Are you a 'Republican'?

Fratton Fred

Ruen wrote: »

USSR and China are Communist if you didnt know, so dont try to make out Socialism is bad by associating it with something people think is negative i.e. Communism, they are different.

my apologies for confusing the union of soviet socialist republics for being socialist :rolleyes:

what's the difference anyway. name one socialist country that is succesful.

Ruen wrote: »

James Connolly founded the Irish Labour Party and his ideals were crucial in the foundation of this nation and they're still widely cherished and relevant today. And why shouldnt we live in an ideal world, we deserve it and we have the opportunity to achieve the ideal world that the James Connollys and Jim Larkins of the world aspired to.

I admire James Connolly just as I admire Winston Churchill. Both were the right men at the right time. Neither's form of political leadership would work today though. As I said earlier, name one socialist country that has a successful economy. There is no need in today's Europe for romantic socialist ideals. People should be more socially aware for sure, but socialism is history.

Terry

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lHnSf22NSPE

Time Magazine

Ruen wrote: »

There are people in this country too Ibid not just an economy.

Excellent analysis because things like government budgets, unemployment and disposable income don't affect people's lives

Give my regards to Mary.

WTF?

Ruen

Ibid wrote: »

Excellent analysis because things like government budgets, unemployment and disposable income don't affect people's lives

I didnt say that.
The economy is not the only thing that matters in the country, you need to take your head out of your arse and realise there is a whole society that arent here for the sole purpose of supporting the economy.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

my apologies for confusing the union of soviet socialist republics for being socialist :rolleyes:

what's the difference anyway. name one socialist country that is succesful.



I admire James Connolly just as I admire Winston Churchill. Both were the right men at the right time. Neither's form of political leadership would work today though. As I said earlier, name one socialist country that has a successful economy. There is no need in today's Europe for romantic socialist ideals. People should be more socially aware for sure, but socialism is history.

Cuba
Why is there no need? Because you might have enough money and can afford to have the best education and health care money can buy? What about the people who cant afford it and are basically stigmatized by inter generational poverty which contributes to all sorts of societal inequalities and class divides, which by the way go against the ideals of republicanism? Today in Ireland there are gross class inequalities and inequities and if we continue to pursue this neo-liberalist trend the whole situation will only be compounded and once this happens in a society it is extremely hard to change back.

Fratton Fred

Ruen wrote: »

Cuba
Why is there no need? Because you might have enough money and can afford to have the best education and health care money can buy? What about the people who cant afford it and are basically stigmatized by inter generational poverty which contributes to all sorts of societal inequalities and class divides, which by the way go against the ideals of republicanism? Today in Ireland there are gross class inequalities and inequities and if we continue to pursue this neo-liberalist trend the whole situation will only be compounded and once this happens in a society it is extremely hard to change back.

So we change Ireland into a Cuba style socialist dictatorship? I don't see that working somehow.

I agree with your point about "Class" inequalities, but socialism would just bring most people down and a few people up. This is why I say we should be more socially aware. There is enough money in this country to address those inequalities, but the money just seems to disappear into a pit of greed, inefficiencyand corruption. This is what needs to be adressed, not just simply increasing taxes and giving the less well off hand outs.

Time Magazine

Ruen wrote: »

I didnt say that.

I know you didn't; I did.

The economy is not the only thing that matters in the country, you need to take your head out of your arse and realise there is a whole society that arent here for the sole purpose of supporting the economy.

I think you need to take yore head out of yore arse.

Where, exactly, did I suggest that people exist for "the sole purpose of supporting the economy"? Please answer that.

I have over 4,000 posts on this site. Look through them if you like and reply to that.

Cuba

Cuba is not a successful economy. Its GDP is about €3,000 per person. Fidel Castro is too sick to run the country. His brothers have assumed control and political opposition is outlawed.

If Jeb Bush assumed control of the USA, what would you think?

What's your views on Castro's brother's policy reforms, including a greater role for financial markets? Inflation in Cuba ran at 6.2% last year. Do you think this matters to people's lives, particularly the poor on fixed incomes? Or do you think that tackling this, including its costs, would be putting the economy before society?

Why is there no need? Because you might have enough money and can afford to have the best education and health care money can buy?

Personally I think the best education and health care money can buy is an aim that should be aspired to.

What about the people who cant afford it and are basically stigmatized by inter generational poverty which contributes to all sorts of societal inequalities and class divides, which by the way go against the ideals of republicanism?

They get it paid for by the State. Our tax spend per person is several times that of Cuba's. Why? Because 40% of €40,000 is a lot higher than 80% of €3,000. There's no contradiction in seeking basic standards of living for all and increase your state revenue by increasing product. In fact there's a strong congruence between the two. It may help to take your head out of your arse to realise this.

Today in Ireland there are gross class inequalities and inequities

Define gross inequalities. Do a fair, even-handed academic analysis of inequalities in Ireland and China and tell me which one provides better for its worst off.

and if we continue to pursue this neo-liberalist trend the whole situation will only be compounded

Rigorously explain this "fact" please. Tell me what group the economists and sociologists in the ESRI agree were the most class-mobile in the past fifteen years in Ireland and explain why this situation will not be compounded.

and once this happens in a society it is extremely hard to change back.

If the people of a republic rather a neo-classical approach (which is what the Irish people have consistently voted for, rather than the neo-liberal approach you claim), do you think that socialism is more representative? Or are you advocating a utilitarian approach to society, a Hobbesian-esque Leviathan?

You also completely ignored my request for information as to wtf you were on about regarding "Mary".

ghostdancer

Yes, I am.

Tom65

Will people ever realise that it's not the reason the North isn't in part of the Republic isn't because of a "British occupation", it's because of Unionists & Loyalists. I don't mean that to legitimise hating them, or fighting them. It's something Sinn Fein and the IRA never really accepted (through the Troubles), whereas the SDLP had a better grasp of it. Do people not think that the British government would've dropped the North happily at any time from the 50s onwards if they could?

Mrs. MacGyver

No, I am a socialist

The Chessplayer

Rossibaby wrote: »

republican socialist and supporter of the IRSP. i personally hate how people can call modern day freedom fighters like those in ireland,basques,palestinians terrorists yet idolise ché guevara,bobby sands and nelson mandela.even michael collins is idolised by many.yet in modern times violence as a defence is wrong?hypocrisy at its finest.if a country invades yours do you not have a right to defend yourself.

the problem is these days people dont care.why should they in the republic?we are wealthier than ever,and thats what matters to people,money.the only way to get our 32 county republic is by swaying public support in our favour and showing them the benefits it would have.rags like the sunday world etc and pro british and american media branding freedom fighters terrorists doesnt help.our own media labels us druggie scumbags,and people are idiots,they believe what they are told.

“If you remove the English Army tomorrow and hoist the green flag over Dublin Castle., unless you set about the organization of the Socialist Republic your efforts will be in vain. England will still rule you. She would rule you through her capitalists, through her landlords, through her financiers, through the whole array of commercial and individualist institutions she has planted in this country and watered with the tears of our mothers and the blood of our martyrs”. - James Connolly, from Socialism and Nationalism in Shan Van Vocht, January 1897

I must say that the IRSP, or INLA, whatever they're called have a dangerously muddled-up and simplistic take on Irish history. I live in the city centre, so often stumble upon their mini-rallies across from the GPO - invariably with some head-banger screaming through a loud-speaker while bemused tourists look on. All you have to do is look at some of the placards that they carry -"Brits Out" etc. As far as worshipping Che Guevara goes - that is just teenagers who think he looks good on a t-shirt.

One thing I would say for the IRSP is that if it wasn't for the O Bradaigh element, the orange order would have easily marched through O'Connell street last year. Apart from that though, I can't see how the IRSP policies would have any relevance in the modern world.

Neamhshuntasach

The attitude of a lot of "Irish" people these days is just beyond my comphrehension.

More interest in English soccer than there is in our own island.

It's pointless arguing this topic. That's why i never talk to friends about politics.

Ruen

Ibid wrote: »

Where, exactly, did I suggest that people exist for "the sole purpose of supporting the economy"? Please answer that.

You think a country's success is only measured in terms of it's economy.
I used Cuba as an example of a sucessful country, not economy.

Cuba is not a successful economy. Its GDP is about €3,000 per person.

So what?
Cuban citizens are privileged enough to have one of the best and most progressive healthcare systems in the world and it's completely free, they also have a free education for everyone and have the one of the highest rates of education and literacy in Latin America-all this while under a trade embargo from the US. Life expectancy is the same as ours.
Not a successful economy but is doing something right, with a populaton more than twice our own and an economy only a fifth the size I'd say they're quite successful considering.

What's your views on Castro's brother's policy reforms, including a greater role for financial markets? Inflation in Cuba ran at 6.2% last year. Do you think this matters to people's lives, particularly the poor on fixed incomes? Or do you think that tackling this, including its costs, would be putting the economy before society?

No it's still part of it but it's a lot tougher to get by when your constantly obstructed by the worlds greatest superpower.

Personally I think the best education and health care money can buy is an aim that should be aspired to.

They get it paid for by the State. Our tax spend per person is several times that of Cuba's. Why? Because 40% of €40,000 is a lot higher than 80% of €3,000.

And to think Cuba has achieved this yet they havent even got much money, compared to us anyway, and we cant even keep our hospitals clean with our €15Billion a year health service Or provide schools where they're needed, in fact we're shutting schools down in places so we can build huge apartment blocks instead

Define gross inequalities. Do a fair, even-handed academic analysis of inequalities in Ireland and China and tell me which one provides better for its worst off.

Why?

If the people of a republic rather a neo-classical approach (which is what the Irish people have consistently voted for, rather than the neo-liberal approach you claim), do you think that socialism is more representative? Or are you advocating a utilitarian approach to society, a Hobbesian-esque Leviathan?

Utilitarian is the way to go.
I'd say Hobbesian-esque Leviathan is more your thing though.

Fratton Fred

Ruen wrote: »

Cuban citizens are privileged enough to have one of the best and most progressive healthcare systems in the world and it's completely free

Health Care is never free, there may be those who ay for it through their taxes, or rely on someone else to pay for it for them, but it is never free.

Terry

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Health Care is never free, there may be those who ay for it through their taxes, or rely on someone else to pay for it for them, but it is never free.

They also live in a communist dictatorship.

Fratton Fred

Imagine living in a one party state, where any monkey can join the ruling party and get elected. Where, despite the enormous evidence pointing to greed and corruption, the people appear unwilling or unable to do anything about it allowing the politicians and top civil servants to award themselves huge pay rises and bonuses despite previous poor performance.

A system where by to become a politician all you have to do is be related to former politician and any previous misdemeanours you have committed are somehow ignored, providing you tow the party line

Where the state owned TV and the leading political parties are in each other’s pockets, so any critics of the government are prevented from airing their views on prime time state owned TV.

Who in their right mind would accept a political system like that?:D:rolleyes:

Time Magazine

Okay Ruen, time for me to ask the questions you completely ignored last time again.

Ibid wrote: »

Where, exactly, did I suggest that people exist for "the sole purpose of supporting the economy"?

If Jeb Bush assumed control of the USA, what would you think?

What's your views on Castro's brother's policy reforms, including a greater role for financial markets?

Define gross inequalities

Rigorously explain this "fact" please. Tell me what group the economists and sociologists in the ESRI agree were the most class-mobile in the past fifteen years in Ireland and explain why this situation will not be compounded.

Now, getting on to your post.

Ruen wrote: »

You think a country's success is only measured in terms of it's economy.

Since when? Seeing as you haven't provided any evidence to back your last claim about my political views, what makes you think this one is any more true? Where did I ever say a country's success is only measured in terms of its economy?

I used Cuba as an example of a sucessful country, not economy.

That's interesting for two reasons. First of all, the country is a dictatorship. Do you think that's a measure of success?

Second of all, whether you want to accept or not, the political economy matters to people. People really care what the unemployment rate is, what the inflation rate is, what the absolute level of GDP is, what the growth rate is. To the people in the country, it is most certainly a measure of success.

Of course I care about the health system and education system here. Do I think the health service is a shambles? Of course I do. Do I think the education system is under-funded? Damn right I do. Do I think the best way of addressing these concerns is by a system-wide overhaul of enterprise and property rights? Of course f*cking not. The problem with the health service, as you so rightly point out, is not lack of funding. It's a managerial/systematic problem. This does not require the abolition of private property, it requires better management. The problem with education is bad management and a lack of funding. This doesn't need much tweaking either, it requires we don't waste €150m on payment systems for the health service.

However one thing that Cuba could not provide for me is the material wants I consider myself entitled to. I work hard, very hard, and if in standard employment get paid at least €8.65 an hour for it. That's nearly six times the average industrial wage in Cuba. That's a hell of a lot of bang for my buck. If I work happily and somebody willingly buys goods off me, why should my material wants of a nice phone and wireless headphones be considered a vice?

Furthermore, why do you think that politics is the primary - even the only? - factor that determines the health care system? Perhaps Cubans are better doctors, more caring people, or less reliant on alcohol in their lives? If Cubans don't want wireless headphones and all that they symbolise that's all well and good for them. But I do want wireless headphones. And voting patterns strongly suggest our countrymen do, too.

So what?

An average wage of €3,000 does not make for wireless headphones. You could perhaps rebut that these are not needs, but wants. That's a fair enough point. I agree with that. But the fact they're my wants are none of your business, I should be free to work to buy my wants if I so desire.

Also, I'd like you to rebut that they're not needs, but wants. If you do, your complaints that Ireland is extremely unequal holds absolutely no water. Almost nobody in Ireland is not provided with the adequate provisions for life. Anything above that is just wants, right?

Cuban citizens are privileged enough to have one of the best and most progressive healthcare systems in the world

So are Britons

and it's completely free

No it's not. The end-user does not pay, but somebody is paying. There's no such thing as a free lunch.

they also have a free education for everyone and have the one of the highest rates of education and literacy in Latin America

Good for them. As a percentage of our income, we spend on of the lowest amounts (in the end-user terms) on education in the world and, since our Celtic Tiger cubs are some of the most literate in the world.

all this while under a trade embargo from the US. Life expectancy is the same as ours.

So their life expectancy is only as good as ours, but we'd have to give up 85% of our income to get it? Doesn't sound that good to me.

I guess they wouldn't have that trade embargo on them had they not willingly built missile bases capable of hitting civilian targets in America. And they really shouldn't have built them for the state responsible for Holodomor, gulags and purges. But hey, you seem not to mind dictatorship. And your analysis of socialism conveniently doesn't mention what people in Europe thought of it.

Not a successful economy

Perhaps the most poignant point you make? Do you think Irish people were happier in the 1980's when our economy was unsuccessful?

but is doing something right, with a populaton more than twice our own and an economy only a fifth the size I'd say they're quite successful considering

You can only be in school or sick for so long. It's when you're not in school or sick that Cuba fails. You admit that yourself.

No it's still part of it but it's a lot tougher to get by when your constantly obstructed by the worlds greatest superpower.

God forbid America having a trade embargo on a dictatorship that built missile sites pointing at it. Really.

And to think Cuba has achieved this yet they havent even got much money, compared to us anyway, and we cant even keep our hospitals clean with our €15Billion a year health service Or provide schools where they're needed, in fact we're shutting schools down in places so we can build huge apartment blocks instead

You're right, there is much wrong with this country. I feel it could really do with a change of government, even a move to the left. I don't see how you can see "money not being well-spent in hospitals" and think "abolition of private property is needed" though.

Why?

Because communist countries that display strong growth have far worse income inequalities than capitalist ones.

Utilitarian is the way to go.

So if society's utility could be maximised by persecuting a small minority, that's the way to go? If no, how do you reconcile this with "utilitarian is the way to go."

I'd say Hobbesian-esque Leviathan is more your thing though.

You're the one who wants the State to own all private property and apparently I'm a neo-liberal. How do you reconcile those two, eh?

marco murphy

One thing I would say for the IRSP is that if it wasn't for the O Bradaigh element, the orange order would have easily marched through O'Connell street last year. Apart from that though, I can't see how the IRSP policies would have any relevance in the modern world.

If you think O'Bradaigh is in the IRSP then you would'nt know much about IRSP policies.

Will people ever realise that it's not the reason the North isn't in part of the Republic isn't because of a "British occupation", it's because of Unionists & Loyalists. I don't mean that to legitimise hating them, or fighting them. It's something Sinn Fein and the IRA never really accepted (through the Troubles), whereas the SDLP had a better grasp of it. Do people not think that the British government would've dropped the North happily at any time from the 50s onwards if they could?

The SDLP is, essentially, a six-county party, it's a Northern Ireland party, it's a social democratic party, its tendency was to bring about a social democracy in this statelet, in this region. It doesn't pretend to be a republican party.

The Chessplayer

Poblachtach wrote: »

If you think O'Bradaigh is in the IRSP then you would'nt know much about IRSP policies.

Sorry, you're right - got the IRSP mixed up with RSF. Still, they're not a million miles away.

I read a book/pamphlet on Seamus Costello a few years back, and am convinced that had he survived the truce with the Official IRA, he might have mellowed into a less extreme left-wing campaigner - perhaps ending up in the modern Labour Party. Afterall, many of the hardliners from such parties like Sinn Fein/Workers Party ended up in mainstream Labour, such as Proinsias de Rossa, and Liz McManus. The hardline marxist agenda of the likes of the IRSP no longer has any currency or relevance.

Rossibaby

costello would never go the way you say chessplayer...its everything he would despise.

and fred aboutomagh...where did i say that...when did i say i was a member of the RIRA and supported that incident...every republican knows it was wrong as they were innocent...stop trying to portray republicans as criminals we are not...in fact i doubt you know what you're talking about...my family are from donegal/armagh and have lived through it...go you sheep and digest whatever the media say to you you sheep

swampdonkey

quackquackBOOM wrote: »

Most people who argue this point cant even speak the irish language, if people can call themselves republicans and support sinn fein and/or the ira and cant speak the language or even know the history well that to me is another scumbag with a celtic jersy sitting in the pub drinking alco pops at half 10 in the morning

i have to say that is one of the MOST IDIOTIC things i have ever read on boards, I would call myself a big republican , ive come to this conclusion through learning my irish history as i have gotten older, but you beliveve that because i didnt pay attention in school ( when i was a kid) and learn the irish language my views are then irrelavant and i am and i quote "another scumbag with a celtic jersy sitting in the pub drinking alco pops at half 10 in the morning"


ABSOLUTELY PATHETIC