(UK EURO THREAD) UK POLITICS MK2

[Lallante]

"I love capitalism apart from the all parts of capitalism that define it"

Literally the only thing that defines it is the private ownership of capital for profit. Everything else is just editorialising and that Merriam Webster quote (which is NOT taken from the definition but rather a "did you know?" box aimed at school children) is ridiculous. "Pure capitalism" is a nonsense phrase just as "pure socialism" is a nonsense phrase. Presumably in "pure socialism" no one owns their clothes or toothbrush. Perhaps not even hair or teeth or organs! Grrrr socialism bad!

This childish semantic quibbling is nonsensical. A social democracy has widespread private ownership of capital, including means of production, infrastructure etc, for profit. Saying that isnt capitalist because you found some retarded schoolchild explanation of capitalism that says the only true capitalism is a system with no police or streetlights is intellectually feeble. Engage with the ideas not semantic childishness.

[Timaios]

I'm not entirely sure about capitalism. I mean, industrialization made capitalism feasible, when factories started to be more efficient than individuals making goods by hand. Soviet union managed to improve the quality of life of their citizens (albeit less than capitalistic west) even without capitalism. What was the thing that had a bigger impact: industrialization or capitalism?

[Zeekar]

I'm not entirely sure about capitalism. I mean, industrialization made capitalism feasible, when factories started to be more efficient than individuals making goods by hand. Soviet union managed to improve the quality of life of their citizens (albeit less than capitalistic west) even without capitalism. What was the thing that had a bigger impact: industrialization or capitalism?

Id say Soviet union did more... They were literally in a fevdal system beforehand. Industrialization did the heavy lifting in improving their standard of living by providing more goods/food/etc. Capitalism was present in 1850 England for example and didnt really help the lower classes even by start of industriaization then. It kept pushing them in the ground. Strong labour movement helped in their standard of living. Does capitalism help with industrialization? It does in some way but it also makes sure that the benefits of it arent there for anyone else but the owner of capital.

[mewninn]

"I love capitalism apart from the all parts of capitalism that define it"

Literally the only thing that defines it is the private ownership of capital for profit. Everything else is just editorialising and that Merriam Webster quote (which is NOT taken from the definition but rather a "did you know?" box aimed at school children) is ridiculous. "Pure capitalism" is a nonsense phrase just as "pure socialism" is a nonsense phrase. Presumably in "pure socialism" no one owns their clothes or toothbrush. Perhaps not even hair or teeth or organs! Grrrr socialism bad!

This childish semantic quibbling is nonsensical. A social democracy has widespread private ownership of capital, including means of production, infrastructure etc, for profit. Saying that isnt capitalist because you found some retarded schoolchild explanation of capitalism that says the only true capitalism is a system with no police or streetlights is intellectually feeble. Engage with the ideas not semantic childishness.

That's a terrible description of social democracy if there ever was one and I can see why you're having the tantrum about "childish semantics"

[Sacul]

FOR YOU Lord Haw Haw of Internetshire?

fuck off

[Lallante]

"I love capitalism apart from the all parts of capitalism that define it"

Literally the only thing that defines it is the private ownership of capital for profit. Everything else is just editorialising and that Merriam Webster quote (which is NOT taken from the definition but rather a "did you know?" box aimed at school children) is ridiculous. "Pure capitalism" is a nonsense phrase just as "pure socialism" is a nonsense phrase. Presumably in "pure socialism" no one owns their clothes or toothbrush. Perhaps not even hair or teeth or organs! Grrrr socialism bad!

This childish semantic quibbling is nonsensical. A social democracy has widespread private ownership of capital, including means of production, infrastructure etc, for profit. Saying that isnt capitalist because you found some retarded schoolchild explanation of capitalism that says the only true capitalism is a system with no police or streetlights is intellectually feeble. Engage with the ideas not semantic childishness.

That's a terrible description of social democracy if there ever was one and I can see why you're having the tantrum about "childish semantics"

It wasnt a definition, it was a description of one aspect.

[Lallante]

FOR YOU Lord Haw Haw of Internetshire?

fuck off

Go back to bumming bald right wingers on steroids mate.

[Rodj Blake]

Your lot ran the labour party for several years and failed spectacularly at that job, far worse than Starmer has.

I must have imagined the record number of government defeats in the Commons while Corbyn was leader.

[NoirAvlaa]

Your lot ran the labour party for several years and failed spectacularly at that job, far worse than Starmer has.

I must have imagined the record number of government defeats in the Commons while Corbyn was leader.

No no we need someone more centrist to defeat the tories like *checks notes* Gordon Brown, or *checks notes* Ed Milliband, or *checks notes* Keir Starmer. Either of them would do fantastically better than Corbyn!

[El Capitano]

Your lot ran the labour party for several years and failed spectacularly at that job, far worse than Starmer has.

I must have imagined the record number of government defeats in the Commons while Corbyn was leader.

It was a good job he then didn't lead Labour to it's largest defeat in several decades so the Tories could just enact those policies without meaningful resistance then.

[NoirAvlaa]

Your lot ran the labour party for several years and failed spectacularly at that job, far worse than Starmer has.

I must have imagined the record number of government defeats in the Commons while Corbyn was leader.

It was a good job he then didn't lead Labour to it's largest defeat in several decades so the Tories could just enact those policies without meaningful resistance then.

[Rodj Blake]

Your lot ran the labour party for several years and failed spectacularly at that job, far worse than Starmer has.

I must have imagined the record number of government defeats in the Commons while Corbyn was leader.

No no we need someone more centrist to defeat the tories like *checks notes* Gordon Brown, or *checks notes* Ed Milliband, or *checks notes* Keir Starmer. Either of them would do fantastically better than Corbyn!

Literally anyone but Corbyn would be 20 points ahead in the polls!

[Liare]

The disconnect here is you wilfully disregard the insane social progress we have collectively made due to capitalism over the last 150 years; the relegation of hunger and extreme poverty to small minority issues in a handful of poorly run countries; the conquest of many of life's worst diseases and deprivations; the wholesale uplifting of the overwhelming majority of people in the world's standards of living.

For you, these things happened despite capitalism through some unnamed but presumably universal and extremely powerful mechanism of action that didnt exist 300+ years ago.

you are confusing industrialization with capitalism.

For me, the statistics and basically all economic evidence, these things happened BECAUSE of capitalism and the impact of innovation, efficiency seeking, entrepreneureship and competition that are its saving graces.

yet the first 2-3 generations of industrial capitalism was a endless shitshow of grinding poverty for anybody outside the property holding classes. the change for the better came with worker militancy trough things like unions and outright revolts.

social democracy didn't spring from the largesse of the property owning classes, it was taken, by force, threatened and actual. using the measures and methods you consistently reject over and over again. so i ask again lallante, where do you see a social mechanism that can enforce such a change against the interests of the capitalists ? because according to you, it's not on the radical left that, historically, fought, bled and died to make these things happen, it's not with the unions because that is outdated and "inefficient" cartel that actually damages productivity, so where is it ?

No one is denying all the horrible inequities of our current system, but you are in fantasy land if you think they (taking the world as a whole) arent the best they've ever been in humanity's history.

we are careening towards a extinction level event that somehow cannot be addressed because it would cost the rich money, and you honestly argue that things have never been better ? things aren't "the best they've ever been in humanity's history" they're shit, significant material wealth is confined to a small and shrinking proportion of the population, the vast majority still live in grinding poverty and the promise of a better tomorrow has never sounded more hollow and false than it does now.

yet you openly mock any attempt at doing so in favour of tory-lite hacks like Starmer

I mock him because he isnt radical. He misunderstands what made Blair a fantastic labour prime minister. He thinks centrism is about being wishy washy, which is a fundamental misconception.

We need a new Blair, ideally a woman.

so your ideal leader is a war-criminal who spend a whole lot of time and effort eroding civil liberties in the name of setting up a surveillance state and who spend a whole lot of time making PFI's a thing, but who ideally, is also a woman.

this doesn't sound like any branch of social democracy i know.

holding the tories accountable for running the entire country off a fucking cliff.

Your lot ran the labour party for several years and failed spectacularly at that job, far worse than Starmer has. Labour has been consumed by infighting since they came to power and Momentum started trying to undermine sitting MPs.

since momentum tried to make the sitting MP's accountable you mean. and there was 1 deselection during Corbyns 5 years at the helm, versus 3 for Browns 3 years at the helm. so what you're actually saying is that a grass-roots organization within the party that threatens the established order is bad because it invariably causes a degree of strife.

[August]

Industrialization in the west occurred in the framework of capitalism, so of course you can attribute its successes to capitalism as well. It seems to me you're sort of trying to have your cake and eat it too, because later on, you attribute the extinction-level event to capitalism, but couldn't you attribute that to industrialization? After all, it's the industrialization process that enables the mass-stripping of Earth's resources and the Soviets did it as well.

Sure, you can say the first 2-3 generations of capitalism was shit. I don't really care whether that's true or not, to be honest, because we're in the 15th generation of capitalism and many aspects have dramatically changed since first 2-3.

Yet you're so stuck with defining capitalism by its earliest iteration. You constantly do that. It's like declaring that computers are forever shit because the old IBM computers that took up a whole room sucked ass when, bro, we're on iphone 12 now.

Now, regarding quality of life, it is absolutely true that according to contemporary western metrics, which you value too, we have the highest quality of life ever. True, there are plenty of metrics by which our quality of life sucks. If, like earlier iterations of Western societies, you prioritize a high percentage of marriage in the population, longevity of marriages, minimization of abortions, minimization of drug use, etc. then yeah our quality of life today sucks. But I know you don't give a shit about that so wtf are you talking about.

[Paradox]

Rapidly rising property and energy prices and ever decreasing real wages and levels of life satisfaction are actually amazing, you're right.

[Itiken]

... and the Soviets did it as well.

Literal First paragraph American Dipshit socialist whatboutism fuck off.

[Liare]

Industrialization in the west occurred in the framework of capitalism, so of course you can attribute its successes to capitalism as well. It seems to me you're sort of trying to have your cake and eat it too, because later on, you attribute the extinction-level event to capitalism, but couldn't you attribute that to industrialization? After all, it's the industrialization process that enables the mass-stripping of Earth's resources and the Soviets did it as well.

whataboutism is not a argument.

China is doing a markedly better job of climate adaptation than the "liberal democracies" of the west, not that they're doing enough for it to meaningfully matter.

Sure, you can say the first 2-3 generations of capitalism was shit. I don't really care whether that's true or not, to be honest, because we're in the 15th generation of capitalism and many aspects have dramatically changed since first 2-3.

and more have not, the shit aspects have not gone away and there is no indication they will.

Yet you're so stuck with defining capitalism by its earliest iteration. You constantly do that. It's like declaring that computers are forever shit because the old IBM computers that took up a whole room sucked ass when, bro, we're on iphone 12 now.

literal "poor people aren't poor, they have fridges now!" tier argumentation.

Now, regarding quality of life, it is absolutely true that according to contemporary western metrics, which you value too, we have the highest quality of life ever. True, there are plenty of metrics by which our quality of life sucks. If, like earlier iterations of Western societies, you prioritize a high percentage of marriage in the population, longevity of marriages, minimization of abortions, minimization of drug use, etc. then yeah our quality of life today sucks. But I know you don't give a shit about that so wtf are you talking about.

so your idea of a "good life" is doubling down on conservative family values as the metrics to measure by. and since you know i find those pointless actively oppresive, i clearly have no reason to to be unhappy ?

okay, so did you have a point, or what ? or was it just a exercise in this ?

[Lucas Quaan]

China is doing a markedly better job of climate adaptation than the "liberal democracies" of the west

L O L

[evil edna]

Yeah thats a yikes

[August]

Rapidly rising property and energy prices and ever decreasing real wages and levels of life satisfaction are actually amazing, you're right.

Oh noes, my AMZN stonk dipped and isn't at all-time highs anymore. Guess I better sell.