Socialist Party's policies

garhjw

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Off to the gulags with you. Whilst ireland won't have Siberia, we do have Longford. Alternatively, you may jus disappear.

coolemon

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Making what?

How will you acquire proprietary ownership over your tools of production? - or over your ideas and patents?

What are you going to give in return for material and economic inputs?

PeadarCo

coolemon wrote: »

T
That said, large scale 'common consciousness' is not something "never seen". Shared ideology and ideas is the foundation of social stability everywhere -> even when those ideas are patently false or stupid - like religion.

Everyone agree on we want jobs money etc is the aim of all government but the tricky thing is how to go about doing it. We have a range of political parties that politely disagree on how to achieve them.

Communism is one way but not the only way. How will this mass conciousness emerge. It hasn't done over the last 100 yrs or so, so why now or at any point in the future. How does communism work in the real world? a question you have a particular devotion to ignoring.

coolemon

PeadarCo wrote: »

How will this mass conciousness emerge. It hasn't done over the last 100 yrs or so, so why now or at any point in the future. How does communism work in the real world?

As I said, I think one of the main failures of Marx's ideas has been his understanding of how 'proletarian class consciousness' would emerge.

Marx correctly identified economic contradictions within capitalism and gave a rigorous and highly relevant analysis of its dynamics.

He was observing a period of rapid industrialisation at the time of his writings. The remnants of feudalism -> a largely decentralised and rural mode of production - was being decimated before his eyes.

What was occurring was the 'socialisation' of production. The creation of 'industrial armies' of proletariat. Of wage sellers rather than the bondage of feudal serfdom of previous epochs.

Marx saw this socialisation -> of workers working together in large scale collective production processes in urban centres-> as the conditions to potentially produce a particular common consciousness.

And it did. The economic contradictions he identified brought industrial armies into conflict with employers. Trade unions were formed and fought for. The late 19th century and early 20th centuries saw the emergence of new ideas and forms of consciousness. Of Labour parties, huge unions and the widespread permeation of socialist ideas (in the broadest non-Marxist use of that term).

But it in my estimation it did not bring a socialist (Marxist use of that term!) revolutionary class consciousness. There were people attempting it and thought they were creating socialism. But not really.

What would develop the sort of consciousness required for socialism?

I don't actually know. The class and economic contradictions I think are correctly identified.

Perhaps increased automation? Environmental limits on resources and capitalism? Recession? Depression?

We see even with the relatively small global recession we have had shifts in consciousness. Of people thinking and considering options and ideas not previously considered for a long time. SYRIZA in Greece, the growing left and independenst in Ireland, and so on.

Socialism will require 1) The right economic development of the forces of production 2) people thinking about and considering new ways of organising society and 3) as a consequence, clear and obtainable socialist objectives.

But it is a difficult question to answer. If I knew the answer sure we would have a revolution tomorrow.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

coolemon

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I need more information to get a sense of what it is you propose.

What will you pay your employees with?

What will stop someone duplicating the software once you have sold/exchanged it?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

coolemon

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Which your employees will exchange for?

What will people exchange for your software?

What will stop others from developing the same software or similar, for free?

I will provide software as a service (SaaS) and hence will not have to give a copy of the software to anyone.

I don't think other people would allow you privatise and exclusivise that which is socially produced in the way you propose. It would be a form of theft.

On the otherhand, and as I stated, there might well be remnants of capitalism or 'attempts' at revival but, for the very simple fact that society would control production and its output, I don't see the feasibility of a capitalist revival.

But its all speculation on my part.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

coolemon

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

And where will you get those goods?

You would want to hope that such shortages are long term otherwise that nascent economic activity will remain marginal.

Bitcoin.

Which they will get from?

Nothing whatsoever -- just as nobody prevented open-source developers from developing OpenOffice as a freely available competitor to Microsoft Office.

Then why do you think people would enter into meaningful and socially significant transactions with you if they can get it for free?

The comparison of Openoffice to Microsoft is quite a bit different than the situation you are presenting here.

I'm not privatizing something that was socially produced. I'm keeping something private that was privately produced.

It couldn't have been privately produced. All wealth is socially produced.

How can selling my own intellectual property be defined as "theft"? Who am I stealing from?

Property requires a state to assert.

But besides that, what you produce is done so socially. Your attempt to restrict the productive output in the way you propose - would, I assume, be viewed by people in a socialist society as theft. You would be denying them access to what they contributed to produce.

You say you're not in favor of a centralized command economy, which you call "state capitalism," and yet you still say that "society would control production and its output" in such a manner as to prevent a capitalist revival. That sounds fairly authoritarian to me.

I don't particularly favour a command economy. But to think a largely decentralised and participatory democratic society would be absent of various forms of social organisation and rules - and - even perhaps - forms of organised coercion - would be wrong.

When I say that society controls production I mean the economic social relations entered into across the entire society are as such that society - as-a-whole control production through their combined economic actions and interactions at all levels. It is not controlled, for example, by a separate class which uses instruments of coercion to maintain its social relations. But my use of the phrase social control is a very generalized one for which it would be difficult for me to speculate or make inferences in huge detail as to the forms of social organisation used.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

coolemon

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

You make an awful lot of assumptions there. Firstly, that socialism cannot provide that which is available in these external 'market economies'. Market economies which would, I assume, be less developed in terms of their productive forces.

Second, that you have something (and be allowed) to trade for what they have.

Based on the track record of previous socialist economies, I confidently predict that shortages will be endemic and long-term.

You mean state capitalist societies.

Bitcoin already exists, as a decentralized global cryptocurrency. You have no way of willing it out of existence, or preventing people from using it.

But how will they earn bit coin in order to purchase your services?

If your little enterprise did work I would say it would be the equivalent of craiglists. Limited in its applicability and usefulness in an economy of 'free' socialist production. It would remain marginal.

Because I would aim to produce a better software product than SocialSoft can deliver.

And which will be duplicated as soon as it is revealed. That's even assuming your forced little scheme can produce something better than what can be produced by free people. Doubtful.

If a private individual or company produces a product, it has been privately produced, and the wealth it generates is also private wealth.

But no company or individuals wealth is privately produced. It is socially produced. It requires social resources, labour and inputs external to the individual or company -> historically or in the present.

No state is required to assert property rights.

Then you don't understand what "property rights" actually are.

Nobody contributed other than my employees and me. The people in the socialist society made no contribution.

Impossible.

I see your "libertarian" rapidly decoupling from "socialist" here. Once you acknowledge that you are prepared to resort to "forms of organized coercion" to achieve your political ambitions, you are no longer entitled to call yourself a libertarian.

There are various definitions and uses of the term libertarian. Libertarian, in my usage, is a form of anti-statism .

And I say that if I write a computer program, or construct a chair, or compose a symphony, then that computer program, chair, or symphony has been produced by me, not by society.

I disagree. But even to accept what you have just said for one moment.

That's not how production works today and it never will. Its fantasy. Such production is and always will remain marginal rather than an embryonic mode of production in the making.

And as soon as you hire someone else in your little attempt at despotism, you can no longer say you produced it.

Who wrote Hamlet, William Shakespeare or society?

It was socially produced of course. From the language down to the pen. From the light down to his evening meal. Without that social input there is no Hamlet and no Shakespeare.

marienbad

Genuine question coolemon , do you really believe all this ?

coolemon

marienbad wrote: »

Genuine question coolemon , do you really believe all this ?

Can you be more specific Marienbad?

You sound like a piss taking troll with a question like that.

marienbad

coolemon wrote: »

Can you be more specific Marienbad?

You sound like a piss taking troll with a question like that.

I am asking if you believe what you are replying to permabear , can I be more specific that that ?

In your first line you say he makes a awful lot of assumptions yet you do so left and right.

you assume you would produce a better software that he - on what basis?

If he doesn't understand 'property rights' can you define it please

You say that is not how production works today- so how does it work

Who will do the coercing ?

Is that specific enough for you ?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Iwasfrozen

Added to what marienbad said above you're assuming market economies would be less developed than socialist ones.

Essien

coolemon wrote: »

It was socially produced of course. From the language down to the pen. From the light down to his evening meal. Without that social input there is no Hamlet and no Shakespeare.

And with that, it all becomes so clear.

In my 7/8 years of using these forums I can't think of many claims more deluded than this one. If the state decision makers held this frankly insane belief, I wound be terrified. What a horrible place the world would be.

garhjw

coolemon wrote: »

Can you be more specific Marienbad?

You sound like a piss taking troll with a question like that.

But seriously coolemon, do you really think this crap can happen? We all know it won't but do you think it is even possible in the real world?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

coolemon

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Of course it stems from an individuals mind. But you cannot separate and disconnect the mind from society and look at the mind or what it produces independently of society.

It is all rather obvious.

Any rational person can see that without a man called William Shakespeare, there would be no Hamlet. Without Beethoven, there would be no Ninth Symphony. Without da Vinci, there would be no Mona Lisa.

Equally. Any rational person would see that without the aforementioned peoples minds existing at a particular place at a particular time in a particular society there would be no Beethoven, de Vinchi or Shakespeare.

I don't need to remind you that there are no famous figures in the field of, say, Renaissance art from Nigeria.

coolemon

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Added to what marienbad said above you're assuming market economies would be less developed than socialist ones.

Yes, that is my assumption. Socialism emerges from constraints between the social relations of production and the forces of production imposed by capitalism.

Socialism is therefore a more advanced mode of production than capitalism in the same way capitalism is a more advanced mode of production than feudalism.

coolemon

Essien wrote: »

And with that, it all becomes so clear.

It clearly grates with your theological beliefs.

coolemon

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Good question. Probably not. Once you don't try establish social relations to try subjugate others in order to extract surplus value from what they produce, id say you would be ok.

The individual production you speak of is not how most things are made in the 21st century anyway. If any other form of social relations emerged from it it would be marginal.

Iwasfrozen

coolemon wrote: »

Yes, that is my assumption. Socialism emerges from constraints between the social relations of production and the forces of production imposed by capitalism.

Socialism is therefore a more advanced mode of production than capitalism in the same way capitalism is a more advanced mode of production than feudalism.

Again, an assumption.

coolemon

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Again, an assumption.

Socialism remains hypothetical. I never claimed otherwise.

Iwasfrozen

coolemon wrote: »

Socialism remains hypothetical. I never claimed otherwise.

Socialism remains dogmatic, do you ever stray from the bible of Marx?

p1akuw47h5r3it

coolemon wrote: »

Socialism remains hypothetical. I never claimed otherwise.

And will forever remain theoretical, because you can't even tell us what it is exactly.

Genuine question, what age are you? Or age bracket do you belong to?

coolemon

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Socialism remains dogmatic, do you ever stray from the bible of Marx?

Maybe you missed some of my earlier posts.

I said Marxian class is very limited in its utility. I also said Marx got a lot wrong and I also gave an example of that in relation to his assumptions about class consciousness.

Do I ever stray? Of course. I really enjoy and find useful various sociological approaches other than Marxism. I am currently reading The Bachelors Ball by Pierre Bourdieu. I cant find much to disagree with and he is not considered a Marxist.

coolemon

DanDan6592 wrote: »

And will forever remain theoretical, because you can't even tell us what it is exactly.

I think I have told you what it is from what can be inferred.

Genuine question, what age are you? Or age bracket do you belong to?

Why?

p1akuw47h5r3it

coolemon wrote: »

I think I have told you what it is from what can be inferred.



Why?

Because, with all due respect, you are either extremely naive which could be put down to youth or else just scarily deluded.

coolemon

DanDan6592 wrote: »

Because, with all due respect, you are either extremely naive which could be put down to youth or else just scarily deluded.

Why?

p1akuw47h5r3it

coolemon wrote: »

Why?

Usually young people (usually classed as 18-25) can get away with having crazy far out ideas because they are seen as young and without much life experience. They may therefore believe certain things that in theory sound great but in the real world are inapplicable.

Older people tend not to be able to get away with this excuse due to the assumption that they have said life experience. If you do not want to answer, don't. That's fine. I was just curious.

coolemon

DanDan6592 wrote: »

Usually young people (usually classed as 18-25) can get away with having crazy far out ideas because they are seen as young and without much life experience. They may therefore believe certain things that in theory sound great but in the real world are inapplicable.

Why are they crazy and far out? - other than because you, an unknown quantity from what I can see, says it is.

Older people tend not to be able to get away with this excuse due to the assumption that they have said life experience.

Really?

Maybe its just me but I though things like Christianity and Islam were 'far out' and 'crazy'.

But I guess not since older people tend to get away with believing in those things and have life experience.

That or you are just talking through your hoop and trolling.

p1akuw47h5r3it

coolemon wrote: »

Why are they crazy and far out? - other than because you, an unknown quantity from what I can see, says it is.



Really?

Maybe its just me but I though things like Christianity and Islam were 'far out' and 'crazy'.

But I guess not since older people tend to get away with believing in those things and have life experience.

That or you are just talking through your hoop and trolling.

Ok you don't want to answer. That is fine.

marienbad

DanDan6592 wrote: »

Ok you don't want to answer. That is fine.

I think he did

coolemon

DanDan6592 wrote: »

Ok you don't want to answer. That is fine.

You haven't given me a satisfactory reason why I should.

You are either a troll or not the sharpest tool in the box if you think age has anything to do with it.

Mod: Warned earlier for similar post.

p1akuw47h5r3it

coolemon wrote: »

You haven't given me a satisfactory reason why I should.

You are either a troll or not the sharpest tool in the box if you think age has anything to do with it.

I don't really need to give a reason. If you don't want to answer that is fine. It is a personal question. I asked out of curiosity.

coolemon

DanDan6592 wrote: »

I don't really need to give a reason. If you don't want to answer that is fine. It is a personal question. I asked out of curiosity.

Given your previous post it looks like you asked based upon very rudimentary reasoning skills.

marienbad

coolemon wrote: »

Given your previous post it looks like you asked based upon very rudimentary reasoning skills.

or life experience

coolemon

marienbad wrote: »

or life experience

I gathered from your earlier posts that you also have limited reasoning skills, despite your age.

marienbad

coolemon wrote: »

I gathered from your earlier posts that you also have limited reasoning skills, despite your age.

And you have a limited sense of humour because of yours

coolemon

marienbad wrote: »

And you have a limited sense of humour because of yours

Marxists are known to be humourless bastards.

Iwasfrozen

Coolemon could you without resorting to marxian language, for the sake of those of us not versed in it, actually explain what a socialist economy would look like? Because you haven't actually done that yet.

garhjw

I'm getting worried. The communists haven't answered any of the questions I asked in this thread. Then my doorbell rang a few mins ago but there was nobody there when I got to the door. I'm concerned the irish equivalent of the KGB is planning to take me.

coolemon

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Coolemon could you without resorting to marxian language, for the sake of those of us not versed in it, actually explain what a socialist economy would look like? Because you haven't actually done that yet.

It is not a straightforward question to answer unless you (or anyone else interested) reflexively shifts your existing ideological presuppositions to see "the world" and society differently.

I have tried to explain what it is from what can be inferred from a historical materialist conception and analysis of human and economic development.

If you want to understand it then I suggest you read some texts from Frederick Engles. He has a nice simplistic way of writing and sketching out the general propositions put forward by Karl Marx.

While reading it is important to understand some of the basic definitions of phrases so as to know what it is they are talking about.

Marxism (and what Marxists propose) is not something you can just grasp over night. Its a bit like watching a film a few times over. You will pick things up that you inadvertently missed the first time and things begin to combine to make more sense the more you watch a film. Things that may not have been apparent the first time over - or at first sight.

And this applies to all sociological theory. It requires reflection and a level of reflexive thinking. We are all inculcated in an entire and immeasurably complex ideological system that limits how we perceive the world.

Ever try "debate" or argue with a "devout" Christian? -> its quite difficult to get somewhere with them. They are inculcated (as you and I are) in a deep ideological frame. A frame they themselves (or you and I!) may not realise the actual extent of it.

In short - you need to read some texts because forums are not generally conducive to explaining entire "world views" from scratch.

But if you have some more specific questions rather than "explain your whole world view" then I will try and answer. But as I said, I thought I was answering in a way that is feasible.

Two texts to read that might help if you ever get a chance:

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1880/soc-utop/ch03.htm
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1884/origin-family/

(the translations above are pretty woeful tbh. There are better versions available)

The Communist Manifesto - if you read it without a load of preconceptions and misconceptions, can be useful aswell.

All three of those texts have their own problems. For example with the Origin of the Family subsequent research would challenge some of the conclusions and supporting material like Morgans.

coolemon

garhjw wrote: »

I'm getting worried. The communists haven't answered any of the questions I asked in this thread. Then my doorbell rang a few mins ago but there was nobody there when I got to the door. I'm concerned the irish equivalent of the KGB is planning to take me.

I have been asked questions equivalent to people asking me for working examples of a country based on bernoulli's equation.

People, including yourself, I think need to understand what it is you are arguing and talking about.

Iwasfrozen

But you haven't really answered what a socialist society would look like. Would Ireland be an autarky, would we trade with capitalist countries? Without a state if socialism isn't worldwide how do we protect ourselves from foreign aggression?

Godge

coolemon wrote: »

It is not a straightforward question to answer unless you (or anyone else interested) reflexively shifts your existing ideological presuppositions to see "the world" and society differently.

I have tried to explain what it is from what can be inferred from a historical materialist conception and analysis of human and economic development.

If you want to understand it then I suggest you read some texts from Frederick Engles. He has a nice simplistic way of writing and sketching out the general propositions put forward by Karl Marx.

While reading it is important to understand some of the basic definitions of phrases so as to know what it is they are talking about.

Marxism (and what Marxists propose) is not something you can just grasp over night. Its a bit like watching a film a few times over. You will pick things up that you inadvertently missed the first time and things begin to combine to make more sense the more you watch a film. Things that may not have been apparent the first time over - or at first sight.

And this applies to all sociological theory. It requires reflection and a level of reflexive thinking. We are all inculcated in an entire and immeasurably complex ideological system that limits how we perceive the world.

Ever try "debate" or argue with a "devout" Christian? -> its quite difficult to get somewhere with them. They are inculcated (as you and I are) in a deep ideological frame. A frame they themselves (or you and I!) may not realise the actual extent of it.

In short - you need to read some texts because forums are not generally conducive to explaining entire "world views" from scratch.

But if you have some more specific questions rather than "explain your whole world view" then I will try and answer. But as I said, I thought I was answering in a way that is feasible.

Two texts to read that might help if you ever get a chance:

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1880/soc-utop/ch03.htm
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1884/origin-family/

(the translations above are pretty woeful tbh. There are better versions available)

The Communist Manifesto - if you read it without a load of preconceptions and misconceptions, can be useful aswell.

All three of those texts have their own problems. For example with the Origin of the Family subsequent research would challenge some of the conclusions and supporting material like Morgans.

One can read Marx and Engels, or to use another example, Socrates and Plato but they are out of date. The historical context in which they were written and which underpins their conclusions means that if they are to have any relevance in the 21st century, they must be updated.

It amazes me to see so many communist defenders still using 19th century language and concepts without any idea of how they will work in a world of technology and freedom of movement like the one we have today.

Karl Stein

Essien wrote: »

In my 7/8 years of using these forums I can't think of many claims more deluded than this one.

It should be noted that for someone to claim he is self-made in his entirety is equally bat-**** insane only it's at the other end of the deluded spectrum.

I arrived with $250 in my pocket, and got where I am based entirely on my hard work.” This is true, but it’s not the whole truth.

A more accurate telling of my story would consider that every day I benefit from schools, hospitals, roads, bridges, parks and civic amenities that were built and paid for by previous generations. They were much less well off than we are today. Yet they had the collective will to invest in their future and the future of their children.

Arul Menezes, Microsoft Millionaire.