Were all socialists spoilt as children?

Ah yeah, this old tripe, "socialism is good by design but the implementations were poor, like, all 50 of them"

Destroying the current establishment no matter how fair or unfair it is and building a new one which is "fair" according to the only officially accepted definition of fair - there is nothing fair in that.

Snickers Man

Day Lewin wrote: »

Surrounded by mers and ex-rural gombeenmen, he was scrupulous about social justice and completely devoid of snobbery.

These!!

These are the very scum of the earth. If there is a 21st Century Irish equivalent to kulaks who must be "eliminated as a class" it is this shower.

I live in the heart of Dublin 4 and the house next door, which is no more than 30 years old, has been vacant for at least two years. Meanwhile people are sleeping in tents on the canal nearby. In f***ing October!!!

The little ****e who owns it has never lived in it. It has been let out in the past but for some reason now he sees it in his best interest to hoard it, doubtless with the hope of selling it on as vacant possession to some property developers who will grease the right palms, obtain the necessary planning permission to circumvent the overall "spatial plan" and throw up a hotel or condo.

Theory suggests, a la Adam Smith, that "it is not from his munificence that he should make this perfectly fine house available for human habitation but from his own self interest in obtaining the rents that would accrue from such a venture". But theory isn't working in this case.

This is what is known as "market failure". And you can't blame socialists for that.

It's a free-market condition.

Cienciano

Cordell wrote: »

Ah yeah, this old tripe, "socialism is good by design but the implementations were poor, like, all 50 of them"

Destroying the current establishment no matter how fair or unfair it is and building a new one which is "fair" according to the only officially accepted definition of fair - there is nothing fair in that.

It depends on what you define as socialism. What socialist states? Communist states haven't done well but a balanced socialist system like they have in the Nordic countries works well.
Some people seem to think any government interference is socialism. I'd definitely prefer some government interference is ok than have big companies do what they like in the name of capitalism.

the beer revolu

Cordell wrote: »

Ah yeah, this old tripe, "socialism is good by design but the implementations were poor, like, all 50 of them"

Destroying the current establishment no matter how fair or unfair it is and building a new one which is "fair" according to the only officially accepted definition of fair - there is nothing fair in that.

Oh Ffs, who is advocating destroying the current establishment?
The vast majority of of socialist leaning people simply want our society to go in a more egalitarian and fair direction. Only total extremists want to overthrow the whole system of government.
Do you advocate for a widening of the wealth gap?
There are more shades than black and white, you know!

Those are the social democrats, they are fine. I mean, I don't agree with many of their points but they are a legitimate democratic movement.

The socialism, the proper socialism, is not compatible with democracy.

Do you advocate for a widening of the wealth gap?

Wealth gap is irrelevant for the poor, what it matters it them being not poor, not them being poor but the rich being less rich.

the beer revolu

Cordell wrote: »

Wealth gap is irrelevant for the poor, what it matters it them being not poor, not them being poor but the rich being less rich.

Everything is relative

It is.
But for example, if all wealth grows by x%, meaning that the gap will widen in both absolute and relative terms, is it bad? Or, while the rich are getting richer the poor also are getting less poor, which in the end is a good thing?

the beer revolu

Cordell wrote: »

It is.
But for example, if all wealth grows by x%, meaning that the gap will widen in both absolute and relative terms, is it bad? Or, while the rich are getting richer the poor also are getting less poor, which in the end is a good thing?

If rich get richer, society tends to get more expensive, keeping the poor, poor.

Cordell wrote: »

Those are the social democrats, they are fine. I mean, I don't agree with many of their points but they are a legitimate democratic movement.

The socialism, the proper socialism, is not compatible with democracy.

Wealth gap is irrelevant for the poor, what it matters it them being not poor, not them being poor but the rich being less rich.

Give there is a finite amount of money and wealth in the world, one usually if not always follows the other, and as the current super rich have created a system that allows them to hoard such massively disproportionate amounts of that wealth, there is no way the poor can be made less poor as a group without the rich being made less rich.

Cordell wrote: »

It is.
But for example, if all wealth grows by x%, meaning that the gap will widen in both absolute and relative terms, is it bad? Or, while the rich are getting richer the poor also are getting less poor, which in the end is a good thing?

But today's rich corporations, the apples and googles, just sit on huge amounts of wealth and do nothing with it until such time as they feel they can use it purely to become even richer. Its not productive in any meaningful way. So they are essentially rich to a completely unnecessary degree, proven by the fact they dont do anything with that wealth. Its purely vanity and not much else.

The corpos are not sitting on their ... assets, their growing business means more people get a slice, a thin one in most cases but a slice nevertheless. The wealth is not in a finite amount, it's growing, and more people are being lifted out of poverty every day.

If rich get richer, society tends to get more expensive, keeping the poor, poor

That is true, yachts and Lamborghinis are getting awfully more expensive this days.

quokula

Cordell wrote: »

Ah yeah, this old tripe, "socialism is good by design but the implementations were poor, like, all 50 of them"

Destroying the current establishment no matter how fair or unfair it is and building a new one which is "fair" according to the only officially accepted definition of fair - there is nothing fair in that.

This old tripe of selectively defining certain countries in history as socialist and ignoring that the countries that frequently come top of rankings in best places to live and happiness surveys today tend to be socialist run.

Again, that is not socialism.

So this it the top 10 according to http://worldpopulationreview.com/countries/best-countries-to-live-in/ and I suspect any other top 10s will be more or less the same:

Norway
Switzerland
Australia
Ireland
Germany
Iceland
Sweden
Hong Kong
Singapore
The Netherlands

Can you point out the socialist countries, if any, among them?
Ireland has a good place, are we living in a socialist country? Because I lived in one, so I would know, but maybe I'm not seeing it well.

Tired Gardener

Cordell wrote: »

The corpos are not sitting on their ... assets, their growing business means more people get a slice, a thin one in most cases but a slice nevertheless. The wealth is not in a finite amount, it's growing, and more people are being lifted out of poverty every day.

That is true, yachts and Lamborghinis are getting awfully more expensive this days.

Do you think that raising people out of poverty by providing them with poorly paid jobs is a good thing? How is that equal and fair, especially when the corporations are doing all they can to avoid paying their taxes, and have become wealthy by essentially scamming people.

Wealth is a finite thing, as wealth is linked to resources... which are finite. Any gains in wealth are at the expense of taking wealth from somewhere else.

Cordell wrote: »

The corpos are not sitting on their ... assets, their growing business means more people get a slice, a thin one in most cases but a slice nevertheless. The wealth is not in a finite amount, it's growing, and more people are being lifted out of poverty every day.

That is true, yachts and Lamborghinis are getting awfully more expensive this days.

They are sitting on their assets.

Cienciano wrote: »

It depends on what you define as socialism. What socialist states? Communist states haven't done well but a balanced socialist system like they have in the Nordic countries works well.
Some people seem to think any government interference is socialism. I'd definitely prefer some government interference is ok than have big companies do what they like in the name of capitalism.

Socialism works well when it's backed up by a capitalist based economy. The problem (as with most ideologies) is when it's taken to extremes.

The pursuit of a welfare state as part of socialism tends to screw them once you factor in modern migration trends. You can see it in the Nordic states where costs escalate over the decades. Their native populations are relatively small, so they can afford a welfare state, but once migration is allowed (as European socialism tends to be linked to liberalism), the system bottoms.

The problem with any political system is that it becomes corrupted over time due to the interests of those contained within it. Democracy is the same. It's failing these days due to governments eroding citizen rights and corporations gaining to much power in the form of lobbying or other forms. Socialism is no different. Initially, it may be introduced in a good fashion, but is altered to fit an extreme.

Deleted User wrote: »

Socialism works well when it's backed up by a capitalist based economy. The problem (as with most ideologies) is when it's taken to extremes.

The pursuit of a welfare state as part of socialism tends to screw them once you factor in modern migration trends. You can see it in the Nordic states where costs escalate over the decades. Their native populations are relatively small, so they can afford a welfare state, but once migration is allowed (as European socialism tends to be linked to liberalism), the system bottoms.

The problem with any political system is that it becomes corrupted over time due to the interests of those contained within it. Democracy is the same. It's failing these days due to governments eroding citizen rights and corporations gaining to much power in the form of lobbying or other forms. Socialism is no different. Initially, it may be introduced in a good fashion, but is altered to fit an extreme.

Thats a very good answer.
I think what is required now is a move more towards socialist ideals and policies and away from the neoliberal, capitialist free for all.

Tired Gardener wrote: »

Do you think that raising people out of poverty by providing them with poorly paid jobs is a good thing?

Yes, and they're thinking the same, the alternative is to be left poor.

Tired Gardener wrote: »

How is that equal and fair, especially when the corporations are doing all they can to avoid paying their taxes, and have become wealthy by essentially scamming people.

Everyone is doing the same, you only have to pay what you legally owe.
And scamming? What do you mean?

Tired Gardener wrote: »

Wealth is a finite thing, as wealth is linked to resources... which are finite. Any gains in wealth are at the expense of taking wealth from somewhere else.

Resources are not finite from the economical point of view. People is a resource as well, not finite either. Services, same.

terrydel wrote: »

Thats a very good answer.
I think what is required now is a move more towards socialist ideals and policies and away from the neoliberal, capitialist free for all.

This is where it gets dangerous: I think this and that is required, and:
- I'm going to pursue this and that through democratic means.
- I'm going to pursue this and that by any means necessary, including force.

The former is fine, the latter is not fine, and it's the socialist way.

terrydel wrote: »

Thats a very good answer.
I think what is required now is a move more towards socialist ideals and policies and away from the neoliberal, capitialist free for all.

Europe has always (edit: Sorry, since WW2) been rather socialist, with the exception of traditionally monarchist countries, like the UK. Ireland is a country founded on socialist principles. Same with the modern constitutions of many of the countries in Europe. Still, it's European socialism rather than one particular type of socialism. You should live in China and see what their idea of socialism consists of... a far different perspective.

To be honest, I don't find socialism to be particularly realistic in a modern world. It made some sense when migration was limited, populations were relatively static, and communications were limited. Our modern world is short on resources but socialism demands the distribution of everything.. with migration from poorer countries constantly increasing.

It's unfeasible to expect European countries to support a socialist system when it's consistently failed to do so with limited populations, and some resistance to fuller socialist policies. Once more, it's a case of extremes. Moderate use of socialism would benefit everyone and make Europe more stable... but we don't live in a moderate world anymore. Instead, we live in a world which, increasingly, seeks to implement the extremes without any long term planning or research. Just throw the dice and see what happens... the best of intentions but little actual responsibility.

So, nope. I wouldn't want socialism to gain a greater hold in Europe. Actually, I'd like to see a greater degree of merging the various ideologies and the establishment of something new. Something far more realistic and fair.

Cordell wrote: »

Yes, and they're thinking the same, the alternative is to be left poor.

If that was true, unions would never have come into existence.

Cordell wrote: »

This is where it gets dangerous: I think this and that is required, and:
- I'm going to pursue this and that through democratic means.
- I'm going to pursue this and that by any means necessary, including force.

The former is fine, the latter is not fine, and it's the socialist way.

The US (and others) have sought to force their own brand of democracy on others. (Bay of pigs, Vietnam, Iraq, etc) Just as they've pushed the principle of capitalism (since the US sees capitalism as a political force in addition to being economic) on others through cultural domination.

It's naive to believe that socialism is alone in this kind of behavior.

It's naive to believe that socialism is alone in this kind of behavior

It is indeed and no one believes that, I hope.

Bay of pigs, Vietnam, Iraq, etc

There's more to those than just pushing capitalism, let's leave them aside.

If that was true, unions would never have come into existence

It's still true, and unions rarely fought for the rights of the poor.

Deleted User wrote: »

Europe has always been rather socialist, with the exception of traditionally monarchist countries, like the UK. Ireland is a country founded on socialist principles. Same with the modern constitutions of many of the countries in Europe. Still, it's European socialism rather than one particular type of socialism. You should live in China and see what their idea of socialism consists of... a far different perspective.

To be honest, I don't find socialism to be particularly realistic in a modern world. It made some sense when migration was limited, populations were relatively static, and communications were limited. Our modern world is short on resources but socialism demands the distribution of everything.. with migration from poorer countries constantly increasing.

It's unfeasible to expect European countries to support a socialist system when it's consistently failed to do so with limited populations, and some resistance to fuller socialist policies. Once more, it's a case of extremes. Moderate use of socialism would benefit everyone and make Europe more stable... but we don't live in a moderate world anymore. Instead, we live in a world which, increasingly, seeks to implement the extremes without any long term planning or research. Just throw the dice and see what happens... the best of intentions but little actual responsibility.

So, nope. I wouldn't want socialism to gain a greater hold in Europe. Actually, I'd like to see a greater degree of merging the various ideologies and the establishment of something new. Something far more realistic and fair.

I think Ireland is economically speaking, as far from socialism and its ideals as it has ever been.
I've started to agree of late that socialism in a pure form just isnt realistic or feasible in western society, even from the perspective of getting people to sign up to it, never mind actually implementing it. Western society has just moved too far in the other direction to ever be turned around. The horse has bolted.
We need some kind of social democratic system that has a fairer distribution of wealth and resources, moves away from the idea of consumerism and towards sustainability. How we get there is an entirely different debate.

Cordell wrote: »

It's still true, and unions rarely fought for the rights of the poor.

You are entitled to debate, but stop being deliberately incorrect.

It's hard to debate with someone who's calling me a liar.

nthclare

terrydel wrote: »

I think Ireland is economically speaking, as far from socialism and its ideals as it has ever been.
I've started to agree of late that socialism in a pure form just isnt realistic or feasible in western society, even from the perspective of getting people to sign up to it, never mind actually implementing it. Western society has just moved too far in the other direction to ever be turned around. The horse has bolted.
We need some kind of social democratic system that has a fairer distribution of wealth and resources, moves away from the idea of consumerism and towards sustainability. How we get there is an entirely different debate.

I hear you, as long as people work to their potential there's no problems with a fairer distribution of money.

As for the layabouts and wasters,they should be getting less, a roof over their head, enough food and heat and clothing fit for purpose.
The rest they should work for.

As for people who have lost jobs and contributed to society or disabilities and long term illness, they should be getting extra,why should they be getting the same ****ty welfare as the wasters dicking around and getting money for nothing.

Cordell wrote: »

There's more to those than just pushing capitalism, let's leave them aside.

Actually, I said pushing Democracy. I didn't say it but perhaps I should have... Capitalism being intrinsically linked to Western democracy. Bush Junior often made remarks about bringing Democracy and christian values to the M.East. Vietnam was to prevent the spread of communism, and the installation of friendly governments with a superficial democratic system (hence the rigging of elections by the CIA). Bay of Pigs was to create a similar system in Cuba.

It's still true, and unions rarely fought for the rights of the poor.

You really should say who owns that quote. It's not mine.

Cordell wrote: »

It's hard to debate with someone who's calling me a liar.

So you are above being called out when you state something that is completely wrong?