Socialism: Yes or No?

monument

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.

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.

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

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

monument

Sorry, I was wrong.

It works. It works brilliantly in continuing a trend of an unequal world.

Redleslie2

World Economic Forum index of competitiveness here.

Finland, Denmark and Sweden score higher overall than the US.

MadsL

Originally Posted by arcadegame2004
I understand that the Dutch Government is led by free-market Flemish Liberals, and not Socialists.

That will be startling news to the Dutch Government!!!

I think you'll find that Guy Verhofstadt's party, the Flemish Liberal Democrats (VLD) are in Government in Belgium!!!


Never mind, it wasn't like the word Flemish would have give you a clue.... :eek: :rolleyes:

arcadegame2004

Sorry MadsL, I meant that the Belgian Government is led by the Liberals. The Dutch Government is of course led by Jan peter Balkenende, not a socialist unlike the implication of a previous post.

therecklessone

arcadegame2004 wrote:

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.

See, I can't decide if this is a good thing or a bad thing.

On the one hand, a bit of education would do you a world of good, might improve the standard of the drivel you've been posting on here.

On the other hand, why should my tax € be wasted on educating an imbecile like you?

*I can't believe I'm still reading some of this moron's posts*

therecklessone

Cork wrote:

and Joe Higgins Party.

Thats the Socialist Party Cork.

Even I have show enough respect for that shower of gouging, lying, fingers-in-the-till fat f*ckers you support to call them Fianna Fail.

therecklessone

And back on topic...

Socialism or capitalism?

A little from column A, a little from column B please.

As has been pointed out, capitalism would have collapsed under the weight of worker revolution without the introduction of some form of social provision.

I still believe the state is the best agent for the provision of education, health care and public transport, but should encourage private enterprise wherever possible. I also believe (unlike many on the left) in personal responsibility, rather than blaming society for all my troubles.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Sand

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.

I dont think so - capitalism has been alive and kicking in some form since.....well since the minting of coinage and the rise of merchants. The US, often decried as the anti-socialist nation has long survived with very little or no socialism. In fact its had a pretty peaceful society, with the exception of the Civil War which was about the rights of states, and perhaps the struggle for emancipation which was not about class or capitalism.

So long as opportunities are equal, or are seen to be equal for everyone theres no reason for free market capitalism to be under threat - thats whats probably sustained the US for so long, the American dream and all that. Apart from redistribution, the rest arent by defintion socialist policies - Unions are just monopolies on labour, exploiting their monopoly for the benefit of their members, under any system would it be impossible for them to demand and achieve better rights? Health and Education are beneficial in any economy, and socialist policies are not required to achieve them - but weve already had that argument so lets not go into that particular point.

The rest of your post is pretty irrelevant - its about how nice and how just Socialism is. Great - My point was regardless of how nice and how just it is that its not sustainable in the long run.

arcadegame2004

Health and Education are beneficial in any economy, and socialist policies are not required to achieve them - but weve already had that argument so lets not go into that particular point.

You are right Sand. In fact, the socialist prescription (no pun intended) for the running of the Health-Service achieves often inferior results at massively higher cost to the ordinary man on the street they claim to represent and to be offering free health-care to. The vast amount of taxpayer's money going to the Health-Service is hardly "free".

It is better to have compulsory private health-insurance. Means-testing would establish who fall beneath a certain poverty-line such that they could not afford to reasonably pay the premiums themselves, and in those cases the State would pay their premiums, choosing the cheapest option among the competition in the Health-insurance market. Of course, we need to have more health-insurers in the market before we can embark on this course, as a duopoly of VHI and BUPA is not conducive to keeping premiums at a reasonable level.

Upon the entry of sufficient numbers of competitors to the market, my proposals would be implemented, under my scheme of things. The State would privatise the hospital-buildings in order to relieve the taxpayer of the cost of the hospital-overheads and the cost of treating patients (other than the safety net for the poor that I mentioned), thus allowing massive room for tax-cuts as the private-sector bears the burden instead, - with competition potentially keeping premiums at a level such that the payments per capita to the Health-Service are lower in net terms that they would have been if the old system was retained. This, together with the competition between Health-insurers on the basis of charging lower premiums, would force the hospitals (who would be in receipt of payments from the insurers arising from the premium payments by consumers) to spend their resouces more efficiently, e.g. on equipment and not on fat-cats holidays and excessive pay-rises for staff. The hospitals would also have what they sadly lack at present - a financial incentive to treat patients. One of my internet friends was told a number of years ago he was going to die of cancer and it was too late to operate. How ever, he ended up getting a successful life-saving operation in a private-hospital in the US. Just goes to show that the public-sector hospitals consider the patient as a burden, whereas the private-sector hospital's incentive to make money gives them an incentive to treat patients.

Sounds to me like the private-sector could offer a truly "caring" health-service. The socialist model preaches pious proclamations of how it is more "caring" than the private-sector alternative, but their ideology is badly thought out and owes more to Marxist hatred of private-enterprise than anything else. The State is not good at everything. The doubling of health-spending's failure to translate into improvements in health-care surely is a testament to that. The Socialists are the real "klingons"

shotamoose

Sand wrote:

I dont think so - capitalism has been alive and kicking in some form since.....well since the minting of coinage and the rise of merchants.

Firstly, trade was not always capitalist. Secondly, capitalist relationships did not become the dominant system of production for a long time, basically until after the start of the Industrial Revolution. Whenever and wherever free-wheeling capitalism draws in the majority or the entirety of the people, pressure builds to relieve the worst deprivations, the worst exploitations and to give people a fair chance to compete. Democratically elected governments then undertake the socialist reforms I described, and the end result is some form of mixed economy.

So long as opportunities are equal, or are seen to be equal for everyone theres no reason for free market capitalism to be under threat

Absolutely. But if you're in favour of equality of opportunities you have to be in favour of huge redistribution to wipe out every inequality conferred by the advantages of wealth and the disadvantages of poverty. At a very minimum, child poverty and homelessness of all kinds would have to wiped out. Glad to see you're on board with this radical agenda, Sand

Of course, some people say that true equality of opportunity is logically impossible without equality of outcome ...

Apart from redistribution, the rest arent by defintion socialist policies

State-led, tax-financed health and education policies aren't socialist? Most people would disagree.

Health and Education are beneficial in any economy, and socialist policies are not required to achieve them

But they are required for universally and equally accessible systems with high minimum standards.

but weve already had that argument so lets not go into that particular point.

Well I think it's rather central to the argument of 'socialism - yes or no?' so no, let's have the argument. If you're talking about this thread then I think you've already lost the argument on education.

The rest of your post is pretty irrelevant - its about how nice and how just Socialism is.

Hey, don't forget those factual inaccuracies of yours I pointed out. Or was your original point 'irrelevant' too?

shotamoose

arcadegame2004 wrote:

You are right Sand. In fact, the socialist prescription (no pun intended) for the running of the Health-Service achieves often inferior results at massively higher cost to the ordinary man on the street they claim to represent and to be offering free health-care to.

Wrong. The mostly-privatised US system involves at least twice as much expenditure per capita as most European systems:


And it seems to deliver inferior results, too. It looks like it has a higher rate of deaths caused by medical error than the socialized NHS, and sick Americans are seven times more likely to avoid seeking medical care because of the cost involved. The ever-soaring costs of private health insurance are making firms in the US reluctant to take on workers and are keeping unemployment high and wages low.

The Socialists are the real "klingons"

Yeah, good point I suppose.

ionapaul

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

I agree 100%. Inequality is this respect should be seen as a positive. Those who work the hardest at making money should be entitled to make and keep the most. Those satisfied with making minimum wage (there are many who are satisfied to give the minimum effort after all) should be satisfied with having less money to spend, a reduced 'safety-net', and less opportunities in life.
I also agree with many socialist policies like free education (but only to undergraduate level, not postgraduate - I had to pay for this and rightfully so) and universal health-care, but a radical re-distribution of wealth is not something I would accept in any form. I honestly believe the majority of people world-wide would choose a capitalist-based system (tempered with some socialist policies) over any other system, if given the choice today.

Redleslie2

Sand wrote:

The US, often decried as the anti-socialist nation has long survived with very little or no socialism. In fact its had a pretty peaceful society, with the exception of the Civil War which was about the rights of states, and perhaps the struggle for emancipation which was not about class or capitalism.

The New Deal banned child labor, set a minimum wage, provided old-age pensions for workers, survivors benefits for victims of industrial accidents, unemployment insurance and aid for mothers, the blind and physically disabled. It legalized closed shops and collective bargaining, provided millions of environmental and public works jobs, began regulating the stock market, ended the sale of tribal lands and restored ownership of unallocated lands to Native American groups, shut down all the banks until they could be inspected and a bunch of other stuff that'll be completely ignored here. Oh yes disastrous stuff.

The struggle for black emancipation wasn't about class and capitalism. That's a good one.

Lennoxschips

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

It's how they go about distributing that income which is important. Do they do things Enron/Halliburton style or are trying to distribute the wealth of their natural resources equally amongst their society?

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

I doesn't matter who is in charge in those countries at this particular time, my point is that their entire political spectrum (and thus also what they would call "right-wing" parties) is much more to the left than most other countries. Canada is known for worker's right's, universal public health care, affordable education and other socialist ideals. As is the Netherlands. As is Sweden. Some of the "right-wing" parties in the Netherlands are left of the UK's or Ireland's Labour parties.

Lennoxschips

I agree 100%. Inequality is this respect should be seen as a positive. Those who work the hardest at making money should be entitled to make and keep the most. Those satisfied with making minimum wage (there are many who are satisfied to give the minimum effort after all) should be satisfied with having less money to spend, a reduced 'safety-net', and less opportunities in life.

Look at the rich people in capitalist societies. Have they worked the hardest? Is Paris Hilton a harder worker than your local refuse disposal man? Does James Murdoch work harder than your local sewage worker? Minimum wage does not equal minimum effort! The capitalist system rewards via a system of supply and demand, it doesn't reward effort and hard work.

monument

Sand wrote:

The US... In fact its had a pretty peaceful society, with the exception of the Civil War which was about the rights of states, and perhaps the struggle for emancipation which was not about class or capitalism.

What the hell are you talking about? Did you really say the United States is a pretty peaceful society? :rolleyes:

Redleslie2

Sand wrote:

my economic policies arent dependant on a shared sense of identity, whereas Socialism is.

Someone is confused.

Sand wrote:

there are shared cultural values which we can refer to as European or Western...womens rights, secularism, the right to free exspression and worship, the right to vote and a representitive government, and lets not even talk about the host of rights socialism has brought about in the western world. The above rights are fairly unique in the world.

And there's this one.

Sand wrote:

I envision a future where changing demographics and our democratic principles implies that our laws and principles will no longer be determined purely by european experience but rather by the experience of immigrants from Africa, Asia and the Middle East. This is a clear result of immigration from cultures which do not share values which European cultures hold

arcadegame2004

And it seems to deliver inferior results, too. It looks like it has a higher rate of deaths caused by medical error than the socialized NHS, and sick Americans are seven times more likely to avoid seeking medical care because of the cost involved. The ever-soaring costs of private health insurance are making firms in the US reluctant to take on workers and are keeping unemployment high and wages low.

But the US system is not quite the system I am advocating. In the US, the kind of safety-net for the poor does not exist. Also, I think that the regulatory-environment is not sufficiently determined to ensure true competition in the Health-Insurance market. Private-bribery isn't even illegal in the US and as such, it is easy to see the potential for persons to keep mum about anti-competitive practices that may be contributing to the problems you mention. But that does not mean that my proposals - if implemented in a certain way - would not improve the cost per unit for Health-care and the speed of treatment on the currenct situation.

Please compare like with like, instead of making comparisons between 2 different proposals.

Lennoxschips

But the US system is not quite the system I am advocating. In the US, the kind of safety-net for the poor does not exist. Also, I think that the regulatory-environment is not sufficiently determined to ensure true competition in the Health-Insurance market.

So you are saying that the US doesn't regulate their capitalist system in enough. In essence, that they are not socialist enought.

Raskolnikov

AngelofFire wrote:

Stealth taxes like registration fees should be cut in half.

Hardly a stealth tax since there is full knowledge about it, I'm not even sure it counts as a tax, the government doesn't get a cent of the fee does it?

Rredwell wrote:

Socialism simply means treating people properly: free education; universal healthcare; good housing; workers' rights.

\So"cial*ism\, n. [Cf. F. socialisme.] A theory or system of social reform which contemplates a complete reconstruction of society, with a more just and equitable distribution of property and labor.

arcadegame2004 wrote:

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.

Umm, registration fees will be refunded if you're not in the position to pay for them. AIB/BOI will even offer a zero-interest loan to cover you in the interim.

RedLeslie2 wrote:

August 29, 1997, Washington Post]
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.

August 29, 1997, Washington Post wrote:

From 1934 to 1974, 62,000 Swedes were sterilized as part of a national program grounded in the science of racial biology and carried out by officials who believed they were helping to build a progressive, enlightened welfare state...In some cases, couples judged to be inferior parents were sterilized, as were their children when they became teenagers.

April 7, 1998, Irish Times wrote:

Some 500 lobotomies were conducted on patients who were not from mental hospitals...including a seven-year-old boy in Umeaa in northern Sweden in 1949. Diagnosed as "mentally retarded, hyperactive", he died during surgery."...One man featured in the documentary, who was lobotomised in 1963, is now 67 and has no concept of time, still believing that his children are small.

Charming.

RedLeslie2 wrote:

August 29, 1997, Washington Post]
Sweden is arguably the most socialist state in the EU

An article I read on Sweden awhile back, I'm sure it won't change your opinion but at least will give you food for thought I'm sure.

http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=2210

therecklessone

Raskolnikov wrote:

An article I read on Sweden awhile back, I'm sure it won't change your opinion but at least will give you food for thought I'm sure.

http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=2210

I find it hard to take anyone serious who thinks The Vines are from Sweden...

TINC is just the latest in a long line of "new garage" ("old garage" might include Iggy Pop, or the Velvet Underground) bands in what's become something of a Swedish rock n' roll invasion. TINC follows the stateside success of The Vines and The Hives. Others, like Division of Laura Lee and the Hellacopters wait in the wings.

Redleslie2

Raskolnikov wrote:

Charming.

Why is this relevant?

An article I read on Sweden awhile back, I'm sure it won't change your opinion but at least will give you food for thought I'm sure.

Haven't got time to read it. Summarise it or something.

Had a look at it. It doesn't deserve any serious comment but the last line "Sixty years of Swedish socialism gave us ABBA and Ace of Base. Ten years of quasi-capitalism, and Sweden's holding the flag for the new garage revolution. That's as convincing a case for markets as I need. " is the crappest limpest excuse for an argument I've ever read. Does this prat realise that Abba have sold over 300 million records?

sceptre

arcadegame2004 wrote:

Sorry MadsL, I meant that...

Boo, MadsL gets an apology with an "awhat I meant was...", I get nothing for having to take time out twice to correct the taxation history you think you've learned by piecing together the ingredients on the back of sugar packets.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

omnicorp

Raskolnikov wrote:

I'm sure it won't change your opinion but at least will give you food for thought I'm sure.

http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=2210

Well...
How about the US, arguably the most Capitalist state in the world:
Torture in Iraq
Torture in the prisons
Torture in general
Execution
Execution of children
Execution of mentally ill
Rigging elections
Corporation Biased school textbooks.
eg) Exxon Mobil stating in their geography school book that fossil fuels don't damage the enviroment and renewable sources do.
Not a single employee of McDonald's are members of a Trade Union
The Us Gov do nothing about this.
Nor do they do anything to stop the fact that the richest 2% are getting richer while the rest are getting poorer.
The US Minimum wage are getting lower (with Inflation included)
The US doesn't comply with the Kyoto pact.
The US doesn't comply with UN law.
They have Arsenic in the water in dangerous quantities.
US schools are not allowed teach Evolution because the Gov is so Bible Gung-Ho.

Capitalism's Great(!)
eh?


Workers of the World Unite, You have nothing to lose but your chains

And for the record, Hitler despised Communism and look at him!

sceptre

omnicorp wrote:

And for the record, Hitler despised Communism and look at him!

Is he still living on that large plantation in Argentina then?

omnicorp

Now people are going to think I'm crazy but...
I think Hitler is still alive.
They never found his body.
No one saw him get killed.

Maybe, Maybe him and the US politicians are great buddies