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?

How do you discuss Animal Farm without reference to the Communist manifesto?

Just wanted to add a quote from World bank report on transition to capitalism "While
it was estimated that, in 1989, the number of people living on less than $4 per
day (at international prices) was 14 million (out of a population of approxi-
mately 360 million), it is now estimated that more than 140 million people
live below the same poverty line.16 (See chapter 5 for the calculations and the
discussion.) Social transfers, and free health care and education, once taken
for granted, are now rapidly shrinking. Mortality and morbidity, particu-
larly in the countries of the former Soviet Union, have increased substan-
tially in some cases, without peace-time precedent (Heleniak 1995). Unem-
ployment, almost nonexistent (except in the former Yugoslavia) before the
transition, affected more than 15 million people by 1996 and is still rising"

@Stripesgalore

‘And stealing someone capital that they've worked hard for isn't a human rights violation?‘

I wouldn’t claim to be an expert on human rights and capital, but I am not aware that socialising industries is inherently contrary to human rights.

Abolishing democracy definitely is. It is covered by the original International Declaration on Human Rights.

I haven't studied communism or Marxism but I presume it doesn't just apply to industry. Surely you wouldnt be allowed to have a nicer house than everyone else, nicer car, money in the bank etc.

There’s variation in what people privately own in communist countries. You might want to look at what is meant by ‘property is theft.’ It doesn’t mean people can’t own anything at all.

It’s a bit pointless trying to work out what the human rights laws are around capital if neither of us is familiar with them. Maybe you could look them up?

Capitalusm is shit. Yanbu.

From what I have found your property us protected under human rights.

Protocol 1, Article 1 protects your right to enjoy your property peacefully
Property can include things like land, houses, objects you own, shares, licences, leases, patents, money, pensions and certain types of welfare benefits. A public authority cannot take away your property, or place restrictions on its use, without very good reason.

This right applies to companies as well as individuals.

Presumably then making an industry socialist is considered a good reason, or the U.K. government would have never been able to create any socialist institutions, like the education system and the NHS.

sst1234 Sat 26-Sep-20 21:50:01

Funny how those that bear the fruits of capitalism the most tend to range against it. What do they call it....ah yes virtue signalling. Capitalism has successfully lifted billions out of poverty wherever it replaced the alternative. Ask those that lived behind the iron curtain for 70 years.
Now, cue the nonsense “yeah but, not but, yeah but socialism has never been tried properly”.

Funny how we've saved the banks and financial institutions (which is institutional socialism) but us poor people are subjected to capitalism. Thatcherism would have at least seen the banks go bust. Neoliberalism won't allow that, it makes too much money for the city and various MPs.

We have socialism for the rich and capitalism for the rest of us. And it's shit. Let's have the same rule for all.

Fascist governments don't declare themselves. They start by making dissent illegal and unthinkable. Banning knowledge of any difference is a place to start.

As said, this is to stop the agenda of the BLM political movement from being pushed under the guise of BLM as a statement. It would also stop some previously used material from extremist Muslim groups.

Then we hope that common sense would be applied. Vegan movements and hunt saboteurs could fit the description. But this allows the LEA to step in if an agenda is being pushed which isn't in the best interests of the pupils or material used to promote extreme activism/violence.

Communism makes everybody poor.

Do people have a free vote and choice of candidate in Socialist or Communist countries?

If they don't and you get a choice of different beliefs as leaders then that's a lost freedom.

should have been and you DOn't get a choice of different beliefs as leaders

Don’t want to be like China or North Korea. Democracy is better.

With communism who will do the bad jobs? Like who wants to spend 9 months every year on oil platform in the sea if there is not 3x the money of working in a shop.

I lived in a communist country as a child, ex Yugloslavia, so to correct few assumptions.

Private property was protected. You could have a flat, house, land, bank account and even a small business like hairdresser salon, butcher shop, florist shop and things like that. People at the Adriatic coast were encouraged to build apartments for renting to tourists. All big business were owned by the state.

For what it's worth, I think communism has some good ideas (not all). But that is the trouble, it is a good idea but because people are not perfect it can never be implemented. Things just do not work that way.

In communist states people are paid the same no matter how they work so those bright and capable have no wish to be better because it is the same no matter what they do. Same with companies. Good company has to give money to a bad one. People resent it and of course it can't work.

But capitalism is no better, it could be even argued it is worse. Capitalism is good for smart, capable, rich, those with good connections, especially those who are rich. But it should be heavily regulated by the state. But people we vote for are influenced by those with money, so rules and regulations are always implemented to benefit the rich.

The gap between poor and rich is getting bigger every day, and middle class is shrinking. Revolutions happen when people can't take it anymore. I think it will happen at one moment, but when will that be I don't know. 50 years from now, 100 years, who knows.

@FiveFootTwoEyesOfBlue

Considering an alternative to capitalism is not the same as using resources in a state school produced by an organisation whose stated aim is to abolish or overthrow capitalism.

You're over-reacting. Teachers aren't banned from discussing capitalism and its pros and cons.

So they can discuss alternatives to capitalism but can't use any resources that come from groups who support such a thing?

That's going to limit discussion, isn't it?

What if the topic is 'Alternatives to capitalism" and the teacher finds a leaflet explaining alternatives - that they want to discuss.

This would seem like they are banned from using such a leaflet - because the group who produced it have an 'extreme political stance'.

I hear lots about capitalism is bad but how much would our normal day to day lives be different without it?

We would have the lifestyles freedoms, own what we own etc. Without it?

Of course it's an extremist political stance. The fact you don't grasp this is indicative of your lack of objectivity. Replace it with what? A command economy with forcible redistribution of assets by the state? Children should not be indoctrinated at school by political lobbyists.

@noblegiraffe

It’s about who produces teaching materials, not banning discussion of ideas.

Schools are still teaching Animal Farm right now. No book burnings.

It's got to make discussion of such ideas difficult if you can't use source material from groups who are in favour of alternatives.

Unless the teaching materials that discuss alternatives to capitalism are produced by capitalists or groups who are in favour of capitalism.

What is wrong with using material from a group that is in favour of abolishing capitalism?

Children should not be indoctrinated at school by political lobbyists

So you are saying that children shouldn't be exposed to different ideas at school about alternatives to capitalism?

What happened to critical thinking?

That statement you just made could include climate change, feminism, voting alternatives, giving women the vote (I guess that's what was argued in the past)

Who gets to define indoctrination and political lobbying?

you can't use source material from groups who are in favour of alternatives

You think school children should be 'taught' using the materials produced by political extremists?

I suppose that in the past that giving women the vote was seen as an extreme political stance.

And even though it could be discussed in class, any material from groups who wanted to give women the vote would be banned.

*see also union rights, women's rights, LGBT rights, slavery etc

What happened to critical thinking?

Good question. What happened to it? Twitter is full of fanatics who think pronouns are 'literal violence,' and you think that overthrowing the economic system which has produced more material benefits than any other is a reasonable position which should be taught in schools. By militant lobbyists.

You think school children should be 'taught' using the materials produced by political extremists

Who gets to define extremism?

Were people who wanted women to have the vote extremists?
Were people who wanted trade unions extremists?
Were people who wanted gay marriage extremists?