to think wanting to overthrow capitalism is not an extreme political stance

[chomalungma]

New school guidance issued last week for education.

www.gov.uk/guidance/plan-your-relationships-sex-and-health-curriculum#choosing-resources

Issued last Thursday, the guidance reads: “Schools should not under any circumstances use resources produced by organisations that take extreme political stances on matters.
“Examples of extreme political stances include, but are not limited to: a publicly stated desire to abolish or overthrow democracy, capitalism, or to end free and fair elections, opposition to the right of freedom of speech, freedom of association, freedom of assembly or freedom of religion and conscience

There are alternatives to capitalism. People may not like them, I don't necessarily agree with them - but I don't think it's an extreme political stance to take.

Yet the Government think it is.

Are people who think that there alternatives to capitalism taking an extreme political stance?

@Mariola321

The problem I have not ever seen answered is who does the crap jobs if everyone paid the same? And who wants to spend years training or very stressful job for no extra money?

That's the one thing never mentioned in Star Trek

@chomalungma

If capitalism is so good, then surely it can stand scrutiny and discussion?

If it's not even allowed to be discussed and alternatives discussed, then what kind of education is that? Doesn't sound much like 'freedom of speech and freedom of thought to me?

Any system like capitalism or communism should be discussed in schools and be open to scrutiny.

It's not like pupils can't find these materials anyway if they want.

This sums it up for me. Now, more than ever, we need to be teaching critical thinking skills, how to explore and examine an idea that isn't the status quo and has flaws for the sake of testing, questioning and pushing.

The most extreme ideology as far as I can see is just cracking on with the unsustainable trajectory we're on which will condemn more people to poverty, death and misery

The most extreme ideology as far as I can see is just cracking on with the unsustainable trajectory we're on which will condemn more people to poverty, death and misery

Can you imagine a world summit discussing capitalism and any alternatives?

Maybe it would take a massive world disaster to reshape the world in a different way?

@Mariola321

The problem I have not ever seen answered is who does the crap jobs if everyone paid the same? And who wants to spend years training or very stressful job for no extra money?

Who on earth really thinks it’s a binary choice between the status quo and everyone earning the same? Clearly the current expression of capitalism needs considerably more studying and questioning in schools if people are that unimaginative.

And, of course, slavery existed because people didn’t think anyone would do the crap jobs otherwise. It’s not as if the amount of money anyone earns matches up particularly well to the level of perceived crapness.

They are just saying don't use extreme source materials eg stuff sponsored by ISIS or North Korea or anything else at an extreme and check who is sponsoring the materials even if the materials themselves are moderate (it is a well know way cults get to you for example by sponsoring things you could not possibly disagree with often using a different business name to suck you in) which is one reason it says check the organisation whose "free" (is anything really free?) materials materials are being given to you.

in fact might be better just to use normal text books and reject all free gifts from outsiders who want you to use materials for which there is no charge. This is nothing to do with giving pupils an exercise of examining a passage from The Guardian or Telegraph for bias or reading a bit of Das Kapital or Main Kampf or the Bible for homework.

Who on earth really thinks it’s a binary choice between the status quo and everyone earning the same? Clearly the current expression of capitalism needs considerably more studying and questioning in schools if people are that unimaginative.

Well said. Our increasingly pretentious and increasingly hereditary ‘professional’ elites are just desperate to maintain their increasing financial superiority, that’s what that simplistic binary is about. Desperate to create more barriers to entry and maintain themselves.

Other countries manage to have higher levels of intelligence, even equally high levels of paper qualifications, and lower levels of inequality. We used to have it ourselves not long ago (minus the proliferation of paper qualifications).

@chomalungma - what do you mean by the “alternatives to capitalism”? The alternative to capitalism (which is an economic term) is a command economy where the government sets what is to be produced rather than letting the market decide. Anywhere this has been tried it has shown to be disastrous and leaves the population in poverty with shortages of basic goods. It also needs a dictatorship to impose it for that reason.

Command economies have been discussed many times on international summits though.

Capitalism with safety nets (welfare states) or regulation (some economists say some regulation is an essential part of capitalism to keep the market working) is not an alternative to capitalism. It’s still capitalism.

In any event the guidance is saying you can’t have groups who aim to overthrow capitalism. It’s the overthrowing that’s the issue and the type of group that supports that. That doesn’t mean that capitalism can’t be debated or criticized.

And, of course, slavery existed because people didn’t think anyone would do the crap jobs otherwise. It’s not as if the amount of money anyone earns matches up particularly well to the level of perceived crapness.

That’s interesting too, particularly in light of the destruction of employment rights over the last couple of decades, and reduction in real worth of wages. Put simply, the attitude is always that poor people have to be forced into low level work, but the richest have to be ‘incentivised’ by providing wealth beyond imagining. The hypocrisy is rampant.

Someone said something upthread about how bright and capable people won’t bother if they can see their hard work leads to no benefit. That is precisely the situation most of us have faced for the last few decades - we are all still working for the ageing population, and for anyone below the age of 50 we will never see the benefits they have.

we are all still working for the ageing population, and for anyone below the age of 50 we will never see the benefits they have

Pepperwort I don't understand this sentence:
Do you mean. We are all still working for the ageing population and for everyone below the age of 50?
Or we will never see the benefits possessed by anyone below the age of 50?

Put simply, the attitude is always that poor people have to be forced into low level work, but the richest have to be ‘incentivised’ by providing wealth beyond imagining. The hypocrisy is rampant.

Quite.
Take the fact that to make poor people work more we cut their benefits to make them poorer.
To make rich people work more we cut their taxes to make them richer.

Ok, but many people would prefer work in the shop if salary same as GP. And who wants to spend 9 months a year on an oil rig if pay is not £££.

Doesn't have to mean everyone earns exactly the same. There are countries like Sweden, Finland, Norway, Japan etc where the top 20% of society earn 3 or 4 times more than the bottom 20%.
As opposed to the U.K. and US where the top 20% earn 8 times more than the bottom 20%. www.equalitytrust.org.uk/sites/default/files/SpiritLevel-jpg_0.pdf

I dunno though....if everyone earned 30k (thought experiment) I think there would still be people who would prefer being a GP to working in a shop. Just like footballers would still prefer playing football than working in a shop.

Particularly if the alternative was you get nothing.

Cuba trains more doctors than it needs, and many then work abroad as part of international aid. They get paid less than taxi drivers.

Cuba very much still has a class system in that highly educated parents tend to have highly educated children.

There are many reasons people prefer to work in highly skilled jobs that aren’t about money.

I am neither defending Cuba nor socialism. I’m just pointing out that people do still want to get a (free) university education and do the most highly skilled jobs where there is no financial incentive to do so. There is still the intellectual enjoyment, social status and general satisfaction.

In Russia doctors were not paid much, but got lots of bribes from patients. Same with people working in shops/factories. They could sell goods at inflated price “from the back door”. Everything in Russia involved a bribe. Even teachers expected that from parents. I remember bringing a bag of food for my teacher at school because my aunt worked in a food store. Millions of people were forced into labour camps by being arrested on false pretences, for example your neighbour could report you for something, etc. and worked for food provided by government, without days off and maybe died in those camps. This is how socialism makes sure that there is enough people to fill the unpopular jobs.

@Brioches1

In Russia doctors were not paid much, but got lots of bribes from patients. Same with people working in shops/factories. They could sell goods at inflated price “from the back door”. Everything in Russia involved a bribe. Even teachers expected that from parents. I remember bringing a bag of food for my teacher at school because my aunt worked in a food store. Millions of people were forced into labour camps by being arrested on false pretences, for example your neighbour could report you for something, etc. and worked for food provided by government, without days off and maybe died in those camps. This is how socialism makes sure that there is enough people to fill the unpopular jobs.

Russia wasnt socialist, it was communist, I'm aware brains adled by right wing thinking cant see the difference

Capitalism works because it recognises that all people are NOT equal. Some have great minds, most don't. Some are exceptionally talented, most are not. It is not an equal world,no matter how much people may want it to be. Truth is, in most areas the many are carried by the few.

Capitalism doesn’t work as a stand alone system.

It requires at the very least a government that will create laws, because without laws property and capital don’t exist.

It then requires some services to be provided by the government so that people don’t rebel and cause the state to collapse.

Hence the popular combination of some capitalism, some socialism and in agricultural areas some anarchism.

The most intelligent and competent people often choose not to work in the private sector.

last few decades - we are all still working for the ageing population, and for anyone below the age of 50 we will never see the benefits they have
I'm sure I read that our state pension is one of the lowest in western countries. So I don't think it will necessarily reduce in the future . And if you have a second pension or income stream which takes you over the basic rate of tax you pay tax on your income like everyone else.

Capitalism works because it recognises that all people are NOT equal. Some have great minds, most don't. Some are exceptionally talented, most are not.

That’s your value system. Patriarchal. Values wealth, risk, capital, profIt, competition, selfishness (individualism).

Many of those people with great minds and talents would not want, not be able, nor be any good at caring for the elderly and sick.

You may have a talent but you still need food, heat and clean streets.

You’re valuing the wrong things.

Says a lot a lot a society that elevates the ‘unequal’ Donald trump to top job...

You are wrong. It was a socialist state trying to build communism.

The Soviet Union, officially the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR), was a federal socialist state in Northern Eurasia that existed from 1922 to 1991. Nominally a union of multiple national Soviet republics, in practice its government and economy were highly centralized until its final years.

The problem with these debates is that the terms 'capitalism' and 'socialism' are so broad that it's difficult to know what any anyone is actually arguing for or against.

I doubt anyone who supports capitalism thinks there should no government or public services. Nor do I think many people who support socialism want to live in a society like the USSR.

@Pepperwort there hasn’t been a “destruction of employment rights” in the past two decades. Quite the opposite- employees have far more rights than they used to and employment law is much more complex as a result. I’m not saying I think that’s bad thing, I don’t but you are not correct in what you say.

Equally @Brioches1 is right- comment economies like the USSR suffered shortages and there was horrendous cronyism which led to terrible inequality and lack of opportunities for many. I have family who lived there and it was impossible to get ahead without knowing the right people. The people on this thread who want to overthrow capitalism should live in one of these places then report back if they still feel the same way.

Also I have no idea why Scandinavian countries are trotted out on these threads. They are all capitalist societies.

comment economies like the USSR suffered shortages and there was horrendous cronyism which led to terrible inequality and lack of opportunities for many. I have family who lived there and it was impossible to get ahead without knowing the right people.

Wow that could never happen here

It's interesting how people are talking about non-capitalist states as all dictatorships that overthrew previous leaders. That's not true - Salvador Allende was elected president of Chile. He was overthrown by a group supported by the CIA and the US in a coup....one of the reasons there hasn't been more elected non-capitalist leaders is most likely internal workings behind the scenes by the US.