Not a Socialist after all

Dirk Gently

In short, he single handedly does a great deal of damage to Irish socialism in that he presents a soft, risible target that neo-liberals can poke fun at very successfully.

We talking Joe Higgins or Pet Rabbit here? I always laugh when I hear labour heads talking of themselves as real socialists even though they reject socialism in favour of capitalism. Call a spade a spade, either you’re a socialist or you’re a capitalist. If you’re a capitalist with a conscience who wants to have some safeguards for less well of people then fair enough but quit calling yourself a "real" socialist. At the end of the day Labour are a free market party and shouldn’t call themselves socialists. It’s false advertising.

lostexpectation

clown bag wrote:

We talking Joe Higgins or Pet Rabbit here? I always laugh when I hear labour heads talking of themselves as real socialists even though they reject socialism in favour of capitalism. Call a spade a spade, either you’re a socialist or you’re a capitalist. If you’re a capitalist with a conscience who wants to have some safeguards for less well of people then fair enough but quit calling yourself a "real" socialist. At the end of the day Labour are a free market party and shouldn’t call themselves socialists. It’s false advertising.

I certainly wouldn't like Joe MT politics but I might be a great complement to say he hasn't changed just think of the various parties Pat Rabitte used to be in?

Jackie laughlin

I said that the majority of Irish socialists were members of the Labour Party. I have no illusions about the Labour Party but it represents the only rational choice for a socialist voter. I wish the Labour Party were more socialist than liberal or labour oriented.

Joe Higgins has a long history of making life difficult for Irish socialists; he's been waiting for the end crisis of capitalism all adult his life. He might as well be waiting for Godot, the Anti-Christ or the end of the world!

You know, years ago I realised that there were lots of Irish people who thought it sensible to say, "I won't vote Labour because they're not sufficiently socialist. I'll vote FF, FG, PD, Green or SF instead." There's no polite answer to that!

Dirk Gently

its not about liking his politics that made me post here, it was the quote a few posts back about the real socialists being in Labour. I would dispute that as I think Higgins is definetly a real socialist as opposed to Labours free market socialism. People can make their own mind up about Higgins but he is genuine, principled and passionate about socialism and to claim he's not a real socialist is a bit wide of the mark. I suppose anyone can call themselves a socialist these days and get away with it though, even Bertie and Blair.

Diaspora

It is true virtually every one calls themselves socialist when it suits but few have the lack of self control to remember where their own PR spin is at.

Higgins has touched on a point that is at the nub of the lives of most in their late 20's and early 30's namely housing proivision.

Lets look at Bertie's record

Virtually no social housing provided
Part V of the planning act a progressive move
Part V ammended as to make it non-existent
House prices increasing 300% with FF/PD in for 9 of the ten years

Regardless if Labour are old style socialists or are left leaning social democrats B Ahern can have no pretentions that he is either; he is the man of IBEC & CIF

Nuttzz

Dub13 wrote:

Not by the 1000s of voters out in Dublin West who keep re electing Mr Higgins.

1000s of voters in Kerry may have elected a convicted gun runner, the vast majority reject his philosophy too.

Socialism is a failed concept, the 100,000 poles living here is a testament to that

Diaspora

What is your point about the Poles?

Poland was a totalitarian dictatorship until 1989 and has been a free market economy run be neo-cons and liberals ever since.

Does the fact that 100,000 have moved to Ireland alone not prove that the free market model in Poland has failed them?

CiaranC

Nutzz wrote:

Socialism is a failed concept

Hardly. Socialism has evolved from an all-encompassing ideology to Social Democracy, where the free market exists alongside socialist institutions like state-run, taxation funded education, healthcare and the welfare state, and where capatalism is regulated and controlled to a greater or lesser degree.

As always, equilibrium lies somewhere in between.

Zombrex

Nuttzz wrote:

Socialism is a failed concept, the 100,000 poles living here is a testament to that

Er, you live in a Social Democracy.

As CiaranC points out we live in a balance between social policy and capitialist markets. In fact most of time it seems the good things we have in Ireland are a result of social ideology. Can't remember the last time a purely capitialist policy actually helped anyone.

Would anyone really like to live in a totally free-market capitialist tiny government country?

As someone else said, look at what Higgins is saying, rather than who he is. The fact that Bertie could only respone with childish insults shows that he hit a nerve (saw the Enron documentary a few days ago, and the exact same thing happened, a stock market analysis asked the Enron boss a difficult question, basically how exactly are you making money, and the response was "you're an assh**l" .. and we all know what happened to Enron)

The government doesn't have an answer. They don't know what to do. They are like lost children, wandering around aimlessly from failed idea to failed idea. I can bet you Bertie that Higgins isn't going to be the only person you have to insult this year.

Chakar

clownbag wrote:

In fairness that comments was made as a dig at Joe Higgins as part of Berties tactic of brushing aside and dealing with Higgins in a humorous way. He said that he and Joe where the last socialists, implying that they were the last true socialists and not social democracy in which case everyone in the Dail would be socialists except maybe the PD's. Why didn't he include the labour party in his comment if he was referring to social democracy? It was a light hearted joke aimed at Higgins in order to wind him up. I don't think he ever seriously attempted to paint himself and Higgins in the same ideology, even stretching the word socialist to include a FF leader.

True enough everyone does like to describe themselves as a socialist but I think Bertie was just having a bit of fun with that comment as he knows Higgins is a socialist in the true sense of the word.

I didn't actually know that comment was a jibe, it was portrayed in the media as being a serious comment.Jeez and there was me thinking that it was actually true.That's clarified for me anyway.

I can't quote where Joe Higgins insults and patronises Bertie but to me the whole tone and package of the speech he made was dragging up the past back to the 30's.Its the past.

Nuttzz

Wicknight wrote:

Er, you live in a Social Democracy.

which is different the socialist drivel that higgin's party et al spout

DadaKopf

Jackie laughlin wrote:

Point of information: The Labour Party have been resisting land re-zoning scandals since the late 70s, i.e. long before the arrival of the Greens. The PDs in fairness have a clean record. The big money always involved FF but FG have a shameful record too.

To return to the point, while Bertie Ahearn should try to behave with some dignity, Joe Higgins is an anachronism. He led the Militant Tendency (Yes, the self same mad shower who bankrupted Liverpool!) when it was trying to infiltrate and take over the Irish Labour Party. The Labour Party reacted in time and expelled them. They fell apart and re-emerged as The Socialist Party.

However, his politics has not changed. He still doesn't understand class, especially the working class. His "socialism" is frozen somewhere in the first quarter of the 20th century. In short, he single handedly does a great deal of damage to Irish socialism in that he presents a soft, risible target that neo-liberals can poke fun at very successfully.

There are real socialists in Ireland. The vast majority of them are members of the Labour Party. The rest should join; it is the only sensible course.

Incidentally, Labour members of the Oireachtas and later the European Parliament have always donated a portion of their salaries to the Party.

Jackie, could you explain your comment about class? I'm interested to know why you say this.

Jackie laughlin

DadaKopf,
Certainly. Up until Marx the plural "working classes" tended to be used. Marx had a definite view of the characteristics of a working class and of its historic role. I grew up among a working class which would have corresponded to Marx's description. JH equates working class with poor or on occasion with membership of a union. He therefore is lead to support everything that union members and the deprived/exploited do and want. Marx in his time had a sophisticated analysis and was scathing in his dismissal of the demands of 19th century peasants.

On the other side of the class divide Marx did not lump all capital together. He saw fractions, some more progressive than others. In today's terms it would be useful to distinguish between, say, industrialists and land speculators.

A socialist today realises that Marx is relevant but that he was writing in the 19th century. Marx once famously defended his philosophy by saying that he was not a Marxist! Socialism is not a mere doctrine. Today's world is there to be analysed, understood for the moment and humane policies developed.

The difference is that socialists really do believe in the mixed economy. Some things belong in a market, others don't. In practical terms a socialist today opposes neo-liberalism - which is doctrinaire - and blindly offers a market as a panacea. I don't know why but many many neo-liberals tend to be bitter and become aggressive when questioned. Perhaps aggression is something they admire?

I didn't mean to go on for so long. I apologise.

Incidentally, when apllied to a political party, "Social Democrat" predates "Socialist". Labour parties generally were started by trade unionists who were nervous about socialism. That brings us back nicely to "working class". The working class created the unions but by the start of the 20th century many of their members had abandoned the working class values so admired by Marx.