Socialism v capitalism

[heliocentric]

I find it strange that that is the kind of country you want to live in.

I said nothing about what kind of country I want to live in, but since you've apparently drawn your own conclusions, I would prefer to live in a country where power is not concentrated in the hands of so few individuals, be they Andrew Mitchell or police officers. The officers of course don't come out of this episode looking much better than Mitchell himself, but it isn't necessary to line up on one of these two "sides" or the other. To restate my previous post in different terms: the event under discussion is one in which the stresses and contradictions within the aforementioned power structure are brought to the surface, which is a step towards understanding them better (though you wouldn't think so to read some of the contributions to this thread), which in turn is a tiny component of the knowledge needed to overcome them eventually.

[Simon]

I would prefer to live in a country where power is not concentrated in the hands of so few individuals, be they Andrew Mitchell or police officers.

the event under discussion is one in which the stresses and contradictions within the aforementioned power structure are brought to the surface, which is a step towards understanding them better ... which in turn is a tiny component of the knowledge needed to overcome them eventually.

Fascinating. I'd be thrilled to know what sort of power structure you imagine might bring about the sort of society that you would wish to live in. Not to mention how you think your "contradictions" might be "overcome eventually". Have you been reading Mr Proudhon? Or perhaps, more dangerously, Mr. O'Connor? Or do you lean towards good old Karl?

[John Shelton]

You think it's a good thing that power is concentrated in the hands of so few individuals, Simon? That wealth is concentrated in the hands of so few individuals? That that concentration of wealth has become more pronounced over the past 30 years? That so many people's lives are determined from birth by economic dispossession?

[Resurrection Man]

You think it's a good thing that power is concentrated in the hands of so few individuals, Simon? That wealth is concentrated in the hands of so few individuals? That that concentration of wealth has become more pronounced over the past 30 years? That so many people's lives are determined from birth by economic dispossession?

You mean like Russia before the wall came down? Couldn't agree with you more. Mind you, China comes a close second.

[heliocentric]

I was talking about overcoming the power structures themselves, rather than the contradictions within them, though I see that wasn't clear and I've corrected the post accordingly.

No, not like China or the USSR; but like a democratic and egalitarian society organised for the benefit of all individuals within it rather than a small (and decreasing) number, and organised so as to be sustainable in the long term rather than profitable in the short term.

[John Shelton]

You mean like Russia before the wall came down? Couldn't agree with you more. Mind you, China comes a close second.

Yes, like Russia before the wall came down. And like Russia now. Like China, as well.

Do you spend a lot of your time when not on this message board trying to pick fights with strangers on entirely spurious grounds?

[John Shelton]

Yes, like Russia before the wall came down.

29 May 2011 Last updated at 11:36

Twenty years since the collapse of the Soviet Union, the gap between rich and poor is wider than ever.

The wealthy have largely recovered from the severe economic crisis, but the poor are actually worse than during communist times.

It's fast becoming a major social and economic problem, as it becomes clear that large parts of the population have not been able to benefit from the opportunities provided by the transition to a market economy.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-13575515

Cue being told I support the USSR, ignore Stalin's death camps, etc. etc.

[heliocentric]

Speaking of making statements less cumbersome,

my assertion (just like Barbirollian's of the complete veractity of the police story) was a baseless exaggeration

will do very nicely, thanks.

Since Marx has been mentioned: I would think that, even for those unfamiliar with or antipathetic towards Marxist ideas, it's at least worth considering the fact that this tradition of political thinking is the only one which provides both a coherent analysis of the causes and nature of the current global financial crisis and a coherent set of pointers towards strategies for removing those causes.

[teamsaint]

Well, as a lot on commentators have pointed out, if the economies of the west do come crashing down when the credit bubble really pops, it won't be those with no property who will suffer.

In the Uk, we have a rapidly increasing gap between rich and poor. Our health services are underfunded and being privatised, pensions are apparently a thing of the past unless you already have one, nuclear weapons are top of the government shopping list, we are fighting wars all over the place, ordinary people are working ever longer hours on frozen salaries, and all this at a time when GDP is no far off its highest ever level.you can add your own: Kids leaving 3 years of uni with £50k debts...just so that they can be educated to a minimum level for most jobs. Youth unemployment at stratospheric levels etc etc etc.

Why is this? where is the money really going? is this really how we want our society?
Somebody wants it all this way...these things don't happen by chance.
If you don't want change, perhaps its fear.Governments love fear. They try to frighten us all the time. They used to promise things...now they just say it will be even worse if you don't vote for them.....although of course, the three main parties are all in the pockets of banks and big business, so no good looking there for change.

Rant over...but more thoughtfully,,the so called discredited economies of the Soviet block. Well they no doubt had lots of problems....but there have been plenty of examples of failed western style economies, and our own model may well be teetering on the edge of disaster. It is spectacularly dangerous to risk all on an economic model that seems to be based on a vast , truly vast, bubble of credit. Just look at huge amount of compter generated euros propping up the european economy...or more specifically the banks. A smug belief that the markets will necessarily see us all right in the end is one of the great follies of all time.

[Serial_Apologist]

Well, as a lot on commentators have pointed out, if the economies of the west do come crashing down when the credit bubble really pops, it won't be those with no property who will suffer.

In the Uk, we have a rapidly increasing gap between rich and poor. Our health services are underfunded and being privatised, pensions are apparently a thing of the past unless you already have one, nuclear weapons are top of the government shopping list, we are fighting wars all over the place, ordinary people are working ever longer hours on frozen salaries, and all this at a time when GDP is no far off its highest ever level.you can add your own: Kids leaving 3 years of uni with £50k debts...just so that they can be educated to a minimum level for most jobs. Youth unemployment at stratospheric levels etc etc etc.

Why is this? where is the money really going? is this really how we want our society?
Somebody wants it all this way...these things don't happen by chance.
If you don't want change, perhaps its fear.Governments love fear. They try to frighten us all the time. They used to promise things...now they just say it will be even worse if you don't vote for them.....although of course, the three main parties are all in the pockets of banks and big business, so no good looking there for change.

I'm afraid it will be those with little or no property who will suffer, ts, those at the top can always secrete themselves and their ill-gottens away in the numerous well-protected () hideyholes we don't know about that they have in various parts of the world with "friendly" governments. For the rest, having bought into the illusions on which all that is spoken by wise people of identity, this will come as a terrible shock of the kind that can bring about death on retirement for one whose whole unquestioned sense of purpose has consisted in being exploited. The 20th/21st C skin-encapsulated ego is a very different animal from his or her 19th century counterpart who, having little to lose in the first place, lost nothing by banding together with his or her confreres and standing up to them; hence unless one has the experience of "alternative living", the fall will seem greater and the landing heavier.

As to where has all the money gone, much of it was printed in quantities way beyond the original values accrued in goods, bricks and mortar that should be the true measure, rather than ability to buy, to be later squandered on various gambling schemes to buy off us plebs in turn into believing it could go on forever, and was the only alternative.

[teamsaint]

I'm afraid it will be those with little or no property who will suffer, ts, those at the top can always secrete themselves and their ill-gottens away in the numerous well-protected () hideyholes we don't know about that they have in various parts of the world with "friendly" governments. For the rest, having bought into the illusions on which all that is spoken by wise people of identity, this will come as a terrible shock of the kind that can bring about death on retirement for one whose whole unquestioned sense of purpose has been being exploited. The 20th/21st C skin-e3ncapsulated ego is a very different animal from his or her 19th century counterpart who, having little to lose in the first place, lost nothing by banding together with his or her confreres and standing up to them; hence unless one has the experience of "alternative living", the fall will seem greater and the landing heavier.

As to where has all the money gone, much of it was printed in quantities way beyond the original values accrued in goods, bricks and mortar that should be the true measure, rather than ability to buy, to be later squandered on various gambling schemes to buy off us plebs in turn into believing it could go on forever, and was the only alternative.

My point about who has a lot to lose is that it is the people in the middle who have most to lose.......and who are perhaps resistant to change.

[scottycelt]

I'm delighted that you haven't demanded a strongly-worded explicit condemnation of every single aspect of the Soviet and Chinese systems of which you disapprove, signed in triplicate in the presence of a notary and one copy lodged at the Supreme Court.

No, I haven't 'demanded' anything, simply invited a clarification of your forum twin's view on a subject which he himself (or herself) raised.

You, yourself, have now raised the subject of the merits and demerits of the now defunct Soviet and (presumably) current Chinese systems, not me, so maybe you can elaborate on the actual point you wish to make?

[John Shelton]

As for summarising the other beardyman, it's already been done. The classic precis, at least when I was an undergraduate, was: "A big boring book about Victorian economics written by an old man with a beard buried in Highgate.".

I think you'll find he was buried after writing the book, though the Beckettian idea of a buried, bearded man writing is rather fine .

You haven't, as far as I can tell amid the sock puppetry accusations from Paranoiacs R Us, responded to my #199 to your #197:

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?

I don't imagine you are suggesting a global body to distribute initial capital: so it isn't "each individual" is it? There are instances of people who have started with nothing and finished up with a great deal, but they aren't in the slightest typical (which is presumably why they are so popular as examplars in the neo-liberal a-morality). What actually happens is nothing like "democratic" (and talk of equality of opportunity in a system so fundamentally unequal is basically just talk).

[PhilipT]

I don't imagine you are suggesting a global body to distribute initial capital: so it isn't "each individual" is it? There are instances of people who have started with nothing and finished up with a great deal, but they aren't in the slightest typical (which is presumably why they are so popular as examplars in the neo-liberal a-morality). What actually happens is nothing like "democratic" (and talk of equality of opportunity in a system so fundamentally unequal is basically just talk).

The nearest historical parallel we have to what happens if you try to start afresh with equal distribution of capital is the European colonisation of North America. All those heart-warming stories of aristocrats who brought servants with them and found that, before said servants had finished building a house for their master, they had gone off to build their own houses and establish their own farms and the masters were reduced to living in their carriages. Effectively, the capital the masters thought they had was devalued. A few hundred years on and perhaps we might agree that the resulting society is not particularly equal.

You could, of course, try to establish a society where all capital is held by the state (the Soviet Union), or where not only capital but also income is rigidly equalised and the ability to establish a worthwhile economic endeavour such as a business is rigidly controlled (Cuba). I don't see those as particularly successful economic experiments. To answer the question that keeps cropping up here, the point of economic growth is that is makes the people as a whole better off. Yes, there's then a question of how the benefit is distributed. I don't suggest that there should be no limits to inequality or no safety net for the poor, far from it, but I do suggest that without room for inequality there's no incentive for any individual to strive.

[heliocentric]

the point of economic growth is that is makes the people as a whole better off

No it doesn't. Since the drive to economic growth leads necessarily to reckless exploitation of finite natural resources, not to mention the kind of rapacious exploitation of the third world which involves grabbing those resources and then selling them back to people who can't afford them (to give one particularly egregious example), it can only ultimately lead to rendering the planet uninhabitable. That is the logic of "perpetual growth".