Capitalism vs Socialism - Your View?

[Kenny McBride]

I'm sure glad we could have this interesting discussion on rational terms rather than resorting to completely irrelevant, snide and nasty attacks on me based on my religio...oh. Never mind.

[Loki]

It's completely relevant. You just don't like being caught out in a contradiction.

[Kenny McBride]

What contradiction? The government of the Church is completely different to the government of a nation state. I'm not even sure the Vatican as a state collects taxes.

[Chest Rockwell]

If it's not a 'proper' state then why are taxpayers paying for the Pope's visit to England? Your previous rationalisation was that it's a state visit. You can't have it both ways..

[David]

If it's not a 'proper' state then why are taxpayers paying for the Pope's visit to England?

And Scotland.

[Kenny McBride]

I never said it wasn't a "proper state". I just said that talking about the government of the Church as a way to take a dig at me in a completely unrelated discussion is an extremely weak argument. Also, bigoted.

[Yoghurt]

I never said it wasn't a "proper state". I just said that talking about the government of the Church as a way to take a dig at me in a completely unrelated discussion is an extremely weak argument. Also, bigoted.

 

Given the absolutely deplorable hateful nonsense you have spouted over, and over, and over, and over, and over again, you should be forbidden to ever use that word. You are the living epitome of that word in every single sense.

[Carbomb]

"Obviously, you're talking bollocks as per usual. Aristocracy is a system of rule by unelected prominent citizens; the Catholic Church and the Vatican is an aristocracy, for example. You're confusing that with social stratification through inherited wealth."

 

 

Do you want me to recommend a good comprehension course?? I mean, aside from the ever-hilarious Kenny the Catholic angle, do you not understand what is being said? He is saying that your "social stratification" is a de facto aristocracy; the cycle he describes perpetuates "a system of rule by unelected prominent citizens". That is not - and it would be stupid to think that it is - limited to governance. You appear far more confused than him.

 

Bang on. Just look at the big American families like the Kennedys and the Rockefellers. Even the American media comes close to outright calling them the "American aristocracy". It's not formalised because the US is supposed to be a democratic state, but when you consider the powerful advantages they enjoy because of their family fortune and, to a certain degree, their lineage, such as always being in contention for candidacy in the Senate, the governorship or even the presidency, it's clear that, for all intents and purposes, they're effectively an aristocracy.

[Loki]

Are you talking about oligarchy again? I think we went over this on the last page, Bombers.

 

Anyway, regardless of what name you give it, it's not a solid argument for a blanket nationalisation of all inheritance as Kenny was putting it.

[King Pitcos]

Anyway, regardless of what name you give it, it's not a solid argument for a blanket nationalisation of all inheritance as Kenny was putting it.

Nevermind that. A blanket nationalisation of all inheritance would drive more billionaires into the hunt for the fountain of youth and proper immortality (not the wink-wink "immortality" in the Bible), so Kenny's actually promoting heresy.

[Carbomb]

Are you talking about oligarchy again? I think we went over this on the last page, Bombers.

 

I dispute the main definition of "aristocracy" in the modern sense. There are lots of constitutional monarchies all over the world which have non-potentiary aristocrats. Also, "oligarchy" simply means "rule of the few" - it's used so loosely nowadays, it could mean a democratically-elected one, like this country, or it could simply mean a de facto one.

 

Either way, one of the main points about the problems with this system is that families like the Rockefellers and Kennedys do benefit from inherited wealth; if it didn't in practice give them so much power and influence, I don't think many would object.

 

Anyway, regardless of what name you give it, it's not a solid argument for a blanket nationalisation of all inheritance as Kenny was putting it.

 

No, true. I don't agree with 100% taxation, but neither do I believe in none at all. However, I do think this "taxing the rich is only to give it back to dole-scroungers" is bollocks. I haven't seen any documents showing that the tax revenue would be re-directed to welfare over other governmental expenditures like health, transport, etc., and, I strongly suspect, neither has anyone else.

[Glen Quagmire]

Socialism should be used solely to remedy the main flaw with capitalism, which is that people are cunts.

 

Exactly how I feel, elements of Socialism within the frame work of a Capitalist system is the way I think it should be.

We already have that really though. When you have the NHS, public housing, welfare system, public school system etc. etc.

Most first world countries have some form of it in terms of universal provision of healthcare (USA obviously a big exception) through either direct taxation, compulsory insurance and some (fairly low cost) co-payments, public or social housing is available to varying degrees in most countries, compulsory education of schoolchildren etc. etc. The UK is little different to many other countries in this regard, but the difference lies compared to some other countries in how it is applied.

[Glen Quagmire]

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.

Indeed, liberty and democracy are at opposite poles to each other and the term "liberal democracy" is at first look a contradiction the same way "liberal fascist" is. But the ultimate aim of a liberal democracy in my view is to try and take the best from both and stamp down on its undesirable side-effects. In general it works, but not always well.

 

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

The Swiss seem to manage it to a certain extent, they probably have the best example of a Direct Democracy anywhere in the world. However most Swiss people seem to be well educated on such matters that go to referendum and think about exactly what they're voting for with the possible repercussions. The same system couldn't as I see it be transplanted to the UK without potentially hilarious but tragic results as too many of us vote according to what the front page of the Sun, Mirror or Mail tells us.

 

And again, for every successful system of direct democracy there is in Switzerland, in California it has been disastrous.

[Glen Quagmire]

Capitalism all the way. Everything that makes our pointless existence fun is a product of capitalism, from smack to nudey young boys. Try redistributing the wealth of people who offer a product people want and see that product disappear and frowny faces all round. Yeah, people are more equal under socialist regimes: equally miserable.

If that were to be the case, then in this world right now we should see that countries that are very economically liberal with small governments & limited to no public services should be a place where nearly everyone should be living happy lives, have very low suicide rates and altogether have a good quality of life, while those countries that have a significant amount of economic wealth distribution, a large amount of public services (with or without potential commercial or private competition) and a significant size of government providing these should be generally have less happy people, have high suicide rates and a "less good" quality of life and basically be a miserable shithole.

 

However when you look at stats concerning international studies of the general happiness of people in a country, suicide rates, life expectancy, repression by authorities etc. It is hard to find strong patterns based solely on such economic measures.

 

You would also have to define what exactly is a "socialist regime". North Korea probably counts, but what about the Nordic countries that have essentially a capitalistic financial system but large amounts of economic wealth distribution? Most countries in the world have some form of redistribution so is most of the world socialist? After all, England has had laws in place for over 400 years providing for some sort of economic wealth redistribution from the rich to the poor, does that mean that England has been a socialist country for over four centuries?

[Glen Quagmire]

Also, I disagree with the idea of the poor somehow getting a bad deal as, there's more opportunity to be successful today than there's ever been, plenty of very successful businessmen and women have pulled themselves out of poverty to become some of the richest members of society, maybe some people (not all, let me be clear on that) enjoy finding making excuses to try and explain their lack of career or financial success.

I would say that this might be true for some parts of the UK, but as a whole I'd disagree, and it kinds of ties in with the argument here on inheritance tax.

 

First, you need to define what "successful" is? Does it depend solely on the money that you earn? I would say no, although it does count towards a quality of life that you seek to live within your means for. Not everyone looks to be pulling their yacht in Monte Carlo but that doesn't mean they don't have aspirations, they just want to work to a lifestyle that lets them be happy. Climbing to the top of the career ladder isn't for them.

 

Secondly there are some good examples of people who have pulled themselves out of poverty to become extremely successful in business but these are often occasional cases that you read about in the likes of newspapers or on TV. More people by far fail than succeed in such efforts. Still to this day, many people involved in business have done so though family ties and connections through them, a first-step advantage.

 

Third, because of the way such business works, there will always be winners and losers. The question is, how do you treat the "losers"? Do you at least ensure that they aren't begging on the streets, or do you practice the ultimate in Social Darwinism?

 

Fourth, this ties in with social mobility. Social mobility in the UK has been falling in the last three decades which can be blamed on both Conservative and Labour governments of their times. If you want it to work properly, those higher up the ladder of social mobility have to be accepting of possibly moving down it as well as rewarding those who are willing to try and move up the rungs. However if you space the rungs too far apart, trying to climb the steps between becomes very difficult while those already high up will do all their best to ensure they don't go down. I've seen the effects to some extent here in Northern Ireland. The end result is two distinct "communities" outside the upper classes that have little in common and barely interact with each other , one reasonably well off i.e. they aren't going to starve, and the other living in unhealthy conditions and potentially violent - "Brazillification" is one name for it, probably the best example I can think off.

 

In terms of inheritance tax, too low a tax reduces social mobility in the sense that the inheritors do not have to potentially work as hard if they rely on an inheritance windfall to live a reasonably comfortable life, whereas if they were to rely less on an inheritance windfall they will have to work more to stay at a lifestyle they're accustomed to. If the inheritance is large enough to allow them not to work, since they are not being productive they aren't paying income tax and other taxes (VAT, fuel duty etc.) from money they could have worked for themselves. This ends up being a cost to the government albeit indirectly. The only big difference here between this situation and a person claiming benefits is that the latter goes though the government first. It is the same with charity, in all three cases the money being spent was originally generated by someone else.

 

Finally, in terms of people making excuses - almost everyone will make excuses all the time to cover up their failings, just some people are much better at hiding their weaknesses and exploits than others. The idea that anyone can become a billionaire though simple hard work is a myth. Not convinced? Try following a strict programme of exercise and health so that you will be in shape to challenge and beat Usain Bolt in the 2012 Olympics 100m sprint. Are you likely to be able to do it? The answer is most likely no, though some one out there just might be able to do it. Probably not you though, whoever is reading this. This isn't failure, it's just an acknowledgement of you limits. Not everyone is an alpha-male/female, some people are happier being Indians rather than Chiefs, not everyone has the skills of management, nor can handle the stress of some high-pressure jobs. Some people can pick up some skills easily than others etc. Our society does reward those who can and usually its done correctly though occasionally it does f*ck up. And occasionally ourselves we break down, be it physically or mentally. So while some people do be too willing and easy making excuses when they could try harder, an excuse is more often just a simple admission, wherever in public or private, that you have limits to your capability, and that's not completely wrong to think of if you learn from it.