Socialist Party's policies

RobertKK

http://www.thejournal.ie/socialist-party-nationalise-dell-1796089-Nov2014/

“We’ve seen Dell leaving Limerick. I would have advocated that they should be taken into public ownership, that the workers who work in those industries could run them, could run those industries. We have the skills and capabilities to do that.”
“Dell that was allowed leave under Fianna Fáil actually – rather than yourselves – which was a highly profitable multinational which left Limerick and left Limerick, by the way, devastated.

Did you ever see such bad policy from any party?

The Socialist party would take a foreign private company into public ownership is what she is saying. The Dell jobs went to Poland, a people who only know too well what these stupid policies lead to.

What next, the farm land belongs to all the people and not just the people who own the land and we have collectivisation?

Godge

The problem with the Socialist Party's policies is that they cannot be done by any country in isolation. Any country that followed these policies would end up like North Korea.

The other thing is that these policies have been tried in Ireland before. The FF governments from 1930 to the late 1950s followed a similar policy, resulting in the highest emigration ever seen and recession after recession.

It is interesting that 16-18 months out from an election that thoughts are now turning to what parties might do if they got into power rather than just what they are against. The first opinion polls next autumn will be when we really see the possibilities for the next election.

BoJack Horseman

I'm delighted when someone from the far-left opens their mouths on policy issues.

Its actually extremely rare.
They prefer instead to shriek opposition without alternative.

Its good news when the mask slips & we see the communist horror that the SP/PBP & their ilk have in store for us.

More of this I say.

Essien

As someone who admittedly knows very little about politics, I'd safely say listening the likes of these people has been the most influential factor in securing my position in favor of the establishment.

Well played.

BoJack Horseman

Essien wrote: »

As someone who admittedly knows very little about politics, I'd safely say listening the likes of these people has been the most influential factor in securing my position in favor of the establishment.

True.

Which in itself is unfortunate.

None of us really want to be pro-establishment...... The establishment parties are deeply flawed themselves.

However, when the alternative is frankly a rag-tag band of communists, what choice have we?

Potatoeman

RobertKK wrote: »

http://www.thejournal.ie/socialist-party-nationalise-dell-1796089-Nov2014/



Did you ever see such bad policy from any party?

The Socialist party would take a foreign private company into public ownership is what she is saying. The Dell jobs went to Poland, a people who only know too well what these stupid policies lead to.

What next, the farm land belongs to all the people and not just the people who own the land and we have collectivisation?

Dont be silly. It's socialism only for people richer than me.

hfallada

They clearly don't have an economist advising them on anything. All they ever say is that they will tax the rich. But the Irish government in the 70/80s kept taxing the rich and tax revenue didn't increase. As people worked less and emigrated.

Ask any of the socialist a question that they have rote learnt and they can't answer it. Like what's their stance on tax avoidance on an EU. You realise within 10 seconds they can't tell the different between tax avoidance and evasion. Most of them still believe a doctor with 6 years of college should have a similar wage to the average industrial wage.

I think if the socialist come to power. A lot of young people won't bother looking for a Job. As there will be decent future for Ireland

laoch na mona

as a small party the socialists have not had to put much thought into policies, this will change over time as the party grows, if they continue to grow. Then I can imagine their policies reflecting sinn féin's, leftist and progressive but based in the reality of what is possible now.

BoJack Horseman

laoch na mona wrote: »

as a small party the socialists have not had to put much thought into policies, this will change over time as the party grows, if they continue to grow. Then I can imagine their policies reflecting sinn féin's, leftist and progressive but based in the reality of what is possible now.

The socialist party in whatever guise/name its had is the guts of century old..... They have indeed put plenty of effort into policy platforms.

However age & size have no relevance to ideology.

Why are their policies bogus?
Because the communist ideologies underpinning them are bogus.

There is no indication that they will cease to be communist if they grow larger.
And I use "If", because nationally they poll at around 1%

If they haven't mellowed from their Stalinist leanings over the past decades, what makes you think it will suddenly change?

Spaniel heaven

I stayed when I could have emigrated, I got a crap job when I could have lived on the dole, I started a small company when I couldn't get a better job and I assure you that if any of these parties come into government im outa here along with a lot of people like me who stayed during the worst of the times.

I can also take a guess that most people abroad at the moment earning large money with a decent lifestyle will never come home and work if these loony policies are implemented.

Yet to add one small observation, the vast majority of extreme left wingers (and right) are as attracted to power as every one else - one look at the real balance books and they will miraculously shift closer to center because IT DOES NOT WORK in the real world and they will not jeopardize newly held power for a silly little thing like political beliefs.

Strong political beliefs belong in opposition not government....

Essien

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

True.

Which in itself is unfortunate.

None of us really want to be pro-establishment...... The establishment parties are deeply flawed themselves.

However, when the alternative is frankly a rag-tag band of communists, what choice have we?

Exactly.

I'd always describe the establishment as the lesser of 2 (or more) evils. That's not to say they're perfect or that I'm a huge FG fan.

the_syco

RobertKK wrote: »

Did you ever see such bad policy from any party?

Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt." - Abraham Lincoln

Soldie

It's embarrassing to think that someone could articulate a thought such as the one quoted by the OP. Why do these clowns think Dell came here in the first place? Perhaps they were lured by the tempting prospect of being nationalised.

raymon

Socialism Irish Style ( as far as I can see ) is that the bully boys will force a working/middle class worker like me to pay for someone else who doesn't want to work while they dismantle and nationalize existing industries (example Dell )

If the protests that AAA/Socialists whipped up are anything to go by our women would be spat at , trapped and oppressed by angry mobs who" aren't being listened to."

A wealth tax would scare future investment and would cause a lot of international companies for completely remove their operations from Ireland.

A financial transaction tax would make the IFSC grind to a halt while money was simply transferred to the UK , US and Europe with a click of a mouse .


I am looking with concern at AAA and the Socialist party and I am not liking what their plans are - not one bit.

I don't want to live in Venezuela or Zimbabwe thanks very much

Lockstep

Cringed so hard. And I'm a leftie.
I don't think the SP can grasp that not every employer is a Dickensian villain, twirling his moustache while thinking of ways to screw over those workers of his.

porsche959

"I think the government should be more government-y and help The Poor People and not the Bad Corporations. Read all about it in my Booky Wooky. Innit"

- Russell Brand, earlier

laoch na mona

raymon wrote: »

Socialism Irish Style ( as far as I can see ) is that the bully boys will force a working/middle class worker like me to pay for someone else who doesn't want to work while they dismantle and nationalize existing industries (example Dell )

If the protests that AAA/Socialists whipped up are anything to go by our women would be spat at , trapped and oppressed by angry mobs who" aren't being listened to."

A wealth tax would scare future investment and would cause a lot of international companies for completely remove their operations from Ireland.

A financial transaction tax would make the IFSC grind to a halt while money was simply transferred to the UK , US and Europe with a click of a mouse .


I am looking with concern at AAA and the Socialist party and I am not liking what their plans are - not one bit.

I don't want to live in Venezuela or Zimbabwe thanks very much

they are two vey different countries

Woodville56

To listen to TD's of the Socialist Party on radio over the past few weeks espousing a democracy where the Government was afraid of the people, an end to austerity, cronyism and corruption etc etc , one only has to look at socialist regimes elsewhere in Europe - take the mighty France of President Hollande and his Socialist government - industry closing down, unemployment at 11% ( about same as us ?) similar allegations of corruption in local government/the provinces (mostly socialist controlled), threats of civil unrest etc .....and in Portugal "former Socialist premier Socrates facing corruption charges". Seems like the old adage "Power corrupts " etc isn't just the preserve of right/centrist governments !

laoch na mona

Woodville56 wrote: »

To listen to TD's of the Socialist Party on radio over the past few weeks espousing a democracy where the Government was afraid of the people, an end to austerity, cronyism and corruption etc etc , one only has to look at socialist regimes elsewhere in Europe - take the mighty France of President Hollande and his Socialist government - industry closing down, unemployment at 11% ( about same as us ?) similar allegations of corruption in local government/the provinces (mostly socialist controlled), threats of civil unrest etc .....and in Portugal "former Socialist premier Socrates facing corruption charges". Seems like the old adage "Power corrupts " etc isn't just the preserve of right/centrist governments !

the French socialist party is a modern neoliberal party equivalent to the Labour party, it had it's historic origins in the labour/socialist movement but does not advocate socialist policies.

a comparison to the socialist party here would be the left front in France.

raymon

laoch na mona wrote: »

they are two vey different countries

Of course they are

I was referring to the forcible redistribution / nationalization of wealth , property and industry associated with both countries.

FreudianSlippers

Spaniel heaven wrote: »

I stayed when I could have emigrated, I got a crap job when I could have lived on the dole, I started a small company when I couldn't get a better job and I assure you that if any of these parties come into government im outa here along with a lot of people like me who stayed during the worst of the times.

I can also take a guess that most people abroad at the moment earning large money with a decent lifestyle will never come home and work if these loony policies are implemented.

Yet to add one small observation, the vast majority of extreme left wingers (and right) are as attracted to power as every one else - one look at the real balance books and they will miraculously shift closer to center because IT DOES NOT WORK in the real world and they will not jeopardize newly held power for a silly little thing like political beliefs.

Strong political beliefs belong in opposition not government....

I toughed it out on a salary 50% less than I would have gotten in the UK or US or Oz, because I wanted to stay. For the last 4 years I've been financially very well so it was worth touching it out. But like you, if my taxes continue to increase and more socialist policy comes in, I could have the same job in England next week and make, proportionately to cost of living, the same if not more. Most people I know are very mobile in their career in that they can move easily - most share my opinion and would leave. If people are crying about emigration of the working class, imagine how bad it'll be if a big chunk of the young financially contributing class leaves

DarkyHughes

RobertKK wrote: »

http://www.thejournal.ie/socialist-party-nationalise-dell-1796089-Nov2014/



Did you ever see such bad policy from any party?

The Socialist party would take a foreign private company into public ownership is what she is saying. The Dell jobs went to Poland, a people who only know too well what these stupid policies lead to.

What next, the farm land belongs to all the people and not just the people who own the land and we have collectivisation?

Yeah because capitalism has worked so brilliantly for this country.

It lead to Polish labor becoming the best & most in demand in Europe.

For Forks Sake

http://www.newstalk.com/player/listen_back/8/14013/04th_November_2014_-_Moncrieff_Part_1

Start at 5:30. Ruth Coppinger on the Moncrieff show a few weeks back.

20 minutes of absolute blithering nonsense. Apparently Russia in 1917 is a beacon to workers everywhere

Quite frankly, the more interviews the likes of her and her comrades do, the better, as people will see them for the fools they are.

On an unrelated note, Moncrieff has a great knack for giving his interviewees enough rope to hang themselves with .

Jolly Red Giant

I really do end up ROTFLMFAO every time I read the nonsense spouted by the right-wing hacks like the stuff on this thread.

If there was actually a coherent argument put forward about the merits or otherwise of taking a company that was shutting down into public ownership to protect the jobs then I would actually respond - there isn't so there is little point in commenting further.

As for the comment above about the Russian Revolution - maybe FFS could take on board the fact that on Mayday 1918 hundreds of thousands of workers took to the streets of this country in a celebration in support of the Russian Revolution - clearly they thought it was a beacon in a world of abject poverty and deprivation.

Benny_Cake

I'd be very much in favour of worker-owned cooperatives, but I can't see how it would work in the case of Dell in Limerick - the factory there was presumably part of a long supply chain and completely integrated into Dell's global operations. Completely impractical, and likely to achieve little except put yet more jobs at risk. And I say that very much as a lefty.

My main issue with the Socialist party / Socialist Workers Party, etc is their tendency to hijack other campaigns and their Leninist heritage, with the distrust of open debate and democracy that follows from that. I'd love to vote for a principled and democratic left-wing party that supported a mixed-economy, well-paid jobs and good public services, but the Socialist Party aren't that party. Not even close.

Jolly Red Giant

Benny_Cake wrote: »

I'd be very much in favour of worker-owned cooperatives, but I can't see how it would work in the case of Dell in Limerick - the factory there was presumably part of a long supply chain and completely integrated into Dell's global operations. Completely impractical, and likely to achieve little except put yet more jobs at risk. And I say that very much as a lefty.

The Dell plant in Limerick was primarily a manufacturing plant for PCs and servers and was highly profitable - Dell moved to Poland to boost profit margins by 2% and dumped thousands of people on the dole. Furthermore Dell moved out large amounts of machinery that was paid for by grants from the IDA. The practicality of taking Dell into public ownership is that it would have protected thousands of jobs, saved the state a fortune in dole payments, recuperated the money handed over to Dell, facilitated the provision of computer supplies for the Irish economy and opened up export markets (with the computers being a lot cheaper than Dell could produce them because it wouldn't have had to operate on the basis of a profit imperative)

Benny_Cake wrote: »

My main issue with the Socialist party / Socialist Workers Party, etc is their tendency to hijack other campaigns and their Leninist heritage, with the distrust of open debate and democracy that follows from that.

The Socialist Party has never hijacked any campaign - it operates on the basis of facilitating and working with working class people to build opposition to austerity.

Benny_Cake wrote: »

I'd love to vote for a principled and democratic left-wing party that supported a mixed-economy, well-paid jobs and good public services, but the Socialist Party aren't that party. Not even close.

The days of the existence of the soft-left 'mixed economy' welfare state social democracies are over. Globalised capitalism has driven society back to the naked capitalism and greed of the 1920s and 1930s. Capitalism can no longer sustain the so-called mixed economy (in reality capitalist with a small c) welfare state - its day has passed and the social democracies (like the LP) have gone over to the camp of neo-liberal capitalism.

BoJack Horseman

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

I really do end up ROTFLMFAO every time I read the nonsense spouted by the right-wing hacks like the stuff on this thread.

Being anti-communist makes you a right wing hack?

That's desperate.

Let's do a pro-con game for communism....

You be "pro"....

.. aaaaannd. Go.....

Lemming

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

The Dell plant in Limerick was primarily a manufacturing plant for PCs and servers and was highly profitable - Dell moved to Poland to boost profit margins by 2% and dumped thousands of people on the dole. Furthermore Dell moved out large amounts of machinery that was paid for by grants from the IDA. The practicality of taking Dell into public ownership is that it would have protected thousands of jobs, saved the state a fortune in dole payments, recuperated the money handed over to Dell, facilitated the provision of computer supplies for the Irish economy and opened up export markets (with the computers being a lot cheaper than Dell could produce them because it wouldn't have had to operate on the basis of a profit imperative)

LOL oh such a naieve and appallingly ignorant statement. You do know that the likes of Dell operate on a 'Just in Time' model to minimise the amount of stock required stored at any one location and general reduction in operating costs right? So the state grabs the factory from Dell, what then? What happens when the rest of the supply chain in front simply stops. And the chain behind looks elsewhere? All those thousands of workers are still going to end up costing the state a fortune and will be very shortly on the dole anyway. Meanwhile, every single MNC is lifting their operations out of Ireland like it's going out of fashion. Bravo. Kudos. Well thought out.

The Socialist Party has never hijacked any campaign - it operates on the basis of facilitating and working with working class people to build opposition to austerity.

Every campaign, protest, or debate about some other issue that is not a SP cause that they turn up to and the SP start handing out their own leaflets, or carrying banners/placards that have no relevance to said issue, they are hijacking another issue. What the SP are saying in such behaviour is that "our cause is greater than yours, so excuse us whilst we muscle in". And they do it an awful lot ...

Benny_Cake

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

The Dell plant in Limerick was primarily a manufacturing plant for PCs and servers and was highly profitable - Dell moved to Poland to boost profit margins by 2% and dumped thousands of people on the dole. Furthermore Dell moved out large amounts of machinery that was paid for by grants from the IDA. The practicality of taking Dell into public ownership is that it would have protected thousands of jobs, saved the state a fortune in dole payments, recuperated the money handed over to Dell, facilitated the provision of computer supplies for the Irish economy and opened up export markets (with the computers being a lot cheaper than Dell could produce them because it wouldn't have had to operate on the basis of a profit imperative)

It's a stretch to describe Dell as a manufacturer, they assemble machines with components supplied by other companies. Little is manufactured by Dell (unless that has changed recently) - they build their machines with whatever components happen to be cheapest at the time (probably why they have so many problems). A nationalised Dell would have to source components from the same (capitalist) suppliers without the same purchasing power that Dell has. That's if the likes of Intel/Seagate etc even agreed to do so, particularly if the plant was expropriated without compensation.

The Socialist Party has never hijacked any campaign - it operates on the basis of facilitating and working with working class people to build opposition to austerity.

Actually, I've got some time for Joe Higgins, particularly after what he did for the Gama workers.

Question - why do the Socialist Party now largely operate under the banner of the Anti-Austerity Alliance? My understanding was that the main difference between the SP and SWP (both Marxist-Leninist parties in the Trotskyite tradition) was that the SP usually campaigned under their own name whereas the SWP campaigned using a range of front organisations (People Before Profit being the latest).

BoJack Horseman

- Coppinger, as per her newstalk interview wants the forced nationalisation of all businesses, to be ran by workers councils..... or 'soviets' as they used to be known as.

- You can't just force the seizure of a plant, its equipment & staff..... well you can, through emergency laws or the barrel of a gun.

..... and then what?

You are no longer making "dell" computers anymore, as they don't exist in the country anymore, you lose their vast sales channel, their vast supply chain & logistical support, their brand... everything.

Where will you get the processors? Intel & AMD have been scared away by your communist seizure of property.

I could go on..... Its too stupid an idea to really get into though.

Godge

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

The Dell plant in Limerick was primarily a manufacturing plant for PCs and servers and was highly profitable - Dell moved to Poland to boost profit margins by 2% and dumped thousands of people on the dole. Furthermore Dell moved out large amounts of machinery that was paid for by grants from the IDA. The practicality of taking Dell into public ownership is that it would have protected thousands of jobs, saved the state a fortune in dole payments, recuperated the money handed over to Dell, facilitated the provision of computer supplies for the Irish economy and opened up export markets (with the computers being a lot cheaper than Dell could produce them because it wouldn't have had to operate on the basis of a profit imperative)

.

This is funny. The day after you announce this, Google, Facebook, eBay and every pharmaceutical company will pull out of Ireland in fear of the same happening to them.

They won't pay any redundancy and you will have a large social welfare bill. At the same time, your computer factory in Limerick will only be able to source parts from North Korea and Cuba. Do you understand how the modern financial system and capitalist system works? It is impossible for a country like us to shout stop and get off and survive with any decent standard of living.

Lemming

Never mind the fact that instead of just one plant going, Dell pull the other plant out too. In for a penny and all that.

Rightwing

Had a good laugh reading this thread, would consider voting for 1 of these. At least we'd get comical value, and let's not fool ourselves, they are not going to be getting into Govt. any time soon.

jank

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

The Dell plant in Limerick was primarily a manufacturing plant for PCs and servers and was highly profitable - Dell moved to Poland to boost profit margins by 2% and dumped thousands of people on the dole. Furthermore Dell moved out large amounts of machinery that was paid for by grants from the IDA. The practicality of taking Dell into public ownership is that it would have protected thousands of jobs, saved the state a fortune in dole payments, recuperated the money handed over to Dell, facilitated the provision of computer supplies for the Irish economy and opened up export markets (with the computers being a lot cheaper than Dell could produce them because it wouldn't have had to operate on the basis of a profit imperative)

There is so much wrong with that but lets start with the first point, taking Dell into public ownership.
Tell me, where would Ireland have gotten the $20 Billion to buy Dell (unless you planned to steal it)? Remember this was in 2009 so the markets were not keen to lend to Ireland at this time.

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

The days of the existence of the soft-left 'mixed economy' welfare state social democracies are over. Globalised capitalism has driven society back to the naked capitalism and greed of the 1920s and 1930s. Capitalism can no longer sustain the so-called mixed economy (in reality capitalist with a small c) welfare state - its day has passed and the social democracies (like the LP) have gone over to the camp of neo-liberal capitalism.

Oh, you used to word neo-liberal. It must be bad,whatever it means..... :rolleyes:

BoJack Horseman

jank wrote: »

Oh, you used to word neo-liberal. It must be bad,whatever it means..... :rolleyes:

As a centrist guy I haven't a clue what "neo-liberal" is supposed to mean?

I know its a term of abuse thrown by lefty-fantasists, I'm unsure if they know what it means either?

Taking Ireland as an example, 4/10 of entire the economy is government spending.... 1/8 of the entire economy is social welfare..

Oh what a nightmarish capitalist hellscape we live in!

hmmm

What's stopping them setting up these worker owned co-operatives today? Show us how it's done.

BlutendeRabe

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

As a centrist guy I haven't a clue what "neo-liberal" is supposed to mean?

I know its a term of abuse thrown by lefty-fantasists, I'm unsure if they know what it means either?

Taking Ireland as an example, 4/10 of entire the economy is government spending.... 1/8 of the entire economy is social welfare..

Oh what a nightmarish capitalist hellscape we live in!

I've always taken it to mean the current economic set-up since the 1980's, i.e. light touch regulation, little state involvement with the economy,the sort of things Thatcher and Regan pushed through, and how these ideas are implemented and pushed through by national and global bodies such as the EU, WHO, IMF.

But yeah its been used so many times, especially as an insult by the extreme-left that its lost meaning.

Rightwing

BlutendeRabe wrote: »

I've always taken it to mean the current economic set-up since the 1980's, i.e. light touch regulation, little state involvement with the economy,the sort of things Thatcher and Regan pushed through, and how these ideas are implemented and pushed through by national and global bodies such as the EU, WHO, IMF.

But yeah its been used so many times, especially as an insult by the extreme-left that its lost meaning.

Indeed. they favoured a deregulatory environment, and regulation suffered as a result, which wasn't a necessarily bad thing, apart from maybe the
repeal of Glass-Steagall.
.

RobertKK

Paul Murphy said “Over time, yes, a vision of a socialist society involves key sectors being nationalised"

So key sectors of the economy nationalised, ok foreign direct investment would be zero and we would have a biblical exodus of companies both foreign and Irish to base themselves elsewhere.
Unemployment soars.

Agriculture is a key sector so would we have farms taken into state control and property rights torn up?

All semi state companies would be fully state owned,

Banks taken into state control, lets ignore AIB here, but we saw how devastating that policy was when we bailed out the banks and took them over. We needed capitalism but we got socialism when it came to to fix the banks.

We would need to live in a state where fear rules, with a heavy handed police force who would not be afraid to shoot to kill protesters. Maybe our socialist produced PCs, laptops and tablets will be given free but full of spyware...

But this will never happen.
Firstly Irish people are too clever overall to allow such people the power to rule the country. We can all imagine what type of person would vote for a party that is against freedom by wanting to suck far too much into their control.
I also think the US and the UK would act and react on the possibility if Irish people became brain dead and decided to vote them into power.

OK rural Ireland would never vote them in, most urban people wouldn't vote them in either so we are safe, just the small minority in poverty ridden areas that vote for them.

This is a serious question, do you think the people who vote for the Socialist party are themselves in poverty due to their lack of economic knowledge, poor education and maybe a poor work ethic or very low pay?

Jolly Red Giant

I had typed up a reply to this nonsense and somehow b.ie managed to lose it when posting it. I don't have time to re-type it now but might later.

Lockstep

Godge wrote: »

This is funny. The day after you announce this, Google, Facebook, eBay and every pharmaceutical company will pull out of Ireland in fear of the same happening to them.

They won't pay any redundancy and you will have a large social welfare bill. At the same time, your computer factory in Limerick will only be able to source parts from North Korea and Cuba. Do you understand how the modern financial system and capitalist system works? It is impossible for a country like us to shout stop and get off and survive with any decent standard of living.

Pretty much. It's one thing to expect employers to pay their taxes and abide by environmental and labour laws. It's a whole other thing for them to be liable for nationalisation at any point. Why would any employer choose to set up a large enterprise here?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Dyr

RobertKK wrote: »

Banks taken into state control, lets ignore AIB here, but we saw how devastating that policy was when we bailed out the banks and took them over. We needed capitalism but we got socialism when it came to to fix the banks.

How in the name of jaysus do you arrive at that conclusion? The banks were'nt state owned when they spunked all their money on property.

phantom_lord

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

(with the computers being a lot cheaper than Dell could produce them because it wouldn't have had to operate on the basis of a profit imperative)

It's funny but when organisations try to do things without a profit imperative they actually usually end up costing more. It's why any country that espouses any of the ideals that the SP want end up failing. She mentioned Venezuela in the interview, an oil rich country that's collapsing like every other country that's gone down the socialist route. It doesn't work.

phantom_lord

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

The days of the existence of the soft-left 'mixed economy' welfare state social democracies are over. Globalised capitalism has driven society back to the naked capitalism and greed of the 1920s and 1930s. Capitalism can no longer sustain the so-called mixed economy (in reality capitalist with a small c) welfare state - its day has passed and the social democracies (like the LP) have gone over to the camp of neo-liberal capitalism.

lol wut, the social protection budget is 20bn this year. That and health make up most of the budget, workers on 33k pay over 50% tax. How is this not a soft-left mixed economy. Jesus.

Rightwing

phantom_lord wrote: »

lol wut, the social protection budget is 20bn this year. That and health make up most of the budget, workers on 33k pay over 50% tax. How is this not a soft-left mixed economy. Jesus.

Childrens allowance & OAP do come from that, so it is a little misleading.

But your point is valid, just look at the social housing anouncement yesterday. SF/FF/AAA would have even been proud of that.

FreudianSlippers

Bambi wrote: »

How in the name of jaysus do you arrive at that conclusion? The banks were'nt state owned when they spunked all their money on property.

BoI actually ended up being a fairly decent investment. AIB was screwed bigtime because of the increased reckless trading of Anglo following the guarantee. Had we guaranteed BoI and AIB and let the rest meet whatever natural conclusion would have occurred, I think we wouldn't have had to have bailed out anyone.

Jolly Red Giant

I love to see the neo-liberal hacks getting their knickers in a twist over any suggestion of public ownership

Briefly
1. Dell were leaving the bloody country – packing their bags and p*ssing off to try and boost their already substantial profit margins by a tiny amount. Taking the Dell plant into public ownership would have saved jobs, kept production going, prevented Dell shipping machinery (purchased with tax payers money) being shipped to Poland etc. It is nonsense to suggest that other MNCs would have packed up and left. They are here because they are making (a lot) of money and will stay as long as they are making money. There is absolutely diddly-squat the government could do if Google etc packed their bags in the morning (just like they could do nothing to stop Dell).

2. It is also a nonsense to suggest that private sector companies would not supply a nationalised Dell. Private sector companies supply the public sector all the time. If there is profit for them in it they will continue to do it.

3. The rich elites are not afraid to use public ownership when it suits them – they nationalised the €60billion of banking debt and foisted the cost of paying it back onto the backs of working class people. The government regularly establishes public sector infrastructure companies when the private sector refuses to do so because they can’t make enough profit. And once millions are invested the private sector comes in and buys them at a knock-down price.

4. Over the past six years of economic depression the richest 10% of the population have seen their wealth INCREASE year on year. The remaining 90% have seen a drop in living standards. Todays CSO figures show that average incomes continue to fall in what has become a race to the bottom. The rich elites are using the crisis to drive jobs, wages, working conditions and services back to the conditions of the 1930s and all to boost their already inflated profits.

5. The current crisis is the norm for Ireland. The Celtic Tiger was an aberration brought on not by any private sector investment but by – 1 devaluation in the 1980s – 2 massive structural grants from the EU – 3 deregulation and massive speculation by the financial markets. Ireland’s economy has traditionally been an economy of crisis and has now returned to form. For the first 40 years of the state the only successful companies established in the state were public sector companies like ESB, Irish Sugar, Aer Lingus, Board na Mona, Irish Shipping etc. and co-operatives like the agricultural co-operatives. The ongoing economic recession was partly mitigated in the 1960s by opening up the economy to MNCs until recession hit again in the 1970s. And the MNCs are already here so that option is no longer useful.

6. The Socialist Party argues for a democratically planned socialised economy that operates on the basis of need for the 99% not the profit of the 1%. In order to plan the economy it would be necessary to bring into public ownership key sectors of the economy – energy, transportation, communications, natural resources etc. This would comprise of between 10%-15% of the economy now held in private hands and owned by a tiny fraction of the population. You cannot control what you do not own and to plan the economy you need to be able to control the key sectors of it. As an aside – the banks were not nationalised – the debts of the spivs and speculators were nationalised.

7. The MNC sector actually contributes about 10% of economic activity (indeed given all the tax fiddles it is probably a lot less) – a democratically planned socialised economy would more than generate enough economic growth to replace this (and would do so quite rapidly) and any that tried to leave as a result of a planned economy would also be placed in public ownership.

8. Capitalism is in a cycle of crisis – the current crisis is based on under-consumption – but the underlying reason is the inherent contradictions of the capitalist system. In order to survive it has to reverse all the advances made by working class people over the past 100 years. Ireland is at the apex of this development (with Greece, Spain and Portugal) and is undergoing a political earthquake. Not alone have working class people thrown off the label of the pin-ups for austerity, they have got off their knees and not alone are they engaged in protest, there is an ongoing debate underway about the nature of politics and how to change it. For the first time every the establishment parties have between them less than 50% of the vote. In DSW by-election they took 25% of the vote. That is unprecedented and will continue to develop. As it does so too will the debate and discussion about what type of economy we should have and what steps are necessary to reverse the slash and burn policies of austerity.

phantom_lord

For the first 40 years of the state the only successful companies established in the state were public sector companies like ESB, Irish Sugar, Aer Lingus, Board na Mona, Irish Shipping etc. and co-operatives like the agricultural co-operatives.

Is surviving only with state intervention your definition of being successful? We'd still be paying €500 to fly London if we had to rely on a public owned Aer Lingus. The only profitable and efficient transport companies in the state are run by profit companies. Why would you waste taxpayers money by moving more of the economy into public hands?

This would comprise of between 10%-15% of the economy now held in private hands and owned by a tiny fraction of the population.

Most of the sectors are already in public hands. In general most public listed companies these days are largely owned by workers via pensions funds.

BoJack Horseman

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

I love to see the neo-liberal hacks

Bad start komrade.

Taking the Dell plant into public ownership would have saved jobs,

Give an example of a communist seizure of a company that subsequently prospered?

It is also a nonsense to suggest that private sector companies would not supply a nationalised Dell.

Not sure how keen Intel will be to play ball knowing they are next in line for forced expropriation.....

The Socialist Party argues for a democratically (* read "centrally") planned socialised economy that operates on the basis of need for the 99% not the profit of the 1%. In order to plan the economy it would be necessary to bring into public ownership key sectors of the economy – energy, transportation, communications, natural resources etc.

..
And the examples of "democratic" prosperity from communist collectivism & seizure of private property is where exactly?
.

a centrally planned socialised economy would more than generate enough economic growth to replace this (and would do so quite rapidly) and any that tried to leave as a result of a planned economy would also be placed in public ownership.

Getting pretty ominous here....
Arrests at ports & airports no doubt.
Again, examples of success please? (Democratic examples are preferable)


I guess the news of communism's catastrophic economy & social failure hasn't reached everyone yet!

Thank the lord the reds poll collectively at 3%!

Chips Lovell

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

1. Dell were leaving the bloody country – packing their bags and p*ssing off to try and boost their already substantial profit margins by a tiny amount. Taking the Dell plant into public ownership would have saved jobs, kept production going, prevented Dell shipping machinery (purchased with tax payers money) being shipped to Poland etc. It is nonsense to suggest that other MNCs would have packed up and left. They are here because they are making (a lot) of money and will stay as long as they are making money. There is absolutely diddly-squat the government could do if Google etc packed their bags in the morning (just like they could do nothing to stop Dell).

Dell weren't leaving the country. They're still here and employ around 2,000 people. Expropriating their plant and setting up our own nationalised factory in Limerick would have put those jobs in jeopardy in addition to being a fools errand, since it wouldn't have had a hope of being competitive.