Off Topic Political Debate

Bourneville was built by the Quaker George Cadbury to provide his workers with decent accomodation.

 

Much of Croxley

 

I worked there for 11 years. The only bonus was the Shendish sports centre. Management had their own canteen and a key each to a locked toilet to stop us rabble soiling it.

 

I prefer the concept of

Like everything there are a lot of generalisations in here. I suspect most of the top 1% who are famously quoted as owning 80%+ of the wealth were born to it so they did not directly oppress anyone - unless you want to visit the sins of their forefathers upon them. So you inherited wealth - or you inherited a good right foot that earns you multi millions, or a voice that does the same. Or you were born in the Australian outback to Aboriginee parents and virtually starve. It is called luck or chance. You were dealt hand of cards and now you have to play them. The wealthy can choose to help others - or not. The nice ones do.
Can you perpetrate a view? I thought you could only perpetrate a crime.
In fact I think there is quite a mix of views on here - from "look after yourself mostly" along a spectrum to "make everyone have the same"

 

Many of these model workers villages were built by the Quakers, Cadbury as mentioned above and Rowntree's and Fry's. But even the New Towns were designed & built to provide a much higher quality housing - my old mum and dad were so proud of their new 3 bedroom house in Hemel.

 

I was talking about those who explicitly favour a market forces capitalism

erm...... Isn't Corbyn a Quaker ?

 

Don't think so...

 

I'm sure there's a joke about oats in there somewhere...

 

aha....

I had seen a media story of him going to a Quaker meeting....
but on digging deeper:

I'm not anti-religious at all. Not at all. And I probably go to more religious services than most people who are very strong believers. I go to churches, I go to mosques, I go to temples, I go to synagogues. I find religion very interesting. I find the power of faith very interesting. I have friends who are very strongly atheist and wouldn't have anything to do with any faith; but I take a much more relaxed view of it. I think the faith community offers and does a great deal for people. There doesn't have to be wars about religion, there has to be honesty about religion. We have much more in common than separates us

 

Stop stirring

 

Has anyone said that is their position? I thought that everyone (even the special one) had accepted at least a degree of helping those most in need on at least a temporary basis rather than pure unrestricted capitalism.

 

Many people have been to Quaker meetings without being Quakers (myself included). They welcome people of all denominations (or none), and are not interested in converting anyone. It is also possible to be a Quaker and belong to another religious persuasion at the same time - there are Quaker Moslems, and some Quakers who are atheists.

 

Leo, I have hinted elsewhere that capitalism has a tendency towards the establishment of monopolies and eventually corporate dictatorship if left to itself - we are seeing this through the way TTIP is being pushed through. The end result of capitalist competition is no competition ie. where the biggest have gobbled everyone else up. The end result is less choice (ironically the same result as in countries like the GDR.). Ironically we have so called globalisation of goods and services but actually less real choice.

 

Yes - but I don't subscribe to that doom scenario - any more than that communism produces goodies

 

Really? Less choice? It seems to me that in the developed world where capitalism is rife we have unprecedented choice. Choice in where we live, choice in where we work, choice in where we travel to, choice in what and where we purchase both goods and services, the only thing we don't seem to have choices in are when to die and if we pay taxes or not to pay for the "socialist equilibrium attempts" and necessary infrastructure/defence and governance. Conversely in all the socialist models choice is restricted in where you travel, where you work, who you vote for (if allowed to vote at all), what you can buy and at what price, everything dictated by an elite group of "socialists" who do not practice the ideals of socialism because they are too far divorced from human nature and being workable.

 

Soon we will be asked to believe Marx and that capitalism will devour itself. No mystic meg that man.

 

Leo I don't know the place where you live but if it is anything like where I live then there were more independent shops 30 years ago than there are now. Nearly every industry is becomming concentrated into fewer and fewer hands. Formerly competitive sectors like retail are now the province of enormous monopolistic chains - much to the detrement of older town centres. The political defense of capitalism is that economic power is diffuse and cannot be aggregated in such a manner as to have undue influence over the democratic state. Both of these claims for capitalism are demolished if monopoly, rather than competition, is the rule.

 

Certainly that is not true of where I live - I think Boots and Lloyds chemists are the only chains here.
Old town centres are victims of money making parking charges and the internet. Life moves on - we have no blacksmiths around here

 

Capitalism has through its focus on the consumer resulted in us going through cycles. In retail we are moving away from centralization as the consumer rejects Tesco and supports local businesses here. Sorry Cologne but your stereotype isn't the reality where I live and it's the people with their spending power that drive the shape of society to suit them and corporations that do not give what the people want fail.