The "Che phenomenon"

Computer Sci · 13-09-2011 12:05AM

Johro wrote: »

Excuse me, but I'm not a communist. I pointed out what the communist ideal was. The USSR government, and other communist governments are hypocritical in the extreme, you'll get no argument there.

Yes there are rich people who give to charity. And?

Where did I say pharmaceutical companies are responsible for third world poverty? I said they could contribute aid out of those huge profits they make.

Capitalism didn't lift Ireland out of poverty. Working people did. Capitalism f#cked it over.

No, I'm pretty certain that capitalism and a market economy were behind our success.

Everything isn't as straight forward and upfront either. Take for instance the case of the surgeon vs the street sweeper, who are paid the same wage. Undoubtedly the street sweeper is to be commended for a job well done and a service to his/ her community, but you must also think logically and imagine what the incentive would be for somebody to go through years of intense and expensive training in a surgical school, when there are jobs that can be walked into, and with the same salary prospects.

With no incentive to become surgeons, you have millions of people dying of illnesses or walking around with untreated wounds or broken bones in excruciating pain.

Also, those supposed evil pharmaceutical giants of which you speak, the availability of reasonably cheap and effective medicine to the masses in the modern result is a direct result of the incentive to earn a living buying and selling a product - in this case medicine - to the public. The same goes for computers/ cars/ aeroplanes etc etc - all brought about by the incentive of the rewards of the capitalist system of earning by selling and buying a product and/ or service to a willing customer/s.

k.p.h · 13-09-2011 12:08AM

Computer Sci wrote: »

Hang on a second, politicians are elected into office, providing they meet the criteria of the general public - it's called democracy. Bankers/ Lawyers/ Insurers work for a living, buying and/ or selling a product or service - it's called capitalism.

You do realise that Capitalism has lifted more nations and peoples out of poverty - including Ireland - than any other economic system in history?

More nonsense. The rich/ poor divide now is absolutely nothing like the rich/ poor divide that exists in countries run by communists. A poor person in a capitalist country for instance can still afford shelter, descent food, travel and even accessories such as televisions, radios etc. Meanwhile, even a hard working person in a communist state can be reduced to living a life of squalor, hunger and poverty.

So do you think capitalism is the answer so and we should just continue on as we are ..?

Monty Burnz · 13-09-2011 12:18AM

Johro wrote: »

I'm not saying they should give all their profits to charity.:rolleyes:
A percentage would be nice. After all, one man's aids epidemic is another man's bread and caviar.

It's not the company's money to give. It would be like your employer giving some of your salary to charity without consulting you.

(Incidentally, most large companies do give millions to charity with shareholder approval - apparently Pfizer (seeing as we are talking about pharma companies) made 2.3 billion dollars worth of charitable contributions in 2009)

Monty Burnz · 13-09-2011 12:20AM

k.p.h wrote: »

So do you think capitalism is the answer so and we should just continue on as we are ..?

Yes, until something better comes along. I'm not holding my breath though. I'd like to see the end of the socialisation of losses like those made by the banks in recent years though - it totally flies in the face of capitalism.

alastair · 13-09-2011 12:21AM

Computer Sci wrote: »

It’s the most cringeworthy thing when rich posh kids, born with silver spoons in their mouths decry the economic system which has lifted billions, and continue to lift billions more out of poverty – namely capitalism – whilst given many ordinary people the chance for upward mobility for over two centuries.

What should not be forgotten though is that many of these pontificating smoked salmon socialists wouldn’t last a day in a country run by communists. Not only have communist politico-economic systems rendered poverty upon hundreds of millions, but has also resulted in the mass murder of hundreds of millions – including those who dared opposed the prevailing communist governmental autocracy. Anybody protesting, or going against the status quo in communist states is for the most part locked up and/ or silenced. Ironic that so many of these clowns – particularly in colleges in the Western World – idolise such a system.

It makes me laugh in a way too, a bit like watching that tool John Lennon signing “imagine no possessions” from the confines of his 10,000 square foot mansion, situated within a few hundred acres of parkland, on a piano that was probably worth over half a million pounds. I blame idiots like Lennon and other 60s celebrities for bringing about this association of communism with freedom and idealism, when in fact communism has been nothing but a bane on so many with mass deaths/ mass starvation/ whitewashing and eradication of cultures, religions, as well as starting a nuclear arms race that not only held the potential to annihilate all life on earth, but impoverished many in Russia, often living near starvation.

Funny that - I thought the US might have had some role to play in kickstarting nuclear proliferation, but no matter.

Far be it from me to rain on your capitalist flag waving, but keep in mind that Marxism has influences beyond Communist states. Scandinavian-model Social Democratic states are the real success of the last 200 years - providing broad social affluence beyond pretty much anything offered by entirely free-market states, and with unrivaled healthcare, crime-prevention, sustainability, and social cohesion. Not too shabby when placed in context with the other options. Sometimes those smoked salmon socialists actually have something useful to offer.

Johro · 13-09-2011 12:28AM

Computer Sci wrote: »

No, I'm pretty certain that capitalism and a market economy were behind our success.

Everything isn't as straight forward and upfront either. Take for instance the case of the surgeon vs the street sweeper, who are paid the same wage. Undoubtedly the street sweeper is to be commended for a job well done and a service to his/ her community, but you must also think logically and imagine what the incentive would be for somebody to go through years of intense and expensive training in a surgical school, when there are jobs that can be walked into, and with the same salary prospects.

With no incentive to become surgeons, you have millions of people dying of illnesses or walking around with untreated wounds or broken bones in excruciating pain.

Also, those supposed evil pharmaceutical giants of which you speak, the availability of reasonably cheap and effective medicine to the masses in the modern result is a direct result of the incentive to earn a living buying and selling a product - in this case medicine - to the public. The same goes for computers/ cars/ aeroplanes etc etc - all brought about by the incentive of the rewards of the capitalist system of earning by selling and buying a product and/ or service to a willing customer/s.

I'm not advocating communism. I just think we need a working alternative to capitalism, or at the very least strict rules and guidelines to curb the excesses of capitalism.
The likes of big pharma have too much power in lobbying governments, precisely because they have so much money. Policy is made or shaped by the very rich, which is what is wrong with capitalism. Everybody has a right to work hard and do well financially. When they can use that money to lord it over the rest of us who don't, then I have a problem with it. Then there's the oil lobby, the road lobby (great friends those two, obviously) etc., don't forget the banks, all with the power to tell government, our democratically elected government, how it's gonna be.

Monty Burnz · 13-09-2011 12:28AM

alastair wrote: »

Funny that - I thought the US might have had some role to play in kickstarting nuclear proliferation, but no matter.

Far be it from me to rain on your capitalist flag waving, but keep in mind that Marxism has influences beyond Communist states. Scandinavian-model Social Democratic states are the real success of the last 200 years - providing broad social affluence beyond pretty much anything offered by entirely free-market states, and with unrivaled healthcare, crime-prevention, sustainability, and social cohesion. Not too shabby when placed in context with the other options. Sometimes those smoked salmon socialists actually have something useful to offer.

There are no Marxist countries in Scandinavia.

HTH.

alastair · 13-09-2011 12:29AM

Computer Sci wrote: »

Since when are pharmaceutical companies responsible for third world poverty? Take Zimbabwe for instance, who is responsible for that humanitarian disaster - pharmaceutical companies, or the Communist Mugabe?

Sorry to break it to you, but Mugabe isn't and wasn't a communist. He's no more a communist than Mandela is - as in, he isn't.

Eric Cartman · 13-09-2011 12:29AM

in reality marxist ideals have no place in modern society, capitalism is , to date, the only system that actually works , not a mix where we bail out banks and shít , pure capitalism.

the only thing that socialism or communism breeds is economies like the USSR where the only way to get ahead is to become a criminal and run a black market operation , with socialism everybody loses, with capitalism atleast some people win.

im not saying the rich/poor divide is a good thing, but people who work hard and earn what they have deserve to not have to bail out the lazy and the incompetent.

I have never met a socialist or anyone who agrees with marxist ideals thats ever had a good job or made anything of themselves, only lazy hippy types and delusional trinity students living off their parents capitalist gains.

alastair · 13-09-2011 12:30AM

Monty Burnz wrote: »

There are no Marxist countries in Scandinavia.

HTH.

Democratic Socialism - which is the bedrock of Scandinavian politics, is derived from Marxist theory. Don't know how you could have missed that.

k.p.h · 13-09-2011 12:30AM

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Yes, until something better comes along. I'm not holding my breath though. I'd like to see the end of the socialisation of losses like those made by the banks in recent years though - it totally flies in the face of capitalism.

Well IMO the answer is a lot closer to socialism than it is to capitalism. Capitalism is inherently unstable and unsustainable.

droicead · 13-09-2011 12:35AM

hasta la victoria siempre

Johro · 13-09-2011 12:36AM

Monty Burnz wrote: »

It's not the company's money to give. It would be like your employer giving some of your salary to charity without consulting you.

(Incidentally, most large companies do give millions to charity with shareholder approval - apparently Pfizer (seeing as we are talking about pharma companies) made 2.3 billion dollars worth of charitable contributions in 2009)

I'd be okay with that. Say, something like 2 or 3 euros a week? Everybody should be able to afford that. Per month even. From everyone, even those in receipt of social welfare benefits. Should add up nicely. Of course, if you were a big earner, you could give a little more.
Done globally, that should sort out poverty. A poverty tax.

Monty Burnz · 13-09-2011 12:37AM

alastair wrote: »

Democratic Socialism - which is the bedrock of Scandinavian politics, is derived from Marxist theory. Don't know how you could have missed that.

All Scandinavian countries are capitalist. I don't know how you missed that.

k.p.h · 13-09-2011 12:38AM

Eric Cartman wrote: »

in reality marxist ideals have no place in modern society, capitalism is , to date, the only system that actually works

But also a system that with some foresight looks like it is unsustainable, actually you don't even need foresight just look around . You can't get stuck in the mud just because something is OK. We need something that is infallible, you have to remember that we are talking about human life, humanity as a whole. Capitalism is definitely not the answer.

Monty Burnz · 13-09-2011 12:40AM

k.p.h wrote: »

But also a system that with some foresight looks like it is unsustainable, actually you don't even need foresight just look around . You can't get stuck in the mud just because something is OK. We need something that is infallible, you have to remember that we are talking about human life, humanity as a whole. Capitalism is definitely not the answer.

Ok - let's try socialism again. Have a look at the list of countries I listed earlier on page 12 and pick out a successful one we could model ourselves on.

alastair · 13-09-2011 12:44AM

Monty Burnz wrote: »

All Scandinavian countries are capitalist. I don't know how you missed that.

Nope - they operate mixed economies, not free-market driven models - so a capitalist certainly wouldn't accept them as true capitalist states. The point of democratic socialism is that it both exploits and constrains a free-market economy for the benefit of society.

Johro · 13-09-2011 12:44AM

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Ok - let's try socialism again. Have a look at the list of countries I listed earlier on page 12 and pick out a successful one we could model ourselves on.

Let's not model ourselves on other nations. We've had enough of that. We seem to choose either the US or the UK model when it comes to policy on pretty much everything.
Let's try a new brand of socialism, or whatever, as long as it's accountable.

Johro · 13-09-2011 12:46AM

k.p.h wrote: »

But also a system that with some foresight looks like it is unsustainable, actually you don't even need foresight just look around . You can't get stuck in the mud just because something is OK. We need something that is infallible, you have to remember that we are talking about human life, humanity as a whole. Capitalism is definitely not the answer.

Amen.

Computer Sci · 13-09-2011 12:47AM

Johro wrote: »

I just think we need a working alternative to capitalism,

Such as?

or at the very least strict rules and guidelines to curb the excesses of capitalism.

We already do - it's called the Law. Anybody who has made a living through the capitalist system, from the everyday worker to the wealthiest executives has made their living fair and square by using their assets/ wealth/ investments to buy and sell products and services. If anybody has been found to be gaining wealth illegally, they are brought to court and imprisoned, whether they are the everyday worker or the wealthiest executive.

Policy is made or shaped by the very rich, which is what is wrong with capitalism.

Yet more nonsense. Governments often encourage businesses to profit and set up within their jurisdictions as those companies will create jobs and wealth, with all the knock-on effects such as reduced crime, and taxation raised from more incomes to pay for healthcare/ education/ infrastructure etc.

Everybody has a right to work hard and do well financially. When they can use that money to lord it over the rest of us who don't, then I have a problem with it.

Who is "lording it over the rest of us". To be honest, you are starting to make no sense at this point and are beginning to sound like some begrudging old granny who can't stand to see other people doing well for themselves, just because you aren't.

Then there's the oil lobby, the road lobby (great friends those two, obviously) etc., don't forget the banks, all with the power to tell government, our democratically elected government, how it's gonna be.

Despite your persistent conspiracy mongering, most Western nations are open and democratic systems. Capitalists create jobs and make a wage for themselves through the simple mechanism of supply-vs-demand, and buying and selling a product/ service at a profit. There is no conspiracy to take over the governments within these societies, despite your suspicions.

It's also ironic given that Communistic governments have usually been in the pockets of the military or other large conglomerates. Not to mention, the corrupt and powerful few who do well for themselves, while the people under their rule starve.

k.p.h · 13-09-2011 12:52AM

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Ok - let's try socialism again. Have a look at the list of countries I listed earlier on page 12 and pick out a successful one we could model ourselves on.

I'm not really pushed on the out and out socialism right now TBH. I don't think we currently have or ever had the resources or technology to implement the it successfully. I just stating that capitalism is not sustainable. In about 25 years time or so we will be heading pretty franticly towards something a bit more socialist anyway.

alastair · 13-09-2011 12:54AM

Computer Sci wrote: »

Such as?

Once again - Scandinavian style Democratic Socialism with a mix of command economy and free-markets. It's worked pretty well for them.

Johro · 13-09-2011 12:57AM

Computer Sci wrote: »

Such as?

We already do - it's called the Law. Anybody who has made a living through the capitalist system, from the everyday worker to the wealthiest executives has made their living fair and square by using their assets/ wealth/ investments to buy and sell products and services. If anybody has been found to be gaining wealth illegally, they are brought to court and imprisoned, whether they are the everyday worker or the wealthiest executive.

Yet more nonsense. Governments often encourage businesses to profit and set up within their jurisdictions as those companies will create jobs and wealth, with all the knock-on effects such as reduced crime, and taxation raised from more incomes to pay for healthcare/ education/ infrastructure etc.

Who is "lording it over the rest of us". To be honest, you are starting to make no sense at this point and are beginning to sound like some begrudging old granny who can't stand to see other people doing well for themselves, just because you aren't.

Despite your persistent conspiracy mongering, most Western nations are open and democratic systems. Capitalists create jobs and make a wage for themselves through the simple mechanism of supply-vs-demand, and buying and selling a product/ service at a profit. There is no conspiracy to take over the governments within these societies, despite your suspicions.

It's also ironic given that Communistic governments have usually been in the pockets of the military or other large conglomerates. Not to mention, the corrupt and powerful few who do well for themselves, while the people under their rule starve.

While you seem to be trying to ridicule anything I've posted on the subject, you're actually pretty naive when it comes to the reality of how money makes the world go round. For some.
I am familiar with supply and demand, thank you very much. :rolleyes:
And for the last time, maybe someone put up Soviet Russia or any other communist government as a shining example of how it should be done, but it sure wasn't me. Not now, not ever.

Computer Sci · 13-09-2011 12:57AM

alastair wrote: »

Once again - Scandinavian style Democratic Socialism with a mix of command economy and free-markets. It's worked pretty well for them.

Scandinavia is capitalist, regardless of what's it's socio-political mores and systems are. It was the Capitalist ethos and philosophy which brought about Siemens of Sweden and Nokia of Finland for instance, not to mention many of Norway's oil industries. The correct way of putting it - is that capitalism allows these nations to support a social democratic political and social system.

k.p.h · 13-09-2011 01:00AM

Computer Sci wrote: »

most Western nations are open and democratic systems

Democracy has it issues too unfortunately, its just about as unrealistic as out and out socialism in my opinion.

k.p.h · 13-09-2011 01:05AM

Computer Sci wrote: »

Scandinavia is capitalist, regardless of what's it's socio-political mores and systems are. It was the Capitalist ethos and philosophy which brought about Siemens of Sweden and Nokia of Finland for instance, not to mention many of Norway's oil industries. The correct way of putting it - is that capitalism allows these nations to support a social democratic political and social system.

Reckon its a decent system they have going their myself ..

Tar.Aldarion · 13-09-2011 01:06AM

this thread has made you unemployable for life

Computer Sci · 13-09-2011 01:07AM

k.p.h wrote: »

Democracy has it issues too unfortunately, its just about as unrealistic as out and out socialism in my opinion.

Any system has it's issues, it's just that democracy and capitalism have proven themselves to be effective at delivering positive outcomes for over two centuries, whilst others have failed outright.

It's also important to remember that under a system of government such as Che's beloved communists - that a website like boards.ie would be shut down. It's ironic really, because the people who decry and demonise capitalism on a daily basis, not only gain from the benefits of capitalism, but also gain the benefits of the system of democracy which capitalism as a system bolsters. Under any other system, the people criticising capitalism would be silenced, including in Communist countries such as Cuba, China, Zimbabwe etc.

dsmythy · 13-09-2011 01:10AM

'Che' must be the only cool murderer and human rights violator from history going

Johro · 13-09-2011 01:11AM

Computer Sci wrote: »

To be honest, you are starting to make no sense at this point and are beginning to sound like some begrudging old granny who can't stand to see other people doing well for themselves, just because you aren't.

Yeah... Because we're all doing reeeeeeally well...
I'd love to see people doing well. Shame, that, coz there's not much evidence of this shared wealth.

The "Che phenomenon"

Comments