Capitalism and Democracy. What do YOU think?

Éomer of Rohan

Since there has been so much dispute with regard to the two majr systems economy, one unpractised, the other failed (in my opinion) I am starting a post to see what you all really think. Please keep to the topic of the question.

Is Capitalism a viable system to live under in its present condition (ie Reaganomics or Free Market Trade depending on what you like to call it) and since we live in a democracy, does Capitalism look after the interests of the people who empower the government that runs the system?

mike65

I think one really needs the other, China is trying to prove otherwise but something will have to give sooner or later I suspect. God only knows what'll happen then.

Does capitalism look after the interests of the people....?

Yes insofar as capitalism as practiced
by most provides a safety net, while
providing the people with a chance of becoming wealthier with effort and skill. (expecting socialist reposte to that!)

Anyway the system we live with now sure beats the main alternative.

Mike.

Manach

For the short-to medium term nothing seems to work as well for the creation of wealth as Capitialism. What capitalism trives on is access to markets and a class of entrepeurs to risk money for futher profit and the expectation that the government will cnot ome along and take all this profit away from them.
Historically though there would be a danger too much wealth would corrupt a democracy and move it to an oligarcy-type ruling state, ie ancient Athens.

Éomer of Rohan

Let me clarify the Ancient History reference which is incorrect. Athens was a democracy insofar as (with the exclusion of women and slaves) the people had the greatest say. Wealth did not corrupt this democracy; in fact in 411BC there was an Oligarchic revolt which was put down by the thetes, the lowest class of Athenian citizen who were at this stag very powerful politically. Athenian democracy only fell after the Peloponesian War (431 - 404 BC) because the Spartans disbanded it. After this it was reformed and eventually was permanently disbanded by the Macedonians since famous speakers of the democracy like Deomsthenes kept inciting the people to war.

Anyway, back to the main point. Consider Germany. During the 1990's, there were attempts to level heavier taxes against Deutschebank, one of the largest banking cartels in the world. The bank threatened to leave Germany (it is an international cartel) and the German equivalent of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was forced to resign. Is that democracy in action?

In the US we see oil companies exploit places of natural beauty in order to get money. The people in the US have made it clear they are not in favour of this; there are marches regularly across the nation against it yet neither political party opposes it in their manifestos; since the US is effectively a two party system, is it democracy that there is not a viable alternative?

Capitalism in its present incarnation is very harmful both to the people and to the system of democracy. Consider the socialist (whether you like to admit it or not) dream of the welfare state. Up until the Thatcher years, the British health system was one of the foremost in the world - the quote from Aneurin (Nye) Bevan "From the cradle to the grave" - the people's reward for the suffering of World War II still was held as a cornerstone of internal policy. But the complete decentralisation of national economies (psuedo liberal laissez faire a.k.a. free market economics) placed such a strain on systems such as the NHS as governments curtailed public spending. Privatisation became the order of the day and we have seen the disasters caused by this: Paddington Green rail disaster etc etc. How does this help our people? Look at the system in the UK as it presently stands. We have a government willing to pour billions (latest figure of immediate investment was 750million in straight up cash - this is not the cost of the war, just the latest addition to pay the bill) into a relatively pointless war when in fact they are not prepared to pay more for the badly needed nursing staff for the NHS or for Firefighters with a genuine claim for a payrise.

As to making money, it has been widely recognised that the policies of the WTO/IMF/World Bank are creating a widening gap between rich and poor, in terms of national economies as well as individuals. It is all very well to say 'well Ireland has worked the system, why can't others?' Ireland, just like every other booming economy in the world is riding on the back of the poverty of other countries; it is logic that not everyone can be rich at once and just so, the far eastern economies, once thought of 'tigers' as ours is now, are on the point of collapse; the Japanese stock market has one quarter the value it had in the 1980's.

Gearoid

The present situation is that capitalisim is working for a select few, of upper class people and middle classes citizens. But the negative sides of it are that it destroys the enviorenment and eats up resources at an incredible rate. It is responsible for pollution also. this is all because capitalism has the tendency to make people think" When we get rich and succesful we will save the enviornment and help the disadvantaged people"

Victor

Originally posted by Gearoid
But the negative sides of it are that it destroys the enviorenment and eats up resources at an incredible rate.

And Soviet style communism was better for the environment?

SloanerF1

If the alternative to capitlism is communism, democracy can only thrive under capitalism, because communism seems to result in dictatorship (whether or not that is the intention, DS!).

Éomer of Rohan

Capitalism has been worse for the environment than Stalinism was (and I am not a fan of Stalinism as practised as I tire of pointing out by the USSR et al - which is unrelated to true socialism).

To back this up; look at the capitalist treatment of the Kyoto protocol and the 'gas guzzlers' of the US that the gov't refuses to restrict.

Look at the dumping of waste and armament materiel in the Irish and North Seas.

Look at the Capitalist over fishing of vital areas that now have important ramifications for ecosystems worldwide.

Need I go on?

mike65

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
Capitalism has been worse for the environment than Stalinism was (and I am not a fan of Stalinism as practised as I tire of pointing out by the USSR et al - which is unrelated to true socialism).

You could ask the ppl of Germany about that, West Germany capitalist and pretty clean, East Germany
Socialist and very, very, dirty.

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan

Look at the Capitalist over fishing....

That should be a quote of the week!
Don't socialists eat fish?

Mike.

Jes'Shout!

RE:......Is Capitalism a viable system to live under in its present condition...............

"viable" is an interesting choice of words but I think perhaps a very good choice. Anyway......

As I see it, any political/economic system that is devoid of concerns for humanity and is lacking in compassion will, eventually, become an instrument of destruction and a vehicle to its own destruction.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

mike65

http://nailaokda.8m.com/

for everything on the Aral sea area.

Mike.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

PH01

Capitalism and democrazy is without question the only game in town. A great idea.
And this subject is so 1980's

BattleBoar

Eomer, I noticed you quoted Marx both in your signature and in the links you directed me to in the previous post. Let us be clear; Marx was a visionary, but he was also a zealot blinded by his unabashed hatred of the bourgeoisie and the class system.

Only a fool would believe that the communist vision, “From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs”, is a tenable philosophy upon which to build a society. I hope you can see the fallacy in this statement, Eomer. The Marxist philosophy assumes that each person *will* work to the fullest of his abilities if the need is not there. The Marxist philosophy assumes that each person in a society is of equal worth to that society, which is clearly not the case.

Were this taken to a limit, one could see a case developing in Ireland, for example, where the points system becomes the inverse of what it currently is. Why should a person slave away in a course such as physics or engineering when one could take far easier courses such as psychology or political science? What motivation would there be to truly apply themselves if no incentive is offered? Why should one work harder than someone who won’t work at all when there is nothing to be gained in terms of a more comfortable lifestyle? No, it is far easier to have as little ambition as it takes to get by and have as much fun while as you can.

Furthermore, your assertion that true communists/socialists are wholeheartedly democratic is fundamentally flawed. The words free market economy and free enterprise are inseparably interwoven with the philosophy of capitalism. It should not require pointing out that the communist system in which ownership of all is by the state (or commune) is a system in which the idea is that the individual’s good is placed after the needs of the community’s. A capitalist system provides the distinction of allowing the possibility for a person to improve their lifestyle through working harder. Like animals, mankind's most powerful instinct is survival. And, modern capitalism, even with all its westernized societal safety nets, provides a kind of artificial survival instinct.

Is a physicist worth more to a society than a janitor? Is a doctor worth more to a society than a car park attendant? The reason capitalism has been successful is precisely because, ideally, is a system whereby the people in a society are afforded lifestyles according to their WORTH to that society, NOT according to their needs. Is it perfect? Certainly not. One might say capitalism is, in a sense, the best of a bad bunch. However, while it may not be perfect, it’s the best system anyone has ever come up with. The challenge lies with bringing this system to the third world and eliminating the corruption that often goes with capitalism (as with any system I might add). Eliminate third world debt and phase out food and medical aid. Instead provide aid in the form of tractors and factories, educate engineers and scientists for the third world - things the third world can use to sustain itself and lift itself into a free market economy…something from which the entire world would no doubt benefit. Of course, much government corruption must be eliminated for this to take place as well...all part of the process, however. Nothing happens overnight. As you have mentioned many times, capitalist systems suffer primarily from greed. Contrary to your assertion, greed is not inherently a bad thing. It can provide a powerful motivation for some. The real problem is when that greed stands in the way of societal and technological development. A Marxist system, however, would surely suffer from something far worse: apathy.

Additionally, I note that the links on your page are mired in revisionist history. For example, among your the links I noted this quote lifted from the heading What Will Socialist Society Look Like:

For the last hundred years, at least since World War I, the capitalist system has ceased to play an historically progressive role. It stands like a roadblock in the path of human progress. We cannot wait for its instability to drive us back into the dark ages. There will be many opportunities for us in the coming years. But the success of socialism is not inevitable, it can only be guaranteed in advance by the extent to which we begin preparing for it today.

In case you blinked, in those 100 years, we have gone from society having no indoor plumbing and horse drawn carriages to landing men on the moon, nothing short of the greatest achievement in the history of mankind. Above and beyond that we have made enormous strides in medicine (penicillin anyone?) and developed the microcomputer and internet which are enabling you and I to have this very discussion. The practice of institutionalized slavery was eliminated in all but a select few places on earth, such as Sudan. Women have attained more rights in the last 100 years than at any time in history. I believe one could make a very strong case that more positive technological and societal gains have been made in the last 100 years than were made in all of the previous history of mankind combined. Whether you believe that or not, if you are even still reading at this point, to say that there has been no progress for the last 100 years because of capitalism is a patently ridiculous and wholly underwhelming argument for the merits of marxism.

Lennoxschips

Strange poll. I don't agree with #1, but I agree with options 2,3 and 4.

DadaKopf

The reason capitalism has been successful is precisely because, ideally, is a system whereby the people in a society are afforded lifestyles according to their WORTH to that society, NOT according to their needs.

It depends what you mean by worth. 'Worth' for a capitalist means 'productivity' - those who work become instruments. Lifestyle value becomes the amount possessions you can accumulate as a proof of your worth. Marx's point is that the capitalist way of doing stuff is self-alienating and denies every human being his intrinsic value: freedom, which arises out of his ability to act on the world and change it meaningfully, as part of a community (which is a precondition for freedom). For Marx, even the business owner is alienated: if he wanted anything to be done, he had to hire someone. Why do we find DIY so liberating? We certainly don't get paid for it in money. The capitalist and the worker both only live half-lives. There's no dignity in that - but there's dignity in DIY.

On a personal level: just imagine how unfair it is to work really hard at something and to have your work, your effort (your labour value) taken away from you and all you get back is money, which simply means that you have the ability to rip someone else off. "Well, as long as I can rip other people off and they can rip me off, isn't that at least alright?" Yeah sure, we're all equal under capitalism 'cos we can all screw each other over. Nice one.

I can't speak for the ins and outs of Marxist economics which probably doesn't work. I do however agree with Marx's initial claim about the value of labour and its effects on human value - which capitalism denies.

In case you blinked, in those 100 years, we have gone from society having no indoor plumbing

Billions of people in the world still don't have indoor plumbing and adequate sanitation. I agree many technological advances have been made as a result of the moonshot but NASA was actually set up as a public front for the Cold War, as was the Russian equivalent, which diverted funds necessary for social development into areas that tried to find ways to blow us all up quicker.

Meh

Originally posted by DadaKopf
On a personal level: just imagine how unfair it is to work really hard at something and to have your work, your effort (your labour value) taken away from you and all you get back is money

...which I can then exchange for things that I do value, such as food, shelter, clothes, beer and CDs.

which simply means that you have the ability to rip someone else off. "Well, as long as I can rip other people off and they can rip me off, isn't that at least alright?"

Why do you assume that every economic transaction involves someone being "ripped off"? That's the exception rather than the rule.

Éomer of Rohan

No meh, it is the rule rather than the exception. Ultimately someone in every transaction loses. You mentioned exchanging money for CD's. You are getting ripped off there for a start; actually go and check how much a CD costs to make and measure that against the price and come back and tell me you are not getting ripped off.

More importantly, at an international level, the trend is disturbingly worse. There are new economies emerging from the stupefyingly incompetent 'command' style of economy which the Soviets and Chinese and other stalinist states use/d. These economies are being milked for all they are worth. If they refuse to allow an MNE (Multi National Enterpise) to invest in their nation, they are immediately hit with trade bans, even though there may be an excellent reason for such a restriction. For example, in Eastern Europe, a large part of the economy is based on agriculture yet the newly importable dairy products are slightly cheaper to import; the result of this is that since the government is forced to allow imports, many farmers in there regions will go out of business leaving wholes in other parts of the market (eg meats) that are not so easily imported and were cheaper from the internal sources ergo we have a people being ripped off due to there 'liberalising reforms.' Look at the growth of the 'big' economies since the introduction of neo liberalism; the US's growth has increased near enough exponentially whereas the growth of some African nations has nearly halted altogether - not relevent in itself but then look at the major trading partner of such nations.

DadaKopf

Originally posted by Meh
...which I can then exchange for things that I do value, such as food, shelter, clothes, beer and CDs.

Left-wing politics places basic needs above desire as a starting point. Capitalism uses modes of production and exchange to exploit needs as a way of making people rich, hence perpetuating the problem at its heart. Sure, I won't deny it's a system of exchange that at least tries to distribute resources optimally - but it fails us. Yes, Soviet Communism failed, too. There are other variants, though, that could succeed it given the chance.

Éomer of Rohan

Please excuse the length of this but I am finally fed up with BattleBore.

Marx was a visionary, but he was also a zealot blinded by his unabashed hatred of the bourgeoisie and the class system.

Need I point out that Marx himself was in fact a member of the bourgeois class?As was Engels for that matter. And he did not hate that class. In fact I am convinced that you have not read Marx or else you would understand that Marx 'turned Hegelianism on it's head' to quote a philospher when he stated that the new 'dictatorship of the proletariat' would be carved from 'petit - bourgeois' and the working classes.

Were this taken to a limit, one could see a case developing in Ireland, for example, where the points system becomes the inverse of what it currently is. Why should a person slave away in a course such as physics or engineering when one could take far easier courses such as psychology or political science?

Having consulted Dr Cormac Hamill on this subject, a research scientist on the cutting edge of physics earns only £30,000 a year. Consider then why did they not take up professional football or acting at which they could earn more. Could it be a love of what they do? For my part I intend to become a University lecturer, something woefully paid. I want to because I love my subject and I am possessed of the drive to help people. Why do people become nurses or teachers or civil servants? It is certainly not for the money and these underlying reasons annihilate your semblance of an argument.

Furthermore, your assertion that true communists/socialists are wholeheartedly democratic is fundamentally flawed

How many communists/socialists do you speak for? I speak for about ten thousand north of the border alone.

The words free market economy and free enterprise are inseparably interwoven with the philosophy of capitalism

As you go on to point out these systems provide a feeling of the survival instinct. That means that ultimately, some don't survive. Thus you expose the flaw in your own argument. Just because these ideas include the word free, doesn't mean they are. Consider the IMF/WB/WTC which supersede the democratic right of any state to impose import restrictions. Why should these faceless non-elected bodies have the right to dictate to an elected government? They should NOT.

Instead provide aid in the form of tractors and factories, educate engineers and scientists for the third world - things the third world can use to sustain itself and lift itself into a free market economy…something from which the entire world would no doubt benefit

Every nation bar two at the African Trade Convention last year disagreed with you on that.

Contrary to your assertion, greed is not inherently a bad thing. It can provide a powerful motivation for some.

A powerful motivation to war, steal, rape, pillage, loot et cetera.

In case you blinked, in those 100 years, we have gone from society having no indoor plumbing and horse drawn carriages to landing men on the moon, nothing short of the greatest achievement in the history of mankind

Surely the resources would have been better diverted to pay for education or the libraries that the present US administration is so fond of cutting back on instead of sending 17 people (right figure anyone? Apollo, Challenger and Columbia.) to their deaths and wasting countless amounts of money ($2bn per shuttlecraft).

Above and beyond that we have made enormous strides in medicine (penicillin anyone?)

Oh have we really? Did no one tell you that Fleming, Lister, Pasteur &c were working as employees of universties and not as part of any capitalist enterprise. Oh yes, and those universities were subsidised by the socialising reforms of the British and French and German governments.

and developed the microcomputer and internet which are enabling you and I to have this very discussion

The man who invented the internet did not get a penny as he was ripped off by the predatory nature of capitalism - and someone else got the patent in.

The practice of institutionalized slavery was eliminated in all but a select few places on earth, such as Sudan. Women have attained more rights in the last 100 years than at any time in history

Please explain how in hell you understand these to be capitalist reforms when in fact the former was invented by the very system you so (mal?)adroitly defend. Many developments in social reform post 1848 were as results of pressure from growing socialist tendencies - these pressures were thus dispelled and threat of socialist rebellion eliminated. Remember that the reason for the welfare state in Britain and the Marshall Plan were to prevent the increasingly important political and social reformers from undertaking to create socialist states in Britain and France.

Whether you believe that or not, if you are even still reading at this point, to say that there has been no progress for the last 100 years because of capitalism

You neglect to mention one thing; the words you quoted were not mine.

In conclusion, I will reiterate this point; read Marx and when you have then come back and tell me what you think the merits of a marxist system are rather than relying on the popular cliches that we so often here in anti-marxist arguments.

Meh

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
No meh, it is the rule rather than the exception. Ultimately someone in every transaction loses.

You're falling into the classic Marxist fallacy of treating value as an absolute. Value is different for everyone, and varies with time. I "sell" my time to my employer for (let's say) €10 an hour. My work there earns more than that for my employer, so they're happy with the bargain. My time is worth less than that to me, so I'm happy with the situation too. We both win.

You mentioned exchanging money for CD's. You are getting ripped off there for a start; actually go and check how much a CD costs to make and measure that against the price and come back and tell me you are not getting ripped off.

I haven't bought a CD in years. But obviously, people who do buy CDs at these inflated prices feel that it's worth paying €20 to have Britney Spears' greatest hits. Otherwise why would they buy it? In any case, the record example is hardly the best example to use in an argument about free market capitalism, with the artificial monopoly created by copyright and restrictive record contracts.

For example, in Eastern Europe, a large part of the economy is based on agriculture yet the newly importable dairy products are slightly cheaper to import; the result of this is that since the government is forced to allow imports, many farmers in there regions will go out of business leaving wholes in other parts of the market (eg meats) that are not so easily imported and were cheaper from the internal sources ergo we have a people being ripped off due to there 'liberalising reforms.'

You'd prefer that consumers were ripped off through not being allowed access to cheaper imports?

DadaKopf

the record example is hardly the best example to use in an argument about free market capitalism, with the artificial monopoly created by copyright and restrictive record contracts.

On the contrary, it's an excellent example! It shows how free-market capitalism is intrinsically flawed because it naturally tends towards monopoly. Since capitalism thrives on competition, as the means to optimally distribute goods and services at optimal price, its tendancy towards monopoly subverts that logic, leading it to internal contradiction and failure. Put simply: it can't live up to its own standards.

Originally posted by DadaKopf
On the contrary, it's an excellent example! It shows how free-market capitalism is intrinsically flawed because it naturally tends towards monopoly. Since capitalism thrives on competition, as the means to optimally distribute goods and services at optimal price, its tendancy towards monopoly subverts that logic, leading it to internal contradiction and failure. Put simply: it can't live up to its own standards.

Thing is, though in the U.S, that bastion of capitalism, the price of Cd's is
up to €10 cheaper than in Britain or Ireland.
That makes it easier to justify the various takes of those involved in bringing us the product.
It also suggests that a €20 price tag is more of a localised regulatory problem than a critisim of capitalism.
mm

bonkey

Originally posted by DadaKopf
On the contrary, it's an excellent example! It shows how free-market capitalism is intrinsically flawed because it naturally tends towards monopoly.

But monopolies are not necessarily a bad thing. Abusive monopolies are a bad thing, and we are supposed to have laws to prevent that sort of thing. I fully accept that these do not work well in practice, but that implies that the problem is with the implementation and execution of law, rather than with capitalism itself.

Regardless, do you not think that its a bit disingenuous to talk about a better socialist ideal whilst knocking a capitalist reality.

Compare like with like - capitalism can be restructured into many far more fair and balanced structures. Its current implementation (for lack of a better term) is far from the ideal, and its not entirely fair to say that results of this implementation are inherent flaws in capitalism as a concept, but then refuse to address issues in previous attempts at socialism because, well, that wasnt really an ideal form of socialism.

Hardly fair...surely the argument that the flaws in capitalism are because it is not an ideal form of capitalism are equally valid.

Another example would be Eomer's argument about the willingness of some people to work hard for the love of what they do, and how the ecistence of thse people shows how your model can work. Great for them, but what about those who do not do this? How will they work in a system which does not supply them with an incentive and just tells them they have to do it? What about the jobs which no-one (or insufficient numbers) of people dont really want to do? How do you decide who gets to follow their dreams, and who gets told to stuff it and do something menial but necessary?

Capitalism and democracy can work together, and can produce an excellent framework for a society, just as socialism or communism can. However, in all of these cases, we typically need to ignore how the system will respond to those who wish to abuse it, and instead assume that everyone will play fair.

When we look at the real world, where we have every class of character and personality, every prejudice and corruption, it is then we see the real problem.

It is not capitalism's fault, it is the fault of those who would cheat the system to their own benefit. Would any other system fare as well or better given that it too will suffer those who would cheat to get ahead? I dont think thats anywhere near a clear answer, and I am wary of any conceptual "better society" which does not have a long-term real-world example of that system to refer to.

jc

Meh

Originally posted by DadaKopf
It shows how free-market capitalism is intrinsically flawed because it naturally tends towards monopoly.

On the contrary, pure capitalism actually has a tendency away from monopoly. The monopoly is an unnatural state for a free market economy, and wherever it occurs, it must be sustained by external forces such as government regulation or high entry costs (the so-called "natural monopolies"). In the CD example, it's the government's enforcement of the record companies' copyright monopoly that leads to the situation Eomer described.

shotamoose

Originally posted by Meh
The monopoly is an unnatural state for a free market economy, and wherever it occurs, it must be sustained by external forces such as government regulation ...

Or the absence of government regulation, allowing a few giants to dominate an entire sector in a cartel that might as well be a monopoly.

Capitalism does not equate to fair or free market activity, rather capitalist activity distorts markets because it involves unequal market powers. In the absence of public intervention, the private inequalities accumulate, and power uses its power to get more power. That's why societies that have most succesfully employed capitalist policies have done so by tempering them with effective regulation and intervention.

I'm not sure there's much of a universal positive relationship between capitalism and democracy, though the democratic institutions of the west often had their historical roots in the capitalist classes pushing for autonomy and self-determination. There is plainly a relationship between 'too much' capitalism, ie the free play of capitalist market forces, and the erosion of real democracy, because democratic processes and institutions can be distorted by very large amounts of money being thrown at them. There is also plainly a relationship between too much communism and a lack of democracy.

So far as I can see, socialism is merely the philosophy that says there should be social responses to social problems. Insofar as capitalism translates into a political philosophy, it often denies the very existence of social problems and undermines the social responses to them. In fact capitalism is like communism in that they are both economic ideal types that can never and should never be fully implemented since people will always react against them and because well-being in the present is constantly being sacrificed in the name of some far-off future utopia that never arrives.

The best approach, as every decent government since WWII has realised, will be a mix of socialist and market policies. It's just a question of deciding the right mixture.

Victor

Originally posted by bonkey
But monopolies are not necessarily a bad thing. Abusive monopolies are a bad thing, and we are supposed to have laws to prevent that sort of thing.

The objective should be minimum infrastructure (inbuilt redundancy notwithstanding) with competition in service.

Competition in infrastructure is what killed the canals, the railways and more recently a bunch of phone companies.

Sand

Competition kills off the over charging and unsustainable. Why do you think Eircom is so terrified of it?

earns only £30,000 a year.

Only 30000? Thats what? 44000 euro or so. Thats how many multiples of the average industrial wage? Only? BTW with how much experience is that wage? Does it matter if youre a good or bad researcher?

Why do people become nurses or teachers or civil servants? It is certainly not for the money and these underlying reasons annihilate your semblance of an argument.

Actually it most definitly is for the money - hence the wage demands, strikes and so on. Some people just lack the ambition, application or qualifications to do much better and so settle for that. Why do some people sweep the streets? Because they simply love chipping bubblegum off the sidewalks?

Surely the resources would have been better diverted to pay for education or the libraries that the present US administration is so fond of cutting back on instead of sending 17 people (right figure anyone? Apollo, Challenger and Columbia.) to their deaths and wasting countless amounts of money ($2bn per shuttlecraft).

While were cost cutting lets get rid of them damn physics research scientists too. Damn waste of money. No, the space program hasnt achieved anything or led to any benefit whatsoever. Better to have thrown the money into education. Despite the fact education is probably better funded than ever - some people still believe communism is viable, so obviously more money isnt helping.

Many developments in social reform post 1848 were as results of pressure from growing socialist tendencies - these pressures were thus dispelled and threat of socialist rebellion eliminated.

Womens rights makes complete and total sense from a capitialist viewpoint. More workers, more educated workers, greater pool of cheaper ( more supply of workers- clearly less wages can be demanded) workforce. The same for any other discriminated against ethnic group. I know, I know - capitalism demands scapegoats to do all the crappy jobs like working at McDonalds but dont worry, there will always be enough arts graduates for that.

For example, in Eastern Europe, a large part of the economy is based on agriculture yet the newly importable dairy products are slightly cheaper to import; the result of this is that since the government is forced to allow imports, many farmers in there regions will go out of business leaving wholes in other parts of the market (eg meats) that are not so easily imported and were cheaper from the internal sources ergo we have a people being ripped off due to there 'liberalising reforms.'

Or to look at it another way, Eastern Europes people now get access to cheaper quality foodstuffs rather than being held to ransom by a cartel of inefficent, overcharging producers. The only losers here are the people charging too much for goods that can be made cheaper and better else where. Unless you want to throw in some Nationalist with your Socialist Workers Party and prattle on about self sufficency I dont see that as a terrible thing.

Éomer of Rohan

Quoted from Sand

BTW with how much experience is that wage? Does it matter if youre a good or bad researcher?

He has had his doctorate for thirty years and did pioneering research into lasers so pretty cutting edge and good research.

Quoted from Sand

Actually it most definitly is for the money - hence the wage demands, strikes and so on. Some people just lack the ambition, application or qualifications to do much better and so settle for that. Why do some people sweep the streets? Because they simply love chipping bubblegum off the sidewalks?

The wage demands and strikes etc are because not enough is being paid and work conditions and hours are long; in effect these address an imbalance rather than seek more money for the sake of it.

With regard to people having no ambition / no qualifications / no application (by which I assume you mean they are lazy?). Everyone has some goal in life - that goal may not be much to you, for example if your goal was to make pots of cash but it is their goal and so we should not denigrate it. As to qualifications...from each according to their ability...
Finally with regard to 'application,' I think proper education would solve that, especially in a world where to be academically gifted is seen as something to be jested about and attacked - ever read anything about the 'dumbing down of society'?

Quoted from Sand

I know, I know - capitalism demands scapegoats to do all the crappy jobs like working at McDonalds but dont worry, there will always be enough arts graduates for that.

I am going to be an arts graduate. What is your point? Academic snobbery perchance? From someone with an interest in politics? Do I detect hypocrisy?

Quoted from Sand

Despite the fact education is probably better funded than ever - some people still believe communism is viable, so obviously more money isnt helping.

Which is why the UK government is so interested in PPP and PFI to finance education is it? And as to your pathetic attempt to attack the credibility of a system, well, I'll be charitable - you cannot say that it is not viable since you have no evidence. Granted nor do I that it would. However I will say this, Capitalism has failed. Why not try something untried? A real attempt.

Meh

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
However I will say this, Capitalism has failed.

It has? Seems to me it's had some remarkable successes, (as well as its fair share of failures, of course). Development fuelled by capitalism has made even the poorest in Western societies better off than the richest of previous generations. Improved nutrition, better healthcare, better education, more disposable income -- all directly attributable to the growth in our economy due to free-market capitalist principles. Interesting perspective here:

the richest man in the early 19th century, Nathan Mayer Rothschild, died in his fifties of an infected abscess that we can now cure with $5 of over-the-counter antibiotics. Was Rothschild really "richer" than a guy today in his fifties working behind the meat counter of Safeway and making $15 an hour?

I know capitalism isn't perfect by a long shot, but it's better than any of the alternatives. And government intervention/unions can at least moderate the worst of capitalism's failings.

Why not try something untried?

I believe socialism has already been tried several times. The trouble is that any centrally planned economy appears to have a tendency towards stagnation and totalitarianism. I'm not aware of any socialist ecomomies that have managed to avoid these problems.

xm15e3

I think this thread is getting off track since it didn't start by defining Democracy or Capitalism. Both of which have become abstractions with meanings dependant on the context (political orientation) of the argument.

Democracy by definition is Majority rules, and implies absolutely no minority rights. This, of course is a bad thing with potentially evil results. A Pure democracy will not coexist long with private property rights and therefore will destroy a free market economy. Envy, unfortunately, is part of human nature.

Notice, the World Socialist/Communist organizations are always pushing for "democracy", all they need is 51% to agree on taking the property of the other 49%, not a difficult task.

The term Capitalism was dreamt of by either Marx or Eingles (can't remember which) and is a strawman argument against private industry. We were all taught the same Capital, labor, and Entrepreneurs gig. This implies a class of Entrepreneurs that own capital and use labor for their own material gain. This description is flawed since it does not recognize Labor as Capital and Workers as Entrepreneurs. In reality, everyone is a Capitalist-Entrepreneur under a free market, with their labor/skills being a valuable asset for the creation of wealth for themselves and those who pay them.

Now, what most everyone implies by the term "Democracy" is a government that accepts and protects varying degrees of private property and human rights, and has democratically elected officials. It's compatibility with a free market system is dependant on it's acceptance of private property rights.

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
does Capitalism look after the interests of the people who empower the government that runs the system?

Capitalism, or free market, isn't run by the government. Or, at least, not effectively. However, since it is the people using their abilities to provide for their needs, it has historically provided much higher standard and qualitity of living than any command economy.

xm15e3

Originally posted by Meh
The trouble is that any centrally planned economy appears to have a tendency towards stagnation and totalitarianism. I'm not aware of any socialist ecomomies that have managed to avoid these problems.

Freaking A Right! And that gets to the core of the problem with Socialism and the strength of Free Markets. Human nature cannot handle the power that Socialism, Communism, Nazism ect give to small groups of individuals.

Free Markets function due to human nature. It is a system that occurs whenever humans are left to their own devices. All a government has to do is protect the right of it's constituents to private property and free association. Socialism is something that has to be imposed. It is theft, based on lies, enforced by murder.

I would argue that the failings of the Free Market (Unions, Monopolies, Trusts, and the Great Depression) are the results of government intervention into the free market, or the failure to protect property and free association.

xm15e3

Originally posted by Sand
Despite the fact education is probably better funded than ever - some people still believe communism is viable, so obviously more money isnt helping.

If you are not a US citizen already, please move here, we need more like you.

Éomer of Rohan

And that gets to the core of the problem with Socialism and the strength of Free Markets. Human nature cannot handle the power that Socialism, Communism, Nazism ect give to small groups of individuals.

Do you really understand the concepts about which you speak? Nazism and command economy are totally opposite since Nazism ultimately relies on a more extreme form of capitalism; with the breaking of trade unions to suppress workers rights and what we term 'big business in bed with the government' changed to 'big business running the government or vice versa.' Command Economy on the other hand (an idea that the Soviets failed to properly implement as I will lay out) is the trade unions effectively running trade in collusion with one another in the interests of the workers (trade unions naturally being democratically elected and decentralised, thus in a better position to know what the country and it's people need); in the USSR the government took on this job, something it was not equipped top handle especially when the policies of liberalisation came around - the government was just too burdened by social welfare policies to survive the dog eat dog economy that Reagan and Tahtcher unleashed. As for China, well what we are seeing is the change-over from a governmental/bureaucratically inefficient economy to a fully capitalist economy - but it is important to note at this point that the chinese economy is still suffering from the amount of money they spend on public welfare etc.

Free Markets function due to human nature. It is a system that occurs whenever humans are left to their own devices

Once again I point out that this system will always create winners and losers; consider the distribution of wealth in the world; the top MNE's now have bigger budgets than 75% of nations, and when we consider that such companies lay off staff without a second thought (consider the situation with General Motors for example in Flint, Michigan) we see that this is wrong; government should have the werewhithal to protect their people, something they do not have under truly neo liberal 'free market' economics.

I think this thread is getting off track since it didn't start by defining Democracy or Capitalism. Both of which have become abstractions with meanings dependant on the context (political orientation) of the argument

Surely you will understand that ultimately everything defined by a human being is an abstraction? Such is the nature of philosphy - the same philosophy which then goes on to form pragmatic approaches to problems.

The term Capitalism was dreamt of by either Marx or Eingles (can't remember which) and is a strawman argument against private industry. We were all taught the same Capital, labor, and Entrepreneurs gig.

At least get the facts right; capitalism was discussed using that term long before Marx; in fact Capitalism was widely recognised as the bourgeois (equites if you wish to define them) class answer to feudalism. That much was assumed as early as Hegel and Nietzhe.

Now, what most everyone implies by the term "Democracy" is a government that accepts and protects varying degrees of private property and human rights, and has democratically elected officials

No, thay may be however what people accept by the term 'modern capitalist democracy.' What's more, democracy does not always protect human rights. Unless that is, you wish t consider America, Britain and France as undemocratic. Which, in the indirect, modern sense of the word, they are not. The 'Soviet' (Council) idea of government is also a democracy technically, though only in theory since it was not fully applied.

Development fuelled by capitalism has made even the poorest in Western societies better off than the richest of previous generations

That is relative for in such days, a hundred pounds sterling was considered ample wages for a year. As to the example you gave with respect to advances in living standards, I have already discussed in detail how medical and technological breakthroughs were not always the result of a capitalist system but often the result of 'social democracy' - the politically 'acceptable' brand of socialism/communism.

the World Socialist/Communist organizations are always pushing for "democracy", all they need is 51% to agree on taking the property of the other 49%, not a difficult task.

If you are going to cite ridiculous statistics, I suggest you find a neutral source which will support them. What I would really like to know is can you actually name any such organisations without having to look up the net?

A Pure democracy will not coexist long with private property rights and therefore will destroy a free market economy

So what you are in fact saying is that you would prefer a capitalist democracy to a 'pure' democracy? So in fact what you are saying is that Capitalism and 'pure' democracy are mutually exclusive?

Sand

The wage demands and strikes etc are because not enough is being paid and work conditions and hours are long; in effect these address an imbalance rather than seek more money for the sake of it.

Exactly- theyre doing their job for the money and they want more money to continue doing their jobs. Very few of them are doing so out of any sense of civic duty or else theyd simply accept what they were given , content they were doing a service for society and require no further reward beyond enough to live on - and theyre still living so one assumes they have enough.

People tend to go for the best job they can, usually the one that pays most. Nobody works because they want to. I dont mind my work, its a better job than a lot of people have but I certainly have no confusion over what I like doing.

With regard to people having no ambition / no qualifications / no application (by which I assume you mean they are lazy?). Everyone has some goal in life - that goal may not be much to you, for example if your goal was to make pots of cash but it is their goal and so we should not denigrate it.

True, but if someones goal is to sweep streets then they shouldnt complain when they get a street sweepers wage. If people dont have the ambition or application to educate themselves they shouldnt complain when they get the jobs best suited to their education - working at mcdonalds or working at tescos.

I am going to be an arts graduate. What is your point? Academic snobbery perchance? From someone with an interest in politics? Do I detect hypocrisy?

No offence friend, but Id imagine you as a left winger arent unique by a long shot in being an arts student. The only connection politics has to arts is the large amount of arts wasters fufilling the rent a protest student stereotype. To be blunt I view arts courses to be a pure waste of time, there simply to give wasters dossing their way through college on the taxpayers back something to show at the end of their course - regardless of the fact it is wholly economically useless for the vast majority of arts courses. Ive no problem with someone taking up an arts course as a hobby - I like history, and indeed spent a lot of time I should have been studying for my exams reading far too many history tomes, its a hobby though not a career prospect - they pay for themselves but I see no return for the taxpayer in funding dossers taking up arts courses. You probably dont like hearing that but I cant honestly help that.

And as to your pathetic attempt to attack the credibility of a system, well, I'll be charitable - you cannot say that it is not viable since you have no evidence.

Every time a communist takes power theyve become a totalarian control freak, regardless of their good intentions in the beginning. After stubborn defence of their ascended colleague the left then disavows them, saying theyre not really communist and next time well get it right yadayada.

xm15e3

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
Do you really understand the concepts about which you speak? Nazism and command economy are totally opposite since Nazism ultimately relies on a more extreme form of capitalism ...

What part of National Socialism do you not understand? Or do you not want to acknowledge?

I do know that Nationalist Ireland has a fine tradition of Socialism, sympathy for Nazi Germany, and now anti-Semitism. All of which in inexplicable, especially the anti-Semitism since you have more in common with Israeli Jews than the PLO (which also has ties to the Nazi).

Once again I point out that this system will always create winners and losers; consider the distribution of wealth in the world; the top MNE's now have bigger budgets than 75% of nations.... ...

So What? And good for them. Creating wealth is a good thing, they also made other rich in the process. Your "ridiculous statistic" of 75% would be much smaller if so many hadn't bought Karl's line of BS. By the way, what is your unbiased source?

Surely you will understand that ultimately everything defined by a human being is an abstraction? Such is the nature of philosophy - the same philosophy which then goes on to form pragmatic approaches to problems.

Surely you're joking. Words have meaning. It doesn't depend on what the word "is" is.

At least get the facts right; capitalism was discussed using that term long before Marx; in fact Capitalism was widely recognized as the bourgeois (equites if you wish to define them) class answer to feudalism. That much was assumed as early as Hegel and Nietzhe.

That you might be right about the origin of term, however it is still fairly meaningless. It's a nice word to represent evil corporate board members, and repressed workers, or whatever emotional image you want to project. But in reality it is meaningless, other than the act of using capital to produce wealth. And then the Socialists are Capitalists. Collectivism vs. Individualism might be better terms.

No, they may be however what people accept by the term 'modern capitalist democracy.' What's more, democracy does not always protect human rights. Unless that is, you wish t consider America, Britain and France as undemocratic. Which, in the indirect, modern sense of the word, they are not. The 'Soviet' (Council) idea of government is also a democracy technically, though only in theory since it was not fully applied.

[

That is my point, democracy does not protect human rights, in fact is in principle counter to human rights. America is NOT a democracy (thank God, otherwise AL Gore would be president).

That is relative for in such days, a hundred pounds sterling was considered ample wages for a year. As to the example you gave with respect to advances in living standards, I have already discussed in detail how medical and technological breakthroughs were not always the result of a capitalist system but often the result of 'social democracy' - the politically 'acceptable' brand of socialism/communism.

You've also discussed how the world would be better off if it were destroyed by Al Quida. You need to choose your enemies better. As for standard/quality of living, name a socialist state that has exceeded the US in prosperity.

If you are going to cite ridiculous statistics, I suggest you find a neutral source which will support them. What I would really like to know is can you actually name any such organizations without having to look up the net?

Uh, what? Read that again. 51% is a majority, that is a definition, not abstract, and not a statistic.

So what you are in fact saying is that you would prefer a capitalist democracy to a 'pure' democracy? So in fact what you are saying is that Capitalism and 'pure' democracy are mutually exclusive?

Capitalist Democracy? No I would prefer a Constitutional Republic that is based on the ideal that humans have the inaliable right to life, liberty, and private property. That means guns, LOTS OF GUNS!

Yes, pure democracy and private property (Free Market) are effectively mutually exclusive, but only due to human nature. This also accepts human nature in unchangeable, and distinct contrast to socialist ideals.

Éomer of Rohan

I must admit I had a real laugh reading those last two posts, one from Sand and the other from xm15e3. I must confess, it comes as no surprise that xm15e3 is a republican and what's more willingly admits he is glad of the corruption in America that allowed GWB in to power. We really need more people like you mate.

You've also discussed how the world would be better off if it were destroyed by Al Quida

Let me reiterate this point. I think in general terms that the population of the world would benefit from a complete cessation of US influence. Period. If this happens to involve the US being obliterated or returning to isolationist policies because they had their asses whipped, I don't particularly care.

As to the rest of your argument, really, you are an unapologetic right wing fool and I don't intent to waste my time.

As to Sand;

Exactly- theyre doing their job for the money and they want more money to continue doing their jobs. Very few of them are doing so out of any sense of civic duty or else theyd simply accept what they were given , content they were doing a service for society and require no further reward beyond enough to live on - and theyre still living so one assumes they have enough.

I think you misunderstood the point....

in effect these address an imbalance rather than seek more money for the sake of it

by which I mean that everyone alive, whether I like it or not lives in this society which at present depends on money generated by wage labour - thus these nurses et al depend on the money so generated to survive and hence my point about redressing an imbalance.

No offence friend, but Id imagine you as a left winger arent unique by a long shot in being an arts student. The only connection politics has to arts is the large amount of arts wasters fufilling the rent a protest student stereotype. To be blunt I view arts courses to be a pure waste of time, there simply to give wasters dossing their way through college on the taxpayers back something to show at the end of their course - regardless of the fact it is wholly economically useless for the vast majority of arts courses. Ive no problem with someone taking up an arts course as a hobby - I like history, and indeed spent a lot of time I should have been studying for my exams reading far too many history tomes, its a hobby though not a career prospect - they pay for themselves but I see no return for the taxpayer in funding dossers taking up arts courses. You probably dont like hearing that but I cant honestly help that.

Sorry for the large quote. Call me dave, if you don't mind. I completely disagree with you because although I am preparing to study for an arts degree, I am far from a waster - three of my four (and a half lol - bloody A/S system) a - levels are sciences; Biology Chemistry and Physics which I achieved ABB in so far. I would just like to quote Cicero on this - "He who knows nothing of his past will remain for ever a child." I think that Arts do have value and the only reason I am taking an arts degree, as opposed to medicine (which I am very eligible for) was because it boils down to which I preferred as a career rather than which I would earn more money at. But each to their own yes? It would not be a bad idea to start a thread on that since it does have political ramifications - you obviously hold your views strongly no?

Every time a communist takes power theyve become a totalitarian control freak, regardless of their good intentions in the beginning. After stubborn defence of their ascended colleague the left then disavows them, saying theyre not really communist and next time well get it right yadayada

Since you read history (though you neglected to mention what period so I am making a few assumptions here) I would ask you if you understand the social dynamic behind the change from idealism to totalitarianism. To answer whatever questions ANYONE here has in that respect, I suggest reading Trotsky's pamphlet on 'Bolshevism and Stalinism' which can probably be found on any decent socialist website. Trotsky wrote this when there was only one such state and proceeded to successfully interpret the social changes and powers manifestations that led in succession to the multitude of Stalinist states we know now; in fact the left wing is clearly divided on this topic; Stalinists defend their regimes yet the rest of the left disavow them (though this part, to which I belong never supported them in the first place as a result of Trotsky's dictum.

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan

Let me reiterate this point. I think in general terms that the population of the world would benefit from a complete cessation of US influence. Period. If this happens to involve the US being obliterated or returning to isolationist policies because they had their asses whipped, I don't particularly care.

Clearly, if you ever go for election in this country, Éomer you won't be canvassing, out in Intel, IBM or indeed for the votes of at least a third of this country then, who get paid either from a U.S company or indirectly benefit from their presence here.
mm

mike65

I think the posts by the left here
merely point up how the left can't quite belive they lost the argument.

Mike.

shotamoose

Originally posted by xm15e3
If you are not a US citizen already, please move here, we need more like you.

I second that. The first part, anyway.:D

xm15e3

If you are going to suggest that a the world would be better off if a nation of 240 million were destroyed, please, support your point. These are my family and friends you want wasted. Grow some balls and tell me why I should die for the betterment of the world.

Once you start attacking the credibility of the person you are debating, you are pretty much telling the world you are clueless and wrong. "Right Wing Fool" is not a argument. So back it up.

Arrogance is a symptom of ignorance. If you actually believe GWB gained the presidency by corruption, you have no understanding of the division of power in the US, or recent election history.

Here's a clue: Only the Senate and House of Reps are elected by popular vote (as designed, only the House of Reps is, the Senate was to be elected by the House). Presidents are to be elected by the several states through the electoral college. The Federal gov. was designed to keep the states in check, there was to be NO direct elections or taxation of the people by the Fed Gov.

The election of Al Gore would have violated the re-count laws of Florida State, and that would have negated the Florida electoral vote. GWB would have one either way. We have rule of law for a reason.

As for history, look up Mayor Daly, Chicago Machine Politics, or "Vote Early and Often", the Dems are pioneers in election fraud. As you're buddy Lenin mused, "it's not who votes, it's who counts the votes."

If you really think Sands needs a reading list, might I suggest you put down Mao's little red book and check out: The Black Book of Communism, Radical Son, Conscience of a Conservative, Sword and Shield, or anything by Daniel Lapin, Thomas Sowell, or the Big Daddy himself, Von Mises.

You can file it under "know your enemy"

shotamoose

Originally posted by mike65
I think the posts by the left here
merely point up how the left can't quite belive they lost the argument.

Mike.

I think posts by people who just dismiss the views of others as 'typical lefitism' or simillar rather than actually engaging with them shows a complete poverty of imagination. Post something with some content.

Lennoxschips

Inevitably, the Soviet Union is always cited by the defenders of capitalism as an example of socialism failing. However, the Soviet Union was never a socialist state, the Soviet Union was nothing more than a dictatorship.

We in Ireland owe our good fortune to the success of socialist ideals. The past 10-15 years has seen phenomenal growth in countries such as Ireland, Greece and Portugal. This is due almost wholly to the EU development funds, which have helped get the aforementioned countries back on their feet again when they were down. The richer EU nations gave to the poorer EU nations, and everyone is better off for it. Thanks to the continued development of the poorer EU nations, the EU as a whole has grown stronger, and this has benefitted the richer nations as well. Growing stronger together, by sharing.

While I am the first to agree that the EU is a fairly bureaucratic organisation, you have to give credit where credit is due: The EU development/structural funds are an example of one of socialism's roaring successes.

I find it disappointing that so many people in this country are still willing to preach the hard-line capitalist mantra, when we owe so much of our success and prosperity to the socialist ideals of mainland Europe and its EU policies.

If you're into capitalism, then spend a few years in the USA. But don't get sick, it'll cost ya. Don't think about going to college or sending your kids to college, you'll have to sell the house to pay for it. We may moan about taxes over here, but it works out better for the country in the long run.

shotamoose

Countries in Latin America have repeatedly voted socialist governments into power, and they've repeatedly had capitalist governments forced upon them at the butt of a gun. It's still happening today. So capitalism is most certainly not universally linked with freedom. And maybe this is one reason why socialist states so often fail or sink into totalitarianism - because every time one arises, or is voted into existence, whole nations (whole civilisations, some of them probably believe) do their damndest to isolate, undermine and attack it. They impose trade sanctions, fund vicious paramilitary and guerilla groups, install client dictators, and so on. And why? I can only think they're afraid of something.

I do know that Nationalist Ireland has a fine tradition of Socialism, sympathy for Nazi Germany, and now anti-Semitism. All of which in inexplicable, especially the anti-Semitism since you have more in common with Israeli Jews than the PLO (which also has ties to the Nazi).

Wrong, wrong and wrong. Ireland's got a crap socialist tradition, and anti-semitism was a lot stronger in the early 20th century than it is now (I've never once witnessed any anti-semitism in Ireland in my short lifetime). As for supporting Nazi Germany, that's an easy slur to throw but to my knowledge our 'support' extended to Devalera sending commiserations on the death of Hitler. Big swing. I can safely say that the United States has supported far many more dictators than Ireland has, and explicitly so, too.

Once again I point out that this system will always create winners and losers; consider the distribution of wealth in the world; the top MNE's now have bigger budgets than 75% of nations...

So What? And good for them. Creating wealth is a good thing, they also made other rich in the process. Your "ridiculous statistic" of 75% would be much smaller if so many hadn't bought Karl's line of BS. By the way, what is your unbiased source?

The point I think he's making (though the statistic is incorrect, as far as I know), is that free market capitalism without government regulation leads to concentration of market power in fewer and fewer hands, thus distorting both markets and democratic processes. The agro-food, pharmaceutical, aerospace and IT sectors, to name a few, are dominated by a handful of global giants who are better able to employ predatory pricing and other anticompetitive tactics to destroy smaller firms, thus acting directly against the free market you evoke. Similarly, the biggest corporations are most able to take advantage of techniques like transfer pricing, tax dodges, and political corruption, all of which undermine and distort democratic and administrative structures.

You've also discussed how the world would be better off if it were destroyed by Al Quida. You need to choose your enemies better. As for standard/quality of living, name a socialist state that has exceeded the US in prosperity.

Well, I can think of a few states with political cultures and histories which are far more socialist than the US and which are more developed - like Sweden, Norway and Canada. Higher life expectancies, comparable standards of living with far less inequality and grinding poverty, a much smaller proportion of malnourished children (if any), better education systems ... Yeah, I'd say they're pretty succesful countries.

As has already been pointed out, neither scientific progress nor the existence of democracy nor reasonable standards of living can be attributed solely to capitalism. For example, standards of living have plummeted in Eastern Europe and Russia since the introduction of 'big-bang' capitalist reforms. So making sweeping statements like 'free markets good, socialism bad' is plainly bogus. Context always matters, history always matters, internal and external relations always matter. The majority of post-war governments have mixed markets and socialism to some extent, and I don't see that stopping any time soon, especially if Bush's failed state is supposed to be the paragon of free market paradise.

Zombrex

If you actually believe GWB gained the presidency by corruption, you have no understanding of the division of power in the US, or recent election history.

Read Michael Moores excellent book "Stupid White Men" ... very interesting chapter on how the Republican party (with the help of a Republican governor) managed to get thousands of black (typically a democrat group) voters taken off the voting list in Florida. GWB did gain the presidency by corruption, just no one could be arsed pointing it out or trying to prove it do anything about it.

As for standard/quality of living, name a socialist state that has exceeded the US in prosperity.

Have u actually ever been to the US. Now it depends on how u define prosperity, but if you mean prosperity FOR ALL citizens simple answer off the top of my head would be Cuba. The have a health care system that makes America look like a sick joke. Even after the collapse of the Soviet Union, when, thanks to the US, Cuba lost most of its trade, not a single hospital closed down. In America a hospital will close down if the coffee machine breaks. It seems completely horrific to me coming from a country with a socialist healthcare system, but in the States if you are sick you have to buy yourself help. They sell help to you, and if you can't afford it you are screwed.

People like Britney Spears maybe making millions thanks the free market but America has some of the poorest most economically devastated areas in the world. Third World doctors from Africa train in inner city Detriot and other run down American cities because it best reflects what they will experience back in Africa. FFS!

Now you will no doubt blame the poor people in America for not getting an education, not staying in school (kinda hard when they are all closing down), or not having the ambition to work harder in McDonalds (kinda hard when they downsize and make all staff part time). Your problem is that you only look at the people who have done well, and then declare that capitalism works wonderfully for them. Of course it does! But you conveniently ignore the other 90% who have been comply screwed by the system that put the profits of some rich person over there health and education.


Now you will no doubt blame the poor people in America for not getting an education, not staying in school (kinda hard when they are all closing down), or not having the ambition to work harder in McDonalds (kinda hard when they downsize and make all staff part time). Your problem is that you only look at the people who have done well, and then declare that capitalism works wonderfully for them. Of course it does! But you conveniently ignore the other 90% who have been comply screwed by the system that put the profits of some rich person over there health and education.
.

Meh

Originally posted by Lennoxschips
Inevitably, the Soviet Union is always cited by the defenders of capitalism as an example of socialism failing. However, the Soviet Union was never a socialist state, the Soviet Union was nothing more than a dictatorship.

A socialist dictatorship (with the economy under centralised control).

We in Ireland owe our good fortune to the success of socialist ideals. The past 10-15 years has seen phenomenal growth in countries such as Ireland, Greece and Portugal. This is due almost wholly to the EU development funds

Wrong. EU funds played a part in Ireland's economic success, but only a minor part compared to the other Irish advantages of (relatively) stable government, low tax, education and a business-friendly environment.

I find it disappointing that so many people in this country are still willing to preach the hard-line capitalist mantra, when we owe so much of our success and prosperity to the socialist ideals of mainland Europe and its EU policies.

You mean EU policies like "free trade", "open markets" and "labour market flexibility"? All classic capitalist ideas...

Always amusing to see people try to explain away the abysmal failure of socialist economics wherever they've been tried. So far we've had:

1. All those countries weren't really socialist!
2. It's capitalism's fault socialism always ends up as a bankrupt tyranny

I'm sure there'll be a few more by the end of this thread...

Victor

Going to any extreme of capitalism or communism, liberalism or conservatism will tend to result in stagnation, inefficiencies, corruption and conflict. In fact I would consider Germany a better example of capitalism than the USA, even though it could easily be called a social democracy.

Originally posted by Meh
You mean EU policies like "free trade", "open markets" and "labour market flexibility"? All classic capitalist ideas...

And socialist ideas like worker's rights, consumer rights and liberal ideas like freedom of movement and women's / minorities rights.

However the biggest cause of change in Ireland over the last few years has been demographics, i.e. nearly 2,000,000 working now compared to 1,000,000 in the 1980s.

bonkey

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
As to the rest of your argument, really, you are an unapologetic right wing fool and I don't intent to waste my time.

And you have already been warned about this type of abuse.

One week ban from Politics, effective immediately.

When its over, you are more than elcome to come back if you have learned what I meant when I told you before about attacking the post and not the poster.

As always, if you have issues with this, take it to the Admin board, or PM me or one of the other two Politics moderators (gandalf and Swiss).
jc

Lennoxschips

Wrong. EU funds played a part in Ireland's economic success, but only a minor part compared to the other Irish advantages of (relatively) stable government, low tax, education and a business-friendly environment.

I dunno, I wouldn't like to imagine the state of things in this country if we had never gotten the EU grants...

Meh

Originally posted by Lennoxschips
I dunno, I wouldn't like to imagine the state of things in this country if we had never gotten the EU grants...

Well, let's ask the EU itself:

It has been estimated that the combined effect of EU Structural Fund interventions under the two CSFs is to raise the level of GNP by between 3% and 4% in the period 1995-99 above the level it would have been without the EU funding. The long-term impact of the Structural Fund investment under the two CSFs will be to raise the level of GNP by about 2%.

So the structural funds accounted for additional growth of ~1% per annum between 1995 and 1999, at a time when Irish GDP growth was about 10% per annum. Undoubtedly the EU made an important contribution, but Ireland's economic boom cannot be attributed to EU handouts alone. There are more fundamental factors at work.