Socialist Party's policies

Bob24

RobertKK wrote: »

http://www.thejournal.ie/socialist-party-nationalise-dell-1796089-Nov2014/



Did you ever see such bad policy from any party?

The Socialist party would take a foreign private company into public ownership is what she is saying. The Dell jobs went to Poland, a people who only know too well what these stupid policies lead to.

What next, the farm land belongs to all the people and not just the people who own the land and we have collectivisation?

None only is it bogus policy, saying that Dell has left Limerick also is either a blatant lie or blatant lack of knowledge.

Yes they did close down the factory and it did have a large impact on the low skilled job market and Dell suppliers in Limerick, but I was working at Dell at the time (in Dublin) and none of my white collar colleagues there were impacted. Most of the qualified job did stay and quite many people are still employed there today (I don't have recent numbers but definitely a few hundreds and quite possibly around 1000).

Now on closing down the factory: at the time Dell was they only PC manufacturer who still owned factories anywhere in the world (everybody else was already outsourcing in Asia and didn't own a single factory - which is what Dell is now doing). This was justified to a point because they could offer custom built configurations on their website an built close to the users - but new market conditions, better logistics from Asia, and custom capabilities from Asian sub-contractors were making it unsustainable.
Also for visiting the factory there were very few machines there and it was mostly manual labour (I was really surprised the first time I saw it) - heavy investment would have been needed to make it a semi-automated factory. It was also heavily subsidized by the government and keeping it there was costing money to the taxpayer (special tax agreement linked to this particular plant, free or subsidized electricity supply, etc).

There was no way this factory could remain in Ireland - under Dell or under government ownership (how would they have sold the computers with just a factory and no distribution channel or strong brand btw?).

Don't want to sound like I capitalist bastard - I really am not. But having seen it from the inside, there was no way to save this one.

Godge

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

I love to see the neo-liberal hacks getting their knickers in a twist over any suggestion of public ownership

Briefly
1. Dell were leaving the bloody country – packing their bags and p*ssing off to try and boost their already substantial profit margins by a tiny amount. Taking the Dell plant into public ownership would have saved jobs, kept production going, prevented Dell shipping machinery (purchased with tax payers money) being shipped to Poland etc. It is nonsense to suggest that other MNCs would have packed up and left. They are here because they are making (a lot) of money and will stay as long as they are making money. There is absolutely diddly-squat the government could do if Google etc packed their bags in the morning (just like they could do nothing to stop Dell).

2. It is also a nonsense to suggest that private sector companies would not supply a nationalised Dell. Private sector companies supply the public sector all the time. If there is profit for them in it they will continue to do it.

Just a few problems with your scenario:


1. Dell gets really cheap components from its suppliers because of its purchasing power. A small state-owned assembly line in Limerick does not have the same purchasing power. They would be charged 20-30% more than Dell.

2. Dell own the Dell brand, so you would have to rebrand everything in Limerick overnight putting another 20-30% onto your costs immediately.

3. You would then have to design differently to avoid copyright and patent infringements, another 20-30% cost increase.

4. You would have to build a distribution network from scratch to replace the one Dell has in place.

5. You would have to dream up a name for your new computer company, market it and sell the resultant computers. Would Argos, PC World etc. stock them?

At a guess, if you got your computers to retail for less than three times what Dell were charging and one quarter the Irish volume of sales, you would be doing well. That would not last long and the jobs would be gone within six months and the State would have a huge bill.

At the same time, other multinationals would be quietly shutting up shop and moving elsewhere in case they were next.

I haven't come across a more hairbrained idea ever.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Godge

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

7. The MNC sector actually contributes about 10% of economic activity (indeed given all the tax fiddles it is probably a lot less) – a democratically planned socialised economy would more than generate enough economic growth to replace this (and would do so quite rapidly) and any that tried to leave as a result of a planned economy would also be placed in public ownership.

.

This would result in a 30% decline in the economy within three months.

Social welfare rates would have to bear the burden of adjustment as there is nothing else left to cut.

BoJack Horseman

Godge wrote: »

I haven't come across a more hairbrained idea ever.

Naaaa, be grand.

We are all rich when everyone is as poor as each other.

Sure, the examples of prosperous Stalinist democracies are numerous!......
(Aren't they?)

raymon

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

I love to see the neo-liberal hacks getting their knickers in a twist over any suggestion of public ownership

Briefly
1. Dell were leaving the bloody country – packing their bags and p*ssing off to try and boost their already substantial profit margins by a tiny amount. Taking the Dell plant into public ownership would have saved jobs, kept production going, prevented Dell shipping machinery (purchased with tax payers money) being shipped to Poland etc. It is nonsense to suggest that other MNCs would have packed up and left. They are here because they are making (a lot) of money and will stay as long as they are making money. There is absolutely diddly-squat the government could do if Google etc packed their bags in the morning (just like they could do nothing to stop Dell).

I didn't get past your first untruth

Dell were not and did not leave Ireland - they moved one division to Poland and held onto and grew another division , which by all reports is thriving and employing huge amounts of Limerick people .

Is this the type of untrue scaremongering and misinformation that people believe ???

Is this official Socialist party line or are you making this stuff up by yourself?

mikep

I've been trying to figure out for a while what their real point is, apart from being anti everything without any real alternatives..

In the interest of self education I have been looking at their webiste...none the wiser..No policies there!
I guess if you don't make it easy to find out what their policies are they can make it up as they go along...

On the Dell issue they employ 2500 in Limerick, Dublin and Cork.

Rightwing

Godge wrote: »

This would result in a 30% decline in the economy within three months.

Social welfare rates would have to bear the burden of adjustment as there is nothing else left to cut.

You must be having a laugh.

gaybeer

The entire concept of nationalization eliminating cronyism is an insult to common sense. We should be reducing governments control not transferring more and more resources to it. Everything should be privatized, with an effective regulator put in place. The real waste in privatization comes from the transfer from public to private where GOVERNMENT officials try to buy votes.

BlutendeRabe

Rightwing wrote: »

Indeed. they favoured a deregulatory environment, and regulation suffered as a result, which wasn't a necessarily bad thing, apart from maybe the
repeal of Glass-Steagall.
.

Some deregulation is smart (i.e. Airline Industry which really focused on pricing and costs and NOT safety, beer industry in the US which led to the rise of the craft beer industry) especially if it removes barriers to entry for smaller businesses or it leads to reduced prices.

Others need to have the hell regulated out of them. Banking is one you mentioned. Problem though is there is a degree of regulatory capture. Examples I know would mainly apply to the pharma industry. Others IMO should be state run; mainly utilities and obvious stuff such as police and defence (yeah know I'm going a bit Snowcrash here. Just need to state it)

BlutendeRabe

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Give an example of a communist seizure of a company that subsequently prospered?

Chilean copper industry which was one of the few things Pinochet didn't reverse. Having said that it did lead to the coup that deposed Allende.

who the fug

Who are going to buy these DELLIRISH computers ?

who the fug

BlutendeRabe wrote: »

Chilean copper industry which was one of the few things Pinochet didn't reverse. Having said that it did lead to the coup that deposed Allende.

This had nothing to do with the world wide copper shortage:rolleyes:

BoJack Horseman

who the fug wrote: »

Who are going to buy these DELLIRISH computers ?

Ireland, (whether we would want them or not apparently)

who the fug

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Ireland, (whether we would want them or not apparently)

You get the feeling Slab Murphy would end up with electronic compnents banned from his road along with diesel

Godge

who the fug wrote: »

Who are going to buy these DELLIRISH computers ?

DELLIRISH wouldn't pass as a trade name.

who the fug

Godge wrote: »

DELLIRISH wouldn't pass as a trade name.

Please we are now living in socialist cloud couckoo workers paradise, of course it will pass as a trade name.

Bags job as party secetary and chief of the defense of the proletarian reveloution committee.

Jolly Red Giant

In case any of the neo-liberal hacks haven't noticed - the economy (based on neo-liberal slash and burn austerity) is up the crappers - the policies pursued by the government (and all previous governments) are the policies of economic stagnation coupled with poverty and emigration. And ye eejits have the audacity to claim that a democratically planned socialised economy wouldn't work - bloody hell- it couldn't be any worse that what we have at the moment (it actually couldn't). Irish capitalism is incapable and always has been incapable of developing the economy on the basis of capitalism and it has absolutely nothing to offer working class people except more of the same.

who the fug

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

In case any of the neo-liberal hacks haven't noticed - the economy (based on neo-liberal slash and burn austerity) is up the crappers - the policies pursued by the government (and all previous governments) are the policies of economic stagnation coupled with poverty and emigration. And ye eejits have the audacity to claim that a democratically planned socialised economy wouldn't work - bloody hell- it couldn't be any worse that what we have at the moment (it actually couldn't). Irish capitalism is incapable and always has been incapable of developing the economy on the basis of capitalism and it has absolutely nothing to offer working class people except more of the same.

As a matter of interest how old are you

Godge

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

In case any of the neo-liberal hacks haven't noticed - the economy (based on neo-liberal slash and burn austerity) is up the crappers - the policies pursued by the government (and all previous governments) are the policies of economic stagnation coupled with poverty and emigration. And ye eejits have the audacity to claim that a democratically planned socialised economy wouldn't work - bloody hell- it couldn't be any worse that what we have at the moment (it actually couldn't). Irish capitalism is incapable and always has been incapable of developing the economy on the basis of capitalism and it has absolutely nothing to offer working class people except more of the same.

Oh dear.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2014/1126/662688-unemployment-cso/

Highest employment levels since 2009.

What are the socialists going to say next year if employment rises to its highest ever level and beats the 2008 levels?

Jolly Red Giant

Godge wrote: »

Oh dear.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2014/1126/662688-unemployment-cso/

Highest employment levels since 2009.

What are the socialists going to say next year if employment rises to its highest ever level and beats the 2008 levels?

And the CSO figures today showed that average earnings are dropping - in other words minimum wage jobs with little prospect of any improvement.

Jolly Red Giant

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

And the CSO figures today showed that average earnings are dropping - in other words minimum wage jobs with little prospect of any improvement.

Isn't that what they want? Everyone on the breadline and miserable together.

oscarBravo

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

...it couldn't be any worse that what we have at the moment (it actually couldn't).

If you honestly can't imagine anything worse than Ireland right now, I respectfully submit that you're suffering from a failure of imagination.

hatrickpatrick

Godge wrote: »

Do you understand how the modern financial system and capitalist system works? It is impossible for a country like us to shout stop and get off and survive with any decent standard of living.

For someone trying to defend the modern financial system, you make it sound incredibly oppressive and anti-democratic. The people can't decide to go with a different system without permission from the world's superpowers? What an incredibly liberating concept, sign me right up. :rolleyes:

Iwasfrozen

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

And the CSO figures today showed that average earnings are dropping - in other words minimum wage jobs with little prospect of any improvement.

"Those who cannot remember
 the past are condemned to repeat it." - George Santayana

It would do you good to pick up a history book lad. Socialism has failed in every country it has ever been implemented in. Come back to us when you've graduated college.

Flex

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

And the CSO figures today showed that average earnings are dropping - in other words minimum wage jobs with little prospect of any improvement.

Haven't seen the CSO figures, but could average earnings dropping be to do with young and inexperienced people/college graduates being able to find employment, meaning they'd start at a rather low level as they work up, rather than earnings dropping across the board?

How much has youth unemployment reduced (if it has, genuinely don't know)?

Iwasfrozen

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

For someone trying to defend the modern financial system, you make it sound incredibly oppressive and anti-democratic. The people can't decide to go with a different system without permission from the world's superpowers? What an incredibly liberating concept, sign me right up. :rolleyes:

That it would be a bad idea to unsubscribe from a system does not mean that system is not enlightened.

Capitalism is the most enlightened economic and social system devised because in limiting the governments ability to help us we also limit their enormous power to harm us.

Rightwing

Flex wrote: »

Haven't seen the CSO figures, but could average earnings dropping be to do with young and inexperienced people/college graduates being able to find employment, meaning they'd start at a rather low level as they work up, rather than earnings dropping across the board?

How much has youth unemployment reduced (if it has, genuinely don't know)?

I think that is a key point that Jolly Red Giant made, and 1 of the main reasons why the world economy is stagnant.

RobertKK

Bambi wrote: »

How in the name of jaysus do you arrive at that conclusion? The banks were'nt state owned when they spunked all their money on property.

No but in a capitalist society they wouldn't have been rescued the way they were.
Capitalism would have allowed the banks fail because of their poor practices, rather than taking them into state control.
Anglo especially should have been let die quickly, rather than throwing good money at something rotten to the core.

RobertKK

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

In case any of the neo-liberal hacks haven't noticed - the economy (based on neo-liberal slash and burn austerity) is up the crappers - the policies pursued by the government (and all previous governments) are the policies of economic stagnation coupled with poverty and emigration. And ye eejits have the audacity to claim that a democratically planned socialised economy wouldn't work - bloody hell- it couldn't be any worse that what we have at the moment (it actually couldn't). Irish capitalism is incapable and always has been incapable of developing the economy on the basis of capitalism and it has absolutely nothing to offer working class people except more of the same.

From what I see the main policy of the socialist party is to hold businesses and people hostage.

You said Dell wouldn't be allowed to move its equipment.
Then we had that incident with Joan where Paul Murphy was asking how long to hold the Tanaiste hostage in her car, I believe one suggestion was 12 hours and another was 24 hours.

The people of Ireland are far classier than what the Socialist party think should be done to people who build up businesses and people in government.
We have a free society, people will never vote to be held hostage by a government who would want to nationalise private businesses.
You talk about taking assets off private individuals.

Do you think the people of Ireland want this?

Godge

Flex wrote: »

Haven't seen the CSO figures, but could average earnings dropping be to do with young and inexperienced people/college graduates being able to find employment, meaning they'd start at a rather low level as they work up, rather than earnings dropping across the board?

How much has youth unemployment reduced (if it has, genuinely don't know)?

Yes, to your first question and significantly to your second. Long-term unemployment has also dropped and again, you would expect people returning to the workforce after a long time to be on lower wages.

The drop in wages in the private sector is only 0.4%, somewhat bigger in the public sector because of the cuts in the HRA. All of it consistent with your analysis.

Lockstep

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

"Those who cannot remember
 the past are condemned to repeat it." - George Santayana

It would do you good to pick up a history book lad. Socialism has failed in every country it has ever been implemented in. Come back to us when you've graduated college.

Calling someone "lad" and patronising them for being a student isn't on. Don't do this again.

Lockstep

RobertKK wrote: »

No but in a capitalist society they wouldn't have been rescued the way they were.
Capitalism would have allowed the banks fail because of their poor practices, rather than taking them into state control.
Anglo especially should have been let die quickly, rather than throwing good money at something rotten to the core.

Yeah, that was a ridiculous idea. Letting the banks fail would be a very capitalist solution, letting them fail but guaranteeing deposits up to a certain amount to prevent a bank run (which was already in place) would have been a lot better. Nationalisation would have been a socialist one but a sweeping bank guarantee was just idiotic, privatising gains and socialising losses.

FreudianSlippers

Lockstep wrote: »

Yeah, that was a ridiculous idea. Letting the banks fail would be a very capitalist solution, letting them fail but guaranteeing deposits up to a certain amount to prevent a bank run (which was already in place) would have been a lot better. Nationalisation would have been a socialist one but a sweeping bank guarantee was just idiotic, privatising gains and socialising losses.

As I said previously, guaranteeing BoI and AIB would have been sensible to ensure there wasn't a run; Anglo should have been let drown and a fire sale of its assets to whoever wanted them. I don't have a crystal ball, but I'd say there wouldn't have been a bailout.

Rightwing

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

As I said previously, guaranteeing BoI and AIB would have been sensible to ensure there wasn't a run; Anglo should have been let drown and a fire sale of its assets to whoever wanted them. I don't have a crystal ball, but I'd say there wouldn't have been a bailout.

AIB def needed a bailout, BKIR probably not.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

FreudianSlippers

Rightwing wrote: »

AIB def needed a bailout, BKIR probably not.

I'm not sure AIB needed a bailout until after the blanket guarantee. Anglo put AIB into a precarious position after the guarantee.

Rightwing

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I'm not sure AIB needed a bailout until after the blanket guarantee. Anglo put AIB into a precarious position after the guarantee.

No, they were absolutely wreckless. Totally insolvent. A lot of their writedowns were quite astonishing for what was once a blue chip company.

This chap hit them for about €800m :rolleyes:

http://www.independent.ie/business/irish/greek-poker-player-may-deal-aib-a-busted-flush-26637207.html

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

hatrickpatrick

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

That it would be a bad idea to unsubscribe from a system does not mean that system is not enlightened.

Capitalism is the most enlightened economic and social system devised because in limiting the governments ability to help us we also limit their enormous power to harm us.

I don't agree with you about capitalism, but I was referring more to the financial system specifically than capitalism itself, which Godge included in the remark I was responding to.
Capitalism in no way limits the government's ability to harm us. What it has done is it has created an appalling culture of corporate cronyism throughout the "democratic" West.

The simple fact is that in neither socialism nor capitalism do ordinary people come first. Both systems are garbage, but the current implementation of capitalism is utterly deplorable.

jank

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

In case any of the neo-liberal hacks haven't noticed - the economy (based on neo-liberal slash and burn austerity) is up the crappers - the policies pursued by the government (and all previous governments) are the policies of economic stagnation coupled with poverty and emigration. And ye eejits have the audacity to claim that a democratically planned socialised economy wouldn't work - bloody hell- it couldn't be any worse that what we have at the moment (it actually couldn't). Irish capitalism is incapable and always has been incapable of developing the economy on the basis of capitalism and it has absolutely nothing to offer working class people except more of the same.

I would suggest you travel the world a little and you will see very quickly how bad it could be. Stop listening the the Joe Duffy/Paul Murphy negative group think that Ireland is a terrible place because it has a relatively open economy that relies on FDI and its access to the EU markets to thrive.

If you honestly cannot imagine anything worse than the current status quo in Ireland, then there is no help for you or you are being genuinely willfully disingenuous.

Car sales are booming at present
http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/news/number-of-cars-on-road-back-at-boomtime-levels-30653124.html

jank

Rightwing wrote: »

I think that is a key point that Jolly Red Giant made, and 1 of the main reasons why the world economy is stagnant.

There is no 'neo-liberal' conspiracy behind the stagnant wage growth in many western countries.

Firstly in the West we have unlocked a huge resource into the labour market, women. More women than ever are now working, more women/people available to work means that wages will level off as the supply has increased. This leads to other problems like childcare issues.

Secondly is immigration. We see it that it is a contentious issue in many Western European countries, where people from the former Soviet block due to decades of ecnomic stagnation had much lower wages and standards of living. Massive push and pull factors there. However, when you create a Labour Market of 500 million where millions are earning only a few hundred a month then it is no surpirse then that wages stagnate in western countries pushing the working class out of jobs and increasing competition. However, the ironic thing is that the left and socialist party will never critise immigration but they will draw attention to big business conspiracies.

Thirdly is globalization. The west has and is under going a period of de-industrialization where the Asian countries especially places like China, Thailand, India, Indonesia are under going an industrial revolution. Hundreds of millions have been lifted out of poverty in these countries, which is a great thing and all due to capitalism. However, again low/non skilled jobs suffer the most. People in the west have to go up the educational ladder to secure a future for themselves. Westerns though have been benefactors of this process due to cheaper and more numerous goods and products.

Putting these three factors into place then the growth in working class wages will level off. The only way to reverse it is to, isolate the country economically, curtail immigration and increase unionization and nationalise industries where the end result will get you a Cuba or Venezuela style economy.

Godge

jank wrote: »

There is no 'neo-liberal' conspiracy behind the stagnant wage growth in many western countries.

Firstly in the West we have unlocked a huge resource into the labour market, women. More women than ever are now working, more women/people available to work means that wages will level off as the supply has increased. This leads to other problems like childcare issues.

Secondly is immigration. We see it that it is a contentious issue in many Western European countries, where people from the former Soviet block due to decades of ecnomic stagnation had much lower wages and standards of living. Massive push and pull factors there. However, when you create a Labour Market of 500 million where millions are earning only a few hundred a month then it is no surpirse then that wages stagnate in western countries pushing the working class out of jobs and increasing competition. However, the ironic thing is that the left and socialist party will never critise immigration but they will draw attention to big business conspiracies.

Thirdly is globalization. The west has and is under going a period of de-industrialization where the Asian countries especially places like China, Thailand, India, Indonesia are under going an industrial revolution. Hundreds of millions have been lifted out of poverty in these countries, which is a great thing and all due to capitalism. However, again low/non skilled jobs suffer the most. People in the west have to go up the educational ladder to secure a future for themselves. Westerns though have been benefactors of this process due to cheaper and more numerous goods and products.

Putting these three factors into place then the growth in working class wages will level off. The only way to reverse it is to, isolate the country economically, curtail immigration and increase unionization and nationalise industries where the end result will get you a Cuba or Venezuela style economy.

Don't even think we would manage as well as a Cuba or Venezuela. More like North Korea to be honest.

Chips Lovell

Another thing. Just because someone disagrees with you doesn't mean they're a "neo-liberal hack".

It's entirely possible to consider yourself a socialist and think that nationalising Dell's Limerick plant is a daft idea.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

FreudianSlippers

Just to follow on, using this hair-brained example of somehow either nationalising Dell (a foreign company) or nationalising their assembly 'factory' (presumably under some sort of Irish owned competitor to Dell). Two fundamental questions arise:

1) How does OP and supporters of this idea propose to work around EU State Aid rules;
2) Legality: (i) pursuant to what domestic/EU laws does Ireland have the authority to expropriate foreign property; (ii) pursuant to international law (see the "international minimum standard test") how could you satisfy the compensation and other considerations.

This all goes along with my general presumption that you don't really care that the cost of nationalisation would be enormous to the state and the factory would never make anything but a substantial loss. You may as well have the state hire all the workers to make something useful.

Godge

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Just to follow on, using this hair-brained example of somehow either nationalising Dell (a foreign company) or nationalising their assembly 'factory' (presumably under some sort of Irish owned competitor to Dell). Two fundamental questions arise:

1) How does OP and supporters of this idea propose to work around EU State Aid rules;
2) Legality: (i) pursuant to what domestic/EU laws does Ireland have the authority to expropriate foreign property; (ii) pursuant to international law (see the "international minimum standard test") how could you satisfy the compensation and other considerations.

This all goes along with my general presumption that you don't really care that the cost of nationalisation would be enormous to the state and the factory would never make anything but a substantial loss. You may as well have the state hire all the workers to make something useful.

It won't matter, we will have left the EU, that imperialist conspiracy to repress the workers.

jank

Godge wrote: »

It won't matter, we will have left the EU, that imperialist conspiracy to repress the workers.

Shhh, just be thankful for your daily ration of gin and computer chips! *Hmmmm computer chips*, Crunch, crunch, crunch!

FreudianSlippers

Godge wrote: »

It won't matter, we will have left the EU, that imperialist conspiracy to repress the workers.

Even if we were to leave the EU (and I know you're being glib), international law requires that such an action of nationalisation be legislated for under national law.

Manach

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Even if we were to leave the EU (and I know you're being glib), international law requires that such an action of nationalisation be legislated for under national law.

Would this be similar to the mechanism used by U.S. companies when Argentina defaulted?. Seizing their state assets. Asking out of couristy only.