governments are capitalist! They''re not pro or anti really, its just the system we live in. Whether under the umbrella of socialism or not, there is no other example of any working economic system. All modern socialist governments do is provide a social economic system for specific areas of our needs. The NHS being a great example of Welfare socialism. Their role is to regulate the labour force, to ensure workers get a fair deal, not to interfere with the flow of capital.

"Fundamentally, however, I suspect our differences stem from our perception of the role of economics: you believe it is a “shaper” whereas I believe it is the key determining force." My argument would be they are pretty much the same thing, depending on what you believe they are determining. The way we live our lives, by consumption, yes they are the determining force. The way we act, speak and feel? Capitalism has no influence on this for me, it is just the background to which we live our lives. It doesn''t determine how I would treat another person, how I feel about the environment, whether I am religious, whether I read, whether I watch football, whether I think murderers should be punished, whether I think drug users should be rehabilitated etc.......

[Monty13 2,235]

I actually think your wrong btw, the financial crisis has actually put a dampener on what was a mini explosion of the right small business. Not in the sense of independent bookshops, or speciality bakers....corporations won because the consumer wants the cheapest, get over it you guys and find something else.

But in the niches that big business has left itself open to, small internet ideas, businesses pushing quality over price and finding a market in an ever more savvy middle class.

I find your small farmers example very interesting considering the huge explosion of farmers markets in the last ten years. My friends Dad is a pig farmer and since selling his pigs to a small independent butcher and them emphasising quality he is financially much better off than he ever was trying to sell to supermarkets. And demand continues to grow.

The market is there to be exploited if you have a product that is worthwhile, and you find the market for it. The internet has opened this up massively. Yes when people want traditional high street goods, bread, meat they go to the supermarket because its cheaper. Small business evolves or dies, capitalism in action.

[ron obvious 1,511]

Inevitably this discussion is heading into the realms of philosophy; which is nice.

There is no "system", capitalist or communist. There is what there is. Nobody runs it, there are no evil all-powerful masters. There are people who would like to, conspiracies, anti -conspiracies, anti-anti-conspiracies, but the World is far too complex & enmeshed for them to succeed for very long. Are we not all slaves? We can never be free because, as much as we may find it unpalatable, we are material beings living in a material world (pace Madonna). What are our "true natures"? How can we live without exploiting other sentient beings?

I think all human activity can be divided into two parts, as realised by the Romans:

Panem et Circenses. Bread & entertainment.

Bread includes all the things we need for material sustenance - food, shelter, warmth etc. Entertainment is everything else, from religion to football - stuff you can survive without, but survival becomes pretty pointless & boring once you''ve got the basics.

At present, until the next environmental catastrophe (my money''s on Yellowstone Park), panem is not a problem - at least not the production thereof, although politics can cause localised shortages. So the immediate economic future lies in entertainment. Football is a prime example thereof.

The driving force for all this is technology, which has caused an exponential rise in our ability to do stuff, & a corresponding change in expectations. Our only hope (as a country) is to keep running faster & faster in order to stand still. Or we''ll end up like Sock Shop.

Having gone completely & utterly off-topic of the off-topic I''m going to beddy byes.

[PurpleCanary 5,563]

[quote user="Monty13"]Feathers, the baker is the capitalist, he bakes to make money out of his customers because they all want bread. Given the choice none of us would work at all. What on earth would we all do? Sit around while someone else heats, clothes, waters and feeds us? What will their motivation for doing that be? The motivation of capitalism isn''t fear of destitution, it is the generation of wealth. I don''t go to work because I''m scared of the consequences of not working, I go to work to live in comfort, buy nice things, go on holiday (watch football?) and basically enjoy myself when I''m not working. Economics is the structure in which we live, it doesn''t rule us. Since the time man started bartering, economics has existed. Until someone finds a better way of measuring are individual worth other than the wealth we hold, this will always exist. Interesting line in that video "In any civilised society the government must intervene to prevent division of labour" an understanding that it is Governments role as our representatives to uphold our rights. And as the people being represented if we are unhappy we have the fundamental responsibility to change the way things are. Unfortunately as I have said the vast majority of us are apathetic, comfortable paying for someone else to provide us power, water, electricity, shelter, food etc etc. in return for the money we earn.

We live in a society where the principles we are talking about, Capitalism, Democracy and Socialism are all intertwined and all effect are lives without one dominating it. It''s a world in which I can buy a big ass TV from any of the competing manufacturers, while getting free healthcare and voting green party if I really fancy it.

[/quote]

 

Interesting, Monty. I didn''t realise you lived in some back-to-nature hippy commune[:D] on one of the remoter islands of the Outer Hebrides[ip][st] which is about the only place in Britain you might find those three elements intertwined without one being dominant.

Seriously, you cannot believe socialism is not dominated by capitalism in Britain, surely? It is true that a strong element of socalist thought has influenced public policy in Britain. Particularly Attlee''s reforming post-war government. But that doesn''t make Britain a semi-socialist society. And you are going to have to explain how voting Green is in some way a balancing act against democracy. I don''t understand that. And I even less understand how it has the slightest effect on the range of goods[co] available at your local Comet superstore.

[Monty13 2,235]

Without dominating was a poor choice of words! Apologies, I claim tiredness!

The point I was trying to make is that modern society is not some capitalist dictatorship where feudalism has just been usurped by some newer term and land been exchanged for capital. 

The capitalist economy is the background within which we operate, it doesn''t mean that somehow our Democracy is irrelevant and that policies that are grounded in socialism don''t exist. We live in a welfare state, within a capitalist ecnomy. Under true capitalist "rule" those out of work, the ill, old and infirm are useless to the generation of profit and wouldn''t be cared for. This idea that everything about are lives is "ruled" by capitalism is nonsense, it shapes the world we live in because there is no other proven, or aguably workable within all the constraints, economic system. If we are "ruled" by capitalism it is by our own choice, we have the power to enact change, and yet we continue not to. 

My point is democracy is purely your individual right to representation, which all adults generally have in this country. In the modern world with our current laws and social media, enacting mass sweeping political change through the will of the people, should be far easier than any historic revolution against the estabilishment. My point is we choose not to because we are comfortable, because of our social policies and because we are as a majority happy with the current status quo. Those railing against capitalisms perceived control of democracy are failing to acknowledge that there is no popular revolution for change. Democracy isn''t broken, one could argue it never really works, because all those clamouring for representation all disagree on how they should be represented.

 

[Feathers 0]

[quote user="Monty13"]Feathers, the baker is the capitalist, he bakes to make money out of his customers because they all want bread. Given the choice none of us would work at all.[/quote]

Would we not? Depends on how you define ''work''. Many people spend much of their spare time doing activities that if they were paid, would be called ''work'', but they do them because they enjoy them, or they get satisfaction and a sense of well being. I certainly wouldn''t sit around all day, I''d get bored. I''d want to do something, and being part of a new society would be a good place to start. If the economy was under workers control, WE would be able to choose what direction we''d want to go in. That''s the point. If you think everyone''s going to stay in all the time playing computer games shows a lack of faith and imagination on your part. It''s about division of labour. If the baker bakes because he enjoys supplying his community with bread, the therapeutic process of rolling the dough, and he has no boss checking his watch and no landlord to sweat about, or he works equally with other bakers in a system based on solidarity and mutual aid not competition, he''d be the best damn baker in town!

[quote user="Monty13"]What on earth would we all do? Sit around while someone else heats, clothes, waters and feeds us? What will their motivation for doing that be?[/quote]

Many hands make light work- if the basics were shared, most people would be required to ''work'' about 1-2 days a week, lovely. Food production is mechanised (thank you capitalism), and it would be easy to push for other essentials to be so too. The technology is already there, it''s just owned by the ruling class. If the economy was based around the needs of the community, we''d be able to get the essentials sorted easily. The least desirable essential work would have the highest reward (opposite of what is the case now).

[quote user="Monty13"]The motivation of capitalism isn''t fear of destitution, it is the generation of wealth. I don''t go to work because I''m scared of the consequences of not working, I go to work to live in comfort, buy nice things, go on holiday (watch football?) and basically enjoy myself when I''m not working.[/quote]

Why can''t you live in comfort without renting your labour to someone else for most of your life? You could enjoy yourself a hell of a lot more you know. Even higher up the pyramid in the west, people are enslaved to some degree to the economy. Sure you can buy nice things, that''s great- but it doesn''t fill the spiritual hole in our society, and no amount of nice things will fill it up, at costs to our psychological well being and the planet we live (another huge argument against capitalism). Capitalism doesn''t let us as human beings reach our full potential, because we have to waste so much time paying ''the man'' to put it crudely. How many talented and creative people are working in coffee shops and cleaning offices because they can''t get work in their chosen field? Of course it is the fear of destitution or the humiliation of the Job Centre that makes this a reality. Also, work is sh1t for most people:

"We want nothing from a world where the guarantee of not dying of starvation comes with the guarantee of dying of boredom"

[quote user="Monty13"]Economics is the structure in which we live, it doesn''t rule us. Since the time man started bartering, economics has existed. Until someone finds a better way of measuring are individual worth other than the wealth we hold, this will always exist.

Interesting line in that video "In any civilised society the government must intervene to prevent division of labour" an understanding that it is Governments role as our representatives to uphold our rights.

And as the people being represented if we are unhappy we have the fundamental responsibility to change the way things are. Unfortunately as I have said the vast majority of us are apathetic, comfortable paying for someone else to provide us power, water, electricity, shelter, food etc etc. in return for the money we earn.

We live in a society where the principles we are talking about, Capitalism, Democracy and Socialism are all intertwined and all effect are lives without one dominating it.

It''s a world in which I can buy a big ass TV from any of the competing manufacturers, while getting free healthcare and voting green party if I really fancy it.[/quote]

Capitalism as we know it is only 2-300 years old. You cannot say that it is some sort of benign fact of life that does not rule over us, it is not. Clearly in this ''competition'' the odds are stacked in favour to the owners of the means of production and property. They are on a different strata to the majority. It is inherently unfair and fundamentally flawed. It''s done great things but it will have it''s day in good time.

Enjoy your TV while you still have the disposable income to pay for it, as capitalism will always drive down wages, and the latest sticking plaster of borrowing and debt has recently failed (you might have noticed), enjoy the free healthcare while it lasts, and I hold won''t hold my breath for the Green Party to get any meaningful power and are able to make a difference if and when they do!

[Reasonable Canary 0]

Good god this thread sums up this forum.

Two old, bald guys fighting over a comb. Hilarious!

[ron obvious 1,511]

er ...

Binner!

[Feathers 0]

Ha! I''m 30 and have plenty of hair. Just planting seeds is all.... I better stop though as arguing on internet forums can ruin your life- there is no clear winner, you''re both losers! Ciao for now

[Monty13 2,235]

You old b@astard feathers! I''m only 28. "There is no clear winner" aint that the rub.

Reasonable if you think the majority of this forum is articulate and reasoned debate without insult, i think you are on a different forum to me. While massively off topic I''ve enjoyed this far more than most of the threads loosely related to football on here because it hasn''t resorted to name calling, and then mass hysteria about the name calling. I appreciate that seems to put me in either a minority, or a silent majority. I''m never sure which. 

[Rock The Boat 1,332]

[quote user="Feathers"][quote user="Monty13"]Feathers, the baker is the capitalist, he bakes to make money out of his customers because they all want bread. Given the choice none of us would work at all.[/quote]

Would we not? Depends on how you define ''work''. Many people spend much of their spare time doing activities that if they were paid, would be called ''work'', but they do them because they enjoy them, or they get satisfaction and a sense of well being. I certainly wouldn''t sit around all day, I''d get bored. I''d want to do something, and being part of a new society would be a good place to start. If the economy was under workers control, WE would be able to choose what direction we''d want to go in. That''s the point. If you think everyone''s going to stay in all the time playing computer games shows a lack of faith and imagination on your part. It''s about division of labour. If the baker bakes because he enjoys supplying his community with bread, the therapeutic process of rolling the dough, and he has no boss checking his watch and no landlord to sweat about, or he works equally with other bakers in a system based on solidarity and mutual aid not competition, he''d be the best damn baker in town!

 

Well sure this was the aruement putfoward by Communists that we should allwork for thegood of the community. And every time that this a has been implemented in Communist societies, it has failed. China,Soviet Union, Cambodia, all these Communist countries saw millions perish in the name of the community. Capitalism works better than Communism because of the self-interest motive of the baker. He bakes bread in order to make a profit and in so doing he can feed himself and his family. Under the Communist experiments the farmers stoppped farming and the bakers stopped baking and it was often by the use of force and other methods of intimidation that things ever got done.  

[quote user="Monty13"]What on earth would we all do? Sit around while someone else heats, clothes, waters and feeds us? What will their motivation for doing that be?[/quote]

Many hands make light work- if the basics were shared, most people would be required to ''work'' about 1-2 days a week, lovely. Food production is mechanised (thank you capitalism), and it would be easy to push for other essentials to be so too. The technology is already there, it''s just owned by the ruling class. If the economy was based around the needs of the community, we''d be able to get the essentials sorted easily. The least desirable essential work would have the highest reward (opposite of what is the case now).

The only way that your ideas could work is by enforcement or diktat from above. Who decides how the workload is to be shared and who decides when one is supposed  to turn up for work on these couple of days per week? Who is going to be the one to ''push'' for other essentials to be mechanised?  Your use ofthe word ''pushed'' is an interesting one. In a Capital system there is no need to push anything because the market will always seek to supply wherever there is a demand. But you do seem to recognise the success of Capitalism in delivering more efficient products, as in mechanised food production.

 

I am a little unclear of what you determine to be essential work. Again, who decides? If it is left to the people themselves then human nature is that people do what they want to do, or what they are good at, what they can control or what they want to do. It may not be essential at all. But I have a problem withthis idea of what is essential or not. Is a doctor more essential than a car mechanic? If so, what happens when the doctor''s car breaks down? Coming back to China, Soviet Union and Cambodia as examples of countries that implemented communism you find that one of the great failings in these countries, hardly anyone put in a decent day''s work because even one was supposedly an equal comrade whereas everyone knew that in reality there was no true equality within the system.

In this country the NHS is a communist system. Money is poured in at the top and the communist beaurocracy decides how funds are allocted. At the bottom, the patient gets what he or she is given and is expected to be grateful for the handout. It''s hardly surprising that horror stories such as North-Staffordshire hospitals are followed by further relevations in other regions because over time a Communistsystemcomes to serve itself and not to serve the requirements of supply and demand.  If NHS funds were given directly to the patient to go and buy medical care within a Capitalist marketplace, where hospitals had to compete for custom, the much of the NHS problems would disappear. But the NHS is a great example of why Communist systems don''t work.

 

[quote user="Monty13"]The motivation of capitalism isn''t fear of destitution, it is the generation of wealth. I don''t go to work because I''m scared of the consequences of not working, I go to work to live in comfort, buy nice things, go on holiday (watch football?) and basically enjoy myself when I''m not working.[/quote]

Why can''t you live in comfort without renting your labour to someone else for most of your life? You could enjoy yourself a hell of a lot more you know. Even higher up the pyramid in the west, people are enslaved to some degree to the economy. Sure you can buy nice things, that''s great- but it doesn''t fill the spiritual hole in our society, and no amount of nice things will fill it up, at costs to our psychological well being and the planet we live (another huge argument against capitalism). Capitalism doesn''t let us as human beings reach our full potential, because we have to waste so much time paying ''the man'' to put it crudely. How many talented and creative people are working in coffee shops and cleaning offices because they can''t get work in their chosen field? Of course it is the fear of destitution or the humiliation of the Job Centre that makes this a reality. Also, work is sh1t for most people:

"We want nothing from a world where the guarantee of not dying of starvation comes with the guarantee of dying of boredom"

Again the same issue occurs for me here. Who decides who is talented and creative therefore worthy of something more than cleaning an office? I think we would all like to nominate ourselves as a National Treasure and live accordingly, but real life just isn''t like that, otherwise you end up with everybody in a rock band and no one in the ticket office. And is creativity one of your ''essential'' occupations that you mentioned earlier, because I can''t quite reconcile how you would hand out the essential jobs and the non-essential jobs (like an entertainer) in a fair manner. Won''t the baker, rising at 4am as my grandfather did, to begin baking the daily bread be somewhat envious of the guy who gets to conduct the London Symphony Orchestra?

 

It''s the beauty of the Capitalist system that it does not need to make emotional judgements and become involved in people''s personal spirituality. But it does allow the creative and talented to gain rewards. It allows internet startups to grow into those multi-national corporations that you fear so much. It allows a garage band develop into a global rock band. It allows private enterprise to become the biggest patron of the arts. It positively encourages experimentation, research, and development of ideas and products. Communist systems, on the other hand deliver very little except misery.   

[quote user="Monty13"]Economics is the structure in which we live, it doesn''t rule us. Since the time man started bartering, economics has existed. Until someone finds a better way of measuring are individual worth other than the wealth we hold, this will always exist.

Interesting line in that video "In any civilised society the government must intervene to prevent division of labour" an understanding that it is Governments role as our representatives to uphold our rights.

And as the people being represented if we are unhappy we have the fundamental responsibility to change the way things are. Unfortunately as I have said the vast majority of us are apathetic, comfortable paying for someone else to provide us power, water, electricity, shelter, food etc etc. in return for the money we earn.

We live in a society where the principles we are talking about, Capitalism, Democracy and Socialism are all intertwined and all effect are lives without one dominating it.

It''s a world in which I can buy a big ass TV from any of the competing manufacturers, while getting free healthcare and voting green party if I really fancy it.[/quote]

Capitalism as we know it is only 2-300 years old. You cannot say that it is some sort of benign fact of life that does not rule over us, it is not. Clearly in this ''competition'' the odds are stacked in favour to the owners of the means of production and property. They are on a different strata to the majority. It is inherently unfair and fundamentally flawed. It''s done great things but it will have it''s day in good time.

Enjoy your TV while you still have the disposable income to pay for it, as capitalism will always drive down wages, and the latest sticking plaster of borrowing and debt has recently failed (you might have noticed), enjoy the free healthcare while it lasts, and I hold won''t hold my breath for the Green Party to get any meaningful power and are able to make a difference if and when they do![/quote]

It''s interesting to look at the reasons why the Industrial Revolution took place here in the Uk and not say in some other major European country such as France, Germany or Russia.At the time there were no Communist countries but we can compare countries with similar resources, armies, and general level of development. It was in Britain that the first ideas of Capitalism were documented in a country that was already fairly well decentralised in it''s goverment. The other countries were controlled from above with far more regulation that over here. Coupled with that was the open flow of ideas. This country had numerous clubs and societies where scientists, businessmen and bankers would meet and discuss ideas, politics, business and scientific discovery. Without a big brother trying to redistribute wealth and manage the life of every single inhabitant, Great Britain very quickly became the world leader in manufacturing, trade and commerce. We became within a very few years the richest nation on earth.

And it was out of this scenario that new ideas about democracy, universal education and the end of slavery were allowed to be expressed. So many of the great leaps in social policy and enlightenment took place because of Captilaism. Certainly Capitalism created new problems, such as the rise of the poor city dwellers and social problems caused by millions of people living in close proximity but Governments have controlled the unwelcome by products of capitalism through legislation, taxation and social programs such as building new towns and planning regulations to name but a couple of examples.  

So here we are today in the post-Industrial Age. It''s now a global age. And anyone with a good idea (Google) or a funny dance (Gangnam-style) can be a global, instant success. Far from this being the age of oppression by some mysterious, shadowy group of ne''er-do-wells, sometimes known as the owners of production, we''re actually in the age of the Individual. It''s a time where you have freedom of expression and now have the tools to communicate with almost anyone on the planet. If you have a product or idea to sell, then create a web site. It''s the modern version of the 17th century coffee house. Hooked up on spirituality? There''s doubtless a facebook group to cater for whatever you need.

We are more free than at anytime in our history. The oddthing is that it is Capitalism that has delivered this to us. On theother hand, Communism has failed wherever it has been implemented. But Communismis just not about the failure to deliver goods and services, it has also put entire nations in the shackles of loss of self-expression, the loss of freedom, the inability to develop spiritually or to promote new ideas.