Socialist Party's policies

Iwasfrozen

coolemon wrote: »

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.

Of course there are merits to communism but most people would prefer to live in a capitalist society, I'm glad you agree.

coolemon

marienbad wrote: »

On the defences of communism

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=93603350&postcount=774

You asked for some meaningful positives. I posted some for you to consider.

coolemon

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Of course there are merits to communism but most people would prefer to live in a capitalist society, I'm glad you agree.

Well I would rather live in a communist society than either state capitalism or market capitalism.

That's why im a communist.

alistair spuds

In all the history of commuinism and socialism, show me just one communist or even socialist county that worked and is working, just one.

coolemon

alistair spuds wrote: »

In all the history of commuinism and socialism, show me just one communist or even socialist county that worked and is working, just one.

Its more a set of economic relations.

I think families and friendships are usually non-capitalist in nature.

I think that works, and it is far more desirable I think than the commodification of friendships and family relations.

Imagine having to pay to talk to your friend like. Or pay to get some advice off your mother.

That would be capitalism.

Iwasfrozen

coolemon wrote: »

Well I would rather live in a communist society than either state capitalism or market capitalism.

That's why im a communist.

Good luck wth that, with no state around there'll be no one to enforce equality.

alistair spuds

coolemon wrote: »

Its more a set of economic relations.

I think families and friendships are usually non-capitalist in nature.

I think that works, and it is far more desirable I think than the commodification of friendships and family relations.

Imagine having to pay to talk to your friend like. Or pay to get some advice off your mother.

That would be capitalism.

In other words, never, not one.

coolemon

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Good luck wth that, with no state around there'll be no one to enforce equality.

It would come naturally.

Human nature has been around long before capitalism.

coolemon

alistair spuds wrote: »

In other words, never, not one.

Not one what?

alistair spuds

coolemon wrote: »

Not one what?

The one you skipped :

In all the history of commuinism and socialism, show me just one communist or even socialist country that worked and is working, just one.

coolemon

alistair spuds wrote: »

The one you skipped :

In all the history of commuinism and socialism, show me just one communist or even socialist country that worked and is working, just one.

But you are posing a question incompatible with the Marxist proposition.

It is not about what exists. It is about identifying historical trends using a particular social scientific lens, and then using this to inform social action.

alistair spuds

marienbad wrote: »

On the defences of communism

On one positive note, they did manage to eliminate the effects of religion from all public influence and ensure it was kept as a private matter. They were masters of that.

alistair spuds

coolemon wrote: »

But you are posing a question incompatible with the Marxist proposition.

It is not about what exists. It is about identify historical trends using a particular social scientific lens, and then using this to inform social action.

In other words, not one. Not one single example of the theory ever working in practice.
If fact, in practice, a complete and utter failure, every time. Millions upon milions, of dead, starving and repressed people.

Iwasfrozen

coolemon wrote: »

It would come naturally.

Human nature has been around long before capitalism.

You're living in a dream world. Without a state there's nothing to prevent the strong taking from the weak, or "exploiting" other members of society.

coolemon

alistair spuds wrote: »

In other words, not one. Not one single example of the theory ever working in practice.
If fact, in practice, a complete and utter failure, every time.

De-commidification, or the lack of commodification, has been a failure?

coolemon

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

You're living in a dream world. Without a state there's nothing to prevent the strong taking from the weak, or "exploiting" other members of society.

True. But the point is to remove the material incentive within such social relations.

There will always be hierarchies of some form.

alistair spuds

coolemon wrote: »

De-commidification, or the lack of commodification, has been a failure?

Any sucessful examples yet, just one will do . . . .

coolemon

alistair spuds wrote: »

Any sucessful examples yet, just one will do . . . .

My family is a successful example. I don't pay to speak to my mother. I don't put money in a slot machine to visit my granddad.

I don't know what sort of family you have but I thought it was normal not to pay in such circumstances.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

coolemon

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

And Marx wrote: "The bourgeoisie has torn away from the family its sentimental veil, and has reduced the family relation to a mere money relation."

I don't think my interactions with my family are commodified. Although of course economic conditions largely determine the shape and form of the family.

alistair spuds

coolemon wrote: »

My family is a successful example. I don't pay to speak to my mother. I don't put money in a slot machine to visit my granddad.

I don't know what sort of family you have but I thought it was normal not to pay in such circumstances.

That's because you live in a free and capitalist society.
Funny I've the same living in a free and capitalist society, where my working class family get to live better off free lives, with a better standard of living than any working class family in any communist or socialist state, and unlike the millions of families in communist and socialist states that were and are prevented from even seeing one another.

coolemon

alistair spuds wrote: »

That's because you live in a free and capitalist society.
Funny I've the same living in a free and capitalist society, where my working class family get to live better off free lives, with a better standard of living than any working class family in any communist or socialist state, and unlike the millions of families in communist and socialist states that were and are prevented from even seeing one another.

Communist state is an oxymoron. Unless you are referring to something very unrelated to what I propose.

alistair spuds

coolemon wrote: »

Communist state is an oxymoron. Unless you are referring to something very unrelated to what I propose.

Give me just one country where it works, just one, in all its history of theory and bullshyte ?

oscarBravo

coolemon wrote: »

So are you producing nothing?

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

My business makes perfect sense according to the paradigm within which it operates. I'm trying to make sense of how it fits into the neatly-labelled boxes that define your paradigm, and failing.

I don't "produce" anything, any more than a corner shop does. In a sense, I buy a commodity in bulk and deliver it to my customers' premises. What am I "producing"?

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

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

Because I'm also an employee. I just happen to part-own the business that employs me. Apparently, this is enough to catapult me and them into compartmentalised social classes.

Outside of your strained paradigm, social relationships are a great deal more complex than that.

No, certainly not in a socialist economic system.

OK, we're getting somewhere.

So in a socialist economy, skilled and dedicated workers get rewarded more than lazy and incompetent ones. Given that you don't envisage money existing, what form do you see those rewards taking?

coolemon wrote: »

My family is a successful example. I don't pay to speak to my mother. I don't put money in a slot machine to visit my granddad.

All this in a capitalist society. I thought socialism couldn't exist in any meaningful way at all unless capitalism was completely eliminated? You wouldn't be accepting that socialism and capitalism can coexist, would you?

coolemon

alistair spuds wrote: »

Give me just one country where it works, just one, in all its history of theory and bullshyte ?

You seem to have difficulty grasping what Marxism actually is.

oscarBravo

coolemon wrote: »

And Marx wrote: "The bourgeoisie has torn away from the family its sentimental veil, and has reduced the family relation to a mere money relation."

I don't think my interactions with my family are commodified. Although of course economic conditions largely determine the shape and form of the family.

So Marx was wrong?

alistair spuds

coolemon wrote: »

You seem to have difficulty grasping what Marxism actually is.

Give me just one country where it works, just one, in all its history of theory and bullshyte ?

marienbad

coolemon wrote: »

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.



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.

This was your reply to my question comparing Western Europe to Eastern Europe from 1945 to 1995 and you call it a defence ? . To answer them individually-

Job Security - full employment does not equate to job security in a police state , and I don't know how you constantly ignore this fact .

Gender Equality - only of the lowest common denominator kind - the ladies could drive a tractor and have their picture on a stamp but it was still the guys kicking the doors down at night and running the show .

Large Infrastructural Projects - your joking right ? Chernobyl and nuclear installation that they had to get the USA in to decommission.

Environmental preservation - Like Lake Baikal , the UN study in 1984 showing East Germany as the most polluted nation in Europe and too poor to clean it up.

Universal Free Education Is that the education system where everything was filtered through the party lens ?

Universal Health Care - other than Cuba evey other system was falling down where on every metric the west was better.

coolemon

oscarBravo wrote: »

I don't "produce" anything, any more than a corner shop does. In a sense, I buy a commodity in bulk and deliver it to my customers' premises. What am I "producing"?

You are producing value. Both in monetary terms and also use value.

You combine your knowledge, labour and the means of production to produce value.

What you produce does not need to be something you can physically touch for it to have been produced.

Because I'm also an employee. I just happen to part-own the business that employs me. Apparently, this is enough to catapult me and them into compartmentalised social classes.

Well you see you are drip feeding the details. You never mentioned that you part-owned the company. You never outlined in what way you consider yourself an employee.

Drip feeding and then revealing some revelatory information I didn't know about is not a way to make a point.

So in a socialist economy, skilled and dedicated workers get rewarded more than lazy and incompetent ones. Given that you don't envisage money existing, what form do you see those rewards taking?

It would take a non-material form. Indeed, it is non-material forms that predominate as the motivation in capitalism after basic needs are met. Maslows hierarchy is applicable to a communist and socialist society as much as a capitalist one.

All this in a capitalist society. I thought socialism couldn't exist in any meaningful way at all unless capitalism was completely eliminated? You wouldn't be accepting that socialism and capitalism can coexist, would you?

Elements of different forms of social relations exist within the capitalist mode of production. There are elements of feudal social relations in many capitalists societies.

Likewise, I think the general operations of families and friendships are of a socialist form. That is, mostly bereft of material incentive and non-commodified.

coolemon

oscarBravo wrote: »

So Marx was wrong?

Marx was wrong about a lot of things.

coolemon

marienbad wrote: »

Job Security - full employment does not equate to job security in a police state

I don't follow. Jobs in state capitalist societies were often 'jobs for life'. Indeed, one of the criticisms laid at the likes of the Irish civil service is just of that nature, that there are unproductive and inefficient lifers there.

Gender Equality - only of the lowest common denominator kind - the ladies could drive a tractor and have their picture on a stamp but it was still the guys kicking the doors down at night and running the show .

Lowest common denominator kind. Please explain.

Large Infrastructural Projects - your joking right ? Chernobyl and nuclear installation that they had to get the USA in to decommission.

Chernobyl. What are you on about?

Environmental preservation - Like Lake Baikal , the UN study in 1984 showing East Germany as the most polluted nation in Europe and too poor to clean it up.

So this is the trend in your post. Oh, I get it.

I pluck an isolated fact that suits me and apply it to all and every society with big brush strokes.

Juvenile.

Universal Free Education Is that the education system where everything was filtered through the party lens ?

yeah.

Universal Health Care - other than Cuba evey other system was falling down where on every metric the west was better.

yeah, you are right again. Cuba is a miracle.

alistair spuds

marienbad wrote: »

This was your reply to my question comparing Western Europe to Eastern Europe from 1945 to 1995 and you call it a defence ? . To answer them individually-

Job Security - full employment does not equate to job security in a police state , and I don't know how you constantly ignore this fact .

Gender Equality - only of the lowest common denominator kind - the ladies could drive a tractor and have their picture on a stamp but it was still the guys kicking the doors down at night and running the show .

Large Infrastructural Projects - your joking right ? Chernobyl and nuclear installation that they had to get the USA in to decommission.

Environmental preservation - Like Lake Baikal , the UN study in 1984 showing East Germany as the most polluted nation in Europe and too poor to clean it up.

Universal Free Education Is that the education system where everything was filtered through the party lens ?

Universal Health Care - other than Cuba evey other system was falling down where on every metric the west was better.

You have to admit they did suceed in preventing religion from having any public influence, and ensuring it was kept private, if at all.

coolemon

alistair spuds wrote: »

You have to admit they did suceed in preventing religion from having any public influence, and ensuring it was kept private, if at all.

Though it was replaced with a kind of state religion and hero worship.

Like North Korea today.

oscarBravo

coolemon wrote: »

Well you see you are drip feeding the details. You never mentioned that you part-owned the company. You never outlined in what way you consider yourself an employee.

Why, do you have a differently-labelled box for part-owners who are paid a salary?

It's not a question of "considering myself" an employee. Revenue consider me one, because the company pays me a salary. Mind you, Revenue also consider me self-employed because I part-own the business, which gives them some nicely creative ways to screw me, but that's life.

I report to the board of directors, of whom I am one. The directors are appointed by the shareholders, of whom I am also one.

So, am I proletariat or petit bourgeois? Or are you starting to understand that reality is far more complicated than was envisaged by a political philosophy that was devised in a completely different historical era?

It would take a non-material form. Indeed, it is non-material forms that predominate as the motivation in capitalism after basic needs are met. Maslows hierarchy is applicable to a communist and socialist society as much as a capitalist one.

As my late father-in-law would say: you can't eat thanks.

What non-material form do you envisage?

Elements of different forms of social relations exist within the capitalist mode of production. There are elements of feudal social relations in many capitalists societies.

Likewise, I think the general operations of families and friendships are of a socialist form. That is, mostly bereft of material incentive and non-commodified.

So why the need to completely remove all traces of capitalism before socialism can work? It's obvious that many different forms of social relations can co-exist; it seems to me that the only one that can't tolerate any form of dissent is socialism.

On balance, capitalism seems the more robust system, because it doesn't seem to have any problem co-existing with elements of socialism.

Soldie

coolemon wrote: »

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.

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

Why is this a thing that socialists always do? We're expected to accept that just about every problem in the world is the result of global capitalism. Hypocritically, any attempts to attach the communism label to the 20th century's lengthy list of failed Marxist experiments is met with fierce resistance. None of those disasters were real communism in practice, apparently, but colonialism, war, political corruption, and so on, are definitely the result of an "internal logic" within capitalism.

marienbad

coolemon wrote: »

I don't follow. Jobs in state capitalist societies were often 'jobs for life'. Indeed, one of the criticisms laid at the likes of the Irish civil service is just of that nature, that there are unproductive and inefficient lifers there.



Lowest common denominator kind. Please explain.



Chernobyl. What are you on about?



So this is the trend in your post. Oh, I get it.

I pluck an isolated fact that suits me and apply it to all and every society with big brush strokes.

Juvenile.



yeah.



yeah, you are right again. Cuba is a miracle.

it is you that listed the glories of communism and I took you at face value .
You extolled the virtues of 'large infrastructural projects' and I gave you an example of one of them Chernobyl.

You actually cited 'environmental protection' and I gave you the example of the destruction of Lake Baikal by paper mills and the case of East Germany which was well on the way to destroying the flora and fauna in 4 surrounding nations as well as itself.

None of your examples stand up to scrutiny .

I can only assume you have never visited any of these nations either before 1989 or after.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

coolemon

oscarBravo wrote: »

Why, do you have a differently-labelled box for part-owners who are paid a salary?

Of course. Without some form of categorisation or concept it is difficult to analyse or understand anything. Its one of the reasons we have language.

It's not a question of "considering myself" an employee. Revenue consider me one, because the company pays me a salary. Mind you, Revenue also consider me self-employed because I part-own the business, which gives them some nicely creative ways to screw me, but that's life.

I report to the board of directors, of whom I am one. The directors are appointed by the shareholders, of whom I am also one.

So, am I proletariat or petit bourgeois? Or are you starting to understand that reality is far more complicated.

From what details you have provided you sound as if you would occupy a position as bourgeoisie.

While you yourself add value through your labour to the company you still occupy an economic relationship which is in contradiction to other non-owning employees of the company. How many was there, 5?

I assume your company is not a co-operative so you will have different economic relations than non-owning employees.

If **** hits the fan, that is when differences in your position may arise as you try to reduce wages or increase the working time of your employees to keep your ship afloat.

What non-material form do you envisage?

Those non material forms as outlined by Maslow:

http://figur8.net/baby/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/Maslow-hierarchy.jpg

So why the need to completely remove all traces of capitalism before socialism can work?

I have no idea whether all traces of capitalism will be removed for socialism to work. But a nonmarket economy would, I assume, make such activity somewhat futile. It would be like trying to sell sand to the arabs or an Irish farmer trying to get the contemporary wage worker to attach himself to his land.

On balance, capitalism seems the more robust system, because it doesn't seem to have any problem co-existing with elements of socialism.

Capitalism is a system produced from specific historic material conditions.

Its not as if someone can simply choose what mode of production to implement. People have tried that but it has failed in the past. It would be like employing 20 people to operate one phone.

coolemon

Soldie wrote: »

Why is this a thing that socialists always do? We're expected to accept that just about every problem in the world is the result of global capitalism. Hypocritically, any attempts to attach the communism label to the 20th century's lengthy list of failed Marxist experiments is met with fierce resistance. None of those disasters were real communism in practice, apparently, but colonialism, war, political corruption, and so on, are definitely the result of an "internal logic" within capitalism.

Your a bit like a parrot there.

What part of Marxist historical materialism do you take issue with?

marienbad

coolemon wrote: »

Your a bit like a parrot there.

What part of Marxist historical materialism do you take issue with?

What part of Marxist historical materialism has been seen to be successful ?

Iwasfrozen

coolemon wrote: »

Those non material forms as outlined by Maslow:

http://figur8.net/baby/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/Maslow-hierarchy.jpg

Maslow is pretty old, why not ERG theory?

Are you aware that human resources departments tend to be aware of these theories and research into new theories that better suit human nature is continuous?

If Maslow describes human nature perfectly why do we still have research in this area?

coolemon

marienbad wrote: »

it is you that listed the glories of communism and I took you at face value .
You extolled the virtues of 'large infrastructural projects' and I gave you an example of one of them Chernobyl.

You actually cited 'environmental protection' and I gave you the example of the destruction of Lake Baikal by paper mills and the case of East Germany which was well on the way to destroying the flora and fauna in 4 surrounding nations as well as itself.

None of your examples stand up to scrutiny .

I can only assume you have never visited any of these nations either before 1989 or after.

What you are engaging in there is nothing but an infantile mud slinging match.

For every example you pick I could pick an isolated case of something that happened or was perpetrated by a western state. But I wont make sweeping generalisations about the west because of it.

alistair spuds

coolemon wrote: »

What part of Marxist historical materialism do you take issue with?

The part where in practice, it caused millions of deaths, and has never worked anywhere, and the part where you cannot come up with any country where it ever has or admit this fact.

Soldie

coolemon wrote: »

Your a bit like a parrot there.

What part of Marxist historical materialism do you take issue with?

Can you answer with an answer as opposed to a question?

coolemon

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Maslow is pretty old, why not ERG theory?

Are you aware that human resources departments tend to be aware of these theories and research into new theories that better suit human nature is continuous?

If Maslow describes human nature perfectly why do we still have research in this area?

ERG seems to be similar from what I can see.

I don't know what HR departments have anything to do with it.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

coolemon

marienbad wrote: »

What part of Marxist historical materialism has been seen to be successful ?

Do you know what historical materialism is?

alistair spuds

coolemon wrote: »

Do you know what historical materialism is?

Do you know what a practical real life example of it ever working as a system in any country is ?

coolemon

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I don't think that is what he did at all. He identified, accurately in my opinion, historical trends and processes.

coolemon

alistair spuds wrote: »

The part where in practice, it caused millions of deaths, and has never worked anywhere, and the part where you cannot come up with any country where it ever has or admit this fact.

That's not historical materialism.

Historical materialism does however help to explain those occurrences you mention.