Socialist Party's policies

coolemon

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I presume you would find that your skills are not useful. You would have to find a new career for yourself.

Note that my personal net worth is many times that of an average small business owner. But the latter is a bourgeois capitalist, while I'm a prole?

See my edit.

Marxist class is not defined by net worth. It is defined by economic relations.

For example (and you provide very little details of your employment), there may be an economic antagonism between you and your employer. Naturally, he wants to maximise his value and you want to maximise your value. But both are contradictory. This is broadly one of the main economic antagonisms within capitalism.

Now you may argue that you work together to achieve mutual success for the business, and therefore both of you. But it would be to ignore the inherent antagonism above. One which, depending on economic conditions, may or may not present itself in open conflict.

marienbad

coolemon , might I ask what your occupation is ,if it is not too personal ?

coolemon

marienbad wrote: »

coolemon , might I ask what your occupation is ,if it is not too personal ?

I am currently an 'intern' as an office administrator. Very menial.

Why?

marienbad

coolemon wrote: »

I am currently an 'intern' as an office administrator. Very menial.

Why?

I was interested as you were classifying so many other posters .

I just came across the thread and read the last 15 or so pages and found it quite bizarre to be honest .

kevin711

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

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

Yep, you probably would! The thread is called the 'Socialist Party's policies' and this is my opinion / contribution on same, couldn't be more on topic.

coolemon

marienbad wrote: »

I was interested as you were classifying so many other posters .

I just came across the thread and read the last 15 or so pages and found it quite bizarre to be honest .

I am only classifying them from my understanding of the Marxist theoretical and sociological perspective. It is related to the topic after all.

Why do you find it bizzare?

Valmont

I suppose all we can hope for now is that the public debate before the next election is as clear to the voters as this one. It seems almost politically infeasible to be pro-business or capitalism in Ireland these days as a lot of voters take that to mean 'pro-bail-outs' or 'anti-poor'. I suppose I'm wondering what will it take to widen our national discourse to include more than just centre and left-of-centre views? If only every citizen were on boards.ie!

marienbad

coolemon wrote: »

I am only classifying them from my understanding of the Marxist theoretical and sociological perspective. It is related to the topic after all.

Why do you find it bizzare?

To believe for a second that the Soviet System/Communism/planned economy, whatever you want to call it can deliver anything like the prosperity that Capitalism has is just bizarre .

And I say that as someone that has voted for what passes as left wing parties in Ireland all my life .

kevin711

Valmont wrote: »

I suppose all we can hope for now is that the public debate before the next election is as clear to the voters as this one. It seems almost politically infeasible to be pro-business or capitalism in Ireland these days as a lot of voters take that to mean 'pro-bail-outs' or 'anti-poor'. I suppose I'm wondering what will it take to widen our national discourse to include more than just centre and left-of-centre views? If only every citizen were on boards.ie!

So true.

coolemon

marienbad wrote: »

To believe for a second that the Soviet System/Communism/planned economy, whatever you want to call it can deliver anything like the prosperity that Capitalism has is just bizarre .

And I say that as someone that has voted for what passes as left wing parties in Ireland all my life .

But who is arguing that it can?

I don't think I have argued that as of yet.

But to say that its implementation in the past was a failure would be incorrect. Many, and in some instances most people who lived in these societies would prefer it and want it back, when compared to what they have at present -> and understandably so.

How we move forward is another question.

marienbad

coolemon wrote: »

But who is arguing that it can?

I don't think I have argued that as of yet.

But to say that its implementation in the past was a failure would be incorrect. Many, and in some instances most people who lived in these societies would prefer it and want it back when compared to the present -> and understandably so.

How we move forward is another question.

From what I have read in the last number of pages you seem to be defending it - are you defending it or do you intend to ?

As for those polls - you would have to do a very careful reading of them before drawing any conclusions - for instance , what countries ? The Baltic States , Czech ,Slovakia ,Slovenia ? . Then you would need to analyse the age profile of the respondents , I can't speak directly for most of them but I do happen to know quite a few people from East Germany and it is striking the difference in views between the younger and older demographics.

Other countries such as the former Yugoslavia , Russia , possible Ukraine etc would prefer the security of Communism , but that is because anything is better than the current situation and A soviet style government is the only alternative they know .

The opening post in this thread was a bout nationalisation Dell in Limerick- do you agree with those sentiments ?

coolemon

marienbad wrote: »

From what I have read in the last number of pages you seem to be defending it - are you defending it or do you intend to ?

I am trying to look at these societies objectively.

People are calling them failures. I don't think they were. They had their merits and also their drawbacks. Some of which are referred to in those poll links I posted.

In many respects it is not about "comparing them" or determining them as successes or failures. But rather explaining the historical conditions which produced the variations in capitalism -> market, state or otherwise.

As for those polls - you would have to do a very careful reading of them before drawing any conclusions - for instance , what countries ? The Baltic States , Czech ,Slovakia ,Slovenia ? . Then you would need to analyse the age profile of the respondents , I can't speak directly for most of them but I do happen to know quite a few people from East Germany and it is striking the difference in views between the younger and older demographics.

Yes there are differences of opinion depending on the age demographic.

In this (http://rbth.co.uk/news/2013/10/12/about_60_percent_of_russians_see_communism_as_good_system_-_poll_30755.html) poll it states:

"By and large, 59 percent of respondents believed there were more positive than negative aspects to communism. In that category, 69 percent were people aged 60 or more and 47 percent people aged between 18 and 30."

Other countries such as the former Yugoslavia , Russia , possible Ukraine etc would prefer the security of Communism , but that is because anything is better than the current situation and A soviet style government is the only alternative they know .

You will find high levels of support in Poland, the Czech Republic and all ex-Soviet bloc countries. Not because its all they know, but because they are aware of what they miss. For example job security being an important reason.

The opening post in this thread was a bout nationalisation Dell in Limerick- do you agree with those sentiments ?

No. I think it would be unworkable.

I am not a member of the Socialist Party. I find they are trying too hard to produce pragmatic 'socialist' policies which can be applicable within the existing capitalist framework. They have undertaken an electoral strategy, and in this respect such an approach is understandable but ultimately misleading and alchemistic.

marienbad

To be honest with you any assessment of those societies will show that they were total and utter failures and would not have survived without the use of overwhelming repression .

And how anyone can believe otherwise is beyond me - and never mind what the books and theories are telling you.

A guaranteed job for some brought about by others being victims of repression,secret police,gulags etc is not a job it is a sinecure and is not a price worth paying .

Iwasfrozen

marienbad wrote: »

A guaranteed job for some brought about by others being victims of repression,secret police,gulags etc is not a job it is a sinecure and is not a price worth paying .

Also if you don't want to work? Say hello to the secret police and gulags.

coolemon

marienbad wrote: »

To be honest with you any assessment of those societies will show that they were total and utter failures and would not have survived without the use of overwhelming repression .

The same can be said of any society. Repression is most often normalised and ideologically legitimated. All states are inherently repressive.

And how anyone can believe otherwise is beyond me - and never mind what the books and theories are telling you.

How about what the polls are telling you?

All nonsense I suppose.

A guaranteed job for some brought about by others being victims of repression,secret police,gulags etc is not a job it is a sinecure and is not a price worth paying .

That's like saying an Iphone brought about through repression and suicide nets around the factory is not a price worth paying.

But, you know, it is for many.

The USA has a very active secret service aswell. The prisons are packed with blacks. You had COINTELPRO and black lists. But you see this is normalised and legitimated. That's how political systems survive and people get on with their day to day lives.

coolemon

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Also if you don't want to work? Say hello to the secret police and gulags.

And in market capitalism?

Iwasfrozen

coolemon wrote: »

And in market capitalism?

You get 188 euro a week, plus fuel allowance, plus rent allowance and way more if you have kids.

coolemon

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

You get 188 euro a week, plus fuel allowance, plus rent allowance and way more if you have kids.

That's more of a social democratic form of capitalism. It is certainly far from universal.

In most countries in fact unemployed people are supported entirely by their families.

BTW, did you google the systems of compulsion to work in state-capitalist societies?

I very much doubt gulags were the norm for those who refused to work.

Iwasfrozen

coolemon wrote: »

That's more of a social democratic form of capitalism. It is certainly far from universal.

In most countries in fact unemployed people are supported entirely by their families.

BTW, did you google the systems of compulsion to work in state-capitalist societies?

I very much doubt gulags were the norm for those who refused to work.

It's market capitalism.

I'm not the Soviet expert here.

coolemon

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

I'm not the Soviet expert here.

Nor am I. But I try to be objective.

marienbad

coolemon wrote: »

The same can be said of any society. Repression is most often normalised and ideologically legitimated. All states are inherently repressive.




How about what the polls are telling you?

All nonsense I suppose.



That's like saying an Iphone brought about through repression and suicide nets around the factory is not a price worth paying.

But, you know, it is for many.

The USA has a very active secret service aswell. The prisons are packed with blacks. You had COINTELPRO and black lists. But you see this is normalised and legitimated. That's how political systems survive and people get on with their day to day lives.

You are not comparing like with like and forget the polls , in the sweep of history they mean absolutely nothing .

If you want to do a comparison take any countries from the Soviet Bloc and any countries in Western Europe and compare both sets from 1945 and 1995.

Both recovering from the devastation of war, both starting from virtually ground zero ,both on the same continent, both made up of winners and losers , and you show me any meaningful positives from the east compared to the west across that time frame.

As for 'all states are inherently repressive '- I don't know what that even means .

kevin711

marienbad wrote: »

To be honest with you any assessment of those societies will show that they were total and utter failures and would not have survived without the use of overwhelming repression .

And how anyone can believe otherwise is beyond me - and never mind what the books and theories are telling you.

A guaranteed job for some brought about by others being victims of repression,secret police,gulags etc is not a job it is a sinecure and is not a price worth paying .

Agreed.
Lots of informed and well - researched thoughts on 'Socialism' here. While the theories may sound great, in practice there is no evidence that it is the better option because history has shown that the 'Socialism' brand, while having some admirable aspirations, ends up being an autocratic / dictatorial system imposed by an unelected few on the masses, and used to opress them.
'Socialism's obsession with class labels is outdated and only serves it's own theories.
PS I use the inverted commas because the 'Socialism' of the 'Socialist' Party is not truly socialist; it's self-serving and does not actually care about society..

coolemon

marienbad wrote: »

If you want to do a comparison take any countries from the Soviet Bloc and any countries in Western Europe and compare both sets from 1945 and 1995.

Both recovering from the devastation of war, both starting from virtually ground zero ,both on the same continent, both made up of winners and losers , and you show me any meaningful positives from the east compared to the west across that time frame.

Meaningful positives?

You might find job security as a meaningful positive between the more market variant of capitalism and state-capitalism. Greater gender equality a positive. You might find massive large scale infrastructural projects as a meaningful positive. You might find the universal free health care systems as a positive. Or of universal free education as a positive. You might find the housing provision a positive. Environmental preservation of fauna and forest and lower Co2 emissions might be a positive. The lack of car dependency might be a meaningful positive.

Such comparative indicators are available I am sure if I or you google them.

It all depends on how you wish to shine the ideological lens. Environmentally, for example, you may find somewhere like North Korea better than South Korea. That can be both good and bad depending on what ideological lens you wish to look through.

As for 'all states are inherently repressive '- I don't know what that even means .

Well one of the most accepted definitions of the state is Max Weber's 'monopoly on violence' - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_on_violence

With this the state necessarily implies repression.

Valmont

coolemon wrote: »

I very much doubt gulags were the norm for those who refused to work.

No, they were the norm for those who spoke their mind.

coolemon

Valmont wrote: »

No, they were the norm for those who spoke their mind.

Interesting. Do you have any evidence to back that up?

If I spoke my mind I would be very much harassed if not imprisoned here in Ireland (particularly due to the recent laws brought in.) There is a level of free expression allowed. And this is the case in totalitarian style systems as well. Although the level and content of free expression one can get away with will vary from place to place.

In this very interesting documentary there is at least anecdotal evidence of levels of 'free expression' and of the expression of difference in what is now former Yugoslavia - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bzvNZz-X-50

In this documentary on Libya the journalist is surprised by the level of 'free expression' and debate within the Popular Peoples Congress at about 10.20 onwards - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2dQHvIwJrF0

Things are not always as black and white as are made out to be. Power (and the systems which maintain it) is complex. Rarely can a state rule just through direct repression, and most often will allow levels of free expression.

Jolly Red Giant

kevin711 wrote: »

Yep, you probably would! The thread is called the 'Socialist Party's policies' and this is my opinion / contribution on same, couldn't be more on topic.

No - your contribution / opinion is not 'on topic' because it is not based on any evidence - it is a bsseless anti- Soicialist Party rant.

Not surprisingly this thread has now degenerated into utter rubbish being spouted by a bunch of right-wing hacks that is not worth the time or effort - so I will be taking my leave.

Valmont

Alexander Solzhenitsyn was sentenced to eight years in the Gulag for criticising Stalin in a letter to his friend. You won't be sent to Mount Joy for doing the same in Ireland, despite your claims to the contrary, Coolemon. After the Soviet Union collapsed their own official records told of 1.7 million deaths in the Gulags, 800,000 executions for political and criminal offences - I won't even go into the Holodomor genocide. Yes it was a rosy place the USSR, I can see how the free people of Eastern Europe would just love to get back the immiseration and terror.

Job security is hardly an important factor when judging well-being considering slaves have the safest jobs of all.

coolemon

Valmont wrote: »

You won't be sent to Mount Joy for doing the same in Ireland, despite your claims to the contrary, Coolemon.

I never made any such claims to the contrary.

After the Soviet Union collapsed their own official records told of 1.7 million deaths in the Gulags, 800,000 executions for political and criminal offences - I won't even go into the Holodomor genocide. Yes it was a rosy place the USSR, I can see how the free people of Eastern Europe would just love to get back the immiseration and terror.

Most people in what you call Free Eastern Europe did not live in immiseration and terror. Indeed, and as has been outlined on this thread, many if not most would prefer the return of state-capitalism. Although that fact seems not to enter into your equation.

I guess it would be similar to the typical perception of someone of my grandfathers generation (born 1924) of the 1940's and 50's or onwards in Ireland.

It wasn't one of systematic rape and brutality in industrial schools, of slave labour in Laundries, of an oppressive religious-state collaboration.

He didn't experience it directly, although he had the usual corporal punishment in school and was forced to marry once there was a hint of a child in the making. But for those who entered such institutions there was often a society-wide ideological legitimation and justification which normalised such brutality in the minds of the general population. Of some child stealing or being truant from school as being justification to have them taken from their families and placed in an industrial school, or of a woman having a child outside marriage - > "sure she deserved it".

In the Soviet Union you would have had a similar dominant ideological justification which permeated the society and normalised and legitimated much of what we now see as brutality.

Most people just get on with their lives as they did in Ireland in the 40's and 50's. My grandfather certainly wouldn't have, say, been able to articulate or even contemplate the articulation any sort of opposition to the status quo. It was all he knew and the men in robes were the moral and ideological pillars as the intellectuals and hacks were in the Soviet Union. The ordinary Joe could not fathom question those who appear to know more.

Job security is hardly an important factor when judging well-being considering slaves have the safest jobs of all.

Job security is a big factor for those who would like to see a return of state capitalism. Again, research opinion polls on the matter rather than deliberately burying your head in the sand and pretending they weren't there.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

coolemon

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I do not have a crystal ball in order for me to say. I guess one could derive inferences about the potential obsolescence of certain professions which rely on a money economy and a market.

A stock trader might be something which would become obsolete. Depending on the system of housing provision, a mortgage advisor or those employed in the provision of mortgages may become obsolete.

But I don't know what you want to get from my speculation.

No "economic antagonism" exists between my employer and me. I direct a trading division that seeks to maximize profits on behalf of shareholders, and I get paid a nice bonus if I succeed, on top of my salary and other perks. My employer is happy, and I am happy. I socialize with executives of my company all the time, and they are nice people whom I enjoy spending time with -- I've never had the sense that we have antagonistic or contradictory agendas.

You seem to be confusing your 'sense' and 'feelings' with a real and existing economic antagonism. What you 'feel' is irrelevant here. Who you socialise with is irrelevant here. What matters is the real and existing social relationship.

The point is that firstly you recognise you are an employee. Being an employee necessarily implies a different economic relationship than your employer.

And, as I stated, depending on the economic conditions that real end existing relationship may manifest in some form of conscious and open conflict.

I have no desire to overthrow my employer in some kind of class revolution.

I never said you did.

Most employees today are in a win-win relationship with their employers. If the company succeeds, they succeed, in the form of raises, promotions, bonuses, stock options, and other perks. So they have a much greater incentive to help the company succeed than to engage in a violent revolutionary struggle that will only produce a lower standard of living for everyone.

If the company finds itself in a particularly competitive environment, or struggles to maintain viability and profitability, then antagonisms may arise between employer and employee. That is, where the employer struggles to maintain the viability of his enterprise and equally, the employees may, for a variety of reasons, not be in a position to take a pay cut.

The most obvious and recent example of the emergence of the economic antagonism inherent with social relationships would be the strike by Greayhound workers.

I mean, yeah, in theory they could just say yeah, us and the Buckley brothers are in the same boat here and we should work for mutual success.

But in reality, and for a variety of reasons, that did not happen.

marienbad

coolemon other than using some polls to say that there is a desire for a return to Soviet style economics what are you actually saying ?

coolemon

marienbad wrote: »

coolemon other than using some polls to say that there is a desire for a return to Soviet style economics what are you actually saying ?

I don't understand what you are asking?

It is as plain as day what I have been saying -> That both state capitalism and market capitalism have both their merits and drawbacks.

And for those who, for whatever zealot reasons want to disagree with that, there are a gazillion polls which contradict their irrational position that those societies were complete failures and everyone hated them.

BTW, in case you are confused, I am not advocating state-capitalism.

Rather, I favour libertarian socialism.

Valmont

I don't know what yardstick you are using coolemon, but I consider a state having to kill and starve millions and millions of its citizens to be a total complete and utter failure. The Soviets were brutal tyrants and no shady poll is going to change that fact. It's too bad we can't poll the millions of victims of the Soviet Union - but that was the point wasn't it? Kill off those who would dissent.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

coolemon

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

But that's what obsolescence does. Skillsets no longer become socially useful.

I don't think there is any solution to that other than to retrain.

So you continue to insist that some "antagonism" exists between my employer and me, and I'm just blissfully unaware of it?

It appears you are blissfully unaware of it. Though at the same time you seem to recognise through the use of the word "employee" that you have a different economic relationship.

Maybe you suffer from a compartmentalisation of the brain, similar to that of some creationist scientists.

And what is an employer supposed to do when it is struggling to maintain viability and profitability in a difficult environment -- such as the example of Dell in the original post? In a capitalistic economy, struggling companies generally engage in cost-cutting measures.

Precisely. And there is an inherent economic logic governing the way in which companies will act to maintain viability in certain conditions. One of the main contradictions in such situations is between employer and employees.

But you blissfully don't think such a contradiction even exists.

Under socialism, enterprises turn to the state for subsidies and bailouts, which only redirects resources from other areas of the economy to support loss-making enterprises. That's not a viable long-term solution.

That sounds like state-capitalism. Not socialism.

coolemon

Valmont wrote: »

I don't know what yardstick you are using coolemon, but I consider a state having to kill and starve millions and millions of its citizens to be a total complete and utter failure.

What about when a state kills and starves millions of non-citizens directly or indirectly by its actions. Is that state a complete failure?

Or does your yardstick not measure that?

Iwasfrozen

Coolemon, which society would you rather live in, market capitalist or communist (what you call state capitalist)?

garhjw

Who do you want to lead the communist dictatorship? Paul Murphy? Joe Higgins? Will they establish relations with North Korea?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

coolemon

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Coolemon, which society would you rather live in, market capitalist or communist (what you call state capitalist)?

Is it as simple to answer as that?

To be honest, I don't know. If I lived in a state capitalist country I probably would have internalised all of the social and political socialisation that goes with it. It would appear as 'normal'.

To answer objectively would perhaps require a comparison of the benefits of my social position in Ireland compared to that of in a state capitalist society.

If I lived rough on the streets of Dublin, for example, I would be better off in East Germany as a diplomat. Likewise, if I worked on some alienating rote production line in Romania I would be better off as a civil servant in Ireland.

But I don't think it is a question of comparing one to the other like that. Both societies emerged from specific historical conditions. It is never a simple choice of which path to take.

marienbad

coolemon wrote: »

I don't understand what you are asking?

It is as plain as day what I have been saying -> That both state capitalism and market capitalism have both their merits and drawbacks.

And for those who, for whatever zealot reasons want to disagree with that, there are a gazillion polls which contradict their irrational position that those societies were complete failures and everyone hated them.

BTW, in case you are confused, I am not advocating state-capitalism.

Rather, I favour libertarian socialism.

With all due respect this is just nonsensical - everything , and I mean everything under the sun, has drawbacks and to state that is just a truism and nothing more. Are you saying that communism was the equal of capitalism or what ?

Your only source for your defence of communism is a series of polls taken over a specific timeframe and populace that will be meaningless in 20 years or less. They are simply not quotable sources for anything other than how a specific set of respondents think now.

As for libertarian socialism - I would'nt give it to much of your energy as it is never going to happen.

coolemon

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I think anyone bar a primitivist would recognise technological and social progression and the obsolescence that it often brings with it.

However, it hasn't escaped my notice that your position on retraining is at odds with the general socialist stance, which takes the position that jobs must be preserved and workers must be protected at all costs, even if it involves the state bailing out, subsidizing, or even nationalizing loss-making industry.

There is, on the one hand, the question of what a socialist economy would look like. And on the other, a class struggle within existing capitalist social relations.

The latter often goes against what would otherwise be economic sense within the given economic framework -> such as maintaining an obsolete or unviable enterprise.

But such positions are usually part of a general approach of transitional demands - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_demand

In the case described in the OP, Ruth Coppinger and her fellow socialists argued that the Irish government should have nationalized Dell so as to protect workers' jobs. Why didn't they simply tell those workers that they should retrain for alternative employment?

Because they would be doing so within a capitalist framework.

I answered your question in relation to a socialist economy. Not within capitalism.

Even a highly paid CEO is an employee of a company. The company in turn is owned ultimately by its shareholders -- and we should note that shareholders, especially in a publicly listed company, may not meet the stereotypical Marxist caricature of fat-cat capitalists puffing on cigars.

You are right. But I never made such a caricature. In fact I stated in an earlier post that employers often put in more work and hours than their employees, and in many cases, earn less for it.

Many average employees own shares, either directly or through investment instruments such as mutual funds or pension funds. This makes "the workers" part-owners of the very companies that socialists want to appropriate -- which explodes the simplistic Marxist paradigm of capitalists versus workers, and potentially creates a scenario where workers rise up to stop socialists from stealing the companies they own!

It does not explode what you call a simplistic Marxist paradigm at all.

Basically, you are trying to shoehorn the economy of late 2014 into a sociopolitical hypothesis developed 150 years ago, while ignoring that almost everything is different now.

How is almost everything different now?

Is there not also an inherent contradiction between socialists and workers? You've stated above that socialists would eliminate the entire financial services sector, leaving everyone from bank tellers to insurance agents to stock traders unemployed. Those workers would be altogether happy about this new regime, I assume -- but you don't seem to care about their jobs.

It is not a case of 'socialists' eliminating financial service workers. rather, it is developments in the forces of production and the material base of society which will eliminate them.

Socialists didn't leave thousands of developers in the ****s, or financial traders who stacked millions on a rising economy in the red. these were born from a particular internal logic within capitalism which produced a recession.

Iwasfrozen

coolemon wrote: »

Is it as simple to answer as that?

Yes.

To be honest, I don't know. If I lived in a state capitalist country I probably would have internalised all of the social and political socialisation that goes with it. It would appear as 'normal'.

To answer objectively would perhaps require a comparison of the benefits of my social position in Ireland compared to that of in a state capitalist society.

If I lived rough on the streets of Dublin, for example, I would be better off in East Germany as a diplomat. Likewise, if I worked on some alienating rote production line in Romania I would be better off as a civil servant in Ireland.

But I don't think it is a question of comparing one to the other like that. Both societies emerged from specific historical conditions. It is never a simple choice of which path to take.

Nevermind all that extra baggage, if you were to be given the choice to be born in the United States or the USSR to a relatively stable middle class family, all other things being equal which would you prefer?

Actually no doubt you're going to try and detract from the answer so let's change that to East vs West Germany?

coolemon

marienbad wrote: »

With all due respect this is just nonsensical - everything , and I mean everything under the sun, has drawbacks and to state that is just a truism and nothing more. Are you saying that communism was the equal of capitalism or what ?

I think I have stated that what you call communism is, in fact, a form of capitalism. Its called state capitalism.

Your only source for your defence of communism is a series of polls taken over a specific timeframe and populace that will be meaningless in 20 years or less. They are simply not quotable sources for anything other than how a specific set of respondents think now..

I put various defences forward in a previous post. If you think I am going to waste my time googling statistics on, say, car dependency between North Korea and South Korea because you are too lazy then you can go and ****.

coolemon

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Yes.


Nevermind all that extra baggage, if you were to be given the choice to be born in the United States or the USSR to a relatively stable middle class family, all other things being equal which would you prefer?

Actually no doubt you're going to try and detract from the answer so let's change that to East vs West Germany?

Define middle class if you can.

And on what criteria do you want me to make my decision?

Iwasfrozen

coolemon wrote: »

Define middle class if you can.

And on what criteria do you want me to make my decision?

Middle class for the purpose of this question is relatively comfortable. It means being relatively well off within the context of the society.

Criteria is your personal preference so I can't dictate that to you.

marienbad

coolemon wrote: »

I think I have stated that what you call communism is, in fact, a form of capitalism. Its called state capitalism.



I put various defences forward in a previous post. If you think I am going to waste my time googling statistics on, say, car dependency between North Korea and South Korea because you are too lazy then you can go and ****.

Can you give me that post number please , I must have missed it . Thanks

coolemon

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Middle class for the purpose of this question is relatively comfortable. It means being relatively well off within the context of the society.

Criteria is your personal preference so I can't dictate that to you.

That's a hard question to answer. Probably middle class in the USA. But only because I have internalised much of the aspirations and values of that society.

In other respects the USSR was a more equal society. And as demonstrated in the Spirit Level such societies are better for all social classes.

If I was middle class in the USA that might mean being incredibly anxious and living in a gated community which is highly car dependent. Greater equality in the USA may mean more social cohesion and less anxiety - and thus less chance of having to take anti-depressants and living in a gated community.

There are drawbacks and merits in both societies.

coolemon

marienbad wrote: »

Can you give me that post number please , I must have missed it . Thanks

In relation to which point?

marienbad

coolemon wrote: »

In relation to which point?

On the defences of communism