Irish Communism today

oscarBravo

encyclopedia wrote: »

Communism in Ireland is nearly considered a swear word these days and people forget that it stands for Community. Although ideally I would welcome a proper communist structure with caution I honestly don't think that it could work right now but I do think that we should be finding our community spirit and helping each other out during this difficult financial period. Capitalism has failed Ireland so in the future we should consider other options.

Communism isn't something I want to see happen here, not because I'm materialistic (although I am, to a point) but because I can't see how it's consistent with freedom. In our society I have the freedom to take risks, start a business, (hopefully) make some money and spend that money as I see fit. That can't happen in a communist society, therefore I would have my freedom taken from me.

I equally don't subscribe to the libertarian philosophy of freedom above all else. I don't like extremes, and I don't think most others do either, which is why centrism - rather than capitalism - is the dominant political structure.

Treason wrote: »

If it is sedition then, by your terms, people should be arrested for it.

I agree. I've made it clear that I agree. You've ignored the multiple times that I've agreed, because it suited your argument to ignore it. I suspect you'll ignore this too.

If this does not happen then what has occurred is that the state is using another crime as an opportunity to arrest someone for their legally held political views.

You haven't expressed legally-held political views. I've already pointed this out, as has donegalfella.

I am using "legally expressed" because it is the terms by which you, having support for that state, base your views.

But you're bitching about a state, whose authority you refuse to recognise, exceeding its authority, which you don't recognise. That's hypocrisy.

You complained to the GSOC, a statutory body of the state whose authority you don't recognise. That's hypocrisy. You've criticised the failure of the GSOC, whose authority (as a statutory body of the Irish state) you reject, to act on your complaints against AGS, whose authority you reject. That's hypocrisy to several orders of magnitude.

All I am asking is for you to recognise that that is wrong.

It's more wrong than charging you with the sedition you've admitted to, yes. It's also less wrong than pretty much every single act ever carried out by the INLA, an organisation on which you seek to model your putative seditious paramilitary group.

Political opinions are either legal or they are not.

Political opinions are legal. Sedition and treason are not.

My position has been consistent. I do not claim to accept the Irish state and whateverit labels it applies to people.

Do you spend the money it issues?

You on the other hand do - and despite what has been the crack down on legally held opinion, as per the terms of your state, you seem to think that that is acceptable.

It's more acceptable than destroying public property with explosives. Wouldn't you agree?

How you cannot see the inconsistency, or indeed hypocrisy in your position I do not know.

Can you see the hypocrisy in yours?

My views are not the issue here as they are consistent.

Nope. See above. Your views aren't even internally consistent, as expressed in this thread alone.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Treason

You haven't expressed legally-held political views. I've already pointed this out, as has donegalfella. But you're bitching about a state, whose authority you refuse to recognise, exceeding its authority, which you don't recognise. That's hypocrisy.

You are not in a position to say whether it is legal or not. That is for the courts and legal system to decide, not you or donegalfella.

You complained to the GSOC, a statutory body of the state whose authority you don't recognise. That's hypocrisy.
You've criticised the failure of the GSOC, whose authority (as a statutory body of the Irish state) you reject, to act on your complaints against AGS, whose authority you reject. That's hypocrisy to several orders of magnitude.

Thats pragmatic collaboration. The same as purchasing petrol from a garage and following the orders of a Garda depite the rejection of the states authority.

It's more wrong than charging you with the sedition you've admitted to, yes.

I have not admitted to sedition. I said it was for the courts to decide who or what is seditious. You seem to want to replace the courts with the legal authority of you and donegalfella. Thank goodness that wont happen, ever.

Treason

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

No you have it all wrong there donegalfella. Read the thread again.

Rubbish. You can't claim, between the act itself and your conviction, to have legally raped somebody. Similarly, you can't claim to have been legally advocating sedition.

" ...to uphold the basic principles of the criminal justice system, principles such as innocent until proven guilty..."

http://www.justice.ie/en/JELR/Pages/Criminal%20Procedure%20Bill%202009

oscarBravo

Treason wrote: »

You are not in a position to say whether it is legal or not. That is for the courts and legal system to decide, not you or donegalfella.

That would be the courts and legal system whose authority you refuse to accept?

If a court convicted you of sedition, would you accept its ruling?

If the GSOC had upheld your complaint, would you have accepted its ruling?

Thats pragmatic collaboration. The same as purchasing petrol from a garage and following the orders of a Garda depite the rejection of the states authority.

That's a nice phrase. It allows you to accept the authority of the state when it suits you, and reject it when it suits you. Which isn't hypocritical at all, no sirree bob.

I have not admitted to sedition. I said it was for the courts to decide who or what is seditious. You seem to want to replace the courts with the legal authority of you and donegalfella. Thank goodness that wont happen, ever.

I disagree with donegalfella on a lot of things, but I think I'd rather have him than the INLA in charge. I'm pretty sure he has never murdered anyone, or blown up any aircraft navigation aids, no matter how strongly he feels on a political topic.

But tell me this: is it hypocrisy, or just "pragmatic collaboration", to defer to the authority of the courts of a state whose authority you refuse to recognise?

encyclopedia

oscarBravo wrote: »

Communism isn't something I want to see happen here, not because I'm materialistic (although I am, to a point) but because I can't see how it's consistent with freedom. In our society I have the freedom to take risks, start a business, (hopefully) make some money and spend that money as I see fit. That can't happen in a communist society, therefore I would have my freedom taken from me.

I equally don't subscribe to the libertarian philosophy of freedom above all else. I don't like extremes, and I don't think most others do either, which is why centrism - rather than capitalism - is the dominant political structure.

As I said (but didn't state clearly) Communism is ideal but may not be practical overall. The communist ideals I would like to see are: a health service better then any other, poverty practically abolished (In the form of shared wealth) and excellent public services such as transport, infrastructure and education. People should not be respected for what they own but what they have achieved and have done for society. I truly believe that community spirit can increase happiness. Any time I help out a neighbour, friend or colleague I genuinely feel good myself.

On the other hand I do agree with you and feel that freedom of choice can be comprimised by total communism but the same goes for total capitalism. As it stands people are obsessed with bringing multinational companies to Ireland but fail to see that a large proportion of money that they make is going out of our economy. These same multinationals are stopping Irish people (like yourself) from being able to compete in their field of work thus comprimising freedom. Irish businesses are continuously closing and being replaced with multinational companies (Just look at any high street in Ireland). If this continues all Irish people will be working for a foreign company which to me seems like colonisation all over again. This too will affect our freedom.

Unfortunately there is very little we can do about it now as we have agreed to competition laws with Europe.

Treason

oscarBravo wrote: »

That would be the courts and legal system whose authority you refuse to accept?

If a court convicted you of sedition, would you accept its ruling?

Whatever the courts label people, or me, is not the basis for which I base my views. It is for you, though.

If the state ruled my views as seditious that would not have effect on my rejection of the state because my views are not based upon its rulings of what are criminal, or not, in the first place.

Supporting the 'democratic' state, as you do, should surley mean that you accept the legality of peoples views until proven otherwise.

From this, then, you should condemn the crackdown of peoples legally held views or be a hypocrit.

If the GSOC had upheld your complaint, would you have accepted its ruling? That's a nice phrase. It allows you to accept the authority of the state when it suits you, and reject it when it suits you.

For pragmatic purposes I would.

And yes, like a military strategic retreat, one must accept the consequences of engaging with greater coercive forces - and to that end, it is often pragmatically useful to recognise and use the real life power relationships which exist - and to act accordingly while strategically opposing them at the same time.

Which isn't hypocritical at all, no sirree bob. I disagree with donegalfella on a lot of things, but I think I'd rather have him than the INLA in charge.

To bring the INLA into this is to avoid the inconsistency of your position.

That is, you both accept the 'democratic' legal system as the basis for your position while seeming to accept the crack down on legally held political views.

There is no escaping that blatent contradiction.

But tell me this: is it hypocrisy, or just "pragmatic collaboration", to defer to the authority of the courts of a state whose authority you refuse to recognise?

I defer to the authority of the courts in this discussion, or indeed the state, because it is the basis of your crystal clear hypocrisy.

oscarBravo

Treason wrote: »

And yes, like a military strategic retreat, one must accept the consequences of engaging with greater coercive forces - and to that end, it is often pragmatically useful to recognise and use the real life power relationships which exist - and to act accordingly while strategically opposing them at the same time.

It's an interesting philosophy. Utterly, completely and transparently two-faced and hypocritical, but interesting.

To bring the INLA into this is to avoid the inconsistency of your position.

Actually, you brought the INLA into this.

That is, you both accept the 'democratic' legal system as the basis for your position while seeming to accept the crack down on legally held political views.

There is no escaping that blatent contradiction.

Well, it might help if you read everything I've written instead of the few sentences you've taken out of context and argued with. But then, that wouldn't be "pragmatic", or indeed consistent with your approach of selectively accepting anything that can help you, and rejecting anything that goes against you.

You accept the authority of the state when it serves your needs to do so, and reject its authority when it serves your needs to do so. You advocate violence and destruction, and tacitly accept the possibility of murder, when it suits your "political" aims, but bitch and moan at the utter injustice of the police being unpleasant to you. You are the poster boy for hypocrisy, but carp on and on about the alleged hypocrisy of others. You explicitly reject democracy, but whine about others not being democratic. (Still waiting for those posts where I claimed to be a democrat, by the way.)

I defer to the authority of the courts in this discussion, or indeed the state, because it is the basis of your crystal clear hypocrisy.

Again: the irony is faintly amusing. It's getting less so, so - as I should have done earlier - I'm going to leave you to your railing against the state (when it suits your needs to do so).

I don't think those of us who oppose communism in Ireland have too much to worry about. It doesn't exactly come across as a coherent political philosophy.

Treason

oscarBravo wrote: »

It's an interesting philosophy. Utterly, completely and transparently two-faced..

Of course it can present itself in situations as two faced, and in particular to those who seek to impose their will, but it is entirely consistent. Unlike your views which are both inconistent and hypocritical.

You accept the authority of the state when it serves your needs to do so, and reject its authority when it serves your needs to do so. You advocate violence and destruction, and tacitly accept the possibility of murder, when it suits your "political" aims, but bitch and moan at the utter injustice of the police being unpleasant to you.

It is not hypocritical, and nor is it inconsistent - I have clearly outlined such positions.

You are evasive and your claims to accept the legitimacy of the legal system - while at the same time supporting, or at least being apologetic to the crack down of legally held political views is most clear.

You are in denial, I am not.

I don't think those of us who oppose communism in Ireland have too much to worry about. It doesn't exactly come across as a coherent political philosophy.

You are one to speak about coherency, lol.

baalthor

oscarBravo wrote: »

I'm saying that anyone can question anything they want, as long as they make it abundantly clear that they are advocating its replacement through exclusively peaceful and democratic means.

There may be organisations opposed to the GFA who are also permanently, implacably and vocally opposed to the use of violence in the achievement of their political aims. Such organisations, if they exists, have my respect (if not my agreement).

Well, I've seen it argued on many occassions that the majority of unionists were opposed to the GFA ...

Knight990

Wow, all the replies, i'm happy with this thread. Whatever the opinions are that people hold, it's definitely a talking point.

Killer Pigeon

Treason wrote: »

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.

So do you view the Labour Party as Trotskyist communists?

blue_steel

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

And Treason is quite correct. How do you think Hitler stayed in Power for so long? He was massively popular among large swaths of the population who were prepared to turn a blind eye to what was happening to the minority. And yes they did play sport while this was happening. They even managed to host an Olympic games:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1936_Summer_Olympics.

Pat D. Almighty

Killer Pigeon wrote: »

So do you view the Labour Party as Trotskyist communists?

and Sinn Fein?

dsmythy

What's happened to Treason? Has he been sent to a Gulag by our evil state police?

Duffy the Vampire Slayer

dsmythy wrote: »

What's happened to Treason? Has he been sent to a Gulag by our evil state police?

Who is Treason? There is no record of such an individual.

Lefticus Loonaticus

dsmythy wrote: »

What's happened to Treason? Has he been sent to a Gulag by our evil state police?

Thankfully the irish gulags are out of action since the early 80's. They were in operation for far longer than even the soviet union existed. Dont be so quick to criticise other cultures when your own house is clearly not in order.

It an awful thing to say, but at least the russian gulags were not operating for profit.

Amhran Nua

encyclopedia wrote: »

The communist ideals I would like to see are: a health service better then any other, poverty practically abolished (In the form of shared wealth) and excellent public services such as transport, infrastructure and education. People should not be respected for what they own but what they have achieved and have done for society.

This is what irks me most about the far left. The abovementioned goals are what any reasonably sane individual would aspire to, with the possible exception of shared wealth unless that means taxation, yet here we have it labelled under "communism". This is typical of the entryist tactics used by the far left in an ongoing effort to bring about the monstrosity that is the communist endgame, any socially positive movement immediately attracts them in swarms trying to put their own brand on it.

You no more need to support communism or even socialism to aim for these goals than you must be a Catholic in order to be a moral person. Communism isn't the source of these aspiratons, it just latched on to them to further its own ends.

GoldRush4821

East Germany is a bad example of people getting on with their lives under a Communist regime... The whole point of the Berlin wall was to stop the 2.6 million people who had travelled across to the capitalist West from 1949 - 61 in order to escape the oppressive stalinist communist regime. Of course that had a lot to do with Stalin himself and perhaps not as much to do with the system, but still the point stands. IMO Communism defies the nature of humanity. We are born to be better than the next person and we develop an ambition to earn more and achieve more than the next person. Communism completely takes the incentives out of work. That is how humans operate. From each according to his ability, to each according to his need is a nice hippie idea but in practice, as demonstrated by the myriad of failed Communist systems over the last century, it just does not work. Also Communism is so anti - religious I'm not sure it could survive in an overwhelmingly Catholic state...

UNI4MER

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.


You have got to be kidding! Everything one does who believes in capitalism or free enterprise is done for material game? You must have got your training from UC Berkeley Policy Sci.

simplistic2

UNI4MER wrote: »

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.


You have got to be kidding! Everything one does who believes in capitalism or free enterprise is done for material game? You must have got your training from UC Berkeley Policy Sci.

Cooking a meal for you family, helping a co-worker or clearing a neighbors drive are still all based on some perceived gain. Your profit for cooking a meal is the enjoyment you gain from a good laugh from you family or when you help a co-worker you do it because you will feel good. Profit doesn't have to be specific to material gain. What your talking about is the basis for capitalism because there might come a stage when you just love cooking for people but you find that doing it for love alone will result in you becoming poorer. So you start a business where you can sustain your love through profit which is both a great feeling of pleasure and also capital that people pay you for an enjoyable evening.

I'm sure you could also set up a business model that works on donations if you feel like your exploiting people and it might actually work seeing as many people feel social pressure to reciprocate. Just think of the pressure you feel to leave a tip after a meal.

SupaNova

IMO Communism defies the nature of humanity. We are born to be better than the next person and we develop an ambition to earn more and achieve more than the next person. Communism completely takes the incentives out of work. That is how humans operate. From each according to his ability, to each according to his need is a nice hippie idea but in practice, as demonstrated by the myriad of failed Communist systems over the last century, it just does not work. Also Communism is so anti - religious I'm not sure it could survive in an overwhelmingly Catholic state...

Its not so much that we are born to be better than the next individual but born as individuals interested in pursuing our own goals which are usually to improve our own circumstances both material and non material. Communism is appointing a government who decides that you must not do what is good for yourself, but do what is for the greater good. Who decides the greater good? What is the greater good?

As for its relation to religion, it is just another but government becomes the god, government will take care of your every need just do as they say and believe they know best.

Hawkeye123

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.

Many Bolsheviks seem to have a problem with religion. Perhaps one reason for this can be found in the parable of the workers in the vineyard. In this story, a vineyard owner employed workers to work in his vineyard for an agreed sum. Later, another guy came along and got the same deal despite the fact that he started working later in the day. The workers who had worked longer hours went to the owner and demanded more money - only to be reminded they had an agreement and so that was all they would be paid.
Bolsheviks must learn to control their jealousy.

Histie

GoldRush4821 wrote: »

East Germany is a bad example of people getting on with their lives under a Communist regime... The whole point of the Berlin wall was to stop the 2.6 million people who had travelled across to the capitalist West from 1949 - 61 in order to escape the oppressive stalinist communist regime. Of course that had a lot to do with Stalin himself and perhaps not as much to do with the system, but still the point stands.

As a matter of historical fact, Stalin offered to permit the reunification of Germany, provided the unified state was neutral, but his offer was rejected.

GoldRush4821 wrote: »

IMO Communism defies the nature of humanity. We are born to be better than the next person and we develop an ambition to earn more and achieve more than the next person. Communism completely takes the incentives out of work. That is how humans operate. From each according to his ability, to each according to his need is a nice hippie idea but in practice, as demonstrated by the myriad of failed Communist systems over the last century, it just does not work.

Whilst remuneration may provide a positive incentive for work, it would be simplistic to suggest it is the only or even the most relevant one. Social status and fulfilment are extremely important, which explains why in spite of egalitarian remuneration, you didn't have a situation in which everyone became a cleaner and no-one became a doctor because it was easier: people wanted a job that was respected and that they could derive satisfaction from. The importance of this is visible even in a capitalist society; for example, judges will typically earn less than they did as barristers, but still accept appointment to the bench owing to the huge prestige of being a judge.

GoldRush4821 wrote: »

Also Communism is so anti - religious I'm not sure it could survive in an overwhelmingly Catholic state...

Whilst 84% of the population identify as Catholics, this masks a dramatic decline in religious practice in recent years. The recent survey showing most "Catholics" disbelieve in transubstantiation underlines the extent to which it is largely a tribal issue. Most Irish people support divestment of many primary schools, etc., and I doubt they would object to a more radical secularism provided there wasn't an active attempt to persecute the religious.

Knight990

Wow, two years later almost and i'm glad to see the thread is still alive. Keep up the chat!

southsiderosie

MOD NOTE:

Please don't resurrect zombie threads. If you want to discuss a topic from a year or two ago, just start a new thread.