In 20 years, this capitalist world has reduced the number in absolute poverty by almost a billion, despite growing world population.

[Link]

The trouble with this statement -- and even though we are on opposite sides of the political spectrum, it's still fair for me to point out that it really does your cause no good -- is that writing off an entire class of people with a single dismissive statement (essentially "all people at food banks are dishonest scroungers ) is about as useful as my saying "all right wingers are selfish." In other words, it's neither accurate nor useful at all.

To deny that there is a hard-working, honest yet disenfranchised class of working people in this country who have suffered under twenty years or more of the country operating under economic principles that disadvantage them while enriching the better off is undeniable. You may argue that if a higher percentage of people benefit from those principles (questionable, but let's pretend its true) while only a few suffer then broadly those principles are good. I would not.

The trouble with the argument that "socialism" or state investment in infrastructure/nationalisation in the past has proven somehow "bad" (again, questionable and either way, a throw-the-baby-out-with-the-bathwater statement) is that it implies that a political system is finite and lessons can't be learned. It's like saying Stalinism is socialism. It isn't. It's Stalinism. Even if you think the period from 1945 to 1980, roughly, when all parties operated far to the left of where they are now was somehow "bad" (it wasn't, but anyway) that is not an argument that the same principles can't be fine-tuned to work more effectively today. Political systems evolve. One example is Thatcher's who did not nothing if not refine and redefine traditional Tory politics (in the wrong way and the wrong direction, in my opinion) thus proving clearly you can take a theory and enhance, modify or adapt it. Who then is to say that Corbyn, WHEN we know his policies, won't offer not an "old socialism" but a new one? And who's to say it won't work? And who's to say the arguments won't persuade voters who, if nothing else, presently seem to have their ears more open that they have towards Labour in the recent past?

The simple reality is that a country with a rapidly growing disenfranchised working class treated almost as slave labour (what else what you could zero-hour contracts?) for the benefit of a diminishing gentry comprised of the Mike Ashley's of the world (and others who wish they could be like him) is neither a country I want to live in nor a recipe for long-term societal health or, more importantly, broad individual success (something the Tories prize so highly.) Even if you don't support Labour, I'd have hoped that the Conservatives would understand that there's a need to ameliorate the effects of their approach to the economy in a way that doesn't abandon their core principles but still moves then in a leftward direction, back to where they were in the 50s (which most consider to have been a post-war golden age).

The way you've written off a generation of often dignified, honest English people does you no credit.

Edited by sydtheeagle (02 Oct 2015 11.07am)

The trouble with this statement -- and even though we are on opposite sides of the political spectrum, it's still fair for me to point out that it really does your cause no good -- is that writing off an entire class of people with a single dismissive statement (essentially "all people at food banks are dishonest scroungers ) is about as useful as my saying "all right wingers are selfish." In other words, it's neither accurate nor useful at all.

To deny that there is a hard-working, honest yet disenfranchised class of working people in this country who have suffered under twenty years or more of the country operating under economic principles that disadvantage them while enriching the better off is undeniable. You may argue that if a higher percentage of people benefit from those principles (questionable, but let's pretend its true) while only a few suffer then broadly those principles are good. I would not.

The trouble with the argument that "socialism" or state investment in infrastructure/nationalisation in the past has proven somehow "bad" (again, questionable and either way, a throw-the-baby-out-with-the-bathwater statement) is that it implies that a political system is finite and lessons can't be learned. It's like saying Stalinism is socialism. It isn't. It's Stalinism. Even if you think the period from 1945 to 1980, roughly, when all parties operated far to the left of where they are now was somehow "bad" (it wasn't, but anyway) that is not an argument that the same principles can't be fine-tuned to work more effectively today. Political systems evolve. One example is Thatcher's who did not nothing if not refine and redefine traditional Tory politics (in the wrong way and the wrong direction, in my opinion) thus proving clearly you can take a theory and enhance, modify or adapt it. Who then is to say that Corbyn, WHEN we know his policies, won't offer not an "old socialism" but a new one? And who's to say it won't work? And who's to say the arguments won't persuade voters who, if nothing else, presently seem to have their ears more open that they have towards Labour in the recent past?

The simple reality is that a country with a rapidly growing disenfranchised working class treated almost as slave labour (what else what you could zero-hour contracts?) for the benefit of a diminishing gentry comprised of the Mike Ashley's of the world (and others who wish they could be like him) is neither a country I want to live in nor a recipe for long-term societal health or, more importantly, broad individual success (something the Tories prize so highly.) Even if you don't support Labour, I'd have hoped that the Conservatives would understand that there's a need to ameliorate the effects of their approach to the economy in a way that doesn't abandon their core principles but still moves then in a leftward direction, back to where they were in the 50s (which most consider to have been a post-war golden age).

The way you've written off a generation of often dignified, honest English people does you no credit.

Edited by sydtheeagle (02 Oct 2015 11.07am)

Most of which happened in China (due to allowing private business to grow- not conglomerates I hasten to add - and in developing countries.

From the article...

Another reason is that the bare achievement of pulling people over the .25-a-day line has been relatively easy in the past few years because so many people were just below it.

So because many more people earn over .25 a day, can we assume capitalism has been an unfettered success?

I don't pretend that capitalism is perfect, but show me a socialist country that has actually made its people wealthier. It's a false system, if you punish those who create at the top, they simply will not bother to innovate as there is no incentive to do so. If you raise taxes on big business, who do you think will suffer? It won't be those at the top, it will be efficiency savings (read job cuts) at the bottom. Would you rather those people were unemployed?

Capitalism can be accused (quite rightly) of being cold and ruthless, but the end result is a darn sight better than what socialism provides.

Maggie said it perfectly on socialism, "Once they talk about the gap, they'd rather the poor were poorer so long as the rich were less rich." The politics of envy.

[Link]

[Link]

Although the term socialist is loosely used here, I think this list shows that those countries that take a more 'socialist' attitude to helping the worst off are doing alright.

I don't think for one minute that Corbyn is looking for a 'state runs everything' situation, but more of a rebalancing of wealth.

As for the politics of envy comment that gets bandied about. What coswallop. A facile argument.
How does not wanting a few individuals creaming cash off of everyone else to the detriment of society and the health of the planet constitute envy?

Edited by nickgusset (02 Oct 2015 11.52am)