Socialist Party's policies

Are you talking to yourself?

JRG has answered questions pretty well so far. Give them a chance to come back with some more. It's not easy taking a contrary view to the masses.

Godge

Deleted User wrote: »

JRG has answered questions pretty well so far. Give them a chance to come back with some more. It's not easy taking a contrary view to the masses.

You think?

Good loser wrote: »

What JRG advocates is a farcically outdated model of how a society/economy should/could be organised.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

I think the above post sums his position up quite eloquently.

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

I am not well versed in economics - I have a very basic understanding of economics.

.

I think in this one he sums up his own knowledge equally eloquently.

K_user

Deleted User wrote: »

Are you talking to yourself?

Every comment I have made has been a direct reply to another person’s post, apart from once. And that one was ended with a smiley as it was a deliberate tongue in cheek remark. A little humour in a serious debate.

If you have a problem with anything that I have said please refer to it directly and I will try to respond. If not...

hmmm

K_user wrote: »

Course you could argue that the Government will provide them with all they need.

They would be issued with a Class 4 apartment, and given secure lifelong employment as Grade 3 comrades in either Tractor Factory 16 or Fish processing plant 12.

Godge

hmmm wrote: »

They would be issued with a Class 4 apartment, and given secure lifelong employment as Grade 3 comrades in either Tractor Factory 16 or Fish processing plant 12.

It won't work like that, remember this is a bottoms up democracy where the workers decide what should be produced.

Decryption factory 7 (manufactures decryption products for decoding Sky Sports), Whiskey processing plant 24, Chocolate factory 9, Cinema 234 or Swimming Pool 10 would be the options available.

K_user

hmmm wrote: »

They would be issued with a Class 4 apartment, and given secure lifelong employment as Grade 3 comrades in either Tractor Factory 16 or Fish processing plant 12.

They get a class 4? The lucky beggers. Back in my day we had to walk to work in our bare feet, 12 days a week, and all we got was a class 3.

Chips Lovell

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.

Lots of points raised, so don't have time to respond to them all. But I'll take this one. The idea sounds grand in theory. Have one toothpaste supplier, thus eliminating needless duplication of effort in having so many varieties and brands and remove the need for advertising spending.

However, if you just have one state toothpaste factory, you remove all incentive for it to be efficient. Doesn't matter how good the toothpaste is or how expensive it is, people have to to buy it, because its the only one. Doesn't matter how much you produce, because you're the only show in town.

Take a look at the way the East German economy panned out. Second hand Trabants sold for more than new models. Why? The waiting list for a new car was around 10 years. Factory had no incentive to produce them quicker because who else were people going to buy from?

K_user

Godge wrote: »

It won't work like that, remember this is a bottoms up democracy where the workers decide what should be produced.

Decryption factory 7 (manufactures decryption products for decoding Sky Sports), Whiskey processing plant 24, Chocolate factory 9, Cinema 234 or Swimming Pool 10 would be the options available.

Good points, but Sky sports would have to be deemed wasteful expenditure and having more than one football team would be considered a duplication of product. :P

Can't see anyone complaining about Whiskey processing plant 24, but the Oompa Loompas have got the Chocolate factory tied up in red tape

Godge

K_user wrote: »

Good points, but Sky sports would have to be deemed wasteful expenditure and having more than one football team would be considered a duplication of product. :P

Can't see anyone complaining about Whiskey processing plant 24, but the Oompa Loompas have got the Chocolate factory tied up in red tape

As this would be an Irish socialist State, SKY would still be operating in Britain under their capitalist regime and so would the Premier League. But, you are right in one way, the decryption factory probably wouldn't be allowed in case we got corrupted by that capitalist culture.

Have to smuggle in SKY cards across the border then.

K_user

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

Lots of points raised, so don't have time to respond to them all. But I'll take this one. The idea sounds grand in theory. Have one toothpaste supplier, thus eliminating needless duplication of effort in having so many varieties and brands and remove the need for advertising spending.

However, if you just have one state toothpaste factory, you remove all incentive for it to be efficient. Doesn't matter how good the toothpaste is or how expensive it is, people have to to buy it, because its the only one. Doesn't matter how much you produce, because you're the only show in town.

Take a look at the way the East German economy panned out. Second hand Trabants sold for more than new models. Why? The waiting list for a new car was around 10 years. Factory had no incentive to produce them quicker because who else were people going to buy from?

Great point.

And while East Germany had a successful economy, it just didn't match the economic growth of West Germany.

Also it worth looking into the other problems that they faced. Labour protests were put down by Soviet Forces. There was also the Stasi, the secret police, who's only job was to spy on the population and remove dissidents. Not exactly a happy place.

Which is always going to be the problem. Trying to over control what the population is doing leads to oppressive laws, or law breaking. Prohibition in the US is another example, urban crime organizations gained a huge foothold in the country because black market alcohol was very profitable and in huge demand.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

alias no.9

K_user wrote: »

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.

I'm pretty sure the workers committee would all have been in agreement back in the 1980s that more telephone boxes and longer cords on the handsets of home phones would meet the need of the masses to be able to keep in contact anywhere, anytime.

Godge

alias no.9 wrote: »

I'm pretty sure the workers committee would all have been in agreement back in the 1980s that more telephone boxes and longer cords on the handsets of home phones would meet the need of the masses to be able to keep in contact anywhere, anytime.

Fairly certain they wouldn't have allowed dangerous things like the internet.

VinLieger

Godge wrote: »

Fairly certain they wouldn't have allowed dangerous things like the internet.

A place that allows the free exchange of ideas and opinions that differ from the party line? Off to the gulag with you!

K_user

VinLieger wrote: »

A place that allows the free exchange of ideas and opinions that differ from the party line? Off to the gulag with you!

LOL

Jolly Red Giant

oscar - My response to another post appears to have crossed with yours – some of the issues you raise are addressed in that so I won't be repeating them.

oscarBravo wrote: »

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.

Never made such a claim – and it is patently not the case – feudalism would not be better than capitalism, slavery would not be better than capitalism, even mercantilism would not be better than neo-liberalism. Economic processes have undergone an evolutionary process that developed through slavery to feudalism and through industrialisation under capitalism. Each form was necessary at its time and each has been and has to be replaced in order to further develop the economy and wider society. Capitalism can only be replaced by a socialised economy – an economy based on an industrial working class, a social class that has evolved directly as a result of capitalist economic development. For 150 years capitalism dramatically developed the world economy (on the basis of the nation state) – now capitalism acts as a break on economic development.

oscarBravo wrote: »

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.

to be honest – you clearly lack an understanding of what I have outlined or you are being facetious – so let's take you thought experiment and then turn it on its head

Now – lets not at a hypothetical scenario – but a real life development under capitalism – you have an individual who likes to gamble – this individual is convinced that he cannot lose – he is so convinced that he goes to the bank and looks for a loan to fund his gambling – the bank manager is also convinced that this individual cannot lose – the gambler runs up massive loans and backs a horse called 'property bubble' – but the horse trips himself up and comes crashing to the ground – the gambler and the bank turn around as say 'a well – no need to worry – I'll make a few phone calls – I have a few friends with influence and we will just dump the losses onto the shoulders of others' and then the individual starts off the process all over again.

oscarBravo wrote: »

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,

lets deal with them

oscarBravo wrote: »

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?

The only people who have tooth trouble with the phrase 'ruling elites'are those who don't want to acknowledge their existence or have aspirations to be part of the elite.

And it is not a case of 'why' would the use violence – it is a case of the elites have always used violence when necessary to protect their power and wealth – there is a very long list of examples when socialists threaten the rule of the elites and the elites resort to violence to protect their power and wealth – they do this in the knowledge that if a socialist revolution is successful they will lose their power and wealth – the ruling elites (whether in slavery, feudalism or capitalism) never willingly give up their power.

oscarBravo wrote: »

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?

the responsibility for that lies with the Tsarist state that resisted – not with the workers movement – the ruling elites in Russia in 1917 had repeatedly ordered the shooting of protesting workers and peasants and cost a million deaths in the imperialist adventure that was WW1 – they had no problem sacrificing the lives of individuals to defend their interests. So in terms of Ireland you should address your questions to the elites who rule this country and ask them how many lives their are willing to sacrifice to protect their power and wealth.

oscarBravo wrote: »

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

a revolution is a movement – it is a process of changing the existing order – such a change will not emerge from public protests (against the fiscal policies that protect the wealth of the elites) but from working class people organising themselves to physically take control of the levers of political and economic power.

oscarBravo wrote: »

You're preaching at me

I don't preach – I leave that to people who think they know more than me – I outline issues as I see them from a socialist perspective

oscarBravo wrote: »

that capitalism is bad for my small business, because a small number of people are making more money than I am.

No – capitalism is bad for your business (and I am not talking about a specific business – but plurally in terms of all small businesses) because the drive to monopolise markets, the drive to gobble up competition, and the inherent contradictions in capitalism result in the fact that most small businesses ultimately fail. Individual businesses can survive – but in general terms capitalism moves towards smaller and smaller numbers controlling greater and greater percentages of markets.

oscarBravo wrote: »

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.

The driving force in capitalist society is the drive for wealth – for more and more money – that is not the driving force in a socialist society. Socialism counter-poses democracy to power, cooperation to competition, solidarity to the dog-eat-dog world of capitalism. If your sole motivation for running your business is to make as much money as possible then it is unlikely that socialism has anything to offer you – if the motivation for running your business is producing enough income for a comfortable life and then looking to produce something innovative / productive / beneficial to society at large then socialism is the only economic system that can fulfill those motivations

oscarBravo wrote: »

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.

Yes it is – the objective of socialism is to create a classless society – class based societies are based on conflict and exploitation and ultimately they are destructive to the human spirit and to human life.

oscarBravo wrote: »

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 emergence of capitalism resulted in the development of three distinct social classes – the bourgeoisie, the petty-bourgeoisie and the proletariat. Of these there are two dominant classes – the bourgeoisie because of their power and wealth and the proletariat because of their social weight in an industrialised society. The petty-bourgeoisie vacillates between supporting one or the other depending on the balance of forces at any particular time. The globalisation of the world economy has resulted in a dramatic shrinking of the 'middle' layer within society to the stage now that they have relatively little social weight – and are primarily used as an extra social force to be swung by the bourgeoisie to kick the rest of the population. Gone are the days of the small shopkeepers, the small farmers, the one-man operations to be replaced by a small layer of private sector professionals and higher level managers and bureaucrats and a small number of people who own and operate businesses.

oscarBravo wrote: »

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?

By using the word 'wrath' you are implying some sort of violent revenge, some pay-back for a couple of centuries of exploitation – that misses the point of socialism. The evolution of a socialised economy would lead (over a prolonged period) of the gradual disappearance of the petty bourgeoisie as a social class – disappearing because the monetary motivation would be replaced by a motivation based on social progress.

oscarBravo wrote: »

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.

The issue is not the ownership of capital but the mode of production. Socialism changes the mode of production not the ownership of capital per say – it is necessary to control the key sectors of the economy in order to implement a democratically planned socialised economy and that would require the public ownership of sections of the economy – but it is not necessary for all capital to be in public ownership – and this wouldn't be desirable either as it would create a bureaucracy that could attempt to usurp the economic system (part of the reason for the rise of Stalinism)

oscarBravo wrote: »

t appears that I can own my business, but that my prices would be set democratically.

Prices would be set based on the cost of production – eliminating the contradictions of capitalism would eliminate inflation/deflation pressures leading to a stable monetary system that would not involve fluctuations in finance, currency or prices.

oscarBravo wrote: »

Would I be allowed to make a profit? This isn't clear.

Yes – If you own a business and you run it efficiently then you can make all the profit you want – all businesses would be subjected to appropriate wages and working conditions as would be expected. Here is a further benefit for a business owner – if you were producing a product or providing a service that was socially useful but not profitable then you would be subsidised to ensure the continued operation of the business.

oscarBravo wrote: »

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?

Of course there is a cost involved – and the cost would be covered out of progressive taxation.

oscarBravo wrote: »

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?

If it happened now your business would fold and your employees would be dumped on the dole. In a socialist society it might be appropriate for this better product to be produced in more than one location and you might have an opportunity to be involved in it – or if that was not necessary your workers would be provided with employment in other industries or retrained with new skills. You would have an opportunity to retrain or develop new ideas that you could use to start another business.

oscarBravo wrote: »

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):

Ultimately you can choose to sack your employees – shut your business – move to a new location etc – your employees have no control over that – in terms of control the ball is completely in your court.

oscarBravo wrote: »

are you saying that, in a socialist society, everybody's job is guaranteed under all circumstances?

The number one objective of socialism is full employment.

oscarBravo wrote: »

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

No there are not – and that isn't actually the problem with capitalism. The inherent contradictions of capitalism leads to a widening wealth gap between the 1% and the 99% and as capitalism can no longer grow in a sustained fashion more and more people will be driven into grinding poverty. The high point of capitalist advancement was in the late 19th century – since then the world has had to endure two world wars, countless other wars and a decline in the ability of capitalism to fund the survival of a global population.

oscarBravo wrote: »

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?

I have addressed the issue of prices and costs above – you will be running a business where you will not have to waste time and energy dealing with price and currency fluctuations and can instead focus on developing productivity, innovation etc. It is again a misconception that socialists want everyone to be the same – every human being is an individual, is different and has something different to offer society. It is capitalism that restricts human individuality because all human beings must fit somewhere into the class structure in society and limits their potential.

oscarBravo wrote: »

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?

You are again approaching the issue from the perspective that money is the sole motivating factor for an individual to engage in work. Work in exchange for money is a necessity under capitalism because without it you would starve, be homeless, be considered worthless. In a society where basic needs are met the motivation for work would be different. To demonstrate – despite the fact that workers have to spend a large portion of their week earning money, large numbers will engage in voluntary work, working with sports clubs, promoting and developing music, art, drama, writing, researching, tidying their local community, lookinng after the environment etc. If money was the sole motivation for doing anything why do so many people spend so much time helping other human beings etc.

oscarBravo wrote: »

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.

In reality – the 'leap of faith' your workers must take is in the continued existence of their jobs, wages and working conditions – all of which are subjected to the anarchy of the market and, ultimately, to your diktats. A socialist society facilitates them having a role in determining their future rather than having their future subjected to the anarchy of the market.

oscarBravo wrote: »

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.

Not for one moment would I suggest that socialism has the answer to all question – that it is a perfect 'system' – that there will not be problems to overcome. I don't know if there are fatal flaws in it or not – what I do know is that there are fatal flaws in capitalism (literally in terms of the deaths capitalism causes). Socialism offers the potential for a more productive society that is inclusive. Socialism also affords the opportunity for human beings to use their full potential to overcome any problems that may emerge in a socialised society – capitalism restricts human potential precisely because it needs a compliant workforce to create profit.

oscarBravo wrote: »

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.

One historical event from Ireland demonstrates the potential of working class control of society – in April 1919 a nationalist newspaper published an article decrying the possibility that workers could take over and run a city like Cork or Limerick. The article claimed that Irish workers were too stupid and too ignorant to know what to do. A week later the Limerick Soviet was established. For ten days the workers of Limerick ran the city, planned food production and distribution, mobilised the city to provide for the needs of the population, eliminated crime (no criminal act was reported during the entire ten days) and demonstrated that not only were the workers of Limerick not stupid and ignorant they were more than capable of organising the functioning of the city – better than the city's establishment ever had. Working class organisation and mobilisation creates the mechanisms for running society. Industrialisation has led to an organised working class and this organsation and mobilisation are the embryonic mechanisms to run society.

oscarBravo wrote: »

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.

You see here is the problem – you are approaching the situation from the perspective that 'this can't work' – when the reality is that what is not working is capitalism. It is not a case of 'figuring it out later' – capitalism has actually created the superstructure that a socialised society would use (and need) to plan a socialised economy – it is not a case os chucking out the baby with the bath water – it is merely a case of dumping the bath water.

Socialism is fundamentally about altering the mode of production – eliminating the profit motive and as a result eliminating the contradictions of capitalism. Socialism would not abolish the transportation system for trade and attempt to build a new one – it would not abolish the system of energy production and attempt to build a new one from scratch, it would not scrap production processes and attempt to invent new ones etc – socialism would take control of society from the hands of a tiny percentage of the population and democratically plan a socialised economy (using all the processes currently in existence) in the interests of the 99%.

Unfortunately I do not have the time or energy to answer some of the other issues raised in other posts. While there are some interesting points raised there is also a lot of nonsense (in particular the rubbish from the advocates of Mises and Hayek). If I have the time and the inclination over the next few days I will come back and try and address come of the other interesting points.

K_user

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

Socialism is fundamentally about altering the mode of production – eliminating the profit motive and as a result eliminating the contradictions of capitalism. Socialism would not abolish the transportation system for trade and attempt to build a new one – it would not abolish the system of energy production and attempt to build a new one from scratch, it would not scrap production processes and attempt to invent new ones etc – socialism would take control of society from the hands of a tiny percentage of the population and democratically plan a socialised economy (using all the processes currently in existence) in the interests of the 99%.

No it doesn’t.

I had a long response as I tried to reply to everything you said, but this second last paragraph, the last line in the paragraph in fact, is the one that stuck in my throat. It summed up everything. Its what you keep talking about, the “elite”, the “working class”, this notion that Socialism will fix the world because the greed of Capitalism would be gone forever.

Socialism requires a government that controls as much of the resources of a country as possible. If the interests of 99% need to be catered for, then equal shares need to be allocated. This would require a monumental amount of middle management and bureaucrats. Not to mention policing.

Everything from the amount of food that you have, the amount of clothes that you own, the number of kids that you have, where you live, it all has to be equal. Otherwise its not in the interest of the 99% because if one family has more, then they are “elite”.

If John owns a Merc, then everyone has to own a Merc. So no Merc’s allowed. Everyone has to have a Ford Focus. We are all equal. But John has a 2014 Ford Focus, therefore everyone has to have a 2014 Ford Focus, else its not fair. But John’s a Doctor, he has huge responsibilities, he is a key member of the community. So why isn’t he allowed a Merc when the lives of all of the people around depend on him? So give the man a Merc. John’s “elite”, he is no longer one of the “working class”, he is above the 99%.

Now lets talk distances to Dr John. Surely a farmer that has to travel 50 miles to get to Dr John deserves more compensation than the middle management guy that lives two doors down? But the middle management guy has a sick wife that needs Dr John more often, is he compensated for the extra time?

And housing issues, why are the Murphys allowed live in that 4 bedroomed detached house with a large back garden? The Smiths live in a terraced house with no garden. Is it true that the Murphys have an apple tree? Does that come out of their allocation of resources?

Who’s interests are the 99%? Who decides who gets what? Who decides who owns what? Who decides whats competition and whats just progress in action? Who decides that child A is going to be a doctor, while child B is going to be a tradesman? If the people are all equal then everyone should be allowed to try and become a Doctor, if they want. But if ¾’s of the young population are spending 7 years in university, who’s paying for all that?

And what happens if no one wants to do the really dirty jobs? After all if everything is equally divided, then I’d rather be sitting in an office thanks. So job allocation would have to be enforced, because someone has to do the job that no one else wants. But wouldn’t that make them lower in the ranking of the “99%”?

And the powers that be? The ones that are making the decisions. How long are they in power? Is there a vetting process, or are they freely elected? Because once they are in power they are no longer part of the 99% as they control the resources of the entire country. Millions of jobs are now at their finger tips. Unlike today where there is separation between state and private, a free market ensures productivity. If todays Government f**ks up the country takes pain and continues on. If a Socialist government f**ks up then millions of lives might not receive their daily allowance, because everything is allocated, its state run.

People aren’t pawns. Socialism requires too much control. Too much regulation. Too much policing. Freedom of speech would be taken off you simply because the Status quo has to be maintained.

oscarBravo

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

Capitalism can only be replaced by a socialised economy...

This is stated axiomatically, but it's patently untrue. Capitalism could, in theory, be replaced by socialism - but to emphatically state that it can only be replaced by it is, at best, wishful thinking.

a revolution is a movement – it is a process of changing the existing order – such a change will not emerge from public protests (against the fiscal policies that protect the wealth of the elites) but from working class people organising themselves to physically take control of the levers of political and economic power.

You keep talking in clichés, which - while it makes it hard to take you seriously - at least means I need to be less concerned about your ideal society coming to pass, because you clearly haven't the first idea how to go about it.

No – capitalism is bad for your business (and I am not talking about a specific business – but plurally in terms of all small businesses) because the drive to monopolise markets, the drive to gobble up competition, and the inherent contradictions in capitalism result in the fact that most small businesses ultimately fail. Individual businesses can survive – but in general terms capitalism moves towards smaller and smaller numbers controlling greater and greater percentages of markets.

The point you're having trouble grasping is that the possibility of failure is what drives me to be (a) competitive and (b) innovative. I'll be more likely to go out of business if I fail to provide products and services that people want to buy from me, delivered with a degree of customer service that makes them want to buy from me instead of someone else.

You've made it clear that you believe competition is inefficient, so - assuming for the sake of argument that I'm actually allowed to continue to provide services, and that I haven't been forced out of business (ironically) by a collectivist monopoly (and, from what you've said, that seems entirely likely), I would have no reason to compete. My prices would be set for me; my costs likewise. Where's the incentive to innovate, to excel?

The driving force in capitalist society is the drive for wealth – for more and more money – that is not the driving force in a socialist society. Socialism counter-poses democracy to power, cooperation to competition, solidarity to the dog-eat-dog world of capitalism. If your sole motivation for running your business is to make as much money as possible then it is unlikely that socialism has anything to offer you – if the motivation for running your business is producing enough income for a comfortable life and then looking to produce something innovative / productive / beneficial to society at large then socialism is the only economic system that can fulfill those motivations

You seem to be tacitly acknowledging that some people are motivated by the possibility of earning more; further, you seem to be accepting that such people would have difficulty adapting to a socialist society. This is a stumbling block you seem to have no interest in addressing.

I want to make money not because I want to be some sort of Gordon Gecko-esque caricature, but because there are things that you can do when you have money that you can't when you don't. I have family in South America and in the Middle East. I want to be able to travel to see them on a regular basis and, ideally, travel in a degree of comfort. I have a means to earn the money to do that (albeit not as often as I'd like).

Your austere-sounding "comfortable life" doesn't seem to me to include the possibility of spending time with family abroad.

Yes it is – the objective of socialism is to create a classless society – class based societies are based on conflict and exploitation and ultimately they are destructive to the human spirit and to human life.

OK - but you're defining classes as people who have more than other people. If you want a classless society, then you are, by definition, stating that you want a society where not merely does nobody have any more than anyone else; it has to be impossible for anyone to have any more than anyone else.

This can come about in one of two ways: either everybody agrees that they don't ever want to have any more than anyone else, or society makes it illegal to have any more than anyone else. In practice, this means that it has to be illegal to own anything at all - which flies in the face of your assertion that I can continue to own my business.

Gone are the days of the small shopkeepers, the small farmers, the one-man operations to be replaced by a small layer of private sector professionals and higher level managers and bureaucrats and a small number of people who own and operate businesses.

I'm not sure what planet you live on, but over here on Earth there are plenty of small shopkeepers, small farmers and one-man (and -woman) operations.

By using the word 'wrath' you are implying some sort of violent revenge, some pay-back for a couple of centuries of exploitation – that misses the point of socialism. The evolution of a socialised economy would lead (over a prolonged period) of the gradual disappearance of the petty bourgeoisie as a social class – disappearing because the monetary motivation would be replaced by a motivation based on social progress.

Will "social progress" offer me business-class flights to Chile and the leisure time (and wherewithal) to build and sail a small dinghy?

The issue is not the ownership of capital but the mode of production. Socialism changes the mode of production not the ownership of capital per say – it is necessary to control the key sectors of the economy in order to implement a democratically planned socialised economy and that would require the public ownership of sections of the economy – but it is not necessary for all capital to be in public ownership – and this wouldn't be desirable either as it would create a bureaucracy that could attempt to usurp the economic system (part of the reason for the rise of Stalinism)

I don't know what a "mode of production" is. What is the "mode of production" that makes the Internet work, and how would it change in a socialised economy?

Prices would be set based on the cost of production – eliminating the contradictions of capitalism would eliminate inflation/deflation pressures leading to a stable monetary system that would not involve fluctuations in finance, currency or prices.

Why would you want a monetary system (or indeed prices)? Nobody's allowed to have any more than anyone else, so what's money for?

Yes – If you own a business and you run it efficiently then you can make all the profit you want – all businesses would be subjected to appropriate wages and working conditions as would be expected.

That's a direct contradiction of what you just said: that prices, wages and costs would be set for me. How do I decide how much profit I can make under those circumstances?

Here is a further benefit for a business owner – if you were producing a product or providing a service that was socially useful but not profitable then you would be subsidised to ensure the continued operation of the business.

Great - so I don't have to bother being efficient.

Of course there is a cost involved – and the cost would be covered out of progressive taxation.

Progressive taxation requires, by definition, that some people earn more than others in order that they be taxed more. This is in direct contradiction to the ideal of a classless society. If you eliminate the elites, who do you progressively tax?

If it happened now your business would fold and your employees would be dumped on the dole. In a socialist society it might be appropriate for this better product to be produced in more than one location and you might have an opportunity to be involved in it – or if that was not necessary your workers would be provided with employment in other industries or retrained with new skills. You would have an opportunity to retrain or develop new ideas that you could use to start another business.

Or we could all sit at home and do nothing. The rewards seem, frankly, indistinguishable.

Ultimately you can choose to sack your employees – shut your business – move to a new location etc – your employees have no control over that – in terms of control the ball is completely in your court.

My employees can choose who to work for. The idea of employees as indentured serfs is not only patronising and insulting to them; it's also deeply anachronistic.

The number one objective of socialism is full employment.

What about people who don't want to work?

No there are not – and that isn't actually the problem with capitalism. The inherent contradictions of capitalism leads to a widening wealth gap between the 1% and the 99% and as capitalism can no longer grow in a sustained fashion more and more people will be driven into grinding poverty.

With "grinding poverty" defined as "having less than someone else", it seems.

Tell me: would you rather be poor now, or poor 200 years ago?

I have addressed the issue of prices and costs above – you will be running a business where you will not have to waste time and energy dealing with price and currency fluctuations and can instead focus on developing productivity, innovation etc.

Why would I bother developing productivity or innovating? My prices are dictated to me, and will be subsidised if I make a loss. I might as well focus on playing solitaire instead.

It is again a misconception that socialists want everyone to be the same – every human being is an individual, is different and has something different to offer society. It is capitalism that restricts human individuality because all human beings must fit somewhere into the class structure in society and limits their potential.

I didn't say everyone is the same; I said everyone is rewarded equally. A ditch-digger has the same lifestyle as a neurosurgeon: why would I bother with a decade of gruelling medical education?

You are again approaching the issue from the perspective that money is the sole motivating factor for an individual to engage in work. Work in exchange for money is a necessity under capitalism because without it you would starve, be homeless, be considered worthless. In a society where basic needs are met the motivation for work would be different. To demonstrate – despite the fact that workers have to spend a large portion of their week earning money, large numbers will engage in voluntary work, working with sports clubs, promoting and developing music, art, drama, writing, researching, tidying their local community, lookinng after the environment etc. If money was the sole motivation for doing anything why do so many people spend so much time helping other human beings etc.

This is the sort of fractured logic that pervades your argument. You point out that some people are motivated by things other than money; therefore we don't need money to motivate anyone. It's like saying that because I enjoy cheese, then I don't need any vegetables in my diet.

In reality – the 'leap of faith' your workers must take is in the continued existence of their jobs, wages and working conditions – all of which are subjected to the anarchy of the market and, ultimately, to your diktats. A socialist society facilitates them having a role in determining their future rather than having their future subjected to the anarchy of the market.

On the contrary: a theoretical socialist society claims that it offers them these things. I, on the other hand, literally put my money where my mouth is and pay them every week or month for the work they do.

They don't have to work for me: I can't force them not to quit. I can't prevent them from setting up their own anarcho-syndicalist commune to compete with my capitalist venture. And yet, they don't.

Socialism offers the potential for a more productive society that is inclusive.

With one brand of toothpaste, and no iPhones.

One historical event from Ireland demonstrates the potential of working class control of society – in April 1919 a nationalist newspaper published an article decrying the possibility that workers could take over and run a city like Cork or Limerick. The article claimed that Irish workers were too stupid and too ignorant to know what to do. A week later the Limerick Soviet was established. For ten days the workers of Limerick ran the city, planned food production and distribution, mobilised the city to provide for the needs of the population, eliminated crime (no criminal act was reported during the entire ten days) and demonstrated that not only were the workers of Limerick not stupid and ignorant they were more than capable of organising the functioning of the city – better than the city's establishment ever had. Working class organisation and mobilisation creates the mechanisms for running society. Industrialisation has led to an organised working class and this organsation and mobilisation are the embryonic mechanisms to run society.

Why did it only last ten days? (Genuinely curious.)

You see here is the problem – you are approaching the situation from the perspective that 'this can't work' – when the reality is that what is not working is capitalism. It is not a case of 'figuring it out later' – capitalism has actually created the superstructure that a socialised society would use (and need) to plan a socialised economy – it is not a case os chucking out the baby with the bath water – it is merely a case of dumping the bath water.

But you're not explaining (at least, not coherently) how you can run the existing capitalist society in a socialist way. Your explanations are, as I've pointed out above, inherently self-contradictory. The reason I believe it can't work is because it's not internally consistent.

Socialism is fundamentally about altering the mode of production – eliminating the profit motive and as a result eliminating the contradictions of capitalism.

Another contradiction - you said earlier that I could make a profit in a socialised society. Now you're eliminating the profit motive. Which is it?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

jank

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

Gone are the days of the small shopkeepers, the small farmers, the one-man operations to be replaced by a small layer of private sector professionals and higher level managers and bureaucrats and a small number of people who own and operate businesses.

I think this confirms that JRG has no idea what the real world is like. A teacher who has spent too much time reading socialist literature without ever venturing into the real world. I am a one man operation in one sense. A number of my family run their own businesses, some as one man operations others in a partnership with someone else. JRG seems totally devolved from reality.

K_user

oscarBravo wrote: »

Why did it only last ten days? (Genuinely curious.)

The whole thing kicked off because the IRA* forcibly tried to break one of their own, Robert Byrne, out of custody. People on both sides died, including Byrne.

Local Limerick people turned out in thousands for his funeral and there was a lot of unrest. This resulted in martial law being declared and access in and out of the city was restricted.

The story gained a lot of media attention across the world. But while some of the Irish trade unions helped as much as they could, they never supported them. It was unsustainable situation and the Limerick workers went back to work, resulting in martial law being lifted.

Historian Liam Cahill wrote a book on it and said that "the (Limerick) soviet attitude to private property was essentially pragmatic. So long as shopkeepers were willing to act under the soviet dictates, there was no practical reason to commandeer their premises. And that in the end the (Limerick) soviet was basically an emotional and spontaneous protest on essentially nationalist and humanitarian grounds, rather than anything based on socialist or even trade union aims."

So in his expert opinion the whole situation was more to do with nationalism, and not about creating a socialist Ireland.

There is a short 5 minute clip on Youtube about it:

Linky

* The original IRA - not to be confused with the modern day one

Rubber_Soul

Paul Murphy is doing an AMA over on r/Ireland on Reddit now for anyone interested.

Jolly Red Giant

It can be quite difficult to respond in a comprehensive fashion when you have comment being fired at a post from different angles with many of them incoherent nonsense. I am going to respond in a number of different posts to try and have some structure to the response and to try and avoid repetition.

In addressing these some of these comments it is necessary to preface the response by stating that it is necessary to view an economy as a whole rather than the individual segments of an economy. Trying to aanswer individual instances can result in a long and tedious post that I am trying my best to avoid.

K_user wrote: »

Socialism requires a government that controls as much of the resources of a country as possible. If the interests of 99% need to be catered for, then equal shares need to be allocated. This would require a monumental amount of middle management and bureaucrats. Not to mention policing.

Not the case – a democratically planned socialised economy does not requires 'control as much..as possible' – it requires control over the elements of the economy that are necessary to be able to plan the economy. Such an economy would actually require far less bureaucracy than the current economy and, more importantly, that bureaucracy would be under direct democratic control.

The rest of your post is made up mostly of facetious nonsense.

Lets look specifically at your questions -

Q. Who’s interests are the 99%?
A. The 99% - i.e. The 99% of the population that do not control the wealth or the levers of the economy.

Q. Who decides who gets what?
A. A democratically planned socialised economy would provide for the basic needs of all citizens – after that you buy the stuff you want

Q. Who decides who owns what?
A. You decide what you own based on what you want to buy – certain sections of the economy would be taken into public ownership in order to plan the economy – and that would be the sections of the economy owned by the 1% (and not necessarily all of it)

Q. Who decides whats competition and whats just progress in action?
A. A socialised economy is based on solidarity and cooperation. Competition in a late stage industrialised economy is counter-productive as it can result in the destruction of the productive forces in society.

Q. Who decides that child A is going to be a doctor, while child B is going to be a tradesman?
A. I would suggest that would be child A and child B (with the expected input from parents and other actors in the child's life)

Q. If the people are all equal then everyone should be allowed to try and become a Doctor, if they want.
A. A socialised economy would encourage every individual to try an attain their full potential as a human being. That is an aspiration but it would be delusional to expect that every individual would be enclined to be so driven and ambitious. The difference would be that a socialised economy would see the potential of any individual limited by the lack of money. The country is currently experiencing a crisis in the health service with far too few health professionals being trained. Furthermore, because of the wreck that is the health service large numbers of the young people who are training as health professionals are leaving the country. Last point – not every individual wants to be a doctor – in fact very few young people do. You appear to be implying that young people want to become doctors because they will make money from it – I would disagree. In my opinion many (not all) young people want to become doctors in order to help their fellow human beings.

Q. But if ¾’s of the young population are spending 7 years in university, who’s paying for all that?
A. So you are saying that the number of young people attending university should be limited for economic reasons – and of course those who get to attend are the ones from wealth backgrounds who can afford to send them to college. You also ignore the fact that the government are constantly going on about the 'knowledge economy' and the idea that the better educated the workforce the bigger the benefit to the economy as a whole. The education system would be paid from general taxation.

Q. And what happens if no one wants to do the really dirty jobs? After all if everything is equally divided, then I’d rather be sitting in an office thanks. So job allocation would have to be enforced, because someone has to do the job that no one else wants. But wouldn’t that make them lower in the ranking of the “99%”?
A. Your assumption is that because you don't want to do the 'really dirty jobs' that others would feel likewise – you maybe right. So there are several options for dealing with this – it might be possible (indeed would be possible in many cases) to automate the 'really dirty jobs' – it would be feasible to pay workers a large wage for doing the 'really dirty jobs' rather than what is normally minimum wage (or do you object to the idea of supply and demand in this situation) – if neither of these two options were feasible then on a workplace or community basis these 'really dirty jobs' could be rotated among the entire community (or do you feel that taking your turn would be a little beneath you?)

Q. And the powers that be?
A. You mean the 1% - they would no longer be the 'powers that be'

Q. The ones that are making the decisions.
A. In a democratically planned socialised economy the decisions would be made by the 99% engaging in a participatory democracy

Q. How long are they in power?
A. All elected representatives would be subject to immediate recall by those who elected them.

Q. Is there a vetting process, or are they freely elected?
A. freely elected subjected to recall – not like the nonsense we have now where the hacks are elected and they do what they want for five years with impunity.

Q. Because once they are in power they are no longer part of the 99% as they control the resources of the entire country. Millions of jobs are now at their finger tips.
A. Not the case – the so-called elected government do not 'control the resources of the entire country' – the government does not own most sectors of the economy.

Q. Unlike today where there is separation between state and private, a free market ensures productivity. If todays Government f**ks up the country takes pain and continues on. [/quote]
So you say above that the government controls the 'resources of the entire country' and then claim that the seperation between the 'state and private' ensures productivity – so which is it – does the government control stuff or not.

K_user wrote: »

People aren’t pawns. Socialism requires too much control. Too much regulation. Too much policing. Freedom of speech would be taken off you simply because the Status quo has to be maintained.

People are treated like pawns in the present society – government ministers (well former ministers at this state) have openly admitted to lying to people to get votes. We have a government that uses the gardai as a private security force for private companies – as with Shell in Rossport, the installation of water meters and many other cases. You claim we have freedom of speech – what bullsh*t – you have freedom of speech if you can afford to buy a newspaper or a tv or radio station (or several of them). It is a fallacy to claim there is freedom of speech in this country – there is only freedom of speech for the 1%.

Jolly Red Giant

oscarBravo wrote: »

This is stated axiomatically, but it's patently untrue. Capitalism could, in theory, be replaced by socialism - but to emphatically state that it can only be replaced by it is, at best, wishful thinking.

The basis of a socialised economy exists within capitalism – an industrialised working class. It is possible that a socialised economy would not replace capitalism – but the only other alternative would be barbarism. If you believe that some other form of economic system is possible then the onus is on you to outline the basis of such an economic system and how it would operate.

oscarBravo wrote: »

The point you're having trouble grasping is that the possibility of failure is what drives me to be (a) competitive and (b) innovative. I'll be more likely to go out of business if I fail to provide products and services that people want to buy from me, delivered with a degree of customer service that makes them want to buy from me instead of someone else.

So the fear of failure is what drives you – now maybe you can expand on this – is your fear of failure based on a fear that you will no longer have the income it provides you? - or is your fear based on a fear that you will no longer be 'in control'? - or is there some other factor which impacts on this fear?

oscarBravo wrote: »

You've made it clear that you believe competition is inefficient, so - assuming for the sake of argument that I'm actually allowed to continue to provide services, and that I haven't been forced out of business (ironically) by a collectivist monopoly (and, from what you've said, that seems entirely likely), I would have no reason to compete. My prices would be set for me; my costs likewise. Where's the incentive to innovate, to excel?

There is nothing to inhibit you from continuing to provide the services you currently provide.

Capitalism inherently strives towards a monopoly – every company attempts to corner more and more of the market. In constrast a socialised economy has no economic imperative for creating a monopoly. In fact a socialised economy would be far more diverse than capitalism – capitalism operates in response to the anarchy of the market and as such the responses to 'supply and demand' are anarchic and haphazard. A socialised economy is planned and as such is provides for diversity to provide for the local, national and international needs of communities. You are responsible for your own incentivisation – it is entirely up to you what incentives you use to drive yourself.

oscarBravo wrote: »

You seem to be tacitly acknowledging that some people are motivated by the possibility of earning more; further, you seem to be accepting that such people would have difficulty adapting to a socialist society. This is a stumbling block you seem to have no interest in addressing.

You misrepresent me – I do not tacitly acknowledge the profit motive or the motive of earning more money – I absolutely accept that it is the primary motivation under capitalism. However, it is counter productive as a mechanism for motivation – there is copious amounts of research to demonstrate that financial movtivation impacts to a certain degree on those on lower incomes – has a much lower impact on those on sightly higher to middle incomes – and is the primary motivating factor on the upper layers of the economy (mainly through bonuses). And we have seen the ultimate consequences of this bonus culture – the wreckage of the banking system and the economy.

oscarBravo wrote: »

I want to make money not because I want to be some sort of Gordon Gecko-esque caricature, but because there are things that you can do when you have money that you can't when you don't. I have family in South America and in the Middle East. I want to be able to travel to see them on a regular basis and, ideally, travel in a degree of comfort. I have a means to earn the money to do that (albeit not as often as I'd like).

And isn't it an indictment of capitalism that in order to see your family you are constricted by money.

oscarBravo wrote: »

Your austere-sounding "comfortable life" doesn't seem to me to include the possibility of spending time with family abroad.

I can assure you that I have no interest in living an austere lifestyle – I do not want my life restricted by the fact that the economy limits the provision of basic needs like a free health service and education system, a property bubble and crash, wage cuts and worsening working conditions etc. The starting point is a decent life and the ability that everyone can visit family members abroad is the building of a society that can provide for the basic needs of society.

oscarBravo wrote: »

OK - but you're defining classes as people who have more than other people. If you want a classless society, then you are, by definition, stating that you want a society where not merely does nobody have any more than anyone else; it has to be impossible for anyone to have any more than anyone else.

No – I am not – I am defining social class based on the relationship with the means and mode of production. Those who control the financial, technological and industrial (etc) aspects of society are the 'elites' – those who own or control individual, non-core / non-controlling elements of society are what is the real middle class (not middle income earners as is often claimed) and those without any ownership or control of the productive (or service) forces of society are working class.

I want a society where society is not controlled by the 'elites' – but by the 99% and operates in the interests of the 99%

oscarBravo wrote: »

I'm not sure what planet you live on, but over here on Earth there are plenty of small shopkeepers, small farmers and one-man (and -woman) operations.

1. The number of farmers in the country has dropped from over 500,000 at the foundation of the state to less than 100,000 today.
2. There has been a dramatic drop in the number of small local businesses, particularly since the 1970s. The dominance of the chains has resulted in a major decline in the local shops, pubs and other small businesses. A simple google search would result in a large number of hits for articles outlining the decline of small businesses.
3. The vast majority of one (wo)man operations – the plumber, the painter, the window cleaner etc – are workers, not small businesses.

oscarBravo wrote: »

Will "social progress" offer me business-class flights to Chile and the leisure time (and wherewithal) to build and sail a small dinghy?

Why wouldn't it – and probably more than you have now. The cramming of people into airplanes is a product of the Ryanair model of so-called low-cost (with large numbers of fees and charges) model. Anyone travelling on long-haul flights should be able to travel in comfort. A socialised economy would use automation to reduce the working week and provide more holiday and leusure time (rather than now where it is used to reduce the workforce and boost profits and lead to a declining rate of profit)

oscarBravo wrote: »

I don't know what a "mode of production" is. What is the "mode of production" that makes the Internet work, and how would it change in a socialised economy?

You could have simply googled it - The mode of production is the system of organising production and distribution of goods and services. The classic capitalist mode of production is based on the private ownership of the means of production and wage-labour. The socialist mode of production is production based on a democratically planned socialised economy operaated on the basis of use-value.

oscarBravo wrote: »

That's a direct contradiction of what you just said: that prices, wages and costs would be set for me. How do I decide how much profit I can make under those circumstances?

By producing and distribution goods and services efficiently – Note – the basis of my comments were not that prices, wages and costs would be 'set for you'. A socialised economy would eliminate the inflation/deflation cycle, the bubble/crash cycle, price, interest and currency fluctuations, global financial speculation. In other words there would be a stable economic system that faciliates economic planning for the economy as a whole for the sectors of the economy in public ownership, for privately owned businesses and for workers alike.

oscarBravo wrote: »

Great - so I don't have to bother being efficient.

If you want to stay in business you do.

oscarBravo wrote: »

Progressive taxation requires, by definition, that some people earn more than others in order that they be taxed more. This is in direct contradiction to the ideal of a classless society. If you eliminate the elites, who do you progressively tax?

Everybody should pay tax based on ability to pay. A socialised economy would provide the for basic needs of the population and those needs would be paid for by progressive taxation. The more you earn the more tax you pay. This does not mean that everyone ends up with the same net income – it means that those with higher incomes would pay more in tax.

oscarBravo wrote: »

Or we could all sit at home and do nothing. The rewards seem, frankly, indistinguishable.

Sitting at home doing nothing would drive you nuts – everyone needs the structure of a working environment for the own personal 9and financial) health and well-being.

oscarBravo wrote: »

My employees can choose who to work for. The idea of employees as indentured serfs is not only patronising and insulting to them; it's also deeply anachronistic.

And if they choose to leave your employment without anothr job? Well I am sure that they would enjoy the freedom of not being able to pay their bills as a result of 'choosing' not to continue working for you. The vast majority of workers simply do no have the financial luxury of making such choices.

oscarBravo wrote: »

What about people who don't want to work? With "grinding poverty" defined as "having less than someone else", it seems.

Answered above and before.

oscarBravo wrote: »

I didn't say everyone is the same; I said everyone is rewarded equally. A ditch-digger has the same lifestyle as a neurosurgeon: why would I bother with a decade of gruelling medical education?

And where did I suggest that such a situation would develop? I stated that the objective of a socialised economy would not be to bring the living standard of the neuro-surgeon down to that of the ditch-digger – but to strive to bring the living standard of the ditch-digger up towards the neuro-surgeon. If I need an operation on my head I want the surgeon to be well-trained and well-paid and motivated to do the best job possible. If the ditch-digger f*cks up it is very unlikely to impact on my head.

oscarBravo wrote: »

This is the sort of fractured logic that pervades your argument. You point out that some people are motivated by things other than money; therefore we don't need money to motivate anyone. It's like saying that because I enjoy cheese, then I don't need any vegetables in my diet. On the contrary: a theoretical socialist society claims that it offers them these things. I, on the other hand, literally put my money where my mouth is and pay them every week or month for the work they do.

Capitalism is incapable of providing for the basic needs of the population on the planet. 2 billion people survive on less than a dollar a day – another 2 billion survive on less than 2 dollars a day – most of the rest struggle on a day-to-day basis to put food on the table and a roof over the head of themselves and their families. This constant daily struggle to survive, to keep their financial head above water is destructive to the human spirit. Socialism offers the potential to provide for the bsic needs of society that capitalism is incapable of ever providing – and the provision of these basic needs opens up enormous possibilities for the advancement of humanity.

oscarBravo wrote: »

With one brand of toothpaste, and no iPhones.

Don't be so bloody facetious.

oscarBravo wrote: »

Why did it only last ten days? (Genuinely curious.)

A workers council cannot exist indefinitely within a capitalist society – it opens up the reality of dual power within society. At some point either the forces of capital or the forces of labour have to assert their dominance over the other. The specific reason why the general strike in Limerick was called off was because the Irish Trade Union Congress renaged on a promise to called a nationwide general strike in support of the Limerick Soviet.. Such a general strike would have been a direct challenge to British Imperialism and the forces of capitalism in Ireland and the leadership of the ILP&TUC chickened out of the fight.

oscarBravo wrote: »

But you're not explaining (at least, not coherently) how you can run the existing capitalist society in a socialist way. Your explanations are, as I've pointed out above, inherently self-contradictory. The reason I believe it can't work is because it's not internally consistent.

But I never argued that the objective of socialism was to run the existing capitalist society in a 'socialist' way – that is a constradiction. I want to see the replacement of capitalism by a democratically planned socialised economy and a socialist society.

oscarBravo wrote: »

Another contradiction - you said earlier that I could make a profit in a socialised society. Now you're eliminating the profit motive. Which is it?

This goes back to the very first point I made in my comments this evening. You are attempting to take the generalised organisation of the economy and extrapolate that down to your individual business. This would be the same as claiming that a workers cooperative could not exist in a capitalist society – yet there are workers cooperatives all over the world (many highly successful). There is a difference between the 'mode of production' and the operation of individual businesses.

Jolly Red Giant

K_user wrote: »

Historian Liam Cahill wrote a book on it and said that "the (Limerick) soviet attitude to private property was essentially pragmatic. So long as shopkeepers were willing to act under the soviet dictates, there was no practical reason to commandeer their premises. And that in the end the (Limerick) soviet was basically an emotional and spontaneous protest on essentially nationalist and humanitarian grounds, rather than anything based on socialist or even trade union aims."

So in his expert opinion the whole situation was more to do with nationalism, and not about creating a socialist Ireland.

To put it simply – Liam Cahill is wrong in his assertion. I have debated this on numerous occcasions and there is copious amounts of evidence to demonstrate the inaccuracies of Cahill's interpretation..

So – let's look at the evidence that contradicts Cahill

The Limerick Soviet was a spontaneous response to the declaration of martial law by the British military authorities. It cannot be taken in isolation to events in Limerick and the wider country at this time.

In April 1918 the general strike against conscription shut down Limerick. The Trades Council demonstration in the city involved about 30,000 people (more than double the demonstration organised by SF, the IPP and the Catholic Church two days earlier). The industrial organisers of the ITGWU drew up a blueprint for the organising of regional general strikes and the establishment of workers councils in the event that the British government moved to impose conscription on a regional basis. This blueprint formed the basis for organising the Limerick Soviet. The general strike that defeated conscription demonstrated to workers their power and effect when they acted as an organised movement.

The MayDay protest on the first Sunday in May 1918 saw 15,000 people listen to speeches around three platforms in the Markets Field. Resolutions were passed paying tribute to ‘our Russian comrades who have waged a magnificent struggle for their social and political emancipation’ and adopting a ten point pledge that concluded ‘…we pledge ourselves in the name of the oppressed of every land in every age to use all means that may be deemed effective to achieve those objectives’.

In Jan 1919 the chief inspector of the RIC in Limerick declared that the ITGWU had 'surplanted' SF as the dominant political and social force in the city.

The Easter Monday issue of Limerick Soviet's newspaper, the "Workers' Bulletin", expressed "the greatest feelings of joy that our fellow Trade Unionists in khaki are refusing to do the dirty work, which is only fit for such invertebrates as the RIC." Occasionally, the "Bulletin" referred to the RIC as "swine", sometimes as the "Royal Irish Swine" or "Royal Irish Cowards". On the other hand, the British soldiers were referred to as "Tommy", who was not the real enemy, merely "a tool of his Imperialistic, Capitalistic Government". A regiment of Scottish troops were removed from the cordon out of fear that they were becoming too friendly with the strikers and a Major in the British army was court-martialled for refusing to carry out work normally done by the RIC. The Workers Bulletin specifically asserted that it rejected the claim that the Soviet was nationalist in outlook and stated that efforts by the military authorities to brand it as a nationalist or Sinn Fein strike would fall on deaf ears.

The London Times commenting at the end of the strike stated that ‘the collapse did not come before it demonstrated the power of labour to an impressive degree’. Constance Markewicz (who was then operating as a nationalist Minister for Labour) said ‘Labour will swamp Sinn Féin’. The report received by the United States Secretary of State commented that the ‘Soviet’ was ‘not a trade dispute, not a strike against the military, but purely a labour demonstration of bolshevism served out with a flavour of Sinn Féin’.

The situation continued to deelop in the following years. The Dáil Ministry for Home Affairs described the situation in 1920 as ‘a grave danger threatening the foundations of the Republic’ and went on to say:
‘1920 was no ordinary outbreak…an immense rise in the value of land and farm products threw into more vivid relief than ever before the high profits of ranchers, and the hopeless outlook of the landless men and uneconomic holders…All this was a grave menace to the Republic. The mind of the people was being diverted from the struggle for freedom by a class war, and there was every likelihood that this class war might be carried into the ranks of the republican army itself which was drawn in the main from the agricultural population and was largely officered by farmer’s sons…’

jank

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

It is a fallacy to claim there is freedom of speech in this country – there is only freedom of speech for the 1%.

Sometimes ... i just facepalm.

oscarBravo

I can't help wondering whether you are genuinely blind to the continuous contradictions that you post; or whether you are just hoping that nobody will notice them.

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

So the fear of failure is what drives you – now maybe you can expand on this – is your fear of failure based on a fear that you will no longer have the income it provides you? - or is your fear based on a fear that you will no longer be 'in control'? - or is there some other factor which impacts on this fear?

Your repetition of the word "fear" is telling, given that I didn't use it at all.

Capitalism inherently strives towards a monopoly – every company attempts to corner more and more of the market. In constrast a socialised economy has no economic imperative for creating a monopoly. In fact a socialised economy would be far more diverse than capitalism – capitalism operates in response to the anarchy of the market and as such the responses to 'supply and demand' are anarchic and haphazard.

And yet, you decry the inefficiency of multiple brands of toothpaste existing.

You misrepresent me – I do not tacitly acknowledge the profit motive or the motive of earning more money – I absolutely accept that it is the primary motivation under capitalism. However, it is counter productive as a mechanism for motivation – there is copious amounts of research to demonstrate that financial movtivation impacts to a certain degree on those on lower incomes – has a much lower impact on those on sightly higher to middle incomes – and is the primary motivating factor on the upper layers of the economy (mainly through bonuses). And we have seen the ultimate consequences of this bonus culture – the wreckage of the banking system and the economy.

OK, profit motive bad. How do you eliminate the profit motive from society? Either you have to change people to not want to make a profit, or change society to make it impossible to make a profit. Which do you propose?

And isn't it an indictment of capitalism that in order to see your family you are constricted by money.

Yeah, it also sucks that I don't get to own my own private jet. Are you telling me that a socialised society will give me that too?

I can assure you that I have no interest in living an austere lifestyle – I do not want my life restricted by the fact that the economy limits the provision of basic needs like a free health service and education system, a property bubble and crash, wage cuts and worsening working conditions etc. The starting point is a decent life and the ability that everyone can visit family members abroad is the building of a society that can provide for the basic needs of society.

Wait a second - you're telling me that a basic tenet of your socialised society is that I can have as many foreign holidays as I like?

No – I am not – I am defining social class based on the relationship with the means and mode of production. Those who control the financial, technological and industrial (etc) aspects of society are the 'elites' – those who own or control individual, non-core / non-controlling elements of society are what is the real middle class (not middle income earners as is often claimed) and those without any ownership or control of the productive (or service) forces of society are working class.

OK - so in your classless society, the means and mode of production are democratically controlled, but - subject to the caveat that nobody is actually allowed to own a business (hang on - can I own a business? You've already told me that I both can and can't) - I'm allowed to make as much money as I like?

I'm not seeing how that works in a society that doesn't have a profit motive.

I want a society where society is not controlled by the 'elites' – but by the 99% and operates in the interests of the 99%

Can you define "controlled" for me? Does someone "control" society by owning a large business? Does (for example) the Mærsk company "control" Danish society? Who are the elites who "control" Ireland, and how?

1. The number of farmers in the country has dropped from over 500,000 at the foundation of the state to less than 100,000 today.
2. There has been a dramatic drop in the number of small local businesses, particularly since the 1970s. The dominance of the chains has resulted in a major decline in the local shops, pubs and other small businesses. A simple google search would result in a large number of hits for articles outlining the decline of small businesses.
3. The vast majority of one (wo)man operations – the plumber, the painter, the window cleaner etc – are workers, not small businesses.

OK, so when you said "[g]one are the days of the small shopkeepers, the small farmers, the one-man operations", you were being hyperbolic. Gotcha.

Why wouldn't it – and probably more than you have now. The cramming of people into airplanes is a product of the Ryanair model of so-called low-cost (with large numbers of fees and charges) model. Anyone travelling on long-haul flights should be able to travel in comfort. A socialised economy would use automation to reduce the working week and provide more holiday and leusure time (rather than now where it is used to reduce the workforce and boost profits and lead to a declining rate of profit)

So not only can I have as many foreign holidays a year as I want; every plane will be all first-class?

You're just making this up as you go along, aren't you?

You could have simply googled it - The mode of production is the system of organising production and distribution of goods and services. The classic capitalist mode of production is based on the private ownership of the means of production and wage-labour. The socialist mode of production is production based on a democratically planned socialised economy operaated on the basis of use-value.

Here's the problem: there's a well-understood mechanism in a capitalist society for determining use-value. It's called "what people are prepared to pay for it". It's not always perfect; people can be irrational sometimes.

The problem is, you're claiming (with an absolute vacuum of proof) that it is possible to instead determine by committee what the use-value of any given thing is. You've already made it clear that, if you had your way, multiple brands of toothpaste would be out of the question, and that innovation in portable electronics is waaay down the list of priorities.

It has been repeatedly pointed out to you that without a market to match supply to demand - notice the lack of danger quotes; those are actual words - there's no way to efficiently determine price. You've admitted that don't have a grounding in economics, but - worryingly - you don't seem to see that as a problem when designing an economic system.

If you want to stay in business you do.

Wait, what? You were banging on about "fear" earlier when I pointed out that staying in business is currently my motivation for being efficient, implying that I wouldn't have to worry about staying in business under socialism.

Everybody should pay tax based on ability to pay. A socialised economy would provide the for basic needs of the population and those needs would be paid for by progressive taxation. The more you earn the more tax you pay. This does not mean that everyone ends up with the same net income – it means that those with higher incomes would pay more in tax.

That's a practically letter-perfect description of our current society. Congratulations: you've achieved socialism.

Sitting at home doing nothing would drive you nuts – everyone needs the structure of a working environment for the own personal 9and financial) health and well-being.

Oh, don't get me wrong - I'd be perfectly happy to work five or six hours a week to stave off the insanity. That would be OK, wouldn't it?

And if they choose to leave your employment without anothr job? Well I am sure that they would enjoy the freedom of not being able to pay their bills as a result of 'choosing' not to continue working for you. The vast majority of workers simply do no have the financial luxury of making such choices.

So my employees are downtrodden wage slaves because they don't have the luxury of just deciding not to work?

And where did I suggest that such a situation would develop? I stated that the objective of a socialised economy would not be to bring the living standard of the neuro-surgeon down to that of the ditch-digger – but to strive to bring the living standard of the ditch-digger up towards the neuro-surgeon. If I need an operation on my head I want the surgeon to be well-trained and well-paid and motivated to do the best job possible. If the ditch-digger f*cks up it is very unlikely to impact on my head.

You can't see the contradictions inherent in that single paragraph, can you?

Capitalism is incapable of providing for the basic needs of the population on the planet. 2 billion people survive on less than a dollar a day – another 2 billion survive on less than 2 dollars a day – most of the rest struggle on a day-to-day basis to put food on the table and a roof over the head of themselves and their families. This constant daily struggle to survive, to keep their financial head above water is destructive to the human spirit. Socialism offers the potential to provide for the bsic needs of society that capitalism is incapable of ever providing – and the provision of these basic needs opens up enormous possibilities for the advancement of humanity.

Honestly, I can't tell if I'm being sold a political philosophy or a timeshare.

You keep blithely stating that socialism will Just Work, while skirting aroung the question of exactly how. You cheerfully maintain that while capitalism can't possibly feed seven billion people, socialism will offer them all the lifestyle of a highly-trained medical professional include first-class flights whenever they want them.

Don't you understand how preposterous that sounds?

Don't be so bloody facetious.

I'm not! I'm practically bloody quoting you.

How can you hold up multiple brands of toothpaste and new iPhones as examples of the inefficiency of capitalism and then get huffy when someone uses those same examples as a retort?

A workers council cannot exist indefinitely within a capitalist society – it opens up the reality of dual power within society. At some point either the forces of capital or the forces of labour have to assert their dominance over the other.

This is yet another direct contradiction. You've claimed that socialism and capitalism can co-exist; you've also claimed that they can't.

You've claimed that I can continue to own my business in a socialised society. This means that I own capital. This is capitalism. So, once and for all: would it be possible to own property in a socialised society, and - if so - why do you keep claiming that capitalism and socialism can't co-exist (when you're not busy claiming that they can)?

But I never argued that the objective of socialism was to run the existing capitalist society in a 'socialist' way – that is a constradiction. I want to see the replacement of capitalism by a democratically planned socialised economy and a socialist society.

See above: how can you claim that I can continue to own a business and make a profit if you want to eliminate capitalism?

This goes back to the very first point I made in my comments this evening. You are attempting to take the generalised organisation of the economy and extrapolate that down to your individual business. This would be the same as claiming that a workers cooperative could not exist in a capitalist society – yet there are workers cooperatives all over the world (many highly successful). There is a difference between the 'mode of production' and the operation of individual businesses.

And you've swung the other way again, pointing out that socialism can exist in a capitalist society.

Look: I'm on record as believing that capitalism in its purest form - where the only laws are property laws, and nobody has any inherent rights other than the right to life and property - would be a hideous mistake. I'm also on record that I believe a purely communist society - one in which private property doesn't exist - would be just as bad.

So the answer has to be somewhere in between, and I think that Western liberal social democracies are striking a pretty good balance.

You claim that you want an end to capitalism. You don't seem to think that this means an end to private property rights, but, with all due respect, I honestly think that's because you don't seem to fully understand the issues. Your beliefs are hideously muddled and self-contradictory.

Which, as I've said before, is a good thing: it means you're not a credible threat to society as it's currently structured.

Soldie

Jolly Red Giant, it's utterly preposterous that you expect to be taken seriously when you are unwilling to offer up anything beyond post after post of rhetoric. Your posts display a staggering ignorance of history and you admit to having a very limited knowledge of economics yet you have no hesitation in repeatedly assuring us that your system will work. On what basis? Can you offer a substantive explanation? You're not backing up anything you're saying.

Soldie

oscarBravo wrote: »

It has been repeatedly pointed out to you that without a market to match supply to demand - notice the lack of danger quotes; those are actual words - there's no way to efficiently determine price. You've admitted that don't have a grounding in economics, but - worryingly - you don't seem to see that as a problem when designing an economic system.

This.

You keep blithely stating that socialism will Just Work, while skirting aroung the question of exactly how. You cheerfully maintain that while capitalism can't possibly feed seven billion people, socialism will offer them all the lifestyle of a highly-trained medical professional include first-class flights whenever they want them.

And this.

Jolly Red Giant

Within the confines of a discussion on an Internet forum and the time constraints involved I have attempted to address many of the issues that were raised on this thread. I have engaged in as constructive a fashion as is possible in such an environment.

Oscar - your initial post offered the potential for a constructive debate - indeed you indicated that you were open to a discussion. I have outlined on several occasions now various aspects of your responses that demonstrate you are being facetious in many of your responses since then. Your latest reply has demonstrated that you are more interested in is approach than attempting to engage in constructive debate (an example of this is the nonsense about the 'private jet') - if you want to return to being constructive then I will respond. If not then there is little point in me putting in the effort to respond in a constructive fashion.

An example of this is the passage quoted by Soldie - price in a capitalist economy is not dictated by supply and demand - it is an element of price determination but there are a whole range of other factors which you are content to ignore. But that actually has nothing to do with the basic foundations of the economy. The operation of a capitalist economy is not based on supply and demand - it is based on control of production and finance. Price manipulation occurs on a constant basis and coupled with speculation, manipulation of the financial markets, taxation policy (or the lack of its) etc. etc. etc. all feed into price. But then again I am sure I am just being 'muddled and self-contradictory' in pointing this out to you.

The final comment I will make is on the one constructive point you did make - and that is your support for a liberal social democracy. The idea of a liberal social democracy is a component of the post- war welfare state - established in order to prevent revolutionary upheavals in the aftermath of the war like happened in 1918 and after. Such 'welfare state' regimes were a product of the period and were intended as a short term mechanism to prevent revolutionary class struggle. For the past thirty years (since the election of Thatcher and Reagan) the ruling elites have been rolling back on all the elements of the 'welfare state'. Globalised capitalism can no longer afford liberal social democracy (one of the factors for the degeneration of the parties of social democracy like th LP) and the world has returned to the open class warfare of the inter-war period. So your desire for a liberal social democracy is about 50 years out of date.

Yes I want an end to capitalism - and that requires an end to capitalist control of society - for the elites and end to their private control of the economy. However, I own my own home and in the event of a socialised economy that would not change. You seem incapable or unwilling to make the effort to understand the difference. As I stated very early on - a democratically planned socialised economy would require taking the controlling sectors of the economy into democratic public ownership - but it would not be necessary or desirable for a socialised economy to eliminate all elements of 'property rights' (indeed such rights as the ownership of a home or a non-core business would be far more secure under a socialised economy because they would be dictated by the inherent contradictions in capitalism).

You can regard my ideas as 'muddled and self-contradictory' - but what you are really saying is that you don't agree with them. Instead of repeatedly building paper castles to knock down it would be much better if your were just honest about your approach.

The remaining right-wing hacks on here can make the daft comments about everyone having a lifestyle of a neuro surgeon with first class flights on demand (which I never stated) but it does nothing more than demonstrate that these individuals are not capable of a constructive debate. Good night folks and happy Christmas.

garhjw

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

Within the confines of a discussion on an Internet forum and the time constraints involved I have attempted to address many of the issues that were raised on this thread. I have engaged in as constructive a fashion as is possible in such an environment.

Oscar - your initial post offered the potential for a constructive debate - indeed you indicated that you were open to a discussion. I have outlined on several occasions now various aspects of your responses that demonstrate you are being facetious in many of your responses since then. Your latest reply has demonstrated that you are more interested in is approach than attempting to engage in constructive debate (an example of this is the nonsense about the 'private jet') - if you want to return to being constructive then I will respond. If not then there is little point in me putting in the effort to respond in a constructive fashion.

An example of this is the passage quoted by Soldie - price in a capitalist economy is not dictated by supply and demand - it is an element of price determination but there are a whole range of other factors which you are content to ignore. But that actually has nothing to do with the basic foundations of the economy. The operation of a capitalist economy is not based on supply and demand - it is based on control of production and finance. Price manipulation occurs on a constant basis and coupled with speculation, manipulation of the financial markets, taxation policy (or the lack of its) etc. etc. etc. all feed into price. But then again I am sure I am just being 'muddled and self-contradictory' in pointing this out to you.

The final comment I will make is on the one constructive point you did make - and that is your support for a liberal social democracy. The idea of a liberal social democracy is a component of the post- war welfare state - established in order to prevent revolutionary upheavals in the aftermath of the war like happened in 1918 and after. Such 'welfare state' regimes were a product of the period and were intended as a short term mechanism to prevent revolutionary class struggle. For the past thirty years (since the election of Thatcher and Reagan) the ruling elites have been rolling back on all the elements of the 'welfare state'. Globalised capitalism can no longer afford liberal social democracy (one of the factors for the degeneration of the parties of social democracy like th LP) and the world has returned to the open class warfare of the inter-war period. So your desire for a liberal social democracy is about 50 years out of date.

Yes I want an end to capitalism - and that requires an end to capitalist control of society - for the elites and end to their private control of the economy. However, I own my own home and in the event of a socialised economy that would not change. You seem incapable or unwilling to make the effort to understand the difference. As I stated very early on - a democratically planned socialised economy would require taking the controlling sectors of the economy into democratic public ownership - but it would not be necessary or desirable for a socialised economy to eliminate all elements of 'property rights' (indeed such rights as the ownership of a home or a non-core business would be far more secure under a socialised economy because they would be dictated by the inherent contradictions in capitalism).

You can regard my ideas as 'muddled and self-contradictory' - but what you are really saying is that you don't agree with them. Instead of repeatedly building paper castles to knock down it would be much better if your were just honest about your approach.

The remaining right-wing hacks on here can make the daft comments about everyone having a lifestyle of a neuro surgeon with first class flights on demand (which I never stated) but it does nothing more than demonstrate that these individuals are not capable of a constructive debate. Good night folks and happy Christmas.

You didn't engage in constructive debate. Time and again you refused to answer questions or answered them with other questions.

You then. Spouted on about a load of Communist and socialist waffle out of a text book, totally ignoring the fact that it doesn't work in the real world.

Merry Xmas.

Kermit.de.frog

Sinn Féin's policy is to take from workers and give to non workers. How is this so different from the SP?

Plates

Jolly Red Giant is either one if the most misinformed and misguided posters I've witnessed in a long time or a very persistent troll with significant time on his / her hands.

Jolly Red Giant

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

.... As I stated very early on - a democratically planned socialised economy would require taking the controlling sectors of the economy into democratic public ownership ...

JRG, do you have a list to hand of these sectors that would be taken (confiscated?) into public ownership in a DPSE? I'd be interested in seeing where and how you draw the lines.

Jolly Red Giant

garhjw wrote: »

You didn't engage in constructive debate. Time and again you refused to answer questions or answered them with other questions.

Demonstrate where I didn't answer questions - there is a difference between questions being answered and your expectations on how they should be answered. As is the case of the vast majority of posters here - there are preconceived notions and then smart-a*sed comments when responses don't fit into these preconceived notions.

You then. Spouted on about a load of Communist and socialist waffle out of a text book, totally ignoring the fact that it doesn't work in the real world.

I am a socialist - what do you expect me to do - if you were only interested in discussing the illusion that capitalist works then your should have kept stum on this thread. The thread was started with someone taking a swipe at the Socialist Party - I engaged when it appeared that someone was attempting to engage constructively (which was subsequently shown to be a mistake on my part) and when I outline a socialist view of the economy it is dismissed because it doesn't fit into all these preconceived right-wing notions about what socialism is about.

I will come back after Christmas and if someone makes the effort to be constructive in a discussion - I will consider engaging again.

BoJack Horseman

Adding the word "democratically" adds zero credence.

Democracy & communism are incompatible.

oscarBravo

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

An example of this is the passage quoted by Soldie - price in a capitalist economy is not dictated by supply and demand - it is an element of price determination but there are a whole range of other factors which you are content to ignore. But that actually has nothing to do with the basic foundations of the economy. The operation of a capitalist economy is not based on supply and demand - it is based on control of production and finance. Price manipulation occurs on a constant basis and coupled with speculation, manipulation of the financial markets, taxation policy (or the lack of its) etc. etc. etc. all feed into price. But then again I am sure I am just being 'muddled and self-contradictory' in pointing this out to you.

Well, yes, you are.

You accept that supply and demand are elements of price determination, but I'm not seeing much room for them in the determination of price in your socialist economy - and that's insofar as I can tell what determines prices in such a society, because you've been far from clear on that.

How much does my company charge for the services it provides? Whatever my customers are prepared to pay. If I charge too much, they won't buy from me. If I charge too little, I can't make a profit. It's really quite simple.

It's also, as you've pointed out, somewhat volatile. If another player enters the market offering a similar product at a lower price, then I either find a way to compete, or I go out of business. Either this is the same in a democratically-planned society, or you'll have to explain to me how it's different, because you keep telling me such a society would be better for my business, without quite getting around to explaining in any level of detail exactly how.

Yes I want an end to capitalism - and that requires an end to capitalist control of society - for the elites and end to their private control of the economy. However, I own my own home and in the event of a socialised economy that would not change. You seem incapable or unwilling to make the effort to understand the difference.

That's because you refuse to explain it. Capitalism is defined by the private ownership of business. You have repeatedly stated that you want an end to capitalism; and yet, you have repeatedly stated that you envision the continued private ownership of businesses. That's inherently contradictory.

As I stated very early on - a democratically planned socialised economy would require taking the controlling sectors of the economy into democratic public ownership - but it would not be necessary or desirable for a socialised economy to eliminate all elements of 'property rights' (indeed such rights as the ownership of a home or a non-core business would be far more secure under a socialised economy because they would be dictated by the inherent contradictions in capitalism).

Let's dispense with the arm-waving: please provide a detailed list of those sectors of society where it would not be permissible to own a business in a democratically-planned society. Would broadband infrastructure be included in this list?

Would the list be static? Isn't it fair to say that a democratically-planned society could decide at any time that any given industry should be considered "core", and that it would henceforth be illegal to privately own such a business? How can you claim that the ownership of any business is "secure" under those circumstances?

You can regard my ideas as 'muddled and self-contradictory' - but what you are really saying is that you don't agree with them. Instead of repeatedly building paper castles to knock down it would be much better if your were just honest about your approach.

I'm holding up a mirror to your arguments; I can't help it if you don't like what you see.

You claim it's an indictment of capitalism that people can't afford to travel abroad to visit family, and that when people do fly, it's cramped and uncomfortable. The logical corollary is that, under socialism, anybody could afford to travel whenever they want, and that when they do, it would be in luxury.

But you seem offended at such a conclusion. Why? Are you claiming that, in a socialist society, people wouldn't have the leisure to travel whenever they want and in complete comfort? If that's the case, then why are you levelling it as a criticism at capitalism if it's also true of socialism? If it's not the case, would you be so good as to explain what is?

The remaining right-wing hacks on here can make the daft comments about everyone having a lifestyle of a neuro surgeon...

Actually, it was you who said that everyone should have the lifestyle of a neursurgeon:

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

...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.

If you didn't mean that, fair enough - but you can see why it gets confusing trying to have a discussion with someone who keeps posting things that are in direct contradiction to things he has already said.

Jolly Red Giant

Had a couple of minutes so will address a couple of points - but this thread appears to have run its course.

oscarBravo wrote: »

You accept that supply and demand are elements of price determination,

within capitalism - supply and demand is one factor determining price

oscarBravo wrote: »

but I'm not seeing much room for them in the determination of price in your socialist economy -

And that is because a socialised economy would have a different mode of production.

oscarBravo wrote: »

and that's insofar as I can tell what determines prices in such a society, because you've been far from clear on that.

Actually I have - a socialised economy produces for need - and need would determine cost

oscarBravo wrote: »

How much does my company charge for the services it provides? Whatever my customers are prepared to pay. If I charge too much, they won't buy from me. If I charge too little, I can't make a profit. It's really quite simple.

There are other factors - your services have to be needed by people, your customers have to be able to afford to pay what you charge etc. There are products and services that I would be prepared to pay the current market price for that I will not buy because I cannot afford them. For me in my current situation the determining factor in whether I buy something or not is whether I can afford to pay for something - not whether I am prepared to pay the asking price.

The reality is that it is not 'really quite simple' - there are many varied factors that come into play whether people purchase stuff or not - and being prepared to pay a price is not the only, or even the most important, one. Last point on this - there can be products and services that are needed within a society that are not profitable to produce and people are unable to afford. Under capitalism these would not be produced, in a socialised economy it made be decided that these products and services are necessary and the resources are expended in their production.

oscarBravo wrote: »

It's also, as you've pointed out, somewhat volatile. If another player enters the market offering a similar product at a lower price, then I either find a way to compete, or I go out of business.

There are many and varied factors related to whether a business survives or not under capitalism - whether you can compete or not is just one of them. The volatility of capitalism can impact on even the most competitive businesses and drive them out of existence.

oscarBravo wrote: »

Either this is the same in a democratically-planned society, or you'll have to explain to me how it's different, because you keep telling me such a society would be better for my business, without quite getting around to explaining in any level of detail exactly how. That's because you refuse to explain it.

I have explained it and I will do so again one last time. Under a democratically planned socialised economy you would see the elimination of the anarchy of the market - the bubble/crash cycle - the inflation/deflation pressures - the currency fluctuations, the interest rate fluctuations - the speculation etc. The elimination of all of these aspects of capitalist economics would create a more stable environment that would benefit every aspect of the economy. If you cannot understand this then there is little point in continuing.

oscarBravo wrote: »

Capitalism is defined by the private ownership of business.

No - capitalism is defined by the mode of production - not by the private ownership of business. The ownership model is determined by the mode of production - the production of products and services by wage-labour for profit. Under capitalism private ownership is the mechanism for implementing the mode of production - but it is not the determining factor. It is possible under capitalism that large portions of the economy can be owned by the state but still operate on the basis of the capitalist mode of production (indeed one of the constant gripes that neo-liberals have is that the state controls too much of the economy in a capitalist society).

oscarBravo wrote: »

You have repeatedly stated that you want an end to capitalism; and yet, you have repeatedly stated that you envision the continued private ownership of businesses. That's inherently contradictory.

Either you are unable or unwilling to make the distinction necessary - to repeat from above - I want to see the end of the capitalist mode of production and its replacement with a socialised mode of production. That is - I want to see the mode of production changed from the production for profit base on wage-labour to production for need based on use-value.

Again - in order to plan an economy you must control the key sectors of the economy - but that does not mean controlling every aspect of the economy (something that would be a fallacy to attempt).

oscarBravo wrote: »

Let's dispense with the arm-waving: please provide a detailed list of those sectors of society where it would not be permissible to own a business in a democratically-planned society. Would broadband infrastructure be included in this list?

I have previously indicated what sectors of the economy that would need to be in public ownership - natural resources, energy supply, telecommunications, transportation and distribution, food production, financial services etc - and yes, I would envisage that broadband infrastructure would be in public ownership. As with any and all of these the sectors of the economy that would be necessary to take into public ownership would be determined by what type of economic plan would be implemented. This may be different for different countries, regions etc. Given the concentration of wealth and control within Irish society the list of companies that would be taken into public ownership would probably be in the 100-150 range or at a stretch maybe up to 200. These companies control well over half the entire economy.

oscarBravo wrote: »

Would the list be static? Isn't it fair to say that a democratically-planned society could decide at any time that any given industry should be considered "core", and that it would henceforth be illegal to privately own such a business?

No - of course the list would not be static - and yes the process of planning the economy could decide to take previously privately owned companies into public ownership. If a company was taken into public ownership then compensation would be paid on the basis of proven need, opportunities would be afforded to continue working in a publicly owned company or opportunities would be given to establish a new company in a similar or new sector of the economy.

oscarBravo wrote: »

How can you claim that the ownership of any business is "secure" under those circumstances? I'm holding up a mirror to your arguments; I can't help it if you don't like what you see.

You are not holding anything - what you are doing it taking the best possible scenario to argue for capitalism and the worst possible scenario to argue against a socialised economy. If you take both economic systems and stand them side by side - then - Yes - it is possible that a democratically planned socialsed economy might take your company into public ownership - however - it is far more likely that the anarchic nature of capitalism would wreck your company during one of the bubble / crash cycles that inherently exist under capitalism.

oscarBravo wrote: »

You claim it's an indictment of capitalism that people can't afford to travel abroad to visit family, and that when people do fly, it's cramped and uncomfortable. The logical corollary is that, under socialism, anybody could afford to travel whenever they want, and that when they do, it would be in luxury.

You see - this is the type of b*llocks that shows that you are being facetious. Your logic is adding 1 + 2 and ending up with 12.

Capitalism is an economic system that drives families apart, that creates milllions of economic migrants on a yearly basis that focuses not on the 99% in society but on the greed and avarice of the 1%. A socialsied economy would be planned to mitigate against economic migration - that would allow people the opportunity to work abroad because they want to not because they have to. And when people do decide to live abroad then why should other members of their family visit them or why should they come home on visits - and travel in comfort. Last point on this - airline travel is inefficient, expensive, very damaging to the environment - and it is unsustainable even in the medium term. There are a number of new potential technologies that would be just as effective and friendlier to the environment than air travel. Capitalism actually inhibits the development of these technologies because they are not profitable under the capitalist mode of production. In a socialised economy these new technologies would be developed more effectively because of production for need.

oscarBravo wrote: »

Actually, it was you who said that everyone should have the lifestyle of a neursurgeon: If you didn't mean that, fair enough - but you can see why it gets confusing trying to have a discussion with someone who keeps posting things that are in direct contradiction to things he has already said.

Jeez - I am getting fed up of repeating myself and having to respond to you building paper castles.

One of the daft assertions about socialism is that it wants everyone to be equal and that the living standards of the neuro-surgeon would be dragged down to that of the ditch digger (which is actually an insult to people who dig ditches but that is a side issue). Socialists counter-pose that argument by outlining that the objective of socialism is not to bring the highly skilled professional down to the living standards of the unskilled worker - the objective is to bring the unskilled worker up to the living standards of the highly skilled professional. Please note the word that I highlighted.

Socialism at its core is about developing a better and more stable economy, it is about providing for the basic needs of everyone in society without being deprived of these basic needs because of lack of money. Only when everyone in society has a roof over their head, enough food to eat, a health service when they are sick, an education for their children, a job and a decent standard of living - only then can society and the economy develop beyond the greed and avarice of capitalism, the bubble / crash nature of society and all the adverse social effects that these bring crashing down on the heads of some many people here and abroad.

hmmm

garhjw wrote: »

You then. Spouted on about a load of Communist and socialist waffle out of a text book, totally ignoring the fact that it doesn't work in the real world.

Because "it has never been tried in the real world". All those so called "Socialist" states are not "real" Socialist states, and if only we could have a "real" Socialist state all the things you say don't work in the real world would be proven to work.

If a door is marked with "pull" signs and you repeatedly push it, eventually most people would stop, read the signs and reconsider their approach. But not if you're a "real" socialist, no, then you'd regard the door as mislabeled and you'd keep pushing.

RobertKK

Jolly Red Giant, I don't agree with you but I am thankful on your contribution to this debate.

I am a farmer and I would like to know what is the socialist policies towards farms and farmers.
What would change under a socialist party government?

Thank you again on your contributions, as you are putting across the argument from the other side so we avoid a one sided argument.

Phoebas

RobertKK wrote: »

Jolly Red Giant, I don't agree with you but I am thankful on your contribution to this debate.

I am a farmer and I would like to know what is the socialist policies towards farms and farmers.
What would change under a socialist party government?

Thank you again on your contributions, as you are putting across the argument from the other side so we avoid a one sided argument.

According to JRG, food production would be a 'core' activity, so it looks like your farm would be taken into public ownership.
You'd probably still be allowed to help out with the farming of the now public land, so its not all bad news.

RobertKK

Phoebas wrote: »

According to JRG, food production would be a 'core' activity, so it looks like your farm would be taken into public ownership.
You'd probably still be allowed to help out with the farming of the now public land, so its not all bad news.

I would be in the queue escaping the country...let the idiots with no clue try and farm, it would be like Zimbabwe.

Thankfully I don't see the Socialist party gaining enough support to be in a position to destroy the country.

Godge

RobertKK wrote: »

I would be in the queue escaping the country...let the idiots with no clue try and farm, it would be like Zimbabwe.

Thankfully I don't see the Socialist party gaining enough support to be in a position to destroy the country.

It wouldn't be idiots taking over the farm, it would a collective soviet of farm labourers showing through democratic decision how they can better run the farm.

In the Irish model, they would probably give small farmers a say in how the collectivised farm is run, but they would only get a salary, they would own nothing.

alias no.9

RobertKK wrote: »

I would be in the queue escaping the country...let the idiots with no clue try and farm, it would be like Zimbabwe.

Thankfully I don't see the Socialist party gaining enough support to be in a position to destroy the country.

It's the democratic will of the 99% that your land be used to grow fish fingers and your decision to flee is welcome as part of the removal of the elite without bloodshed.

Iwasfrozen

Jolly Red Giant, I work in the financial services industry, what would happen to my job after the socialist revolution?

Pat D. Almighty

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Jolly Red Giant, I work in the financial services industry, what would happen to my job after the socialist revolution?

It would probably either change or be made redundant.

Iwasfrozen

Pat D. Almighty wrote: »

It would probably either change or be made redundant.

As far as socialist revolutions go as long as I'm not put up against a wall and shot or have my whole family sent to a labor camp it could be worse.

Jolly Red Giant

It is quite funny watching the neo-liberals answering the questions addressed to the socialist - it is a wonder they wouldn't address the disaster that is neo-liberal capitalism.

RobertKK wrote: »

I am a farmer and I would like to know what is the socialist policies towards farms and farmers.
What would change under a socialist party government?

The drive for control of markets under capitalism leads to the constant push for the monopolisation of agriculture into fewer and fewer hands - and out of the ownership of farmers into the hands of the food/agri conglomerates.

As I pointed out earlier capitalism has seen a reduction of more than 80% in the number of farmers in Ireland since the foundation of the state. This trend is continuing and will continue until most of the land in the country is controlled by the ranching groups, the processing plants, the distribution companies and the supermarket chains.

Yes - food production (processing and distribution) are a core activity that would involve planning in a socialised economy. However, the sectors of the food production industry that would require public ownership would be the processing, distribution and supermarket chain sectors - plus some of the large ranch farms - but not family farms.

The model used by right-wing commentators to attack a socialist approach to agriculture is the Stalinist collectivisation of agriculture in Russia from the late 1920s. This is a misnomer as it does not take into account to political processes underway in Russia at this time. Stalin and the bureaucracy promoted a 'greed is good' philosophy in the agri sector in the mid-1920s because the Left Opposition (the opponents of Stalinism) were arguing for the beginning of a voluntary collectivisation programme in Soviet agriculture. Stalin used the Kulaks (who were benefiting significantly from the NEP) as one element of a political support base to defeat the Left Opposition and consolidate his regime. After the defeat of the Left Opposition the 8 million strong Kulak class became as direct political threat to the rule of Stalinism and the regime implemented a policy of forced collectivisation of agriculture in order to destroy the Kulaks as a social class, with disastrous consequences for Russian agriculture.

Specifically in relation to Irish agriculture a socialist government would remove the power of the processing and retail sectors to manipulate food prices - both those paid to farmers and those paid by the general public. Socialist policy would involve promoting the use of organic methods in agriculture, the promotion of sustainable agriculture, the use of cooperatives in relation to contracting work and machinery and generalised farm work (there is a long-standing tradition of cooperation among Irish farmers - meitheal and the later co-operative movement), the availability of low cost credit to farmers to develop their farms, stability of prices and an end to the manipulation of prices by the conglomerates. Where necessary to ensure stable prices food production would be subsidised (but on a different basis to the disjointed and pro-conglomerate subsidy regime of the EU). On occasions it maybe necessary to compel some sectors of agriculture to alter their production to compensate for shortages in a particular sector (something capitalist governments have done in the past) with guaranteed prices. Such measures would be implemented through discussion with farming representatives and the wider farming community - the people who would know best how to maximise production and alleviate shortages are farmers.

Voluntary collectivisation would be encouraged but not obligatory and would be established to demonstrate the benefits of collectivised farming in terms of working hours, working conditions etc. No family farmer would be compelled to join a collectivised farm.

RobertKK wrote: »

Thank you again on your contributions, as you are putting across the argument from the other side so we avoid a one sided argument.

You are welcome - and its nice to see that I am not completely wasting my time.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Jolly Red Giant, I work in the financial services industry, what would happen to my job after the socialist revolution?

The planning of financial services is a vital component part of any demoncratically planned socialised economy. You cannot run an economy without money, the circulation of money, a banking system, credit, insurance and other financial services. Workers would be necessary in practically all aspects of financial services (financial speculation would be not be allowed)

A socialised economy would not and could not operate without financial services being in public ownership - public ownership ensures that the financial sector operates in the interests of the 99%, not as is now where it operates in the interests of the 1%. At the moment the banking and finance sectors operate with the focus of maximising profit and financial returns. In a socialised economy the banking and finance sector would operate with a focus on developing the economy, providing for the needs of the population, investing in infrastructure, providing sustainable credit etc.

Iwasfrozen

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

The planning of financial services is a vital component part of any demoncratically planned socialised economy. You cannot run an economy without money, the circulation of money, a banking system, credit, insurance and other financial services. Workers would be necessary in practically all aspects of financial services (financial speculation would be not be allowed)

A socialised economy would not and could not operate without financial services being in public ownership - public ownership ensures that the financial sector operates in the interests of the 99%, not as is now where it operates in the interests of the 1%. At the moment the banking and finance sectors operate with the focus of maximising profit and financial returns. In a socialised economy the banking and finance sector would operate with a focus on developing the economy, providing for the needs of the population, investing in infrastructure, providing sustainable credit etc.

So no need for derivatives pricing then?

I guess I can work on one of those collective farms, but that sounds pretty shít. I think I prefer things the way they are thanks.

coolemon

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

It is quite funny watching the neo-liberals answering the questions addressed to the socialist - it is a wonder they wouldn't address the disaster that is neo-liberal capitalism.


The drive for control of markets under capitalism leads to the constant push for the monopolisation of agriculture into fewer and fewer hands - and out of the ownership of farmers into the hands of the food/agri conglomerates.

As I pointed out earlier capitalism has seen a reduction of more than 80% in the number of farmers in Ireland since the foundation of the state. This trend is continuing and will continue until most of the land in the country is controlled by the ranching groups, the processing plants, the distribution companies and the supermarket chains.

Yes - food production (processing and distribution) are a core activity that would involve planning in a socialised economy. However, the sectors of the food production industry that would require public ownership would be the processing, distribution and supermarket chain sectors - plus some of the large ranch farms - but not family farms.

The model used by right-wing commentators to attack a socialist approach to agriculture is the Stalinist collectivisation of agriculture in Russia from the late 1920s. This is a misnomer as it does not take into account to political processes underway in Russia at this time. Stalin and the bureaucracy promoted a 'greed is good' philosophy in the agri sector in the mid-1920s because the Left Opposition (the opponents of Stalinism) were arguing for the beginning of a voluntary collectivisation programme in Soviet agriculture. Stalin used the Kulaks (who were benefiting significantly from the NEP) as one element of a political support base to defeat the Left Opposition and consolidate his regime. After the defeat of the Left Opposition the 8 million strong Kulak class became as direct political threat to the rule of Stalinism and the regime implemented a policy of forced collectivisation of agriculture in order to destroy the Kulaks as a social class, with disastrous consequences for Russian agriculture.

Specifically in relation to Irish agriculture a socialist government would remove the power of the processing and retail sectors to manipulate food prices - both those paid to farmers and those paid by the general public. Socialist policy would involve promoting the use of organic methods in agriculture, the promotion of sustainable agriculture, the use of cooperatives in relation to contracting work and machinery and generalised farm work (there is a long-standing tradition of cooperation among Irish farmers - meitheal and the later co-operative movement), the availability of low cost credit to farmers to develop their farms, stability of prices and an end to the manipulation of prices by the conglomerates. Where necessary to ensure stable prices food production would be subsidised (but on a different basis to the disjointed and pro-conglomerate subsidy regime of the EU). On occasions it maybe necessary to compel some sectors of agriculture to alter their production to compensate for shortages in a particular sector (something capitalist governments have done in the past) with guaranteed prices. Such measures would be implemented through discussion with farming representatives and the wider farming community - the people who would know best how to maximise production and alleviate shortages are farmers.

Voluntary collectivisation would be encouraged but not obligatory and would be established to demonstrate the benefits of collectivised farming in terms of working hours, working conditions etc. No family farmer would be compelled to join a collectivised farm.


You are welcome - and its nice to see that I am not completely wasting my time.


The planning of financial services is a vital component part of any demoncratically planned socialised economy. You cannot run an economy without money, the circulation of money, a banking system, credit, insurance and other financial services. Workers would be necessary in practically all aspects of financial services (financial speculation would be not be allowed)

A socialised economy would not and could not operate without financial services being in public ownership - public ownership ensures that the financial sector operates in the interests of the 99%, not as is now where it operates in the interests of the 1%. At the moment the banking and finance sectors operate with the focus of maximising profit and financial returns. In a socialised economy the banking and finance sector would operate with a focus on developing the economy, providing for the needs of the population, investing in infrastructure, providing sustainable credit etc.

As a Marxist myself I am somewhat confused by what you say.

On the one hand you write that a socialist economy is one which uses use-value, and now, in the post above, you say "you cannot run an economy without money".

Money is incompatible with an economy of use-values, and money necessarily means surplus value creation -> and the consequent (re)emergence of a class in society which will seek to control that surplus.

Socialism must be truly revolutionary, eliminating money as the means of exchange.

If that is not possible then the objective conditions for socialism, in the Marxist and anarchist understanding of that term, do not exist to facilitate a revolutionary proletarian class consciousness which can contemplate and conceive of an alternative to capitalism.