Are we reverting to Socialism again?

[Red Boyneside]

Greetings Red,

I don't think we're going to agree much. so I'll just say this - booms and busts aren't due to any "inherent instability" in the marketplace, but due to an expansion of money and credit. That's the reason the stock market can appear to hit record highs. It's phoney wealth.

But the expansion of money and credit is a symptom of the inherent instability I've been talking about. The raison d'etre of Capitalism is market growth. There are two reasons this leads to the extension of credit - 1. Capitalists expanding their businesses secure credit on the basis of supposed future profits. 2. The working class majority gets paid (necessarily for Capitalism to exist) less than the value of their labour, they therefore cannot buy back the full produce of their labour on what they earn. The rapid expansion of credit in the last 25 years or so has been down to the excelleration of this situation. There has been in this time the greatest redistribution of wealth from labour to capital in history. With no one able to buy what was on the market with what they actually earned, credit had to be extended or Capitalism was kaput.

Too much rigidity i.e. the doctrinal application of either Marx or Hayek is ill-matched to the range of cultural impulses, value systems and environments which impact on human experience.

I disagree to an extent. Capitalism still works more or less in the same way as it did when Marx wrote Capital, the nature of the commodity, the bedrock upon which the system is built is still the same. However it is important that Marxists, Anarchists or any other type of revolutionary Socialists out there, are not rigid in their application of theory. I would add that the best theory and this applies to the best elements in Marxist writing are actually derived from "the range of cultural impulses, value systems and environments which impact on human experience." To paraphrase the man himself, "we make our own history but not under circumstances of our own choice."

[20000miles]

But the expansion of money and credit is a symptom of the inherent instability I've been talking about.

No it's not. Who controls the money supply? Who can counterfeit? Who sets interest rates? The people to blame are the central bankers who flooded the market with cash - we have been in an artificial boom since 2001.


The only way a boom can be set in motion is a combination of:

1. artificially low interest rates (making entrepreneurs think that savings are plentiful)
2. monetary expansion through either fractional reserve banking or central banking.

Nothing else.

The raison d'etre of Capitalism is market growth. There are two reasons this leads to the extension of credit - 1. Capitalists expanding their businesses secure credit on the basis of supposed future profits. 2. The working class majority gets paid (necessarily for Capitalism to exist) less than the value of their labour, they therefore cannot buy back the full produce of their labour on what they earn.

What is the problem with getting paid less than the value of what you produce? In a free market, wages tend towards the marginal productivity of labour. In any case point 2. hints at an archaic labour theory of value.

The rapid expansion of credit in the last 25 years or so has been down to the excelleration of this situation. There has been in this time the greatest redistribution of wealth from labour to capital in history. With no one able to buy what was on the market with what they actually earned, credit had to be extended or Capitalism was kaput.

I refer to the expansion from 2001-. Also, labour and capital are not humans, they are functions, so we cannot transfer wealth from one to another. There is no doubt that the recent bailouts constitute the biggest transfer of wealth from poor to rich. The fact that real wages have stagnated since 1971 (something I again put down to inflation) has very little to do with this.

[Leftfemme22]

Doctrines belong in the realms of religion and other irrational belief systems. There is no single approach to human endeavour that can be successfully applied to global human endeavour.I believe in more general principles such as the protection of the weak by the strong, the caring for the sick by the healthy, the opening up of educational opportunities to all, real and meaningful societal structures to enable the smallest amount of stratification within societies, and a rejection of privilege attained by birthright. If you wish to describe that as socialism, that’s up to you. It’s not a doctrine nor is it scientific. It’s an instinct that a return to the law of the jungle will not be in the interests of my children, or theirs, or anyone else’s in the long run.

+1 Great post.

[bormotello]

+1 Great post.

-1
All those nice socialist ideas will bring society to stagnation
If people will get everything what they want, they simple will become lazy. It will be no motivation to work harder, to be smarter then another.
It will be no reasons to gain some wealth and pass it to your children
Pure socialism exists mostly in wild Africa, where people don’t have to do much.
If they want banana, they will go and take it.
But it didn’t work in Europe, where people had to fight with nature and each other.
It is nice to chat about socialism, when you have everything, created by capitalism.
For example Marx was writing his books, while Engels was pushing workers on his factories to work hard in order to get money for Marx
Or when you don’t have anything and you need and explanation why you want a take it from somebody else.


IMHO socialism is good only for aristocracy (in our days public servants ) and gangsters
Hardworking people don’t need socialism

[Eorna]

There will never be a socialist Ireland, but there will be a social democracy here, European style. The countries that embraced radical free market ideas, such as Britain, the U.S. and Ireland are in very serious trouble and will be lucky to avoid an economic depression. Meanwhile Sweden, Norway, the Netherlands and so on are doing a lot better than us, we need to have their social model, but have a more entrepreneur friendly approach than they do.

[Munion]

I believe in more general principles such as the protection of the weak by the strong, the caring for the sick by the healthy, the opening up of educational opportunities to all, real and meaningful societal structures to enable the smallest amount of stratification within societies, and a rejection of privilege attained by birthright. If you wish to describe that as socialism, that’s up to you. It’s not a doctrine nor is it scientific. It’s an instinct that a return to the law of the jungle will not be in the interests of my children, or theirs, or anyone else’s in the long run.

Most people would agree with these goals but many who would disagree with socialism as a way towards achieving them.

Something that constantly annoys me is that if you criticise socialism then some posters assume you disagree with equality, fairness and in Big Bobo's case anything closely resembling humanity.

My point has always been that if socialism worked it'd be great, sign me up. But it doesn't work, indeed it CAN'T work because it fails to tackle the dark side of humanity like greed, envy, laziness etc.

[Hazlitt]

That bears little relation to whether this state was ever socialist in nature and whether or not it will become socialist in the future.

Not that I care if you do or not, but if you go back and actually read the last few posts you'll see that those posts relating to the public production of money were very relevant to the conversation. It was a RESPONSE (funny concept on a chat forum. But here is what it was in response to:

Here's some thoughts:
Neo-conservatism created the mess we're in, not socialism, which we've never had in Ireland.
...
Socialism is what we need a bit of to cure our disease.

Despite their best intentions, government involvement in the monetary sphere of the economy got us into this mess. Socialism - a further foray by the government into even more sectors of the economy can only do more harm than good.

If you wish to have a little tete a tete about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, or a discussion about the fiscal mechanisms, or the lack thereof, which were recommended decades ago rabidly anti-socialist academics, that’s fine. Carry on, but leave me out.

I'll refer you to above, it was in RESPONSE to a claim by other people in this post that capitalism was to blame for the situation our country is in and that socialism is what is NEEDED (Thread title: Are we reverting to Socialism again? - I think this discussion is totally relevant)

De-regulation of financial services is at the core of the unravelling of globalised capitalism. De-regulation equates to greater market freedom in the “free markets”. These de-regulated free markets are at the epicentre of the current fiscal disorder (a term I admit is slightly euphemistic).

That has to be the single WORST "example" I've seen on politics.ie of how capitalism "got our country into the mess we're in".... You have given us absolutely ZERO theories of how capitalism caused the recession, all you've essentially said is "De-regulation caused it" !! Hahaha, I mean COME ON !! After spouting all your talk I think you should go back to the drawing board and come back to us all and post an actual theory! Nonsense.

I return the question to you. If you can show us, with examples, how “central bank monetary policies and fractional reserve laws” caused the unravelling of banking, with the accompanying socialisation of the losses suffered by the better-off, then be my guest.

It's quite obvious that you came to this thread at page 14 or so and have not bothered reading any of it. We've already done this. 20000miles has even posted charts for Christs sake!! Again, not that I care if you do or not because you've already in my opinion shown yourself to be just another chancer who is just set in an "anti-capitalistic" mindset, but go back and read the bloody thread then come back to us.

Judging by the passionate defence here of a system that is rotten to the core

There you go again! Your posts just smack of anti-capitalist idealogical hatred. You're not willing to discuss the causes of the recession, you are just hell-bent on your views and that's final. You clearly have an idealogical agenda and so we can't really take your posts as constructive or analytical when it comes to our critique of the economic mess. This is a discussion forum, if you don't want to discuss and just want to argue then go take up boxing or something to release your anger.

it appears to me that there are quite a few who, while not using that term, actually ascribe utopian qualities to capitalist societies.

Well nobody here said that. And If I were to use your earlier logic "what has that got to do with the thread of Ireland reverting to a Socialist state?? But hang on, I realise that this is a discussion board so I won't jump down your throat over that random point.

I believe you. Really.

Couldn't care less if you do or not. Irrelevant.

Are you denying the major influence Hayek had on Friedman, the fact that both were held up as idols by Thatcher, Reagan and the rest of the free-market zealots, and the fact that they sit side by side in the pantheon of anti-socialist thinkers? You say there’s a “monumental difference” between their positions, and that you “can’t get much more opposed than” their positions. That is simply not the case.

You asked me to tell you their differences on public monopoly on the production of money that's what I gave you, the two polar-opposite views held by Friedman and Hayek. Your question of "are they similar in other views" is irrelevant to this conversation.

Doctrines belong in the realms of religion and other irrational belief systems. There is no single approach to human endeavour that can be successfully applied to global human endeavour. Too much rigidity i.e. the doctrinal application of either Marx or Hayek is ill-matched to the range of cultural impulses, value systems and environments which impact on human experience.

You are the one who in your last post has went on a mad one about people talking about random things with nothing to do with the thread topic. I put it to you that this statement is totally irrelevant and therefore contributes nothing to this thread (if I were going by your previous blasts at members posts). In your words - "If you wish to have a little tete a tete about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin" go ahead and do it - but leave me out of it and preferably do it in a new thread!

I believe in more general principles such as the protection of the weak by the strong, the caring for the sick by the healthy, the opening up of educational opportunities to all, real and meaningful societal structures to enable the smallest amount of stratification within societies, and a rejection of privilege attained by birthright.

Nobody on this thread is against any of the things you've said above. Nobody. Charitable acts are admirable and should be done more often by more people in my opinion. But voluntarily.

To return to the essence of this thread, this state has never remotely lived up to the principles I’ve outlined, not to mention any doctrinal application of whatever expression of socialist thinking it is that gets your goat.

Oh so you've got back to the thread topic at last... thank god !!

Our country is heavily socialist. It does not block private enterprise from entering certain fields like education, health etc - but it certainly does hinder it by it's involvement in these sectors in my opinion (that's the little thing that adults on chat forums are allowed to discuss with people - opinions!)

[COLOR="White"].[/COLOR]

[Left sceptical]

Anyone aware of the Limerick Soviet of 1919?

[Fear Dorcha]

Originally Posted by onlyasking
Doctrines belong in the realms of religion and other irrational belief systems. There is no single approach to human endeavour that can be successfully applied to global human endeavour.I believe in more general principles such as the protection of the weak by the strong, the caring for the sick by the healthy, the opening up of educational opportunities to all, real and meaningful societal structures to enable the smallest amount of stratification within societies, and a rejection of privilege attained by birthright. If you wish to describe that as socialism, that’s up to you. It’s not a doctrine nor is it scientific. It’s an instinct that a return to the law of the jungle will not be in the interests of my children, or theirs, or anyone else’s in the long run.

+1 Great post.

Seconded +1

[Leftfemme22]

Most people would agree with these goals but many who would disagree with socialism as a way towards achieving them.

Maybe, maybe not, but look at bormotello's post, he clearly doesn’t agree with these goals as he believes they will stagnate society.

Such views are solely inherent of the right.

Other posters believe our policies should cater for the worst of the Human condition and supposedly make allowances for such. I say that is regressive thinking, we must as a species evolve beyond, greed, envy, laziness etc etc and in the mean time actively discourage it, not pander to it.