Socialist Party's policies

Essien

Karl Stein wrote: »

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.

Indeed.

Fortunately, nobody claimed that.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

coolemon

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Would Ireland be an autarky,

Probably. Probably not. I don't know. A socialist society - and the ideas and conditions to construct one - don't exist at the moment.

would we trade with capitalist countries?

Similar to the answer above.

Without a state if socialism isn't worldwide how do we protect ourselves from foreign aggression?

That would require some form of organised coercion. That wouldn't necessarily need to take the form of a state. Forming a state may even be a weakness. The Tamil Tigers, for example, may have been better without all of the conventional state pomp when attacked by Sri Lanka.

^^ Those answers may seem like a duck and dive job, but, all Socialists, in my opinion, can do now is get people thinking and discussing possible alternatives. For example, I am not an expert at factory management. I have never worked in a factory. Those who are best placed to develop solutions as to alternative structures within factories will be those working in factories.

But to develop alternatives there must first be identified problems and discussion. That is what socialists I think need to promote first.

coolemon

Godge wrote: »

One can read Marx and Engels, or to use another example, Socrates and Plato but they are out of date.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.

If you have read Marx and Engles then you will have found that they are almost as aversive as I am in explaining as to how socialism would function.

And there is a reason for that. Marxism is a "methodological approach to the study of society" -> not a blueprint of what a socialist economy and society would look like. The task of creating socialism was not that of Marx's (or mine) but the proletariat.

If you think his ideas and his methodological framework are outdated then explain why...

For those who specialise in the study of society - sociologists - Marxism is far from outdated. Indeed there are many existing Marxists from all sorts of social scientific areas such as economics, anthropology, geography, and so on.

coolemon

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Did I say somewhere that Shakespeare was not part of society?

Shakespeare - the individual - and what he produces - is inseparable from the society in which he lives. And as part of society, Hamlet is a social and collective effort and output.

Is that clearer?

I never changed my tune. You just took a kneejerk reaction and made all sort of assumptions as to what it was I meant.

You could have answered that William Shakespeare wrote Hamlet, and pointed to the social and cultural influences on that play, as numerous literary critics have done.

But that would be to separate and obscure the actual production process involved.

It would be like saying a wood turner made the leg of a chair.

It would obscure the fact that his wife slaves day in and day out to keep him fed and his environment clean, and therefore producing.

What the wood turner produces then is part of a social and collective effort.

Does an individuals mind have creativity? - of course. I never claimed otherwise.

but the claim that Hamlet was "socially produced" is completely different.

Its only completely different because you want to interpret what I am saying in a kneejerk way.

Iwasfrozen

Nope sorry Coleman, before I can support this I need proof that it's viable this means a detailed plan with numbers.

Without numbers we can't even know if what you're supporting is viable. Historical materialism tells you socialism will come about when the correct stimulus is applied to society. That's assuming socialism is even possible to implement. A big assumption.

karma_

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

And if he had been brought up in a cave Hamlet wouldn't have been much good now would it.

Jolly Red Giant

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Nope sorry Coleman, before I can support this I need proof that it's viable this means a detailed plan with numbers.

Without numbers we can't even know if what you're supporting is viable. Historical materialism tells you socialism will come about when the correct stimulus is applied to society. That's assuming socialism is even possible to implement. A big assumption.

There is something that clearly has gone completely over the head of those opposing a socialised economy - your so-called 'numbers' are irrelevant - a democratically planned socialised economy does not operate on the same, or even a remotely similar, basis as capitalism - as a result the 'numbers' used in capitalist economics cannot be applied to a socialised economy - the 'numbers' would not, and could not, make sense. The removal of profit as the driving force behind economic activity changes the mode of production, the social relations within the economy and opens up a wide range of opportunities for economic development.

In a socialised economy activities, that would previously have been unviable on the basis of the need for profit, could be planned and developed. Economic activities that have no social usefulness but are profitable (e.g. armaments) or used to generate profit (e.g. advertising) would be dispensed with - and those resources would used to develop the economy. Research would operate on the basis of cooperation rather than competition, avoiding duplication of research, large-scale duplication in production would be avoided in a socialised economy. A socialised economy would be sustainable because it would not be subjected to the bubble / crash, inflation / deflation, over production / over capacity cycles that cripple capitalist development and because it would not be subjected to the declining rate of profit that is inherent in a capitalist economy. Lastly, a socialised economy would not be subjected to the orgy of financial speculation that has catastrophic consequences for the economy and for working class people.

i was recently watching Ken Loach's film 'Spirit of '45' and Tony Benn made a very interesting observation about the planning of an economy. He outlined that during WW2 the British economy was subjected to extensive economic planning in order to meet the demands of the war economy. This economic planning proved to be efficient in terms of employment, production and the use of resources - and this occurred in spite of the fact that the economy was operating on a capitalist basis and as a result operated in an undemocratic fashion. As soon as the war ended the economic planning stopped and all the chaos and contradictions kicked in as profit (rather than the war economy) became the dominant force in the economy again.

A democratically planned socialised economy would take all the resources of the economy and use those resources to provide for the needs of the population - employment, housing, health, education, etc. as the priority of the economy and it's driving force. A socialised economy eliminates all the contradictions of capitalism, all the cyclical crises, the speculation etc and uses economic and human resources in the interests of all he people in the economy, not just the 1%.

Phoebas

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

There is something that clearly has gone completely over the head of those opposing a socialised economy - your so-called 'numbers' are irrelevant - a democratically planned socialised economy does not operate on the same, or even a remotely similar, basis as capitalism - as a result the 'numbers' used in capitalist economics cannot be applied to a socialised economy - the 'numbers' would not, and could not, make sense.

That's going to be pretty difficult to sell on the doorsteps.

marienbad

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

There is something that clearly has gone completely over the head of those opposing a socialised economy - your so-called 'numbers' are irrelevant - a democratically planned socialised economy does not operate on the same, or even a remotely similar, basis as capitalism - as a result the 'numbers' used in capitalist economics cannot be applied to a socialised economy - the 'numbers' would not, and could not, make sense. The removal of profit as the driving force behind economic activity changes the mode of production, the social relations within the economy and opens up a wide range of opportunities for economic development.

In a socialised economy activities, that would previously have been unviable on the basis of the need for profit, could be planned and developed. Economic activities that have no social usefulness but are profitable (e.g. armaments) or used to generate profit (e.g. advertising) would be dispensed with - and those resources would used to develop the economy. Research would operate on the basis of cooperation rather than competition, avoiding duplication of research, large-scale duplication in production would be avoided in a socialised economy. A socialised economy would be sustainable because it would not be subjected to the bubble / crash, inflation / deflation, over production / over capacity cycles that cripple capitalist development and because it would not be subjected to the declining rate of profit that is inherent in a capitalist economy. Lastly, a socialised economy would not be subjected to the orgy of financial speculation that has catastrophic consequences for the economy and for working class people.

i was recently watching Ken Loach's film 'Spirit of '45' and Tony Benn made a very interesting observation about the planning of an economy. He outlined that during WW2 the British economy was subjected to extensive economic planning in order to meet the demands of the war economy. This economic planning proved to be efficient in terms of employment, production and the use of resources - and this occurred in spite of the fact that the economy was operating on a capitalist basis and as a result operated in an undemocratic fashion. As soon as the war ended the economic planning stopped and all the chaos and contradictions kicked in as profit (rather than the war economy) became the dominant force in the economy again.

A democratically planned socialised economy would take all the resources of the economy and use those resources to provide for the needs of the population - employment, housing, health, education, etc. as the priority of the economy and it's driving force. A socialised economy eliminates all the contradictions of capitalism, all the cyclical crises, the speculation etc and uses economic and human resources in the interests of all he people in the economy, not just the 1%.

Could I ask if you agree with the opening post in this thread that Dell in limerick should have been nationalised ?

Iwasfrozen

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

There is something that clearly has gone completely over the head of those opposing a socialised economy - your so-called 'numbers' are irrelevant - a democratically planned socialised economy does not operate on the same, or even a remotely similar, basis as capitalism - as a result the 'numbers' used in capitalist economics cannot be applied to a socialised economy - the 'numbers' would not, and could not, make sense. The removal of profit as the driving force behind economic activity changes the mode of production, the social relations within the economy and opens up a wide range of opportunities for economic development.

In a socialised economy activities, that would previously have been unviable on the basis of the need for profit, could be planned and developed. Economic activities that have no social usefulness but are profitable (e.g. armaments) or used to generate profit (e.g. advertising) would be dispensed with - and those resources would used to develop the economy. Research would operate on the basis of cooperation rather than competition, avoiding duplication of research, large-scale duplication in production would be avoided in a socialised economy. A socialised economy would be sustainable because it would not be subjected to the bubble / crash, inflation / deflation, over production / over capacity cycles that cripple capitalist development and because it would not be subjected to the declining rate of profit that is inherent in a capitalist economy. Lastly, a socialised economy would not be subjected to the orgy of financial speculation that has catastrophic consequences for the economy and for working class people.

i was recently watching Ken Loach's film 'Spirit of '45' and Tony Benn made a very interesting observation about the planning of an economy. He outlined that during WW2 the British economy was subjected to extensive economic planning in order to meet the demands of the war economy. This economic planning proved to be efficient in terms of employment, production and the use of resources - and this occurred in spite of the fact that the economy was operating on a capitalist basis and as a result operated in an undemocratic fashion. As soon as the war ended the economic planning stopped and all the chaos and contradictions kicked in as profit (rather than the war economy) became the dominant force in the economy again.

A democratically planned socialised economy would take all the resources of the economy and use those resources to provide for the needs of the population - employment, housing, health, education, etc. as the priority of the economy and it's driving force. A socialised economy eliminates all the contradictions of capitalism, all the cyclical crises, the speculation etc and uses economic and human resources in the interests of all he people in the economy, not just the 1%.

JRG the difference between you and coolemon is that you have actually given account of what you believe a socialst economy would look like, a command economy. Coolemon has not and as such I had to straight out ask him in order to get a sense of what his policies actually are because it's hard to decide whether or not you agree with someone unless they actually explain what it is they're advocating.

As with regards to a detailed plan, while it is true the capitalist laws of economics would not be the same in a socialist society the laws of mathematics upon which the new socialist economics would be built upon must be the same.

But I think a good starting point to getting a better grip on this discussion would be this: what would you do differently than the Soviet Union did?

And that question also applies to coolemon since I know you two don't agree.

Jolly Red Giant

marienbad wrote: »

Could I ask if you agree with the opening post in this thread that Dell in limerick should have been nationalised ?

In order to preserve the jobs in the Dell plant and the wide local economy - yes I supported the call for the taking of the Dell plant into public ownership. In fact I was one of the first people to raise the call for democratic public ownership and was participated in the Socialist Party discussions with the Dell workers where we advocated this proposal.

The Socialist Party was conscious of the fact that without a major campaign by the workers in Dell and the demand being taken up by the trade union movement, public ownership would not be a realistic prospect - but that did not mitigate against raising such a proposal in order to raise the issue of public ownership among the workforce in Dell and workers in the wider economy. The demand was specifically raised in order to open up a debate about taking companies intent on causing large scale unemployment by their actions into public ownership. While there was support for such a campaign among a section of the workers, the general body decided to campaign for improved redundancy terms - a campaign that was actively supported by the Socialist Party.

In general terms the Socialist Party (in the current context of a capitalist economy) advocates public ownership of any company shutting down, or making redundancies. Workers should not be tossed onto the scrap heap of unemployment because the capitalist economy or individual companies are incapable or unwilling to maintain employment - with the consequential cost to the exchequer of redundancy payments and welfare payments. There has been a growing tendency of workplace occupations against shut-downs and while the main demands of such occupations are better redundancy terms, there is also more support for advocating public ownership of these companies in order to prevent unemployment - this will grow in the future as working class people become more politicised and more conscious of left-wing policies.

marienbad

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

In order to preserve the jobs in the Dell plant and the wide local economy - yes I supported the call for the taking of the Dell plant into public ownership. In fact I was one of the first people to raise the call for democratic public ownership and was participated in the Socialist Party discussions with the Dell workers where we advocated this proposal.

The Socialist Party was conscious of the fact that without a major campaign by the workers in Dell and the demand being taken up by the trade union movement, public ownership would not be a realistic prospect - but that did not mitigate against raising such a proposal in order to raise the issue of public ownership among the workforce in Dell and workers in the wider economy. The demand was specifically raised in order to open up a debate about taking companies intent on causing large scale unemployment by their actions into public ownership. While there was support for such a campaign among a section of the workers, the general body decided to campaign for improved redundancy terms - a campaign that was actively supported by the Socialist Party.

In general terms the Socialist Party (in the current context of a capitalist economy) advocates public ownership of any company shutting down, or making redundancies. Workers should not be tossed onto the scrap heap of unemployment because the capitalist economy or individual companies are incapable or unwilling to maintain employment - with the consequential cost to the exchequer of redundancy payments and welfare payments. There has been a growing tendency of workplace occupations against shut-downs and while the main demands of such occupations are better redundancy terms, there is also more support for advocating public ownership of these companies in order to prevent unemployment - this will grow in the future as working class people become more politicised and more conscious of left-wing policies.

SO if you had been successful ,what would you have manufactured ?

garhjw

marienbad wrote: »

SO if you had been successful ,what would you have manufactured ?

And who would buy these products jrg? Would they be competitively priced to encourage consumers to purchase the product? Would the products be sold at negative margin? If so, who covers the loss?

Godge

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

In order to preserve the jobs in the Dell plant and the wide local economy - yes I supported the call for the taking of the Dell plant into public ownership. In fact I was one of the first people to raise the call for democratic public ownership and was participated in the Socialist Party discussions with the Dell workers where we advocated this proposal.

The Socialist Party was conscious of the fact that without a major campaign by the workers in Dell and the demand being taken up by the trade union movement, public ownership would not be a realistic prospect - but that did not mitigate against raising such a proposal in order to raise the issue of public ownership among the workforce in Dell and workers in the wider economy. The demand was specifically raised in order to open up a debate about taking companies intent on causing large scale unemployment by their actions into public ownership. While there was support for such a campaign among a section of the workers, the general body decided to campaign for improved redundancy terms - a campaign that was actively supported by the Socialist Party.

In general terms the Socialist Party (in the current context of a capitalist economy) advocates public ownership of any company shutting down, or making redundancies. Workers should not be tossed onto the scrap heap of unemployment because the capitalist economy or individual companies are incapable or unwilling to maintain employment - with the consequential cost to the exchequer of redundancy payments and welfare payments. There has been a growing tendency of workplace occupations against shut-downs and while the main demands of such occupations are better redundancy terms, there is also more support for advocating public ownership of these companies in order to prevent unemployment - this will grow in the future as working class people become more politicised and more conscious of left-wing policies.

Very interesting.

So the Socialist Party ditched its principles regarding the public ownership of the company in order to support the populist option of bigger redundancy cheques. Have we therefore any evidence to suggest that they will do otherwise in Government i.e. it seems to me that the minute they get into government they will ditch their principles for whatever is the populist idea. Where will that leave people like you?

Iwasfrozen

garhjw wrote: »

And who would buy these products jrg? Would they be competitively priced to encourage consumers to purchase the product? Would the products be sold at negative margin? If so, who covers the loss?

And who provides the materials? The Dell plant would have been integrated into the dell processing network and obviously that door's closed.

K-9

Godge wrote: »

Very interesting.

So the Socialist Party ditched its principles regarding the public ownership of the company in order to support the populist option of bigger redundancy cheques. Have we therefore any evidence to suggest that they will do otherwise in Government i.e. it seems to me that the minute they get into government they will ditch their principles for whatever is the populist idea. Where will that leave people like you?

All political parties have ideals, even FF! I think even FG might have them wrote down somewhere.

All political parties "deal the hands they are dealt", particularly in Ireland when coalition Governments are the norm. SF want a United Ireland, signing the Good Friday Agreement hardly lessens that aim or is a sell out, the SP recognising reality seems fair enough to me. Sure you'd be berating them as unrealistic idealists if they stuck to nationalisation.

Godge

K-9 wrote: »

All political parties have ideals, even FF! I think even FG might have them wrote down somewhere.

All political parties "deal the hands they are dealt", particularly in Ireland when coalition Governments are the norm. SF want a United Ireland, signing the Good Friday Agreement hardly lessens that aim or is a sell out, the SP recognising reality seems fair enough to me. Sure you'd be berating them as unrealistic idealists if they stuck to nationalisation.

Oh, I am not surprised that they went for the populist option. They have already shown themselves to be far from socialist in opposing LPT and water charges.

They just paint themselves as different.

Jolly Red Giant

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

JRG the difference between you and coolemon is that you have actually given account of what you believe a socialst economy would look like, a command economy. Coolemon has not and as such I had to straight out ask him in order to get a sense of what his policies actually are because it's hard to decide whether or not you agree with someone unless they actually explain what it is they're advocating.

Coolemon is not a member of the Socialist Party and not all socialists would have the same political outlook or analysis (e.g. arguing that the Soviet Union was state capitalist indicates membership of the SWP - and not an analysis that the Socialist Party would agree with) - so I cannot speak for coolemon and have only intervened in this thread to address issues related to Socialist Party policies.

As with regards to a detailed plan, while it is true the capitalist laws of economics would not be the same in a socialist society the laws of mathematics upon which the new socialist economics would be built upon must be the same.

True - but given the complete shambles of the current capitalist system it could be argued that mathematics go out the window in the interests of making a quick buck.

There are enormous economic and human resources available to society - we do not know the scale of these resources because they are primarily concentrated in the hands of a tiny percentage of the population (one of the reasons that the Socialist Party calls for a wealth audit - and something which the current government have been promising for three and a half years without implementing). The already existing economic resources are capable of enormously improving the social and economic conditions of the entire population. The planning of these resources for need rather than for profit opens up significant possibilities for the further development of he economy. In fact a socialised economy would be in a position to determine the actual economic resources in existence and how to use them for the 99% not the 1%

But I think a good starting point to getting a better grip on this discussion would be this: what would you do differently than the Soviet Union did?

That's an apples and orangez type question - it is not possible to compare the semi-feudal rural economy of 1917 Russia with the Irish economy of 2015.

The economic decisions made by Stalinism in Russia in the 1920s were designed to bolster the position of the bureaucracy in their political struggle with the Left Opposition. Economic and political developments are directly related to circumstances that existed at the time.

As brief as possible - and prefaced by noting that Stalin and elements that went on to support the bureaucracy ten years later opposed the Bolshevik Revolution in 1917 and only swung behind supporting the revolution when he became isolated within the leadership of the Bolsheviks- the Russian economy was devastated by the civil war and the Russian working class were pretty much atomised by the war. As a result the Bolsheviks were forced to implement elements of capitalist economics to try and kick start the economy by incentivising the peasantry to produce the food needed to fed the population - the NEP (the Bolsheviks had broken up the landed estates and distributed the land to the peasantry).

The NEP stabilised the economy but when the economic policies should have moved to democratic planning the Stalinist bureaucracy (which was substantially populated by ex-Tsarist administrators) lent on the Kulaks and the NEPmen in their political struggle with the Left Opposition by advocating a continuation of the NEP. The Left Opposition argued for the collectivisation of agriculture in order to undermine the growing social weight of the Kulaks and the NEPmen (they were developing into a major pro-capitalist social grouping and beginning to organise political opposition to socialism) and for the beginning of planned industrialisation.

Stalin and the elements around him won the political battle within the Bolsheviks and then proceeded to embark on a major political purge to remove his political opponents within e Bolsehviks (culminating with the Show Trials and the later assassination of Trotsky - by 1940 only two other members of the Bolshevik leaðership in 1917 were left alive along with Stalin - most of the rest had been executed or murdered on the grounds that they were enemies of the revolution). Following the defeat of the Left Opposition the Stalinist bureaucracy had to eliminate the political threat now being posed by the Kulaks and the NEPmen who were openly advocating counter revolution and a return to capitalism.

As a result the Stalinists (in a massive 180) abandoned the NEP, implemented forced collectivisation and implemented a major (and forced) industialisation programme through the five year plans - in a brutal, bureaucratic fashion. The about turn created massive destruction in the Russian economy, particularly in agriculture when the Kulaks implemented a scorched earth policy in opposition to forced collectivisation by destroying their crops and animals. Collectivisation was actually supported by large sections of the peasantry who benefitted from the secure (if relatively meagre) incomes that collectivisation brought in contrast to the subsistence farming of the NEP. Similarly many of the peasantry benefitted from industrialisation through jobs in the factories.

The five year plans were a success - but this was not because of Stalinism but despite it. The bureaucratic central planning was hamfisted and had significant social consequences for he masses. Despite this, workers and their families had a stabilised and (significantly) growing economy. The end result of the policies of Stalinism was a degeneration of the workers state with the elimination of workers democracy and the control of society by a bureaucracy (which was not a separate social class).

I would have advocated support for the position of the Left Opposition - an earlier reversal of the NEP and the implementation of collectivisation to counteract the growing political power of the Kulaks and the NEPmen before they became a direct political threat to workers power. This would have led to a situation whereby the Kulaks would not have been in a position to cause wholesale destruction of the agricultural sector. In terms of industry, the implementation of industrialisation needs to occur with the redevelopment of workers democracy through democratic planning and the involvement of workers councils. This would have limited the power of the bureaucracy and resulted in the better use of resources.

The approach of the Left Opposition would have gone further. I made the point earlier that economic approach cannot be divorced from political and social developments. Workers democracy and a socialised economy could not and would not survive in such a backward society as Russia in the 1920s without a socialist revolution and workers democracy in an advanced capitalist country. Stalinism was / is inherently conservative. It adopted the approach of 'socialism in one country' which is the very antithesis of Marxism. The bureaucracy implemented very conservative political, social and economic policies and a very inward looking approach with the intent of protecting the political control of the bureaucracy. It consistently undermined the socialist movement on a global basis out of fear that it would be unable to control it. Whenever the Left Opposition / Trotskyist movement attained any basis of support in a society the Stalinists systematically moved against / wiped them out (e.g. after WW2 in Vietnam the significant Trotskyist movement was wiped out by the Stalinists that subsequently came to power in Vietnam).

The Left Opposition openly advocated and supported socialist and revolutionary movements around the globe and in many instances played a prominent role in those movements (Spain and Latin America were the most significant). The Left Opposition openly advocated international working class solidarity and support and the Left Opposition attempted to build an international organisation - the Fourth International - to replace the Third Interntational that had degenerated along with the Stalinist bureaucracy.

In the aftermath of WW2 the forces of Stalinism were enormously strengthened as a result of the victory of Stalinism over the Nazis. Stalinism became the dominant forces in left-wing politics while the Fourth International pretty much disintgrated. The Trotskyist movement has taken decades to recover.

Fortunately Stalinism is now in the dustbin of history - the collapse of Soviet Union and Stalinism in Eastern Europe has resulted in the collapse of the CPs. In Ireland the main Stalinist party - the Workers Party disintegrated after the collapse of Stalinism and its political representatives ended up as right-wingers in the LP. This is a demonstration of the conservative outlook historically of Stalinism.

The collapse of Stalinism and the re-establishment of capitalism in the former Stalinist States also led to a major ideological offensive by capitalism over the past twenty years - and it has also contributed to the shift to support neo-liberalism by the former social democratic parties. The current political, economic and social situation is leading to a rediscovery of socialist ideas, a renewed interest in socialist politics and a re-emergence of working class struggle. The idea of a socialised economy and workers democracy as a counter-balance of capitalist ideology is gaining renewed attention. The Socialist Party is playing a role in raising socialist ideas, in promoting an alternative to austerity and neo-liberalism, and in assisting working class people to organise community and workplace campaigns to resist the rule of the 1%. This process is still in its very early stages but it is beginning to develop rapidly on a global basis. The anti-water charges movement in Ireland is one part of it - the prospect of SYRIZA forming the next government in Greece is another - the moves by NUMSA to form a new workers party in South Africa is another - the electoral support for newly emerging socialist candidates in the USA and the growing anti-eviction and minimum wage campaigns are another - the growth of new left-wing movements in Brazil and the massive street protests is another.

The crash of 2008 has utterly changed the political landscape on a global basis - the ideological offensive of capitalism has come to shuttering halt and the renewal of the class struggle means the reemergence of the left/right political divide across the globe. Globalised capitalism and the avarice and greed of the speculators has actually precipitated the renewed growth of socialist politics.

For the future the bedrock of left-wing politics is the politics of he original Left Opposition in Russia and now advocates of Trotskyism. The Socialist Party is affiliated to an international organisation known as the Committee for a Workers International (CWI) that has affiliated parties in more than fifty countries around the world and is now the largest Marxist international grouping globally.

And that question also applies to coolemon since I know you two don't agree.

Actually I would have significant elements of agreement with coolemon - the ideological stuff about the nature of the USSR economy (state capitalist V degenerated workers state) has little relevance today. Assuming coolemon' affiliation to the SWP, the major source of difference would be in methods and approach. The Socialist Party is more open in its political approach and more open in advocating socialist policies than the SWP who tend to hide their politics behind umbrella organisations like the PBPA. The SWP do have a couple of daft things they promote - like support for Hamas - but again, in the context of this country these are not significant. I support the more open and socialist approach of the Socialist Party and that is why I am a member of the Socialist Party.

Jolly Red Giant

Godge wrote: »

Oh, I am not surprised that they went for the populist option. They have already shown themselves to be far from socialist in opposing LPT and water charges.

They just paint themselves as different.

This is a load of b*llocks and typical of the type of nonsense that appears on this thread.

The Socialist Party advocated a policy that would have saved the jobs - but the starting point of all political involvement of the Socialist Party is 'what advances the interests of the workers involved?' - in the event that public ownership was not going to be an option the Sociaist Party advocated improved redundancy payments for the workers involved, given that they faced poverty on the dole.

This is not populism - it is supporting a reform or advancement in the material position of the workers involved rather than the material interests of Michael Dell. The Socialist Party supports any reforms that benefit working class people while recognising that these reforms will be pulled by the ruling elites at the first available opportunity - as a result the Socialist Party would argue that these reforms can only be guaranteed by the establishment of a democratically planned socialised economy.

marienbad

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

This is a load of b*llocks and typical of the type of nonsense that appears on this thread.

The Socialist Party advocated a policy that would have saved the jobs - but the starting point of all political involvement of the Socialist Party is 'what advances the interests of the workers involved?' - in the event that public ownership was not going to be an option the Sociaist Party advocated improved redundancy payments for the workers involved, given that they faced poverty on the dole.

This is not populism - it is supporting a reform or advancement in the material position of the workers involved rather than the material interests of Michael Dell. The Socialist Party supports any reforms that benefit working class people while recognising that these reforms will be pulled by the ruling elites at the first available opportunity - as a result the Socialist Party would argue that these reforms can only be guaranteed by the establishment of a democratically planned socialised economy.

You are not explaining how they could just take over a factory though ?

Robroy36

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

This is a load of b*llocks and typical of the type of nonsense that appears on this thread.

The Socialist Party advocated a policy that would have saved the jobs - but the starting point of all political involvement of the Socialist Party is 'what advances the interests of the workers involved?' - in the event that public ownership was not going to be an option the Sociaist Party advocated improved redundancy payments for the workers involved, given that they faced poverty on the dole.

This is not populism - it is supporting a reform or advancement in the material position of the workers involved rather than the material interests of Michael Dell. The Socialist Party supports any reforms that benefit working class people while recognising that these reforms will be pulled by the ruling elites at the first available opportunity - as a result the Socialist Party would argue that these reforms can only be guaranteed by the establishment of a democratically planned socialised economy.

Do socialist s not understand the basic principle that a job is only viable if the product or service that they are providing can be supplied to the market at a price that generates a net profit for the company?

Michael Dell did not close his factory in Limerick because it was making too much money, he made a call based on the profitability of the factory in relaxation to those of his competitors and by all accounts it looks to have been the right one.

If you want to see what happens to business men who make emotionally charged decisions on the closure of factories look at Waterford Crystal and Anthony O'Reilly. ( Spoiler alert - it didn't go very well for all involved)

The exact same faith lies in wait for any state that pursues these doomed socialist policies. QED.

coolemon

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

Actually I would have significant elements of agreement with coolemon - the ideological stuff about the nature of the USSR economy (state capitalist V degenerated workers state) has little relevance today. Assuming coolemon' affiliation to the SWP, the major source of difference would be in methods and approach. The Socialist Party is more open in its political approach and more open in advocating socialist policies than the SWP who tend to hide their politics behind umbrella organisations like the PBPA. The SWP do have a couple of daft things they promote - like support for Hamas - but again, in the context of this country these are not significant. I support the more open and socialist approach of the Socialist Party and that is why I am a member of the Socialist Party.

I am an unaffiliated anarchist. Although I rely on and generally agree with Marxist economic and social theory - and so call myself a Marxist in this particular context.

The view that the Soviet Union was state-capitalist is not confined to the SWP or its ideologues.

Jolly Red Giant

Robroy36 wrote: »

Do socialist s not understand the basic principle that a job is only viable if the product or service that they are providing can be supplied to the market at a price that generates a net profit for the company?

under capitalism that is the case - but in case you haven't noticed, I am a socialist and I advocate policies that are based on what is in the best interest of working class people - not policies that submit to the interests of the markets and the interests of billionaires like Michael Dell.

Iwasfrozen

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

Coolemon is not a member of the Socialist Party and not all socialists would have the same political outlook or analysis (e.g. arguing that the Soviet Union was state capitalist indicates membership of the SWP - and not an analysis that the Socialist Party would agree with) - so I cannot speak for coolemon and have only intervened in this thread to address issues related to Socialist Party policies.


True - but given the complete shambles of the current capitalist system it could be argued that mathematics go out the window in the interests of making a quick buck.

There are enormous economic and human resources available to society - we do not know the scale of these resources because they are primarily concentrated in the hands of a tiny percentage of the population (one of the reasons that the Socialist Party calls for a wealth audit - and something which the current government have been promising for three and a half years without implementing). The already existing economic resources are capable of enormously improving the social and economic conditions of the entire population. The planning of these resources for need rather than for profit opens up significant possibilities for the further development of he economy. In fact a socialised economy would be in a position to determine the actual economic resources in existence and how to use them for the 99% not the 1%


That's an apples and orangez type question - it is not possible to compare the semi-feudal rural economy of 1917 Russia with the Irish economy of 2015.

The economic decisions made by Stalinism in Russia in the 1920s were designed to bolster the position of the bureaucracy in their political struggle with the Left Opposition. Economic and political developments are directly related to circumstances that existed at the time.

As brief as possible - and prefaced by noting that Stalin and elements that went on to support the bureaucracy ten years later opposed the Bolshevik Revolution in 1917 and only swung behind supporting the revolution when he became isolated within the leadership of the Bolsheviks- the Russian economy was devastated by the civil war and the Russian working class were pretty much atomised by the war. As a result the Bolsheviks were forced to implement elements of capitalist economics to try and kick start the economy by incentivising the peasantry to produce the food needed to fed the population - the NEP (the Bolsheviks had broken up the landed estates and distributed the land to the peasantry).

The NEP stabilised the economy but when the economic policies should have moved to democratic planning the Stalinist bureaucracy (which was substantially populated by ex-Tsarist administrators) lent on the Kulaks and the NEPmen in their political struggle with the Left Opposition by advocating a continuation of the NEP. The Left Opposition argued for the collectivisation of agriculture in order to undermine the growing social weight of the Kulaks and the NEPmen (they were developing into a major pro-capitalist social grouping and beginning to organise political opposition to socialism) and for the beginning of planned industrialisation.

Stalin and the elements around him won the political battle within the Bolsheviks and then proceeded to embark on a major political purge to remove his political opponents within e Bolsehviks (culminating with the Show Trials and the later assassination of Trotsky - by 1940 only two other members of the Bolshevik leaðership in 1917 were left alive along with Stalin - most of the rest had been executed or murdered on the grounds that they were enemies of the revolution). Following the defeat of the Left Opposition the Stalinist bureaucracy had to eliminate the political threat now being posed by the Kulaks and the NEPmen who were openly advocating counter revolution and a return to capitalism.

As a result the Stalinists (in a massive 180) abandoned the NEP, implemented forced collectivisation and implemented a major (and forced) industialisation programme through the five year plans - in a brutal, bureaucratic fashion. The about turn created massive destruction in the Russian economy, particularly in agriculture when the Kulaks implemented a scorched earth policy in opposition to forced collectivisation by destroying their crops and animals. Collectivisation was actually supported by large sections of the peasantry who benefitted from the secure (if relatively meagre) incomes that collectivisation brought in contrast to the subsistence farming of the NEP. Similarly many of the peasantry benefitted from industrialisation through jobs in the factories.

The five year plans were a success - but this was not because of Stalinism but despite it. The bureaucratic central planning was hamfisted and had significant social consequences for he masses. Despite this, workers and their families had a stabilised and (significantly) growing economy. The end result of the policies of Stalinism was a degeneration of the workers state with the elimination of workers democracy and the control of society by a bureaucracy (which was not a separate social class).

I would have advocated support for the position of the Left Opposition - an earlier reversal of the NEP and the implementation of collectivisation to counteract the growing political power of the Kulaks and the NEPmen before they became a direct political threat to workers power. This would have led to a situation whereby the Kulaks would not have been in a position to cause wholesale destruction of the agricultural sector. In terms of industry, the implementation of industrialisation needs to occur with the redevelopment of workers democracy through democratic planning and the involvement of workers councils. This would have limited the power of the bureaucracy and resulted in the better use of resources.

The approach of the Left Opposition would have gone further. I made the point earlier that economic approach cannot be divorced from political and social developments. Workers democracy and a socialised economy could not and would not survive in such a backward society as Russia in the 1920s without a socialist revolution and workers democracy in an advanced capitalist country. Stalinism was / is inherently conservative. It adopted the approach of 'socialism in one country' which is the very antithesis of Marxism. The bureaucracy implemented very conservative political, social and economic policies and a very inward looking approach with the intent of protecting the political control of the bureaucracy. It consistently undermined the socialist movement on a global basis out of fear that it would be unable to control it. Whenever the Left Opposition / Trotskyist movement attained any basis of support in a society the Stalinists systematically moved against / wiped them out (e.g. after WW2 in Vietnam the significant Trotskyist movement was wiped out by the Stalinists that subsequently came to power in Vietnam).

The Left Opposition openly advocated and supported socialist and revolutionary movements around the globe and in many instances played a prominent role in those movements (Spain and Latin America were the most significant). The Left Opposition openly advocated international working class solidarity and support and the Left Opposition attempted to build an international organisation - the Fourth International - to replace the Third Interntational that had degenerated along with the Stalinist bureaucracy.

In the aftermath of WW2 the forces of Stalinism were enormously strengthened as a result of the victory of Stalinism over the Nazis. Stalinism became the dominant forces in left-wing politics while the Fourth International pretty much disintgrated. The Trotskyist movement has taken decades to recover.

Fortunately Stalinism is now in the dustbin of history - the collapse of Soviet Union and Stalinism in Eastern Europe has resulted in the collapse of the CPs. In Ireland the main Stalinist party - the Workers Party disintegrated after the collapse of Stalinism and its political representatives ended up as right-wingers in the LP. This is a demonstration of the conservative outlook historically of Stalinism.

The collapse of Stalinism and the re-establishment of capitalism in the former Stalinist States also led to a major ideological offensive by capitalism over the past twenty years - and it has also contributed to the shift to support neo-liberalism by the former social democratic parties. The current political, economic and social situation is leading to a rediscovery of socialist ideas, a renewed interest in socialist politics and a re-emergence of working class struggle. The idea of a socialised economy and workers democracy as a counter-balance of capitalist ideology is gaining renewed attention. The Socialist Party is playing a role in raising socialist ideas, in promoting an alternative to austerity and neo-liberalism, and in assisting working class people to organise community and workplace campaigns to resist the rule of the 1%. This process is still in its very early stages but it is beginning to develop rapidly on a global basis. The anti-water charges movement in Ireland is one part of it - the prospect of SYRIZA forming the next government in Greece is another - the moves by NUMSA to form a new workers party in South Africa is another - the electoral support for newly emerging socialist candidates in the USA and the growing anti-eviction and minimum wage campaigns are another - the growth of new left-wing movements in Brazil and the massive street protests is another.

The crash of 2008 has utterly changed the political landscape on a global basis - the ideological offensive of capitalism has come to shuttering halt and the renewal of the class struggle means the reemergence of the left/right political divide across the globe. Globalised capitalism and the avarice and greed of the speculators has actually precipitated the renewed growth of socialist politics.

For the future the bedrock of left-wing politics is the politics of he original Left Opposition in Russia and now advocates of Trotskyism. The Socialist Party is affiliated to an international organisation known as the Committee for a Workers International (CWI) that has affiliated parties in more than fifty countries around the world and is now the largest Marxist international grouping globally.


Actually I would have significant elements of agreement with coolemon - the ideological stuff about the nature of the USSR economy (state capitalist V degenerated workers state) has little relevance today. Assuming coolemon' affiliation to the SWP, the major source of difference would be in methods and approach. The Socialist Party is more open in its political approach and more open in advocating socialist policies than the SWP who tend to hide their politics behind umbrella organisations like the PBPA. The SWP do have a couple of daft things they promote - like support for Hamas - but again, in the context of this country these are not significant. I support the more open and socialist approach of the Socialist Party and that is why I am a member of the Socialist Party.

While I appreciate the effort you have made in this post I'd like to cut through and get to the root of the discussion.

Would our quality of life be better under a socialist economy and if so, how? You mentioned large economic resources are concentrated in the hands of the eltes but we don't know how much. Who are these elites? If we don't know how much resources they hold then how can we say they are enough to noticeably improve our lives and how do we stop them moving their wealth over seas when they think a socialist government may get into power?

You also mentioned we would become industrialized. Why? Since WWII the West has been undergoing a period of de-industrialization, we're developing a post industrialized society how would regressing in economic development actually be good for us?

Also how do we limit the power of the government to prevent a psycho like Stalin getting power and messing up our revolution?

Jolly Red Giant

coolemon wrote: »

I am an unaffiliated anarchist. Although I rely on and generally agree with Marxist economic and social theory - and so call myself a Marxist in this particular context.

The view that the Soviet Union was state-capitalist is not confined to the SWP or its ideologues.

I stand corrected - it wasn't intended as any slight or insult. The formost advocates that the USSR was state capitalist are the SWP - I am not aware of any other organised political trend that adopts a similar position these days.

karma_

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

While I appreciate the effort you have made in this post I'd like to cut through and get to the root of the discussion.

Would our quality of life be better under a socialist economy and if so, how? You mentioned large economic resources are concentrated in the hands of the eltes but we don't know how much. Who are these elites? If we don't know how much resources they hold then how can we say they are enough to noticeably improve our lives and how do we stop them moving their wealth over seas when they think a socialist government may get into power?

You also mentioned we would become industrialized. Why? Since WWII the West has been undergoing a period of de-industrialization, we're developing a post industrialized society how would regressing in economic development actually be good for us?

Also how do we limit the power of the government to prevent a psycho like Stalin getting power and messing up our revolution?

The elites? Patrimonialism, it's hardly a big mystery and I'm not sure why someone who studied economics academically would be ignorant of it. Strange.

Iwasfrozen

karma_ wrote: »

The elites? Patrimonialism, it's hardly a big mystery and I'm not sure why someone who studied economics academically would be ignorant of it. Strange.

Enlighten me.

coolemon

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

JRG the difference between you and coolemon is that you have actually given account of what you believe a socialst economy would look like, a command economy. Coolemon has not and as such I had to straight out ask him in order to get a sense of what his policies actually are because it's hard to decide whether or not you agree with someone unless they actually explain what it is they're advocating.

But I think a good starting point to getting a better grip on this discussion would be this: what would you do differently than the Soviet Union did?

And that question also applies to coolemon since I know you two don't agree.

As you can see from even this discussion the left is quite varied - and divided.

What I am mainly advocating here is an approach to understanding society (called historical materialism/Marxism).

This approach can inform the actions a socialist may take in bringing about social change. But, as I said in other posts, it does not produce a "blueprint" or "schematic" for a socialist society. Socialism remains hypothetical and something for which only the proletariat - as a class - and through an emergent consciousness - can create and build. And that sounds all vague and without detail but that is all there is.

Other socialists will disagree with me on just about everything I have said. Many believe the USSR was, in fact, socialist in the Marxist use of that term. I completely disagree. And many will call my particular brand of Marxism "economism" - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economism#Use_in_Marxism

As for your main question.

The Soviet Union can be seen with historical hindsight to have been a type of bourgeois revolution. The social relations created allowed for industrialisation and an end to feudalism. A "state-bourgeoisie" emerged - wittingly or unwittingly - to control (and cream) the surplus value produced by the proletariat (wage sellers). And so what you ended up with was a variation of capitalism. Instead of private 'bourgeois' ownership (backed by a state) and governed by a market - you had state ownership and a "state-bourgeoisie". Both systems allowed for 'socialised'/collectivised production using 20th century production technologies. Something feudalism was necessarily incapable of. So, for me, USSR = a type of capitalism.

What would I do differently?

Well its kind of what I have been saying in this thread. That only the proletariat as a class can create socialism. With the USSR you essentially had a centralised political leadership and Vanguard composed of people who acted on behalf of the proletariat. They did so because they 'self proclaimed' that they had a "more advanced class consciousness" than the rest of the proletariat. This to me makes no sense what-so-ever. It is akin to some people who say they can mediate with God. It is statement which is not provable. Besides, and again with historical hindsight, I doubt Lenin and the 'Vanguard' knew more about socialism than I do now. Without flight, computers, internet, robotics, mass transit etc etc and all of the advances we have now. It is completely bogus in my opinion.


Saying that.

I do think something like the USSR has a lot of potential in solving a lot of the problems associated with market capitalism. I find inspiring the attempts by the Allende regime at real-time central planning using very basic telex machines in a system called cybersyn - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Cybersyn

Using modern computers to solve problems of resource allocation would be an interesting route to take I think. It would overcome a lot of the lag and information problems associated with Soviet style planning.

Professor Paul Cockshott gave a lecture last month in Ireland on just that issue:

Valmont

There is no surplus value and no exploitation. The employee is paid less than the value of the finished product because of a simple time preference. My employer has to chase clients to pay their bills well over the stated credit terms of sixty days. I get paid less than the product is finally worth because I get paid every week without fail; it is this simple voluntary exchange of time preference and not the outdated idea of 'exploitation' that explains the relationship between employers and employees. Marxism isn't just flawed in practice - its entire theoretical edifice is not only out of date but hopelessly flawed. This is why any attempt to put socialism into practice is always ruinous.

marienbad

Jolly Red Giant - could I have an answer to my question please ? You can't just say nationalise Dell limerick and leave it at that.

oscarBravo

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

If you own a business and you run it efficiently then you can make all the profit you want...

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

The removal of profit as the driving force behind economic activity changes the mode of production, the social relations within the economy and opens up a wide range of opportunities for economic development.

This is an example of the directly contradictory things I've pointed out that you keep saying. You say that a socialised society is one in which the profit motive would be eliminated, but you told me earlier that my business would be allowed to make a profit.

How can you expect to be taken seriously if you keep contradicting yourself?

Jolly Red Giant

oscarBravo wrote: »

This is an example of the directly contradictory things I've pointed out that you keep saying. You say that a socialised society is one in which the profit motive would be eliminated, but you told me earlier that my business would be allowed to make a profit.

How can you expect to be taken seriously if you keep contradicting yourself?

And you continue to demonstrate an inability or an unwillingness to seperate the mode of production in the entire economy from the operation of your individual business.

This actually demonstrates one of the failings of the capitalist mode of production - the inability of the individual capitalist to even think (never mind operate) of the wider society over and above his / her individual self-interest. With such an outlook it is not possible to engage in any planning for the wider societal good and relegates human beings to pawns impacted by the anarchy of the market.

And in relation to Dell -I have answered the question before - not going through it all again.

Jolly Red Giant

Valmont wrote: »

There is no surplus value and no exploitation. The employee is paid less than the value of the finished product because of a simple time preference. My employer has to chase clients to pay their bills well over the stated credit terms of sixty days. I get paid less than the product is finally worth because I get paid every week without fail; it is this simple voluntary exchange of time preference and not the outdated idea of 'exploitation' that explains the relationship between employers and employees. Marxism isn't just flawed in practice - its entire theoretical edifice is not only out of date but hopelessly flawed. This is why any attempt to put socialism into practice is always ruinous.

There must be a cult of Mises populating boards - it is astonishing that anyone still reads the nonsense

marienbad

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

And you continue to demonstrate an inability or an unwillingness to seperate the mode of production in the entire economy from the operation of your individual business.

This actually demonstrates one of the failings of the capitalist mode of production - the inability of the individual capitalist to even think (never mind operate) of the wider society over and above his / her individual self-interest. With such an outlook it is not possible to engage in any planning for the wider societal good and relegates human beings to pawns impacted by the anarchy of the market.

And in relation to Dell -I have answered the question before - not going through it all again.

Could you give me an idea of the post number on your Dell answer ? Thanks

marienbad

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

The basis for arguing that the Dell plant in Limerick should have been taken into public ownership was on the basis of preserving the jobs, not just of the Dell plant but of the wider supply companies that also folded as a result.

Dell shipped out large amounts of valuable machinery at was paid for by taxpayers money - why should Dell have been allowed to do this? Furthermore, Dell's decision had serious financial implications for the state - specifically, they dumped e cost of social welfare for thousands of workers and their families onto the state. There were, over a period of years, skills built up by the workforce in the Dell plant in Limerick that have been lost as a result of shutting the plant.

There is an assumption that a nationalised company would have operated on the same basis as Dell - that is not the case. There is an assumption that a nationalised company would have had to operate in direct competition with Dell - not the case. Supply chains could have been maintained or developed - suppliers would not have cared less whether the plant was publicly owned or not.

The difference is that the nationalised plant could have been funded with funds from Social Welfare that would have been paid out in dole payments - but utilised to keep people in work. The state could have planned the supply of servers, computers, printers etc to government departments, education, health, the public service etc. (the school I worked in bought 50 Dell computers three weeks ago) The skills of the workforce could have been ultilsed and developed to repair existing networks, initiate software and hardware development. Retraining of the workforce could have been promoted to ups kill the workforce. The plant could have been retooled to produce tablets (350,000 students could have been supplied with tablets at minimal cost rather than have families forking out more than €700 a pop for iPads). The skill and innovation of the workforce could have been promoted to develop new products etc. A nationalised plant could have supplied any and all of these products to anyone who wanted to buy good quality products at a reasonable price.

Would a nationalised plant have been successful? We will never know - what can be clearly determined is that instead of allowing Dell toss thousands of workers into the scrap heap and ship €millions worth of equipment out of the county, the workers could have been kept in employment, they could have maintained their dignity and self-respect, the suppliers could have been maintained in existence and an opportunity could have been created to allow the facility to develop. Even if it failed it would have been able to maintain the workforce for, at a minimum three or four years.

To simply dismiss the idea out of hand because it doesn't fit into the net-liberal narrative demonstrates that the criticism of the proposal is based more from a political opposition to the idea of nationalised industry than a concrete economic opposition. The same argument applies to the wreckage caused by the banking crisis. When Joe Higgins argued for the nationalisation of the banking system opponents claimed that this was what happened. It wasn't. What happened was e nationalisation of the banking debts. The nationalisation of the banking system would have left the debts where they should have been - with the spivs and speculators, while the state would have had a state owned functioning banking system without having €tens of billions of socialised debts.

Jolly Red Giant - I am sorry but this is just pie in the sky and shows you know very little about either Dell or manufacturing .

It is amazing the way you ( and coolemon) dismiss other posters continuously with little thought and then can actually post stuff like this .

I can go through it line by line if you like , but is there any point ? The astonishing thing about Dell was not that it closed but that it actually lasted so long !

You also omit that Dell still employs over 1500 people in Limerick and Dublin and those jobs that were saved are all the high paying ones.

SwiftJustice

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

Furthermore, Dell's decision had serious financial implications for the state - specifically, they dumped e cost of social welfare for thousands of workers and their families onto the state.

Dell paid it's fair share into social welfare system through Er PRSI.

oscarBravo

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

And you continue to demonstrate an inability or an unwillingness to seperate the mode of production in the entire economy from the operation of your individual business.

That's just arm-waving. It's very hard to have a discussion with what amounts to little more than sloganeering.

If you're trying to say that it's possible to eliminate the profit motive from society while still allowing individual businesses to make a profit, that looks contradictory to me. If it's not contradictory, then it's because I'm misinterpreting the phrase "eliminate the profit motive", which in turn is because you won't explain it.

Given my understanding of the word "motive" (literally, something that moves people), it's logically impossible to alter people in order to force them not to desire to make a profit. Accordingly, I fall back on the only other interpretation I can imagine, which is that it becomes impermissible to make a profit, rendering the motive moot.

Is there another meaning of the phrase "eliminate the profit motive" that I'm missing? If so, would you be so good as to explain it?

This actually demonstrates one of the failings of the capitalist mode of production - the inability of the individual capitalist to even think (never mind operate) of the wider society over and above his / her individual self-interest. With such an outlook it is not possible to engage in any planning for the wider societal good and relegates human beings to pawns impacted by the anarchy of the market.

That's utterly (but predictably) unfair. If you're going to (vaguely) describe a society to which you aspire, but which could leave me personally significantly worse off, is it really so awful that I'd question the fundamental workability of such a society?

I'm far from convinced that anyone would be better off in a society such as you describe. Sure, it would be great - if it delivered on all its promises. But that's equally true of a Ponzi scheme.

I know it suits you to believe that, deep down, all us nasty capitalists truly believe that your socialist ideals make perfect sense, and that we only oppose them in order to cling desperately to our grubby possessions. On the contrary, however, I tend to believe that if you can't even coherently explain something, then it's unlikely that you can make it work. I'm not opposed to your ideas because I think they would be bad for me; I'm opposed to them because I don't think they make any sense.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Jolly Red Giant

oscarBravo wrote: »

I know it suits you to believe that, deep down, all us nasty capitalists truly believe that your socialist ideals make perfect sense, and that we only oppose them in order to cling desperately to our grubby possessions. On the contrary, however, I tend to believe that if you can't even coherently explain something, then it's unlikely that you can make it work. I'm not opposed to your ideas because I think they would be bad for me; I'm opposed to them because I don't think they make any sense.

Oscar - we have gone around the houses on this - so I will finish with a brief response on the above.

I have no interest in persuading any 'nasty capitalists' about socialist ideas. You can argue that the ideas I put forward don't make sense - I would suggest that they don't make sense from your perspective. You have a material interest in the continuation of the capitalist system - as do all employers. I don't have a problem with that. You have several political formations that represent those interests. I focus my political activity on those who have a material interest in a different economic system i.e. the working class.

I will repeat again - for the last time - you cannot take the basic operation or a democratically planned socialised economy and extrapolate it onto an individual business operating under capitalism nor can you take the basic operation of a democratically planned socialised economy and use it to produce 'numbers' based on an economic system operated on a capitalist basis.

The baseline of the politics of the Socialist Party is as follows - will this measure (whatever it is) improve the material conditions of working class people or not? - if the answer is 'yes' then the Socialist Party will support it and if the answer is 'no' then the Socialist Party will oppose it. The political landscape not just in Ireland, but on a global basis, has fundementally altered since 2008. The crash has demonstrated all the limitations and contradictions of capitalism. The ruling elites have declared open class warfare against working class people under the guise of 'fixing the economy' through austerity and the working class have reacted by getting off their knees, demanding their rights and looking openly at and beginning the process of embracing socialist politics.

BoJack Horseman

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

democratically planned socialised economy

Of all the soundbite of the Stalin/Mao fanclub this is the most oxymoronic.

Communism spits on democracy.
They can't coexist.

PeadarCo

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

The ruling elites have declared open class warfare against working class people under the guise of 'fixing the economy' through austerity and the working class have reacted by getting off their knees, demanding their rights and looking openly at and beginning the process of embracing socialist politics.

Where would the socialist party found the money to fund the 20 billion odd deficit? Have a 20 Billion minimum cut in expenditure or tax increases. That would make the austerity we've had look like a picnic. You can try printing money or seize private assets but look at Zimbabwe for the most recent example of how that turns out.

The biggest issue for the "working class" is the lack of education leaving them in a situation where they're competing with unskilled people in Asia and Africa where the cost of living is vastly lower than Ireland. If people like Joe Higgins and Barret want to make a difference they'd be better off using their excess money from their TD's salaries to invest in disadvantaged areas than protesting against the fact they were born in the top 1% of humanity. Not as flashy and won't attract all the nice news coverage but in the long run would be time far better spent.

coolemon

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

"The western world" cannot be separated from globalised production and global capitalism. Of course class composition will be different in service based economies.

But all of your assertions that boundaries between classes have been blurred is complete nonsense. Show me the evidence for that claim?

It is nothing but an attempt by you to ignore and partition the social relations between people and countries in a globalised production economy.

Our societies, economies, and political systems have all radically changed since the days of Marx and Engels.

Not at all.

most of the so-called "proletariat" seem to appreciate that overthrowing capitalism would only leave themselves worse off.

All that is solid.

We are living in temporal times and your judgment is based upon a very, very short time period.

I wouldn't be as confident as you are in predicting the future.

This might be hard for diehard historical materialists to accept, but the allegedly "inevitable" class revolution prophesied by Marx

Marx never claimed it was inevitable. Nor did I.

You are the only one making crystal ball like predictions.

The claims and ambitions of socialists (who these days mostly seem to be middle-class malcontents with a background in student politics) have become utterly detached from the capitalist world in which the rest of us live.

LOL - you haven't a notion.

BuilderPlumber

What we seem to get more often is capitalism dressed up as socialism. Suppose we got a so-called 'socialist' government.

What parties would it comprise of? Sinn Fein, Socialist party, Socialist workers party, possiby Republican Sinn Fein, and a heap of independents. A lot of differences of opinion would divide all these. Sinn Fein may indeed turn into a party much closer to the4 style of Fianna Fail and may broaden its appeal to cater for disenfranchised Fianna Failers.

oscarBravo

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

Oscar - we have gone around the houses on this - so I will finish with a brief response on the above.

I have no interest in persuading any 'nasty capitalists' about socialist ideas. You can argue that the ideas I put forward don't make sense - I would suggest that they don't make sense from your perspective. You have a material interest in the continuation of the capitalist system - as do all employers. I don't have a problem with that. You have several political formations that represent those interests. I focus my political activity on those who have a material interest in a different economic system i.e. the working class.

I will repeat again - for the last time - you cannot take the basic operation or a democratically planned socialised economy and extrapolate it onto an individual business operating under capitalism nor can you take the basic operation of a democratically planned socialised economy and use it to produce 'numbers' based on an economic system operated on a capitalist basis.

The baseline of the politics of the Socialist Party is as follows - will this measure (whatever it is) improve the material conditions of working class people or not? - if the answer is 'yes' then the Socialist Party will support it and if the answer is 'no' then the Socialist Party will oppose it. The political landscape not just in Ireland, but on a global basis, has fundementally altered since 2008. The crash has demonstrated all the limitations and contradictions of capitalism. The ruling elites have declared open class warfare against working class people under the guise of 'fixing the economy' through austerity and the working class have reacted by getting off their knees, demanding their rights and looking openly at and beginning the process of embracing socialist politics.

With respect, that's a very long-winded way to refuse to define a simple phrase. When someone puts that much effort into refusing to explain something, it becomes perfectly clear that it doesn't have an explanation; it's merely a slogan.

If you can't explain it, you can't implement it. Thankfully.

coolemon wrote: »

We are living in temporal times...

wat

Valmont

All profit is anathema to socialists because of the basic premise that a profit simply represents the exploitation of employees. Technically, Oscarbravo's profit is the value he has skimmed from a product or service produced by his employees, who deserve the full and final value of whatever it is that has been produced.

In reality the employee accepts less than the final market value of a product because it is the employer who must wait the longer period for payment and to risk non-payment. I worked for a small company a few years ago who had outstanding amounts due to them of £60,000 - this risk shouldered by them justifies their profit on what I produce because no matter who was late paying their bills I was paid every single Friday without fail.

This time-preference is a straightforward and accurate explanation of the social relationship between business owners and their staff. The socialist account rests on a denial of risks of entrepreneurship and an outdated labour theory of value. That JRG's only response to this idea was that I'm in a 'Mises' cult shows perfectly hiw the far-left have been content to ignore and insult their critics rather than engage with them.

Similarly, JRG's latest concession to OB involves explaining that it's not his fault he believes in capitalism because his social position as a business owner determines he think that way - he has no brain he is simply determined by the existing superstructure. Socialist polylogism (the idea that you have no choice but to use the flawed logic of your class) is just one giant ad hominem attack against critics. I think this thread has shown clearly that laziness is the one defining characteristic of far-left debating.

Iwasfrozen

coolemon wrote: »

Not at all.

It has, massively. Most employees in the company I work for own shares in the company.

That means employees collectively own part of the company that's supposedly exploiting them and their net worth is tied with the company.

They also wouldn't appreciate being called "working class".

coolemon

Valmont wrote: »

In reality the employee accepts less than the final market value of a product because it is the employer who must wait the longer period for payment and to risk non-payment.

In reality the employees must take "less than their value" because of a competitive market where surplus value is re-invested in forms of capital to keep up with competition and keep the entire system motoring.

And that is before the "grubby capitalist" gets his cut to invest in superyachts and what not.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Valmont

Exactly Coolemon, if employers did not make a profit then who would purchase expensive new equipment or update systems to stay competitive? If a company plowed all of its profits into the hands of staff it would quickly become obsolete and out-competed - then nobody would have any jobs to moan about!