Socialism

joshuatree

Just lookin for a socialist's view on taxes and social welfare

ei.sdraob

have fun reading > http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055846466

MysNthR0p3

And one month later:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_economics

NUIG_FiannaFail

Socialists believe in stealing off patriots like Sean Quinn, Bernard McNamara, Frank Fahey and Sean Dunne to give to begrudgers

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

SLUSK

joshuatree wrote: »

Just lookin for a socialist's view on taxes and social welfare

As far as I know socialism is about workers controlling and owning their own workplaces. A modern welfare state is still a capitalist state which a proper socialist opposes.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

SLUSK

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

The Welfare-Warfare state is a corporate state that serves it's wealthy masters in the big corporations, the big labour unions and the ruling parties.

Sand

Socialism is a broad philosophy, and as such can only be effectively described by generalisation:





Essentially, socialism is just dressed up tyranny of the majority and a rationale whereby the majority can override the rights of the minority to achieve certain goals, whatever they might be. You can get into more detail than that, but essentially it all comes down to the same thing: A reason is found to explain how you owe the government money.

dlofnep

NUIG_FiannaFail wrote: »

Socialists believe in stealing off patriots like Sean Quinn, Bernard McNamara, Frank Fahey and Sean Dunne to give to begrudgers

No they don't.

Moreover, your party supports a progressive tax system, of which part is used to support those who are unemployed through education and welfare. You're hardly in a position to make the above statement.

dlofnep

Sand wrote: »

Essentially, socialism is just dressed up tyranny of the majority and a rationale whereby the majority can override the rights of the minority to achieve certain goals, whatever they might be. You can get into more detail than that, but essentially it all comes down to the same thing: A reason is found to explain how you owe the government money.

That's a fairly skewed view of what socialism is. In essence, Socialism looks to curb inequality in society. Capitalism looks to protect the interests of the wealthy. Neither systems are perfect.

CokaColumbo

Socialism and welfare is fundamentally based on coercion and the violation of personal liberty. If you don't let the government steal a large portion of what you yourself have earned, you are sent to prison for a long time. You are not given the opportunity to voluntarily help your common man; the government tries to do it for you, in an inefficient, lousy manner.

Socialism looks to curb inequality in society, by violating the freedom of its citizens.

In a free market, capitalist system, all citizens benefit, although some benefit more than others. But this is necessary in order for there to be an incentive to provide jobs for ordinary people and expand economic growth.

In a socialist state, natural resources are distributed inefficently. Services provided are also inefficient because firms know that their government will simply bail them out if the **** hits the fan; this goes for co-ordinated economies as well. The gap between rich and poor is smaller, but everybody is worse off as a result.

The system in which all citizens benefit is one which has an economy based on profits, losses and prices, i.e. free market capitalism. The system in which all citizens are worse off is one which diverges from the above economic principals, i.e. government intervention and socialism.

ei.sdraob

dlofnep wrote: »

Capitalism looks to protect the interests of the wealthy.

That's a fairly skewed wrong view of what capitalism is.

dlofnep wrote: »

Neither systems are perfect.

No but capitalism allows for people to lift themselves out of poverty and has a much better track record in doing so

Socialism on the other hand usually endsup resorting to use of force and fear in order to achieve its aims, before falling into a rot

and now some quotes:

* "The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries." - Winston Churchill

* Most people who read "The Communist Manifesto" probably have no idea that it was written by a couple of young men who had never worked a day in their lives, and who nevertheless spoke boldly in the name of "the workers". - Thomas Sowell

* One of the consequences of such notions as "entitlements" is that people who have contributed nothing to society feel that society owes them something, apparently just for being nice enough to grace us with their presence - Thomas Sowell

* Socialism is workable only in heaven where it isn`t needed, and in hell where they`ve got it - Cecil Palmer

* "Capitalism is a carrot, socialism is a stick" - ei.sdraob

Exile 1798

dlofnep wrote: »

That's a fairly skewed view of what socialism is. In essence, Socialism looks to curb inequality in society. Capitalism looks to protect the interests of the wealthy. Neither systems are perfect.

That's not really the case.

Right Wing parties and Corporatists exist to protect the interests of the wealthy.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Exile 1798

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Very interesting information on the background of the term Capitalist.

Socialist is such a misused term as well. It's used to describe almost anything under the sun.

A number of people in this thread said things about Socialism that I disagreed with and I started to respond, then I realized that it would be pointless because it was impossible to know what exactly they referring to when they use the word Socialism.

Bus77II

Sand wrote: »

Essentially, socialism is just dressed up tyranny of the majority and a rationale whereby the majority can override the rights of the minority to achieve certain goals, whatever they might be.

That's just the standard (but negative) definition for every policical system.

PomBear

ei.sdraob wrote: »

Socialism on the other hand usually endsup resorting to use of force and fear in order to achieve its aims, before falling into a rot

Explain

Joey the lips

NUIG_FiannaFail wrote: »

Socialists believe in stealing off patriots like Sean Quinn, Bernard McNamara, Frank Fahey and Sean Dunne to give to begrudgers

I love that word considering whats happening in the news. Considering these "patriots" have the abliity to bring down the system they live by I think its very appropiate.

Che, a true socialist had his own defination of patriots which i was always fond off. ie one mans terrorist is another mansfreedom fighter.

Considering your a fianna fail man I would change this to

One mans patriot is another mans brown paper gangster.


Ireland is a socialist democratic state and thank god for many at the moment

ei.sdraob

PomBear wrote: »

Explain

Here you go

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

ei.sdraob

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Its interesting to note how China has moved/moving from command/statist "socialist" system to a command/statist "capitalist" system

most of the worst forms of capitalism (especially examples used by the socialistas on board here) have been of "capitalist" systems that were heavily controlled from the top down

anyways to get to the point some of the posters here should really clarify which "capitalism" are they talking about

there have been many flavours in the history of this world, such as:
* Mercantilism
* Industrialism
* Monopolism
* Globalization
* Keynesianism
* Neoliberalism

pick your "evil"

Valmont

Pejorative buzzwords are very annoying. I remember a few of the People before Profit alliance used the phrase "Thatcherite" (on The Frontline and on their various facebook pages) singularly as a criticism, implying that the term itself contained the untouchable refutations to any free market theories.

Person A: I think X because of Y
People Before Profit: Yes but that is a Thatcherite policy.
Person A: ...

The debate tends to dissolve after this point. Then again, facebook isn't really a good place to have political discussions anyway.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

ChocolateSauce

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I find that quote is frequently taken out of context, or shortened to make it appear heartless. I used to think it was an awful quote, but then I read the entire speech which it was in and changed my mind.

(Still wouldn't vote for her though...)

Amhran Nua

ei.sdraob wrote: »

there have been many flavours in the history of this world, such as:
* Mercantilism
* Industrialism
* Monopolism
* Globalization
* Keynesianism
* Neoliberalism

pick your "evil"

And lets not forget the jungian superman peddlings of the libertarians, itself a contranym of epic proportions.

alias141282

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Yes this is what libertarians say but in reality what they want is massive state intervention for the benefit of private companies, investment, bailouts, etc, and minimal state intervention for the population. So you have democratic socialism for the rich and slavery for the poor. Thats pretty much been the reigning ideology in the US for the past 40 years.

For example, a study by international economists Winfried Ruigrok and Rob van Tulder 15 years ago found that at least 20 companies in the Fortune 100 would not have survived if they had not been saved by their respective governments, and that many of the rest gained substantially by demanding that governments "socialise their losses," as in today's taxpayer-financed bailout. Such government intervention "has been the rule rather than the exception over the past two centuries", they conclude. http://www.counterpunch.org/chomsky10122008.html

donegalfella wrote: »

It's possible to imagine a libertarian socialist system in theory—but in practice, you need a coercive authority to take wealth from some and give it to others. That is why socialism and statism are so often allied.

Your presenting two options here, basically neo-liberalism on the one hand and red bureacracy and marxist tyranny on the other. However most people on the left are not in favour of taking control and forcing everyone to be equal. Most people on the left are about advancing democracy and social justice through bottom up popular organising. Progressive legislation and improvements in social conditions have been won by popular struggles, not gifts from above, and the struggle for greater democracy and freedom never stops. That is how every form of tyranny and oppression has been broken. Slavery, landlordism, colonialism, etc. Thats how the feminist movement, civil rights movements, social justice movements have won greater freedom and justice for the population. And that continues to this day. Trying to map out now where this will ultimately lead should not be a priority.

As a political philosophy it can best be described as anarcho-syndicalism which has deep roots in Spain. It is almost impossible for the left to communicate these ideas or vision given the massive structural bias of the mass media.

Eliot Rosewater

alias141282 wrote: »

Yes this is what libertarians say but in reality what they want is massive state intervention for the benefit of private companies, investment, bailouts, etc, and minimal state intervention for the population.

You really don't know what you're talking about. Libertarianism isn't a lobby for anything other than individual liberty. It looks to minimize the state to the stage at which those things you mentioned would be unconstitutional.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.