Why is communism held in such a grave regard?

Liam Byrne

RandomName2 wrote: »

Edit: actually your statement is broader than this, but I won't really consider your position that TD's should only have their wages paid retrospectively, and after having had their performances rated by the public, etc. At the moment we already have a solution to this. We sack TDs during things called 'elections'.

So you're OK with - at least - two people who did the worst ever damage to this country heading off with €300,000 pensions ?

Firing them at the next election will be a pleasure, but the fact that despite being worse than disastrous they're getting more per year than I will for the rest of my lifetime is a disgrace.

JustinDee

Liam Byrne wrote: »

So you're OK with - at least - two people who did the worst ever damage to this country heading off with €300,000 pensions ?

Not to be picky but the €300,000 is a lump sum. Their pensions are around €140,000 pa.

prinz

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I am no fan of communism but the above is only half the picture. There was an excellent documentary on the BBC (IIRC) last night about this very issue. The qualities you list above are best used to the advantage of people in societies that are more 'equal' (social-democracy driven) than more capitalistic.

ISAW

CerebralCortex wrote: »

Worship the material what are you on about? If you mean that we need things that exist in physical reality to exist then why call it worship? It's called living in reality.

No no no! That is a straw man! I didn't claim reality does not exist or e don't actually need physical things in order to live. The point is about things we want and not things we need! Materialism is what caused the collapse of the Irish system. the economy is doing ok but people borrowed what they could not pay for on the basis of other people having grandiose wants for things they didn't need.

ISAW

Liam Byrne wrote: »

So you're OK with - at least - two people who did the worst ever damage to this country heading off with €300,000 pensions ?

Is Brendan Howlin retiring?

Duke Leonal Felmet

ISAW wrote: »

No no no! That is a straw man! I didn't claim reality does not exist or e don't actually need physical things in order to live. The point is about things we want and not things we need! Materialism is what caused the collapse of the Irish system. the economy is doing ok but people borrowed what they could not pay for on the basis of other people having grandiose wants for things they didn't need.

Perhaps we should go back to pre-agrarian times, then? This pesky food surplus is a sure sign of our materialistic desires!

:-)

Anonymous1987

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Recent research does not conclusively find interest rates as either the sole or dominant factor in the latest US housing bubble with some studies finding interest rates responsible for not more than one fifth of the increase in house prices.

Here also are a number of economist's opinions on the issue, it is not clear if monetary policy caused the crisis.

RandomName2

Liam Byrne wrote: »

So you're OK with - at least - two people who did the worst ever damage to this country heading off with €300,000 pensions ?

Firing them at the next election will be a pleasure, but the fact that despite being worse than disastrous they're getting more per year than I will for the rest of my lifetime is a disgrace.

Yes, but that has nothing to do with Capitalism VS Communism!

At least there is a slim chance that we can change politics here such that the public might prevent that happening in the future.

What sort of pension does a Communist leader generally have?

0

They never retire.

RussellTuring

This thread has gone off on a wild tangent about bankers, developers and corrupt politicians, perhaps unsurprisingly. I'd like to try get it back on topic, if I can.

Duke Leonal Felmet wrote: »

I would like to be fair to proponents of Communism.

In my opinion, the colectivisation of all state output for equal distribution among all people requires that the state is endowed with massive powers, both politically and economically.

How does a proponent suggest that these powers do not lead to despotism or totalitarianism?

What if we eliminate the state? Many of the problems with the USSR, for example, were due to an extremely powerful party who were essentially a law unto themselves. If we take away the possibility of any one person or group of people accumulating power, this will make it quite difficult for totalitarianism to arise, or at least I believe.

Duke Leonal Felmet

RussellTuring wrote: »

This thread has gone off on a wild tangent about bankers, developers and corrupt politicians, perhaps unsurprisingly. I'd like to try get it back on topic, if I can.



What if we eliminate the state? Many of the problems with the USSR, for example, were due to an extremely powerful party who were essentially a law unto themselves. If we take away the possibility of any one person or group of people accumulating power, this will make it quite difficult for totalitarianism to arise, or at least I believe.

I don't follow. Who will organise redistribution of wealth? Good will?

RussellTuring

Exactly. I'm not saying it's going to happen overnight. It won't happen unless people agree that it's the best option.

prinz

RussellTuring wrote: »

What if we eliminate the state?

...and who stops one commune from just thieving off the others? We'd be heading backwards in time to minature city-states and the robber-barons of the Rhine Valley.

RussellTuring

prinz wrote: »

...and who stops one commune from just thieving off the others? We'd be heading backwards in time to minature city-states and the robber-barons of the Rhine Valley.

What stops the people of one neighbourhood thieving from the others? A recognition of the fact that we are better off cooperating than competing, which would already have to be the consensus were we to be communists in the first place.

The question was raised as to how we could mitigate against the possibility of totalitarianism in a communist society. I believe having no person with authority over another is a good start.

prinz

RussellTuring wrote: »

What stops the people of one neighbourhood thieving from the others? A recognition of the fact that we are better off cooperating than competing, which would already have to be the consensus were we to be communists in the first place..

We have already recognised that fact. States were born from the fact that people agreed to cooperate instead of compete and that somethings needed to be pooled etc the social contract is the embodiment of that recognition. By removing the state would that not be a step back towards individual competition?

sarumite

RussellTuring wrote: »

What stops the people of one neighbourhood thieving from the others? A recognition of the fact that we are better off cooperating than competing, which would already have to be the consensus were we to be communists in the first place.

The question was raised as to how we could mitigate against the possibility of totalitarianism in a communist society. I believe having no person with authority over another is a good start.

What replaces the state and its functions if we remove it?

RussellTuring

prinz wrote: »

We have already recognised that fact.

I know. That's what I said.

States were born from the fact that people agreed to cooperate instead of compete and that somethings needed to be pooled etc the social contract is the embodiment of that recognition. By removing the state would that not be a step back towards individual competition?

I think you're equating states with societies. We don't really know when people started to cooperate and form groups for the purposes of mutual benefit, but there is no doubt that it was long before states formed. You seem to be saying that we need the authority of a state to force us to cooperate.

And do you disagree that the totalitarianism of the USSR would have been unlikely if no person had authority over another?

sarumite wrote: »

What replaces the state and its functions if we remove it?

Why on Earth would one want to remove the state only to replace it with something else? That seems like a completely redundant move. As for its functions, they are numerous and varied so those that will be retained in this hypothetical communist society will likely have as many solutions. As for who will carry out these functions, I would imagine it would be much the same as what happens now: those who have an aptitude for certain tasks are undoubtedly the right people for the job. The difference being that many barriers that currently prevent these people from filling these roles may be removed.

prinz

RussellTuring wrote: »

You seem to be saying that we need the authority of a state to force us to cooperate..

We need some sort of authority or sufficient investment in a society to remain in a good standing with others. What you are describing is an idealistic utopia where no one ever considers wronging someone else, nobody ever needs protection for others.

RussellTuring wrote: »

As for who will carry out these functions, I would imagine it would be much the same as what happens now: those who have an aptitude for certain tasks are undoubtedly the right people for the job. The difference being that many barriers that currently prevent these people from filling these roles may be removed.

Eh so meritocracy? The right people to positions of authority...

RussellTuring wrote: »

I believe having no person with authority over another is a good start..

So someone with the required aptitude will take on the role of the authority in this society, but just without any actual authority over anyone.

sarumite

RussellTuring wrote: »

Why on Earth would one want to remove the state only to replace it with something else? That seems like a completely redundant move. As for its functions, they are numerous and varied so those that will be retained in this hypothetical communist society will likely have as many solutions. As for who will carry out these functions, I would imagine it would be much the same as what happens now: those who have an aptitude for certain tasks are undoubtedly the right people for the job. The difference being that many barriers that currently prevent these people from filling these roles may be removed.

The state currently has various functions in our current soctiety. If your idea to mitigate against totalitarianism in a communist state is to remove the state and thus its functions, then you need to do something to fill in the gap.

I would rather a realistic method to mitigate against totalitarianism in a communist state than an idealistic one where we all live in an anarchic communist utopia.

RussellTuring

prinz wrote: »

We need some sort of authority or sufficient investment in a society to remain in a good standing with others. What you are describing is an idealistic utopia where no one ever considers wronging someone else, nobody ever needs protection for others.

That's not what I'm describing at all. We don't need a government to tell us that certain things are wrong.

Eh so meritocracy? The right people to positions of authority...

Eh no. I never said these people should have authority over others. In fact I explicitly said nobody should. How you got this idea, I don't know. I said that people who are willing and able to do a job are the ones who should do it and nothing more.

So someone with the required aptitude will take on the role of the authority in this society, but just without any actual authority over anyone.

As I've said a few times now, I don't want anyone in authority. You might try reading what I actually said instead of trying to just catch me out, as you seem to be doing.

Now, do you care to grant me the courtesy of answering the question which I asked you in my previous post?

Duke Leonal Felmet

Russell, are you essentially just saying: 'why can't we all get along?'

RussellTuring

sarumite wrote: »

The state currently has various functions in our current soctiety.

And I said as much.

If your idea to mitigate against totalitarianism in a communist state is to remove the state and thus its functions, then you need to do something to fill in the gap.

Well do you want to specifically raise some of these functions instead of expecting me to come up with a one-for-all solution for them?

I would rather a realistic method to mitigate against totalitarianism in a communist state than an idealistic one where we all live in an anarchic communist utopia.

And you don't think removing authority is a realistic method of mitigating against extreme authority?

prinz

RussellTuring wrote: »

Well do you want to specifically raise some of these functions instead of expecting me to come up with a one-for-all solution for them?

Police and justice. The right people will take on these roles, just without having any authority over anyone in order to adequately carry them out.

RussellTuring wrote: »

And you don't think removing authority is a realistic method of mitigating against extreme authority?

About as useful as removing large amounts of the brain as a realistic method of mitigating against criminal activites. Sure the person might be law abiding afterwards but still a vegetable.

As for your question the USSR wouldn't have been likely in a world where nobody had any authority over another. Even setting up a communist wonderland means exerting some authority over somebody.

sarumite

RussellTuring wrote: »

And I said as much.



Well do you want to specifically raise some of these functions instead of expecting me to come up with a one-for-all solution for them?

Lets start with legislation and go from there.

P.s I simply asked a few questions about your theories, so lets keep things civil.

And you don't think removing authority is a realistic method of mitigating against extreme authority?

Yes, I do. I just don't think you can remove authority.

RussellTuring

Duke Leonal Felmet wrote: »

Russell, are you essentially just saying: 'why can't we all get along?'

Ha. I wish it were that simple.

prinz wrote: »

Police and justice. The right people will take on these roles, just without having any authority over anyone in order to adequately carry them out.

Well we don't necessarily need these roles to be permanent if we won't be enforcing property laws or the decree of the state. Anyway, I'm not advocating lying down and let people tread all over you. There are always going to be people who will do their best to harm society but it is up to this society to address this, not unelected figures purporting to act on its behalf.

About as useful as removing large amounts of the brain as a realistic method of mitigating against criminal activites. Sure the person might be law abiding afterwards but still a vegetable.

Hardly comparing like with like now, is it? It would probably be more honest to suggest preventing shootings by abolishing guns.

As for your question the USSR wouldn't have been likely in a world where nobody had any authority over another. Even setting up a communist wonderland means exerting some authority over somebody.

You're right. It wouldn't have been possible. That's my point and I'm glad you agree. And as I alluded to earlier, as long as setting up a communist society means forcing people into it, then I'm against it.

RussellTuring

sarumite wrote: »

Lets start with legislation and go from there.

P.s I simply asked a few questions about your theories, so lets keep things civil.

Ok. Legislation should be decided by the entire populous instead of an elite of legislators.

And I think I was entirely civil. Your point was fairly vague and I was requesting that you be more specific, as you just were. If you think I was any way uncivil in my post, report it.

Yes, I do. I just don't think you can remove authority.

Why not? Many areas of our lives involve nobody enforcing authority on another, and I think many people in Ireland would agree that they are happier when nobody is telling them what to do.

sarumite

RussellTuring wrote: »

Ok. Legislation should be decided by the entire populous instead of an elite of legislators.

And I think I was entirely civil. Your point was fairly vague and I was requesting that you be more specific, as you just were. If you think I was any way uncivil in my post, report it.

Who writes the legislation, who decided which legislation goes to a vote and how do we ensure people read it before voting? writing Legislation is a full time job, its no tsomething that people will do in their spare time.

Civil was the wrong term...I should have said that I sense a certain amount of unwarrented hostility in your posts.

Why not? Many areas of our lives involve nobody enforcing authority on another, and I think many people in Ireland would agree that they are happier when nobody is telling them what to do.

What about justice system? Rules of the road? Who manages the factory? The factories need a manager.....that manager needs authority to tell people what needs to be done and when. I am happier when nobody tells me what to do.....though I am also happier on the weekend when I am not working, though I accept that some people need to work on the weekend.

RussellTuring

sarumite wrote: »

Who writes the legislation, who decided which legislation goes to a vote and how do we ensure people read it before voting? writing Legislation is a full time job, its no tsomething that people will do in their spare time.

Off the top of my head, elected delegates from different geographical areas who put forward motions according to issues raised at local assemblies to be voted on by the population as a whole in something like a referendum. People can take turns as delegates or be voted but either way, will not have the power to pass anything themselves. They would be instantly recallable.

Civil was the wrong term...I should have said that I sense a certain amount of unwarrented hostility in your posts.

I still don't think I was hostile but if you thought that maybe I was and if so, I apologise. I think I was just a bit passionate. I've had people be much more hostile with me on this site but didn't take it personally so don't think I have anything against you.

What about justice system? Rules of the road? Who manages the factory? The factories need a manager.....that manager needs authority to tell people what needs to be done and when. I am happier when nobody tells me what to do.....though I am also happier on the weekend when I am not working, though I accept that some people need to work on the weekend.

I think a justice system in this society would be much different to what we have currently. But do you think that as it is now, everyone follows rules of the road because they fear the consequences? Most people recognise that they are there for a reason and follow them thusly. Also, people are much more likely to accept the validity of rules if they have had a part in forming them.

As for your factory question (which you would have expected to be brought up by the communist), if people agree upon what needs to be done and when, why would they need someone to force them? I think cooperatives are a good example of how this can work in practice.

sarumite

RussellTuring wrote: »

Off the top of my head, elected delegates from different geographical areas who put forward motions according to issues raised at local assemblies to be voted on by the population as a whole in something like a referendum. People can take turns as delegates or be voted but either way, will not have the power to pass anything themselves. They would be instantly recallable.

So the drafting of legislation would be up to elected delegates who could be voted out of power.....however we leave the decision of whether the legislation is passed to people who may not have read the legislation or even understand the legislation.

As for your factory question (which you would have expected to be brought up by the communist), if people agree upon what needs to be done and when, why would they need someone to force them? I think cooperatives are a good example of how this can work in practice.

if people agree and when they don't?

RussellTuring

sarumite wrote: »

So the drafting of legislation would be up to elected delegates who could be voted out of power.....however we leave the decision of whether the legislation is passed to people who may not have read the legislation or even understand the legislation.

I don't think you got what I said. They never have any power in the first place so how could they be voted out of it? And no, if you want to take part in forming a policy, it's up to you to read it. If you don't care, you can abstain. Surely as it is now we expect people responsible for passing legislation to read it. This is no different.

if people agree and when they don't?

What do you do when you're with friends and you disagree about something? Do you refuse to budge and insist that everyone else to come over to your side? I'd imagine you probably talk it over until either people change their minds or come to a decision that everyone can at least live with. I hope you don't expect me to solve the problem of human conflict.

sarumite

RussellTuring wrote: »

I don't think you got what I said. They never have any power in the first place so how could they be voted out of it? And no, if you want to take part in forming a policy, it's up to you to read it. If you don't care, you can abstain. Surely as it is now we expect people responsible for passing legislation to read it. This is no different.

Well you said they could be recalled instantly...that would require a vote surely? And since putting a motion is different to drafting legislation...so in effect they do have the power as they get to choose which motions go before the people and which don't. Furthermore they get to decide how the legislation is written.....and as anyone who knows anything about polls, the way the question is worded can sometimes me more important factor than the actual question in determining the outcome.

I don't see a workable system whereby everyone is going to read and understand the finite details of all legislation however complex and then we wait until everyone is satisfied with their understanding of said legislation before putting it to a vote.

What do you do when you're with friends and you disagree about something? Do you refuse to budge and insist that everyone else to come over to your side? I'd imagine you probably talk it over until either people change their minds or come to a decision that everyone can at least live with. I hope you don't expect me to solve the problem of human conflict.

Friends yes (though my friends are a little too homogenous for any major conflict anyway), strangers....not always. Within friends if there are a few people, its generally possible to figure out an arrangement. With more it become difficult and anyone who has ever tried to organise a trip for more than 30 people will know that you never satisfy everyone and eventually you have to put the foot down and say "this is the way it is, like it or not". Now transfer that disagreement to a company of 1000's or a community of 10,000's or a country of millions.

I don't expect you to resolve the problem of human conflict, though if you are suggesting we get rid of authority you will eventually have to.