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
2456

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    Sergeant
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,362 ✭✭✭Sergeant


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

    Believing that social equality is the sole preserve of socialism is one of the main reasons it remains very much a minority ideological viewpoint in the vast majority of the world.


  • Options
    #33
    howsyourtusk
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,005 ✭✭✭howsyourtusk


    K-9 wrote: »
    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.

    Fact check, Socialist Party are a member of the ULA. Along with the Socialist Workers Party and other independent left wingers. If extreme is wanting food, shelter and a job for every person I dunno what the **** the rest of the political spectrum could be described as.


  • Options
    #34
    Chuck Stone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,030 ✭✭✭✭Chuck Stone


    KyussBishop wrote: »
    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?

    That wouldn't be a truly free market. That's state regulation. Some people blame deregulation for creating a systemic risk and ergo the failure of banks and others blame the betting on bailouts and too big to fail aspect for creating the moral hazard.

    I guess they are both right(?)


  • Options
    #35
    St.Spodo
    Registered Users Posts: 1,027 ✭✭✭St.Spodo


    Probably since the Second World War, and peaked in popularity in the 80s with the neo-liberal governments in America and Britain. Died-in-the-wool Right-libertarians are the real loons, who have almost succeeded in making the word ''socialist'' a pejorative term.


  • Options
    #36
    KyussBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,797 ✭✭✭KyussBishop


    Chuck Stone wrote: »
    That wouldn't be a truly free market. That's state regulation. Some people blame deregulation for creating a systemic risk and ergo the failure of banks and others blame the betting on bailouts and too big to fail aspect for creating the moral hazard.

    I guess they are both right(?)
    Ok, I guess it's fair to say that a free market (in the strict unregulated sense, though I understand some regulation is compatible) will inevitably lead to some innocent bank customers losing their money, through no fault of their own, and with them being unable to inform themselves of the risks (as the banks will not be transparent about their risky practices).

    I don't personally view that as acceptable, as it has the potential to completely destroy many peoples lives, or at the very least it would literally wipe out many years of their lives spent earning that money.

    Do advocates of an unregulated free market view that as acceptable or necessary, or is there an alternative solution which does not lead to that, which is still compatible with a free market?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    44leto
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,137 ✭✭✭44leto


    I love people complaining about the unfairness of capitalism. Cry me a river as we live in a country who on average are in the top 3% earners in the world and that includes people on the dole.

    Capitalism and commerce is a positive sum game the entrepreneur or business man supplies goods or a service and I benefit from buying them. That feeds into the greater economy it supplies employment and a tax stream, of which a government pays for public services.

    We need more capitalism in this country not less and we all should be grateful for the system that made Ireland one of the wealthiest countries in the world.

    So be thankful to the system that has lifted more people out of poverty then anything else ever tried and made our lives better in so many ways from scientific medical and play.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OOgpT5rEKIU


  • Options
    #38
    Channel Zero
    Closed Accounts Posts: 333 ✭✭Channel Zero


    Chuck Stone wrote: »
    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.

    Too right. Another source of this is that the schools and universities (in the States anyway) are being bombarded with PR from the likes of the Ayn Rand Institute and others.
    Get 'em while they're young..


  • Options
    #39
    K-9
    Registered Users Posts: 43,311 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    howsyourtusk wrote: »
    Fact check, Socialist Party are a member of the ULA. Along with the Socialist Workers Party and other independent left wingers. If extreme is wanting food, shelter and a job for every person I dunno what the **** the rest of the political spectrum could be described as.

    Indeed, I'm sure the distinction between the groups is extremely important for members and followers of them.

    What's with the wanting food, shelter and a job thing? Hardly something that's the sole preserve of the ULA!

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



  • Options
    #40
    Chuck Stone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,030 ✭✭✭✭Chuck Stone


    KyussBishop wrote: »
    Do advocates of an unregulated free market view that as acceptable or necessary, or is there an alternative solution which does not lead to that, which is still compatible with a free market?

    From what I know in a truly free market there would be no state support for measures that tend to encourage risk in business - limited liability and corporate status for example.

    That would mean that the owners of the bank, investors in the banks and management accused of wrongdoing could be pursued for every last penny they have. I'm pretty sure that if that were the case banks and those who own and run them would be super careful about getting it wrong because they themselves could be looking at serous financial consequences.
    In a free market, individuals can form partnerships and engage in whatever trade and commercial relations they please, but they cannot establish a new legal entity that exists independently of the individuals who own it. Only a government can create a corporation as a legal entity with its own rights and privileges, the most important of which is limited liability

    http://www.conservativenannystate.org/cnswebbook.pdf


  • Options
    #41
    tony007
    Registered Users Posts: 326 ✭✭tony007


    44leto wrote: »
    I love people complaining about the unfairness of capitalism. Cry me a river as we live in a country who on average are in the top 3% earners in the world and that includes people on the dole.

    Capitalism and commerce is a positive sum game the entrepreneur or business man supplies goods or a service and I benefit from buying them. That feeds into the greater economy it supplies employment and a tax stream, of which a government pays for public services.

    We need more capitalism in this country not less and we all should be grateful for the system that made Ireland one of the wealthiest countries in the world.

    So be thankful to the system that has lifted more people out of poverty then anything else ever tried and made our lives better in so many ways from scientific medical and play.

    Eh, no.
    Capitalism in theory works like that. But in the real world neoliberalism ensures that a small minority have majority wealth. Because of this, they exercise disproportionate power over the government. Therefore, when they go belly up, their power in the government means that their debt gets socialised.
    Most of the frontier technology in the industry sector exists because of state intervention, including commercial flight and the IT sector.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    44leto
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,137 ✭✭✭44leto


    tony007 wrote: »
    Eh, no.
    Capitalism in theory works like that. But in the real world neoliberalism ensures that a small minority have majority wealth. Because of this, they exercise disproportionate power over the government. Therefore, when they go belly up, their power in the government means that their debt gets socialised.
    Most of the frontier technology in the industry sector exists because of state intervention, including commercial flight and the IT sector.

    And what are you complaining about, are you not happy with what you have, you have more then 97% of the worlds population so be grateful and now you even want more. That my friend is capitalism.

    It is not an egalitarian world, some people are luckier, wealthier, more intelligent better looking, more powerful ETC then others and so what, that is simply the way it is and that is OK.


  • Options
    #43
    howsyourtusk
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,005 ✭✭✭howsyourtusk


    K-9 wrote: »
    Indeed, I'm sure the distinction between the groups is extremely important for members and followers of them.

    What's with the wanting food, shelter and a job thing? Hardly something that's the sole preserve of the ULA!

    Weakens your arguments when you make basic factual errors like that no?

    And do they? Or do they pay lip service to it. 200,000 empty housing units in the country, estimates of thousands of homeless people. Awaits, "ah but you can't give **** away for free" argument.


  • Options
    #44
    pragmatic1
    Registered Users Posts: 5,573 ✭✭✭pragmatic1


    I think the caliber of people on the left and the way they're represented in the media as trust fund babies has done huge damage. My father is a socialist, he was born in an orphanage in 1950s Dublin and worked down the mines all his life. Couldnt be further from the media depiction of a socialist.


  • Options
    #45
    howsyourtusk
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,005 ✭✭✭howsyourtusk


    44leto wrote: »
    And what are you complaining about, are you not happy with what you have, you have more then 97% of the worlds population so be grateful and now you even want more. That my friend is capitalism.

    It is not an egalitarian world, some people are luckier, wealthier, more intelligent better looking, more powerful ETC then others and so what, that is simply the way it is and that is OK.

    It's ok for you. Because I'd guess you clearly have a decent existance. It's that lack of empathy that scares me about right wingers. Most lefty's I know are pretty content people even if they're struggling to get by, every right winger I know is living a lie or is a complete prick. Go figure.


  • Options
    #46
    Chuck Stone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,030 ✭✭✭✭Chuck Stone


    44leto wrote: »
    I love people complaining about the unfairness of capitalism. Cry me a river as we live in a country who on average are in the top 3% earners in the world and that includes people on the dole.

    I don't think anyone is asking for an all encompassing state socialist model to be enacted. As for capitalism - maybe you missed the bit where there is no such thing. We have state backed capitalism.

    Socialized road building and private corporations selling cars and fuel would be an example of state capitalism. Public funding of universities and graduates going into private industry would be another. The state and capitalism go hand in glove.


  • Options
    #47
    tony007
    Registered Users Posts: 326 ✭✭tony007


    44leto wrote: »
    And what are you complaining about, are you not happy with what you have, you have more then 97% of the worlds population so be grateful and now you even want more. That my friend is capitalism.

    It is not an egalitarian world, some people are luckier, wealthier, more intelligent better looking, more powerful ETC then others and so what, that is simply the way it is and that is OK.

    The conditions of slaves improved from the 18th to 19th century. Is that an argument for slavery?
    Also, a lot of our wealth in Ireland has to do with the carving up of resources by multinationals in 3rd world countries.
    We don't have capitalism, that's what I was trying to say. State intervention created many of our modern industries.


  • Options
    #48
    K-9
    Registered Users Posts: 43,311 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    tony007 wrote: »
    Eh, no.
    Capitalism in theory works like that. But in the real world neoliberalism ensures that a small minority have majority wealth. Because of this, they exercise disproportionate power over the government. Therefore, when they go belly up, their power in the government means that their debt gets socialised.
    Most of the frontier technology in the industry sector exists because of state intervention, including commercial flight and the IT sector.

    Indeed, that's were "too big to fail" comes in. The idea is that regulation is needed to ensure they don't get too big but with the endless pursuit of profit and the days of globalism I don't know if that concept can work any more.

    The other side is the near zealot belief that the market is always right and any Government intervention should be small, markets would by and large regulate themselves and would discourage bubbles., somehow!

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



  • Options
    #49
    Eric Cartman
    Registered Users Posts: 26,283 ✭✭✭✭Eric Cartman


    We live in an enlightened age of information, people have seen how mass socialism creates a bloated oublic sector, bails out banks, raises taxes , keeps everyone poor and allows mass immigration all in the name of 'equality' so its about time people stood up and looked for a better system , like capitalism.


  • Options
    #50
    KyussBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,797 ✭✭✭KyussBishop


    Chuck Stone wrote: »
    From what I know in a truly free market there would be no state support for measures that tend to encourage risk in business - limited liability and corporate status for example.

    That would mean that the owners of the bank, investors in the banks and management accused of wrongdoing could be pursued for every last penny they have. I'm pretty sure that if that were the case banks and those who own and run them would be super careful about getting it wrong because they themselves could be looking at serous financial consequences.
    True, the government would not provide incentives for risky practices, and would hold the threat of criminal prosecution over the leaders of the bank; however, these are deterrent and reactive measures, not preventative.

    There will always be the inherent massive incentive to commit fraud for personal gain; without some regulation, the owner of a bank could easily embezzle money and then just leave the country to avoid consequences.
    Hell, the current financial crisis has shown that so long as you have enough money, you can avoid the consequences for any crime anyway, so it's a pretty weak deterrence.


    As the owner of a bank, buy up a personal stake in an industry in Russia, invest craploads of money in said industry using bank funds, move to Russia and cash out, watch said industry implode in value due to inflation/corruption/whatever, then watch the bank at home implode while you're swimming in riches.

    What could possibly prevent that in those circumstances? A free market, in that absolute unregulated form, is an invitation to pillage and embezzle other peoples money.


  • Options
    #51
    44leto
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,137 ✭✭✭44leto


    howsyourtusk wrote: »
    It's ok for you. Because I'd guess you clearly have a decent existance. It's that lack of empathy that scares me about right wingers. Most lefty's I know are pretty content people even if they're struggling to get by, every right winger I know is living a lie or is a complete prick. Go figure.

    Empathy man, the new buzz word, wasn't free love in the 60s and that worked:rolleyes:

    Look its simple you are living in a time of unprecedented wealth. From Europe to Asia to south America more people have been lifted out of poverty then any other time in history. Democracy and free market capitalism is what achieved this. Not to long ago half the world was in an economic back water of socialism, a repressive system that failed on every level.

    Its as Victor Havel said communism/ socialism is anti human nature.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    tony007
    Registered Users Posts: 326 ✭✭tony007


    Eric Cartman wrote: »
    We live in an enlightened age of information, people have seen how mass socialism creates a bloated oublic sector, bails out banks, raises taxes , keeps everyone poor and allows mass immigration all in the name of 'equality' so its about time people stood up and looked for a better system , like capitalism.

    As I've explained before, neoliberalism causes this. It causes disproportionate power amongst certain sectors. This disproportionate power causes the socialisation of debts when things go belly up.


  • Options
    #53
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 1,427 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Eric Cartman wrote: »
    We live in an enlightened age of information, people have seen how mass socialism creates a bloated oublic sector, bails out banks, raises taxes , keeps everyone poor and allows mass immigration all in the name of 'equality' so its about time people stood up and looked for a better system , like capitalism.

    What does socialism have to do with immigration policy? Most of the scandinavian countries, which are described as socialist democracies, have fairly stringent immigration policies.

    Capitalism was the driving force behind the large immigration we saw here during the bubble. Indeed, the bubble could not have inflated half as much were it not for all the eastern Europeans renting properties (so they could live here building more rental properties etc etc.) It was in the interest of the small minority making huge money off the bubble to keep the flow of immigrants coming.


  • Options
    #54
    tony007
    Registered Users Posts: 326 ✭✭tony007


    44leto wrote: »
    Empathy man, the new buzz word, wasn't free love in the 60s and that worked:rolleyes:

    Look its simple you are living in a time of unprecedented wealth. From Europe to Asia to south America more people have been lifted out of poverty then any other time in history. Democracy and free market capitalism is what achieved this. Not to long ago half the world was in an economic back water of socialism, a repressive system that failed on every level.

    Its as Victor Havel said communism/ socialism is anti human nature.

    We've already explained how free market capitalism has never existed. It's capitalism for the majority and socialised debt/risk for the minority wealthy.


  • Options
    #55
    howsyourtusk
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,005 ✭✭✭howsyourtusk


    44leto wrote: »
    Empathy man, the new buzz word, wasn't free love in the 60s and that worked:rolleyes:

    Look its simple you are living in a time of unprecedented wealth. From Europe to Asia to south America more people have been lifted out of poverty then any other time in history. Democracy and free market capitalism is what achieved this. Not to long ago half the world was in an economic back water of socialism, a repressive system that failed on every level.

    Its as Victor Havel said communism/ socialism is anti human nature.

    You don't even understand what socialism is if you think it's existed at any point previous to this. Do a google will you and stop embarrassing yourself.


  • Options
    #56
    howsyourtusk
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,005 ✭✭✭howsyourtusk


    Deleted User wrote: »
    What does socialism have to do with immigration policy? Most of the scandinavian countries, which are described as socialist democracies, have fairly stringent immigration policies.

    Capitalism was the driving force behind the large immigration we saw here during the bubble. Indeed, the bubble could not have inflated half as much were it not for all the eastern Europeans renting properties (so they could live here building more rental properties etc etc.) It was in the interest of the small minority making huge money off the bubble to keep the flow of immigrants coming.

    Socialism means equality for all and hence most marxists would believe in open borders. I do anyway.


  • Options
    #57
    K-9
    Registered Users Posts: 43,311 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    Deleted User wrote: »
    What does socialism have to do with immigration policy? Most of the scandinavian countries, which are described as socialist democracies, have fairly stringent immigration policies.

    Capitalism was the driving force behind the large immigration we saw here during the bubble. Indeed, the bubble could not have inflated half as much were it not for all the eastern Europeans renting properties (so they could live here building more rental properties etc etc.) It was in the interest of the small minority making huge money off the bubble to keep the flow of immigrants coming.

    Socialist parties tend to be pro immigration in general, something they share with libertarians and neo liberals!

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



  • Options
    #58
    Chuck Stone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,030 ✭✭✭✭Chuck Stone


    KyussBishop wrote: »
    True, the government would not provide incentives for risky practices, and would hold the threat of criminal prosecution over the leaders of the bank

    The threat of destitution would be a far greater potential punishment for a person who is greedy.
    however, these are deterrent and reactive measures, not preventative. There will always be the inherent massive incentive to commit fraud for personal gain; without some regulation, the owner of a bank could easily embezzle money and then just leave the country to avoid consequences.

    There will always always be people who will feel commit fraud for personal gain. Look at Bernie Madoff (rest of life in prison and a son in the grave). There's no amount of potential punishment that will stop that type of person.
    Hell, the current financial crisis has shown that so long as you have enough money, you can avoid the consequences for any crime anyway, so it's a pretty weak deterrence.

    That's exactly what's enticing about the free market solution. No state involvement because when the state becomes involved all you do is infect it and use it to your advantage if you are a powerful banker or corporate type.
    A free market, in that absolute unregulated form, is an invitation to pillage and embezzle other peoples money.

    There will always be gangsters. A libertarian would argue why give them the use of the state to get their way; see, Goldman Sachs et al.


  • Options
    #59
    af_thefragile
    Registered Users Posts: 7,171 ✭✭✭af_thefragile


    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?

    So a capitalist society is totalitarian, racist/sexist/bigot and only serves 1% of the population.

    Says the person who owns an iphone, drives a car, uses a computer, wears nice cloths and all the big and small things that are a result of a capitalist economy.


  • Options
    #60
    pawnacide
    Closed Accounts Posts: 228 ✭✭pawnacide


    af_thefragile wrote: »
    So a capitalist society is totalitarian, racist/sexist/bigot and only serves 1% of the population.

    Yep, pretty much .. America seems to fit the bill . wouldn't you say ?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #61
    pawnacide
    Closed Accounts Posts: 228 ✭✭pawnacide


    af_thefragile wrote: »
    Says the person who owns an iphone, drives a car, uses a computer, wears nice cloths and all the big and small things that are a result of a capitalist economy.

    Hmmm .. iphones and cars are the result of a capitalist society .. strange definition of capitalism you have.


Advertisement