Socialism/Communism - why is everyone else always doing it wrong?

realitykeeper

After the sizable collapse of Communism in the late eighties/early nineties one would think that ideology would have lost much of its credence and it has, but nonetheless many western countries are sleepwalking toward Communism and unfortunately, Ireland is at the vanguard.

BalcombeSt4

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

If youre talking about Venezuela then yes there is a tiny wealthy elite and the rest of the country lives in poverty, runs out of basic goods etc. But a country like Argentina has a massive middle class and wouldnt be a million miles away from European standards of living.

And most governments since the end of the so called Argentine "Dirty War" have been pretty left wing.

BalcombeSt4

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Well this is my point. The working class are very rarely, in my experience, socialists. There are times, such as the present time, when they believe what they are told by certain activists that there is a big pool of money to be tapped into in the form of tax the rich/wealth taxes and that this means that they don't have to pay property taxes, water charges etc.

But this platform of "let somebody else pay" is the opposite of socialism. In socialism, everyone pays into a collective system as to their ability and recieves in accordance with their needs. The AAA/PBP/Socialist Party/Sinn Fein etc are advocating a system whereby some people get everything they want out of the system and have to contribute nothing.

Sure, they have a superficial connection to socialism in the form of supposedly standing up for the working class against the greedy capitalist pigs, but what they are proposing is not actually socialism, it's populist redistribution.

I wouldn't say I've rarely met working class people who believe in some sort of socialism but less than what a lot of people would expect sure. But then on the other hand I can't say I've met a lot of tories or far-right working class people either. I think this is because the working class really aren't very politically aware, the have other things on their mind like were the next pay slip is coming from and how there going to pay next months bills. And then when you do get some free time a lot of them like to go to the pub or night club. This doesn't give you alot of free time to read Marx & think about socialist theories.
I suppose I would be lower-middle class. I wasn't always left-wing. But I read some books, listned to debates about capitalism vs socialism, listened to people like Noam Chomsky give lectures and listened to people like Michael Foot, Ken Livingstone & Tony Been arguing for socialism in the House of Commons.

And I soon switched to the left. I would describe myself as a Democratic Socialist Irish Republican. I would get most of my Irish Republicanism from people like Brendan "Darkie" Hughes & Tommy McKearney.
And I would get Democratic Socialism from people like Tony Benn & Dennis Skinner.

I'll reply to the other 2 points you made in that comment in a bit, going out for a bit. I strongly agree wih the 2nd point you made.

.........

realitykeeper wrote: »

many western countries are sleepwalking toward Communism and unfortunately, Ireland is at the vanguard.

I think you mean Ireland is at the vanguard of socialism for the rich.

realitykeeper

......... wrote: »

I think you mean Ireland is at the vanguard of socialism for the rich.

That is what has been the case since the bank bailouts. What I mean when I say Ireland is at the vanguard of western countries that are sleepwalking their way to Communism is more to do with future consequences of the bank bailouts and the pandering to vulture funds and so on.

Bare in mind these vulture funds are things like insurance companies and pension funds so you can see this is the economic forces competing in a cannibalistic way. That is not to say vulture funds should not be curtailed, just that if they are curtailed - that may reduce insurance payouts and pensions.

The activities of the vulture funds is no different to what the banks would have done after 2008 had the law not impeded them. So the reason for the bank bailouts was just to postpone the pain and delay the day of reckoning for politicians a few years and the cost of that delay has only been a trifling 60 billion (potentially it could be a few tens of billions more). If the banks had been allowed to fail and if they had kept the savings of depositors, then the state could have written of all outstanding mortgages like they did in Iceland. Of course, as always the state wants to be able to borrow which is why the Icelandic government had to be forced to write off the mortgages by universal public demand.

Returning to the consequences of the bank bailouts and present day activity of the vulture funds, I would not be surprised if this country (the Republic) is seriously destabilized when the next major recession begins. That recession will be the greatest in human history thanks to QE and the low interest rates of recent years. Indeed, it may lead to some sort of civil war here and in other countries along the lines of the October revolution in Russia in 1917. The REDS will win again as a consequence of massive displacement in society. The rise in homelessness we are seeing is just the first crack in the dam.

.........

realitykeeper wrote: »

That is what has been the case since the bank bailouts. What I mean when I say Ireland is at the vanguard of western countries that are sleepwalking their way to Communism is more to do with future consequences of the bank bailouts and the pandering to vulture funds and so on.

Bare in mind these vulture funds are things like insurance companies and pension funds so you can see this is the economic forces competing in a cannibalistic way. That is not to say vulture funds should not be curtailed, just that if they are curtailed - that may reduce insurance payouts and pensions.

The activities of the vulture funds is no different to what the banks would have done after 2008 had the law not impeded them. So the reason for the bank bailouts was just to postpone the pain and delay the day of reckoning for politicians a few years and the cost of that delay has only been a trifling 60 billion (potentially it could be a few tens of billions more). If the banks had been allowed to fail and if they had kept the savings of depositors, then the state could have written of all outstanding mortgages like they did in Iceland. Of course, as always the state wants to be able to borrow which is why the Icelandic government had to be forced to write off the mortgages by universal public demand.

Returning to the consequences of the bank bailouts and present day activity of the vulture funds, I would not be surprised if this country (the Republic) is seriously destabilized when the next major recession begins. That recession will be the greatest in human history thanks to QE and the low interest rates of recent years. Indeed, it may lead to some sort of civil war here and in other countries along the lines of the October revolution in Russia in 1917. The REDS will win again as a consequence of massive displacement in society. The rise in homelessness we are seeing is just the first crack in the dam.

'vulture' funds are just legitimately operating property businesses invited into this country by the government and given extremely favourable tax breaks. They are only here because they have been invited, financially supported and incentivised by the Irish government to be here. The propaganda term 'vulture' as tagged on by Irish politicians pretending they are not responsible and are not in actually partnership with them. What we have in Ireland is a plutocracy, pure and simple. It's very important in a plutocracy that as few as possible people own their own homes or ever will, and it is important their future pensions are driven as low as possible so they can't cause any bother and continue to be forced to be subservient when they are older as well. People renting or with large mortgage debt are much easier to controlled and manipulated by corporations and governments. Ordinary peoples wages, including professional continue to by pushed down year on year by corporations. 'Vanguard of communism' no. The Rich get Richer, while ordinary people won't ever own the roof over the head in the future. Ireland - Vanguard of copper fastened Plutocracy would be the actual truth.

mariaalice

Why is it an either or situation there might be a new system of government, a new paradigm of thinking about how the world could be organised that hasn't arisen yet.

Marxism was a new paradigm in its day.

realitykeeper

......... wrote: »

'vulture' funds are just legitimately operating property businesses invited into this country by the government and given extremely favourable tax breaks. They are only here because they have been invited, financially supported and incentivised by the Irish government to be here. The propaganda term 'vulture' as tagged on by Irish politicians pretending they are not responsible and are not in actually partnership with them. What we have in Ireland is a plutocracy, pure and simple. It's very important in a plutocracy that as few as possible people own their own homes or ever will, and it is important their future pensions are driven as low as possible so they can't cause any bother and continue to be forced to be subservient when they are older as well. People renting or with large mortgage debt are much easier to controlled and manipulated by corporations and governments. Ordinary peoples wages, including professional continue to by pushed down year on year by corporations. 'Vanguard of communism' no. The Rich get Richer, while ordinary people won't ever own the roof over the head in the future. Ireland - Vanguard of copper fastened Plutocracy would be the actual truth.

You are referring to the status quo. Communism will be the future consequence of the status quo.

.........

realitykeeper wrote: »

You are referring to the status quo. Communism will be the future consequence of the status quo.

Since the fall of the Iron curtain, plutocracy has achieved complete dominance and an iron grip, and is here to stay. Communism is a failed entity worldwide. In practice, unless combined with ruthless dictatorship (e.g. Something like Stalinism / Maosism, which makes it no longer actual Communism) it can't work on any regional or national level due to simple age old human greed, corruption and lust for power.

BalcombeSt4

......... wrote: »

Since the fall of the Iron curtain, plutocracy has achieved complete dominance and an iron grip, and is here to stay. Communism is a failed entity worldwide. In practice, unless combined with ruthless dictatorship (e.g. Something like Stalinism / Maosism, which makes it no longer actual Communism) it can't work on any regional or national level due to simple age old human greed, corruption and lust for power.

And capitalism rewards these bad human traits. "Greed is Good" was a slogan of the Thatcher era.

What is called Communism failed because it wasn't desinged to succed in Russia. Lenin belived belived the revolution would take place in the most advanced industrialist capitalist country of the time which was Germany. Russia was a backwards peasant society and he didn't believe himself that socialism could succed their, he thought what took place in 1917 was just some sort of holding action & they would just keep everything in place until the real revolution began in Germany.

I think every revolution that took place since 1917 that claimed to be following Marx & Lenin happened in poor countries as the people in these countries seen socialism as more attractive than capitalism,thats why the US is so afraid of poor people. And a lot of the revolutions took place in former imperialist colonies as well like Cuba, Vietnam, Nicaragua etc... I think Spain was the sort of well of country were one did succed if only for a few months.

johnnyskeleton

BalcombeSt4 wrote: »

And capitalism rewards these bad human traits. "Greed is Good" was a slogan of the Thatcher era.

It's a quote from a movie - Wall Street. It's from a scene where Gordon Gecko is trying to encourage shareholders to vote to strip the assets of a failing company.

The Thatcher era quote you may be thinking of is that "socialism is all very well until you run out of other people's money".

What is called Communism failed because it wasn't desinged to succed in Russia. Lenin belived belived the revolution would take place in the most advanced industrialist capitalist country of the time which was Germany. Russia was a backwards peasant society and he didn't believe himself that socialism could succed their, he thought what took place in 1917 was just some sort of holding action & they would just keep everything in place until the real revolution began in Germany.

Do you have a source? I don't dispute that Lenin desired a socialist revolution across the entire advanced world, but I don't think he believed the USSR was a holding position:

We have achieved this objective in one country, and this confronts us with a second task. Since Soviet power has been established, since the bourgeoisie has been overthrown in one country, the second task is to wage the struggle on a world scale, on a different plane, the struggle of the proletarian state surrounded by capitalist states.

This situation is an entirely novel and difficult one.

On the other hand, since the rule of the bourgeoisie has been overthrown, the main task is to organise the development of the country.”

— V.I. Lenin. Collected Works Vol. 29. 1970. p. 58.

I think every revolution that took place since 1917 that claimed to be following Marx & Lenin happened in poor countries as the people in these countries seen socialism as more attractive than capitalism,thats why the US is so afraid of poor people. And a lot of the revolutions took place in former imperialist colonies as well like Cuba, Vietnam, Nicaragua etc... I think Spain was the sort of well of country were one did succed if only for a few months.

Again, this seems to support the idea that socialism appeals to people who have or feel that they have nothing else in the world, but anyone with any kind of stake in society will be against socialism.

Yet having a stake in society is precisely what socialism should want to achieve. Maybe socialism fails because the revolutionaries are only interested in the revolution, and afterwards they simply replace the old power with a newer, more oppressive power.

realitykeeper

......... wrote: »

Since the fall of the Iron curtain, plutocracy has achieved complete dominance and an iron grip, and is here to stay. Communism is a failed entity worldwide. In practice, unless combined with ruthless dictatorship (e.g. Something like Stalinism / Maosism, which makes it no longer actual Communism) it can't work on any regional or national level due to simple age old human greed, corruption and lust for power.

Not so. The next economic crash will cause such widespread popular outrage that the dispossessed (of whom there will be many) will rise up against the establishment and the leaders of the rabble will put themselves in power and probably attempt to legitimize themselves in some way without jeopardizing their newfound status. The norms of western democracy will end with the collapse of western capitalism and it will begin before the end of this year.

When capitalism in the west ends, North Korea will become capitalist and Kim will be overthrown.

KyussBeeshop

Do you not think that making such definite statements about the future, is inherently discrediting, given that it's pretty much impossible to accurately predict any such things happening in the future?

To modify a term/principle: Extraordinary predictions require extraordinary backing.

.........

realitykeeper wrote: »

Not so. The next economic crash will cause such widespread popular outrage that the dispossessed (of whom there will be many) will rise up against the establishment

If it didn't happen in 2007 in Ireland after all the massive banking, political, and bondholder fraud, where ordinary people have been forced to pay off billionaires debts for generations, while they become even richer, and ordinary wages in real terms are driven lower and lower, while now making it impossible for newer generations to own their own roof or have a decent pension, it'll never happen. Ordinary people will be manipulated by the billionaire owned western media and politicians to either blame themselves or turn on other ordinary working people as before, divide and conquer again, and that's exactly what they will do, as they did before.

BalcombeSt4

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

It's a quote from a movie - Wall Street. It's from a scene where Gordon Gecko is trying to encourage shareholders to vote to strip the assets of a failing company.

The Thatcher era quote you may be thinking of is that "socialism is all very well until you run out of other people's money".

Ah right, but I wasn't trying to get to hung up on the exact quote more the way society was at the time. Whether it was true or not I remember watching interviews, debates, articles an d the general feeling was that it was more socially acceptable to be greedy & want to own lots of consumer goods than it was to be charitable

Do you have a source? I don't dispute that Lenin desired a socialist revolution across the entire advanced world, but I don't think he believed the USSR was a holding position:

Well its complicated & I think here you have to look at what actaually took place. During the revolution workers by themselves started setting up socialist institutions, collectives, workers council etc... As soon as the Bolsheviks gained power the socilaist institutions that were created during the revolution were some of the first things that the new Bolshevik regime got rid off and from there on in nothing like socialism imo existed in Russia, it was just a precursor to later forms of totalitarianism.

I think it stands to reason that if you really wanted to create a socialist society you wouldn't destroy the socialist structures that already existed.

"In the stages leading up to the Bolshevik coup in October 1917, there were incipient socialist institutions developing in Russia - workers' councils, collectives, things like that. And they survived to an extent once the Bolsheviks took over - but not for very long; Lenin and Trotsky pretty much eliminated them as they consolidated their power. I mean, you can argue about the justification for eliminating them, but the fact is that the socialist initiatives were pretty quickly eliminated.

"Now, people who want to justify it say, 'The Bolsheviks had to do it' - that's the standard justification: Lenin and Trotsky had to do it, because of the contingencies of the civil war, for survival, there wouldn't have been food otherwise, this and that. Well, obviously the question is, was that true. To answer that, you've got to look at the historical facts: I don't think it was true. In fact, I think the incipient socialist structures in Russia were dismantled before the really dire conditions arose . . . But reading their own writings, my feeling is that Lenin and Trotsky knew what they were doing, it was conscious and understandable."
Noam Chomsky - Understanding Power.

Again, this seems to support the idea that socialism appeals to people who have or feel that they have nothing else in the world, but anyone with any kind of stake in society will be against socialism.

Yet having a stake in society is precisely what socialism should want to achieve. Maybe socialism fails because the revolutionaries are only interested in the revolution, and afterwards they simply replace the old power with a newer, more oppressive power.

I think the working class would seem to have the most gain from socialism atleast on the surface, but it frightens people who have a lot because they think they'd be oppressed under it. My idea of Democratic Socialism is very much what Tony benn talked about, its not about trying to be the most radical its about finding ideas that genuinley improve peoples lives & makes society as whole happier. He said the powerful don't like democracy because it takes power away from them and gives it to people. Democratizing society as much as possible I think should be the goal for any Democratic Socialist. And Benn also said in one speech "In Mein Kampf Hitler said, "democracy inevitably leads to Marxism". And that was because Hitler understood if people had power they would vote to change society into something he wouldn't want & I think thats true of Stalinists, Maoists, Lenists, Neo-Cons etc... they don't like democracy either.

Guatamala was a great example. A very poor society that was introducing very modest land reforms & extending to the vote to women and the poor, the US couldn't have any of that so they overthrew Arbenz the elected president & installed a military dictatorship followed by the genocide of the Mayans. All because they wanted democracy & to use the land they rightfully owned. Chile is a similar case.

Suryavarman

BalcombeSt4 wrote: »

I think the working class would seem to have the most gain from socialism atleast on the surface

Is this the same working class that every single socialist country in the past has oppressed and impoverished? People on the dole in Ireland live a far better life than the average person in any socialist country ever has.

BalcombeSt4

Suryavarman wrote: »

Is this the same working class that every single socialist country in the past has oppressed and impoverished? People on the dole in Ireland live a far better life than the average person in any socialist country ever has.

Yep, the heroin addicts in O'Connell St. falling asleep in their own vomit seem to be having a brilliant time of it.

johnnyskeleton

BalcombeSt4 wrote: »

Ah right, but I wasn't trying to get to hung up on the exact quote more the way society was at the time. Whether it was true or not I remember watching interviews, debates, articles an d the general feeling was that it was more socially acceptable to be greedy & want to own lots of consumer goods than it was to be charitable

Well accuracy is important and the origin of the quote is crucial. I'm sorry but I just don't agree that the general feeling at the time was against charity. The 80s saw an explosion in the private charitable sector never seen before, with LiveAid, Oxfam appeals, etc and in the public sector with Third World State Aid (albeit that was problematic as tied aid, was embezzled etc). But certainly I would disagree that the general feeling in the Thatcher era was that greed is good.

The problem with the quote is that it comes from a work of fiction, where Douglas plays an anti-hero/villain protagonist. We are meant to find him repulsive but yet also sympathise with him on one level. He was also a criminal, involved in illegal trading activity.

So taking a work of fiction as representing the zeitgeist is very dangerous.

In any event, the Regan/Thatcher dogma at the time, which was the prevalent view politically in the anglo-saxon world at the time, but certainly wasn't the general feeling, wasn't that greed is more socially acceptable than charity. The theory was that the rising tide floats all boats i.e. if Businessman X makes millions from his company, he has not just made money for himself but has also created jobs for hundreds or thousands of other people.

That is to say, Thatcher honestly believed that by liberalising the economy, everybody would get rich and have a better standard of life, even if it meant that income inequality increases. It was her view that large government, with high taxes and high public spending was causing businesses to fail and discouraging other businesses to set up and that people would be happier overall if they were working and had the opportunity to become a millionaire if they were good enough rather than being forced onto the dole because businesses were over regulated.

My personal view, like most people in social democracies, is somewhere between these two extremes. But it is wrong to characterise the free marketeers as treating greed as a virtue, just as it is wrong to call the statists begrudgers.

Well its complicated & I think here you have to look at what actaually took place. During the revolution workers by themselves started setting up socialist institutions, collectives, workers council etc... As soon as the Bolsheviks gained power the socilaist institutions that were created during the revolution were some of the first things that the new Bolshevik regime got rid off and from there on in nothing like socialism imo existed in Russia, it was just a precursor to later forms of totalitarianism.

This is the no true scotsman fallacy i.e. that any bad aspect of a thing isn't really socialism. Indeed, that is precisely what the OP is getting at - if the USSR wasn't socialism then what is socialism? Is socialism something that only exists in theory or in very short lived groupings such as the paris commune or the early workers soviets between February and October, 1917?

More generally, however, most people who consider themselves to be proper died-in-the-wool socialists these days would call themselves Marxist-Leninists. That is to say that they agree in principle with the idea that a dictatorship of the proletariat is necessary (with, of course, a steering committee of elite party members) for the socialist revolution to take place.

I mean, let's look at the justification for the abolition of many of these institutions. The Socialist Revolutionary Party was a peasant based party that wanted to collectivise the farms but allow individual farmers (later the Kulaks) to earn private profits based on how good they were at working the land. This is contrary to the Marxist-Leninist view of from each according to his ability and to each according to his needs.

So the Bolsheviks got rid of them because they still clung to the capitalist idea that you should be rewarded for a job well done. To be fair, Marx did suggest that once everyone's basic needs are met people should enjoy the rewards of their hard work, but that is kind of meaningless when an urban socialist decides that farmers don't work as hard as coal miners and so give all the rewards to the coal miners arbitrarily. Certainly under Marxism, a farmer who kept a side plot to grow his own extra vegetables would be considered a greedy capitalist counter revolutionary and it's only if the state dictatorship decides that he has worked extra hard that he gets his reward.

I think it stands to reason that if you really wanted to create a socialist society you wouldn't destroy the socialist structures that already existed.

They destroyed the moderate socialist structures and the democratic parties. I suppose the dispute was between Marxist socialism and a kind of organic participatory democracy that was, in truth, closer to social democracy than to socialism, but called themselves socialists in order to try to gain legitimacy after the February revolution.

I think the working class would seem to have the most gain from socialism atleast on the surface, but it frightens people who have a lot because they think they'd be oppressed under it.

You're entitled to think that, but it seems to be reasonably clear that the working class don't think that. The socialists who have been elected in working class areas are typically of the protest vote/tax the rich and not us variety.

And just to be clear, it doesn't just frighten the rich, it frightens anybody who:
1) wants to be able to choose their own career path;
2) doesn't trust the government or state bodies;
3) wants to be rewarded for working hard;
4) is concerned that if they don't believe in the political orthodoxy they will be treated as a traitor;
5) likes having a private home that they live in;
6) likes being able to choose which close to wear;
7) likes being able to treat themselves to the things they like, such as nice food or nights out or indulging hobbies;
8) loves to believe that one day they could strike it rich and live a life of luxury.

Most working class people like the above. Socialists pretend that those things will be available to them after the revolution, but in reality these are all the hallmarks of capitalism.

My idea of Democratic Socialism is very much what Tony benn talked about, its not about trying to be the most radical its about finding ideas that genuinley improve peoples lives & makes society as whole happier.

Social democracy you mean? Yeah I've no problem with that. Tony Benn was in government on a number of occasions and has always been highly influential in the UK Labour party. Would you call them Socialists or Social Democrats?

He said the powerful don't like democracy because it takes power away from them and gives it to people.

That's a horrible phrase. It dehumanises "the powerful". On first glance, that can sound very palatable to people - you tell them that there is an evil elite who is trying to run their lives and is making it awful, whether it is the evil capitalists, the plutocrats or the new world order, and they will believe you.

So you are basically trying to tar a bunch of people as "the powerful" so that the rest of us can be ordinary decent "people". But I mean is Enda Kenny not a person? What about the people who vote for him? Or what about Mick Wallace? Was he part of the "powerful" who despised democracy but then when he became bankrupt he became one of the people? Maybe so, since that was when he went into politics.

In any event, the one constant that we can all agree on with socialism is that it needs to have a revolutionary oppressed class and a hated oppressing class for them to rebel against. If you can get enough people to believe that there is an oppressing class you can get socialist supporters. It's all about "seizing" the means of production, never creating them. And then once seized, it doesn't matter if they are mismanaged because managing the place correctly is what the oppressors did.

There is no end of history for Marxists, there is just revolution after revolution and each time the old oppressed will become the oppressors. That is, unless like me you see that the whole theory is fundamentally flawed.

Democratizing society as much as possible I think should be the goal for any Democratic Socialist. And Benn also said in one speech "In Mein Kampf Hitler said, "democracy inevitably leads to Marxism". And that was because Hitler understood if people had power they would vote to change society into something he wouldn't want & I think thats true of Stalinists, Maoists, Lenists, Neo-Cons etc... they don't like democracy either.

I don't know where to begin with this but, not to overstate the obvious, Hitler was wrong! Democracy has never lead to Marxism. Marx eschewed democracy and called for a violent revolution.

What Tony Benn is doing here is quoting someone very bad, who said something demonstrably untrue and expecting us to just blindly accept it!

Guatamala was a great example. A very poor society that was introducing very modest land reforms & extending to the vote to women and the poor, the US couldn't have any of that so they overthrew Arbenz the elected president & installed a military dictatorship followed by the genocide of the Mayans. All because they wanted democracy & to use the land they rightfully owned. Chile is a similar case.

American intervened because of the cold war and fear of a hostile regime close to its borders, not because they disagreed with modest land reforms and female sufferage. The US had no problem with land reforms in Zimbabwae and South Africa because they were not on its doorstep and the cold war was over.

El Tarangu

BalcombeSt4 wrote: »

And it would have been pretty hard for Vietnam to succed after the country was bombed back to the stone age & then hit with crippling sanctions for removing the Khemer Rouge from Cambodia.

I don't know if you have been to Vietnam lately, but they have begun to embrace the market economy, and things are great. GDP is going up and up - so much so that they are the biggest fans capitalism on the planet.

realitykeeper

......... wrote: »

If it didn't happen in 2007 in Ireland after all the massive banking, political, and bondholder fraud, where ordinary people have been forced to pay off billionaires debts for generations, while they become even richer, and ordinary wages in real terms are driven lower and lower, while now making it impossible for newer generations to own their own roof or have a decent pension, it'll never happen. Ordinary people will be manipulated by the billionaire owned western media and politicians to either blame themselves or turn on other ordinary working people as before, divide and conquer again, and that's exactly what they will do, as they did before.

I think what pushes people over the edge is when the normal everyday creature comforts they are used to are no longer there. Not being able to buy coffee, cigarettes, heroin (in the case of addicts) or a sliced pan at any price will destabilize society. The next recession will involve trade stopping. Food, fuel and even water will no longer be easy to get.

Professor Moriarty

realitykeeper wrote: »

I think what pushes people over the edge is when the normal everyday creature comforts they are used to are no longer there. Not being able to buy coffee, cigarettes, heroin (in the case of addicts) or a sliced pan at any price will destabilize society. The next recession will involve trade stopping. Food, fuel and even water will no longer be easy to get.

In 1906, Alfred Henry Lewis stated that:

There are only nine meals between mankind and anarchy.

Still true today.

keane2097

El Tarangu wrote: »

I don't know if you have been to Vietnam lately, but they have begun to embrace the market economy, and things are great. GDP is going up and up - so much so that they are the biggest fans capitalism on the planet.

It's GDP going up and up coincides almost exactly with the removal of US trade embargo tbf.

OMD

BalcombeSt4 wrote: »

Yep, the heroin addicts in O'Connell St. falling asleep in their own vomit seem to be having a brilliant time of it.

Pretty lazy, equating people on the dole with heroin addicts.

.........

realitykeeper wrote: »

The next recession will involve trade stopping

The next recession where ? Ireland ? Or Zimbabwe ? Syria or Tim Buck Tu ?

Surely you mean a war or depression not a recession ?

Even in war trade doesn't stop. Even in the concentration camps trade between people didn't stop.

Depressions, Recessions and Booms are concurrently happening in different parts of the world as we speak depending on what geographic and geopolitical area you are talking about. They always have since time began.

If you're talking about Ireland, What are you basing this fanciful claim on ? Proper evidence please.

1. Where, and when, did it last happen in a recession before ?
2. When did it then in turn, cause what you claim it will and how did it ?
3. Why has it not happened since then ?

BalcombeSt4

OMD wrote: »

Pretty lazy, equating people on the dole with heroin addicts.

So you think the junkies you see around the city begging for money, sleeping on bridges and robbing people have jobs? Yeah okay. :rolleyes:

And obviously not everyone on the dole is addictted to drugs, but most drug addicts are on the dole. The first time I got addictted to any drugs was after I was made redundant & on the dole.

johnnyskeleton

What does what junkies do or do not have to do with socialism?

BalcombeSt4

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

American intervened because of the cold war and fear of a hostile regime close to its borders, not because they disagreed with modest land reforms and female sufferage. The US had no problem with land reforms in Zimbabwae and South Africa because they were not on its doorstep and the cold war was over.

I'm sorry but in what way was Guatemala - a country with a population smaller than Ireland, thats actually nowhere near The US borders, that had a Social Democratic regime which had no links to either China or the Soviet Union a threat? And if they some how were how was supporting a fascist coup & supporting a brutal regime that committed genocide against the native people of the county a good solution? you say they didn't disagree with land reforms or extending the vote but the first acts of the military junta was to over turn the reforms & to ban all political parties.
The reason the USA "intervened" was because the liberal reforms were a threat to the United Fruit Company.

I think Howard Hunt sums it up perfectly. "We wanted to have a terror campaign....like the Germans terrified the populations of Holland, Belgium & Poland"
Or Philip Agee "In the CIA we didn't give a hoot about democracy"
Or Sister Dianna "isn't history taught in the classroom about the role of the US government in human rights violations" Well clearly it does not seem to be, everyobody seems ignorant of it.

Chile is is even further away from the US borders. Venezuala introduced land reforms after the Cold War and the US supported a coup against Chavez.

You can look as close as Greece were popular movements were crushed.

If any other country tried to do what the US has done to dozens of countries without the mighty power of the US they would have been wiped of the map along time ago. Imagine if we tried to invade Britain because we thought Atlee introducing the NHS was too radical or we thought the Wilson regime had some ties to the Soviet Union, we would have righfully gotten a bloody nose for sticking it in were it doesn't belong.

realitykeeper

......... wrote: »

The next recession where ? Ireland ? Or Zimbabwe ? Syria or Tim Buck Tu ?

Surely you mean a war or depression not a recession ?

Even in war trade doesn't stop. Even in the concentration camps trade between people didn't stop.

Depressions, Recessions and Booms are concurrently happening in different parts of the world as we speak depending on what geographic and geopolitical area you are talking about. They always have since time began.

If you're talking about Ireland, What are you basing this fanciful claim on ? Proper evidence please.

1. Where, and when, did it last happen in a recession before ?
2. When did it then in turn, cause what you claim it will and how did it ?
3. Why has it not happened since then ?

A fairly run of the mill stock market crash will trigger something far more serious for obvious reasons. Here are those reasons: In response to a collapsing stock market, central banks will lower interest rates again but since they are already very low, even more QE will be required. Now consider the fact that investors the world over have been investing in the US dollar on the expectation of more interest rate hikes, the lowering of interest rates and new round of QE will result in the dumping of the US dollar. Naturally, if QE/low interest rates failed as a policy in the US, it is logical to assume it will fail elsewhere so the Euro, Sterling and Yen will all collapse and nobody is going to ship goods in return for computer digits in these currencies.

These currencies will collapse in value on the international markets and any new bonds that are issued in these currencies will require ridiculous rates of interest to attract investors. Also, in order to stabilize the currencies, the central banks will increase interest rates a lot.

KyussBeeshop

Sounds like the kind of gold bug "fiat currencies are about to collapse!" scaremongering, that you'd read on Zero Hedge or the like - it's just one step away from proclaiming, that we're about to return to commodity money i.e. the gold standard.

You make a lot of Big Predictions there, with gigantic leaps between one prediction and the next, which don't logically fit together in any way at all - and say it is all 'obvious'.

Wherever you're getting these ideas/predictions from, it's a very poor source of information. Big Predictions like that, require a lot of backing - and you'd have pretty much no backing for those predictions, particularly from looking back for historical examples - should give you an indication, that they're not very credible.

.........

realitykeeper wrote: »

A fairly run of the mill stock market crash will trigger something far more serious for obvious reasons. Here are those reasons: In response to a collapsing stock market, central banks will lower interest rates again but since they are already very low, even more QE will be required. Now consider the fact that investors the world over have been investing in the US dollar on the expectation of more interest rate hikes, the lowering of interest rates and new round of QE will result in the dumping of the US dollar. Naturally, if QE/low interest rates failed as a policy in the US, it is logical to assume it will fail elsewhere so the Euro, Sterling and Yen will all collapse and nobody is going to ship goods in return for computer digits in these currencies.

These currencies will collapse in value on the international markets and any new bonds that are issued in these currencies will require ridiculous rates of interest to attract investors. Also, in order to stabilize the currencies, the central banks will increase interest rates a lot.

Run of the mill stock market crashes happen regularly, most of your paragraph is full of non sequiturs, and you haven't answered the actual questions you were asked.

realitykeeper

......... wrote: »

Run of the mill stock market crashes happen regularly, most of your paragraph is full of non sequiturs, and you haven't answered the actual questions you were asked.

The next stock market crash cannot be contained like previous crashes. I am guessing it will happen around November, that I grant you is a non sequitur. As for the others, you will need to be a bit more specific.

realitykeeper

......... wrote: »

The next recession where ? Ireland ? Or Zimbabwe ? Syria or Tim Buck Tu ?

Surely you mean a war or depression not a recession ?

Even in war trade doesn't stop. Even in the concentration camps trade between people didn't stop.

Depressions, Recessions and Booms are concurrently happening in different parts of the world as we speak depending on what geographic and geopolitical area you are talking about. They always have since time began.

If you're talking about Ireland, What are you basing this fanciful claim on ? Proper evidence please.

1. Where, and when, did it last happen in a recession before ?
2. When did it then in turn, cause what you claim it will and how did it ?
3. Why has it not happened since then ?

As for where: The US, EU, UK and Japan mainly while China will have a less severe/less total recession. I use the word recession instead of depression to avoid being accused of exaggeration. It is true some semblance of trade will always prevail but international shipping will largely stop for the affected economies.

The recession/boom cycle does happen in capitalist economies but it is not associated with communist countries. Should the next recession end capitalism in the US and parts of the EU, those countries will drop out of the world economy and become irrelevant (apart from war/peace matters) to the rest of the world. The likelihood of this happening is far more real than you might imagine.

The answer to 1. above is China in the middle ages, only recently has it rejoined the world as a major trading economy. If a country stops trading and looks inward, it can take hundreds of years to emerge from that.

OMD

BalcombeSt4 wrote: »

So you think the junkies you see around the city begging for money, sleeping on bridges and robbing people have jobs? Yeah okay. :rolleyes:

And obviously not everyone on the dole is addictted to drugs, but most drug addicts are on the dole. The first time I got addictted to any drugs was after I was made redundant & on the dole.

You equated being on the dole to being on drugs. That is ridiculous and a lazy stereotype. Your experience is not everyones. Many drug addicts work. The ones you see on the streets begging are not necessarily your typical addicts but yes most of them are unemployed.
So in summary almost everyone unemployed in Ireland is not an addict.
Many addicts work.

You responded to this

People on the dole in Ireland live a far better life than the average person in any socialist country ever has.

By saying:

Yep, the heroin addicts in O'Connell St. falling asleep in their own vomit seem to be having a brilliant time of it

Which reflects a profound ignorance of addiction, unemployment and social welfare. Saying you were an addict yourself does not mean you should not be criticised for making such ignorant comments.