Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

At what point did Socialists become something to rant about?

Options
  • 20-03-2012 12:28pm
    #1
    Bipolar Joe
    Registered Users Posts: 3,443 ✭✭✭


    I've just noticed this lately. It's like Americans blathering on about Communists. When the Hell did this happen?


«13456

Comments

  • Options
    #2
    starbelgrade
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,739 ✭✭✭✭starbelgrade


    Bipolar Joe wrote: »
    I've just noticed this lately. It's like Americans blathering on about Communists. When the Hell did this happen?

    It was probably when the whole Public Sector pay agreement debate started - despite the fact that the Croke Park agreement was agreed between the last government and the unions and there were no socialists involved*.

    * = The unions, though they would like to consider themselves socialist, are anything but.


  • Options
    #3
    howsyourtusk
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,005 ✭✭✭howsyourtusk


    Because espousing an equal, democratic society with no racism/sexism/bigotry, etc, is a disgusting, horrible belief and those people should be murdered. Why else?


  • Options
    #4
    benway
    Registered Users Posts: 1,061 ✭✭✭benway


    Around the same time that the voguish ideology of the day changed from socialism to libertarianism. That's where the True Believers (tm) seem to reside these days.

    To be fair, we have had a good 30 years, at least, of right wing propaganda feeding in to this - we're nearly at the point that anything to the left of Mussolini counts as "socialism" ... and this is therefore A Bad Thing, apparently.


  • Options
    #5
    Dudess
    Closed Accounts Posts: 37,215 ✭✭✭✭Dudess


    It's become fashionable among youngsters to balk at social equality and to be a greedy, selfish, heartless ****.


  • Options
    #6
    Chuck Stone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,030 ✭✭✭✭Chuck Stone


    What definition of socialism are we using?

    Are the socialised losses of failed banks and property speculators included?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7
    Bipolar Joe
    Registered Users Posts: 3,443 ✭✭✭Bipolar Joe


    Chuck Stone wrote: »
    What definition of socialism are we using?

    Are the socialised losses of failed banks and property speculators included?

    I'm not gonna make-believe like I'm a political guru, here, because I'm not, I don't know enough about anything to be able to have an in-depth conversation about the inner, complex workings of them, this sh!t included, so let's go with socialism in general, because it's easier and I've never heard any one bitching about socialists make any sort of distinction. Long sentence.

    So, because we got screwed over by a corporation, who were allowed to screw us by government, will we say that those losses belong to the screwees?


  • Options
    #8
    benway
    Registered Users Posts: 1,061 ✭✭✭benway


    Chuck Stone wrote: »
    What definition of socialism are we using?

    Are the socialised losses of failed banks and property speculators included?

    Nope, that's not socialism, that's a desperate attempt to prevent free market capitalism from collapsing under the weight of its own contradictions. And a scam.

    Also, I have yet to hear a decent explanation from the libertarian cohort as to how exactly they propose to deal with the social consequences of letting the banks collapse.

    The cognitive dissonance in that argument is as bad as anything from the 80s looney left, interpreting any given news story as evidence of the impending proletarian revolution. It's the looney right that we need worry about these days.


  • Options
    #9
    Chuck Stone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,030 ✭✭✭✭Chuck Stone


    Bipolar Joe wrote: »
    I'm not gonna make-believe like I'm a political guru, here, because I'm not,

    That makes two of us.
    I don't know enough about anything to be able to have an in-depth conversation about the inner, complex workings of them, this sh!t included, so let's go with socialism in general,

    That's the problem. There is no 'general' socialism. If someone starts giving out about socialism I would respond with 'do you know what socialism is'?

    Take a look at the wiki page and you'll see that the word socialism has so many meanings and interpretations that unless the person criticising it can give you a nice clear answer they are probably talking shite.


  • Options
    #10
    Bipolar Joe
    Registered Users Posts: 3,443 ✭✭✭Bipolar Joe


    I turn to my Pop for all things politics, because I'm an idiot and rely on him for basic human knowledge. Never bothered to look at the Wiki page because with things like this, it gets too confusing and you always wind up at the Philosophy page.

    So, are you saying that people who go on about Those Damn Socialists are pretty much talking out their butt because it's now in vogue? Why did it get to that point?


  • Options
    #11
    Doc Ruby
    Registered Users Posts: 3,956 ✭✭✭Doc Ruby


    howsyourtusk wrote: »
    Because espousing an equal, democratic society with no racism/sexism/bigotry, etc, is a disgusting, horrible belief and those people should be murdered. Why else?
    There's nothing particular to socialism that means it uniquely stands for an equal democratic society. In fact some flavours of it are distinctly undemocratic.

    One of the things that irritate people about the hard left is the way they try to tie in a largely financial theory with literally anything that could be viewed as positive - socialism grows your hair back! Socialism fixes the rheumatic! Socialism will make your wife's boobs bigger! Its hardly any wonder the hard left are often given the snake oil salesman treatment.

    Not that the other extreme are paragons of realism either.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #12
    Chuck Stone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,030 ✭✭✭✭Chuck Stone


    benway wrote: »
    Nope, that's not socialism, that's a desperate attempt to prevent free market capitalism from collapsing under the weight of its own contradictions. And a scam.

    There was nothing even approaching free market capitalism being practised. There would be no such thing as central banks, state granted corporations and limited liability in a truly free market from what I've learned about it.
    Also, I have yet to hear a decent explanation from the libertarian cohort as to how exactly they propose to deal with the social consequences of letting the banks collapse.

    I guess they would say that that's not their or the states' concern - let the weak banks fail and those who invested in them lose their money (sounds good to me).
    It's the looney right that we need worry about these days.

    I agree.


  • Options
    #13
    KyussBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,797 ✭✭✭KyussBishop


    When used in that context, it's just another meaningless word used to bash people down instead of addressing their arguments; we're all pilgerising loony lefty pinko hippy hipster socialist commie bastards etc..


  • Options
    #14
    Toby Take a Bow
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,732 ✭✭✭Toby Take a Bow


    Chuck Stone wrote: »
    There was nothing even approaching free market capitalism being practised. There would be no such thing as central banks, state granted corporations and limited liability in a truly free market from what I've learned about it.

    I guess they would say that that's not their or the states' concern - let the weak banks fail and those who invested in them lose their money (sounds good to me).

    There's nothing approaching free-market capitalism in free-market capitalism, even of the ultra neo-liberal variety espoused in the later years. That brand of free-market capitalism involves espousing those ideals, and initiating them when it suits them, but relying on the state to protect them when things go pear-shaped. There are no true free-market operating countries, although some of them came quite close in the last couple of years (Iceland and ourselves, to name a few).


  • Options
    #15
    Channel Zero
    Closed Accounts Posts: 333 ✭✭Channel Zero


    benway wrote: »
    It's the looney right that we need worry about these days.

    Absolutely.

    When you see people label Obama for instance as a socialist, that amazes me.


  • Options
    #16
    benway
    Registered Users Posts: 1,061 ✭✭✭benway


    Bipolar Joe wrote: »
    So, are you saying that people who go on about Those Damn Socialists are pretty much talking out their butt because it's now in vogue? Why did it get to that point?

    Thatcher and Reagan pretty much ripped up the post-war consensus and sent their countries lurching to the right, we're still feeling the aftershocks, it's been an inspiration for revolutionaries on the looney right since. There's also an overwhelming right wing bias in most of the media, including Hollywood, plus quasi academic discourses like the "personal responsibility" spiel.

    Basically, I think that the right figured that playing into people's latent self-interest is much more effective than making appeals for social consciousness. In fairness, they're correct about that much, as a vote winning strategy, it just isn't much of a model for a liveable society.

    The notion of individualism and "the self" as the fundamental unit of society, rather than family or community, has been on the rise since the 30s at least - Adam Curtis' documentary series "The Century of the Self" gives a good overview, think it's on YouTube.


  • Options
    #17
    Chuck Stone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,030 ✭✭✭✭Chuck Stone


    Bipolar Joe wrote: »
    So, are you saying that people who go on about Those Damn Socialists are pretty much talking out their butt because it's now in vogue?

    I would say a good percentage of them are.
    Why did it get to that point?

    The corporate media in my humble opinion. They create this narrative that if you are in any way sympathetic to state intervention in the economy or are in any way supportive of redistributive taxes that you are a looney lefty.

    That's not to say that there aren't looney leftys out there who'd like to nationalise everything, tax high earners at 90%, free everything for everyone.

    Now that is fuckng mad :)


  • Options
    #18
    Sindri
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,059 ✭✭✭Sindri


    Because it's in vogue.

    It's partly due to the oscillation between the two societies tend to go through. Of course at the end of the day it's all bollix.


  • Options
    #19
    KyussBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,797 ✭✭✭KyussBishop


    Chuck Stone wrote: »
    I guess they would say that that's not their or the states' concern - let the weak banks fail and those who invested in them lose their money (sounds good to me).
    Fair enough on the investors, they should know they are taking a risk (and if they are investing, can demand the bank properly inform them on risks before investing), but what about the banks customers? Should they lose their money as well?

    I'm not arguing against free market principals (I don't know enough about them at the moment), it just seems a potentially big hole in the argument in favor of them, if it's true that banks customers can get screwed like that with no consequence.

    The way I see it, customers with a bank require a certain degree of security and shielding from risk, because the purpose of a bank account isn't as a risky investment, more to store money in a secure way so it can't be robbed, and (to a lesser degree) to keep up with inflation.


  • Options
    #20
    KyussBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,797 ✭✭✭KyussBishop


    benway wrote: »
    The notion of individualism and "the self" as the fundamental unit of society, rather than family or community, has been on the rise since the 30s at least - Adam Curtis' documentary series "The Century of the Self" gives a good overview, think it's on YouTube.
    Ya that is a really excellent documentary; recommend people grab a hold of any/all his documentaries and give them a look.


  • Options
    #21
    TheIrishGrover
    Registered Users Posts: 5,974 ✭✭✭TheIrishGrover


    Probably around the time of the rise of The National Socialist German Workers' Party.....


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #22
    newport2
    Registered Users Posts: 2,580 ✭✭✭newport2


    Bipolar Joe wrote: »
    I've just noticed this lately. It's like Americans blathering on about Communists. When the Hell did this happen?

    About 2008 when they ran out of other people's money to spend


  • Options
    #23
    italodisco
    Registered Users Posts: 1,426 ✭✭✭italodisco


    An equal society , no effin thanks.
    Socialist, Marxist etc piss off , hate reds so badly !!!
    Occupy and the likes of reclaim the streets , antifa and swp are waisters and will never get anywhere ....
    Go hug some trees or go on the dole because u don't wanna work for 'the man' ya ya ya


  • Options
    #24
    K-9
    Registered Users Posts: 43,311 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    Bipolar Joe wrote: »
    I've just noticed this lately. It's like Americans blathering on about Communists. When the Hell did this happen?

    Probably because the Socialist party and the ULA are the only "extreme" parties left in this country, FF and FG would be centre to right, Labour probably centre to left, nothing like the 80's Labour party.

    So with about 75% voting for those 3 and another 10% SF which are moving increasingly to the centre, its about the only extreme to point and laugh at these days.

    Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.



  • Options
    #25
    Chuck Stone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,030 ✭✭✭✭Chuck Stone


    Toby Take a Bow wrote: »
    There's nothing approaching free-market capitalism in free-market capitalism, even of the ultra neo-liberal variety espoused in the later years.

    Yes because there is/was no fee market capitalism in the first place. As Chomsky says about true free market capitalism 'The owners and elites just wouldn't stand for it' (paraphrasing).


  • Options
    #26
    K-9
    Registered Users Posts: 43,311 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    Chuck Stone wrote: »
    Yes because there is/was no fee market capitalism in the first place. As Chomsky says about true free market capitalism 'The owners and elites just wouldn't stand for it' (paraphrasing).

    It does seem to be a recurrent thing in debates about free market capitalism, it seems there never has been an actual free market crash in relatively recent times as invariably the state gets involved in some way. Vested interests win out over any idealism.

    Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.



  • Options
    #27
    Chuck Stone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,030 ✭✭✭✭Chuck Stone


    KyussBishop wrote: »
    Fair enough on the investors, they should know they are taking a risk (and if they are investing, can demand the bank properly inform them on risks before investing), but what about the banks customers? Should they lose their money as well?

    Just going off my own knowledge here and would happily be corrected so if anyone wants to weigh in.

    A libertarian would probably say 'yes, absolutely you should lose your deposit if the bank collapses' why should it be the problem of people who have no capital or those who invested wisely to bail out those who didn't?


  • Options
    #28
    biko
    Registered Users Posts: 81,223 ✭✭✭✭biko


    Bipolar Joe wrote: »
    I've just noticed this lately. It's like Americans blathering on about Communists. When the Hell did this happen?
    As soon as the Soviet Union collapsed the socialists became the new bogeyman.


  • Options
    #29
    44leto
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,137 ✭✭✭44leto


    I heard this argument in the post office. Some woman was in collecting her benefit. The clerk told her she cannot give her the money as she did not have suitable ID. Then the row began. I wont go into details but the details were pathetic.

    Then it went on for about 15 minutes, in public, till she was eventually escorted out by security. Although the woman was screaming I have no money, I didn't feel sorry for her, what I was thinking was, were did this sense of entitlement come from, why do people feel entitled to money for doing F/all. I have no doubt this women never worked or ever will.


  • Options
    #30
    KyussBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,797 ✭✭✭KyussBishop


    Chuck Stone wrote: »
    Just going off my own knowledge here and would happily be corrected so if anyone wants to weigh in.

    A libertarian would probably say 'yes, absolutely you should lose your deposit if the bank collapses' why should it be the problem of people who have no capital or those who invested wisely to bail out those who didn't?
    Well, the point to me would be to have enough regulation and enforced transparency in the first place, to stop the bank engaging in practices that may collapse it; is that still compatible with a free market? (which to me, a free market implies a great deal of deregulation, though the specifics I don't know)

    EDIT: Excuse the several ninja-edits :)


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #31
    Chuck Stone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,030 ✭✭✭✭Chuck Stone


    K-9 wrote: »
    It does seem to be a recurrent thing in debates about free market capitalism, it seems there never has been an actual free market crash in relatively recent times as invariably the state gets involved in some way. Vested interests win out over any idealism.

    Like how Goldman Sachs had all its trash insured with AIG who was then bailed out by the US tax payer - ransacking the public purse.
    Goldman Sachs collected nearly $3bn (£1.9bn) from bailed-out US insurer American International Group (AIG) as a payout on bets it placed on its own account – with the bulk coming directly from taxpayers after AIG's rescue.

    .guardian.co.uk/business


Advertisement