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?

[BohsPartisan]

Hands up anyone who has done a Sociology degree?

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?

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- 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.