Democracy and capitalism dying in U.K and west?

[anonymous-user]

I think we are at the start of a major breakdown in democracy and capitalism in the west and the mess in the Tory party is just a very small part of a wider problem

Our politics are totally corrosive. Right or left it’s the same aggressive foul mouthed mud throwing. Nothing offered by either extremes. The middle can’t operate as both main parties can be demolished their own extremists

The MSM love to add to the corrosive mix by sensational reporting, using language not fit for broadcasters. The favourites in the media always think they know better and the style of broadcasting is now not good for anyone’s mental well being

Big business in the west has been allowed to make far too much profit at the expense of those who pay their wages. No Government will deal with it due to unhealthy lobbying industry

People should be able to earn a decent wage but across the western world business exploits cheap labour.

Those that are meant to uphold law and order like the Police and courts no longer function.

Populations across the west have had enough. Our enemies can see the disarray and use social media to stir more discontent

What we currently see in the U.K. is just a small step in what will be the breakdown of Democracy and capitalism

Politics is so low rent these days you look at what any party has in terms of competence and soon realise that we haven’t a chance. You look into their eyes and nobody is in they have nothing to offer

The future is being run by extremists and anarchists fighting to break up what remains of a decent society. There is little chance of a decent future for those in their 20’s or 30’s.

[ZedLeg]

Democracy and capitalism aren't related.

I'd love to see capitalism as it currently runs fail but that has no bearing on how I would like government to run. The fact that UK and US governments will protect capitalism at the expense of the population is one of the many stty long term effects of Thatcher/reaganomics.

[Dingu]

cc3 said:

The MSM love to add to the corrosive mix by sensational reporting, using language not fit for broadcasters. The favourites in the media always think they know better and the style of broadcasting is now not good for anyone’s mental well being

This thread is similarly sensationalist to be honest. But hypocritical to call them out on it while scaremongering really.

[BS62]

The post is basically a collection of tabloid headlines.

[Dr Jekyll]

ZedLeg said:

Democracy and capitalism aren't related.

I'd love to see capitalism as it currently runs fail but that has no bearing on how I would like government to run. The fact that UK and US governments will protect capitalism at the expense of the population is one of the many stty long term effects of Thatcher/reaganomics.

Trying to think of a democratic country that isn't capitalist......

[Four Litre]

Sadly all seems too true.

Where we go from here, nobody really knows. I think the population has had enough of the huge gap between the have and have nots which I guess is a result of capitalism at route cause.

I think we need another party apart from Labour and Conservative, both have failed and ask yourself, if either was a company would you invest in either. The answer would a definitive No! from the majority with their heads screwed on.

My own thoughts are that eventually another party will rise up to fill the void and capitalism V2.0 will take the lead. How long this takes is anyone's guess.

Lobbying from big business is a huge problem for democracy across the western world. Look at the recent IR35 changes, all lobbied by big business to put the small guy out of work. Its worked out very, very well for the big consultancies as they have now taken the lions share of work in the UK. This behavior must be going on 10 fold every day.

[Largechris]

This is why I'm standing in the next GE. As an untouchable candidate.

OP should as well if he wants change.

[ZedLeg]

Dr Jekyll said:

ZedLeg said:

Democracy and capitalism aren't related.

I'd love to see capitalism as it currently runs fail but that has no bearing on how I would like government to run. The fact that UK and US governments will protect capitalism at the expense of the population is one of the many stty long term effects of Thatcher/reaganomics.

Trying to think of a democratic country that isn't capitalist......

There are degrees though, you can have a well managed capitalist economy with a socialist government that supports people. What we have is a government that has taken the business view that the population is a resource to be exploited and the profits of the companies must be protected at all costs.

Politically I'd like to see a lot more socialism and a lot less capitalist greed but I'm realistic enough to accept that any change will be baby steps.

Edited by ZedLeg on Thursday 20th October 11:42

[Dr Jekyll]

ZedLeg said:

There are degrees though, you can have a well managed capitalist society with a socialist government that supports people. What we have is a government that has taken the business view that the population is a resource to be exploited and the profits of the companies must be protected at all costs.

Politically I'd like to see a lot more socialism and a lot less capitalist greed but I'm realistic enough to accept that any change will be baby steps.

Capitalism means people are allowed to own capital, if the govt allows that then they are a capitalist government not a socialist one.

You can't define socialism as 'supporting people' or any other vague but desirable sounding result. That way any socialist experiment which ruins people's lives can be dismissed retrospectively as 'not really socialism', followed of course by 'socialism has never been properly tried' when in reality it's been tried time and time again and failed.

The capitalism vs socialism argument isn't about whether to support people, but how to.

[Hereward]

In the run-up to the 2019 GE John McDonnell did an excellent job of terrifying people about "Socialism". Shame, because it seems we do need a change of direction. Strategically important elements (eg energy & water) should be controlled by the state, not private shareholders.

I think "Ethical Capitalism" (if that's not an oxymoron) is the way to go, if such a thing is even possible. More profit should be re-invested, not distributed and lost from the system as dividends.

With regard to resolving the issue of inept politicians and our doom-laden media...my tiny brain doesn't know where to even start...

Edited by Hereward on Thursday 20th October 12:07

[ZedLeg]

Dr Jekyll said:

ZedLeg said:

There are degrees though, you can have a well managed capitalist society with a socialist government that supports people. What we have is a government that has taken the business view that the population is a resource to be exploited and the profits of the companies must be protected at all costs.

Politically I'd like to see a lot more socialism and a lot less capitalist greed but I'm realistic enough to accept that any change will be baby steps.

Capitalism means people are allowed to own capital, if the govt allows that then they are a capitalist government not a socialist one.

You can't define socialism as 'supporting people' or any other vague but desirable sounding result. That way any socialist experiment which ruins people's lives can be dismissed retrospectively as 'not really socialism', followed of course by 'socialism has never been properly tried' when in reality it's been tried time and time again and failed.

The capitalism vs socialism argument isn't about whether to support people, but how to.

Socialism isn't wholesale removal of capital from people, that's communism.

The current view within capitalism is that any support of people is too much. I've had people on here asking me why I wasn't working harder when I said my partner is on benefits due to ill health.

My personal view is that anything that is vital to the national infrastructure shouldn't be in private hands, same with public transport. People would get UBI and we'd have a simplified overall tax and benefit system.

On the other hand if Starbucks and McDonalds want to do business here then they can, as long as they pay their staff a decent wage and pay what they owe in tax (actually owe not what they work out after they run their franchise scam and claim all their profits in the netherlands ).

[BS62]

Seems to me most people's idea of socialism means "take some away from the rich and give it to us."

Thing is, they won't draw that red line under the top 0.1% you think they should, as it's that lot who'll be drawing the red line.

They will start at the bottom and work upwards. That means you, comrades.

[BS62]

ZedLeg said:

Socialism isn't wholesale removal of capital from people, that's communism.

The current view within capitalism is that any support of people is too much. I've had people on here asking me why I wasn't working harder when I said my partner is on benefits due to ill health.

My personal view is that anything that is vital to the national infrastructure shouldn't be in private hands, same with public transport. People would get UBI and we'd have a simplified overall tax and benefit system.

On the other hand if Starbucks and McDonalds want to do business here then they can, as long as they pay their staff a decent wage and pay what they owe in tax (actually owe not what they work out after they run their franchise scam and claim all their profits in the netherlands ).

While my last post was pithy and tongue-in-cheek, you have brilliantly articulated my actual thoughts.

[Dr Jekyll]

Hereward said:

In the run-up to the 2019 GE John McDonnell did an excellent job of terrifying people about "Socialism". Shame, because it seems we do need a change of direction. Strategically important elements (eg energy & water) should be controlled by the state, not private shareholders. More profit should be re-invested, not distributed as dividends.

I think "Ethical Capitalism" (if that's not an oxymoron) is the way to go, if such a thing is even possible.

With regard to resolving the issue of inept politicians and our doom-laden media...my tiny brain doesn't know where to even start...

This is the problem with McDonnell's proposal. The profit was to be used to finance the loans that paid for buying the business, and for re investment, and for higher pay, and to reduce prices.

If you don't have capital from shareholders who want dividends, you have it from lenders who want interest, it's a tough old world.

Anyway food is strategically important and we let the private sector provide that because they are better at it than the state. It's when the soviets got to look at western supermarkets that they realised their system just wasn't working.

[ZedLeg]

BS62 said:

Seems to me most people's idea of socialism means "take some away from the rich and give it to us."

Thing is, they won't draw that red line under the top 0.1% you think they should, as it's that lot who'll be drawing the red line.

They will start at the bottom and work upwards. That means you, comrades.

Look out for the Marx quote, you might want to sit down

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs"

There's no expectation that socialist policy will only affect the well off, just that everyone will pay a proportionally fair amount towards making a society that everyone can live comfortably in. The idea that some people should suffer to support a system that only rewards a small percentage of people at the top is backwards.

[Dr Jekyll]

ZedLeg said:

Look out for the Marx quote, you might want to sit down

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs"

There's no expectation that socialist policy will only affect the well off, just that everyone will pay a proportionally fair amount towards making a society that everyone can live comfortably in. The idea that some people should suffer to support a system that only rewards a small percentage of people at the top is backwards.

Exactly the philosophy that's resulted in certain demographics being more keen on acquiring needs in the shape of children they can't afford to look after, than on staying on at school or college to get some useful abilities.

[ZedLeg]

Dr Jekyll said:

ZedLeg said:

Look out for the Marx quote, you might want to sit down

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs"

There's no expectation that socialist policy will only affect the well off, just that everyone will pay a proportionally fair amount towards making a society that everyone can live comfortably in. The idea that some people should suffer to support a system that only rewards a small percentage of people at the top is backwards.

Exactly the philosophy that's resulted in certain demographics being more keen on acquiring needs in the shape of children they can't afford to look after, than on staying on at school or college to get some useful abilities.

If we gave people UBI and stopped hinging benefits on having kids or not being well then that "problem" would solve itself.

[Dingu]

Dr Jekyll said:

Exactly the philosophy that's resulted in certain demographics being more keen on acquiring needs in the shape of children they can't afford to look after, than on staying on at school or college to get some useful abilities.

As long as said children become contributing members of society (admittedly there is a point that is likely to be debated there) in the main we may need them as the population ages unless we want to means test stuff like state pensions and healthcare.
The amount of people not having children is only going up.

[Biggy Stardust]

ZedLeg said:

Look out for the Marx quote, you might want to sit down

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs"

There's no expectation that socialist policy will only affect the well off, just that everyone will pay a proportionally fair amount towards making a society that everyone can live comfortably in. The idea that some people should suffer to support a system that only rewards a small percentage of people at the top is backwards.

And then some decide to not bother striving as they'll only be dragged down to support those who also didn't bother.

[2xChevrons]

cc3 said:

Big business in the west has been allowed to make far too much profit at the expense of those who pay their wages. No Government will deal with it due to unhealthy lobbying industry

People should be able to earn a decent wage but across the western world business exploits cheap labour.

Those that are meant to uphold law and order like the Police and courts no longer function.

These are all the inevitable end results of under-regulated, under-restrained, under-stewarded capitalism. They are capitalism's inherent tendencies and contradictions. Left insufficiently checked, capitalism will always drive down wages and working conditions, will always cause wealth to amass in the hands of those who hold capital and will inevitably lead to fewer and fewer people being able to hold that capital. It will always subvert social and democratic systems and services (such as politics, law enforcement, education etc.) to its own ends of extracting and maximising wealth in the hands of a few and keeping everyone else at the barest level of existence where they are still economically useful.

And that's not some radical left-wing view - almost everyone who has analysed capitalism as a socio-economic system, from Ricardo and Smith to Marx and George has come to this conclusion; capitalism is like nuclear power - a fearsomely, unimaginably dynamic and productive force that can achieve things otherwise unknown in human civilisation, but if left unmanaged and uncontained it will inevitably lead to its own destruction due to its inherent self-defeating forces. As surely as a nuclear reactor without any moderating material will explode and destroy itself via the very processes that make it so powerful.

Before Austrian economics, Hayek, the Chicago School and neoliberalism muscled their way to the consensus in the West this was well understood. There's a reason why in the 1940s and 1950s, when America was rebuilding the post-war world and creating Europe as the 'shop window' of capitalism across from the Iron Curtain, it did so on the basis of strongly redistributive and socially-dispersed capitalism, with interventionist governments and commonly-held infrastructure providing the foundations and the 'lubrication' for a sustainable and thriving capitalist economy.

ZedLeg said:

Socialism isn't wholesale removal of capital from people, that's communism.

The current view within capitalism is that any support of people is too much. I've had people on here asking me why I wasn't working harder when I said my partner is on benefits due to ill health.

My personal view is that anything that is vital to the national infrastructure shouldn't be in private hands, same with public transport. People would get UBI and we'd have a simplified overall tax and benefit system.

On the other hand if Starbucks and McDonalds want to do business here then they can, as long as they pay their staff a decent wage and pay what they owe in tax (actually owe not what they work out after they run their franchise scam and claim all their profits in the netherlands ).

Capitalism = When the means of production is held privately.
Socialism = When the means of production is held socially

Social democracy = A form of capitalism teamed with social ownership of key infrastructure, wealth redistribution, strong economic regulation and extensive social welfare provisions.
Democratic socialism = A socialist system within a broad framework of a market economy, overseen by democratic political systems.
Communism = A socialist system without a state, without money and without social classes or divisions where the means of production, distribution and exchange are all in common ownership controlled by voluntary self-governance.