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

Why are we all becoming socialists now?

1246711

Comments

  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,797 ✭✭✭KyussBishop


    A proper form of capitalism functioning with austrian economics (what the libertarians propose) would never allow the banks to exploit the economy. Also in a free state the babks would be allowed to close down rather than being bailed out and the bankers would be imprisoned for committing fraud.
    I don't know a great deal about economic theory, inc. Austrian economics; I do think though, that some amount of regulation is important to stop banks getting to the point where they either need to shut down or be bailed out (that's a no-brainer to me).
    Both a bank shutting down and a bank being bailed out, have a cost on the public, as either the customers of the bank lose their money or the public takes up the debt.
    Also lower corporation tax compared to other EU countries is not the only tax that keeps corporation out of Ireland.
    You mean keeping corporations in Ireland ya? A lot of multinationals would exit Ireland pretty quick with a corporate tax normalized to that of rest of EU. I agree though, that Ireland in general (apart from corporate tax and being used as a tax haven) is not a comparatively great place for business (and probably never will be).
    But until there arent more businesses set up in ireland, the economy will just not recover. No economy can sustain itself without any industry. The reason why a country like Germany and now India and China have such strong economies is because they have many large manufacturing secondary secture industries that produces lots of export and generate revenue.
    Those countries have enormous resources where Ireland has a tiny amount of resources, they also (primarily China/India) have an enormous number of people to fuel cheap manufacturing. There's no way Ireland could compete in that regard.
    Ireland needs an educated workflow and lower taxes which will encourage both local and foreign investors to set up industries in Ireland. Any sort of industry that can create jobs and export. But this cant happen till ireland is under the grips of the EU. Ireland needs to compete with India, China, Taiwan and other such economies if we want any real hope of improving the economy and making Ireland a prosporous nation. Turning the country into a socialist state will not help recover Ireland's economy because Ireland has very little sources of generating revenue and then all the wealth is taken away first from the people by the government and then from the government by the EU!
    A ton of our money (a significant proportion of GDP) is being sunk into (debatably unsustainable) repayments of debt due to the economic crisis, until that reduces to a sustainable % of GDP the country simply can not reduce taxes and invest in industry, even if doing that would produce more money in the long run. It's all about now, not tomorrow.

    Once the debt repayments reach sustainable levels, then taxes can be reduced and investment in industry can be increased; until then, it's unavoidable hard times (all you can do is try to dish out the pain in the least-unfair way manageable, which means increased taxes).

    While at that, people in hard times sorely need 'socialized'/public services like social welfare and free/cheap education (the latter of which is also absolutely crucial to economic recovery, as it's one of the few ways Ireland can try to be competitive).

    While we agree that there shouldn't be wholesale privatization, it's still important to keep certain specific critical industries/services socialized; even if they can be less efficient, in many cases it is important for accountability (police), or equal-opportunity/affordability (health, education), or reliability (transport) etc., instead of the main motive being money/profit.

    I'm just curious why you think this is so? I know you're right but I'd just like to be informed.
    I'm not certain I'm right about it, but my reasoning is that we are a small country, with (compared to much of the rest of Europe) a small population (thus a comparatively small market for earning money), and we don't really have much/any useful natural resources that I can think of offhand, and the ones we did in the past (e.g. oil/gas and fishing rights) were either sold off by corrupt arséholes in government for some backhanders or were very idiotically negotiated away.

    From my point of view, the main lure of multinationals to Ireland right now is the low corporate tax rate; it effectively makes Ireland a tax haven for those companies, allowing (assisted by legal loopholes in other countries) those companies to pay less overall tax if they base themselves here; if we lose that, as France and Germany are pushing for (because they stand to profit from it as business moves to the continent) I think we would be royally fúcked (but don't know enough to be 100% sure on that :)).

    That said, we do have other comparatively strong industries, e.g. agriculture I think, but in general I don't see us being greatly competitive with the rest of the EU going into the future.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 12,455 ✭✭✭✭Monty Burnz


    What makes you think there has ever been a true Socialist country?
    Yes, and this is the usual get-out clause that socialism fans use.

    Dozens of countries have tried to introduce 'true' socialism and according to that argument, everyone of them failed and ended up with a dystopia. Why would anyone sane ever try it again when the odds of success seem somewhere between tiny and nil? And the odds of ending up in a miserably poor dystopia are somewhere between extremely high and an absolute certainty?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 12,455 ✭✭✭✭Monty Burnz


    No answer to that one. Can't say I'm too surprised. :rolleyes:


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,061 ✭✭✭benway


    Because people are getting dumber and have listened too much to the pc brigade and left wing media.

    Fooled by liberal media bias? In this country? Would you go away out of that.
    Socialism doesn't work because we humans will always seek to live the more comfortable life. In Scandinavia they have managed to maintain high incomes and a high standard of living along with a high taxed society

    Bit of a contradiction there? I'm not talking about pure communism or socialism, I'm talking about a hybrid - markets in their place, responsibility to the collective in its place.
    The government doesn't need funds if private industries can do the jobs better than the government can.
    Converting a country into a gloomy socialist state where where we all have to give away most of our earnings as taxes so that the inefficient government and the less fortunate can to function while I to sacrifice my comforts which I have worked so hard to achieve, in an idealistic world this may work. In the real world people are selfish and I care more about my comforts than my fellows.
    Public sector inefficiency ... an article of faith for the free marketeers. Private sector goooooood, public sector baaaaaaad, amirite?

    Personally, I work in the private sector but am in close contact with the public sector, I see equal amounts of incompetence, inefficiency, corruption and downright stupidity on both sides of the line.
    private corporations can do a better job running schools and hospitals than the government does.
    The whole point of a company is to maximise profits

    And there is the contradiction. Firstly, the profit motive is inconsistent with the imperative to provide public goods. Secondly, the profit motive leads to short-term, blind thinking, fumbling around for the next easy buck in your greasy till, lacking ability to rationally plan for the long term. I see this in my work all the time - we'll reap what we sow, and basically nothing is being sown, because that would not be profitable in the short term. In the longer term, it's going to lead to disaster.
    Some people are smarter, work harder and are better at becoming wealthy. I thinks lot of this desire for socialism comes out of insecurity and jealousy that other people are better at succeeding in business.

    Some people have a much better start in life, that gives them advantages that will essentially set them up, no matter how much they fck up. Look at G.W. Bush, the model of hard work and business success, made it to the highest office in the land. Nothing to do with his blue-blood upbringing. Oh no.
    forfuxsake wrote: »
    My grandfather worked extremely hard his whole life as a miner and lived and died in relative poverty. Fair reward?

    Is a good example. Hard work and skill aren't rewarded by capitalism, it's elite propaganda to suggest that they are. People talk about the elite's "hard-earned" living ... what about the ordinary worker's genuinely hard-earned living?

    Libertarians really are dumber than a bag of hammers (and sickles). Your ideology might have some credence in a world where everyone started from an even footing. In reality, what you think is an exhortation to individual liberty and noble striving, is in fact an apologia for entrenched privilege.
    Hard work, intelligence and courage are rewarded under capitalism, being a moron while working hard won't get you very far. That's just tough. If there was a system that existed that allowed everyone to live in pure bliss then that's what I'd recommend, but that's impossible, resources are limited, the laws of supply and demand offers the fairest way of allocating resources.

    That's real nice. Hope it stays fine for you. Being a moron seems to be working out just fine for many in our business elites. But I suppose we shouldn't question those born into privilege, because they earned it, right?
    GombeanMan wrote: »
    This is complete and utter horsesh$t I am afriad. The European Union is the one implementing all this austerity. Remove the Socialistic Policies of the EU, and austerity stops.

    What, the EU is socialist now? Pull the other one, would you? The founding pillars of the EU were all aimed at creating a continent-wide free market utopia - despite the fact that the neoliberal ideology has shown itself to be unworkable, even when implemented in a relatively weak form, the bail-out is an attempt to prop it up and get it rolling again. What is IMF austerity other than small state ideology down the barrel of a gun? Nice line in cognitive dissonance you've got there.
    Socialism ... encourages people into a lifestyle of living on the dole and sponging. Id rather a few rich people allowed to keep the hard earned money made rather than everyone get a free ride and waste their lives
    In the real world people are selfish and I care more about my comforts than my fellows.

    In the real world, people aren't half as selfish as canonical economic dogma would make them out to be - this has been empirically proven. Seems to me that it's the privileged elites who do most of the sponging, anyhow, living of the sweat of other's brows.

    Plus, some of us realise that the comforts of my fellows relate in a very direct way to my own comforts - a society of 1% mega-rich, 19% materially comfortable, 40% insecure, and 40% paupers won't be very pleasant for anyone.
    Which successful socialist country should we look at instead?
    We're talking about social democracy here - Finland, Denmark and Sweden would be good places to start.


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,933 ✭✭✭Logical Fallacy


    Yes, and this is the usual get-out clause that socialism fans use.

    Dozens of countries have tried to introduce 'true' socialism and according to that argument, everyone of them failed and ended up with a dystopia. Why would anyone sane ever try it again when the odds of success seem somewhere between tiny and nil? And the odds of ending up in a miserably poor dystopia are somewhere between extremely high and an absolute certainty?

    I'm not a socialist fan, it's a system i regularly mock...however i tend to try and have valid arguments against it rather than just trotting out the same ****.

    Please list a country that tried to instigate a "true" socialist political structure that was married to true socialist political ideology. The answer is none, because it's an unworkable system in the face of the complex human dynamic. It's a nice theory in a tree hugging world, but it lacks any realistic workable angle when it comes to being implicated. As such, throughout history it has been the ultimate Broken Political Promise, used to get into power then abandoned swiftly in everything but name.

    The fact that no true socialist state has ever existed is not a "get out clause" for socialism fans, it's there admitting that there chosen solution to political, economical and social problems is at best a theory, and at worst a deeply flawed theory.

    Just because i am asking for a decently level of intelligent thought around the dismissal of a political ideology doesn't mean I am a fan of it.

    Lazy ****ing argument out of you tbh.
    No answer to that one. Can't say I'm too surprised.

    Oh no...I didn't reply to your post quickly enough!!!! You must have me over some kind of intellectual barrel....or not, as the case may be.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 16,500 ✭✭✭✭DEFTLEFTHAND


    Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.

    W.Churchill.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 12,455 ✭✭✭✭Monty Burnz


    Lazy ****ing argument out of you tbh.
    I'll take that as a concession of the point that the 'true socialist country' is the wet dream of leftie fantasists.

    And apologies if I didn't spend enough effort on the post, I've a life to lead outside boards. :)


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 12,455 ✭✭✭✭Monty Burnz


    benway wrote: »
    We're talking about social democracy here - Finland, Denmark and Sweden would be good places to start.
    But those aren't socialist countries, are they?

    *scans through Das Kapital*

    Nope.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,061 ✭✭✭benway


    Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.

    W.Churchill.

    There's Churchill again, born into an aristocratic family, raised in a Vice Regal lodge, fighting the corner of the poor, hard-pressed elites. What a hero. You forgot the bit where he said that capitalism's greatest failing is the unequal sharing of blessings, btw.

    But those aren't socialist countries, are they?

    *scans through Das Kapital*

    Nope.

    Why don't you find me a country that applies free market ideology in its pure form, without a safety net or subsidies for its elites?


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,933 ✭✭✭Logical Fallacy


    I'll take that as a concession of the point that the 'true socialist country' is the wet dream of leftie fantasists.

    And apologies if I didn't spend enough effort on the post, I've a life to lead outside boards. :)

    A life to lead outside boards , yet demanding replies be within a certain time frame...you must be busy.

    I suggest posting your daily schedule in your sig. :D


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 1,027 ✭✭✭St.Spodo


    Which successful socialist country should we look at instead?

    Marxist socialism has never been successfully implemented, but my point is that the Soviet Union abandoned socialism, and was more of an isolationist totalitarian dictatorship than anything which assured social justice for its people, like socialism should.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 12,455 ✭✭✭✭Monty Burnz


    benway wrote: »
    Why don't you find me a country that applies free market ideology in its pure form, without a safety net or subsidies for its elites?
    I don't know that there is one. There are just capitalist countries that have adopted safety nets - an eminently sensible idea, I hope you would agree. Denmark, Sweden and Finland are examples of such countries. And Ireland.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 12,455 ✭✭✭✭Monty Burnz


    I suggest posting your daily schedule in your sig. :D
    Consider it done :)

    9.00 AM Look at feet
    11.00 PM Go to bed


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 12,455 ✭✭✭✭Monty Burnz


    St.Spodo wrote: »
    Marxist socialism has never been successfully implemented, but my point is that the Soviet Union abandoned socialism, and was more of an isolationist totalitarian dictatorship than anything which assured social justice for its people, like socialism should.
    Fair enough. But it just seems that the 'successful' introduction of socialism is simply impossible as it has failed every single time and in every single place it has been attempted.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,061 ✭✭✭benway


    I don't know that there is one. There are just capitalist countries that have adopted safety nets - an eminently sensible idea, I hope you would agree. Denmark, Sweden and Finland are examples of such countries. And Ireland.

    Or socialist countries that have adopted free markets in certain sectors of the economy?

    Pure doctrinaire socialism is probably unworkable, I think most would accept that. The problem is that there seem to be plenty out there who are in denial about the fact that anything approaching pure free market liberalism has also failed whenever it's been adopted - laissez faire in the 1800s, pre Great Depression US, Asia in the 90s. And Ireland.

    The most successful countries have adopted a hybrid - the New Deal and the Nordic Model. It's about the balance - Ireland today tends too far towards the markets rather than towards the community. If saying this makes me a socialist, well then I'm a socialist.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 12,455 ✭✭✭✭Monty Burnz


    benway wrote: »
    Or socialist countries that have adopted free markets in certain sectors of the economy?
    Like China? I don't think you could characterise the Nordic countries as 'socialist countries that have adopted free markets'.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,798 ✭✭✭karma_


    Like China? I don't think you could characterise the Nordic countries as 'socialist countries that have adopted free markets'.

    China is/was communist, why bring that into a debate about socialism?

    It's patently clear a lot of folk on here have no idea of the difference between socialism and communism.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 12,455 ✭✭✭✭Monty Burnz


    karma_ wrote: »
    China is/was communist, why bring that into a debate about socialism?

    It's patently clear a lot of folk on here have no idea of the difference between socialism and communism.
    Socialism /ˈsoʊʃəlɪzəm/ is an economic system characterized by social ownership and control of the means of production and cooperative management of the economy,[1] and a political philosophy advocating such a system.
    And it's clear that the Nordic countries are not socialist countries but you don't object to anyone mentioning them? How odd.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,798 ✭✭✭karma_


    And it's clear that the Nordic countries are not socialist countries but you don't object to anyone mentioning them? How odd.

    Nordic countries all have strong socialist policies. It's a mixed model that most socialists of today are comfortable with.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 12,455 ✭✭✭✭Monty Burnz


    karma_ wrote: »
    Nordic countries all have strong socialist policies. It's a mixed model that most socialists of today are comfortable with.
    Capitalist countries with socialist policies. Fair enough.

    Can you outline the fundamental difference between how Nordic societies are organised compared to how Ireland is organised?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 24,135 ✭✭✭✭Sleepy


    A few salient points:

    1. Norway has billions of euros worth of oil. We don't. To try model our economy on theirs is ludicrous.

    2. Under a capitalist system, we wouldn't be paying Anglo's debts. Nor would we have a bloated, over-paid public sector we can't afford.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,144 ✭✭✭Scanlas The 2nd


    Some people seem to have a problem with people being born into privilege. If someone works hard and builds a successful company, why can't they have the freedom to give their kids a privileged life, it's their money they can do what they want with it.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,567 ✭✭✭mloc


    Begrudgery and a sense of entitlement is what drives the heart of the Irish socialist movement; not a real sense of social equality or political progressivism.


  • Registered Users Posts: 32,874 ✭✭✭✭Princess Consuela Bananahammock


    Yes, and this is the usual get-out clause that socialism fans use.

    Dozens of countries have tried to introduce 'true' socialism and according to that argument, everyone of them failed and ended up with a dystopia. Why would anyone sane ever try it again when the odds of success seem somewhere between tiny and nil? And the odds of ending up in a miserably poor dystopia are somewhere between extremely high and an absolute certainty?
    This goes back to the loaded question in the title: ARE we all becoming socilaists now?
    Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.

    W.Churchill.

    Whereas free market capitalism has succeeded, has not used the media to spred ignorance, has left no people envious and has left everyone happy?
    But those aren't socialist countries, are they?

    *scans through Das Kapital*

    Nope.

    Again, is anyone advocating out-and-out socialism, here?

    I'd agree that the Scandanavian model is not socialism, but it does work, though, whatever you call it. Far better than the system the OP proposes, which has failed once and given absolutely no idciation of earning the trust it required to implement his ideas.

    Schools and hospitals run for profit? ****, that is one frightening thought.

    Everything I don't like is either woke or fascist - possibly both - pick one.



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


    I think most decent people want to incorporate ideas about social justice into society, while maintaining the capitalist system. It doesn't have to be socialist.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,567 ✭✭✭mloc


    St.Spodo wrote: »
    I think most decent people want to incorporate ideas about social justice into society, while maintaining the capitalist system. It doesn't have to be socialist.

    I would agree with this.

    My ideal model would have a NHS-style health system, a more open primary and secondary school system, but vastly reduced public service and social welfare besides that, along with a more unified tax system that is more transparent and without all the ridiculous stealth taxes we've amassed.

    i.e. healthcare for all, education for all (up to third level - I'm in favour of fees for most), low taxes and a safety net for those who can't work - not those who won't.

    Government investment would focus on public transport and infrastructure to help the private sector, not a bloated public sector to replace the private sector.


  • Registered Users Posts: 32,874 ✭✭✭✭Princess Consuela Bananahammock


    I'd agree with the social welfare thing. It's not a case of how much, it's a case of making sure that the people who need it, get it; and the people who don't, don't. Also, the people who genuinely are looking for jobs (and can prove it) ahead of the people who aren't.

    I would like to see equal health care being universal. If politicans and entrepuenrs have the same access to it as the rest of it, just watch the services improve.

    Everything I don't like is either woke or fascist - possibly both - pick one.



  • Closed Accounts Posts: 12,455 ✭✭✭✭Monty Burnz


    You should probably get less in child support the more kids you have. It's nuts the way it's structured at the moment where the more kids you have, the more you get for each kid - you're just encouraging people who can't afford to have kids to have even more of them.


  • Site Banned Posts: 2,037 ✭✭✭paddyandy


    SPODO ; A healthy balance of Capitalism tempered with socialism i've always believed in .


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 37,215 ✭✭✭✭Dudess


    paddyandy wrote: »
    SPODO ; A healthy balance of Capitalism tempered with socialism i've always believed in .
    Wow, you've said something sensible! :eek:


Advertisement