ULA - For a revolutionary programme

bolshevik

The ULA appears to have committed itself to a process leading towards the creation of a new workers' party in Ireland with socialism as its aim. Part of that process will be discussion over what programme that new socialist organisation should have.

The linked document does not pretend to be a fully finished programme – its aim is to stimulate discussion and debate about the key areas a revolutionary socialist programme needs to cover. Comments welcome.

http://revolutionaryprogramme.wordpress.com/for-a-revolutionary-socialist-programme-2/

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Cannibal Ox

I've never understood what socialists in Ireland meant by workers. I mean that, in the context of 19th century Germany, France or Britain, it almost made sense to talk about the new working class in the great industrial economies. When socialists on the continent talked about the worker in the 19th and early 20th century they could, arguably, point to a homogenous group with the same concerns, living standards and life prospects.

Where a similiar situation group existed in Ireland it was, traditionally, in the agricultural sector. In fact, it'd be easy to argue that the revolutionary class (such as it existed) in Ireland resided in the agricultural sector. Admittedly, the leaders tended to arise from with the upper (protestant and catholic) classes, but the body resided in the agricultural industry.

Arguably Ireland leap frogged the period of mass industrialisation and proliterian agitation that marked countries like France, Germany, Britian, Spain, Greece, Italy and Germany. When Ireland eventually reached the point of mass consumerism and industrialization that socialists in the 19th and early 20th century suspected, no proletariat or classical working class existed in the continental sense.

It was a bit like Ireland jumped the entire classical socialist moment and arrived post-marxism without even realizing it. Those who work within the Irish economy, and those who don't work, underwent a rapid process of stratification. The concerns and living conditions of public workers range widely, let alone comparisons between public and private, or agricultural and service, immigrant and citizen, etc, etc.

In other words, I don't see how you can justify the idea of the socialist worker either empirically or theoretically. So I'd like to know how you justify using that phrase, what it means and who it refers to, because otherwise I don't see how you can build a party on workers interests when the worker doesn't exist.

tl;dr What do you mean by workers and can you prove its' existence either/and empirically theoretically?

bolshevik

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Well the SWP are part of the process so the establishment of a unitary party would simply see the SWP, as with the current Socialist Party, disappear as a separate organisation.

As regards the Workers Party I think most involved in the process would expect them to come on board and dissolve themselves into the new party.

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

My own understanding of this is that it is firstly a defensive demand in that working people are under attack and we need to defend ourselves from those attacks. Regarding how society would be funded if we were successful in building a movement that could defeat the cuts it is simply by using the wealth that has been stolen from working people, in the form of profits, by expropriating the capitalist class.

I would stress that this is my own view which may, or may not, be supported by others in the ULA.

bolshevik

Cannibal Ox wrote: »

What do you mean by workers and can you prove its' existence either/and empirically theoretically?

My understanding of the term "worker" is all those who have to sell their labour power as the primary means of their existence. As such they make up the vast majority of the population in Ireland.

They are distinct from the "middle class" i.e. self-employed & managers. And of course the capitalists who own things and employ workers.

Once again - this is my own view and not necessarily that of anyone else in the ULA, though I expect most would agree with me on this definition.

Spokes of Glory

bolshevik wrote: »

My understanding of the term "worker" is all those who have to sell their labour power as the primary means of their existence. As such they make up the vast majority of the population in Ireland.

They are distinct from the "middle class" i.e. self-employed & managers. And of course the capitalists who own things and employ workers.

Once again - this is my own view and not necessarily that of anyone else in the ULA, though I expect most would agree with me on this definition.

So if I'm self-employed (as I aim to be within a couple of years), I'm no longer a "worker" ? Interesting.

I'm currently employed by a multi-national. I'm also studying for a new career part-time, and aim to be fully independent within 3 years. Believe me, I won't cease to be a worker. If anything I'll be working harder than ever to build up my practise. Of all the dogma that highlights the stagnancy of the socialist/trotskyist mindset, the parcelling of society into these patronising categories to suit their political theories is the most annoying.

bolshevik wrote: »

Regarding how society would be funded if we were successful in building a movement that could defeat the cuts it is simply by using the wealth that has been stolen from working people, in the form of profits, by expropriating the capitalist class.

And now that we've established I'm a worker, please explain how all this wealth has been stolen from me during my working career of approx 20 years or so, without me noticing. If you're referring to my portion of tax which has been p*ssed away by govt in unnecessary spending, political projects, govt quangos and benchmarking, then I fully agree with you.

bolshevik

Spokes of Glory wrote: »

So if I'm self-employed (as I aim to be within a couple of years), I'm no longer a "worker" ? Interesting.

I'm currently employed by a multi-national. I'm also studying for a new career part-time, and aim to be fully independent within 3 years. Believe me, I won't cease to be a worker. If anything I'll be working harder than ever to build up my practise. Of all the dogma that highlights the stagnancy of the socialist/trotskyist mindset, the parcelling of society into these patronising categories to suit their political theories is the most annoying.

Well words only have the content we give them but the distinction I make between "workers" who are employed by others and "workers" who are self-employed is a real one, whatever label you want to give to it.

Historically it has been of some importance in revolutionary or pre-revolutionary situations when the self-employed "workers" have had to choose between siding with the two main forces - the employed "workers" and the capitalists.

To the extent a mass working class movement in opposition to the attacks of the bosses and their government is built then you, like others of the self-employed "middle class", will be forced to make that choice.

Spokes of Glory wrote: »

And now that we've established I'm a worker, please explain how all this wealth has been stolen from me during my working career of approx 20 years or so, without me noticing. If you're referring to my portion of tax which has been p*ssed away by govt in unnecessary spending, political projects, govt quangos and benchmarking, then I fully agree with you.

I am primarily referring to "profits" - the excess from the sale of what is produced by the workers that is stolen by the capitalist parasites. There is some theft of wealth through the taxation system as well but it primarily happens in the form of profits.

Spokes of Glory

bolshevik wrote: »

To the extent a mass working class movement in opposition to the attacks of the bosses and their government is built then you, like others of the self-employed "middle class", will be forced to make that choice.

I am primarily referring to "profits" - the excess from the sale of what is produced by the workers that is stolen by the capitalist parasites. There is some theft of wealth through the taxation system as well but it primarily happens in the form of profits.

2 things there. Firstly it would seem that both middle classes and working classes (as you define them) have made their choice, and overwhelmingly elected non-socialist representatives in the election just gone (I'm assuming like most ULA supporters you regard Labour as not truly left-wing).

Secondly, as I recall, all my capitalist employers paid me money in return for my labour. While more money would always be welcome, in general I've always regarded that I've got a reasonably fair rate for my services. I fail to see how that can be classed as theft.

Cannibal Ox

bolshevik wrote:

My understanding of the term "worker" is all those who have to sell their labour power as the primary means of their existence. As such they make up the vast majority of the population in Ireland.

I don't see how you can maintain that without distinguishing between mental and physical labour. It seems to me that someone who starts and runs their own business is selling their labour for capital as cleanly as someone he or she employers is selling their labour. If you don't distinguish between physical and mental labour, then I can't see how you can justify excluding people who run their own businesses, academics, lawyers, doctors, teachers etc.

If you do make the distinction, then I can't see how you could include someone who works as an administrator, as a telephone operator or in any other service based role within your definition of worker. Which isn't justified, considering that many people who work within service based roles could be comparable to your traditional industrial worker. Spokes of Glory's posts are a fairly good illustration of this problem.

I suppose my issue isn't with the organisation or activities, my problem is that you're using concepts and ideas that I think have long since lost any relevance. I would like a smart, capable and adept left wing movement, but I think that most left wing groups in Ireland are always going to struggle because, (A they're still using ideas that parts of the left in Europe abandoned as early as 1968, if not by 1990 and (B those ideas never really resonated in Ireland the same way they did on the continent.

Duffy the Vampire Slayer

I'm a ULA member and I'm perfectly aware we WON'T be in government anytime soon. Our goal however is to raise awareness of the possibility of socialism and work towards a future change in the system.

bolshevik

Spokes of Glory wrote: »

2 things there. Firstly it would seem that both middle classes and working classes (as you define them) have made their choice, and overwhelmingly elected non-socialist representatives in the election just gone (I'm assuming like most ULA supporters you regard Labour as not truly left-wing).

That is an accurate assessment of the current consciousness of the working class but this is not a static thing, as even the most cursory glance at the history of class struggle will show. I am fairly sure that our time will come as the hopes that the new government represent some kind of real change and our lives will start to improve dissolve into dust.

Spokes of Glory wrote: »

Secondly, as I recall, all my capitalist employers paid me money in return for my labour. While more money would always be welcome, in general I've always regarded that I've got a reasonably fair rate for my services. I fail to see how that can be classed as theft.

Well all that says is you are happy with the rate of theft. My use of the word theft has to do with the fact that working people do the work to produce things and the bosses pay us much less than those things are worth, pocketing the profit for themselves.

This is never done in an equitable or fair way - the massive concentration of wealth in the tiny handful of capitalists who run our society is proof of that. The top 1% of Irish society have about 34% of the wealth and that doesn't take into account the wealth that is stolen by the multi-nationals.

Maybe you are a happy slave. I'm sure you will keep tugging your forelock safe in the knowledge that they are your betters and deserve everything they steal from the proceeds of your work.

bolshevik

Cannibal Ox wrote: »

I don't see how you can maintain that without distinguishing between mental and physical labour. It seems to me that someone who starts and runs their own business is selling their labour for capital as cleanly as someone he or she employers is selling their labour. If you don't distinguish between physical and mental labour, then I can't see how you can justify excluding people who run their own businesses, academics, lawyers, doctors, teachers etc.

If you do make the distinction, then I can't see how you could include someone who works as an administrator, as a telephone operator or in any other service based role within your definition of worker. Which isn't justified, considering that many people who work within service based roles could be comparable to your traditional industrial worker. Spokes of Glory's posts are a fairly good illustration of this problem.

I suppose my issue isn't with the organisation or activities, my problem is that you're using concepts and ideas that I think have long since lost any relevance. I would like a smart, capable and adept left wing movement, but I think that most left wing groups in Ireland are always going to struggle because, (A they're still using ideas that parts of the left in Europe abandoned as early as 1968, if not by 1990 and (B those ideas never really resonated in Ireland the same way they did on the continent.

I can accept that there is a grey area between the higher socio-economic levels of the working class and the self-employed middle class. Indeed many of those who are technically, according to my definition, self-employed middle class will see themselves as working class and actively identify with the struggle of the workers movement. And conversly there are "workers" who identify as mini-capitalists rather than the workers' movement because they have got investments which are at such a level that they rival their income as paid employees.

Unlike some on the left I do not distinquish between mental and physical labour - what is important for me in deciding any individuals class nature is the relation to the profit system rather than the type of work done.

But at any one moment this sociological definition is less important than political identification with struggles in society and aims for how to change things.

I do believe that there is a powerful objective imperative towards socialist forms organisation that flows from the nature of the social relations for working people. The capitalists through their education system and mass media try to inculcate us with lies about individualism and the impossibility of communal living arrangements at a societal level and for lots of the time they succeed and that is the dominant view. However there are times when that tissue of lies starts to break down and working people begin to see the truth about society and the possibility of changing things in our interests as a class. We may be about to enter one of those periods and if so the ULA could well play an important part in the stuggles of our class for freedom from the insanity and chaos of the capitalist system.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

bolshevik

Duffy the Vampire Slayer wrote: »

I'm a ULA member and I'm perfectly aware we WON'T be in government anytime soon. Our goal however is to raise awareness of the possibility of socialism and work towards a future change in the system.

Alongside that we will be active in the fightback campaigns against the cuts and attacks and it is the organisations that we create in those struggles that will form the basis for the new forms of rule in the future socialist society to come.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Soldie

bolshevik wrote: »

Regarding how society would be funded if we were successful in building a movement that could defeat the cuts it is simply by using the wealth that has been stolen from working people, in the form of profits, by expropriating the capitalist class.

I would stress that this is my own view which may, or may not, be supported by others in the ULA.

The Marxian idea that employers steal from their employees is based on the labour theory of value, which holds that the value of a good is a product of the labour expended in creating it. The labour theory of value was outdated even at the time Marx was writing Das Kapital, and no credible economist or school of economic thought has supported it ever since the marginal revolution.

bolshevik

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Well consciousness does change and it seems likely that there will be an upsurge in class struggle in the coming period as working people's hopes that the new government will lead to an improvement in our living conditions are disappointed.

And its not all about Dáil seats anyway - far more important will be the ability of the ULA to play a positive role in helping organise working people, in their work places and on the streets, in opposition to the attacks of the bosses and their government.

bolshevik

Soldie wrote: »

The Marxian idea that employers steal from their employees is based on the labour theory of value, which holds that the value of a good is a product of the labour expended in creating it. The labour theory of value was outdated even at the time Marx was writing Das Kapital, and no credible economist or school of economic thought has supported it ever since the marginal revolution.

Well it makes sense to me. One persons "credible" is another's pile of ****e. This is more to do with political persepctive than any supposed academic objectivity.

And I think you might find that this "out-dated" idea might be about to go through something of a renaissance...

oscarBravo

bolshevik wrote: »

My use of the word theft has to do with the fact that working people do the work to produce things and the bosses pay us much less than those things are worth, pocketing the profit for themselves.

So sell the things you produce directly to the person who wants them, undercutting the bosses. After all, they contribute nothing whatsoever to the value of the goods - they don't even work for a living.

Lockstep

I must admit to being rather sceptical about the ULA program: massive public works programs, not selling any state assets, reverse public sector cuts, no tuition fees, a national health service, reject the ECB/IMF bailout, nationalisation and reversal of all welfare cuts.

How to fund this?
TAX THE RICH.

Soldie

bolshevik wrote: »

Well it makes sense to me. One persons "credible" is another's pile of ****e. This is more to do with political persepctive than any supposed academic objectivity.

A diamond found in a diamond mine will command a far higher price than a rock will, even if the same amount of labour is required to extract both of them from the mine. By the same token, I cannot realistically expect to sell a terrible painting just because I spent 100 hours painting it. Value is subjective; goods have no inherent value.

Well consciousness does change and it seems likely that there will be an upsurge in class struggle in the coming period as working people's hopes that the new government will lead to an improvement in our living conditions are disappointed.

Whenever I hear the word "consciousness" being bandied about like that, I can't help but think that it's a polite way of saying that the masses are too stupid to support socialism right now, but that they'll back the glorious revolution once the gospel has been spread. I'm of the opinion that socialism's existence on the fringes is a testament to the electorate's intelligence, not their stupidity.

Spokes of Glory

bolshevik wrote: »

Maybe you are a happy slave. I'm sure you will keep tugging your forelock safe in the knowledge that they are your betters and deserve everything they steal from the proceeds of your work.

And there we have it - the patronisation of marxism/socialism....you're classing anybody who is in paid employment in private business as a sub-servient slave and you're somehow assuming that they don't have the intelligence to realise it. There are about 1.8m people still in paid employment in this country, and I'm sure they'll appreciate your condescension. I don't.

Spokes

Duffy the Vampire Slayer

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

That was a strong start for a new organisation. By the time of the next election it is hoped that the ULA will have candidates in every constituency and will also be a stronger more united party.

Dale Parish

Lockstep wrote: »

How to fund this?
TAX THE RICH MORE.

Fixed.

This whole Robin Hood idea of stealing from the rich and giving to the poor (whoever these "poor" are) should be left to fairy tales. You don't create wealth by doing public works. The whole idea is absurd.

bolshevik

oscarBravo wrote: »

So sell the things you produce directly to the person who wants them, undercutting the bosses. After all, they contribute nothing whatsoever to the value of the goods - they don't even work for a living.

Well there is the small problem of the accumulated wealth from years and years of theft by the bosses which means that they "own" all the factories and businesses and if workers tried to start using them for ourselves and cutting out the bosses we would quickly find ourselves running up against their law and the police and army that stand behind that to enforce their rules.

Most of the super-rich in this country and internationally actually don't do any work or to the extent that they do they pay themselves obscene amounts far in excess of the actuall value of that work.

bolshevik

Spokes of Glory wrote: »

And there we have it - the patronisation of marxism/socialism....you're classing anybody who is in paid employment in private business as a sub-servient slave and you're somehow assuming that they don't have the intelligence to realise it. There are about 1.8m people still in paid employment in this country, and I'm sure they'll appreciate your condescension. I don't.

Spokes

I obviously do think working people have the intelligence to understand their class position and what is required to end it - otherwise I wouldn't do what I do, what would be the point.

The processes whereby individuals and groupings of individuals come to break free from the lies of the current system is a complicated one that I don't pretend to understand.

But you seem to be a conscious advocate of the capitalist system and as such are part of maintaining that tissue of lies.

But I apologise for letting my frustration get the better of me.

bolshevik

Dale Parish wrote: »

Fixed.

This whole Robin Hood idea of stealing from the rich and giving to the poor (whoever these "poor" are) should be left to fairy tales. You don't create wealth by doing public works. The whole idea is absurd.

I think you are right in a certain sense. It should not be a question of letting the rich continue to steal from working people through the profit system and then taking some back through taxation.

Rather we should stop them from stealing in the first place by replacing the insanity and chaos of the profit system with a planned economy based on meeting people's needs through real democratic control of a workers' council type system.

bolshevik

Soldie wrote: »

A diamond found in a diamond mine will command a far higher price than a rock will, even if the same amount of labour is required to extract both of them from the mine. By the same token, I cannot realistically expect to sell a terrible painting just because I spent 100 hours painting it. Value is subjective; goods have no inherent value.

Well I'm not enough of an economist to argue the ins and outs of the whole labour theory of value - though I do know that it covers the questions you pose.

What is of more interest to me is the very real divisions in our society between those who own and control the means of production and those who don't. And what those who are in charge are prepared to do to the rest of us when their system has gone into crisis.

Soldie wrote: »

Whenever I hear the word "consciousness" being bandied about like that, I can't help but think that it's a polite way of saying that the masses are too stupid to support socialism right now, but that they'll back the glorious revolution once the gospel has been spread. I'm of the opinion that socialism's existence on the fringes is a testament to the electorate's intelligence, not their stupidity.

The processes whereby consciousness changes is a complicated one. But a simple perusal of the history of class struggle of the last century or so will show that this DOES change at times and the usual acceptance of capitalism can change to active support for a socialist alternative.

The capitalist class are extremely active in promoting their side of the story - I defend the right of myself, and other socialists, to present the alternative to those lies.

oscarBravo

bolshevik wrote: »

Well there is the small problem of the accumulated wealth from years and years of theft by the bosses which means that they "own" all the factories and businesses...

Wow, didn't see that coming. [may contain traces of sarcasm]

That's a rubbish argument. Instead of talking about revolution, beat the "bosses" at their own game. Get the "workers" to pool their spare cash - give up smoking, stop taking holidays, whatever it takes - and set up in business in opposition to capitalists. Start small, take a small retained surplus and use it to invest in ever bigger businesses. Keep the businesses in worker ownership (make sure you don't have anyone actually running the business, though - running a business isn't "work" so you can't have managers) and before long you'll have out-competed the big businesses.

...and if workers tried to start using them for ourselves and cutting out the bosses we would quickly find ourselves running up against their law and the police and army that stand behind that to enforce their rules.

Well, yes. In society as it's currently structured, people own things. If someone stole your jacket, you'd want the police to deal with that person. If someone stole my factory, ditto.

Most of the super-rich in this country and internationally actually don't do any work or to the extent that they do they pay themselves obscene amounts far in excess of the actuall value of that work.

Great, you shouldn't have any problem competing with them, so. The same cost of production, minus the fat-cat salaries - how could you possibly lose?

Of course, you're not going to do that. It's much easier to wallow in outdated rhetoric, indulging in tired memes like "property is theft". Actually getting out there and setting up a business is hard work. If you don't believe a business owner runs hard, it's because you've never bothered to try.

bolshevik

oscarBravo wrote: »

Wow, didn't see that coming. [may contain traces of sarcasm]

That's a rubbish argument. Instead of talking about revolution, beat the "bosses" at their own game. Get the "workers" to pool their spare cash - give up smoking, stop taking holidays, whatever it takes - and set up in business in opposition to capitalists. Start small, take a small retained surplus and use it to invest in ever bigger businesses. Keep the businesses in worker ownership (make sure you don't have anyone actually running the business, though - running a business isn't "work" so you can't have managers) and before long you'll have out-competed the big businesses. Well, yes. In society as it's currently structured, people own things. If someone stole your jacket, you'd want the police to deal with that person. If someone stole my factory, ditto. Great, you shouldn't have any problem competing with them, so. The same cost of production, minus the fat-cat salaries - how could you possibly lose?

Of course, you're not going to do that. It's much easier to wallow in outdated rhetoric, indulging in tired memes like "property is theft". Actually getting out there and setting up a business is hard work. If you don't believe a business owner runs hard, it's because you've never bothered to try.

Well there is a strand in the wider socialist movement that has the perspective you outline - the co-operative movement.

But it is not a perspective I adhere to as I think it is flawed because of economies of scale. It can, and indeed does, work on one-off basis with particular enterprises but it doesn't scale up to larger size where you enter into competition with the larger corporations who will not quietly accept honest competition if it theatens their profits and/or the existence of the profit system.

My project is the transformation of the whole of society not just personal advancement through participation in a co-operative.

I have no doubt that small business owners work very hard. Indeed in the current economic crisis they are being squeezed at least as much as the working class by the banks and big corporations. That is why at times of crisis some of this social layer can allie themselves with the workers' movement if it is strong enough to be a viable opposition to the core of the capitalist class and thus offer some protection against the banks and big business.

oscarBravo

bolshevik wrote: »

Well there is a strand in the wider socialist movement that has the perspective you outline - the co-operative movement.

But it is not a perspective I adhere to as I think it is flawed because of economies of scale. It can, and indeed does, work on one-off basis with particular enterprises but it doesn't scale up to larger size...

It has scaled up to quite a large scale when you consider some of the large agricultural co-ops that exist (and existed) in Ireland. Of course, several co-ops demutualised when the shareholders realised they had an opportunity to make money by converting the co-op to a corporation.

...where you enter into competition with the larger corporations who will not quietly accept honest competition if it theatens their profits and/or the existence of the profit system.

What choice do they have? If you offer a comparable product at a lower price, people will buy it, and you'll win. You wouldn't be making an excuse not to even bother trying, would you?

My project is the transformation of the whole of society not just personal advancement through participation in a co-operative.

I don't want society transformed to suit your perspective, thanks, and I don't think very many people do.

I have no doubt that small business owners work very hard. Indeed in the current economic crisis they are being squeezed at least as much as the working class by the banks and big corporations. That is why at times of crisis some of this social layer can allie themselves with the workers' movement if it is strong enough to be a viable opposition to the core of the capitalist class and thus offer some protection against the banks and big business.

Did you just expand your definition of "worker" to include some of the people you explicitly excluded earlier? I'm having trouble keeping up.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

bolshevik

oscarBravo wrote: »

It has scaled up to quite a large scale when you consider some of the large agricultural co-ops that exist (and existed) in Ireland. Of course, several co-ops demutualised when the shareholders realised they had an opportunity to make money by converting the co-op to a corporation. What choice do they have? If you offer a comparable product at a lower price, people will buy it, and you'll win. You wouldn't be making an excuse not to even bother trying, would you?

Well I'm talking about something different from the "co-ops" you refer to as these were not "socialist" co-ops but you have pinpointed another problem with the co-operative model of socialism. It can easily get sidetracked from the aim of socialist transformation because it takes as its basis the individual enterprise or group of enterprises and get sucked into the capitalist model of competition and profiteering for the purpose of capital accumulation.

oscarBravo wrote: »

I don't want society transformed to suit your perspective, thanks, and I don't think very many people do.

I know you don't and I also know that at this precise moment I represent a minority point of view of how things should be changed.

But it seems you must go futher than just disagreeing with me over how things could be changed. You are actually happy with the disaster that is capitalism and the daily horror that this system inflicts on the vast majority of the world's population through starvation and war. There is also the question of the ecological train wreck the world is heading towards which the international capitalist system has no way of stopping.

Fair enough if you reject my revolutionary socialist vision but what is your alternative way to get the change that humanity so desperately needs.

oscarBravo wrote: »

Did you just expand your definition of "worker" to include some of the people you explicitly excluded earlier? I'm having trouble keeping up.

No I didn't - my definition is the same. All I am saying is that the middle class are being squeezed in this crisis alongside us workers and therefore some of them will side with the workers against the common enemy of the big bosses.

bolshevik

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I think you will find that my programmatic framework - http://revolutionaryprogramme.wordpress.com/for-a-revolutionary-socialist-programme-2/ - has nothing in common with the politics of a Stalinist like Brezhnev.

But leaving that aside I would accept that the "end of history" (actually meaning the supposed end of class struggle) propaganda offensive that occurred after the fall of the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe did have an effect on support for socialist ideas for a period.

However it is also fairly clear to anyone with eyes to see that this is starting to change again - one such manifestation being the mass "anti-globalisation" movement of the last decade. Working people, particularly youth, can see that capitalism offers no solution, and indeed only more chaos and pain. They are looking for alternatives and I want to be part of that process of working out how we end this filthy system.

You want to defend the capitalist system by saying there is no alternative and pouring scorn on those, like myself, who put forward ideas for how things might be different and how that change can occur. I hope your masters reward you well with a few crumbs from their table.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

SupaNova

I think you are right in a certain sense. It should not be a question of letting the rich continue to steal from working people through the profit system and then taking some back through taxation.

Have you thought to questioning the propaganda you are spouting for a second?

Capitalism is a profit and loss system. If you make a loss you go out of business, if you make a profit you stay in business. If you want to run things at a loss you need to have your own currency to print to keep businesses operating through bailouts. I doubt you know where that would lead to given you haven't thought for a second about this for yourself, but instead regurgitate propaganda.

BluntGuy

If you want Service X, you pay for Service X.

If you can't afford Service X or do not wish to pay for Service X, you can't have Service X.

That, as others have mentioned, is the reality that seems to be lacking from your programme, and the ULA programme that was put to the electorate. However, unlike the ULA, the electorate in the main seem to be in the process grasping that reality. You can say they were deceived, they were fooled, they were lied to, but the simple reality is:

Cuts will have to be made.

Taxation will have to be increased.

Even if services ran at optimum efficiency (which they most certainly are not), cuts would have to be made as we have made such a mess of the place. All parties, even Sinn Fein as you of course know, accepted this basic premise and were fairly transparent on this, even if the detail was sketchy at times. I think the vast majority of people, even many public servants, are beginning to accept this basic premise (even if there is debate over the ratio of taxation to cuts). The period of flat-out denial is drawing to a close.

It is very hard to even begin to give consideration to your long-term vision (regardless of its merit), when your short-term plan is abysmally short on detail, unsubstantiated in the main and seems to reject practical reality.

Reduce the working week without loss of pay and create tens of thousands of jobs by sharing out the work. No to compulsory work for dole schemes or fake jobs.

This, for example, is simply ridiculous.

Especially in a country with a public sector that is already overstuffed with duplicate positions, and would need to be trimmed regardless of the economic situation. If one person can do the job to a good standard, then hire one person. Sharing out work that doesn't need to be shared is the very definition of a "fake job".

SupaNova

Reduce the working week without loss of pay and create tens of thousands of jobs by sharing out the work. No to compulsory work for dole schemes or fake jobs.

Yeah this is absolutely ludicrous. It would create jobs without increasing productivity. And more than likely the extra overhead in managing such a crazy scheme would mean a loss of productivity. Also the fact that you would have to forcefully take work hours from people to give to others, and force business to take part in a scheme that will reduce their productivity is bonkers.

oscarBravo

bolshevik wrote: »

Well I'm talking about something different from the "co-ops" you refer to as these were not "socialist" co-ops but you have pinpointed another problem with the co-operative model of socialism. It can easily get sidetracked from the aim of socialist transformation because it takes as its basis the individual enterprise or group of enterprises and get sucked into the capitalist model of competition and profiteering for the purpose of capital accumulation.

Why does it get sidetracked? Because people see an opportunity to make money, and go for it. A prerequisite to the social change you want to make is to remove the desire of individuals to better their station in life. I don't want to receive according to my needs; I want to receive according to my desires, and I'm prepared to work hard to achieve that.

I know you don't and I also know that at this precise moment I represent a minority point of view of how things should be changed.

Cool. Now all you have to do is convince a majority of people that they'd be better off in a centrally-planned world without the possibility of profit, and they'll vote for it.

But it seems you must go futher than just disagreeing with me over how things could be changed. You are actually happy with the disaster that is capitalism and the daily horror that this system inflicts on the vast majority of the world's population through starvation and war. There is also the question of the ecological train wreck the world is heading towards which the international capitalist system has no way of stopping.

Fair enough if you reject my revolutionary socialist vision but what is your alternative way to get the change that humanity so desperately needs.

I find it difficult to have a rational discussion in the face of century-old propagandist language. I don't think the world needs a revolution; I think the fundamental outcome of most revolutions is violent deaths for lots of people. I think the world needs to keep steering a middle course between the prosperity created by market capitalism - and you'd have to be blind not to have noticed the vastly better standard of living most working-class people enjoy in liberal democracies compared to Marx's time - and the societal good of social democracy.

The "international capitalist system" - whatever that is, assuming it exists outside of Marxist texts - won't fix the world's ecological train wreck, but nation-states working on concert might. I've yet to hear how a glorious revolution will achieve it, beyond the rather naive assumption that a centrally-planned economy will have ecological soundness at its core.

No I didn't - my definition is the same. All I am saying is that the middle class are being squeezed in this crisis alongside us workers and therefore some of them will side with the workers against the common enemy of the big bosses.

Until the "big bosses" have been crushed, and the proletariat turn their weapons on the middle classes. Count me out.

bolshevik

So it seems my revolutionary socialist ideas have tweaked the noses of the pro-capitalist ideologues on this board.

I guess I must be doing something right...

Moomoo1

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

that's myth. Most of them will not move: when the UK had a 98% tax life still went on and people had a (very) decent standard of living.

and if some do move they will then create openings for young enterpreneurs to fill their shoes.

Moomoo1

Lockstep wrote: »

I must admit to being rather sceptical about the ULA program: massive public works programs, not selling any state assets, reverse public sector cuts, no tuition fees, a national health service, reject the ECB/IMF bailout, nationalisation and reversal of all welfare cuts.

How to fund this?
TAX THE RICH.

well, Robert Reich has calculated http://marketplace.publicradio.org/display/web/2011/04/06/pm-raise-taxes-on-the-rich/ that taxing the US rich even at the 1980's tax rates would have raised one trillion for the treasury in three years.

that's no small matter. Ok, Ireland is not the US, but even so, with a fraction of the amount of wealth concentrated in the hands of those people we could get a lot of revenue.

Moomoo1

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

they also lead to growth and modernisation unseen in a capitalist system.

if you consider that Russia just 150 years ago was an agrarian country, and 100 years ago was making a mess of its attempts at industrialisation. In the first world war it lost so badly because the industry was incapable of equipping the army adequately, and in any case there was no infrastructure for those hypothetical supplies to move along.

the Communists took this third world country and turned it into one who launched a man in space within 50 years. Not to mention the drastic improvement of living standards, better healthcare, education, you name it. No other system has been able to perform such a stunning transformation. And this is despite two absolutely devastating wars, the likes of which few countries have seen, despite political and economic isolation, despite the West forcing the USSR to spend a fortune on arms. Ok, life in the USSR was poor compared to the West, but this is at least in part because life in the West was way way ahead of that in Russia in 1917.

The present day Russia is simply incapable to either provide Soviet living standards for the population or to adequately maintain and expand Soviet-built infrastructure. Despite swimming in oil revenue.

the human cost was of course terrible, with millions of people executed and murdered in various other ways (but then how many people died in Victorian England because of poverty and disease, the result of rampant capitalism). I don't for a moment advocate a return to the USSR: but there are some lessons that need to be learned, and the good aspects of that system need to be copied by us. Such as: universal healthcare, free higher education, tiny rich-poor gap, free housing, support for families with children, etc etc.

SupaNova

that's myth. Most of them will not move: when the UK had a 98% tax life still went on and people had a (very) decent standard of living.

They didn't move but practiced every tax avoidance measure possible from what i have read and the gain in taxes was minimal.

well, Robert Reich has calculated http://marketplace.publicradio.org/d...s-on-the-rich/ that taxing the US rich even at the 1980's tax rates would have raised one trillion for the treasury in three years.

This video shows nicely just how great an idea taxing the rich would be in the US:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=661pi6K-8WQ

the Communists took this third world country and turned it into one who launched a man in space within 50 years. Not to mention the drastic improvement of living standards, better healthcare, education, you name it.

Communism starved tens of millions of people. Have you heard of the calculation problem which caused so many to starve. It could only survive so long due to a capitalistic black market, it didn't fail because capitalism got in the way.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b7zzH8ruLDc&feature=related

As for living standards in communist countries. People vote with their feet. How many illegal immigrants flock to the US as opposed to Cuba, Venezuela, and North Korea. How many people want to leave China(quite a capitalistic country) for Hong Kong or Singapore as opposed to people moving in the opposite direction. What side of the Berlin wall did people want to live on.

oscarBravo

bolshevik wrote: »

So it seems my revolutionary socialist ideas have tweaked the noses of the pro-capitalist ideologues on this board.

I guess I must be doing something right...

Here's a free clue for you: someone who doesn't 100% buy into your communist ideology isn't ipso facto a capitalist ideologue. If your image of the world doesn't contain any shades of grey, then your image of the world is faulty, and you need to fix that before you try to fix the world.

Moomoo1 wrote: »

that's myth. Most of them will not move: when the UK had a 98% tax life still went on and people had a (very) decent standard of living.

and if some do move they will then create openings for young enterpreneurs to fill their shoes.

Why would a young entrepreneur want to pay 98% tax?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

bolshevik

oscarBravo wrote: »

Here's a free clue for you: someone who doesn't 100% buy into your communist ideology isn't ipso facto a capitalist ideologue. If your image of the world doesn't contain any shades of grey, then your image of the world is faulty, and you need to fix that before you try to fix the world.

I am fully aware that there are shades of grey but there are also class lines where grey shades of black turn into grey shades of white. There are of course socialists who believe in a reformist road and reject my revolutionary perspective but that is different from all the responses I got here which were defending the capitalist system as either inherently good or at least all humanity can hope to aspire to.

SupaNova

I am fully aware that there are shades of grey but there are also class lines where grey shades of black turn into grey shades of white. There are of course socialists who believe in a reformist road and reject my revolutionary perspective but that is different from all the responses I got here which were defending the capitalist system as either inherently good or at least all humanity can hope to aspire to.

Your ideology and assumptions you have about capitalism are false. People are simply pointing out your false assumptions. Also people are pointing out the flaws of your own ideology which you just ignore and move back to criticizing capitalism.

1.)People have pointed out that your ideology has lead to starvation of millions, and regimes people want to leave and nobody wants to join
2.)I pointed out that without a price system, profit and loss, entrepreneurs and capitalism you cannot run an economy. Your ideology is impossible to implement as well as being horrible.
3.)People have pointed out the bizarness of ULA and Socialist Party policies, showing their economic illiteracy.

Care to discuss the above points rather than continue on the same path of:
-calling yourself a revolutionary
-saying you just need to change peoples way of thinking
-making more nonsenses claim about capitalism

oscarBravo

bolshevik wrote: »

I am fully aware that there are shades of grey but there are also class lines where grey shades of black turn into grey shades of white.

With respect, that doesn't make any sense. As best I can parse it, you're saying that you're applying the political equivalent of a threshold filter to society in order to simplify it to a point where it fits into your ideology. The problem is that the shades of grey exist, whether you filter them out or not, and if your ideology needs you to apply such a filter before the world makes sense to it, then I'm afraid the problem almost certainly lies with your ideology rather than with society.

There are of course socialists who believe in a reformist road and reject my revolutionary perspective but that is different from all the responses I got here which were defending the capitalist system as either inherently good or at least all humanity can hope to aspire to.

People have pointed out that the standard of living is substantially higher in liberal democracies (as distinct from the "capitalist system", which is basically an artifact of your ideology). Unless you can empirically demonstrate that most people would be better off in a collectivist society where there is no possibility of them profiting from the fruits of their endeavours, then you're on a hiding to nothing with this discussion.

Moomoo1

SupaNova wrote: »

They didn't move but practiced every tax avoidance measure possible from what i have read and the gain in taxes was minimal.

Well, then it's up to the police and tax revenue to crack down on that. I still think they are bluffing. And as I've said, if they are not bluffing, then others will get a chance to step in their shoes.

SupaNova wrote: »

This video shows nicely just how great an idea taxing the rich would be in the US:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=661pi6K-8WQ

that doesnt' answer my point: which is that taxing the US rich at levels they were taxed in the 80's will raise 1tn in 3 years. They were already taxed at this rate not so long ago, so clearly to suggest they will fly away if they are taxed at that rate now is scaremonering.

SupaNova wrote: »

Communism starved tens of millions of people. Have you heard of the calculation problem which caused so many to starve. It could only survive so long due to a capitalistic black market, it didn't fail because capitalism got in the way.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b7zzH8ruLDc&feature=related

in the USSR there was just one hunger - in the early 30's - and it was intentional. It was created artificially by Stalin, a dictator who derailed the revolution. That was that. There was a black market (my uncle was involved in it) but to say the country would have starved without it is untrue.

SupaNova wrote: »

As for living standards in communist countries. People vote with their feet. How many illegal immigrants flock to the US as opposed to Cuba, Venezuela, and North Korea. How many people want to leave China(quite a capitalistic country) for Hong Kong or Singapore as opposed to people moving in the opposite direction. What side of the Berlin wall did people want to live on.

I am sorry, but I grew up in the USSR, and I saw the living standards first hand. They were modest, but on average _much_ better than in present day Russia. No, that doesn't mean I want to go back to the Soviet times. But I would want to restore the good things that USSR brought to people - things I've already mentioned.

Yes people flee to the US from Cuba. They also free to the US from Mexico, Haiti, Columbia, and any other capitalist country you care to name. What does that say? That the living standards in the US are higher than those in Cuba, Mexico, Haiti, etc. But I never disputed that, all I said is that living standards in many communist countries are much higher than they were before the revolutions.

Moomoo1

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

the government sold out to the rich

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

look at this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Population_of_Russia.PNG

population collapses around 1990. Life expectancy went down about then.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Russian_male_and_female_life_expectancy.PNG

Pollution was a big factor, sure. The disregard of human life by the Soviet regime was shocking (although little worse than that by the Russian regime now). But put against that the safety net that the USSR placed round its citizens. Once that safety net was gone in the days of capitalism, things became much much worse.

The reason men live so few years is the drinking. Communists tried hard to fight with drinking. Very hard. Capitalists - they largely don't care.

Permabear wrote: »

The entire population of England in 1851 was around 17 million. The death toll from Soviet genocide and mass murder is estimated at anywhere between 25 and 60 million. This means that the Soviet regime was the equivalent of wiping out the entire population of Victorian England several times over.

It's curious that you see poverty and disease as the consequences of "rampant capitalism." Ever hear of the Black Death, which wiped out anywhere between 30 and 60 percent of the population of Europe between 1348 and 1350?

Curiously, the era of Victorian capitalism saw significant improvements in public health, with life expectancy increasing from 37 in 1837 to 48 by 1901.

right, and the whole of the Soviet periods saw significant improvements in just about everything going - despite the massive setbacks.

yes, I know about the repressions (I had relatives who spent time in the labour camps, much like everyone else). Stalinism was bad, very bad. But post Stalin this madness _largely_ stopped and life was slowly becoming decent. Don't forget, once again, that to come back from something like WW2 whilst 'fighting' the Cold War would have taxed any economy. I think that if the USSR had survived the lean early 1990's then now, with high oil prices we would have been living far better than they are living in capitalist Russia.