What is lacking, ISTM, is, for want of a better term, is a theological framework within which discuss social issues on the ship, and an over- reliance on an essentially secular economically-based political spectrum. Does Christianity not have something to say about the moral nature of human beings and their societies, the unity or not of the human race, the possibilities of humanity for good and evil, questions of objectivity and relativity, freedom (or not) of choice, the possibilities and limitations of social renewal, crime and punishment etc. etc.? I would suggest that a more (controversial) theological consciousness would offer a more inclusive approach that respects the expression of different points of view that some shipmates feel is currently lacking.
Hmm. I doubt you would find agreement on what Christianity says, and then I fear all that tends to happen is that people treat their viewpoints as having a moral strength to them even more than now.
With accompanying versions of "no true Christian would believe [what someone else believes]"
Most people will recognise the injustices faced by black americans. Most people will say "It's terrible what they do to them and something ought to be done!", and those same people will look at the demonstrators and say "Look at that lot! They need a good bath and get a bloody job! When I was there age I was working shifts in a factory. Lazy sods. I'd shove the lot of them up against a wall."
Human nature in action; something should be done - but I'm busy so find somebody else - and shooting the messenger.
I think you're confusing what you and your mates do with human nature.
And while poverty hasn't been eliminated great strides were made against Beveridge's "Five Giants" in the 1950s and 60s in the UK. There is still great poverty in the UK, made deliberately worse since the 1980s in the name of "flexibility", but it is not as extensive or as acute as it was in, say, 1930s Glasgow. To give up trying to improve matters is an abrogation of responsibility. I think it was Chesterton who said that Christianity had not been tried and found wanting, but found hard and not tried. And things that are considered "human nature" in one century can miraculously turn out not to be in future ones. 200 years ago a great many people were convinced it was utterly natural that the black man was subordinate to the white, and indeed such an arrangement was divinely ordained. You can also go back 150 years and find people saying that democracy is contrary to "natural" hierarchies and/or divine ordinance. No. Appeal to "human nature" to justify the status quo is a cop-out as old as the hills, and contrary to the evidence of changes in how people treat each other over time.
Why on earth does my name appear on the top of your quote from thatcheright?
Most people will recognise the injustices faced by black americans. Most people will say "It's terrible what they do to them and something ought to be done!", and those same people will look at the demonstrators and say "Look at that lot! They need a good bath and get a bloody job! When I was there age I was working shifts in a factory. Lazy sods. I'd shove the lot of them up against a wall."
Human nature in action; something should be done - but I'm busy so find somebody else - and shooting the messenger.
I think you're confusing what you and your mates do with human nature.
And while poverty hasn't been eliminated great strides were made against Beveridge's "Five Giants" in the 1950s and 60s in the UK. There is still great poverty in the UK, made deliberately worse since the 1980s in the name of "flexibility", but it is not as extensive or as acute as it was in, say, 1930s Glasgow. To give up trying to improve matters is an abrogation of responsibility. I think it was Chesterton who said that Christianity had not been tried and found wanting, but found hard and not tried. And things that are considered "human nature" in one century can miraculously turn out not to be in future ones. 200 years ago a great many people were convinced it was utterly natural that the black man was subordinate to the white, and indeed such an arrangement was divinely ordained. You can also go back 150 years and find people saying that democracy is contrary to "natural" hierarchies and/or divine ordinance. No. Appeal to "human nature" to justify the status quo is a cop-out as old as the hills, and contrary to the evidence of changes in how people treat each other over time.
Why on earth does my name appear on the top of your quote from thatcheright?
Because I screwed up the formatting. Fixed now (I hope). My apologies.
Even those nominally atheist countries such as North Korea, China, Vietnam et al have political system founded on the Marxist notion of making the poor wealthier.
None of them work. They have all failed. Both left and right political systems, Christian, Judaism, Islam, Hindu, Buddhism and so on, have all failed to eradicate poverty.
Okay, so two points.
One, that's not what Marxism is about.
Two, almost all the measured gains in reducing world poverty over the post-war period have come from one country: China.
You can legitimately argue (and I would have significant sympathy with) that the Chinese government only started lifting significant sections of their population out of abject poverty when they started to abandon Maoist dogma and embraced state capitalism. Ditto Vietnam. But to argue that the country that has done the most to eradicate poverty has failed to eradicate poverty is a fatal flaw in an already very shaky analysis.
KarlLB: Can you unpick that? I think I have an idea what you mean but can't imagine how it would look in practice.
I half-guessed I'd provoke that response, and it invites a very extensive answer, which I'm not qualified to give. The sort of thing that might be considered is what our fundamental understanding of the perfectibility of individuals and the societies in which they live is. There are, for example, those who seem to place an emphasis on: "and God saw that it was good", whilst others are more fixated on the consequences of Adam's sin. Respecting salvation, there are those emphasising freedom of choice, while others have a much more deterministic perspective, and there is the associated issue of how many can be saved. Approaches to these sorts of questions, ISTM, have important implications for developing Christian attitudes towards the human condition. In terms of the wider culture, I think that Christianity has a contribution to make as to whether one might be advised to adopt optimist, pessimistic, or realistic approaches to social problems. Such approaches also enable Christians to engage with the assumptions of secular humanism in a constructive but critical manner, just as secular humanism have every right to challenge Christian belief, not least for our benefit.
You can legitimately argue (and I would have significant sympathy with) that the Chinese government only started lifting significant sections of their population out of abject poverty when they started to abandon Maoist dogma and embraced state capitalism. Ditto Vietnam. But to argue that the country that has done the most to eradicate poverty has failed to eradicate poverty is a fatal flaw in an already very shaky analysis.
Here's a handy guide from The World Bank saying as much.
Some of the 15 countries (China, Kyrgyz Republic, Moldova, Vietnam) effectively eliminated extreme poverty by 2015. In others (e.g. India), low rates of extreme poverty in 2015 still translated to millions of people living in deprivation. In some of the countries in Sub-Saharan Africa (e.g. Democratic Republic of Congo, Tanzania, Burkina Faso), extreme poverty rates, even after rapid reduction, remain above 40%.
None of them work. They have all failed. Both left and right political systems, Christian, Judaism, Islam, Hindu, Buddhism and so on, have all failed to eradicate poverty.
Kind of like arguing that because there are still house fires the concept of having a fire department is a failure and just throwing up your hands and saying everything is pointless unless we can change the nature of humanity oxidation.
None of them work. They have all failed. Both left and right political systems, Christian, Judaism, Islam, Hindu, Buddhism and so on, have all failed to eradicate poverty.
Kind of like arguing that because there are still house fires the concept of having a fire department is a failure and just throwing up your hands and saying everything is pointless unless we can change the nature of humanity oxidation.
And it is a tactic to hide the foundational flaws of one's own philosophy. Inequity is a failure in socialism, but is a feature of capitalism.
Inequity is a failure in socialism, but is a feature of capitalism.
Only if you believe that Marxism is able to correctly analyse economic systems. Which it isn't.
Put another way, one has to be a Marxist to claim that of capitalism, but if one is a Marxist, one is already predisposed to develop anti-capitalist ideas like that in the first place, whether right or wrong.
Inequity is a failure in socialism, but is a feature of capitalism.
Only if you believe that Marxism is able to correctly analyse economic systems. Which it isn't.
Put another way, one has to be a Marxist to claim that of capitalism, but if one is a Marxist, one is already predisposed to develop anti-capitalist ideas like that in the first place, whether right or wrong.
Debate by sloganeering - it never gets old.
What specific parts of Marx's critique of capitalism do you find wanting? Or are you just asserting that it is?
Having finally read through this thread I would like to make a couple if points.
There are several right leaners here who call Left leaners communist.
The ship is centre ground. We discuss. Once you get to either end of the spectrum it is pretty much the same Both control people and promote themselves as being ultimately correct. There is very little practical difference between communism and dictatorships.
I lean left, some of my friends lean right. They are able to make strong arguments why they do and quite eloquently. That is the art of political debate.
lilbuddha: Inequity is a failure in socialism, but is a feature of capitalism.
I would prefer 'inequality' rather than 'inequity', because capitalism does not regard inequality of reward as unfair. That apart, most supporters of capitalism would, I think, agree with your statement, lilbuddha. They would, however, argue that because capitalism is much better at increasing the size of the cake it benefits 'the workers' more than a more equitable distribution of resources in a socialist state.
lilbuddha: Inequity is a failure in socialism, but is a feature of capitalism.
I would prefer 'inequality' rather than 'inequity', because capitalism does not regard inequality of reward as unfair. That apart, most supporters of capitalism would, I think, agree with your statement, lilbuddha. They would, however, argue that because capitalism is much better at increasing the size of the cake it benefits 'the workers' more than a more equitable distribution of resources in a socialist state.
To an small extent yes. The cake is massively unevenly divided. The bigger the cake the more the top people take. The trickledown theory will never work in practice as the top glass is much bigger than those below.
You only have to look at market rates. The aim is to buy as low as possible and sell high. Yes you need to make profit to pay your staff and invest back in the your business etc, but there is reason why Fairtrade started. The market rate often doesn’t allow a decent life for producers and ignores health and safety and child welfare breaches. I work at John Lewis, for those who don’t know, the staff own the company (we are all called partners) and all benefit from the profits. During the recent furlough the government paid us 80% and JL topped up the other 20%. This is the kind of business model that I like. Realism part of business as stores will close and where they absolutely have to people will be made redundant, but it is still a good system.
Tl:dr
Capitalism favours the few over many.
Even the staunchest advocates of capitalism would be herd-pressed to argue that it is not built on the necessity of inequity.
Can you back up that claim without resorting to any Marxist principles to underpin your defence?
Will you define the Marxist principles we're not allowed to use? Is it the extraction of labour value? Is it ownership of the means of production? Is it rent-seeking? Is private property?
The problem is that Marx influenced so many economists of so many flavours, that quoting anyone from the 20th century will undoubtedly be tainted by Marxist thought and phrases.
If you're unable to argue against Marx's economic theory, then perhaps you should do some research yourself.
Far from it. You've posed a question and so far, despite being asked (pleasantly and politely, I might say), have not limited the authorities which can be used in replying.
Far from it. You've posed a question and so far, despite being asked (pleasantly and politely, I might say), have not limited the authorities which can be used in replying.
Oh I see. I thought the context of it being the result of a question about Socialism and Capitalism, the authorities would have been self-limited.
Never mind, but might I suggest that if you need the authorities spelling out for you in this particular case, you would be better off not worrying your heads about it. You will hardly further the discussion.
You walked into that one. Quetzalcoatl got you to think Ricardo is a Marxist.
Ricardo is the second big name in classical economics after Adam Smith, and generally considered to Adam Smith's right.
Last time you were here you were under the impression 'wealth creators' was a term economically literate people would use. It isn't. It's a piece of propaganda put about to keep economically illiterate right-wing voters from calling for bank speculators to have to pay back the government loans they got after the crash.
In the mean time it is difficult to discuss whether the economic system of capitalism is built on anything without using Marxist terminology since the use of the word capitalism to describe the economic system we live in is originally Marxist terminology.
But anyway, capitalism is a system in which some people have capital, that is money that they don't need for their immediate use and so can invest, and some people need money and have to work. The people with the money give it to the people who work in return for the profits on the enterprise. If there is equality, that is either everyone needs to work or nobody needs to work then that doesn't happen. Hence capitalism requires inequality.
In the mean time it is difficult to discuss whether the economic system of capitalism is built on anything without using Marxist terminology since the use of the word capitalism to describe the economic system we live in is originally Marxist terminology.
But anyway, capitalism is a system in which some people have capital, that is money that they don't need for their immediate use and so can invest, and some people need money and have to work. The people with the money give it to the people who work in return for the profits on the enterprise. If there is equality, that is either everyone needs to work or nobody needs to work then that doesn't happen. Hence capitalism requires inequality.
Having more money does not always mean inequality. Equality is to do with rights and treatment as much as it is about money.
As to the ship. I agree with those who say it is just a phase. Over the years I have seen attitude ebb and flow. The ship used to lilt to the right and lefties felt out of place. Currently it lilts to the left and right leaning mates feel out of place. It will change.
As an evo I have noticed the same lilting over that issue as well.
I remember at times of great trouble (9/11 and 7/7 for instance) the ship has come together to support each other. Like all families we disagree on somethings
lilbuddha: Inequity is a failure in socialism, but is a feature of capitalism.
I would prefer 'inequality' rather than 'inequity', because capitalism does not regard inequality of reward as unfair. That apart, most supporters of capitalism would, I think, agree with your statement, lilbuddha. They would, however, argue that because capitalism is much better at increasing the size of the cake it benefits 'the workers' more than a more equitable distribution of resources in a socialist state.
WE can see, right now, that the cake getting larger can mean the the large pieces get larger and the small pieces get smaller. The fallacy of the capitalist argument is that in order to grow the smaller peices, the eaters of the larger ones have to buy into socialism at least somewhat. This is what allowed the growth of the middle-class* in the UK and the US. Doubling down on the capitalist theory is what is shrinking that in both.
lilbuddha: Inequity is a failure in socialism, but is a feature of capitalism.
I would prefer 'inequality' rather than 'inequity', because capitalism does not regard inequality of reward as unfair. That apart, most supporters of capitalism would, I think, agree with your statement, lilbuddha. They would, however, argue that because capitalism is much better at increasing the size of the cake it benefits 'the workers' more than a more equitable distribution of resources in a socialist state.
To an small extent yes. The cake is massively unevenly divided. The bigger the cake the more the top people take. The trickledown theory will never work in practice as the top glass is much bigger than those below.
The important thing IMO is the size of an individual's slice of the cake, not what percentage of the overall cake it is. 1% of a million is 10,000. 10% of a thousand is 100. Personally, I'd rather have the smaller percentage of the larger whole.
Obviously that's a very simplified set of example figures, but the principle being argued is sound*. If a given political system is making everyone (or at least the vast majority) richer then I see it as good even if the gap between richest and poorest is growing. And if a political system is making everyone (or at least the vast majority) poorer then I see it as bad even if it's eliminating the gap between richest and poorest.
This is why I don't see economic inequality as an inherently bad thing, or economic equality as an inherently good thing.
Good job trying Marvin but we all know that as an Admin you're a member of the woke-left thought police really.
The problem is that money is influence. Situations in which everyone is getting richer but inequality is increasing quickly turn into situations in which everyone is not getting richer.
The important thing IMO is the size of an individual's slice of the cake, not what percentage of the overall cake it is. 1% of a million is 10,000. 10% of a thousand is 100. Personally, I'd rather have the smaller percentage of the larger whole.
I don't think this is entirely true. Sure - if you're just counting absolute resources, then a small slice of a bigger cake is more cake, but a lot of people's life satisfaction is determined by power structures rather than by the quantity of resources that they have, and power structures are absolutely driven by relative cake share.
lilbuddha: Inequity is a failure in socialism, but is a feature of capitalism.
I would prefer 'inequality' rather than 'inequity', because capitalism does not regard inequality of reward as unfair. That apart, most supporters of capitalism would, I think, agree with your statement, lilbuddha. They would, however, argue that because capitalism is much better at increasing the size of the cake it benefits 'the workers' more than a more equitable distribution of resources in a socialist state.
To an small extent yes. The cake is massively unevenly divided. The bigger the cake the more the top people take. The trickledown theory will never work in practice as the top glass is much bigger than those below.
The important thing IMO is the size of an individual's slice of the cake, not what percentage of the overall cake it is. 1% of a million is 10,000. 10% of a thousand is 100. Personally, I'd rather have the smaller percentage of the larger whole.
I think a lot depends on how you measure the percentage. Some resources are finite or at least highly inelastic in terms of supply, so inequality means that some have greater access to them than others. This means, for example, that inequality allows some to buy their second or third home at prices beyond the reach of most others, so you get places where houses sit empty to 10 months of the year and yet young people can't move out of their parents' home. That their cash earnings can buy them 50% more in consumer goods than 30 years ago isn't a lot of help.
The size of the cake has overwhelmed the capacity of the kitchen to safely supply the ingredients.
Which is, in many respects, a post-Marxist, post-capitalist position, but it is capitalism that has brought us to that point, and indeed beyond that point.
You may well be right, but one notes en passant that you seem to have accepted the superior capacity of capitalism when it comes to producing stuff.
Two histories of economics that I've read, both fairly centrist, both agree that Marx was the first economist to draw attention to the superior capacity of capitalism when it comes to producing stuff.
You may well be right, but one notes en passant that you seem to have accepted the superior capacity of capitalism when it comes to producing stuff.
Two histories of economics that I've read, both fairly centrist, both agree that Marx was the first economist to draw attention to the superior capacity of capitalism when it comes to producing stuff.
I think the Communist Manifesto waxes lyrical about the ability of capitalism to revolutionize production, although the only line I recall is "all that is solid melts into air", which is pretty. Followed by "all that is sacred is profaned".
I forgot to say that this "melting" ability of capitalism has been widely cited as an important cultural force. Thus, you could argue that modernism itself had a restless and dynamic momentum, partly fuelled by capitalism. And then postmodernism, culture eats itself, etc.
Ok I read an article recently, sorry I can’t find it now, that basically said this about Conservatives. They see society as having to follow a top down structure. They do what they can to preserve that structure. That means equality is not realistic. They also believe in self reliance and if you are struggling through no fault of your own (disabilities etc allowed for) it is you who need to make the necessary change and the government should help you as little as possible.
Does this influence any posters on the ship? Could it influence ship mates without them really knowing it?
Socialism comes from the other side, we should all be more or less equal. The structure is false. The government should help the public, the public through the government should own the services that affect them.
Ok I read an article recently, sorry I can’t find it now, that basically said this about Conservatives. They see society as having to follow a top down structure. They do what they can to preserve that structure. That means equality is not realistic. They also believe in self reliance and if you are struggling through no fault of your own (disabilities etc allowed for) it is you who need to make the necessary change and the government should help you as little as possible.
Does this influence any posters on the ship? Could it influence ship mates without them really knowing it?
Socialism comes from the other side, we should all be more or less equal. The structure is false. The government should help the public, the public through the government should own the services that affect them.
It would be good to see the article but alas you cannot find it. I would argue that it was a exceptionally simplistic view.
I did honestly try to find it, but I couldn’t. Yes it is a basic description of both sides but do we need to go back to basics? Are our arguments too cluttered to see the basics.
I did honestly try to find it, but I couldn’t. Yes it is a basic description of both sides but do we need to go back to basics? Are our arguments too cluttered to see the basics.
Not at all. It's ok to go back to basics. Personally I think if we do so then my opinion would be that conservatism is more about recognising that equality is one of many values that people "believe in" or desire not necessarily the primary one. That change should be organic rather than government imposed and should be "steady" rather than swift, that tradition, ceremony, patriotism and institutions all have their place, or that at least enough people believe that they do.
Conservatism is also (generally) more a coalition of pragmatic / realistic thinkers, some who favour low support for the "vulnerable" and others who believe provision to such is a duty. Socialism on the other hand (again very generally) appears to believe in an ideological solution via equality and state ownership to achieve better outcomes for citizens.
I suspect by even typing this personal opinion which I say is very simplistic and general I may have drawn a target on my back for derision on these ere forums.
I admit that I don't have much time for ceremony or patriotism. Both are performative and are often ridiculous, inaccurate, and designed to squash dissent. The idea of being proud of an accident of birth is just bizarre.
Furthermore, the notions of Conservatism being steady are based on notions of control and keeping power in the hands of those who already have power. And that still doesn't explain the most radical of post-war PMs, Thatcher.
As I said it was a very broad overall assessment of "conservatism" and "socialism". And a personal opinion to boot.
I think it's a perfectly fair assessment of conservatism, and of one tradition within socialism (the Enlightenment theory tradition rather than the Ruskin-Methodist tradition).
The caveat of course is that by that definition Thatcher was not much of a conservative and Johnson, Cummings et al are not conservatives at all.
As I said it was a very broad overall assessment of "conservatism" and "socialism". And a personal opinion to boot.
I think it's a perfectly fair assessment of conservatism, and of one tradition within socialism (the Enlightenment theory tradition rather than the Ruskin-Methodist tradition).
The caveat of course is that by that definition Thatcher was not much of a conservative and Johnson, Cummings et al are not conservatives at all.
Well it is my opinion they (Thatcher, Johnson and Cummings) are/were MORE conservative than socialist, if we are going of course with very broad and general assessments of what "socialism" and "conservative" mean at the very basic level.
Comments
Hmm. I doubt you would find agreement on what Christianity says, and then I fear all that tends to happen is that people treat their viewpoints as having a moral strength to them even more than now.
With accompanying versions of "no true Christian would believe [what someone else believes]"
Why on earth does my name appear on the top of your quote from thatcheright?
Because I screwed up the formatting. Fixed now (I hope). My apologies.
Okay, so two points.
One, that's not what Marxism is about.
Two, almost all the measured gains in reducing world poverty over the post-war period have come from one country: China.
You can legitimately argue (and I would have significant sympathy with) that the Chinese government only started lifting significant sections of their population out of abject poverty when they started to abandon Maoist dogma and embraced state capitalism. Ditto Vietnam. But to argue that the country that has done the most to eradicate poverty has failed to eradicate poverty is a fatal flaw in an already very shaky analysis.
I half-guessed I'd provoke that response, and it invites a very extensive answer, which I'm not qualified to give. The sort of thing that might be considered is what our fundamental understanding of the perfectibility of individuals and the societies in which they live is. There are, for example, those who seem to place an emphasis on: "and God saw that it was good", whilst others are more fixated on the consequences of Adam's sin. Respecting salvation, there are those emphasising freedom of choice, while others have a much more deterministic perspective, and there is the associated issue of how many can be saved. Approaches to these sorts of questions, ISTM, have important implications for developing Christian attitudes towards the human condition. In terms of the wider culture, I think that Christianity has a contribution to make as to whether one might be advised to adopt optimist, pessimistic, or realistic approaches to social problems. Such approaches also enable Christians to engage with the assumptions of secular humanism in a constructive but critical manner, just as secular humanism have every right to challenge Christian belief, not least for our benefit.
Here's a handy guide from The World Bank saying as much.
Kind of like arguing that because there are still house fires the concept of having a fire department is a failure and just throwing up your hands and saying everything is pointless unless we can change the nature of humanity oxidation.
Only if you believe that Marxism is able to correctly analyse economic systems. Which it isn't.
Put another way, one has to be a Marxist to claim that of capitalism, but if one is a Marxist, one is already predisposed to develop anti-capitalist ideas like that in the first place, whether right or wrong.
Debate by sloganeering - it never gets old.
What specific parts of Marx's critique of capitalism do you find wanting? Or are you just asserting that it is?
There are several right leaners here who call Left leaners communist.
The ship is centre ground. We discuss. Once you get to either end of the spectrum it is pretty much the same Both control people and promote themselves as being ultimately correct. There is very little practical difference between communism and dictatorships.
I lean left, some of my friends lean right. They are able to make strong arguments why they do and quite eloquently. That is the art of political debate.
Only to a cynic.
The irony is deafening.
I would prefer 'inequality' rather than 'inequity', because capitalism does not regard inequality of reward as unfair. That apart, most supporters of capitalism would, I think, agree with your statement, lilbuddha. They would, however, argue that because capitalism is much better at increasing the size of the cake it benefits 'the workers' more than a more equitable distribution of resources in a socialist state.
Can you back up that claim without resorting to any Marxist principles to underpin your defence?
To an small extent yes. The cake is massively unevenly divided. The bigger the cake the more the top people take. The trickledown theory will never work in practice as the top glass is much bigger than those below.
You only have to look at market rates. The aim is to buy as low as possible and sell high. Yes you need to make profit to pay your staff and invest back in the your business etc, but there is reason why Fairtrade started. The market rate often doesn’t allow a decent life for producers and ignores health and safety and child welfare breaches. I work at John Lewis, for those who don’t know, the staff own the company (we are all called partners) and all benefit from the profits. During the recent furlough the government paid us 80% and JL topped up the other 20%. This is the kind of business model that I like. Realism part of business as stores will close and where they absolutely have to people will be made redundant, but it is still a good system.
Tl:dr
Capitalism favours the few over many.
Will you define the Marxist principles we're not allowed to use? Is it the extraction of labour value? Is it ownership of the means of production? Is it rent-seeking? Is private property?
The problem is that Marx influenced so many economists of so many flavours, that quoting anyone from the 20th century will undoubtedly be tainted by Marxist thought and phrases.
If you're unable to argue against Marx's economic theory, then perhaps you should do some research yourself.
Am I allowed to use Ricardo?
So that would be "no" then.
Oh I see. I thought the context of it being the result of a question about Socialism and Capitalism, the authorities would have been self-limited.
Never mind, but might I suggest that if you need the authorities spelling out for you in this particular case, you would be better off not worrying your heads about it. You will hardly further the discussion.
Ricardo is the second big name in classical economics after Adam Smith, and generally considered to Adam Smith's right.
Last time you were here you were under the impression 'wealth creators' was a term economically literate people would use. It isn't. It's a piece of propaganda put about to keep economically illiterate right-wing voters from calling for bank speculators to have to pay back the government loans they got after the crash.
But anyway, capitalism is a system in which some people have capital, that is money that they don't need for their immediate use and so can invest, and some people need money and have to work. The people with the money give it to the people who work in return for the profits on the enterprise. If there is equality, that is either everyone needs to work or nobody needs to work then that doesn't happen. Hence capitalism requires inequality.
Having more money does not always mean inequality. Equality is to do with rights and treatment as much as it is about money.
As to the ship. I agree with those who say it is just a phase. Over the years I have seen attitude ebb and flow. The ship used to lilt to the right and lefties felt out of place. Currently it lilts to the left and right leaning mates feel out of place. It will change.
As an evo I have noticed the same lilting over that issue as well.
I remember at times of great trouble (9/11 and 7/7 for instance) the ship has come together to support each other. Like all families we disagree on somethings
*In the economic sense
The important thing IMO is the size of an individual's slice of the cake, not what percentage of the overall cake it is. 1% of a million is 10,000. 10% of a thousand is 100. Personally, I'd rather have the smaller percentage of the larger whole.
Obviously that's a very simplified set of example figures, but the principle being argued is sound*. If a given political system is making everyone (or at least the vast majority) richer then I see it as good even if the gap between richest and poorest is growing. And if a political system is making everyone (or at least the vast majority) poorer then I see it as bad even if it's eliminating the gap between richest and poorest.
This is why I don't see economic inequality as an inherently bad thing, or economic equality as an inherently good thing.
.
*= of course, I would say that wouldn't I
The problem is that money is influence. Situations in which everyone is getting richer but inequality is increasing quickly turn into situations in which everyone is not getting richer.
I don't think this is entirely true. Sure - if you're just counting absolute resources, then a small slice of a bigger cake is more cake, but a lot of people's life satisfaction is determined by power structures rather than by the quantity of resources that they have, and power structures are absolutely driven by relative cake share.
I think a lot depends on how you measure the percentage. Some resources are finite or at least highly inelastic in terms of supply, so inequality means that some have greater access to them than others. This means, for example, that inequality allows some to buy their second or third home at prices beyond the reach of most others, so you get places where houses sit empty to 10 months of the year and yet young people can't move out of their parents' home. That their cash earnings can buy them 50% more in consumer goods than 30 years ago isn't a lot of help.
Which is, in many respects, a post-Marxist, post-capitalist position, but it is capitalism that has brought us to that point, and indeed beyond that point.
You may well be right, but one notes en passant that you seem to have accepted the superior capacity of capitalism when it comes to producing stuff.
I stood down as an Admin months ago. I am now merely an Admin Emeritus, an honorary title with no actual power or authority.
I think the Communist Manifesto waxes lyrical about the ability of capitalism to revolutionize production, although the only line I recall is "all that is solid melts into air", which is pretty. Followed by "all that is sacred is profaned".
Understandable, if it's made of cake.
Does this influence any posters on the ship? Could it influence ship mates without them really knowing it?
Socialism comes from the other side, we should all be more or less equal. The structure is false. The government should help the public, the public through the government should own the services that affect them.
It would be good to see the article but alas you cannot find it. I would argue that it was a exceptionally simplistic view.
Not at all. It's ok to go back to basics. Personally I think if we do so then my opinion would be that conservatism is more about recognising that equality is one of many values that people "believe in" or desire not necessarily the primary one. That change should be organic rather than government imposed and should be "steady" rather than swift, that tradition, ceremony, patriotism and institutions all have their place, or that at least enough people believe that they do.
Conservatism is also (generally) more a coalition of pragmatic / realistic thinkers, some who favour low support for the "vulnerable" and others who believe provision to such is a duty. Socialism on the other hand (again very generally) appears to believe in an ideological solution via equality and state ownership to achieve better outcomes for citizens.
I suspect by even typing this personal opinion which I say is very simplistic and general I may have drawn a target on my back for derision on these ere forums.
I admit that I don't have much time for ceremony or patriotism. Both are performative and are often ridiculous, inaccurate, and designed to squash dissent. The idea of being proud of an accident of birth is just bizarre.
Furthermore, the notions of Conservatism being steady are based on notions of control and keeping power in the hands of those who already have power. And that still doesn't explain the most radical of post-war PMs, Thatcher.
The caveat of course is that by that definition Thatcher was not much of a conservative and Johnson, Cummings et al are not conservatives at all.
Well it is my opinion they (Thatcher, Johnson and Cummings) are/were MORE conservative than socialist, if we are going of course with very broad and general assessments of what "socialism" and "conservative" mean at the very basic level.