lefties and righties

Sand

Originally posted by Aspro
The USA. That good old bastion of capitalism. The world's largest economic power. Free market economics, investment, the engine of free enterprise and self-government.
Well, ladies and gentlemen let's have a look at some of the wonderful statistics:

Hmmm they seem to be doing a hell of a lot better than Cuba, china or whatever other hell hole has had the complete and utter misfortune to be taken over by a bunch of morons with guns (And its nearly always morons with guns, communism and so on doesnt seem to be a winner with the people- until youve got guns to tell em what they like and dont like).

and the ensuing world economic crisis will be disastrous, not only for ordinary Americans, but for ordinary people throughout the world. Why? Capitalism fails to provide for the majority because it is run in the interests of a minority of super-rich:

Capitalism doesnt represent me?!?!?. I bettered myself by working hard for an education. Capital mobility will allow for a job to be created for me here in Ireland. Labour mobility will allow for me to sell my skills to the highest bidder be they in Ireland or abroad. Where does your "You worked hard to get a good job? You SCUMBAG CAPITALIST PIG-lets take his money and give it to some bums" and quite frankly ridicualous views on the nature of state ownership of industry (CIE what a success story, Aer Lingus What a success story, Telecom Eireann what a success story) represent me?

If "150 years of social evolution" has meant that I can live in a house and you can have your programming job - while billions live in abject poverty, have half our life expectancy and die of curable diseases then that is not evolution. That is going backwards. That is a tragedy that is unacceptable when we see that the 10 richest people on the globe own $133 billion. 10 ****ing people!!

The developing world hasnt got poorer. Its simply that the West has become far far far richer- something to do with its crazy fixiation with capitalism. As Adam Smith (Study his views instead of Marxs ramblings and youll have a greater insight) said all that is required to carry a nation from the the most barbaric state the most civillised is simply peace, a tolerable administration of justice and easy taxes (thats not the exact quote- if youre so pedantic you look it up). Should the East wish to follow then it must go through its own struggles. Throwing money at a problem will not make it go away.

Things must change and I stand by my beliefs. These days the only thing holding people back is the brainwashing that says "it's always been like this, there's no otherway of doing things, there'll always be poverty, unemployment, disease, war etc. etc."

If we accept that, then we have failed as human beings. [/B

There will always be people who earn a fraction of what others earn- except in the lefts utopia where theyll all be equally poor. First year economics will teach you that there will always be a certain level of unemployment beyond which inflation tends to get into play. Disease- well im sure well find a cure for them all at some stage but lets see about the common cold first. War? I think youll find the replacement for war is free trade- you know that thing that the left despises?

Gargoyle

Originally posted by dahamsta


What you think has absolutely no bearing on this matter, because you have no idea where I get my information.

Sure I do, you rely on the authority of your "dear mum", adam.

Originally posted by dahamsta

Honestly, I know I'm showing my true colours an' all, but I think this whole thing is complete and utter poo. I think the U.S. didn't release the tape up until now because it didn't exist, and it took a while to patch it together without the help of the major Hollywood studios. My own dear ma, who is by no means a radical, thinks the exact same. It's donkey droppings.

Originally posted by dahamsta

I have the Internet at my fingertips, I don't need to rely on the Irish media.

And yet I have yet to see you do anything but follow the mantra of the left wing irish pres...albeit far less eloquently.

Originally posted by dahamsta

Says a lot about most Americans. George Bush is a gun totin' imbecile owned and paid for by the oil companies. Even his hard-man image is a complete fake, and the only people who didn't see through this on September 11 were the Americans. Everyone else was just waiting for him to head home to mammy.

Oh, yes, you're a VERY objective person, adam.

bonkey

Originally posted by Sand
Hmmm they seem to be doing a hell of a lot better than Cuba, china or whatever other hell hole has had the complete and utter misfortune to be taken over by a bunch of morons with guns

Yes - this really proves that the current version of capitalism as embodied in the US (and the world in general) isnt bad, doesnt it.

I mean, just because something else is worse, the current system must be the best, because you guys always seem to argue from a binary perspective - there only being two options.

Why is it that every time, every single time that any criticism gets levelled at the US, we have people standing up and saying that the US doesnt deserve this criticism because :

1) USA is the greatest nation on earth
2) The criticser is just a tree-hugging leftist nut-moron
3) If it wasnt for us you'd all be under commie rule
4) You shouldnt criticise us, cause we're better than <insert kicking-nation here>

What ever happened to actually answering the actual criticism, rather than deflecting it in some patheticly monotonous way???

As for Americans comment that :

Socialism puts faith in government, which is a false god.

Err - hello? Arent you the one who recently was espousing the true genius of American democracy, where the government was kept in check by the common man due to his right to bear arms?

Socialism does not preclude democracy, so if your capitalist democracy is so good and trustworthy why is a socialist democracy so wrong?

jc

jc

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Aspro
It was a political revolution that overthrew Suharto in Indonesia, Milosevic in Serbia, Ceaucescu in Romania, that led France to the brink of revolution in 1968 and that changed the consciousness of the Irish people in 1916 and led to the eventual break-up of the British Empire.

It was a political revolution that overthrew Suharto in Indonesia? You have a fairly wide definition of revolution. The revolution in Romania ended up a ‘rebellion’ replacing one set of Stalinists with another. France was not on the brink of revolution in 1968 and 1916 did not lead (except by coincidence) to the eventual break-up of the British Empire.

By your definition of revolution, I would probably include those political events that brought Mussolini, Hitler and Pol Pot to power.

If "150 years of social evolution" has meant that I can live in a house and you can have your programming job - while billions live in abject poverty, have half our life expectancy and die of curable diseases then that is not evolution. That is going backwards. That is a tragedy that is unacceptable when we see that the 10 richest people on the globe own $133 billion. 10 ****ing people!!

My ‘programming job’ is my own. I employ myself. I invest time, money and effort chasing up my own contracts and improving the products and services that I can offer. I can invest time and effort into development because I will own my own IP. I often will sub-contract to others, further sharing the wealth, while grabbing a small mark-up on the rate for my trouble. That is capitalism, not the easy target of the big corporation.

I already said that the developing World is realistically another argument, but since you brought it up, many of these countries are like this because they attempted to follow socialist ideologies. And while standard of living in many is still grossly inferior to that of Industrial nations, it has also improved over the same period, in many cases.

Japan was a developing nation 150 years, or so, ago. It wasn’t Socialism that has allowed it to become a wealthy nation.

Things must change and I stand by my beliefs. These days the only thing holding people back is the brainwashing that says "it's always been like this, there's no otherway of doing things, there'll always be poverty, unemployment, disease, war etc. etc."

I do not deny that things must change. But I will deny that an outdated dogma such as your orthodox brand of Socialism has any realistic place in that change. Marx had many good points, but his theories were both flawed and based upon a different time.

Steadfastly holding to an axiomatically flawed ideology that refuses to change itself while exposing change is hence ironic. And no number of articles from Socialist Web sites, or avoiding points I’ve posed to you in previous points is going to change that.

bonkey

Originally posted by The Corinthian
Steadfastly holding to an axiomatically flawed ideology that refuses to change itself while exposing change is hence ironic. And no number of articles from Socialist Web sites, or avoiding points I’ve posed to you in previous points is going to change that.

The problem is that capitalism, as an ideology, is as axiomatically flawed as the rest of them. The main difference is that it can "survive" those flaws better.

Take for example your description of your work. True capitalism, and properly implemented. The problem is that large-scale capitalism, as exercised by the large corporations, involves far too much exploitation in the name of profit. Sure, we can say that these are nationally-run companies, and so it is not the developed world's problem, but the fact is that these companies exist because the "developed world" wanted cheaper labour, and was willing to close its eyes to how that is achieved as long as it improves the bottom line.

What is interesting is that when we look at the flaws in capitalism, the pro-capitalist side generaly take the "sure there are problems, but we never said it was all good" and the anti-capitalist-pro-something-else say "an axiomatically flawed ideology ". Then, we look at some other system such as socialism and the pro-socialists say "sure, there are problems, but we never said it was all good", while the capitalists call it "an axiomatically flawed ideology".

Its all a load of horse.

Capitalism, socialism, communism, etc can all work. However, they all have inherent flaws and dangers.

Look at the amount of tax Cisco and Microsoft have paid in the last few years. I believe the figure is $0, despite the huge profits the companies post. They are not the only ones in this boat. Explain why this is a good thing?

Look at the exploitation of workers the world over - typically done by proxy on behalf of the developed world's large corporations. Explain why this is a good thing?

Sure, there are good sides to capitalism, but once you're out of the sunlight, it is as dark and nasty as all the alternate systems have been made out to be. Siimply saying that the sun is brighter for capitalists, or more areas get sunlight is not enough - until there are no shadows, capitalism does not have the moral high ground, despite our wishing it.

jc

Sand

Yes - this really proves that the current version of capitalism as embodied in the US (and the world in general) isnt bad, doesnt it.

I cant speculate about the merits of a system until it exsists. How can i compare western democracy/capitalism with some left wing utopia? All i can compare it to are Communism, Fascism and Socialism (the three left wing utopias that have come to fruition during the life time of capitalism/democracy). All of these take individual rights and liberties away from the individual. All of these are poor economic performers in comparison to capitalism. All of these reduce the incentive to improve yourself. Capitalism/democracy makes a countrys leadership responsible to the people it claims to represent.

Capitalism/Democracy is no doubt the worst system, except for all the others as it was once put.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by bonkey
What is interesting is that when we look at the flaws in capitalism, the pro-capitalist side generaly take the "sure there are problems, but we never said it was all good" and the anti-capitalist-pro-something-else say "an axiomatically flawed ideology ". Then, we look at some other system such as socialism and the pro-socialists say "sure, there are problems, but we never said it was all good", while the capitalists call it "an axiomatically flawed ideology".

But that’s not being said here. I’ve no problem in saying that capitalism (or any other ideology) is flawed. But Aspro does have a problem with saying the same about Socialism. The closest he’ll come to it is saying that it wasn’t Socialism that is flawed, but Stalinism.

Admitting that an ideology (or anything) is not perfect is a prerequisite to change and improvement. That’s my point.

bonkey

Originally posted by Sand
War? I think youll find the replacement for war is free trade- you know that thing that the left despises?

I'm really interested in how you have come to this conclusion. Could you explain exactly how free trade will get rid of war?

I cant speculate about the merits of a system until it exsists.

Have you never heard of the concept of change? That we need to look for better solutions than the one we have today? You are basically advocating "no change is the best solution", which is pretty weak.

Capitalism/democracy makes a countrys leadership responsible to the people it claims to represent

I'm lost here - are you implying that capitalism and democracy must go hand in hand, and that you cant have one without the other? If not, then what the hell is democracy being brought into the discussion for?

jc

Sand

Free trade to replace war?!?!?
Well, as your average left/marxist will tell you most imperialist/capitalist wars throughtout history have been about economic benefit- access to resources etc etc. In fact i belive marx claims all. Anyway free trade allows all nations (or rather individuals in these nations) acess to all markets and resources, removing the desire to send 20 tank divisions across the border to sieze those diamond mines. This was a lot of the reasoning behind the Coal and Steel union that was the fore runner of the EU. For a fuller explanation of the benefits of free trade you could do worse than to purchase an economics textbook, some like The Principles of Economics by that guy Mankiw.

About not being able to speculate? I agree there is always room for improvement. However I do not belive social evolution should be a matter of trial and error (i.e much error). Should you or anyone else devise a system which can be proven to improve everyones lot then all well and good.

Im implying that you cant have capitalism without democracy and vice versa. There might be a certain "lag" between the occurence of the two (i.e China a lot of the reasoning behind allowing China into the WTO is that it will weaken its communist idealogy and allow for democracy).

Sharkey

Originally posted by Aspro

Socialism does not put it's faith in government, it's beauty lies in the democratic ownership of the means of creating society's wealth, the means of production, by the majority - the "socialisation of production".

Democratic ownership of the means of creating society's wealth? Are you proposing government control/owner over corporations or some system where each citizen can vote on how each corporation shall be run? The first approach has never worked well and the second system sounds impossible to implement.

How about a system where people make their own decisions as to what and how they want to invest and buy stock accordingly or even start their own companies. These people would be free to work as hard and smart as they like and would reap the benefits of their work accordingly. These people could then employ other people or sell stock to other people. That is true empowerment.

So instead of a small elite of private profiteers making billions while the majority of us struggle to get by - that vast wealth is dispersed among us ...

So you want wealth given to you as opposed to earning it? How about if I sit on my bee-hind and demand all you working joes give me 10% of your earnings. I could take that money and invest it in my own healthcare, education...

bonkey

Originally posted by Sand
Anyway free trade allows all nations (or rather individuals in these nations) acess to all markets and resources, removing the desire to send 20 tank divisions across the border to sieze those diamond mines.

Nice idea, but flawed. Nations will still go to war because there will be problems of "want, cant afford". Why buy those diamonds for your gold when you could own both.

There will also be the typical cases of "want, cant buy", "want, and if I take over this country I dont have to buy", not to mention "get off our land you thieving bastahds", "we want our freedom", "I am a power-mad megalomaniac".

In short, it is ridiculous to claim that free trade will remove war.

I also notice that in your answer you had already limited it down to "imperialist/capitalist wars" and not just "wars". Bit of a difference there.

AS for capitalism == democracy, I think you'll find that most advocates of socialism would claim that socialism requires democracy as well. Does this mean that socialism cannot exist without capitalism as well? That having democracy inevitably leads to capitalism?

jc

dahamsta

Sure I do, you rely on the authority of your "dear mum", adam.

Cheap shot Gargoyle. Is that the best you can come up with?

And yet I have yet to see you do anything but follow the mantra of the left wing irish pres...albeit far less eloquently.

That would be so meaningful if I read the "left wing irish pres". I don't read the "right wing irish pres" either I might add. I thought I made that clear.

Oh, yes, you're a VERY objective person, adam.

Yes, I am. Thank you for recognising that. Very kind.

adam

The Corinthian

Originally posted by bonkey
Nice idea, but flawed. Nations will still go to war because there will be problems of "want, cant afford". Why buy those diamonds for your gold when you could own both.

I would tend to agree here (as fond as I may be of Capitalism ). Scarcity is only one reason for war. Nationalism, political expediency and population control are others, to name a few.

I think, however, I think the discussion has become confused with regard to Capitalism. Realistically, Capitalism is not a system of government, only a medium of commerce, a system for the transference of resources. It has no mechanisms in place for social issues outside of market dictates and does not care for the welfare of its fellow man (not evil, just amoral or utilitarian). It’s probably Liberal or Western Democracy rather than Capitalism, that we should be discussing here.

AS for capitalism == democracy, I think you'll find that most advocates of socialism would claim that socialism requires democracy as well. Does this mean that socialism cannot exist without capitalism as well? That having democracy inevitably leads to capitalism?

In fairness, I don’t think that’s what he’s saying. However, democracy is a fairly meaningless term in these arguments. Every Stalinist State uses or used the terms democracy or democratic in their names, but it hardly made them democratic in our view.

And what would our views of democratic be? How universal is democratic right? Is it a right, a privilege or a duty? Or all of the above? How equal? How direct? And finally, how practical? Fascists can equally claim (if they wished) to consider corporatism as democratic in that in enfranchises those citizens who strive to be enfranchised (the NUI and TCD panels for the Irish Senate are actually not a bad example of this). Western democracy is limited in its democracy as can be demonstrated by the often-limited choice afforded by the multi-party system. Pure democracy (with a referendum for every law) could easily be demonstrated to be anarchic and unworkable too – is democracy mob rule or tyranny by the Majority?

Not really making judgements here, just curious about viewpoints.

Gargoyle

Originally posted by dahamsta
Sure I do, you rely on the authority of your "dear mum", adam.

Cheap shot Gargoyle. Is that the best you can come up with?

You stated it, I don't see how its cheap. You're blasting this guy because you don't agree with his opinion. Your opinion is no more valid than anyone else's here...just using one of your own quotes to illustrate that.

Sand

Sure free trade will stop wars (Not all of course- some nations have gone to war over such silly things as pure national pride, and other wars have been fought over religious,ethnic or idealogical differences).

Nice idea, but flawed. Nations will still go to war because there will be problems of "want, cant afford". Why buy those diamonds for your gold when you could own both.

War is a highly exspensive bussiness for tax payers. Unless the nation is a communist one, the government itself will not own the, diamond mines, shall we say. As such for sending say 20 divisions across the border, taking many many people away from their productive labour in the economy, supplying the equipment theyll need (including a small sea of oil for their trucks, tanks, jeeps, armoured vehicles , helicopters, bombers and fighters) and the political pressure that comes with war from the student groups etc its a hell of a lot of trouble for little or no benefit.

The corporation who eventually takes charge of the "liberated" mines makes a hell of a lot of money for little or no investment. I cant see any democratic/representitive government undertaking such a huge undertaking for no benefit to the government/nation itself.

Free trade makes war even less apealing by removing restrictions on market entry and allowing for reduced/eliminated tarrifs etc etc. Those who might "want but cant afford" would be the private companies and corporations, not the government. And in any case those selling the diamonds would be denying themselves revenue by not selling to the companies/corporations at a price they can afford- but of course where they still make a profit. As such with free trade everyones a winner.

AS for capitalism == democracy, I think you'll find that most advocates of socialism would claim that socialism requires democracy as well. Does this mean that socialism cannot exist without capitalism as well? That having democracy inevitably leads to capitalism?

Most advocates would claim that, but the left in its extremes(Communism and Nazism) has always tended to central control of not just the economy but the populace as well. Socialist governments tend to enact a lot of "feel good" legislation with regards to what and what may not be discussed or thought- i.e British Labour were recently prevented from enacting a religous hate law that would allow them to convict anyone who criticised non-christian beliefs (Its always open season on christianity peversely-not that im religious at all but its just another double standard) and as for debates on the merits of immigration, legal or otherwise- well again its difficult without someone shouting racist/nazi if you dont agree with them. I.E whereas in previous centuries there was the threat of the Church influencing the state with their policies and views, now its the Left influencing the state with theirs.

Anyay getting off topic there. Democracy in my opinion is greatest when the individuals rights are upheld- the government is there to facilititate the needs of the individual, including security, a certain level of health and education, representations with other governments or groups that a single individual cannot negotiate with "fairly"- not the other way around. That tends to go together with capitalisms individual enterprise philosophy. As such i believe democracy will tend to be found with capitalism and vice versa- to the point where it can be said democracy=capitalism. Thats just a personal belief of mine though.

Digi_Tilmitt

Come on the lefties!!!!!!!

End exploytation of the proletariot etc.

Sand

Youre being sarky arent you Digi:)

Gargoyle

Originally posted by Sand
Youre being sarky arent you Digi:)

Actually, he's not. He's actually quite the budding young communist...
(unless he's changed dramatically of late)

*sigh*

American

Originally posted by bonkey

Capitalism, socialism, communism, etc can all work
jc

This is where we disagree. Socialism and communism assume an inherent goodness in people, and apologists for the failure of communism claim it was just because there were bad guys running the system, saying "Communism would have worked if there had only been good guys running it." (Like the early Christians who failed with a communist system weren't "good" guys.)

A system that is going to last has to be able to weather the bad guys, because the bad guys are going to get control from time to time and because people are not altruistic; they are inherently selfish, with a few saints for exception, which is why they are note-worthy and are called saints.

We do not have a democracy in the United States; we still (barely) have a Republic. Democracies don't last either, because inherently selfish people keep voting for things they want, not things that are good for them or their country.
Our founding fathers built a Republic because they wanted to try to block self interests from overwhelming the whole country by having them compete against each other in a system of checks and balances that try to prevent one group from getting the upperhand for too long.
And they tried to put in a system with representation, and a curtailed electorate, to try to prevent the rule of the masses, or democracy, because the historical evidence was that democracies are self-destructive.

The governmental structure is made so that it is separate from the economic structure, and thus it was possible to regulate our capitalist economic system when it became necessary. When you combine the two, combining your government with your economic system, as with socialism and communism, then there is no one to regulate the economic system, because the government IS the economic system, and the government bureaucracy becomes self-preserving and unable to reform problems.

Worse, with communism and socialism, each succeeding generation gets lazier in taking care of itself, looking to "the government" to take care of it, rather than to their own energies and creativity. The creative edge and the work ethic edge is dulled. After several generations too few people are doing too little to keep the society afloat.

You and I, bonkey, have a fundamental disagreement about the reality of human nature, governments, and economic systems. Thus, we come to completely different conclusions when we view the same information.

Celt

You should agree to disagree, as I do not think the majority of people here will agree over the topic and atm, its the same arguments being repeated:)