Clare Daly - she's bloody intolerable

neris

Didnt they try that socialist thing that daly and higgins bang on about for a few years there in Russia. Didnt really work out to well for them or their neighbours and Cubas not exactly a workers paradise either

Dr Galen

Benny_Cake wrote: »

Well,there wouldn't be any open and shut definition, some would describe it as anyone who must sell their labour to someone else, others would say it's people working in unskilled or manual labour. To be honest, I just find it strange that everyone these days seems to consider themselves to be middle class. In some of the Sunday newspapers you read stories of "middle class" families who had to forego horse-riding lessons or the third family holiday of the year,and on the other hand there are also people struggling in very low-paid jobs that would also maintain that they are middle class!

So..And I ask this seriously. How can anyone claim to represent a subset of the population, when that subset can't be defined, even by the followers of a party claiming to represent the undefinable subset?

Benny_Cake

Dr Galen wrote: »

So..And I ask this seriously. How can anyone claim to represent a subset of the population, when that subset can't be defined, even by the followers of a party claiming to represent the undefinable subset?

I read an interview with Joe Higgins a while back,he described the working class as those who in order to survive must sell their labour and who have no ownership of the means of production.That was Marx's definition as well.Of course Joe Higgins or the SP doesn't actually represent all of these people,he just claims to - standard political hyperbole I suppose,like the old FF claim to represent the "plain people of Ireland".

CDfm

Dr Galen wrote: »

So..And I ask this seriously. How can anyone claim to represent a subset of the population, when that subset can't be defined, even by the followers of a party claiming to represent the undefinable subset?

+1

@Benny_Cake - it is a serious question as I am often confused by what is meant by it and it is damned difficult to follow Irish politics.

Coillte_Bhoy

neris wrote: »

Didnt they try that socialist thing that daly and higgins bang on about for a few years there in Russia. Didnt really work out to well for them or their neighbours and Cubas not exactly a workers paradise either

Eh, no actually they didnt.

Duke Leonal Felmet

Benny_Cake wrote: »

I read an interview with Joe Higgins a while back,he described the working class as those who in order to survive must sell their labour and who have no ownership of the means of production.That was Marx's definition as well.Of course Joe Higgins or the SP doesn't actually represent all of these people,he just claims to - standard political hyperbole I suppose,like the old FF claim to represent the "plain people of Ireland".

Do you think that 160 year old definitions of social culture still apply in 2011?

Example, what Marx would have defined as 'means of production' would have then been Kapital, such as factories, raw materials, good ol Victorian industry stuff.

By contrast, anyone today with a computer owns a means of production.

Also, unlike Marx's day, people today do not need to sell their labour to survive. So that ain't black and white either.

Benny_Cake

CDfm wrote: »

Dr Galen wrote: »

So..And I ask this seriously. How can anyone claim to represent a subset of the population, when that subset can't be defined, even by the followers of a party claiming to represent the undefinable subset?

+1

@Benny_Cake - it is a serious question as I am often confused by what is meant by it and it is damned difficult to follow Irish politics.

Agreed - both working-class and middle-class are phrases which seem to shift in meaning depending on who you listen to.

Benny_Cake

Duke Leonal Felmet wrote: »

Also, unlike Marx's day, people today do not need to sell their labour to survive. So that ain't black and white either.

Totally agree,it isn't black and white at all.I'd doubt if Marx ever envisaged the modern European welfare state,which probably saved capitalism in Western Europe in the 20th century.There are some signs the welfare state is on the retreat though.

CDfm

Benny_Cake wrote: »

Agreed - both working-class and middle-class are phrases which seem to shift in meaning depending on who you listen to.

So what do you intend them to mean and in Clare Daly's case where is her support coming from ?

I ask the same question about other politicians too. At the moment , Eamonn Gilmore as an example is having a public service worker love-in, so do they fit and where would Clare Daly place them.

MungBean

People who would be described as working class would predominantly be people who sell their labour though. Nowadays thats still the case but it seems to have changed to describe people who work/sell their labour for on or below the average industrial wage. Thats how it seems to me anyway.

And the definition of the means of production has shifted a bit since then in references to working class people but its still pretty relevant.

Victorian industry wasnt much different in relation to the working class in that context as the modern day. People sell their labour to companies in exchange for money. The amount of money depends on the value of the individual to the company. To own the company is to own the means of production and to sell your labour to a company for below the average wage is to be working class.

I do agree its all a bit dated in describing a section of society though but not to be discounted for that, plenty of people still identify with the term middle class and its those people who Daly/ULA seem to get support from. So if their voters identify with the term "working class" and Daly/ULA says they represent "working class" then whats the problem ?

Benny_Cake

CDfm wrote: »

Benny_Cake wrote: »

Agreed - both working-class and middle-class are phrases which seem to shift in meaning depending on who you listen to.

So what do you intend them to mean and in Clare Daly's case where is her support coming from ?
,I
I ask the same question about other politicians too. At the moment , Eamonn Gilmore as an example is having a public service worker love-in, so do they fit and where would Clare Daly place them.

Personally,I'd say most employees would be working class.It's completely subjective and doesn't really matter a whole lot - I just find it strange that upper-class and working-class don't seem to exist any more,everyone considers themselves middle class.

Is Eamonn Gilmore having a love in with public sector workers?As a civil servant I'm afraid his feelings are unrequited

Edit: As far as I know Marx considered government employees to be "petit-bourgeois" and not members of the proletariat.Why,I do not know - maybe a Marxist here does.

Duke Leonal Felmet

MungBean wrote: »

People who would be described as working class would predominantly be people who sell their labour though. Nowadays thats still the case but it seems to have changed to describe people who work/sell their labour for on or below the average industrial wage. Thats how it seems to me anyway.

And the definition of the means of production has shifted a bit since then in references to working class people but its still pretty relevant.

Victorian industry wasnt much different in relation to the working class in that context as the modern day. People sell their labour to companies in exchange for money. The amount of money depends on the value of the individual to the company. To own the company is to own the means of production and to sell your labour to a company for below the average wage is to be working class.

I do agree its all a bit dated in describing a section of society though but not to be discounted for that, plenty of people still identify with the term middle class and its those people who Daly/ULA seem to get support from. So if their voters identify with the term "working class" and Daly/ULA says they represent "working class" then whats the problem ?

But as I said, anyone with a basic PC can set up some kind of business. The barriers to entry have hugely decreased since Marx's day, where to open a business required capital and investment, only then available to the privledged. Now, anyone can get a bank account, anyone can pitch a business to an investor. You don't need to be super wealthy anymore.

Sorry, things have changed drastically since Marx's time.

MungBean

Duke Leonal Felmet wrote: »

But as I said, anyone with a basic PC can set up some kind of business. The barriers to entry have hugely decreased since Marx's day, where to open a business required capital and investment, only then available to the privledged. Now, anyone can get a bank account, anyone can pitch a business to an investor. You don't need to be super wealthy anymore.

Sorry, things have changed drastically since Marx's time.

Not every business is viable and the majority of people in the world work for other people. Anyone can create a business but few can compete when there's already an established business in competition. Just because the barriers have changed doesnt mean its that much different. Theres a lot of people in the world and although some do start business its not always possible or practice for everyone to do so.

You'd be lucky to get a loan to buy a computer in today’s climate let alone get a loan or investment in a business idea that you havent already proven is lucrative. To do that you need money to get it off the ground.

The vast vast majority of people in this country and throughout the world will never work for themselves and always be workers, selling their labour/ideas/time to other companies/people. Trying to say its irrelevant because they could start a business doesnt make any sense.

Duke Leonal Felmet

MungBean wrote: »

Duke Leonal Felmet wrote: »

But as I said, anyone with a basic PC can set up some kind of business. The barriers to entry have hugely decreased since Marx's day, where to open a business required capital and investment, only then available to the privledged. Now, anyone can get a bank account, anyone can pitch a business to an investor. You don't need to be super wealthy anymore.

Sorry, things have changed drastically since Marx's time.

Not every business is viable and the majority of people in the world work for other people. Anyone can create a business but few can compete when there's already an established business in competition. Just because the barriers have changed doesnt mean its that much different. Theres a lot of people in the world and although some do start business its not always possible or practice for everyone to do so.

You'd be lucky to get a loan to buy a computer in today’s climate let alone get a loan or investment in a business idea that you havent already proven is lucrative. To do that you need money to get it off the ground.

The vast vast majority of people in this country and throughout the world will never work for themselves and always be workers, selling their labour/ideas/time to other companies/people. Trying to say its irrelevant because they could start a business doesnt make any sense.

No, it does make sense when you don't live in dogma. Ultimately, Marx's point was about barriers to entry. These barriers have obviously greatly dissolved, and your attempt to use the current crisis to back your point is either incredibly disingenuous or wilfully ignorant. My point holds in 2011, as in 2001, as in 1991. Almost any person in Ireland could have bought a pc in 2001, got a loan and set up a small internet business. That same person could buy shares and other investments. Thus, the proles now can control the means of production. Stop hiding behind the current economic depression and have the courage to back your dogma.

CDfm

MungBean wrote: »

People who would be described as working class would predominantly be people who sell their labour though. Nowadays thats still the case but it seems to have changed to describe people who work/sell their labour for on or below the average industrial wage. Thats how it seems to me anyway.

And the definition of the means of production has shifted a bit since then in references to working class people but its still pretty relevant.

Excellent - so it is a moving target

To own the company is to own the means of production and to sell your labour to a company for below the average wage is to be working class.

Now days we compete internationally and there is competition.

I do agree its all a bit dated in describing a section of society though but not to be discounted for that, plenty of people still identify with the term middle class and its those people who Daly/ULA seem to get support from. So if their voters identify with the term "working class" and Daly/ULA says they represent "working class" then whats the problem ?

It does matter.

When Marx was writing tax & the welfare state did not exist and the redistribution he talked about is not what we have now.

Did Marx assume that people would all work ?

How do they look at housing.

Say you have 2 families same incomes and one buy a house and the other is in public authority housing.

How do they look on housing as a commodity and the funding of mortgages for the unemployed ?

Benny_Cake wrote: »

Personally,I'd say most employees would be working class.It's completely subjective and doesn't really matter a whole lot - I just find it strange that upper-class and working-class don't seem to exist any more,everyone considers themselves middle class.

Is Eamonn Gilmore having a love in with public sector workers?As a civil servant I'm afraid his feelings are unrequited

Edit: As far as I know Marx considered government employees to be "petit-bourgeois" and not members of the proletariat.Why,I do not know - maybe a Marxist here does.

Ha Ha , I shall quote you elsewhere.

MungBean

Duke Leonal Felmet wrote: »

No, it does make sense when you don't live in dogma. Ultimately, Marx's point was about barriers to entry. These barriers have obviously greatly dissolved, and your attempt to use the current crisis to back your point is either incredibly disingenuous or wilfully ignorant. My point holds in 2011, as in 2001, as in 1991. Almost any person in Ireland could have bought a pc in 2001, got a loan and set up a small internet business. That same person could buy shares and other investments. Thus, the proles now can control the means of production. Stop hiding behind the current economic depression and have the courage to back your dogma.

The point was about defining the "working class" something you forgot about in your haste to attack your nemesis the ULA. Regardless of the barriers and regardless of what someone could hypothetically do the fact is the the vast vast majority of people work for other people. Just as relevant now as it was then.

If you start a business, employ people and pay them for their labour guess what. Your no longer working class but they are, just because you redefined yourself doesnt mean anyone else does. What ifs count for nothing in defining what someone is based on their current circumstances. And those circumstances are still the same, people are employed by companies and other people because it is impossible for everyone to own their own means of production and to use that to provide for themselves. If we all started these magical computer business what would happen ? We'd have no electricity to run the computers as everyone would be at home starting their own business.

Workers are always necessary and the vast majority of people will only ever profit from their own labour because society cant function without a working class population to do the necessary jobs to keep it functioning. You can harp on about people can be this and people can do that all you want but its all irrelevant when your talking about a class of society who are defined by the fact that are not what they could have been and did not do what they could have done.

James Jones

CDfm wrote: »

James Jones wrote: »

She was interviewed in Hot Press recently:

She then followed through as follows:
Hospital Services
School Enrolments
Gender Discrimination
Human Rights Issues
Equality Issues
Equality Issues
Health Services

There are other (male) TD's who simply won't ask these questions.

Has she actually done or said anything on this issue ?

What is her record ?

I thought the links would provide a record of what she has done on the issue.

MungBean

CDfm wrote: »

Excellent - so it is a moving target

Its a term that probably changes over time to some degree depending on unemployment rates and whatnot. A lot of people are unemployed now while they were tax payers a few years ago. Same people different view of them. Your not planning on hunting them are you ?

Now days we compete internationally and there is competition.

What does that change ?

It does matter.

When Marx was writing tax & the welfare state did not exist and the redistribution he talked about is not what we have now.

Did Marx assume that people would all work ?

How do they look at housing.

Say you have 2 families same incomes and one buy a house and the other is in public authority housing.

How do they look on housing as a commodity and the funding of mortgages for the unemployed ?

I'm not a member of the ULA I dont know if they apply Marxist logic to everything. I'm only discussing what I see as the working class which in Marx day was essentially the same as it is now. People who sell their labour for wages and dont own the means of production. Most people do sell their labour/time or whatever for wages without owning the means of production.

I dont think Marx assumed everyone would work he just defined the working class as the mainstay of society. A subset of working class would have been the unemployed and destitute. Now its all lumped together. Regardless of how he foresaw a welfare state it doesnt change how he saw the working class is how it generally is today. A huge chunk of society selling their labour to perform the necessary functions of that society.

CDfm

James Jones wrote: »

I thought the links would provide a record of what she has done on the issue.

Dail questions, I would expect that, where be she on fathers rights and what links if any does she have to rights groups and where has she spoken/campaigned on the issue ?

hatrickpatrick

Can someone provide any source or specific examples of things she says or positions she holds which are "insufferable", for those who don't know that much about her?

CDfm

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Can someone provide any source or specific examples of things she says or positions she holds which are "insufferable", for those who don't know that much about her?

+1

hatrickpatrick

Fr.Harry Bell wrote: »

It's just that adopting stances which nobody believes and everyone knows is not true, does nobody any good.

You mean like the stance that repaying speculators for their own stupidity at the expense of the taxpayer is a good idea, or the stance that the EU isn't falling apart as we speak, or the stance that as long as we remain the good boy in the class we'll get a gold star?

I'm pretty sure nobody believes these either, and I'm pretty sure everyone knows they're not true. And in my view, they don't do anybody any good either.

By all means attack Clare Daly if she's daft, I don't know anything about her to be honest so I can't comment, but let's have some perspective here - the whole feckin' LOT of them are daft, it's just a question now of which ones are slightly more daft than others.

James Jones

CDfm wrote: »

James Jones wrote: »

I thought the links would provide a record of what she has done on the issue.

Dail questions, I would expect that, where be she on fathers rights and what links if any does she have to rights groups and where has she spoken/campaigned on the issue ?

Sorry. Can't say I've seen anything other than the questions posted.

CDfm

James Jones wrote: »

Sorry. Can't say I've seen anything other than the questions posted.

Thats ok.

She has seemed to build her swords support at the airport or so i have heard .

Any thoughts ?

Is mise le key

CDfm wrote: »

But wasn't the upshot of this that the Turkish workers lost their jobs ?

If I remember rightly the Turkish workers were also paid tax free outside Ireland.

Hardly a successful outcome .

They lost their jobs!!!!

They were being paid €2.20 an hour instead of the €12+ they were entitled to.

The rest they were being robbed of, which amounted millions every month which was going into bank accounts in their names in holland they knew nothing about.

Their families were being called back home in turkey saying their sons, brothers, fathers were involved with terrorist gangs here in ireland, and for them to call them to call off their strike & they wouldnt be prosecuted when they got back to turkey.

They were receiving letters telling them they would not be pursued for financial loss back in turkey if they called off the strike now.

They were being supplied food from the company which amounted to at some points, a slice of bread, two slices of cheese & a couple of grapes for dinner.

They were working an 80 hour week rain, hail, snow or highwater, the money in holland was only their flat week wages that was stolen & they never tracked down or received their overtime.

They got back in all approx €25 million owed to the workers, the overall money with overtime that GAMA filtered out of the country was estimated to be €100 million, €75 million of which has never been recovered.

Do you think you would be heart broken to no longer work for a company that really did treat you like a slave!!

80 hours a week!
€2.20 an hour!
War rations for meals!
Stealing your money!
Threatening letters with lies to your family!

neris wrote: »

Didnt they try that socialist thing that daly and higgins bang on about for a few years there in Russia. Didnt really work out to well for them or their neighbours and Cubas not exactly a workers paradise either

Well without getting into the specifics of the ideologies, Russia was stalinist & the ULA are mostly Trotskyist, diametrically opposed on the Socialist scale.

But it is worth remebering that the turnover of the USSR economy in 1980 was 9.1 Trillion dollar equivilant, estimated to be approx 12 Trillion in 1991 when it collapsed while americas turnover in 1991 was est. 15 trillion.

Putin only said recently on trying to form a new political & economic bloc with former soviet countries, (Oct. 4th 2011)

"We received a big legacy from the Soviet Union – infrastructure, current industrial specialisation, and a common linguistic, scientific and cultural space. To use this resource together for our development is in our common interest."

The Soviet union was not in the end a success, but you cannot in one internet post label the entire existence of the USSR a failure. Take a look around you at the moment, capitalism is hardly a roaring success now, it has come to a point as the USSR did where its economics have hit a wall, if you come back and say that this is not true capitalism, then i can equally say that the authoritarian stalinist USSR was not true Socialism either.

CDfm

Is mise le key wrote: »

They lost their jobs!!!!

They were being paid €2.20 an hour instead of the €12+ they were entitled to.

The rest they were being robbed of, which amounted millions every month which was going into bank accounts in their names in holland they knew nothing about..

I only know what I picked up from the radio at the time either Eamonn Dunphy or George Hook.

AFAIK, their work permits were related to their employment in a particular job which is quite standard and internationally.

Do you have any references for this and it would seem very odd that the Dutch Authorities would allow their banks to operate like this.

I know Holland and opening up a bank account is very difficult and they are a sophisticated country.

So I would expect to see references and prosecutions for this as arguments from emotion don't do anyone any favour's and I would like to think everything worked properly.

From what I hazily recollect they were being paid abroad and looking to be paid twice and were not paying or did not intend to pay tax here??.

So they really didn't want to pay tax here and probably didn't.

Is mise le key

CDfm wrote: »

I only know what I picked up from the radio at the time either Eamonn Dunphy or George Hook.

AFAIK, their work permits were related to their employment in a particular job which is quite standard.

Do you have any references for this and it would seem very odd that the Dutch Authorities would allow their banks to operate like this.

I know Holland and opening up a bank account is very difficult and they are a sophisticated country.

So I would expect to see references and prosecutions.

Are you serious?

The bank was Finansbank holland, have you watched the documentary?

The lads signed documents in english upon arriving in ireland at the airport, none of them had english & were recruited that way, it gave GAMA permission to open the accounts in their names.

They never received payslips for their weeks work, they were entitled to the ERA rates for construction which was being paid to GAMA by the state on state infrastructural projects, they got €2.20 an hour while GAMA sent the rest of the state paid money to the secret accounts in holland.

Lads had left the company never having received any of the money in them accounts, no one knew about the accounts except GAMA & the lads from the Socialist party together with some of the GAMA workers travelled to holland & confirmed all of the accounts with the managment of the bank who said that the accounts were opened under the name 'Ryder holdings'.

Seriously, watch the doc., it really was a modern day slavery uncovered, it was all brought out in the dail chamber with all the names being given to the FF/PD government.

This is all during the 'boom years'.

Is mise le key

CDfm wrote: »

From what I hazily recollect they were being paid abroad and looking to be paid twice and were not paying or did not intend to pay tax here??.

So they really didn't want to pay tax here and probably didn't.

Holy jesus!

Will you please watch the doc.

What transpired was that the government afforded GAMA the right to pay the workers back in turkey, thereby avoiding having to pay any income tax or PRSI for the workers.

This was the way GAMA had it set up with the government & had done the deal with mary harney, they then recruited non english speaking workers to come to ireland, kept them on site in company 'accomodation', supplied their food, controlled their passports & paid them €2.20 an hour for an 80 hour week!

Sure only in sept of this year it was referenced on business breakfast on newstalk as a benchmark of where employers unmonitored & unchecked can go with exploitation of their workforce.

CDfm

I am not saying I do not believe you , but, documentaries and Prime Time investigates type programmes are a bit discredited ATM.

I am just saying that I haven't seen any prosecutions and I would expect to see some and there have been various versions in the media.

Boom years really are irrelevant to prosecutions of practices like this and a bank can get prosecuted for operating accounts that way too.

Is mise le key

CDfm wrote: »

I am not saying I do not believe you , but, documentaries and Prime Time investigates type programmes are a bit discredited ATM.

I am just saying that I haven't seen any prosecutions and I would expect to see some and there have been various versions in the media.

Boom years really are irrelevant to prosecutions of practices like this and a bank can get prosecuted for operating accounts that way too.

Right, but they havnt been prosecuted, as to why, i cant tell you 100%, but from the evidence of what occurred at the time they covered a lot of legal loopholes so as to not leave them open to prosecution.

Documents were signed, government permissions gained etc.

Master frauud always seems to have the law on its side would you not agree?

To what level there was government corruption is not know either, but it is enough to know that bertie was at the helm at the time.

What it boils down to is that €12+ an hour was being paid by the state, €2.20 an hour was going to the lads, no income tax or PRSI was being paid, the lads were doing 80 hour weeks, rations for food, threatening calls & letter to them & their families & it took one sole opposition TD to expose it & get some of the State paid money back to the men.

Bertie & Co are all crooks of the highest order & really should be put away for years along with GAMA.