Capitalism versus Socialism

[DocRorlach 25]

Originally posted by: TRNSTN

Randomly selected citizens, once selected they either choose to be or not be on the citizen's group, or you can enter yourself into a pool, and continue your life but once you're selected your serve for a few years and of course this would be an on-going process.

BTW what do you guys think of that? Randomly selected citizens seve in the government for several years, but it's mandatory for almost everyone. (anyone ever read Kim Stanley Robinson's Mars series?)quote>

 

Maybe that is indeed the alternative: making politics a non-profit job everyone has to do like jury or national service. Taking "for the people, by the people" to its only logical conclusion. You could reasign the fancy parlimentary edifices to museums or library schemes since a true people's government would most naturally use up-to-date communication, a.k.a. the Internet (sans Vista, please). Debates would have time limits, political draftees equally would need term limits, expiring before you could say "special interests". Sound like a blast to me..

[BurroDiablo 222]

Originally posted by: DocRorlach The trouble with socialism is that it demands to much of the individual, whereas capitalism avoids the individual like a plague.quote>

Not entirely. Capitalism needs the poor to work for it,  it doesn't avoid the individual, it panders to the individuals needs and wants in order to make a profit... without the individual, Capitalism would cease to be.

Maybe there ought toi be a third alternative?quote>

Its called 'Anarchy'

[belfastuniguy 18]

belfastuniguy: but look what that majority government did, for centuries, to Ireland; what it is doing now to the rest of British Isles. Particularily in the UK, neither capitalism nor socialism has a real chance and when, as Thatcher and Blair tried, they mesh a bit of both, you get a country that can barely manage from day to day. That "Commonwealth" was always meant for an uncommon few.quote>

Well I'm certainly not to go into the details of Irish history.

1. I have studied it extensively and just from that short sentence I would be here all night detailing the assumptions it implies. If you wish to engage in an Irish History debate then feel free to try

2. The Irish themselves are not blameless in any respect whatsoever

3. Under British rule Dublin and Belfast became some of the most important and wealthiest cities in the British Empire.

Additionally the British Isles have two separate national governments and within the UK there are 4 constituent assemblies/parliaments. So Westminster is not to blame for all the problem that currently affect the UK and most certainly have nothing to do with present day Ireland seeing as it in NO WAY can direct Irish policy or law..................

Also, the UK economy is certainly a little weaken than it was this time last year, however it is still strong and stable and growing. The Irish economy is and has been doing very well these past decades. I also see the system we have today as pretty stable, a good mix of socialism and capitalism. Both benefit the country and economy and both seem to get along just fine together. While Thatcher was not in anyway perfect she did kick start a tremendous reversal in the British economy and transformed the image and appeal of the economy to the international world. Privatisation brought new money into a decrepit water, power and telecom network. Now one of the best in the world. Freed the government for 10's of billions in state aid and allowed the British economy to diversify and grow.

I would hardly think that people can barely live day to day. Many of those people will either be unemployed, in which case go get a job (if not disabled or suffering from illness) or in credit problem, in which that's their own fault for borrowing more than they could afford, I have no sympathy for that.

I don't see the point in mentioning the commonwealth. Why shouldn't former British Imperial colonies have a preferential status when it comes to trade?????

[TRNSTN 0]

Slavery for all by aliens

ahhah TRNSTN, since i'm an advocate (or try to be) of mass transit, i dub myself transit station in abbreviation. yeah i'm a geek that way

[TRNSTN 0]

DocRolach: I like the idea of that (internet baed), then it becomes a lot more accesible cause anyone can join the public forums and watch videos of debates and become MORE politically active which is lacking SO much in my city, province. The current people of government could keep daily or weekly updates and thier own thoughts and opinions of whats going on. Plus with an aging population of baby boomers it's the younger generation that's goign to tkae hold of this technology and really make some changes.

[Aontan 0]

Well, here in Ireland the state own many companies in various fields, over the years some have been privatised but most are still firmly owned and operated by the state.

The government directly owns CIÉ (bus/rail transport), ESB (electricity), RTÉ (TV/radio), HSE (public health service), VHI (the largest private health insurer), BGÉ (gas), Horse Racing Ireland, Telifís na Gaeilge (Irish language TV). They also own a large part (either all or a majority) of some public/private limited companies including An Post (postal services), Bord na Mona (peat), DAA (Dublin/Cork/Shannon Airports), Coillte Teoranta (forestry board), Dublin Port, EirGrid (all-Ireland electricity grid), Bord na gCon (greyhound racing). Aer Lingus, the national airline, was recently privatised though the government still own 23% of it. There is also talk the government may re-nationalise Eircom (telecommunications), or at least buy a substantial part of it. The government also own our major third-level education (college/university) institutions, such as NUI, UL, DCU, TCD and all the Institutes of Technology. There are few private colleges and these are usually specialised.

Ireland has universal healthcare (with a large private market also), universal education (including third-level) and a developed and progressive social welfare system. However, it's not all hammer and sickle, we have a fully free and largely competitive economy also, with lower corporation tax rates than most other "rich" countries (10-12.5%), and we have detailed competition law so no company can form a monopoly. It is well known our low tax rates have attracted many American and Asian companies to form their European HQ here, which is just one of our reasons for our recent wealth, also known as the Celtic Tiger.

Some ideas we have (eg. the nationalised industries) would never fly in some countries for being (ahem) "communist", but they have been largely successful here - the mixed economy we now have has made us one of the richest (2nd highest GDP PPP per capita) and most developed (5th on the HDI) countries on earth, and a survey by The Economist found us to have the best Quality-of-Life. Turns out "socialism" ain't so bad, huh?

[DocRorlach 25]

Originally posted by: El Burro Not entirely. Capitalism needs the poor to work for it,  it doesn't avoid the individual, it panders to the individuals needs and wants in order to make a profit... without the individual, Capitalism would cease to be.quote>

 

I meant the ideal state: socialism, if it is going to succeed, requires everyone to work for and with everyone else; capitalism only wants you to work for yourself. And like all "ism's" - and I include Anarchy here, C & S can only exist in an ideal state, and therefore not at all.

belfastuniguyI don't see the point in mentioning the commonwealth. Why shouldn't former British Imperial colonies have a preferential status when it comes to trade????? quote>

I meanth, again, the original idea behind the Commonwealth: it was created with the clear thought of a single beneficiary - the then British Empire, and within that the wealthy few. And no, I'd rather not start a new threat on Northern Island. Let's wait until the UK devolves altogether (as it surely must?).

I do agree with Aontan: the republic of Ireland today is the result of a few good years of governmental engineering, management if you will, similar to what happened in Singapore, since in both cases the politici realized that if they want to get rich, everyone else will need to become better off, too. A realization still missing in France, Germany, the US of A, or indeed Canada.

[DocRorlach 25]

Originally posted by: TRNSTN Slavery for all by aliens

ahhah TRNSTN, since i'm an advocate (or try to be) of mass transit, i dub myself transit station in abbreviation. yeah i'm a geek that wayquote>

 

Ah, silly me, I should have known..and there I thought of Tristan and his doomed Isolde..mea culpa

[BurroDiablo 222]

Yep, all 3 are idealistic (Anarchy more so...)... I'm by no means a fan of Capitalism, but I still understand that the trade of goods for profit is neccesary for the steady growth of a nation. I feel countries can usually find a happy medium between Capitalism and Socialism, but problems begin when they start to shift towards one extreme or the other.

[belfastuniguy 18]

And no, I'd rather not start a new threat on Northern Island. Let's wait until the UK devolves altogether (as it surely must?).quote>

Northern Ireland already is devolved........................

Turns out "socialism" ain't so bad, huh? quote>

Ireland isn't exactly socialist, lets be fair. Ireland has become so rich through corporate investment from international firms via means of a low corporation tax. Ireland and in particular Dublin is a incredibly capitalist society. Ireland like the UK and many other European countries have very successfully combined socialist ideals (NOT COMMUNIST - can people please go and read about communism and socialism...........) and capitalism and it has worked.

Most of Ireland's largest companies are government owned and operated as a Statutory Corporation as a result of how the Irish economy was structured in the past and how just how badly the economy was run before the immense prosperity that came with the Celtic Tiger...

[Aontan 0]

@belfastuniguy: I was being sarcastic when I said "socialism".  Ireland, like almost all of Europe, has a mixed-economy, as you said - and I agree this is by far the best economic system. But yes, the Irish economy was TERRIBLE before the 1990s (one Economist article called Ireland "the poorest of the rich", which would have been true), though the boom was due to long-term planning (such as the low corp. tax rates and investing a lot in education), the common EU market, and pure luck.

[bwatterud 7]

On paper, socialism is a an excellent idea, a great idea. But no country has ever made it work, because it requires human beings not to want to have more than the guy next to them, and that's just never going to happen.

[Micah 16]

On paper, socialism is a an excellent idea, a great idea. But no country has ever made it workquote>

... are you talking about Communism?

[BurroDiablo 222]

Originally posted by: Micah

On paper, socialism is a an excellent idea, a great idea. But no country has ever made it workquote>

... are you talking about Communism?quote>

By rights he's talking about the Marxist ideal... the idealistic dream that all men should be equals.

I might be a Socialist, but even I know when Marx needed  to get some sleep

[beebs 129]

Originally posted by: Aontan @belfastuniguy: I was being sarcastic when I said "socialism".  Ireland, like almost all of Europe, has a mixed-economy, as you said - and I agree this is by far the best economic system. But yes, the Irish economy was TERRIBLE before the 1990s (one Economist article called Ireland "the poorest of the rich", which would have been true), though the boom was due to long-term planning (such as the low corp. tax rates and investing a lot in education), the common EU market, and pure luck. quote>

All countries in the world use a mixed economy. There is no such thing as pure capitalism or pure communism or whatever.

[DocRorlach 25]

Methinks that's stating it too flat: true, no country has gone the whole hog either way, but the US of A on one end of the C spectrum (see current and past election debacles) and China on the other end of the S palette are both the palatable representations of either system. Not surprising thus that neither can lay claim to also be truly democratic: the US is largely feudal (despite the elective system) and China still remains firmly in the despotic vein.

As for Europe, again an ideal yet to be put in action, no, you can't go as you please, Shengen or no Shengen. Various exceptions to general rules, plus a superdose of post-9/11 legislation have seen that idea evaporate pretty darn quick. The mobility I had as a European twenty years ago was then only hampered by easily navigated red tape: now its legal-shmegal, and god forbid you resemble someone from the mid-East (I do).

[krbe 193]

I go Schengen. My bags has the green border tag.

[DocRorlach 25]

Originally posted by: krbe I go Schengen. My bags has the green border tag.quote>

 

So do I; as a contractor in IT I have to. Even without the green tags. Meanwhile, however, some of the accord countries have replaced the former border controls with intrusive police controls and CCTV recorders. Especially when you travel from Holland, since that is far too "liberal" - or "weedy" a place...

[belfastuniguy 18]

god forbid you resemble someone from the mid-East (I do).quote>

Firstly that's offensive. Europe is not a racist place and tarring every country of Europe with whatever bad experience you have had is wholly unfair and widely inaccurate.

Europe has had to tighten its border control to stop the floods of illegal immigrants that have no right to be here. If were just opened the doors the UK in particular would be swamped by illegals and we just can not cope with them, not only are they here illegally, they are a drain on the resources of local authorities/councils, charities and an extra burden on the police and social services.

I can travel freely across Europe without any problems whatsoever, of course I need my passport when using airports, but travelling across Europe by train I have experienced almost no interference whatsoever.

I also have no idea how you have related European border policy with socialist/capitalist economics.

[Voar Tok 4]

Originally posted by: belfastuniguy

Europe has had to tighten its border control to stop the floods of illegal immigrants that have no right to be here. If were just opened the doors the UK in particular would be swamped by illegals and we just can not cope with them, not only are they here illegally, they are a drain on the resources of local authorities/councils, charities and an extra burden on the police and social services.quote>

Which is something the US is having to deal with also.  Yet over here, we're all supposed to welcome them open-armed and open-purse.  Is it just me, or is there something wrong here?

[belfastuniguy 18]

I agree with you Voar Tok, people are expected to welcome them with open arms and not bat an eyelid.

I am very happy to accept and welcome people that have suffered terrible abuse and come here to seek protection and rebuilt their lives. However the vast majority are here to work illegally, not pay tax and generally be a burden. I do accept those people they have no right whatsoever to be here. Yes they want to earn more money but they do not have the right to illegally enter this country to do so.

[DocRorlach 25]

Originally posted by: belfastuniguy

god forbid you resemble someone from the mid-East (I do).quote>

Firstly that's offensive. Europe is not a racist place and tarring every country of Europe with whatever bad experience you have had is wholly unfair and widely inaccurate.

Europe has had to tighten its border control to stop the floods of illegal immigrants that have no right to be here. If were just opened the doors the UK in particular would be swamped by illegals and we just can not cope with them, not only are they here illegally, they are a drain on the resources of local authorities/councils, charities and an extra burden on the police and social services.

I can travel freely across Europe without any problems whatsoever, of course I need my passport when using airports, but travelling across Europe by train I have experienced almost no interference whatsoever.

I also have no idea how you have related European border policy with socialist/capitalist economics.quote>

 

Mea culpa: I did not intend to offend anyone. And yes, my message is at best tangential to the general discussion. Still, having seen (in the "good" old days), Notting Hill Gate, and more recently the Banlieu in Paris (not to mention my personal experiences in my hometown in Germany, I do find Europe by and large more racist than the USA (I am going to get sooo flamed for this), and I do think this to be a direct result of the mix of socialistic ideology prevelant in Europe (the union) in the 70ties, and the more capitalistic outlook of today. Those policies created the state of affairs we have: policies we can no longer afford, too many immigrants, legal or otherwise, we cannot support nor turn out. 

But you are right: this is stuff for an altogether different debate.

Apologies.

[belfastuniguy 18]

I do find Europe by and large more racist than the USA (I am going to get sooo flamed for this)quote>

Indeed you are..

Firstly lets look at history. Europe was the first to abolish slavery and we have never denied black people civil rights, unlike the United States. We also don't have a history of widespread corruption and police brutality agaist members of the black community or ethnic minorities.

Europe has always been open to ethnic mirgrants. The United Kingdom has has a long history of multi-cultural. Indeed the British Parliament had an Indian MP back in 1892 and Nathaniel Wells, born in 1779 became a wealthly landowner, a magistrate and the first Black British Sheriff (kinda like a mayor). Europe more racist you say.....I think not...

Yes Europe has today become more aprehensive to just opening the doors to everyone, we have that right. We can not cope with endless waves of migration into our countries, we do not have the space, the resources or ability to cope. Europe has always been open to new cultures and people.

Please do not confuse government policy with racism.............again offensive and inaccurate.

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 7, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[JanYpe 17]

Originally posted by: belfastuniguy

I do find Europe by and large more racist than the USA (I am going to get sooo flamed for this)quote>

Indeed you are..

Firstly lets look at history. Europe was the first to abolish slavery and we have never denied black people civil rights, unlike the United States. We also don't have a history of widespread corruption and police brutality agaist members of the black community or ethnic minorities.

Europe has always been open to ethnic mirgrants. The United Kingdom has has a long history of multi-cultural. Indeed the British Parliament had an Indian MP back in 1892 and Nathaniel Wells, born in 1779 became a wealthly landowner, a magistrate and the first Black British Sheriff (kinda like a mayor). Europe more racist you say.....I think not...quote>

Looking at history a bit more, you see that Europe's rather large peasant population prevented slavery from ever actually taking root in society. Moreover, most of Europe's current population with any African heritage was part of recent immigration waves, so that the position of black people in the 19th and early 20th century in America and in Europe are not comparable. The examples you name are exceptions that prove people that weren't pasty were very much a novelty. No one was denied civil rights, because the numbers made it so that there wasn't any need to set up systematic repression, everyone just trundled along.

Yes Europe has today become more aprehensive to just opening the doors to everyone, we have that right. We can not cope with endless waves of migration into our countries, we do not have the space, the resources or ability to cope. Europe has always been open to new cultures and people.

Please do not confuse government policy with racism.............again offensive and inaccurate.quote>

Stop calling everything offensive. And where does the idea come from that America would somehow be less open to new cultures? When it comes to integration of immigrants, America has a pretty strong record. Don't paint an inaccurate picture of Europe when you know better.

[DocRorlach 25]

belfastinguy: we can argue about this until the cows come home. Our differences will always be tainted by personal experinces and by our individual racial backgrounds. I am, as the old saying goes, from the wrong side of the tracks in this case. Rather a mixed back of goods, with Italians, Polish and German backgrounds, but heavily tinted by a quicky American conquistador after WW2. I've lived all over the planet, most recently six years in the USA (south, west and east). And I am certainly happy to be back in "civilization". 

But my experiences point contrary to yours. After all, both the Dutch & the British profited heavily (historically) in the very same human traffice they now roundly (and rightly) condemn.

I don't know if you've ever been in Brixton during the 80ties and 90ties. Or in Wolverhampton more recently. Or in Paris or Berlin or Rome. I have and what I found there convinced me of my previous statement.

Maybe we ought to start a new thread? On that very threat?

[DocRorlach 25]

Originally posted by: Barbarossa First, I thought this was a political doctrine thread, not an immigration thread.

...

Besides, neither Europe nor the US/Canada have had a non-white leader.

Barbarossa

quote>

 

You are absolutely correct on both counts. And I think it is telling that it is the US of all western, capitalistic societies may well be the first to get a non-white leader..

[DocRorlach 25]

Stop calling everything offensive. And where does the idea come from that America would somehow be less open to new cultures? When it comes to integration of immigrants, America has a pretty strong record. Don't paint an inaccurate picture of Europe when you know better. quote>

Since I was the guilty party that got carried away I have to come to bealfastinguy's defense: of course he can be offended - why not? He's been perfectly civil and if that's all the flaming I get I call myself lucky.

[belfastuniguy 18]

we can argue about this until the cows come home. Our differences will always be tainted by personal experincesquote>

Indeed we can

Yes I understand that views are reflected by personal experience, that's perfectly acceptable.

I don't know if you've ever been in Brixton during the 80ties and 90ties. Or in Wolverhampton more recently. Or in Paris or Berlin or Rome. I have and what I found there convinced me of my previous statement.quote>

Well I was only born in 1986 so was not old enough to see first hand the violence. I am aware of it however. Yes I have been to all three of those cities. Now I did not witness racism or a disdain for any group, though I'm sure that depends on the places I visited. I am fully aware of the tension that currently exists in many European cities for immigrants. I don't however see this as racism, its economic related. There are some serious socio-economic tensions in these poorer areas but I don't agree it can be termed as racism. I'm sure the same issues exist in poorer integrated neighbourhoods in America.

You are absolutely correct on both counts. And I think it is telling that it is the US of all western, capitalistic societies may well be the first to get a non-white leader..quote>

Well I always though America would, the simple fact is that they have a very very large black population. Europe in comparison has a very small black population, so I think basing the view that Europe is more racist is somewhat unfair. The black population in the UK is only about 3%.

Since I was the guilty party that got carried away I have to come to bealfastinguy's defense: of course he can be offended - why not? He's been perfectly civil and if that's all the flaming I get I call myself lucky.quote>

Thank you I'm never openly hostile and offensive to people, I just give my reply to comments I deem inaccurate or provocative.

[DocRorlach 25]

Originally posted by: belfastuniguy

Thank you I'm never openly hostile and offensive to people, I just give my reply to comments I deem inaccurate or provocative.

quote>

 

And thus we agree to disagree!