Singletrack Mountain Bike Magazine

• Overview
• Bike Forum
• Chat Forum
• For Sale
• Wanted
• Forum Help
• Classified Rules

Chat Forum

1. Junkyard - Member

   I would not want to see the end of private enterprise as I do not believe it would be beneficial.
   Your post is about Marxism. Not the same thing. I am not a Marxist
   

   I would not want to see the end of private enterprise as I do not believe it would be beneficial.

   
   So not a socialist then as I stated originally

   Your post is about Marxism. Not the same thing

   
   I even highlighted the bit about socialism – to quote your own patronising style why not re- read it slowly and see if you can make the connection to socialism? Where do you think the word comes from if not from Marx?
   Look you misused the word – you are quite clearly not a socialist – there is no wiggle room or debate here.
   SOCIALISM
   1.a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole. [ ie NOT PRIOVATE ENTERRISE]
   2. procedure or practice in accordance with this theory.
   3. (in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles.
   Have a nice day Comrade.

   Posted 1 year ago #
2. Tiger6791 - Member

   The Co-Op?

   From the FT

   "Meanwhile, Neville Richardson, who became chief executive of Co-operative Financial Services (CFS) after its takeover of the former Britannia Building Society last year, received a total of £970,000 in pay and bonuses from the society and CFS in 2009 – a 98 per cent leap in his earnings compared with 2008."

   Posted 1 year ago #
3. Rio - Member

   They benefitted from the support we provided to the sector

   Questionable. There is an argument that says that they would have been better off if the non-viable banks had been wound down in an appropriately controlled way leaving the viable banks to divide up the market. That way the real losers would have been the shareholders in the badly run banks, which is as it should be.

   Posted 1 year ago #
4. molgrips - Member

   So not a socialist then as I stated originally

   Well like I say there are different flavours of socialism - aren't there?

   "As a political movement, socialism includes a diverse array of political philosophies, ranging from reformism to revolutionary socialism. Some currents of socialism, often referred to as state socialism, advocate complete nationalisation of the means of production, distribution and exchange as a strategy for implementing socialism; while social democrats advocate public control of capital within the framework of a market economy."

   I even highlighted the bit about socialism

   You showed that Marxism is a form of Socialism, but that does not mean that Socialism is necessarily Marxism.

   Is being sarcastic and patronising also a quality of socialism?

   Posted 1 year ago #
5. 2tyred - Member

   The unfairness is not with the way these private enterprises are renumerating their employees with funds that wouldn't exist were it not for state intervention, but the way this government (and the one before it, and the two before that) would never ever consider allowing the banking industry, a large employer in the UK, to essentially relocate overseas as the banks are threatening to do in the face of current public criticism.

   Relocating operations overseas - ignoring for now the skills gap which possibly exists between the UK and an emerging labour market (such as India) - would almost certainly increase the profit margins of the large banks as labour costs would be a fraction of what they are today.

   Yet the government (and the one before it and the two before that) will do anything to prevent this - state subsidy, deregulation, anything. By doing this, the government is protecting UK jobs and tax revenues.

   Why though, did previous governments not act in this way when other industries, major UK employers, wanted to do the same? Why did previous goverments, especially Thatcher's, make no attempt to prevent this shifting overseas by entire industries? What's so special about the banking industry?

   This - IMO - is the crux of the unfairness in this whole matter. Other industries, predominantly manufacturing industries which largely employed working class people, have been left to die in the UK by previous governments yet the banking industry, which largely does not employ working class people, is being kept alive by a succession of government subsidies, the bill for which is being footed by the public purse.

   Posted 1 year ago #
6. molgrips - Member

   Why though, did previous governments not act in this way when other industries, major UK employers, wanted to do the same?

   But surely manufacturing of simple goods is always going to be unprofitable in this country, isn't it? And finance can be profitable?

   Bailing out the banks would result hopefully in them recovering and continuing to make tons of cash for themselves and the country.

   Bailing out the building of say washing machines is not going to make us competitive with China ever ever is it?

   The above are discussion points btw, not my arguments defending Thatch!

   Posted 1 year ago #
7. grum - Member

   Questionable.

   Mervyn King seems to think it's pretty clear, but what would he know?

   Posted 1 year ago #
8. Rio - Member

   But surely manufacturing of simple goods is always going to be unprofitable in this country, isn't it?

   Interesting article here on how some US businesses are finding it profitable to bring back offshored manufacturing - http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/03/in-early-2010-somewhere-high.ars

   One of the points that comes out of it is that the real competition is between manual labour and automated manufacturing, hence the drive by governments to promoted supposedly higher added-value jobs in e.g. finance; the manual assembly line stuff isn't compatible with the sort of lifestyle people aspire to in this country.

   Posted 1 year ago #
9. Northwind - Member

   Rio - Member

   "If people really want to direct venom at someone how about Eric Daniels, who recently stood down as head of Lloyds-TSB with a £2M bonus. He's the one who, along with Victor Bland, took a perfectly good bank and nearly destroyed it through the shotgun wedding with HBOS (Gordon Brown also claimed responsibility for that until he realised what a bad idea it was). This one is now largely owned by the government, so you really do have a justification in complaining about that although it doesn't seem to have grabbed as many headlines."

   Give it a few years. Unless there's a forced de-merger or other major dispersal of assets, Lloyds are probably going to be an absolute monster. You can't judge these things on the short term (ironically a point often missed, by people who chastise banks for being too short-term focused in their investment and rewards culture)

   As for the right of taxpayers to complain, a lot of people would argue that it's still a bargain compared with HBOS failing outright. I don't know myself, beyond my knowledge but it certainly seems plausible.

   Posted 1 year ago #
10. CaptainFlashheart - Member

    Is being sarcastic and patronising also a quality of socialism?

    Yes.

    Posted 1 year ago #
11. Junkyard - Member

    Is being sarcastic and patronising also a quality of socialism?

    
    You started it with the read slowly bit. I did say respectfully use Google I tried to not patronise you but it has been very difficult not to.
    Even your own quote shows you are at best a social democrat which I summed up as a Guradian reading lefty not a socilist at the start defined by wiki as
    

    Social democracy is a political ideology of the left on the classic political spectrum. The contemporary social democratic movement seeks to reform capitalism to align it with the ethical ideals of social justice while maintaining the capitalist mode of production, as opposed to creating an alternative socialist economic system.[1]
    

    
    WHich pretty much sums up your view

    Posted 1 year ago #
12. grum - Member

    One of the points that comes out of it is that the real competition is between manual labour and automated manufacturing, hence the drive by governments to promoted supposedly higher added-value jobs in e.g. finance; the manual assembly line stuff isn't compatible with the sort of lifestyle people aspire to in this country.

    Strange then that the current government are trying to cripple the creative industries in this country which remain one of our best revenue generators.

    Posted 1 year ago #
13. molgrips - Member

    Ok, fine, I'm a social democrat, which is a kind of socialism.

    Doesn't matter really.

    Meaningless bickering pretty much sums up other people I seem to meet describing themselves as socialists, mind.

    Posted 1 year ago #

RSS feed for this topic

Topic Closed

This topic has been closed to new replies.