Socialist Party's policies

Iwasfrozen

karma_ wrote: »

And has the same not happened with Right-wing societies? It was you remember who brought up the holocaust. Pinochet? I'm not a fan or what Stalin did, few socialists are and let us not forget who his first targets were.

Actually Hitler was economically very left wing by today's standards. I think he was even socialist by his own admission.

Libertarians are in favor of minimized government, with a small government what happened in Germany, Chile, China, Russia or any other myriad dictatorships could not take place again because the rights of the individual would be held to be more important than the rights of society.

marienbad

karma_ wrote: »

No, I believe a balance is essential, theres nothing wrong with ethical capitalism mixed with strong socialist policies.

I'm here to argue against the cut-throat libertarian version.

Only Permabear as far as I know advocates that .

What does ethical capitalism even mean though ?

karma_

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Actually Hitler was economically very left wing by today's standards. I think he was even socialist by his own admission.

Libertarians are in favor of minimized government, with a small government what happened in Germany, Chile, China, Russia or any other myriad dictatorships could not take place again because the rights of the individual would be held to be more important than the rights of society.

Honestly, you are saying that the Third Reich was Left-wing now? Regurgitated nonsense and does not stand up to any kind of scrutiny, if you are going to argue here then do it honestly.

Still waiting on your elaboration by the way.

karma_

marienbad wrote: »

Only Permabear as far as I know advocates that .

What does ethical capitalism even mean though ?

No, not only him.

Well Marie, what do you think it means? Do we really have to go this deeply into the minute of language used? It feels overly pedantic.

Iwasfrozen

karma_ wrote: »

Honestly, you are saying that the Third Reich was Left-wing now?

Economically, yes. Much more so than modern United States or Ireland.

Still waiting on your elaboration by the way.

I'm not going to explain to you how respecting individual rights would have prevented the holocaust or great leap forward.

karma_

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Economically, yes. Much more so than modern United States or Ireland.

It was a fascist dictatorship. It was not socialism, nor does it come anywhere near to what socialists aspire to. It's a vacuous argument.

I'm not going to explain to you how respecting individual rights would have prevented the holocaust or great leap forward.

This isn't what I asked, I asked if you could elaborate on how you think Stalin or Mao promoted individual rights more so than Rand. I didn't ask you how doing so would have prevented the holocaust or the great leap forward. Once again it's a dishonest argument.

Iwasfrozen

karma_ wrote: »

It was a fascist dictatorship. It was not socialism, nor does it come anywhere near to what socialists aspire to. It's a vacuous argument.

Yes it was, it was also more economically left wing than modern Ireland.

This isn't what I asked, I asked if you could elaborate on how you think Stalin or Mao promoted individual rights more so than Rand. I didn't ask you how doing so would have prevented the holocaust or the great leap forward. Once again it's a dishonest argument.

By providing an example of what happens when individual rights are deemed to be less important than the rights of society

karma_

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Yes it was, it was also more economically left wing than modern Ireland.


By providing an example of what happens when individual rights are deemed to be less important than the rights of society

You literally just repeated yourself.

marienbad

karma_ wrote: »

No, not only him.

Well Marie, what do you think it means? Do we really have to go this deeply into the minute of language used? It feels overly pedantic.

Why are you always so reluctant to elaborate on your position ?

I honestly don't know what it means . There are so many forms and variants of capitalism I don't think it is impossible to give it a label like that .

If you mean regulation on sweat shops/ pillaging oil companies/polluting chemical corporations/ monopolistic practices/labelling food including gm/cowboy banks/ and all that stuff then I am all with you. And we can discuss the type and extend of that regulation .

But is you are arguing for any form of protectionism/nationalisation/subsidisation/most central planning /even our own semi-state companies and that kind of stuff then no.

karma_

marienbad wrote: »

Why are you always so reluctant to elaborate on your position ?

I honestly don't know what it means . There are so many forms and variants of capitalism I don't think it is impossible to give it a label like that .

If you mean regulation on sweat shops/ pillaging oil companies/polluting chemical corporations/ monopolistic practices/labelling food including gm/cowboy banks/ and all that stuff then I am all with you. And we can discuss the type and extend of that regulation .

But is you are arguing for any form of protectionism/nationalisation/subsidisation/most central planning /even our own semi-state companies and that kind of stuff then no.

See, there was no need to elaborate after all

marienbad

karma_ wrote: »

See, there was no need to elaborate after all

So is that your preferred form of society then - free market capitalism with regulation ?

karma_

marienbad wrote: »

So is that your preferred form of society then - free market capitalism with regulation ?

No. I'm afraid we do part ways on the elements of socialism that I would like to exist within said system, but sure we can't have everything. It's late but I'll check tomorrow and expand on that.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Godge

karma_ wrote: »

No, I believe a balance is essential, theres nothing wrong with ethical capitalism mixed with strong socialist policies.

I'm here to argue against the cut-throat libertarian version.

It sounds to me that you views are actually Labour Party views rather than Socialist Party views as the Socialists would be much further left than that.

coolemon

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

JRG would obviously be the best person to answer that. But my impression of both the SP and SWP is that they would be a mixed bag. They would contain members who would be "theoretically" inclined and also a lot of people would have a more vaguish concept of "socialism" and associate it with "workers rights", trade unionism and the nationalisation of key industries. This would be especially true of their front groups - People Before Profit and the Anti-Austerity Alliance.

Revolution - of wanting to overthrow the state - would, I think, be a minority position. And there is always the risk that an organisation like the Socialist Party will develop more reformist positions the more they become intertangled with establishment politics -> which is what eventually caused the split in the Workers Party.

Elected representatives will be under pressure to produce "pragmatic" and "workable" policies within the existing framework. And that can be difficult to do from a "revolutionary" socialist point of view without drifting into reformism or sounding completely clueless. Both happen.

Dyr

coolemon wrote: »

JRG would obviously be the best person to answer that. But my impression of both the SP and SWP is that they would be a mixed bag. They would contain members who would be "theoretically" inclined and also a lot of people would have a more vaguish concept of "socialism" and associate it with "workers rights", trade unionism and the nationalisation of key industries. This would be especially true of their front groups - People Before Profit and the Anti-Austerity Alliance.

The socialist party/AAA are trotskyite to the core. Anyone in their ranks who thinks otherwise and trys to put forward other viewpoints will be in for a rude awakening

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

coolemon

Bambi wrote: »

The socialist party/AAA are trotskyite to the core. Anyone in their ranks who thinks otherwise and trys to put forward other viewpoints will be in for a rude awakening

I don't agree. They are composed of people with varying levels of political insight and theoretical thinking. But hopefully JRG can give a better insight.

The SWP would recruit anything with legs. It is quite different than the SP in terms of its practices and political culture. Or so I find anyway.

marienbad

coolemon wrote: »

I don't agree. They are composed of people with varying levels of political insight and theoretical thinking. But hopefully JRG can give a better insight.

The SWP would recruit anything with legs. It is quite different than the SP in terms of its practices and political culture. Or so I find anyway.

Any party will do that (almost) just to get the numbers. But it is usually a very small centralised core the makes all the decisions .

And the more left the part the more controlled it is , such as being my admittedly limited experience.

coolemon

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

They would argue that workers rights should be improved. Like with Greyhound hiring in scab labour. There were various shortcomings that were found during that dispute that the SP would argue for improved workers rights that are not already constituted in law.

As for nationalisation. The SP are a statist organisation. So one way or the other, the policy is not incompatible.

coolemon

marienbad wrote: »

Any party will do that (almost) just to get the numbers.

Not at all. With the exception of the SWP and party front groups you will find joining can be quite rigorous in left wing organisations. And indeed Irish Republican organisations can be very selective. To join RSF, for example, would require having a pretty specific position on what RSF would call its democratic mandate from 1918.

Even the non-centralised and ultra democratic WSM make it a hurdle to join (or at least they did) - http://www.chekov.org/blog/joining-wsm

The SWP are the only group that I find is obsessive on numbers. I have never been asked to join the SP. But I have been asked a dozen times (and attended branch meetings) with the SWP in their attempts to recruit me - even when I make it clear that my politics are completely incompatible. "We are not against that"(Anarchism) said one high profile member in her attempts.

marienbad

coolemon wrote: »

Not at all. With the exception of the SWP and party front groups you will find joining can be quite rigorous in left wing organisations. And indeed Irish Republican organisations can be very selective. To join RSF, for example, would require having a pretty specific position on what RSF would call its democratic mandate from 1918.

Even the non-centralised and ultra democratic WSM make it a hurdle to join (or at least they did) - http://www.chekov.org/blog/joining-wsm

The SWP are the only group that I find is obsessive on numbers. I have never been asked to join the SP. But I have been asked a dozen times (and attended branch meetings) with the SWP in their attempts to recruit me - even when I make it clear that my politics are completely incompatible. "We are not against that"(Anarchism) said one high profile member in her attempts.

does that not emphasise that they are strictly controlled then ?

Jolly Red Giant

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

The Socialist Party is a revolutionary party - this means that the Socialist Party advocates a fundamental alteration in how society operates, namely a change from capitalism to a democratically planned socialised economy.

The Socialist Party is not structured like and does not operate in the same way as established political parties. The focus of establishment parties is elections and how to get people elected. These parties operate on the basis of the individual and individual competition between potential candidates who attempt to build up personal power bases to get themselves elected on an individual basis. Individual members play a secondary role, one primarily as footsoldiers to canvass at election times, give out leaflets and vote for their personality at the selection convention. In effect, most members of establishment parties are supporters of individual careerists who play a minimal role in the operation of the party or in policy decision making.

The Socialist Party is an activist party. The membership are encouraged to fully engage with all aspect of the work of the party and to actively engage with their fellow workers, students, neighbours. The part operates on the basis of democratic accountability where issues and policies are fully debated and all members actively promote the policies and work of the party. The Socialist Party do not regard people who canvass and leaflet drop and turn up to the occasional meeting as members, they are regarded as supporters. Because of its nature as a revolutionary party the vast majority of members of the Socialist Party would fully support the revolutionary objectives of the party - i.e. replacing capitalism with a democratically planned socialised economy. A few members, generally newer members, would join without a full understanding of the objectives of the party, but you are not going to be a member for long without realising what the Socialist Party is all about.

The Anti-Austerity Alliance is different. The AAA is an alliance of anti-austerity activists, people who have been politicised by first the campaign against the household charge and now by the campaign against water charges. The AAA is significantly bigger than the Socialist Party because many of the people who would be supporters of the Socialist Party would actually be members of the AAA. Again the AAA is attempting to develop as an alliance of activists, but on a much wider basis and operating on the understanding that the AAA is focused on opposing austerity.

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Just for clarification - the Socialist Party argued that the Dell plant in Limerick that was being shut should have been taken into public ownership to protect the thousands of jobs that were lost. This is not the same as taking key sectors of the economy into public ownership as part of democratically planning a socialised economy.

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

However, the Irish government did nationalise the Irish banks (or more specifically - the debts of the Irish banks) in order to protect the interests of the spivs and speculators.

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

At a social cost of thousands of people being dumped onto the scrapheap of unemployment.

Bambi wrote: »

The socialist party/AAA are trotskyite to the core. Anyone in their ranks who thinks otherwise and trys to put forward other viewpoints will be in for a rude awakening

You have to love the way the right-wing hacks toss around what they perceive to be insults.

The Socialist Party is part of the Trotskyist tradition of Marxist organisations - that is in the tradition of the Left Opposition who opposed the dictatorship of Stalinism and continue to oppose the ideas of Stalinism today.

A demonstration of this - in 1989 hundreds of thousands of workers and youth occupied Tienanmen Square in Beijing. A member of the Socialist Party, Steve Jolly from Wicklow was an active participant in that occupation and the subsequent protests. The demands of the protesters was for the democraticsation of the socialised economy in China at the time - not a return to capitalism. Steve Jolly addressed the huge crowds from the main platform on a number of occasions and when the tanks rolled into Tienanmen Square he stood arm in arm with thousands of others to confront the tanks. The leaders of the protest consciously smuggled him out of Tienanmen Square with a request to go and tell the story of the protests to the world. A short time after the massacre in Tienanmen Square the Irish government sent a trade delegation that comprised of, among others, FF and FG politicans in an attempt to secure money making opportunites for Irish businesses - money-making opportunities that were based on the blood of the protesters shot dead in the Square.

This demonstrates the difference in the principled approach of the Socialist Party and the 'sell your grandmother & make a fast buck' approach of the establishment politicians and the rich elites.

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Yea - heard it all before - the gold plated pay and pensions - not

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

There are diddly squat laws to protect workers rights and even less enforcement of those laws - there are hundreds of times more welfare inspectors than there are inspectors into abuses of workers rights.

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

True - but the state exists to protect the class interests of one social class in society and oppress another social class - eliminate social classes and there is no necessity for a 'state'

marienbad wrote: »

And the more left the part the more controlled it is , such as being my admittedly limited experience.

Over my lifetime I have been a member of FF, the LP, student groups, several trade unions, community groups, sports organisations etc. The Socialist Party is more democratic than all of them. It is far from a perfect organisation - but is far more democratic than any I have been involved in.

coolemon wrote: »

The SP are a statist organisation. So one way or the other, the policy is not incompatible.

The Socialist Party is not a statist organisation - it stands for the elimination of the state.

marienbad

Jolly Red Giant , nationalising Nokia or Dell wouldn't have saved those jobs .

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Jolly Red Giant

marienbad wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

In the short term it absolutely would have saved those jobs. The cost to the state for every worker who lost their job was in the region of €25,000 per annum - the cost to the economy was double that.

In the medium to longer term there would have been an opportunity to diversify in order to maintain jobs - the opportunity to retrain workers to secure other jobs etc.

Permabear wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

The Socialist Party took advantage of the rules to raise an issue that is one of the main political issues of the day and demonstrate where the Socialist Party stood on the issue - i.e. stopping water charges.

Permabear wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

There are over 400,000 people out of work in Ireland and a large number of very highly skilled. It is nonsense to claim that highly skilled workers find jobs quickly - in fact most of the jobs created in this country in the last couple of years are low-skilled and very low paid. What is happening is that highly skilled workers are emigrating and finding jobs abroad - practically every doctor that is qualifying out of college in this country is packing their bags and leaving - same with nurses etc.

Permabear wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

And what evidence do you have for this claim?

Here is some evidence to the contrary -

http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-08-07/nokia-decline-finlands-tech-workers-face-bleak-job-market

Iwasfrozen

@Coolemon what do you see as being the difference between socialism and communism because your view of socialism (no money, no state) is much closer to most people's understanding of communism than socialism.

How could you ensure, "to each according to his contribution" if there is no money?

CramCycle

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

In the short term it absolutely would have saved those jobs. The cost to the state for every worker who lost their job was in the region of €25,000 per annum - the cost to the economy was double that.

What would the cost of Nationalising Dell been, as in to compare to the cost of those workers who were out of work and presumably looking for work elsewhere. You can't just make suggestions like this without it being planned and costed out.

Lets say you made it the national supplier for schools and government, to be run at cost. There would not be enough business there to keep everyone working, their sales and marketing department alone would be pointless or at least grossly over staffed because they would be competing against Dell itself who not only designed the computers, would have contracts with suppliers for the parts and the distribution network that simply could not be matched in the immediate term. Needless to say after one year of supplying all of the above, the volume would drop again, so either layoffs or pay stff the 25000 to do nothing that you mentioned.

Long story short, nationalising Dell, would after a year, cost the same if not significantly more than letting it close.

Soldie

Jolly Red Giant, you keep mentioning your proposed "democratically planned socialised economy" but you haven't given anything other than a cursory explanation as to how it will work. Saying stuff like "it will work in the interests of the 99%, not the 1%" etc. is not an explanation and I hope you can accept this.

Since the "democratically planned socialised economy" seems to be a cornerstone of Socialist Party policy I don't think it's unreasonable to ask, again, how it will overcome the economic calculation problem. Can you please address this for once?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

marienbad

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

In the short term it absolutely would have saved those jobs. The cost to the state for every worker who lost their job was in the region of €25,000 per annum - the cost to the economy was double that.

I am sorry JRG but this just shows you have no idea how these thing works . For argument sake lets just say they were able to take over the manufacturing process , where would they get the parts ? how would they offer after sales on any order shipped . How would they get round patent laws , How would they get round US government restrictions .

And what makes you think they could do it more efficiently than Dell ?

coolemon

marienbad wrote: »

does that not emphasise that they are strictly controlled then ?

Yes, in a sense, radical left organisations at this moment are more strictly controlled. Judging by JRG's post above, one probably wouldn't last long in the SP if they didn't go along with their specific 'revolutionary programme' and ideological tendency -> one of many "tendencies" within the fractured and sectarian far-left.

But rather than seeing it as being "controlled" - it is more a necessary requirement in a democratic organisation that every member understands its political positions, rationale and theoretical line in order to make informed choices without compromising the collective cohesion of the organisation in a hostile political environment.

This does not apply to mainstream organisations because they express a socially hegemonic ideology. Most members could join and make common sense decisions or, indeed, know very little about politics or theory and not compromise the organisation.

Radical left organisations at this time are what are called "Abeyance Structures". They are ideologically controlled out of necessity to carry them through unfavourable political conditions without compromising their political aims.

Similar can be seen in feminist organisations between periods of mass mobilisation, in neo-fascist and neo-Nazi organisations and in Irish Republican organisations at the moment. Their organisational form and culture reflective of the unfavourable social conditions they are operating in.

coolemon

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

@Coolemon what do you see as being the difference between socialism and communism because your view of socialism (no money, no state) is much closer to most people's understanding of communism than socialism.

The terms socialism and communism have all sorts of meanings depending who you ask.

I tend to use the words interchangeably. I see both socialism and communism as more or less the same.

The difference being that with socialism an external/internal enemy or coercive force exists (such as an external nation state). Therefore socialism is a society where organised coercive forces exist to defend the social revolution. For Marxists, that means maintaining, in the broadest sense of the word, a state.

For Anarchist socialism it means militia or other non-state forces. Indeed you will find that most anarchists will not even use the term socialism, but rather just communism - ie anarcho-communism.

In fact this is the key difference between Anarchism and Marxism - both of which have the same objective - communism. One favours a state (Again! in the broadest use of that term) and the other non-state forces.

Communism is a society where no coercive forces exist to threaten the social system. It is a stateless classless society by definition. In Marxist theory the primary purpose of the state is to maintain existing class domination. Without classes, there is no requirement for a state. So in Marxism, "the state withers away" once it achieves its objectives of defending the social revolution from external and internal threats.

^^ This is all a rather basic outline.

In reality most Marxists, particularly of Leninist persuasion, will see socialism as a long term transitionary phase towards communism - and all that involves.

How could you ensure, "to each according to his contribution" if there is no money?

The quote is actually "from each according to their abilities to each according to their needs".

It is, in essence, the ultimate freedom in socialist terms.

You work if you want and consume what you want.

But the underlying assumption (and I think rightfully so) is that people want to work and people would consume based upon need if there were no reason to hoard.

In a society of "use values" - and where little "social value" is attached to material consumption - people would use and consume things as the need them for their utility and use values.

Social value would be obtained, presumably, through that which is most socially and economically required in terms of labour.

What results - in my view - is a sort of "free market" of social values. But that is not to say that rational economic planning would not be a feature as well if necessary.

Jolly Red Giant

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

There is nothing to stop any party from doing the same - there is nothing to state that any political party has to conform to some staid formula in how it describes itself. The Socialist Party has changed its name four times in its history and will probably do so again. The Socialist Party as an organisation uses a name that reflects its political outlook of the existing political conditions.

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

More presumptions without any evidence - most people emigrate because they are forced to do so for economic reasons - and Ireland is a low tax economy (and the richer you are the more tax you avoid)

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

The public service is 'unaffordable' because the rich pay feck-all tax.

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Nothing - provided it is not forced by economic conditions. Capitalism rips families apart by forcing family members out of the country because they cannot afford to live here.

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

A very small number of former Nokia employees (indeed many of these start-ups were established before Nokia folded) - and start-ups are just that - most start-ups fail, as many of these will. Furthermore, the Finnish economy is not exactly healthy at the moment - with little prospect of improving.

Jolly Red Giant

coolemon wrote: »

Yes, in a sense, radical left organisations at this moment are more strictly controlled. Judging by JRG's post above, one probably wouldn't last long in the SP if they didn't go along with their specific 'revolutionary programme' and ideological tendency -> one of many "tendencies" within the fractured and sectarian far-left.

presumptions from someone who has no knowledge about how the Socialist Party operates - and is probably using their preconceived notions to base their opinion.

The 'fractured' left is actually grossly overhyped. Most groups on the left are tiny and have no influence - and most are ignored. In fact anarchism is far more fractured than the Trotskyist left. Furthermore, the right-wing is must more fractured than the left.

coolemon wrote: »

it is more a necessary requirement in a democratic organisation that every member understands its political positions, rationale and theoretical line in order to make informed choices without compromising the collective cohesion of the organisation in a hostile political environment.

I would agree - but it is utopian to expect every member to understood the entire gamut of the politics of a left party - hell, I have been a Marxist for 35 years and I still don't understand many aspects of socialist politics.

marienbad

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

More presumptions without any evidence - most people emigrate because they are forced to do so for economic reasons - and Ireland is a low tax economy (and the richer you are the more tax you avoid)

Is'nt this exactly your position on Dell ? presumption without evidence ?

Iwasfrozen

coolemon wrote: »

The terms socialism and communism have all sorts of meanings depending who you ask.

I tend to use the words interchangeably. I see both socialism and communism as more or less the same.

The difference being that with socialism an external/internal enemy or coercive force exists (such as an external nation state). Therefore socialism is a society where organised coercive forces exist to defend the social revolution. For Marxists, that means maintaining, in the broadest sense of the word, a state.

For Anarchist socialism it means militia or other non-state forces. Indeed you will find that most anarchists will not even use the term socialism, but rather just communism - ie anarcho-communism.

In fact this is the key difference between Anarchism and Marxism - both of which have the same objective - communism. One favours a state (Again! in the broadest use of that term) and the other non-state forces.

Communism is a society where no coercive forces exist to threaten the social system. It is a stateless classless society by definition. In Marxist theory the primary purpose of the state is to maintain existing class domination. Without classes, there is no requirement for a state. So in Marxism, "the state withers away" once it achieves its objectives of defending the social revolution from external and internal threats.

^^ This is all a rather basic outline.

In reality most Marxists, particularly of Leninist persuasion, will see socialism as a long term transitionary phase towards communism - and all that involves.

Fair enough.

The quote is actually "from each according to their abilities to each according to their needs".

It is, in essence, the ultimate freedom in socialist terms.

You work if you want and consume what you want.

But the underlying assumption (and I think rightfully so) is that people want to work and people would consume based upon need if there were no reason to hoard.

In a society of "use values" - and where little "social value" is attached to material consumption - people would use and consume things as the need them for their utility and use values.

Social value would be obtained, presumably, through that which is most socially and economically required in terms of labour.

What results - in my view - is a sort of "free market" of social values. But that is not to say that rational economic planning would not be a feature as well if necessary.

"From each according to their abilities to each according to their needs" describes communism, "to each according to his contribution" describes socialism, I think it was Lenin who first coined the phrase but basically it means the worker will receive back from society that which is equal to his labor value and no more. Which, Lenin believed, was an improvement from capitalism.

Though obviously Lenin saw a much greater divide between socialism and communism than you do, seeing them as two separate stages of social evolution, like capitalism and feudalism.

Jolly Red Giant

marienbad wrote: »

Is'nt this exactly your position on Dell ? presumption without evidence ?

What is presumptuous about making a political decision to save jobs?

Jolly Red Giant

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Though obviously Lenin saw a much greater divide between socialism and communism than you do, seeing them as two separate stages of social evolution, like capitalism and feudalism.

Don't know where you got that daft idea from

Iwasfrozen

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

Don't know where you got that daft idea from

If you disagree say why.

coolemon

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

"From each according to their abilities to each according to their needs" describes communism, "to each according to his contribution" describes socialism, I think it was Lenin who first coined the phrase but basically it means the worker will receive back from society that which is equal to his labor value and no more. Which, Lenin believed, was an improvement from capitalism.

Though obviously Lenin saw a much greater divide between socialism and communism than you do, seeing them as two separate stages of social evolution, like capitalism and feudalism.

I don't subscribe to Lenin's ideas in any way.

"Each according to contribution" would have been something Marx himself believed in. He proposed LTV's as a possible transitionary system instead of money during a "socialist phase".

But you will find that both Marx and Engles also used the term socialism and communism interchangeably. I think Marx would be a lot closer to the libertarian end of the spectrum than is he to Lenin. Particularly in his early writings.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

coolemon

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

presumptions from someone who has no knowledge about how the Socialist Party operates - and is probably using their preconceived notions to base their opinion.

I am just going on what you said in a previous post.

I think it is reasonable to assume that the SP has a more strictly controlled ideological line than mainstream organisations. Conditions require it.

The 'fractured' left is actually grossly overhyped. Most groups on the left are tiny and have no influence - and most are ignored.

Saying the fractures are over hyped is quite different than saying they have no influence.

The left is fractured. Apart from working on common causes like the water charges they are operating in their own ideological (and egotistical) cliques.

In fact anarchism is far more fractured than the Trotskyist left.

Anarchism at the moment is a non-quantity in this country. There is barely anything to fracture. The WSM, one of only two anarchist organisations in Ireland, appears to be having internal problems.

Furthermore, the right-wing is must more fractured than the left.

I dont know about that. It has quite a different meaning for the right than it does for the left. The right can fracture and still hold power. The left need unity even to become a significant quantity.

marienbad

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

What is presumptuous about making a political decision to save jobs?

Presumptuous that you can solve the issues I have outlined ,How would you do that ?

VinLieger

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

The public service is 'unaffordable' because the rich pay feck-all tax.

Insane claim to make, back it up please with verifiable facts and figures

Jolly Red Giant

VinLieger wrote: »

Insane claim to make, back it up please with verifiable facts and figures

Here you go -

http://www.independent.ie/business/irish/google-pays-just-014-tax-in-seven-years-28945199.html

marienbad

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

Here you go -

http://www.independent.ie/business/irish/google-pays-just-014-tax-in-seven-years-28945199.html

Again you are showing your ignorance of the whole concept of transfer pricing . From an Irish perspective these are not profits made here . That is why the Europeans and American are so mad at us !

For Forks Sake

marienbad wrote: »

Again you are showing your ignorance of the whole concept of transfer pricing . From an Irish perspective these are not profits made here . That is why the Europeans and American are so mad at us !

Not to mention that the idiot "journalist" responsible for the article in JRGs link appears to be of the assumption that tax is levied on sales rather than profits.

Jolly Red Giant

marienbad wrote: »

Again you are showing your ignorance of the whole concept of transfer pricing . From an Irish perspective these are not profits made here . That is why the Europeans and American are so mad at us !

You asked for evidence that the elites pay feck all tax - I provided it.

The fact that Google use a variety of tax avoidance measures does nothing to mitigate the fact that they are paying feck all tax in this country.

Iwasfrozen

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

You asked for evidence that the elites pay feck all tax - I provided it.

The fact that Google use a variety of tax avoidance measures does nothing to mitigate the fact that they are paying feck all tax in this country.

You're not listening, they don't actually make that money in this country.

You're also (conveniently) ignoring the money google pay to their employees, how much they pay to smaller support companies and how much those support companies pay their employees. Plus all of the utilities and services google and their service companies utilize, all of which is pumping money into the economy but doesn't suit your narrative.