Socialism in Ireland [Archive] - Page 2

BohsPartisan

20/10/2006, 10:45 AM

Communism failed completely as could not feed its own people.

If you keep repeating this mantra it won't make it true.
Will I hit you with the hard facts Again?

1. Stalinism, despite what it called itself was as far from being Communism as a planned economy could be. As trotsky once wrote "the planned economy needs democracy like the human body need oxygene".
2. Despite its grotesque bureaucratic class, the Russian planned economy did bring many benefits to the citizens of the USSR. In 1917 Russia was a poverty stricken country with an economy comparable to a third world country today. The revolution and the construction of a planned economy brought Russia from having a feudal economy to being the second biggest superpower on the planet in the space of twenty years. In the soviet union every last person had a roof over their heads, the right to an education, the right to healthcare on demand. The life expectancy of a Soviet citizen was comparable to the life expectancy in the advanced capitalist countries that had taken centuries to reach the same level of developement that the planned economy achieved in decades.
On top of this, Russia was able to win the space race, fight the germans for three years on their own when the rest of the world was licking its paws and produce some of the best sports people on the planet.
3. I mentioned the planned economy needing democracy earlier. The fact that it didn't have this was what caused its collapse. Trotsky accurately predicted that this would happen in his masterwork The revolution betrayed. He said that if their was not a political revolution the bureacracy would strangle the planned economy and capitalism would be restored, with catastrophic results for the people of russia.
4. The restoration of capitalism in the former Soviet Union has been an unmitigated disaster. Life expectancy has fallen to an average of 54 years. There is widepread unemployment. Women who previously were garaunteed good jobs have had to turn to prostitution to make ends meet (please excuse the awful pun). Crime in Russia was virtually unheard of under the planned economy. The country is now a den of mafioso style crimelords. Have you noticed the numbers of eastern european people coming to Ireland for work? Why do you think that is?

pete

20/10/2006, 10:51 AM

Saying that 1980s USSR had better standard of living than 1917 doesn't mean much as the standard of living in the entire world has improved in those 70-80 years. Capitalism is the best system but also has its flaws - the US system has huge benefits to many but also some huge flaws.

Chinese communism wasn't much of a success either as they are prospering now but effectively a one party capitalist state.

Cuba has some success but overall a failure.

Is there a successful socialist state in the world today? I know you quoting Trotsky & others but is there demand for such a system or is it just book talk?

Lim till i die

20/10/2006, 10:54 AM

Cuba has some success but overall a failure.

How well do you reckon the Irish economy would be doing with a U.S embargo pete??

BohsPartisan

20/10/2006, 10:58 AM

Saying that 1980s USSR had better standard of living than 1917 doesn't mean much as the standard of living in the entire world has improved in those 70-80 years.

No economy has had the level of Economic growth that the USSR had in such a short space of time. It would be the equivelant of Botswana going from where it is now to competing on a world scale with the US in 20 years.

Chinese communism wasn't much of a success either as they are prospering now but effectively a one party capitalist state.
In the 70's China went under a similar economic transformation. The bureaucracy is reverting to Capitalism now so they can keep power and avoid the issue of workers' democracy.

Cuba has some success but overall a failure.
A nonsense. Cubans have a far better quality of life than people in other Caribean states and considering it is such a small island that has been besieged by US imperialism for years it is doing remarkably well

Is there a successful socialist state in the world today? I know you quoting Trotsky & others but is there demand for such a system or is it just book talk
There is no Socialist state today but there is huge interest in Trotsky's ideas in Latin America today.

jebus

20/10/2006, 3:10 PM

Its absolutley hilarious to see the ******* right-wingers get put in thir place every time by Bohs Partisan. :D

Jebus using the SWP website to argue with Bohs Partisan (a member of the SP) about socialism and the policies of the Socialist Party...:rolleyes:

I think the only thing absolutely hilarious in this whole thing is how socialists back slap each other and say they have won an argument without any evidence to prove they have, so lets nail this right now.

How can anything I have said in this thread be construed as being right wing? My first post question the issues put across on the SWP website, those questions were never answered by the way, and my second post answered BohsPartisan question as to why I used that website whilst re-stating the questions from the first post, which again went unanswered, so where in this have I a) lost an argument and b) been a ****ing right-winger?

Partizan until you have something other than an idiotic rant to post please don't embarass yourself any further.

BohsPartisan, to answer your question about why I didn't use your preferred choice of Socialist website, well believe it or not I don't log everything you say for future reference, so I couldn't recall what website address you had posted, hence me typing 'Socialism Ireland' into google and taking the SWP as the Socialist Party webpage (honestly it surprises me that ye have two websites for the one party). Again I'll ask where at any point of my first two posts did I put across any right wing ideas? I may have said Socialists are seen as a bunch of neo-liberal loudmouths, but honestly I know quite a few moderate liberals and centerists who think the same, Partizan proving that he is the stereotype in this thread.

But again I'd like you to read through my first post and actually answer the questions that I put to you please, lets cut the crap and pettiness out and either answer the questions or explain the SWPs relation to your party (again it confuses me, are they an element of your party, or some offspring) because really, looking at that webpage validates my first post questions

BohsPartisan

20/10/2006, 3:16 PM

jebus

20/10/2006, 3:25 PM

SWP are a completely different party to us. We have some things in common but we also have our differences. Put it this way I'd say there is more distance between us than there is between FF and FG. Look at our website and it proves you were wrong on the point you made. All the main stories are of Irish interest. You have to scroll down some way to find one that isn't.

Socialist Party (http://www.socialistparty.net)

Grand, sorted, now wasn't it easier to say that there are differences between your party and the Socialist Workers than to attack me for being a right winger? Jesus and some people call you lot loudmouths (:p )

BohsPartisan

20/10/2006, 4:15 PM

Further info for clarification:
Left wing parties in Ireland
Socialist Party on Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_Party_of_Ireland)

SWP on Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_Workers_Party_%28Ireland%29)

The Workers Party on wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Workers_Party_%28Ireland%29)

IRSP on wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_Republican_Socialist_Party)

There are a couple of other small groups but they are pretty insignificant.
Of these the Spartacist League are completely loopy. They spend more time criticising the rest of the left than criticising capitalism. The Irish Socialist Network are a small splinter group of the Workers Party. There is also Socialist Democracy who have a few people in Roscommon and the North and finally (I think) there is Workers Power Ireland. They are a bit mad too and only have 2 or three members.

Also check out Leftist Parties of the World (http://www.broadleft.org) which is a handy little directory, though I wouldn't class all the parties on it as left wing.
For the Committee for a Workers' International (the international socialist organisation the SP are affiliated to) see the link in my signature.
For some classic marxist texts on line go to
The Marxist Internet Archive (http://www.marxists.org).

Hope all this was of some help.

pete

20/10/2006, 5:50 PM

Read a little bit of Party Website (http://www.socialistparty.net/) & while certain polcies are worthy there is no mention whatsoever how any of the policies could be funded. We can all come with great giveaway policies without costing.

How much work free education, health & housing cost?

Does job security = job for life? Job for life = lazy employees.

All publicly owned services and companies to be run under democratic working class control.

What does that mean? Surely you need someone to manage & someone to work even in socialism?

- Take all major industry, banks and financial institutions into public ownership and place them under the democratic control and management of working class people.

The very next day every major multinational in Ireland would announce its closure. Before multinationals came into Ireland in force in the IT, Pharmaceutical & Medical supply industries we had 25% unemployment, 60% PAYE tax & thousands emigranting every week. No one will vote for the return to the 80s.

:eek:

The Ref

20/10/2006, 7:51 PM

I would truely hate to work in a unionised company where everyone on the same grade gets the same pay & raise. I could not stand to sit by while some workers worked their asses off while others sat on their ass but all rewarded the same way.

The companys' called the Civil Service:D

sonofstan

20/10/2006, 8:53 PM

Interesting that the right in this thread is represented by the corkies - obviously that extremely annoying T- shirt should read 'The People's Republic of (everywhere in Ireland except) Cork'

BohsPartisan

21/10/2006, 8:28 AM

Read a little bit of Party Website (http://www.socialistparty.net/) & while certain polcies are worthy there is no mention whatsoever how any of the policies could be funded. We can all come with great giveaway policies without costing.
The FAQ would have some explanations on that but if you don't have time for that I'll be brief. To provide free Primary education to the entire child population of the world would take a tiny fraction of the wealth of the wealthiest two hundered people in the world.

Thats a good question. Maybe the best question you've asked so far. Actually I'm glad you are asking questions now rather than making statements. Job security would be conditional on you actually doing your job. If the workplace was democraticaly controlled, do you think the majority would tolerate slacking by someone when they would have to pick up the slack?

[quote]What does that mean? Surely you need someone to manage & someone to work even in socialism?
There are many examples of worker managed factories and industries in the world. In Venezuala now there are quite a few. The task is to link them on a national scale to plan production.

The very next day every major multinational in Ireland would announce its closure.

Without workers expertise and raw materials multinationals are nothing. They are only necessary under Capitalism because that is how the sytem works. If say Labour returned to their old policies of Tax high to spend more and were in power then yes, there would be a flight of Capital. This is why reformism doesn't work. This is why you can't make Capitalism nice.
At anyrate the multinationals have begun the process of relocating. Over the course of the next decade, if Irish workers don't dramatically lower their wage demands then they will head off to India or bangladesh or wherever. Its Catch 22 for Irish workers - Can't afford to live on lower wages, can't afford to have no job. One of the many reasons why Socialism is an absolute necessity. Saying that if we didn't have multinationals there'd be no jobs is like saying if we had no developers there's be no houses. The men who build houses would still be there. The bricks and Mortar would still be there. It would be up to a democratic workers state to assemble the expertise to build the houses. That goes for any industry. I can understand that if you are new to these ideas they can be hard to grasp. Marx did say after all that "The Communist revolution is the most radical rupture with traditional property relations; no wonder that its development invloves the most radical rupture with traditional ideas".

Poor Student

21/10/2006, 9:28 AM

Thats a good question. Maybe the best question you've asked so far. Actually I'm glad you are asking questions now rather than making statements. Job security would be conditional on you actually doing your job. If the workplace was democraticaly controlled, do you think the majority would tolerate slacking by someone when they would have to pick up the slack?

BP, I can only offer anecdotal and first hand views on this but of the large time I've spent in Slovenia I feel that worker self management was a failure. There are a lot of people who had it easy under the old system and were used to slacking and doing very little work and now are highly resentful under the capitalist system which will not provide the same security for slackers. What if the majority are slackers? What if the majority would slack off without a whip being cracked at them? That's what worker self management seemed to lead to from a lot of the evidence I've come across.

pete

21/10/2006, 10:42 AM

Actually I'm glad you are asking questions now rather than making statements.

I am just curious & previously had nowhere to get the info.

Free housing for all would just mean people abusing the system. Irish people in particular have no respect for anything they don't own themselves.

Interestingly the most capitalist country of them all USA has the biggest charitable donations by individuals. The Clinton & Gates foundations dwaft any contributions governments have made in the 3rd world.

I think there nothing wrong with arguing for fairer distribution of wealth but there will always be bosses & workers. The state should provide the support & infrastruture for people to create & find jobs. The less employees the state has itself the better as state companies by their nature are not good at creating profit.

You need to motivate people to achieve & produce & equality in the workplace kills that. How else to explain the productivity gains when state farms split up & distributed to the workers individually.

CollegeTillIDie

21/10/2006, 11:26 AM

The Republic of Ireland is a mixed economy and has been for many decades and it is what the majority of the people would wish for. In theory it provides a certain amount of a market economy and then provides for the less well off in society through State intervention. However government policies have in recent years created a quandry.

In order to properly provide for the less fortunate in society, you need to generate sufficient revenues for the State Exchequer, to abolish homelessness and provide everyone with a basic payment to keep them out of destitution. The problem arises when the majority of the population vote for lower personal taxation and lower company taxation , at times of lesser economic growth than at present , there is less money in the State coffers to seriously address the problems of those members of society who are the casualties of capitalism.

And if you increase taxation to the sort of rates that many Socialist advocate, the costs of production here in Ireland rise, jobs are lost, and if corporate taxes are raised, and many foreign companies will bail out leaving massive unemployment and the sort of economy Ireland had in the 1980's when Labour were in power with Fine Gael under Garret Fitzgerald, which was without doubt the worst performing government in Irish history.... economically speaking. 300,000 plus out of work and massive emigration.

Currently we are a country which is IMPORTING labour , yes we have unemployment, but it is possible to get jobs if you are prepared to be a bit flexible.

The one plank of socialist policies that I would endorse would be nationalising at least one of the major Banks. AIB stiffed the State when a major insurance company they partly owned went belly up and the State had to pay for the collapse of it. That was the perfect time for the government to Nationalise AIB. This would have had two effects 1) generated revenue for the State 2) put manners on other Banking institutions in this country and businesses in general and we might have avoided many of these Banking and other scandals which have plagued this country in the past few decades.

Remember folks we are a mixed economy, a little bit of socialism and mix that with capitalism and it's what we do here very well. Yes there are problems but a lot of those could be solved with improvements in efficiency especially in the Health sector where the administration requires a complete overhaul and millions are wasted annually.

pete

21/10/2006, 12:13 PM

Currently we are a country which is IMPORTING labour , yes we have unemployment, but it is possible to get jobs if you are prepared to be a bit flexible.

Yes we have more or less full employment now. This race to the bottom crap the unions come with is rubbish. Irish people are moving into more qualified & better paid jobs while immigrants working in lower paid for a few years before moving onwards.

The one plank of socialist policies that I would endorse would be nationalising at least one of the major Banks.

The AIB decision in the past was a bad one but can't go back now.
Proper state regulation is the necessary penalties for those that offend is the solution to stopping banking scandals.

Remember folks we are a mixed economy, a little bit of socialism and mix that with capitalism and it's what we do here very well. Yes there are problems but a lot of those could be solved with improvements in efficiency especially in the Health sector where the administration requires a complete overhaul and millions are wasted annually.

The Health Service will alwasy be ineffecient so just get used to it. It would require increased taxes to have full public system which i don't see people voting for. We have unusual semi public semi private system. I suppose the state subsidies privatre health insurance as a sort of tax on those who afford it. Apparently public patients are now getting treated first which will result in less people taking out private insurance so more cost to the state. The US system however would be the wrong way to go.

Dr.Nightdub

21/10/2006, 12:43 PM

A lot of this debate revolves around what view you take of human nature.

Some people seem to automatically assume the worst - that people are somehow born with a gene for selfishness / laziness and that socialism would simply give free rein to the dark side in people. But those who argue that human nature is a barrier to progress also conveniently ignore the fact that even under capitalism, there are very different expressions of what are supposed to be universal human traits.

I'd argue that capitalism forces people to compete for jobs, resources, market share, whatever, and that the whole ethos it instils is "againstness" - it's me against my neighbour, it's Ireland against India / Bangladesh / etc.

Add to that a general sense of demotivation due to not being let participate in deciding how things are run, and you get a very different explanation for what's written off as "human nature" - far from being a genetic starting point, it's actually the end product of how we're forced to live.

The socialist view of human nature is a whole lot more positive. Even under the pressures of capitalism, there are countless examples of people co-operating for their common benefit rather than being at each others' throats. The very fact that we live in organised socieities rather than every caveman off doing his own thing points to the fact that mutual co-operation simply makes more sense than total m�-f�inism.

Add in the sense of empowerment and energy coming from the kind of participatory democracy I described in an earlier post and you start getting to a point where you start to see "human nature" as a source of hope, not despair. Put simply, if people can act to improve each other's lot as well as their own, and they're involved in deciding how things are gonna be, then they're not gonna let a few slackers ruin it all for them.

Socialism rests on believing in people's potential and the scraps of evidence from history suggest that in times of radical change in the direction of a very different society, then the very best does come out in people. Go read John Reed's or Victor Serge's accounts of Russia in 1917, or George Orwell's portait of Barcelona in 1936. Yes, the authors were socialists, so for a slightly different take on the positive potential of human nature, try Aldous Huxley's "The Island", his counterpoint to "Brave New World".

The argument about "what people are like" is hugely important to the debate about socialism and in one sense, it's one that socialists can't lose at the moment. For every example given of how people are basically sh1theads, we can always turn around and say "capitalism makes people like that" - if you like, that selfishness and laziness are down to nurture, rather than nature. On the other hand, if scientists can somehow prove that people are naturally inclined to some behavioural trait, then we're f*cked.

Why do you think the Nazis put so much weight on genetics and put so effort into genetic research? If you can prove that "people are naturally X" or "people are naturally Y" and that it's all down to some globs of DNA, then you kill the possibility of change, either on an individual or social level.

Personally, I'd rather not be pre-programmed or wired to be a scumbag and trust in the capacity of people to improve things if they're given a chance.

Dr.Nightdub

21/10/2006, 1:03 PM

The Health Service will alwasy be ineffecient so just get used to it.

Cuba seems to do pretty outstandingly, even to the point of developing "health tourism", so it's not true that health services per se are inherently, of themselves, inefficient. It depends how they're run and what the underlying rationale is - whether you primary motivation is to avoid spending government money or if it's to help sick people get better.

Free housing for all would just mean people abusing the system. Irish people in particular have no respect for anything they don't own themselves.

The answer to that largely rests on the idea of "From each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs". There's two parts to that phrase and each is equally important.

It's wrong to view socialism as simply being an invitation to sign up for a gravy train. Sorry if this appears to be oversimplifying but the first part is no more involved than the concept of teamwork at a football club - you put in the effort and expect no less from others because it's for your mutual good. Do a Georgie on it and you get dropped! ;)

The second part is also critical. In the context of housing, how many houses does anyone actually need? Note, I'm not saying "need to own?" If you have a roof over your head, with sufficient space that you don't have to have three or four kids to a bedroom, can do it up the way you want to, then does it really matter whether you own it or someone else does? On the continent, people certainly seem perfectly happy with the concept of secure long-term tenancy. If your landlord was the govenrment that we all run, would that be so difficult to live with?

The same principle of need applies elsewhere. How many cars can you drive at once? Is it right that some parts of the world go hungry while others are trying to stem the problems associated with obesity? Going back to health services, should we be spending huge amounts on cosmetic surgery when people need hip replacements? I could go on and on, but the crucial part is: what's needed most? Not what I need personally, but what we collectively decide we need most. Let's make sure everyone has a decent home, then we can start worrying about providing holiday cottages for all.

The bit of your comment that I would highlight is the one relating to ownership. If we collectively owned everything, why would we abuse it?

Poor Student

21/10/2006, 1:15 PM

Dr. Nightdub, you are correct. Human nature or one's perceptions of it are always at the crux of this debate. While you talk about people still showing their best "against the pressures of capitalism" I have seen people showing their worst in the freedom of socialism. While you may argue that Stalinist or Titoist models do not represent socialism in its proper form, at the lowest level, that of worker self managment which was resonably implemented at the micro level, I've seen a lot of evidence of work ethic totally destroyed by people seizing the advantage to become lazy. I think socialism is equally capable of bringing out poor human behaviour in other forms.

pete

21/10/2006, 2:08 PM

The bit of your comment that I would highlight is the one relating to ownership. If we collectively owned everything, why would we abuse it?

We already collectively "own" many of our public amenities & services. People in Ireland still litter & vandalise probably as much & probably more than any other.

Maybe this discussion is confused. What is the difference between communism & socialism? Are not all countries capitalist i.e. variety of different forms of free market?

:confused:

Partizan

21/10/2006, 2:11 PM

Partizan until you have something other than an idiotic rant to post please don't embarass yourself any further.

For God's sake take a step back and take a good look at yourself. You are the one making a right clown of yourself here. There you were using SWP policies to argue with BP who is a member of a completely different party with totally different policies. By doing that 1) you have shown your complete ignorance of socialism and 2) your total lack of discourse. I have simply pointed that out that to you. Think before you argue. Dont get into a debate with someone until you have cleared those two hurdles. What you have just done is laughable at the extreme. Its like using PD policies to argue with a Green.

I'm p1ssing myself here.

jebus

21/10/2006, 2:41 PM

For God's sake take a step back and take a good look at yourself. You are the one making a right clown of yourself here. There you were using SWP policies to argue with BP who is a member of a completely different party with totally different policies. By doing that 1) you have shown your complete ignorance of socialism and 2) your total lack of discourse. I have simply pointed that out that to you. Think before you argue. Dont get into a debate with someone until you have cleared those two hurdles. What you have just done is laughable at the extreme. Its like using PD policies to argue with a Green.

I'm p1ssing myself here.

Better get yourself a new colostomy bag then hadn't you.

Fair enough I was ignorant to the fact that there are two Socialist parties calling themselves that in Ireland, but I think this thread is titled Socialism in Ireland, so if BohsPartisan wants to argue about Socialism I am going to use what I have available to hand in my arguments against Socialism, i.e the SWP site. As has been said earlier, all was needed to be said was that BohsPartisan had no affiliation with the SWP and hey presto it's all over. Yet you in your infinite wisdom come on here, call people right wingers, throw out the old 'we won the argument cause I've just called it that we won', get a warning for insulting people and then come back and talk about simply pointing out things' and give lectures on how to debate. Thats whats truly laughable about all this :D :D :D

BohsPartisan

22/10/2006, 12:32 AM

I am just curious & previously had nowhere to get the info.

I'm drunk at the moment so I'm going to leave the other stuff untill tomorrow but just to say I wasn't being smart when I said that and I realised that this is a subject a lot of people hadn't really considered in great detail before. I'm just glad that this thread is turning into a source of some genuine debate rather than pantomime o yes he is o no he's not stuff.
See y'all tomorrow.

BohsPartisan

22/10/2006, 10:11 AM

BP, I can only offer anecdotal and first hand views on this but of the large time I've spent in Slovenia I feel that worker self management was a failure. There are a lot of people who had it easy under the old system and were used to slacking and doing very little work and now are highly resentful under the capitalist system which will not provide the same security for slackers. What if the majority are slackers? What if the majority would slack off without a whip being cracked at them? That's what worker self management seemed to lead to from a lot of the evidence I've come across.
In the former Yugoslavia, worker self management was at variance with the way the economy was planned. Planning was still carried out by a Stalinist beuraucratic cast. They set the targets of what needed to be made and in what quantity so that the self management carried out was in effect meaningless. Under real Socialism delegates would be elected from each industry to the national government to conduct the plan. Planning would be so much easier now than it was in the past. Technology currently in existance like the internet and supermarket loyalty cards would help.
On the idea of a mixed economy, this is a bit of a pup that has been sold to us by the media (through people like David McWilliams) and the education system. It tells us that there is some halfway house, best of both worlds between Capitalism and Socialism. This is nonsense. The bottom line is that in our society the means of production are overwhelmingly in private hands and the majority sell their labour in exchange for wages, which is a fraction of the wealth they actually produce. That is Capitalism. No two models of Capitalism are exactly alike but the bottom line is the same. Our economy as has previously been stated is dominated by US capital I.E. we are economically dominated by the foremost neo-liberal capitalist/imperialist power on the earth. The juxtaposition of Capitalism and Socialism is the juxtaposition of a society where the economy is a means of making a relatively small number of people extremely wealthy against a society where the economy is used as a mechanism to provide for the needs and wants of everybody.
At the moment workers produce value, be it in goods or services. The capitalist provides 'capital' However capital is the accumilated theft from the workers over the generations capitalism has been in place. If 'Capital' was taken out of the equation, everything else needed to provide goods and services would still exist - land, labour, raw materials, machinery. As for enterprise, at the moment most people don't have time to think never mind think of great new ways to improve everybody's lives. But there are people out of work or in jobs where their productive powers are neglected. By organising - sharing out the work (and remember if more people are working more is produced) everybody has to do less work but does not suffer less "wages" as no profit is taken out by the capitalist, just tax which would go towards a social fund for further improving the means of production and social necessities like health education and transport. The result more people have time to participate in the running of society, and as the 'dividend' is an improved quality of life, everyone has an incentive. As for wages, well the more work you do the more you get paid, simple eh? But no capitalist means more can be spent on wages and still have more for the social fund. Any Keynesian model or attempt at making Capitalism fairer will result in the capitalist absconding to another country with more favourable taxation regulations, that is why capitalism as a system must be ended, not just reformed.
Competition under capitalism is a race to the bottom. Who can produce the cheapest? ie. who can drive down pay and conditions best? Who can produce a product using the cheapest shoddiest raw materials they can get away with? Who can force their workforce to botch this job by making them do it in half the time it should take? Who can drive all the small businesses to bankrupcey thus obtaining a monopoly and charging what they want for a sub standard product? Where monopolies don't appear as a result of competition it is only because a small number of large corporations call a truce and operate a virtual cartel by fixing prices between them.
Competition between capitalists of two or more nations for the cheapest raw materials they can get their hands on and for the domination of this or that market leads of course to war.
Competition under Socialism is the opposite. People with a genuine talent for invention will strive to create the very best product possible because only the very best wil be chosen by the democratic will of the people.
As I said before, the incentive for the majority under Capitalism is to starve or not to starve, to be destitute or not to be destitute. People are pitted against each other in a bitter struggle to survive. Who can work for the least wages, who can put one over on his brother or sister. Under Socialism the incentive is for the community to work together to better themselves collectively. It is a genuine opportunity to better yourself. Under capitalism bettering yourself can be as crass as having one more car than your neighbour. Under Socialism bettering yourself means unbending your back and joining the human race, appreciating and enjoying the finer aspects of civilisation and having the time to do so. In the present only the minority, the oligarchy can do this, yet their pitting of man against man somehow makes them inhuman still.
As for the crap work, well there is no need for anyone to work full time at those jobs. Their are many alternatives to the current system where this is necessary. For example, under socialism it may be only necessary for people to do three or four hours of productive labour. Everyone then be a janitor for an hour and a beuraucrat for an hour. Or perhaps at the age of 18 people could spend one year doing the crap work. Even so, it is possible with the technology available in society to automate a great deal of this. I've worked as a cleaner and as a kitchen porter, its ****ty work, but it would't kill anyone to have to do it for a couple of hours a day for one year.

BohsPartisan

22/10/2006, 10:15 AM

We already collectively "own" many of our public amenities & services.

In theory we do but we don't have any real control over them. People don't feel any connection to society today because the type of society we live in doesn't encourage any kind of civic duty or pride. It encourages greed and avarice. Most people cannot live up to the expectations that this society plants in their heads, so they become bitter and alienated.

BohsPartisan

22/10/2006, 11:12 AM

Maybe this discussion is confused. What is the difference between communism & socialism?
The "Communist" states in eastern europe were as far from being communist in the real sense of the word as they were from being democratic. Only the economic base they rested upon bore any similarity to Socialism. For the difference between Stalinism and real Socialism or Communism refer to what I was saying about Workers' Democracy or the below article.

50 Years since workers' revolt against Stalinism in Hungary (http://www.socialistworld.net/eng/2006/10/21hungary.html)

As for what the word Communism actualy means, well Communism is the highest form of Socialism. It is a stage that can only be arrived at when there are no classes so no need for the repressive aparatus of the state as we know it. It can also only occur on an international basis. The lower stage of Socialism stems from the democratic Workers' state that would be established when workers take power. There would still be classes at this stage so the state would still exist as an instrument of class rule, only this time it would be workers' democracy instead of capitalist democracy and the ruling class would be the majority - workers.
For a more thorough going over of the subject have a look at Chapter 5 of Lenin's The State and Revolution (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/index.htm)

As for your ascertation that the Race to the Bottom is not taking place, that is a fiction. I have relatives who work as builders who are out of work for long spells because migrant workers are being used to undercut wages in that industry.

pete

22/10/2006, 4:21 PM

If the debate comes down to a choice between the purest form of socialism & its capitalist equivalent then people will usually choose Capitalism. Socialism sounds great on paper but you ignore the competitive nature of human beings. People strive to achieve in exchange for reward.

Why would anyone choose to undertake a job with more responsiblity but same level of pay??? Why would people look to achieve greater training without reward? There is a reason why people paid differently.

Dr.Nightdub

22/10/2006, 4:31 PM

See Pete, you're back to "the competitive nature of human beings" - who's says that's our nature?

Anthropology throws some interesting light on this. In primitive tribes, co-operation is what comes naturally to them - I remember reading once about some researchers in the nineteenth century trying to do IQ tests on Sioux children, they got totally cheesed off when the kids started showing each other the right answers instead of being "naturally" compeitive.

The reason such studies are important are cos they focus on people who haven't learned the behaviours necessary to keep your head above water under capitalism - competition, selfishness, etc; they paint of picture of what people were like before capitalism mucked up their heads. That's not to say I want us all to go back to wearing loincloths - it's just another challenge to the view that "human nature" is something universal and static.

BohsPartisan

22/10/2006, 5:15 PM

Exactly. If there is any one word to describe human nature then that word is Change. If human nature wasn't adaptable to new situations then evolution as a theory would be kaput.
Plus its not as if when revolutionary situations arise people are sitting down with a piece of paper with one saying Capitalism and one saying Socialism and you have to tick one or the other. Revolutionary situations arise when class antagonisms are at their highest I.E. when the interests of the main contending classes are so starkly shown to be incompatable that people revolt. This sounds like science fiction to someone who is only used to looking at the world around them and assuming things are always the same but if you take the long view of history you will see that this is the norm. Each society was a product of the class that was dominant in it and was made in its likeness. When a new class came on the scene and became economically dominant it for a while would co-exist under the leadership of the old ruling class until such a time as the old ruling class was an impediment on its further developement. This is what happened in Europe with the rise of Capitalism. The Bourgeoisie for a time supported feudal and semi-feudal monarchy's because they were gramted certain concessions and were able to live reasonably comfortable lives. However when the feudal structure impeded the developement of Capitalism, the new mode of production needed to break free of its political fetters. For the last century the Working class has been economically the most powerfull class in society. When it withdraws its labour Society stops and there is nothing the capitalists can do about it. At times enough concessions were given from above to the workers' movement to allow the development of reformism, workers' parties who based themselves on making sure the working class were well looked after under Capitalism. In doing this they supported the system. In the period between the end of WW2 and the oil crisis of the early 70's this seemed natural - economically and culturally this period resembled a working class version of the bourgeois rennaissance that happened in the 15th Century. However since the 1970's living standards on a world scale have been in decline as growth has slowed. Yes booms still happen but they are miniscule compared to the long boom between 1948 and 1973 (Possible because of the impetous given to the economy by the need to rebuild Europe after the war and the late arrival of the US as a major power able to extend credit to old powers in Europe.
The fall of the Soviet Union gave world Capitalism some respite from the class confrontations that were growing in the 70's and 80's but now relations are normalising. The downside for the working class is that all their old political and industrial organisations have either collapsed or sold out in the period where it seemed to many (not Marxists though) that the end of the cold war meant game over for the class struggle. There is therefore a desperate need for the class which is only slowly groping in the dark to regain its consciousness of itself as a class. The next step is to reclaim the unions from the bureaucratic clique who controll them and to build new mass workers' parties.
Paris in 1871, Russia in 1905 and 1917, Germany and Hungary and Limerick (http://www.limericksoviet.com/)!!! in 1918 and 1919, Britain in 1926, Barcelona 1936, Hungary in 1956, France in 1968, Chile in 1973, Argentina in 2000, Bolivia in 2003 and 2005 and Venezuala on an ongoing basis are example of when workers' spontainiously moved to set up a parralel government to run society in the form of democratic workers' committees. In 1917 in Russia they had a revolutionary party at their head with the correct perspectives which was why the October Revolution succeeded where others failed. As Dr. Nightdub suggested you should read John Reed's 10 days that shook the world or Victor Serge's account of the Russian Revolution. Theres also France 1968: Month of Revolution (http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/Resourcesframe.htm) by Clare Doyle. As a modern European example the May Revolution in France in 1968 is especially relevent to us here in Ireland. Unfortunately the Russian Revolution was isolated in a very backward country. If the German revolution succeeded things could have been very different. As long as Capitalism exists the boom and bust cycle will rule people's lives and class confrontation will inevitably happen. Opportunities for workers' democracy will arise again and it is essential that the class has a Party with the right perspectives at its head.

rebs23

24/10/2006, 10:46 AM

Your views on this are of course always going to be influenced by what you believe about human nature but also about what you believe motivates people.

People will want a reward for their endeavours in life. This reward that they recieve for their hard work or skill is what motivates them to work harder, study, create, etc. Remove the reward or the potential for reward and they become demotivated. It is for this reason that capitalist democracies are the more creative, hard working societies because people are rewarded for their skills, attitude and aptitude. If I work harder, have the skills etc then I want to be reawrded for my endeavours above the individual who is either not capable or has no interest.

Socialism I feel has never adaquately addressed these individual factors because by it's very nature it is more concerned with the collective. This concern with the collective over the individual also leads to less freedoms or the restriction of personal freedoms such as the right to trade, travel and speech. It also leads to the bullying of the individual by the collective.

Fortunately people will always recognise the flaws in a socialist ideal as it removes freedoms from the individual and rewards the collective at the lowest common denominator. This is why socialism as a way of strucuring society is a dead duck.

Where socialism or socialists do have a role to play is challenging some of the excesses of the capitalist society and campaigning on single issue politics. That is where it has its greatest success making governments/people sit up and take notice that certain issues whether it is housing issues, war in iraq, environmental issues etc need addressing.

As for your comments sonofstan about us corkies, your half right, there is very poor support for left wing politics in Cork. Probably down to historical factors but I suppose the structure of the city and county is a lot different than Dublin, Limerick or even Waterford. Can't really put my finger on it but I am always struck by how similar Cork and Galway are and view life as opposed to the other 3 cities. Work a lot in Limerick and it has a completely more militant trade unionist tradition as does Waterford.
It would make a good debate the differences between the cities, etc.

Lim till i die

24/10/2006, 10:59 AM

It would make a good debate the differences between the cities, etc.

That debate would crash in flames within seconds of starting :eek: :p

As for human nature, surely one of the most basic instincts is survival?? What about a socialist system where the laziness which has been mentioned above is just not tolerated??

People can also strive for success for the sense of smug self-satisfaction it brings. It needn't always be about monetary gain. That's something which the capitalist system has imbedded in everyones brain

BohsPartisan

24/10/2006, 11:25 AM

Socialism I feel has never adaquately addressed these individual factors because by it's very nature it is more concerned with the collective. This concern with the collective over the individual also leads to less freedoms or the restriction of personal freedoms such as the right to trade, travel and speech.

There are many, many writings on this subject in the Marxist lexicon. Marx and Engels themselves wrote extensively on them. Lenin and Trotsky wrote on them in the revolutionary days of Russia when these subjects were of direct relevence to everyday life. Other notable thinkers who wrote on the subject are Antonio Gramsci and Lev Vygotsky. It seems you haven't bothered reading the majority of this thread because the subject of human nature has been dealt extensively with by Dr ND and myself. Our side of the arguement is backed up by anthropological evidence. You probably feel that your side is backed up by "common sense" but in reality is derived from the mindset that capitalist society engenders.
There is no contradiction either between the bettering of the collective and giving more freedom to the individual. In fact they go hand in hand. In capitalist society the majority of people are so locked into the struggle for everyday survival that they can never experience freedom. In Socialist society, the demeaning aspect life is removed and people can be truelly free to express themselves.

It also leads to the bullying of the individual by the collective.
The rule of the majority over the minority? Isn't that the essense of democracy?

Fortunately people will always recognise the flaws in a socialist ideal as it removes freedoms from the individual and rewards the collective at the lowest common denominator. This is why socialism as a way of strucuring society is a dead duck.
People will not "always" do anything. A quick look at the historical developement of society will show that values change along with society.

To quote Mumia Abu Jamal:
"Contrary to popular belief, conventional wisdom would have one believe that it is insane to resist this, the mightiest of empires.... But what history really shows is that today's empire is tomorrow's ashes, that nothing lasts forever, and that to not resist is to acquiesce in your own oppression. The greatest form of sanity that anyone can exercise is to resist that force that is trying to repress, oppress, and fight down the human spirit"

When we are on the subject of peoples' attitudes to Socialism and revolution have a look at this article about the current happenings in Mexico.

Popular Assemblies (http://www.marxist.com/popular-assemblies-workers-power231006.htm)

pete

24/10/2006, 11:42 AM

Our side of the arguement is backed up by anthropological evidence. You probably feel that your side is backed up by "common sense" but in reality is derived from the mindset that capitalist society engenders.

You can't just dismiss someones opinion saying they polluted by capitalist mindset.

Socialism seems to be all theory & no practice as I can't identify a current socialist state. Cuba is communist so if they have an apparent good health system that not really a socialist success? I need practical examples...

The most successful countries are mixed economies - good free market policies to encourage the private sector but state intervention to fill the gaps.

BohsPartisan

24/10/2006, 12:00 PM

Socialism seems to be all theory & no practice as I can't identify a current socialist state. Cuba is communist so if they have an apparent good health system that not really a socialist success? I need practical examples...

It is quite the opposite Pete. Marxists are Philosophically Dialectical Materialists. This means our starting point is within society, how society has developed and on hard economic data. The most successful Capitalist economists concede that Marx was right in his characterisation of the Capitalist system in his work "Capital". Anthropologists generally agree with Engels' work on their subject. Check out Stephen Jay Gould for example. He essentially uses a Marxist method in his work because it is the most scientific approach to problems of society and evolution.
As to wheter people would co-operate given the right social milieu, all society was co-operative in nature until the rise of class society between six and four thousand years ago. That is to say that for the majority of the time humans were on the planet they organised their societies in a co-operative manner. Without co-operation we never would have evolved from our origins as monkeys. This is an essential part of our nature.
A lengthy addition to the debate by Albert Einstein, who himself supported Socialism.

Man is, at one and the same time, a solitary being and a social being. As a solitary being, he attempts to protect his own existence and that of those who are closest to him, to satisfy his personal desires, and to develop his innate abilities. As a social being, he seeks to gain the recognition and affection of his fellow human beings, to share in their pleasures, to comfort them in their sorrows, and to improve their conditions of life. Only the existence of these varied, frequently conflicting, strivings accounts for the special character of a man, and their specific combination determines the extent to which an individual can achieve an inner equilibrium and can contribute to the well-being of society. It is quite possible that the relative strength of these two drives is, in the main, fixed by inheritance. But the personality that finally emerges is largely formed by the environment in which a man happens to find himself during his development, by the structure of the society in which he grows up, by the tradition of that society, and by its appraisal of particular types of behavior. The abstract concept "society" means to the individual human being the sum total of his direct and indirect relations to his contemporaries and to all the people of earlier generations. The individual is able to think, feel, strive, and work by himself; but he depends so much upon society�in his physical, intellectual, and emotional existence�that it is impossible to think of him, or to understand him, outside the framework of society. It is "society" which provides man with food, clothing, a home, the tools of work, language, the forms of thought, and most of the content of thought; his life is made possible through the labor and the accomplishments of the many millions past and present who are all hidden behind the small word �society.�

It is evident, therefore, that the dependence of the individual upon society is a fact of nature which cannot be abolished...
If we ask ourselves how the structure of society and the cultural attitude of man should be changed in order to make human life as satisfying as possible, we should constantly be conscious of the fact that there are certain conditions which we are unable to modify. As mentioned before, the biological nature of man is, for all practical purposes, not subject to change. Furthermore, technological and demographic developments of the last few centuries have created conditions which are here to stay. In relatively densely settled populations with the goods which are indispensable to their continued existence, an extreme division of labor and a highly-centralized productive apparatus are absolutely necessary...
Production is carried on for profit, not for use. There is no provision that all those able and willing to work will always be in a position to find employment; an �army of unemployed� almost always exists. The worker is constantly in fear of losing his job. Since unemployed and poorly paid workers do not provide a profitable market, the production of consumers' goods is restricted, and great hardship is the consequence. Technological progress frequently results in more unemployment rather than in an easing of the burden of work for all. The profit motive, in conjunction with competition among capitalists, is responsible for an instability in the accumulation and utilization of capital which leads to increasingly severe depressions. Unlimited competition leads to a huge waste of labor, and to that crippling of the social consciousness of individuals which I mentioned before.

This crippling of individuals I consider the worst evil of capitalism. Our whole educational system suffers from this evil. An exaggerated competitive attitude is inculcated into the student, who is trained to worship acquisitive success as a preparation for his future career.

I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy, accompanied by an educational system which would be oriented toward social goals. In such an economy, the means of production are owned by society itself and are utilized in a planned fashion. A planned economy, which adjusts production to the needs of the community, would distribute the work to be done among all those able to work and would guarantee a livelihood to every man, woman, and child. The education of the individual, in addition to promoting his own innate abilities, would attempt to develop in him a sense of responsibility for his fellow men in place of the glorification of power and success in our present society.

rebs23

24/10/2006, 12:09 PM

I have bothered reading this thread, with difficulty at times but when you discussed Human Nature you did not address Motivation.

I have asked this question at the start of this debate and I will ask it again how can a socialist society protect the rights of the individual to free speech, trade and travel?

How is seizing the property of companies going to motivate any individual to make any product or to advance technology etc? What effect will this seizing of the means of production mean for our economy?

How will a socialist society remove the demeaning aspect of life. What is the demeaning aspect of life that you refer to? work??

Why should I get rewarded the same as someone with less skill, knowledge, attitude and aptitude?

You are clearly completely obsessed with socialism and its ideology, or at least your or your partys version of it.

Maybe its time to reflect a bit and realise the world is not so black and white that there is a lot of grey in relation to human nature and the differences between individuals, how we are all motivated differently, think differently, etc and that there is merit in different ideologies and viewpoints given certain circumstances and issues.

For all its faults a capitalist democracy gives people oppurtunities to prosper, work, travel, speech, etc that have never been available in any model of socialism that has ever existed. Where there are oppurtunities to prosper it will attract the more educated, intelligent, hard working etc An oppurtunity to be effectively the same as everyone else, to me is very frightening.

You are constantly trying to convince us that Eastern Europe, China, etc , etc are not true reflections of Socialism and are trying to convince us that your untried model of Socialism would give us this marvelous society. Now where have people heard that before, asking us to believe that your model of society will work, a model that has at its core the same principles as these failed countries.

People will never buy into it again and your intolerance of other viewpoints, to me is frightening. Remember the Gulags!

BohsPartisan

24/10/2006, 2:36 PM

Remember the Gulags!

That is the most moronic contribution to the debate so far. The first people in the Gulags were Socialists, Bolsheviks in fact, the people who made the revolution. Stalinism was counter-revolutionary, a retreat from Socialism.

I have bothered reading this thread, with difficulty at times but when you discussed Human Nature you did not address Motivation. !

Yes I did.
As I said before, the incentive for the majority under Capitalism is to starve or not to starve, to be destitute or not to be destitute. People are pitted against each other in a bitter struggle to survive. Who can work for the least wages, who can put one over on his brother or sister. Under Socialism the incentive is for the community to work together to better themselves collectively. It is a genuine opportunity to better yourself. Under capitalism bettering yourself can be as crass as having one more car than your neighbour. Under Socialism bettering yourself means unbending your back and joining the human race, appreciating and enjoying the finer aspects of civilisation and having the time to do so. In the present only the minority, the oligarchy can do this, yet their pitting of man against man somehow makes them inhuman still

How is seizing the property of companies going to motivate any individual to make any product or to advance technology etc?

If you work for Microsoft and you come up with a new way of making computers faster your innovation belongs to Microsoft not you. Where is the motivation there? The end product will be that Bill Gates and the Shareholders of Microsoft make massive profits while you at best will get a miniscule (in terms of the real value of your work) raise. If you innovate under Socialism and this innovation benefits society, you will see a real raise in your living standards and you will have the satisfaction of getting the praise of your peers for raisng their living standards too.
After the revolution in Russia when there was still elements of Workers' Democracy, the Soviets (workers' councils) organised Communist Saturdays. People were asked to voluntarily give up a few hours to help rebuild the country's infrastructure that had been destroyed during the war. Guess what, people did it because they had a sense of ownership of their republic.

What effect will this seizing of the means of production mean for our economy?
The main effect will be that the aims of the economy will be to provide for the wants and needs of everyone rather than a profit for a tiny minority. Technology will be used to raise the productivity of labour. The boom bust cycle that is endemic of Capitalism will be ended. Because can never afford to buy back the full product of their labour under capitalism, there will always be crisis of overproduction. That we have huge surplusses of goods and at the same time people starving and homeless in the world shows what a sick and illogical system we live under.

Why should I get rewarded the same as someone with less skill, knowledge, attitude and aptitude?
Who said that would happen?

You are clearly completely obsessed with socialism and its ideology, or at least your or your partys version of it.

I am a revolutionary socialist. The world we live in, the environment is being destroyed by the system we live under. Peoples lives are being destroyed on a daily basis by this profit system. I see a viable alternative, what for me is the only realistic alternative and I will pursue that for the rest of my life, or at least until it is achieved. I call that commitment.

People will never buy into it again and your intolerance of other viewpoints, to me is frightening.

There you go again speaking for "people". Its the crux of your arguement. People will always do this, people will never do that. If Capitalism were to be the finished stage of human society it would completely buck the trend of history, yet you still persist in using illogical arguements that are devoid of any real facts. You keep speaking of a freedom that for the vast majority of the human race is but a dream. Billions of people do not have enough food or adequate shelter. There are millions if not billions dying of curable diseases because there is no profit in providing them with free drugs. Even in advanced countries from the day you enter the education system you are moulded into an efficient means of creating surplus value. In these factories of education you are robbed of everything that makes you an individual and forced to conform, to adopt a herd mentality. The mass media is controlled by billionaires who feed us propaganda every day of our lives because if people really start thinking for themselves those billionaires will be in trouble. Every day I see people on packed trains coughing and spluttering, eyes like p1$$ holes in the snow as they are shipped off to glass cages in the city to work to keep the captains of industry in Golf Clubs and Yachts. And this freedom you talk of? For the majority its a two week holiday in a manufactured resort the media tells you that you want to go to, (Fair enough, some people steer clear of resorts and I try to myself but sometimes you can't afford to.) two days spent recovering from your week at work as a weekend? Commuter hell? 30 or 40 year mortgages? Constant financial worry? Great idea of freedom you have there.

Dr.Nightdub

24/10/2006, 11:32 PM

I have asked this question at the start of this debate and I will ask it again how can a socialist society protect the rights of the individual to free speech, trade and travel?

Rebs, maybe you're confusing socialism with eastern-European communism, I'm not sure, but what makes you think the rights to free speech or travel wouldn't be protected? Suggest you go back and read what's been written earlier in the thread regarding the socialist view of democracy - free speech is an implicit part of that. And as regards travel, socialism as the likes of Bohs Partisan or myself see it simply couldn't exist without freedom to travel, to exchange ideas, goods, services, etc with people from other countries.

Trade is a trickier one. The way it worked out in practice in rural Republican Spain in the 1930s was like this: entire villages voted to collectivise their efforts, pool their land (or that of their recently and hastily-departed landlords), tools, machinery, farm animals, whatever and put them to work developing the land for the benefit of all.

There was stress on the VOLUNTARY nature of this co-operation so anyone was free to opt out and go off and farm their "own" bit of land and exchange their produce for whatever they needed from the rest of the village. There was a catch though: because wage labour had been abolished, they couldn't just employ some skivvy for next to nothing to do all the hard work for them while they sat back and gave orders, if they wanted to stand on their own two feet they had to do it themselves.

Without wanting to go into the whole labour theory of value, the "price" of anything depended on the amount of work that had gone into it - not what it could be sold for. So in theory, they had total freedom to trade what they produced individually against what the village produced collectively. So not surprisingly, very few saw any practical benefit in doing solo runs.

Why should I get rewarded the same as someone with less skill, knowledge, attitude and aptitude?

More importantly, why should anyone be denied the opportunity to develope their skill, knowledge and aptitude cos of restricted access to education? A more direct answer to your question brings us back to the principle I stated in an earlier post: "from each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs."

Supposing you and Joe Bloggs have been given equal access to education, but you've just got more aptitude for something than him - does that mean that while he needs three meals a day, you need six? And suppose he has more aptitude than you for something completely different - does that mean he suddenly needs six meals a day as well? Of course not.

I think you're asking the wrong question: the way I'd phrase the question is "How can you justify pandering to one person's greed when another is starving?"

Dr.Nightdub

25/10/2006, 12:09 AM

Just thinking in general terms about this thread and I can't help wondering if it wouldn't help if we defined some terms, just so that at least we're all discussing the same thing.

When people talk about "socialism", they generally mean one of three things:

1. The kind of socialism represented by Pat Rabbitte or Tony Blair, or more properly, the old-style Labour Party in Britain, which looks at moving things along gradually within the confines of capitalism. So you get more state provision of services, more state-owned industries, etc, etc but effectively the whole set-up still runs and operates according to the confines of capitalism. Call this one "reformism" for shorthand. But go a step too far and you end up like Salvador Allende in Chile, in the basement of a football stadium. So not much future in that one.

2. The kind of socialism represented by Stalin and Mao, the whole evil empire side of things. Call it "communism" for shorthand. I'm not presuming to speak for Bohs Partisan, but anyone wanting to slag off that kind of set-up would have to get in a queue behind me for definite and him 99.9% more than likely.

How what started off in Russia in 1917 ended up like that is a whole nother thread in itself, but what it ended up as is most definitely NOT what he and I mean by socialism. I'd call it state capitalism, he may have a different but similar term for it. In effect, the competition between individual capitalist firms was replaced by competition between two blocs of capital, one in private hands, one ostensibly in public hands but without the essential element of democratic control and so effectively in the hands of a self-serving bureaucratic elite. Boo hiss in any event.

3. The kind of socialism aspired to by Bohs Partisan and myself, where even though we may have slightly differing ideas of how to get from A to B, we probably want to end up in much the same place. It's a place that depends very heavily on freedom - both "freedom to" and "freedom from". It depends on participation and on democratic control (all that "By the people, for the people" stuff that folks currently get teased by but never quite get to having). It depends on setting aside the pursuit of profit for a few as the main driving force for society and replacing it with the pursuit of the common good.

Trotsky would be the main poster boy for this school of socialism - and the very fact that he was implacably opposed to Stalin, right up to his death, should propmpt some thinking among those who equate "socialism" with "communism". But there have been many wider-spread examples of nudges in the right direction, many of which have already been quoted in the thread, and none of which (unfortunately) got to develop very far. Just so that everyone's clear, when I talk about "socialism", I'm referring to this school of thought.

Dr.Nightdub

25/10/2006, 12:40 AM

OK, my last contribution on this for tonight...

Socialism seems to be all theory & no practice as I can't identify a current socialist state. Cuba is communist so if they have an apparent good health system that not really a socialist success? I need practical examples...

Pete, you can't identify any cos there aren't any. Unfortunately for the world, socialist revolutions have a crap home record when it comes to international fixtures:

1917, Russia: invaded by thirteen foreign armies, industry destroyed - civil war, famine and Stalin being the full time scores.

1936, Spain: crushed by Franco, whose team was bolstered by Mussolini and Hitler declaring for Spain under the fascist granny rule.

1959, Cuba: team of local boys defied all the odds, beat off an attempted comeback by American visitors who dropped the ball, ended up threatening to call the big, fat, balding but nuclear-capable Russian centre-forward off the bench; a draw. Home ground still lacks tons in terms of human rights and democracy (hello? naming your bro as your heir?) but you gotta admire Team Ch�'s spirit and work ethic. Tried playing an away match in Bolivia, didn't end well.

1979, Nicaragua: starved out by counter-attacking Contras bankrolled by Reagan Abrahmovic. Victory here helped consolidate the USA's grip on the World (Cup)

See the common thread? Every time someone starts off down the road to socialism, they get hit with the political equivalent of a two-footed studs-up Alan Reynolds lunge and the refs almost invariably turn a blind eye.

BohsPartisan

25/10/2006, 8:16 AM

And I can see the next question already - If the US won't tolerate these revolutions are they doomed to failure? Lets look at the Russian example as DrNightdub pointed out they were invaded by 13 invading armies. The US, Britain, France, Germany (Hello weren't Germany the enemy only one year previously), Hungary, Czechoslovakia among them. Yet the Red Army won. Why was this? In part due to the revolutionary enthusiasm of the Red Army, in part due to the demoralisation of the white army and foreign troops, and in part because of international solidarity. French sailors mutineed and raised the red flag, British Soldiers refused to fight and docckers in Britain blacked ships supplying the war, the German Proletariat and Hungarian proletariat revolted at home and their armies had to withdraw.
How does that translate onto today? Imagine a continent spanning revolution in Latin America (I use this example because there is huge support for Socialism there and the class struggle is well and truelly on the agenda). Obviously the US would want to intervene but two things would stand in its way.
1. It is militarily overstretched in the middle east and the army is highly demoralised. A lot of these guys are economic conscripts from impoverished backgrounds. They would become even more demoralised fighting a motivated revolutionary force who were defending the things the poor american soldiers aspired to and could easily mutiny.

2. The demographics of many US cities include large poor latino populations. Trying to crush the Latin American revolution could bring revolt to the doorstep of the Empire itself. Latinos are already the most militant force in US society as it is.

paul_oshea

25/10/2006, 8:46 AM

actors in general are socialists, why is that you ask? because they either have loads of money or none, and when you have no money its great to share stuff out and have a broad view of free transport, free this, free that. when you have nothing sharing with those who have more is a great concept.

communisim and socialsim dont take into account our basic instinct - greed. based on maslows hierarchy of needs, once ones need is met we instinctively raise the bar to the next need.....and so on and so forth......so we are ALWAYS wanting more. that is why capitalism gives you that opportunity ( to get more ), and though I don't usually agree with pete, what he is saying makes perfect sense and sums up the downfall of communism and socialism.

Animals and humans thrive on reward, when a dog has been good you give him a treat, to train a guide dog or a sniffer dog to do what you want you give him a treat.....this grows and grows....again this is what makes capitalism so strong.

Anthropology throws some interesting light on this. In primitive tribes, co-operation is what comes naturally to them - I remember reading once about some researchers in the nineteenth century trying to do IQ tests on Sioux children, they got totally cheesed off when the kids started showing each other the right answers instead of being "naturally" compeitive.

The reason such studies are important are cos they focus on people who haven't learned the behaviours necessary to keep your head above water under capitalism - competition, selfishness, etc; they paint of picture of what people were like before capitalism mucked up their heads. That's not to say I want us all to go back to wearing loincloths - it's just another challenge to the view that "human nature" is something universal and static.

one study is hardly the basis for all human kind and how we work though in fairness....one set of people....