Socialism: Yes or No?

omnicorp

Socialism: Yes or No?

Would you support Socialism?
Equality
Low Taxes
Low Crime
Enforcement?

Then why are Fianna Fail in Government?

AngelofFire

i support Social Democracy but not Leninsim or Stalinism

article6

What does Socialism have to do with "low taxes"? And what exactly is "enforcement"?

AngelofFire

I think he means socialism as an alternative to what he listed.

Exterminator

You tell him ed. Socialism would probably have high taxes, but a fairer tax system, ie none of this BS of the top 5% in the country paying no tax.

Your actually missing the mainselling points of socialism. Health and education systems that work.

The list you posted actually looks a bit.. how shall i put it...1 out of four aint bad

Exterminator

AngelofFire wrote:

I think he means socialism as an alternative to what he listed.

I dont think thats what he means, i dont think he knows exactly what he means

Simi

Those capitalist pigs will pay for their crimes, eh comrade!

shotamoose

omnicorp wrote:

Socialism: Yes or No?

Would you support Socialism?
Equality
Low Taxes
Low Crime
Enforcement?

Bit of a loaded question there.

But since you ask, my answer would be 'yes and no'. Some problems are best solved by markets, some by socialist solutions. For example, markets can't provide equitable health and education systems with adequate minimum standards regardless of ability to pay, but more socialist systems (i.e. with heavy government intervention) can.

It's also a question of scale. Socialism works quite well for small social units, since it's easier to get agreement and co-ordination problems aren't too severe. But pure state socialism just doesn't work at the country-level because planned systems tend to lack the flexibility and sophistication required. That's why the vast majority of countries in the world go for some mix of socialist and market systems.

mr_angry

Everything in moderation. Socialism, capitalism, vegetables!

steviec

Socialism doesn't work. It's a nice ideal and everything but in reality human nature takes over and it breeds corruption.

Capitalism is a result of thousands of years of evolution of human nature and people constantly criticise it and come up with improvements but in reality it's what people work with.

And as for the other question, Fianna Fail are in power because they were voted in for a second term after bringing unprecedented prosperity to the country.

mike65

What fun this thread shall be! Or it would be if it was'nt August with traffic here a bit light atm.

I voted no as I'm poor enough already but have ambitions to be richer at some point. Also there is NO evidence to support the idea that public services run better under socialist governments only that they soak up more resourses.

Enforcement

Whats that excatly? Salt mines?

Mike.

mycroft

Well,

Would you care to define socialism? I mean how far are you willing to take it. Socialist and Socialist lite groups, in Ireland run the gammit from

SWP. We'll campaign on anything to get more papers sold

SP. Similiar but with some working class members.

Sparatus. Actually have a chant "5,6,7,8 support the chinese workers state"

Irish Communist Party. Three men and a dog. Obscure politics fact, Connelly books across from the Clardon Hotel is actually owned by the Irish Communist Party. Bought from them by the USSR. The party consists of three old men, if you were willing to join the party and wait for them to die, you'd be in line for some primo city center property.

Just er wouldn't be very socialist of you.

AngelofFire

I think the current system of taxation is unfair, people who earn 40,000 per annum pay at the same rate of tax as people earning 200,000 per annum.

The system of two tax bands is botched there should be 3 bands. Nobody earning less than 15,000 per year should have to pay tax. The 20% for lower earners should still remain, those earning between 30,000 and 80,000 per annum should only pay at 35% and a 46-48% rate should apply to those earning in excess of 80,000. Stealth taxes like registration fees should be cut in half.

BuffyBot

And here was me thinking it was much more complicated than yes/no. I now see the error of my ways!

gaelic cowboy

shotamoose wrote:

Bit of a loaded question there.

But since you ask, my answer would be 'yes and no'. Some problems are best solved by markets, some by socialist solutions. For example, markets can't provide equitable health and education systems with adequate minimum standards regardless of ability to pay, but more socialist systems (i.e. with heavy government intervention) can.

It's also a question of scale. Socialism works quite well for small social units, since it's easier to get agreement and co-ordination problems aren't too severe. But pure state socialism just doesn't work at the country-level because planned systems tend to lack the flexibility and sophistication required. That's why the vast majority of countries in the world go for some mix of socialist and market systems.

If socialist systems provide better eduacation why are more and more children in Ireland going to bastions of capitialism ie fee paying schools

therecklessone

steviec wrote:

Socialism doesn't work. It's a nice ideal and everything but in reality human nature takes over and it breeds corruption.

Capitalism is a result of thousands of years of evolution of human nature and people constantly criticise it and come up with improvements but in reality it's what people work with.

Let me get this straight...

Socialism won't work because human nature leads to corruption, but capitalism does work because it is a result of the gradual develpoment of human nature...

So capitalism leads to corruption then?

AngelofFire

why are more and more children in Ireland going to bastions of capitialism ie fee paying schools

Snobbery, just because people have to pay for something they get the idea that its better than getting it for free. I went to a V.E.C. school and got 450 points whereas 3 of my friends went to a well known 5 grand a year school in Dublin. I did better than all 3 of them. Private education is not superior, at the end of the day it is down to the individual student to get good results.

elivsvonchiaing

AngelofFire wrote:

I think the current system of taxation is unfair, people who earn 40,000 per annum pay at the same rate of tax as people earning 200,000 per annum.

I have to say I agree. But the mega-rich you can only screw with sales tax - but if you can get them to live here...

I think CJH's tax amnesty for royalties - encouraging artists to live here was ingenious - these people are buying and paying vat at 21% + duty on cars, etc. I reckon they should be hit with extra excise duty on X.O. brandy, Premier Crus etc. Of course some of them don't reach the tax threshold anyhow - all you need is a few rich ones to help pay their dole.

If a bottle of booze costs €250 - why have just €4 go to the govt? They don't all drink - we could have tax on some mant things that targets them - we could have a 'bling tax - diamonds over certain value - but whatever this tax it should only exploit laziness/no patience - if they can get it in other EU countries should be forced to wait for it (to get it delivered) or pay up now. No customs bullsheit (OK cars can be easily tracked so these are the exception).

Americans pay tax (if they earn over a threshold - was about €75K 7-8 years ago - now - no idea) no matter where they live

(true also (I think) of Canadians).

Why not encourage American billionaires to live here as Irish citizens ?
(for tax purposes they would have to forefit their American citizenship)

There must 100 countries trying to do this but we have the advantage of not having hurricanes, tornadoes, bitching hot weather (ain't that the truth ),

we speak English - (just can't see a billionaire upset 'cos he has to get his morning paper and a pint of milk though and has a language problem) - we are not an unstable state (so you might think; but if I ever get that robotic army finished and working (hard to do in a garden shed believe me!) :cool: )

we are a reasonably liberal - (OK compared to El Shariah muslim states and the Bible belt of the US) -

and (scraping the bottom of the barrel) we don't have nutters with guns here :cool:

Bottom line is you can tax the rich only up to a certain point I think you were close to the mark - but only up to €2M/y - then they start to insist on getting entry/visa stamps at the airport even though they're Irish - basically it depends on circumstance - but anyone who's retired on a pension of €2M doesn't have their domicile here. There can't be more than 2 of these who are Irish. Sheit load of Americans though - I would think in the order of hundreds.

But we don't want just pensioners coming here - we need the billionaires -
They have enough lawyers to avoid the full tax liability normal folk pay - but if we could change things so those lawyers would suggest: "You really should revoke your US citizenship - sign this affidavit from the NSA - (You will technically be a US citizen - just the IRS can't touch you - and you'll have to use your Irish passport in future!) - spend no more than 90 days/year on US soil. Oh and buy a new Ferrari in Ireland - don't ship your old one - it will cost more in the long run".

When everyone around us is poor we're socialists . (I think mainly true in the 1980s). When we know some billionaires we become a nation of kiss-ass artists - true now - and fcuk it- why not

I seriously think we need to go in this direction. I know there are those who do not. I relish the anticipated flames :cool:

DadaKopf

shotamoose wrote:

Bit of a loaded question there.

But since you ask, my answer would be 'yes and no'. Some problems are best solved by markets, some by socialist solutions. For example, markets can't provide equitable health and education systems with adequate minimum standards regardless of ability to pay, but more socialist systems (i.e. with heavy government intervention) can.

It's also a question of scale. Socialism works quite well for small social units, since it's easier to get agreement and co-ordination problems aren't too severe. But pure state socialism just doesn't work at the country-level because planned systems tend to lack the flexibility and sophistication required. That's why the vast majority of countries in the world go for some mix of socialist and market systems.

I know what your saying, but how about this: socialism prevents the capitalist system from transforming into something else?

Flukey

The best thing is a mix of different politics. None of the extremes exclusively, but bits from all. That is one advantage of coalition governments, when they are done across a divide. Our current one has parties that both lean right. The Labour + Fianna Fáil worked well because of the mix, until the judges scandal toppled it.

shotamoose

DadaKopf wrote:

I know what your saying, but how about this: socialism prevents the capitalist system from transforming into something else?

Hmm, another leading question! Something else like what?

Dunno if this is what you mean, but there's a good case for saying that socialism saved capitalism - for example, the Keynesian and super-interventionist policies adopted by FDR dragged America out of the Depression, while unemployment benefits and socialised healthcare and education systems took the harsh edge off capitalism and the wind out of the sails of worker-led revolution all around the world.

gaelic cowboy wrote:

If socialist systems provide better eduacation why are more and more children in Ireland going to bastions of capitialism ie fee paying schools

Under-funding of the public school system, for one thing. And anyway, people are free to choose to pay more to go private if they want to - I'm more concerned about the people who can't afford fee-paying schools. Under a purely market-driven system, those with least resources would be much worse off. Hence my point about minimum standards. Incidentally, the same goes for child poverty, which is my number one measure of a country's economic success: which countries have the lowest levels of absolute child poverty? Luxembourg, Norway, Denmark, Sweden and Finland, all of which have a much higher degree of socialist policy than Ireland, the UK or the US.

gom

Oh its been a while since there was a Socialism/Capitalism rant post here

I'm a Dreadlocked Economics student who deplores Lefties but is a active member of the Labour party.. Oh the contradictions!

Basically you can't knock the market. It is a very useful mechnism. Socialism is about creating a society that functions for the greater good of all(but in a non-utalitarian sense). I am a Market Social Democrat, whatever the hell that means. I believe that New Labour(UK) in their first term is the type of government we need(with some modifications obviously).

At the same time anyone who say that Capitalism is the result of Human evolution is a complete moron. Darwin is evil and his theory of evolution was used by the NAZIs to justify the complete destruction of a ethnic group form the face of the planet among other things.

Making sure everyone in society is given equal opportunities and looked after when needed. Making sure the Market is constranded for the good of society in certain areas. Treating the root of a problem and not the result. If these actions are unnatural and against human natural then I embrace them. If natural is the law of the jungle. Survival of the fittest then America deserves to walk all over teh world and do as it pleases.

I'm no idealist by any means but I think that those on both the left and right have it completely wrong. Its not about Liberial Economics, Market Friendly policies, people friendly policies, Socialism or Capitalism. Its about people.

Is the pure market a better place for the price of medicine, childcare, health, police enforcement, education, transport... No on all grounds. These are services that need to be controlled to a point and provided for by the state. If you agree with this paragraph in an small way then you are a socialist in a small way too. CApitalism only comes in one for. The pure form of the free market. Socialism on the other hand is not communism. It is a balance of the basic needs of a society and leaves the rest to the market.

The irony is that Ireland today is the most centralised state in the whole of Europe(apart from Russia and Moldova). We have Central Government with all the power. Then they delegate it to quangos of the authority sort. We have no regional government that anyone knows about(the BMW and SERA are only 5 years old and undemocratic). Local government is powerless on even planning. No one knows who is responsible for anything from the telecommunications infrastructure to the roads. The central government refuses to allow you and me choose anything...

This Capitalist utopian society Ireland has grown up to be has led to more and more un accountability. Less freedom and more big government. All you FF nuts out there open your eyes. Your party owns us all. We have no choose or freedom. We have a centrally planned economy with the National Spacial Stratagy(NSS), National Development Program(NDP), Social Partnership, consultant report after consultant report on what the government should do...

The reality is that a moderately socialist Labour party would led to less government in this country. Labour actively supports Devolution not Decentralisation(another centrally planned scheme)

The arguments have changed so drop the idealism and move on the the practicalities of the arguement. It is a politics board. Not a political science or humanities board..
my 2c

arcadegame2004

Would you support Socialism?

No. Low taxation has never been part of Socialist ideology. Socialists support high taxation. Those on the economic right tend to favour lower taxation.

I have a number of problems with Socialism:

A:Traditionally, Socialism is defined in terms partly of supporting State-control of the means of production. I am totally against this, because this implies monopoly and monopoly is bad for the consumer. Unlike private-sector monopolies, those which are State-owned usually have their monopoly enshrined in the law as government-policy. If the consumer is dissatisfied with the ESB, Gas etc. bills they are paying, then it is wrong to force them to stick with whatever company they feel is overcharging them in these areas. It actually harms the poor through the higher prices that monopoly brings. So much for Socialism being on the poor-man's side.

B:Socialism tends to support trade-union militancy, and the philosophy of "strike first - talk later". Labour gets contributions from the trade-unions and I feel that there would be a resulting conflict of interest were Labour to be in possession of certain government posts during an industrial-dispute, in the same way that a political-party receiving donations from a certain company would potentially have a conflict of interest. Labour can't serve 2 masters.

C:The trade-unions tried to block the deregulation of the taxi-industry. Since deregulation, taxi-fares have plummeted. I'd say that's a sign that competition usually helps the consumer.

D:Socialists favour high taxes on businesses, thererby deterring multinationals from setting up here.

E:Socialists believe in punishing wealth-creation through excessive taxation of entrepreneurs. I believe that we should encourage private-enterprise among the general population, not punish it.

F:Socialism is actually against equality in the commercial sphere, since they wish to treat companies like Aer Rianta, Bus Eireann, and Bord Gais better than other companies by denying other companies the right to offer the consumer a choice. One party-state's tend to be tyrannical, just like one-company market's (albeit in different ways). In both the electoral and commercial sphere, the consumer should have a choice, except in the rail-sector perhaps, where introducing competition seems difficult in practical terms, unlike the electricity, gas and bus-sectors.

G:Countries with Socialist governments have higher unemployment e.g. France, Germany, Spain, Italy (all around 9%-12%). It is a failed ideology. Labour need to move to the centre if they are ever to get my vote.

H:The only issue I agree with the Left on is legalising gay marriage and the end of the State's interference in the bedrooms of consenting adults.

---

I would define my ideology as Liberal, both in the economic sense and the social sense. I generally feel that the Government should only intervene in the lives of the public as a last resort. Where there are competing rights, the Government may have a case to intervene to protect the public from monopolistic-practices and from passive-smoking etc. But generally, the more the Government intervenes in industry the worse it is for all of us, since we are denied choice in what company provides our electricity and gas and some other sectors. I feel that done properly, competition in these sectors would bring prices down. Where this has not been the case in some countries, I see that as a result not of privatisation or deregulation per se, but rather of the exact methodoly and regulatory regimes introduced in those cases. The British privatisation of British Rail was a mistake, since market-principles do not really work when each rail-company has a monopoly over a certain section of track. But generally, privatisation and deregulation is right. Furthermore, I believe in the complete separation of the Church and State. I see religion as something that arguably has caused more harm than good.

Rredwell

mycroft wrote:

Well,

Would you care to define socialism? I mean how far are you willing to take it. Socialist and Socialist lite groups, in Ireland run the gammit from

SWP.
SP.
Sparatus.
Irish Communist Party.

What about the Labour Party? Ireland's true Socialists.

Socialism simply means treating people properly: free education; universal healthcare; good housing; workers' rights. And of course you need taxation. When people's taxes are put to good use for hospitals, schools, etc., it means people are looking after each other. It's self-help. This is how Socialism can work on a national level.

As for flexibility: what good is that if people's jobs are seen as being liabilities or disposable commodities?

arcadegame2004

Rredwell, if socialism is so beneficial then why are all the countries with Socialist governments high-unemployment zones?

Rredwell

Flukey wrote:

The Labour + Fianna Fáil worked well because of the mix, until the judges scandal toppled it.

Labour and FF? That's something I never knew about, and I'm in the Labour Party. What an Orwellian touch.

AngelofFire

Socialists favour high taxes on businesses, thererby deterring multinationals from setting up here.

was it not Labour who locked Ireland into the 12.5% corporation tax. was it not Labour who abolished 3rd level fees enabling more people to get better qualifications thus providing more skilled personell for these multinationals making it more attracive for them to set up in ireland.

We have Central Government with all the power. Then they delegate it to quangos of the authority sort. We have no regional government that anyone knows about

.

I agree our system of local government is awful, it has remained fundamentally the same since the abolition of the grand jury system in 1898. Its in need of reform, but this government has done little to improve local government. Waste disposal is being transferred to private companies, most of the major decisions at local level are taken by county managers. I think that that is undemocratic.

I believe that local government should have more control of Gardai, the Bus roots and waste management.

Rredwell

Any system is only as good as the people who administer it. The whole point of Socialism (as well as Communism) is that people should work together face to face in small groups to run their lives. It shouldn't involve a few oligarchs controlling everything. It's the same with capitalism - why can't everyone in a Capitalist economy become millionaires - because the ordinary people are seen by the cabal as being catalysts to wealth, just like the Tánaiste said. People are people, not ingredients in a Capitalist experiment to generate wealth.

Socialism? Unemployment? In 1980s Britain 3 million were unemployed under the Classical Liberal ideology of Mrs Thatcher.

arcadegame2004

was it not Labour who locked Ireland into the 12.5% corporation tax. was it not Labour who abolished 3rd level fees enabling more people to get better qualifications thus providing more skilled personell for these multinationals making it more attracive for them to set up in ireland.

Abolishing third-level fees is meaningless when there are still registration-fees. I had to forgo university this year because I couldn't afford it. And the % of working-class adults going to university is not appreciably higher than it was when the fees were abolished. The low Corporation-tax rate cam in in 1989, before Labour was in power.

arcadegame2004

Rredwell wrote:

Any system is only as good as the people who administer it. The whole point of Socialism (as well as Communism) is that people should work together face to face in small groups to run their lives. It shouldn't involve a few oligarchs controlling everything. It's the same with capitalism - why can't everyone in a Capitalist economy become millionaires - because the ordinary people are seen by the cabal as being catalysts to wealth, just like the Tánaiste said. People are people, not ingredients in a Capitalist experiment to generate wealth.

Socialism? Unemployment? In 1980s Britain 3 million were unemployed under the Classical Liberal ideology of Mrs Thatcher.

The 1974-79 Labour Government created the seeds of that mess and naturally tough medicine was needed to resolve it in the long run.

If you don't support oligarchs then why do you support the oligarchy of Aer Rianta (Noel Hanlon), ESB and Bord Gais?

Rredwell

How are AL, ESB, and BG oligarchies? They are publicly owned.

Are you talking about Central America when you say Socialism and unemployment? If so, it's the result of a small group of plutocrats who are ruling un-Socialistically.

Rredwell

Also, when you say that the 3m unemployed in the UK were results of "tough medicine", you define Classical Liberalism in a nutshell. Grab what you can for you and the chosen few, and screw what happens to the plebs.

sceptre

arcadegame2004 wrote:

The low Corporation-tax rate cam in in 1989, before Labour was in power.

We've had this before and it's a false statement. I corrected you before and gave exact rates through out the 80s and 90s but you chose to ignore it or found the figures too complicated. I'll make it simpler this time:

The corpo tax rate was 43% from 1989 to 1991. It was 40% from 1991 to 1995. It's dropped through various increments since, all downward. Meanwhile the 10% rate for export manufacturing industry was introduced in the 1980 budget, taking effect in 1981. The next time you use the above date, I'll call you a liar.

chewy

?

AngelofFire

Abolishing third-level fees is meaningless when there are still registration-fees. I had to forgo university this year because I couldn't afford it. And the % of working-class adults going to university is not appreciably higher than it was when the fees were abolished.

It wasn`t meaningless to me, im pretty sure that if i had to pay fees i wouldnt be going into my 3rd year in university come october. yes the increase in registration fees were a disgrace and i will dance on noel demspey`s grave, in my view reg fees should not exist at all.There is a lot of working class people in UCD who wouldn`t be there had it not been for free fees. I accept that dramatic change is yet to come about but i reckon in 10 years the percentage of working class people in Universities will double these things just dont change over night. I.Ts are already showing a significant increase in working class people since 1994, it is bound to work its way up. It took a long time for the country to feel the effects of the Lemass free 2nd level education act in 1968 but thats not to say it was meaningless.

Redleslie2

arcadegame2004 wrote:

Countries with Socialist governments have higher unemployment e.g. France, Germany, Spain, Italy (all around 9%-12%). It is a failed ideology.

Neither France nor Italy have socialist governments. What are you talking about?

Sweden is arguably the most socialist state in the EU and until the 90's it had an unemployment rate of about 2%, now it's roughly equal with the US. Meanwhile, Poland with a centre right government has 20% unemployment. So explain these anomalies. Go on.

chewy

problem i have with socialism is the obsession with class, i prefer to see class disappate... but socialist are so obsessed with it it never would

arcadegame2004

The corpo tax rate was 43% from 1989 to 1991. It was 40% from 1991 to 1995. It's dropped through various increments since, all downward. Meanwhile the 10% rate for export manufacturing industry was introduced in the 1980 budget, taking effect in 1981. The next time you use the above date, I'll call you a liar.

But the low rate for MULTINATIONALS was introduced in 1989, and they are responsible for the vast bulk of our exports and the majority of our GNP, so I feel my point still stands.

Neither France nor Italy have socialist governments. What are you talking about?
Sweden is arguably the most socialist state in the EU and until the 90's it had an unemployment rate of about 2%, now it's roughly equal with the US. Meanwhile, Poland with a centre right government has 20% unemployment. So explain these anomalies. Go on.

Poland has a Centre-Left Government. Leczek Miller resigned some time ago but his successor is also leftwing. No general-election was called after Miller resigned. Get your facts straight.

The mess in Germany, France. Italy, and Spain was caused by Socialist Governments and Socialist policies and the failure of the rightist-politicians in those countries to reverse the massive taxation (55% Corporation tax in Germany is an example) and excessively liberal working-time laws (35 hour maximum working-week in France) that hamper the profitability of companies and lead to workers being laid off. It goes to show what leftwing high-mindedness translates to on the ground. Some saying about the road to hell and good intentions springs to mind.

Socialist meddling only causes higher unemployment (through high company-taxation) and hurts the poor by denying them the right to choose an alternative to ESB and Bord Gais etc. regardless of their prices. Fat cats are appointed to State-company boards on the basis of party-political cronyism.

problem i have with socialism is the obsession with class, i prefer to see class disappate... but socialist are so obsessed with it it never would

Right on. Some of these people forget that many of the rich got there through damn hard work.

MadsL

UK - Socialist Govt - Low unemployment
http://www.hrmguide.co.uk/jobmarket/unemployment.htm

"Fat cats are appointed to State-company boards on the basis of party-political cronyism."

Of course this would never happen under a right-wing Govt :rolleyes:

gaelic cowboy

You think oul Tone is a socialist he threw away every bit of socialism he could get away and more and he stole Tory ideas in the election's he won. If Blair is socialist why he hanging around or on holidays with all them rich twats in the carribean or tuscanny the whole time.???????

sceptre

arcadegame2004 wrote:

But the low rate for MULTINATIONALS was introduced in 1989, and they are responsible for the vast bulk of our exports and the majority of our GNP, so I feel my point still stands.

Er, no. You're talking bollocks again. That point wouldn't stand on a metal plate.

We weren't allowed have a separate rate for multinationals by 1989 under EC rules. Actually we weren't allowed that by 1980 which is why we introduced the manufacturing exemption for exported materials in 1980 (we brought it in as we had to dump the low rate for multinationals that we'd had in the seventies). Go look it up. You may be confusing this with the introduction of the lower tax rate for the IFSC (Finance Act 1986, EC-approved in 1987), introduction of the lower rate for fish processing, remanufacture or repair of computer equipment and meat processing (all 1989, included in the 1990 Finance Act (section 41)) or the lower rate for repair of aircraft, aircraft engines or components (good till December 2005 in Shannon, again 1990 Act section 41).

Or you're mixing it up with the 1988 Finance Act section that allows an Irish resident company to have relevant dividends received from a 51% non-resident subsidiary excluded from its income chargeable to corporation tax (which obviously has nothing to do with multinationals as the corporate income is flowing in rather than out).

Or, heck, you made it up or remember it assways. Find a library and look up the EC rulings from the late 70s that specifically told us that we couldn't have a special tax rate for multinationals that had invested here. Historically it's been one of the exceptions in the general non-interference of the commission to national taxation regimes (that and their telling us to get rid of the special export manufacturing tax rate a little more recently which has led to the corporation tax rate for trading income and exported manufacturing to change to 12.5% (one went down, the other's going up) in increments since the early 90s) so even finding a newspaper the day after the 1980 budget should do for background. Apart from the actual fact that we didn't have a distinct "low rate for MULTINATIONALS" (even multinationals who use nothing but capital letters) that began in 1989 or any other year since the mid-seventies, reading why the EC told us we couldn't should entertain you for a while. On your way to the library newspaper section you can read the Finance Acts from around 1988 to 1992 as well. Cross-reference them with the 1976 and 1980 Acts and you'll have a reasonable picture of what the tax regime in 1989 actually was.

ionapaul

Simi wrote:

Those capitalist pigs will pay for their crimes, eh comrade!

Time to build our socialist paradise! Now where are the secret police, those anarchists / Trotskyists / social democrats who helps us defeat the 'whites' must be shot! Two legs bad, four legs good...a Trabant for every man...etc etc...:)

Redleslie2

arcadegame2004 wrote:

Poland has a Centre-Left Government.

I put that in deliberately to see if you'd actually go away and look up a few things. Eg, compare unemployment in communist Poland (less than 1%) with the current rate. This proves that communism, hardcore socialism, is better for Poland than capitalism is, doesn't it.

I'm reasonably confident that apparently unlike you, most other people here would agree that unemployment is not the sole factor that determines whether a state is a success or not. For example, that socialist mess France has the highest level of second home ownership in the world.

Get your facts straight.

Why should I? You're happy enough to talk bollocks so why can't everyone else? Do you still stand by your statement that France and Italy's governments are socialist.

Socialist meddling only causes higher unemployment

As someone pointed out, what did Thatcher's meddling do for unemployment?

You ignore the point I made about Sweden I notice. How convenient.

bonkey

arcadegame2004 wrote:

But the low rate for MULTINATIONALS was introduced in 1989, and they are responsible for the vast bulk of our exports and the majority of our GNP, so I feel my point still stands.

Ah, right...so what you're saying is that although you stated things incorrectly, the point behind the truth that you could have said was true.

Genius.

Personally, I agree with the point made. You've been corrected on the inaccuracy of your statement previously, and you continue to use it. Either you are deliberately trying to mislead people, or provoke others by continuing to use information you know you are misrepresenting.

Isn't it funny how when someone uses a slightly inaccurate term to describe some of your activities (think pyramid scheme if you're drawing a blank) how quick you are to get up on your high horse about the inaccuracy of the comments, and just how low people have to sink in order to misrepresent the truth in this way.......

Its no wonder you're a no to socialism. The concept of applying something equally seems to be anathema to you.

and hurts the poor by denying them the right to choose an alternative to ESB and Bord Gais etc. regardless of their prices.

Bwahahahahahah.

What about the poor that it supplies these services to free of charge, because they can't actually pay for it?

Some of these people forget that many of the rich got there through damn hard work.

Some of "these people" no doubt do....just like you seem to completely ignore the fact that many of the rich got there through walking over others and not caring who or how many they drove into poverty whilst becoming rich.

Of course, its just laughable that you are constantly referring to the rich and the poor, and how each is adversely affected by socialism, and how each would be better off under capitalism....whilst saying "right on" to the person who pointed out that its the socialists who make an issue over class.

Socialists recognise that class structures lead to unfair advantages and disadvantages. You just recognise that the class structures exist, but apparently don't see any issue with it.

jc

mycroft

Rredwell wrote:

Labour and FF? That's something I never knew about, and I'm in the Labour Party. What an Orwellian touch.

You were in colation with them 15 years ago? Did you know anything about the labour party when you signed up with?

Read Fergus Finley's "snakes and ladders" his justification for labour going in power with FF after it recieved a massive share of votes as protest by people fed up with FF corruption, is pricelessly funny and tragic.

What about the Labour Party? Ireland's true Socialists.

Thank you I haven't laffed like that in ages.....

Those who attack socialism are forgetting one basic thing, the rights as employees had to be won for us at the turn of the century, and that war (and make no mistake it was a war) was fought by socialist.

Socialists fought and led strikes so that we could have, lets see

Overtime.

A 40 hour week,

Schools and education.

Workers safety and compensation.

No child labour.

Livable wages.

Basic fun stuff like that, that we take for granted now.

yes I'm aware that it's more complicated than that (increased industrialization, the creation of the middle class)

But the simple fact is Arcadegame's capitalist mates had had there way we'd all be working a 60 week for tuppence and be grateful we can still work after I lost me leg. They didn't give us those rights, we had to strike, fight and die to get them.

I'll leave you with a Che Guevara Quote
"I believe that a social revolutionary works out of a geniune love of his fellow man"

DadaKopf

shotamoose wrote:

Hmm, another leading question! Something else like what?

Heyyy, I'm not here to tell you how it ends. I'm here to tell you how it begins.

Sand

Short answer, no.

Long answer - Socialism isnt sustainable. Its redistibution of wealth dogma effectively means taking resources from the most productive in an economy and parachuting them on to the least productive on the basis of some sort of shared identity. So both the most and least productive have less incentive to create wealth. Developed social democracies like Germany and France are defined by their large unemployment numbers. Standard of living remains high because of wealth redistribution but the wheels are in danger of coming off. Even German Unions are recognising this by accepting that change in German unemployment laws is required.

This is even before demographic shifts come into play - Europe is getting older. Its becoming harder and harder for governments to pay pensions when the number of OAPS gets higher and higher relative to the number of taxable workers. The solution of simply importing a younger workforce from abroad is running into the brick wall of anti-immigration forces, and even then its simply a delaying tactic as those immigrants will age along European trends as well - and it has its own costs of social division and ethnic tensions.

Mainstream Socialist parties and unions are recognising this - Unions are becoming less and less aggressive, "labour" parties are moving steadily to right of center - capitalism with a human face, social partnership and so on. There remains a hard core socialist movement but the economically deprived are not the majority, the actual working class are. Theyre the ones who pay the bills these days. Socialist programs are now dependant on getting the economically well off to vote for them.

And heres another reasons for socialism unsustainability - As i said above the justification for socialisms redistribution of wealth is some common identity. Socialism is a revolutionary creed however, and its adherents have successfully attacked many of the entrenched rival creeds such as nationalism and religion which have in the past served as badges of common identity. Im not saying thats a bad thing - Im happy to see those forces weakened, but my economic policies arent dependant on a shared sense of identity, whereas Socialism is. If there were two defining characteristics of Irish identity it was the influence of Catholicism and Irish nationalism. Both of these have long since been discredited. Without them, what do the workers have in common with the economically deprived? If its common humanity thats to motivate them then there are other human beings in far, far, far worse conditions who deserve priority.

Someone earlier said that socialism saved capitalism - perhaps it did, in that socialist unions protected workers from exploitation and forced legislators to take their demands and concerns as seriously as the investors and entrepreneurs - but its socialism thats on the life support these days.

omnicorp

You have no Idea how happy it makes me that I get some agreement on this Forum.

All the ridicule, insults, and ultimately banning on www.darkageofwythia.com
(Surprise, Surprise it was an American site)

So America, Land of the Free isn't all that free(!)


And Don't call me Anti-American, I was born in San Francisco.

mycroft

So America, Land of the Free isn't all that free(!)

You got banned from an online RPG.

Not exactly Mordecai Vanunu is it?

omnicorp

Well Mandela was imprisoned for 25 years...

arcadegame2004

Originally posted by MadSL
UK - Socialist Govt - Low unemployment

I don't consider New Labour to be Socialist. They have clearly ditched leftwing economic ideology by reversing Clause 4, refusing to reverse the Thatcherite privatisations of the 1980's, and by cutting taxes. I consider New Labour to espouse to kind of ideals I support, including the State keeping out of peoples personal lives and commercial-lives.The conservative party in Portugal is ironically called the Social Democrats, so a name can be misleading. Don't judge a book by its cover, please.

Originally posted by Bonkey
Of course, its just laughable that you are constantly referring to the rich and the poor, and how each is adversely affected by socialism, and how each would be better off under capitalism....whilst saying "right on" to the person who pointed out that its the socialists who make an issue over class.

There is always going to be "class". Rights come with responsibilities. The patent system encourages class-divides by forcing companies to pay the holder of the patent for its use. Are you saying we should scrap that rule? If we do that, then the incentive for companies and individuals to innovate and bring about further groundbreaking technological advances would be greatly reduced, and society would suffer as a result. Also, the desire to get rich acts as a powerful incentive for those at the bottom of the ladder to try to further their position through entrepreneurship. We need class-divides to encourage innovation in society. Society actually benefits from it.

Socialists recognise that class structures lead to unfair advantages and disadvantages. You just recognise that the class structures exist, but apparently don't see any issue with it.

You are never going to get absolute economic equality for everyone. It has never existed, and will never exist. Rights come with responsibilies, and the greater the latter burden is taken on the greater will be the economic rewards, and overall, society, including the poor, benefit from that.

Originally posted by Redleslie2I put that in deliberately to see if you'd actually go away and look up a few things. Eg, compare unemployment in communist Poland (less than 1%) with the current rate. This proves that communism, hardcore socialism, is better for Poland than capitalism is, doesn't it.

LOL. As if Communist countries produce honest economic statistics.