Socialist Party's policies

coolemon

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Can you name one single former Soviet bloc country that is doing better economically than the United States which has a lot less government interference in the market?

But the former soviet-bloc are not state-capitalist now. They are market capitalism.

So I really don't get why you are trying to compare the two, or what it would prove.

Because they are not in any way related to this conversation.

So you think that dropping atomic bombs, or conversely, the decision to not drop them, would have/has no impact on future economic trajectory?

In terms of the merits between state capitalism vs less state interference in the market place, yes.

But you seem to think that economies develop in some sort of sterile laboratory divorced from cultural, political and social history - or indeed, general historical material conditions.

Nonsense, and extremely simplistic.

That's a tough question to answer but n the simplest possible terms Kings were using the apparatus of the state to abuse their position, parliament sought to limit to King's power and found favor among the mercent classes, landed gentry and puritans.

Why was the King using the apparatus of the state to abuse their position?

Iwasfrozen

coolemon wrote: »

But the former soviet-bloc are not state-capitalist now. They are market capitalism.

So I really don't get why you are trying to compare the two, or what it would prove.

Ok so let's get this right, you are using the term "state capitalism" to refer to communist parties in the USSR?

Comparing the two gives us a fair idea of what system is superior, and which you would rather live under.

So you think that dropping atomic bombs, or conversely, the decision to not drop them, would have/has no impact on future economic trajectory?

The decision to drop them? No.

Having them dropped on you? Yes, though Japan recovered remarkably well by following the American template of economic development. There was talk in the 80s of Japan becoming a superpower.

But you seem to think that economies develop in some sort of sterile laboratory divorced from cultural, political and social history - or indeed, general historical material conditions.

Of course they don't, but I think everyone would agree that in terms of quality of life market capitalism > state capitalism (as you are defining it)

Why was the King using the apparatus of the state to abuse their position?

Because humans are avaricious by nature.

coolemon

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Ok so let's get this right, you are using the term "state capitalism" to refer to communist parties in the USSR?

Yes!, correct.

Comparing the two gives us a fair idea of what system is superior, and which you would rather live under.

Well, as I stated, "there are huge levels of support for state capitalism in former soviet-bloc countries. And understandably so given the merits of such economic systems. Of free healthcare and education, near full employment, mortgage free housing, economic security, and so on"

And back to square one

The decision to drop them? No.

Having them dropped on you? Yes, though Japan recovered remarkably well by following the American template of economic development. There was talk in the 80s of Japan becoming a superpower.

Well the decision not to drop them could have prolonged the war. And that could have had economic consequences for the future economic trajectory of the United States.

Of course they don't, but I think everyone would agree that in terms of quality of life market capitalism > state capitalism (as you are defining it)

But everyone doesn't agree, and for understandable reasons.

Romania - 13/11/2014 - 44.4 percent of the respondents believed that living conditions were better under communism - https://www.opendemocracy.net/can-eu...gia-in-romania

Russia - 12/10/2013 - 60 percent of Russians see communism as good system - http://rbth.co.uk/news/2013/10/12/ab...oll_30755.html

Czech Republic - 31/01/2013 - 33 percent now claim that the communist rule was better - http://www.b92.net/eng/news/world.ph...1&nav_id=84442

Poland - 04/06/2012 - 25 percent of the populace believe the country would be better off under a communist regime - http://www.thenews.pl/1/9/Artykul/13...ommunist-state

(81%) Serbia - 24/12/2010 - Serbia Poll: Life Was Better Under Tito - http://www.balkaninsight.com/en/arti...-their-country#

(62%) Hungary - 6/6/2009 - Most Hungarians feel life was better under communism - http://21stcenturysocialism.com/arti...ism_01674.html

(57%) East Germany - 7/3/2009 - Majority of Eastern Germans Feel Life Better under Communism - http://www.spiegel.de/international/...634122,00.html

(61%) - 17/10/2010 - Romania - Romanians say life better under communism - http://richardbrenneman.wordpress.co...der-communism/

Oppressive and grey? No, growing up under communism was the happiest time of my life - http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...#ixzz19FEG2hRD

Iwasfrozen

coolemon wrote: »

Well, as I stated, "there are huge levels of support for state capitalism in former soviet-bloc countries. And understandably so given the merits of such economic systems. Of free healthcare and education, near full employment, mortgage free housing, economic security, and so on"

And back to square one

Uh huh, I think I prefer market capitalism thanks.

Well the decision not to drop them could have prolonged the war. And that could have had economic consequences for the future economic trajectory of the United States.

Sure it would, the dropping of the bombs was a disaster but a conventional invasion of Japan would have been far more costly for all involved.

But everyone doesn't agree, and for understandable reasons.

Well they are reasons but not exactly understandable ones.

That "poor but happy" argument reminds me of my mother insisting life was better when she was a child even though 1960s Ireland was a shíthole. People tend to look at their childhood with rose tinted glasses.

Still if the majority of people Romanians etc. want to re-create the Soviet system they are fee to do so.

coolemon

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

That "poor but happy" argument reminds me of my mother insisting life was better when she was a child even though 1960s Ireland was a shíthole.

Or the free healthcare rather than die because you cant afford it argument.

Or the housing and secure employment provided rather than be shackled to a mortgage and the worrying whether you will lose your home and job type reasons.

Yeah sure lets just dismiss everything we theologically disagree with.

coolemon

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Still if the majority of people Romanians etc. want to re-create the Soviet system they are fee to do so.

No, not really.

You see you have an exceptionally simplistic view of the world.

Iwasfrozen

coolemon wrote: »

Or the free healthcare rather than die because you cant afford it argument.

Even though in the year 1990 the infant mortality rate in the Soviet Union was 2.4 times as high as in the United States?

While life expectancy in the Soviet Union was 65 years for a man and 74 years for a female while in the United States it was 73 years for a male and 80 years for a female.

Source: http://www.umsl.edu/services/govdocs/wofact90/world12.txt

Or the housing and secure employment provided rather than be shackled to a mortgage and the worrying whether you will lose your home and job type reasons.

Yes how fortunate, http://i1.trekearth.com/photos/147657/81b15es.jpg

That was the nicest picture that google came up with.

Yeah sure lets just dismiss everything we theologically disagree with.

Or rather let's ignore the facts and extoll the virtues of the Soviet system.

coolemon wrote: »

No, not really.

You see you have an exceptionally simplistic view of the world.

What's stopping them?

coolemon

Yes how fortunate, http://i1.trekearth.com/photos/147657/81b15es.jpg

You haven't travelled much have you? I have seen worse in France.

BTW, instead of speaking on their behalf, I will let the people who live in these countries expound the merits of state-capitalism themselves.

"In response, 33 percent credited it with good social security guarantees, stability and good care of people, 14 percent said it had been a system of justice and social equality, 9 percent said the Soviet Union was a land of rule of law and discipline, 7 percent praised the country's guaranteed employment, and another 7 percent claimed that people were more willing to help each other then than they are today."
http://rbth.co.uk/news/2013/10/12/about_60_percent_of_russians_see_communism_as_good_system_-_poll_30755.html)

And just for balance:

"On the other hand, 9 percent criticized Soviet-era restrictions on rights and liberties, 7 percent accused the Soviet system of suppressing personal individuality, another 7 percent said shortages of basic consumer goods were that system's main defect, 6 percent slammed abuse of authority in that period and 5% condemned the repressive rule in the Soviet Union."
Source: Russia Beyond the Headlines - http://rbth.co.uk/news/2013/10/12/about_60_percent_of_russians_see_communism_as_good_system_-_poll_30755.html)


As I said from the beginning, anyone with objectivity would see the merits of state-capitalism.

Or rather let's ignore the facts and extoll the virtues of the Soviet system.

Virtues the people themselves will tell you about.

What's stopping them?

Probably the same thing stopping Ireland from pursuing an independent economic policy. Globalisation, greater economic and political integration between nations, debt to external institutions. And that's before one analysis media ownership and control within these countries. Or, importantly, the very fact that such political arrangements to begin with were born from very different, and very specific political, economic and social conditions. East Germany, for example, resulted from the Soviet occupation during World War two. That cant be repeated.

Complicated, and nowhere near as simplistic as you would like it.

Iwasfrozen

coolemon wrote: »

You haven't travelled much have you? I have seen worse in France.

I prefer our system thanks.

BTW, instead of speaking on their behalf, I will let the people who live in these countries expound the merits of state-capitalism themselves.

Virtues the people themselves will tell you about.

Again, people tend to look back on their own childhood with rose tinted glasses, if you actually look at the statistics, (and I notice you have conveniently ignored the statistics I posted) you'll see the Soviet Union was decades behind the United States.

Probably the same thing stopping Ireland from pursuing an independent economic policy. Globalisation, greater economic and political integration between nations, debt to external institutions. And that's before one analysis media ownership and control within these countries. Or, importantly, the very fact that such political arrangements to begin with were born from very different, and very specific political, economic and social conditions. East Germany, for example, resulted from the Soviet occupation during World War two. That cant be repeated.

There's nothing stopping the people of Romania for example voting communists into power, a Russian occupation is not needed.

Complicated, and nowhere near as simplistic as you would like it.

Or rather you prefer to muddy the water than get to the point.

coolemon

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Again, people tend to look back on their own childhood with rose tinted glasses, if you actually look at the statistics, (and I notice you have conveniently ignored the statistics I posted) you'll see the Soviet Union was decades behind the United States.

But they are statistics you have conveniently chosen to suit your own fanatical agenda.

There is nothing rose tinted about having job and social security. Of having housing and free education and healthcare.

There's nothing stopping the people of Romania for example voting communists into power, a Russian occupation is not needed.

Voting Communist will not produce Romania 1980.

coolemon

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Yes how fortunate, http://i1.trekearth.com/photos/147657/81b15es.jpg

That was the nicest picture that google came up with.

Not bad.

When is that photo from, 1980's or 70's?

A photo from Ireland within the last 9-10 years. (not the worst I could dig up from google)

http://www.billtormey.ie/wp-content/uploads/ballymun-001.jpg

Juvenile isn't it.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

coolemon

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

That comment was in relation to past state-capitalist societies. Not any "plan" put forward by myself.

Iwasfrozen

coolemon wrote: »

But they are statistics you have conveniently chosen to suit your own fanatical agenda.

I chose life expectancy and child mortality as they are universally accepted as being indications of how good a countries healthcare system is.

You mentioned "having free healthcare rather than die because you can't have it" as an argument in favor of the Soviet system but American life expectancy was higher and child mortality was lower than in the Soviet Union.

There is nothing rose tinted about having job and social security. Of having housing and free education and healthcare.

We have all of those in the West, to a higher degree than they did in the Soviet Union.

Our social services are better, our universities are better our healthcare is better. The Soviet system pumped out degrees but they didn't produce good services.

What happened if a person didn't want a job?

Voting Communist will not produce Romania 1980.

If they wish to put in place the exact same systems with better technology they are of course free to do so.

Iwasfrozen

coolemon wrote: »

Not bad.

When is that photo from, 1980's or 70's?

A photo from Ireland within the last 9-10 years. (not the worst I could dig up from google)

http://www.billtormey.ie/wp-content/uploads/ballymun-001.jpg

Juvenile isn't it.

Except those are council estates provided by government. Just lke their soviet counter parts.

Most houses in rural Ireland look like this.

http://www.daft.ie/sales/killynagher-belturbet-cavan/1017576/

Praise capitalism.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

coolemon

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

I chose life expectancy and child mortality as they are universally accepted as being indications of how good a countries healthcare system is.

But sure Cuba's child mortality rate is lower than that in the USA and its life expectancy is .4 less than that of the USA.

I am not going to make juvenile inferences from such statistics.

We have all of those in the West, to a higher degree than they did in the Soviet Union.

Our social services are better, our universities are better our healthcare is better. The Soviet system pumped out degrees but they didn't produce good services.

What happened if a person didn't want a job?

"We" don't have all those in the West. Certainly not housing.

Sure there were still slums in Dublin up until the mid to late 1980's.

If they wish to put in place the exact same systems with better technology they are of course free to do so.

That's like saying the USA could maintain its current economic indicators (or the social indicators you cited) if it became an autarky within a couple of years.

It would be an absurd statement to make. As absurd as your belief that Romania could become state-capitalist as it had been if it wanted to.

Iwasfrozen

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

He claims the Soviet system was actually superior to US style capitalism, despite the evidence to the contrary.

coolemon

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Except those are council estates provided by government. Just lke their soviet counter parts.

Most houses in rural Ireland look like this.

http://www.daft.ie/sales/killynagher-belturbet-cavan/1017576/

Praise capitalism.

Who provided them is irrelevant. People are clambering for ex-social housing London.

coolemon

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

What are you getting at exactly?

I advocate a state-less society, if you must know.

oscarBravo

coolemon wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Firstly, that doesn't answer my question. I provide my customers with a connection to the Internet. Who is producing what in this situation? What are the means of production? What is the mode of production?

As for me being part of the "bourgeois class", your definition - in common with the mind-numbingly simplistic definitions that the blind adherents of all oversimplified political philosophies cling desperately to - is risible. You picture me, the owner of a business, sitting on my posterior (quite possibly lighting comically-large cigars with hundred-euro notes) not working, and merely profiteering from the labour of others.

This proves one thing to me beyond question: you have never owned a small business, because nobody who has ever owned a small business would ever make a complete fool of themselves by claiming that such an owner doesn't work.

In other words, you're arguing from a position of ignorance. You have your theories, and they satisfy you completely: you don't need to get your hands dirty with grubby things like facts.

Once again, this can only be a good thing, because it means that you can't possibly ever achieve your goals.

Permabear wrote: »

If I am terrible at my job, or if my skills are out of date, can you guarantee that I will still have my job and house for life?

Or what if I'm just plain lazy?

I've worked with lazy, incompetent people who barely made an effort to clock in every day, and relied on a strong union to protect them.

I've worked with people who work hard because it makes them happy.

Should those people be rewarded equally? If not, what's the actual point of socialism? If so, why would anyone other than the lazy and incompetent want it?

coolemon

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

He claims the Soviet system was actually superior to US style capitalism, despite the evidence to the contrary.

I said it has its merits.

Read again.

garhjw

Will the irish commie government open diplomatic relations with North Korea?

Iwasfrozen

coolemon wrote: »

But sure Cuba's child mortality rate is lower than that in the USA and its life expectancy is .4 less than that of the USA.

I am not going to make juvenile inferences from such statistics.

Cuban healthcare is good I'm not going to deny that, they could do with better equipment but overall their healthcare is comparable to developed capitalist countries which is a great achievement for a communist country like them.

"We" don't have all those in the West. Certainly not housing.

Yeah we do.

That's like saying the USA could maintain its current economic indicators (or the social indicators you cited) if it became an autarky within a couple of years.

The US could never maintain its economic indicators if it became an autarky, that would be impossible. Free trade benefits both parties.

It would be an absurd statement to make. As absurd as your belief that Romania could become state-capitalist as it had been if it wanted to.

Why couldn't they? Give me a straight answer for once.

garhjw wrote: »

Will the irish commie government open diplomatic relations with North Korea?

North Korea will send over economic advisors.

Tractor production will increase 300% in five years comrade.

garhjw

What happens if the majority of the people don't want the commie/socialist crap? Is it forced upon them? Will the UN be allowed in to monitor elections?

BoJack Horseman

garhjw wrote: »

What happens if the majority of the people don't want the commie/socialist crap? Is it forced upon them? Will the UN be allowed in to monitor elections?

What elections?

There isn't a communist democracy on the planet.

The two aren't compatible.

coolemon

oscarBravo wrote: »

Firstly, that doesn't answer my question. I provide my customers with a connection to the Internet. Who is producing what in this situation? What are the means of production? What is the mode of production?

I am not familiar with your company so I cannot say for sure who is producing what in your situation.

The means of production are the physical equipment and facilities you use for your operations. Computers, servers?, office building, vehicles, etc.

Your operation also requires, I assume, specific knowledge for its implementation. The physical equipment and this knowledge combine to make the forces of production.

The mode of production is capitalism. The overarching economic system.

As for me being part of the "bourgeois class", your definition - in common with the mind-numbingly simplistic definitions that the blind adherents of all oversimplified political philosophies cling desperately to - is risible.

It is simplistic because you have a simplistic understanding of it, as evidenced by your previous questions.

You picture me, the owner of a business, sitting on my posterior (quite possibly lighting comically-large cigars with hundred-euro notes) not working, and merely profiteering from the labour of others.

No, in fact, I don't. I picture you having a different social relationship and class position than your employees, while you diligently work to pay for your Mc Mansion mortgage and hire purchase Audi/Volkswagen car and keep your ship afloat.

This proves one thing to me beyond question: you have never owned a small business, because nobody who has ever owned a small business would ever make a complete fool of themselves by claiming that such an owner doesn't work.

The only person making a fool of themselves is you. I never said you didn't work. I am sure you put in more hours than your employees, and, as in many a case, earn less than them.

coolemon

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Why couldn't they? Give me a straight answer for once.

Because, in many respects, the Eastern Bloc and the Soviet Union mutually supported one another economically. In many cases the Soviet Union directly subsidised Eastern bloc economies and kept them afloat.

For Romania to go state-capitalist would mean economic isolation. It would ultimately be quite damaging.

That's just one obvious reason I can think of. I hope you can understand that very obvious fact.

Iwasfrozen

coolemon wrote: »

Because, in many respects, the Eastern Bloc and the Soviet Union mutually supported one another economically. In many cases the Soviet Union directly subsidised Eastern bloc economies and kept them afloat.

For Romania to go state-capitalist would mean economic isolation. It would ultimately be quite damaging.

That's just one obvious reason I can think of. I hope you can understand that very obvious fact.

They needed mutual support because they tried to be economically self sufficient. There's no reason a modern Romanian socialist country couldn't have open movement of goods and people with capitalist neighbours.

I notice you never answered my question. What happened in the Soviet Union if a person didn't want to work?

coolemon

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

What elections?

There isn't a communist democracy on the planet.

The two aren't compatible.

Well you had Allende in Chile. he was eventually overthrown by a market capitalist dictator.

Cyprus has a Communist Party in power I believe.

Venezuela has a developmentalist government voted in through representative democratic structures.

Just from the top of my head.

oscarBravo

coolemon wrote: »

I am not familiar with your company so I cannot say for sure who is producing what in your situation.

And yet, you're prepared to cheerfully handwave it away as "production" - you don't need to understand it; it has to fit into one of the small handful of labelled boxes your chosen political philosophy provides you with.

The means of production are the physical equipment and facilities you use for your operations. Computers, servers?, office building, vehicles, etc.

What are my computers, office and vehicles actually producing?

Your operation also requires, I assume, specific knowledge for its implementation. The physical equipment and this knowledge combine to make the forces of production.

Knowledge and skills, yes. I use these things - mine, and those I pay others for - to provide employment and generate a small profit. I'm still not clear what I'm "producing", and why the fact that I'm doing so for financial gain is so anathema.

The mode of production is capitalism. The overarching economic system.

Fine. It works for me, largely because I understand how it works and can operate within it without having to conform to any labels like "bourgeois".

No, in fact, I don't. I picture you having a different social relationship and class position than your employees, while you diligently work to pay for your Mc Mansion mortgage and hire purchase Audi/Volkswagen car and keep your ship afloat.

I have the same social relationship and class position, insofar as I understand the term (in other words, without having to introduce meaningless concepts to define it), as my employees. I rent a modest house, I don't own a car, and I take home less than some of the people who work for me.

How exactly this makes me "bourgeois" is beyond me.

The only person making a fool of themselves is you. I never said you didn't work. I am sure you put in more hours than your employees, and, as in many a case, earn less than them.

Correct. But apparently I'm in a different social class, because you say I am, because your religion philosophy requires you to see me that way, just like devout Christians have me neatly packaged into a box labeled "sinner" because I'm not married to the person I live with.

I reject your labels. They make no sense in my world. They make no sense in my employees' world. It may suit you to put them in a box labelled "wage slaves", but that's not how they see themselves, and they would be offended to be thought of that way.

You avoided the question about whether lazy, incompetent people should get the same rewards as hard-working, skilled workers.

garhjw

Coolemon, Would you consider moving to a country where people are into this sort of thing?

coolemon

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

There's no reason a modern Romanian socialist country couldn't have open movement of goods and people with capitalist neighbours.

State-capitalist countries have historically had very fraught relations with market capitalist countries. We see that with Venezuala today. Sanctions, embargoes and economic war is often imposed on countries who choose such a path.

So I doubt a state-capitalist Romania would be feasible. Not at the momemt anyway.

I notice you never answered my question. What happened in the Soviet Union if a person didn't want to work?

I presume there was at least some form of compulsion. Mabye you should google it.

BoJack Horseman

coolemon wrote: »

Well you had Allende in Chile. he was eventually overthrown by a market capitalist dictator.

Well..... There was one..... 40 years ago...yay communism!

Cyprus has a Communist Party in power I believe.

Nope.... Centre right & capitalist

Venezuela has a developmentalist government voted in through representative democratic structures.

Its a democracy with a capitalist/mixed econony

As an economic/political movement, has there been any bigger failure than communism?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Iwasfrozen

coolemon wrote: »

State-capitalist countries have historically had very fraught relations with market capitalist countries. We see that with Venezuala today. Sanctions, embargoes and economic war is often imposed on countries who choose such a path.

So I doubt a state-capitalist Romania would be feasible. Not at the momemt anyway.

Do you think perhaps this failure is due to the system being ... shít?

I presume there was at least some form of compulsion. Mabye you should google it.

Compulsion is putting it lightly.

coolemon

oscarBravo wrote: »

And yet, you're prepared to cheerfully handwave it away as "production" - you don't need to understand it; it has to fit into one of the small handful of labelled boxes your chosen political philosophy provides you with.

So are you producing nothing?

Surely your customers find something of value in what you do, and pay accordingly.

What are my computers, office and vehicles actually producing?

Nothing. They are only the means of producing. Its in the name, Means of Production.

Knowledge and skills, yes. I use these things - mine, and those I pay others for - to provide employment and generate a small profit. I'm still not clear what I'm "producing", and why the fact that I'm doing so for financial gain is so anathema.

If you don't know what you are producing then how can you sell your services?

I have the same social relationship and class position, insofar as I understand the term (in other words, without having to introduce meaningless concepts to define it), as my employees.

Yet, contained within your sentence is the word "employees".

Meaningless is it? If you have the same social relationship why use the word employees?

Correct. But apparently I'm in a different social class, because you say I am, because your religion philosophy requires you to see me that way, just like devout Christians have me neatly packaged into a box labeled "sinner" because I'm not married to the person I live with.

But you do know the difference between sociology and theology don't you?

Concepts of class are useful. In fact class is one of the most predominant and recognised features of sociological study.

But its all useless according to you.

I reject your labels. They make no sense in my world. They make no sense in my employees' world. It may suit you to put them in a box labelled "wage slaves", but that's not how they see themselves, and they would be offended to be thought of that way.

I don't disagree with you. Such class perceptions and identities are few and far between. But that does not make such concepts useless.

You avoided the question about whether lazy, incompetent people should get the same rewards as hard-working, skilled workers.

No, certainly not in a socialist economic system. They do in capitalist society though.

coolemon

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Well..... There was one..... 40 years ago...yay communism!


Nope.... Centre right & capitalist


Its a democracy with a capitalist/mixed econony

As an economic/political movement, has there been any bigger failure than communism?

But my point is that virtually all Communist" attempts were capitalist. So whats your point?

garhjw

Why aren't my questions being answered? Should I be worried about my public show of dissent?

BoJack Horseman

coolemon wrote: »

But my point is that virtually all Communist" attempts were capitalist. So whats your point?

My point is that there isn't a successful communist democracy on the earth today.

The failure of communism is unparalleled.

coolemon

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

No, I assume your job would not exist in a socialist world.

The means of production are the physical requirements to undertake your economic activities. Computers, buildings, etc.

Your knowledge combined with the means of production are the forces of production.

What class are you? - give me more details.

coolemon

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Do you think perhaps this failure is due to the system being ... shít?

Many of those who lived in it would seem to disagree.

Compulsion is putting it lightly.

That's capitalism I guess.

coolemon

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

My point is that there isn't a successful communist democracy on the earth today.

The failure of communism is unparalleled.

But I have been arguing with IWF all day about this.

I don't think State-capitalism was a failure. Many if not most in ex-soviet bloc countries would prefer it and want it back.

kevin711

The Irish 'Socialist Party' vision of socialism for Ireland is utter nonsense; reactionary, sinister, militant, ruinous, undemocratic, dangerous (and with a hint of violence for good measure).
Their policies are sheer madness. They stir it up and get column inches by being anti-everything, and they get votes only because they tell 'working class' people they shouldn't have to pay for anything.. handouts win votes in Ireland! For example, they really couldn't care less about people's issues with water charges - it just suits their own selfish political ambitions to hop on the bandwagon. The great myth about so-called 'socialism' is that it fights inequality - when in fact it would have no reason to exist if everyone was equal.. therefore it is their interest to stir up and maintain a divide between the 'establishment' and the 'working class'.
However if they ever did come to power.. history has taught us that 'socialist state' is a byword for oppression, censorship of the press, corruption and inefficiency. 'Socialism' claims to care about the 'ordinary people' when in reality it seeks to control them and keep them in the gutter...
The sad thing is, our current government are playing into the hands of these lunatics...
We need a new system that escapes the labels of 'socialism' and 'capitalism' ..

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

BoJack Horseman

coolemon wrote: »

I don't think State-capitalism was a failure. Many if not most in ex-soviet bloc countries would prefer it and want it back.

Of course communism was a failure.
A monumental failure.
We know this because democratic communist states.... simply don't exist.... 0/190 nations in the world, a poor record.

Don't be shocked if someone asks you for proof showing that the people of Latvia/Croatia/Poland/Ukraine hanker for a return to communism.

coolemon

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I guess your occupation would become obsolete. Like the nailer and blacksmith.

What happened them?

Well, I'm technically an employee, so does that make me one of the workers? But wait, I also manage people and own stock -- so am I a bourgeois oppressor?

Well whether you want to call yourself a worker or not is up to you.

From the scant detail that you have provided, it sounds like you would be of the proletarian class, being an employee. Although your supervisory role may bring you towards the petty bourgeoisie position.

coolemon

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Of course communism was a failure.
A monumental failure.
We know this because democratic communist states.... simply don't exist.... 0/190 nations in the world, a poor record.

Don't be shocked if someone asks you for proof showing that the people of Latvia/Croatia/Poland/Ukraine hanker for a return to communism.

Did you miss the post with all the polls a couple of pages back?

They were from a brief search.

Just because messenger pigeons are no longer used does not mean they were a failure does it?

They were very useful for the times they were employed.

Jolly Red Giant

kevin711 wrote: »

The Irish 'Socialist Party' vision of socialism for Ireland is utter nonsense; reactionary, sinister, militant, ruinous, undemocratic, dangerous (and with a hint of violence for good measure).
Their policies are sheer madness. They stir it up and get column inches by being anti-everything, and they get votes only because they tell 'working class' people they shouldn't have to pay for anything.. handouts win votes in Ireland! For example, they really couldn't care less about people's issues with water charges - it just suits their own selfish political ambitions to hop on the bandwagon. The great myth about so-called 'socialism' is that it fights inequality - when in fact it would have no reason to exist if everyone was equal.. therefore it is their interest to stir up and maintain a divide between the 'establishment' and the 'working class'.
However if they ever did come to power.. history has taught us that 'socialist state' is a byword for oppression, censorship of the press, corruption and inefficiency. 'Socialism' claims to care about the 'ordinary people' when in reality it seeks to control them and keep them in the gutter...
The sad thing is, our current government are playing into the hands of these lunatics...
We need a new system that escapes the labels of 'socialism' and 'capitalism' ..

I could suggest that you are trolling but I'd probably get one of those daft mod warnings if I did.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.