Socialism v capitalism

[Serial_Apologist]

OK - thanks for answering that question - but it's still not "glaringly obvious" to me. Of course it's sensible to maintain a "planned economy", but how would you see one as wholly replacing the national and international market vagaries of which I wrote? More specifically, how would a "planned economy" offer an entirely alternative investment vehicle for all those corporate and private pension contributions? In what would they come to be invested if not in the market place?

The planned economy concept that has been raised on this thread could do away with investment in the market place by setting up its own fund. The planned economy would do away with all the vagaries, winners and losers, and all the concomitant degradations of spirit and motivation to do with purchasing product with inbuilt obsolescence and instability of value based on gambling schemes out of which todays turbocharged capitalism creates, perpetuates and widens the rich/poor divide. I believe such measures would garner massive popular support, including from those presently ineluctably implicated by virtue of financial schemes being beyond means of control, their own or, ultimately, anyone else's.

The market, incidentally, is by no means a mere "casino for the rich"; it's a casino for almost everyone who uses money, whether they like it or not, since most deposits in banks, building societies, National Savings and Investments and the like are invested in those markets so, in that sense, we are - much as I detest the phrase and its usage - "all in this together"!

My point is that the market disproportionately benefits those whose manipulations of it disproportionately determine the outcomes of everyone else.

[heliocentric]

The planned economy concept that has been raised on this thread could do away with investment in the market place by setting up its own fund. The planned economy would do away with all the vagaries, winners and losers, and all the concomitant degradations of spirit and motivation to do with purchasing product with inbuilt obsolescence and instability of value based on gambling schemes out of which todays turbocharged capitalism creates, perpetuates and widens the rich/poor divide. I believe such measures would garner massive popular support, including from those presently ineluctably implicated by virtue of financial schemes being beyond means of control, their own or, ultimately, anyone else's. (...) My point is that the market disproportionately benefits those whose manipulations of it disproportionately determine the outcomes of everyone else.

And there you have it.

[Serial_Apologist]

And there you have it.

Thanks helio.

AH will be back with the follow-up: how do we get from here to there? Be sure of that!

G'night all!

[heliocentric]

the follow-up: how do we get from here to there?

Not by obsessing myopically about relatively tiny details, that's for sure. If and when we do get there, however, it probably isn't going to be clear when the process began. Maybe it already has, with the 2008 financial crisis.

[ahinton]

The planned economy concept that has been raised on this thread could do away with investment in the market place by setting up its own fund. The planned economy would do away with all the vagaries, winners and losers, and all the concomitant degradations of spirit and motivation to do with purchasing product with inbuilt obsolescence and instability of value based on gambling schemes out of which todays turbocharged capitalism creates, perpetuates and widens the rich/poor divide. I believe such measures would garner massive popular support, including from those presently ineluctably implicated by virtue of financial schemes being beyond means of control, their own or, ultimately, anyone else's.

OK, but if such a fund were set up, how would growth on the investment be achieved? Without such investment growth, contributions would not increase in value over time and so would not build up a pension pot of sufficient value for the contributors to use to derive a pension income in retirement. The concept of inbuilt obsolescence of product is a quite different but important issue that certainly needs to be addressed, though quite how such a planned economy would be able magically and instantaneously to dispense with "all the vagaries, winners and losers, and all the concomitant degradations of spirit and motivation" is unclear.

You write that you "believe such measures would garner massive popular support"; assuming that we're all clear on precisely what those measures would be, why do you suppose that they appear not to have garnered such support already? After all, it's not as though the ideas behind them are so new that no one's yet had any opportunity to offer them support!

My point is that the market disproportionately benefits those whose manipulations of it disproportionately determine the outcomes of everyone else.

Well, that is of course true, but then doesn't it apply to almost everything in life rather than only the market? Isn't much of life built on - and doesn't most of it function within - disproportionalities of one kind and another? Doesn't humanity itself embrace and represent disproportionalities? Were these not the case, the need to find and dispense justice, for example, would surely be far less than it is.

I think that, to achieve anything remotely like the kind of "planned economy" that would do away with all of these things - even if such were technically possible in theory - there would need first to be a project for genetic modification of humans, frankly.

[ahinton]

Not by obsessing myopically about relatively tiny details, that's for sure.

Yes - pension planning or its manifold alternatives is a relatively tiny detail, of course; I seem to have overlooked that vital fact.

If and when we do get there, however, it probably isn't going to be clear when the process began. Maybe it already has, with the 2008 financial crisis.

"If and when we do get there", we will at least need to know where we were and that we were trying to go somewhere, presumably, but the process could never actually begin or end, surely, could it? The 2008 financial crisis? If a financial crisis must by definition be the starting point, why that one in particular and not any previous ones from the 90s, 80s, 70s or earlier? And what about the state "ninepence for fourpence" which sounds precisely like an invitation to gamble, does it not? - and it's hardly an invention of Camerosborne and their cronies, is it?!

It seems to me as though what you are advocating is - or at least presumes a requirement for - the wholesale abandonment of capitalism rather than its proper control and use for the benefit of society, if I interpret you correctly (which perhaps I don't, in which case I offer you due apology); get the majority of electorates the world over to sign up for that and stay signed up for it and then we'll see what motivation there would be to construct, implement and operate the kinds of "planned economy" to which you refer. Simple, really.

[heliocentric]

It seems to me as though what you are advocating is - or at least presumes a requirement for - the wholesale abandonment of capitalism rather than its proper control

Amazing, Holmes.

Suggesting that it can be controlled for the benefit of society is a bit like holding a loaded gun to your head and imagining that if you pull the trigger in a particular way your brains will remain intact. Capitalism didn't develop for the benefit of society but for the extraction of profit by one class from another. There's no way it can be teased into some other shape. "How would growth on the investment be achieved", you ask in an earlier post. "Economic growth" is not a solution, it's part of the problem. But clearly you cannot or will not perceive how limited your thinking is, so there's little point in continuing yet another discussion that you've brought creaking to a halt. I hope your music makes more use of your imagination than your political thinking!

[amateur51]

Amazing, Holmes.

Suggesting that it can be controlled for the benefit of society is a bit like holding a loaded gun to your head and imagining that if you pull the trigger in a particular way your brains will remain intact. Capitalism didn't develop for the benefit of society but for the extraction of profit by one class from another. There's no way it can be teased into some other shape. "How would growth on the investment be achieved", you ask in an earlier post. "Economic growth" is not a solution, it's part of the problem.

Very refreshing

[heliocentric]

Very refreshing

Why thank you.

Musing on the actual thread topic I found myself wondering how and why the "toffs vs. plebs" conflict has played out in the way it has within the Tory party. During the Thatcher years the plebs (like her and Tebbit) seemed to be in the ascendant, but now the toffs have reasserted their right to run the party (and, it seems, trample on the populace properly rather than in the vulgar and half-hearted way it was done in the 1980s). I imagine that one reason for this is that "New Labour" was a (successful) attempt to copy the look and feel (and policies) of the 1980s Tories, so that the latter were forced to mutate back into the atavistic class warriors we see today.

[PhilipT]

Whoever was on the committee would be administering money which would be invested. Investment is consumption foregone in anticipation of a future value stream. Now doubtless this committee would abide by the highest principles of equality of distribution, but wouldn't it also need to have at least some regard for the value of the investment? It would be denying everyone that foregone consumption, and some investments are better than others.

The record of such committees is not good. The dragons of the Dragon's Den do not have an unblemished record; how much confidence could the public have in anyone else, including the august personages suggested so far?

Here's a terribly democratic idea: Let each individual invest their own money. Only if they wanted to, mind. If they make a poor investment, well, it was their money to lose. If the business is a success it will need to employ people, which is a good thing. There's that terrible inconvenience that successful businesses make profits, which are a bad thing for reasons I can't fathom, but the founder of the business might otherwise be forced to rely on state handouts, so maybe we could let him keep some of those inconvenient profits in exchange for not claiming benefits. If someone starts a wallpaper business on his kitchen table and makes a fortune, let him keep it (less taxes), and spend what he keeps as he wishes. He might even decide to educate his children privately and save the state that expense. That's a good thing, isn't it? Oh - hang on ...

[heliocentric]

Here's a terribly democratic idea: Let each individual invest their own money.

Ah yes, a property qualification. Since the 19th century that hasn't been generally regarded as at all democratic when it's applied to electing representatives. What makes it more democratic when applied to being able to afford to eat when you're old?

[John Shelton]

Here's a terribly democratic idea: Let each individual invest their own money. Only if they wanted to, mind. If they make a poor investment, well, it was their money to lose. If the business is a success it will need to employ people, which is a good thing. There's that terrible inconvenience that successful businesses make profits, which are a bad thing for reasons I can't fathom, but the founder of the business might otherwise be forced to rely on state handouts, so maybe we could let him keep some of those inconvenient profits in exchange for not claiming benefits. If someone starts a wallpaper business on his kitchen table and makes a fortune, let him keep it (less taxes), and spend what he keeps as he wishes. He might even decide to educate his children privately and save the state that expense. That's a good thing, isn't it? Oh - hang on ...

Are you suggesting that some global body (with national branches) hold capital and each individual receives the sum of x (at a certain age, presumably) to hold on to or invest? Otherwise isn't there a slight problem to do with unequal a priori distribution of capital that undermines your otherwise elegant proposal?

[heliocentric]

isn't there a slight problem to do with unequal a priori distribution of capital

I may be mistaken but I think there are quite a few people around who for some reason don't view that as a problem.

[John Shelton]

Are you suggesting that some global body (with national branches) hold capital and each individual receives the sum of x (at a certain age, presumably) to hold on to or invest? Otherwise isn't there a slight problem to do with unequal a priori distribution of capital that undermines your otherwise elegant proposal?

I may be mistaken but I think there are quite a few people around who for some reason don't view that as a problem.

Ah. It rather undermines the "Here's a terribly democratic idea" claim, though.

[teamsaint]

Don't ask me, I never use the terms "right wing" and "left wing".

well this is close to the nub of the problem, the pretence that there is "left and right" , "good and bad" depending on what colour rosette you favour.
AIC has found some support for his views on unaccountable police activity...understandably.Problem is, viewed from the "right" this is probably just a short term issue.

As far as i am concerned, the only game in town is the unaccountable power of all sorts of people, bodies and institutions, which are serving, remorselessly, to divide our society (and world) into richer and poorer.This is going to lead to a more and more disfunctional society...and where that will take us , who knows.


Party politics is a game, with three teams on one side, and none on the other. Its pointless for now. Labour sold all its principles and then some...and on the wider stage, when things get nasty, extreme right and left, as history shows, are not so far apart.

sharing power, sharing wealth is a way forward. the other way lies disaster, in the end.