The General Election - Who Are You Voting For?

[FoxyPV]

Read Mises's critique and argument as to why Communism could not work. All his criticisms came to pass and the USSR collapsed. Bearing in mind he wrote his argument against communism back in 1922, it was quite foresighted.

He's a classical liberalist - he believes in the free market (ref Thatcher, M) so will clearly be against Socialism. The USSR was ran as a state capitalist economy rather than a Communist economy and they are not the same thing . Communism is a world wide philosophy and will only succeed when it takes over as the dominant political and economic ideology but it probably won't be in my lifetime as liberal capitalism as done such a good job of convincing people that it is the only economic/ political philosophy that can work in the UK. The mere mention of social democracy has people crying nanny state and complaining of communism.

The name reason for the fall of the USSR etc is because of the socialisation of selfishness that hundreds of years of capitalism has bred into society - if you as someone to put something aside for the notion of the greater good the majority of people will tell you to go and fvck. If i said to you I want to tax everyone around 50% of their wages but all this would be put back into the public towards healthcare etc most people would think that I'd gone insane. If all business was owned by the state and profits went towards the state coffers therefore the public coffers the vast wealth the banks et al would generate could be used to help society as a whole.

The state should use the banks that are nationalised now to help bring down the national debt and help out small businesses - they should be run for the public good. In cases like this competition rules should be thrown out the window.

[Webbo]

He's a classical liberalist - he believes in the free market (ref Thatcher, M) so will clearly be against Socialism.

And the fact that the Soviet bloc collapsed is just a coincidence?

[Daggers]

And the fact that the Soviet bloc collapsed is just a coincidence?

Another victim of all-seater stadia?

[Nick]

Another victim of all-seater stadia?

NO SAD PANDA ANTICS WANTED IN THIS THREAD!

[FoxyPV]

And the fact that the Soviet bloc collapsed is just a coincidence?

The cases of State capitalism (USSR etc) not working are because the cost of the arms race.

The cost of Afghanistan (parallels?) and a reforming leader which destabilised the regime leading to factionalism.

Another victim of all-seater stadia?

:D

[Webbo]

The cost of Afghanistan (parallels?) and a reforming leader which destabilised the regime leading to factionalism.

Maybe communism/socialism always fails because it's not a very good idea.

[FoxyPV]

Maybe communism/socialism always fails because it's not a very good idea.

not true but lol (capitalism is such a roaring success too )

[Daggers]

Anarcho-syndicalism FTW

[AoWW]

I feel like making up some -isms too, just so I can sound clever.

[Nick]

Anarcho-syndicalism FTW

It's a fairly coherent anti-capitalist model, though my limited understanding of it is that it does not differentiate between political and economic policy - the narrative that power corrupts is fine but I don't see how any equilibrium can be sustained between humans as greed seems part of the genetic make-up....... Nice idea, I have no idea if it could work, I'd think not........ bit like communism really in that respect.

[Guest]

Anarcho-syndicalism FTW

You're fooling yourself. We're living in a dictatorship.

[AoWW]

*I feel stupid*

[Zingari]

Tarquin Fintimlinbinwhinbimlim Bus Stop F'tang F'tang Ole

Biscuit-Barrel...ism

[Daggers]

You're fooling yourself. We're living in a dictatorship.

[Guest]

Bloody peasants.

[Nick]

Brilliant, simply brilliant.

[FoxyPV]

It's a fairly coherent anti-capitalist model, though my limited understanding of it is that it does not differentiate between political and economic policy - the narrative that power corrupts is fine but I don't see how any equilibrium can be sustained between humans as greed seems part of the genetic make-up....... Nice idea, I have no idea if it could work, I'd think not........ bit like communism really in that respect.

All political philosphies join the two whether directly or indirectly but this makes no difference as in the end one dictates the other.

Greed has been socialised to the point of acceptability and put forth as the notion of self preservation (but that's a load of bollox) and is the manner in which capitalism has perpetuated itself.

I'd rather anarcho - communism myself because although I agree with the economic policies of communism, I don't like the hierarchical manner in which socialism organises itself.

Love Python!!!!

[breadandcheese]

He's a classical liberalist - he believes in the free market (ref Thatcher, M) so will clearly be against Socialism. The USSR was ran as a state capitalist economy rather than a Communist economy and they are not the same thing . Communism is a world wide philosophy and will only succeed when it takes over as the dominant political and economic ideology but it probably won't be in my lifetime as liberal capitalism as done such a good job of convincing people that it is the only economic/ political philosophy that can work in the UK. The mere mention of social democracy has people crying nanny state and complaining of communism.

The name reason for the fall of the USSR etc is because of the socialisation of selfishness that hundreds of years of capitalism has bred into society - if you as someone to put something aside for the notion of the greater good the majority of people will tell you to go and fvck. If i said to you I want to tax everyone around 50% of their wages but all this would be put back into the public towards healthcare etc most people would think that I'd gone insane. If all business was owned by the state and profits went towards the state coffers therefore the public coffers the vast wealth the banks et al would generate could be used to help society as a whole.

The state should use the banks that are nationalised now to help bring down the national debt and help out small businesses - they should be run for the public good. In cases like this competition rules should be thrown out the window.

I think that's rather unfair on Mises to just dismiss his work under the basis that he is a classical liberalist and thus it's no wonder he's opposed to socialism. The reason he took his position is precisely because he studied and looked into the different theories, realising them not to work, so you cannot just summise that his liberalist attitude is a de facto position. It's not.

The point Mises argued as to why communism could never work, was because it ignored the pricing mechanism. Where as capitalism uses the price mechanism to determine how much to produce (i.e. if there is a shortage of a particular good, prices rise and so more of the goods are produced), communism does not have this pricing mechanism and so fails due to an inefficient transfer of information. As a result, capital is misallocated and you end up with huge shortages of certain items, and huge gluts of another good.

This was the case with Russia and indeed every communist country in the world, where a few leaders thought they knew what people wanted and how much to produce of certain goods. In the end, the market knows (and thus the people know), with the pricing mechanism the best allocator of goods and services we have. It may not be perfect, but it is the most efficient.

I also don't think you can make a claim that the USSR collapsed because of the "socialisation of selfishness that hundreds of years of capitalism has bred into society". There is no basis for evidence of that and far more evidence to suggest that the Mises conjecture was proved right, with five year plans failing to allocate capital correctly.

[Webbo]

not true but lol (capitalism is such a roaring success too )

It's the system that delivers.

[Sir Fynwy]

pr might deliver more voter satisfaction in our elections but the british electorate is sacred of hung parliaments and partnership in government.

[Nick]

1.All political philosphies join the two whether directly or indirectly but this makes no difference as in the end one dictates the other.

Greed has been socialised to the point of acceptability and put forth as the notion of self preservation (but that's a load of bollox) and is the manner in which capitalism has perpetuated itself.

I'd rather anarcho - communism myself because although I agree with the economic policies of communism, I don't like the hierarchical manner in which socialism organises itself.

Love Python!!!!

1. I'm not sure that's true.

2. Yes, greed is social construct but how would we change that now in terms of re-education and re-socialisation? Stamping out the desire for people to 'progress unequally' is surely a little ideological in principle?

[FoxyPV]

I think that's rather unfair on Mises to just dismiss his work under the basis that he is a classical liberalist and thus it's no wonder he's opposed to socialism. The reason he took his position is precisely because he studied and looked into the different theories, realising them not to work, so you cannot just summise that his liberalist attitude is a de facto position. It's not.

The point Mises argued as to why communism could never work, was because it ignored the pricing mechanism. Where as capitalism uses the price mechanism to determine how much to produce (i.e. if there is a shortage of a particular good, prices rise and so more of the goods are produced), communism does not have this pricing mechanism and so fails due to an inefficient transfer of information. As a result, capital is misallocated and you end up with huge shortages of certain items, and huge gluts of another good.

This was the case with Russia and indeed every communist country in the world, where a few leaders thought they knew what people wanted and how much to produce of certain goods. In the end, the market knows (and thus the people know), with the pricing mechanism the best allocator of goods and services we have. It may not be perfect, but it is the most efficient.

I also don't think you can make a claim that the USSR collapsed because of the "socialisation of selfishness that hundreds of years of capitalism has bred into society". There is no basis for evidence of that and far more evidence to suggest that the Mises conjecture was proved right, with five year plans failing to allocate capital correctly.

He may have written this theory but there is no such thing as objectivity so his liberalist attitude does in fact influence his work!

These were all consumer goods which to be perfectly honest are frivolous and the focus was on heavy industry to industrialise the nation.

Five Year plans turned USSR from a shithole country into a superpower and won WWII I'd say they were pretty successful.

This is a political discussion on a football forum not an academic piece so if i wanted to say that pink elephants eating trampolines was the best way to run the country i don't have to provide evidence for it i can just say it.

[FoxyPV]

It's the system that delivers.

1. I'm not sure that's true.

It is. The way you want to run the country is reliant on what way you run the economy. Big state = higher taxes and bigger safety net. Small state = low taxes and little safety net

[Nick]

It is. The way you want to run the country is reliant on what way you run the economy. Big state = higher taxes and bigger safety net. Small state = low taxes and little safety net

Sure, but it's more than that. Obviously the two strands have a relationship. They are not exclusively co-dependant, there are other variables that affect economic policy and political policy independently. The problem with the aforementioned school of thought is that the model Mario Kempes listed does not take this into account, instead it bundles them together when in actual fact both strands have independent social relationships politically, socially and scientifically. Eg freedom of movement, religion, free-markets that can not be controlled from the uk etc....... It looks great on paper but it's not really workable and a tad idealistic.

[Daggers]

It's the system that delivers.

In the same manner that the best form of population control is AIDS.