True up to a point, but people also don't want huge swathes of their taxes going on International aid as well (No matter whether we get trade deals out of it or not) It would be called bribery elsewhere.

Pro USA & Israel

Yes, that's what happens when there are too many people.

No, that's what happens in a capitalist / caste system.

Plenty of cash to alleviate things if needed. It's just those in power choose or are told to choose not to.

Same here, lack of investment in infrastructure in areas of high immigration in order that they cope better with an influx of people has proved to be very socially costly and to my mind allowed xenophobia to flourish. A big mistake made.

Whatever the government, the needs of the people should be a priority, not which dodgy deal will suit individuals above the nation's wants and needs.

Edited by nickgusset (29 Dec 2017 11.45pm)

Does it actually matter or is it splitting hairs?

Are we, or are we conditioned to believe that the system, that seems to be failing, is the best because it benefits us the most.

Capitalism doesn't seem to be working or delivering for the poor and third world. In truth though, the problem isn't really capitalism per se, but the embracing of monetarism and globalisation: which is (has) replacing (replaced) the notion of ethics, with the ideal of profit as the sole justification for action.

Multi National Corporations are no longer beholden to states, government or society, which inevitably leads to the consequence that they only serve the interests of capital production, not the societies in which they operate.

The objections that led to Liberalism and the rise of socialism (the poverty and squalor of the industrial working classes) has simply been transferred out of sight and out of mind, overseas. Much in the same way the middle classes could avoid the slums and ghettos of the working classes in the 19th centaury.

The reality of modern capitalism is its lack of regulation and systems of control, to prevent its worst excesses. The liberal movement and the labour movement transformed capitalism with the notion of 'little capitalism' or 'responsible capitalism' - in a way that globalisation and monetarism have rejected.

Socialism in and of itself, I don't believe, is a viable system in a resource-scarce society. However it does work exceptionally well as the critical analysis of the failings of capitalism.

We shouldn't reject opposition to the damage and excesses of capitalism, because we don't 'have a better system - because communism failed' because it misses the idea that capitalism is itself a large number of different theories and approaches to society - Moving from Keyensian capitalism to monetarism has produced great problems in society - that can be resolved, if we have the will, by regulation of the excesses.

Failing to regulate these systems will eventually lead to them being rejected, by force, as we saw in the 19th centuary with the rise of Communism. The countries that reacted to the threat of Communism, by addressing the problems and inequity of capitalist society were the ones that avoided the threat.

Reasonable lives, opportunities and some pleasure in life is really what people want. Jobs, reasonable income, a fair deal in society, some joy time and the chance to better the lives of the kids pretty much sums up all that the working class movements have ever really been seeking.

No one cares about someone being rich, when they have a reasonably enjoyable life in which they have some sense of power over their future.

Capitalism doesn't have to produce misery on a grand scale, oppress peoples opportunities, trap them in poverty, create gulfs of disparity - Its myopia of those who benefit the most that creates that.

It can be a force for good.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]