At what point did Socialists become something to rant about?

Bipolar Joe

I've just noticed this lately. It's like Americans blathering on about Communists. When the Hell did this happen?

starbelgrade

Bipolar Joe wrote: »

I've just noticed this lately. It's like Americans blathering on about Communists. When the Hell did this happen?

It was probably when the whole Public Sector pay agreement debate started - despite the fact that the Croke Park agreement was agreed between the last government and the unions and there were no socialists involved*.

* = The unions, though they would like to consider themselves socialist, are anything but.

howsyourtusk

Because espousing an equal, democratic society with no racism/sexism/bigotry, etc, is a disgusting, horrible belief and those people should be murdered. Why else?

benway

Around the same time that the voguish ideology of the day changed from socialism to libertarianism. That's where the True Believers (tm) seem to reside these days.

To be fair, we have had a good 30 years, at least, of right wing propaganda feeding in to this - we're nearly at the point that anything to the left of Mussolini counts as "socialism" ... and this is therefore A Bad Thing, apparently.

Dudess

It's become fashionable among youngsters to balk at social equality and to be a greedy, selfish, heartless ****.

Chuck Stone

What definition of socialism are we using?

Are the socialised losses of failed banks and property speculators included?

Bipolar Joe

Chuck Stone wrote: »

What definition of socialism are we using?

Are the socialised losses of failed banks and property speculators included?

I'm not gonna make-believe like I'm a political guru, here, because I'm not, I don't know enough about anything to be able to have an in-depth conversation about the inner, complex workings of them, this sh!t included, so let's go with socialism in general, because it's easier and I've never heard any one bitching about socialists make any sort of distinction. Long sentence.

So, because we got screwed over by a corporation, who were allowed to screw us by government, will we say that those losses belong to the screwees?

benway

Chuck Stone wrote: »

What definition of socialism are we using?

Are the socialised losses of failed banks and property speculators included?

Nope, that's not socialism, that's a desperate attempt to prevent free market capitalism from collapsing under the weight of its own contradictions. And a scam.

Also, I have yet to hear a decent explanation from the libertarian cohort as to how exactly they propose to deal with the social consequences of letting the banks collapse.

The cognitive dissonance in that argument is as bad as anything from the 80s looney left, interpreting any given news story as evidence of the impending proletarian revolution. It's the looney right that we need worry about these days.

Chuck Stone

Bipolar Joe wrote: »

I'm not gonna make-believe like I'm a political guru, here, because I'm not,

That makes two of us.

I don't know enough about anything to be able to have an in-depth conversation about the inner, complex workings of them, this sh!t included, so let's go with socialism in general,

That's the problem. There is no 'general' socialism. If someone starts giving out about socialism I would respond with 'do you know what socialism is'?

Take a look at the wiki page and you'll see that the word socialism has so many meanings and interpretations that unless the person criticising it can give you a nice clear answer they are probably talking shite.

Bipolar Joe

I turn to my Pop for all things politics, because I'm an idiot and rely on him for basic human knowledge. Never bothered to look at the Wiki page because with things like this, it gets too confusing and you always wind up at the Philosophy page.

So, are you saying that people who go on about Those Damn Socialists are pretty much talking out their butt because it's now in vogue? Why did it get to that point?

Doc Ruby

howsyourtusk wrote: »

Because espousing an equal, democratic society with no racism/sexism/bigotry, etc, is a disgusting, horrible belief and those people should be murdered. Why else?

There's nothing particular to socialism that means it uniquely stands for an equal democratic society. In fact some flavours of it are distinctly undemocratic.

One of the things that irritate people about the hard left is the way they try to tie in a largely financial theory with literally anything that could be viewed as positive - socialism grows your hair back! Socialism fixes the rheumatic! Socialism will make your wife's boobs bigger! Its hardly any wonder the hard left are often given the snake oil salesman treatment.

Not that the other extreme are paragons of realism either.

Chuck Stone

benway wrote: »

Nope, that's not socialism, that's a desperate attempt to prevent free market capitalism from collapsing under the weight of its own contradictions. And a scam.

There was nothing even approaching free market capitalism being practised. There would be no such thing as central banks, state granted corporations and limited liability in a truly free market from what I've learned about it.

Also, I have yet to hear a decent explanation from the libertarian cohort as to how exactly they propose to deal with the social consequences of letting the banks collapse.

I guess they would say that that's not their or the states' concern - let the weak banks fail and those who invested in them lose their money (sounds good to me).

It's the looney right that we need worry about these days.

I agree.

KyussBishop

When used in that context, it's just another meaningless word used to bash people down instead of addressing their arguments; we're all pilgerising loony lefty pinko hippy hipster socialist commie bastards etc..

Toby Take a Bow

Chuck Stone wrote: »

There was nothing even approaching free market capitalism being practised. There would be no such thing as central banks, state granted corporations and limited liability in a truly free market from what I've learned about it.

I guess they would say that that's not their or the states' concern - let the weak banks fail and those who invested in them lose their money (sounds good to me).

There's nothing approaching free-market capitalism in free-market capitalism, even of the ultra neo-liberal variety espoused in the later years. That brand of free-market capitalism involves espousing those ideals, and initiating them when it suits them, but relying on the state to protect them when things go pear-shaped. There are no true free-market operating countries, although some of them came quite close in the last couple of years (Iceland and ourselves, to name a few).

Channel Zero

benway wrote: »

It's the looney right that we need worry about these days.

Absolutely.

When you see people label Obama for instance as a socialist, that amazes me.

benway

Bipolar Joe wrote: »

So, are you saying that people who go on about Those Damn Socialists are pretty much talking out their butt because it's now in vogue? Why did it get to that point?

Thatcher and Reagan pretty much ripped up the post-war consensus and sent their countries lurching to the right, we're still feeling the aftershocks, it's been an inspiration for revolutionaries on the looney right since. There's also an overwhelming right wing bias in most of the media, including Hollywood, plus quasi academic discourses like the "personal responsibility" spiel.

Basically, I think that the right figured that playing into people's latent self-interest is much more effective than making appeals for social consciousness. In fairness, they're correct about that much, as a vote winning strategy, it just isn't much of a model for a liveable society.

The notion of individualism and "the self" as the fundamental unit of society, rather than family or community, has been on the rise since the 30s at least - Adam Curtis' documentary series "The Century of the Self" gives a good overview, think it's on YouTube.

Chuck Stone

Bipolar Joe wrote: »

So, are you saying that people who go on about Those Damn Socialists are pretty much talking out their butt because it's now in vogue?

I would say a good percentage of them are.

Why did it get to that point?

The corporate media in my humble opinion. They create this narrative that if you are in any way sympathetic to state intervention in the economy or are in any way supportive of redistributive taxes that you are a looney lefty.

That's not to say that there aren't looney leftys out there who'd like to nationalise everything, tax high earners at 90%, free everything for everyone.

Now that is fuckng mad

Sindri

Because it's in vogue.

It's partly due to the oscillation between the two societies tend to go through. Of course at the end of the day it's all bollix.

KyussBishop

Chuck Stone wrote: »

I guess they would say that that's not their or the states' concern - let the weak banks fail and those who invested in them lose their money (sounds good to me).

Fair enough on the investors, they should know they are taking a risk (and if they are investing, can demand the bank properly inform them on risks before investing), but what about the banks customers? Should they lose their money as well?

I'm not arguing against free market principals (I don't know enough about them at the moment), it just seems a potentially big hole in the argument in favor of them, if it's true that banks customers can get screwed like that with no consequence.

The way I see it, customers with a bank require a certain degree of security and shielding from risk, because the purpose of a bank account isn't as a risky investment, more to store money in a secure way so it can't be robbed, and (to a lesser degree) to keep up with inflation.

KyussBishop

benway wrote: »

The notion of individualism and "the self" as the fundamental unit of society, rather than family or community, has been on the rise since the 30s at least - Adam Curtis' documentary series "The Century of the Self" gives a good overview, think it's on YouTube.

Ya that is a really excellent documentary; recommend people grab a hold of any/all his documentaries and give them a look.

TheIrishGrover

Probably around the time of the rise of The National Socialist German Workers' Party.....

newport2

Bipolar Joe wrote: »

I've just noticed this lately. It's like Americans blathering on about Communists. When the Hell did this happen?

About 2008 when they ran out of other people's money to spend

italodisco

An equal society , no effin thanks.
Socialist, Marxist etc piss off , hate reds so badly !!!
Occupy and the likes of reclaim the streets , antifa and swp are waisters and will never get anywhere ....
Go hug some trees or go on the dole because u don't wanna work for 'the man' ya ya ya

K-9

Bipolar Joe wrote: »

I've just noticed this lately. It's like Americans blathering on about Communists. When the Hell did this happen?

Probably because the Socialist party and the ULA are the only "extreme" parties left in this country, FF and FG would be centre to right, Labour probably centre to left, nothing like the 80's Labour party.

So with about 75% voting for those 3 and another 10% SF which are moving increasingly to the centre, its about the only extreme to point and laugh at these days.

Chuck Stone

Toby Take a Bow wrote: »

There's nothing approaching free-market capitalism in free-market capitalism, even of the ultra neo-liberal variety espoused in the later years.

Yes because there is/was no fee market capitalism in the first place. As Chomsky says about true free market capitalism 'The owners and elites just wouldn't stand for it' (paraphrasing).

K-9

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Yes because there is/was no fee market capitalism in the first place. As Chomsky says about true free market capitalism 'The owners and elites just wouldn't stand for it' (paraphrasing).

It does seem to be a recurrent thing in debates about free market capitalism, it seems there never has been an actual free market crash in relatively recent times as invariably the state gets involved in some way. Vested interests win out over any idealism.

Chuck Stone

KyussBishop wrote: »

Fair enough on the investors, they should know they are taking a risk (and if they are investing, can demand the bank properly inform them on risks before investing), but what about the banks customers? Should they lose their money as well?

Just going off my own knowledge here and would happily be corrected so if anyone wants to weigh in.

A libertarian would probably say 'yes, absolutely you should lose your deposit if the bank collapses' why should it be the problem of people who have no capital or those who invested wisely to bail out those who didn't?

biko

Bipolar Joe wrote: »

I've just noticed this lately. It's like Americans blathering on about Communists. When the Hell did this happen?

As soon as the Soviet Union collapsed the socialists became the new bogeyman.

44leto

I heard this argument in the post office. Some woman was in collecting her benefit. The clerk told her she cannot give her the money as she did not have suitable ID. Then the row began. I wont go into details but the details were pathetic.

Then it went on for about 15 minutes, in public, till she was eventually escorted out by security. Although the woman was screaming I have no money, I didn't feel sorry for her, what I was thinking was, were did this sense of entitlement come from, why do people feel entitled to money for doing F/all. I have no doubt this women never worked or ever will.

KyussBishop

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Just going off my own knowledge here and would happily be corrected so if anyone wants to weigh in.

A libertarian would probably say 'yes, absolutely you should lose your deposit if the bank collapses' why should it be the problem of people who have no capital or those who invested wisely to bail out those who didn't?

Well, the point to me would be to have enough regulation and enforced transparency in the first place, to stop the bank engaging in practices that may collapse it; is that still compatible with a free market? (which to me, a free market implies a great deal of deregulation, though the specifics I don't know)

EDIT: Excuse the several ninja-edits

Chuck Stone

K-9 wrote: »

It does seem to be a recurrent thing in debates about free market capitalism, it seems there never has been an actual free market crash in relatively recent times as invariably the state gets involved in some way. Vested interests win out over any idealism.

Like how Goldman Sachs had all its trash insured with AIG who was then bailed out by the US tax payer - ransacking the public purse.

Goldman Sachs collected nearly $3bn (£1.9bn) from bailed-out US insurer American International Group (AIG) as a payout on bets it placed on its own account – with the bulk coming directly from taxpayers after AIG's rescue.

.guardian.co.uk/business

Sergeant

Dudess wrote: »

It's become fashionable among youngsters to balk at social equality and to be a greedy, selfish, heartless ****.

Believing that social equality is the sole preserve of socialism is one of the main reasons it remains very much a minority ideological viewpoint in the vast majority of the world.

howsyourtusk

K-9 wrote: »

Probably because the Socialist party and the ULA are the only "extreme" parties left in this country, FF and FG would be centre to right, Labour probably centre to left, nothing like the 80's Labour party.

So with about 75% voting for those 3 and another 10% SF which are moving increasingly to the centre, its about the only extreme to point and laugh at these days.

Fact check, Socialist Party are a member of the ULA. Along with the Socialist Workers Party and other independent left wingers. If extreme is wanting food, shelter and a job for every person I dunno what the **** the rest of the political spectrum could be described as.

Chuck Stone

KyussBishop wrote: »

Well, the point to me would be to have enough regulation and enforced transparency in the first place, to stop the bank engaging in practices that may collapse it; is that still compatible with a free market?

That wouldn't be a truly free market. That's state regulation. Some people blame deregulation for creating a systemic risk and ergo the failure of banks and others blame the betting on bailouts and too big to fail aspect for creating the moral hazard.

I guess they are both right(?)

St.Spodo

Probably since the Second World War, and peaked in popularity in the 80s with the neo-liberal governments in America and Britain. Died-in-the-wool Right-libertarians are the real loons, who have almost succeeded in making the word ''socialist'' a pejorative term.

KyussBishop

Chuck Stone wrote: »

That wouldn't be a truly free market. That's state regulation. Some people blame deregulation for creating a systemic risk and ergo the failure of banks and others blame the betting on bailouts and too big to fail aspect for creating the moral hazard.

I guess they are both right(?)

Ok, I guess it's fair to say that a free market (in the strict unregulated sense, though I understand some regulation is compatible) will inevitably lead to some innocent bank customers losing their money, through no fault of their own, and with them being unable to inform themselves of the risks (as the banks will not be transparent about their risky practices).

I don't personally view that as acceptable, as it has the potential to completely destroy many peoples lives, or at the very least it would literally wipe out many years of their lives spent earning that money.

Do advocates of an unregulated free market view that as acceptable or necessary, or is there an alternative solution which does not lead to that, which is still compatible with a free market?

44leto

I love people complaining about the unfairness of capitalism. Cry me a river as we live in a country who on average are in the top 3% earners in the world and that includes people on the dole.

Capitalism and commerce is a positive sum game the entrepreneur or business man supplies goods or a service and I benefit from buying them. That feeds into the greater economy it supplies employment and a tax stream, of which a government pays for public services.

We need more capitalism in this country not less and we all should be grateful for the system that made Ireland one of the wealthiest countries in the world.

So be thankful to the system that has lifted more people out of poverty then anything else ever tried and made our lives better in so many ways from scientific medical and play.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OOgpT5rEKIU

Channel Zero

Chuck Stone wrote: »

The corporate media in my humble opinion. They create this narrative that if you are in any way sympathetic to state intervention in the economy or are in any way supportive of redistributive taxes that you are a looney lefty.

Too right. Another source of this is that the schools and universities (in the States anyway) are being bombarded with PR from the likes of the Ayn Rand Institute and others.
Get 'em while they're young..

K-9

howsyourtusk wrote: »

Fact check, Socialist Party are a member of the ULA. Along with the Socialist Workers Party and other independent left wingers. If extreme is wanting food, shelter and a job for every person I dunno what the **** the rest of the political spectrum could be described as.

Indeed, I'm sure the distinction between the groups is extremely important for members and followers of them.

What's with the wanting food, shelter and a job thing? Hardly something that's the sole preserve of the ULA!

Chuck Stone

KyussBishop wrote: »

Do advocates of an unregulated free market view that as acceptable or necessary, or is there an alternative solution which does not lead to that, which is still compatible with a free market?

From what I know in a truly free market there would be no state support for measures that tend to encourage risk in business - limited liability and corporate status for example.

That would mean that the owners of the bank, investors in the banks and management accused of wrongdoing could be pursued for every last penny they have. I'm pretty sure that if that were the case banks and those who own and run them would be super careful about getting it wrong because they themselves could be looking at serous financial consequences.

In a free market, individuals can form partnerships and engage in whatever trade and commercial relations they please, but they cannot establish a new legal entity that exists independently of the individuals who own it. Only a government can create a corporation as a legal entity with its own rights and privileges, the most important of which is limited liability

http://www.conservativenannystate.org/cnswebbook.pdf

tony007

44leto wrote: »

I love people complaining about the unfairness of capitalism. Cry me a river as we live in a country who on average are in the top 3% earners in the world and that includes people on the dole.

Capitalism and commerce is a positive sum game the entrepreneur or business man supplies goods or a service and I benefit from buying them. That feeds into the greater economy it supplies employment and a tax stream, of which a government pays for public services.

We need more capitalism in this country not less and we all should be grateful for the system that made Ireland one of the wealthiest countries in the world.

So be thankful to the system that has lifted more people out of poverty then anything else ever tried and made our lives better in so many ways from scientific medical and play.

Eh, no.
Capitalism in theory works like that. But in the real world neoliberalism ensures that a small minority have majority wealth. Because of this, they exercise disproportionate power over the government. Therefore, when they go belly up, their power in the government means that their debt gets socialised.
Most of the frontier technology in the industry sector exists because of state intervention, including commercial flight and the IT sector.

44leto

tony007 wrote: »

Eh, no.
Capitalism in theory works like that. But in the real world neoliberalism ensures that a small minority have majority wealth. Because of this, they exercise disproportionate power over the government. Therefore, when they go belly up, their power in the government means that their debt gets socialised.
Most of the frontier technology in the industry sector exists because of state intervention, including commercial flight and the IT sector.

And what are you complaining about, are you not happy with what you have, you have more then 97% of the worlds population so be grateful and now you even want more. That my friend is capitalism.

It is not an egalitarian world, some people are luckier, wealthier, more intelligent better looking, more powerful ETC then others and so what, that is simply the way it is and that is OK.

howsyourtusk

K-9 wrote: »

Indeed, I'm sure the distinction between the groups is extremely important for members and followers of them.

What's with the wanting food, shelter and a job thing? Hardly something that's the sole preserve of the ULA!

Weakens your arguments when you make basic factual errors like that no?

And do they? Or do they pay lip service to it. 200,000 empty housing units in the country, estimates of thousands of homeless people. Awaits, "ah but you can't give **** away for free" argument.

pragmatic1

I think the caliber of people on the left and the way they're represented in the media as trust fund babies has done huge damage. My father is a socialist, he was born in an orphanage in 1950s Dublin and worked down the mines all his life. Couldnt be further from the media depiction of a socialist.

howsyourtusk

44leto wrote: »

And what are you complaining about, are you not happy with what you have, you have more then 97% of the worlds population so be grateful and now you even want more. That my friend is capitalism.

It is not an egalitarian world, some people are luckier, wealthier, more intelligent better looking, more powerful ETC then others and so what, that is simply the way it is and that is OK.

It's ok for you. Because I'd guess you clearly have a decent existance. It's that lack of empathy that scares me about right wingers. Most lefty's I know are pretty content people even if they're struggling to get by, every right winger I know is living a lie or is a complete prick. Go figure.

Chuck Stone

44leto wrote: »

I love people complaining about the unfairness of capitalism. Cry me a river as we live in a country who on average are in the top 3% earners in the world and that includes people on the dole.

I don't think anyone is asking for an all encompassing state socialist model to be enacted. As for capitalism - maybe you missed the bit where there is no such thing. We have state backed capitalism.

Socialized road building and private corporations selling cars and fuel would be an example of state capitalism. Public funding of universities and graduates going into private industry would be another. The state and capitalism go hand in glove.

tony007

44leto wrote: »

And what are you complaining about, are you not happy with what you have, you have more then 97% of the worlds population so be grateful and now you even want more. That my friend is capitalism.

It is not an egalitarian world, some people are luckier, wealthier, more intelligent better looking, more powerful ETC then others and so what, that is simply the way it is and that is OK.

The conditions of slaves improved from the 18th to 19th century. Is that an argument for slavery?
Also, a lot of our wealth in Ireland has to do with the carving up of resources by multinationals in 3rd world countries.
We don't have capitalism, that's what I was trying to say. State intervention created many of our modern industries.

K-9

tony007 wrote: »

Eh, no.
Capitalism in theory works like that. But in the real world neoliberalism ensures that a small minority have majority wealth. Because of this, they exercise disproportionate power over the government. Therefore, when they go belly up, their power in the government means that their debt gets socialised.
Most of the frontier technology in the industry sector exists because of state intervention, including commercial flight and the IT sector.

Indeed, that's were "too big to fail" comes in. The idea is that regulation is needed to ensure they don't get too big but with the endless pursuit of profit and the days of globalism I don't know if that concept can work any more.

The other side is the near zealot belief that the market is always right and any Government intervention should be small, markets would by and large regulate themselves and would discourage bubbles., somehow!

Eric Cartman

We live in an enlightened age of information, people have seen how mass socialism creates a bloated oublic sector, bails out banks, raises taxes , keeps everyone poor and allows mass immigration all in the name of 'equality' so its about time people stood up and looked for a better system , like capitalism.

KyussBishop

Chuck Stone wrote: »

From what I know in a truly free market there would be no state support for measures that tend to encourage risk in business - limited liability and corporate status for example.

That would mean that the owners of the bank, investors in the banks and management accused of wrongdoing could be pursued for every last penny they have. I'm pretty sure that if that were the case banks and those who own and run them would be super careful about getting it wrong because they themselves could be looking at serous financial consequences.

True, the government would not provide incentives for risky practices, and would hold the threat of criminal prosecution over the leaders of the bank; however, these are deterrent and reactive measures, not preventative.

There will always be the inherent massive incentive to commit fraud for personal gain; without some regulation, the owner of a bank could easily embezzle money and then just leave the country to avoid consequences.
Hell, the current financial crisis has shown that so long as you have enough money, you can avoid the consequences for any crime anyway, so it's a pretty weak deterrence.


As the owner of a bank, buy up a personal stake in an industry in Russia, invest craploads of money in said industry using bank funds, move to Russia and cash out, watch said industry implode in value due to inflation/corruption/whatever, then watch the bank at home implode while you're swimming in riches.

What could possibly prevent that in those circumstances? A free market, in that absolute unregulated form, is an invitation to pillage and embezzle other peoples money.

44leto

howsyourtusk wrote: »

It's ok for you. Because I'd guess you clearly have a decent existance. It's that lack of empathy that scares me about right wingers. Most lefty's I know are pretty content people even if they're struggling to get by, every right winger I know is living a lie or is a complete prick. Go figure.

Empathy man, the new buzz word, wasn't free love in the 60s and that worked:rolleyes:

Look its simple you are living in a time of unprecedented wealth. From Europe to Asia to south America more people have been lifted out of poverty then any other time in history. Democracy and free market capitalism is what achieved this. Not to long ago half the world was in an economic back water of socialism, a repressive system that failed on every level.

Its as Victor Havel said communism/ socialism is anti human nature.