Ireland needs socialism, says President McAleese

ei.sdraob · 08-03-2010 03:31PM

whynotwhycanti wrote: »

Okay let me read the link re: Keynes

good luck

the arguments of Keynesian's and Austrians are interesting

start here

ei.sdraob · 08-03-2010 03:35PM

peasant wrote: »

All attempts at creating a socialist society so far have failed at the very first stage ...the creation of the socialist individual.

but it was attempted and always ended tragically
capitalism better suits the human need for self fulfilment and improvement

peasant wrote: »

The human mindset simply is not able for socialism as we are far to individualistic and egotistic for the system to work. There isn't, there never was

yep that pretty much sums it up, that's why i wonder why people still bother to make attempts at socialism when any attempts have clearly failed time and again

peasant wrote: »

and there probably never will be a pure socialist society.

i dunno, they "socialistic" society as illustrated in the star trek universe is rather interesting

peasant wrote: »

All you ever had is watered down compromises that give the ideal of socialism a bad name.

so the idea is flawed and needs to go back to the drawing board

peasant wrote: »

The only reasons why the term "socialism" still survives is because deep down the ideal of share and share alike, peace on earth and freedom from exploitation and imperialistic opression is a good one (if it only worked ) ...and because it has become the household swearword and scapegoat for libertarians :pac:

@df addressed all of these quite nicely on previous page

peasant · 08-03-2010 03:37PM

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Socialists believe that the socialist human being wouldn't have to be compelled into sharing either. :pac:

The (yet to be created) socialist human being would do so out of their own free will and their socialist conviction.
They further believe that once you start off with the socialist being in the socialist society there would be no private wealth, only common wealth. Once your basic individual needs are met, the surplus wealth can be used to enhance the wealth of the socialist community as a whole.
So, in the ideal socialist society it is not a question of forcing individual people to give something up that they already have to distribute it to individual others ...but a question of working together to create it for everyone in the first place. The ideal socialist human being would have no interest in amassing private property as long as fellow socialist beings had to do without.

And that is why it will never work

peasant · 08-03-2010 03:39PM

ei.sdraob wrote: »

i dunno, they "socialistic" society as illustrated in the star trek universe is rather interesting

Yepp ...Star Trek for the win

(possibly without Romulans and Klingons and the like)

Laminations · 08-03-2010 04:15PM

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Are libertarians so retarded in their thought that they believe in Lockean Tabula Rasa? We are not all born equal, we do not all have the same ability, opportunity or potential. This is no excuse not to try and reach ones potential but it is an excuse for social responsibility. Do you not understand that wealth begets wealth and poverty begets poverty? Do you not see the link between wealth, success and class? It is the great exception to the rule that truly earns or attains their success, the one that pulls themselves out of squalor and against all chance succeeds. And even for those exceptions, libertarians would think it apt that they take on the pig persona of Animal Farm. Social Capitalism is a possible way forward, this unbridalled ideology of live and let live (die and let die) that underpins a lot of the free market needs to be taken under the reigns of social and moral responsibility.

As for the tax avoidance issue mentioned in another thread

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Citizenry comes with social responsibility, or at least it should. If you don't like it, leave, hand over your passport and denounce your citizenship.

OhNoYouDidn't · 08-03-2010 04:25PM

P. Breathnach wrote: »

The woman just can't win. Essentially her message was "let's all pull together in these difficult times", and she is now being blamed for just about everything that is wrong in Ireland today.

I'm not a fan of Mary McAleese, but I think if you want to criticize her, you need a better basis than this.

Thats key here. The President has come out with some glib cliches in connection with a new scheme to generate ideas.

The idea that she is preaching socialism for saying that as a society we need to pull together is beneath contempt.

But I do have a question for those 'libertarians' on here. Do at least accept that you are in a minority and the overwhelming majority of Irish people do want to live in a country that has civic responsibility and people look out for each other in times of crisis? And in effect the President was simply articulating this.

OhNoYouDidn't · 08-03-2010 04:26PM

ei.sdraob wrote: »

yep that pretty much sums it up, that's why i wonder why people still bother to make attempts at socialism when any attempts have clearly failed time and again

Can you provide me with an example of a capitalistic society that 'works'?

ei.sdraob · 08-03-2010 04:38PM

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

Can you provide me with an example of a capitalistic society that 'works'?

1. define 'works'

2. point us to a society that doesn't have currency or trade or pursuit of profit

OhNoYouDidn't · 08-03-2010 04:42PM

ei.sdraob wrote: »

1. define 'works'

2. point us to a society that doesn't have currency or trade or pursuit of profit

Works. Functions as it should. Does what it says on the tin.

All social models have trade, currency and pursuit of profit.

ei.sdraob · 08-03-2010 04:53PM

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

Works. Functions as it should. Does what it says on the tin.

so what is it meant to say on the tin? and how exactly should a "capitalistic society" function??

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

All social models societies have trade, currency and pursuit of profit.

lol you just answered your own question so

in the context of the definition of capitalism

Capitalism is an economic and social system in which capital and land, the non-labor factors of production (also known as the means of production), are privately owned; labor, goods and resources are traded in markets; and profit, after taxes, is distributed to the owners or invested in technologies and, industries.

OhNoYouDidn't · 08-03-2010 05:05PM

ei.sdraob wrote: »

so what is it meant to say on the tin? and how exactly should a "capitalistic society" function??

You tell me. You are decrying socialism as a failure. So presumably you can point to succesful capitalist models? Surely?

ei.sdraob wrote: »

lol you just answered your own question so

in the context of the definition of capitalism

Wiki?

All societies trade, have currencies and somone makes a profit, either private or the state, from your inane libetarian ideal construct to stalinist states.

Trade is not restricted to capitalism.

You really are drowning here....

Permabear · 08-03-2010 05:15PM

This post has been deleted.

ei.sdraob · 08-03-2010 05:16PM

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

You tell me. You are decrying socialism as a failure. So presumably you can point to succesful capitalist models? Surely?

im asking for a definition of success that would make you happy

can you point to a capitalist model that is a failure?

lets take China, notice how the lives of the people improved as they gave the people more freedoms, private ownership and embraced capitalism, you can say thats a success compared to the "socialist/communist" monstrosity that existed before that where killing millions was the order of the day, yes its not all rozy now but ask an average Chinese would they prefer to be living now than 20-30 years ago

or for that matter would they like to live in their neighbouring N. Korea

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

Wiki?

All societies trade, have currencies and somone makes a profit, either private or the state, from your inane libetarian ideal construct to stalinist states.

Trade is not restricted to capitalism.

You really are drowning here....

you missed one important concept in the definition of Capitalism posted earlier
private ownership
something that is obviously absent in the "Stalinist" states

btw socialism and capitalism are not mutually exclusive or "evil", both systems fall apart when the state takes more and more authority and control ...

/

OhNoYouDidn't · 08-03-2010 05:25PM

ei.sdraob wrote: »

im asking for a definition of success that would make you happy

can you point to a capitalist model that is a failure?

lets take China, notice how the lives of the people improved as they gave the people more freedoms, private ownership and embraced capitalism, you can say thats a success compared to the "socialist/communist" monstrosity that existed before that where killing millions was the order of the day, yes its not all rozy now but ask an average Chinese would they prefer to be living now than 20-30 years ago or for that matter would they like to live in their neighbouring N. Korea

you missed one important concept in the definition of Capitalism posted earlier
private ownership
something that is obviously absent in the "Stalinist" states

btw socialism and capitalism are not mutually exclusive, both systems fall apart when the state takes more and more authority and control ...

So the long and the short of it, you state that socialism is doomed to failure because of human nature and capitalism will succeed because its closer to our inate mentality, but cannot provide one example of a successful capitalist country.

So what does that say about the political psychology 101 lesson you tried to give us?

ei.sdraob wrote: »

can you point to a capitalist model that is a failure?

Neo-liberalism. This weeks model basically.

Laminations · 08-03-2010 05:26PM

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I called your thought retarded, not you. Other words to describe the belief that a person is a tabula rasa, master of their own destiny, would be 'outdated' or 'simplistic' or 'uninformed' or 'wrong'. We dont have the same ability, or opportunity or potential OR MEANS. Someone on welfare may not contribute much money to society but its not out of a lack of social responsibility, its out of a lack of means. Regardless of crony capitalism, wealth begets wealth, the government is there, in part, to ensure equal oipportunity in an unequal world. You'd like to think they are there to simply protect your right to be selfish

ei.sdraob · 08-03-2010 05:29PM

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

So the long and the short of it, you state that socialism is doomed to failure because of human nature and capitalism will succeed because its closer to our inate mentality,

yep as proven time and time again, socialism is great in theory but capitalism is more practical in practice

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

but cannot provide one example of a successful capitalist country.

i posted an example above, hell this country is doing relatively well thanks to capitalism despite continuing ****-ups by the governments

im asking you yet again, can you post an example of a country that failed because of capitalism

because there are plenty of examples of countries that have failed thanks to socialism and its twin communism

OhNoYouDidn't · 08-03-2010 05:30PM

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

A businessman who has no problem whatsoever in demanding state aid and regional grants....

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

So with that in mind, what is your problem with the President stating the view of the majority, which in this case is that we need to 'go back to basics', in this case community spirit and civic minded behaviour and be a less insular and materialistic society?

She is simply echoing what 90% of the population believe....

OhNoYouDidn't · 08-03-2010 05:32PM

ei.sdraob wrote: »

yep as proven time and time again, socialism is great in theory but capitalism is more practical in practice

i posted an example above, hell this country is doing relatively well thanks to capitalism despite continuing ****-ups by the governments

im asking you yet again, can you post an example of a country that failed because of capitalism

because there are plenty of examples of countries that have failed thanks to socialism and its twin communism

Iceland. Russia. Greece.

Laminations · 08-03-2010 05:36PM

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

So with that in mind, what is your problem with the President stating the view of the majority, which in this case is that we need to 'go back to basics', in this case community spirit and civic minded behaviour and be a less insular and materialistic society?

She is simply echoing what 90% of the population believe....

Libertarians believe in live and let live, until you disagree with them.

DF would you save a drowning man if it meant getting your shoes wet?
I'd imagine it is yes. As a libertarian, you do have some form of moral compass which recognises the rights of another to life over your rights to dry and comfortable clothing? And if you have this compass which can weigh up rights, would you not try and weigh up the right to live on a quarter of a million against the right of someone else to simply get by? The result of this musing would signal the level of social responsibility you accept.

ei.sdraob · 08-03-2010 05:38PM

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

Iceland. Russia. Greece.

1. please tell us how exactly they "failed"?

2. would you rather live in North Korea, Cuba, Laos or would you prefer Iceland, Russia, Greece

ei.sdraob · 08-03-2010 05:42PM

ei.sdraob wrote: »

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

Iceland. Russia. Greece.

1. please tell us how exactly they "failed"?

for that matter

please explain the difference between bankruptcy and failure

peasant · 08-03-2010 05:49PM

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

There are no "needy" people in the ideal socialist society ...because all people's needs are met, if only at a basic level. Anything that's left over after those basic needs are met goes into the pool for further wealth creation.

The Soviet style planned economy mainly didn't work because it wasn't socialist. Honesty and an interest in the common good are basic pre-requisites of the socialist human being. Soviet style planning was rife with mis-reporting, over-estimations and corruption.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

That depends whether you belive socialism should be created from the top down or the bottom up.
All attempts at socialism so far have been top down and did involve state coercion, often much more than just coercion.
The ideal socialist society is supposed to be created from the bottom up, sweeping up critics and opponents on the way simply by means of good, convincing example.

But we already know (and have established) that this will probably never happen.

Permabear · 08-03-2010 05:50PM

This post has been deleted.

Laminations · 08-03-2010 05:52PM

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Of course you have the right to your opinion, just as we have the right to the opinion that you are completely wrong in sensationalising the presidents comments

ei.sdraob · 08-03-2010 05:56PM

Laminations wrote: »

Of course you have the right to your opinion, just as we have the right to the opinion that you are completely wrong in sensationalising the presidents comments

maybe we should send @df to a workcamp

where the picture of our glorious leader will hang on the walls

OhNoYouDidn't · 08-03-2010 06:23PM

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

A differing opinion is saying she is wrong.

An irrelevant opinion is labelling her a communist and saying she wants to bring in collectivism.

You went straight into red scare hysteria and as such you forsake your right to have the rest of what you say taken seriously.

OhNoYouDidn't · 08-03-2010 06:25PM

ei.sdraob wrote: »

1. please tell us how exactly they "failed"?

The failed neo-liberal captitalist global model bankrupted them and has stopped them functioning correctly.

ei.sdraob wrote: »

2. would you rather live in North Korea, Cuba, Laos or would you prefer Iceland, Russia, Greece

I would much rather live in Cuba than Russia, thats for sure.

Permabear · 08-03-2010 06:25PM

This post has been deleted.

Permabear · 08-03-2010 06:32PM

This post has been deleted.

Scofflaw · 08-03-2010 06:35PM

If there is an issue requiring moderation, please contact the moderators.

moderately,
Scofflaw

Ireland needs socialism, says President McAleese

Comments