Socialist Party's policies

Dan_Solo

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

So if you have a company that has a board of directors who need to be updated, then you need a CEO. If you do not, then your company's CEO is that in name only.

That's fine, I think we now have your definition of a CEO. Somebody who is CEO of a company that needs a CEO...
Well, until next post it's defined anyway.

FreudianSlippers

The additional problem is that the socialist mindset is one where they believe that they are capable of simply replacing that person with any person off the street. There is a common delusion that their working-class job is the only one of difficulty and merit - that comes from the fact that if they cannot see tangible results of work then it isn't work.

I think it is why doctors get off more lightly than others; there is a physical person there on whom the results can bee directly seen by the working-class.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Jolly Red Giant

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

The additional problem is that the socialist mindset is one where they believe that they are capable of simply replacing that person with any person off the street. There is a common delusion that their working-class job is the only one of difficulty and merit - that comes from the fact that if they cannot see tangible results of work then it isn't work.

This is the type of bullsh*t that demonstrates 1. the arrogance - and 2. the stupidity of people who think they know the 'socialist mindset'.

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I think it is why doctors get off more lightly than others; there is a physical person there on whom the results can bee directly seen by the working-class.

Most doctors are 'working class'

Socialism at its core is about changing from an economic system, capitalism, that was necessary to bring society out of feudalism, that was necessary to develop the economy from subsistence agriculture to industrial production - by replacing it with another economic system, a democratically planned socialised economy, that is capable is progressing economic activity to further development.

Capitalism based itself on a rising middle class that benefited from it economic development, but like it has with every other sector of society, capitalism has now monopolised wealth in the hands of the elites and driven the previously existing middle class into the wider working class. Capitalism is now acting as a feter on production and economic development - it can no longer grow the economy fast enough because of its inherent contradictions. It has a falling rate of profit and, currently, is facing a crisis of underconsumption. It is now fueled not by investment in production but by unbridled financial speculation that has led and will lead in the future to crisis after crisis and crash after crash.

Capitalism has no future outside of lurching from on crisis to the next. It is leading to (and fuelling) increased tendencies towards barbarism within society (e.g. the emergence of ISIS). It operates on the basis of immediate gratification and develops short term objectives that inevitably become long term crises. Now, capitalism will not simply disintegrate or disappear - there are too many powerful vested interests to let that happen - but it will increasingly engage in open and naked class war against the working class and the impoverished masses in order to protect its power and influence. Capitalism, by necessity, has to be overthrown and the only force capable of doing that is the working class.

Socialism is not a utopian idea - it is not perfect - it is not designed to be the answer to all the problems of the world - it is not delusional. Socialism requires the active democratic involvement of working class people to achieve any of its objectives. Democratic planning of a socialised economy is more efficient and more productive that capitalism is capable of in the modern world. A socialised planned economy eliminates large measures of the difficulties capitalism suffers from - specifically - cyclical crises of boom and slump, inflation and deflation, overcapacity and underconsumption, short term economic strategies and the falling rate of profit. Democratic planning of a socialised economy leads to stable economic conditions, sustainable growth and long term economic planning. It is based, not on cut-throat market competition but on solidarity and co-operation. It is based, not on a naked drive for profits, but on planning to ensure that the needs of the population are met. It is based, not on anarchic market forces driven by autocratic elites, but on a democratic process that requires the active participation of working class people. It is based, not on exploiting the talents of individuals for profit, but on encouraging those talents to be used to solve problems rather than make money.

Capitalism is broken and cannot be fixed, it is a system that has passed its sell-by date and it needs to be replaced. Socialism does not offer the answer to the problems of the world - it creates a society where people can work to resolve problems without having to try and figure out where next weeks wages are coming from and will they be enough to keep a roof over their head.

Rightwing

Deleted User wrote: »

The noise is far greater than the signal here.

While debating the semantics of the definition of the term CEO, please don't forget why it was brought up. It was an example used to explain the gap between different salaries. (and an issue with the Socialist Party politics - the thread title....)

Pressure and hours being two of the more obvious factors.

Not so. As an example, truck drivers/sales people do long hours and have pressure.

Ability & intellect are the main factors.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Jolly Red Giant

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

.... Democratic planning of a socialised economy is more efficient and more productive that capitalism is capable of in the modern world..

really? Any examples of this? Or even the theory behind it?

BoJack Horseman

[Deleted User] wrote: »

really? Any examples of this? Or even the theory behind it?

No, there aren't, its just horse-poop.

Communisms economic & social failure is total & irrefutable.

I'd also love a list of successful democratic communist states!

Dan_Solo

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

That's the politically illiterate US definition. Makes you wonder what communism is then...

FreudianSlippers

Dan_Solo wrote: »

That's the politically illiterate US definition. Makes you wonder what communism is then...

With no sense of irony, this guy complains that people are picking-and-choosing definitions to suit them and then in the internet equivalent of the same breath picks-and-chooses a definition to suit him.

You couldn't make this stuff up :pac:

Rightwing

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

This is the type of bullsh*t that demonstrates 1. the arrogance - and 2. the stupidity of people who think they know the 'socialist mindset'.


Most doctors are 'working class'

Socialism at its core is about changing from an economic system, capitalism, that was necessary to bring society out of feudalism, that was necessary to develop the economy from subsistence agriculture to industrial production - by replacing it with another economic system, a democratically planned socialised economy, that is capable is progressing economic activity to further development.

Capitalism based itself on a rising middle class that benefited from it economic development, but like it has with every other sector of society, capitalism has now monopolised wealth in the hands of the elites and driven the previously existing middle class into the wider working class. Capitalism is now acting as a feter on production and economic development - it can no longer grow the economy fast enough because of its inherent contradictions. It has a falling rate of profit and, currently, is facing a crisis of underconsumption. It is now fueled not by investment in production but by unbridled financial speculation that has led and will lead in the future to crisis after crisis and crash after crash.

Capitalism has no future outside of lurching from on crisis to the next. It is leading to (and fuelling) increased tendencies towards barbarism within society (e.g. the emergence of ISIS). It operates on the basis of immediate gratification and develops short term objectives that inevitably become long term crises. Now, capitalism will not simply disintegrate or disappear - there are too many powerful vested interests to let that happen - but it will increasingly engage in open and naked class war against the working class and the impoverished masses in order to protect its power and influence. Capitalism, by necessity, has to be overthrown and the only force capable of doing that is the working class.

Socialism is not a utopian idea - it is not perfect - it is not designed to be the answer to all the problems of the world - it is not delusional. Socialism requires the active democratic involvement of working class people to achieve any of its objectives. Democratic planning of a socialised economy is more efficient and more productive that capitalism is capable of in the modern world. A socialised planned economy eliminates large measures of the difficulties capitalism suffers from - specifically - cyclical crises of boom and slump, inflation and deflation, overcapacity and underconsumption, short term economic strategies and the falling rate of profit. Democratic planning of a socialised economy leads to stable economic conditions, sustainable growth and long term economic planning. It is based, not on cut-throat market competition but on solidarity and co-operation. It is based, not on a naked drive for profits, but on planning to ensure that the needs of the population are met. It is based, not on anarchic market forces driven by autocratic elites, but on a democratic process that requires the active participation of working class people. It is based, not on exploiting the talents of individuals for profit, but on encouraging those talents to be used to solve problems rather than make money.

Capitalism is broken and cannot be fixed, it is a system that has passed its sell-by date and it needs to be replaced. Socialism does not offer the answer to the problems of the world - it creates a society where people can work to resolve problems without having to try and figure out where next weeks wages are coming from and will they be enough to keep a roof over their head.

There is certainly an element of truth in that.

Dan_Solo

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

With no sense of irony, this guy complains that people are picking-and-choosing definitions to suit them and then in the internet equivalent of the same breath picks-and-chooses a definition to suit him.

You couldn't make this stuff up :pac:

Nonsensical.
You think socialism and communism mean the same thing? For real?
Well if you define communism as socialism I guess will be your next answer...:D

BoJack Horseman

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Nonsensical.
You think socialism and communism mean the same thing?

In practice, show me a communist state that didn't call itself socialist.

Outside of a sociology/politics lecture hall communism & socialism go hand in hand.

Fundamentally, whatever the country, its protagonists use 'isms' as merely labels to excert one thing.... that's control.

Neither 'ism' works without it.

Dan_Solo

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

In practice, show me a communist state that didn't call itself socialist.

That's irrelevant unless you think all socialist countries are communist too.
And you will lose that.
They are not interchangeable.

BoJack Horseman

Dan_Solo wrote: »

That's irrelevant unless you think all socialist countries are communist too.
And you will lose that.
They are not interchangeable.

As I said, labels are labels.

What matters is the control its protagonists wish to exert.
On its people, its economy, whatever.


I'm also wondering what socialist countries are there?
Not capitalist social democracies...... real proper socialist states.

The only one I can think of is Belarus.... and that's so authoritarian, the distinction between the two 'isms' is moot.

Dan_Solo

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

As I said, labels are labels.

Ah come on now. Every word we use is a label for something. Socialism and communism have different, widely accepted definitions though.
Saying "socialism is communism" just doesn't make any sense unless you decide not to care about any accepted definitions.

Godge

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Ah come on now. Every word we use is a label for something. Socialism and communism have different, widely accepted definitions though.
Saying "socialism is communism" just doesn't make any sense unless you decide not to care about any accepted definitions.

To be fair, if you were to say that the Socialist Party should be renamed as the Communist Party because their policies were closer to communism than socialism, you would be making a fair point. In that context, the interchangeability of the names makes sense.

RobertKK

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

This is the type of bullsh*t that demonstrates 1. the arrogance - and 2. the stupidity of people who think they know the 'socialist mindset'.


Most doctors are 'working class'

Socialism at its core is about changing from an economic system, capitalism, that was necessary to bring society out of feudalism, that was necessary to develop the economy from subsistence agriculture to industrial production - by replacing it with another economic system, a democratically planned socialised economy, that is capable is progressing economic activity to further development.

Capitalism based itself on a rising middle class that benefited from it economic development, but like it has with every other sector of society, capitalism has now monopolised wealth in the hands of the elites and driven the previously existing middle class into the wider working class. Capitalism is now acting as a feter on production and economic development - it can no longer grow the economy fast enough because of its inherent contradictions. It has a falling rate of profit and, currently, is facing a crisis of underconsumption. It is now fueled not by investment in production but by unbridled financial speculation that has led and will lead in the future to crisis after crisis and crash after crash.

Capitalism has no future outside of lurching from on crisis to the next. It is leading to (and fuelling) increased tendencies towards barbarism within society (e.g. the emergence of ISIS). It operates on the basis of immediate gratification and develops short term objectives that inevitably become long term crises. Now, capitalism will not simply disintegrate or disappear - there are too many powerful vested interests to let that happen - but it will increasingly engage in open and naked class war against the working class and the impoverished masses in order to protect its power and influence. Capitalism, by necessity, has to be overthrown and the only force capable of doing that is the working class.

Socialism is not a utopian idea - it is not perfect - it is not designed to be the answer to all the problems of the world - it is not delusional. Socialism requires the active democratic involvement of working class people to achieve any of its objectives. Democratic planning of a socialised economy is more efficient and more productive that capitalism is capable of in the modern world. A socialised planned economy eliminates large measures of the difficulties capitalism suffers from - specifically - cyclical crises of boom and slump, inflation and deflation, overcapacity and underconsumption, short term economic strategies and the falling rate of profit. Democratic planning of a socialised economy leads to stable economic conditions, sustainable growth and long term economic planning. It is based, not on cut-throat market competition but on solidarity and co-operation. It is based, not on a naked drive for profits, but on planning to ensure that the needs of the population are met. It is based, not on anarchic market forces driven by autocratic elites, but on a democratic process that requires the active participation of working class people. It is based, not on exploiting the talents of individuals for profit, but on encouraging those talents to be used to solve problems rather than make money.

Capitalism is broken and cannot be fixed, it is a system that has passed its sell-by date and it needs to be replaced. Socialism does not offer the answer to the problems of the world - it creates a society where people can work to resolve problems without having to try and figure out where next weeks wages are coming from and will they be enough to keep a roof over their head.

So Capitalism to leading to the rise of ISIS, Paul Murphy, Ruth Coppinger...
See what I did there...

FreudianSlippers

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Ah come on now. Every word we use is a label for something. Socialism and communism have different, widely accepted definitions though.
Saying "socialism is communism" just doesn't make any sense unless you decide not to care about any accepted definitions.

That's not what you said though. You made specific reference to the "politically illiterate US definition" of socialism, not anything to do with communism.

If you're preferring a "new" definition, let's hear it. Don't call on other people to define communism when it's clearly barely on the topic at hand.

Dan_Solo

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

That's not what you said though. You made specific reference to the "politically illiterate US definition" of socialism, not anything to do with communism.

If you're preferring a "new" definition, let's hear it. Don't call on other people to define communism when it's clearly barely on the topic at hand.

The politically illiterate US definition is that all socialism is communism.
I am not all that surprised you agree TBH.

Dan_Solo

Godge wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

The original post I responded to was:

Permabear wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

The socialist party does not conform to this "core tenet" so it is equally inapplicable to call the Socialist Party the Communist Party as it is to use socialism and communism interchangeably.
Unless you work for Fox of course.

BoJack Horseman

Dan_Solo wrote: »

The socialist party does not conform to this "core tenet"

That's true.

The SP said they wanted forced nationalisation of all business, to be run by worker soviets & with no one allowed to earn over €100k.

Their interviews haven't fleshed out if this equals standardised pay, but it certainly alludes to it.

Godge

Dan_Solo wrote: »

The original post I responded to was:
The socialist party does not conform to this "core tenet" so it is equally inapplicable to call the Socialist Party the Communist Party as it is to use socialism and communism interchangeably.
Unless you work for Fox of course.

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

That's true.

The SP said they wanted forced nationalisation of all business, to be run by worker soviets & with no one allowed to earn over €100k.

Their interviews haven't fleshed out if this equals standardised pay, but it certainly alludes to it.

Which only confirms my view that they are closer to "communism" than "socialism". Labelling a philosophy is difficult when it contains elements of more than one philosophy. It is difficult to say whether the Socialist Party are more communist than socialist.

I would consider myself "left-wing" because I favour a market economy with a socialist (and Green) tinge and significant Government intervention but because that type of approach sees me favour some policies considered "right-wing" I can sometimes find myself labelled as a "neo-liberal" hack even though I would be a "communist" in the US and yet I would not favour any traditional communist policies such as co-operatives, soviets, or government ownership of the means of production.

It is a strange world, this one of labelling.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

BoJack Horseman

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Freedom loving scum!

How I loath your individualims & desire for personal freedom & fulfillment.

The state is all you should concern yourself with!

Dan_Solo

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Same here with "socialist". :-)

garhjw

So is anyone going to the commie rally in the gresham? Would be good laugh listening to their 'policies'

BoJack Horseman

garhjw wrote: »

So is anyone going to the commie rally in the gresham? Would be good laugh listening to their 'policies'

Will there be nibbles?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Rightwing

garhjw wrote: »

So is anyone going to the commie rally in the gresham? Would be good laugh listening to their 'policies'

The worrying thing is the policies of western style governments aren't a whole lot better, take Japan, main policy = thrash currency and further increase debt. This will end in tears.
No wonder Moodys are just after downgreading them.

Soldie

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Will there be nibbles?

An equal portion of soggy rice cakes for everyone.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

BoJack Horseman

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

After the glorious Coppinger revolution, all hotels will be 1-star.

And on that single star will bear the hammer & sickle!

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Dan_Solo

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

You think bailouts of privately owned banks is a socialist policy? Ah come on now!

BoJack Horseman

Dan_Solo wrote: »

You think bailouts of privately owned banks is a socialist policy? Ah come on now!

Nationalising financial institutions, nationalising Dell..... One is the same as the other.

Both anti free market.
Both indeed socialist in nature.

Dan_Solo

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Nationalising financial institutions, nationalising Dell..... One is the same as the other.

Both anti free market.
Both indeed socialist in nature.

I've never heard of a state nationalising an asset fantastically in debt being described as "socialist" before. I suppose recapitalisation of wholly private banks is communism too, not just cronyism.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Dan_Solo

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Every state in the world has a state owned army and police force, so they're all socialists, yes?
You won't see states that actually call themselves socialists nationalising debt though will you, only capitalist party run countries do that.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Dan_Solo

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Get back to me on your theory when a company/bank that isn't bankrupt gets nationalized.

Godge

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Every state in the world has a state owned army and police force, so they're all socialists, yes?
You won't see states that actually call themselves socialists nationalising debt though will you, only capitalist party run countries do that.

Don't be silly.

In order to exist, every state must have a certain minimum of state owned institutions. An army to defend the state, a security force to police the state, a judiciary, a prison service, diplomats to represent the state, a central bank to provide a currency for the state, an inland revenue including customs to collect taxes and a small administration to run all of the above and also to provide some minimal regulation of the economy e.g. health and safety, pollution control etc.

Some of the above can be contracted out e.g. prison service but the rest of state services - health, education, social welfare - are not essential to a state's existence. Your extreme neo-liberal probably envisages a minimal state like that.

From that point you have a spectrum of state organisation all the way over to "a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole" Nationalising banks is one of the key socialist dreams as it in theory allows the state to control financing and banking.

Dan_Solo

Godge wrote: »

Nationalising banks is one of the key socialist dreams as it in theory allows the state to control financing and banking.

Like I said, get back to me when:
1. a socialist led country nationalizes a bankrupt company
or
2. a capitalist led country nationalizes a non-bankrupt bank

Soldie

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Like I said, get back to me when:
1. a socialist led country nationalizes a bankrupt company
or
2. a capitalist led country nationalizes a non-bankrupt bank

What does that have to do with the price of milk? Between arguing semantics over what constitutes a CEO and the above arbitrary hair-splitting, I'm noticing a pattern.

Dan_Solo

Soldie wrote: »

What does that have to do with the price of milk? Between arguing semantics over what constitutes a CEO and the above arbitrary hair-splitting, I'm noticing a pattern.

Is the pattern that you can't argue against what I said? Yes, I think it is...
There's no reason why nationalising a bank is automatically "socialist". When we start nationalising things that are of net worth to the country and the people of the country we can start talking.

Dan_Solo

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Is the pattern that you can't argue against what I said? Yes, I think it is...

You took issue with this

Godge wrote: »

Nationalising banks is one of the key socialist dreams as it in theory allows the state to control financing and banking.

and suggested until either of these things happen

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Like I said, get back to me when:
1. a socialist led country nationalizes a bankrupt company
or
2. a capitalist led country nationalizes a non-bankrupt bank

that that isn't true.

Consider 100m sprinters. Consider me proposing that it is the dream of white sprinters to run sub 10 seconds. Following your logic above, I would only be permitted to write that since 2010 thanks to Christian Lemaitre. Or Bannister's 4minute mile etc... Prior to the event, I could not say that. Does that make sense? Is that realistic?

Dan_Solo

Deleted User wrote: »

You took issue with this

and suggested until either of these things happen

that that isn't true.

Consider 100m sprinters. Consider me proposing that it is the dream of white sprinters to run sub 10 seconds. Following your logic above, I would only be permitted to write that since 2010 thanks to Christian Lemaitre. Or Bannister's 4minute mile etc... Prior to the event, I could not say that. Does that make sense? Is that realistic?

Is it the objective of socialists to nationalise bankrupt companies so the state has to pay of their debts? I don't think so, so your analogy collapses.
Whether you agree with the aim or not, the idea is to mutualise assets, not mutualise privately held debts.
Anyway, the original post I had issue with was this one:

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Nationalising financial institutions, nationalising Dell..... One is the same as the other.

Both anti free market.
Both indeed socialist in nature.

Nationalising a bust bank isn't socialist. Nationalising an asset is.

Dan_Solo

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Is it the objective of socialists to nationalise bankrupt companies so the state has to pay of their debts? I don't think so, so your analogy collapses.
Whether you agree with the aim or not, the idea is to mutualise assets, not mutualise privately held debts.

Given your previous pedanticism, I'd like you to perhaps re-read the statement you have taken issue with.

Godge wrote: »

Nationalising banks is one of the key socialist dreams as it in theory allows the state to control financing and banking.

And then refrain from adding terms like "Private", "bad debt", "bankrupt" so as to artificially represent (i.e construct a strawman) the post that you are apparently debating.
Would I be wrong in comparing Godge's "Nationalise Banks" with your own "Mutualise Assets"? If so, why?

Godge

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Like I said, get back to me when:
1. a socialist led country nationalizes a bankrupt company
or
2. a capitalist led country nationalizes a non-bankrupt bank

The Russians effectively nationalised bankrupt banks in 1919.

BoJack Horseman

Dan_Solo wrote: »

1. a socialist led country nationalizes a bankrupt company
or

Well, the Zimbabwe government nationalised the what had been profitable food production & distribution sectors after they went under post Mugabe's socialist land "reforms".

2. a capitalist led country nationalizes a non-bankrupt bank

Loyds was nationalised in 2009 by the UK government.
The company was struggling, but not bankrupt, far from it.



Which all has nothing to do with anything..... But obfuscation. Is sure as hell easier than backing the communist/socialist mantra with solid substance.