Were all socialists spoilt as children?

realitykeeper

Emery Victorious Bolt wrote: »

The USSR had a massive shadow market economy that some researchers believe may have accounted for between a quarter and a half of the total economy during the communist era. In fact, the shadow economy in Russia today still accounts for an estimated 20 percent of GDP.

In other words, the USSR never had "pure" communism. It had a planned economy bolstered by all manner of shadow market activity.

Well then that would have contributed to the longevity of the USSR and lessened the misery. It is grand for the theorists to say there should be no private enterprise under Communism but they rarely if ever have to life under Communism. They may be in the Communist elite eg Kim Yong Un or just dreamy kids in Capitalist countries who watched Meryl Streep in 101 dalmatians instead of reading Animal Farm.

nkl12xtw5goz70

realitykeeper wrote: »

Well then that would have contributed to the longevity of the USSR and lessened the misery.

There are two ways to look at it — that the black market eased the misery of communism by providing access to goods that weren't available through official channels, and that the black market prolonged the misery of communism by propping up a command economy that otherwise would have collapsed much sooner. That said, I don't think there's any way to entirely remove a market economy by governmental fiat. Declaring it illegal only forces it underground.

Emery Victorious Bolt

Emery Victorious Bolt wrote: »

Declaring it illegal only forces it underground.

It begins as an underground system, but quickly becomes part of the overall culture, enhancing the corruption that goes on. In both Russia and China, these Shadow market systems, work with a nod from the police (with regular bribes). It's like prostitution in China now. It's illegal... with the hotels under surveillance by various police departments, but if the bribes are paid then they're rarely raided... whereas in the back streets and outskirts the prostitution available to the workers continues unchanged. China has a prostitution industry a thousand times larger than Thailand...

If you go to Moscow or St. Petersberg, you can visit the areas where the shadow markets were, and still are. You can still get banned products or simply products not sold in the mainstream shops, often at a lower cost since they're avoiding the taxes. The police and government won't remove them because to do so would increase public unrest with very little long-term success.

But then, look at cigarettes in Ireland. The Irish government fleeces Irish smokers both with the taxes on cigs but also the taxes that are applied for simply being a smoker (along with permission for other businesses to charge extra for smokers). It's no wonder that a black market has sprung up and most people I know (usually very law abiding) are avoiding the shops for their purchases. I would too. It's a ridiculous scam that the government is running (considering that everyone I know personally has private health insurance and won't be a drain on the state if they get sick).

Black markets spring up for many purposes, and not just in non-democratic countries. Personally, I find Ireland and Europe to be far more regulated than many non-democratic countries I've lived in, with dubious returns for that degree of regulation. It's one of the main reasons I'll never return to Ireland. For all the talk, my life would be far more controlled (by the state) than if I lived elsewhere.

BalcombeSt4

Raconteuse wrote: »

Yeah, what with the whole same sex marriage and abortion and gay taoiseach...

I don't think they're left-wing but it's not a case of just left or right. To say they're "notoriously" conservative (I doubt they're known outside of Ireland) is absolutely absurd.

Anything for a few more voters. Can gay people not be conservative?

If the Catholic church still had the power it did in Ireland in the 50's, 60's, 70's, 80's & even 90's I very much doubt we would have had a referendum on those issues & if we had them while Church was all powerful I doubt gay marriage or abortion laws would have passed (See the 80's ref for example).

And historically they have been notoriously conservative, Dev got his orders from McQaid, who's mates banned some of the greatest Irish & Foreign films & books of their time. And lots of othesr like the Magadaline Laundries & similar instituations that FF & FG put their whole weight behind supporting.

Both but especially FG took a very, at times authroitarian stance on The Troubles for the British. Like they didn't give a crap when 35 civilians were blown to pieces in Dublin & 300 injured, but did mind when the IRA carried out bombings in England just 5 months after Dublin/Monaghan. They also didn't mind the British Army making hundreds of incurssions into the 26 counties.

Not to mention Austerity,corruption in policing, the homeless crisis & the slashing of public services.

BalcombeSt4

realitykeeper wrote: »

FF and FG are far left as far as I am concerned. As for strong men and authoritarianism, that can work very well but it usually doesn`t because he is usually a clueless tyrant. A strong leader can be very good if he stamps out tyranny and imposes order and truly progressive ideas (which are different to what liberals think is progressive).

Such leaders are rare but they are more likely to emerge where there is an enlightened population.

FG the party that was formed out of a merger with a Fascist organization? Was Conor Cruise O'Brien the spokesman for that Godless, Communist party?

Do you believe FF & FG are Socialist parties?

BalcombeSt4

realitykeeper wrote: »

Yes BalcombeSt4 said Russia never claimed to be Communist a few posts back, but of course they were so that is funny like you say.

Communism, as in Russia for most of the 20th century was able to survive as long as it did without capitalism to prop it up but that survival came at tremendous cost. Tens of millions died working as slaves in horrendous conditions in the gulags and work camps for example and the luckiest ones who "benefited" lived very dreary lives in Moscow. Millions lived in terrible flats with communal facilities (as befitting an intrusive Communist regime) i.e. shared bathrooms and kitchens, some apartments were designed in a way that minimized privacy. For example, you would have to walk through each room to get to the last room in the flat.

I think capitalism could exist quite happily without having to prop up socialism. Socialism without capitalism can also exist but apart from the misery of it, they don`t let you escape to a capitalist country and if you try you get sent to a gulag.

Yes, he did & he was historically correct as it's just a fact of History. Russia never claimed to be Communist, they claimed to be a Marxist-Leninist state. Can you find one quote from Soviet Russia that claimed it had reached full Communism?

Without having to use Google, What is the difference between Communism, Left-Communism, Right-Communism, Revolutionary Socialism, Marxism, Maxism-Leninism, Marxism-Leninism-Maoism, Maoist Thought, Democratic Socialism, Luxemburgism, Libertarian Socialism, Social Democracy, Trotskyism, Titoism? And plenty of others. Feel Free to englighten us.

You don't know do you? You haven't got the slighest clue what your talking about.

BalcombeSt4

BalcombeSt4 wrote: »

You don't know do you? You haven't got the slighest clue what your talking about.

It's because people on the internet like to categorize things to make them simple. Whereas people in the RL want to complicate their lives with beliefs founded on complex rationality.

This thread is full of people throwing their belief of what socialism or communism is... whether its their own belief or the rigid dictionary definition. The problem is that all beliefs are altered by the person(s) experiencing that belief.

Here in China, I know people (party members and active in the structure) who believe that China is A) a republic a socialist state C) A communist State D) a democracy. etc. Whereas westerners tend to simplify what China is (or what they want it to be).

BalcombeSt4

Deleted User wrote: »

It's because people on the internet like to categorize things to make them simple. Whereas people in the RL want to complicate their lives with beliefs founded on complex rationality.

This thread is full of people throwing their belief of what socialism or communism is... whether its their own belief or the rigid dictionary definition. The problem is that all beliefs are altered by the person(s) experiencing that belief.

Here in China, I know people (party members and active in the structure) who believe that China is A) a republic a socialist state C) A communist State D) a democracy. etc. Whereas westerners tend to simplify what China is (or what they want it to be).

I bet none of the people who are throwing around their belief of what socialism or communism is, have never even read the Communist Manifesto, Das Capital, State & Revolution or even Connolly's Labour in Irish History.

It's interesting to hear people say Capitalism is the greatest thing people ever invented & that Communism is just a unrealistic goal, when Capitalism has existed for 200 years & crashes & fails all the time, when Communal societies existed for 200,000 years obviously without the huge amounts of technology.

It's also interesting to observe Socialistic ideas before Marx or the Paris Commune. Like the Lowell Mill Girls in Massachusetts

When you sell your product, you retain your person. But when you sell your labour, you sell yourself, losing the rights of free men and becoming vassals of mammoth establishments of a monied aristocracy that threatens annihilation to anyone who questions their right to enslave and oppress.
Those who work in the mills ought to own them, not have the status of machines ruled by private despots who are entrenching monarchic principles on democratic soil as they drive downwards freedom and rights, civilization, health, morals and intellectuality in the new commercial feudalism

^That's the core of Socialism. The people who work in the Mills or Factories should own them & they should own the products their labour produces.

And yes, we've seen people on here for example describel the 26 county Irish state or the people who run it as, Fascist, Socialist, Liberal, Communist, Conservative, Failed & so on. I think it's a very conserative state, that has seen a small shift to the left, but that's nothing to do with FG or FF that's to do with the people taking to the streets & demanding a more inclusive, democratic & anti-Corruption society.

But whatever I think Ireland is it's a million miles away ( at least for now, you never know what's around the corner.) from a Socialist state or Communist state (which is impossible because Communism is stateless) the closest Ireland ever came to a Socialist state was during the 1919 - 1921 war against Britain. When over 100 Soviets popped up around the country. Some of the most famous being the Limerick City Soviet (which was the biggest), The Knocklong Soviet, the Arigna Soviet & The Bruree Soviet were Socialist workers kicked out the boss & management, hoisted the Red Flag, & proclaimed on the front of the building in red pain "Bruree Workers Soviet Mills -We Make Bread Not Profits"
https://whistlinginthewind.org/2012/10/08/irish-soviets-1919-23/

BalcombeSt4

BalcombeSt4 wrote: »

That's the core of Socialism. The people who work in the Mills or Factories should own them & they should own the products their labour produces.

It's a nice idea but unrealistic. There are always those who are more competitive than others and as such want to achieve more. With that achievement comes the need for recognition, and in any society where there is something beyond basic bartering, that recognition demands a higher salary, whereupon the person seeks to start a business for themselves with their own assets for their own profit.

The core element of socialism appeals to the people who just want to work the minimum, and those few idealists who work for everyone else. Although even then, these idealists tend to be looking for some kind of public recognition of their virtuous behavior, which is why they're the ones who become thought/behavioral police to enforce their views on others.

Eventually, corruption sets in as favors or gifts to the idealists for their selfless contributions become part of culture and expected. Later generations become less selfless and socialism falls to greed (of one type or another). Still plenty of people doing the minimum, but the population of those wanting more has shifted regardless.

Humans gravitate towards extremes over time. If moderation was possible, then such a system could work, but I've seen nothing in history to suggest that's it's likely anytime soon.

Raconteuse

BalcombeSt4 wrote: »

Anything for a few more voters.

You could say that about any party in any government.

Can gay people not be conservative?

Where did I say they can't? I was simply countering your statement that they are among the most notoriously conservative in Europe. If they actually were, they wouldn't be advocating same sex marriage and abortion.

If the Catholic church still had the power it did in Ireland in the 50's, 60's, 70's, 80's & even 90's I very much doubt we would have had a referendum on those issues & if we had them while Church was all powerful I doubt gay marriage or abortion laws would have passed (See the 80's ref for example).

How does that refute what I said?

I know what you mean about them historically but I'm talking about them today. Ditto e.g. Sinn Fein.

Dr. Bre

They are normally people who had rich parents and have this dream of saving the world cos of they have nothing else to do

realitykeeper

BalcombeSt4 wrote: »

FG the party that was formed out of a merger with a Fascist organization? Was Conor Cruise O'Brien the spokesman for that Godless, Communist party?

Do you believe FF & FG are Socialist parties?

O`Brien spoke against nationalism and did little to recognize the bravery of the Irish soldiers who fought to defend the UN post at Jadotville. Many of those heroes were called cowards for the rest of their lives. So was he a traitor? I think people will make up their own minds about that but as a right wing capitalist I would naturally disapprove of anyone who joins a socialist party in Ireland which is something Conor Cruise O`Brien did. If he was right wing, (which he was) why did he join the Labour party if not for the purpose of inflicting damage on the country? Again, this raises the question, was he a traitor? He also joined the UK conservative party, that I suspect tells us where his true loyalties lay.

As to your second question, yes FF and FG are far left these days. In FFs case they spent like drunken socialists during the good times and in FGs case they nationalized the banks and borrowed billions to prop up spending. Their excuses for doing so don`t cut it.

On conservatism, to me that is a question of values as opposed to economics. Not every conservative party is economically right wing. Nowadays, FF and FG are liberal as well as left. Not good!

Mad_maxx

realitykeeper wrote: »

O`Brien spoke against nationalism and did little to recognize the bravery of the Irish soldiers who fought to defend the UN post at Jadotville. Many of those heroes were called cowards for the rest of their lives. So was he a traitor? I think people will make up their own minds about that but as a right wing capitalist I would naturally disapprove of anyone who joins a socialist party in Ireland which is something Conor Cruise O`Brien did. If he was right wing, (which he was) why did he join the Labour party if not for the purpose of inflicting damage on the country? Again, this raises the question, was he a traitor? He also joined the UK conservative party, that I suspect tells us where his true loyalties lay.

As to your second question, yes FF and FG are far left these days. In FFs case they spent like drunken socialists during the good times and in FGs case they nationalized the banks and borrowed billions to prop up spending. Their excuses for doing so don`t cut it.

On conservatism, to me that is a question of values as opposed to economics. Not every conservative party is economically right wing. Nowadays, FF and FG are liberal as well as left. Not good!

Both FF and FG are like every other party here, big government tax and spend merchants, Michael Martin is the most left wing leader FF have ever had by a mile however, truly awful

Connor cruise o Brien is dead but lives on through eoghan Harris

topper75

Mad_maxx wrote: »

Both FF and FG are like every other party here, big government tax and spend merchants

Yes. From an economics perspective there are NO right wing parties in Ireland. The closest we ever got was the PDs.
I always laugh when I hear the far left describing FF or FG as right wing. It probably just means they can't get the desired funding for their quango.