Ireland needs socialism, says President McAleese

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

P. Breathnach

Come off it, DF. We're talking about Mary McAleese here: an intelligent woman who happens to view the people of Ireland in a romantic way. This is Celtic mist stuff, not a big political pronouncement.

I don't mind that you are a libertarian, just as you don't mind that I have a different perspective. But I would be alarmed if you adopted the worst American habit of seeing reds under every bed.

Have ye nothing better to be doing with your time?

Fat_Fingers

Every time i see her i switch the channel. To have Fianna Fáil unelected president representing us and enjoying all the benefits is bad enough. To have the same person then telling us about “sharing the workload” is frankly offensive. What is she sharing?!?!? She sure knows how to spend our tax money.
Ireland is in the worse depression is the second world war, nearly half a million unemployed, people are struggling to live and pay mortgages and in the meantime she off to Hollywood shaking hand with Arnold Schwarzenegger, then she signed into law bailout of the Anglo, then she signed into law NAMA
Woman is living a highlife on the back of taxpayers and now she’s telling about “sharing the workload”. Man, all Fianna Fáil heads are the same..

FTA69

Eh... when she starts banging on about "the means of production", "red terror", "dictatorship of the proletariat" etc then you might have a point about the Soviet terminology.

"Pulling together and sharing the fruit" is nothing to do with socialism, rather watery imagery which could just as easily be taken out of Reagan's "New Frontier" concept.

Move along, nothing to see here. :rolleyes:

sirromo

There should be a politics sub-forum for sensationalist tabloid threads like this.

BennyLava

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Mary McAleese here: an intelligent woman who happens to view the people of Ireland in a romantic way. This is Celtic mist stuff, not a big political pronouncement.

What would you expect from someone from Belfast, don't all British people view us that way

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

JonathanAnon

Mary McAleese has said nothing but this sort of unrealistic, flowery, populist, idyllic guff in her two terms as president. She is a part of the establishment and thus is part of the problem, not a part of the solution.

She had the opportunity to stand up to capitalism at every stage where she had to sign in FF Ministers, sign legislation etc etc, and she didnt exactly say " Jaysus no, Joe wouldnt have put up with this".

Like I said before, the position of president is of no significance and should be done away with. Just an elitist soap box for intellectuals, a bit like the position of senator.

hinault

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Profits are privatised.

Losses are socialised.

It has always been the way.






I think the President is wrong on this one.

She should have been calling for the redistribution of wealth throughout the boom times.

I like our President but she's falling in to the trap of supporting the agenda of the vested interests on this occasion.

Pride Fighter

Mary McAlesse is a right wing Fianna Failer of the highest order. This is a nonsense thread.

imme

I think the OP has misinterpreted and is misrepresenting the President.
I don't believe the interpretation that the President is 'forcing' socialism on us or advocating socialism to us is absurd, totally absurd, possibly even perverse. And then to talk of the Soviet Union and Mao, is he being a sensationalist???


Why does the OP raise the issue of NAMA, whether a President personally agrees with a piece of legislation or not is nothing to do with their signing it into law, a legal obligation unless they're of the opinion that the legislation is repugnant to the constitution.
Really!:rolleyes:

Orchard Rebel

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

And yet we're all bailing out the banks. What could be more collective (indeed socialist) than that?

Perhaps there should be a proviso to Ayn Rand's quote which goes: "However, there is such a thing as collective responsibility when the neoliberal economic model goes badly wrong".....

seamus

TBH, I don't see her remarks as being any more socialist than, "Ask not what your country can do for you...."

There's never been a leader or head of state in history who's said, "Ah sure just look after yourselves, the country will look after itself". Leadership is about getting people unified and passionate about coming together for the benefit of the entire society.

Socialism doesn't look for everyone to share the workload, it only looks for everyone to share the fruits.

imme

Fat_Fingers wrote: »

then she signed into law bailout of the Anglo, then she signed into law NAMA
Woman is living a highlife on the back of taxpayers and now she’s telling about “sharing the workload”. Man, all Fianna Fáil heads are the same..

What was the President to do Whether a President agrees or disagrees personally with a piece of legislation doesn't come into it.

ei.sdraob

seamus wrote: »

Socialism doesn't look for everyone to share the workload, it only looks for everyone to share the fruits.

let me fix that for you

socialism is about taking money from productive entities and giving it to non productive entities

its a form of organised begrudgery

ei.sdraob

Orchard Rebel wrote: »

And yet we're all bailing out the banks. What could be more collective (indeed socialist) than that?

bailing out the banks is socialist

they shouldnt have been given a cent and let to own devices

by bailing them out we ensure all of this will be repeated again (on a larger scale)

Orchard Rebel

ei.sdraob wrote: »

let me fix that for you

socialism is about taking money from productive entities and giving it to non productive entities

its a form of organised begrudgery

let me fix it a little further:

socialism is about taking money from productive entities (the populace) and giving it to non productive entities (the banks)

It's what neoliberals become when their world comes crashing down....

ei.sdraob

Orchard Rebel wrote: »

let me fix it a little further:

socialism is about taking money from productive entities (the populace) and giving it to non productive entities (the banks)

its what neoliberals become when their would comes crashing down....

yep that's a perverse form of socialism too, there you go

yet again im gonna say it

the banks shouldn't have been given a cent in the first place

thats what happens to any capitalist company, they make a booboo they go bankrupt and are liquidated with shareholders/bondholders loosing their skins, banks are no different

seamus

ei.sdraob wrote: »

banks are no different

Except when their best mates and business associates are in charge of the country :rolleyes:

ei.sdraob

seamus wrote: »

Except when their best mates and business associates are in charge of the country :rolleyes:

and a "proper" socialist system will be different from the above :rolleyes:
notice how all the socialist/communist attempts have ended up with a "party elite"

socialism is responsible for giving billions to banks, and we do what? vote socialists in for more shafting??

imme

ei.sdraob wrote: »

and a "proper" socialist system will be different from the above :rolleyes:
notice how all the socialist/communist attempts have ended up with a "party elite"

socialism is responsible for giving billions to banks, and we do what? vote socialists in for more shafting??

eh? is this Ireland you're talking about

ei.sdraob

imme wrote: »

eh? is this Ireland you're talking about

theres an obvious love for socialism on this forum

someone needs to point out that its socialistic policies that are putting the taxpayer on the hook here

sirromo

ei.sdraob wrote:

socialism is about taking money from productive entities and giving it to non productive entities (which includes children, disabled people and pensioners)

Fixed that for you.

seamus

ei.sdraob wrote: »

and a "proper" socialist system will be different from the above :rolleyes:
notice how all the socialist/communist attempts have ended up with a "party elite"

socialism is responsible for giving billions to banks, and we do what? vote socialists in for more shafting??

The real problem here is that Irish people want the public domain to be socialist but the private domain to be capitalist.

We want the state to provide the best healthcare, the best roads, the highest of infrastructure, but when it comes to the money in our pockets, you better leave it alone because it's mine and no-one else's.

This is why our elected officials will often make strongly socialist decisions, such as NAMA and why the two biggest parties are very centrist - because that's what Irish people want.

I would suggest that capitalism is no better for fairness when it comes to elected officials. Capitalism allows votes to be bought and puts all of the power in the hands of those that make the most money. No system is perfect in this regard, they all have their corrupt elite.

imme

ei.sdraob wrote: »

theres an obvious love for socialism on this forum

someone needs to point out that its socialistic policies that are putting the taxpayer on the hook here

"A love for socialism" what's that mean?

well, which is it, first you said we'd voted in a socialist government, now you go on about the love of socialism on here?
Do you see conspiracies everywhere? Maybe Boards is central to it all.
Are you seriously saying that the government in Ireland is a socialist government. Seriously?

ei.sdraob

sirromo wrote: »

Fixed that for you.

thats called welfare, ive no problems with some levels of welfare, like education and healthcare its an important aspect of a modern society

imme wrote: »

"A love for socialism" what's that mean?

well, which is it, first you said we'd voted in a socialist government, now you go on about the love of socialism on here?
Do you see conspiracies everywhere? Maybe Boards is central to it all.
Are you seriously saying that the government in Ireland is a socialist government. Seriously?

way to take what i said out of context and twist it

i didn't say we voted (past tense) i am saying the people of this country might endup voting (future tense) for such a bunch as illustrated by many posts on this forum and recent frontline show (the one with the talk of revolutions, redistribution of wealth, and taxing productive businesses more)

and no the current government are not socialist (tho they did quadruple welfare in a decade, and grew the public sector), but populist, they are doing everything (left and right wing policies) in order to stay in power and save own skin (like giving money to banks)

.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

P. Breathnach

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Empty rhetoric. Rather like invoking the tradition of the meitheal.

imme

ei.sdraob wrote: »

way to take what i said out of context and twist it

i didn't say we voted (past tense) i am saying the people of this country might endup voting (future tense) for such a bunch as illustrated by many posts on this forum and recent frontline show (the one with the talk of revolutions, redistribution of wealth, and taxing productive businesses more)

and no the current government are not socialist (tho they did quadruple welfare in a decade, and grew the public sector), but populist, they are doing everything (left and right wing policies) in order to stay in power and save own skin (like giving money to banks)

.

you said previously that we have a socialist ogvernment and that we'd voted for them.
Why would the govt give money to the banks to ensure their staying in power? I'm not sure what you mean by this, do you, how would this work?

Have you a link to show that Welfare spending was quadrupled in a decade.

Orchard Rebel

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

If I understand you right, you are saying that, notwithstanding almost thirteen years of centre-right government in Ireland, no-one should vote Labour at the next election as they would bring in socialist policies. Instead, one should vote again for right-wing parties (FF or FG, it doesn't matter) so that socialism will be confined to those occasional embarrassing moments like burst property bubbles and bailing out banks.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

View

ei.sdraob wrote: »

theres an obvious love for socialism on this forum

someone needs to point out that its socialistic policies that are putting the taxpayer on the hook here

Actually it is FF's policies that are putting the taxpayer on the hook.

Labour opposed NAMA. FF - who sit with the Liberals at EU level - supported it.

Based on your definition of what socialism "is", I guess that would mean FF is socialist, but Labour is not.

ei.sdraob

imme wrote: »

you said previously that we have a socialist ogvernment and that we'd voted for them.

must have been a typo i was talking in future tense

tho once again, the current government did implement many left wing policies, in order to get re-elected

imme wrote: »

Why would the govt give money to the banks to ensure their staying in power? I'm not sure what you mean by this, do you, how would this work?

if the banks failed and people lost money, there would have been clamour for some "blood" as is happening in Iceland

see here

imme wrote: »

Have you a link to show that Welfare spending was quadrupled in a decade.

sure

1999 - €6,283,000,000

2009 & 2010 - €21,000,000,000

View wrote: »

Based on your definition of what socialism "is", I guess that would mean FF is socialist, but Labour is not.

I said bank bailouts are one characteristic (of many) of socialistic movements who love Keynes ideas, Labour (for whom i voted before ) are left of center

FF are slightly right of center, but implement various left and right wing policies in order to buy votes and stay in power

/

Overheal

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Come off it, DF. We're talking about Mary McAleese here: an intelligent woman who happens to view the people of Ireland in a romantic way. This is Celtic mist stuff, not a big political pronouncement.

To be fair just about every major leader in history has been almost described in the same way. Even the Godwin Guy had a way with words.

I don't mind that you are a libertarian, just as you don't mind that I have a different perspective. But I would be alarmed if you adopted the worst American FOX habit of seeing reds under every bed.

FYP

Eh... when she starts banging on about "the means of production", "red terror", "dictatorship of the proletariat" etc then you might have a point about the Soviet terminology.

If its not Soviet its still plainly Socialist. And I think thats the OPs whole point. I really dont think a Direct comparison to USSR is trying to be made.

There should be a politics sub-forum for sensationalist tabloid threads like this.

When your President starts talking about Socialist ideals while the backdrop of her argument is a video that portrays the Irish citizen as nothing more than a group of Farmers and Peasants? Thats Tabloid?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

WalterMitty

Socialism is supposedly all about fairness and equity. What is fair and equitable about Mary and co in oublic sector on significiantly more than ave wage, brilliant guaranteed pensions, etc. What is fiar and equitable that our now limited reources ,instead of going to the sickest and most vulnerable go to keeping our public sector(including president) among the best paid in the world! Bizarro stuff.

imme

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

would this not be impossible, they'd all want different outcomes. To harness means to bring it together, how do you harness individualism, an oxymoronic thing to do. You could champion individualism, but I don't think you can harness it.

View

WalterMitty wrote: »

Socialism is supposedly all about fairness and equity. What is fair and equitable about Mary and co in oublic sector on significiantly more than ave wage, brilliant guaranteed pensions, etc. What is fiar and equitable that our now limited reources ,instead of going to the sickest and most vulnerable go to keeping our public sector(including president) among the best paid in the world! Bizarro stuff.

Maybe that would be because our system isn't socialist?

Perhaps Bertie A wasn't a socialist after all?

ei.sdraob

View wrote: »

Maybe that would be because our system isn't socialist?

Perhaps Bertie A wasn't a socialist after all?

he was quite "socialist" when it came to increasing the dole right before elections

FF do whatever they have to do in order to stay in power, you can bet that Bertie and the rest of the Galway tent have very little time for left vs right discussions but are instead busy doodling on brown envelopes tinkering of ways (whether right or left wing) that they can consolidate more power in the hands of the "party"

meditraitor

View wrote: »

Maybe that would be because our system isn't socialist?

Perhaps Bertie A wasn't a socialist after all?

Correctamondo young man, and the lefty bashers are trying to bundle the mistakes of the right onto the left to deflect blame and allow another right leaning bunch of self serving twats to get power next time around (FG)

Its that arrogance that got us here,

ei.sdraob

meditraitor wrote: »

Its that arrogance that got us here,

no its gombeenismTM that got us here

is increasing welfare from 6 to 21 billion in a decade (well above rate of inflation in same period) a right wing policy?

imme

ei.sdraob wrote: »

no its gombeenismTM that got us here

is increasing welfare from 6 to 21 billion in a decade (well above rate of inflation in same period) a right wing policy?

Do bankers and speculators have nothing whatsoever to do with how we got here?

View

ei.sdraob wrote: »

I said bank bailouts are one characteristic (of many) of socialistic movements who love Keynes ideas, Labour (for whom i voted before ) are left of center

FF are slightly right of center, but implement various left and right wing policies in order to buy votes and stay in power
/

I was trying to make the point that the definition was incorrect. It results in a situation which - in the case of FF and Labour - is clearly nonsensical.

Personally, I don't think that a bank bailout should be classified as "socialist". An all out bank nationalist would be I'd say.

NAMA seems to be a case of the banks will probably end up being nationalised (and/or bankrupt) but we'll do everything we can to drag out the process for as long as possible...

Overheal

seamus wrote: »

TBH, I don't see her remarks as being any more socialist than, "Ask not what your country can do for you...."

Thats a misinterpretation: its from a speech with regard to opposing Communism; But rather than tell His Fellow Americans (and estranged Soviet brothers) to plough fields:

"Let both sides seek to invoke the wonders of science instead of its terrors. Together let us explore the stars, conquer the deserts, eradicate disease, tap the ocean depths, and encourage the arts and commerce. " - John F. Kennedy

http://www.famousquotes.me.uk/speeches/John_F_Kennedy/5.htm

meditraitor

ei.sdraob wrote: »

no its gombeenismTM that got us here

is increasing welfare from 6 to 21 billion in a decade (well above rate of inflation in same period) is a right wing policy?

How do you make that out brother? welfare was used as a tool to garner votes, socialist policy is not about garnering votes. Its about moral and ethical choices that benefit the majority.
Your slur campaign against the left is as obvious as the FF gombeenism, its neither factual or actual. A tool FG and FF have used for years to keep the status quo.....

" If you think we are bad then you should see the others" FF/FG 70 odd years

It doesnt wash anymore...... neither has proven itself and more people are beggining to understand that its not the people but the posistion they hold that has caused the problems..

Time for someone else with different idea's to hold these positions

ei.sdraob

imme wrote: »

Do bankers and speculators have nothing whatsoever to do with how we got here?

do people who bought these properties and speculated on bank shares have nothing to do with how we got here?

do people who voted in FF time and time again have nothing to do with how we got here?


see i can play that game too

View wrote: »

I was trying to make the point that the definition was incorrect. It results in a situation which - in the case of FF and Labour - is clearly nonsensical.

Personally, I don't think that a bank bailout should be classified as "socialist". An all out bank nationalist would be I'd say.

NAMA seems to be a case of the banks will probably end up being nationalised (and/or bankrupt) but we'll do everything we can to drag out the process for as long as possible...

yes bailouts have more to do with economics than politics, tho bailouts are a usually favourite tool of Keynesian's, who love socialism
in our case its a tool of government who does not want to admit (or pay) its responsibility for this mess

Overheal

Seamus wrote:

Socialism doesn't look for everyone to share the workload, it only looks for everyone to share the fruits.

Which would be fine if we were talking about the young and the sick and the elderly; but Guess who isn't doing their fair share? Politicians, Bankers, Couch Warriors.

Here we Have McAlese calling for Irishman to give her their fruit.

ei.sdraob

meditraitor wrote: »

socialist policy is not about garnering votes. Its about moral and ethical choices that benefit the majority.

may I ask where did you get that definition of socialism?

meditraitor

ei.sdraob wrote: »

may I ask where did you get that definition of socialism?

Its mine, can you debunk it?

Along with many others, ;-)

Lunch time I think........

imme

ei.sdraob wrote: »

do people who bought these properties and speculated on bank shares have nothing to do with how we got here?

do people who voted in FF time and time again have nothing to do with how we got here?


see i can play that game too

playing games
how did people who bought bank shares (a mix of people, pension funds, retired people who expect a regular dividend, insurance funds etc buy bank shares traditionally) lead to Irish banks over-lending/lending imprudently.

Many people bought houses to live in, not as a speculative practice, maybe this is a new concept for you. Of course because the market was king many of these people would have been better off renting at that time and buying when prices crashed. Maybe they're among the ranks of the unemployed now. Ah well, that's the unfettered market for you.:cool:

ei.sdraob

meditraitor wrote: »

Its mine, can you debunk it?

Along with many others, ;-)

Lunch time I think........

im trying figure out which "flavour" of socialism are you talking about

sounds like social democrat

imme wrote: »

Many people bought houses to live in

yes there were those people, and then there is this

Total lending by all Irish banks (not just guaranteed ones) to ‘real estate activities’ (including developers and investors) was €90.4 billion in March last, but buy-to-let mortgages totalled €33.9 billion

there's also over 300,000 empty houses (excluding holiday and unbuild ones) with no one in them standing in the country, how do you explain these?

imme wrote: »

Of course because the market was king many of these people would have been better off renting at that time and buying when prices crashed.

those people are counting their blessings for not buying then

imme wrote: »

Maybe they're among the ranks of the unemployed now.

when you have 25% of your economy tied in construction it was only a matter of time before it all imploded

imme wrote: »

Ah well, that's the unfettered market for you.:cool:

markets might be "cruel" but that's life