Socialism: Yes or No?

omnicorp

Socialism: Yes or No?

Would you support Socialism?
Equality
Low Taxes
Low Crime
Enforcement?

Then why are Fianna Fail in Government?

AngelofFire

i support Social Democracy but not Leninsim or Stalinism

article6

What does Socialism have to do with "low taxes"? And what exactly is "enforcement"?

AngelofFire

I think he means socialism as an alternative to what he listed.

Exterminator

You tell him ed. Socialism would probably have high taxes, but a fairer tax system, ie none of this BS of the top 5% in the country paying no tax.

Your actually missing the mainselling points of socialism. Health and education systems that work.

The list you posted actually looks a bit.. how shall i put it...1 out of four aint bad

Exterminator

AngelofFire wrote:

I think he means socialism as an alternative to what he listed.

I dont think thats what he means, i dont think he knows exactly what he means

Simi

Those capitalist pigs will pay for their crimes, eh comrade!

shotamoose

omnicorp wrote:

Socialism: Yes or No?

Would you support Socialism?
Equality
Low Taxes
Low Crime
Enforcement?

Bit of a loaded question there.

But since you ask, my answer would be 'yes and no'. Some problems are best solved by markets, some by socialist solutions. For example, markets can't provide equitable health and education systems with adequate minimum standards regardless of ability to pay, but more socialist systems (i.e. with heavy government intervention) can.

It's also a question of scale. Socialism works quite well for small social units, since it's easier to get agreement and co-ordination problems aren't too severe. But pure state socialism just doesn't work at the country-level because planned systems tend to lack the flexibility and sophistication required. That's why the vast majority of countries in the world go for some mix of socialist and market systems.

mr_angry

Everything in moderation. Socialism, capitalism, vegetables!

steviec

Socialism doesn't work. It's a nice ideal and everything but in reality human nature takes over and it breeds corruption.

Capitalism is a result of thousands of years of evolution of human nature and people constantly criticise it and come up with improvements but in reality it's what people work with.

And as for the other question, Fianna Fail are in power because they were voted in for a second term after bringing unprecedented prosperity to the country.

mike65

What fun this thread shall be! Or it would be if it was'nt August with traffic here a bit light atm.

I voted no as I'm poor enough already but have ambitions to be richer at some point. Also there is NO evidence to support the idea that public services run better under socialist governments only that they soak up more resourses.

Enforcement

Whats that excatly? Salt mines?

Mike.

mycroft

Well,

Would you care to define socialism? I mean how far are you willing to take it. Socialist and Socialist lite groups, in Ireland run the gammit from

SWP. We'll campaign on anything to get more papers sold

SP. Similiar but with some working class members.

Sparatus. Actually have a chant "5,6,7,8 support the chinese workers state"

Irish Communist Party. Three men and a dog. Obscure politics fact, Connelly books across from the Clardon Hotel is actually owned by the Irish Communist Party. Bought from them by the USSR. The party consists of three old men, if you were willing to join the party and wait for them to die, you'd be in line for some primo city center property.

Just er wouldn't be very socialist of you.

AngelofFire

I think the current system of taxation is unfair, people who earn 40,000 per annum pay at the same rate of tax as people earning 200,000 per annum.

The system of two tax bands is botched there should be 3 bands. Nobody earning less than 15,000 per year should have to pay tax. The 20% for lower earners should still remain, those earning between 30,000 and 80,000 per annum should only pay at 35% and a 46-48% rate should apply to those earning in excess of 80,000. Stealth taxes like registration fees should be cut in half.

BuffyBot

And here was me thinking it was much more complicated than yes/no. I now see the error of my ways!

gaelic cowboy

shotamoose wrote:

Bit of a loaded question there.

But since you ask, my answer would be 'yes and no'. Some problems are best solved by markets, some by socialist solutions. For example, markets can't provide equitable health and education systems with adequate minimum standards regardless of ability to pay, but more socialist systems (i.e. with heavy government intervention) can.

It's also a question of scale. Socialism works quite well for small social units, since it's easier to get agreement and co-ordination problems aren't too severe. But pure state socialism just doesn't work at the country-level because planned systems tend to lack the flexibility and sophistication required. That's why the vast majority of countries in the world go for some mix of socialist and market systems.

If socialist systems provide better eduacation why are more and more children in Ireland going to bastions of capitialism ie fee paying schools

therecklessone

steviec wrote:

Socialism doesn't work. It's a nice ideal and everything but in reality human nature takes over and it breeds corruption.

Capitalism is a result of thousands of years of evolution of human nature and people constantly criticise it and come up with improvements but in reality it's what people work with.

Let me get this straight...

Socialism won't work because human nature leads to corruption, but capitalism does work because it is a result of the gradual develpoment of human nature...

So capitalism leads to corruption then?

AngelofFire

why are more and more children in Ireland going to bastions of capitialism ie fee paying schools

Snobbery, just because people have to pay for something they get the idea that its better than getting it for free. I went to a V.E.C. school and got 450 points whereas 3 of my friends went to a well known 5 grand a year school in Dublin. I did better than all 3 of them. Private education is not superior, at the end of the day it is down to the individual student to get good results.

elivsvonchiaing

AngelofFire wrote:

I think the current system of taxation is unfair, people who earn 40,000 per annum pay at the same rate of tax as people earning 200,000 per annum.

I have to say I agree. But the mega-rich you can only screw with sales tax - but if you can get them to live here...

I think CJH's tax amnesty for royalties - encouraging artists to live here was ingenious - these people are buying and paying vat at 21% + duty on cars, etc. I reckon they should be hit with extra excise duty on X.O. brandy, Premier Crus etc. Of course some of them don't reach the tax threshold anyhow - all you need is a few rich ones to help pay their dole.

If a bottle of booze costs €250 - why have just €4 go to the govt? They don't all drink - we could have tax on some mant things that targets them - we could have a 'bling tax - diamonds over certain value - but whatever this tax it should only exploit laziness/no patience - if they can get it in other EU countries should be forced to wait for it (to get it delivered) or pay up now. No customs bullsheit (OK cars can be easily tracked so these are the exception).

Americans pay tax (if they earn over a threshold - was about €75K 7-8 years ago - now - no idea) no matter where they live

(true also (I think) of Canadians).

Why not encourage American billionaires to live here as Irish citizens ?
(for tax purposes they would have to forefit their American citizenship)

There must 100 countries trying to do this but we have the advantage of not having hurricanes, tornadoes, bitching hot weather (ain't that the truth ),

we speak English - (just can't see a billionaire upset 'cos he has to get his morning paper and a pint of milk though and has a language problem) - we are not an unstable state (so you might think; but if I ever get that robotic army finished and working (hard to do in a garden shed believe me!) :cool: )

we are a reasonably liberal - (OK compared to El Shariah muslim states and the Bible belt of the US) -

and (scraping the bottom of the barrel) we don't have nutters with guns here :cool:

Bottom line is you can tax the rich only up to a certain point I think you were close to the mark - but only up to €2M/y - then they start to insist on getting entry/visa stamps at the airport even though they're Irish - basically it depends on circumstance - but anyone who's retired on a pension of €2M doesn't have their domicile here. There can't be more than 2 of these who are Irish. Sheit load of Americans though - I would think in the order of hundreds.

But we don't want just pensioners coming here - we need the billionaires -
They have enough lawyers to avoid the full tax liability normal folk pay - but if we could change things so those lawyers would suggest: "You really should revoke your US citizenship - sign this affidavit from the NSA - (You will technically be a US citizen - just the IRS can't touch you - and you'll have to use your Irish passport in future!) - spend no more than 90 days/year on US soil. Oh and buy a new Ferrari in Ireland - don't ship your old one - it will cost more in the long run".

When everyone around us is poor we're socialists . (I think mainly true in the 1980s). When we know some billionaires we become a nation of kiss-ass artists - true now - and fcuk it- why not

I seriously think we need to go in this direction. I know there are those who do not. I relish the anticipated flames :cool:

DadaKopf

shotamoose wrote:

Bit of a loaded question there.

But since you ask, my answer would be 'yes and no'. Some problems are best solved by markets, some by socialist solutions. For example, markets can't provide equitable health and education systems with adequate minimum standards regardless of ability to pay, but more socialist systems (i.e. with heavy government intervention) can.

It's also a question of scale. Socialism works quite well for small social units, since it's easier to get agreement and co-ordination problems aren't too severe. But pure state socialism just doesn't work at the country-level because planned systems tend to lack the flexibility and sophistication required. That's why the vast majority of countries in the world go for some mix of socialist and market systems.

I know what your saying, but how about this: socialism prevents the capitalist system from transforming into something else?

Flukey

The best thing is a mix of different politics. None of the extremes exclusively, but bits from all. That is one advantage of coalition governments, when they are done across a divide. Our current one has parties that both lean right. The Labour + Fianna Fáil worked well because of the mix, until the judges scandal toppled it.

shotamoose

DadaKopf wrote:

I know what your saying, but how about this: socialism prevents the capitalist system from transforming into something else?

Hmm, another leading question! Something else like what?

Dunno if this is what you mean, but there's a good case for saying that socialism saved capitalism - for example, the Keynesian and super-interventionist policies adopted by FDR dragged America out of the Depression, while unemployment benefits and socialised healthcare and education systems took the harsh edge off capitalism and the wind out of the sails of worker-led revolution all around the world.

gaelic cowboy wrote:

If socialist systems provide better eduacation why are more and more children in Ireland going to bastions of capitialism ie fee paying schools

Under-funding of the public school system, for one thing. And anyway, people are free to choose to pay more to go private if they want to - I'm more concerned about the people who can't afford fee-paying schools. Under a purely market-driven system, those with least resources would be much worse off. Hence my point about minimum standards. Incidentally, the same goes for child poverty, which is my number one measure of a country's economic success: which countries have the lowest levels of absolute child poverty? Luxembourg, Norway, Denmark, Sweden and Finland, all of which have a much higher degree of socialist policy than Ireland, the UK or the US.

gom

Oh its been a while since there was a Socialism/Capitalism rant post here

I'm a Dreadlocked Economics student who deplores Lefties but is a active member of the Labour party.. Oh the contradictions!

Basically you can't knock the market. It is a very useful mechnism. Socialism is about creating a society that functions for the greater good of all(but in a non-utalitarian sense). I am a Market Social Democrat, whatever the hell that means. I believe that New Labour(UK) in their first term is the type of government we need(with some modifications obviously).

At the same time anyone who say that Capitalism is the result of Human evolution is a complete moron. Darwin is evil and his theory of evolution was used by the NAZIs to justify the complete destruction of a ethnic group form the face of the planet among other things.

Making sure everyone in society is given equal opportunities and looked after when needed. Making sure the Market is constranded for the good of society in certain areas. Treating the root of a problem and not the result. If these actions are unnatural and against human natural then I embrace them. If natural is the law of the jungle. Survival of the fittest then America deserves to walk all over teh world and do as it pleases.

I'm no idealist by any means but I think that those on both the left and right have it completely wrong. Its not about Liberial Economics, Market Friendly policies, people friendly policies, Socialism or Capitalism. Its about people.

Is the pure market a better place for the price of medicine, childcare, health, police enforcement, education, transport... No on all grounds. These are services that need to be controlled to a point and provided for by the state. If you agree with this paragraph in an small way then you are a socialist in a small way too. CApitalism only comes in one for. The pure form of the free market. Socialism on the other hand is not communism. It is a balance of the basic needs of a society and leaves the rest to the market.

The irony is that Ireland today is the most centralised state in the whole of Europe(apart from Russia and Moldova). We have Central Government with all the power. Then they delegate it to quangos of the authority sort. We have no regional government that anyone knows about(the BMW and SERA are only 5 years old and undemocratic). Local government is powerless on even planning. No one knows who is responsible for anything from the telecommunications infrastructure to the roads. The central government refuses to allow you and me choose anything...

This Capitalist utopian society Ireland has grown up to be has led to more and more un accountability. Less freedom and more big government. All you FF nuts out there open your eyes. Your party owns us all. We have no choose or freedom. We have a centrally planned economy with the National Spacial Stratagy(NSS), National Development Program(NDP), Social Partnership, consultant report after consultant report on what the government should do...

The reality is that a moderately socialist Labour party would led to less government in this country. Labour actively supports Devolution not Decentralisation(another centrally planned scheme)

The arguments have changed so drop the idealism and move on the the practicalities of the arguement. It is a politics board. Not a political science or humanities board..
my 2c

arcadegame2004

Would you support Socialism?

No. Low taxation has never been part of Socialist ideology. Socialists support high taxation. Those on the economic right tend to favour lower taxation.

I have a number of problems with Socialism:

A:Traditionally, Socialism is defined in terms partly of supporting State-control of the means of production. I am totally against this, because this implies monopoly and monopoly is bad for the consumer. Unlike private-sector monopolies, those which are State-owned usually have their monopoly enshrined in the law as government-policy. If the consumer is dissatisfied with the ESB, Gas etc. bills they are paying, then it is wrong to force them to stick with whatever company they feel is overcharging them in these areas. It actually harms the poor through the higher prices that monopoly brings. So much for Socialism being on the poor-man's side.

B:Socialism tends to support trade-union militancy, and the philosophy of "strike first - talk later". Labour gets contributions from the trade-unions and I feel that there would be a resulting conflict of interest were Labour to be in possession of certain government posts during an industrial-dispute, in the same way that a political-party receiving donations from a certain company would potentially have a conflict of interest. Labour can't serve 2 masters.

C:The trade-unions tried to block the deregulation of the taxi-industry. Since deregulation, taxi-fares have plummeted. I'd say that's a sign that competition usually helps the consumer.

D:Socialists favour high taxes on businesses, thererby deterring multinationals from setting up here.

E:Socialists believe in punishing wealth-creation through excessive taxation of entrepreneurs. I believe that we should encourage private-enterprise among the general population, not punish it.

F:Socialism is actually against equality in the commercial sphere, since they wish to treat companies like Aer Rianta, Bus Eireann, and Bord Gais better than other companies by denying other companies the right to offer the consumer a choice. One party-state's tend to be tyrannical, just like one-company market's (albeit in different ways). In both the electoral and commercial sphere, the consumer should have a choice, except in the rail-sector perhaps, where introducing competition seems difficult in practical terms, unlike the electricity, gas and bus-sectors.

G:Countries with Socialist governments have higher unemployment e.g. France, Germany, Spain, Italy (all around 9%-12%). It is a failed ideology. Labour need to move to the centre if they are ever to get my vote.

H:The only issue I agree with the Left on is legalising gay marriage and the end of the State's interference in the bedrooms of consenting adults.

---

I would define my ideology as Liberal, both in the economic sense and the social sense. I generally feel that the Government should only intervene in the lives of the public as a last resort. Where there are competing rights, the Government may have a case to intervene to protect the public from monopolistic-practices and from passive-smoking etc. But generally, the more the Government intervenes in industry the worse it is for all of us, since we are denied choice in what company provides our electricity and gas and some other sectors. I feel that done properly, competition in these sectors would bring prices down. Where this has not been the case in some countries, I see that as a result not of privatisation or deregulation per se, but rather of the exact methodoly and regulatory regimes introduced in those cases. The British privatisation of British Rail was a mistake, since market-principles do not really work when each rail-company has a monopoly over a certain section of track. But generally, privatisation and deregulation is right. Furthermore, I believe in the complete separation of the Church and State. I see religion as something that arguably has caused more harm than good.

Rredwell

mycroft wrote:

Well,

Would you care to define socialism? I mean how far are you willing to take it. Socialist and Socialist lite groups, in Ireland run the gammit from

SWP.
SP.
Sparatus.
Irish Communist Party.

What about the Labour Party? Ireland's true Socialists.

Socialism simply means treating people properly: free education; universal healthcare; good housing; workers' rights. And of course you need taxation. When people's taxes are put to good use for hospitals, schools, etc., it means people are looking after each other. It's self-help. This is how Socialism can work on a national level.

As for flexibility: what good is that if people's jobs are seen as being liabilities or disposable commodities?

arcadegame2004

Rredwell, if socialism is so beneficial then why are all the countries with Socialist governments high-unemployment zones?

Rredwell

Flukey wrote:

The Labour + Fianna Fáil worked well because of the mix, until the judges scandal toppled it.

Labour and FF? That's something I never knew about, and I'm in the Labour Party. What an Orwellian touch.

AngelofFire

Socialists favour high taxes on businesses, thererby deterring multinationals from setting up here.

was it not Labour who locked Ireland into the 12.5% corporation tax. was it not Labour who abolished 3rd level fees enabling more people to get better qualifications thus providing more skilled personell for these multinationals making it more attracive for them to set up in ireland.

We have Central Government with all the power. Then they delegate it to quangos of the authority sort. We have no regional government that anyone knows about

.

I agree our system of local government is awful, it has remained fundamentally the same since the abolition of the grand jury system in 1898. Its in need of reform, but this government has done little to improve local government. Waste disposal is being transferred to private companies, most of the major decisions at local level are taken by county managers. I think that that is undemocratic.

I believe that local government should have more control of Gardai, the Bus roots and waste management.

Rredwell

Any system is only as good as the people who administer it. The whole point of Socialism (as well as Communism) is that people should work together face to face in small groups to run their lives. It shouldn't involve a few oligarchs controlling everything. It's the same with capitalism - why can't everyone in a Capitalist economy become millionaires - because the ordinary people are seen by the cabal as being catalysts to wealth, just like the Tánaiste said. People are people, not ingredients in a Capitalist experiment to generate wealth.

Socialism? Unemployment? In 1980s Britain 3 million were unemployed under the Classical Liberal ideology of Mrs Thatcher.

arcadegame2004

was it not Labour who locked Ireland into the 12.5% corporation tax. was it not Labour who abolished 3rd level fees enabling more people to get better qualifications thus providing more skilled personell for these multinationals making it more attracive for them to set up in ireland.

Abolishing third-level fees is meaningless when there are still registration-fees. I had to forgo university this year because I couldn't afford it. And the % of working-class adults going to university is not appreciably higher than it was when the fees were abolished. The low Corporation-tax rate cam in in 1989, before Labour was in power.

arcadegame2004

Rredwell wrote:

Any system is only as good as the people who administer it. The whole point of Socialism (as well as Communism) is that people should work together face to face in small groups to run their lives. It shouldn't involve a few oligarchs controlling everything. It's the same with capitalism - why can't everyone in a Capitalist economy become millionaires - because the ordinary people are seen by the cabal as being catalysts to wealth, just like the Tánaiste said. People are people, not ingredients in a Capitalist experiment to generate wealth.

Socialism? Unemployment? In 1980s Britain 3 million were unemployed under the Classical Liberal ideology of Mrs Thatcher.

The 1974-79 Labour Government created the seeds of that mess and naturally tough medicine was needed to resolve it in the long run.

If you don't support oligarchs then why do you support the oligarchy of Aer Rianta (Noel Hanlon), ESB and Bord Gais?

Rredwell

How are AL, ESB, and BG oligarchies? They are publicly owned.

Are you talking about Central America when you say Socialism and unemployment? If so, it's the result of a small group of plutocrats who are ruling un-Socialistically.