what do you expect for free?

ninky_2

Thrugelmir wrote: »

So you feel the Russian revolution was of tangible benefit to the population of Eastern Europe for decades?

straw man argument.

what i would say is that socialism and capitalism are really both part of the same system. both are unworkable in their pure form and rely on the other to balance themselves out. for example, without welfare systems capitalism will run out of suitable labour force. likewise without free market dynamics socialism will run out of necessary economic motivators.

both have evolved out of the monetary system and the way we as humans have come to view and distribute power.

i suspect there is an alternative to both however it may not become apparent until history proves the failures / limitation of our current dominant value systems and forces our hand to develop something different.

guessing where such evolutionary progression will head is probably a futile if interesting challenge - as possible as predicting before the event that humans would one day evolve from amoeba.

Generali

ninky wrote: »

straw man argument.

what i would say is that socialism and capitalism are really both part of the same system. both are unworkable in their pure form and rely on the other to balance themselves out. for example, without welfare systems capitalism will run out of suitable labour force. likewise without free market dynamics socialism will run out of necessary economic motivators.

both have evolved out of the monetary system and the way we as humans have come to view and distribute power.

i suspect there is an alternative to both however it may not become apparent until history proves the failures / limitation of our current dominant value systems and forces our hand to develop something different.

guessing where such evolutionary progression will head is probably a futile if interesting challenge - as possible as predicting before the event that humans would one day evolve from amoeba.

There's no such thing as 'pure' capitalism because it isn't a dogma.

There isn't any form of 'pure socialism' because people make markets. It's what they do. Kids do it. My kids in the car make a market when they swap a drink of apple juice for the last tomato sauce packet.

You're spouting this twaddle as fact without any kind of reference to anything else. This crap exists in ninky-land; it begins and ends there.

Thrugelmir

ninky wrote: »

straw man argument.

Not in the slightest. You cited the French better off for having no monarchy. I merely made reference to a tyrannical regime that was supposedly "socialist".

Politics in the West (particularly the USA and UK) is hypocritical with the distinction between mainstream socialism and capitalism now a blur. As most peoples politics is more about themselves with scant real regard for others.

ninky_2

Generali wrote: »

There's no such thing as 'pure' capitalism because it isn't a dogma.

.

so in order to be pure something must be a dogma? interesting concept. what is it then? and why can this thing that it is not be 'pure'?

personally i think capitalism is a system. a system which is unsustainable without socialist influence.

Generali

lostinrates wrote: »

aha, so I'm not disorganised and poorly eductaed

ninky wrote: »

so in order to be pure something must be a dogma? interesting concept. what is it then? and why can this thing that it is not be 'pure'?

personally i think capitalism is a system. a system which is unsustainable without socialist influence.

Great.

That's a completely meaningless comment without any context.

Conrad

ninky wrote: »

i suspect there is an alternative to both however it may not become apparent until history proves the failures / limitation of our current dominant value systems and forces our hand to develop something different.

I think in the long run a paradigm shift will take us to a new era, but this is probably centuries or more away.

I'm a capitalist yet I dislike the concept of people hoarding an unnecesary amount of wealth for it's own sake, and in future I suspect we will come back to look at wealth hoarding (ergo resource hoarding) as we now look back at slavery.

I look forward to a time when individuals say enough is enough to be just comnfortable, the rest will be used in the greater good OUT OF CHOICE. Sting and Tony Benn are halve way there. They are at the 'speaking' stage, but yet to reach the 'doing' stage. Once people like this start to re - distribute thier vast overshare voluntarily, others will follow.

As a Tory, I dislike individuals hoarding land. I am born a free Man onto this Earth and want to be able to roam on the Eart unfettered, to experience my natrual born right to the Earth. By all means have a small patch of garden, but acres and acres, no, unless you are a farmer.

This whole 'I earned it, so I'll ruddy well do as I please to satisfy me me me' is actualy pretty childish.

bendix

ninky wrote: »

personally i think capitalism is a system. a system which is unsustainable without socialist influence.

No ninky. No No No. Now just stop it. Stop right there.

If you're going to post slogans, at least make them mean something.

What on earth does 'capitalism is a system which is unsustainable without socialist influence' mean?

I mean, for chrissakes, come on! It's just garbage - a few words joined together to kid those without critical perception that it means something.

It means nothing.

ninky_2

bendix wrote: »

No ninky. No No No. Now just stop it. Stop right there.

If you're going to post slogans, at least make them mean something.

What on earth does 'capitalism is a system which is unsustainable without socialist influence' mean?

I mean, for chrissakes, come on! It's just garbage - a few words joined together to kid those without critical perception that it means something.

It means nothing.

it means precisely what it says. you can't actually sustain a free market without some sort of welfare state type influence from public parks (not paternalistic actually, rather paid for by taxation and free for everyone) to social housing (home to 40 percent of the hong kong population for example) to state education. you might argue about where the edges of that welfare should be but you can't remove the need for it entirely.

if anyone tried to run a nation based purely on capitalism it would implode. the free market has its limits.

Generali

ninky wrote: »

it means precisely what it says. you can't actually sustain a free market without some sort of welfare state type influence from public parks (not paternalistic actually, rather paid for by taxation and free for everyone) to social housing (home to 40 percent of the hong kong population for example) to state education. you might argue about where the edges of that welfare should be but you can't remove the need for it entirely.

if anyone tried to run a nation based purely on capitalism it would implode. the free market has its limits.

Not even libertaians believe in an absence of Government and thus taxation so you're arguing against something that nobody wants and doesnt exist. You might as well argue that the last heffalumps should be shot in case they give us all dropsy.

DexterA

ninky wrote: »

it means precisely what it says. you can't actually sustain a free market without some sort of welfare state type influence from public parks (not paternalistic actually, rather paid for by taxation and free for everyone) to social housing (home to 40 percent of the hong kong population for example) to state education. you might argue about where the edges of that welfare should be but you can't remove the need for it entirely.

if anyone tried to run a nation based purely on capitalism it would implode. the free market has its limits.

You're right. A balance is needed. Capitalism ultimately distorts markets and consumes all resources in sight. Policy should take account of peoples motivations, the planets resources and what's good for people (clean air, open spaces, education).

Companies purpose is to make a profit for shareholders, not to serve the public good.