Global Revolution?

Johro

Amhran Nua wrote: »

Cities have been around for a while, in fairness.

There is no food crisis impending, there is no energy crisis impending, there is no overpopulation crisis impending, globally there's really nothing to worry about. In a hundred years time your great grandchildren will be looking back at the time of fossil fuels in the same way we look at horses and carraiges. Global warming is happening but no matter what we do it will be dykes all round regardless, so may as well get used to that idea, which is still not the end of the world - ask the Dutch.

The Dutch system to protect the country from the sea is called the Delta works and something on that scale requires huge investment and incurs massive maintenance costs annually, and it's not finished. Yes it can be done, but not as easy as you'd think, especially considering the financial situation.
Also, look at the size of Holland compared to Ireland, it's much smaller and only has coastline on its west side, where Ireland being an island may as well forget about such a sea defense, it wouldn't be practical. You seem to be making lots of sweeping statements without being informed.

Johro

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

there is a correlation between per capita GDP and the length of time a democracy survives


http://invisiblecollege.weblog.leidenuniv.nl/2007/12/02/democracy-and-development

Ha that's from Leiden University, it's my home town.

Amhran Nua

Johro wrote: »

Gulags?? Grow up. Socialism isn't 'Communist Russia' , you're being slightly hysterical to say the least.

Okay, please share with the group - what will happen to those who don't want to join the people's collective? The ULA isn't socialist, socialism is the Nordic states, most European states. What the ULA wants is raw unrefined communism, which was a parody even in the 19th century when it still served a useful purpose.

Johro wrote: »

The Dutch system to protect the country from the sea is called the Delta works and something on that scale requires huge investment and incurs massive maintenance costs annually, and it's not finished. Yes it can be done, but not as easy as you'd think, especially considering the financial situation.
Also, look at the size of Holland compared to Ireland, it's much smaller and only has coastline on its west side, where Ireland being an island may as well forget about such a sea defense, it wouldn't be practical. You seem to be making lots of sweeping statements without being informed.

Ironic really. Ireland is basically bowl shaped, the outsides are higher than the middle. This means we'll fare a lot better than many countries with a shorter coastline. Here is a great site which gives a clear indication of which areas will experience flooding difficulties due to sea level rises.

In the worst case IPCC scenario we have 90 years before we need to start laying down the dams, and that's assuming a 300% acceleration in sea level rises. In the average case from all models, which is more likely for my money, you have a 60% to 70% acceleration, which means we have more like two centuries.

With a little planning it should not be a great inconvenience to lay away funding over that period to prepare for the eventuality. As for the Delta works, they will never be completed, and yet the Dutch still manage to run a modern, thriving nation under that burden, an example to us all.

Perhaps if you were as "ill informed" about communism as I am about global climate change you wouldn't be supporting the ULA.

Johro

Amhran Nua wrote: »

Okay, please share with the group blah blah

With a little planning it should not be a great inconvenience to lay away funding over that period to prepare for the eventuality. As for the Delta works, they will never be completed, and yet the Dutch still manage to run a modern, thriving nation under that burden, an example to us all.

Perhaps if you were as "ill informed" about communism as I am about global climate change you wouldn't be supporting the ULA.

Please share with the group?
Yeah I can see your government and future governments laying away funding for the 'eventuality'.
I don't accept your view of the ULA as some sort of communist nutters, no matter how many times you say it. I won't be voting for them as it happens, it was just an illustration of alternative views, I would vote Sinn Fein, if I had a vote.
Though I've lived here since '84 I'm a Dutch national, and not likely to fork over 950 euro for Irish citizenship just so I can vote. So it doesn't matter much what I think.
By the way, the only person here who's uninformed about communism or socialism is yourself. I'm talking about the principle here, not how it's been applied by some nations, as most people do.
I'm not for communism. I'm for any kind of democracy that works. Haven't come across it here.

Amhran Nua

Johro wrote: »

Yeah I can see your government and future governments laying away funding for the 'eventuality'.

Actually the NPRF was doing a bang up job of preparing for a large pension bill up the road, triple ring fenced and protected as well as it could be, so yes, it has been done before. Of course its architect didn't foresee the kind of lunatics that got into power, but the Dutch themselves are walking a fine line on that front.

One good thing that may come from all of this mess is that future elections shouldn't restore these kind of people to power again, any more than the Germans are likely to vote for Nazis again.

Johro wrote: »

I don't accept your view of the ULA as some sort of communist nutters, no matter how many times you say it...
I'm talking about the principle here, not how it's been applied by some nations, as most people do...

I'm a really big fan of details, so stop dancing around the question I asked by handwaving at "the principle" and answer it.

Johro

Amhran Nua wrote: »

I'm a really big fan of details, so stop dancing around the question I asked by handwaving at "the principle" and answer it.

There was a question?
I don't dance, I'm crap at it.
By the way, before they go putting money away for dykes, *cough*, maybe paying a little attention to the roads could come in handy. It's like a war zone down here.

ScumLord

Watched a film called "Us now" that talks about using the social aspects of the internet to run a country.

It can be downloaded here (Legally)
http://vodo.net/usnow

Here it is on youtube

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LlqU1o3NmSw

I think the internet changes everything, it will and is changing the way humans organise and carry out their systems.

I think it's only a matter of time before governments are controlled by the people via the internet there's no stopping it.

RussellTuring

ScumLord wrote: »

Watched a film called "Us now" that talks about using the social aspects of the internet to run a country.

It can be downloaded here (Legally)
http://vodo.net/usnow

Here it is on youtube

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LlqU1o3NmSw

I think the internet changes everything, it will and is changing the way humans organise and carry out their systems.

I think it's only a matter of time before governments are controlled by the people via the internet there's no stopping it.

Just watched this myself recently after a comrade recommended it. It was very interesting and gives some hope for more open, inclusive democracy. However, such a change would rely quite heavily on politicians to take the initiative and there's only so much power they're likely to want to give up.

RussellTuring

RussellTuring wrote: »

Just watched this myself recently after a comrade recommended it. It was very interesting and gives some hope for more open, inclusive democracy. However, such a change would rely quite heavily on politicians to take the initiative and there's only so much power they're likely to want to give up.

Oh yes comrade, the politicians ARE taking the initive, but not in a positive way.

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/01/kill-switch-legislation/

Legislation granting the president internet-killing powers is to be re-introduced soon to a Senate committee, the proposal’s chief sponsor told Wired.com on Friday.
The resurgence of the so-called “kill switch” legislation came the same day Egyptians faced an internet blackout designed to counter massive demonstrations in that country.

Amhran Nua

Johro wrote: »

There was a question?

What will happen to those who don't want to join the people's collective?

Johro

Amhran Nua wrote: »

What will happen to those who don't want to join the people's collective?

I don't know. I'm not advocating communism. You're the one who said the ULA or 'those chuckleheads', want to 'turn Ireland into a communist state'. I think you're over-reacting just a tad. But that's just my opinion.
I think people will have moved on from that 'for us or against us' style of communism, just because you have some socialist ideals doesn't mean you want to chop the heads of the 'bourgeoisie'. I mean 'socialist' as in 'for the people'. Which is what government is supposed to be. Incidentally, I've had a look at their website, and in particular my local (wexford) ULA candidate's website, and I can't disagree with any of the points they make or the plans they have for government. But as I can't vote, it's immaterial.
I hope that people won't vote en masse for the usual Fine Gael or Labour alternative to Fianna Fail, coz it isn't much of a change. They talk a great deal but ultimately would've done the same things this government did.
I agree with the OP in the sense that there's a general feeling of a big change coming, and I hope we can live up to the example set by the Egyptian people who are at the moment running a little democracy of their own in Tahrir Square.
They police themselves, organise shifts of men to reinforce the barricades, have people bringing in food and water, set up washing facilities and a small clinic, and are comprised of people from all religions and walks of life.
We, on the other hand, couldn't even get people to forget their relatively small differences to come to a demonstration in Dublin, we (most of us) were all too busy bitching at each other and blaming the unions and individuals.

Eric Cartman

Johro wrote: »

I don't know. I'm not advocating communism. You're the one who said the ULA or 'those chuckleheads', want to 'turn Ireland into a communist state'. I think you're over-reacting just a tad. But that's just my opinion.
I think people will have moved on from that 'for us or against us' style of communism, just because you have some socialist ideals doesn't mean you want to chop the heads of the 'bourgeoisie'. I mean 'socialist' as in 'for the people'. Which is what government is supposed to be. Incidentally, I've had a look at their website, and in particular my local (wexford) ULA candidate's website, and I can't disagree with any of the points they make or the plans they have for government. But as I can't vote, it's immaterial.
I hope that people won't vote en masse for the usual Fine Gael or Labour alternative to Fianna Fail, coz it isn't much of a change. They talk a great deal but ultimately would've done the same things this government did.
I agree with the OP in the sense that there's a general feeling of a big change coming, and I hope we can live up to the example set by the Egyptian people who are at the moment running a little democracy of their own in Tahrir Square.
They police themselves, organise shifts of men to reinforce the barricades, have people bringing in food and water, set up washing facilities and a small clinic, and are comprised of people from all religions and walks of life.
We, on the other hand, couldn't even get people to forget their relatively small differences to come to a demonstration in Dublin, we (most of us) were all too busy bitching at each other and blaming the unions and individuals.

our only options my friend , The SWP, Sinn fein, ULA whatever slight spin you want to put on it , these are political groups with left wing socialist (sometimes bordering on communism in the SWPs case) that try to gain power by having policies that appeal to students, minimum wage workers and people on social welfare, while all well and good to look after the less fortunate in our society it would inevitably be at the expense of the rich, the business owner , the upper middle class and the foreign investor - these are the people that write the cheques to fuel this countries economy, they are not the people you want to piss off and send elsewhere so as idealisic and plausable on paper your ideas and the ULAs ideas are, they can only harm this country, not make it better, Id rather a party that changed nothing than changed it for the worse

Johro

Eric Cartman wrote: »

our only options my friend , The SWP, Sinn fein, ULA whatever slight spin you want to put on it , these are political groups with left wing socialist (sometimes bordering on communism in the SWPs case) that try to gain power by having policies that appeal to students, minimum wage workers and people on social welfare, while all well and good to look after the less fortunate in our society it would inevitably be at the expense of the rich, the business owner , the upper middle class and the foreign investor - these are the people that write the cheques to fuel this countries economy, they are not the people you want to piss off and send elsewhere so as idealisic and plausable on paper your ideas and the ULAs ideas are, they can only harm this country, not make it better, Id rather a party that changed nothing than changed it for the worse

Not necessarily. You're looking at an outdated model of socialism/communism. Though some of those 'rich' people are welcome to f#ck off elsewhere with their tax evasion and offshore accounts.
There's nothing wrong with hardworking people reaping the benefits of their hard work by becoming wealthy citizens, as long as they contribute some of that wealth to society, as should everyone else, according to their means.
That's fair isn't it?
The people you're talking about want to rake in the profits and contribute nothing. Not all of them, but a proportion.
If they want to leave, let them.
By the way, the people fuel the country's economy, by spending their wages on food and fuel and fridges and ipods.
More people working and earning decent money= more spending= growing economy.

Amhran Nua

Johro wrote: »

I don't know. I'm not advocating communism. You're the one who said the ULA or 'those chuckleheads', want to 'turn Ireland into a communist state'. I think you're over-reacting just a tad. But that's just my opinion.
I think people will have moved on from that 'for us or against us' style of communism, just because you have some socialist ideals doesn't mean you want to chop the heads of the 'bourgeoisie'. I mean 'socialist' as in 'for the people'. Which is what government is supposed to be. Incidentally, I've had a look at their website, and in particular my local (wexford) ULA candidate's website, and I can't disagree with any of the points they make or the plans they have for government. But as I can't vote, it's immaterial.
I hope that people won't vote en masse for the usual Fine Gael or Labour alternative to Fianna Fail, coz it isn't much of a change. They talk a great deal but ultimately would've done the same things this government did.
I agree with the OP in the sense that there's a general feeling of a big change coming, and I hope we can live up to the example set by the Egyptian people who are at the moment running a little democracy of their own in Tahrir Square.
They police themselves, organise shifts of men to reinforce the barricades, have people bringing in food and water, set up washing facilities and a small clinic, and are comprised of people from all religions and walks of life.
We, on the other hand, couldn't even get people to forget their relatively small differences to come to a demonstration in Dublin, we (most of us) were all too busy bitching at each other and blaming the unions and individuals.

You know I was chatting to a mod on the politics forum the last day, and he told me that in all his dealings with this crowd, he's never once gotten a straight answer. And here we have more of the same.

Lets be clear - your list of aspirations lays out some high sounding goals, but that has nothing to do with left politics, most of them are just basic common sense. The ULA wedged itself in under them like a tick to get to the real meat, as always, which is "End the reliance on the private sector".

That is unquestionably full blown Soviet-era communism. Without a private sector you have full state control of all businesses, you remove the idea of private property, and crucially, you kill or imprison anyone who disagrees with your "revolution".

This is why communism is essentially evil and has never worked, and this is why the ULA should be laughed out of any democratic forum. Talk about the last dregs of 70s era soviet psyops, what an embarassment, a bloody (in the literal sense) religion masquerading as political thought.

Johro

Amhran Nua wrote: »

You know I was chatting to a mod on the politics forum the last day, and he told me that in all his dealings with this crowd, he's never once gotten a straight answer. And here we have more of the same.

Lets be clear - your list of aspirations lays out some high sounding goals, but that has nothing to do with left politics, most of them are just basic common sense. The ULA wedged itself in under them like a tick to get to the real meat, as always, which is "End the reliance on the private sector".

That is unquestionably full blown Soviet-era communism. Without a private sector you have full state control of all businesses, you remove the idea of private property, and crucially, you kill or imprison anyone who disagrees with your "revolution".

This is why communism is essentially evil and has never worked, and this is why the ULA should be laughed out of any democratic forum. Talk about the last dregs of 70s era soviet psyops, what an embarassment, a bloody (in the literal sense) religion masquerading as political thought.

Firstly, I don't belong to any 'crowd', and don't answer for anyone but myself. I just happen to agree with most, if not all, of their proposals.
Secondly, my 'list of aspirations'?? If I have aspirations, I've not posted them on here. I've posted a list of the ULA's aspirations.
Mainly because there's some interesting stuff in there. I'll thank you not to lump me in with any 'crowd' just because I posted some of their ideas in the interest of debate, I posted about some of Sinn Fein's ideas in another thread, and there may even be some Labour policies I could agree with. I don't speak for any of them.
For the record, I would not agree with 'ending the reliance on the private sector' being the same as 'getting rid of the private sector'. This is what I have a problem with: The ULA wedged itself in under them like a tick to get to the real meat, as always, which is "End the reliance on the private sector".
That is unquestionably full blown Soviet-era communism. Without a private sector you have full state control of all businesses, you remove the idea of private property, and crucially, you kill or imprison anyone who disagrees with your "revolution".

Unadulterated hysterical bollocks.

Johro

Amhran Nua wrote: »

... but that has nothing to do with left politics, most of them are just basic common sense.

And they're the ideas I'd vote for. I don't see them coming from the mainstream parties is all.

Copper23

Weathercheck wrote: »

stance in Ireland for early election.

People 1, Democracy 0 indeed :rolleyes:

Amhran Nua

Johro wrote: »

For the record, I would not agree with 'ending the reliance on the private sector' being the same as 'getting rid of the private sector'.

All that means is you don't understand what you're supporting. The public sector is 100% reliant on the private sector, taxes from companies and individuals pay entirely for public sector expenditure, at the end of the day. The alternative is majority state ownership of companies, which puts you bang into Soviet era territory.

EU rules mean the state can't interfere in the private markets anywhere near to that extent, so that's us out of the EU. That's also waving bye-bye to the multinational FDI, so we're now looking down the barrel of 50%+ unemployment rates, sub-Saharan levels, and all of our export markets are either closed to us or at punitive tarriff rates.

How do you propose to "end the reliance on the private sector" without instituting a full blown command economy? And what happens to those companies and individuals that don't want to hand over all their assets?

I'm willing to grant that you personally may not have known what exactly was implied by that ULA statement, as I mentioned they like to bury it in every available friendly sounding bit of lip service, but I'm quite familiar with the rhetoric spouted by RBB and his fellow travellers.

Johro wrote: »

And they're the ideas I'd vote for. I don't see them coming from the mainstream parties is all.

You won't see them coming from the ULA either if they get into power.

Back to the main event!

It starting to look like another government has been replaced by a popular uprising!

Watch this space (well the news anyway)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-12421000

Egypt's President Hosni Mubarak is to make an address on national television, amid suggestions that he is preparing to step down.
A senior member of Egypt's governing party, Hossan Badrawi, has said he doesn't expect Mr Mubarak to be president on Friday.
The country's military, meanwhile, has said it will "support the legitimate demands of the people".

dsmythy

Roll on the next despot woo hoo!

De man from Cairo says no I'm staying!

What next?

Johro

Amhran Nua wrote: »

The public sector is 100% reliant on the private sector, taxes from companies and individuals pay entirely for public sector expenditure, at the end of the day.

What about VAT, and other government taxes like your road tax, property tax, capital gains tax etc.? Everybody pays VAT on just about everything.
We're never going to agree on the idea of 'ending reliance on the private sector', it means a different thing to you. You're seeing a 'hand it over or else' situation, I don't.
But as I said, I don't agree with everything proposed by the ULA, I agree with some of it, in principle. I honestly don't believe voting for Fine Gael or Labour ( I won't consider FF or the Greens) will effect any change whatsoever, it will be business as usual. Different, but essentially the same.
Realistically, no party will be entirely plain or truthful about their plans for government.
I'm fairly p!ssed off with Irish politics, we're taxed to the hilt and don't get the services, God help ya if ya fall ill or lose your job, and the whole country and its infrastructure looks (is) neglected. All that money floating around during the boom years and we went backwards, not forwards. No investments for the future, no improvements in facilities and infrastructure. It's f#cking shameful.
Especially when you consider that some of the financial dealings going on would've landed the ordinary Joe in prison.
I've seen lots of small and not so small local businesses go to the wall, most of which would have survived had they been able to secure some support from their banks.
As things stand, it's just not good enough and ripe for some sort of rebellion. Things won't get better. They'll get worse.

Johro

Deleted User wrote: »

De man from Cairo says no I'm staying!

What next?

He's handing over power to his vice-president. What a p!sstake. Suleiman is just as bad, if not worse. I guess it's going to depend on the army, and who they'll side with. It looks like the regime is hoping to rile the people into violence and that will give them the excuse they need to let loose on them.
Battering peaceful protesters doesn't look good, but hey, if they riot, it's in the interest of security. F#ckers.

Amhran Nua

Johro wrote: »

What about VAT, and other government taxes like your road tax, property tax, capital gains tax etc.? Everybody pays VAT on just about everything.

That's what I said, taxes in exchange for services. Therefore the public sector is entirely reliant on the private sector.

Johro wrote: »

We're never going to agree on the idea of 'ending reliance on the private sector', it means a different thing to you.

What's your interpretation? I really find it hard to see any other reading of it.

Johro wrote: »

Realistically, no party will be entirely plain or truthful about their plans for government.

Why not?

Johro wrote: »

As things stand, it's just not good enough and ripe for some sort of rebellion. Things won't get better. They'll get worse.

No doubt, but when the fit hits the shan, you'd better have a plan ready. The ULA is not an option in this regard.

Personally I'll be voting for FG, because they have the best body of policies of the whole lot. Still pretty poor policies, but nonetheless.

Johro

Amhran Nua wrote: »

Personally I'll be voting for FG, because they have the best body of policies of the whole lot. Still pretty poor policies, but nonetheless.

Best of a bad lot? What a sad state of affairs huh? Well as I said I can't vote, so I'll see how it pans out.

Buceph

Johro wrote: »

He's handing over power to his vice-president. What a p!sstake. Suleiman is just as bad, if not worse. I guess it's going to depend on the army, and who they'll side with. It looks like the regime is hoping to rile the people into violence and that will give them the excuse they need to let loose on them.
Battering peaceful protesters doesn't look good, but hey, if they riot, it's in the interest of security. F#ckers.

One theory is that the Army have been in support of the protesters since the very start of this. They saw what was coming, and realised it was the correct way for things to go. Ever since people started gathering on the streets, they have refused to act against them. The violence has come entirely from Pro-Mubarak agitators. The military has steadfastly refused to act against the people. The idea being that they've been negotiating with Mubarak in general, with some of the higher ups who know him, getting him to realise that he has to step down. And moreover getting the implementation of a democracy without any form of violent revolution. Basically, that the military have and are negotiating a transition to a democracy without having the state collapse in the short term, and without any radical fringes taking control.

I hope that's true, and that it comes to light over the coming years. It would make for some awesome films, or even an Aaron Sorkin tv show.

Teangalad

just been anounced mubarak is gone ,has handed over power to the Army

11 February 2011 Last updated at 16:16 GMT President Hosni Mubarak resigns as leader
Hosni Mubarak has decided to step down as president of Egypt.

Vice-President Omar Suleiman made the announcement in a brief statement on state TV.

BBC News

whoopdedoo

POWER TO THE PEOPLE!!

as I sit watching sky news joyfully soaking up the atmosphere in Tahrir Sq with the hair standing on the back of my neck I can't help but feel ashamed at the lack of a real protest against the lies and corruption we put up with here!

fair played to the Egyptians

Johro

Yeah, absolutely inspiring to see the events in Egypt, well done to the people for the victory, but most of all the style of the victory, it is an example to us all of what people can achieve through peaceful protest, if you can only muster the numbers!
A victory not just for the Egyptian people, but for people power, and people the world over should take heart. It can be done.
They must be very proud of their achievements, a great day to be an Egyptian!
I see a lot of western news still has people mooting the possibility of an Islamist uprising, despite all the evidence to the contrary, the words of the Egyptian people and the fact people of all denominations took part in the protests. The US and Europe need to get behind the democratisation of the middle east, and start walking the walk. They'll get a lot more respect from the Arab world if they do.
Because now there's the Saudi Royals, the Iranian regime, the Yemen, Jordan and Syria, among others. This will be interesting.