Our leader Boris

[Moriarty]

Please do not think I am trying to pick a fight as I am not. But capitalism is an economic system. I think a lot of people confuse it as it is tied up with democracy but socialist and communist countries have capitalism. China is considdred a state capitalist country economically whilst still being communist in polical function/structure. Dependent upon your view the nordic countries are socialist and have a form of capitalism for example Norway also has a form of state capitalism but is changing to a more globalist form of capitalism.

Now, theres a stretch.

Capitalism by it's very nature is free market economics.
Once the state legislates what can and cannot depend on the free market then you have a problem.

Democracy is supposed to be about small government, minimal interference.
If you apply any left leaning ideology like socialism, communism, nazism or fascism to free enterpise it is no longer true capitalism.

It is simply a political tool, full of state management.
Now while we do have state controlled limits on pricing in the UK, see the latest increase in energy caps as an example.
One cannot say Communist China is Capitalist as most of its business is either state owned or state controlled.

As for the Nordic countries, they are not socialist, they are democratic socialist, which is a very big differentiation.
The Nordic countries are also riddled with immigration problems, rising crime and national instability which is already seeing changes to the way the public see government.

Socialism, if done properly is an ideal, but it fails to take into account one simple thing.
Human nature.
People wish to better themselves, not be dragged down into a race to the bottom.
Or they wish to assume power they have not earned by berating those who do.

 

[Cat100]

Now, theres a stretch.

Capitalism by it's very nature is free market economics.
Once the state legislates what can and cannot depend on the free market then you have a problem.

Democracy is supposed to be about small government, minimal interference.
If you apply any left leaning ideology like socialism, communism, nazism or fascism to free enterpise it is no longer true capitalism.

It is simply a political tool, full of state management.
Now while we do have state controlled limits on pricing in the UK, see the latest increase in energy caps as an example.
One cannot say Communist China is Capitalist as most of its business is either state owned or state controlled.

As for the Nordic countries, they are not socialist, they are democratic socialist, which is a very big differentiation.
The Nordic countries are also riddled with immigration problems, rising crime and national instability which is already seeing changes to the way the public see government.

Socialism, if done properly is an ideal, but it fails to take into account one simple thing.
Human nature.
People wish to better themselves, not be dragged down into a race to the bottom.
Or they wish to assume power they have not earned by berating those who do.

I can see where you are coming from but my argument is that there are verious forms of capitalism and not all of it is tied to a free market system. We can agree that a monopoly is an ecomonic system within capitalism and there is nothing that would conote that it is a free market system. There are various forms of capitalism and state capitalism is just another form. Everyone thinks of America as having an open economic economy but it also has some staunch protectionist legislation to protect it markets. Think of the subsadies for peanuts and dairy. We can also argue that it protects multi-national corporations over it's citizens throught NAFTA where corporations can sue if legislation is brought about to protect workers rights etc. If there was a true free market than none of this legislation would be enacted.

 

[Moriarty]

I can see where you are coming from but my argument is that there are verious forms of capitalism and not all of it is tied to a free market system. We can agree that a monopoly is an ecomonic system within capitalism and there is nothing that would conote that it is a free market system. There are various forms of capitalism and state capitalism is just another form. Everyone thinks of America as having an open economic economy but it also has some staunch protectionist legislation to protect it markets. Think of the subsadies for peanuts and dairy. We can also argue that it protects multi-national corporations over it's citizens throught NAFTA where corporations can sue if legislation is brought about to protect workers rights etc. If there was a true free market than none of this legislation would be enacted.

I have to disagree.

In a true Free Market Capitalist system there should be no governmental controls.
Monopolies are actually an anathema of free market capitalism as the larger an organisation grows the slower it becomes to change.
Thus they are suplanted by other, quicker thinking entities.

The problem with a true capitalist society is that there will always be those who are dispossessed, either by lack of willingness or lack of ability to work meaningfully.
In the end a free market rewards ability, those that have no "worth" tend to fall by the wayside.
How we deal with that roughly 10-20% of society has been the subject of many debates with no answer being forthcoming.

One only has to look at a simple Pareto distribution that those who are capable and willing to work will always rank order by ability.

Those with the most ability and willingness to work rise to the top, those who have less ability and are willing to work hard and/or have the ability but not top level motivation rank order lower, those who have no ability but work hard rank even lower and at the bottom you have those with no ability or willingness to work .

It's a generalisation of a much broader question, but it will suffice for this conversation.

As for protectionist legislation, governments seem to think they have to protect food supplies, why?
In the west we have been systematically "Re-wilding" farming land for years.
Paying farmers off to NOT grow food for the vaunted BS that is immediate catastrophic climate change.

If left to its own devices the market would equalise.

The major problem for any capitalist and/or semi capitalist society lies in a stock market where there are no actual goods traded, only beliefs.

As for the difference between capitalist and state controlled capitalism, the difference is obvious.
When a market is centrally governed, it is not a "Free" market.

So, given that we are not talking about a "True" capitalist economy, as none truly exist in the world today we can agree to disagree.

What we have today is state control, cronyism, money orientated politics and for some stupid reason minimum wages.

Go back a couple of millenia, the most skilled hunters were the ones who were the most respected because they helped the whole village survive.

Not much has changed.
Well, until the priests and the politicains became a thing.

But thats another debate.

 

[Cat100]

I have to disagree.

In a true Free Market Capitalist system there should be no governmental controls.
Monopolies are actually an anathema of free market capitalism as the larger an organisation grows the slower it becomes to change.
Thus they are suplanted by other, quicker thinking entities.

The problem with a true capitalist society is that there will always be those who are dispossessed, either by lack of willingness or lack of ability to work meaningfully.
In the end a free market rewards ability, those that have no "worth" tend to fall by the wayside.
How we deal with that roughly 10-20% of society has been the subject of many debates with no answer being forthcoming.

One only has to look at a simple Pareto distribution that those who are capable and willing to work will always rank order by ability.

Those with the most ability and willingness to work rise to the top, those who have less ability and are willing to work hard and/or have the ability but not top level motivation rank order lower, those who have no ability but work hard rank even lower and at the bottom you have those with no ability or willingness to work .

It's a generalisation of a much broader question, but it will suffice for this conversation.

As for protectionist legislation, governments seem to think they have to protect food supplies, why?
In the west we have been systematically "Re-wilding" farming land for years.
Paying farmers off to NOT grow food for the vaunted BS that is immediate catastrophic climate change.

If left to its own devices the market would equalise.

The major problem for any capitalist and/or semi capitalist society lies in a stock market where there are no actual goods traded, only beliefs.

As for the difference between capitalist and state controlled capitalism, the difference is obvious.
When a market is centrally governed, it is not a "Free" market.

So, given that we are not talking about a "True" capitalist economy, as none truly exist in the world today we can agree to disagree.

What we have today is state control, cronyism, money orientated politics and for some stupid reason minimum wages.

Go back a couple of millenia, the most skilled hunters were the ones who were the most respected because they helped the whole village survive.

Not much has changed.
Well, until the priests and the politicains became a thing.

But thats another debate.

Thank you for introducing me to the Pareto Distribution. Though it is designed to argue why 20% of society owns 80% I think it could easily be used with the Marxist ideology of communism where workers are exploited by the ruling elite. Therefore, I argue that if we use wage labour as a defining point of capitalism as outlined in Marxist ideology it is more than just maximising profit this relies on the labour market not only as a means of production but as a consumer. Raya Dunayvskaya during Soviet-era communism argued the idea of Marxist-Humanism state capitalism where it is not limited to a political or economic analysis where labour shaped history versus the trait of capitalism where the worker is alienated.

But I agree more with the argument that Joshua Kurlantzick put forward when he defines state capitalism is where the governments have ownership and/or influence of over one-third of largest 500 companies which allows them a high level of control of the sector than in a free-market nation-state.

I am not sure one can argue that way back when the strongest was the leader. If we look at Thomas Hobbes' philosophy of how nations were formed it was by mutual contract i.e. social contract where the majority sacrificed free will to have security. This was using the idea of the strongest of all would be the leader but if we look at the governments at the time were monarchies and that is through a birthright and has nothing to do with being the best in the society.

So I do agree that we will disagree. I would like to thank you for the intellectually stimulating conversation.

 

[Moriarty]

Thank you for introducing me to the Pareto Distribution. Though it is designed to argue why 20% of society owns 80% I think it could easily be used with the Marxist ideology of communism where workers are exploited by the ruling elite. Therefore, I argue that if we use wage labour as a defining point of capitalism as outlined in Marxist ideology it is more than just maximising profit this relies on the labour market not only as a means of production but as a consumer. Raya Dunayvskaya during Soviet-era communism argued the idea of Marxist-Humanism state capitalism where it is not limited to a political or economic analysis where labour shaped history versus the trait of capitalism where the worker is alienated.

But I agree more with the argument that Joshua Kurlantzick put forward when he defines state capitalism is where the governments have ownership and/or influence of over one-third of largest 500 companies which allows them a high level of control of the sector than in a free-market nation-state.

I am not sure one can argue that way back when the strongest was the leader. If we look at Thomas Hobbes' philosophy of how nations were formed it was by mutual contract i.e. social contract where the majority sacrificed free will to have security. This was using the idea of the strongest of all would be the leader but if we look at the governments at the time were monarchies and that is through a birthright and has nothing to do with being the best in the society.

So I do agree that we will disagree. I would like to thank you for the intellectually stimulating conversation.

The Pareto Distribution applies to much more than simple economics.
The top goal scorers in football, the survival rate amongst most species at infancy etc.

Economically the Perato distribution applies mostly to Ability.
Be that intelligence, dexterity, natural ability etc.

These are things where some people are, by simple ability or genetics, "Superior".

The word superior has horrible connotations and I dont like to use it, as it is commonly associated with some form of elitism or hatred.
It is however what divides us when it comes to both earning potential and what we can give to society as a whole.

I have a friend, he is a brilliant artist, he draws and paints so well he sold his works for a living many moons ago while travelling.
Yet he has no qualifications, is not academic and is "Normal" in everything but his artistic talent.

He exploited the market, using just his arguably "God Given" talents, and was rewarded as he should be due to his ability.
This same friend was the son of a coal miner, his life was set, he was to go down the pit like his father before him.
Yet he did not, he took off, with only what he could carry and earned a living, then travelled around the country with just his talent to pay to keep him warm at night.

He is an example of unfettered capitalism, he became something he was not meant to be through his ability and hard work.
If the Police had come along while he was painting on a street and moved him on, he would not have been able to "work" due to state intervention.
He would have returned home and, like his father, become a coal miner.

Is this not an example of what Dunayvskaya meant when she said:
“There is a crying need for a new unity of theory and practice which begins with where the working people are – their thoughts, their struggle, their aspirations.”

Is he not an example of her idea that:
“The working class has not created a new society. But the workers have undermined the old. They have destroyed all the old categories, they have no belief in the rationality either of the economic or political order."

Thats simply one mans story, how many have failed or not had the chance to write thiers by writ of a state which demands the stability of the work force for taxation.

True capitalism takes "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" and inverts it.

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

It is surely a better way to use your ability to supply those who want it, not because the state demands it, but because you wish to.
That is freedom.
That is individual agency and responsibility.

As for Kurlantzick, I dont trust anyone who is within the cess pit that is the Council of Foreign Relations.
Hell he thinks Norway is a State Capitalist society.

Good debate, thanks

 

[Cat100]

The Pareto Distribution applies to much more than simple economics.
The top goal scorers in football, the survival rate amongst most species at infancy etc.

Economically the Perato distribution applies mostly to Ability.
Be that intelligence, dexterity, natural ability etc.

These are things where some people are, by simple ability or genetics, "Superior".

The word superior has horrible connotations and I dont like to use it, as it is commonly associated with some form of elitism or hatred.
It is however what divides us when it comes to both earning potential and what we can give to society as a whole.

I have a friend, he is a brilliant artist, he draws and paints so well he sold his works for a living many moons ago while travelling.
Yet he has no qualifications, is not academic and is "Normal" in everything but his artistic talent.

He exploited the market, using just his arguably "God Given" talents, and was rewarded as he should be due to his ability.
This same friend was the son of a coal miner, his life was set, he was to go down the pit like his father before him.
Yet he did not, he took off, with only what he could carry and earned a living, then travelled around the country with just his talent to pay to keep him warm at night.

He is an example of unfettered capitalism, he became something he was not meant to be through his ability and hard work.
If the Police had come along while he was painting on a street and moved him on, he would not have been able to "work" due to state intervention.
He would have returned home and, like his father, become a coal miner.

Is this not an example of what Dunayvskaya meant when she said:
“There is a crying need for a new unity of theory and practice which begins with where the working people are – their thoughts, their struggle, their aspirations.”

Is he not an example of her idea that:
“The working class has not created a new society. But the workers have undermined the old. They have destroyed all the old categories, they have no belief in the rationality either of the economic or political order."

Thats simply one mans story, how many have failed or not had the chance to write thiers by writ of a state which demands the stability of the work force for taxation.

True capitalism takes "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" and inverts it.

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

It is surely a better way to use your ability to supply those who want it, not because the state demands it, but because you wish to.
That is freedom.
That is individual agency and responsibility.

As for Kurlantzick, I dont trust anyone who is within the cess pit that is the Council of Foreign Relations.
Hell he thinks Norway is a State Capitalist society.

Good debate, thanks

LOL I, like Kurlntzick, believe that Norway is a state capitalist country. They have one of the largest state trust funds not only from their oil but also large stakes in quit a number of industries.

I am curious how do you see your form of capatilism working across sociery as a whole?

 

[LadyOnArooftop]

Bring back our leader Boris! and NO to FishyRishi

 

[Moriarty]

Bring back our leader Boris! and NO to FishyRishi

God no, the only person I want to see leading the Conservatives is Kemi.
That wont happen though.
They will get another "Talentless" box ticker.
As MP Charles Walker so wonderfully demonstrated in his BBC interview.
The democratic system in this country is failing.

Tory MP Charles Walker fires devastating broadside at Conservative Government

At least this man has the honour of being truthful.

 

[Geordiefella4u]

God no, the only person I want to see leading the Conservatives is Kemi.
That wont happen though.
They will get another "Talentless" box ticker.
As MP Charles Walker so wonderfully demonstrated in his BBC interview.
The democratic system in this country is failing.

Tory MP Charles Walker fires devastating broadside at Conservative Government

At least this man has the honour of being truthful.

How did I ever get involved in this? EVERY SINGLE politician is simply a puppet of the WEF. It may be unpalatable, it may not be what you want to hear, but it's the God's honest truth never-the-less. They're ALL stooges designed to fool you into thinking you have some say in the running of society, and while you're distracted they continue towards their cashless, slave environment. Wake up before it's too late!

 

[PennyDreadful2]

Bring back our leader Boris! and NO to FishyRishi

You're avin' a larf.

 

[Moriarty]

How did I ever get involved in this? EVERY SINGLE politician is simply a puppet of the WEF. It may be unpalatable, it may not be what you want to hear, but it's the God's honest truth never-the-less. They're ALL stooges designed to fool you into thinking you have some say in the running of society, and while you're distracted they continue towards their cashless, slave environment. Wake up before it's too late!

I have to disagree.
Back benchers who have never held a ministerial position, like Walker, simply want to do what is right for thier constituants.
Lets not forget, they dont want the government to go full stupid, it's thier careers on the line.
If they dont get elected, they are out of a job.
Thats why I can understand his anger at the Tory leadership for the debacle they have created.

The problem we have is the administrative state, the unelected parts of government which are now so large and influential.
We need to cull those departments and put the power back into the back benchers who are not borne of some other orginisations "Leadership programs".

 

[Moriarty]

In that case the are just as guilty in their silence.

In some cases yes.
The problem is that some back benchers fear the party they stand for.
We are basically, like the USA, a 2 party system.
With some fearful politicians thinking they cannot get locally elected without the party money.
If they did thier job, they wouldnt have that fear.