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?

OK, if you want to stay national to avoid the inconvenient international perspective replace Nairobi with the organised shortage of decent affordable housing in the UK that no-one seems to have gone to prison for.

One of the propaganda posters in Cuba states: there are 100 million homeless children in the world. None of them are Cuban.

There are states in the world where huge numbers of people have died of famine. Some of them have been communist or socialist, some capitalist. There are states in the world that use slave labour, some of them are socialist or communist, some capitalist. There are states in the world with horrific abuse of political dissidents, some are communist or socialist, some capitalist.

In the U.K., and in other Western countries, we have had ongoing debates and struggles between left and right perspectives which have created a mix of socialism like the NHS, the BBC, libraries, the army and schooling, and capitalist like banking and retail.

It is a bit pointless comparing the most communist countries to the U.K.. Why not compare them to countries with very little socialism?

Well, I remember my friends having to get up at 4am to queue for milk and bread.
I remember them having to borrow money so they can pay the bribe the doctor wanted, just to look at their child and then to pay off the nurses for the simplest things.
I remember people being sacked from their jobs with absolutely no recourse to any help.
I remember bringing books and sanitary items for my friends. I remember not being able to find sanitary items in the shops, tampons are a luxury, the state does not plan for luxuries like that. Instead of pads you used wads of tissue and used to leave all my toiletries behind, pretending I didn't have space in my bags so they would be used by my friends.

There was no state or other support for any of them, other than from family, and even then when the family weren't intimidated by the state.

It's a great system, if you're not the one living it.

Oh yes, because the communist/socialist state is the great provider of housing. Have you seen the high rise slums there? Do you know that very often three generation live under the same roof? Do you know what scams and bribery it takes to be finally given the keys to a cockroach infested flat?

Have you heard of a комуналка? Feel free to google.

You want capitalism to provide the financial means and communism to spend it. Except spending is the easier bit.

My family lives with three generations under the same roof in the U.K. My mum grew up with four generations under the same roof in the U.K.

It’s not really comparable to four year old children sleeping rough on the street or in sewers.

Yes, but you have the option to buy.

There is no such option when the state controls the housing market.

The state controls everything. Are you happy to live like that?

Also, where in the U.K. and the homeless 4yo children sleeping in the sewers gnawing on chicken bones?

As I have said, the U.K. is not a relevant comparison. If you don’t agree with a system where, as you put it, capitalism makes the money and communism spends it, don’t use the NHS, schools, national museums, libraries etc.

But most people in the U.K. expect a mixed system.

I think wanting to completely tear apart a well established norm is quite extreme. Additionally, anything like that is not likely to be obtained peacefully or indeed without dramatic impact to a lot of people.

Ok, so how would you move to a society that is not capitalist, where the state ultimately owns and/or controls everything?

Well, you would forcibly remove assets from the wealthier and from those operating any kind of significant business. Probably using threat of force and/or loss of freedom.

You would pass a whole lot of laws that would likely never be able to be repealed (give all power to a government body to control significant industry and you'll likely not get it back without a revolution) so you would need a loss of democracy (because who will vote for this?).

You will probably have to compel people to work in certain industries to ensure effective allocation of people to the state's aims.

Still sound attractive?

There is nothing wrong with criticising capitalism. The market fails, that's why we need regulation and oversight, plus redistributive taxation policies. But find me a non capitalist system that doesn't rely on expropriation and coercion to motivate people (if you can't improve your lot by innovating and keeping a slice of that value, by moving through the system, by changing your job and circumstances then you will need to be motivated through more sinister means). That is what the guidance is getting at.

Can you not see that even russia and China have a form of modified state sponsored capitalism? Can you not see that this guidance might protect some pupils from some really violent (potentially state sponsored) ideologies.

Abolishing capitalism from here is a really extreme position. It's not the same question as "how would we build a community on a mythical new planet".

Also, the guidance talks about abolishing or overthrowing capitalism, not about debating whether it would be better to moderate capitalism, or even whether it would be quite nice in theory to live in a socialist paradise!

New Zealand is a capitalist economy. Scandinavia is capitalist.

Wanting to be more like them = totally fine and within the guidance.

Much rather be there than Venezuela (which still has huge inequalities).

Yes, but you have the option to buy. There is no such option when the state controls the housing market.

Not much of an option for many people in the UK, where private landlords control the housing market instead. FGS no one wants outright communism here, you’re comparing two ends of a spectrum. Why?

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

I agree completely in theory, but it raises the question of who's to lead the discussion
Unfortunately extreme positions tend to attract some rather odd passengers, some of whom aren't always capable of a rounded debate, and I'm not sure these are the ones we want to see leading things

By all means offer material from one "side" of an issue, just so long as the opposite side's view is presented too ... that way you get a real discussion as opposed to indoctrination

Not much of an option for many people in the UK, where private landlords control the housing market instead

If you don’t have private landlords that have an incentive to rent out their property than you will
have a housing shortage. If you can’t make a profit on building and selling homes, no one will want do it. What are we, a bunch of homesteaders?

Surely it would be discussed in the way it is already discussed, through subjects like Geography and English Literature?

We do have a housing shortage. That’s why rent is so high.

@MangoFeverDream - except it’s not true that nobody ever wants to do anything unless it's for profit, is it? Even private schools are supposed to be charities...

I do wonder what the USSR would have ended up looking like if it weren't for WW2 and Stalin. USSR was devastated after WW2, but unlike Western European countries, they weren't given a shedload of money from the USA to rebuild.

Also, no already wealthy/developed country has ever attempted socialism. Russia was pretty much an agrarian society when the revolution happened. Give the EU countries 100 years or so and they'd make socialism work. It took capitalism a few hundred years, via slavery and children down mines, to get to where we are now.

Profit making is just one incentive - sometimes one that is beneficially motivating, sometimes one that is hugely corrupting. Imvho, global capitalism is highly corrupt - money laundering facilitated knowingly by supposedly reputable banks, tax evasion, etc, on a massive worldwide scale. Where’s the good in that? Who has the ability to bring that back under control, when the people in control are the ones who benefit from it?

We do have a housing shortage. That’s why rent is so high

So why not allow developers to build on the green belt?

except it’s not true that nobody ever wants to do anything unless it's for profit, is it?

Nobody is going to break their back building or renovating houses for strangers, no. Maybe their own house and their child’s house.

Money is very motivating. Moralising nitwits are not.

@MangoFeverDream - well, I’m quite certain a communist country would have built on the green belt by now

‘So why not allow developers to build on the green belt?’

Isn’t the argument usually that there are plenty of brown sites available?

@Stripesgalore - ah, yes, but it’s too hard to make a profit on that!

But most people in the U.K. expect a mixed system.

And we have a mixed system. The NHS and the social welfare are very extensive and well established.

@Walkaround

I don't disagree with you that capitalism is highly problematic. Discussing that is not the same as saying it should be overthrown though - overthrowing capitalism isn't just a matter of saying "we don't like this system". It is about confiscation and coercion if you want things to change to a new system quickly. Rather than regulating the excesses, which is kind of what you are talking about.

We have a housing shortage because we've never exactly addressed the population growth. Until we look at the demand side of the equation, we are always going to be chasing our own tail.

To paraphrase Thatcher, Socialist governments tend to make a mess of things as they always run out of other peoples money.

Name one communist regime that works perfectly? Even China is massively capitalist when it suits them and has a far more extreme spectrum of have and have nots than we do.

The overthrow of capitalism is an extreme political stance as there is no realistic alternative being offered.

Frankly, I've seen what Labour control and it's benefits are good enough for you mantra and I'd take Tory anytime. They didn't replace the jobs lost when the heavy industry went under, the private sector did.