Socialist Party's policies

Dan_Solo

Deleted User wrote: »

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

And then refrain from adding term 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?

Because the example given was the nationalisation of a bankrupt bank, which then lead to being told that all nationalisations were socialist.
Encumbering the state with privately held debt is not a socialist ideal.

Soldie

Dan_Solo wrote: »

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

Can you please explain to me how it's relevant to distinguish between solvent and insolvent companies in the context of nationalization? I'm not following your logic.

Godge

Dan_Solo wrote: »

:

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

That is rubbish.

Public ownership of banking and finance is the objective of socialism.

You are only arguing over how that is achieved.

Dan_Solo

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Because the example given was the nationalisation of a bankrupt bank, which then lead to being told that all nationalisations were socialist.
Encumbering the state with privately held debt is not a socialist ideal.

Nobody said this. This is the strawman.
What was said was this

Godge wrote: »

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

Thank you.

Dan_Solo

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

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

They were on the way out. Nationalised to give them a wodge of public money and then destined for flogging. That's an example of a socialist policy?

Dan_Solo

Deleted User wrote: »

Nobody said this. This is the strawman.
What was said was this

Thank you.

And I would say that nationalising a bankrupt bank, i.e. mutualising private debt, is not a socialist dream.
So no contradiction I'm afraid.

Godge

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Because the example given was the nationalisation of a bankrupt bank, which then lead to being told that all nationalisations were socialist.
Encumbering the state with privately held debt is not a socialist ideal.

Ah, now I get it, you don't fully understand what happened in Ireland in 2008.

The state was encumbered with privately held debt by the Fianna Fail guarantee in September 2008. The banks were privately owned at that time.

It is only subsequent to that that certain banks were nationalised. You are linking the nationalisation of the bank with encumbering the state with privately held debt which is not what happened. The nationalisation came later.

BoJack Horseman

Dan_Solo wrote: »

They were on the way out.

No, they weren't.
Loyds contracted in size greatly, but the never went bankrupt.

Nationalised to give them a wodge of public money and then destined for flogging

That's the plan.

That's an example of a socialist policy?

No idea Daniel.
With the phalanx of strawmen you've built I'm lost as to what your point is?

hatrickpatrick

Godge wrote: »

Ah, now I get it, you don't fully understand what happened in Ireland in 2008.

The state was encumbered with privately held debt by the Fianna Fail guarantee in September 2008. The banks were privately owned at that time.

It is only subsequent to that that certain banks were nationalised. You are linking the nationalisation of the bank with encumbering the state with privately held debt which is not what happened. The nationalisation came later.

The bank guarantee was still essentially socialism for the rich. I genuinely don't understand how anyone can fail to understand this - the bondholders made stupid decisions and were covered by the state.

The issue arises when the same principle is not extended to struggling mortgage holders, etc. That's where the word "inequality" comes in - those who are part of the financial elite get special treatment, ordinary people do not.

BoJack Horseman

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

The bank guarantee was still essentially socialism for the rich.

Indeed.

Any free-marketeer would oppose that.

hmmm

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

The bank guarantee was still essentially socialism for the rich. I genuinely don't understand how anyone can fail to understand this - the bondholders made stupid decisions and were covered by the state.

Don't forget that the bank guarantee was also designed to protect deposit holders, and ultimately the banking system that supports most of our economy which pays for nice things like social welfare and pension payments.

The issue arises when the same principle is not extended to struggling mortgage holders, etc. That's where the word "inequality" comes in - those who are part of the financial elite get special treatment, ordinary people do not.

Only an Irish socialist could propose a system whereby taxpayers have to bail out people who have gambled on property. Par for the course I guess in a society where "right wing" parties propose wealth taxes on property, and are opposed by left-wing parties.

Dan_Solo

Dan_Solo wrote: »

And I would say that nationalising a bankrupt bank, i.e. mutualising private debt, is not a socialist dream.
So no contradiction I'm afraid.

This is fairly baffling given that nobody other than you, in creating and then "defeating" a strawman argument has suggested that

Dan_Solo wrote: »

...nationalising a bankrupt bank, i.e. mutualising private debt, is not a socialist dream....

You are in effect arguing with yourself.

Dan_Solo

Soldie wrote: »

Can you please explain to me how it's relevant to distinguish between solvent and insolvent companies in the context of nationalization? I'm not following your logic.

If you followed the original assertion it was that all nationalisations are socialist, this is what I am objecting to.

Dan_Solo

Deleted User wrote: »

This is fairly baffling given that nobody other than you, in creating and then "defeating" a strawman argument has suggested that

You have failed to follow the argument from the start, hence your utter confusion.

Dan_Solo

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

No idea Daniel.
With the phalanx of strawmen you've built I'm lost as to what your point is?

Also didn't bother to follow the argument from the start, hence bewildered upon jumping in at the end all guns blazing.

Dan_Solo

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

The bank guarantee was still essentially socialism for the rich.

Precisely. "Socialism" that doesn't benefit society as a whole cannot be classed as socialism. Hence not all bank nationalisations can be termed socialist.

Dan_Solo

Dan_Solo wrote: »

If you followed the original assertion it was that all nationalisations are socialist, this is what I am objecting to.

But you have offered nothing in terms of a objection to that claim.

Dan_Solo wrote: »

You have failed to follow the argument from the start, hence your utter confusion.

I picked up on your refuting that Nationalising Banks was not a key Socialist dream (see post 244) with some logical gaps and then strawmen. Perhaps if you just stuck to the original point, and offer a decent explanation of why this (Post 239) is not true you might not confuse things?

BoJack Horseman

Dan_Solo wrote: »

"Socialism" that doesn't benefit society as a whole cannot be classed as socialism.

Implying that true socialism is a benefit to society as a whole....?

However as we know, true socialism as practised on this little planet of ours benefits only the very few elites.

True socialism, (as practised), fails at being socialist.

Dan_Solo

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

True socialism, (as practised), fails at being socialist.

Oh what was all that whining about qualifiers I heard earlier...

Dan_Solo

Deleted User wrote: »

But you have offered nothing in terms of a objection to that claim.

The original claim had no support in any case.

BoJack Horseman

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Oh what was all that whining about qualifiers I heard earlier...

What qualifier?

There is 'socialism': the dictionary definition & sociology lesson.

And there is real socialism, as its really been practice's in the last century that has delivered squalor & misery to literally billions of people & death on a monumental scale.

It seems that socialism in practice is the latter & not the former.

That is no qualifier.

Dan_Solo

Dan_Solo wrote: »

The original claim had no support in any case.

Well this is becoming a bit strange. But if you'd like to object to it, perhaps you should object to it. I'll stop trying to tease out any form of progress in the debate from you now though.

who the fug

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Will there be nibbles?

Dried bread

AlekSmart

who the fug wrote: »

Dried bread

Let them eat cake.....gur cake !

who the fug

who the fug wrote: »

Dried bread

Porridge. Cold, lumpy and salty.

For Forks Sake

Deleted User wrote: »

Porridge. Cold, lumpy and salty.

Salt will only be provided to members of the Central Executive.

hatrickpatrick

hmmm wrote: »

Don't forget that the bank guarantee was also designed to protect deposit holders, and ultimately the banking system that supports most of our economy which pays for nice things like social welfare and pension payments.

That is why I advocate changing the financial system entirely so that society's balls are not held in the vice of for-profit banking companies - something which I would have thought those on the right would support?

Only an Irish socialist could propose a system whereby taxpayers have to bail out people who have gambled on property. Par for the course I guess in a society where "right wing" parties propose wealth taxes on property, and are opposed by left-wing parties.

I'm not saying we should have to bail out people who gambled on property, I'm saying that everyone should receive equal treatment. I'd prefer we bail out no gamblers at all, but if we bail out one set and not the other we're saying "you are more important as people than this other group who we're not going to help".

Iwasfrozen

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I'm not saying we should have to bail out people who gambled on property, I'm saying that everyone should receive equal treatment. I'd prefer we bail out no gamblers at all, but if we bail out one set and not the other we're saying "you are more important as people than this other group who we're not going to help".

It's nothing to do with importance. Bailing out the banks was an incredibly stupid and costly decision. Bailing out individual property holders would be an even more stupid and costly decision plus unfair to those who didn't take out unsustainable mortgages.

Ultimately people have to accept the consequences of their decisions. If people find themselves in negative equity or unable to fund their repayments due to a change in circumstances I feel for them but had things been different they would have profited.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Dan_Solo

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Wow, that's a pretty convenient way to dismiss all criticism of the capitalist neoliberal model isn't it: you're just jealous.
Not even very original TBH.

garhjw

The commie rally was last night wasn't it? Did anyone go? Was there trouble? Was there finger food?

Its Only Ray Parlour

garhjw wrote: »

The commie rally was last night wasn't it? Did anyone go? Was there trouble? Was there finger food?

These cult-like groups prefer to use low-protein gruel to wear down the resistance of anybody stupid enough to show up.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

BoJack Horseman

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Capitalism will be destroyed by next weeks protest on the 10th

The government will be overwhelmed by the combined might of the far lefts 3% poll numbers & immediately resign.

Utopia awaits komrades!

The poor things. Throw them a few bob. http://socialistparty.ie/2014/11/help-us-fight-the-attacks-by-the-media-and-establishment/

Markcheese

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Capitalism will be destroyed by next weeks protest on the 10th

The government will be overwhelmed by the combined might of the far lefts 3% poll numbers & immediately resign.

Utopia awaits komrades!

Ah but we'll witness the rise of independents and the shinners- as well as the far left noisemakers ! And probably have a very unstable Dail - with everyone scoring cheap shots and trying to be heard by their own electorate -

Iwasfrozen

Deleted User wrote: »

The poor things. Throw them a few bob. http://socialistparty.ie/2014/11/help-us-fight-the-attacks-by-the-media-and-establishment/

It was nice of them to preselect the highest amount. How convenient.

hatrickpatrick

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

It's nothing to do with importance. Bailing out the banks was an incredibly stupid and costly decision. Bailing out individual property holders would be an even more stupid and costly decision plus unfair to those who didn't take out unsustainable mortgages.

Ultimately people have to accept the consequences of their decisions. If people find themselves in negative equity or unable to fund their repayments due to a change in circumstances I feel for them but had things been different they would have profited.

I agree that bailing out the banks was an incredibly stupid decision, but it's been done.
One must now justify bailing out the rich and not everyone else. Why should the banks get special treatment? Either they should be made to repay the full cost of the bailout to the government over time, or else ordinary people in a similar situation should be bailed out. The alternative, the status quo, essentially accepts that we do not live in a fair society - that some people or entities can gamble and the state will cover it, but not others.

Of course my own preference would be for nobody to be bailed out at all. But I cannot see the moral justification in bailing out banks on the backs of taxpayer's hard earned money, and then allowing them to screw over ordinary people for the exact same behavior which landed them in this situation to begin with.

FreudianSlippers

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I agree that bailing out the banks was an incredibly stupid decision, but it's been done.

A blanket guarantee was the incredibly stupid decision; the bailout was an inevitable result of that decision based on the actions of Anglo. The film Guaranteed is an excellent dramatisation of this point, I really recommend it.

One must now justify bailing out the rich and not everyone else. Why should the banks get special treatment? Either they should be made to repay the full cost of the bailout to the government over time, or else ordinary people in a similar situation should be bailed out. The alternative, the status quo, essentially accepts that we do not live in a fair society - that some people or entities can gamble and the state will cover it, but not others.

Theoretically this is what will happen. We effectively bought the banks and will hopefully sell them once they're worth something again. The same idea as NAMA which was criticised on here massively; go back and see if any of them are still posting here gloating about what a massive failure it has been. Is it perfect? No, but it's doing what it is meant to do and making some money.

Of course my own preference would be for nobody to be bailed out at all. But I cannot see the moral justification in bailing out banks on the backs of taxpayer's hard earned money, and then allowing them to screw over ordinary people for the exact same behavior which landed them in this situation to begin with.

of course, but when your alternative was a potential run on the banks there was little choice but to give some sort of guarantee. It happens in the US and everywhere really. The problem was really guaranteeing Anglo.

hatrickpatrick

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I refuse to get into a debate about that here, we can make a separate thread over on Irish Economy if you'd like to delve further in. You know as well as I do that all money originating as a loan with interest attached is not how new currency has always come into circulation, and I suspect you know as well as I do that the musical chairs situation which results is partially what causes banking crises to be so endemic.
I advocate a move to a Guernsey or Bitcoin type situation in which currency is issued initially without interest, so that we end the system of more money being owed in debt than there exists to repay it. I also advocate a move away from the fractional reserve system which has caused so much havoc every time it hiccups.

The monetary system often seems ok because it's a game of musical chairs without enough chairs for everyone, but this only becomes apparent whenever the record skips and everyone has to scramble for chairs. The system is built on the presumption that the music never stops, but in reality this is impossible, the music stops fairly often, and when it does, widespread economic havoc results.

Iwasfrozen

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I agree that bailing out the banks was an incredibly stupid decision, but it's been done.
One must now justify bailing out the rich and not everyone else. Why should the banks get special treatment? Either they should be made to repay the full cost of the bailout to the government over time, or else ordinary people in a similar situation should be bailed out. The alternative, the status quo, essentially accepts that we do not live in a fair society - that some people or entities can gamble and the state will cover it, but not others.

Of course my own preference would be for nobody to be bailed out at all. But I cannot see the moral justification in bailing out banks on the backs of taxpayer's hard earned money, and then allowing them to screw over ordinary people for the exact same behavior which landed them in this situation to begin with.

Making one stupid mistake does not necessitate making an even more stupid mistake.

Dan_Solo

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Making one stupid mistake does not necessitate making an even more stupid mistake.

But to paraphrase what I was told earlier, that's "real" capitalism i.e. the actuality of it in action, not what's in textbooks.

Iwasfrozen

Dan_Solo wrote: »

But to paraphrase what I was told earlier, that's "real" capitalism i.e. the actuality of it in action, not what's in textbooks.

To necessitate making an even more stupid decision after making a stupid decision is real capitalism? How so?

Good loser

Dan_Solo wrote: »

And I would say that nationalising a bankrupt bank, i.e. mutualising private debt, is not a socialist dream.
So no contradiction I'm afraid.

I remember Joe Higgins, having spent his political life calling for the nationalisation of the banks objecting, when it happened, on the grounds that it was a negative nationalisation while he wanted a positive nationalisation.

Perhaps that's what you mean?

Jolly Red Giant

Good loser wrote: »

I remember Joe Higgins, having spent his political life calling for the nationalisation of the banks objecting, when it happened, on the grounds that it was a negative nationalisation while he wanted a positive nationalisation.

Perhaps that's what you mean?

The banks weren't nationalised - the banking debt was nationalised.

Joe Higgins argued for the taking of the banks into public ownership while dumping the debt into the laps of those who were responsible for it - the spivs, speculators and the european banks who wrecked the Irish economy.

Soldie

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

The banks weren't nationalised - the banking debt was nationalised.

Joe Higgins argued for the taking of the banks into public ownership while dumping the debt into the laps of those who were responsible for it - the spivs, speculators and the european banks who wrecked the Irish economy.

Not that it fits in with the bogeyman-blaming tactics of the hard left, but I think "the Irish electorate" is missing from your list.

Dan_Solo

Soldie wrote: »

Not that it fits in with the bogeyman-blaming tactics of the hard left, but I think "the Irish electorate" is missing from your list.

Yes, when you vote for FF or FG then it's your own fault if they lie to you and ship all your cash off to Germany. True.

garhjw

Did anyone attend the communist rally?

Jolly Red Giant

Soldie wrote: »

Not that it fits in with the bogeyman-blaming tactics of the hard left, but I think "the Irish electorate" is missing from your list.

Are you trying to peddle the line from Kenny that 'we all partied' - did we like f*ck - the people that partied were the people who created the property bubble (the Irish and European banks, the financial markets and the speculators) - everyone else got screwed.

Jolly Red Giant

garhjw wrote: »

Did anyone attend the communist rally?

Nearly 100 people attended a packed Socialist Party public meeting addressed by Paul Murphy in Limerick last night. A significant number of those in attendance expressed an interest in joining the Socialist Party.

My SP branch has doubled in size in the past month. Even larger numbers are joining the wider Anti-Austerity Alliance.