Irelands economic crash - Marxist Perspective - Dr. Kieran Allen SWP

synd

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EBTGROX3qPA

eamonnm79

Some good ideas but some major holes too.

He recommends spending the 24Billion we would loose on Nama Creating jobs on capital projects etc.
Would The ECB lend to The irish government for this?
I doubt it.

synd

According to the bank of Ireland the top 1% of this nations ruling class have expropriated 75 billion from 1995-2007, this figure is hidden via tax evasion.

1. Legislation to close tax fugitive - require anyone over 100,000 to pay tax, or risk passport and asset confiscation.
2. Remove all property based tax incentives -
3. Tax all income over 100,000 sur 70%
4. Restore capital gains to 40%
5. inheritance tax on large business
6. 3% levy on all income producing assets/real capital
7. Remove the 90 million - subsidy made available to private schools
8. Support EU tax harmonization on corp tax

El Che

Interesting analysis and some very good ideas.

Flamed Diving

I'm not interested in people who simply dump videos and say nothing else. I wont be watching them.

asdasd

well, to be fair, synd commented in this thread. A transcript would be nice.

Time Magazine

This thread has a short lifespan unless we veer away from discussing politics (and/or the thread itself) and start talking about, you know, economics.

eamonnm79

Marxist economics is still economics.

eamonnm79

synd wrote: »

According to the bank of Ireland the top 1% of this nations ruling class have expropriated 75 billion from 1995-2007, this figure is hidden via tax evasion.

1. Legislation to close tax fugitive - require anyone over 100,000 to pay tax, or risk passport and asset confiscation.
2. Remove all property based tax incentives -
3. Tax all income over 100,000 sur 70%
4. Restore capital gains to 40%
5. inheritance tax on large business
6. 3% levy on all income producing assets/real capital
7. Remove the 90 million - subsidy made available to private schools
8. Support EU tax harmonization on corp tax

"According to the bank of Ireland the top 1% of this nations ruling class have expropriated 75 billion from 1995-2007, this figure is hidden via tax evasion."
Can you link the source please?
It seems highly unlikely BOI would say that.

Time Magazine

eamonnm79 wrote: »

Marxist economics is still economics.

I know. You can argue that a 70% higher income band is utility-increasing for society. (Bonus points if you throw in the term "bistochastic matrix".)

Unfortunately I saw (and see) the thread going a different way altogether, so I'm trying to avoid having to send this to the Politics forum.

asdasd

Marxist economics is still economics.

Is there a Marxist econmic book with lots of equations then? Criticising the present system, or the recent Froth, is not really good enough, since David McWilliams, and George Lee did that.

Economics is not a very strong science anyway, although it is one of the hardest social sciences. Thats not because there are no mathematical models, but because the mathematical models are flawed. It is still a science though, not least because it tries to understand where it is flawed - the recent nobels on Game theory.

Where are the mathematical models for Marxism. Sure there is a lot of text. But maths?

eamonnm79

asdasd wrote: »

Is there a Marxist econmic book with lots of equations then? Criticising the present system, or the recent Froth, is not really good enough, since David McWilliams, and George Lee did that.

Economics is not a very strong science anyway, although it is one of the hardest social sciences. Thats not because there are no mathematical models, but because the mathematical models are flawed. It is still a science though, not least because it tries to understand where it is flawed - the recent nobels on Game theory.

Where are the mathematical models for Marxism. Sure there is a lot of text. But maths?

So you are saying its not then?
It would make for an interesting enough discussion on its own I guess.

asdasd

Well, I have a physics degree. If there was a Maxist attack on Physics which described it as bourgeois, and that was it, I would have to say that that would not constitute a Marxist Physics.

There must be Marxist Economics, What did they teach in the Soviet Union?

Time Magazine

The University of Chicago, of all places, had an excellent Marxist economist, Oskar Lange.

asdasd

He looks good precisely because he abandons the fundamental principle of Marxism - like the Labour Theory of Value, and advocates Market Socialism. Skimming wikipedia, what he is trying to do - by trial and error in the Socialist system - is what the Market does spontaneously. Fair enough, I think that a huge concession, however.

I have argued against the Labour Theory of Value on the politics forum. no dice with boards local Marxists. I should point out this chap.

Akrasia

asdasd wrote: »

Where are the mathematical models for Marxism. Sure there is a lot of text. But maths?

4 legs good, 2 legs bad?

synd

He looks good precisely because he abandons the fundamental principle of Marxism - like the Labour Theory of Value, and advocates Market Socialism.

He looks bad, and ultimately failed in theoretical debate due to his blatant revisionism. Lange worked off the flawed neo-classical base.

I have argued against the Labour Theory of Value on the politics forum. no dice with boards local Marxists.

I should point out this chap.

?

I don't recall debating LTV with you

As for Marxist economics - plenty of annoying mathematic equations

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/

http://ricardo.ecn.wfu.edu/~cottrell/socialism_book/new_socialism.pdf

Time Magazine

synd wrote: »

Lange worked off the flawed neo-classical base.

As opposed to the flawed LTV base.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/

http://ricardo.ecn.wfu.edu/~cottrell/socialism_book/new_socialism.pdf

I don't think I've ever gone through a 208 page LaTeX file before and not find at least one first derivative. There's aren't enough equations in either for my liking

Diarmuid

synd wrote: »

1. Legislation to close tax fugitive - require anyone over 100,000 to pay tax, or risk passport and asset confiscation.

What is a tax fugitive? Someone who pays tax in another country?

synd wrote: »

3. Tax all income over 100,000 sur 70%

Good one. Even if you ignore the fact that most worked hard for years to get to a position when they can command 100k, then you take that money and give it to an government which has proven it's inability to manage the finances, and that's an improvement? The mind boggles as to the logic behind that

synd wrote: »

4. Restore capital gains to 40%

because the last thing we want is people willing to risk their money in investing in companies (and jobs as a result)

synd wrote: »

6. 3% levy on all income producing assets/real capital

And drive the rents up on people who already can't afford to buy their own house

synd wrote: »

8. Support EU tax harmonization on corp tax

And Ireland commits hari kari

Kieran Allen must believe that all his Christmas's have come at once with this crisis. However his bankrupt policies have long been proven failures, I expect only the desperate or ignorant will latch on to them this time around

asdasd

Good post D.

I am guessing that if Synd was Taoiseach Ireland's ecoomic decline would be close to 50%. And the poor poorer, because.

Someone introduce that chap to the Laffer curve.

synd

Good one. Even if you ignore the fact that most worked hard for years to get to a position when they can command 100k, then you take that money and give it to an government which has proven it's inability to manage the finances, and that's an improvement? The mind boggles as to the logic behind that

Profit = the appropriation of social labor value. Capitalist calls for the intensification of exploitation may require effort, but are not productive. As for a neo-liberal gov being unable to manage finance in the interests of society - I completely agree.

because the last thing we want is people willing to risk their money in investing in companies (and jobs as a result)

Investment is pulling out anyway - capital will go to were it can ascertain higher profits. Naturally wage reductions in the region of 10% wont place Ireland in competitive relation with Latvian or polish labor markets.

And drive the rents up on people who already can't afford to buy their own house

Only applying to income producing assets and second homes for those receiving twice the average industrial income. Besides, rent should eventually be abolished and housing made social to the extent possible.

Kieran Allen must believe that all his Christmas's have come at once with this crisis. However his bankrupt policies have long been proven failures,

Proven failures ? Il take a shot in the dark and assume your referring to the USSR ? China ? I wouldn't conceptualize their past command economies as failures, although I don't advocate that model personally.

I expect only the desperate or ignorant will latch on to them this time around

I think the ignorant would rather clutch to the idea that capitalism is a viable system, ''this time around''. As for the desperation created by the inherent flaws of the market system - it will obviously bring about aspiration to change the fundamental mode of organization.

Anonymous1987

synd wrote: »

Profit = the appropriation of social labor value. Capitalist calls for the intensification of exploitation may require effort, but are not productive. As for a neo-liberal gov being unable to manage finance in the interests of society - I completely agree.

Why do you assume all profit is exploitative of labour? Surely low profit margin industries are not exploiting labour? A government whether neo-liberal or marxist will be always be inefficient to some degree because ultimately the lack of a profit motive removes the incentive to control cost. How would a Marxist government overcome this?

synd wrote: »

Investment is pulling out anyway - capital will go to were it can ascertain higher profits. Naturally wage reductions in the region of 10% wont place Ireland in competitive relation with Latvian or polish labor markets.

You ignore the infrastructure and human capital Ireland has acquired over the years of the boom along with the establishment of Ireland as a base in Europe for IT pharmaceuticals and finance and of course the corporation is tax is still very low. All strong incentives to invest.

synd wrote: »

Only applying to income producing assets and second homes for those receiving twice the average industrial income. Besides, rent should eventually be abolished and housing made social to the extent possible.

Rent abolished and 100% social housing? If you want the country to live in Ballymun flats where is the incentive to improve you're lot? and otherwise why bother?

synd wrote: »

Proven failures ? Il take a shot in the dark and assume your referring to the USSR ? China ? I wouldn't conceptualize their past command economies as failures, although I don't advocate that model personally.

China can hardly be classified as a communist state any longer even if they insist they are their political structure resembles more a command capitalist economy.

synd wrote: »

I think the ignorant would rather clutch to the idea that capitalism is a viable system, ''this time around''. As for the desperation created by the inherent flaws of the market system - it will obviously bring about aspiration to change the fundamental mode of organization.

My understanding is that there has not been any other time without capitalism it has existed in some form or another since civilization began.

asdasd

As for the desperation created by the inherent flaws of the market system - it will obviously bring about aspiration to change the fundamental mode of organization.

Just not in the next ten thouand years. Try and actually get out of the library and talk to real people. Ask them if there are flaws in capitalism. They will say yes, in general. Ask them if they want a communist system ( whichever one of the many is in fashion du jour - who knew?) and they will say no.

The world is full of the actual people you probably do not talk to -and not one of them would a have a communist thought in their lives, and without Karl Marx's utterly trite analysis of economics a long time ago - flawed then and utterly flawed and dated now - neither would you.

Oh and I looked up Dr Kieran Allens resume

School of Sociology
Newman Building
Belfield
Dublin 4

snigger. hilarious. The innumerate buffoons of sociology take on economics. Nezt week astrologists on why astronomy is hegemonic, but flawed and we have bugger all mathematics too.



Where, oh where are the Marxist equations we asked for a while ago.

synd

Why do you assume all profit is exploitative of labour? Surely low profit margin industries are not exploiting labour?

They are exploitative - just to a lesser extent. They expropriate a lower level of surplus value, I suppose you could argue the degree may be negligible depending on the circumstances. Co-ops on the other hand generally cannot be described as exploitative given people are remunerated with the value of their productive input - the degree of surplus utilized for collective purposes is decided democratically.

A government whether neo-liberal or marxist will be always be inefficient to some degree

The neo-liberal definition of efficiency is different from the socialist definition - within contemporary bourgeoisie discourse the term efficiency is equated with profit maxamization. In socialist discourse efficiency means whatever course of action best meets societies needs/demands. It is fallacious to argue (as liberals do) that the market is the best means of expessing and allocating scarce resources considering demand does not reflect need, rather the ability to pay. Under capitalism activities that are profitable are not always efficient or rational - the production of skin lotions may be more profitable than the production of generic drugs for third world ilness's. Therefore, market production is geared towards the creation of luxury items - considering those in need are unable to express demand due to insufficient income.

because ultimately the lack of a profit motive removes the incentive to control cost.

A socialist economy would spend only what it generates in surplus value, the incentive to constrict taxation beyond a certain point would be the individuals desire to retain the fruits of his/her own labor.

How would a Marxist government overcome this?

I dont really see what you mean by this. In a socialist society workers are re-numerated with labor vlaue, a portion of their surplus goes towards tax which is used to fund social expendature.

You ignore the infrastructure and human capital Ireland has acquired over the years of the boom along with the establishment of Ireland as a base in Europe for IT pharmaceuticals and finance and of course the corporation is tax is still very low. All strong incentives to invest.

The IT, pharmaceuticals and finance your refering too came here given Irelands position as a tax haven. US industry is likely to pull out given Obamas protectionist policies, furthermore lowering tax and thinking it a sustainable strategy is bloody stupid - other govs will eventually follow suit. Expendature on R&D in Ireland lags behind the OCED average - and we have appauling infastructure by EU standards, trasportation - broadband ect.

http://www.tribune.ie/business/news/article/2008/sep/07/dell-departure-from-ireland-more-likely-as-it-does/

Rent abolished and 100% social housing?the incentive to improve you're lot? and otherwise why bother?

Preferably all housing would be social yes. The incentive to work would be to avail of expendable income, however differecials in wage would be abolished.

If you want the country to live in Ballymun flats where is

I dont think theres anything wrong with the Ballymun flats. http://media.daft.ie/College-View-Ballymun-Dublin-11/70mIMYqSOdmdLAJf1DXQVflvoetm73Y1DI8sNu6IPTBtPXBpZSZsPTYwMA==.jpg

China can hardly be classified as a communist state any longer even if they insist they are their political structure resembles more a command capitalist economy.

True, however you would be mistaken to label China prior to Deng-Xiaopings market reforms a failure (as liberals typically do)

My understanding is that there has not been any other time without capitalism it has existed in some form or another since civilization began.

The market has existed for a long time and would continue to exist under socialism - capitalism however has only been around since the decline of feudalism.

Anonymous1987

synd wrote: »

They are exploitative - just to a lesser extent. They expropriate a lower level of surplus value, I suppose you could argue the degree may be negligible depending on the circumstances. Co-ops on the other hand generally cannot be described as exploitative given people are remunerated with the value of their productive input - the degree of surplus utilized for collective purposes is decided democratically.

Where do you factor in the reward for the entrepreneur? Co-ops can and do exist alongside alongside regular corporations. I would go as far to say that a co-op is a specialist corporation with consumers or workers as shareholders essentially fulfilling the role as entrepreneurs.

synd wrote: »

The neo-liberal definition of efficiency is different from the socialist definition - within contemporary bourgeoisie discourse the term efficiency is equated with profit maxamization. In socialist discourse efficiency means whatever course of action best meets societies needs/demands. It is fallacious to argue (as liberals do) that the market is the best means of expessing and allocating scarce resources considering demand does not reflect need, rather the ability to pay. Under capitalism activities that are profitable are not always efficient or rational - the production of skin lotions may be more profitable than the production of generic drugs for third world ilness's. Therefore, market production is geared towards the creation of luxury items - considering those in need are unable to express demand due to insufficient income.

Demand is a reflection of the ability and willingness to pay. Generally people put needs before wants you will not purchase skin lotion if you need a life saving drug. As such capitalism addresses needs before wants and the prevalence of luxuries exemplifies that basic needs are satisfied.

The failure of the profit motive to encourage the development of life saving drugs in the third world is more a reflection of the poor rule of law to support the market rather the market and profit motive itself. The individual or consumer has the best information to decide what their needs and wants are and the market allows them to express this through their ability and willingness to pay.

The welfare state has attempted to resolve the ability to pay problem to some degree by providing for those unable to work. In a Marxist society who will decide "whatever course of action best meets societies needs/demands" because I would not trust a politician to make my decisions for me.

synd wrote: »

A socialist economy would spend only what it generates in surplus value, the incentive to constrict taxation beyond a certain point would be the individuals desire to retain the fruits of his/her own labor.

I dont really see what you mean by this. In a socialist society workers are re-numerated with labor vlaue, a portion of their surplus goes towards tax which is used to fund social expendature.

I fail to see the logic in this. If the socialist economy spends what it generates in surplus value is it not replacing the entrepreneur and hence as Marxism describes exploiting the worker? If the individual can constrict taxation beyond a certain point why would they ever pay over this certain point?

synd wrote: »

The IT, pharmaceuticals and finance your refering too came here given Irelands position as a tax haven. US industry is likely to pull out given Obamas protectionist policies, furthermore lowering tax and thinking it a sustainable strategy is bloody stupid - other govs will eventually follow suit. Expendature on R&D in Ireland lags behind the OCED average - and we have appauling infastructure by EU standards, trasportation - broadband ect.

Fair point about the corporation tax it is not sustainable but I disagree about our infrastructure and we do have a relatively skilled english speaking labour force within the eurozone.

http://www.tribune.ie/business/news/article/2008/sep/07/dell-departure-from-ireland-more-likely-as-it-does/

synd wrote: »

Preferably all housing would be social yes. The incentive to work would be to avail of expendable income, however differecials in wage would be abolished.

I dont think theres anything wrong with the Ballymun flats. http://media.daft.ie/College-View-Ballymun-Dublin-11/70mIMYqSOdmdLAJf1DXQVflvoetm73Y1DI8sNu6IPTBtPXBpZSZsPTYwMA==.jpg

Expandable income and differentials in wage abolished this is contradictory how can you hope to expand income if everyone earns the same

I think it was quite obvious I referred to these Ballymun flats

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_9ssnR0_sFJU/Rh6I4ngYTII/AAAAAAAAAKI/aAQEw-drZko/s400/clarke.JPG

I guess it is unfair to refer the single major social housing mess in Ireland but its an extreme example of social housing pitfalls. My point being no one will care about their homes if its not their property and especially if its given free. If you make a mess of it the government will give you a new one or at least cover the repairs. How will the government control quality standards and more importantly who makes the decisions of where how many and at what cost?

synd wrote: »

The market has existed for a long time and would continue to exist under socialism - capitalism however has only been around since the decline of feudalism.

Ok fair enough feudalism was the dominant system for a while but capitalism was on the sidelines with merchants earning profits for bringing spices and china to the marketplace. In classical times the Mediterranean was bustling with trading activity Roman coins were even found as far away as England and before this barter was the capitalist mode of transaction. I view capitalism as an economic system as opposed to a form of political government. Some of youre suggested reforms are more Marxist than socialist and I fail to see a market operating in a Marxist system.

Diarmuid

Wll put Anonymous1987.

Ostrom

asdasd wrote: »

Oh and I looked up Dr Kieran Allens resume

snigger. hilarious. The innumerate buffoons of sociology take on economics. Nezt week astrologists on why astronomy is hegemonic, but flawed and we have bugger all mathematics too.

Where, oh where are the Marxist equations we asked for a while ago.

There aren't any, save for the relational categories established in Volume 1. You will find some in volume 3, if equations are what you are looking for. Marginality and quantitative economics overtook marxist LTV long ago; there was much more to Marx than determination of price.

As a sociologist, I dont concern myself with economy in the sense that you do, there are people better qualified than me to do it, of course. I do concern myself with the inability of economic theory to conceptualise the origins of relational categories, and the conflicts of class interests expressed at various historical points throughout the development of capitalism. Then again, I'm a historian, so I probably shouldn't comment on this subject.

I will say yours is amongst the more hateful of the elitism I have come across. Fortunately, I have had the pleasure of working with many from science, economics and history who are able to discard petty quant superiority and learn from each other. Sociologists inability to engage in quantitative analysis does not exclude discussions of other aspects such as labour market embeddedness or historical dynamics. I cant imagine how limited our understanding would be if left strictly to economists.

I dont care much for Allen & Co's ad nauseum though, as with the unfortunate 'science studies' it does little other than to lead people like yourself to believe that all sociologists do is throw 'hegemonic' accusations at anything beyond our apparent intellectual grasp. Is numerical competence a requirement for typically non-numerical study, such as sociology now is? Does that fact I was a civil engineer before taking this up change anything? Of course not.

Anyway, my 2c, peace.

synd

Where do you factor in the reward for the entrepreneur?

Entrepreneurship is useless notion when divorced from pre-existing capital. To become a capitalist one must at least have sufficient collateral to borrow, this ensures the market is invariably tilted in the favor of the rich and acts to facilitate class re-production. However as a socialist I consider capitalist social relations negative - in a socialist society there would be no place for the capitalist and this would ensure everyone else may engage in innovation on an equal basis.

Demand is a reflection of the ability and willingness to pay. Generally people put needs before wants you will not purchase skin lotion if you need a life saving drug. As such capitalism addresses needs before wants and the prevalence of luxuries exemplifies that basic needs are satisfied.

The nature of capitalism itself ensures that needs are not expressed, and without recourse to an external state mechanism the un-restricted market leaves people to die. My initial point stands intact, individual transactions on the market are unable to transmit adequate ''information'' considering those who are most in need are invariably unable to express their requirements. The fact that luxury commodity production is a more profitable endeavour ensures its prioritized position relative to human need - this is of course an irrational prioritization - unless we are using bourgeoisie terminology which equates rationality with '''profit maximization''.

The individual or consumer has the best information to decide what their needs and wants are and the market allows them to express this through their ability and willingness to pay.

The individual or consumer has the best information to decide what their needs and wants are and the market allows them to express this through their ability and willingness to pay. Individuals hold essential information, however the capitalist market ''ensures'' that people cannot express it in the event of insufficient income. Likewise the ability to pay in a system where wealth becomes concentrated ensures that luxury commodities retain a high price, neither representative of social demand or labor input. For instance a painting can assume a high price due to the fact that a wealthy minority are willing to pay such costs. The given commodity may be in low demand, thus price under capitalist transaction does not reflect value in terms of social desirability or labor expended in production.

The failure of the profit motive to encourage the development of life saving drugs in the third world is more a reflection of the poor rule of law to support the market rather the market and profit motive itself.

This is grade A neo-liberal bull****. The rule of law and parliamentary democracy do not invariably lead to high levels of economic wellbeing, take Brazil as an example. There is in general absolutely no connection between economic growth, ''democracy'' and the rule of law. Seriously - don't try to fly that crap from the CATO institute past me and think I wont notice it. The most developed nations of the world grew via the revenue accumulated through extensive imperialism. Imperialism couldn't be in further breach of the liberal law you refer to. Marx destroys the myth of primitive accumulation peddled by smith and the other bourgeoisie propagandists in capital ''This primitive accumulation plays in Political Economy about the same part as original sin in theology. Adam bit the apple, and thereupon sin fell on the human race. Its origin is supposed to be explained when it is told as an anecdote of the past. In times long gone-by there were two sorts of people; one, the diligent, intelligent, and, above all, frugal elite; the other, lazy rascals, spending their substance, and more, in riotous living. The legend of theological original sin tells us certainly how man came to be condemned to eat his bread in the sweat of his brow; but the history of economic original sin reveals to us that there are people to whom this is by no means essential. Never mind! Thus it came to pass that the former sort accumulated wealth, and the latter sort had at last nothing to sell except their own skins. And from this original sin dates the poverty of the great majority that, despite all its labour, has up to now nothing to sell but itself, and the wealth of the few that increases constantly although they have long ceased to work. Such insipid childishness is every day preached to us in the defence of property. M. Thiers, e.g., had the assurance to repeat it with all the solemnity of a statesman to the French people, once so spirituel. But as soon as the question of property crops up, it becomes a sacred duty to proclaim the intellectual food of the infant as the one thing fit for all ages and for all stages of development. In actual history it is notorious that conquest, enslavement, robbery, murder, briefly force, play the great part. In the tender annals of Political Economy, the idyllic reigns from time immemorial. Right and “labour” were from all time the sole means of enrichment, the present year of course always excepted. As a matter of fact, the methods of primitive accumulation are anything but idyllic.'' Capital p 873

The reason that many nations in the third world are ''unable'' to develop is that they are exploited by the international bourgeoisie via debt bondage - the prescription for which is the sale of public assets and the implementation of tax reductions so as to attract FDI. Needless to say an excuse for further acquisition on the part of those that your ideology is designed to protect. The capital that is established on the periphery - extracts more in profit than enters in aid, this when the outflow of capital in debt reparations are taken into consideration. Its a complete fallacy that a system which enacts liberal law fosters economic development, capital frequently travels where the interests of business are put before ''individual rights''. Indonesia, Brazil, Philippians ect. Capital investment does not necessarily lead to development, or rising quality of life in fact it often results in ''diminishing living standards''. Nor does increase in GDP indicate any increase in general living standards. Sorry to smash your neo-liberal orthodoxies.

The welfare state has attempted to resolve the ability to pay problem to some degree by providing for those unable to work.

The welfare state acts to rectify the problem - however it entails an inherent contradiction ie. the capital required for social expenditure is entirely dependent upon the rate of exploitation, so social democratic policy in order to be realized must revert to the advocation of increased exploitation. For instance in order to accumulate more revenue from capital - social dems will seek to reduce wages/increase the working day so as to attract investment ect.

In a Marxist society who will decide "whatever course of action best meets societies needs/demands" because I would not trust a politician to make my decisions for me

Socialist production is not to be confused with a centralized command economy, production is for the most part not determined by some central authority, luxury goods would be determined by consumer preference. Large scale works such as roads, air-line co-ordination, train systems, water supply, housing and telecommunications would obviously be centralized. Production with regards commodities would utilize both consumer demand and expectation, as occurs under existing capitalism. You consistently assert that planning is (impossible) - this is due to what I can only observe as your complete ignorance as to how existing capitalism actually functions. Capital does not produce for immediate markets, it produces on future expectation, making use of consumption trends to (plan outcomes), a method that utilizing modern technology has proven itself exceedingly accurate.

I fail to see the logic in this. If the socialist economy spends what it generates in surplus value is it not replacing the entrepreneur and hence as Marxism describes exploiting the worker? If the individual can constrict taxation beyond a certain point why would they ever pay over this certain point?

No because the amount of revenue derived is decided democraticlly and furthermore goes directly back into social circulation in the form of public facilities. Under capitalism the amount of surplus expropriated is essentially decided by the boss, in theory its ''negotiated'' however in reality the capitalist has immeasurably more bargaining power. Additionally - surplus expropriated in the form of profit is not subject to the will of those who created it and is not used for social purpose - it is rather re-invested in the process of exploitation.

Fair point about the corporation tax it is not sustainable but I disagree about our infrastructure and we do have a relatively skilled english speaking labour force within the eurozone.

Supposing for the sake of the argument that an Irish worker was on average 5% more productive (due to eduction) than an estonian worker - provided the profit derived from savings in terms of lower wage and low taxation surpassed the amount accumulated due to the 5% - there would for the capitalist be no incentive to stay in Ireland, despite ''higher quality''. This is a problem neo-liberals are unable to address, without recourse to the notion that we should somehow lower our living standards to Indian levels.

Expandable income and differentials in wage abolished this is contradictory how can you hope to expand income if everyone earns the same

No actually, the confiscation of upper class capital/abolishment of profit will provide a substantial increase in the real wage of the majority. As Cockshott explains

The New Earnings Survey3 shows that the median weekly income for women workers in 1987 was £145. We estimate that in Britain in 1987 an hour’s labour produced goods worth about £7.50. This means that payment in terms of labour money would be equivalent to an hourly rate of £7.50 per hour in 1987 money. This means that we are talking of the equivalent of about £300 for a 40 hour week. This is of course before tax.

Table 2.1 shows how this is worked out. The data come from the 1988 edition of the United Kingdom National Accounts. We start off with the Gross National Product of the country. We subtract from this the figure for capital consumption. Capital consumption is the rate at which the nation’s capital stock is wearing down or decaying; prudence requires that a corresponding part of the Gross National Product be set aside to replace the decaying capital stock.

In recent years this has not always been done and elements of the country’s infrastructure—such as the transport system, sewage and housing stock—have been allowed to deteriorate. A policy of skimping on capital replacement is cheap in the short run but costs dear in the end. The needs of the future should be treated more seriously; so in our calculation capital consumption is deducted to arrive at the Net National Product. This is what was available in 1987 to meet the needs of society during the year.

Table 2.1: Value created by an hour’s labour in 1987

UK Gross National Product at market prices £420 billion less Capital Consumption £48 billion equals Net National Product £372 billion Employed workforce 25.7 million So: Net Product per employee £14,474 Hours worked per week 40 Weeks per year 48 So: Total hours worked per year 1920 So: Value created per hour = £14,474/1920 = £7.53

Note that this underestimates the amount of value created by an hour’s labour since a part of the workforce is employed part time and works less than 40 hours per week. We then divide this by the number of employees to obtain the National Product per Employee: about £14,500. This is the average amount of value that each employee produced in 1987.2 If we divide this by the average yearly number of hours worked we come up with the result that an hour’s labour creates a value of about £7.50. For a 40 hour week this would give an income of £300 before tax.

Figure 2.1 shows a more detailed breakdown of earnings. It can be seen that more than 75 percent of women manual workers earned less than £145 per week. Even among non-manual workers, only 25 percent earned more than £213 per 3Published annually by the UK government.

Contrasting this chart with the egalitarian pay scale of £300 a week, it appears that half of the female workforce would see their incomes more than doubled by payment on socialist lines. A further quarter would see their incomes rise by about 50 percent. Even among the top quarter of female employees, the majority would probably see substantial increases in pay. It is clear that women would benefit immensely from the socialist principle of payment according to labour time. Does the same hold true for men? Figure 2.1 also shows that, although men are generally paid about a third more than women, the great majority of men would also benefit from the socialist principle of payment according to labour. The only category earning above the £300 level was the top quartile of male white collar workers. What this shows is that the great majority of employees are exploited. The gains that they would make if they were no longer exploited would more than offset any erosion of differentials that they might suffer under an egalitarian pay scheme. The very substantial increase that almost all employees would experience is possible because property income is abolished under a socialist system of payment. Socialism involves employees as a group benefiting at the expense of shareholders and other property owners. Cockshott (1993)

I guess it is unfair to refer the single major social housing mess in Ireland but its an extreme example of social housing pitfalls. My point being no one will care about their homes if its not their property and especially if its given free.

Cubans enjoy much more developed accommodation than the residents of Somalia or the Indian shanty towns. The idea that socialized property will be neglected is an outdated and thoroughly refuted argument.

I view capitalism as an economic system as opposed to a form of political government. Some of youre suggested reforms are more Marxist than socialist and I fail to see a market operating in a Marxist system.

Capitalism is an economic system however its contemporary political/idealogical manifestation is liberalism. My proposed alternative is socialist, the general basis could be applied under various conditions.