(UK EURO THREAD) UK POLITICS MK2

[Zekk Pacus]

Meanwhile on Perfectly Normal Island, the establishment has decided that Sir David Amess was murdered because people are allowed to be anonymous on social media and know too much about what their MPs are doing. Priti Patel is trying her hardest to push through her pet project of banning anonymity, several journalists have been briefed to attack websites like TheyWorkForYou, and IPSA has launched a review on what level of information is published about MP's expenses.

Perfectly.

Normal.

Island.

You mean the David Amess who was murdered but another success of the Prevent Program in a terrorist attack?

I'm struggling to see the connection with online anonymity here.

There's no connection, it's just Tories gonna Tory.

[Lallante]

That sounds like a radical overhaul to the point where the systemic outcomes would be almost entirely different.

I agree, which is why I am a radical centrist not an anticapitalist.

[Keckers]

But capitalism will not trend naturally in the direction you want it to go. The natural tendencies of capitalism are socially destructive, but you are still pro-capitalism? You can't advocate for radical change if you believe the disease is actually good yet all the symptoms are bad.

What's the radical centrist position on the metaverse?

[Liare]

But capitalism will not trend naturally in the direction you want it to go. The natural tendencies of capitalism are socially destructive, but you are still pro-capitalism? You can't advocate for radical change if you believe the disease is actually good yet all the symptoms are bad.

What's the radical centrist position on the metaverse?

the position makes perfect sense if you add in the assumption that the radical centrist will be perpetually in power in a technocratic regime.

[Keckers]

Hmmm, yeah perhaps I shouldn't expect an oxbridge graduate to consider why he may be in favour of the existing economic model.

[Lallante]

I think the conceptual problem you are having is when you think of capitalism you just think of corporations and the examples of capitalism having bad effect, and not also the system of regulation that governs corporations and prevents these effects, which is also part of capitalism. There is no such thing as 'capitalism naturally trending'. The direction capitalism pushes is determined by how the capitalist system is structured, and this is something that is largely driven by government.

tl;dr well regulated capitalism is both a) still capitalism and b) capable of being massively socially net good. In fact I think its the only possible system of large scale economic governance that can make that latter claim with actual evidence behind it.

still tl;dr - dont confuse capitalism with anarcho capitalism

[Liare]

there is no such thing as well regulated capitalism due to the phenomena of regulatory capture.

it's build straight into the system due to the way wealth is a defacto proxy for power and how said wealth can be leveraged to shape policy.

[NoirAvlaa]

So basically capitalism is fine when a bunch of left wing socialists regulate it. Got it.

Sent from my Pixel 5 using Tapatalk

[Keckers]

Unless you decouple wealth from ownership you can't really solve the underlying problem of capitalism favouring monopoly.

[Lallante]

So basically capitalism is fine when a bunch of left wing socialists regulate it. Got it.

Sent from my Pixel 5 using Tapatalk

I'll take "what is social democracy" for 100 please micheal

[Liare]

So basically capitalism is fine when a bunch of left wing socialists regulate it. Got it.

Sent from my Pixel 5 using Tapatalk

I'll take "what is social democracy" for 100 please micheal

so your solution is to look at a past failure and go "lets do that again, what could go wrong!" with nary a critical thought applied to why it failed so hard and what circumstances allowed it to arise in the first place.

but go on Lallante, dazzle us with how you imagine a enormous shift towards a social-democratic society model might happen under the current circumstances. historically, these systems are driven off the back of militant labour movements leveraging their collective power into the sphere of politics. yet you openly mock any attempt at doing so in favour of tory-lite hacks like Starmer who are more interested in purging the party than holding the tories accountable for running the entire country off a fucking cliff.

clearly, there must be some other social mechanism you think can be mobilized to achieve these ends, so what is it ? where ? who ? how ?

[August]

Man receives sirloin steak having hitherto been served hamburger meat. “I only eat rib-eye,” he says.

[NoirAvlaa]

clearly, there must be some other social mechanism you think can be mobilized to achieve these ends, so what is it ? where ? who ? how ?

muskets

[Paradox]

I think the conceptual problem you are having is when you think of capitalism you just think of corporations and the examples of capitalism having bad effect, and not also the system of regulation that governs corporations and prevents these effects, which is also part of capitalism. There is no such thing as 'capitalism naturally trending'. The direction capitalism pushes is determined by how the capitalist system is structured, and this is something that is largely driven by government.

tl;dr well regulated capitalism is both a) still capitalism and b) capable of being massively socially net good. In fact I think its the only possible system of large scale economic governance that can make that latter claim with actual evidence behind it.

still tl;dr - dont confuse capitalism with anarcho capitalism

Capital is wealth—that is, money and goods—that's used to produce more wealth. Capitalism is practiced enthusiastically by capitalists, people who use capital to increase production and make more goods and money. Capitalism works by encouraging competition in a fair and open market. Its opposite is often said to be socialism. Where a capitalist economy encourages private actions and ownership, socialism prefers public or government ownership and control of parts of the economy. In a pure capitalist system, there would be no public schools or public parks, no government programs such as Social Security and Medicare, and maybe not even any public highways or police. In a pure socialist system, there wouldn't be any private corporations

This explanation of the definition of capitalism comes from famous radical communists Merriam-Webster and seems to contradict the idea that regulation of capitalism is a part of capitalism

Your working definition of capitalism seems to be contrary to most

[Keckers]

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

[Zekk Pacus]

Yes Labour, there's absolutely nothing else going on in this country that could demand your attention right now, so you're free to focus on this.

[Keckers]

Nothing they are doing makes sense.

[Liare]

Nothing they are doing makes sense.

again, you simply need to readjust your base assumptions a little.

you see, there is no reason to actively object to anything the tories do at this point, first you purge the party of anything left of Blair, and then you start your civil opposition to the tories. now obviously, brexit and anything related to brexit is off-limits, after all its a diversive topic in the electorate and in this time of crisis, it's important for the political establishment to come together for the greater good of the nation.

and selling the country off piecemeal to the americans for phat profits of course.

[Nordstern]

clearly, there must be some other social mechanism you think can be mobilized to achieve these ends, so what is it ? where ? who ? how ?

muskets

Vikings. Danish vikings.

[Lallante]

So basically capitalism is fine when a bunch of left wing socialists regulate it. Got it.

Sent from my Pixel 5 using Tapatalk

I'll take "what is social democracy" for 100 please micheal

so your solution is to look at a past failure and go "lets do that again, what could go wrong!" with nary a critical thought applied to why it failed so hard and what circumstances allowed it to arise in the first place.

but go on Lallante, dazzle us with how you imagine a enormous shift towards a social-democratic society model might happen under the current circumstances. historically, these systems are driven off the back of militant labour movements leveraging their collective power into the sphere of politics. yet you openly mock any attempt at doing so in favour of tory-lite hacks like Starmer who are more interested in purging the party than holding the tories accountable for running the entire country off a fucking cliff.

clearly, there must be some other social mechanism you think can be mobilized to achieve these ends, so what is it ? where ? who ? how ?

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.

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.

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.

PS:

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.

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.