Socialism in Ireland

smiles

Seen as there are plenty of socialists about, i guess i can ask some questions and try to get some good answers out.

What elements of socialism would you want to see enacted in Ireland and what do you think the effect of these would be? Do you think it would be possibly - why/why not ?

<< Fio >>

Boston

im am not a socialists, i support some socialists ideals when they can be used to provide better and more economic structures for capitalism.

Aspro

Ah Smiles you agent provocateur you!
We all know these discussions always end up as a fifteen page thread of capitalism vs. socialism before the moderators close it down.
I'm surprised they haven't already!

smiles

This isn't intended as a troll, I just want to see the elements of socialism that people would like to see enacted and why. I'm not going to argue with anyone, i'm just curious.

<< Fio >>

Victor

Personally, I would consider myself the middle ground of the socialist -v- capitalist argument

Ownership of property / capital: no problem with this, but it has to be balanced with duties (mostly tax).

Workers rights: Unions need to be curtailed, but employers need to follow the letter and spirit of the law.

State ownership: state agencies should carry out (on a day to day basis) social or statutory functions (law & order, health), not economic ones. Sell the ESB.

Provision of health services: while not advocating introducing a 'big bang', these sectors do need reform and competition (pharmacists & doctors earning €125,000-€250,000 per year)

Tax: capital (property in particular) needs to pay more tax, income needs to pay a little less, as do services.

Competition: there needs to be a decrease in the number of inefficient small firms (<5 people), some larger firms need splitting (e.g. comms, energy, construction materials sectors) and an increase in competition is needed among medium sized firms.

Paddy20

Anyone who is a socialist cares firstly about his fellow human beings welfare. Anyone who is a capitalist cares firstly about money and how to make more. Therefore socialism must come first to all christians and humanatarians. What has "Capitalism" ever done for the ordinary citizen, apart from killing them and stealing the best part of their lives through enslavement i.e. working all day - to make a buck with no time left to look at life or even find out - Who you really - or what you are capable of achieving - as you pass through this valley of tears, called LIFE??. Yours, Paddy20:)

The Corinthian

Originally posted by paddy20
Anyone who is a socialist cares firstly about his fellow human beings welfare.

Don't you love all that suffering that comes as a result of good intentions?

Anyone who is a capitalist cares firstly about money and how to make more.

In theory. In practice, this is rarely the case.

What has "Capitalism" ever done for the ordinary citizen, apart from killing them and stealing the best part of their lives through enslavement

Please refer to my first response.

Arn't ppl a wee bit bored with this whole capitalism vs. socialism debate at this stage?

DadaKopf

Arn't ppl a wee bit bored with this whole capitalism vs. socialism debate at this stage?

We're bored of this thread but never this issue. I mean, to say that the debate between two most powerful ideologies the world has seen since WWI is boring and not worth discussing is pretty dumb.

The two ideologies are responsible for some of the highest and lowest moments of civilization in the past 100 years and we must still try to make sense of them today.

What's boring is the refusal of people on these boards to have a sensible discussion about it, on both sides of the debate. best one I remember was that Buy Nothing Day debate, at least that was focused.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by DadaKopf

We're bored of this thread but never this issue. I mean, to say that the debate between two most powerful ideologies the world has seen since WWI is boring and not worth discussing is pretty dumb.

What smiles posed to us at the beginning of the thread is a valid point. There are good points in Socialism, as there are in all ideologies (including Fascism, I may add - subject for another thread, methinks). What I would (did) question is/was a debate on capitalism vs. socialism, which is OT and hacknied, IMHO.

smiles

What i intended was asking for opinons which i got, and didnt want to debate them here cause that'd just be asking for trouble...

I would like to discuss some of them, maybe a new thread for a single issue later when i have time.

I think the "Socialist are ....." "Capitalist are....." is pure ****e. and we all know it. People are always mixed somewhat.

<< Fio >>

DadaKopf

Corinthian: so you think it's possible to discuss/examine the good merits of capitalism and socialism without opening up the "OT and hacknied" socialism vs. capitalism debate?

The Corinthian

Originally posted by DadaKopf
Corinthian: so you think it's possible to discuss/examine the good merits of capitalism and socialism without opening up the "OT and hacknied" socialism vs. capitalism debate?

The original question regarded good merits of socialism, with no reference to any other ideology. But in response to your own question DadaKopf - apparently not.

Von

Originally posted by The Corinthian
There are good points in Socialism, as there are in all ideologies (including Fascism, I may add - subject for another thread, methinks).

Before denouncing this statement as the most silly thing I've ever read on these boards, I would like to hear something about the merits of fascism. I've only read 50 pages of Mein Kampf so maybe I missed something. What EXACTLY is meritorious about a system that demands unquestioning slavish obedience to a self-perpetuating oligarchy of perverted racist psychopaths then?

I don't think the debate is simply about socialism vs capitalism anymore. Most of the EU's member states are social democracies which have mixed socialism with capitalism but now under pressure from big business, they're shifting to american style neo-liberal laissez faire economies. In the past, each phase of capitalism improved the position of the working class and created a platform for further liberation. Professional workers forced the recognition of trade unions and political parties and, once they became organised as mass workers, they had the clout to demand the welfare state. Swivel chair fascists, reactionaries and people who don't pay attention will disagree but as there's been a profound shift in the nature of work in post industrial countries and the speed of communications has enabled people to be much more globally aware, it follows that a new strand of political thought will emerge. We're seeing that with the rise of green politics, voter apathy and disillusionment with political institutions as well as the increasing role of extra-parliamentary single issue groups.

"Men fight and lose the battle, and the thing they fought for comes about in spite of their defeat, and then it turns out not to be what they meant, and other men have to fight for what they want under another name." - William Morris

ReefBreak

...AND THEY'RE OFF!!!

a system that demands unquestioning slavish obedience to a self-perpetuating oligarchy of perverted racist psychopaths

...same as Communism then.

And before anyone starts, I despise Facism also.

DadaKopf

a system that demands unquestioning slavish obedience to a self-perpetuating oligarchy of perverted racist psychopaths

This is exactly what academic communism attempted to dissolve, it was the practical misapplication of communism that contributed to our Stalins.

Von is right: what the world generally has today is a 'mixed economy' - a generally democratically arrived at hybrid system; a little from column A, a little from column B. The reason that's come about is down to the biggest contemporary debate in Politics: between socialism and capitalism.

In response to the post: it seems that the various attempts to move away from this debate in a practical manner is being enacted by the Zapatistas. Their attempt at direct democracy gives a lot of food for thought. Also, African countries like Eritrea and Uganda (though having a questionable leadership) and Libya (yes Libya) have all offered interesting strains and alternatives to the Western models of government and economy.

Perhaps the question we should be asking here is: is there really a desirable alternative to either socialism or capitalism? Or are we confined to come combination of both ideologies?

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Von
Before denouncing this statement as the most silly thing I've ever read on these boards, I would like to hear something about the merits of fascism. I've only read 50 pages of Mein Kampf so maybe I missed something. What EXACTLY is meritorious about a system that demands unquestioning slavish obedience to a self-perpetuating oligarchy of perverted racist psychopaths then?

All ideologies, no matter how bad in practice, or even as a whole in theory, have their good points. They may even be only minute good points, but good points nonetheless.

As for the practice, ReefBreak makes the very valid point that it would have been difficult to tell the difference between Fascism and Communism as it has been practiced – “a system that demands unquestioning slavish obedience to a self-perpetuating oligarchy of perverted racist psychopaths” succinctly describes every attempt at Communism to date. And please don’t pull the Trotskyite ”that wasn’t true Socialism/Communism” card – no one swallows that old excuse. Academic Communism? Yeah, right. Very academic.

Calling Fascism racist is a generalisation. German Fascism was racist, and it influenced/imposed it’s racist ideologies on its allies. Italian or Spanish Fascism, for example, were not in origin (until/unless influenced by German Fascism) – certainly no more than the liberal democracies of the time. Even the argument of nationalism equating to racism cannot be made as the basis of Fascism (even it’s name) was the Roman Republic, which was unique in it’s time for awarding citizenship to non-Romans, based on service and merit (and let’s face it political expediency during the time of Marius/Sulla).

So reading even the whole of Mein Kampf and pretending to be an authority on the subject is at best an arrogant embrace of ignorance.

Sharkey

Originally posted by smiles

What elements of socialism would you want to see enacted in Ireland and what do you think the effect of these would be? Do you think it would be possibly - why/why not ?

<< Fio >>

There should be an adequate safety net for those who fall on hard times, but limited in duration. Bad things happen to good people. Give those who need it a hand up, but let those who expect government to provide a livelihood for them starve.


Other than that, Socialism is a drain on the human spirit. It makes slaves of people who become dependent on government. Government isn't the answer, more often it's the problem.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by paddy20
Now craw back under your capitalist duvet - best place for "spineless wonders" like you.

Refute. Don’t Rant.

Boston

Originally posted by Sharkey


There should be an adequate safety net for those who fall on hard times, but limited in duration. Bad things happen to good people. Give those who need it a hand up, but let those who expect government to provide a livelihood for them starve.


Other than that, Socialism is a drain on the human spirit. It makes slaves of people who become dependent on government. Government isn't the answer, more often it's the problem.

sorry but your an american and as such no nothingabout ireland.

Just like to pont this out before people get into a slaging match with him

Sand

He didnt mention Ireland though. He talked about socialism in general. A bit off topic maybe but thats up the moderators to deal with.

Seeing as you dont live in America I assume you know nothing about America and its governments policies, by your own logic.

Boston

the difference being what the american goverment does effects me or my country indirectly or directly, most of the time, therefore it is logical to persume i know just a little about their goverment.

The thread is called Socialism in ireland, therefore when he comments on how socialism should be treated(o wise american enlighten us) then it is allso logical to persume hes talking about socialism in ireland. Therefore as hes in no position to tell the irish how they should run there own country when his is so screwed up.

thank you for playing, please come again

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Boston
The thread is called Socialism in ireland, therefore when he comments on how socialism should be treated(o wise american enlighten us) then it is allso logical to persume hes talking about socialism in ireland. Therefore as hes in no position to tell the irish how they should run there own country when his is so screwed up.

I get the impression Boston that you are judging Sharkey on past threads. If so, please pull a few examples of his/her alleged cluelessness to back up your argument.

Otherwise, there are a various arguments that can be debated that would hold true regardless of country. If Sharkey can debate them factually and reasonably, there is no reason that he/she cannot comment. Outside of ‘Yankee Go Home’ nationalism, that is.

He/she may still end up talking complete rubbish, but I doubt he/she has the copyright on that, Boston.

Boston

nope, the moderators wouldnt like that.

all im was doing was pointing out that hes not from ireland and not to take what hes saying to literaly. it was other that flamed him, not i.

its one thing a national commenting on how a country should be run, another all together a foreigner, who may or may not have a grapse of the full facts their commenting on.

I mean you dont se me backing on about that american should ban guns or have better social support. I only every comment of americas international afairs because ive the good sense not to get involved in their internal afairs. i mean to me its the hight of arrogance to presume you know more about a country then the people in it.

Ps id never be so crude as to say ‘Yankee Go Home’

Sand

Boston he talked about socialism. Ireland didnt enter into it. Unless of course you interpreted his comment being Socialism wont work in Ireland *in particular* I fail to see how his knowledge of Ireland plays a role in his appraisal of socialism. Im pretty sure the KKK are a bad thing and Im not american.

Ps id never be so crude as to say ‘Yankee Go Home’

Yes, I know you wouldnt say it.

Boston

again ack to the topic subject, socialism in ireland, not socialism as it pretains to some indivisual american

Crash

Just thought i'd point out that "Mein Kampf" is only one mans take on Fascism, with a pinch of Nietzche (don't think i spelt that right) thrown in.

Over pure communism, fascism had a number of points that made it more appealable to people during the pre-wwII times, who were afraid of communism.

1) it allowed free enterprise in a lot of cases
2)It allowed much more freedom of religion

and while i am completely opposed to fascism a la Hitler, i believe that the system did have a few points that were good, maybe not compared with capitalism, but in comparison to communism.

DadaKopf

2)It allowed much more freedom of religion

Eh... I've got six million reasons to prove this point wrong.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by DadaKopf
Eh... I've got six million reasons to prove this point wrong.

That was a question of race, not religion - irrelevant point.

German Fascism tolerated religion, but in many respects not by much. Italian and, in particular, Spanish Fascism used religion as a cohesive device in 'bonding' its citizenship.

potlatch

That was a question of race, not religion - irrelevant point.

German Fascism tolerated religion, but in many respects not by much. Italian and, in particular, Spanish Fascism used religion as a cohesive device in 'bonding' its citizenship.

This is completely wrong. Hitler's hatred of the Jews was entirely pathalogical and religion based. It was only when trying to justify this anti-semitism that the Nazis used science and genetics and so the question of purity of race came into the picture. Religious prejudice first, science after.

Fascism existed in a very specific time and place and had very particular characteristics. Those characteristics included racism, the glorification of violence, masculine power and war, cultural nostalgia, imperialism and a focus on ritualism. Fascism, historically, is seen as being specifically located in post WWI Europe and finishing with the allied victory.

In relation to this debate, another central feature of fascism was the paranoid hatred of socialism and communism. It looks like people in this thread consider socialism and communism as 'fascist' ideologies, this isn't true. Communism has always been put forward as a kind of democracy and the central word of communism is 'liberation. But liberation from what?

Liberation from old Europe, liberation from exploitation, liberation from feudalism, liberation from tyranny. Communism and socialism grew out of a historical analysis of European civilisation, Marx et al analysed history in a particular way and set up their solution accordingly. Always through this was the golden thread of democracy, justice and equality.

Fascism simply said no to democracy, it said no to equality and it said no to fairness. It said yes to racism, it said yes to violence, it said yes to war. Fascism openly rejected all democracies in favour of tyranny, fear and oppression.

Boston

Originally posted by DadaKopf

Eh... I've got six million reasons to prove this point wrong.

first off that figure is wrong, only a mere million or so jews were culled, the rest was made up o f germans he oppossed facism, communist and the like. they were all labeled as jews to make the killing more exceptable to the german people.

second The Corinthian is right, hitlers hatred, no body can say exactly were it came from, weather it was the jewish religion or jewish race, we dont know. we move towards their race because of the way in which it was used to seperate them.

Also in germany at the time, jews werent viewed as german, they were viewed as the one race of people and this is why they were sluaghtered, it wasnt for idoligical reasons

Celt

How do you know how much sharkey knows about Ireland Boston?
Just because he isnt from Ireland doesnt mean he cant have valid points...

Originally posted by Boston


first off that figure is wrong, only a mere million or so jews were culed, the rest was made up o f germans he oppossed facism,

I like the way you say a "mere million jews were killed".
Here's something for you.(and it's spelt killed)

Country:   Death Toll of WW2: Out of an total of abt. 50,000,000 
Soviet Union    20,000,000 casualties civilian and military 
China    3,000,000- 15,000,000. The latter number is more likely. 
Germany     4,500,000 including 1,000,000 civilians. 
Japan    2,000,000 casualties. 
Bengal    1,500,000 died of war-related famine in 1943 in Bengal 
Yugoslavia    1,300,000 including 1,000,000 civilians 
Italy    500,000 casualties. 
France    500,000 casualties half of them civilians. 
Britain     less than 500,000 but with 120,000 additional from the Empire.  
United States   less than 300,000 died;  additional hundred thousands died in industry 
Hungary, Poland, Rom    3-400,000 losses in each army of  Hungary, Poland and Romania. 
East & CentralEurope    4,300,000 to 5,800,000 Jews died as well as a similar number of slaws. 

communist and the like. they were all labeled as jews to make the killing more exceptable to the german people.

While some germans knew about the death camps, and probably every german knew about the jews, I doubt very many knew about the political prisoners and soldiers, and even if they did know, they wouldnt care.

second The Corinthian is right, hitlers hatred, no body can say exactly were it came from, weather it was the jewish religion or jewish race, we dont know. we more tomorrows their race because of the way it which it was used.

Nonsensical. Please try to spell check your posts so that they are at least legible.
Also, I cant see where Corinthian said that no one knew where Hitler's hatred came from?(I have heard some convincing arguments as to where it came from btw)

Also in germany at the time, jews werent viewed as german, they were viewed as the one race of people and this is why they were sluaghtered, it wasnt for idoligical reasons

They werent?
News to me, could you please tell me your sources?
And the reason they were slaughtered was because
1)They were for the most part wealthy and succesful when the rest of germany were poor.
2)Hitler stirred up hatred against them and blamed them for everything wrong with Germany.
3)They were a different religion with different beliefs and different customs.
And a few other factors, but certainly not for your reason.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by potlatch
Those characteristics included racism, the glorification of violence, masculine power and war, cultural nostalgia, imperialism and a focus on ritualism.

Racism was a particularly German phenomena (relatively speaking, even the Nazis did not have a monopoly on it) and I’ve already refuted it, you’ve brought nothing new to the argument.

The emphasis on war as a proof of nationhood and the over reliance upon the dictator or leader were certainly major flaws, however.

In relation to this debate, another central feature of fascism was the paranoid hatred of socialism and communism.

Not limited to fascism, during that period – or after, for that matter: McCarthyism being a case in point.

Communism has always been put forward as a kind of democracy and the central word of communism is 'liberation.

Brought about through violent revolution and class war perchance?

Always through this was the golden thread of democracy, justice and equality.

Thread is an accurate description, although I’d replace golden with tenuous.

Fascism simply said no to democracy, it said no to equality and it said no to fairness. It said yes to racism, it said yes to violence, it said yes to war. Fascism openly rejected all democracies in favour of tyranny, fear and oppression.

Fascism simply said no to liberal democracy, as did Communism. As for fairness that depends upon how you define that – should fairness be based on merit? That’s one of the biggest ideological differences between Fascism and Communism.

As for your last line, that’s a good description of pretty much all Communist regimes.

ReefBreak

Socialism is a drain on the human spirit

I'd agree with that somewhat. What's the point in starting a business, creating jobs and working hard with the intent of making a big wad of cash so you can buy a nice gaff, when the socialists are going to turn around and say, "Sorry pal, we know you've worked hard for your cash, but there's people in this country that either don't like working or aren't as good as you. You'll have to give them loads of you're money."

I'd agree, a simplistic analysis. But it stands to reason - in my opinion socialism is certainly a drain on the enterprising human spirit.

Boston

that post doesnt include how many died in the camps

there nobody here that gets in my face as much as you do


And culled is the most apropriate word for what happened.

and you contradict yourself, you spent all this time telling me jew isnt a race yet call me a racist. the last refuse for the stupid and retarded.

"o you, your nothing but a racist" or " your nothing but an abortionist"

DadaKopf

Originally posted by ReefBreak

I'd agree with that somewhat. What's the point in starting a business, creating jobs and working hard with the intent of making a big wad of cash so you can buy a nice gaff, when the socialists are going to turn around and say, "Sorry pal, we know you've worked hard for your cash, but there's people in this country that either don't like working or aren't as good as you. You'll have to give them loads of you're money."

I'd agree, a simplistic analysis. But it stands to reason - in my opinion socialism is certainly a drain on the enterprising human spirit.

Let's assume that capitalism and socialism are divergent ideologies and let's assume they're both responsible grief and suffering in the world. The question we should be focusing on is: is there an alternative?

Can we, perhaps, begin discussing that instead of insulting each other and getting further off topic?

Sand

first you little dip**** it spelled culled not killed, if you dont know what culled means go read a ****ing book.

I refer you to the "Keep it Civil" thread.

Sand

I would be interested in hearing of an workable alternative to capitalism that offers the same reward for individual enterprise and self advancement while at the same time keeping the socialist happy.

Boston

The guy been riding my back for awhile, he only posted here to annoy me.

Celt

Originally posted by Boston
that post doesnt include how many died in the camps

East & CentralEurope 4,300,000 to 5,800,000 Jews died as well as a similar number of slaws.

I wonder how they died.....

there nobody here that gets in my face as much as you do

I'm truly happy for you.

And culled is the most apropriate word for what happened.

"To remove rejected members or parts from (a herd, for example).

n.
Something picked out from others, especially something rejected because of inferior quality."
Yes it certainly is the most appropiate word!(If your a german nazi that is)

and you contradict yourself, you spent all this time telling me jew isnt a race yet call me a racist.

"racist

adj 1: based on racial intolerance; "racist remarks" 2: discriminatory especially on the basis of race or religion [syn: antiblack, anti-Semitic, anti-Semite(a)] n : a person with a prejudiced belief that one race is superior to others [syn: racialist] "
Please read what I said, I asked was I too take the comment as racist remark.
Nothing about you being a racist...

the last refuse for the stupid and retarded.

"o you, your nothing but a racist" or " your nothing but an abortionist"

Cool, what does that have to do with me since I did or said neither?

Celt

Originally posted by Sand
I would be interested in hearing of an workable alternative to capitalism that offers the same reward for individual enterprise and self advancement while at the same time keeping the socialist happy.

That's the problem with capitalism, it's the only way that seems to work although most(?) people agree that it is a bad system.

Boston

no you just imply someones a racist because your a coward

they were culled, because the people doing the killing viewed it as such.

Those figures still dont have the number of german jews killed. which is what im talking about

see the problem with using the word killed over culled is it gives no impression of the systematic way in which the Nazi's went about purging all Jew influences from their sociality. they weren't simply killed they were eradicated. So culled is, imo (which I don't need to justify to you) culled is the most appropriate word

Boston

ill post what i want, you dont like that, go hang yourself

Sand

Exactly Celt. Any "alternative" , or third way as Tony Blair might describe it is basically capitalism with some socialist bells and whistles on. Which makes no one happy as youve got a system which encourages people to help themselves while at the same time telling them its okay if they dont want to.

The problem is that capitalism seems quite heartless to some. If youve got a good education, work hard and are downright lucky at times then your fine. If youre not you can fall hard. Socialism on the other hand is basically to my mind state run charity. It literally wants to take care of everybody but it fails to recognise the much maligned corporations provide the money they need to do so. They literally have to use a system they reject to provide the cash for their own system.

Free trade and globalisation works. At the same time it weakens the position of socialism. I read Kleins No Logo as regards the MNCs in asia and their contracted factories. Nike doesnt care where it gets its product from, only the cost matters - thats fair enough, when we go shopping were not too bothered which shop we go to as long as its cheap. So if some contracted facotry raises costs by , say, paying its workers more and granting better conditions and passes these costs on to Nike then Nike will simply contract another factory instead.

Theres not a huge solution to that - One possibility might be for some "respected" institute (Maybe the UN, everyone seems to love them) to visit and accredit these factories. That would hopefully lead to some (basic) minimum standard for these contracted factories, and at the same time MNCs like Nike could use it as positive PR for their products ("We dont work with no sweatshops!") - any firm which did not go with the accredited firms could be embarrassed.

Oe thing that was said by Alan Greenspan as regards the fall of Enron and the companies which dont actually make anything as described by Klein "Trust and Reputation can vanish overnight. A factory cannot".

Boston

stop posting absolute waffle

ill post what i want, you dont like that, go hang yourself

Celt

Originally posted by Sand

As corporations get larger and larger, what happens to governments?
Do they become there lackeys, become subsumed by them or what?

Every developed country attempts to woo them, every developed country need them...

Boston

Originally posted by Sand
Boston please dont get this thread locked too, just as it gets interesting. If you want to squabble open another thread to do so. As a moderator you should try to act as an example for us all and not get dragged into flames.

i didnt start this and the admins dont seem to give a damn about the fact this guys been taking shots at me for the past month for no reason.

up to a few weeks ago i didnt know who he even was

Sand

Thats the problem isnt it- Corporations are growing to the size where they have more resources than many small countries. This is not a good thing for anyone. Capitalists will tell you that their aspiration is perfect competition and say, Microsofts dominance of the PC OS market is anything but. And socialists dont like corporations in the first place.

I feel governments will still wield a lot of power, but as you say theyre now in competition for MNCs to develop their economies. They will attempt to undercut each other - Id hope that some accreditation will provide some bottom floor which they cannot undercut.

I think the Corporations vs Governments thing is more of a problem for Socialists as theyve always been in favour of the power of the government - whereas others view the government as merely providing services no one else can be entrusted to provide- like defence, law and order and enviromental protection etc etc. Even the above list could be viewed as too much by a small minority- defence after all has been a private enterprise at several times in the past, particualrly in the Renaissance city states of Italy which relied heavily on mercenary units to wage their wars.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Celt
As corporations get larger and larger, what happens to governments?
Do they become there lackeys, become subsumed by them or what?

Quite possibly. Historically goverments controlled the means of production up until recently. Fudalism, being the best example, where the means of production were simply defined as land (recognition of labour or even capital came much later), was both government and monopoly in one.

Looking at the republics of the anchient World, the citizens (voters) were generally those who were also those who owned the means of production. Crassus is a handy example in Rome.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Sand
Even the above list could be viewed as too much by a small minority- defence after all has been a private enterprise at several times in the past, particualrly in the Renaissance city states of Italy which relied heavily on mercenary units to wage their wars.

Paid for by the merchant class, who were incidentally also the government (e.g. the De Medici and Sforza families).

Boston

no system is without its flaws, one thing is certain american capitalism is far different to european capitalism.

one question no one asks is, how come all these irish people go to foreign countries and end up running rich and powerfull companies while if they had stayed at home they would have been blocked at every turn.

if you look up the top 500 companies in the world, you will find many have irish directors on their board management. why is this?

is it because capitalism in ireland is just a cover for the rich staying rich and the poor remain poor.

even being a member of the eu hasnt changed this, look at the huge traiffs on car imports in an atemp to protect irish carttels

smiles

Bad Karma off this thread.

Boston from what i've read you really and truly took Celt up the wrong way - i read that "mere million" bit and thought "what a stupid flaming muppet" (you have to realise that saying something like that going to annoy people). It does seem like you jumped down his throat. I see no reason why he posted here "just to annoy you"

No offense to you, i've argued with you before and have no big problems with you, but take a chill pill!

<< Fio >>