Socialism: Yes or No?

Rredwell

Also, when you say that the 3m unemployed in the UK were results of "tough medicine", you define Classical Liberalism in a nutshell. Grab what you can for you and the chosen few, and screw what happens to the plebs.

sceptre

arcadegame2004 wrote:

The low Corporation-tax rate cam in in 1989, before Labour was in power.

We've had this before and it's a false statement. I corrected you before and gave exact rates through out the 80s and 90s but you chose to ignore it or found the figures too complicated. I'll make it simpler this time:

The corpo tax rate was 43% from 1989 to 1991. It was 40% from 1991 to 1995. It's dropped through various increments since, all downward. Meanwhile the 10% rate for export manufacturing industry was introduced in the 1980 budget, taking effect in 1981. The next time you use the above date, I'll call you a liar.

chewy

?

AngelofFire

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.

It wasn`t meaningless to me, im pretty sure that if i had to pay fees i wouldnt be going into my 3rd year in university come october. yes the increase in registration fees were a disgrace and i will dance on noel demspey`s grave, in my view reg fees should not exist at all.There is a lot of working class people in UCD who wouldn`t be there had it not been for free fees. I accept that dramatic change is yet to come about but i reckon in 10 years the percentage of working class people in Universities will double these things just dont change over night. I.Ts are already showing a significant increase in working class people since 1994, it is bound to work its way up. It took a long time for the country to feel the effects of the Lemass free 2nd level education act in 1968 but thats not to say it was meaningless.

Redleslie2

arcadegame2004 wrote:

Countries with Socialist governments have higher unemployment e.g. France, Germany, Spain, Italy (all around 9%-12%). It is a failed ideology.

Neither France nor Italy have socialist governments. What are you talking about?

Sweden is arguably the most socialist state in the EU and until the 90's it had an unemployment rate of about 2%, now it's roughly equal with the US. Meanwhile, Poland with a centre right government has 20% unemployment. So explain these anomalies. Go on.

chewy

problem i have with socialism is the obsession with class, i prefer to see class disappate... but socialist are so obsessed with it it never would

arcadegame2004

The corpo tax rate was 43% from 1989 to 1991. It was 40% from 1991 to 1995. It's dropped through various increments since, all downward. Meanwhile the 10% rate for export manufacturing industry was introduced in the 1980 budget, taking effect in 1981. The next time you use the above date, I'll call you a liar.

But the low rate for MULTINATIONALS was introduced in 1989, and they are responsible for the vast bulk of our exports and the majority of our GNP, so I feel my point still stands.

Neither France nor Italy have socialist governments. What are you talking about?
Sweden is arguably the most socialist state in the EU and until the 90's it had an unemployment rate of about 2%, now it's roughly equal with the US. Meanwhile, Poland with a centre right government has 20% unemployment. So explain these anomalies. Go on.

Poland has a Centre-Left Government. Leczek Miller resigned some time ago but his successor is also leftwing. No general-election was called after Miller resigned. Get your facts straight.

The mess in Germany, France. Italy, and Spain was caused by Socialist Governments and Socialist policies and the failure of the rightist-politicians in those countries to reverse the massive taxation (55% Corporation tax in Germany is an example) and excessively liberal working-time laws (35 hour maximum working-week in France) that hamper the profitability of companies and lead to workers being laid off. It goes to show what leftwing high-mindedness translates to on the ground. Some saying about the road to hell and good intentions springs to mind.

Socialist meddling only causes higher unemployment (through high company-taxation) and hurts the poor by denying them the right to choose an alternative to ESB and Bord Gais etc. regardless of their prices. Fat cats are appointed to State-company boards on the basis of party-political cronyism.

problem i have with socialism is the obsession with class, i prefer to see class disappate... but socialist are so obsessed with it it never would

Right on. Some of these people forget that many of the rich got there through damn hard work.

MadsL

UK - Socialist Govt - Low unemployment
http://www.hrmguide.co.uk/jobmarket/unemployment.htm

"Fat cats are appointed to State-company boards on the basis of party-political cronyism."

Of course this would never happen under a right-wing Govt :rolleyes:

gaelic cowboy

You think oul Tone is a socialist he threw away every bit of socialism he could get away and more and he stole Tory ideas in the election's he won. If Blair is socialist why he hanging around or on holidays with all them rich twats in the carribean or tuscanny the whole time.???????

sceptre

arcadegame2004 wrote:

But the low rate for MULTINATIONALS was introduced in 1989, and they are responsible for the vast bulk of our exports and the majority of our GNP, so I feel my point still stands.

Er, no. You're talking bollocks again. That point wouldn't stand on a metal plate.

We weren't allowed have a separate rate for multinationals by 1989 under EC rules. Actually we weren't allowed that by 1980 which is why we introduced the manufacturing exemption for exported materials in 1980 (we brought it in as we had to dump the low rate for multinationals that we'd had in the seventies). Go look it up. You may be confusing this with the introduction of the lower tax rate for the IFSC (Finance Act 1986, EC-approved in 1987), introduction of the lower rate for fish processing, remanufacture or repair of computer equipment and meat processing (all 1989, included in the 1990 Finance Act (section 41)) or the lower rate for repair of aircraft, aircraft engines or components (good till December 2005 in Shannon, again 1990 Act section 41).

Or you're mixing it up with the 1988 Finance Act section that allows an Irish resident company to have relevant dividends received from a 51% non-resident subsidiary excluded from its income chargeable to corporation tax (which obviously has nothing to do with multinationals as the corporate income is flowing in rather than out).

Or, heck, you made it up or remember it assways. Find a library and look up the EC rulings from the late 70s that specifically told us that we couldn't have a special tax rate for multinationals that had invested here. Historically it's been one of the exceptions in the general non-interference of the commission to national taxation regimes (that and their telling us to get rid of the special export manufacturing tax rate a little more recently which has led to the corporation tax rate for trading income and exported manufacturing to change to 12.5% (one went down, the other's going up) in increments since the early 90s) so even finding a newspaper the day after the 1980 budget should do for background. Apart from the actual fact that we didn't have a distinct "low rate for MULTINATIONALS" (even multinationals who use nothing but capital letters) that began in 1989 or any other year since the mid-seventies, reading why the EC told us we couldn't should entertain you for a while. On your way to the library newspaper section you can read the Finance Acts from around 1988 to 1992 as well. Cross-reference them with the 1976 and 1980 Acts and you'll have a reasonable picture of what the tax regime in 1989 actually was.

ionapaul

Simi wrote:

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

Time to build our socialist paradise! Now where are the secret police, those anarchists / Trotskyists / social democrats who helps us defeat the 'whites' must be shot! Two legs bad, four legs good...a Trabant for every man...etc etc...:)

Redleslie2

arcadegame2004 wrote:

Poland has a Centre-Left Government.

I put that in deliberately to see if you'd actually go away and look up a few things. Eg, compare unemployment in communist Poland (less than 1%) with the current rate. This proves that communism, hardcore socialism, is better for Poland than capitalism is, doesn't it.

I'm reasonably confident that apparently unlike you, most other people here would agree that unemployment is not the sole factor that determines whether a state is a success or not. For example, that socialist mess France has the highest level of second home ownership in the world.

Get your facts straight.

Why should I? You're happy enough to talk bollocks so why can't everyone else? Do you still stand by your statement that France and Italy's governments are socialist.

Socialist meddling only causes higher unemployment

As someone pointed out, what did Thatcher's meddling do for unemployment?

You ignore the point I made about Sweden I notice. How convenient.

bonkey

arcadegame2004 wrote:

But the low rate for MULTINATIONALS was introduced in 1989, and they are responsible for the vast bulk of our exports and the majority of our GNP, so I feel my point still stands.

Ah, right...so what you're saying is that although you stated things incorrectly, the point behind the truth that you could have said was true.

Genius.

Personally, I agree with the point made. You've been corrected on the inaccuracy of your statement previously, and you continue to use it. Either you are deliberately trying to mislead people, or provoke others by continuing to use information you know you are misrepresenting.

Isn't it funny how when someone uses a slightly inaccurate term to describe some of your activities (think pyramid scheme if you're drawing a blank) how quick you are to get up on your high horse about the inaccuracy of the comments, and just how low people have to sink in order to misrepresent the truth in this way.......

Its no wonder you're a no to socialism. The concept of applying something equally seems to be anathema to you.

and hurts the poor by denying them the right to choose an alternative to ESB and Bord Gais etc. regardless of their prices.

Bwahahahahahah.

What about the poor that it supplies these services to free of charge, because they can't actually pay for it?

Some of these people forget that many of the rich got there through damn hard work.

Some of "these people" no doubt do....just like you seem to completely ignore the fact that many of the rich got there through walking over others and not caring who or how many they drove into poverty whilst becoming rich.

Of course, its just laughable that you are constantly referring to the rich and the poor, and how each is adversely affected by socialism, and how each would be better off under capitalism....whilst saying "right on" to the person who pointed out that its the socialists who make an issue over class.

Socialists recognise that class structures lead to unfair advantages and disadvantages. You just recognise that the class structures exist, but apparently don't see any issue with it.

jc

mycroft

Rredwell wrote:

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

You were in colation with them 15 years ago? Did you know anything about the labour party when you signed up with?

Read Fergus Finley's "snakes and ladders" his justification for labour going in power with FF after it recieved a massive share of votes as protest by people fed up with FF corruption, is pricelessly funny and tragic.

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

Thank you I haven't laffed like that in ages.....

Those who attack socialism are forgetting one basic thing, the rights as employees had to be won for us at the turn of the century, and that war (and make no mistake it was a war) was fought by socialist.

Socialists fought and led strikes so that we could have, lets see

Overtime.

A 40 hour week,

Schools and education.

Workers safety and compensation.

No child labour.

Livable wages.

Basic fun stuff like that, that we take for granted now.

yes I'm aware that it's more complicated than that (increased industrialization, the creation of the middle class)

But the simple fact is Arcadegame's capitalist mates had had there way we'd all be working a 60 week for tuppence and be grateful we can still work after I lost me leg. They didn't give us those rights, we had to strike, fight and die to get them.

I'll leave you with a Che Guevara Quote
"I believe that a social revolutionary works out of a geniune love of his fellow man"

DadaKopf

shotamoose wrote:

Hmm, another leading question! Something else like what?

Heyyy, I'm not here to tell you how it ends. I'm here to tell you how it begins.

Sand

Short answer, no.

Long answer - Socialism isnt sustainable. Its redistibution of wealth dogma effectively means taking resources from the most productive in an economy and parachuting them on to the least productive on the basis of some sort of shared identity. So both the most and least productive have less incentive to create wealth. Developed social democracies like Germany and France are defined by their large unemployment numbers. Standard of living remains high because of wealth redistribution but the wheels are in danger of coming off. Even German Unions are recognising this by accepting that change in German unemployment laws is required.

This is even before demographic shifts come into play - Europe is getting older. Its becoming harder and harder for governments to pay pensions when the number of OAPS gets higher and higher relative to the number of taxable workers. The solution of simply importing a younger workforce from abroad is running into the brick wall of anti-immigration forces, and even then its simply a delaying tactic as those immigrants will age along European trends as well - and it has its own costs of social division and ethnic tensions.

Mainstream Socialist parties and unions are recognising this - Unions are becoming less and less aggressive, "labour" parties are moving steadily to right of center - capitalism with a human face, social partnership and so on. There remains a hard core socialist movement but the economically deprived are not the majority, the actual working class are. Theyre the ones who pay the bills these days. Socialist programs are now dependant on getting the economically well off to vote for them.

And heres another reasons for socialism unsustainability - As i said above the justification for socialisms redistribution of wealth is some common identity. Socialism is a revolutionary creed however, and its adherents have successfully attacked many of the entrenched rival creeds such as nationalism and religion which have in the past served as badges of common identity. Im not saying thats a bad thing - Im happy to see those forces weakened, but my economic policies arent dependant on a shared sense of identity, whereas Socialism is. If there were two defining characteristics of Irish identity it was the influence of Catholicism and Irish nationalism. Both of these have long since been discredited. Without them, what do the workers have in common with the economically deprived? If its common humanity thats to motivate them then there are other human beings in far, far, far worse conditions who deserve priority.

Someone earlier said that socialism saved capitalism - perhaps it did, in that socialist unions protected workers from exploitation and forced legislators to take their demands and concerns as seriously as the investors and entrepreneurs - but its socialism thats on the life support these days.

omnicorp

You have no Idea how happy it makes me that I get some agreement on this Forum.

All the ridicule, insults, and ultimately banning on www.darkageofwythia.com
(Surprise, Surprise it was an American site)

So America, Land of the Free isn't all that free(!)


And Don't call me Anti-American, I was born in San Francisco.

mycroft

So America, Land of the Free isn't all that free(!)

You got banned from an online RPG.

Not exactly Mordecai Vanunu is it?

omnicorp

Well Mandela was imprisoned for 25 years...

arcadegame2004

Originally posted by MadSL
UK - Socialist Govt - Low unemployment

I don't consider New Labour to be Socialist. They have clearly ditched leftwing economic ideology by reversing Clause 4, refusing to reverse the Thatcherite privatisations of the 1980's, and by cutting taxes. I consider New Labour to espouse to kind of ideals I support, including the State keeping out of peoples personal lives and commercial-lives.The conservative party in Portugal is ironically called the Social Democrats, so a name can be misleading. Don't judge a book by its cover, please.

Originally posted by Bonkey
Of course, its just laughable that you are constantly referring to the rich and the poor, and how each is adversely affected by socialism, and how each would be better off under capitalism....whilst saying "right on" to the person who pointed out that its the socialists who make an issue over class.

There is always going to be "class". Rights come with responsibilities. The patent system encourages class-divides by forcing companies to pay the holder of the patent for its use. Are you saying we should scrap that rule? If we do that, then the incentive for companies and individuals to innovate and bring about further groundbreaking technological advances would be greatly reduced, and society would suffer as a result. Also, the desire to get rich acts as a powerful incentive for those at the bottom of the ladder to try to further their position through entrepreneurship. We need class-divides to encourage innovation in society. Society actually benefits from it.

Socialists recognise that class structures lead to unfair advantages and disadvantages. You just recognise that the class structures exist, but apparently don't see any issue with it.

You are never going to get absolute economic equality for everyone. It has never existed, and will never exist. Rights come with responsibilies, and the greater the latter burden is taken on the greater will be the economic rewards, and overall, society, including the poor, benefit from that.

Originally posted by Redleslie2I put that in deliberately to see if you'd actually go away and look up a few things. Eg, compare unemployment in communist Poland (less than 1%) with the current rate. This proves that communism, hardcore socialism, is better for Poland than capitalism is, doesn't it.

LOL. As if Communist countries produce honest economic statistics.

Redleslie2

arcadegame2004 wrote:

I don't consider New Labour to be Socialist.

It's all getting a bit Orwellian. Italy and France have socialist parties in power and Labour are not really Labour. Ignorance is strength I see.

LOL. As if Communist countries produce honest economic statistics.

Their statistics are a lot more reliable than some of the bollocks you've been trying to peddle here.

Still working out what to say about Sweden I assume. Take your time. Good man. I suggest that you deny that the place exists at all. Anomaly solved.

shotamoose

Sand wrote:

Long answer - Socialism isnt sustainable.

Actually, history indicates that capitalism isn't sustainable without socialist policies - redistribution, labour protections, heavy state intervention in health and education, and so on. Before these reforms were introduced, capitalist economies everywhere were under constant threat of violent revolution from the masses of poor people who saw none of the gains of capitalism. Redistributing wealth saved them from the extremes of deprivation, workers rights reduced the worst kinds of exploitation, while widening access to health and education widened opportunity and leveled the market's playing field.

Its redistibution of wealth dogma effectively means taking resources from the most productive in an economy and parachuting them on to the least productive

So anyone born poor must be inherently less productive? That's like saying education is wasted on children born into poverty. Redistribution is about reducing the very obvious advantages and disadvantages of birth and allowing people to take part in the economy on a more equal basis. Redistribution strikes at privelege and vested interests and gives people the opportunity to realise their full productive potential. 'Productivity' is not the preserve of those lucky enough to be born rich.

By the way,the extent of 'redistribution' is generally overstated by concentrating on incomes taxes. The poor and middle classes pay a higher proportion of their incomes on VAT and other indirect taxes than do the rich, so the proportions of incomes paid by different classes are roughly equal in most OECD countries.

Developed social democracies like Germany and France are defined by their large unemployment numbers.

That's what they call a 'technical lie', because while true in the narrow sense (France and Germany have high unemployment) it hides the fact that other developed social democracies have very low unemployment. There's no clear relationship between the degree of 'social democratic' policies and unemployment, or between labour market protections and unemployment. In fact, the lesson of the last twenty years or so in both the UK and the US is that left of centre governments are better for employment and better for growth than right-of-centre regimes.

Standard of living remains high because of wealth redistribution

They sure do. Absolute child poverty is higher in the USA than it is in Norway, Denmark, Sweden, Finland, Belgium, Canada, France, the Netherlands and Germany. Since poverty has a clearly discernible negative effect on educational attainment, redistribution promotes equality of opportunity.

Cork

Socialism has flopped. Fair play to New Labour for modernising the party in ridding itself of the ghosts of old socialisim. New Labour are realist. They are not dragged down by old socialist ideas.

In Ireland we have SF, Labour and Joe Higgins Party. The best they could come up with was the "Baby Bond".

Socialism in Ireland has yet to come into the 21st Century. Leadership will be required for this but I can't see it happening.

arcadegame2004

Still working out what to say about Sweden I assume. Take your time. Good man. I suggest that you deny that the place exists at all. Anomaly solved.

The Scandinavian countries are a special case because alone in Europe, they accept rates of taxation (74% in Denmark) that would destroy a Government's poll ratings in this country.

Yes, if a Government introduces mammoth rates of taxation, where that taxation is acceptable to the public (it isn't here and in most of the rest of the world!) then they can afford to cut waiting-lists through public-funds.

But those kinds of tax-rates would not be accepted here! Hence the need for the private-sector to take on a more extnesive role. Arguably, Sweden would not need such high taxes to fulfill goals such as the above if they relied more on the private-sector for hospital-care etc.

arcadegame2004

Originally posted by shotamoose
In fact, the lesson of the last twenty years or so in both the UK and the US is that left of centre governments are better for employment and better for growth than right-of-centre regimes.

I don't agree with you that Clinton and Blair were on the Left. Clinton had to work with a Republican Congress from 1994-2001 anyway so even if he wanted to pursue leftwing policies they would have blocked it.

Both New Labour and the US Democrats are further to the economic-right than the PDs.

shotamoose

arcadegame2004 wrote:

Both New Labour and the US Democrats are further to the economic-right than the PDs.

We don't actually know how economically right-wing the PDs would be if they got into power by themselves, and I hope we never find out. But to the left of New Labour? I don't think so. I haven't seen the PDs pledging to abolish child poverty in a generation or increasing taxes to pay for more investment in health. Comparisons with the Democrats are tricky because the political terrain is so different, but Clinton was certainly to the left of both Bush administrations.

shotamoose

arcadegame2004 wrote:

The Scandinavian countries are a special case because alone in Europe, they accept rates of taxation (74% in Denmark) that would destroy a Government's poll ratings in this country.

Yes, if a Government introduces mammoth rates of taxation, where that taxation is acceptable to the public (it isn't here and in most of the rest of the world!) then they can afford to cut waiting-lists through public-funds.

It's not just waiting lists - the Scandinavian countries have higher minimum standards of living than us across the board, and are just as if not more innovative and competitive.

Redleslie2

arcadegame2004 wrote:

The Scandinavian countries are a special case because alone in Europe, they accept rates of taxation (74% in Denmark) that would destroy a Government's poll ratings in this country.

They're special cases that manage to make your entire argument look a bit weak. Per capita, Sweden has the 5th or 6th highest number of billionaires in the world so the 'high tax rate = no incentive to make money' argument doesn't necessarily hold a lot of water either.

Why are poll ratings relevant?

Lennoxschips

The Top 5 countries in the UN Human Development Report:

1. Norway
2. Sweden
3. Australia
4. Canada
5. Netherlands

Of those, Norway, Sweden, Canada and the Netherlands are known for their socialist policies and liberal leanings. I don't know much about Australian policies, so I am unable to comment.

arcadegame2004

Or could it just be that Norway is the world's third largest exporter of oil?

I understand that the Dutch Government is led by free-market Flemish Liberals, and not Socialists.

Canada is ruled by the Liberal Party. Again I fail to see how you surmise that it is "socialist".

Same with Australia (ruled by the Liberal Party), especially given the privatisations under the previous Labour (or Labor as it is spelt there).