Socialism/Communism - why is everyone else always doing it wrong?

Jolly Red Giant · 30-04-2017 11:14am

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

If you wander around a university Im sure you'll find many of that stripe. Much like Christianity, where you have fundamentalists, who follow the holy book and ignore everything else, and orthodox followers, who accept the contemporary teachings without question, and the eccentrics, who form their own views are and usually derided, so too with Marxism.

This is actual rubbish - adherents of neo-liberalism and other right-wing outlooks just as likely to be 'of that stripe' as any Marxist.

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Granted, strict adherence to a centuries old book is a young mans game, most being tempered by pragmatism as they get older, but there are loads of people who still believe that we live in an imperialist capitalist dictatorship and that, by means of violent revolution and a dictatorship of the proletariat, we will achieve a utopian society free from inequality.

Are you talking about the bible here - because Marxism is not 'centuries old'

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Perhaps, but the core elements of his doctrine stayed the same. Capitalism bad, revolution necessary, socialist dictatorship needed, communist utopia logical end result.

And clearly you don't have any preconceived notions about Marxism :rolleyes:

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Hold on theres a big difference here. Can I ask you two questions:

1) do you accept that Marx and Engels advocated violently overthrowing the capitalist system and imposing a socialist dictatorship to transition mankind into communism?

No - Marx and Engels did not advocate 'violently overthrowing the capitalist system' or 'imposing a socialist dictatorship' - they advocated the use of an armed uprising if necessary - i.e. if the bourgeois class violently resisted the democratic desire of the working class to change society - and they advocated the establishment of a democratically planned socialised economy.

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

2) can you point out anywhere in Adam Smiths works where he advocated dictatorship, facism, or indeed any deviation from parliamentary democracy, freedom of speech and conscience etc?

This is the problem with trying to discuss these topics with someone who has preconceived notions about Marxism - and really hasn't a clue about anything they are trying to talk about.

The term 'dictatorship of the proletariat' does not refer to a dictatorship in the sense of dictatorships under the control of one (or a small group) of individuals - as in the dictatorships like Pinochet in Chile, Franco in Spain, the Greek Colonels, or current dictatorships like Mugabe or the Arab Sheiks or Nazarbayev in Kazakhstan - it refers to the working class as a social class controlling society rather than what exists at the moment - a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie - where society is controlled by those who privately own and control the means of production.

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Maybe Stalin wasnt exactly what Marx had in mind. Certainly the socialism in one country was less in keeping with TCM than Trotskys vision.

Stalin has no more in common with Marxism than you do

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

And I accept that much of the atrocities committed by Stalin were done out of what he perceived to be the necessity to win WWII rather than in furtherance of socialism.

Wrong again - the atrocities committed by the Stalinist regime in the USSR were designed to remove political opponents (the Left Opposition and others) and to consolidate the dictatorship.

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

But a lot of what he did - imprisoning dissenters and counter revolutionaries, forcibly redistributing property and income, imposing state control over the means of production, restricting elections and the press to people who believed in socialism, etc - were all exactly what Marx said he should do to bring about communism.

And you can produce evidence for this assertion -

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

So lets be real here. You can say that Marxism is a discredited verison of socialism and should be ignored. I'd accept that as a valid position to take, although its not a popular position.

I never said that Marxism is a 'discredited version of socialism' - I said that Stalinism has nothing to do with Marxism. I would argue that Marxism as a political philosophy is nothing more than a method of analysing society and a pointer as to how a future society, where divisions between social classes no longer exist, could be organised.

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

But dictatorship is an essential part of Marxism and we cant just rewrite history!

Again - evidence - and that isn't just copying and pasting 'dictatorship of the proletariat'

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Indeed, and modern socialists try to shoehorn this dynamic onto the modern world. But its difficult to encapsulate all those people who have risen to the top of society (sometimes from an already socially dominant family, sometimes not) into a class. Usually its called the "elite" which is a nebulous collection of politicians, bankers, lawyers, journalists (but not the finan o toole types, they somehow escape the lable of elite despite being on sic figure salaries for the most conservative broadsheet in town) and other dubiously labelled "connected" people.

If you can find enough people who are unhappy with their lives, and they are ready to blame anyone you tell them to blame (so long as they can see them as the "other" and not part of "us") then you will have a ready made market for the modern "whatever youre having yourself" brand of socialism.

Is this the best you can do - it is an incoherent rant that has zero analytical content within it.

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

The problem is made worse because the genuine have nots and working class people despite socialism and the left. Hence the socially mariginalised vote for Trump and Brexit.

'despite' socialism - you need to fix your internal spell checker there

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Which in turn is why we now have socialists against wealth taxes!

Ah come on - I am 100% in full support for a wealth tax - a real wealth tax based on ability to pay - let's say a 5% tax on all wealth over €1million.

Jolly Red Giant · 30-04-2017 11:24am

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Ok. I hope you realise that that flatly contradicts your previous definition, but under this new definition working class is someone who cannot live well after a year on the job? Not sure if you mean that a CEO can live comfortably for their entire lives from one year's salary but that would be extremely few CEOs. However, if that is the dividing line then the definition is pretty illusory. If they have enough to live off but gamble it away to they become working class again?

I think perhaps rich and poor would be a better way of categorising what you describe here.

A member of the working class can best be described as someone who works using their hand or brain for a wage.

The basis of social classes is determined by the relationship of the social class to ownership of the means of production.

Some members of the working class can be relatively well paid - some who own and control the means of production can have a low income.

So - no - your classification as 'rich' and 'poor' is not a classification that works.

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

A different social class? Why?

Because one works for a wage - the other does not.

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

I think this proves my point really that your definition of what is now working class doesnt hold water. More generally, I was deriding the way in which modern socialists are trying to find a class of bad guys that they can rebel against in the way that they could rebel against the land owning class in the industrial revolution.

I think you need to go back and review your understanding of the industrial revolution - the rebellion was not against the land-owning class - it was against the factory owning class. Workers first organised trade unions in factories.

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

That socialists are trying to oppress people that they have arbitrarily deemed to be the other, and they justify it by making specious arguments as to how they are in fact the ones who are oppressed. Hence the whole we can send them to a gulag because they are enemies of the people and would send us to the gulag given half a chance logic.

Again - evidence - not just your uneducated assumptions.

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

This seems to be too broad a definition. Besides, most people earning over 100k still have to work to oay for mortgages etc, yet socialists believe that this geoup of people, who pay marginal rates of tax in excess of 50% already, should pay even more tax. Under your definition socialists would favour taxing part of the working class which would be contradictory of the class struggle that is essential to Marxist theory

Wrong again - socialists favour taxing wealth - not increasing taxes on working class people - hence the opposition to water charges.

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

This makes no sense to me. Hard working self employed people who earn a modest wage are not working class but if they took a better paying job working for someone else they would? What's so special about working for someone else?

There is nothing 'so special' about it - it describes the relationship of the individual to the ownership of the means of production

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

I think the old concepts of class are outdated myself, but the less people who are duped into believing that they are part of an opposed class in the class struggle the better.

So its all about 'duping' people into believing something they are not - got it

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

I feel like we have come full circle to the post you originally took issue with. His analysis of class and class struggle were probably accurate for the 1840s and 50s, but I dont think it can be applied to the modern world.

If anything - the class analysis of society developed by Marx is far more relevant to modern society than it ever was in the 1840s - precisely because the working class is a far, far higher percentage of the population today than it was in the 1840s

johnnyskeleton · 30-04-2017 12:13pm

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

This is actual rubbish - adherents of neo-liberalism and other right-wing outlooks just as likely to be 'of that stripe' as any Marxist.

Well yes there are dogmatic right wing people too, but that's not the point. You said that there were no socialists who slavishly believed what was written, I disagreed with you pointing out, albeit from my experience, that there are dogmatic marxists and your response is to dismiss that as rubbish because there are people who are dogmatic of other creeds.

Are you talking about the bible here - because Marxism is not 'centuries old'

Yes. As you can see from the fact that I compared fanatical followers of Marxism to fanatical followers of Christianity. If your only response to this analogy is that Marxism is not centuries old, I don't see how that changes things.

And clearly you don't have any preconceived notions about Marxism :rolleyes:

No I don't. I have ideas about Marxism based on reading their literature. If you disagree with my view that the core beliefs of Marxism are fundamentally the same as they were, they by all means articulate that rather than simply asserting that I have preconceived notions about what Marxism is.

No - Marx and Engels did not advocate 'violently overthrowing the capitalist system' or 'imposing a socialist dictatorship' - they advocated the use of an armed uprising if necessary - i.e. if the bourgeois class violently resisted the democratic desire of the working class to change society - and they advocated the establishment of a democratically planned socialised economy.

Direct quote from the last paragraph of the Communist Manifesto:

The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions. Let the ruling classes tremble at a Communistic revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win.

If that is not advocating a forcible overthrow of existing social conditions, then I don't know what is!

This is the problem with trying to discuss these topics with someone who has preconceived notions about Marxism - and really hasn't a clue about anything they are trying to talk about.

Well you asserted that Stalin is about as relevant to Marx as Fascism is to Adam Smith. So I pointed out that Marx did advocate many of the oppressive things that Stalin did, such as silencing dissent and eschewing democracy, whereas Smith did not advocate any of those things.

If your response is merely that I haven't a clue about anything, I can't really advance matters any further.

The term 'dictatorship of the proletariat' does not refer to a dictatorship in the sense of dictatorships under the control of one (or a small group) of individuals - as in the dictatorships like Pinochet in Chile, Franco in Spain, the Greek Colonels, or current dictatorships like Mugabe or the Arab Sheiks or Nazarbayev in Kazakhstan - it refers to the working class as a social class controlling society rather than what exists at the moment - a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie - where society is controlled by those who privately own and control the means of production.

Here's the thing - it is immaterial whether the dictator is one man or twelve men or a class of men. The essential problem with a dictatorship is not the fact that some people are in charge of a country, it's when they use their power to prevent the other people from exercising their rights. So, for example, I would have no problem with Stalin or Mugabe etc if they were democratically elected, allowed free and fair elections, and didn't quell the voices of dissenters.

So the problem with a dictatorship is not who is in power, it's the fact that significant groups of other people are expressly denied any access to political power. And the dictatorship of the proletariat advocates exactly that i.e. anyone who doesn't agree with socialism/communism is denied their rights.

If you honestly describe parliamentary democracy, which is far from perfect I admit, as a "dictatorship of the bourgeoisie" then I think I see why you are failing to grasp what I say.

I have no problem with democratic socialists. I don't often agree with them, to be honest, but if they are elected as representatives of the public then I respect that. That is what democracy is about.

I do not respect those Marxists who believe that it is acceptable to have a violent revolution against this democratic system merely because they perceive it as being a "dictatorship of the bourgeoisie".

Stalin has no more in common with Marxism than you do

I think we have been over this, but let's be clear - do you dispute that Stalin believed in quashing political dissenters and "counter revolutionaries" and justified it because they were enemies of the proletariat?

Wrong again - the atrocities committed by the Stalinist regime in the USSR were designed to remove political opponents (the Left Opposition and others) and to consolidate the dictatorship.

So the elimination of peasant farmers, immigrants, anyone who disagreed with socialism etc were all imagined?

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

And you can produce evidence for this assertion -

The assertion that Stalin tried to do it or that Marx advocated it? It should be abundantly clear that Stalin created a dictatorship, abolished private property, denied free speech and set up a dicatorship to try to impose socialism. As for Marx advocating these things, how about this:

In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property.

4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.

6. Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch02.htm

I mean it's all in there, plain as day for anyone who wants to read it. But, much like some christians try to ignore the inconveniently whacky parts of the bible, socialists choose to ignore whichever parts of the Communist Manifesto that doesn't suit their argument at the time.

It is undeniable in my view that part and parcel of Marxist socialism (as opposed to social democracy) involves denying political rights to people who believe in capitalism and democracy.

johnnyskeleton · 30-04-2017 12:16pm

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

If anything - the class analysis of society developed by Marx is far more relevant to modern society than it ever was in the 1840s - precisely because the working class is a far, far higher percentage of the population today than it was in the 1840s

I thought this point was worthy of highlighting.

So if there are far more working class people now than there were ever before, how come the political trends seem to be moving away from socialism?

Jolly Red Giant · 30-04-2017 2:24pm

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

I thought this point was worthy of highlighting.

So if there are far more working class people now than there were ever before, how come the political trends seem to be moving away from socialism?

More socialists are currently members of the Dail than at anytime since the foundation of the state.

The 'left' won its highest vote in a French presdiential election in decades

Sanders won significant support in the USA on a campaign platform of ending the rule of the bankers and a general left programme. Socialists are getting the most significant votes in elections in the US for 80 years.

Politics is not - and never has been - straightforward - nor, for that matter, have the dynamics been dictated by an electoral process designed to preserve the rule of the bourgeoisie.

The key to any political developments is political consciousness - and the bourgeoisie do everything in their power to minimise political consciousness because of the threat it poses (including propagating the most base ideas among the most backward sections of the working class).

The reality is that working class people have begun to develop their political consciousness - it is in the very early stages, but the trends are clear. Twenty years ago the idea that we would have marriage equality, demonstrations in support of abortion or a mass political country-wide campaign against water charges would not have been entertained. The Jobstown trials are also playing an important role in this - exposing the political role of the state in limiting opposition against bourgeois rule.

Jolly Red Giant · 30-04-2017 6:10pm

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Well yes there are dogmatic right wing people too, but that's not the point. You said that there were no socialists who slavishly believed what was written, I disagreed with you pointing out, albeit from my experience, that there are dogmatic marxists and your response is to dismiss that as rubbish because there are people who are dogmatic of other creeds.

No - I said that Marxists do not 'slavishly believe what is written' - not there there are no socialists who slavishly believed what was written

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Yes. As you can see from the fact that I compared fanatical followers of Marxism to fanatical followers of Christianity. If your only response to this analogy is that Marxism is not centuries old, I don't see how that changes things.

Marxism has no more fanatical followers than capitalism and all its variants (indeed I would argue that it has far fewer fanatics because the forces of Marxism are significantly smaller than the forces of capitalism).

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

No I don't. I have ideas about Marxism based on reading their literature. If you disagree with my view that the core beliefs of Marxism are fundamentally the same as they were, they by all means articulate that rather than simply asserting that I have preconceived notions about what Marxism is.

If you were basing it on the literature then you wouldn't be making the arguments that you are.

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Direct quote from the last paragraph of the Communist Manifesto:

If that is not advocating a forcible overthrow of existing social conditions, then I don't know what is!

The Communist Manifesto was written at a time when the bourgeois classes in Europe were brutally suppressing mass uprisings across the continent. The Communist Manfesto outlined why the bourgeois classes were engaged in the brutal repression of the masses and how the working class and the poor masses needed to respond to this repression.

You accuse Marxists of 'slavishly following' the writings of Marx - yet you are the one taking these writings literally - Marxists always read political writings in the context of the period they were written and in the light of the political developments that were underway.

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Well you asserted that Stalin is about as relevant to Marx as Fascism is to Adam Smith.

No I didn't - I said

Opponents of Marxism consistently point to Stalinism and claim that this is the logical outcome of Marxism - it isn't - no more than a fascist dictatorship is the logical outcome of the ideas of the French Revolution or Adam Smith.

It is not my fault that you are not capable of understanding the difference.

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

So I pointed out that Marx did advocate many of the oppressive things that Stalin did, such as silencing dissent and eschewing democracy, whereas Smith did not advocate any of those things.

And I pointed out to you that you are wrong in this assertion - and you have produced zero evidence to back up your assertion.

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

If your response is merely that I haven't a clue about anything, I can't really advance matters any further.

The problem is that you have to demonstrate that you know what you are talking about - you haven't.

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Here's the thing - it is immaterial whether the dictator is one man or twelve men or a class of men. The essential problem with a dictatorship is not the fact that some people are in charge of a country, it's when they use their power to prevent the other people from exercising their rights.

Here is your problem - so-called 'democratic countries' consistently prevent people from exercising their rights - the Jobstown trial is an attempt to restrict the right to protest. Repeatedly right-wing governments have restricted or attempted to restrict the right of trade unions to organise - activists to assemble - communities to oppose the imposition of diktats from the political representatives of the bourgeoisie. The most stark example of this in recent times was when the unelected bureaucrats running the IMF/ECB/EU forced the Greek government to go against the expressed democratic decision of the Greek population and impose massive austerity.

Dictatorships exist in all 'democratic' countries because one social class - the bourgeoisie - controls the political system and uses it to exploit another social class - the proletariat.

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

So, for example, I would have no problem with Stalin or Mugabe etc if they were democratically elected, allowed free and fair elections, and didn't quell the voices of dissenters.

The issue is that you cannot say you would support a dictator if they weren't a dictator. Hitler was 'elected' to power (without the Nazis ever actually winning an election) - he used the dictatorial nature of the German constitution (written to secure the rule of the bourgeoisie in the aftermath of the Spartacist Uprising) to create a dictatorship - yet you, by the logical extension of your argument, would have no problem with Hitler coming to power because he was 'democratically elected'.

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

So the problem with a dictatorship is not who is in power, it's the fact that significant groups of other people are expressly denied any access to political power. And the dictatorship of the proletariat advocates exactly that i.e. anyone who doesn't agree with socialism/communism is denied their rights.

And you again make a broad sweeping assertion - with zero evidence.

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

If you honestly describe parliamentary democracy, which is far from perfect I admit, as a "dictatorship of the bourgeoisie" then I think I see why you are failing to grasp what I say.

If Denis O'Brien phones Enda Kenny then Enda Kenny will answer the phone - if you phone Enda Kenny he will ignore your call. Yet in this parliamentary democracy Denis O'Brien is supposed to have no more influence on the democratic process than you are.

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

I have no problem with democratic socialists. I don't often agree with them, to be honest, but if they are elected as representatives of the public then I respect that. That is what democracy is about.

You mean 'democratic socialists' like Joan Burton, Brendan Howling and Tony Blair - people who claim to represent the interests of working class people but who implement the policies of the bourgeois class.

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

I do not respect those Marxists who believe that it is acceptable to have a violent revolution against this democratic system merely because they perceive it as being a "dictatorship of the bourgeoisie".

More of your sweeping statements

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

I think we have been over this, but let's be clear - do you dispute that Stalin believed in quashing political dissenters and "counter revolutionaries" and justified it because they were enemies of the proletariat?

Yes I do dispute this - Stalin quashed political dissent in order to protect and consolidate his dictatorship - and the first people he targeted were the Marxists of the Left Opposition.

At the time of the October Revolution in 1917 there were 26 members of the Bolshevik Central Committee - between 1926 when Stalin consolidated his power and 1940 when Trotsky was assassinated - 1 dropped out of political activity by 1918 - 5 died of natural causes or accidents by 1926 - 2 died in fighting during the Russian Civil War - 14 (a majority) were either executed, assassinated or died in a gulag. By 1940 only Stalin and his right-hand henchman Muranov were part of the dictatorship (Kollantai had left the USSR and was living in Norway).

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

So the elimination of peasant farmers, immigrants, anyone who disagreed with socialism etc were all imagined?

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

Stalin initially used the Kulaks as a power base to defeat the Left Opposition at the Communist Party Congresses - and then turned on the Kulaks as they developed as a social class and became a threat to Stalin's power.

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

The assertion that Stalin tried to do it or that Marx advocated it? It should be abundantly clear that Stalin created a dictatorship, abolished private property, denied free speech and set up a dicatorship to try to impose socialism. As for Marx advocating these things, how about this:

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch02.htm

You do realise that I can do exactly the same thing with the writings of all the leading advocates of capitalism and demonstrate exactly the same thing with fascism.

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

I mean it's all in there, plain as day for anyone who wants to read it. But, much like some christians try to ignore the inconveniently whacky parts of the bible, socialists choose to ignore whichever parts of the Communist Manifesto that doesn't suit their argument at the time.

Marxists do not - and will not - ignore any part of the Communist Manifesto - but unlike you Marxists do not take the writings of Marx literally without taking it into the context of the period in which it was written.

Furthermore - the objective of Marxists is the establishment of a democratically planned socialised economy - to do that requires actually controlling the means of production - the ownership and/or control of which is now in the hands of a very small number of very wealthy individuals. Marxists do not and never have been shy about advocating this.

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

It is undeniable in my view that part and parcel of Marxist socialism (as opposed to social democracy) involves denying political rights to people who believe in capitalism and democracy.

Marxism advocates the implementation of real democracy - an active participatory democracy - not the sham democracy that passes for the 'democratic process' under capitalism.

Democracy is as vital a component of Marxism as oxygen is to a body.

johnnyskeleton · 30-04-2017 8:40pm

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

Marxism advocates the implementation of real democracy - an active participatory democracy - not the sham democracy that passes for the 'democratic process' under capitalism.

I'm not going to respond point by point to your requests for evidence when I have already spent a lot of time quoting the specific parts of the communist manifesto that adocate the forceful overthrowing of the governement, nor your attempts to say that Marxists dont ignore some stuff but they dont interpret it literally if it doesnt suit, the suggestion that capitalist theorists openly advocated dictatorship or violent revolution, etc etc as I feel we are getting nowhere. You refuse to accept that the soviet union was attempting to impose a dictatorship of the proletariat and so has no real connection to Marx. Obviously I disagree.

But its the above view that democracy is a sham and your categorisation of social democrats as agents of the bourgeosies that really that troubles me the most!

...And Justice · 30-04-2017 9:10pm

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

I'm not going to respond point by point to your requests for evidence when I have already spent a lot of time quoting the specific parts of the communist manifesto that adocate the forceful overthrowing of the governement, nor your attempts to say that Marxists dont ignore some stuff but they dont interpret it literally if it doesnt suit, the suggestion that capitalist theorists openly advocated dictatorship or violent revolution, etc etc as I feel we are getting nowhere. You refuse to accept that the soviet union was attempting to impose a dictatorship of the proletariat and so has no real connection to Marx. Obviously I disagree.

But its the above view that democracy is a sham and your categorisation of social democrats as agents of the bourgeosies that really that troubles me the most!

While agree with your sentiments, there is still active RSF in the republic, they have there HQ in Dublin, they are Marxists here's their website
https://republicansinnfein.org/. They are opposed to capitalism in all its forms, their crusties, but they are given the opportunity to have a voice, which I find ridiculous. The even have a HQ in Dublin. They call mainstream SF as provisional SF, and they are the real SF. Unemployed drug dealers if you ask me.

https://www.google.ie/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwi3qO3D_czTAhVJLMAKHQ9zDGAQjRwIBw&url=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FRepublican_Sinn_F%25C3%25A9in&psig=AFQjCNFYaKNJpDzLZVF4bQDVQVixlkCVqw&ust=1493669197982524

johnnyskeleton · 30-04-2017 10:19pm

...And Justice wrote: »

While agree with your sentiments, there is still active RSF in the republic, they have there HQ in Dublin, they are Marxists here's their website
https://republicansinnfein.org/. They are opposed to capitalism in all its forms, their crusties, but they are given the opportunity to have a voice, which I find ridiculous. The even have a HQ in Dublin. They call mainstream SF as provisional SF, and they are the real SF. Unemployed drug dealers if you ask me.

https://www.google.ie/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwi3qO3D_czTAhVJLMAKHQ9zDGAQjRwIBw&url=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FRepublican_Sinn_F%25C3%25A9in&psig=AFQjCNFYaKNJpDzLZVF4bQDVQVixlkCVqw&ust=1493669197982524

I think the fact that they have a voice and are not shut down, despite advocating the forceful overthrowing of the Irish State and replacing it with a socialist government is an endorsement of the freedoms that we currently enjoy but which would not be tolerated were they actually to come to power!

Jolly Red Giant · 30-04-2017 11:49pm

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

I'm not going to respond point by point to your requests for evidence when I have already spent a lot of time quoting the specific parts of the communist manifesto that adocate the forceful overthrowing of the governement, nor your attempts to say that Marxists dont ignore some stuff but they dont interpret it literally if it doesnt suit, the suggestion that capitalist theorists openly advocated dictatorship or violent revolution, etc etc as I feel we are getting nowhere. You refuse to accept that the soviet union was attempting to impose a dictatorship of the proletariat and so has no real connection to Marx. Obviously I disagree.

You have read the Communist Manifesto and you think you understand Marxism - got it.

But its the above view that democracy is a sham and your categorisation of social democrats as agents of the bourgeosies that really that troubles me the most!

Where did I catagorise 'social democrats as agents of the bourgeoisie'? - unless you think that Howlin, Burton or Blair are social democrats (and just so we are clear just because the have a 'Labour' tag - they are not).

hatrickpatrick · 01-05-2017 12:12am

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

It's a little idealistic. However when has Capitalism been implemented in it's most extreme form? We have only known and had pragmatic Capitalism. It seems to work. It encourages innovation, gives people freedom of choice and incentivises creativity and innovation. Has it faults, yes. As much as socialism, no.

Extremes of socialism which is communism has been implemented and has demonstrably failed on every occasion.

Many would regard the current status quo in the United States as capitalism taken to an extreme - the lack of state-funded healthcare being perhaps the most glaring specific example. If you can't afford life-saving medication or surgery, tough sh!t, enjoy the next life.

......... · 01-05-2017 12:15am

I don't see any country doing capitalism in an equitable moral manner either, but it does seem slightly harder to manipulate people under capitalism than communism.

......... · 01-05-2017 12:18am

Wanderer78 wrote: »

I'd disagree there to a point, Id have to agree with somebody like Michael Hudson that we are confusing wealth with debt. We have to start asking ourselves why are debt levels at an all-time high, particularly private debt, and has this actually benefited the majority, particularly financially and economically? I will agree though that capitalism has major advantages over other systems, many being extremely positive for the majority.

Ahh but debt is wealth if you can force other people to pay off the debts you incur for you.

Rumpy Pumpy · 01-05-2017 12:42am

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

You have read the Communist Manifesto and you think you understand Marxism - got it.

Where did I catagorise 'social democrats as agents of the bourgeoisie'? - unless you think that Howlin, Burton or Blair are social democrats (and just so we are clear just because the have a 'Labour' tag - they are not).

You live in one of the greatest examples of a Social/Christian democracy the world will ever see. What makes it even more extraordinary is that it came about in less than 100 years after independence.

ancapailldorcha · 01-05-2017 11:07am

Post deleted. Refrain from posting GIF's please.

Jolly Red Giant · 01-05-2017 12:06pm

Rumpy Pumpy wrote: »

You live in one of the greatest examples of a Social/Christian democracy the world will ever see. What makes it even more extraordinary is that it came about in less than 100 years after independence.

You mean this 'extraordinary Social/Christian democracy' that had institutionalised abuse of women and children orchestrated by the state and implemented by the Catholic Church - this 'extraordinary Social/Christian democracy' that has seen mass generational emigration and the break-up of families - 'extraordinary Social/Christian democracy' that has created an economy where the richest 300 people can double their wealth during a crisis while 90% of the population suffer a severe drop in their living standards and these 300 people now own 50% of the wealth in the country.

I would agree - it is absolutely 'extraordinary'.

Palmach · 01-05-2017 5:04pm

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

You mean this 'extraordinary Social/Christian democracy' that had institutionalised abuse of women and children orchestrated by the state and implemented by the Catholic Church - this 'extraordinary Social/Christian democracy' that has seen mass generational emigration and the break-up of families - 'extraordinary Social/Christian democracy' that has created an economy where the richest 300 people can double their wealth during a crisis while 90% of the population suffer a severe drop in their living standards and these 300 people now own 50% of the wealth in the country.

I would agree - it is absolutely 'extraordinary'.

Normally I don't bother trying to debate with communists because generally they are bitter one dimensional people beyond help but this drivel cannot go unanswered. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Human_Development_Index Have a gander where Ireland is. Top ten. Any commie countries in there? Nope. Nada.

https://www.fraserinstitute.org/economic-freedom/map?countries=IRL&page=map&year=2014
Here's another one. There are loads more but they all tell the same story. Ireland is one of the freest richest and most advanced nations on Earth. Furthermore all the top performing countries are western liberal democracies. Along with Islam, Communism/Socialism is guaranteed to put you well down the lists.

Jolly Red Giant · 01-05-2017 6:16pm

Palmach wrote: »

Normally I don't bother trying to debate with communists because generally they are bitter one dimensional people beyond help but this drivel cannot go unanswered. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Human_Development_Index Have a gander where Ireland is. Top ten. Any commie countries in there? Nope. Nada.

It would be hard for any communist countries to be on the list when none actually exist.

Palmach wrote: »

https://www.fraserinstitute.org/economic-freedom/map?countries=IRL&page=map&year=2014
Here's another one. There are loads more but they all tell the same story. Ireland is one of the freest richest and most advanced nations on Earth. Furthermore all the top performing countries are western liberal democracies. Along with Islam, Communism/Socialism is guaranteed to put you well down the lists.

And you then start quoting stuff from a right-wing, conservative, neo-liberal, free-marketeer institute - no wonder they rank Ireland so high :rolleyes:

As for debating with 'communists' - maybe that is because you are incapable of doing so.

Valord · 02-05-2017 11:31am

Yourself isit wrote: »

I don't agree with this either. People who work and have to work for someone else to earn a reasonable income are working class.

I don't see why people are happy with being called workers but not working class.

I think it's because most people's notion of "working class" is associated with not being particularly well-off and many very well-off people would fit into your definition of "working class". Most of the kinds of people that the average Irish person would associate with "upper class" (people who do things like join private golf clubs, send their children to fee-paying schools, own expensive property, holiday in luxurious locations, eat out in expensive restaurants, drive expensive cars) work for a someone else in the private sector.

This label applies equally to someone working a counter at the local petrol station as a VP working for one of the big multi-nationals, even though their personal and political interests do not align particularly closely and the former probably has more in common with a member of the bourgeois than with a fellow member of the working class.

I do wonder if there is a useful, concrete definition of "working class" that we can apply to our modern economy. In the US especially, it was noted by many media commenters that "working class" often specifically meant "white working class", and even then it often painted a very specific image of someone who was a farmer, miner, or factory worker, all of which are areas in general decline. It did not seem to refer very often to service workers who are a much larger portion of the economy. It was also interesting that despite Trump's apparent popularity with working class whites, his voters were, in general, more well-off than Clinton's. Does this mean that class is separate from wealth? And how separate is it? Is there still a correlation or are they completely independant?

Yourself isit wrote: »

You probably don't realise what CEOs earn if you think most would be poor after a year.

Most CEOs aren't working for Fortune 500 companies. Most work for small and medium businesses. While it's a good position to be in, most aren't set for life after a few years of work, unless they also own significant stock in the companies they work for, and often even well-off people maintain a lifestyle that requires them to keep working.

It's true that someone who makes, say, €500,000 net annual salary could probably feasibly live off that for the rest of their life, but someone making that kind of money will often be spending most of that money on things like a much more expensive house and car than the average person. If they were to try and live off that, they would have to live a more ordinary lifestyle, which something people find so difficult that some would literally rather die (and I'm not saying that to be flippant either).

BalcombeSt4 · 04-05-2017 1:03am

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Many would regard the current status quo in the United States as capitalism taken to an extreme - the lack of state-funded healthcare being perhaps the most glaring specific example. If you can't afford life-saving medication or surgery, tough sh!t, enjoy the next life.

You could say the 1840's here was capitalism in its extreme form. The government decided market force would settle the famine out for us, and if it kills 2 million well then so be it. The government of its time had a radical belief in the doctrine of laissez faire.

BalcombeSt4 · 04-05-2017 1:16am

Rumpy Pumpy wrote: »

You live in one of the greatest examples of a Social/Christian democracy the world will ever see. What makes it even more extraordinary is that it came about in less than 100 years after independence.

Well than that just reaffirms my belief that there is a better alternative to it then if this is the best it has to offer.

BalcombeSt4 · 04-05-2017 1:34am

Palmach wrote: »

Normally I don't bother trying to debate with communists because generally they are bitter one dimensional people beyond help but this drivel cannot go unanswered. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Human_Development_Index Have a gander where Ireland is. Top ten. Any commie countries in there? Nope. Nada.

https://www.fraserinstitute.org/economic-freedom/map?countries=IRL&page=map&year=2014
Here's another one. There are loads more but they all tell the same story. Ireland is one of the freest richest and most advanced nations on Earth. Furthermore all the top performing countries are western liberal democracies. Along with Islam, Communism/Socialism is guaranteed to put you well down the lists.

I'm sorry but this is a terrible argument.

Germany prospered economically in the 1930's under the Nazi's. Is that an argument for Nazism? No.

The Soviet Union achieved rapid industrialization under Stalin. Is that an argument for Stalinism? No.

Valord · 04-05-2017 10:13am

BalcombeSt4 wrote: »

You could say the 1840's here was capitalism in its extreme form. The government decided market force would settle the famine out for us, and if it kills 2 million well then so be it. The government of its time had a radical belief in the doctrine of laissez faire.

The Famine wasn't just a case of the British government not intervening though, they actively intervened to make it worse.

Palmach · 04-05-2017 2:33pm

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

.
And you then start quoting stuff from a right-wing, conservative, neo-liberal, free-marketeer institute - no wonder they rank Ireland so high :rolleyes:
.

And the UN Human Development In dex

hatrickpatrick · 04-05-2017 5:15pm

BalcombeSt4 wrote: »

You could say the 1840's here was capitalism in its extreme form. The government decided market force would settle the famine out for us, and if it kills 2 million well then so be it. The government of its time had a radical belief in the doctrine of laissez faire.

The current government is demonstrating the same laissez faire attitude towards housing, compared with the Simms generation of the early 20th century. Let's see how that pans out - if the fact that every single doorway in the city centre is lined with sleeping bags every day doesn't satisfy those who do not believe unrestricted capitalism to be a harmful force

Jolly Red Giant · 04-05-2017 10:40pm

Palmach wrote: »

And the UN Human Development In dex

You didn't link to the UN - you linked to a Wikipedia page - and as I said before - it would be hard for a communist country to be on the list when none actually exist.

Geuze · 04-05-2017 10:43pm

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Many would regard the current status quo in the United States as capitalism taken to an extreme - the lack of state-funded healthcare being perhaps the most glaring specific example. If you can't afford life-saving medication or surgery, tough sh!t, enjoy the next life.

Note that there are two federally organised health insurance schemes, as well as tax reliefs for health insurance.

Geuze · 04-05-2017 10:45pm

One aspect of communism that I would support is more mutually-owned co-operatives, e.g. like John Lewis, credit unions, building societies, etc.

johnnyskeleton · 04-05-2017 11:08pm

Geuze wrote: »

One aspect of communism that I would support is more mutually-owned co-operatives, e.g. like John Lewis, credit unions, building societies, etc.

Is that communism though? Under our current system people are free to come together pool their resources and set up a co-op/mutual society. In a communist system everything would be owned by the state so there would be no need/capability for private citizens to voluntarily pool their resources.

PeadarCo · 04-05-2017 11:19pm

Jolly Red Giant wrote:

You didn't link to the UN - you linked to a Wikipedia page - and as I said before - it would be hard for a communist country to be on the list when none actually exist.

Does that not tell its own story. There are over a hundred countries in the world. The only countries that could be considered communist like the USSR killed millions of its citizens and were violently repressive. If you don't consider countries like that to be communist you have a situation were over the century plus you've never had a communist country despite all the changes in government and revolutions in different countries. The system is completely unworkable

Geuze · 04-05-2017 11:23pm

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Is that communism though? Under our current system people are free to come together pool their resources and set up a co-op/mutual society. In a communist system everything would be owned by the state so there would be no need/capability for private citizens to voluntarily pool their resources.

Okay, fair enough, then it's not communism.

I was just going by the concept/phrase of communally-owned, and maybe confusing it with the word communism.

......... · 04-05-2017 11:50pm

PeadarCo wrote: »

Does that not tell its own story. There are over a hundred countries in the world. The only countries that could be considered communist like the USSR killed millions of its citizens and were violently repressive. If you don't consider countries like that to be communist you have a situation were over the century plus you've never had a communist country despite all the changes in government and revolutions in different countries. The system is completely unworkable

I think that communism is unworkable on any regional/national level due to human greed and self interest, but Stalinism wasn't communism, any more that the DPRK is democratic.

......... · 04-05-2017 11:51pm

Geuze wrote: »

Okay, fair enough, then it's not communism.

I was just going by the concept/phrase of communally-owned, and maybe confusing it with the word communism.

They're more along the lines of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributism

BalcombeSt4 · 05-05-2017 7:05am

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

The current government is demonstrating the same laissez faire attitude towards housing, compared with the Simms generation of the early 20th century. Let's see how that pans out - if the fact that every single doorway in the city centre is lined with sleeping bags every day doesn't satisfy those who do not believe unrestricted capitalism to be a harmful force

The so called The Washington Consensusis is another form of modern capitalism in its extreme form. Whole developing nations being privatized leading to a giant, giant division of rich & poor. The most striking instance of it is in Latin America or the backyard as the US likes to call it, where you have a handfu of millionaires living in mansions & the majority living what are basically shanty towns.

Wanderer78 · 05-05-2017 7:23am

BalcombeSt4 wrote:

The so called The Washington Consensusis is another form of modern capitalism in its extreme form. Whole developing nations being privatized leading to a giant, giant division of rich & poor. The most striking instance of it is in Latin America or the backyard as the US likes to call it, where you have a handfu of millionaires living in mansions & the majority living what are basically shanty towns.

I'm sick of this Washington consensus ****eology, it's clearly obvious things such as neoliberalism are failing but we sit here watching a slow car crash, it's disturbing really

Tabnabs · 05-05-2017 10:20am

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

The current government is demonstrating the same laissez faire attitude towards housing, compared with the Simms generation of the early 20th century. Let's see how that pans out - if the fact that every single doorway in the city centre is lined with sleeping bags every day doesn't satisfy those who do not believe unrestricted capitalism to be a harmful force

Rent controls, planning restrictions, councillors voting against developments, height restrictions, land hoarding, etc. etc. I think you need to have a serious look at the reality of the situation before leaping to any conclusions. The government has its hands all over this crisis and can only do more damage with greater interference.

johnnyskeleton · 05-05-2017 10:32am

BalcombeSt4 wrote: »

The so called The Washington Consensusis is another form of modern capitalism in its extreme form. Whole developing nations being privatized leading to a giant, giant division of rich & poor. The most striking instance of it is in Latin America or the backyard as the US likes to call it, where you have a handfu of millionaires living in mansions & the majority living what are basically shanty towns.

If youre talking about Venezuela then yes there is a tiny wealthy elite and the rest of the country lives in poverty, runs out of basic goods etc. But a country like Argentina has a massive middle class and wouldnt be a million miles away from European standards of living.

Tabnabs · 05-05-2017 10:51am

Peru is another shining example of an open and free country. Peru's economy thrived after the removal of price controls, protectionism, restrictions on foreign direct investment, and most state ownership of companies. Maybe it's the just wrong kind of Latin American country though?

hatrickpatrick · 05-05-2017 3:59pm

Geuze wrote: »

Note that there are two federally organised health insurance schemes, as well as tax reliefs for health insurance.

That still means that there's a wealth line below which one cannot access healthcare if one needs it, which is a capitalistic principle.

Suryavarman · 05-05-2017 8:59pm

Tabnabs wrote: »

Rent controls, planning restrictions, councillors voting against developments, height restrictions, land hoarding, etc. etc. I think you need to have a serious look at the reality of the situation before leaping to any conclusions. The government has its hands all over this crisis and can only do more damage with greater interference.

Facts mean little to an ideologue.

Suryavarman · 05-05-2017 9:11pm

BalcombeSt4 wrote: »

The so called The Washington Consensusis is another form of modern capitalism in its extreme form. Whole developing nations being privatized leading to a giant, giant division of rich & poor. The most striking instance of it is in Latin America or the backyard as the US likes to call it, where you have a handfu of millionaires living in mansions & the majority living what are basically shanty towns.

Wanderer78 wrote: »

I'm sick of this Washington consensus ****eology, it's clearly obvious things such as neoliberalism are failing but we sit here watching a slow car crash, it's disturbing really

The Neoliberal, Washington Consensus resulted in the greatest reduction in poverty mankind has ever seen. The only thing failing is lefties in their attempts to pretend socialism hasn't resulted in immense human suffering every single time it's been attempted.

Wanderer78 · 05-05-2017 9:15pm

Suryavarman wrote: »

The Neoliberal, Washington Consensus resulted in the greatest reduction in poverty mankind has ever seen. The only thing failing is lefties in their attempts to pretend socialism hasn't resulted in immense human suffering every single time it's been attempted.

both neoliberalism and socialism are failures in my world!

you conveniently left out the rapid rise of debt particularly private debt in your neoliberal excitement!

BalcombeSt4 · 06-05-2017 6:20am

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

If youre talking about Venezuela then yes there is a tiny wealthy elite and the rest of the country lives in poverty, runs out of basic goods etc. But a country like Argentina has a massive middle class and wouldnt be a million miles away from European standards of living.

And it's a very powerful elite, powerful enough to own the media & powerful enough to get clandestine support from the US for a military coup to overthrow the democratically elected government which thanfully failed, which ever way the Venezuelan people decided to shap their future they are not going back to US backed fascist military dictatorships.

Just minutes away from Bolivia's capital La Paz s a city called El Alto & its possibly one of the most poorest cities on the planet. Same with Chile, you have a very modern looking capital but just minutes away there's towns of people living in cardboard boxes.

Brazil 64, Chile 73, Bolivia 64,Guetamala 54 (where a genocide took place that the US clearly knew about & let happen) Nicaragua 81 & Argentina 76, Honduras63 & 78,Uruguay 73, & El Salvador 79

All these countries are still feeling the effects of US directly & indirectly backed military coups some of which led to brutal civil wars.

BalcombeSt4 · 06-05-2017 1:00pm

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

I thought this point was worthy of highlighting.

So if there are far more working class people now than there were ever before, how come the political trends seem to be moving away from socialism?

Because the working class isn't automatically socialist. You might be at the absolute bottom of the pilee & be a die hard Tory or you could be very well of like Tony Benn & become one of the biggest proponents of the Socialism.

I think theres more socialists now in Ireland than at any other time in history. I know Sinn Fein aren't a socialist party but the Republican movement stated time & time again that their end goal was Democratic Socialist Republic and it doesn't seem to put people of voting for them.

BalcombeSt4 · 06-05-2017 1:06pm

Suryavarman wrote: »

The Neoliberal, Washington Consensus resulted in the greatest reduction in poverty mankind has ever seen. The only thing failing is lefties in their attempts to pretend socialism hasn't resulted in immense human suffering every single time it's been attempted.

Is that a joke? You go to a website called

amazonaws.com/content.washingtonexaminer.biz

to tell us the Washington Consensus is a good thing.

Of course people will be living in better conditions now than in 18f*cking20 .

Slaves had a higher standard of living in 1830 than they did in 1630. Is that a good argument for slavery?

But the lines on the chart seem to start going down rapidly at around the time of the Russian Revolution.

ancapailldorcha · 06-05-2017 1:08pm

Mod: Comments like "lol" aren't conducive to good debate.

johnnyskeleton · 06-05-2017 5:08pm

BalcombeSt4 wrote: »

And it's a very powerful elite, powerful enough to own the media & powerful enough to get clandestine support from the US for a military coup to overthrow the democratically elected government which thanfully failed, which ever way the Venezuelan people decided to shap their future they are not going back to US backed fascist military dictatorships.

Are you talking about the 2002 protests/attempted coup? Because I was referring to the socialist government that are right now running a keptocracy:

http://nypost.com/2017/01/10/how-venezuelas-corrupt-socialists-are-looting-the-country-to-death/

johnnyskeleton · 06-05-2017 5:13pm

BalcombeSt4 wrote: »

Because the working class isn't automatically socialist. You might be at the absolute bottom of the pilee & be a die hard Tory or you could be very well of like Tony Benn & become one of the biggest proponents of the Socialism.

I think theres more socialists now in Ireland than at any other time in history. I know Sinn Fein aren't a socialist party but the Republican movement stated time & time again that their end goal was Democratic Socialist Republic and it doesn't seem to put people of voting for them.

Well this is my point. The working class are very rarely, in my experience, socialists. There are times, such as the present time, when they believe what they are told by certain activists that there is a big pool of money to be tapped into in the form of tax the rich/wealth taxes and that this means that they don't have to pay property taxes, water charges etc.

But this platform of "let somebody else pay" is the opposite of socialism. In socialism, everyone pays into a collective system as to their ability and recieves in accordance with their needs. The AAA/PBP/Socialist Party/Sinn Fein etc are advocating a system whereby some people get everything they want out of the system and have to contribute nothing.

Sure, they have a superficial connection to socialism in the form of supposedly standing up for the working class against the greedy capitalist pigs, but what they are proposing is not actually socialism, it's populist redistribution.

Suryavarman · 06-05-2017 6:58pm

Wanderer78 wrote: »

both neoliberalism and socialism are failures in my world!

you conveniently left out the rapid rise of debt particularly private debt in your neoliberal excitement!

It's failure because you clearly don't care about the third world poor.

I haven't forgot about debt. It's just irrelevant to the point I was making.

Suryavarman · 06-05-2017 7:02pm

BalcombeSt4 wrote: »

Is that a joke? You go to a website called

amazonaws.com/content.washingtonexaminer.biz

to tell us the Washington Consensus is a good thing.

Where the picture is from is completely irrelevant.

Of course people will be living in better conditions now than in 18f*cking20 .

Slaves had a higher standard of living in 1830 than they did in 1630. Is that a good argument for slavery?

The reason people live better now than they did 200 years ago is because of capitalism.

But the lines on the chart seem to start going down rapidly at around the time of the Russian Revolution.

They clearly don't.