'well balanced critique .... of capitalism ' ???
More like a mix of anti-capitalist mis-representations and strawmen - together with some genuine abuses that decent free-marketeers would condemn as monopolistic aberations.
Question for our resident experts.
- Thread starter GRSGimmer
- Start date
More like a mix of anti-capitalist mis-representations and strawmen - together with some genuine abuses that decent free-marketeers would condemn as monopolistic aberations.
Jerryattrick
Vital Football Hero
Not my view - which is more like....
Conservatives - least bad
Socialists - immoral and beyond the pale.
(note: not gratuitous abuse)
Interesting that you think it important to understand political 'theory' rather than see practical outcomes.
I can't say I'm that bothered by the nuances of different socialist 'theories' - unless you can cite a faction that does NOT put the collective before the individual.
I put rather more priority on practicalities that prioritise freedom of the (responsible) individual.
As for 'history'. That hasn't gone well for socialism.
Maybe if you knew some history then we could have a discussion. History has also not gone well for many things at some tome, by your argument everything that gets stopped or distorted proves it was bad. Up until 1918 you could say that fighting for the vote had not gone well.
All socialists immoral - well what a thought out argument. Shall not waste my time if your brain is closed. Have you even studied the outcomes and reasons for those outcomes, obviously not.
Exactly what was the downfall of Chile and El Salvador or Cuba or China or Vietnam, you certainly would not understand the USSR.
You emoji shows where you are on the political discussion but then you believe that socialists (not liberal identity politics) all read the guardian lol.
Wayne.Kerr
Vital Champions League
The only problem with that is that a strong social and welfare state is the antithesis of a capitalist system. Take the Tories and how they have systematically cut back on things like benefits and the NHS. Boris, Gove, Raab, Patel and so on voted against increases for NHS staff.
Ok, fair enough. I do actually know some people who really do mean what you said.
How's your missus getting on btw?
markinkent
Vital Football Hero
Government sold a negative bond last week. Good news that borrowing has never been cheaper as this government will be doing lots of it.
nitram77
Vital 1st Team Regular
Thanks for asking 58, I took her to the Kims hospital at 07.30 this morning for her covid and blood tests, if the covid tests come back clear then she goes in tomorrow morning at 08.00 for the catheterisation.
What "history" do you want me to know ?
Quite frankly, I'm not much interested in the difference of emphasis between members of the JPF and the PFJ.
History is something we should learn from ..... but how much micro-detail - and who's "interpretation" ?
I'd rather prioritise the here and now.
Sorry JA.
Did you miss my 3 or 4 posts offering up definitions of Socialism ?
i.e.
- Promoting re-distribution of wealth
- See an inequality of outcome as evidence of an injustice that requires correction, backed by law.
"Taxation is theft" seems a good place to start.
So there needs to be a damn good reason to take any money from anyone.
Then if some people do pay more - for no extra benefit or protection - then surely the "morality" of differential confiscation merits discussion ?
(Look up "Beer and Tax analogy" for a practical explanation.)
The moment that redistribution becomes the driver - so tax simply for being "rich", i.e. regardless of whether wealth was acquired honourably....
....IMO that is "immoral".
So far I haven't spotted anyone saying. "Oh. Tarian you misunderstand. It's not like that at all. Let me clarify for you."
Sorry. "outcomes" of what ?
Chile etc ? Again, not sure of the point.
Which emoji ?
"all" ?
I suspect that some socialists read the Mirror, Independent or Observer.
Again, you appear to "interpret" something not actually said.
(Is this a common occurrence by anti-Cons, anti-free-speechers anti-capitalists, anti "right wing" ?)
How hard was it to think "most" ?
(You're normally better than others at avoiding exaggeration.)
p.s. Why "not liberal identity politics" with socialists ?
Are you telling me there is not a large overlap ? That many socialists do not support identity politics ?
Actually, seeing that the Guardian has a circulation of only 130,000, then perhaps I'm mistaken.
So from where do socialists get their info ?
Only for completeness.
£ year bond yielding minus .003% p.a.
The bond actually pays 0.75% p.a. interest - but investors paid over par.
Very roughly that means that investors paid over £102 for every £100 face value.
And it was £ 3.75 Billion (not £100 million)
For those who think this is only good news ......
Which of your Pension Funds are buying this stuff ?
Jerryattrick
Vital Football Hero
Only the here and now. That explains it all - nothing to learn from history!
I have nothing against good capitalism and I am 100% for free speech and freedom of the individual and I know all of the darkness of failed revolutions and systems but as history does not matter I have wasted my time.
A lack of understanding of what is going on in the background of any event (based on history or research) just puts you into punch and judy discussions.
Strange that many of us did not get our information from the media.
You are like a person discussing christianity but have never read the bible only listened to your betters - the church.
No wonder you don't see the strings - dance on :)
Last edited:
Jerry. You disappoint - at risk of following in the footsteps of you-know-who.
Critics who either read/hear only what they want to .... or deliberately mis-quote.
Did I not write :
'History is something we should learn from......" ?
