Socialist Party's policies

K_user

Nothing is more terrifying to me than these people getting any sort of power, or influence.

Organising protests and ranting to the media about unpopular water charges does not make a person an expert in industry and the complexities of running massive state owned companies.

Forcing large companies into state ownership will flatten economic growth. A fast growing economy produces more jobs and more wealth. A stagnant market, or a lack of economic growth, is good for no one. As the other countries in Europe, our trading partners, would continue to get richer, we would be priced out.

Also we have learned over the past few years just how wasteful state run companies are. The more money a poorly performing program wasted, the more money was budgeted the next. And that is simply because a market driven company watches its costs, the cheaper the better. While a state run company is backed by the states money, so it has no reason to concern itself with market problems. So privatised companies are stream lined for efficiency, while state run companies are filled with middle management who get paid every week just to push paper around.

A country that nationalises large companies also kills off innovation and entrepreneurship. A small company can’t compete against state companies feeding off each other. And any company that succeeds is in danger of being taken over.

Socialism doesn’t work. It has never worked. Its all rhetoric and big ideas. There is always an excuse for why it went wrong, and that next time it will be better. Capitalism isn’t perfect, but it has allowed a vast proportion of the human race to enjoy the benefits of thriving economies. Capitalism offers big rewards for productive people while socialism offers a parade of bureaucratic red tape that over burdens the very people its trying to make things easier for.

Jolly Red Giant

K_user wrote: »

Nothing is more terrifying to me than these people getting any sort of power, or influence.

Organising protests and ranting to the media about unpopular water charges does not make a person an expert in industry and the complexities of running massive state owned companies.

Forcing large companies into state ownership will flatten economic growth. A fast growing economy produces more jobs and more wealth. A stagnant market, or a lack of economic growth, is good for no one. As the other countries in Europe, our trading partners, would continue to get richer, we would be priced out.

Also we have learned over the past few years just how wasteful state run companies are. The more money a poorly performing program wasted, the more money was budgeted the next. And that is simply because a market driven company watches its costs, the cheaper the better. While a state run company is backed by the states money, so it has no reason to concern itself with market problems. So privatised companies are stream lined for efficiency, while state run companies are filled with middle management who get paid every week just to push paper around.

A country that nationalises large companies also kills off innovation and entrepreneurship. A small company can’t compete against state companies feeding off each other. And any company that succeeds is in danger of being taken over.

Socialism doesn’t work. It has never worked. Its all rhetoric and big ideas. There is always an excuse for why it went wrong, and that next time it will be better. Capitalism isn’t perfect, but it has allowed a vast proportion of the human race to enjoy the benefits of thriving economies. Capitalism offers big rewards for productive people while socialism offers a parade of bureaucratic red tape that over burdens the very people its trying to make things easier for.

The arrogance is actually astounding - and demonstrates that dismissive attitude of right-wing new-liberal hacks.

From their perspective the only people who can run an economy are right-wing hacks - the only people that can run a company are the capitalist elites - the only people who can be creative and innovative are those who operate on the basis of e profit motive and out of greed.

Now the reality is somewhat different - capitalist elites dominate the world economy - the same elites operate on the basis of making as much money as possible as quickly as possible - they can engage on attacks on an entire country's economy - they don't care whether an economy is growing or declining because they can make money from either development - and they are directly responsible for the current economic catastrophe. In order to boost profits the capitalist elites a attempting to drive jobs, wages and working conditions back to the 1930s - zero hour contracts, increased use of bonuses, increased drive to convert the minimum wage into a maximum wage and an increased race to the bottom.

Capitalism no longer works - it's role in developing industrialisation is over - it cannot grow the world economy on any kind of a sustainable basis - it's not a case that it isn't perfect, it is a case that it doesn't work.

A democratically planned socialised economy is capable of not along creating better levels of economic growth, it is capable of creating sustainable economic growth without the bubble and crash nature of modern capitalism. A socialised economy is capable of significantly more innovation and creativity because it would not be confined within the straight jacket of having to make a profit. Indeed, even in the current economy, most of the innovation comes from people and institutions that do not operate on the basis of profit.

Last point - on democratic public ownership - the necessity of taking the key sectors of the economy into public ownership is necessity to facilitate long term economic planning. For other companies this would have significant benefits - the bubble / crash cycle would no longer impact on the operation of companies - companies, farmers, shops would have guaranteed prices for their goods and contracts that would be guaranteed. The operation of the economy for need and not for profit would ensure cooperation for research and innovation rather that competition and duplication - an end to massive wastage of money on advertising (advertising hundreds of different brands of the same products - most of which people don't actually need) etc.

The standing criticism of a democratically planned socialised economy is that the USSR demosrated it couldn't work. The Bolshevik Revolution occurred in an economy that was not industrialised but was overwhelmingly agrarian and semi-feudal. A democratically socialised economy was not possible without industrialisation and this was the reason why the Bolsheviks developed the market based NEP. Industrialisation on a democratic basis was not possible without assistance from an advanced industialised Western economy (developing from a workers revolution in a western country). Stalin and the bureaucracy (which comprised primarily of old Tsarist elements) drove industrialisation through a centralised economy - and despite the basis of this industrialisation it demonstrated the potential of economic development when the contradictions of capitalism were removed. The democratisation of the Stalinist economies could have led to major steps forward in economic development (and this was the primary demands of all the movements against Stalinism in Eastern Europe up until 1989.

Socialism nor a democratically planned socialised economy cannot be sustained without international implementation. Capitalism is globalised and in order to replace capitalism a socialised economy would involved international solidarity and cooperation. That is why the Socialist Party argues for the building of an international workers movement to fight in the interests of working class people.

Where is the evidence, theory or even suggestion of any of that being realisable though Jolly Red Giant?

Let's talk it all through. That's what this thread should be for (look at title). A chance to discuss the policies of socialism / socialist parties.

The floor is open, your audience awaits.

Jolly Red Giant

Deleted User wrote: »

Where is the evidence, theory or even suggestion of any of that being realisable though Jolly Red Giant?

Let's talk it all through. That's what this thread should be for (look at title). A chance to discuss the policies of socialism / socialist parties.

The floor is open, your audience awaits.

I have demonstrated how it would work - if you want to present a coherent argument that demonstrates how capitalism is superior or why a democratically planned socialised economy would not work then be my guest,

Where have you demonstrated it? I'd be very interested in reading it if there are any links to posts etc?

Jolly Red Giant

Deleted User wrote: »

Where have you demonstrated it? I'd be very interested in reading it if there are any links to posts etc?

I have outlined the current nature of globalised capitalism and the alternative of a socialised economy - if you want to contradict either assertion then outline your views.

As for links and posts - what are you looking for?

Good loser

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

I have outlined the current nature of globalised capitalism and the alternative of a socialised economy - if you want to contradict either assertion then outline your views.

As for links and posts - what are you looking for?

The capitalist system is what currently runs the world as we know it. I don't see much too wrong with that.
Iron ore and raw materials from Austrailia to Japan and China; finished products from China to all the world; textiles from the far east to rich countries; oil from the Middle East to Europe and US; timber and food products criss crossing the world; innovation, entertainment, high technology, medical advances from the US. Capitalist fracking in US reducing dependence on imported oil and the market reducing the world price in consequence from $100 to $60 per barrell.

Why don't you spend an evening in a betting shop sometime to understand how efficient the market is?

Russia was an industrialised country in 1917.

MightyMandarin

Good loser wrote: »

The capitalist system is what currently runs the world as we know it. I don't see much too wrong with that.
Iron ore and raw materials from Austrailia to Japan and China; finished products from China to all the world; textiles from the far east to rich countries; oil from the Middle East to Europe and US; timber and food products criss crossing the world; innovation, entertainment, high technology, medical advances from the US. Capitalist fracking in US reducing dependence on imported oil and the market reducing the world price in consequence from $100 to $60 per barrell.

Why don't you spend an evening in a betting shop sometime to understand how efficient the market is?

Russia was an industrialised country in 1917.

I'm not pro-communist at all, but this is untrue. Before 1917 and even after Lenin's death, Russia was not industrialised at all; it was predominantly agricultural and most citizens were peasant farmers. Stalin's 5 year plans industrialised Russia, he made Russia the economic powerhouse it became in the Cold War. Whilst it's entirely possible that Russia could've become a mega power in a Capitalist system, Communism, specifically Stalin's economic policies, made Russia an industrialised country.

Jolly Red Giant

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

I have outlined the current nature of globalised capitalism and the alternative of a socialised economy - if you want to contradict either assertion then outline your views.

As for links and posts - what are you looking for?

You have outlined ideals. Nothing tangible that we can test/prod and come out with always positive answers.

If I say my ideal for the country is "Full employment, no drugs, equal opportunities for all, no policing necessary", that should sound very agreeable to most.

However where's the flesh, how do I achieve this? How can it exist within the existing world? What happens if X happens elsewhere? What if Y causes Z to happen?

Jolly Red Giant

Deleted User wrote: »

You have outlined ideals. Nothing tangible that we can test/prod and come out with always positive answers.

If I say my ideal for the country is "Full employment, no drugs, equal opportunities for all, no policing necessary", that should sound very agreeable to most.

However where's the flesh, how do I achieve this? How can it exist within the existing world? What happens if X happens elsewhere? What if Y causes Z to happen?

You will have to define the parameters of your 'what if' scenario - the problem with trying to discuss what you suggest is that those who oppose a socialised economy want to 'debate' the topic within the confines of capitalist economics.

Jolly Red Giant

MightyMandarin wrote: »

Whilst it's entirely possible that Russia could've become a mega power in a Capitalist system,

No likely - the Russia economy in 1917 was on a par with the Indian economy of 1917 - the Indian economy today could not be remotely described as anything like a mega power in a capitalist system - indeed the Indian economy is pretty much a basket case (with massive elements of it still stuck in the semi-feudal mire as it was in 1917)

MightyMandarin wrote: »

Communism, specifically Stalin's economic policies, made Russia an industrialised country.

The primary driving force for the industrialisation of the economy of the USSR was the centralised planning of the nationalised economy - the programme of Stalinism actually inhibited the potential for industrialisation.

Cr4pSnip3r

I read somewhere once that it's the belief of some historians that industrialization would have happened under Tsar Nicholas II regardless and that Stalin just did a Putin (or perhaps vice versa) and made it look like he did everything. No idea where I read it. If anyone knows I'd appreciate it as it seems like an unusual and perhaps badly founded opinion.

MightyMandarin

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

No likely - the Russia economy in 1917 was on a par with the Indian economy of 1917 - the Indian economy today could not be remotely described as anything like a mega power in a capitalist system - indeed the Indian economy is pretty much a basket case (with massive elements of it still stuck in the semi-feudal mire as it was in 1917)

Except that Russia had a close proximity to Europe, the most developed continent in the world, along with the US, unlike India. There's every reason that Russia could've become an economic powerhouse in a Capitalist system, the Americans did it, and they started out as a British colony yet became even bigger than Britain did. With the right economic policies behind them, Russia could've become big in a capitalist system.

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

The primary driving force for the industrialisation of the economy of the USSR was the centralised planning of the nationalised economy - the programme of Stalinism actually inhibited the potential for industrialisation.

Yes and no. Centralised planning, particularly under the 5 year plans, developed the economy. But Stalin, unlike Lenin, was quite successful in industrialising Russia. He specifically targeted machinery production, infrastructural improvements, construction of the Moscow underground, development of electricity, aswell as drastically increasing mining of resources such as coal. His agricultural policies were a total disaster, and his collectivisation led to widespread famine. But his industrial policies were for the most part successful.

ArmaniJeanss

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

You will have to define the parameters of your 'what if' scenario - the problem with trying to discuss what you suggest is that those who oppose a socialised economy want to 'debate' the topic within the confines of capitalist economics.

I'd like to know what would have specifically happened if Dell was nationalised as Ruth suggested would/should have happened.

What would have been the plan for maintaining the supply chain - presumably Dell have people (not directly employed by Dell Limerick but by the parent company) all around the globe sourcing parts, and also use their bulk purchasing power to get both the best prices and the best credit terms from their suppliers. How would newDell maintain this. Failure to do so will see the price at which they can ultimately sell shoot up.

On the sales side was the plan to continue to sell as 'Dell' or were we launching under a new product name? If the former how would we handle the inevitable court cases with the liklihood that 'real' Dell would attempt to get embargoes on the fake product being sold in other countries. If the latter (sell under a new name) then who was going to provide the expertise on taking a brand new product to international markets.

(Fwiw, I voted for Ruth in both DubWest by-elections in this Dail but am disappointed so far. She just can't come out with "we'd have nationalised it" without making an attempt to explain what this means at factory level).

Jolly Red Giant

MightyMandarin wrote: »

Except that Russia had a close proximity to Europe, the most developed continent in the world, along with the US, unlike India. There's every reason that Russia could've become an economic powerhouse in a Capitalist system, the Americans did it, and they started out as a British colony yet became even bigger than Britain did. With the right economic policies behind them, Russia could've become big in a capitalist system.

The USA became independent 140 years before the Russian Revolution in the early stages of the industrial revolution. Russia 1917 was the weakest imperial power on the planet and was in a downward spiral as a consequence of WW1. The proximity of Russia to the Western industialised countries was more likely to mitigate against industrialisation - it likely would have become the bread basket for Europe.

Yes and no. Centralised planning, particularly under the 5 year plans, developed the economy. But Stalin, unlike Lenin, was quite successful in industrialising Russia. He specifically targeted machinery production, infrastructural improvements, construction of the Moscow underground, development of electricity, aswell as drastically increasing mining of resources such as coal. His agricultural policies were a total disaster, and his collectivisation led to widespread famine. But his industrial policies were for the most part successful.

Lenin's NEP was not designed to industrialise the economy - it was designed to stimulate food production because the population was starving as a result of the attempts at. Right-wing counter-revolution.

Stalin initially opposed industrialisation and the five year plans - they were proposed by the Left Opposition in 1926. It was only when The Stalinists felt threatened by the Kulaks and the NEPmen that they advocated the adoption of the Left Oppositions five year plan but the implemented it in a brutally bureaucratic fashion.

The success of the five year plans were not because of the Stalinists, but in spite of them.

oscarBravo

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

You will have to define the parameters of your 'what if' scenario - the problem with trying to discuss what you suggest is that those who oppose a socialised economy want to 'debate' the topic within the confines of capitalist economics.

Well, yes. More accurately, we want to know how you propose to get there from where we are now, and as such what the costs and benefits will be.

For example, all this talk of a revolution. When I hear "revolution", I think "violence". If your ideal society requires violence to achieve it, then I want no part of it, and neither do most right-thinking people.

If you mean something by "revolution" other than a violent wresting of power from the existing structures of government, then the onus is on you to explain your meaning of an otherwise rather well-understood word.

And then there's the whole business of democratic planning. I run a smallish business - how does it function in your non-capitalist society? Will I be precluded from working in that business? Will I be required to make my particular skills available for the same level of reward as a neuro-surgeon or a ditch-digger? What if I don't want to?

It's all very well mouthing the same old tired clichés about how capitalism doesn't work, but as a business owner, it's working for me, and it seems to be working for my employees as well. If you want me and them to help you achieve your socialist Utopia, you're going to have to explain how it will be better for all of us. If you're not prepared to convince us of that, then we're not going to buy into your ideas, and you're doomed to keep spouting them at an uncaring Internet and wondering why the glorious revolution hasn't happened yet.

Jolly Red Giant

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

I'd like to know what would have specifically happened if Dell was nationalised as Ruth suggested would/should have happened.

What would have been the plan for maintaining the supply chain - presumably Dell have people (not directly employed by Dell Limerick but by the parent company) all around the globe sourcing parts, and also use their bulk purchasing power to get both the best prices and the best credit terms from their suppliers. How would newDell maintain this. Failure to do so will see the price at which they can ultimately sell shoot up.

On the sales side was the plan to continue to sell as 'Dell' or were we launching under a new product name? If the former how would we handle the inevitable court cases with the liklihood that 'real' Dell would attempt to get embargoes on the fake product being sold in other countries. If the latter (sell under a new name) then who was going to provide the expertise on taking a brand new product to international markets.

(Fwiw, I voted for Ruth in both DubWest by-elections in this Dail but am disappointed so far. She just can't come out with "we'd have nationalised it" without making an attempt to explain what this means at factory level).

The basis for arguing that the Dell plant in Limerick should have been taken into public ownership was on the basis of preserving the jobs, not just of the Dell plant but of the wider supply companies that also folded as a result.

Dell shipped out large amounts of valuable machinery at was paid for by taxpayers money - why should Dell have been allowed to do this? Furthermore, Dell's decision had serious financial implications for the state - specifically, they dumped e cost of social welfare for thousands of workers and their families onto the state. There were, over a period of years, skills built up by the workforce in the Dell plant in Limerick that have been lost as a result of shutting the plant.

There is an assumption that a nationalised company would have operated on the same basis as Dell - that is not the case. There is an assumption that a nationalised company would have had to operate in direct competition with Dell - not the case. Supply chains could have been maintained or developed - suppliers would not have cared less whether the plant was publicly owned or not.

The difference is that the nationalised plant could have been funded with funds from Social Welfare that would have been paid out in dole payments - but utilised to keep people in work. The state could have planned the supply of servers, computers, printers etc to government departments, education, health, the public service etc. (the school I worked in bought 50 Dell computers three weeks ago) The skills of the workforce could have been ultilsed and developed to repair existing networks, initiate software and hardware development. Retraining of the workforce could have been promoted to ups kill the workforce. The plant could have been retooled to produce tablets (350,000 students could have been supplied with tablets at minimal cost rather than have families forking out more than €700 a pop for iPads). The skill and innovation of the workforce could have been promoted to develop new products etc. A nationalised plant could have supplied any and all of these products to anyone who wanted to buy good quality products at a reasonable price.

Would a nationalised plant have been successful? We will never know - what can be clearly determined is that instead of allowing Dell toss thousands of workers into the scrap heap and ship €millions worth of equipment out of the county, the workers could have been kept in employment, they could have maintained their dignity and self-respect, the suppliers could have been maintained in existence and an opportunity could have been created to allow the facility to develop. Even if it failed it would have been able to maintain the workforce for, at a minimum three or four years.

To simply dismiss the idea out of hand because it doesn't fit into the net-liberal narrative demonstrates that the criticism of the proposal is based more from a political opposition to the idea of nationalised industry than a concrete economic opposition. The same argument applies to the wreckage caused by the banking crisis. When Joe Higgins argued for the nationalisation of the banking system opponents claimed that this was what happened. It wasn't. What happened was e nationalisation of the banking debts. The nationalisation of the banking system would have left the debts where they should have been - with the spivs and speculators, while the state would have had a state owned functioning banking system without having €tens of billions of socialised debts.

Jolly Red Giant

oscarBravo wrote: »

Well, yes. More accurately, we want to know how you propose to get there from where we are now, and as such what the costs and benefits will be.

It is not possible to outline how the future could develop - nobody has a crystal ball (despite what many on here claim to predict for a socialised economy). Any socialist worth his/her salt would not make any claims for socialism outside of the fact that a democratically planned socialised economy would be more stable and more productive that the basket case that is free market capitalism.

For example, all this talk of a revolution. When I hear "revolution", I think "violence". If your ideal society requires violence to achieve it, then I want no part of it, and neither do most right-thinking people.

A commonly peddled misconception by right-wing hacks. A revolution is defined as a movement for fundamental change - nothing more and nothing less. No socialist supports violence - all socialists recognise that the ruling elites may use violence to resist a revolutionary movement and as a consequence the workers movement will, if necessary defend itself.

The Russian Revolution, which took place in a country that was, in effect, a semi-feudal dictatorship, was relatively peaceful (very few people were killed during the revolution). Most of the deaths occurred as a result of the right-wing forces launching a vicious and violent counter-revolution forcing the revolutionary movement to defend itself.

In 1973 in Chile, when a similar revolutionary movement threatened the existence of capitalism in Chile (and threatened to spread to mass movement elsewhere in Latin AmericA) the ruling elites used vicious repression and counter-revolution to overthrow a democratically elected (in a limited parliamentary democracy) socialist government - a counter revolution that paved the way for 25 years of brutal dictatorship.

Violence in revolutionary movements is a characteristic of nationalist movements, not socialist movements. Even the so-called Marxist revolutions in China, Cuba and other predominantly peasant countries were, at their core, nationalist, not socialist, movements, that went over to the camp of Stalinism because of the counter-revolutionary intent of imperialism.

If you mean something by "revolution" other than a violent wresting of power from the existing structures of government, then the onus is on you to explain your meaning of an otherwise rather well-understood word.

As I pointed out - the 'well-understood word' is a deliberate right-wing distortion of the word to serve their political propaganda. Recent events in this country demonstrate that when working class people get organised and work in unison thee is no force in a country that can stop it. The mass movement against wate charges is a very early stages embryonic indication of the potential of the power of an organised movement of working class people. A politically conscious and extensively organised movement of working class people could not be stopped by the ruling elites - their power only exists because working class people do not realise the power we, as a social class, have to change society.

And then there's the whole business of democratic planning. I run a smallish business - how does it function in your non-capitalist society?

Small businesses in a capitalist society are exploited by the ruling elites, in a similar (but not he same) fashion as workers. Small businesses a subjected to the same contradictions of capitalism as the rest of society and suffer the same consequences. Capitalism only serves one sector of society - what is commonly termed the 1% ( in reality it is the 0.01%) - every other sector of society serves to line their pockets and bend to their power.

Will I be precluded from working in that business?

Even asking the question in the way you do demonstrates the propaganda of the ruling elites - that socialists want to take your business and your money - when in reality socialists want to facilitate working class people taking control of their own destiny out of the hands of the 1%.

So - no - you would not be precluded from working in your business - in fact your business would be far more secure under a socialised economy.

Will I be required to make my particular skills available for the same level of reward as a neuro-surgeon or a ditch-digger?

Again - a common misconception based on propaganda - socialism does not argue that everyone is treated on the basis of the lowest common denominator - the objective is not to lower the living standards of the euro-surgeon to that of the ditch digger - it is to raise the living standards of e ditch digger to that of the neuro-surgeon. That is not done by redistributing wealth, but by creating wealth (redistribution of the 1% would be necessary in the initial stages of the socialised economy to facilitate economic planning) - the planned socialised economy would raise living standards by planning for free universal health care, free universal education, free good quality housing, free and widely expanded public transport etc - with the intent that financial resources would not determine life opportunities.

What if I don't want to?

What if you don't want to do what?

It's all very well mouthing the same old tired clichés about how capitalism doesn't work, but as a business owner, it's working for me,

It may be working for you at the moment - but at any stage the economy could be catapulted into another major crisis and your business could go tits up. The benefits you get at the moment from capitalism are hanging by a thread because of the anarchy of the markets.

and it seems to be working for my employees as well.

The benefits to your employees are far less secure than your (very flimsy) benefits. You may view that your employees are secure and happy - and they may well be (and if they are not they might be hesitant about telling you) - but if your company were to hit any kind of financial trouble their individual concerns and benefits would go out the window in order for your to try and protect your business - that is the nature of capitalism.

If you want me and them to help you achieve your socialist Utopia,

Another misconception - the idea of a socialist utopia is more propaganda nonsense. Socialism is simply a better way of organising society - human society will always be face by new and ongoing challenges - socialism offers an opportunity to progress society, to grow the economy - modern globalised capitalism is a system of ongoing crisis that is forcing more and more people into poverty for the protection of the profits of the elites.

you're going to have to explain how it will be better for all of us.

The explanation to you and to your employees would not and is not the same - precisely because you have different class interests to your employees. You are part of a social class that is known in classic politicL terms as petty-bourgeois (individuals who have the economic basis that offers the aspiration of being part of the bourgeoisie or the ruling elites) while your employees are part of the working class - they have different politicL, economic and social interests. For you - the benefit of a socialised economy would be the security of prices and costs (inflation would not be a factor in a socialised economy) the security of interest rates (interest rate fluctuations are a symptom of capitalism and in today's world reflect speculation more than movements in the real economy) and the benefits of a secure income for your customers.

If you're not prepared to convince us of that, then we're not going to buy into your ideas,

The is another misconception here - I am not purporting to convince you of anything - I am funðmentally advocating the interests of your employees, not the interests of the people who run their own business. You, as a person who runs their own business, would benefit from a socialised economy in the ways that I have outlined above - but that socialised economy can only come about by the organised actions of the working class. Furthermore, I am not attempting to get anyone to 'buy into' anything. Every social class has its own class instincts and class motivations. My objective as a socialist is to get working class people to look at their position in society, question their outlook and the propaganda of the elites, draw their own conclusions, listen to their gut and go with their own class instincts. Capitalism forces workers to organise to defend their interests - and it is this organisation and collective action that determines the political and social outlook of working class people. The anti-water charges campaign has demonstrated to thousands of working class people the class nature of our society and for the first time in more than a generation working class people are learning what social class means, the power that they have as a social class and the class nature of society - that is why the political landscape of this country (and many other countries) is being so fundamentally altered.

and you're doomed to keep spouting them at an uncaring Internet and wondering why the glorious revolution hasn't happened yet.

I have been a political activist for more than thirty years. I participate on forums on the Internet for two reasons 1. I find it relaxing (it allows me to spout off at people who I have a fundamentally different outlook to - and 2. It helps my develop my own political outlook (and that is something that is constantly changing and evolving). I do not expect to influence anyone - although a couple of people have joined the Socialist Party as a result of initial contact on the Internet.

Since I became a conscious socialist 32 years ago I have been utterly convinced that working class people will, at a certain point in time, move to determine their own future and I have had and continue to have an absolute confidence that this will happen. When it will happen I do not know, what will be the outcome of this movement I do not know, if I wil be around to see it I do not know - but I have a confidence that working class people will develop and understanding that when they act as a class there is no power capable of stopping us.

jank

jank wrote: »

We should play a drinking game. Neo Liberal is worth 5 drinks, Working class 3 drinks, Establishment is worth 1 drink

Updated version of this game.
Along with the above, we can add

Capital Elites is worth 3 drinks, right-wing hacks is worth one drink and Denis o'Brien is worth one of these

jank

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

No likely - the Russia economy in 1917 was on a par with the Indian economy of 1917 - the Indian economy today could not be remotely described as anything like a mega power in a capitalist system - indeed the Indian economy is pretty much a basket case (with massive elements of it still stuck in the semi-feudal mire as it was in 1917)
.

India is one of the fastest growing economies in the world, a member of the BRIC countries. You are correct that there is massive poverty there, but overall poverty has declined from 45.3% in 1994 to 21.9% in 2012. Some simple maths would indicate that 24% of India's population has been lifted out of grinding poverty in 18 years, in pure numbers that is 300 million people, almost the size of the EU. This has come about because of globabistaion, foreign investment, education and embracing the free market.

http://data.worldbank.org/country/india

Indeed in any metric you look at India has improved so at least get your facts in line with your empty rhetoric.

Indians have looked to China in envy and seen their rapid rise over the past 20 years where even more people have been lifted out of poverty and much more quickly than India. Many have put the blame of this on Indian state level bureaucracy, red tape, inefficiencies and lack of reform of the protected sectors in the economy. This narrative reached a focal point with the election of Narendra Modi who was elected as PM by a landslide on a platform of reform, economic liberalism and embracing free market policies. Indeed the future is indeed looking very good for India where even more people will rise out of poverty, then again when did middle class 'socialist' Dubliners ever care about actual poor people in the 3rd and developing world? I am sure someday soon they can point to a socialist success story somewhere, anywhere.... as it seems Cuba is going free market too, oh the humiliation.
http://www.economist.com/news/asia/21625857-more-moderniser-market-reformer-narendra-modi-relies-his-bureaucrats-yes-prime-minister

DarkyHughes

jank wrote: »

India is one of the fastest growing economies in the world, a member of the BRIC countries. You are correct that there is massive poverty there, but overall poverty has declined from 45.3% in 1994 to 21.9% in 2012. Some simple maths would indicate that 24% of India's population has been lifted out of grinding poverty in 18 years, in pure numbers that is 300 million people, almost the size of the EU. This has come about because of globabistaion, foreign investment, education and embracing the free market.

http://data.worldbank.org/country/india

Indeed in any metric you look at India has improved so at least get your facts in line with your empty rhetoric.

Indians have looked to China in envy and seen their rapid rise over the past 20 years where even more people have been lifted out of poverty and much more quickly than India. Many have put the blame of this on Indian state level bureaucracy, red tape, inefficiencies and lack of reform of the protected sectors in the economy. This narrative reached a focal point with the election of Narendra Modi who was elected as PM by a landslide on a platform of reform, economic liberalism and embracing free market policies. Indeed the future is indeed looking very good for India where even more people will rise out of poverty, then again when did middle class 'socialist' Dubliners ever care about actual poor people in the 3rd and developing world? I am sure someday soon they can point to a socialist success story somewhere, anywhere.... as it seems Cuba is going free market too, oh the humiliation.
http://www.economist.com/news/asia/21625857-more-moderniser-market-reformer-narendra-modi-relies-his-bureaucrats-yes-prime-minister

There hasn't been real socialist states to start of with. Capitalism hasn't been a huge success story itself.

hmmm

DarkyHughes wrote: »

There hasn't been real socialist states to start of with.

I remember talking to someone once who was a Creationist, and believed the world was created 10,000 years ago (worked out by tracing a route back through the bible). When asked how they could explain dinosaur bones that were hundreds of millions of years old, they explained that "God planted those bones and made them look old to test our faith".

Every time I hear a socialist/communist asked why every socialist country turns out so awful/horrible, and they respond with "there's never been any real socialist state", I'm reminded of the dinosaur conversation.

Jolly Red Giant

hmmm wrote: »

I remember talking to someone once who was a Creationist, and believed the world was created 10,000 years ago (worked out by tracing a route back through the bible). When asked how they could explain dinosaur bones that were hundreds of millions of years old, they explained that "God planted those bones and made them look old to test our faith".

Every time I hear a socialist/communist asked why every socialist country turns out so awful/horrible, and they respond with "there's never been any real socialist state", I'm reminded of the dinosaur conversation.

That is actually one of the poorest analogies I have seen in criticising socialist objectives.

when I have time later I will address the arguments about India and China.

hmmm

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

That is actually one of the poorest analogies I have seen in criticising socialist objectives.

I didn't criticise socialist objectives. I criticised your persistant refusal to address the elephant in the room - there is no example of a successful socialist state anywhere in the world, and those socialist states that do exist are some of the most unpleasant places on earth.

ArmaniJeanss

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

....

I appreciate your reply - I must admit that I disagree with large portions and think you are just plain wrong about how easy you think it would be to maintain the same supply chain - however I do admire that you continue to fight your corner and give such thorough answers to everyone.

CramCycle

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.

How about those who want this socialist regime, band together, run in the next general election and then push for a referendum on these changes that you are talking about. That is how democracy works.

I'll admit that you will also need to get a large sway in the Seanad as well, not sure how that would be achieved since we voted to keep it. I think you will either need a majority in the Seanad and a third of the Dail or for a bill to be passed in both houses.

Chips Lovell

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

For other companies this would have significant benefits - the bubble / crash cycle would no longer impact on the operation of companies - companies, farmers, shops would have guaranteed prices for their goods and contracts that would be guaranteed.

Whether you consider yourself a socialist or not, price controls are disastrous idea, since they take no account of supply and demand. If the state commits to paying X per kilo for beef for example and demand increases, beef is going to get sold on the black market for higher prices. If demand goes down, you're essentially wasting public money by paying for carcasses that will have to be sold at a lower value.

Jolly Red Giant

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

You will have to define the parameters of your 'what if' scenario - the problem with trying to discuss what you suggest is that those who oppose a socialised economy want to 'debate' the topic within the confines of capitalist economics.

I'm well versed in economics, so don't need to simply talk in a capitalist context at all.

I'd like to know how you could possibly show/suggest that a "democratically planned socialist economy" could be more productive than our current setup?

What leads you to believe that? Does that not fly in the face of the Comparative Advantage ideal?

Jolly Red Giant

hmmm wrote: »

I didn't criticise socialist objectives. I criticised your persistant refusal to address the elephant in the room - there is no example of a successful socialist state anywhere in the world, and those socialist states that do exist are some of the most unpleasant places on earth.

There is no elephant in the room - capitalism as an economic system did not exist on a global basis until successful capitalist revolutions took place and managed to establish stable capitalist regimes.

The so-called 'socialist states' you refer to were not 'socialist' - and I am not arguing this because they collapsed but because the Stalinist regimes acted contrary to the basic principles of Marxism. They collapsed, not because capitalism was superior, but because they were an aberration brought about by specific developments in the first half of the 20th century. In the modern world it would be impossible for a Stalinist regime to emerge and sustain itself for anything other than a very limited time period (if at all).

Jolly Red Giant

CramCycle wrote: »

How about those who want this socialist regime, band together, run in the next general election and then push for a referendum on these changes that you are talking about. That is how democracy works.

That is how capitalist democracy works - parliamentary democracy is a construct of capitalism - it is designed to protect the interests of capitalism and the ruling elites - and when it no longer serves that purpose it is dispensed with and replaced by capitalist dictatorships (e.g. Chile 1973). The working class cannot achieve any real power under capitalist democracy because it serves different class interests.

CramCycle wrote: »

I'll admit that you will also need to get a large sway in the Seanad as well, not sure how that would be achieved since we voted to keep it. I think you will either need a majority in the Seanad and a third of the Dail or for a bill to be passed in both houses.

see above

Jolly Red Giant

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

Whether you consider yourself a socialist or not, price controls are disastrous idea, since they take no account of supply and demand. If the state commits to paying X per kilo for beef for example and demand increases, beef is going to get sold on the black market for higher prices. If demand goes down, you're essentially wasting public money by paying for carcasses that will have to be sold at a lower value.

that would be the case if the flow of goods was determined by supply and demand as is the case in a capitalist market place - using a democratically planned socialised economy 'supply and demand' would be replaced by economic planning. Planning removes the cyclical nature of supply and demand and eliminates the contradictions of the market.

Chips Lovell

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

That is how capitalist democracy works - parliamentary democracy is a construct of capitalism - it is designed to protect the interests of capitalism and the ruling elites...

How can you believe this? Everyone, rich or poor, has a vote in this country. Parliamentary democracy has overseen the introduction of free second and, later, third level education in this country; the creation of a public health service; and the creation of a social welfare system that protects the unemployed, the sick and the elderly. This is hardly the agenda of the capitalist elites.

Jolly Red Giant

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

that would be the case if the flow of goods was determined by supply and demand as is the case in a capitalist market place - using a democratically planned socialised economy 'supply and demand'would be replaced by economic planning. Planning removes the cyclical nature of supply and demand and eliminates the contradictions of the market.

But by doing so removes the link between value and price, creating inefficiencies.

I'm unsure what a contradiction of the market is though?

Chips Lovell

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

...using a democratically planned socialised economy 'supply and demand' would be replaced by economic planning. Planning removes the cyclical nature of supply and demand and eliminates the contradictions of the market.

I think you need to seriously consider the logical implications of what you're saying. You can't plan weather, which has a bearing on agricultural output. Nor can you can plan consumer sentiment or fashions, which has a major influence on how much money people spend and what they spend it on.

CramCycle

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

That is how capitalist democracy works - parliamentary democracy is a construct of capitalism - it is designed to protect the interests of capitalism and the ruling elites - and when it no longer serves that purpose it is dispensed with and replaced by capitalist dictatorships (e.g. Chile 1973). The working class cannot achieve any real power under capitalist democracy because it serves different class interests.

Are you telling me that if the Socialist movement gained proper traction, put forward enough people to fill a majority of seats, and the public voted overwhelmingly in favour of them that the majority parties would instigate a dictatorship? You honestly believe that this would happen?

see above

Seats of the Oireachtas:

Eleven appointed by the Taoiseach : 11 socialist if the people vote for it
Six elected by the graduates of certain Irish universities:
Three by graduates of the University of Dublin: 0 - 3 (no idea what way that would go)
Three by graduates of the National University of Ireland: 0 - 3 (no idea what way that would go)
43 elected from five special panels of nominees (known as Vocational Panels) by an electorate consisting of TDs (member of Dáil Éireann), senators and local councillors: Presumably with an overall majority in the Dail and by the way Irish politics works, potentially in local councils, there would be a reasonable number from the Socialist party, they would need a minimum of 20 of the 43.

There is your democracy, now give us your candidates and workable policy that people can get behind, this is how democracy works, via the majority.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

CramCycle

What if I don't want what the "democratically planned socialised economy" has planned for me. What if I change my mind. There is no longer a pressure to work hard to give me the range of options that I would like, so why work hard at all. I enjoy my job and would probably continue with it but i don't think I would push myself as hard or even at all under this scheme, whats the point?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

oscarBravo

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

It is not possible to outline how the future could develop - nobody has a crystal ball (despite what many on here claim to predict for a socialised economy). Any socialist worth his/her salt would not make any claims for socialism outside of the fact that a democratically planned socialised economy would be more stable and more productive that the basket case that is free market capitalism.

You can't just claim that a socialised economy would be more stable and productive; you have to demonstrate how it would be more stable and productive.

You're using a rhetorical device that's become all too common lately: the idea that because what we currently have is flawed, then anything that replaces it must ipso facto be better.

I shouldn't have to propose a thought experiment to debunk such fundamentally broken logic, but let's try: suppose there is a bus driver who regularly gets into minor accidents. The logic is, apparently, that if we replace the driver - it doesn't matter with whom - then everything will be fine.

Eh, no. If we're going to replace the driver, we need to be confident that the replacement will be an overall improvement. If the new driver never gets into an accident, but instead steals from the passengers, then are we definitely better off?

Socialism may address some of the problems inherent in capitalism, but if you're not prepared to acknowledge and address the problems inherent in socialism, then you're not going to be listened to, because you'll sould more like a disciple than an advocate.

A commonly peddled misconception by right-wing hacks. A revolution is defined as a movement for fundamental change - nothing more and nothing less. No socialist supports violence...

I feel a "no true Scotsman" fallacy coming.

...all socialists recognise that the ruling elites may use violence to resist a revolutionary movement and as a consequence the workers movement will, if necessary defend itself.

Why would the state (the phrase "ruling elites" sets my teeth on edge; it's one of those phrases that makes socialists so hard to take seriously) use violence to resist a non-violent revolutionary movement? Is this the Paul Murphy-style Jesuitical definition of "non-violence"?

The Russian Revolution, which took place in a country that was, in effect, a semi-feudal dictatorship, was relatively peaceful (very few people were killed during the revolution).

I'm sure that's a great comfort to those few who were killed.

What's the acceptable death toll? How many deaths would you consider a price worth paying to bring about socialism in Ireland?

As I pointed out - the 'well-understood word' is a deliberate right-wing distortion of the word to serve their political propaganda. Recent events in this country demonstrate that when working class people get organised and work in unison thee is no force in a country that can stop it. The mass movement against wate charges is a very early stages embryonic indication of the potential of the power of an organised movement of working class people. A politically conscious and extensively organised movement of working class people could not be stopped by the ruling elites - their power only exists because working class people do not realise the power we, as a social class, have to change society.

OK, so a revolution doesn't have to be violent - it can consist of public protests against sane fiscal policies. Gotcha.

Small businesses in a capitalist society are exploited by the ruling elites, in a similar (but not he same) fashion as workers. Small businesses a subjected to the same contradictions of capitalism as the rest of society and suffer the same consequences. Capitalism only serves one sector of society - what is commonly termed the 1% ( in reality it is the 0.01%) - every other sector of society serves to line their pockets and bend to their power.

See, this is what it always seems to come down to when I'm listening to socialist rhetoric: the problem isn't so much that most people have it bad, but that some people have it better.

You're preaching at me that capitalism is bad for my small business, because a small number of people are making more money than I am. There are only two avenues out of that rhetorical foray: one is the possibility that there will always be a small number of people who will make more money than me; the other is the possibility that nobody will ever have any more than anyone else.

If your vision of a socialist society is one in which there will still be some people who have more money than others, then you're not talking about a revolution; you're talking about a shift in the existing degree of wealth redistribution. If it's the latter, then that's a whole nother kettle of fish, and until it's clear to me which you're advocating for, then I don't know which direction to take the conversation.

Even asking the question in the way you do demonstrates the propaganda of the ruling elites - that socialists want to take your business and your money - when in reality socialists want to facilitate working class people taking control of their own destiny out of the hands of the 1%.

This is another problem I have with socialist rhetoric: the quantisation of people into neatly-labelled boxes. There are the "elites" and the "working class", and the plan seems to be to eliminate the existence of "elites" from society.

The problem is, not everyone fits neatly into those boxes, so we end up with other labels, such as the "petit bourgeoisie" you reference later. The problem is, it's not clear where the members of those classes fit into the envisaged society: if you get rid of the elites, won't the bourgeoisie simply become the new elites, and next in line for the wrath of the proletariat?

So - no - you would not be precluded from working in your business - in fact your business would be far more secure under a socialised economy.

This doesn't make sense to me. You rail continuously against capitalism, which is a system defined by the ownership of capital. Yet, you claim that in a socialist society, I would still be the owner of my business - I would still own capital.

So you don't seem to want to get rid of capitalism. It appears that I can own my business, but that my prices would be set democratically. Would I be allowed to make a profit? This isn't clear.

Again - a common misconception based on propaganda - socialism does not argue that everyone is treated on the basis of the lowest common denominator - the objective is not to lower the living standards of the euro-surgeon to that of the ditch digger - it is to raise the living standards of e ditch digger to that of the neuro-surgeon. That is not done by redistributing wealth, but by creating wealth (redistribution of the 1% would be necessary in the initial stages of the socialised economy to facilitate economic planning) - the planned socialised economy would raise living standards by planning for free universal health care, free universal education, free good quality housing, free and widely expanded public transport etc - with the intent that financial resources would not determine life opportunities.

Here's that problem with that: none of those things are free. Healthcare costs money to provide. Public transport costs money to provide. Education, housing, broadband... none of these things are free.

Which means that they have to be paid for. Who pays for them, if they're not paid for at the point of delivery?

It may be working for you at the moment - but at any stage the economy could be catapulted into another major crisis and your business could go tits up. The benefits you get at the moment from capitalism are hanging by a thread because of the anarchy of the markets.

I set up my business in 2005. I know all about weathering the anarchy of the markets.

You're suggesting that my business would be more secure in a democratically-planned economy. What if another business brought a better product to market at a lower price? What would happen to my business, and to my employees' job security, then? Would such competition even be allowed?

The benefits to your employees are far less secure than your (very flimsy) benefits. You may view that your employees are secure and happy - and they may well be (and if they are not they might be hesitant about telling you) - but if your company were to hit any kind of financial trouble their individual concerns and benefits would go out the window in order for your to try and protect your business - that is the nature of capitalism.

Leaving aside the fact that my employees are better protected in many ways than me (I can't get redundancy pay, and don't qualify for jobseeker's benefit): are you saying that, in a socialist society, everybody's job is guaranteed under all circumstances?

Another misconception - the idea of a socialist utopia is more propaganda nonsense. Socialism is simply a better way of organising society - human society will always be face by new and ongoing challenges - socialism offers an opportunity to progress society, to grow the economy - modern globalised capitalism is a system of ongoing crisis that is forcing more and more people into poverty for the protection of the profits of the elites.

So there are more people in poverty now than there were (say) a hundred years ago?

The explanation to you and to your employees would not and is not the same - precisely because you have different class interests to your employees. You are part of a social class that is known in classic politicL terms as petty-bourgeois (individuals who have the economic basis that offers the aspiration of being part of the bourgeoisie or the ruling elites) while your employees are part of the working class - they have different politicL, economic and social interests. For you - the benefit of a socialised economy would be the security of prices and costs (inflation would not be a factor in a socialised economy) the security of interest rates (interest rate fluctuations are a symptom of capitalism and in today's world reflect speculation more than movements in the real economy) and the benefits of a secure income for your customers.

If my prices and costs are dictated to me by a socialists committee, then I'm not running a business; I'm managing a department. In fact, given that the stated goal is to have everyone equal (all living the lifestyle of a neurosurgeon, apparently), why would I want the added hassle of having to manage people?

If everyone is rewarded equally, why would anyone put any more effort into their work than the bare minimum? Hell, if I'm guaranteed a free house, free healthcare and free everything else, why would I bother showing up for work at all?

The is another misconception here - I am not purporting to convince you of anything - I am funðmentally advocating the interests of your employees, not the interests of the people who run their own business.

I advocate the interests of my employees as well. I guess it will, in the final analysis, be up to them (and those like them) to decide whether their future is more secure working for a business like mine, or taking a leap of faith and taking your word for it that they'd be better off in a socialist society whose precise details you don't seem able to fully articulate.

I have been a political activist for more than thirty years. I participate on forums on the Internet for two reasons 1. I find it relaxing (it allows me to spout off at people who I have a fundamentally different outlook to - and 2. It helps my develop my own political outlook (and that is something that is constantly changing and evolving). I do not expect to influence anyone - although a couple of people have joined the Socialist Party as a result of initial contact on the Internet.

I'm actually very open to being influenced by a well-constructed argument. It may seem to you that I'm arguing with you for the sake of picking holes in your theories, but I'm picking those holes because I can see them, and because I genuinely believe that they are not minor blemishes but fatal flaws.

Since I became a conscious socialist 32 years ago I have been utterly convinced that working class people will, at a certain point in time, move to determine their own future and I have had and continue to have an absolute confidence that this will happen. When it will happen I do not know, what will be the outcome of this movement I do not know, if I wil be around to see it I do not know - but I have a confidence that working class people will develop and understanding that when they act as a class there is no power capable of stopping us.

I think you might be right. What worries me is that, when it happens, it will be like a case of the dog that chases cars - when it finally catches one, it has no idea what to do with it.

I can see a time when the working class (another phrase that sets my teeth on edge, because it's so bloody patronising) seizes control of the levers of the economy. I worry about that event. I've seen far too many problems oversimplified with a hand-waving "we'll figure the details out later" approach, only to find that the details are the hard part, and that things are done the way they are because that's, in fact, how they work best.

Jolly Red Giant

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm well versed in economics, so don't need to simply talk in a capitalist context at all.

I am not well versed in economics - I have a very basic understanding of economics (and the Marxist critique of capitalist economics)

Deleted User wrote: »

I'd like to know how you could possibly show/suggest that a "democratically planned socialist economy" could be more productive than our current setup?

What leads you to believe that? Does that not fly in the face of the Comparative Advantage ideal?

1. Ricardo's theories are riddled with contradictions - particularly his theory of comparative advantage. Marx never completed a comprehensive critique of the contradictions in Ricardo's theories - it was on his to-do list. Saying that - in the modern globalised economy the notion that 'comparative advantage' can 'lift all boats' is demonstrably not the case - globalised capitalism cannibalises global trade in the interests of the conglomerates. Lastly, the one fundamental flaw in the comparative advantage model is lack of full employment. Unemployment undermines the theory at its core.

2 How would a democratically planned socialised economy be more productive than a capitalist economy.

- the elimination of wasteful expenditure. One of the main criticisms levelled by the right against the public sector is 'waste'. The reality is that the private sector is the most wasteful.
(a) Spending on advertising in Ireland in 2011 was €1.1billion - this is a massive amount of money spent on trying to persuade people to buy 'stuff' - often stuff that people don't need (or actually want). Yes the advertising industry does impact on the real economy by paying wages etc that then circulates through the economy - but that would be the same if this €1.1billion was taken and invested in productive activity rather than advertising.
(b) There is massive duplication of products under capitalism - there are currently something like 350 different brands of toothpaste (all competing with one another) with massive duplication of the production processes, copious amounts of advertising and significant wastage from unsold products.
(c) constant updating and upgrading of products to try and steal a competitive advantage - two clear examples, Windows and the iPhone. Both Microsoft and Apple stop development on earlier versions of their products when in a significant number of situations the earlier versions are perfectly suited to the task they are being used for. As a result people are forced to purchase the upgraded product even though there is no necessity to actually do so in technology terms.
(d) massive wasted expenditure in the military and armaments - finding better and better ways to kill people (not once but hundreds of times over). Military expenditure is destructive not constructive - it is based on destroying stuff not building it.

- elimination of the boom / slump cycle.
Capitalism operates on a cyclical basis regularly hitting crises of over-production or under-consumption. This cyclical nature leads to bubbles in the economy as speculators try and make a quick buck and then leads to the destruction of the productive forces in society through job losses, the shutting of factories, dismantling of plant and machinery or simply leaving equipment to rust and rot (like the cranes standing all over the country). Not alone does the cyclical nature of capitalism cause the destruction of the productive forces, it causes enormous human misery.

- elimination of inflation / deflation
Inherent in the capitalist economic system are inflationary and deflationary pressures. The cyclical crisis impacts on prices, wages and production. During periods of severe crisis the inflationary /deflationary pressures tipped over into hyper-inflation or a deflationary spiral (something that is inherent in the present crisis in the world economy). These inflationary / deflationary pressures are destructive on the productive process and on the wider economy. A democratically planned socialised economy eliminates these pressures and the destruction they cause.

- elimination of speculation
Speculation is part and parcel of capitalist economics - speculation can crash any economy and is utterly destructive to the economic process. Coupled with speculation comes bribery and corruption. Speculation manipulates the economy, causing contradictions and crisis and when the gambling goes belly-up the cost of the speculation is dumped onto the real economy.

- credit and debt
Modern globalised capitalism is fueled by massive amounts of credit and debt. Credit and debt that don't have the reserves to withstand shocks to the system. Credit is used to fuel speculation and suffers all the contradictions inherent in the financial systems. Credit and debt is an important component part of any economy but must be rooted in real production within society.

- the elimination of bureaucracy
Capitalism, despite its claims, is mired in bureaucracy. There is layer after layer of management, all watching those below them and sucking up to those above them - all at the same time of trying to avoid exposing their own rear-end. The management structures of capitalism stifle creativity and innovation, they limit production, they cause the waste of resources and they ultimately cause ongoing problems in every industry and service where they exist.

- the tendency of the rate of profit to fall
The fundamental critique of Marxism in relation to capitalism. Increased productive processes, new technology, automation, increased productivity and innovation all lead to the conglomerates cutting costs to gain a competitive advantage and ultimately cause a tendency for the rate of profit to decline - ultimately leading to the terminal decline of capitalism. This tendency is the root cause of all the contradictions within capitalism even when there are specific other causes for individual periods of crisis. The mechanism of capitalism for the reversal of this tendency is war - the ultimate destruction of the productive forces and the infrastructure needed to form the basis for production. With war capitalism can temporarily reverse the impact of the declining rate of profit until the inherent contradictions of capitalism once again kick in.

A democratically planned socialised economy would eliminate all of the above. It would also eliminate the hierarchical nature of society under capitalism where one individual ultimately decides on the direction of a business, conglomerate, industry or country. It would be a bottom up rather than a top down process.

This is not to argue that every minute detail of the economy would be debated ad infinitum - those with the technical, scientific, economic know-how would outline the technical basis for developing particular sectors of the economy, the resources needed and the potential output of these inputs. Society as a whole would analyse the necessities that would be needed to provide for individuals, families, communities and economies and needs would be matched to production to ensure things like the panic response to the homeless crisis would never have been needed.

The key element of democratic input into a socialised economic plan would be the control of the bureaucracy. Every economy needs a bureaucracy to function - the key factor is who controls the bureaucracy and how it is controlled. The bureaucracy would not and should not be fixed and within this society would have structures that would dictate to the bureaucracy rather than the other way around. Specifically in a socialised economy there would be workers councils in workplaces, community councils in communities, parent/teacher/student councils in schools, medical staff / patient councils in hospitals etc. all designed to investigate the needs of society and how those needs can be met. The system requires the active participation of citizens and communities in society - not the passive system that exists today - an active participatory democracy that encourages (and obliges) people to be active citizens in all aspects of the political, social and economic life of the country.

last point - socialism cannot be built in one country - that is how you ended up with Stalinism - socialism requires international solidarity and cooperation, the sharing of resources, the protection of the environment, the elimination of the need for people to become economic migrants etc. that is while socialists are internationalists.

Good loser

What JRG advocates is a farcically outdated model of how a society/economy should/could be organised.

Pure fantasy land stuff from someone clearly out of touch with the basics of human nature and arithmetic. Not worth wasting words with.

If he read 'The Economist' for a few months he'd learn this.
(Good article above on India btw)

The guy is intoxicated with his own world view and rhetoric. Immovable like that pudgy guy on VB.

I am interested in Russia's industrialisation in 1917 - I genuinely thought it was not that different from the West/USA. Any stats anyone?

Thanks for the post and the incredible effort you've gone to to answer it, but I'm afraid you've totally missed the mark. Your assertion was that a "democratically planned socialist economy" (DPSE) would be more productive than a capitalist one.

What you've backed this up with is legitimate criticisms of capitalism (and that only).

However, you must be aware that there are legitimate criticisms of Socialism that are equally available in a theoretical discussion that I could list.

That's not what I'm trying to do. I know capitalism has faults, it's not perfect 100% of the time for 100% of the people. But we're also aware that the same is true of socialism.

If we must choose one over the other, it's not good enough to say "These are the bad parts of capitalism, ergo choose Socialism", we must dissect both options objectively.

Consider an analogy:
I'd like to send a package to a friend in Peru. I could ship it or airmail it. Shipping it takes far longer (comparative disadvantage), airmail costs far more (comparative disadvantage). Now, in some scenarios I would always choose Shipping it (perhaps we have almost no deadline, or perhaps we are totally strapped for cash) and in other scenarios, I would always choose airmail (it must be delivered by Thursday, money is no object etc).

You've made an absolute assertion, that a DPSE would be more productive than a capitalist one, what you've then done to back it up is simply point at some features of capitalism that socialism could potentially create a more favourable outcome (You are the shipping guy saying "look how cheap we are, clearly you must choose us").

If we were to discuss just the assertion you've made, re: productivity, I can point out that that a DPSE has inefficiences at its core (and in fact is a central tenant when we consider the demand to disassociate Price and Value). A DPSE removes incentives to perform better, we remove incentives to directly increase productivity, we no longer reward reduction in costs as price/value have become disparate etc.

I'd argue that these are far more fundamental when it comes to an overall discussion of the productivity of an economy as a whole than savings on teritary services such as advertising (which as you've admitted actually contribute to productivity!), and competition.

oscarBravo

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

(b) There is massive duplication of products under capitalism - there are currently something like 350 different brands of toothpaste (all competing with one another) with massive duplication of the production processes, copious amounts of advertising and significant wastage from unsold products.
(c) constant updating and upgrading of products to try and steal a competitive advantage - two clear examples, Windows and the iPhone. Both Microsoft and Apple stop development on earlier versions of their products when in a significant number of situations the earlier versions are perfectly suited to the task they are being used for. As a result people are forced to purchase the upgraded product even though there is no necessity to actually do so in technology terms.

This is the sort of thing that makes me shudder. What you describe as wasteful duplication, I consider choice. It's a hideously monochromatic, joyless, strictly functional worldview that, frankly, fills me with dread.

It's the "to everyone according to their needs" philosophy, with the "needs" determined by committee, and defined strictly by necessity.

A couple of years ago, I built a small sailing dinghy from scratch. I can't imagine that being possible in the society you describe: I can imagine the local supply committee deciding that I didn't "need" the marine plywood, the deck fittings, the paint - and as for the custom-made sails! Such bourgeois decadence!

You were honest in one thing you said earlier: everyone would live the lifestyle of a neurosurgeon. What you forgot to mention was that the neurosurgeons would be living in the same grey, featureless housing units as everyone else, using the one committee-approved toothpaste twice a day, and watching the single state-run TV channel - assuming, that is, that it was decided that the people actually "need" television.

Ugh.

CramCycle

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

capitalism cannibalises global trade in the interests of the conglomerates. Lastly, the one fundamental flaw in the comparative advantage model is lack of full employment. Unemployment undermines the theory at its core.

How do you force those who will not work in this brave new world? Slave labour? IF all is equal, what if a job you want is no longer available and you are not capable of those jobs that remain?

2 How would a democratically planned socialised economy be more productive than a capitalist economy.

- the elimination of wasteful expenditure. One of the main criticisms levelled by the right against the public sector is 'waste'. The reality is that the private sector is the most wasteful.
(a) Spending on advertising in Ireland in 2011 was €1.1billion - this is a massive amount of money spent on trying to persuade people to buy 'stuff' - often stuff that people don't need (or actually want). Yes the advertising industry does impact on the real economy by paying wages etc that then circulates through the economy - but that would be the same if this €1.1billion was taken and invested in productive activity rather than advertising.

Advertising creates jobs, its not wasted, these are jobs that pay taxes and create more employment, create a want for products that we may not know existed and in your state, never would, hardly seems like a life worth living if nothing interesting to work for ever pops up.

(b) There is massive duplication of products under capitalism - there are currently something like 350 different brands of toothpaste (all competing with one another) with massive duplication of the production processes, copious amounts of advertising and significant wastage from unsold products.

You will find that the waste is not that huge, because if it were, there would be no company running there.

(c) constant updating and upgrading of products to try and steal a competitive advantage - two clear examples, Windows and the iPhone. Both Microsoft and Apple stop development on earlier versions of their products when in a significant number of situations the earlier versions are perfectly suited to the task they are being used for. As a result people are forced to purchase the upgraded product even though there is no necessity to actually do so in technology terms.

No one is forced to buy the upgraded product, they want too, the people who do this would probably not be all that impressed with what you would like. I still have an old Nokia 3220 in the office for emergencies. It still works, I just don't want to use it, so I worked and saved and bought a nicer one. No one forced me too, they just gave me the option.

(d) massive wasted expenditure in the military and armaments - finding better and better ways to kill people (not once but hundreds of times over). Military expenditure is destructive not constructive - it is based on destroying stuff not building it.

This is a flaw with human nature and not with Capitalism or Socialism

- elimination of the boom / slump cycle.
Capitalism operates on a cyclical basis regularly hitting crises of over-production or under-consumption. This cyclical nature leads to bubbles in the economy as speculators try and make a quick buck and then leads to the destruction of the productive forces in society through job losses, the shutting of factories, dismantling of plant and machinery or simply leaving equipment to rust and rot (like the cranes standing all over the country). Not alone does the cyclical nature of capitalism cause the destruction of the productive forces, it causes enormous human misery.

Listening to an intersting talk a few years ago that argued that this boom/bust cycle is necessary for the rapid development of infrastructure that would never have been pushed for otherwise, no boom then no LUAS and significantly lower volumes of broadband penetration, the bust is inevitable but it makes like in the bust more sustainable thanks to the infrastructure provided for in the boom. The only downside is poorly formed government contracts compared to other countries for such jobs meant that we wasted more than is necessary on them but thats another conversation.

- elimination of inflation / deflation
Inherent in the capitalist economic system are inflationary and deflationary pressures. The cyclical crisis impacts on prices, wages and production. During periods of severe crisis the inflationary /deflationary pressures tipped over into hyper-inflation or a deflationary spiral (something that is inherent in the present crisis in the world economy). These inflationary / deflationary pressures are destructive on the productive process and on the wider economy. A democratically planned socialised economy eliminates these pressures and the destruction they cause.

So how does it account for the value of something, human nature would rip this part of your idea apart in a matter of months.

- elimination of speculation
Speculation is part and parcel of capitalist economics - speculation can crash any economy and is utterly destructive to the economic process. Coupled with speculation comes bribery and corruption. Speculation manipulates the economy, causing contradictions and crisis and when the gambling goes belly-up the cost of the speculation is dumped onto the real economy.

It also kick starts the economy and projects that would otherwise be left in the doldrums.

- the elimination of bureaucracy
Capitalism, despite its claims, is mired in bureaucracy. There is layer after layer of management, all watching those below them and sucking up to those above them - all at the same time of trying to avoid exposing their own rear-end. The management structures of capitalism stifle creativity and innovation, they limit production, they cause the waste of resources and they ultimately cause ongoing problems in every industry and service where they exist.

Never seen it within the private sector, and my minimal experience within the Public sector left me with a poor taste in my mouth so I could not comment.

A democratically planned socialised economy would eliminate all of the above. It would also eliminate the hierarchical nature of society under capitalism where one individual ultimately decides on the direction of a business, conglomerate, industry or country. It would be a bottom up rather than a top down process.

Well that's certainly efficient :rolleyes: oh wait

not the passive system that exists today - an active participatory democracy that encourages (and obliges) people to be active citizens in all aspects of the political, social and economic life of the country.

I am for compulsory voting laws, stop people winging about who was elected when they didn't even turn up themselves.

K_user

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

The arrogance is actually astounding - and demonstrates that dismissive attitude of right-wing new-liberal hacks.
....
That is why the Socialist Party argues for the building of an international workers movement to fight in the interests of working class people.

Long winded talk, followed by more rhetoric.

Capitalism has failed. Socialism is miss understood and will fight for the common man.

Its amazing how there is always talk of “fighting” for the working class people. We live in a Country with free speech, entrepreneurs are encouraged, we are entitled to health care and the unemployed can claim benefits. The current system is flawed. It has large cracks, we all know that. But the common man is fairly happy and well fed.

And this entire debate is happening because of capitalism. We are all on computers, sitting in our homes, or offices. We are in buildings built by materials constructed by free industry. We are online, enjoying the right to use international servers. We have cars, busses, trains and planes. We have books, TV’s, furniture and mobile phones. All the benefits that come from a capitalist free market that allow for all these marvels to be produced and affordable.

What is really frightening about the Socialist argument is that it talks about the need for change. That the government needs to be replaced by another type of government. Now most people recognise that a government is an inefficient monster. But its not clear that its also the greatest threat to individual freedom. The more power a government has, the less freedom individual citizens have. Governments are needed. Democracy is important. But they need to be constitutional and they need to be limited.

Try to book a procedure with the HSE, which is the largest employer in Ireland and state run. I’m not criticising the people that work there, they do a great job. However trying to get anything can be a slow process, paper work filled, and an overall frustrating experience. Now imagine that in every aspect of your life. Because Socialism is all about being state run and state run means red tape.

I’d also be curious to know how many supporting socialism have lived in socialist countries like China, North Korea or Cuba? How many of these people have lived on a day-to-day basis in a country where the government has unlimited power? And how many would be willing to go to one of those places and openly talk of “fighting” for the working class people. Any takers? None?

Freedom of speech in not an international law, its not a right, it’s a privilege. We enjoy it in this country. Socialism always talks about fighting for the common man, but only democracy and capitalism allows the common man to do and say what he/she wants.

FreudianSlippers

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

I am not well versed in economics - I have a very basic understanding of economics (and the Marxist critique of capitalist economics)

I think that's the root of the problem right there. There are at least 3 people in this thread who have educations (of I'm presuming varying degrees) in economics, looking for answers from someone who lacks a fundamental understanding of economics.

Your ideas are fine and noble and whatever but lack a fundamental basis in economic reality.

K_user

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

I am not well versed in economics -

And yet a lot of your theories have serious economic implications.

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

(b) There is massive duplication of products under capitalism - there are currently something like 350 different brands of toothpaste (all competing with one another) with massive duplication of the production processes, copious amounts of advertising and significant wastage from unsold products.

You are talking about the elimination of choice and the destruction of jobs. By this comment alone you would happily render most of the country unemployed and remove their ability to complain about it. Because the people they’d complain to are the very same people who have the choice on whats allowed to be produced and by whom.

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

Lastly, the one fundamental flaw in the comparative advantage model is lack of full employment. Unemployment undermines the theory at its core.

But you stated that you want to stop duplication of products and advertising, therefore cause massive unemployment. How is that better then a very small percentage?

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

last point - socialism cannot be built in one country - that is how you ended up with Stalinism - socialism requires international solidarity and cooperation, the sharing of resources, the protection of the environment, the elimination of the need for people to become economic migrants etc. that is while socialists are internationalists.

Above you have taken away peoples choice and here you claim that Stalinism is a bad thing. And you believe that somehow rendering millions of people unemployed would solve economic migrant problems?

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

socialism requires international solidarity

And that’s your problem right there. International solidarity is a myth. It can’t happen. Its difficult enough to get two people to agree on trivial things, never mind trying to get millions to agree.

You, as an individual, can’t get a bunch of random strangers online to agree with you. Now try to tell Germany that they have to freely hand over their resources to Greece, or Irish fishermen that the waters that they make their lively hood off are now open to whatever boat comes along.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

K_user

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I wonder how the internet would run on a 33 Mhz processor and 4 megabytes of RAM?

And who gets to decide that enough is enough? That computers, phones, or technology has gone far enough and that what we have is "perfectly suited to the task". Technically the phone was suited to the task the day after Alexander Graham Bell finished. It worked, what else do you need?

And what would the employees of Microsoft and Apple do after been made redundant? Thats a couple of hundred thousand people, and their families, without an income.

K_user

K_user wrote: »

And what would the employees of Microsoft and Apple do after been made redundant? Thats a couple of hundred thousand people, and their families, without an income.

Course you could argue that the Government will provide them with all they need. Standard clothes, bread, milk, meat, and a roof to sleep under. They can then report to the employment office for task assignment. But don't complain, the Government is providing for you.

Scared yet?