Why is Socialism so hated?

To be honest, whatever socialist institutions exist in Ireland are rather limited anyway and are essentially token gestures to the wording of the Proclamation of the Republic as read in 1916.

edited 1st May '11 2:15:28 PM by DanEile

Too idealistic I'm afraid. In the finance sector, in which I also work, for a major bank, without bonuses the top staff simply go elsewhere. My bank pays better bonuses in exchange for lower salaries, to encourage performance. And banning all of them from doing it doesn't work because the top talent will simply go abroad. A global market and the jobs can be found worldwide.

Limit bonuses? Absolutely. Ban them outright? Not realistic or fair to be honest.

As I understand it, pay structures in the banking industry are remarkably similar to wait staff at restaurants, in that the majority of their compensation (especially higher up) comes from bonuses, incentives, and benefits. That said, this also serves as a great way to obfuscate investigations into corruption and embezzlement.

Only ban bonuses until the corporate welfare money is paid back, is what I believe I suggested.

As for bosses going abroad, well, let them. I'm sure there's plenty of qualified people who'll do the job for less if given the chance. Even ones with the education for it.

Isn't it calming to know that such responsible and kind people hold aloft the fate of our entire economic future?

I hate to be rude, but you're extremely arrogant if you think you can pin down human nature.

~resists, resists...~

Okay, I have a long-standing policy of never expressing minority views on forums, but, if you really want a full, complete, positive answer to a question like this, don't ask socialists. Just saying.

Then again, if this question is merely an expression of your fear, anger and frustration at the world, crying out for validation and reassurance, this is the correct approach.

These discussions then tend to

1) devolve into debating about what the actual meanings of socialism and capitalism really are,

2) conflicting dissertations about the outcomes of each,

3) Profit

4) disagreements over whether or not these are inevitable,

5) debates about which countries constitute genuine examples, and which are just 'in name only',

6) Return to step 1.

Throw in the occasional comment from someone who gives a hesitant opinion before noting they aren't very well informed, really; an embittered, sarcastic pseudo-answer from someone who's already made up their mind; and laughing dismissively at the guy who passionately defends the unpopular view as a troll with a transparent and obviously-wrong belief system.

In general, though, the silent majority of folks around the world prefer market economies because of the perception (valid) that economic liberty and freedom produce more jobs and businesses, technological innovation, less waste, increases in the standard of living for the talented, skilled and resourceful, and overall satisfaction and personal well-being... and if the outcomes aren't equally distributed? Well, it's worth it.

That's the answer to your question. Please argue vainly to the contrary.

edited 9th Jun '11 1:45:57 PM by BaronVonRichtropen

A little less arrogance might not go amiss.

I found it pleasant to read, actually.

The suffering of millions so a few rich cunts can have all the money is by no reasonable definition whatsoever "worth it". Self-help doctrine, when applied exclusively and to the extreme you imply it should be, is inhumane.

To reply to Best Of nearer the top of the page, the problem I raised isn't about the bosses going abroad, but the staff. If I could be bothered I could go for a job in New York. I know my firm offers them, as do others. If I can get much better pay and conditions there, then logically I should, and the top talent at every financial institution is in the same situation. And this means more than just the people who fuck everything up, including also the genuinely decent, good-at-their-jobs sorts that these places rely on.

Way of the world, really.

Good. But essentially turning up in a conversation and complaining about how people shouldn't have these discussions anyway makes you look (to me) arrogant.

Besides which, the terms by which you discuss stuff IS important.

edited 9th Jun '11 2:04:02 PM by JosefBugman

The dirty truth is that as technology increases, less people need to be working to maintain the same population and standard of living. I would also argue that the only significant increases in standard of living since WW 2 came from public transportation, increased open-ness between people such that war between industrialized nations became less likely, and improved sharing of information.

"Self-help doctrine, when applied exclusively and to the extreme you imply it should be, is inhumane"

I neither implied, nor proposed, any such extreme. Such an extreme is a curiously persistent phantasm, however.

True, agreement of terminology would be helpful. It remains, however, elusive. The result is the universal debate pattern I've attempted to bring to your attention.

I wasn't debating anything, really though. I did, however, answer the initial question.

My other point, however, was this: When, in the future we engage in debates as to the validity of this view, it is generally more productive to debate specific sub-policies, rather than the more nebulous, elaborate blanket concepts of straight capitalism/socialism/fascism/communism/why-don't-you-just-shoot-hism

I come off that way frequently. I have ceased trying to dispel it. One could argue that much of the topic, containing angry, blanket denunciations of capitalism, could also be described as arrogant self-salve and group reassurance, but it isn't, because it represents the general consensus. Don't worry - I didn't take offense at it.

ssfxs - The notion of technology making workers obsolete is another persistent phantasm, with less validity. We will never reach a point where there is simply nothing else that anybody wants done. I'd love a manservant, for example. The question, however, is whether you're willing to accept my proposed salary and your willingness to wear the tuxedo and monocle.

edited 9th Jun '11 3:22:24 PM by BaronVonRichtropen

Because people are jealous of Karl Marx's magnificent beard.

Or perhaps it's due to two centuries of fighting, propaganda, and overly radical implementation of crazy interpretations that makes everybody puke after hearing the word. Like everything else, of course.

Centuries? Karl Marx wrote the Manifesto because of misrepresentations is HIS lifetime.