To think that capitalism is shit?

[malificent7]

Just reading about the clothing sweat shops in Leister where sewing machinists are paid as little as 4.50 an hour and packers £3 an hour. Meanwhile the owner of Boohoo is a billionaire. Plus fast fashion is highly polluting.
This is just one industry. How come so many of us are willing to work for rich capitaliats while we scrape by?
Capitalism is shit isn't it?

@PissedOffProf

sst1234, you are wrong to underestimate the availability of cultural goods to everyone. Access to high culture is access to education. Access to education is access to power.

When I arrived to the West, I was completely shocked at the price of theatre tickets, books and entry to museums. Behind the iron curtain, all these things were available at very low prices to everyone. You could purchase a good quality hardcover book for a price of a few standard loaves of bread (bread was a lot better too, btw, than the plastic sponge fed to the masses in the UK and the US).

High culture in the Soviet countries was accessible to everyone. People who worked in standard working class jobs read, went to the theatre, the opera and the museums. It was just normal. I am still shocked at the fact that the vast majority of people in the UK do not have books in their houses. I was also shocked by the low level of education and the lack of knowledge of basic facts among average people in the UK when I arrived here many years ago.

Yes, behind the iron curtain your life would have been very difficult in many ways, but you would not have to watch how the children of rich parents in the next housing estate to you received excellent education in private schools and enjoyed high culture when your own child had to attend a failing state comprehensive and fight extra hard for a chance to go to a good university.

I know that hearing about positive aspects of life under communism just blows the mind of people in the West. But you really need to try to get beyond the capitalist propaganda. 25 years ago, I would have been with you. But after years and years of watching food banks, beggars on every corner of big cities, massive inequality of opportunities for children, erosion of workers' rights, crumbling health service, perpetually late and overcrowded trains, schoolteachers feeding hungry children and environmental degradation, I cannot help but ask serious questions about the merits of capitalism.

This.

Why is inequality bad? To those that say nobody needs to be a Billionnaire - why not? Why does someone else’s billions bother you so much, especially if they earned it through entrepreneurship? Instead of envy and spite against the billionaires, the focus should be on ensuring a minimum standard of living for all.
This socialist envy is student politics, in the real world it means nothing. What good is equality that makes everyone equally poor, hallmark of socialism. Inequality is great if it means minimum standard is being raised as the wealth at the top increases. This is what has happened in capitalist societies in the last 100 years. Some people will froth at the mouth at this concept, but hey to those of us living in the real world, outcomes matter more than virtue signalling.

@sst1234

Why is inequality bad? To those that say nobody needs to be a Billionnaire - why not? Why does someone else’s billions bother you so much, especially if they earned it through entrepreneurship? Instead of envy and spite against the billionaires, the focus should be on ensuring a minimum standard of living for all. This socialist envy is student politics, in the real world it means nothing. What good is equality that makes everyone equally poor, hallmark of socialism. Inequality is great if it means minimum standard is being raised as the wealth at the top increases. This is what has happened in capitalist societies in the last 100 years. Some people will froth at the mouth at this concept, but hey to those of us living in the real world, outcomes matter more than virtue signalling.

This.

I wish people would just do a tiny tiny bit of research. Read 'A Gulag Archipelago' if you truly want to understand communism and the horrors it leads to.

Inequality isn't just not bad, its necessary.

You dont send your kids to school and not bother as to how well they do. You send them to school to work hard and get good grades which with put them on an unequal pathway hopefully one thats close to the top in a deliberate attempt to create an inequality in which they succeed.

Thats what we do in life.

Capitalism worked very well for quite a long time. I think a combination of industrial revolution (in this case computing/internet), globalisation and capitalism has recently been quite toxic.

However much you believe in people being rewarded for skills and work, it is hard to justify a works where 6 men are collectively worth the same as 3.5billion people.

In addition, given how quickly we now have the ability to change the world (genetic engineering, climate change, autonomous machines etc), I would not want my future determined solely by where the best return on capital could be achieved.

We do need regulation and redistribution of wealth. On the other hand, communism is way too far to go. People should be able to become very rich if they are true entrepreneurs and change society substantially. The banker (in the times today) who received a salary of £65 million in 2007/2008, on the other hand, for essentially introducing rich people to one another, is a cancer that we need to deal with.

Communism has so far failed and, right now, capitalism is being sorely tested. We need a compromise between them.

A world, not works, obviously

I don't disagree that some inequality is necessary as humans seem to need to be able.to strive for more and to better themselves. However it is a fine line between a reasonable gap between the very wealthy and the poor and what we have now which is a vast chasm with no way across. When that happens the people at the bottom get desperate and desperate people often get violent . Frankly I don't blame them .
Inequality is all well and good as long as those at the top don't pull up the ladder which is.what people do tend to do. They protect their own position at all costs . It is pretty normal behaviour and it is why we need some socialist based ideas to control that tendency.

I am sick to the back teeth of the number of people on the internet who desperately justify the extremes of inequality in Britain at the moment. I don't know whether it's all coming from rich people given everything in life on a plate who have no empathy, the same people who just don't want to have to share the planet with others, or trolls who are enjoying the slow collapse of western societies for one reason or another.

And make no mistake - that is eventually what the extremes of inequality cause. Collapse of societies, when they lack any cohesion or common identity. I am beyond disgusted that we are seeing these attitudes gaining strength at exactly the times when we should be most appreciative of the opposite. Just after Brexit the divides in Britain were noticed: we've just had a lot of lip service paid to the low-paid keyworkers and daily sacrifices of the low paid for the common good. You might as well ask why fairness is a bad thing. Why is injustice bad? All societies are founded and survive on some concept of justice among its people.

The impacts of poverty are well known so I do not know why people try to minimise it as 'envy' and 'jealousy'. It is also very obvious that the same thinking is not applied to the various trendy groups. But for the particularly hard of thinking or out-of-touch, the bottom line is that ownership of money in the West is what allows people to live. More money means better outcomes to survival chances. We are now getting to the point where the lack of money is impacting their survival chances. It's not just a matter of having a particularly nice table cloth or something. Moreover those impacts on survival chances are being handed down and becoming hereditary. The field of health inequality is huge and evidence is there. Poorer groups in Britain have lower life expectancy, directly due to their harder lives, and due to the reduced ability to access healthcare. These twin issues are both increasing as Britain goes more and more right wing, or more bluntly, fucking stupid.

We are dealing with extremes. It's not that those who work a bit harder get a bit more reward commensurate with their efforts. Pay in Britain has nothing to do with effort or value of the job to society, it is everything to do with prior status. In addition very few jobs actually pay enough to live on and most wealth can only gained through the leverage of pre-owned capital. It takes money to breed money.

The lack of ability to gain wealth through work actually undermines the whole principle of the capitalism people claim to support.

The impact of these levels of inequality combined with the inability to gain wealth through ones work - the most extreme form of this is slavery incidentally - leads people to ask one simple question. Why the hell should we work for you? Why the hell should we work for no benefit for ourselves? In the older days when extremes were more enhanced in Britain there were ideologies put out to justify them such as richer people were just somehow more delicate or better - often both. In Rome the support of a religion was brought in. It's no accident that that is returning at this time. Neither will wash now.

This post is already going to be huge and does not even begin to touch on the myriad of reasons why the total lack of any support for simple fair play in what is supposed to be one society is such an issue. There is a huge amount of literature out there on this point. Try Daniel Dorling's work, perhaps start with "Injustice", or try "The Spirit Level". Try the entirety of the work on health inequality. Try getting out of the bubbles and actually looking at the people yourself.

@sst1234

Why is inequality bad? To those that say nobody needs to be a Billionnaire - why not? Why does someone else’s billions bother you so much, especially if they earned it through entrepreneurship? Instead of envy and spite against the billionaires, the focus should be on ensuring a minimum standard of living for all. This socialist envy is student politics, in the real world it means nothing. What good is equality that makes everyone equally poor, hallmark of socialism. Inequality is great if it means minimum standard is being raised as the wealth at the top increases. This is what has happened in capitalist societies in the last 100 years. Some people will froth at the mouth at this concept, but hey to those of us living in the real world, outcomes matter more than virtue signalling.

Can't but agree here.

I am sick to the back teeth of the number of people on the internet who desperately justify the extremes of inequality in Britain at the moment. I don't know whether it's all coming from rich people given everything in life on a plate who have no empathy, the same people who just don't want to have to share the planet with others, or trolls who are enjoying the slow collapse of western societies for one reason or another.

Well, if you had the money, you'd spent it pushing your message/mantra through every media outlet you could find too. It's only an update of the situation a few centuries ago where - by dint of ensuring the peasantry couldn't read - you'd do the same from the pulpit and town square. With some pretty interesting penalties for those that dared to bypass the party line. (There isn't much that communism could teach medieval peasants about one party states).

So obviously to circumvent that you either have to subtly code messages, or used a platform that isn't overrun with party apparatchiks.

The step-change in medieval times was printing. You simply can't "lose" 10,000 pamphlets the same way you can lose a single parchment. So then the state responds with laws around heresy etc to try and scare the population into not daring to look.

Fast forward to today and you have the step change of Twitter and Facebook (amongst others) with a tiresomely predictable response from the state (remember all those laws about what they say you can and can't see on t'internet ?).

And the one thing which links the two eras through history, is the terrible terrible irony that if the state spent 1/10th of what it spends on shoring itself up against dissent, there would be fuck all dissent to have to shore up against.

Too true DGR. Unfortunately a bunch of idealists from gentler times invented the internet and we're having to have the same old fights about ownership of information all over again.

And the one thing which links the two eras through history, is the terrible terrible irony that if the state spent 1/10th of what it spends on shoring itself up against dissent, there would be fuck all dissent to have to shore up against.
I came across a business guru once (once ) who actually spoke sense. John Seddon called this type of phenomena "failure demand".

I came across a business guru once (once smile) who actually spoke sense. John Seddon called this type of phenomena "failure demand".

On "The Museum of Curiosity" they had a business guru (I can't remember what his claim to fame was, but it was pretty valid) who said you could fix a hell of a lot of problems for fuck all cost by switching to a 4-day week. His logic was pretty impeccable. But (as ever) you'll hit the "it's all about meeeeeeeeeeeeeeee" brigade around whom the world has to revolve or else. Currently these are the people that "get" the need for radical (if not revolutionary) lifestyle changes to adapt to the climate we've fucked, and then say "but I still need to go abroad twice a year" without straining their irony muscle.

A quote I bear in mind a lot (as it explains a lot) was a reply Arthur C. Clarke once gave when asked what it was that drove progress forwards and allowed new ideas to flourish.

Old people die

Well that's one answer. The renaissance was a re-naissance. Some of it is about not learning, or deliberately forgetting and obscuring, the lessons of the past. Humans really haven't changed that much, but modern demographics are unprecedented size and complexity. The power of states needs to be balanced with those of individuals; the power of individuals needs to be harnessed in some way to work together. We seem to be in a time of extremes with individuals pulling in all sorts of different directions and having no ability to coordinate action any more.

'scuse typos, I need to proof read more.

If people are listening (they aren't yet, but it's hardly the fault of the people speaking) they'd have twigged that this is a shrinking window of opportunity to Put Things Right ...

2019: The world is edging towards calamity. Everyone claims they can't do anything "because ..." and a list of endless excuses is provided.

2020: Covid removes most of those excuses as not being good enough to not die. Showing that we can turn on the head of a pin if we want to.

The UK certainly is now engaged in a full on war between the 80% who want to change, and the 20% for whom that would be a disaster. With (in the UKs case) the added pain that those 20% are the same 20% that banged on about 52/48 being a conclusive decision.

There's a lot of assertion that capitalism is the choice of the people here. Personally I think that's bollocks. It's the political equivalent of saying you are "C of E" when asked a religion. You don't really know what it means, but it seems to be the norm.

I agree with much said about inequality and the need for radical change above. Just a couple more points:

Technological development, including the kind of development that we have seen in the past 30-40 years does not come from entrepreneurial individuals. The Internet and associated technologies were not invented in some heroic and very clever and brave blokes' garages, despite popular thinking. Massive amount of university and government institute research and government funding supported and continues to support this activity. It is a result of a collective effort - the contributions of all taxpayers - and not simply a product of one individual's effort. And where would all these private multinationals be today if it were not for government (taxpayer-funded!) bailouts over the last decade? Individualism is a myth that is fed to the masses to keep them from getting to uppity. (Here is some easy stuff to read on the topic: blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/yes-government-researchers-really-did-invent-the-internet/, hbr.org/2013/03/taxpayers-helped-apple-but-app).

And somebody made a comment above how we need rich people because they are the ones who first buy new technologies such as flat screen TVs, making the subsequent prices lower for all of us. - Is this for real? You don't need a flat screen TV. Nobody needs a flat screen TV. Everybody, however, needs good quality housing, education, healthcare, community and meaningful work.

Capitalist economy produces tons of completely unnecessary shit that uses up human effort and natural resources and trashes the planet (this article was written many years ago, but I still remember it: www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/dec/10/on-12th-day-christmas-present-junk).

And please remember, ladies and gentlemen, that capitalism does not exist just in the developed Western economies. Pretty much the whole world with the exception of a few countries is capitalist. If you look at the whole world and not just the industrialised West, where is this miraculous social and technological development you speak of? Even the West is "developed" only because it plundered the rest of the world for centuries. So no, capitalism does not work.

.

Globalisation makes capitalism impossible.

Effectively the driving factors stop being within a government's control.

Companies can relocate to a lower tax jurisdiction to reduce their tax contribution.

Consumers can buy from a country where wages are lower.

The richest are far better placed to benefit from such arbitrage, and it drives the rich/poor divide to a position where its beyond control/remedy.

Pissedoffprof is right that capitalism under rewards the collective efforts and over rewards owners etc on grounds that they "bear the risk" when in reality the risk they bear is often small, and the rewards not commensurate with that risk.

If you look at the whole world and not just the industrialised West, where is this miraculous social and technological development you speak of

So what’s your solution?
Imposing a Soviet Union type regime?
Would you shoot people if they tried to leave? as leave they would if given the chance.
You know the Berlin Wall was built to stop people leaving East Germany as about 3.454 million left between 1945 and the wall going up in 1961?
Or did you believe the SED’s version which was it was to keep fascists out?

Hopeforall, the solution is a radical shift in power from the capitalists to the workers. This is to be accomplished through massive government support for the unions, sever limits on the extent of private property and wealth accumulation, constructing legislature in a way that property rights never trump rights to life and human dignity, extensive taxation and wealth re-distribution, huge focus on education, maybe state oversight over what companies can produce (no, we do not need 90% of the plastic crap currently churched out, we do not need cars and white goods designed to break right as the warranty expires).

Yes, this may involve enforced limits on what many now perceive as important freedoms, such as owning flat-screen TVs and single families living in massive castles and flying around the world in private jets. But hey - maybe it's not such a big price to pay for eliminating hunger and destitution.

And honestly, I don't know if this an be accomplished by peaceful means. People with privileges very rarely part with them voluntarily. Systemic nature of the problems we face is problem in itself. History shows that massive social change is rarely peaceful (the English civil war, French revolution - this is what it took to transition from a feudal society to capitalism). I do hope, however, that our higher overall levels of education will allow us to find a way.

And yes, I am aware that lots of people were trying to get out of and actually got out of East Germany.

But have you counted the number of people who emigrated and continue to emigrate from the now capitalist Eastern Europe in the past 30 years? Or the thousands of refugees that cross borders from one capitalist country to another every day, fleeing the conflicts that have their roots in capitalist interests? Or the thousands of people that are murdered by their capitalist regimes in the modern day when they try to resist (Ken Saro-Wiwa?)?

single families living in massive castles
Re property how big a house would one family be allowed to own?

But have you counted the number of people who emigrated and continue to emigrate from the now capitalist Eastern Europe in the past 30 years?
That is true but they are normally emigrating to other capitalist countries to earn money for themselves and their families.
How many people emigrate to communist countries?

Do you want to revolution to take place in the UK or the whole world?
Maybe you should start with Russia and join a movement to depose Putin since another poster has said that there is strong communist opposition.

Some of us - most on this thread by the looks of it - do not want the opposition you paint Hopeforall. In fact it's exactly what we don't want. I've been fearing a massive swing in the direction of state control in response to the extremes of capitalism. Actually I don't think it would be such a massive swing. Extremes resemble each other, and the institutions which protect us from takeover have been undermined.

Pissedoffprof I asked upthread if many people emigrated to communist countries and I’ve remembered some that did:
Members of the German Red Army Faction who were wanted for numerous crimes including murder were given a safe haven in East Germany and a change of identity.
Whilst East Germany existed they were safe but then the Wall came down and their safe refuge no longer existed and quite a few were caught and convicted.
I recommend a film about this called The Legend of Rita.