Socialism in Ireland

[BohsPartisan]

The State services are the closest we get to full on socialism & back & large they are hopeless - i can't name a state service that is run well & cost effectively.


Yawn. I'm getting tired of people trying to change the parameters of the arguement. State services like the ones we have in Ireland are not a basis for Socialism. They have traditionally been run by the state for one of two reasons
A. They are not profitable or
B. They are kept in state hands for strategic reasons.

They are run by unnacountable bureaucrats with no real knowledge of the industry they are running. This is nothing to do with Socialism. It is more to do with keeping the state ticking over so Capitalism can function.

[paul_oshea]

Even within Capitalist society, human co-operation and solidarity can not be snuffed out. Why do people give their time voluntarily to sports clubs, special interest societies, trade unions, political parties with no personal gain?

Yes, but would you do this if it interfered with making money i.e. your daily bread? this doesnt interfere with your need to make money to live.....and don't come back but if it was a case of this being my work for my living i would gladly do it, a few hours a week is completely different to 40 hours or so a week.

I have met many many people who strongly beleive in socialism, and generally they all are of the same lifestyle, either way too much money to worry about money or not at all, the thing is in a socliasist society they wouldn't have all that money, as for the other group, I see them as somewhat leeches. They are all for sharing and gladly share, but when one has more than the other, its in their interest to share everything ;)

this "idea of sharing" is the simplest form of socialism.

Finally maslows hierarchy of needs principle has been around for hundreds of years, its just something he rigidly defined from other studies.

[BohsPartisan]

Yes, but would you do this if it interfered with making money i.e. your daily bread?
But it would'nt. What does interfere with earning a crust its the fact that at least half the product of your labour does not belong to you.


I have met many many people who strongly beleive in socialism, and generally they all are of the same lifestyle, either way too much money to worry about money or not at all,

I'd say I know more people than you that strongly believe in Socialism and very few come into either category. In fact I can't think of any who come into the too much money category. We are all by and large normal people with normal desires and normal lifestyles.

[pete]

Almost no one does charity or similar work with no personal gain. We may try to fool ourselves that we do but its just not true. I don't mean personal gain either.

America is the most capitalist state there is & voluntary work & charity contributions by individuals the highest in the world which would seem to be opposite of everything capitalism is suppose to stand for.

[BohsPartisan]

America is the most capitalist state there is & voluntary work & charity contributions by individuals the highest in the world which would seem to be opposite of everything capitalism is suppose to stand for.

Exactly Pete. You're proving my point now. People regardless of what society they live in will shine through despite the fact that we are told we are motivated by greed. This behaviour in the most self centred country in the world proves that no matter how hard you try you will never crush the human tendency towards solidarity.

I think if you want to see what is natural human behaviour you look at how children behave before they are moulded by society. Pre school kids in a relatively stable background generally are not motivated by greed. If a child always has enough they show a tendency to share.
When a child draws a picture or makes something out of lego or plastecine their first instinct is to show their work to somebody, not for any financial reward but for approval by their social group.
An education system geared towards social goals would foster and encourage this side of human nature.

[Dr.Nightdub]

communisim and socialsim dont take into account our basic instinct - greed.

Show me a credible scientific study that has isolated and identified the gene for greed and I'll accept that it's part of our physiological make-up; that's all though - whether it's immune to the conditioning factors of our social environment would still be up for debate. I just wish people would stop spouting on about what is or isn't part of "human nature" - apart from really basic stuff like food, shelter, propagation of the species, it's impossible to verify and so acts as a continual cul-de-sac for any sort of discussion..


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 )

Maslow's theory is actually a good reference point, as it provides a good road map for past and future human development. However, Maslow had nothing to say about HOW the various needs should be met - specifically, whether they could best be met individually or collectively. So a socialist approach to Maslow's hierarchy would argue that until we've all got the basics sorted, then it's premature to try to move on up to the next level - you'd want to be some class of self-centred narcissistic git to be worrying about self-actualisation when a large chunk of the world's population is worrying about their next meal, clean drinking water and so on.

As for capitalism giving people the opportunity to fulfill their needs, well yes, it does - but only to a tiny few. For the overwhelming majority (and I'm talking global here), capitalism creates the very conditions that ensures their needs remain un-met.

At the risk of repeating myself, "...to each according to their needs." The important part is the reference to EACH. Not some. Not a handful. Not mé féin and feck the rest of yiz.

[jebus]

Isn't this, are humans greedy or not thing, kind of like the is the glass half empty or half full argument ;)

[pete]

Hands up anyone who has done a Sociology degree? :D

[BohsPartisan]

Hands up anyone who has done a Sociology degree? :D

Point being? I mightn't have studied this stuff in a formal sense, but I have probably studied it a lot harder and for longer than I have the stuff I have formal qualifications in. Having said that in the course of my studies in philosophy I would have dealt with a lot of this stuff.

[osarusan]

Hands up anyone who has done a Sociology degree? :D

I have an anthropology degree, and knew a number of people who "studied" sociology in my uni, and I wouldnt want anybody to take their word as gospel on anything related to sociology, or anything in general either. (or my word on anything related to anthropology either.)

Dont get me wrong, not everybody is the alcoholic I was in uni, and many learned a lot more than I did, but I'm not sure if university knowledge is as valuable as a few years working and thinking.

[BohsPartisan]

but I'm not sure if university knowledge is as valuable as a few years working and thinking.

Very good point.

Suggested reading:

The Socialist Alteration of Man (http://www.marxists.org/archive/vygotsky/works/1930/socialism.htm)- Lev Vygotsky

[rebs23]

all the crusties and hippies live in galway. so I would say they are more left wing.....

And I thought they were all down in West Cork! By the way most crusties would probably be as vehemently anti-socialist as us capitalist *******s, that is of course if they are genuine crusties of the anarchist gene!

Been away for a while but as for the rest of this debate, socialism in Ireland never attracts that much support, unless of course you include Bertie and that it what I mean by the people not supporting the socialist idea of organisiing society.

As for rewarding people, the rewards described by any socialist does not motivate me or appeal to me.

At this stage this debate is going round in circles and I still don't accept a socialist society is capable of motivating or rewarding people on a sustained basis, or is capable of giving people the same oppurtunities to prosper, innovate or create. It certainly won't protect he rights to trade, travel or free speech that are available currently.

It for that reason I oppose it as a method of orgainising society. Maybe its all that old anarchist ideology thats still there. :)

[Dr.Nightdub]

socialism in Ireland never attracts that much support, unless of course you include Bertie and that it what I mean by the people not supporting the socialist idea of organisiing society.

Condoms never attracted that much support in Ireland until twenty years ago, then a few people started banging on about how they wanted them, now you wouldn't leave home without one. Why suppose that the world is never going to change, when the whole of human history teaches otherwise?


As for rewarding people, the rewards described by any socialist does not motivate me or appeal to me.

But the end products of capitalism do - war, famine, poverty, environmental chaos, the lot?


I still don't accept a socialist society is capable of motivating or rewarding people on a sustained basis, or is capable of giving people the same oppurtunities to prosper, innovate or create.

What same opportunities - as now? How much innovating and creating does someone actually do after they've spent three hours commuting and eight hours working and they get home too late to read their kids a bedtime story? The mass of people don't get to innovate, or if they do, the product of their creativity is owned by their employer.

I look around in the her and now and I don't see motivated, rewarded people. I see people being let go from jobs or not being replaced if they leave to go somewhere else and everyone else that's left having to work harder for no extra pay. I see pay increases that barely keep pace with inflation. I see people getting afraid cos some Polish geezer will do the same job as them for less than they're being paid now - and instead of insisting that the Polish geezer gets the proper rate for the job, they take it out on him. I see people fretting over where their kids are gonna go to school and praying that they don't fall sick and have to go lie on a hospital trolley.

You make it sound like we're in some kind of paradise at the moment. We're not. That's the whole point.


It certainly won't protect he rights to trade, travel or free speech that are available currently.

Oh lordie, lordie, lordie, where's the smiley for banging one's head off a wall in frustration? "Certainly"? Piffle. How can anything be "certain" about some unspecified time down the road? "The future is unwritten" as The Clash said (on the back of the sleeve of "Know Your Rights", for the pedantic). I've already explained that freedom to travel and free speech would be essential elements of a socialist society. So turn it around - how about you tell us what makes you "certain" that us nasty reds would want to limit those rights?

[sonofstan]

all the crusties and hippies live in galway. so I would say they are more left wing.....

On the contrary - that sort of stuff is just bourgeois individualism with dreadlocks and poor personal hygiene; while the bourgeoisie express what they imagine to be a self through consumption, the hippie imagines he is getting in touch with some lovely inner self through drug use and pseudo- mystical, quasi- spiritual bullsh!t - both attempt to find themselves in some kind of opposition to society - the bourgeois with her precious 'personal space' - not for nothing is Buddhism the perfect religion of Late Capitalism - Nirvana! because you're worth it! - the Hippie with some alternative society that's really just collective egotism - 'aren't we all lovely'; both avoid the truth - as old as Aristotle - that we are Politikon Zóon - Political animals, and only become ourselves in and through society, and in doing so play straight into the hands of the
hegemonic order that sells them the instruments of their carefully constructed 'individualities' that actually mask an atomised powerlessness.

[rebs23]

Why suppose that the world is never going to change, when the whole of human history teaches otherwise?



But the end products of capitalism do - war, famine, poverty, environmental chaos, the lot?



What same opportunities - as now? How much innovating and creating does someone actually do after they've spent three hours commuting and eight hours working and they get home too late to read their kids a bedtime story? The mass of people don't get to innovate, or if they do, the product of their creativity is owned by their employer.

You make it sound like we're in some kind of paradise at the moment. We're not. That's the whole point.



Oh lordie, lordie, lordie, where's the smiley for banging one's head off a wall in frustration? "Certainly"? Piffle. How can anything be "certain" about some unspecified time down the road? "The future is unwritten" as The Clash said (on the back of the sleeve of "Know Your Rights", for the pedantic). I've already explained that freedom to travel and free speech would be essential elements of a socialist society. So turn it around - how about you tell us what makes you "certain" that us nasty reds would want to limit those rights?

Of course the world is going to change, it has been constantly changing. That doesn't mean it's going to change or evolve into some socilaist ideal. There are many roads and options out there to reform and change society for the better. If you look at where we were 100 years ago as compared to now then certainly the world has changed for the better. You obviously believe it hasn't.

I don't believe we are in some paradise however I don't believe we are in the hellish type state that you paint. There are lots of problems in society but I don't accept that socialism is the only way to tackle them.

As for the end products of capitalism being war, famine , etc are you really trying to convince me that a socialist society would be any different.

Again you are saying that I should be motivated by the collective idea of socialist utopia. I am not, I am motivated by personal aspirations.

It comes back to this point again and again. You are trying to convince people that all the socialist/communist states that ever existed somehow got it all wrong and that in your version of socialism (based on the exact same principles) will get it right. I just think you are wrong, that socialism fails to understand the individual, the motivation of the individual, the rewards the appeal to the individual and the freedom of trade, speech and travel that the individual currently enjoys in a capitalist democracy.

Where is that smiley for banging your head against a wall, oh lordie, lordie. As for you "nasty reds" limiting those rights as I've said already in every version of a socialist state that has ever existed you "nasty reds" have limited those rights or just plain done away with them. So it is up to you to prove and gurantee those rights if you are trying to convinve society that your model based on the exact same principles would work.

Just a few thoughts here how would an individual like myself be treated after the "socialist revolution". Would I be allowed to protest or organise a protest when you "seize the means of production" from me?
Would I be allowed litter Patrick St every Saturday handing out leaflets about a lecture on "Eye Witness account of Glorious Riot in London"!!
Would I be allowed operate a political party against the "socialist revolution"?
Would I be allowed defend my property?
Would I be allowed travel to a capitalist neighbouring country with my property and family?
Would I be allowed return?
How would I be rewarded for my hard work, attitude, aptitude and skill above the lazy sod next door who sits in all day waiting for the pub to open?

[sonofstan]

How would I be rewarded for my hard work, attitude, aptitude and skill above the lazy sod next door who sits in all day waiting for the pub to open?

In the same way as you are rewarded now, you mean? by being compelled to mortgage your future earnings for up to 40 years simply to have somewhere decent to live, somewhere that may be 2 hours drive - because the'low' taxes you pay mean poor or non- existent public transport - from where you work - in a job where you may well be on a short term contract, and may have to go through periodic competitive interviews and assessments simply to remain in employment. Where, furthermore, the aptitudes, skill and hard work may be directed at entirely trivial and undemanding ends, but, because you work ten hours a day in order to look eager, and spend another 2-3 in the car and never see your kids, you've no time for rewarding or enriching or social pursuits outside work, which means there are no sports clubs in your area for your kids because there are no adults with the time or inclination to organise things, which means they spend their time in chatrooms or smoking dope and listening to autistic emo and hating a world thay have yet to actually experience. And as for defending your property ...... unless you're independently wealthy or as old as me and have paid off your mortgage, the bank owns the property you're so concerned with; so why would it be any different if the state owned it?

[BohsPartisan]

Of course the world is going to change, it has been constantly changing. That doesn't mean it's going to change or evolve into some socilaist ideal.

No it doesn't but the only other option is environmental devastation, continuing war and terror and a best scenario of a reversion to a semi feudal society where the technological gains of the Capitalist era are lost. You can't teach an old dog new tricks. Capitalism is a very old rabid dog that should have been put out of its long ago. You speak of options for reform to change the world for the better. What are these options. Make your case if you have one.

[rebs23]

In the same way as you are rewarded now, you mean? by being compelled to mortgage your future earnings for up to 40 years simply to have somewhere decent to live, somewhere that may be 2 hours drive - because the'low' taxes you pay mean poor or non- existent public transport - from where you work - in a job where you may well be on a short term contract, and may have to go through periodic competitive interviews and assessments simply to remain in employment. Where, furthermore, the aptitudes, skill and hard work may be directed at entirely trivial and undemanding ends, but, because you work ten hours a day in order to look eager, and spend another 2-3 in the car and never see your kids, you've no time for rewarding or enriching or social pursuits outside work, which means there are no sports clubs in your area for your kids because there are no adults with the time or inclination to organise things, which means they spend their time in chatrooms or smoking dope and listening to autistic emo and hating a world thay have yet to actually experience. And as for defending your property ...... unless you're independently wealthy or as old as me and have paid off your mortgage, the bank owns the property you're so concerned with; so why would it be any different if the state owned it?

You are painting a really depressing picture there. I don't think that is everyones life. You cannot just generalise and say everyone is experiencing what you are experiencing or what you believe others are experiencing. How about the people that do a days work come home go out to the local sports club with their children, involve themselves with community life, have a good steady job with relatively good income or indeed like tens of thousands have started up their own businesses and are in control of their own destiny, etc, etc.
If the state owned it would I ever get to own it? would I ever get to remortgage it or sell it and move on? Would it ever increase in value? Would I have that freedom to decide my own destiny without having to apply to the "committee/state" to sell or move or remortgage or get another property in a location I want to live in?

[Jamjar]

I
We are a democratically run country & no one is stealing or fixing elections. If you disagree with the rule of law then vote for someone who will do that for you, otherwise accept the will of the majority.

Thats fine, except, the majority didn't vote for the PD's, yet they are the ones fúcking up this country along with FF.
The idea of proportional representation is fine until parties or individuals with little support get into coalition. It's fine for them to be elected, but not to have a power totally disproportionate to their support.

[BohsPartisan]

Would I have that freedom to decide my own destiny without having to apply to the "committee/state" to sell or move or remortgage or get another property in a location I want to live in?
You would have more freedom to do that than the majority do now. Most people are prevented from living where they want to live by one of two factors.
1. They cannot afford to live where they want/where they grew up
2. They cannot live where they want because all the jobs are somewhere else.

It may be a generalisation but generalisations are true, in general - hence the name. There will always be exceptions to the rule.

[rebs23]

No it doesn't but the only other option is environmental devastation, continuing war and terror and a best scenario of a reversion to a semi feudal society where the technological gains of the Capitalist era are lost. You can't teach an old dog new tricks. Capitalism is a very old rabid dog that should have been put out of its long ago. You speak of options for reform to change the world for the better. What are these options. Make your case if you have one.

What makes you so sure that Socialism would mean the end of war, famine and environmental devastation? Again I am repeating myself but every model of socialist states that has ever existed has failed to end war, terror and pollution. In fact their record in these areas is hardly ideal. You expect me to believe that your model will be any different basd on the exact same principles as these failed states.

Capitalism will always be more adept at change because it is far more capable of responding to the market and peoples needs, desires and wants than a model where the state/ workers committees decide. People vote for reform and vote for the policies that are implemented by government including legislative reform.

You are the ones trying to implement a different method of organising society so it will always be up to you to make the case for a socialist model as against a model that has shown itself capable of reform, change and improving peoples living standards over the last 200 years either via the market or via democracy or a combination of both.

[BohsPartisan]

Capitalism will always be more adept at change because it is far more capable of responding to the market and peoples needs, desires and wants than a model where the state/ workers committees decide. .

How? Capitalism is geared towards profit not peoples' wants and needs. I don't want or need to have a 70 mile round trip to work. I don't want or need transfats and other health detrimental substances in all the most affordable foods, I don't want or need an extortionate 30 year mortgage for a house that is poorer quality than the council house I grew up in.

I'll get back to your other point after lunch if DrND or SoS don't get there first.

[Jamjar]

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.

I think you are taking the socialist idea of 'all people being equal' a bit to literally. Obviously in a socialist state a brain surgeon isn't going to be paid the same as an unskilled worker. So there would be incentives to take on more responsibility.

A lot of posts here keep saying socialism has never worked. The USSR was never 'socialist', it was a totalitarian regime (gulags etc, no free speech), as is China. Socialism has never been given the chance to work. If it seems to be becoming successful, outside interference (notably USA) occurs (Nicaragua, Venezuela for example).

[BohsPartisan]

The fact that the Stalinists had to purge the Socialists or real Communists to take power says it all about the nature of their regime. Lets be clear about this. The old Bolsheviks were purged before Stalin moved onto the Kulaks and the middle classes, in fact he flirted with these strata of society when he needed support for his bureaucracy against the return of Workers' Democracy. Stalin and his thugs were so hell bent on wiping out every last vestage of the October Revolution that after constant attempts to asassinate Trotsky they finally succeeded in 1940 when a Stalinist agent posing as a journalist stabbed him in the head with an ice-pick. The USSR conciously sabotaged the revolution in Spain in 1936. It was more desirable to them to see the Fascists take power than to allow a genuine workers' democracy with an internationalist outlook to take root in Europe. If the Stalinists were Socialists then why did they rewrite Lenin? Why did they re-write the history of the revolution, why did they feel the need to erase Trotsky fromthe history books? Why were texts that dealt with the type of state needed to move towards Socialism either banned or constantly "out of stock"? Why did they oppose Socialist revolution in colonial countries arguing instead for "Bourgeois democratic" revolutions?
Has anyone here read The Foundations of Leninism by Stalin? I have. I've also read the major works of Lenin and guess what? Stalin's work selectively quotes Lenin out of context and conveniently leaves out key parts of his work.
Orwell's 1984 and Animal Farm are satires of Stalinism. Yet Orwell was a Socialist. In both books a bureaucracy has purged (in the case of 1984) or purges (as in the case of Animal farm) the people who made the revolution. They rewrite the history of the revolution and falsify the theories of Socialism. 1984 is to an extent an exageration, but it is supposed to be. In essense though this is precisely what Stalinism undertook when it won the struggle against genuine Marxism. This is why I can say with authority that Stalinism and genuine Socialism are diametricly opposed.

[sonofstan]

You are painting a really depressing picture there. I don't think that is everyones life. You cannot just generalise and say everyone is experiencing what you are experiencing or what you believe others are experiencing. How about the people that do a days work come home go out to the local sports club with their children, involve themselves with community life, have a good steady job with relatively good income or indeed like tens of thousands have started up their own businesses and are in control of their own destiny, etc, etc.
If the state owned it would I ever get to own it? would I ever get to remortgage it or sell it and move on? Would it ever increase in value? Would I have that freedom to decide my own destiny without having to apply to the "committee/state" to sell or move or remortgage or get another property in a location I want to live in?
No it's not everyone's life but you can't tell me you don't know lives like that in Ireland, reputedly one of the richest capitalist economies in the world. As Bohs Partisan points out, you certainly can't live where you want - I'd love to live by the sea in Clontarf, but unless we Bohs members forget about football and divvy up the money for Dalyer that's never going to happen. Our traditional heartland - Cabra/ Phibsboro' / Finglas is already out of reach of many of our fans - so they buy houses, first in Blanch, then in Mulhuddart, then Navan, till eventually they're commuting from Longford; meanwhile an Older generation is isolated miles from any of their kids....

I remain to be convinced that Capitalism provides a better life for the majority of working people - a phrase of the French philosopher Gilles Deleuze sums it up; Capitalism deterritorialises to reterritorialise; in other words, capitalism breaks up the ties of family and community with the promise of freedom - a better job, a better house a better car - only to redefine you, not as a person with an identity tied to non- economic factors, but an entirely economic being, entirely expressible as a credit rating and stripped of any refuge should your economic status take a nosedive.

[BohsPartisan]

What makes you so sure that Socialism would mean the end of war, famine and environmental devastation? .

Getting back to this point which I missed when I was answering your post, Socialism is a system based on the use of the world's resourses for the maximum benefit of everybody on the planet. Why are Wars fought under Capitalism? They are fought by Captialist powers over resourses markets or both. In some cases like the Vietnam and Korean wars they were fought because these states were seen as a threat to capitalist hegemony. Why would we need wars in a Socialist society. The Trillions upon Trillions of Dollars that ar siphoned off into the private bank accounts of Billionaires and Millionaires, the Trillions that are spent on Arms and the Trillions that are spent on convincing us that we need the latest brand of washing powder would be rerouted to provide the basic necessities of life for all, invest in the means of production to cut the time people needed to spend at work and allow people more time to excercise their creative potential. Investment could go into the research and developement of new energy sourses to replace the environmentally unsustainable ones we have today.
On your idea of reforming Capitalism, you still have to provide any examples. Capitalism reached its Zenith in the late 1960's. At that time the maximum reforms that were possible to wring out of the system were already in place. Since the 70's these reforms have been rolled back as the nature of the current economy is not such that allows for any kind of equilibrium between the contending class interests. Come up with an alternative and we can debate it. Otherwise stop saying there is another "unnamed" alternative.

[rebs23]

Come up with an alternative and we can debate it. Otherwise stop saying there is another "unnamed" alternative.
As I said already I am not the one poposing an alternative, you are! You are the ones trying to implement a different method of organising society so it will always be up to you to make the case for a socialist model as against a model that has shown itself capable of reform, change and improving peoples living standards over the last 200 years either via the market or via democracy or a combination of both. (I know copy and paste)


So why would I come up with an alternative when I am quite happy with the present structure of society. Doesn't mean I don't recognise it has faults but still it is far more preferable to the structure you are proposing which is based on the same principles as the former failed socialist/communist states.

On the other main points you raised Capitalism will always repond to peoples needs, wants and desires better than the state because in order for businesses to survive they have to respond to the market. I doubt it that the state/ worker collective run farms or state/ worker collective run building firms would have the capability to repsond to demand like a business with a need to profit would. Again I ask what would the motivation be to do it?

How could you possibly divert trillions in a socialist state if you seize the means of production? It just doesn't make sense. Who would be earning and producing this money?

As for the Stalinist purging the real socialists, if my memory of history is correct the socialists/communists that were in power before Stalin were more than capable of snuffling out anyone who didn't agree with them. The Anarchists and Capitalists were particularly badly treated as were their freedoms of speech, trade and movement.

I could go an repeat some of the earlier questions I raised on how would I be treated in a Socialist state? These have gone unanswered.

[sonofstan]

I could go an repeat some of the earlier questions I raised on how would I be treated in a Socialist state? These have gone unanswered.

Well BP, Dr. N, and Me would obviously be commissars of the people and you'd be up against the wall first night.

[rebs23]

[QUOTE=sonofstan;563196]you certainly can't live where you want QUOTE]

No but you have the oppurtunity and a relative choice. The idea in a socialist state that I would have to apply to live in Clontarf (God Forbid!!) is just frightening. Going before a committee to decide who gets the plum houses in the plum estates just would make for a very corrupt and warped society. Not everyone could live where they wanted in a Socialist state either but at least in our current system it can be in your own hands and at least there is the oppurtunity and you have the possibility of controling your own destiny without the "workers committee" deciding your location.

What would happen if I didn't get on particurly well with the workers committee and as I said already was organising a political party to oppose the "socialist workers" state. I can just see it now, up to the top of that tower block, floor 42 for you.:)

[rebs23]

Well BP, Dr. N, and Me would obviously be commissars of the people and you'd be up against the wall first night.


You could have least put a smiley after that sentence!:)

[BohsPartisan]

So why would I come up with an alternative when I am quite happy with the present structure of society.
.

Its well for you. Don't mind SoS...

We'll only shoot you if you actively resist.






;)

[BohsPartisan]

[QUOTE=sonofstan;563196]you certainly can't live where you want QUOTE]


What would happen if I didn't get on particurly well with the workers committee and as I said already was organising a political party to oppose the "socialist workers" state. I can just see it now, up to the top of that tower block, floor 42 for you.:)

We'd say good luck finding support. It'd be your turn standing outside the GPO trying to sell "THE CAPITALIST" :D

[Marked Man]

Howcome all the Bohs lads are socialists? What's going on in Phibsborough these days?

[sonofstan]

Howcome all the Bohs lads are socialists? What's going on in Phibsborough these days?

Hey, alone in the premier division, we own the means of production....... pity the product looks as inefficient and uncompetitive as something out of the USSR in the '70s

[rebs23]

[QUOTE=rebs23;563281]

We'd say good luck finding support. It'd be your turn standing outside the GPO trying to sell "THE CAPITALIST" :D

At a good profit margin of course!:)

[pete]

The free market has lead to the greatest advances in the history of mankind. I am not convinced socialism has the drive to achieve this.

Cuba might seem to have good health system but how many how drugs or medical eqiipment have they created? Capitalism is the driving force behind enterpreneurship & invention.

[sonofstan]

The free market has lead to the greatest advances in the history of mankind. I am not convinced socialism has the drive to achieve this.

Cuba might seem to have good health system but how many how drugs or medical eqiipment have they created? Capitalism is the driving force behind enterpreneurship & invention.
And why do you think entrepreneurship and invention are so uncomplicatedly good in themselves? I could argue that many examples of inventions that might have benefited mankind have been hampered in their application by the supremacy of the profit motive; look at the way drug companies actively prevent the distribution of cheap drugs in poorer countries in order to protect their margins - and don't come back with 'they need the money for research and development' a lot of the research that leads to advances in pharmacology is done in publicly funded university depts. and then bought by companies, and even if the companies fund the research the expertise that goes into it is the result of publicly funded education.

As long as you see the market as somehow a 'natural' and 'neutral' mechanism for regulating the hierarchy of needs, of course you won't see alternatives. Those, in whose interests the world markets operate, have every to gain by it seeming thus; it all then looks like the result of the operation of some quasi- scientific law, instead the manipulation of the needs and desires of the many for the benefit of the few.

[pete]

As long as you see the market as somehow a 'natural' and 'neutral' mechanism for regulating the hierarchy of needs, of course you won't see alternatives. Those, in whose interests the world markets operate, have every to gain by it seeming thus; it all then looks like the result of the operation of some quasi- scientific law, instead the manipulation of the needs and desires of the many for the benefit of the few.

You said a mixed economy was not an option so you are only leaving choice of pure capitalism or pure Socialism. Given those options capitalism is the only one that has ever been even attempted in practice since cave men walked the planet.

[sonofstan]

You said a mixed economy was not an option so you are only leaving choice of pure capitalism or pure Socialism. Given those options capitalism is the only one that has ever been even attempted in practice since cave men walked the planet.

If you mean Capitalism has been around since 'cave men walked to planet' that's just wrong; Capitalism in any recognisable sense - the primacy of exchange value over use value, a banking system, speculation etc. is barely older than renaissance Venice; as hegemonic i.e. the dominant form of social organisation you have to wait till the industrial revolution in Britain and Germany - I suggest you take a bit of time and read some Weber or Lukacs.

[pete]

If we had socialism how would we decide what to produce? What happens when someone produces a product that no one wants? Surely the marketplace is the best gauge of what people want? How do you decide what to charge for a product? How much would be too much mark up? Socialism would just leading worker monoplies like state companies which restricts competition.

Socialism sounds anti-democratic to me. I know you say its is not communism but sounds very like it to me. We have a mixed economy with democratically elected politicians. If we (the collective) don't like them we can run ourselves or vote for alternatives. Remember the state funds political campaign here too. You may not always find a politician that matches your views but you have to pick the best available. If people too stupid or lazy to vote then they don't deserve any say in the way the country run. Irish people do not want the state to run everything for them as they remember what that was like in the past. Our new found relative wealth may be somewhat false but its a hell of a lot better than the 80s & early 90s. A lot more irish start & run their own business now which is great.

[sonofstan]

If Surely the marketplace is the best gauge of what people want? .

Is it though? let's try a little parable; two people, Mr. Starbucks and Mister Nobody set up coffeee shops side by side on the same street in Seattle; with a few months, its clear that Mr. Starbucks has the edge - more customers, better selection, a nicer atmosphere, and Mr. Nobody goes out of business. Fair enough, you say, and i wouldn't argue; competition on equal terms can produce a better outcome for the consumer.

Chapter 2: Mr S decides he'd like to build on his success, so he goes to a bank - or banks - and borrows money to invest in other premises; pretty soon the pattern repeats, and other coffee shops in the neighbourhoods of the new S'bucks go to the wall; except this time its not the fair fight it was in the first instance, because now, with 10 or 20 or 100 shops, Mr. S can buy his raw materials at much better prices, can operate long lines of credit which means the little Mr nobodies up against him cannot compete even if they are producing a better product.

Chapter 3: There's a starbucks on every corner in every major city in the west - they pretty much dictate the price coffee growers get, and, by making themselves into arbiters of taste they start recommending books and music to their customers - and taking a cut from the proceeds. The net effect is to cut down competition and to make it harder to get a decent coffee in some cities if you don't care for the frothy pabulum S'bucks want to sell you - I personally find their presence in Rome deeply depressing.

Or, to pick an example which is probably under your fingers at the moment - I 'm typing this on a PC running windows in UCD; both the hardware and the operating system are worse in every respect than the Mac* I use at home - yet there's a 9 out of 10 chance that you're reading this on the same, inferior system; why? its not cheaper - Linux is - and its certainly not better; its because Capitalism, the system that is supposed to thrive on competition allows the slight edge that we saw in example one to build into massive corporate muscle because, apparently, the market is always right and it is somehow a neutral system like the weather, and interfering with it is a sin against freedom.

BTW, I never said i was against a mixed economy; I basically believe in social ownership of the means of production, but some means of production are too small or specialised for that model to work very well - you must be mixing me up with the other half of the Phibsborough Popular Front for the re-education of Cork.......

* I don't necessarily buy the Apple good, Microsoft bad dualism - but they do make nicer computers.

[pete]

To use your coffee example.
Independent coffee houses still exist as they will compete at a different level. Different customer service. FairTrade has also emerged offering a different service.

If Apple was better people would buy it. Apple does not offer half the services a MS OS can offer. Linux has emerged competing at different price & different service.

In each of those examples people make their own decision to purchase from those companies. I think people perfer to make their own personal decision rather than let big brother do it. Anyway socialism will result in the same model anyway as some countries bigger & more powerful.

[sonofstan]

Independent coffee houses exist, sure, but they are not competing on level terms with a company that can buy the entire coffee bean production of Ethiopia and pretty much decide what price they'd like to pay.

And I can't believe you think people make their own decisions about Microsoft. MOst PCs are sold with the operating system already installed - a lot of people don't realise there ARE other operating systems, and because it's in microsoft's interests to keep it this way they go to an awful lot of completely anti -competitive trouble to do so. Your nightmare of choiceless socialism is actually much more the case in an increasingly monopolised capital system - if I - in a city of over a million, want to shop in a supermarket that's not Tesco i have to drive for 4 miles - if i didn't have a car I wouldn't have a choice; and thanks to Tesco, there is no independent green grocer anywhere near me - so I have to buy their over packaged, tasteless tomatoes ......

And what do you think MS offer that Apple don't? just curious

[Sheridan]

its because Capitalism, the system that is supposed to thrive on competition allows the slight edge that we saw in example one to build into massive corporate muscle because, apparently, the market is always right and it is somehow a neutral system like the weather, and interfering with it is a sin against freedom.

Well said, this is what gets my goat about the contemporary political climate more than anything else, this concept of the market as an inviolate ecosystem which brooks no interference. The weird thing is, it's really just a development of Marxist determinism.

PS: Macs are sh1t, though.

[sonofstan]

Well said, this is what gets my goat about the contemporary political climate more than anything else, this concept of the market as an inviolate ecosystem which brooks no interference. The weird thing is, it's really just a development of Marxist determinism.

PS: Macs are sh1t, though.

Exactly, which is why unlike my comrade in the PPFRC (see above), I don't see a completely planned economy as either possible or desirable - the thing as well about the supposedly 'inviolate ecosystem' is that government and supra- governmental organisations - The Federal Reserve, ECB, the World bank - will damn well interfere when its in their perceived interest; its only inviolate when the end of interference is social.

[pete]

A lot of this debate seems to be turning into middle class socialism like the Irish Labour Party.

I know Tesco are big & powerful but they achieved that against bigger competitors in the Uk (have a look where Tesco were even 10 years ago) because they offer better price & service. If that wasn't the case why would people use it? Green grocers never stayed open at night.

[sonofstan]

A lot of this debate seems to be turning into middle class socialism like the Irish Labour Party.

I know Tesco are big & powerful but they achieved that against bigger competitors in the Uk (have a look where Tesco were even 10 years ago) because they offer better price & service. If that wasn't the case why would people use it? Green grocers never stayed open at night.



My examples were simply to point out that the competition that you think is the engine of capitalism and progress generally has consequences which are less than progressive or in the interests of the choice and value you think is important ...... and like your defense of Microsoft your defense of Tesco is incredible - in larges areas of the country people shop there because they've no choice, not because its any better

Why is this 'middle- class' socialism? do the working classes not go to Tesco and buy Computers? anyway, I'm not suggesting the socialist millenium will have arrives when we've got better shops and we break Microsoft - I was just trying to show that the competition that you think is the hallmark of capitalism doesn't work

[BohsPartisan]

it's really just a development of Marxist determinism.
.

Have to pull you up on this mate. Marxism is not deterministic. Sure the text books tel you that but they dwell on one side of Marxist theory. Marxism is dialectical. In fact dialectical materialism (What Marx called his theory) stands in direct opposition to determinist materialism. Bernstein, the German social democrat developed a revisionist theory of Marxism that stated that Capitalism would inevitably give way to Socialism thus negating the need for revolutionary parties. It is this strand of the early workers movement that finds its logical conclusion in the ideologies of the modern day labour/social democratic parties who have accepted the market. Bernstein the determinist was a precursor to Blair. Revolutionary Marxism has always rejected determinism.

[Marked Man]

Have to pull you up on this mate. Marxism is not deterministic. Sure the text books tel you that but they dwell on one side of Marxist theory. Marxism is dialectical.

Haven't read a whole lot of Marx, but isn't the dialectical part constituted by the clash between capitalists and proletarians, with a (genuinely) communist society being the outcome of the dialectical clash?

It's not just the textbooks that suggest Marx is deterministic: he does it himself, when he suggests (for example) that capitalists "create their own gravediggers" by oppressing the proletariat.

[BohsPartisan]

Dialectical Materialsm has many constituent parts, the clash of classes is only part of that. You are correct that Marx said that the Capitalist system creates its own gravediggers but he also says that without a conscious element showing them where to dig they won't get very far. This is the dialectical interpenetration of opposites in action. Similarly Marx said
"Man creates his own existance only in circumstances not under his control".

and "Necessity is blind until it becomes conscious. Freedom is the consciousness of necessity."

"It is not "history" which uses men as a means of achieving -- as if it were an individual person -- its own ends. History is nothing but the activity of men in pursuit of their ends"

Men make history, this history makes men who make history and this history makes men (and women of course) who make history.