Irish Communism today

Knight990

Hey guys,

What's your view on Communism in Ireland in the present day? Do you agree/disagree/support/ignore/dislike it? All opinions welcome, just want to see the overall opinion of the Ideology in our Irish context.

Ostrom

Are you referring to the communist party?

Knight990

The Party, yes, and the general Communist movement. I'll include Socialism too.

Treason

Knight990 wrote: »

Hey guys,
What's your view on Communism in Ireland in the present day? Do you agree/disagree/support/ignore/dislike it? All opinions welcome, just want to see the overall opinion of the Ideology in our Irish context.

I am a communist. Aspects of communist 'social relations' already exist in Ireland. People undertake social activity without monetary or material reward all the time. Meeting up and talking with friends, for example, is an activity where 'capitalist markets' and exchange do not govern. Similarly - helping a co-worker with a task, assisting your neighbor clear snow from their drive, cooking a meal for family members etc. are generally tasks where again, the exchange is not based upon property or material gain. I am typing this here, without any type of capitalist exchange (you are not paying me and the costs of me doing this are insignificant). And yet, the nature of how these activities operate – the rewards, the motivations, the reasons, are taken for granted and isolated from how we perceive the capitalist social system to work.

To envisage a communist society is not as ‘far out’ as it may first seem, considering the quantity of social activity already operating externally to capitalist markets. What communism seeks to do is to extend such social relationships into what is now dominated by capitalist markets, property, commodification and exchange.
So in this sense, aspects communism in an ‘Irish setting’ are still holding ground. Thankfully I am not expected to pay to speak to my family and friends in person just yet. That would be quite unnatural wouldn’t it.

There are about 11 communist organisations in Ireland that I can count, though no doubt there are more.

4 Trotskyiest - (Social Democracy, SWP, Spartacist League, Socialist Party)
2 Republican Socialist - (IRSP, Eirigi)
1 Left Marxist - (ISN)
2 Anarchist - (Organise!, WSM)
1 Leninist - (CPI)
1 Leninist/Republican - (Workers Party)

On the margins are those who at times espouse socialism, but not in any definite sense - 32CSM and RSF.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Treason

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I go to the shop, buy some cigs, i'm a capitalist? :eek:

Pffft.

Oscardela

To be a communist in Ireland seems to have not learned the lessons of history. The experiments in communism which have been tried around the world all seem to end in appalling human misery, poverty, and the eradication of the human spirit of hope and happiness.

Add to that the fact those communist states were so afraid that their system of government was so repulsive to those who were being governed, that they have to build huge fences to keep them all in, patrol them with dogs and machine guns to deter anyone who wnated to leave, and force the people they were governing to remain in the society, under pain of imprisonment, disgusting punishments and torture, if they tried to leave.

I wonder what it is that anyone can find attractive about such a brutal and dehumanising system of government?

Treason

To be a communist in Ireland seems to have not learned the lessons of history. The experiments in communism which have been tried around the world all seem to end in appalling human misery, poverty, and the eradication of the human spirit of hope and happiness.

But communism is not this or that system. The two main theoretical ‘advocates’ of communism are Marxism and Anarchism - both of which should be understood as processes of struggle – not as systems to which you can point your finger.

Ask Joe Higgins "how will socialism work" and he’ll tell you a load of vague meaningless rhetorical nonsense. Ask most socialists and they will do the same.

This is because Marxism, as it was originally conceived, and continues to be, does not lay out this or that system. The overwhelming body of written and theoretical work is about struggling against identified social antagonisms , oppression, irrationality and injustice, and with Anarchism, it seeks to continually challenge authority and the identified systems and structures which create and allow it.

Oscardela

Treason wrote: »

But communism is not this or that system. The two main theoretical ‘advocates’ of communism are Marxism and Anarchism - both of which should be understood as processes of struggle – not as systems to which you can point your finger.

The original question was "...Do you agree/disagree/support/ignore/dislike it?...". What is the "it" you ask if we like or dislike if, as you appear to say now, its not somethign which you can point your finger" ?

Perhaps in theory, or in the abstract, communism is a wonderful system. But like so many things in theory, it's application in practice seems to be unattractive, brutal and dehumanising.

Treason

The original question was "...Do you agree/disagree/support/ignore/dislike it?...". What is the "it" you ask if we like or dislike if, as you appear to say now, its not somethign which you can point your finger" ?

Perhaps the person asking the question did not understand that Marxism and Anarchism are processes.

Besides, if you want to be doctrinaire about the original question and topic – the title is "Irish Communism Today". Great that you took it upon yourself to drag the global failures of totalitarianism into your post.

Perhaps in theory, or in the abstract, communism is a wonderful system. But like so many things in theory, it's application in practice seems to be unattractive, brutal and dehumanising.

Marxist theory in Ireland, 1896:

[*]Nationalisation of railways and canals.
[*]Abolition of private banks and money-lending institutions and establishments of state banks, under popularly elected boards of directors, issuing loans at cost.
[*]Establishment at public expense of rural depots for the most improved agricultural machinery, to be lent out to the agricultural population at a rent covering cost and management alone.
[*]Graduated income tax on all incomes over #400 per annum in order to provide funds for pensions to the aged, infirm and widows and orphans.
[*]Legislative restriction of hours of labour to 48 per week and establishment of a minimum wage.
[*]Free maintenance for all children.
[*]Gradual extension of the principle of public ownership and supply to all the necessaries of life.
[*]Public control and management of National schools by boards elected by popular ballot for that purpose alone.
[*]Free education up to the highest university grades.
[*]Universal suffrage.
http://www.marxists.org/archive/connolly/1896/xx/isrp.htm

All these theoretical measures are/were all very "unattractive, brutal and dehumanising" now that we know what they are like in practice and in hindsight, aren’t they.

Oscardela

Treason wrote: »

Perhaps the person asking the question did not understand that Marxism and Anarchism are processes.

Besides, if you want to be doctrinaire about the original question and topic – the title is "Irish Communism Today". Great that you took it upon yourself to drag the global failures of totalitarianism into your post.




Marxist theory in Ireland, 1896:

2. Nationalisation of railways and canals.
3. Abolition of private banks and money-lending institutions and establishments of state banks, under popularly elected boards of directors, issuing loans at cost.
4. Establishment at public expense of rural depots for the most improved agricultural machinery, to be lent out to the agricultural population at a rent covering cost and management alone.
5. Graduated income tax on all incomes over #400 per annum in order to provide funds for pensions to the aged, infirm and widows and orphans.
6. Legislative restriction of hours of labour to 48 per week and establishment of a minimum wage.
7. Free maintenance for all children.
8. Gradual extension of the principle of public ownership and supply to all the necessaries of life.
9. Public control and management of National schools by boards elected by popular ballot for that purpose alone.
10. Free education up to the highest university grades.
11. Universal suffrage.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/connolly/1896/xx/isrp.htm

All these theoretical measures are/were all very "unattractive, brutal and dehumanising" now that we know what they are like in practice and in hindsight, aren’t they.

What I said was that the universal experience, when communism has been tried in practice, has been "unattractive, brutal and dehumanising".

Of course, to your list you could add all sorts of wonderful and desirable things. The problem is that, when you try to put them all into practice, you come up agains the sorts of problems which all those who have tried communism in the world have come up against. I assumed we had all learned those lessons, but then it is said that we forget the lessons of history at our detriment.

Treason

Oscardela wrote: »

What I said was that the universal experience, when communism has been tried in practice, has been "unattractive, brutal and dehumanising".

But it has not been the 'universal experience' of people who have lived in totalitarian systems, to have viewed them as "unattractive, brutal and dehumanising". That is complete nonsense. Many opinion polls across former totalitarian states such as East Germany, Russia and Romania suggest that substantial amounts of people, but mainly the older generation, who actually happened to live in these societies, want "communism" back. Also, the Communist parties are often quite large in former Communist states.

The reality is, that despite state oppression, bureaucracies, imposed wage equality and a lack of opportunities, most people who lived in these societies knew nothing else and got on with their lives in the same way people in Ireland, or India, or Brazil, or Thailand, do. Communist states had very sophisticated propaganda machines which justified and normalised state and economic operations. Similarly, despite the arguably "unattractive, brutal and dehumanising" system which exists in Ireland (or elsewhere in the world) - people accept and justify it.

In relation to this point, I believe this to be an incredibly biased documentary, but it is worth watching nonetheless - http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5302179309927381360#

You have simplified what were, in actuality, functioning and feasible social systems of which many millions lived, and which also happen to have made many milestones both human and technological, to something of a caricature.

This is not even addressing whether one thinks that they were communist. Anyone who is educated on the subject would distinguish between ""Communist States" and communism. Two completely different things.

Of course, to your list you could add all sorts of wonderful and desirable things. The problem is that, when you try to put them all into practice, you come up agains the sorts of problems which all those who have tried communism in the world have come up against. I assumed we had all learned those lessons, but then it is said that we forget the lessons of history at our detriment.

Of course there are lessons. That is what the Marxist and Anarchist processes of struggle are about – continuously identifying and challenging social antagonisms, power and injustice wherever they emerge, and developing structures of power which maintain proletarian class control. Again, it is not this or that system, but a process which will continue until such social antagonisms do not exist.

Oscardela

Treason wrote: »

But it has not been the 'universal experience' of people who have lived in totalitarian systems, to have viewed them as "unattractive, brutal and dehumanising". That is complete nonsense. Many opinion polls across former totalitarian states such as East Germany, Russia and Romania suggest that substantial amounts of people, but mainly the older generation, who actually happened to live in these societies, want "communism" back.

It hardly needs to be pointed out that those same people now have democracy, and are free to vote the communists into power if they want to. (As opposed to the last time when they had no choice about it). To date they have not done so, which is more telling than any opinion poll.

(I'm long past the stage where I believe the claims of opinion polls, prefering to know who paid for them and what questions were asked, as the way a question is asked, (and the context in which it is asked) can help those who pay for the opinion poll to skew the answers towards the answers they are looking for).

Treason wrote: »

This is not even addressing whether one thinks that they were communist. Anyone who is educated on the subject would distinguish between ""Communist States" and communism. Two completely different things.

You are right. A communist state is where communisn is put into practice. Communism in theory(where it is discussed but not put into practice) is very different to what happens in a communist state (where the theory is put into practice). Thats the flaw in discussing communism, as it sounds wonderful in theory but becomes much less attractive in practice.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Treason

It hardly needs to be pointed out that those same people now have democracy, and are free to vote the communists into power if they want to. (As opposed to the last time when they had no choice about it). To date they have not done so, which is more telling than any opinion poll.

(I'm long past the stage where I believe the claims of opinion polls, prefering to know who paid for them and what questions were asked, as the way a question is asked, (and the context in which it is asked) can help those who pay for the opinion poll to skew the answers towards the answers they are looking for).

Representative democracy to a considerable extent represents existing power, and the ideology to which it reflects. You are sceptical of opinion polls yet you accept representative power taking place in conditions which ‘frame’ the context and questions to which people make decisions during an election.

Despite this ‘framing’, substantial support for totalitarianism exists in ex-soviet states.

Besides. Where did you get the baseless notion that the ‘universal experience’ of the people who lived in these states has been "brutal, dehumanising and unattractive". Did you conduct your own opinion poll on the matter?

You are right. A communist state is where communisn is put into practice. Communism in theory(where it is discussed but not put into practice) is very different to what happens in a communist state (where the theory is put into practice). Thats the flaw in discussing communism, as it sounds wonderful in theory but becomes much less attractive in practice.

No. A Communist State is where totalitarianism is put into practice, not communism. "Communist State" is an oxymoron when applied to their scientific meanings. Now you either want to talk about "Communist States" or communism, both of which are completely separate concepts and descriptions.

I presume the OP wanted to discuss communism and not "Communist States", since Ireland is not a Communist State and there exists organisations advocating communism.

In the 2007 parliamentary elections, the Communist Party of the Russian Federation won 11.6 percent of the vote. To me, this suggests that 88.4 percent of voters don't want communism back.

In the 2008 presidential election 17.96 percent of voters voted for the CPSF. Hardly reflecting a ‘universal experience’ of brutality and dehumanisation. And considering the social context and conditions in which such elections take place.

You are trying to suggest that the brutality and inhumanity associated with communist states is every bit as prevalent in Ireland—but we are so brainwashed by state propaganda that we can't see it? This isn't the Conspiracy Theories forum, you know.

You are construing something I never said. Twice in only two posts Donegalfella. Nice going. I said "despite the arguably "unattractive, brutal and dehumanising" system which exists in Ireland (or elsewhere in the world) - people accept and justify it."

Denerick

As in most countries, communism has been the ideology of bourgeouis 'intellectuals', rambling around university campuses desperately advocating for the working class... whether they had actually met a prole is very much up for debate. The prevailing attitude is one of smug paternalism - forcing the proletariat to be 'free', regardless of their desires.

With a few exceptions, (There are some Italian cities with rich red traditions) this has been the case in most countries. Rarely has a communist party infiltrated working class regions in any substantial way.

The socialist tradition is somewhat different (E.G. Labour in Britain and their dominance in northern post industrial cities)

Oscardela

Treason wrote: »

Representative democracy to a considerable extent represents existing power, and the ideology to which it reflects. You are sceptical of opinion polls yet you accept representative power taking place in conditions which ‘frame’ the context and questions to which people make decisions during an election.

Despite this ‘framing’, substantial support for totalitarianism exists in ex-soviet states.

Representative democracy allows every person to get to vote for the person, or parety, then choose. Personally, I prefer that to any other form of choosing a government, but if you don't, then thats fine.

Treason wrote: »

Besides. Where did you get the baseless notion that the ‘universal experience’ of the people who lived in these states has been "brutal, dehumanising and unattractive". Did you conduct your own opinion poll on the matter?

I suppose I got the idea from from a number of sources, and also from the way in which they were forced to remain in those communist countries, kept in by high walls, barbed wire, and soldiers in watchtowers with machine guns and searchlights ordered to shoot any of them who wanted to leave.

Are you really saying that your view is that the communist states, as we have seen them, were not brutal places? Are you really implying that you think they were happy and wonderful societies, and the barbed wire , high walls and guards in the watchtowers with machine guns were actually there to keep all of those millions of us out who wanted to flee our democracies and rush to the nirvana which was the USSR, or Albania etc etc?

Treason wrote: »

No. A Communist State is where totalitarianism is put into practice, not communism. "Communist State" is an oxymoron when applied to their scientific meanings. Now you either want to talk about "Communist States" or communism, both of which are completely separate concepts and descriptions.

I assume you don't want to talk about communist states, as them might contradict your view of communism. It's useless talking aboiut communism in theory, without seeing how it might be applied in practice.

Treason

Representative democracy allows every person to get to vote for the person, or parety, then choose. Personally, I prefer that to any other form of choosing a government, but if you don't, then thats fine.

That is for another thread.

I suppose I got the idea from from a number of sources, and also from the way in which they were forced to remain in those communist countries, kept in by high walls, barbed wire, and soldiers in watchtowers with machine guns and searchlights ordered to shoot any of them who wanted to leave.

But how many sought to leave those countries? - how many had the power to leave those countries?

Surely your "ideas" of "universal brutality and dehumanisation" are entirely baseless without such information. Even if many could leave, then it is hardly universal brutality and dehumanisation.

Indeed, from what i understand, Yugoslavia did allow it's people to leave.

" far more open to the west and liberal than his Stalinist counterparts, Yugoslavs could travel without visas to almost everywhere in the world....Many never even bothered to leave the country – spending their holidays on the coast of Croatia, the mountains of Montenegro or the bustling hearts of Belgrade, Sarajevo or Zagreb." - http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,5542161,00.html



Walls and watchtowers are not the only preventative of people leaving. Economic power is probably moreso. Many in Ireland are prevented from leaving on this basis, yet this is somehow acceptable while walls and watchtowers are not. The billions who live in impoverished countries like India and brazil, both representative power, both with market economies, are denied the ability to leave on this basis. Yet one is accepted uncritically and the other is not. One appears to us as "normal" and the other as alien.

I am saying that for the vast majority who grew up in these totalitarian societies, the system presented itself not as "brutal and dehumanising", but as "normal" and "acceptable". It presented itself as "brutal" to those who challenged it, and at certain times when the system could be exposed as such.

I assume you don't want to talk about communist states, as them might contradict your view of communism. It's useless talking aboiut communism in theory, without seeing how it might be applied in practice.

It can never be discussed how it might work in practice by using shallow labels. I explained in my first post how aspects of communist socialist relations can be seen 'in practice'.

If I go saying representative democracy does not work because look at the DPRK, it sounds stupid. Yet you feel it ok to to use what totalitarian states self proclaimed themselves as to criticise something almost totally diviorced from those states and the entire notion of a state.

Treason

A very Quick search:

(81%) Serbia - 24/12/2010 - Serbia Poll: Life Was Better Under Tito - http://www.balkaninsight.com/en/article/for-simon-poll-serbians-unsure-who-runs-their-country#

(62%) Hungary - 6/6/2009 - Most Hungarians feel life was better under communism - http://21stcenturysocialism.com/article/most_hungarians_feel_life_was_better_under_communism_01674.html

(57%) East Germany - 7/3/2009 - Majority of Eastern Germans Feel Life Better under Communism - http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,634122,00.html

(61%) - 17/10/2010 - Romania - Romanians say life better under communism - http://richardbrenneman.wordpress.com/2010/10/17/romanians-say-life-better-under-communism/


Oppressive and grey? No, growing up under communism was the happiest time of my life - http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1221064/Oppressive-grey-No-growing-communism-happiest-time-life.html#ixzz19FEG2hRD


All a conspiracy of course to suppress the unquestionable universal brutality, dehumanisation and unattractivness of totalitarianism. But sure, how could it be anything else? It is just so common sense.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Treason

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Well whether something is brutal or dehumanising depends where and who you are in a particular system, Totalitarian or otherwise. Homosexuals in Iran may see the system as brutal, dehumanising and unnattractive, while most other citizens may believe in and justify that system.

Suppose out of the blue, while you are asleep early one morning, the side gate of your home is kicked in and the rear door crow bared off by 12 plain clothes agents of the secret service. Suppose they ransacked your home and took you to a cell where they photographed you and took your finger prints, abusing you on the way. Suppose while imprisoned they used techniques to disorientate and deprive you of sleep, and then later took you in and interrogate you over a three day period using methods of mental and personal abuse and manipulation.

And suppose they did this due to you expressing a political opinion, and for which you receive no compensation for your three day imprisonment, nor for repairs to your home when released.

Would that be classed as "brutal"? - "dehumanising"?

Or maybe you find that "attractive"?

This is a scene that occurs in Ireland quite regularly.

Or if you happen to know someone homeless or in poverty, or suffering under imense economic pressure, I am sure they may express views that the system is "unattractive", "dehumanising" and "brutal".

Indeed, as it is with Totalitarian states, the system does not present itself as ‘brutal, dehumanising and unattractive’ all the time, and to everyone – but at certain times, to certain people and in certain places.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Treason

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

No, donegallfella, I am arguing that totalitarianism is not "universally" brutal, dehumanising and unnattractive, as Oscardela proclaimed. But rather, it depends on who and where you are within that system.

Denerick

Treason wrote: »

No, donegallfella, I am arguing that totalitarianism is not "universally" brutal, dehumanising and unnattractive, as Oscardela proclaimed. But rather, it depends on who and where you are within that system.

Yes, but any system that would exclude a group of people according to their beliefs and then continue to methodically and brutally repress them is indeed 'brutal, dehumanising and unnattractive'.

Have we not learnt from the Great Terror? The Holocaust? The Gulags? You cannot create a perfect society from an ocean of blood.

Treason

Denerick wrote: »

Yes, but any system that would exclude a group of people according to their beliefs and then continue to methodically and brutally repress them is indeed 'brutal, dehumanising and unnattractive'.

Have we not learnt from the Great Terror? The Holocaust? The Gulags? You cannot create a perfect society from an ocean of blood.

But Denerick, you are being selective about what criteria constitutes "brutality", "unnattractivness" and "dehumanisation".

To suggest that most people who lived in former totalitarian states were 'brutalised' and 'dehumanised', and that they found the system 'unnattractive' is complete nonsense, and the polls and endless personal testimonies suggest that.

Similarly Nazi Germany was 'brutal', 'dehumanising' and 'unnattractive' for Jews, communists, political opponents, gypsies, non-whites etc. - but possibly for most Germans it was not.

Most people living under totalitarianism is Russia, China, Cuba, Eastern Europe etc. work(ed) and got on with life, enjoying sport, social lives and recreation in a similar fashion to people in Ireland or anywhere else in the world.

To pick out aspects of those systems and blow them up is to make a caricature of what the actual reality was. Saying that totalitarianism was universally brutal glosses over what was in reality a workable and and widely accepted system.

A nice idea, but completely impractical. Like it or not such a sysem would have to interface with the capitalist system which pervades the world, so it's not going to happen. Thankfully dead in Irish politics, and long may it stay that way.

Treason

Treason wrote: »

Similarly Nazi Germany was 'brutal', 'dehumanising' and 'unnattractive' for Jews, communists, political opponents, gypsies, non-whites etc. - but possibly for most Germans it was not.

"The road to Auschwitz was built by hate, but paved with indifference."

-Popular Opinion and Political Dissent in the Third Reich, Ian Kershaw, 1983.

Any time over in After Hours some political "ism" fanboy posts something along the lines of "Well there are alternatives to *insert freedom*, I usually respond with a video of gratuitous headshots, to demonstrate what would happen if his/her "ism" were to be forced on the populace.

I won't here, but the sentiment is the same. Totalitarianism is one of those things which must be stamped out, with blood if necessary. Like eugenics. Eugenics advocates would argue that in the modern age you can't have an adult conversation about it. I agree, but for different reasons. You can't have an adult conversation about it, because it is used as an excuse to commit the most terrible crimes in the name of an abstract idea.

So it is with the ideal of Communism and totalitarianism.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Treason

Deleted User wrote: »

Any time over in After Hours some political "ism" fanboy posts something along the lines of "Well there are alternatives to *insert freedom*, I usually respond with a video of gratuitous headshots, to demonstrate what would happen if his/her "ism" were to be forced on the populace.

I am very sorry you have a problem with the english language and how those who use it construct words to communicate ideas and concepts. Maybe you should learn chinese or something.

I won't here, but the sentiment is the same. Totalitarianism is one of those things which must be stamped out, with blood if necessary.

But why must it be stamped out. You have not explained yet. All you are doing is throwing around "isms" which you seem to think are self explanatory.

Like eugenics. Eugenics advocates would argue that in the modern age you can't have an adult conversation about it.

Yeah sure I know. It's kinda like when some person asks about communism and almost inevitably people drag in how many totalitarian states have killed and Eugenics.

I agree, but for different reasons. You can't have an adult conversation about it, because it is used as an excuse to commit the most terrible crimes in the name of an abstract idea.

But Marxism and Anarchism are not abstract ideas in that they attempt to describe, explain and fight against real and existing processes. They are no more abstract than the reasons and ideas for which the Irish state feels it legitimate to imprison thousands.

Rabble Rabble

Treason wrote: »

But communism is not this or that system. The two main theoretical ‘advocates’ of communism are Marxism and Anarchism - both of which should be understood as processes of struggle – not as systems to which you can point your finger.

Ask Joe Higgins "how will socialism work" and he’ll tell you a load of vague meaningless rhetorical nonsense. Ask most socialists and they will do the same.

This is because Marxism, as it was originally conceived, and continues to be, does not lay out this or that system. The overwhelming body of written and theoretical work is about struggling against identified social antagonisms , oppression, irrationality and injustice, and with Anarchism, it seeks to continually challenge authority and the identified systems and structures which create and allow it.

Which means you are creating a system which - regardless of how it is implemented - you can claim, after the inevitable failure that that is not the One True Marxism.

Do you want the State to own the means of production or not?

Rabble Rabble

Treason wrote: »

Perhaps the person asking the question did not understand that Marxism and Anarchism are processes.

Besides, if you want to be doctrinaire about the original question and topic – the title is "Irish Communism Today". Great that you took it upon yourself to drag the global failures of totalitarianism into your post.




Marxist theory in Ireland, 1896:

[*]Nationalisation of railways and canals.
[*]Abolition of private banks and money-lending institutions and establishments of state banks, under popularly elected boards of directors, issuing loans at cost.
[*]Establishment at public expense of rural depots for the most improved agricultural machinery, to be lent out to the agricultural population at a rent covering cost and management alone.
[*]Graduated income tax on all incomes over #400 per annum in order to provide funds for pensions to the aged, infirm and widows and orphans.
[*]Legislative restriction of hours of labour to 48 per week and establishment of a minimum wage.
[*]Free maintenance for all children.
[*]Gradual extension of the principle of public ownership and supply to all the necessaries of life.
[*]Public control and management of National schools by boards elected by popular ballot for that purpose alone.
[*]Free education up to the highest university grades.
[*]Universal suffrage.
http://www.marxists.org/archive/connolly/1896/xx/isrp.htm

All these theoretical measures are/were all very "unattractive, brutal and dehumanising" now that we know what they are like in practice and in hindsight, aren’t they.

This is disengenuous. Plenty of non-communist socialist parties would agree with much of that. Belief in Universal suffrage does not make one a communist. Communists were piggy backing on reformist socialist and democratic movements in the 19ty century. Much of that has been implemented but the State is not Communist. Whats left for them is the takeover of the "means of production".


Communism is about taking over the profit making systm from "capitalists'. You cant do that without a bloody struggle, since people will protect their property, and businesses and you cant do it without a major increase in the power of the State, and a massive reduction in liberty. If all you are are progressive socialists, then a lot of blood was shed for nothing.

Treason

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Thanks to Treason, we now know that the Irish State imprisoned, tortured, and allowed the sexual abuse of thousands, but to only some segments of the population. They left plenty of other Irish people alone to enjoy "sport, social lives and recreation"—meaning that life under the Irish State really wasn't all that bad for most people. So, what's all the fuss about?

Good question donegallfella. It certainly was not about the "universal" failures of those systems.

Who brought totalitarianism into a thread about Irish communism again?

Rabble Rabble

Treason wrote: »

But Marxism and Anarchism are not abstract ideas in that they attempt to describe, explain and fight against real and existing processes. They are no more abstract than the reasons and ideas for which the Irish state feels it legitimate to imprison thousands.

So you are opposed to due process and the arrest of criminals. How much nutttier does this get.

Treason

Rabble Rabble wrote: »

Which means you are creating a system which - regardless of how it is implemented - you can claim, after the inevitable failure that that is not the One True Marxism.

Why is Marxism a social system?

Do you want the State to own the means of production or not?

Im an anarchist, so no.

Treason

Rabble Rabble wrote: »

This is disengenuous. Plenty of non-communist socialist parties would agree with much of that. Belief in Universal suffrage does not make one a communist. Communists were piggy backing on reformist socialist and democratic movements in the 19ty century. Much of that has been implemented but the State is not Communist. Whats left for them is the takeover of the "means of production".


Communism is about taking over the profit making systm from "capitalists'. You cant do that without a bloody struggle, since people will protect their property, and businesses and you cant do it without a major increase in the power of the State, and a massive reduction in liberty. If all you are are progressive socialists, then a lot of blood was shed for nothing.

The point of that post was to outline how Marxism is a 'process' of struggle. I never suggested any of those measures were features of a communist society.

Treason

Rabble Rabble wrote: »

So you are opposed to due process and the arrest of criminals. How much nutttier does this get.

A criminal is not something absolute. It is a status given by someone or some institution. The Irish state happens to have sufficient clout to apply and act upon what it describes as criminal.

You seem to be of the belief that only criminals are arrested. I call that nutty.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Treason

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

He may have been a butcher. Then again thousands of people line the streets to welcome butchers home quite regularly. This butchery is most often legal. Note the police stewarding the display.

edit: in case anyone thinks that the image below is from totalitarian east germany circa 1984. No. It is democratic United Kingdom circa 2006-2010.

Usersname

Jesus donegalfella, would you give it a rest? These lads are trying to have an actual debate here and you're just being argumentative and pedantic.

Valmont

I'm finding it slightly unnerving that you believe that mentioning the horrible atrocities committed by totalitarian governments are only caricaturing the reality because the horrible atrocities were directed towards certain groups. There is something very wrong with that idea.

Well, not making sense is as a good as start as any.

Treason

Valmont wrote: »

I'm finding it slightly unnerving that you believe that mentioning the horrible atrocities committed by totalitarian governments are only caricaturing the reality because the horrible atrocities were directed towards certain groups. There is something very wrong with that idea.

But horrible attrocities are carried out by lots of governments. I doubt you would find it unnerving if I said the system in the UK "worked". That most people in the USA agree and believe with the system in place. Or that people in Ireland found it attracive, humane and just.

Yet it is "common sense" or acceptable to caricature the likes of yugoslavia as being "universally" brutal, dehumanising and unnattractive. People find it hard to believe that people actually liked totalitarianism, and many desire to live in it once again - as per, you know, the evidence.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

oscarBravo

Treason wrote: »

Suppose out of the blue, while you are asleep early one morning, the side gate of your home is kicked in and the rear door crow bared off by 12 plain clothes agents of the secret service. Suppose they ransacked your home and took you to a cell where they photographed you and took your finger prints, abusing you on the way. Suppose while imprisoned they used techniques to disorientate and deprive you of sleep, and then later took you in and interrogate you over a three day period using methods of mental and personal abuse and manipulation.

And suppose they did this due to you expressing a political opinion, and for which you receive no compensation for your three day imprisonment, nor for repairs to your home when released.

Would that be classed as "brutal"? - "dehumanising"?

Or maybe you find that "attractive"?

This is a scene that occurs in Ireland quite regularly.

[citation needed]

Treason

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Well worded donegalfella. Are you saying that the most Yugoslavians, for example, have always found their system unnacceptable, unattractive, dehumanising? - that most yugoslavians felt brutalised and oppressed? If so, cough up the evidence.

I have provided opinion polls of what people believe in retreospect since totalitarianism is gone, and it is quite clear that their views of it were positive, or at least find it more desirable that what they face today.

How many Irish people genuinely believe that they live in an inhumane country?

How many people in Yugoslavia felt their country was inhumane?

Treason

oscarBravo wrote: »

[citation needed]

I attended the Policing Dialogue Exhibition and it is quite clear that experiences such as those I mentioned are repeated very often.

Search Warrents for of homes which 'turn out' nothing criminal are frequent, as is the arresting of "suspects" who have committed no criimes.

I know of six people personally who had their homes violated and entered for something they did not do. Indeed I heard a women earlier this year on Joe Duffy who had her home entered 7 times due to the suspected activities of her son. Each time she has to pay for the damage caused by entry.

What do you require a citation for? - arrests without charge? - search warrents? - all very common.

The papers announce "3 people have been arrested in relation to..." but they rarely say when they are not charged or convicted - meaning they are innocent.

Much of the trauma and damage done to the property of households by state force is not widely known as it is not reported.

oscarBravo

Treason wrote: »

What do you require a citation for?

The assertion that these commonplace occurrences are a result of the expression of political opinions.

It would also help if you could demonstrate that everyone who expresses such opinions is the target of such alleged harassment, in order to ascertain that that is, indeed the actual reason for it.

Yes, people are arrested without charge. Yes, they are innocent until proven guilty. But what's the alternative - not to arrest someone until after they have been convicted?

Wolfe Tone

oscarBravo wrote: »

The assertion that these commonplace occurrences are a result of the expression of political opinions.

It would also help if you could demonstrate that everyone who expresses such opinions is the target of such alleged harassment, in order to ascertain that that is, indeed the actual reason for it.

Yes, people are arrested without charge. Yes, they are innocent until proven guilty. But what's the alternative - not to arrest someone until after they have been convicted?

If he was saying that this was in the north it would make more sense.....

oscarBravo

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

If he was saying that this was in the north it would make more sense.....

Nope, he'd still have to demonstrate that it was the result of expressing a political opinion, as opposed to suspected actual criminal behaviour.

Wolfe Tone

oscarBravo wrote: »

Nope, he'd still have to demonstrate that it was the result of expressing a political opinion, as opposed to suspected actual criminal behaviour.

Does being a republican, an anti GFA one lead to being a suspected criminal, seemingly yes in some cases, anyway, OT.

Treason

oscarBravo wrote: »

The assertion that these commonplace occurrences are a result of the expression of political opinions.

I cannot provide statistics on this. I can tell you that I and three other people I personally know have had their houses raided and have been arrested for our political views. The raiding of the houses of republicans is quite common if you follow news reports on the matter.

It would also help if you could demonstrate that everyone who expresses such opinions is the target of such alleged harassment, in order to ascertain that that is, indeed the actual reason for it.

I am sure the process is similar to what may have occurred in totalitarian systems. Justifications are "created" to remove or oppress political opponents.

In my case, CCTV footage of someone who they believed looked like me (all you could see was a small portion of the persons face beneath a hoody) allowed for an opportunity to arrest, interrogate, take finger prints and sieze my belongings during my house was entered.

I have no criminal record, I am not a member of any organisation and never was. There was not reasonable basis to connect me with the crime. A significant portion of the interview was about my political views.

Everyone is not arrested. The opportunity does not always present itself, nor do they have sufficient interest in everyone to seek to arrest them. We do not live in a totalitarian system and political expression is generally tolerated, with societies like Ireland have different methods of control.

But political reppression does exist. I have first hand experience of it. As I said initially, arguably Ireland is brutal, dehumanising and unattractive. Many can testify to that.

Yes, people are arrested without charge. Yes, they are innocent until proven guilty. But what's the alternative - not to arrest someone until after they have been convicted?

Well for one, they could pay for the damage caused to innocents property. Two, those put through confinement and interrogation should be compensated for their troubles. Three, they should not manipulate and abuse people while in custody - (impossible to prove when it's all off camera).

I outlined brutality and the arrest of people for political views. It exists in Ireland and it is wrong, simple as.

Valmont

Treason wrote: »

I outlined brutality and the arrest of people for political views. It exists in Ireland and it is wrong, simple as.

Although, per your point regarding the wholesome and favourable elements of totalitarianism, we really have it exceptionally brilliant if all we have to put up with is a few break-ins from the police.