Live UK political debates

[Kasz216]

bazmeistergen said:

mrstickball said:

bazmeistergen said:

Damn I need my bed you bugger.

It's difficult not to get cynical. However, I still see the leaders as human that do have beliefs and want, deep down, to help people. I think the system and over reliance on institutions creates this defense/attack mechanism, as does too much attachment to a personal ideology and identity. Identity is a shifting thing, like life itself. The trouble is that people get so deep into their own personal battles that the big picture is missed out. I despise the way the media has covered the election. It has been horrible.

The soviet union was a joke of a nation, I agree on that. It was basically a slightly different version of the capitalistish system we have now.

My perspective is an idealistic one, I am well aware of that, but as I said in the limits of national government essay, it is something that needs to be communicated. I don't want an EU/America/China superbloc system as it continues the current world system of division and competition based on scarcity. Entrenched interests exploit these divisions and are holding back progress based on the profit system.

It's all a bit much to discuss on a thread. My views are still ever-changing and I'm so tired that I am liable to make errors in explanation. So I'll leave it there for now.

Can I just ask you if you can clarify any areas where I need to rewrite stuff so my actual view isn't obscured.

By saying that the Soviet Union was a 'sightly different version of the capitalistish system we have know', you prove that you really don't understand economics, nor the economic systems of various nations.

The USSR was one of the pinnacles for the command economy for decades. It had no capitalistic system. The vast majority of businesses, and employment were nationalized - that is, that the government was the owner, and that there was no need for greed among the business leaders, as the motive simply was not there. That is far and away from capitialism which calls for the privatization of all businesses. You know, 'free enterprise' means people being allowed to run/own/manage whatever they want, how they want.

There are many other nations that have had that same spirit of nationalization - all failed. Non-capitalistic systems have had, bar none, the worst track records in the history of the world in terms of empirical evidence against their success. The USSR failed, China (pre-Deng Xiaopeng) failed, Khmer Rouge failed, Cuba has mostly failed, Venezuala is failing before our eyes. Removing the capitalism from a society via nationalization (in an effort to remove 'greed' and 'self-interest') never, ever work. Every time its taken away - weather a farmer in Zimbabwe or a marketplace in Minsk, you remove the desire for people to be productive, and work in an efficient way. There always has to be risk/reward in the system for it to be effective. Yes, its not 'perfect' but it is the best that we have.

Here is a sport analogy - lets say that a team was required to hire a player for no less than 10 years...No matter his actions with the team or club, he must be on the roster. Likewise, another team may hire and fire their players at will, under the discretion of the coaching staff. Which team do you think is going to be better at the sport? So too is the difference between capitalism and command economies. Constriction of the business process by government is a major impetus to growth.

 

 

Hi there.

Thanks for the reply. I think one thing I have been trying to say is that combat in debate is a bit daft. From my words I can see why you would think I don't know what I'm talking about, however, you are a bit presumptious to decide that what I said 'proves' that I don't understand the difference between state capitalism and more free market capitalism. You haven't tried to find out why I think the Soviet Union is very similar to the current economic system at all but this is because you have no idea about my perspective. The thing I have been trying to illustrate is that debate and commentary today is all about winning rather than searching for the truth and while I am not accusing you have trying to beat me I am suggesting that the way you responded conforms to the norms of the debate style I have been outlining.

The Soviet Union was integrated into the current world economic system up to a point (though somewhat based on the older nationalistic, internalised, autarkic economies, I admit) However, there was clear social stratification, there was competition, there were business targets - which as always ended in corruption and attempts to defeat the target through foul means (broken goods, half-finished products and so on ie a big decline in quality) and there was conflict and a drive to be the strongest nation on the planet. There are a lot of similiarities between the actual systems (from a wider perspective), though you are totally right that within the nitty gritty there are vast differences in the running of the systems. I still haven't fully explained this, but I'm off to work in a moment so am keeping this fairy short.

To go on to your point about failed command/state economies, I have to partially agree with you only (I am against the systems in the country though the ideal of cooperation and human progress appeals to me). Yes, many of them have 'failed' However, I think there are a few circumstances that need illuminating: Cuba has been subject to an economic blockade, Venezuela has been assaulted a number of times by American intervention and coup attempts - including the classic one in 2004 (I think) when the elites staged a planned kidnapping by making fraudulent claims about the Chavez government. We could similarly list the amount of failures of this version of capitalism couldn't we: 1929, 2009 global meltdowns, the massive difference in wealth between nations, the forcing of single crop economies on many nations, the ability of capital to influence governments and so on.

Anyway, I don't support either style of this system. It is based on scarcity and inequality and competition and I don't agree that competition between us HAS to be the thing that motivates humanity. There are other motivations.  I'm sure you've seen Maslow's hierarchy, for example.

Cheers. I guess we'll probably talk about this some more.

Maslow's hierachy actually proves why capitalism is the best form and an idealist form won't work.  I'm confused why you would think it would run the other way. Well, actually I do.  Most proffessors and pretty much all text books tend to teach maslow wrong.  I didn't even realize I had it wrong until I got a proffesor who was actually chosen to work under Maslow.  Though Maslow died before he could and he ended up working under one of Maslows students... he still spent a good amount of time with him and got to understand his theories.  You always need to read the direct works when it comes to Psychology... and Sociology for that matter.

The lower levels are weaker motivators... however they are also broader motivators.

If you take the first two rungs off the Maslow pyramid, your left with Love and self esteem as your primary levels.  Well, the love section isn't really economics based unless you feel you need to make more money to better take care of your family.

As for Esteem and self respect and the respect of others... how do you expect people to take the "bad" jobs everybody looks down on.  Who is going to want to be a garbage man etc.

You would basically need to rip all pride and identification from workers.

Captitalism is going to have less "self actualizing" people but it's overall going to be a lot more productive... since self actualizing people really only do stuff because they want to.  Which is problem with Maslow... people often talk about a "Self Actualized" person but there really is no such thing.

Oh, another fun unknown one.  Maslow compaired self actualizing with drug use... but said while it was like when a person is self actualizing it was ultimatly worthless because it was a "false up".  Which is pretty obvious reallly, a false high always ends up having you crash down much harder.