Socialist Party's policies

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

mikep

You could be right Permabear but I think his ego is such that he will give it a try...

Although if he does he will find out fairly fast that a lot of people aren't too fond of him since his Irish Rail days.

Would make for entertaining times though!

gene_slackman

mikep wrote: »

I caught a bit of the VB show this morning and Ogle was aked by VB if he was going to stand for election to the Dail, he didn't answer the main question but waffled on about joining all the socialist groups together as one force.
Is he lining himself up to be the shining light of socialism leading them to electoral gains as a united group??

If this happens I can see a deal between his group and Sinn Feinn being a serious (and in my opinion,dangerous) threat to the established parties.

Slighlty off topic,I know. Apologies..

ogle is great gas , self proclaimed socilist who while head of the ESB union , insisted on an average wage of 75 k per anum for ESB staff

the man knows about solidarity with his fellow workers alright

VinLieger

Any union between SF and an "organised" group of socialists would fall apart at the first whisper of a disagreement. If anything it would be good to try to show how badly it would fail but then again is such an example worth the damage it would do to the country in the short time it manges to exist?

Jolly Red Giant

VinLieger wrote: »

Any union between SF and an "organised" group of socialists would fall apart at the first whisper of a disagreement. If anything it would be good to try to show how badly it would fail but then again is such an example worth the damage it would do to the country in the short time it manges to exist?

Who ever said there would be a 'union, between SF and socialists.

VinLieger

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

Who ever said there would be a 'union, between SF and socialists.

Seriously? Its just 3 posts up.....

mikep wrote: »

I caught a bit of the VB show this morning and Ogle was aked by VB if he was going to stand for election to the Dail, he didn't answer the main question but waffled on about joining all the socialist groups together as one force.
Is he lining himself up to be the shining light of socialism leading them to electoral gains as a united group??

If this happens I can see a deal between his group and Sinn Feinn being a serious (and in my opinion,dangerous) threat to the established parties.

Slighlty off topic,I know. Apologies..

Jolly Red Giant

VinLieger wrote: »

Seriously? Its just 3 posts up.....

SF aren't socialist - they are a populist nationalist party that uses left rhetoric.

Furthermore the post says a 'deal' not a 'union'

RobertKK

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

SF aren't socialist - they are a populist nationalist party that uses left rhetoric.

Furthermore the post says a 'deal' not a 'union'

The socialist party only uses populism as in; we don't believe people should pay for this or that and if there is a protest going, you can be sure the socialist party is there.

Again the socialist party has no workable policies that belong to a free society.

VinLieger

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

SF aren't socialist - they are a populist nationalist party that uses left rhetoric.

Furthermore the post says a 'deal' not a 'union'

Good god could you be more pedantic?

Did I say SF were socialist? No I didn't I was responding to a post regarding a deal/union between SF and socialist group/s with my opinion on it, do you have a contribution to make to that discussion at all or are you just happy popping out from under your bridge every so often??

jank

When pushed on what is a socialist party or a socialist government Paul Murphy and Co. cannot even name one government in Europe that was governed by a Socialist Party. The French socialist party are not socialist, the Swedish Socialist party are not socialist, Sinn Fein are not Socialist. The closest he could come was the Albania.... says it all to be honest.

Jolly Red Giant

jank wrote: »

The closest he could come was the Albania.... says it all to be honest.

There are a handful of hardline Stalinists in the country who might agree with you - the Socialist Party wouldn't - so - try harder.

Jolly Red Giant

RobertKK wrote: »

The socialist party only uses populism as in; we don't believe people should pay for this or that and if there is a protest going, you can be sure the socialist party is there.

Again the socialist party has no workable policies that belong to a free society.

The Socialist Party argues that people (everybody) should pay tax according to their ability.

You are partially correct in one aspect - the Socialist Party would argue that it is not possible to have 'workable' policies in a capitalist society (what you erroneously claim is a 'free society') because no matter what policies you implement the contradictions of capitalism will ultimately render such policies unworkable. It is precisely for this reason that the Socialist Party campaigns for the overthrow of capitalism and the establishment of a democratically planned socialised economy.

Jolly Red Giant

VinLieger wrote: »

do you have a contribution to make to that discussion at all or are you just happy popping out from under your bridge every so often??

If this thread was functioning in a concrete fashion discussing the policies of the Socialist Party I would actively participate - but this thread is nothing more than an opportunity for a rant against the Socialist Party. On the odd occasion when someone has made anything approaching a coherent argument I have responded in kind.

garhjw

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

The Socialist Party argues that people (everybody) should pay tax according to their ability.

You are partially correct in one aspect - the Socialist Party would argue that it is not possible to have 'workable' policies in a capitalist society (what you erroneously claim is a 'free society') because no matter what policies you implement the contradictions of capitalism will ultimately render such policies unworkable. It is precisely for this reason that the Socialist Party campaigns for the overthrow of capitalism and the establishment of a democratically planned socialised economy.

A "socialist economy" will never work. It is stupid to think it will. And even more stupid to want to try because of the damage it would cause

Jolly Red Giant

garhjw wrote: »

A "socialist economy" will never work. It is stupid to think it will. And even more stupid to want to try because of the damage it would cause

You are entitled to your opinion - however - consider this - the beloved free market capitalist economy is the one that isn't woprking - it is the beloved system of free market capitalism has caused massive damage to the lives of 90% of the people in this country and it is the beloved system of free market capitalism that is driving living standards, living conditions and working conditions back to the 1930s.

garhjw

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

You are entitled to your opinion - however - consider this - the beloved free market capitalist economy is the one that isn't woprking - it is the beloved system of free market capitalism has caused massive damage to the lives of 90% of the people in this country and it is the beloved system of free market capitalism that is driving living standards, living conditions and working conditions back to the 1930s.

Like I said STUPID to think it could be workable. Your argument above is nonsensical

Jolly Red Giant

garhjw wrote: »

Like I said STUPID to think it could be workable. Your argument above is nonsensical

It is amazing how the right wing hacks on here think that the truth is nonsensical :rolleyes:

garhjw

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

It is amazing how the right wing hacks on here think that the truth is nonsensical :rolleyes:

Yes I'm a right wing hack commie.

So where does your utopian socialist economy currently work?

Jolly Red Giant

garhjw wrote: »

Yes I'm a right wing hack commie.

Yep - and you actually think that calling me a 'commie' is some sort of insult

So where does your utopian socialist economy currently work?

who said anything about a 'utopian' economy - and maybe you could point to someplace where your utopian capitalism currently works.

garhjw

Answer the question

hatrickpatrick

jank wrote: »

When pushed on what is a socialist party or a socialist government Paul Murphy and Co. cannot even name one government in Europe that was governed by a Socialist Party. The French socialist party are not socialist, the Swedish Socialist party are not socialist, Sinn Fein are not Socialist. The closest he could come was the Albania.... says it all to be honest.

Or it could be that those who presume "socialism" automatically means full communism being implemented are and always have been wrong? :rolleyes:

Soldie

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

The Socialist Party argues that people (everybody) should pay tax according to their ability.

You are partially correct in one aspect - the Socialist Party would argue that it is not possible to have 'workable' policies in a capitalist society (what you erroneously claim is a 'free society') because no matter what policies you implement the contradictions of capitalism will ultimately render such policies unworkable. It is precisely for this reason that the Socialist Party campaigns for the overthrow of capitalism and the establishment of a democratically planned socialised economy.

I don't know whether to laugh or cry when I read this. I mean, I laugh at how ridiculous it is, but I stop short of a full-blown guffaw when I realise that there are people out there who seriously believe this. The fact that people want to repeat the devastating mistakes of the 20th century expecting different results is a genuinely scary thought.

No doubt I'll get some spiel about how capitalism causes war, famine etc. but the fact is that each country that set about creating an egalitarian paradise ended up killing a staggering number of its own people. The figures speak for themselves:

65 million in the People's Republic of China
20 million in the Soviet Union
2 million in Cambodia
2 million in North Korea
1.7 million in Ethiopia
1.5 million in Afghanistan
1 million in the Communist states of Eastern Europe
1 million in Vietnam
150,000 in Latin America mainly Cuba
10,000 deaths "resulting from actions of the international Communist movement and Communist parties not in power."

Of course this was communism, not real socialism, and this time it's gonna be different because, well, I can't say why but you'll just have to take my word for it. It's not going to spiral into a system of grinding poverty and brutal oppression, okay?

Jolly Red Giant

Soldie wrote: »

I don't know whether to laugh or cry when I read this. I mean, I laugh at how ridiculous it is, but I stop short of a full-blown guffaw when I realise that there are people out there who seriously believe this. The fact that people want to repeat the devastating mistakes of the 20th century expecting different results is a genuinely scary thought.

No doubt I'll get some spiel about how capitalism causes war, famine etc. but the fact is that each country that set about creating an egalitarian paradise ended up killing a staggering number of its own people. The figures speak for themselves:

65 million in the People's Republic of China
20 million in the Soviet Union
2 million in Cambodia
2 million in North Korea
1.7 million in Ethiopia
1.5 million in Afghanistan
1 million in the Communist states of Eastern Europe
1 million in Vietnam
150,000 in Latin America mainly Cuba
10,000 deaths "resulting from actions of the international Communist movement and Communist parties not in power."

Of course this was communism, not real socialism, and this time it's gonna be different because, well, I can't say why but you'll just have to take my word for it. It's not going to spiral into a system of grinding poverty and brutal oppression, okay?

And I could list numbers for all the people who died under capitalism and are still dying today - and I am sure you would claim that it is not 'real' capitalism.

Everything you write about Stalinism could be equally (if not more) applied to capitalism.

Socialism at its heart is about democracy - without democracy you cannot have socialism. But there is one other key component - a majority of the population must be working class, Russia post-1917 degenerated because Russia was 90% feudal and the remaining 10% working class were pretty much atomised by the White (and western) provoked civil war. Without a workers revolution in an advanced capitalist country it was inevitable that the Russian revolution would degenerate - and Lenin outlined why this would happen. Indeed Lenin demanded the sacking of Stalin and the removal of the bureaucracy that developed around him because of the threat they posed to the revolutionary process in Russia.

In the modern world the aspect of society that led to the degeneration of the Russian revolution are no longer a factor. There is a clear class division within society between the 1% and the 99% with 90% of the population encompassing the working class.

Soldie

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

You are entitled to your opinion - however - consider this - the beloved free market capitalist economy is the one that isn't woprking - it is the beloved system of free market capitalism has caused massive damage to the lives of 90% of the people in this country and it is the beloved system of free market capitalism that is driving living standards, living conditions and working conditions back to the 1930s.

How do you expect people to back your socialist revolution when you can't even explain how your proposed system would work? When anyone asks, they're met with the usual rhetoric railing against the evils of the current system. Save the copy and paste job. Answer the question if you want to be taken seriously.

I know the score. You turn a blind eye to historical precedent and think we could have a proper socialist system without the dictators and the killing. You call it a "democratically planned socialised economy". Hate to break it to you, but the dictators and the killing is part and parcel of the system you're proposing. It needs it in order to hobble along before imploding. The thing is, even the theory behind your dream world was debunked almost a hundred years ago! It's completely unworkable on a macro level.

For what it's worth, it's amusing to hear Socialist Party supporters calling other political parties populist. The Socialist Party is about as populist as it gets for me. About as substantial as a prawn cracker.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

MightyMandarin

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

There is a clear class division within society between the 1% and the 99% with 90% of the population encompassing the working class.

I assume you don't have any stats to back this up because, like most arguments for socialism, rhetoric is valued higher than facts. Another thing that really bugs me about the Socialist Party's reps and their supporters is their constant referrals to the 1917 Revolution in Russia. It's a nice story and all, but there are literally zero comparisons to be drawn from Ireland in 2014 and Russia in 1917. The people aren't starving on the streets, the country isn't in a World War, and we aren't ruled by a dictatorial Tsar.

Bob24

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

Socialism at its heart is about democracy - without democracy you cannot have socialism.

http://democracyranking.org/?page_id=738

I let sort countries by democracy index and see how many are communist ones and how many are capitalist ones at the top of the list.

jank

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

The Socialist Party argues that people (everybody) should pay tax according to their ability.

You are partially correct in one aspect - the Socialist Party would argue that it is not possible to have 'workable' policies in a capitalist society (what you erroneously claim is a 'free society') because no matter what policies you implement the contradictions of capitalism will ultimately render such policies unworkable. It is precisely for this reason that the Socialist Party campaigns for the overthrow of capitalism and the establishment of a democratically planned socialised economy.

Tell me one instance where this has worked? The only way to centrally 'plan' the economy is by forcing every Irish citizen into this model, thereby one has to implement an authoritarian regime. You do know that the Irish Constitution protects private property, do you propose to do away with this, I presume via a referendum or do you plan to implement a coup?

jank

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

There are a handful of hardline Stalinists in the country who might agree with you - the Socialist Party wouldn't - so - try harder.

Hey, this is what Paul Murphy stated on the Pat Kenny show, maybe you should have words with your comrade in arms, if you are unhappy about this.

Jolly Red Giant

Bob24 wrote: »

http://democracyranking.org/?page_id=738

I let sort countries by democracy index and see how many are communist ones and how many are capitalist ones at the top of the list.

Capitalist 'democracy' - sure go ahead.

jank

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Or it could be that those who presume "socialism" automatically means full communism being implemented are and always have been wrong? :rolleyes:

This is from the horses Mouth. Paul Murphy and co himself is on record that no party in Europe are actually Socialist, unlike them. He said this on the Pat Kenny show last week. So it is actually Paul Murphy, Ruth Coppinger and their like that are affiliating themselves with Communism more so than anyone else...

Jolly Red Giant

jank wrote: »

Hey, this is what Paul Murphy stated on the Pat Kenny show, maybe you should have words with your comrade in arms, if you are unhappy about this.

What are you on - are you claiming that Paul Murphy said that Albania inder Hoxha was a socialist country?

Jolly Red Giant

jank wrote: »

Tell me one instance where this has worked?

It hasn't because there has never been the basis to implement it.

The only way to centrally 'plan' the economy is by forcing every Irish citizen into this model, thereby one has to implement an authoritarian regime.

Who said anything about 'centrally' planning the economy under socialism? Its not my fault that you are taking your cues about socialism from the Stalinist regimes of the past.

You do know that the Irish Constitution protects private property, do you propose to do away with this, I presume via a referendum or do you plan to implement a coup?

yes I do - not a coup - not a refendum but a revolution that changes the economic basis of society and leads to implementing active democratic participation of the population rather than the sham of democracy that is representaitve parliamentarianism.

Jolly Red Giant

jank wrote: »

This is from the horses Mouth. Paul Murphy and co himself is on record that no party in Europe are actually Socialist, unlike them. He said this on the Pat Kenny show last week. So it is actually Paul Murphy, Ruth Coppinger and their like that are affiliating themselves with Communism more so than anyone else...

What Paul Murphy said was that there was no country in Europe that was socialist - not that there were no parties in Europe that were socialist. For example the Fench Socialist Party is a former social democratic, now right-wing neo-liberal party - and the same applies to all the former social democracies in Europe including the LP here.

jank

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

What are you on - are you claiming that Paul Murphy said that Albania inder Hoxha was a socialist country?

In a way yes, as it was the closest government they could identify with as no other EU country had or has a 'Socialist' party in power. So your not 'communist', your not mainstream (French, Swedish, German etc..) socialist either.. so what are you. Lots of empty rethoric where any question asked of you, is just met by 'Capitalism is bad, mkay'

Outline your plan, you have an audience now so use it.

How do you propose to implement your centrally planned economy in an Irish context. Does this involve the confiscation of private property like farmland and factories so they can be planned themselves?

jank

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

It hasn't because there has never been the basis to implement it.

How convenient.

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

Who said anything about 'centrally' planning the economy under socialism? Its not my fault that you are taking your cues about socialism from the Stalinist regimes of the past.

Eh, you did
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=93440099#post93440099

verthrow of capitalism and the establishment of a democratically planned socialised economy.

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

yes I do - not a coup - not a refendum but a revolution that changes the economic basis of society and leads to implementing active democratic participation of the population rather than the sham of democracy that is representaitve parliamentarianism.

So how will this revolution come about and what will it look like? Give me some nuts and bolts. Say the top 5 things that would happen and how they come about.

Godge

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

If this thread was functioning in a concrete fashion discussing the policies of the Socialist Party I would actively participate - but this thread is nothing more than an opportunity for a rant against the Socialist Party. On the odd occasion when someone has made anything approaching a coherent argument I have responded in kind.

The problem with the thread is that there are no socialist policies of the Socialist Party. They are a weird mix of communist (nationalise Dell and have the workers run the companies), anti-environmentalist (no bin charges, no water charges) and right-wing (no property taxes) policies.

If the Socialist Party actually had some socialist policies, it would be straightforward to discuss them.

Jolly Red Giant

jank wrote: »

In a way yes, as it was the closest government they could identify with as no other EU country had or has a 'Socialist' party in power. So your not 'communist', your not mainstream (French, Swedish, German etc..) socialist either.. so what are you. Lots of empty rethoric where any question asked of you, is just met by 'Capitalism is bad, mkay'

Albania under Hoxha was a backward, semi-feudal dictatorship run by a bunch of hardline Stalinist isolationists.

Outline your plan, you have an audience now so use it.

In all honesty - do you consider the most of the people who frequent b.ie as an 'audience' ? And to satisfy your curiosity I want to see a democratic socialist society based on a democratically planned socialised economy operated for the needs of the population rather than in the financial interests of the elites.

How do you propose to implement your centrally planned economy in an Irish context. Does this involve the confiscation of private property like farmland and factories so they can be planned themselves?

Any form of economic planning requires control over the main sectors of the economy - this is not rocket science nor is it confined to the planning of a socialised economy - when necessary the capitalist elites have and do socialise sectors of the economy to protect their economic interests (as demonstrated by the recent nationalisation/socialisation of the banking debts).

Specifically what would be needed for the democratic planning of a socialised economy would be taking the key sectors of the economy into public ownership - Energy, transportation, communications, natural resources, financial services etc. You cannot plan what you do not control and you cannot cool what you do not own. In terms of the Irish economy you are probably talking about no more than 100 companies that would be needed to be taken into public ownership. There would be no necessity to nationalise farmland (although some farmland owned by major corporations would be nationalised as part of the wider programme of public ownership).

Planning has nothing to do with laying out in minute detail every aspect of an economy - it has to do with adapting the economy to the needs of the population and facilitating democratic input from the population of the state as an integral part of that process.

Soldie

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

And I could list numbers for all the people who died under capitalism and are still dying today - and I am sure you would claim that it is not 'real' capitalism.

Everything you write about Stalinism could be equally (if not more) applied to capitalism.

Go ahead. But please note that I expect you to form a genuine link between the outcome you're alluding to and how capitalism has supposedly caused it. No rhetoric.

Socialism in practice involves bonkers stuff like building a wall to keep your citizens in and shooting any would-be escapees.

Jolly Red Giant

jank wrote: »

How convenient.

Capitalism didn't exist until feudalism was overthrown and that didn't happen until the material basis for the establishment existed - nothing to do with convenience and everything to do with the material nature of society.

Eh, you did
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=93440099#post93440099

And he was me thinking you could comprehend the difference between a 'democratically planned socialised economy' and a 'centrally planned economy' - you can have and have had a centrally planned economy under capitalism - you cannot have a democratically planned socialised economy without socialism.

So how will this revolution come about and what will it look like? Give me some nuts and bolts. Say the top 5 things that would happen and how they come about.

there is no way of predicting how a revolution could come about - revolutions happen all the time and all have different triggers and different processes. The material conditions for socialist revolution have existed for a hundred years - and a revolution could happen at any time. One factor is crucial - A mass party of working class people based on socialist principles.

After that it comes down to how working class people would determine what was necessary through active participate in workers and community councils.

Jolly Red Giant

Soldie wrote: »

Go ahead. But please note that I expect you to form a genuine link between the outcome you're alluding to and how capitalism has supposedly caused it. No rhetoric.

I'm afraid some sleep is required - some of us have to work tomorrow - no doubt when Imget around to it you will dismiss it as rhetoric

Socialism in practice involves bonkers stuff like building a wall to keep your citizens in and shooting any would-be escapees.

Stalinism in practice did what you outlined - capitalism in practice has a different approach and involves building structures to keep people out (while at the some time robbing what they have in their home countries).

MightyMandarin

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

yes I do - not a coup - not a refendum but a revolution

And how exactly do you think this could happen? Through violent means or not? Would you storm the Dail before executing the Tsar's Taoiseach's family? This idea of a revolution is continually mentioned by Paul Murphy and it always sounds like he thinks he's in Russia in 1917. He's been asked what happens if the Govt. falls, an election is held and the next Govt. implements Austerity? His answer is 'another revolution'. So in essence, until we (the people) elect a Govt. which Mr.Murphy is happy with, we should expect revolution after revolution.

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

that changes the economic basis of society and leads to implementing active democratic participation of the population rather than the sham of democracy that is representaitve parliamentarianism.

Rhetoric, rhetoric and more rhetoric. Seriously wtf is 'active democratic participation'? Referendums for every piece of Legislation? Online votes of confidence/no-confidence for the Govt.? The only reasonable and most efficient way to participate democratically is voting every 4/5 years; more frequently is a waste of time in campaigning and resources, and less frequently is less ideal. This frequency is the best, hence why pretty much the entire world has it. But of course it is just a 'sham' in your eyes.

jank

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

Any form of economic planning requires control over the main sectors of the economy - this is not rocket science nor is it confined to the planning of a socialised economy - when necessary the capitalist elites have and do socialise sectors of the economy to protect their economic interests (as demonstrated by the recent nationalisation/socialisation of the banking debts).

Specifically what would be needed for the democratic planning of a socialised economy would be taking the key sectors of the economy into public ownership - Energy, transportation, communications, natural resources, financial services etc. You cannot plan what you do not control and you cannot cool what you do not own. In terms of the Irish economy you are probably talking about no more than 100 companies that would be needed to be taken into public ownership. There would be no necessity to nationalise farmland (although some farmland owned by major corporations would be nationalised as part of the wider programme of public ownership).

Planning has nothing to do with laying out in minute detail every aspect of an economy - it has to do with adapting the economy to the needs of the population and facilitating democratic input from the population of the state as an integral part of that process.

So what you are essentially proposing is a from of communism, where the means of production is owned and planned by the state to be run by workers for the 'benefit' for workers. Would you plan to nationalise say IT companies like Google, pharma companies like Pfizer and Financial companies like Citibank. These are foreign owned so what will be the plan for that? Just take them over, hope for the best while you see FDI and capital flee the country. Never mind the fact that such an action would be against EU rules, do therefore do you propose to leave the EU as well?

Soldie

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

Any form of economic planning requires control over the main sectors of the economy - this is not rocket science nor is it confined to the planning of a socialised economy - when necessary the capitalist elites have and do socialise sectors of the economy to protect their economic interests (as demonstrated by the recent nationalisation/socialisation of the banking debts).

Specifically what would be needed for the democratic planning of a socialised economy would be taking the key sectors of the economy into public ownership - Energy, transportation, communications, natural resources, financial services etc. You cannot plan what you do not control and you cannot cool what you do not own. In terms of the Irish economy you are probably talking about no more than 100 companies that would be needed to be taken into public ownership. There would be no necessity to nationalise farmland (although some farmland owned by major corporations would be nationalised as part of the wider programme of public ownership).

Planning has nothing to do with laying out in minute detail every aspect of an economy - it has to do with adapting the economy to the needs of the population and facilitating democratic input from the population of the state as an integral part of that process.

In a system of common ownership there can be no real trade and exchange as you cannot exchange with yourself. Without exchange there can be no price mechanism, and without a price mechanism you cannot effectively gauge supply and demand. In a system with private property and free exchange this is not an issue. A farmer can react to a high price for goats by selling his goats and buying sheep, which are going for a low price. This is not possible in a system where the same person or entity owns both the goats and the sheep. This is why private property and free exchange represents the most efficient way of allocating resources possible. It's also why the socialist alternative ranges from the barbaric to the tragic. The barbaric: the entirely man-made Holodomor famine in collectivised Ukraine which killed up to 7.4 million people. The tragic: the hungry mouths of Cuba while much of her viable farmland lies fallow.

This often-fatal inefficiency is not the result of central planning from a corrupted socialist administration. It's the result of a system of common ownership. Therefore it's also a massive issue for your proposed "democratically planned socialised economy". You can have as many townhall votes as you like and it won't change that. So with the greatest possible respect I have to ask, why are you peddling that shíte? You're arguing in favour of something that was debunked almost a hundred years ago, as I said in a previous post. Why?

Modern-day socialists always perform the same predictable sleight of hand with respect to evils of socialism's historical precedent. They claim that none of the many examples of socialism in practice was actually real socialism. When asked to describe their vision, they apply a liberal sprinkling of the word "democratic", perhaps sensitive to the fact the every instance of socialism in the past has resulted in a tyrannical dictatorship.

Soldie

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

I'm afraid some sleep is required - some of us have to work tomorrow - no doubt when Imget around to it you will dismiss it as rhetoric

Stalinism in practice did what you outlined - capitalism in practice has a different approach and involves building structures to keep people out (while at the some time robbing what they have in their home countries).

I'll be honest, I probably will. But I'd still like to see you demonstrate the link between capitalism and the outcome you describe. Mao alone butchered up to 70 million of his own countrymen for the greater good of establishing his socialist utopia (incidentally, the very utopia that only really started developing once market reforms were adopted, but let's save that for another day). I'm not sure which capitalist country has done anything comparable to its own people but I look forward to hearing about it.

Soldie

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

And he was me thinking you could comprehend the difference between a 'democratically planned socialised economy' and a 'centrally planned economy' - you can have and have had a centrally planned economy under capitalism - you cannot have a democratically planned socialised economy without socialism.

Besides the word "democratic" what's the difference? Whether the shots are being called by (a) a collective of plumbers convening in the jacks to vote on how many washers they need or (b) a centralised politburo, the inherent failings of a system of common ownership are still there. By using the word "demoratic" you're trying to do two things. Firstly, you're trying to distance yourself from your murderous ideological brethren. Sorry, but no truck. Secondly, you're trying to present a working system. But how does it work? Through blind faith alone, seemingly. Have you thought this through in detail?

Bob24

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

Capitalist 'democracy' - sure go ahead.

The capitalist (boo!) country your are living in is regularly giving its citizens the option to democratically elect a socialist/communist governement shall they decide it is the best way to go.

Could you the name of a communist regime anytime in history which would have allowed the opposite change?

hmmm

Bob24 wrote: »

Could you the name of a communist regime anytime in history which would have allowed the opposite change?

Why would people need to vote for anything when their every need is understood and delivered by glorious communist leaders?

Lockstep

The idea that socialism will be brought about through 'revolution' is an exceptionally chilling one to me. Fair enough if you're advocating democratic socialism, at least then you're bringing it about through the consent of the citizens but the idea that some sort of revolutionary vanguard will force communism on us for our own good is
A) Patronising
Dangerous as hell
C) So far into fantasy-land that you're wandering through Narnia.

Surely socialists would be better off persuading people as to why their system works rather than advocating a coup. Yeah, we have a lot of problems, but to say Ireland is a country where things are so terrible that we need a revolution is ignorant as hell. At least here, we allow political debate, change and provide a basic standard of living for all citizens. And crucially, we allow everyone to participate in the political process.

As Tony Benn (hardly an apologist for liberalism or capitalism) put it,

I think democracy is the most revolutionary thing in the world, because if you have power you use it to meet the needs of you and your community.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.