Capitalism vs Socialism - Your View?

[Dynamite Duane]

In theory the idea of economic equality sounds good but it restricts freedom if everyone is only allowed a certain amount of financial wealth.

And having something like 80% of the wealth in the hands of 20% of the population doesn't?

I agree, it isn't right that a small percentage of the population have more than the majority, but at the same time I'm not so sure about the state having so much control. It's a tricky one, I'm not sure the answer, but the status quo needs to change for the better.

 

I'm all for equality but we need to maintain freedoms and not allow the state have too much control. We elect those into power to serve us, not the other way around. The way things currently are there is too much state control from the EU and our government/s having betrayed us.

[Carbomb]

In theory the idea of economic equality sounds good but it restricts freedom if everyone is only allowed a certain amount of financial wealth.

And having something like 80% of the wealth in the hands of 20% of the population doesn't?

I agree, it isn't right that a small percentage of the population have more than the majority, but at the same time I'm not so sure about the state having so much control. It's a tricky one, I'm not sure the answer, but the status quo needs to change for the better.

 

I'm all for equality but we need to maintain freedoms and not allow the state have too much control. We elect those into power to serve us, not the other way around. The way things currently are there is too much state control from the EU and our government/s having betrayed us.

 

This is one of those paradoxes of modern Western society: if the state is truly democratically elected and accountable, then surely its control is our own, and thus we have our own freedom? The British establishment, mainly the government and the media, likes to crow about how we live in a democracy, but in actual fact we live in an oligarchy; democratically elected, sure, but an oligarchy nonetheless.

 

Also, there is nowadays far too much emphasis placed on the American interpretation of "freedom" - to listen to them, particularly the Republicans, you'd think absolute and unadulterated freedom is the only kind worth having. Europe, however, has a different intellectual history concerning freedom, recognising that absolute freedom is impossible, that controls are needed to ensure that people enjoy all the rights and freedoms that make a difference to one's life. We don't generally get it right on a regular basis, but I feel it's a significant and necessary difference. People complain about things like "Incitement To Racial Hatred" laws, but they fall within the realm of Western European constitutional tradition, i.e. that personal freedoms should never impinge upon those of others.

 

Lastly, Duane, the main contention I have with your last sentence (not that I'm defening the status quo) is that you appear to think the people in general will do a better job of running this country. In a previous era, when people actually gave a shit about politics, I might have agreed, but in the current climate, where the vast majority are apathetic and have anaesthetised by the media, I don't trust them to run shit.

 

I've always felt the best possible form of government, in theory, would be a benevolent dictatorship; able to run things without having to worry about political obstacles or "watering down" of policies to please people, able to make unpopular but effective decisions without having to worry about being voted out, and a massive chunk of bureaucracy removed - but of course, in practice, this is not only incredibly unlikely, it would also be impossible to guarantee to maintain, given the way human beings work.

[d-d-d-dAz]

This is one of those paradoxes of modern Western society: if the state is truly democratically elected and accountable, then surely its control is our own, and thus we have our own freedom? The British establishment, mainly the government and the media, likes to crow about how we live in a democracy, but in actual fact we live in an oligarchy; democratically elected, sure, but an oligarchy nonetheless.

 

Not really, because that form of freedom absolute is inherently not a democracy, and instead is essentially anarchy.

 

Democracy is dependent on the Hobbesian social contract which says that as a society we bequeath a certain level of sovereignty to a central government in order for a guarantee of certain securities. That doesn't water down democracy, in fact it defines it.

[Carbomb]

This is one of those paradoxes of modern Western society: if the state is truly democratically elected and accountable, then surely its control is our own, and thus we have our own freedom? The British establishment, mainly the government and the media, likes to crow about how we live in a democracy, but in actual fact we live in an oligarchy; democratically elected, sure, but an oligarchy nonetheless.

 

Not really, because that form of freedom absolute is inherently not a democracy, and instead is essentially anarchy.

 

Democracy is dependent on the Hobbesian social contract which says that as a society we bequeath a certain level of sovereignty to a central government in order for a guarantee of certain securities. That doesn't water down democracy, in fact it defines it.

 

Where do you think the Athenian model of democracy would fit in, based on that premise? Barring the historically Athens-specific conditions of barring freedmen, resident foreigners and women from voting, the essential basis is that every citizen has a vote in every decision made by the government, rather than delegating - indeed, the citizens form the government. I wasn't thinking of anarchy when I made that point originally, because there still had to be a governmental structure in place.

 

And why do you feel Hobbes is or should be the only referent for definitions of democracy?

 

Genuine questions - you're the specialist here, so I'd be most interested in your responses.

[d-d-d-dAz]

'Democracy', like any other political ideology (let's not fall into the trap of assuming that its the only legitimate system), has come about as an organic construct with peoples taking on various literature influence and historic precedence, and discarding what they see as inexpedient. All other democratic arguments and justifications 'orbit' Hobbes, if you like, because Hobbes' work, like Augustine's as concerns Just War, spoke to the fundamentals of a system that at the time, people want to aspire towards. It acknowledged the state as a 'Leviathan' that ultimately was separate from the populous, but tempered that with the idea as to how, ultimately, that is an inclusive system because if the government of the day betrays their obligations as concerns the narrowly defined 'securities', they defaulted on their obligation to the public and were susceptible to revolt. This idea underpins much political philosophy, Marx for example suggests that revolution will only be viable when, amongst other things, the government stop being able to guarantee a certain level of 'existence' to its subjects.

 

You could argue as an aside, that the reason as a people we require an authoritative, credible 'leviathan' to watch over us is because of generations of absolute monarchism have bred in us an inherent need for subordination. You could also argue that that is bollocks but, you know, SOCIOLOGY~

 

To tie it into your argument about Athenian democracy (or, facetiously, Tony Benn Democracy), the caveat to the traditional Hobbesian argument of bequeathing personal sovereignty to a supposedly more capable construct that will act in your stead, is that on occasion you will not necessarily know what is best for you, nor will you choose a course of actions that, in the long term, is in your best interest. As much as the ballot box seeks to give legitimacy to the idea of a 'liberal democracy', it's ultimately a bit of an oxymoron as the liberal foundation of all people acting in their own interests will ultimately equal the societies best interests is at odds with democracies foundation of the leviathan (state) being better served to govern in your interests, than you are.

 

And, to an extent, I agree. That's why I'd class myself as a 'democratic socialist' then a revolutionary one, I do believe in the ideas of accountable democratic structures, but that accountability to the people is as ultimately limited by democracy as the ability of governments to act without account.

 

Also, democracy by referendum would be so clunky and unworkable we'd be better off shooting ourselves dead, anyway.

[Dynamite Duane]

@Carbomb there are some good people out there who could do well running the country, some who have been elected already I'm sure. I'm going throw the idea out there of what if there wasn't political parties?

 

There are a good few people that run as independents in elections, but you know what these people have little chance of making it into office due to lack of financial backing that comes from established political parties.

 

Then we also have MPs who are good and decent but have to tow the line of the party.

 

I voted UKIP seeing as I agreed with their core policy of leaving the EU, but personally I think it's brilliant to vote for an independent candidate without the party ties. The 3 established parties are corrupt in my opinion.

[David]

Despite this statement being written almost 100 years ago, I think it still rings true today;

 

Capital must protect itself in every possible manner by combination and legislation.

 

Debts must be collected, bonds and mortgages must be foreclosed as rapidly as possible.

 

When, through a process of law, the common people lose their homes they will become more docile and more easily governed through the influence of the strong arm of government, applied by a central power of wealth under control of leading financiers.

 

This truth is well known among our principal men now engaged in forming an imperialism of Capital to govern the world.

 

By dividing the voters through the political party system, we can get them to expend their energies in fighting over questions of no importance.

 

Thus by discreet action we can secure for ourselves what has been so well planned and so successfully accomplished.

[mikey]

I agree with a more stringent capitalist framework. My fiancee works as a nanny for rich people, a job she hates but feels trapped in because the money is very good. These people never give to charity, they penny-pinch and then squander when it's the most selfish opportunity to do so. One woman we know, who makes me sick, has her dad pay for everything and then cries and has a nervous breakdown because her dad did a bad business deal and had to sell the house in Chamonix with the private ski slope. It's times like that which convince me that gifts to your children should be heavily-taxed and inheritance tax should be 100%. Close the loopholes. These people get all the advantages in life; the best schools, the best universities, contacts. These people have the advantages to get ahead of others and then rest on their laurels.

 

My fiancee and I live in a nice area but we struggle somewhat. Her bosses have never had to rent a place. Their first flat was given to them by their parents. They hold down very good jobs but, of course they do, their fathers have money and contacts and they went to boarding schools and top universities through that influence and money.

[Steveo2007]

I agree with a more stringent capitalist framework. My fiancee works as a nanny for rich people, a job she hates but feels trapped in because the money is very good. These people never give to charity, they penny-pinch and then squander when it's the most selfish opportunity to do so. One woman we know, who makes me sick, has her dad pay for everything and then cries and has a nervous breakdown because her dad did a bad business deal and had to sell the house in Chamonix with the private ski slope. It's times like that which convince me that gifts to your children should be heavily-taxed and inheritance tax should be 100%. Close the loopholes. These people get all the advantages in life; the best schools, the best universities, contacts. These people have the advantages to get ahead of others and then rest on their laurels.

 

My fiancee and I live in a nice area but we struggle somewhat. Her bosses have never had to rent a place. Their first flat was given to them by their parents. They hold down very good jobs but, of course they do, their fathers have money and contacts and they went to boarding schools and top universities through that influence and money.

I have to say I disagree with this. It's not right to penalise and tax the rich for simply being rich. Sure, they should pay a bit more in taxes, but to take a resentful stance against the wealthy doesn't really help anyone. If the father chooses to give his daughter everything and make her the typical spoiled idiot, then that's his choice, he has earned that money and has every right to do whatever he chooses with his money.

[Kenny McBride]

Maybe so, but if you eliminate inheritance tax (as so many right-wingers across the western world want to do these days), what incentive is there for the child of rich parents to ever contribute anything to society? Al Franken noted that between the removal of inheritance tax AND capital gains tax, the biggest tax breaks in America are for the children of the extremely wealthy, and there sure is nothing more American than creating a permanent aristocracy. In this country, we spent centuries trying to reduce the scope of the upper class, and now we're re-creating it through an ass-backwards tax system. 100% inheritance tax might seem unfair, but how is it fair that the very rich should have all society's benefits without contributing anything while at the same time demonising the very poor who are stuck in the benefits system with no real way out due to lack of opportunity? I wouldn't say 100% of everything. One house and maybe a family business up to a reasonable value should be tax free. Beyond that, though, get that money into circulation because you can't take it with you and you can't leave it behind.

[Steveo2007]

Maybe so, but if you eliminate inheritance tax (as so many right-wingers across the western world want to do these days), what incentive is there for the child of rich parents to ever contribute anything to society? Al Franken noted that between the removal of inheritance tax AND capital gains tax, the biggest tax breaks in America are for the children of the extremely wealthy, and there sure is nothing more American than creating a permanent aristocracy. In this country, we spent centuries trying to reduce the scope of the upper class, and now we're re-creating it through an ass-backwards tax system. 100% inheritance tax might seem unfair, but how is it fair that the very rich should have all society's benefits without contributing anything while at the same time demonising the very poor who are stuck in the benefits system with no real way out due to lack of opportunity? I wouldn't say 100% of everything. One house and maybe a family business up to a reasonable value should be tax free. Beyond that, though, get that money into circulation because you can't take it with you and you can't leave it behind.

The rich pay taxes do they not? Ultimately, the money has to go somewhere and is earned from somewhere, it's still the right of the person who has earned that wealth to say that they want their estate to go to their children. 100% Inheritance Tax is just so wrong in my view as it essentially takes away the last choice a person ever gets to make and that's who gets their money. Where's the incentive for families who have generations which have lived on welfare to get a job when they appear to be perfectly comfortable collecting their money every fortnight.

[King Pitcos]

Maybe so, but if you eliminate inheritance tax (as so many right-wingers across the western world want to do these days), what incentive is there for the child of rich parents to ever contribute anything to society? Al Franken noted that between the removal of inheritance tax AND capital gains tax, the biggest tax breaks in America are for the children of the extremely wealthy, and there sure is nothing more American than creating a permanent aristocracy. In this country, we spent centuries trying to reduce the scope of the upper class, and now we're re-creating it through an ass-backwards tax system. 100% inheritance tax might seem unfair, but how is it fair that the very rich should have all society's benefits without contributing anything while at the same time demonising the very poor who are stuck in the benefits system with no real way out due to lack of opportunity? I wouldn't say 100% of everything. One house and maybe a family business up to a reasonable value should be tax free. Beyond that, though, get that money into circulation because you can't take it with you and you can't leave it behind.

Hasn't the money already been taxed once, when it was originally earned?

[Kenny McBride]

That depends. Extremely rich people tend to pay a lower rate of tax than you or I because they have accountants to move the money around for a more "tax efficient" result.

 

Where's the incentive for families who have generations which have lived on welfare to get a job when they appear to be perfectly comfortable collecting their money every fortnight.

 

I never said I don't want people who are claiming benefits without looking for work to be encouraged to do something, but I see far less benefit in demonising them than in punishing those those can afford to avoid tax in the first place then use that accumulated wealth to enable their children to never have to work at all.

[David]

The rich pay taxes do they not?

Well, that's debatable.

 

Back in 2007 a report was released that determined that of the more than 400 UK-based individuals who earn or are capable of earning more than

[Loki]

Here's the problem as regards tax - the best and brightest minds in tax law end up working in the private sectors for firms such as PriceWaterhouseCoopers, where they are paid 6 figure salaries to find loopholes in tax law.

 

The HMRC will always lag behind these people as, to put it crudely, they employ the less bright and brilliant minds. And that's assuming that the government in power at the time even wants to close tax loopholes. The last Labour government clearly had little interest in closing the non-dom loophole.

 

Generally speaking though we're talking about a tiny elite of multimillionaires; the vast majority of "the rich" pay absolutely shedloads of tax. As Pity said above, once you've earned your wage and paid a big chunk of tax on it, why the hell can't you leave it to your family when you die? For me, the inheritance threshold is too low - I see plenty of people forced to sell off the family home as it is worth more than the the threshold and the estate has no other assets that it can dispose of to pay the tax.