Socialism or two-tier capitalism?

[The Collective.]

Ireland is the 5th biggest contributer to African aid. Would we have such wealth without capitalism? EU, IDA, Fine Gael.........

[doheochai]

ibis, you had the temerity to have an idea which employed people. That's a cardinal sin for commies.

The SP does not and would not advocate the nationalisation of every industry or enterprise. The key for developing and planning the economy is democratic control over those industries that are vital for economic planning e.g. communications, energy, transport etc. There would however be regulations on all industry in relation to wage rates and prices (these are necessary to eliminate inflation).

[doheochai]

Ireland is the 5th biggest contributer to African aid. Would we have such wealth without capitalism? EU, IDA, Fine Gael.........

And the aid provide has actually done what to help the vast impoverished peoples on the African continent?

[ibis]

So, when I've devised a product, and decide to try and sell it, and employ people to do so - in exactly what way am I "exploiting the majority"?

The only way you can make a profit is by (1) not paying the workers you employ the value of their labour and (2) charging customers more than the value of the product.

I charge the customer what the product is worth to them - if it is worth more to them than to me, I make a profit.

My workers charge me what it is worth to them to work for me - and if it is worth more to me than to them, I make a profit.

Both are by free association without coercion, and with everyone understanding how the system works.

[Sligoboy]

Socialism is a discredited ideology and anyone who still supports it is by definition an idiot. It is the creationism of political theory, held by faith in opposition to the established evidence.

ask the 3 billion people on the plant, who live on less than $2 a day, how credible capitalism is!

Ask them what country they'd like to move to. America or North Korea? You can criticise Capitalism as much as you want and I'll agree with you on a lot of it. But Socialism is no solution to anything. Abolishing the market system to solve poverty is like abolishing boats to prevent floods, counter-productive and utterly beside the point.

You havent got a clue what true socialism is about do you. You trot out the soviet model and assume that was socialism when it was nothing of the sort. The revoultion was usurped by stalinists who instilled centrally controlled communism as apposed to worker controlled socialism.

[doheochai]

Ask them what country they'd like to move to. America or North Korea? You can criticise Capitalism as much as you want and I'll agree with you on a lot of it. But Socialism is no solution to anything. Abolishing the market system to solve poverty is like abolishing boats to prevent floods, counter-productive and utterly beside the point.

Again you assume that I support the despotic regime in North Korea - it is even more removed from socialism than the USA is.

[FutureTaoiseach]

I was going to ignore this thread seeingas it was deliberately started by a known troll to stir ****, but when idiots like FT say 'Time' will cure all the ills of the world I couldn't let that go.

Capitalism has copperfastened poverty in the 3rd world, it will never ever ever cure it. Capitalism is about exploitation, the accumalation of wealth and profit. Inequality is necessary to sustain this. The amount of profit to be made on a global scale is 'finite' as in one big pie as are global resources, the west through capitalism takes by far the biggest slice, leaving over 3 billion people to starve and live in squalor.

Socialism is not a failed ideology because it has never been implemented in its truest form in any country

Capitalism is about encouraging entrepreneurship and innovation. The desire to better oneself economic encourages enterpreneurship and job-creation. Increased profitability creates the context for a trickle-down to the poor in terms of wage-increases and increased rates of social-welfare. Low taxation rates provides the context whereby work is not disincentivised, leading to greater tax revenues to the govt to pay for infrastructure, including schools, hospitals, water etc. as well as increased social-welfare including for the elderly and the disabled. A competitive environment dominated by the private-sector keeps prices lower than would otherwise be the case by providing consumers with choice.

Meanwhile, Socialism denies consumer-choice by forcing them to avail of the services of state-owned monopolies that rip them off because they have no competitors to lose customers too. Party-hacks get appointed to state-boards on the basis of party-patronage rather than merit. These monopolies are inefficient and have a begging-bowl approach where the govt is expected to bail them out when they fail as a result of their inefficiency. This forces the govt to keep taxes high or raise taxes. Meanwhile the unions get the power to close down the country because the consumer has no option but to use the services of state-owned monopolies.

Socialism is a cancer on the body-politic. In the same way that Stalin's collectivisation of farm was a failure, the Socialist prescription of collectivised healthcare has also failed. A new way is needed, in which the private-sector takes on a much stronger role in helping cope with population-pressures. As for the point of having to pay for healthcare - we are already paying for it via our taxes.

[Sligoboy]

So, when I've devised a product, and decide to try and sell it, and employ people to do so - in exactly what way am I "exploiting the majority"?

The only way you can make a profit is by (1) not paying the workers you employ the value of their labour and (2) charging customers more than the value of the product.

I charge the customer what the product is worth to them - if it is worth more to them than to me, I make a profit.

My workers charge me what it is worth to them to work for me - and if it is worth more to me than to them, I make a profit.

Both are by free association without coercion, and with everyone understanding how the system works.

Are you seriously saying that capitalism is as pure a model as you've advocated. Are you seriously suggesting there is no racketering, profiteering, exploitation of worker forces, race to the bottom fiscal policies supported by the capital system.

If the capitalist system wasnt about bottom lines and pure profit, why the migration of Mutli nationals eastward, why outsourcing to India?

[The Collective.]

And the aid provide has actually done what to help the vast impoverished peoples on the African continent?

We've set up schools, built roads, taught them how to farm properly and yet Africa still sucks. I personally think we should help the African nations that are willing to change themselves. Like Biafraland, the country with the pyraminds. Yes I cant spell its name.

[doheochai]

I charge the customer what the product is worth to them - if it is worth more to them than to me, I make a profit.

You charge a customer as high a price as you can get away with and still sell the product.

My workers charge me what it is worth to them to work for me - and if it is worth more to me than to them, I make a profit.

You pay your worker as little as you can get away with and still get someone to work for you. They don't call it a 'race to the bottom' for nothing

Both are by free association without coercion, and with everyone understanding how the system works.

Both are absolutely dependent on coercion - One with the customer needing the product and two with the worker needing the job. Free association would only apply if (1) the customer didn't have to pay for the product and (2) the worker didn't need the wage to survive.