Socialist Party's policies

oscarBravo

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Socialism is the dictatorship of the proletariat.

You think North Korea is being run by the proletariat?

Godge

oscarBravo wrote: »

You think North Korea is being run by the proletariat?

Juche.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juche

They call it socialist but it isn't.

K-9

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Nope. Socialism is the dictatorship of the proletariat. An intermediary stage between capitalism and communism as you are well aware.

North Korea, the Soviet Union etc. Were socialist countries. They would have never claimed to be communist. That was the goal. Hence soviet socialist union but communist party.

Welfare state, public health services etc. are intrinsic parts of Socialist and Democratic Socialist societies, they wouldn't be Socialist otherwise. They aren't associated with Capitalist ideas.

There's a bizarre element who'd try to portray the above as Communist but that's beside the point.

Things like the above contribute significantly to lower poverty levels, increased life expectancy, easier access to education etc.

Iwasfrozen

K-9 wrote: »

Welfare state, public health services etc. are intrinsic parts of Socialist and Democratic Socialist societies, they wouldn't be Socialist otherwise. They aren't associated with Capitalist ideas.

There's a bizarre element who'd try to portray the above as Communist but that's beside the point.

Things like the above contribute significantly to lower poverty levels, increased life expectancy, easier access to education etc.

You're confusing all state intervention for socialism. The above would be examples of state capitalism.

Socialism is a distinctly Marxist animal. Different beast altogether.

karma_

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

You're confusing all state intervention for socialism. The above would be examples of state capitalism.

Socialism is a distinctly Marxist animal. Different beast altogether.

No, just no. They are all core socialist policies.

Animal, beast? Need to polish up that rusty rhetoric.

Godge

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

You're confusing all state intervention for socialism. The above would be examples of state capitalism.

Socialism is a distinctly Marxist animal. Different beast altogether.

karma_ wrote: »

No, just no. They are all core socialist policies.

Animal, beast? Need to polish up that rusty rhetoric.

There is a continuum on the political spectrum from far-right fascism to far-left communism. It has a horsehoe shape which puts far-right fascism and far-left communism closer to each other than they are to the centre.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horseshoe_theory


Socialism, social democracy, social capitalism and capitalism are closer to each other in the centre of the horseshoe.

K-9

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

You're confusing all state intervention for socialism. The above would be examples of state capitalism.

Socialism is a distinctly Marxist animal. Different beast altogether.

I'm sure Labour were state capitalists when bringing in the NHS.

Iwasfrozen

K-9 wrote: »

I'm sure Labour were state capitalists when bringing in the NHS.

Labour back then was a marxist organization.

Iwasfrozen

karma_ wrote: »

No, just no. They are all core socialist policies.

Animal, beast? Need to polish up that rusty rhetoric.

Yes just yes. Socialism is a marxist term used to describe the third stage of civilization in Marx's nonsense theory.


State intervention in the economy can be socialist or non socialist depending on the political leaning of the ones making the ones implementing the intervention.

To clarify things for you further consider anarcho socialism. If socialism = state intervention you couldn't have socialism without the existence of the state but you can because they are completely different things.

karma_

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Labour back then was a marxist organization.

You're just after saying that was an example of state capitalism.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Yes just yes. Socialism is a marxist term used to describe the third stage of civilization in Marx's nonsense theory.

So Socialism is just a 'term' now is it? Full steam ahead on the semantics train.

State intervention in the economy can be socialist or non socialist depending on the political leaning of the ones making the ones implementing the intervention.

To clarify things for you further consider anarcho socialism. If socialism = state intervention you couldn't have socialism without the existence of the state but you can because they are completely different things.

This really is getting bizarre.

K-9

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

You're confusing all state intervention for socialism. The above would be examples of state capitalism.

Socialism is a distinctly Marxist animal. Different beast altogether.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Labour back then was a marxist organization.

As pointed out, these all seem to mean what you want them to mean which seems to change from post to post.

I think everybody else can agree the welfare state is from socialist/Democratic Socialism and you can keep on believing whatever itvis you want to believe.

Iwasfrozen

K-9 wrote: »

As pointed out, these all seem to mean what you want them to mean which seems to change from post to post.

I think everybody else can agree the welfare state is from socialist/Democratic Socialism and you can keep on believing whatever itvis you want to believe.

You really don't seem to be getting this. Let me break it down for you.

Socialism is a branch of Marxism (though the term pre dated Marx) which advocates social control over the ownership of societies resources. Sometimes this is expressed through calls for state intervention in the economy, sometimes as in the case anarcho socialism it calls for the removal of state intervention.

State intervention on its own is not always socialist, sometimes it is state capitalist. The difference here would be while socialist state intervention aims to maximize the social good, even at the cost of profit , ie a post office, state capitalism will seek to maximize profit from state intervention, ie rail-roads.

So there you have it:

You claimed State Intervention = Socialism.

I showed:

Socialism =/> State intervention
Socialism </= State intervention
Socialism =/= State intervention

clear thinking

So sign of the SP being capable of doing basic sums weeks later.

Marx is great reading. Every capitalist should read him as he actually gives a great description of the state of the world at the time.

The irony is he did as much for capitalism as Adam Smith by tipping off the evil capitalists as to his mad cap plans to take over.

Jolly Red Giant

clear thinking wrote: »

So sign of the SP being capable of doing basic sums weeks later.

Marx is great reading. Every capitalist should read him as he actually gives a great description of the state of the world at the time.

The irony is he did as much for capitalism as Adam Smith by tipping off the evil capitalists as to his mad cap plans to take over.

I will try and explain this in as simple a way as possible -

For capitalism 'basic sums' equates to adding two apples and two apples - creating a bubble - getting four hundred apples - crashing the economy - and then starting over again trying to count two apples and two apples.

Socialism doesn't count apples - it counts oranges - adding two oranges and two oranges - doesn't create a bubble - doesn't crash the economy - and then engages in the process of growing more oranges.

You cannot demand that socialists add apples together to fit your capitalist model when socialism doesn't have any apples in the first place.

What?

quadrifoglio verde

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

I will try and explain this in as simple a way as possible -

For capitalism 'basic sums' equates to adding two apples and two apples - creating a bubble - getting four hundred apples - crashing the economy - and then starting over again trying to count two apples and two apples.

Socialism doesn't count apples - it counts oranges - adding two oranges and two oranges - doesn't create a bubble - doesn't crash the economy - and then engages in the process of growing more oranges.

You cannot demand that socialists add apples together to fit your capitalist model when socialism doesn't have any apples in the first place.

wheres the four oranges gone?
Up to the farmhouse with the pigs?

At least with capitalism I've the opportunity to have 400 Apple's. With socialism I get a few crumbs from the glorious leaders table.
If I'm not happy I get shipped off.

Thanks but no thanks, I'll have capitalism any day

Seth Brundle

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

I will try and explain this in as simple a way as possible -

For capitalism 'basic sums' equates to adding two apples and two apples - creating a bubble - getting four hundred apples - crashing the economy - and then starting over again trying to count two apples and two apples.

Socialism doesn't count apples - it counts oranges - adding two oranges and two oranges - doesn't create a bubble - doesn't crash the economy - and then engages in the process of growing more oranges.

You cannot demand that socialists add apples together to fit your capitalist model when socialism doesn't have any apples in the first place.

So the magic money tree also grows oranges?
The tree that keeps on giving!

K-9

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

You claimed State Intervention = Socialism.

No, that's what you took my posts to mean, big difference!

I mentioned the welfare state, NHS type systems etc. as Socialist/Democratic Socialist principles and gave the NHS as an example. These are systems we use to address deficiencies in Capitalism to ensure wide access to education and health and basic income levels. These were mostly introduced by Socialist or DS governments and have stood the test of time and endured changes of Government, some not exactly proponents of Socialist ideas!

it would be wrong to look at the graph posted and attribute reduced levels of poverty to Capitalism while ignoring welfare state systems, simple as that.

Interpreting that as some type of Cold War political view is up to you.

Iwasfrozen

K-9 wrote: »

No, that's what you took my posts to mean, big difference!

I mentioned the welfare state, NHS type systems etc. as Socialist/Democratic Socialist principles and gave the NHS as an example. These are systems we use to address deficiencies in Capitalism to ensure wide access to education and health and basic income levels. These were mostly introduced by Socialist or DS governments and have stood the test of time and endured changes of Government, some not exactly proponents of Socialist ideas!

it would be wrong to look at the graph posted and attribute reduced levels of poverty to Capitalism while ignoring welfare state systems, simple as that.

Interpreting that as some type of Cold War political view is up to you.

Even leaving aside the fact state intervention in the economy need not necessarily be socialist in principle the idea that state provided free education and state provided free healthcare leads to economic prosperity is inaccurate. If that was the case Cuba would be wealthy.

In Ireland free third level education has done little to encourage participation from the working class and acts as a subsidy for middle class / upper class families.

K-9

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Even leaving aside the fact state intervention in the economy need not necessarily be socialist in principle the idea that state provided free education and state provided free healthcare leads to economic prosperity is inaccurate. If that was the case Cuba would be wealthy.

In Ireland free third level education has done little to encourage participation from the working class and acts as a subsidy for middle class / upper class families.

Again, I never stated that nor would.

I mean a combination of Capitalist and more Socialist/Democratic Socialist policies leading to less poverty levels is hardly revolutionary or a difficult concept to get around.

Maybe stop thinking about extreme examples like Cuba and North Korea to prove some point nobody is making.

I'd agree with you about fees but that I'd say targeted policies is the alternative there, initiatives which we did have but of course was one of the first areas to get funding cut in the recession.

As for basics like free education, the idea is everybody gets a basic level of education which aids income mobility and NHS type systems reduce infant mortality, cancer rates etc. and lengthen life expectancy etc.

Jolly Red Giant

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Even leaving aside the fact state intervention in the economy need not necessarily be socialist in principle the idea that state provided free education and state provided free healthcare leads to economic prosperity is inaccurate. If that was the case Cuba would be wealthy.

Cuba - for all its faults - would be in a hell of a lot better shape economically if it were not for five decades of a blockade by the U.S. And despite the fact that e economic conditions are a throw back to the 1950s Cuba still has a significantly better health service that the richest country in the world.

In Ireland free third level education has done little to encourage participation from the working class and acts as a subsidy for middle class / upper class families.

Simply abolishing fees without introducing other measures to assist poor families to send their kids to college was never going to have anything other than a minor impact.

micosoft

K-9 wrote: »

No, that's what you took my posts to mean, big difference!

I mentioned the welfare state, NHS type systems etc. as Socialist/Democratic Socialist principles and gave the NHS as an example. These are systems we use to address deficiencies in Capitalism to ensure wide access to education and health and basic income levels. These were mostly introduced by Socialist or DS governments and have stood the test of time and endured changes of Government, some not exactly proponents of Socialist ideas!

it would be wrong to look at the graph posted and attribute reduced levels of poverty to Capitalism while ignoring welfare state systems, simple as that.

Interpreting that as some type of Cold War political view is up to you.

Actually, to be fair to iwasfrozen, the modern welfare state (old age pensions, sickness benefit etc) was invented by one Otto Von Bismark, the same Chancellor that introduced anti-socialist legislation. This came from a notably paternalistic form of capitalism. There are many examples of out and out capitalists introducing what could be described as "socialist" concepts such as Henry Fords unprecedented minimum wage. The critical difference I guess is the intent and desired outcome as opposed to the policies - Bismarck wanted to avoid the growth of socialism and or revolution. Ford wanted his employees to be able to buy his products (triggering consumerism).

micosoft

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

Cuba - for all its faults - would be in a hell of a lot better shape economically if it were not for five decades of a blockade by the U.S. And despite the fact that e economic conditions are a throw back to the 1950s Cuba still has a significantly better health service that the richest country in the world.

Do you have any basis for this? Cuba had many other countries in the region it could freely trade with. It's really is reaching to place all the blame on Cuba's economy on a blockade from one capitalist country (albeit a big one) rather then the continued economic mismanagement and dependence on the Soviet Union.

Cuba's health service is worse then the vast majority of countries in the developing world let alone the developed world. A good health service is much more then the number of doctors you churn out. It's about access to medicines and treatments, both of which Cuba lack.

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

Simply abolishing fees without introducing other measures to assist poor families to send their kids to college was never going to have anything other than a minor impact.

True. Universal benefits of any kind tend to favour the middle class. Unless these measures are targeted with other supports all you do is create a mass subsidy for the voting middle class that will either increase taxes elsewhere or reduce the quality of the service. In this case the quality of Irish education is being devastated by underinvestment and quite frankly poorer quality of students (given the number of illiterate graduates I've interviewed in the last few years).

clear thinking

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

I will try and explain this in as simple a way as possible -

For capitalism 'basic sums' equates to adding two apples and two apples - creating a bubble - getting four hundred apples - crashing the economy - and then starting over again trying to count two apples and two apples.

Socialism doesn't count apples - it counts oranges - adding two oranges and two oranges - doesn't create a bubble - doesn't crash the economy - and then engages in the process of growing more oranges.

You cannot demand that socialists add apples together to fit your capitalist model when socialism doesn't have any apples in the first place.

In reality it would be cabbage on your bread plus cabbage on your bread as there'll be no more oranges imported from spain.

K-9

micosoft wrote: »

Actually, to be fair to iwasfrozen, the modern welfare state (old age pensions, sickness benefit etc) was invented by one Otto Von Bismark, the same Chancellor that introduced anti-socialist legislation. This came from a notably paternalistic form of capitalism. There are many examples of out and out capitalists introducing what could be described as "socialist" concepts such as Henry Fords unprecedented minimum wage. The critical difference I guess is the intent and desired outcome as opposed to the policies - Bismarck wanted to avoid the growth of socialism and or revolution. Ford wanted his employees to be able to buy his products (triggering consumerism).

I did say it was mostly introduced by Socialist/DS governments because of exceptions to the rule.

RobertKK

It is hard to see the Socialist party making much if any gains in the upcoming election given the people want stability, they have seen what Syriza did in Greece, nothing and the people voted back in Syriza after they did a U turn after seeing what standing upto Europe did - no money and no banking system.

Still no signs of any workable policies, and Irish people like the idea of being able to get rich, rather than being told they should be penalised with higher taxes if they do make a bit of money.

I think it will remain area of deprivation who will elect socialist party TDs, as I think the poor lack belief in the capitalist system, and maybe in themselves to use the opportunity that capitalism gives.

alaimacerc

Would this be the most apt place to somewhat belatedly note that after months of intensive talks, the "Anti-Austerity Alliance" and "People Before Profit" are for the purposes of the next election going to operate as... *drumroll!* "Anti-Austerity Alliance People Before Profit".

That was well worth holding our breaths for, wasn't it?

Plates

alaimacerc wrote: »

Would this be the most apt place to somewhat belatedly note that after months of intensive talks, the "Anti-Austerity Alliance" and "People Before Profit" are for the purposes of the next election going to operate as... *drumroll!* "Anti-Austerity Alliance People Before Profit".

That was well worth holding our breaths for, wasn't it?

Aligning the Absence of Alternatives Alliance and Peeeples Against Profit is a match made in heaven. A true synergy of socialism that will be an absolute car crash. I'm looking forward to watching them self destruct over the next few months.

oscarBravo

alaimacerc wrote: »

Would this be the most apt place to somewhat belatedly note that after months of intensive talks, the "Anti-Austerity Alliance" and "People Before Profit" are for the purposes of the next election going to operate as... *drumroll!* "Anti-Austerity Alliance People Before Profit".

That was well worth holding our breaths for, wasn't it?

If asked and not given an opportunity to look it up, I would have said that PBP was part of AAA. Left-wing politics in this country really, really needs to get its sh*t together.

alaimacerc

oscarBravo wrote: »

If asked and not given an opportunity to look it up, I would have said that PBP was part of AAA. Left-wing politics in this country really, really needs to get its sh*t together.

SWP are a part of the PBP (or PBP is an SWP "front", if you prefer);
SP are a part of the AAA (or AAA is an SP front).

The idea you have two fringe Trot organisations, who each set up separate "broader groupings", and they can only temporarily cooperate on an arms-length basis with lots of haggling and wrangling, is indeed pretty darkly comic. But "Left" politics ceased making any sense since it became uncritically accepted that a nasty nationalist populist bunch of spoofers were a "Left" party. While SF is sponging up most of the "to the left of Labour" vote, and even FF voters can kid themselves on they're the "more progressive alternative" to FG, meaningful realignment will be a long while coming.

Plates

alaimacerc wrote: »

SWP are a part of the PBP (or PBP is an SWP "front", if you prefer);
SP are a part of the AAA (or AAA is an SP front).

What about the Peoples Front of Judea?

Plates

Plates wrote: »

What about the Peoples Front of Judea?

Or the Monster Raving Lunatic Party?

Lockstep

Not too far off. The tendency of the SWP and SP to create front organisations is pretty baffling. What's even more confusing is the rivalry between them and despite being two Trotskyite organisations, they're incapable of forming any sort of left unity.

To be fair to both groups, they're both excellent at community work (in my experience) but aside from their politics, they're completely crippled by their factionalism, backbiting and their placing ideological purity over results.

It is bizarre how Monty Python's parody is still so so fitting.

micosoft

Deleted User wrote: »

Or the Monster Raving Lunatic Party?

That's offensive and unfair. The Monster Raving Loony Party has a coherent and costed manifesto unlike the nonsense of PbP and AAA.

JohnMc1

hfallada wrote: »

They clearly don't have an economist advising them on anything. All they ever say is that they will tax the rich. But the Irish government in the 70/80s kept taxing the rich and tax revenue didn't increase. As people worked less and emigrated.

Ask any of the socialist a question that they have rote learnt and they can't answer it. Like what's their stance on tax avoidance on an EU. You realise within 10 seconds they can't tell the different between tax avoidance and evasion. Most of them still believe a doctor with 6 years of college should have a similar wage to the average industrial wage.

I think if the socialist come to power. A lot of young people won't bother looking for a Job. As there will be decent future for Ireland

Socialism/Marxism was created by a guy who never worked a day in his life or never owned a business. Ofcourse their policies have no bearing in reality. Modern Left wing groups today are the same way because they are undercover Socialists.

MRnotlob606

Deleted User wrote:

It is bizarre how Monty Python's parody is still so so fitting.

The thing I love about monty python is how the satirised the British society of the 60s and 70s.The people's liberation front of Judea was a direct parody of the fractious British left at the time.

K-9

And Basil Fawlty was very much a right wing Tory.

K-9

MRnotlob606 wrote: »

The thing I love about monty python is how the satirised the British society of the 60s and 70s.The people's liberation front of Judea was a direct parody of the fractious British left at the time.

Just on this, I think it was more aimed at the disparate revolutionary groups, IRA/INLA in Ireland and the many paramilitaries involved in campaigns throughout Europe in the 70's.

Brian?

JohnMc1 wrote: »

Socialism/Marxism was created by a guy who never worked a day in his life or never owned a business. Ofcourse their policies have no bearing in reality. Modern Left wing groups today are the same way because they are undercover Socialists.

Hah? Marx wrote several books on economics and philosophy. Does that not count as work? He also worked as a journalist for different newspapers, is journalism not a job?

RobertKK

I found myself totally agreeing with Paul Murphy last night on Vincent Browne when he was talking about the IFA and farmers and the CAP deal. I have to post that, as usually I never do.

melissak

Brian? wrote: »

Hah? Marx wrote several books on economics and philosophy. Does that not count as work? He also worked as a journalist for different newspapers, is journalism not a job?

In fairness he was chronically broke most of the time and his family would have all starved but for engles funding him. As it was some of his children died due to bad living conditions. Neither here nor there re socialism as he was a genius

Waestrel

Read the whole thread, if the economic sane posters havent disabused this board of socialism, perhaps recent developments in Venezuela will? Socialism Kills.

Niall Keane

This thread is just an echo chamber of confirmation bias!

The anti-socialist rhetoric is old and ill-informed, and based on dictatorships not true socialism. One might as well point to China as being communist. They may say they are, and likewise many adolescent males boast that they have 12 inch members... but we should know better!

The blind-acceptance of the inevitability of capitalism is flawed. Lads, growth for growths sake, or more specifically its necessity to cover repayments of ever increasing debt is not sustainable. A finite planet cannot cope with infinite debt-growth. That's simply fact, not opinion, fact!

The only way forward is community based, grass-roots anarchism, i.e. direct democracy with instant recall, and a low-growth economy. And let bad policy ensue, instant recall solves the problem of its perpetuation. Mao's famines can't happen when he's a recallable representative and not a leader. So, instantly recognisable failure of policy is the worst that can happen. Failure is called learning, evolution. All sure "solutions" are a fallacy, as we are none of us infallible.

Capitalism has failed miserably! What do they say about doing the same thing again and again and expecting different results?
According to the WWF 50% of wildlife has disappeared (killed by Capitalism) since 1970!
The climate has been destroyed.
“According to the species-area theory and based on upper-bound estimating, the present rate of extinction may be up to 140,000 species per year, making it the greatest loss of biodiversity since the Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction event.”
All the wealth in the hands of a few, 2.8 Billion people living on less than $2 a day!
Everywhere, even in the opulent west, people, educated, hard-working people, following the prescribed map to success are reduced to precarious existences with the casualisation of work, the drive to the bottom of wages and benefits.
The agenda of privatization of tax-funded services, so our taxes serve instead the corporations and banks. And we must now pay from net income for all we once got through collective and progressive taxation. and what do we get? broken health and education systems.

Where did the good public services of education and health first come from? Post war, socialist ideas, certainly not from corporatist think-tanks.

Inequality at record and obscene levels, and the erosion of the middle means your kids or grand-kids will inevitably end up on the wrong side of inequality... you'll never pass on enough to keep them afloat and continuing to play the game ensures their impoverishment.... there is only one winner at monopoly!

The OP posted about the perverse idea that work places should be democratised and that the little people might not need the “masters of mankind” to manipulate and coerce them. And you all thought about profit margins and efficiency and such matters only the concern of shareholders seeking a maximum return on investment, because that's the only raison d'etre for any human endeavour, right? Sure otherwise the shareholders would never invest and the “business” would collapse. What if its not run for maxing profits? What if its run to provide real people with a means to survive and even dare I say it, thrive? And more importantly, for society to benefit from their produce? With any profits going back into other less profitable areas like health and education and pensions??? Like our ESB and Gas used to, before all the profitable areas of public services, built up by generations of tax payers were sold for a song to our political parties sponsors.

But leaving aside that most mega-corporations make more money these days not by producing but by investing, leaving aside that whole thorny and inescapable issue of the financialisation of the economy, and ignoring the idea that paying people more (as they would be when you cut out the shareholders profit motive) results in the positive side-effects associated with the “velocity of money”, leaving all that research and fact-based, non-ideological logic aside... let's be honest... this is all about those “currently” with enough dosh to put their kids in Blackrock college and pay for the clinic of the same name when needed, and so therefore why should you pay for the lazy and their “poverty of ambition”? And when that publicly educated nurse or junior doctor sits over your sick child's bed, you know, you just know that your time is worth 20-200 times as much per hour, you're the man!! The world would stop spinning without you? (I shouldn't forget the house-slave too, that asshole who pretends he doesn't live a few pay cheques away from destitution, and feels part of the game, renting momentary tastes of the 1% lifestyle!)

Why should the plebs get free healthcare? Its not like we can catch their diseases.... Oh.... wait? … never thought of that.... the whole evolution of Public health and welfare and such.... no … I thought I lived in a air-conditioned bubble.....

but keep the sound-bites flowing and denigrate other proposals outside of the narrow accepted frame of old, tried, tested and failed ideas...
Stay tuned into the latest ideological fashions on RTE....

All you do is water the seeds of your eventual destruction!

marienbad

Niall Keane wrote: »

but keep the sound-bites flowing

I see you like the ould sound bite yourself

Let's discuss 'True Socialism' then if you'd like to stay away from any of the examples of Socialism (must be untrue versions).

Would you first like to define it or is Marx and Engel's version okay?
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/german-ideology/ch04a.htm

Waestrel

Niall Keane wrote: »

According to the WWF 50% of wildlife has disappeared (killed by Capitalism) since 1970!
The climate has been destroyed.

Gotcha, free markets and economic liberalism killed the animals.

Why when arguing socialists is anything even remotely bad in human nature fobbed off onto the shoulders of capitalism?

Humans are deeply flawed creatures in many ways, but by free markets and small governments allowing us to be what we have it in us to be and to allow us to interact (trade) in mutual beneficial fashion we build a better society . I do believe in leaving people alone. Socialists think they can legislate away our human nature.

Seth Brundle

I'm interested in how a socialist government will encourage innovation through R&D.
How will this research be funded?
How will the research interact with research being done elsewhere in the "free world"?
Given the costs spent by a socialist government into say healthcare, will some of these costs be recouped through selling in capitalist markets?

Niall Keane

Deleted User wrote: »

Let's discuss 'True Socialism' then if you'd like to stay away from any of the examples of Socialism (must be untrue versions).

Would you first like to define it or is Marx and Engel's version okay?
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/german-ideology/ch04a.htm

I'm not referring to a historic use of the term, no. Rather my own opinion on what is essential for a system to be of and for the people. The key is in the word... placing the social aspect, the people above all else. How can they be championed by leaders / rulers who daily oppress and dictate to them?

I'd view the other socialist tradition of Proudhon, Kropotkin, and up to today's Chomsky and Graeber as leaning more towards the will of the people, and so more feasible in the long term, and thus truer to putting people and so society first.

Anarchism is a very broad ideology, or more realistically group of ideologies and they are beyond the scope of me bothering my hole to offer an explanation that will be used only to identify obvious holes in the limited portrayal possible on a discussion board... Google Fu will be the method for those in the dark and genuinely interested in the subject to begin the quest for answers... they exist.

Ultimately the beauty of such a method is that it refuses to design an unwavering ideological economic and political theory but instead recognizes the constant need to evolve, to change. Its basis is in equality and democracy and power from below. Its soul is in enabling change by popular consent. Bureaucracies, by contrast, are notoriously incapable of timely change... hence the failures of so many Marxist Revolutions. Some catastrophic failures resulting in millions of deaths of the "oppressed". This of course has created the well-deserved bad press many such revolutions earned, but has of course been eagerly used by the right to critizise any policies championing humans above capital interests.

Getting back to the OP....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mondragon_Corporation
an example (not anarchist) of worker owned structures.

Lots more info on well-documented Anarchist movements during the Spanish Revolution: (achievements like raising literacy from 10% to 90% in three years in Barcelona and surrounding rural areas speak volumes, as does the fact that the Barcelona anarchists produced the goods sold to Stalin for arms, arms he sent to Bilbao to his trusted and strategically irrelevant Communists. Well Stalin, like many a communist would see Fascism thrive and Anarchism fail, he wouldn't want the people getting ideas!)
http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/spaindx.html

Today of course there are areas of the middle-east such as some of Kurdistan developing syndicalist approaches..

And yes, its true, all of these enclaves exist and existed with the external pressure of war acting upon them (well anarchists are the big bad wolf, and never get to be left alone ;-)) and therefore with a more pressing need for solidarity than the D2 office worker. So one can never be certain of the wide-spread application of such a political and economic idea among those still plugged in.

Fundamentally it poses the question: Must we be enslaved and coerced through the threat of State violence (imprisonment, seizure of property etc.) in order to function in a social capacity? Most seem to feel such is necessary, they build their own systemic prisons / lives and guard them too.

They view a loss of hierarchy as a return to the primitive, although no such evidence exists. That's mental conditioning for you!

Its like the lads with 3 years study in Economics on here (I did a year BESS prior to switching to Architecture, way back in the early 90's so I'm not entirely unfamiliar with the "ideological" curriculum, I'd imagine has changed little) feeling that they have been educated, not realizing they have been conditioned, mistaking propaganda seasoned with some generalities for worldly knowledge.
Revolutionary ideas are scary I'm sure, they lack the once reassuring, personally sweated over, and still graceful mathematical detailing of capitalist formula and theory. Better the devil one knows I guess?

But we know that's a lie, let's have the courage to move on!

Being knee deep in mire as a species and ridiculing the people attempting to pull us all out of it is the height of ignorance. It seeks to dissuade development. We are in the serious sh1t, capitalism IS the problem, embrace and explore evolutionary thought or become a fossil!