Socialist Party's policies

Niall Keane

Waestrel wrote: »

again, do socialist countries not use fossil fuels and engage in environmental destructive behavior?

Well... Let's try shed some light there....

If you gonto Beijing you will find 100000s of people driving the top mercs and BMWs , but gontoba rural backwater in hubei Provence and you will witness lines of one room concrete housing units with slop out blue plastic barrels at the end of each Street, the people use old rusty bicycles....
Yet some consider China socialist... Willfully confusing corruption or at best state capitalism with socialism.

I don't think the syndicalist communities of Kurdistan have a huge impact on the climate... As for the capitalists turning their world intoba blood bath .... All for oil...

You guys do understand the concept of low growth economies?
About minimising waste?

Take for example the capitalist approach to Cars... You donbest to trade in within the first 3 years... Or more often new cars are basically rented to people and they get to trade in after 3 years... Fairly typical?
Now just look at the second hand market... Cars 20 years old for sale and ncted so road worthy...

Ergo... No need to have a new car every 3 years.

Know how much materials in a car? Know how damaging to the environment to mine or extract and Produce swortit

This is a typical capitalist approach...

Because I'm worth it!

CramCycle

Labarbapostiza wrote: »

I asked...do you believe, you have done anything, that you believe you deserve to be shot for.

I'm not prescribing that you should be shot for something.

And even if I do think you should be shot, the system as it is prohibits me from having you shot.

Do you want the system to change in this direction? Whats your standard for being worthy of getting shot?

alias no.9 wrote: »

It doesn't matter. You dismissed 'unqualified' opinions, would you similarly dismiss 'unqualified' votes?

I presume any vote that does not agree with theirs is an unqualified.

Waestrel

Niall Keane wrote: »

Well... Let's try shed some light there....

If you gonto Beijing you will find 100000s of people driving the top mercs and BMWs , but gontoba rural backwater in hubei Provence and you will witness lines of one room concrete housing units with slop out blue plastic barrels at the end of each Street, the people use old rusty bicycles....
Yet some consider China socialist... Willfully confusing corruption or at best state capitalism with socialism.

I don't think the syndicalist communities of Kurdistan have a huge impact on the climate... As for the capitalists turning their world intoba blood bath .... All for oil...

You guys do understand the concept of low growth economies?
About minimising waste?


Take for example the capitalist approach to Cars... You donbest to trade in within the first 3 years... Or more often new cars are basically rented to people and they get to trade in after 3 years... Fairly typical?
Now just look at the second hand market... Cars 20 years old for sale and ncted so road worthy...

Ergo... No need to have a new car every 3 years.

Know how much materials in a car? Know how damaging to the environment to mine or extract and Produce swortit

This is a typical capitalist approach...

Because I'm worth it!

Still doesnt answer what I asked, do socialist countries use fossil fuels and suffer environmental degradation? Never mind China, which is a largely free market economy, look at NK, Venezuala etc, and cuba.

i think you are confusing the capitalistic economic system with the very human desire to consume. Humans are greedy, regardless of what system they are in. This is human nature, which socialists so often deny.

Tell me, under your new order, how would you stop "consumerism" and who would determine what is consumerism and what is necessary spending?

BoJack Horseman

Niall Keane wrote: »

Because I'm worth it!

Your argument that people cannot be allowed to have stuff because.....???
is not exactly convincing.

It was this attitude that led to your acolytes being overthrown across Europe post 1989.

When people have a chance or choice to advance beyond the existence of being told what they can have, they did so.

If any reader was so inclined they might wonder what gloriously socialist device you are using to post here from, comrade?

Niall Keane

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Your argument that people cannot be allowed to have stuff because.....???
is not exactly convincing.

It was this attitude that led to your acolytes being overthrown across Europe post 1989.

When people have a chance or choice to advance beyond the existence of being told what they can have, they did so.

If any reader was so inclined they might wonder what gloriously socialist device you are using to post here from, comrade?

You see as their choice, I see it as they have been conditioned through consumer culture to behave in a way that will kill the planet.

And the neoliberal greenwashing approach is to penalise the poor through charges they can't afford but the boys with the dosh don't notice... Like water charges instead of progressive taxation, cause they are peanuts to the lad with the indoor swimming pool ... And only hurt the working poor. The only way to view that is millioneers stealing a tax funded resource from the children of the poor..

Does any of this have anything to do with the Socialist Party's Policies?

BoJack Horseman

Niall Keane wrote: »

You see as their choice, I see it as they have been conditioned through consumer culture

The people of Poland, Romania, Hungary etc.. etc were indeed conditioned.

4 decades of socialism had conditioned them to reject it's tyranny as soon as they could!
And you can't have failed to notice that none of them are itching to return to the hammer & sickle.

As I said, the list of successful socialists democracies is very very short.

You have yet to put forth the argument why we or anyone should regress to socialism... if we were, we would be almost unique in doing so.

Niall Keane

All this claptrap about communist USSR etc...

It's irrelevant!

You lads love your capitalism and the faux democracies - plotocracies we have now.


Well if it was 1350ad

And you were pro capitalist democracy like you are now, I could if I was a feudal Lord deride your ideas by example of the failure of Rome and Greek democracies.
I could point to the insulae of Rome and the poverty just as you point to Eastern Europe...

Evolution lads... Evolution... The USSR was a dictatorship, it may have stated out with good intentions but they certainly led to hell.

The answer isn't to throw the baby out with the bath water but to evolve a better solution...

Syndicalist systems currently seem to offer an interesting approach... And deal with both the cult of personality and beaurocratic harm.

Again... Ye play a game in transaction analysis called "I got you , you son of a bitch". That certainly is the Provence of the right, as logical argument they have always lacked.

The right in a nutshell is about justifying greed, the hoarding of wealth (which is the root cause of poverty) and rent seeking. There is no logical justification to this, and certainly none now that their greed threatens to kill the planet!

Seth Brundle

Niall Keane wrote: »

The answer isn't to throw the baby out with the bath water but to evolve a better solution...

I agree. Pity there isn't currently a better solution!

Labarbapostiza

CramCycle wrote: »

Do you want the system to change in this direction? Whats your standard for being worthy of getting shot?

I'm asking about your standards. Have you used or more abused, the system in some manner where you believe you deserve to be put up against a wall and shot?

BoJack Horseman

Labarbapostiza wrote: »

I'm asking about your standards.

You are asking people if they should be shot??

Is there meant to be some sort of point to this?

K-9

Labarbapostiza wrote: »

I'm asking about your standards. Have you used or more abused, the system in some manner where you believe you deserve to be put up against a wall and shot?

Indeed, what's the actual point of this question.

Labarbapostiza

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

You are asking people if they should be shot??

How many times do I need to restate the question. I'm asking people if they believe they've done something deserve to be shot for.

I could put it another way. Have you, or have you not, used the capitalist system to knowingly taken an unfair advantage of another, that you would find unfair by your own moral standards if reciprocated towards oneself...Which by your own standards you believe yourself to be an act of moral turpitude, deserving of some token of punishment....Shot, merely being a common figure of speech, but generally not meant in the literal sense.

Is there meant to be some sort of point to this?

Are you afraid that what you might say now, could be used against you later in a court of the people. You have the right to remain silent, or speech to an attorney if you wish.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Waestrel

The right in a nutshell is about justifying greed, the hoarding of wealth (which is the root cause of poverty) and rent seeking

about justifying greed, the hoarding of wealth (which is the root cause of poverty)

hoarding of wealth

Zero sum fallacy of wealth detected!

Niall Keane

Waestrel wrote: »

Zero sum fallacy of wealth detected!

clearly you don't understand the velocity of money!

Niall Keane

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

no my friend, you are illogical at the start of your point you acknowledge tax funding water and later its "free" if not paid through net income as charges? You do understand logic right?

BTW the lads who ran the waterworks until 2014 weren't volunteers, they were paid ... paid by the people through taxation which includes progressive income tax.
Take your 18K a year lad...
And lets not pretend water charges will anything shy of 1k a year, possibly much much more (don't dare bring up temporary reliefs)
so...
the lad who gets paid 18k you say pays 600 tax leaving him 17400. With water charges he is still getting 17400 net and then has 1k taken from that... the same as another 5.5% of tax... so almost tripling his tax in effect, except of course you'll say its not tax... well yippydo for his kids, they can munch on the technical difference?

Meanwhile for the rich.... 1K means nothing!!! And sure the central tax bonus (from not having to fund water) can be funneled into more banks or corporate welfare schemes?

The Irish have woken up pal!!!

Waestrel

The Irish have woken up pal!!!

Indeed they have, as shown by the very average showing of socialist parties in the last election. It would seem Irish people are not keen on narratives of class warfare, "something for nothing" or revolution.

The irish generally seem quite happy with a free market backed up with a welfare state.

Patser

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Niall Keane wrote: »

clearly you don't understand the velocity of money!

You'll be shot with high velocity money.

Seth Brundle

Niall Keane wrote: »

BTW the lads who ran the waterworks until 2014 weren't volunteers, they were paid ... paid by the people through taxation which includes progressive income tax.

And where did that funding module get us?
Maybe read what Engineers Ireland had to say yesterday...
http://www.engineersireland.ie/Communications/Press-Archive/Engineers-Ireland-urges-new-Government-to-review-c.aspx

Niall Keane wrote: »

Meanwhile for the rich.... 1K means nothing!!! And sure the central tax bonus (from not having to fund water) can be funneled into more banks or corporate welfare schemes?

Who are these rich people you lot keep referring to?

Niall Keane wrote: »

The Irish have woken up pal!!!

What exactly is that meant to mean?
Are you trying to suggest how they are rising above traditional politics towards an unsustainable alternative, pal?

jimmycrackcorm

Niall Keane wrote:

The Irish have woken up pal!!!

The irish will only wake up at some point in the future when there's a critical mass of people suffering the effects of lack of investment in water infrastructure, and they suddenly realise actually that there are no sort term fixes.

A critical mass of people in the future wondering why we didn't raise extra revenues to deal with it before it is too late.

Labarbapostiza

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

You're being evasive. Either answer the question, or hold your smart semantics to yourself.

Knowing it's yourself....Mr Wolf of Wallstreet....It's not surprising you have difficulties answering the question. I'm not surprised in the least....in the least.

Niall Keane

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

The irish will only wake up at some point in the future when there's a critical mass of people suffering the effects of lack of investment in water infrastructure, and they suddenly realise actually that there are no sort term fixes.

A critical mass of people in the future wondering why we didn't raise extra revenues to deal with it before it is too late.

Please point me to an example of the successful privatisation of water?
Explain why Paris and now even Berlin are taking them back at great cost?

Oh... But I suppose it is not about privatisation?

Iw are covering their billing only at the moment.
They have projected themselves to investfar less than councils did into the future... So no, they won't fix the pipes.

Internationally metering has been shown to only have an effect on usage forna maximum of 3 years post installation... It's not about conservation.

In any case the majority of TDs elected claimed they would get rid of charges... It was the elections main issue. Much to the lamentation of the right... As we all see it's symbolism.

Democracy would call for a return to funding through taxation. To do otherwise is tyranny.

I mean... Have you even researched the issue? Beyond RTE?

But iw is a perfect example of neoliberal policy and hover up economics.

Niall Keane

Look lads... It's not some revolution you need to get worked up about... Or the poor "stealing" your hard earned profits...

It's the planet lads...

Growth for growth's sake is the mantra of capitalism. There's another disease just like that... The cancer cell....

And what do we do to cancer cells?

Cut it out lads... Cut it out!

BoJack Horseman

Niall Keane wrote: »

It's the planet lads...

You need to lay out why embracing the hammer & sickle again will help our mother earth..

Use some examples from the current exponents of socialism (Cuba, Venezuela, Laos etc) and how their ideological endeavours results in healing our eco-system.....
Or histoically how the USSR & eastern europe pre-1989 was ecologically sound.

El Tarangu

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

You need to lay out why embracing the hammer & sickle again will help our mother earth..

Use some examples from the current exponents of socialism (Cuba, Venezuela, Laos etc) and how their ideological endeavours results in healing our eco-system.....
Or histoically how the USSR & eastern europe pre-1989 was ecologically sound.

Indeed; I wonder how Venezuela's subsidising the use of petrol ties-in with this argument.

Waestrel

just on the issue of Communism being less environmentally destructive than free markets, this is worth a read
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aral_Sea

Niall Keane

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

You need to lay out why embracing the hammer & sickle again will help our mother earth..

Use some examples from the current exponents of socialism (Cuba, Venezuela, Laos etc) and how their ideological endeavours results in healing our eco-system.....
Or histoically how the USSR & eastern europe pre-1989 was ecologically sound.

1659

Niall Keane

Waestrel wrote: »

just on the issue of Communism being less environmentally destructive than free markets, this is worth a read
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aral_Sea

1659

PopePalpatine

Niall Keane wrote: »

1659

Could you elaborate on that? Nothing here stands out as an ecological disaster caused by laissez-faire capitalism.

Waestrel

Niall Keane wrote: »

1659

This is lazy, and makes me think you are not debating in good faith.

ancapailldorcha

Any more random number posts from Niall Keane will elicit a forum ban. Back on topic please folks.

Niall Keane

jesus (or whatever gods or not) lads... a little bit of intelligence... the number obviously refers to a post number in this discussion how hard is that? why have numbers on posts then? is this the special Olympics of debate forum? ... if I have already answered something, to prevent needless circular discussion (which is a total waste of everyone's time) I posted the number of the previously posted answer. I'm not going to spend my time (the only capital that can only diminish) reiterating the answer just because someone chooses to tune in... read the thread!

Ok, my mother is in Mensa, my sister too, I wouldn't join but seemingly have a I.Q. (for what its worth) that puts me in the top 0.2% of humans, still even when every day of one's life is like being stuck minding creche, I cannot believe that the number I posted was that opaque to readers? ??? really???? Is that the level?

I know I'm in good company with Einstein being a socialist, but really? how dumb does dumb get?

PopePalpatine

Niall Keane wrote: »

jesus (or whatever gods or not) lads... a little bit of intelligence... the number obviously refers to a post number in this discussion how hard is that?

Usually on Boards it's good practice to say, "Hey, my post #xxxx was ignored, I'd like to see someone answer it," rather than just posting the post number.

ancapailldorcha

No more digs please. The matter has been resolved.

BoJack Horseman

Niall Keane wrote: »

1659

No Niall, that isn't an answer.

Again... what would embracing your soviet way of life do to repair this planet of ours?
(citing examples from past or current socialist states & their ecological soundness).

Niall Keane

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

No Niall, that isn't an answer.

Again... what would embracing your soviet way of life do to repair this planet of ours?
(citing examples from past or current socialist states & their ecological soundness).

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_anarchism

"Touches" on several different anarchist approaches. It's quite a broad area of ideas.... Some theoretical some in function . there is quite a lot of small fully independent (as in sepf sufficient) communities in existence... A grass roots approach with a core belief of peaceful choice to come or go... The idea being that the way of life of anarchism should inspire change as "forcing" a system upon a person is tyranny.
Like I mentioned before, anachism is a very broad scope of ideas and methods.
And seems often contradictory to the casual observer.. For example activists who's core belief is in peaceful example still engaging in direct action and sabotage against corporations and states in defence of threatened wildlife or the environment.
Some will paint such as terrorism.. But clearly from the other point of view causing irreperable damage to the environment and or ecosystems is terrorism...
It's a very interesting area to explore.... Lots and lots of Orwellian double talk by the media...and certainly blackout of quite a large and internationally unified and cooperative group of movements.

Way beyond the scope of a discussion forum ....

Suryavarman

Niall Keane wrote: »

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_anarchism

"Touches" on several different anarchist approaches. It's quite a broad area of ideas.... Some theoretical some in function . there is quite a lot of small fully independent (as in sepf sufficient) communities in existence... A grass roots approach with a core belief of peaceful choice to come or go... The idea being that the way of life of anarchism should inspire change as "forcing" a system upon a person is tyranny.
Like I mentioned before, anachism is a very broad scope of ideas and methods.
And seems often contradictory to the casual observer.. For example activists who's core belief is in peaceful example still engaging in direct action and sabotage against corporations and states in defence of threatened wildlife or the environment.
Some will paint such as terrorism.. But clearly from the other point of view causing irreperable damage to the environment and or ecosystems is terrorism...
It's a very interesting area to explore.... Lots and lots of Orwellian double talk by the media...and certainly blackout of quite a large and internationally unified and cooperative group of movements.

Way beyond the scope of a discussion forum ....

You claim that capitalism is destroying the environment but now you claim that without a state in place to keep capitalism in check the environment will do just fine. Personally, I'm not buying it.

hatrickpatrick

Capitalism's obsession with growth and inflation is absolutely a problem. We need a system which seeks to expand only until we have sufficient production to meet our needs as a society, not a system which demands exponential, never ending growth (and with that, ever increasing rates of production and consumption).

I know I'll get laughed at for this, but resolving the bottleneck credit issue, where every generation owes more than the last thanks to interest-based credit, is part of that. You cannot have a sustainable system where there are finite resources, but every generation is expected to consume more than the last in order to keep the system ticking over. All that's ticking in this scenario is a time bomb. Either economic collapse or environmental collapse is inevitable, it's only a question of which gets there first.

In that sense, yes, capitalism in its current form is an environmental nightmare.

To put this in a more blunt manner, any system which cheerleads a baby boom as a good thing even when the planet's population has tripled over the last century (while there were people starving even before that population explosion) is, in my view, incredibly obviously disastrous for the planet and the environment.

I know it's very cliched, but that quote from The Matrix comparing humans to viruses has a ring of truth - "mammals develop a stable equilibrium with their environment, humans multiply and multiply until they have consumed every resource and have to expand into new territories to survive, like a plague". Capitalism, and a growth-obsessed economic system wherein staying the same - economic stability - is regarded as a bad thing, is most certainly a factor in that.

hatrickpatrick

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Capitalism's obsession with growth and inflation is absolutely a problem. We need a system which seeks to expand only until we have sufficient production to meet our needs as a society, not a system which demands exponential, never ending growth (and with that, ever increasing rates of production and consumption).

The exponential population growth of the planet demands this.

Not capitalism.

A socialist society with exponential population growth would in turn require exponential growth just to stand still.

blackwhite

Niall Keane wrote: »

you don't need a new car every year or two, you don't need 200 pairs of designer shoes, you dont need to shop to be happy.... le bla bla habitual... truly revolutionary thinking from the neoloiberal status quo, and the reality is, this ain't up for debate, we change or die...

When do the re-education centres open?

Freedom of thought will be outlawed, "the party" will tell you what you want and need.

Is it facism or socialism you are trying to advocate here?

Suryavarman

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I know I'll get laughed at for this, but resolving the bottleneck credit issue, where every generation owes more than the last thanks to interest-based credit, is part of that. You cannot have a sustainable system where there are finite resources, but every generation is expected to consume more than the last in order to keep the system ticking over. All that's ticking in this scenario is a time bomb. Either economic collapse or environmental collapse is inevitable, it's only a question of which gets there first.

People owe more than the previous generations due to a desire to take on more debt. The fact they have to pay interest on that debt has nothing to do with it.

We don't have finite resources. There are millions of asteroids out there that can be mined for resources. Resources, for all practical purposes, are infinite.

Economic and environmental collapse are far from inevitable.

To put this in a more blunt manner, any system which cheerleads a baby boom as a good thing even when the planet's population has tripled over the last century (while there were people starving even before that population explosion) is, in my view, incredibly obviously disastrous for the planet and the environment.

The absolute number of people that are malnourished has been declining even as the population has grown. People going hungry is down to poverty, not down to the number of people on the planet.

hatrickpatrick

Deleted User wrote: »

The exponential population growth of the planet demands this.

Not capitalism.

A socialist society with exponential population growth would in turn require exponential growth just to stand still.

It's the other way around, though. Capitalism demands exponential population growth or it falls apart. That is an absolutely disastrous ideology for the planet, it's a self sustaining vicious cycle. If we're going to start looking after the environment, that's going to have to mean population declines over time, and that's never going to happen as long as governments promote baby booms as actually being a good thing for the economy.

In this way, the capitalist economy and sustainability of the planet are in direct conflict with one another.

EDIT: I actually agree that right now there are more than enough resources, and personally I regard the current model of capitalism as an extremely inefficient method of distributing them, but that's for another thread.

However, it's plain common sense that the human population cannot keep growing indefinitely without causing serious problems. At a certain point, we have to say "we've expanded enough, let's stay at the level we're at". That's not going to work when you have an economic model which demands year-on-year increases in consumption in order to keep the debt-interest cycle from collapsing.

Capitalism does not demand exponential population growth.

jimmycrackcorm

hatrickpatrick wrote:

It's the other way around, though. Capitalism demands exponential population growth or it falls apart. That is an absolutely disastrous ideology for the planet, it's a self sustaining vicious cycle. If we're going to start looking after the environment, that's going to have to mean population declines over time, and that's never going to happen as long as governments promote baby booms as actually being a good thing for the economy.

Population growth is exponential and that feeds capitalism not the other way round. Also as per the Chinese one child model, it's the socialists who are putting the system above people.

In western countries population growth is naturally lowering because people are more accustomed to a lifestyle that doesn't depend on having lots of children to be old age caretakers.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

hatrickpatrick

If the population of a country is in decline, shouldn't a contraction in the economy be seen as the natural and healthy result?

hatrickpatrick

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

If the population of a country is in decline, shouldn't a contraction in the economy be seen as the natural and healthy result?

Yes if there are not sufficient increases in productivity to offset the declining number of employees.

In circumstances when the population decrease is of a larger scale than the available productivity/output increase, then yes, the economy will shrink by definition.

That would happen in a socialist economy, a communist economy, a capitalist economy and a feudalist economy.

Niall Keane

Its nothing to do with population size... We have ample resources to support us...
It how capitalist systems create "money"...
With fractional reserve banking and interest, there can never be enough money in the system to pay for debt. Ergo... Growth is necessary to prevent a collapse.
We borrow from tomorrow on the back that tomorrow we will have more ....
That's why it's unsustainable in a nutshell. Stop with the crackpot notions of harnessing outer space in any meaningful way ... That displays total lack of knowledge of our limitations in that endeavour. And we are not improving as we once did in the 60s before neoliberalism dictated that quarterly profits trumped long term investment.... Thinking...
Not surprising... The CEO class is very small, and play musical chairs leading corporations, their only duty to maximise profits , and their drive to do so boosted by shares they are awarded that they will cash in, and of course the personal CV of capitalist success to reign in the next gig.
Growth for growth's sake is the cancerous ideology of the " masters of mankind".

But try catch a person out on the triviality of the error of linking population growth directly with growth, we all know production and cusumtion rates must be taken into account... But he was right regarding the likes of Japan (facing disaster from population decrease) and Germany who's policy is to replace the local declining population with imported workers... (We shouldn't have borders PR countries anyways) but there is truth there... Often manipupated by the far right to gain sympathy from the working class they would happily use as cannon fodder.


Again... This is all obvious.... People have to really work hard to lie to themselves about it all.

They try to greenwash their crimes... Pay a bit to be carbon neutral ... The money goes to planting "commercially viable" trees in areas of South America and such where the dwindling natural habitats have already been destroyed. Destroyed for what? Minerals, oil, metals, uranium in the Congo etc., the harvesting of valuable natural resources - timbers that take centuries too long for quarterly profits to give a roi (not as valuable as they are to the Eco systems and indigenous peoples.)
You all know the truth...
You choose, like Louis's court, extravagance .... "Because I'm worth it!"

Pick any large mammal that is endangered right now... Investigate the reason... Show why it's not to do with profit?
From the fallacy of scarcity economics, and impoverished poachers .. To the economic inequality driven urban sprawls..... To the obvious mineral extraction and rape of resources....