Communism & Capitalism have failed

Liam Byrne

Both communism and capitalism have failed, and both, apparently, due to greed and a lack of regard for fellow man.

Does anyone have any idea what could replace them ?

I'm one of those people who hates any philosophy that has an "ism", because by definition it's an extreme, which is usually a bad idea to begin with.

But is there some other option ?

Or is this planet always going to falter on the backs of those who are greedy and take advantage or want it all, even when it's more than they'll ever need ?

Coillte_Bhoy

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Both communism and capitalism have failed, and both, apparently, due to greed and a lack of regard for fellow man.

Does anyone have any idea what could replace them ?

I'm one of those people who hates any philosophy that has an "ism", because by definition it's an extreme, which is usually a bad idea to begin with.

But is there some other option ?

Or is this planet always going to falter on the backs of those who are greedy and take advantage or want it all, even when it's more than they'll ever need ?

Typical populist nonsense. So would you like to outline what you undersatnd by 'communism' and 'capitalism'? What countries/economies do you think have tried either model? What is your considered opinion on the succeess/failure of such models? How eaxactly have capitalism and commuism failed due to 'greed and a lack of regard for fellow man'.?? How can you say that an ideology that ends in 'ism' is by definition is an extreme> Seriously where do you get your definiton for the last point???

Liam Byrne

Coillte_Bhoy wrote: »

Typical populist nonsense.

How do you define "typical populist nonsense" ?

To me, that's a stupid slur used to discredit an opposing view, trying to imply that my OP isn't a considered opinion based on my own reading of events and is simply an ill-informed "jump on a bandwagon that lots of people will agree with".

The banking system and the drive for maximum profits has failed. If it weren't bailed out by governments (breaking the capitalism aspect) then it wouldn't be working.

Communism fell.

Unfortunately while the communist version was let rot, the capitalist version is being given life support by those with a vested interest, regardless of how it affects the rest of us.

Coillte_Bhoy wrote: »

How can you say that an ideology that ends in 'ism' is by definition is an extreme

http://www.wordwebonline.com/en/ISM

A belief (or system of beliefs) accepted as authoritative by some group or school

If you "accept" something as "authoritative" (rather than question it) then it's an "extreme" that can't be questioned.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Liam Byrne

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

That's kindof what I was getting at. Self-interest, greed and power will ultimately subvert any "pure" system.

It did so in communism and it's done it again with capitalism.

And while I take your point, if it hadn't done it "the Fianna Fail way", the pure greed that destabilised the economy would still have been an issue; who cares if "they're not employable" if they've made a few million and can feck off to Cape Cod with their "winnings" from said unwanted imposed casino.

That's why - even though I'm against "isms" - was wondering if there was one that could actually mitigate against greed and maybe - just maybe - actually work.

Gary L

I guess the first question to ask in deciding what 'ism' to go with is what are we actually looking for? I think from either a Capitalist or Socialist perspective the interference of a lumbering bureaucratic state apparatus is less than helpful.

As Donegalfella mentioned, the bank guarantess fly in the face of the sink or swim regulatory element of free market capitalism and I'd add that the centralised authoritarian nature of communist regimes is a betrayal of the socialist goal of worker democracy.

As neither real democratic socialism or real free market capitalism have ever existed I think what has failed is the idea that something as complex as a national economy can be run in a top down fashion by governments.

Dorcha

Liam Byrne wrote: »

That's kindof what I was getting at. Self-interest, greed and power will ultimately subvert any "pure" system.

It did so in communism and it's done it again with capitalism.

And while I take your point, if it hadn't done it "the Fianna Fail way", the pure greed that destabilised the economy would still have been an issue; who cares if "they're not employable" if they've made a few million and can feck off to Cape Cod with their "winnings" from said unwanted imposed casino.

That's why - even though I'm against "isms" - was wondering if there was one that could actually mitigate against greed and maybe - just maybe - actually work.

It’s quite true that greed and self-interest will corrupt any system of government that man tries to devise. When any system is initially set up whose intentions are just, then one would hope that certain restraints would be set in place to prevent this corruption. The problem stems from the fact that such systems are always set in place by ambitious people who consider themselves “more equal than others”. Corruption follows as sure as night follows day. I have proposed a system that might avoid that in the thread “The No-Party State”.

nyarlothothep

All systems will inevitably unravel due to any number of circumstances, nothing lasts forever nor can any pure state ever be reached. However as a species we make things difficult for ourselves by creating our own crises.

sarkozy

Capitalists say capitalism sometimes doesn't work because theories aren't properly applied. Marxists say capitalism doesn't work because it's inherently prone to crisis. Capitalists say communism doesn't work because it doesn't obey human nature. Marxists say communism didn't work because their theories weren't properly applied. Capitalists say their theories work because they've unlocked the secret of human nature and can therefore design perfect markets. Bankers and financiers thought they had finally created perfect markets. Now capitalists call this failure 'moral hazard' and Marxists call it a 'crisis of capitalism'. Soviet communism didn't work because it hadn't been tried at scale before and it collapsed under the weight of absurd bureaucracy. Market capitalism has hit another crisis because people abandoned what worked in the past and new products were created out of thin air by enormous, absurd corporate bureaucracies in cahoots with US and European government bureaucracies.

Is this confusing enough?

Obviously, this is all rubbish. All history is the accretion of historical accidents told from a certain perspective. So are the theories that govern our thoughts and actions, whether we know them or not. Honestly, the opening question is absurd.

amacachi

Liam Byrne wrote: »

That's kindof what I was getting at. Self-interest, greed and power will ultimately subvert any "pure" system.

It did so in communism and it's done it again with capitalism.

And while I take your point, if it hadn't done it "the Fianna Fail way", the pure greed that destabilised the economy would still have been an issue; who cares if "they're not employable" if they've made a few million and can feck off to Cape Cod with their "winnings" from said unwanted imposed casino.

That's why - even though I'm against "isms" - was wondering if there was one that could actually mitigate against greed and maybe - just maybe - actually work.

Capitalism works best when the state has as little power to fcuk around with it as possible. The power of the state over the people is the most destructive force we're seeing now IMO which is something that is more inherent in Communism that Capitalism. A state with the power to overnight put every citizen in hundreds of thousands of Euros of debt is wrong, whether the state is meant to Capitalist or Communist.

Mahatma coat

I Thought Ireland and Europe were Socialist
or
SocioDemocraticCapatilism
or Somesuch

Anyway, Socialism Seems to Work wherever its actually tried. The Scandanavian States are doing well byt all accounts

doolox

What we have in Ireland is race to the centre.

Labour are afraid to stress their working class origins in case they scare off the middle-class voter.

Fianna Fail like to stress their centrist, lower middle-class roots but have become, in reality, an elite party with the interests of the Elite only at heart.

Fine Gael have tottered from right wing to liberal tendancies and hasn't been in power long enough to generate a moneyed elite.

Sinn Fein, born in the crucible of the Northern troubles, will have to find an identity in its entry in real numbers into the politics of the South.

The Greens look as if they have been destroyed by their association with FF, whereas Green politics can make up 10% of the vote in Europe they can only make 3% here. Likewise the PD's.

Ireland will need to reflect true divisions for real political choice in the future, perhaps a division between people in debt versus people not in much debt, people in protected jobs versus the long-term jobless. The highly educated and gifted versus what I call the struggling classes, those of moderate ability and moderate education attainment stuck in junior jobs or no jobs at all.

thebaldsoprano

Mahatma coat wrote: »

Anyway, Socialism Seems to Work wherever its actually tried. The Scandanavian States are doing well byt all accounts

Yes but Scandinavian countries don't have much corruption, it may be more down to this than their implementation of socialism. They all do very well in the corruption index, oddly though, so does Ireland.

I'm beginning to wonder if the chances of a particular system failing are affected less by the workings of that system and more by the corruption of it. In a capitalist system, corruption will result in market distortions that the system itself mightn't fix. Wealth won't get where it's needed for the system to work. Under a communist system we get the same result, with wealth being diverted away by Party insiders. A socialist system potentially carries both of these risks.

Maybe it's time to start asking parties of all persuasions how they plan to tackle corruption. Not just the record of their current candidates, but what mechanisms they'll put in place to deal with past instances and thus make any future brown envelopes that may come floating by a lot more difficult to accept. A corrupt politician should get a considerable jail term and this is something that hasn't been happening here.

Spacedog

In the Irish banking crisis Capitalism was working normally, where by the rich countries exploit the poor 3rd world ones, it's just that the players have changed this season, Asian countries have been promoted to the First Division, Ireland had been religated to an aid/debt dependent nation.

When it was us profiting from the exploitation of cheap clothes and imports from free trade zone poor countries. it was good capitalism in action.

Now that is us in the trap and the tables are turned and it's not so nice, we really can't complain.

the situation we are in now* can't be called Capitalism, tha same was Communism can't be called Socialism

*our situatiation does not yet have a name, the opposite of Communism, the place where Capitalism ideals are distorted into a corrupt situation where the people nationalise private investments, insuring them against loss.

thebaldsoprano

Spacedog wrote: »

In the Irish banking crisis Capitalism was working normally, where by the rich countries exploit the poor 3rd world ones, it's just that the players have changed this season, Asian countries have been promoted to the First Division, Ireland had been religated to an aid/debt dependent nation.

When it was us profiting from the exploitation of cheap clothes and imports from free trade zone poor countries. it was good capitalism in action.

Now that is us in the trap and the tables are turned and it's not so nice, we really can't complain.

In fairness though, this is no more a reflection of capitalism than the brutal state totalitarianism of former Eastern Block countries is of communism. As far as I understand it, capitalism consists of the protection of property rights, enfocement of contracts and freedom of association. Anything after this - like the Government dishing out favours to certain corporations - and it either becomes something something else or becomes corrupt.

The likelihood of capitalism, communism or some other system becoming corrupt is a whole other story though.

Spacedog wrote: »

*our situatiation does not yet have a name, the opposite of Communism, the place where Capitalism ideals are distorted into a corrupt situation where the people nationalise private investments, insuring them against loss.

Corporatism looks to strike a chord with what's been happening here over the last few years.

Gurgle

Spacedog wrote: »

In the Irish banking crisis Capitalism was working normally....

Right up to the point when our government inexplicably decided to guarantee €250 billion worth of bondholder investments.

thebaldsoprano

Gurgle wrote: »

Right up to the point when our government inexplicably decided to guarantee €250 billion worth of bondholder investments.

Maybe I'm missing something, but how could Government interference in the market, or the cosy relationship they had with the banks be described as capitalism "working normally"?

It looks to me like there was a corrupt relationship between the Government, banks and developers long before the bailout.

Knight990

The fact is, Communism never failed in Ireland because it never happened here. Ireland has never had, and most likely will never have, a Communist political system and economy - not even close. So don't mistake Communism here for Communism abroad Although, I do accept Communism's track record abroad is not exactly stellar.

It's my opinion that the traditional bounds of Communism and Capitalism will disappear over time, and a mixture of social practice and market economics will appear to take their place. I dont profess to be an expert though, just an average Irish joe.

DIRTY69

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Both communism and capitalism have failed, and both, apparently, due to greed and a lack of regard for fellow man.

Any system will fail if it loses touch with the common man. I think it's as simple as that. I also think that your terms communism and capitalism are like black and white. What is right is the middle way. There is no use I believe in highlighting the failures of each, when really it is just a case of finding the right balance between each, and between those in power and the common man.

I think these political arguments get into a wrestling match of vernacular flair and wordyword wordsmanship!! It's simple and should be simple enough for everyone to understand, the point where it gets convoluted and loses touch is the weakest point, and surely there are many exposed right now.

Gurgle

thebaldsoprano wrote: »

Maybe I'm missing something, but how could Government interference in the market, or the cosy relationship they had with the banks be described as capitalism "working normally"?

If it had continued working normally then Anglo would have gone bust.

Allied would have been privatized at the last minute with a brutally direct approach to salary capping, bonuses etc.

thebaldsoprano wrote: »

It looks to me like there was a corrupt relationship between the Government, banks and developers long before the bailout.

Unfortunately that is perfectly normal.

There are a few business sectors in Ireland who are 'Special Friends' of the ruling party: Bankers, Developers, Car Dealers, Vintners. These groups may be special friends of the other parties too, that remains to be seen under a new government.

How they got to be special friends becomes clearer with each tribunal report. As if we didn't know.

thebaldsoprano

Gurgle wrote: »

Unfortunately that is perfectly normal.

There are a few business sectors in Ireland who are 'Special Friends' of the ruling party: Bankers, Developers, Car Dealers, Vintners. These groups may be special friends of the other parties too, that remains to be seen under a new government.

How they got to be special friends becomes clearer with each tribunal report. As if we didn't know.

Unfortunately, it's what we're used to here alright and probably is normal.

What you're describing here though, I'd argue, isn't capitalism. You've got a situation where the Government forcibly gets taxes from workers and companies and uses them to dish out favours to their buddies, in the form of grants and tax breaks. Corporate socialism or something similar would be a better term. I don't think that more capitalism and less government would cure all our ills, but on the other hand shoving the blame onto 'capitalism' or 'neo liberal policies' or some other such term and leaving it at that is unlikely to give us much insight where the problems are. If enough people see it that way, then a corrupt party wanting to get into power just has to adopt socialist policies and blame the current mess on the 'capitalist' policies of the last few years. They can then quietly go about looking after their buddies, be it banks, businessmen or unions.

meglome

Mahatma coat wrote: »

I Thought Ireland and Europe were Socialist
or
SocioDemocraticCapatilism
or Somesuch

Anyway, Socialism Seems to Work wherever its actually tried. The Scandanavian States are doing well byt all accounts

The issue with socialism here, or at least the political parties that claim to be socialist, is they want low taxes for the poor, high welfare for the unemployed and heavy taxes on the rich. In Scandinavian countries taxes are generally high across the board. A socialist paradise is expensive and given our penchant for voting for people who promise to tax us the least we don't seem to want to pay for that paradise.

DIRTY69

Gurgle wrote: »

If it had continued working normally then Anglo would have gone bust.

Allied would have been privatized at the last minute with a brutally direct approach to salary capping, bonuses etc.


Unfortunately that is perfectly normal.

There are a few business sectors in Ireland who are 'Special Friends' of the ruling party: Bankers, Developers, Car Dealers, Vintners. These groups may be special friends of the other parties too, that remains to be seen under a new government.

How they got to be special friends becomes clearer with each tribunal report. As if we didn't know.

And every leak>

Gurgle

thebaldsoprano wrote: »

What you're describing here though, I'd argue, isn't capitalism.

You're absolutely right, what I'm describing is not capitalism itself but an apparently inevitable side effect: The scum that slides into power in any country which leans too far towards a 'pure capitalism' stance.

Its really just a different kind of scum that slides into power in a country governed by communist ethos. Its not communism thats the problem, its the power it makes available to the grasping hands of the worst sort of people.

DIRTY69

Gurgle wrote: »

You're absolutely right, what I'm describing is not capitalism itself but an apparently inevitable side effect: The scum that slides into power in any country which leans too far towards a 'pure capitalism' stance.

Its really just a different kind of scum that slides into power in a country governed by communist ethos. Its not communism thats the problem, its the power it makes available to the grasping hands of the worst sort of people.

Yes, I agree. I think communism in concept has a massive potential good for us, but its balance and fairness in it's implementation that has been left out of it too many times. The ideas themselves now have a bad name and are seen as extremist in the media a lot of the time. Of course in the times of the cold war it was demonized and outlawed by the US as well, as some form of cold and red hand of evil. It's hard to know which one has caused more distruction but there is a better start from an ethical level in communism and in capitalism. I think the majority of the world would lean towards more fairness between us, and a more fair society. Of course there may be a minority that wont more wealth, which is fine too, but I fail to see why they are the ones that get to decide things for the rest of us. I think we should have an alternative to choose from, and although I haven't read Marx, from what I do understand of his teachings I believe it has much to offer us as a wider community.

One of the issues I have with capitalism is that in the idea form of it, the capitalist structures of towns and cities, we loose touch with our sense of community. It could be argued perhaps that it isn't capitalism that has caused this but I believe it to be some combination of capitalism and the emphasis of the importance of money in society. Looking at money as security instead of friends and community is dangerous because I think it leads to a lot of alienation. One example might be the rise in suicide rates in 'well off' countries to spite the fact that they have money. I don't believe that money is the versatile solution to modern living as is commonly believed, although of course a certain amount is necessary. I think that we're rapidly loosing our sense of community which is pretty integral to our basic needs as human beings. If there is a shift from the enphasis away from capitalism I think it's in the simple realisation that capitalist societies put more bias on money than they do on people, and when it comes down to it the quality of your life isn't the money you have, its the people.

Oscardela

If the best argument against capitalism is that we "loose" (sic) touch with our communities", then that shows how weak is the argument against capitalism.

The problem with Ireland is that it lost its nerve and capitalism was abandoned by a morally bankrupt and incompetent government. Capitalism isn't perfect, but anyone who thinks communism will have better outcomes simply has never read a history book.

The second problem we have with capitalism is that we have sleep walked into abandoning a representative democracy. Thats where our representatives are supposed to represent us in parliament, rather than representing their own parties to us in the constituencies, which is in practice what has happened since the advent of the career politician dependent on his party chiefs for promotion. Far too much power has been allowed to be accumulated to two or three people, and our parliament has been reduced to a talking shop with little power.

Capitalism as we have it may in one sense be defined as an arrangement under which we all largely cease to be responsible for our own behaviour, preferring instead to pretend our government is responsible for much of our lives. The voter reduced to the role of inert spectator, the all-powerful politician who alone is capable of offering a solution to life’s problems.

How we can put this right is not easy. Certainly it is unlikely a lead will come from our politicians to do so, and revolution seems a long way off. Alas.

doolox

Unfortunately revolution and real change will only happen when starvation and death are th alternatives. We are nowhere near that level of desperation yet.

Many aspects of modern life will give access to communications and the world opinion making such as the internet which will allow more ordinary people to take part in world affairs and have some small influence on the way things are run.

Oscardela

doolox wrote: »

Unfortunately revolution and real change will only happen when starvation and death are th alternatives. We are nowhere near that level of desperation yet.

Many aspects of modern life will give access to communications and the world opinion making such as the internet which will allow more ordinary people to take part in world affairs and have some small influence on the way things are run.

I'm not sure we can afford to wait until the country is near starvation and death. Even then there is no guarantee that revolution will happen, as most people will be too busy trying to survive to have much time to worry about such luxuries as how their democracy works, as Zimbabwe seems to demonstrate so well.

I don't hold out much hope that the internet is going to, or has, changed the way our democracy works, as the internet seems to have coexisted beside career politicians dependent on pleasing their party chiefs for advancement.

FreudianSlippers

It's the departure from Capitalism that has damaged us in this country.

Oscardela

OisinT wrote: »

It's the departure from Capitalism that has damaged us in this country.

I agree. The government didn't pursue capitalism, but their own muddled version of a sort of capitalist/socialist mixture. For capitalism to work, there has to be consequences to failure. In Ireland, there are no consequences for failing in politics, for failing in the public service or, apparantly, for failing in banking or many other services.

We have a prime minister who has been in charge in one way or other for over 10 years, and the there are no consequences for him for having been at the helm while taking the country to the IMF and virtual bankruptcy. Our parliament is so toothless they are not even able to hold him to account.

Will this ever change? Probably not, as it doesn't seem to be of much concern to many.

How about we quit thinking in terms of "ists" and "isms" and go with practicalities.

The ability for every person on earth to do whatever they want to do as long as that's not stopping someone else from doing what they want to do.

A safety net so that no one is in want for the basics of health, food and life.

An "act first, paperwork later" attitude.

dsmythy

Deleted User wrote: »

How about we quit thinking in terms of "ists" and "isms" and go with practicalities.

The ability for every person on earth to do whatever they want to do as long as that's not stopping someone else from doing what they want to do.

A safety net so that no one is in want for the basics of health, food and life.

An "act first, paperwork later" attitude.

LibertarianISM

TrollHammaren

My issue with Capitalism is that it's concerned with accumilating wealth and power; a race to the top, so to speak. This means that some people are born with significant advantages; it's no secret that the vast majority of university students are from middle-class areas.

Socialism has never been implemented as a democratic system; it has basically always been a communist or totalitarian system.

I do agree that it has a lot to do with corruption, all the same.

dentaku

Gurgle wrote: »

You're absolutely right, what I'm describing is not capitalism itself but an apparently inevitable side effect: The scum that slides into power in any country which leans too far towards a 'pure capitalism' stance.

"slides" into power? it sounds like you are absolving the electorate of their responsibility. they were voted in democratically. this is something that irish people refuse to acknowledge. they voted for fianna fail and they got what they deserved.

Gurgle wrote: »

Its really just a different kind of scum that slides into power in a country governed by communist ethos.

some people like being in power. if they are born into a capitalist society they will become ceos (dick fuld) or politicians (dick cheney). in a communist/socialist society they will become party officials (chavez), in a religious society they will become clerics (khomeini/ian paisley?). iw ould say it is the same "scum" that "slides" into power. if dick fuld was born in the ussr he would have become a party official.

this brings us to one of the major flaws of communist/socialist societies; when the kind of power hungry people mentioned above get into political power, they have control of the entire economy. in a capitalist society, being in political power means you control the public sector, and a position of power in the private sector means control of a company or a trade group. lehman fell because of dick fuld's mismanagement. imagine the damage such a power hungry individual could have done if he controlled an entire country, politically and economically? (you don't have to imagine, just look at venezuela!)

Gurgle wrote: »

Its not communism thats the problem, its the power it makes available to the grasping hands of the worst sort of people.

but is this power not an intrinsic characteristic of communism? how can you have a communist/socialist society without the government in control of the resources? the conventional wisdom is that capitalist society focuses the resources into the hands of the few. the truth is that this happens in a far more extreme way in a communist/socialist society. that's one of the many reasons why communism failed and capitalism didn't

TrollHammaren

dentaku wrote: »

"slides" into power? it sounds like you are absolving the electorate of their responsibility. they were voted in democratically. this is something that irish people refuse to acknowledge. they voted for fianna fail and they got what they deserved.




some people like being in power. if they are born into a capitalist society they will become ceos (dick fuld) or politicians (dick cheney). in a communist/socialist society they will become party officials (chavez), in a religious society they will become clerics (khomeini/ian paisley?). iw ould say it is the same "scum" that "slides" into power. if dick fuld was born in the ussr he would have become a party official.

this brings us to one of the major flaws of communist/socialist societies; when the kind of power hungry people mentioned above get into political power, they have control of the entire economy. in a capitalist society, being in political power means you control the public sector, and a position of power in the private sector means control of a company or a trade group. lehman fell because of dick fuld's mismanagement. imagine the damage such a power hungry individual could have done if he controlled an entire country, politically and economically? (you don't have to imagine, just look at venezuela!)



but is this power not an intrinsic characteristic of communism? how can you have a communist/socialist society without the government in control of the resources? the conventional wisdom is that capitalist society focuses the resources into the hands of the few. the truth is that this happens in a far more extreme way in a communist/socialist society. that's one of the many reasons why communism failed and capitalism didn't

I'm not really sure how to reply to quote by quote, so I'll have to quote the whole thing

I wouldn't be so quick to say "voted democratically", given that the democratic system in Ireland is a joke. Votes pumped directly into the party, rather than individual party representatives, means that the "in-group" within the party gets to choose who will be Taoiseach, Mister of Helath etc. So yes, the Irish people did vote in Fianna Fail (which was the first mistake, in my opinion), but they didn't vote in Cowen, Bertie, Harney, Lenihan - Fianna Fail decided that amongst themselves. That's just one of the problems with Irish politics in general, anyway.

This whole concept of communism/excessive power doesn't apply, I reckon, to democratic socialism. Communism and what is being called "socialism" today is a glorified dictatorship. Democratic socialism doesn't necessitate absolute power, and it very often involves pay caps, even for the top people in goverment.

To say that capitalism hasn't failed is ridiculous. It cements privilege among certain circles and values the private sector way above the public sector. At risk of being accused of preaching "populist" bullshít, capitalism just means that goverments end up eating out of the hands of corporations.

dentaku

TrollHammaren wrote: »

My issue with Capitalism is that it's concerned with accumilating wealth and power; a race to the top, so to speak.

this is a common mistake. capitalism is concerned with supplying to demand, ie giving people what they want. if a demand for something exists, capitalists (entrepreneurs/companies and financiers) try to create a product that will satisfy that demand. so say, steve jobs (entrepreneur) gets a loan (financing) so that he can develop macs and ipods (products) and sells (supplies) them to the world, which loves them (demand).

the capitalist's livelihood depends on whether people actually want what they have produced. the more people want what they have produced the more the capitalist is rewarded. bill gates has so much money because he created a product that so many people wanted (and because he was the right person in the right place at the right time). in a socialist/communist society this incentive to innovate doesn't exist. the government officials are immune from punishment/reward. why put the effort in if you won't be rewarded?

the emphasis on shareholder wealth maximisation ("greed is good" and all that) is a relatively recent phenomenon. in the past many good companies focused on providing the goods and services that their customers wanted. this led to good returns for the equity-holders. the mistake was to make shareholder returns (or company size) the primary concern. the belief was that if this metric was improving, then everything was improving. ICI is an example tha suffered from this mistaken belief. for my 2 cent, all stakeholders (owners, employees and customers) should be considered by management.

similarly, many people want to "lose weight". you can do this by spending a day in a sauna. you could also not eat for a week. or just chop off your feet! i would posit that what these people really want is to be healthier. excessive body fat is a symptom of bad health. treating the symptom still leaves the problem. if they are healthier they will probably lose some bodyfat.

TrollHammaren wrote: »

This means that some people are born with significant advantages; it's no secret that the vast majority of university students are from middle-class areas.

agreed. bill gates' kids will have more opportunities than my kids. that's ok with me, because my kids will have access to certain mimimum opportunities. good health and education systems, a country that isn't at war with itself or others, loanable funds etc. i suggest that we focus on raising minimum levels of opportunities instead of trying to equalise them. similarly, we don't take from the rich and give to the poor, we find ways for the poor to generate wealth for themselves.

and as far as i'm aware, "free" higher education has done little to increase participation from people of poorer backgrounds. which suggest that there are other, sociological issues at play and that low participation is not a function of capitalism or any other economic structure.

dentaku

TrollHammaren wrote: »

I wouldn't be so quick to say "voted democratically", given that the democratic system in Ireland is a joke. Votes pumped directly into the party, rather than individual party representatives, means that the "in-group" within the party gets to choose who will be Taoiseach, Mister of Helath etc.

this response reeks of fintan o’toole!
it doesn't matter much what voting structure you have, there will always be conflicts.
do you vote for the candidate who will do the most for you community irrespective of party or the person who belongs to your party of choice? neither strategy is inherently right or wrong.
equally there is a trade-off in determining electoral terms. in america they vote (i believe) roughly every two years or so (between presidential/senate/house elections). so there is more "accountablility", but more effort is put into electioneering and politicking than governing.
you can't vote on everything. at some point you must let the people that you have elected govern.

TrollHammaren wrote: »

So yes, the Irish people did vote in Fianna Fail (which was the first mistake, in my opinion), but they didn't vote in Cowen, Bertie, Harney, Lenihan - Fianna Fail decided that amongst themselves. That's just one of the problems with Irish politics in general, anyway.

are you seriously suggesting that the electorate weren’t aware that by voting for fianna fail in 2002 they were voting aherne as their prime minister?
are you suggesting that the electorate would have voted significantly differently if they could have voted for ministers??
are you suggesting that there is some conspiracy to defraud the electorate???
puuuuulleeeease!

the irish electorate knew exactly what they were doing. they were too busy buying their new 44 inch flat screens and holidaying in Marbella to pay any real attention to what was going on. Giveaway budget after giveaway budget, tents at the galway races, a minister of finance who didn’t understand the concept of saving… the irish electorate were every bit as negligent as the bankers/regulators/politicians

TrollHammaren wrote: »

This whole concept of communism/excessive power doesn't apply, I reckon, to democratic socialism. Communism and what is being called "socialism" today is a glorified dictatorship. Democratic socialism doesn't necessitate absolute power, and it very often involves pay caps, even for the top people in government.

union of soviet SOCIALIST republics. the north Koreans regard themselves as socialists. if people associate socialism with dictatorships, it is with just cause. what are the characteristics of “democratic socialism”? how does it differ from autocratic socialism?

TrollHammaren wrote: »

It cements privilege among certain circles

cementing privilege? take a look at north korea. who has the privilege there? do you think the chavez is hungry? many of his people are. where was the privilege in the ussr? in cuba?

TrollHammaren wrote: »

values the private sector way above the public sector.

what does this mean?

many points here, feel free to take any or all of them

Liam Byrne

OisinT wrote: »

It's the departure from Capitalism that has damaged us in this country.

How so?

Do you think the banks weren't "too big to fail" ?

Because bad and all as FF's actions were, the system had failed before they intervened.

And that WAS pure capitalism & greed.

Killer Pigeon

Personally I think capitalism and socialism should work in 'unison', sorta, or a 'strategic relationship' for a better phrase.

At the foundation of a state or in its development capitalism works to build the state but only up to a point, then pure greed sets in. To prevent this and to ensure a sustainable economy socialism should be enacted, or at least a strong taxation of the rich.

I think it's either this or we adopt some Libertarian or Third Position mindset. I don't think the idea of 'cherry picking' from both ideologies is a bad idea either.

Killer Pigeon

dentaku wrote: »

union of soviet SOCIALIST republics. the north Koreans regard themselves as socialists. if people associate socialism with dictatorships, it is with just cause. what are the characteristics of “democratic socialism”? how does it differ from autocratic socialism?

I think socialism was intended to be, in a way, democratic. Look at the idea of the 'soviet' in which workers gather in small councils to make decisions. Personally I think it is a lovely romantic idea and typifies the fact that democratic socialism would work well. Apply this idea to companies. Imagine that all the workers of a particular company were allowed to vote on decisions about production, wages, etc.. and where the decision making isn't made by just a small board of directors or even just one man. I think there are quite a few companies who operate this sort of system (can't name any now at the top of my head) but it works quite well, contributes hugely to employee satisfaction, moral, production and even the average wages are higher than people in same positions in other companies. This is at its heart a mini 'soviet', an application of socialist ideology. Of course beyond this small model company the competition between companies fighting for supremacy in a particular sector would be classified as text book capitalism.

I guess in this way capitalism could remain to work on a 'macro' scale and socialism would continue to work on a 'micro' scale.

Love to hear opinions on the above too ^^^

pagancornflake

dentaku wrote: »

equally there is a trade-off in determining electoral terms. in america they vote (i believe) roughly every two years or so (between presidential/senate/house elections). so there is more "accountablility", but more effort is put into electioneering and politicking than governing.

To be honest, I don't think that frequency of elections contributes to more accountability to the electorate. Perhaps there would be if the republican/democrat monopoly on politics didn't exist (they really do hog the ticket).

dentaku wrote: »

are you seriously suggesting that the electorate weren’t aware that by voting for fianna fail in 2002 they were voting aherne as their prime minister?

I'm sure they were.

dentaku wrote: »

are you suggesting that the electorate would have voted significantly differently if they could have voted for ministers??

Well, is there any reason why they wouldn't (I think that the lack of confidence that many have for Enda Kenny is detrimental to their voter base currently, just for example)? I don't see any reason why this should not be subject to vote myself.

dentaku wrote: »

union of soviet SOCIALIST republics. the north Koreans regard themselves as socialists. if people associate socialism with dictatorships, it is with just cause.

Socialism is the broadest political ideology in existence. Doctrines of socialism exist all over the political spectrum from libertarian socialism (worker-ownership of the means of production through independent syndicates, workplace democracies, or worker cooperatives without the state) to Leninist vanguard politics dominated by single parties.

If people associate socialism with dictatorships ("people" being from the US presumably), then their cause is just insofar as anyone associating anything with only its worst failures is just.

dentaku wrote: »

what are the characteristics of “democratic socialism”?

Democratic socialists do not peruse the construction of rigidly worker-controlled economies, and elect instead to introduce progressive reforms which allow citizens to operate in the capitalist system with a high degree of welfare and safeguard benefits at the cost of much higher tax rates. This model has seen quite some success in northern Europe recently in terms of living standards and measures of social justice.

dentaku wrote: »

how does it differ from autocratic socialism?

Insofar as the word "autocratic" differs from "democratic". In other words, they are essentially opposites.

dentaku wrote: »

cementing privilege? take a look at north korea. who has the privilege there? do you think the chavez is hungry? many of his people are. where was the privilege in the ussr? in cuba?

There is no privileged in those countries; you're right. The persuit of extreme, rigid socialism in those countries has been quite disastrous. Unfortunately, this does not serve as any kind of effective response to the comment that you quoted. You effectively just went "X? Forget X, Y is REALLY BAD!"

pagancornflake

Killer Pigeon wrote: »

I think socialism was intended to be, in a way, democratic. Look at the idea of the 'soviet' in which workers gather in small councils to make decisions. Personally I think it is a lovely romantic idea and typifies the fact that democratic socialism would work well. Apply this idea to companies. Imagine that all the workers of a particular company were allowed to vote on decisions about production, wages, etc.. and where the decision making isn't made by just a small board of directors or even just one man.

It is a nice idea, and it has seen some success in the past, but I don't think the idea is feasible across the board. In the case of high tech industry such as pharmaceuticals or scientific services (where there is a mixture of highly skilled and unskilled labour in the workplace) , there is a great degree of skill or experience which would be a requisite to making an informed decision in many matters concerning the company.

TrollHammaren

Thanks, pagancornflake, you saved me the hassle of replying

The only thing I don't agree with there is your mention of democratic socialism in the Northen European countries - that's actually social democracy, which is pretty much a very left-wing capitalist system. It's a very good system, but not quite the democratic socialism I'd like to see in the world!

That is, of course, assuming I didn't misterpret what you said

Kama

Killer Pigeon wrote:

Imagine that all the workers of a particular company were allowed to vote on decisions about production, wages, etc.. and where the decision making isn't made by just a small board of directors or even just one man.

Far from utopian; SEMCO, or from their page,would be an extant example of such participative workplace methodologies. Results-only work environments, peer oversight instead of vertical management, profit-sharing, and so on.

Or you could be all utopian internets-booster and think something like this will bring the Promised Land; distributed ownership of production, a new cooperativism etc.

Apropos of socialism and capitalism, unless there's a prefix like authoritarian, libertarian, yeoman, mercantile, state, or anything like that in front of them, I have lack much real idea what is being practically referred to.


To return to the title though, I might suggest that nothing has failed unless something else has superseded it. Otherwise 'failure' gets to be a bit like 'crisis'; always sick but never dies.

dentaku

pagancornflake wrote: »

To be honest, I don't think that frequency of elections contributes to more accountability to the electorate. Perhaps there would be if the republican/democrat monopoly on politics didn't exist (they really do hog the ticket).

In that “the people” get to have “their say” more often. I don’t think it is necessarily any better or worse, just different. As for the Americans, they CHOSE and continue to choose to have a government duopoly. Just as the Irish electorate chose to have FF; rewarding FF for their policies and encouraging FF to continue with those policies.

pagancornflake wrote: »

Well, is there any reason why they wouldn't (I think that the lack of confidence that many have for Enda Kenny is detrimental to their voter base currently, just for example)? I don't see any reason why this should not be subject to vote myself.

I was responding to a point which implied that the Irish economy would be in a different position now if only “the people” hadn’t been disenfranchised by “the system”. It would not have made the slightest difference. Sure, you can vote for everything if you want! As above; not better or worse, just different.

pagancornflake wrote: »

Socialism is the broadest political ideology in existence. Doctrines of socialism exist all over the political spectrum from libertarian socialism (worker-ownership of the means of production through independent syndicates, workplace democracies, or worker cooperatives without the state) to Leninist vanguard politics dominated by single parties.

Can we have some examples of the above?

pagancornflake wrote: »

Democratic socialists do not peruse the construction of rigidly worker-controlled economies, and elect instead to introduce progressive reforms which allow citizens to operate in the capitalist system with a high degree of welfare and safeguard benefits at the cost of much higher tax rates. This model has seen quite some success in northern Europe recently in terms of living standards and measures of social justice.

Know we’re getting to the crux.

Supporting capitalism means that you believe (know!) that it is better for the vast majority of the goods and services in an economy to be supplied by the market i.e. private individuals and private companies. The government does not need to decide the quantity of shoes produced each year or how many different flavours of ice cream there are.

Socialism believed that if the government controlled the production of “stuff” then the “fair” amount could be produced and distributed. As we know, this idea failed, miserably.

Go back to the US vs the USSR. The US touted private companies, while the USSR supported Gosplan. That was the crucial difference.

What you have just described is a type of capitalism. Capitalism is a flexible economic ideology (an ideology backed by decades of empirics). What you call democratic socialism is, in fact, just another type of capitalism. This isn’t a question of semantics. Private companies supplying goods and services? Stock market? Large international trade? Yes to all? Capitalism! For you to say that north Europe is socialist is...confused.

Key statement here: “operate in the capitalist system”. You’ve even admitted it yourself!

pagancornflake wrote: »

There is no privileged in those countries; you're right. The pursuit of extreme, rigid socialism in those countries has been quite disastrous. Unfortunately, this does not serve as any kind of effective response to the comment that you quoted. You effectively just went "X? Forget X, Y is REALLY BAD!"

Excuse me, there most definitely ARE privileged people in these countries! And my point is, as Chavez is demonstrating, “democratic” can become “autocratic” very easily!

dentaku

TrollHammaren wrote: »

that's actually social democracy, which is pretty much a very left-wing capitalist system. It's a very good system

hallelujah!

and yet you still have a problem with it

dentaku

Kama wrote: »

Far from utopian; SEMCO, or from their page,would be an extant example of such participative workplace methodologies. Results-only work environments, peer oversight instead of vertical management, profit-sharing, and so on.

results-only work environment? peer oversight? profit-sharing? sounds like a hedge fund!

[QUOTE=Kama;69979606
Or you could be all utopian internets-booster and think something like this will bring the Promised Land; distributed ownership of production, a new cooperativism etc.[/QUOTE]

such innovation = pure capitalism

Kama wrote: »

Apropos of socialism and capitalism, unless there's a prefix like authoritarian, libertarian, yeoman, mercantile, state, or anything like that in front of them, I have lack much real idea what is being practically referred to.

the vast majority of goods and services in an economy should be produced by the market = capitalism

Kama wrote: »

To return to the title though, I might suggest that nothing has failed unless something else has superseded it. Otherwise 'failure' gets to be a bit like 'crisis'; always sick but never dies.

agreed. which is why capitalism has not failed. how popperian of you!

blue_steel

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Or is this planet always going to falter on the backs of those who are greedy and take advantage or want it all, even when it's more than they'll ever need ?

Sadly I think it will. Power corrupts and greed is ubiquitous. As a species we seem to have no more capacity for empathy than any other order of primate.

TrollHammaren

dentaku wrote: »

hallelujah!

and yet you still have a problem with it

It is a very good system, I will admit that. I don't have a problem with it, per se, it's more-so that I believe that, despite its significant advantages over other capitalist systems, it still falls short of democratic socialism, in my opinion.

One thing that does need to be clarified, though, is how people define a system as "working" or "failed". I would argue that capitalism has failed because it hasn't brought us any closer to an egalitarian society, it mostly reinforces social class disparity, and it hasn't allowed for economic stability in nations.

You could argue that capitalism has "worked" in America as it allowed it to become an economic superpower in the late 20th century, but that's not what I would define as a success, given the sheer levels of poverty and economic disparity in many areas across America.

Liam Byrne

blue_steel wrote: »

Sadly I think it will. Power corrupts and greed is ubiquitous. As a species we seem to have no more capacity for empathy than any other order of primate.

As things come to light I'm unfortunately beginning to think that this is true, and - without sounding defeatist - I'd nearly volunteer to be on the first deep-space exploration so as to get away from this sickening mindset.

Belfast

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Both communism and capitalism have failed, and both, apparently, due to greed and a lack of regard for fellow man.

Does anyone have any idea what could replace them ?

I'm one of those people who hates any philosophy that has an "ism", because by definition it's an extreme, which is usually a bad idea to begin with.

But is there some other option ?

Or is this planet always going to falter on the backs of those who are greedy and take advantage or want it all, even when it's more than they'll ever need ?

Replace the present big government Keynesian economics of today with
minimum government and Austrian economics.