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?

@MangoFeverDream - who do you think is the best judge of where money should go and why?

As for who has come to the conclusion that capitalism is not the be all and end all, I think you will find it is 100% of countries, as pretty much all countries have some form of welfare system, taxation, free education, etc. The only difference between us is that you appear to view capitalism as central to it all, with taxation etc just there to service the requirements of capitalism, and the motivating factor behind absolutely everything all humans ever do, and I view it as one of the motivating factors behind human endeavour, but not always the most desirable or useful ine in every situation.

And my whole point is that investment doesn’t always guarantee any kind of result. What do you think universities are for? Guaranteed results?

As for who has come to the conclusion that capitalism is not the be all and end all, I think you will find it is 100% of countries, as pretty much all countries have some form of welfare system, taxation, free education

This is still part of the capitalist system, in that these programmes depend on the surpluses of capitalism to survive. If they don’t have successful enterprises/businesses to leach off of, where would we be? The question really is how much?

Personally, I’m not supportive of universal health care and universal public schooling (as in the US).

Government doesn’t really do a great job with these sectors, does any innovation actually come from the NHS? Or from American public schools 😂

I’m actually very supportive of UBI as a driver of capitalism (the receiver has free reign to spend how like without the government or officious busybodies telling them how to spend it like in more traditional versions).

The reality is, if you did not have successful private companies and individuals to tax, you couldn’t hope to afford these programmes.

The only difference between us is that you appear to view capitalism as central to it all, with taxation etc just there to service the requirements of capitalism, and the motivating factor behind absolutely everything all humans ever do, and I view it as one of the motivating factors behind human endeavour, but not always the most desirable or useful ine in every situation

So ... you are in fact a capitalist. You don’t actually want the government to take over most industry and you still believe in private property rights. So you want to tweak it, I just disagree with you on how to accomplish that.

Capitalism has lifted the most people out of poverty ever. It may seem immoral to you, but it’s better than trying to motivate (or force) people by moral imperatives. Here’s a great quote from Adam Smith on this:

It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own self-interest. We address ourselves not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities, but of their advantages

And my whole point is that investment doesn’t always guarantee any kind of result. What do you think universities are for?

It’s not your point when you talk about planned innovation. Put simply, I don’t want the government to pour public money into unprofitable ventures. Let private investors do that

@annabel85

Funny how Capitalism can always bail itself out by printing more money.

No it doesn't, it bails itself out by promising future work, ie debt.

Other organisations/countries accept that promise down to past history.

Communism cannot promise future work as all work is already owned.
.it cannot purchase what it already possesses.

@MangoFeverDream - where on earth have I said that I’m not a capitalist? I’ve said I have a lot of sympathy with those who think there must be something better, because I do not think capitalism is the be all and end all, and therefore don’t think it actually is extremist for people to imagine alternatives to capitalism. I also think ideas from socialism fit perfectly well into our largely capitalist societies already without the people proposing them being accused of wanting to be like Venezuela or the USSR. And I don’t think communism is the only alternative to capitalism that anyone can possibly imagine.

I do also think that some largely capitalist economies have got remarkably lazy on the back of the mantra that the private sector will sort everything out for everyone, so long as it is given free rein, because the markets know what people want (it’s just that what people want and what is profitable might not in the longer term enable us to continue to survive on this planet, which we are exploiting to the point of no return). Private sector involvement in public services has certainly revealed the lie in the claim that the private sector is always better, more innovative and more efficient.

@Elsewyre - but countries more usually raise money through Government bonds. Surely quantative easing is a means for countries to take on debts really owed by banks, not countries, to persuade banks to start lending money again - money that isn’t really theirs to lend, because it was given to them by the countries that don’t want the banks to fail, via their central banks? Surely that is capitalism being bailed out? It isn’t normal in a capitalist system, surely, for countries to take on banks’ debts?

It certainly seems very odd to me to borrow money to persuade banks to lend money which they don’t want to lend because they have wrecked the economy and now won’t lend money at affordable rates to anyone or anything.

ps @MangoFeverDream - I find it an exceptionally odd viewpoint to consider our police, NHS doctors, nurses, porters, state school teachers, civil servants, etc, to be “leaching off” capitalism.

I guess, really, I personally think capitalism is mostly positive, not so that it can be “leached off”, but because it is a tool that can help people work constructively together. It isn’t always used that way, though. It can also lead to destructive and unfair competition and abuses of power, just like any other human-made concept. It is certainly not “leaching off” (or leeching off) capitalism to recognise that capitalism does not work in a vacuum and that it actually needs all the things @MangoFeverDream claims leach off (or leech off) it for it to be successful and constructive, rather than abusive and destructive. You could say, therefore, that if there is any leaching (or leeching) going on, it’s going both ways. Capitalism creates some advantages and some problems for societies, and capitalists have to own the problems they cause, not start imagining they are being leeched off.