What is the appeal of liberalism?

ShatterAlan

Geuze wrote: »

This suggests that workers become shareholders?

So people would be workers and capitalists at the same time, like sole traders already are?

An Irish farmer works the land, and owns the land.

They are a worker and a capitalist.

Would somebody please educate this man?

nofools

ShatterAlan wrote: »

Then FECK OFF out of the way.


Nobody's stopping you. Go where you want. That's liberalism.


Just don't try to stop others doing the same thing whether they live in a tree house, cover themselves in tattoos or eat lentils.

Don't arrest me for choosing different words to what you would have used and we can be friends.

Some totalitarian ideas have crept into the liberal handbook.

nofools

ShatterAlan wrote: »

Would somebody please educate this man?

Educate on what?

Seems ok to me.

Farming is capitalist.

ShatterAlan

Geuze wrote: »

While SF and PBP don't use the term "unchecked immigration", clearly they wish for more immigration / looser laws.


Example - when discussing AS, they never, ever state that the vast majority of AS are bogus.

The entire SF / PBP / RTE discussion presumes that the AS are genuine.

The one thing I don't like about SF / PBP is that they have an ability to ignore the truth facing them.

I suppose I consider myself "centre-right", and I support capitalism, but I am quick to point out its problems.

Yet, with Irish socialists (SF / PBP / Greens), they always skip around the truth.

Example: healthcare waiting lists

Socialist answer: we are underspending on h/care, we should spend more

Truth: there have been huge increases in h/c expenditure and employment in the HSE, all data easy to find

They seem unwilling to accept that the workers/voters could be part of the
problem, resistance to change, too many hosps, etc.


There are other examples.

I just read the first line. I didn't delve further.


These are your words:


"While SF and PBP don't use the term "unchecked immigration", clearly they wish for more immigration / looser laws."




Could you, kindly, qualify that statement?


Better still....might you show us all this "clearly" of which you speak?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

nofools wrote: »

Small government to me is a liberal idea. Feck off out of the way and leave me be to live how i want (once i dont harm others).

That's libertarian, not liberal. Check up Jo Jorgensen in the recent presedentisl election in the US (some people have accused her costing Trump the ejecting by taking votes away from him in key states)

Wanderer78

Aubrie Thousands Suspicion wrote:

I could never really understand the appeal of having a liberal outlook on life. The US election got me thinking about this again. To give a bit of background, I grew up in a conservative household. Both sets of grandparents could only be described as conservative. And I get it. I have thought through their positions and they just make sense. I suppose classical conservatism, as I understand it, is that some values never change. These values are paramount to society.

...but society has changed, and dramatically to, we also have a much deeper understanding of the world and ourselves.

Aubrie Thousands Suspicion wrote:

You work hard to get a good job to support your family. You love your country, even if it means you have to sacrifice your life for it. You love and honour God as your creator and (hopefully) your final destination.

This is no longer the case in most countries of the world, particularly developed nations such as ours, our world has become deeply complex in this regard, we 're potentially in the most unequalled distributed period in human history, in regards wealth, we have accumulated the largest amount of debt ever in human history, particularly private debt.

We potentially no longer need to die for our country, but I sure am grateful people have.

I'm agnostic, so faith has no relevance in my life, but I respect those that do

Aubrie Thousands Suspicion wrote:

Strong families are the bedrock of society. The welfare state promotes laziness and wasted lives. Social justice means equality of opportunity not equality of outcome. (This list is in no way exhaustive).

Family dynamics is complex, load in complex disorders, generational truma etc etc, and things become messy, quickly, sometimes it's best to distance yourself from such complexities.

Thankfully we ve realised not all humans have equal abilities or opportunities in life, and simply require assistance in life, in order to survive, hence the creation of our welfare systems, you're also deeply misguided and misinformed here to.

Aubrie Thousands Suspicion wrote:

Then I see the so-called 'liberal darlings': spending lots and lots of money, unrestrained immigration (especially from non-European countries), ecology and an emphasis on elevating various minorities onto a pedestal. Sometimes these 'darlings' seem to conflict with one another - this was shown when #Muslims are right about women was trending on Twitter.

You may need to exercise your prejudices and racial tendencies here!

Aubrie Thousands Suspicion wrote:

And liberalism's greatest achievements, gay marriage and abortion, frankly disturb me. Especially abortion. I mean, when we get to the very bottom of it, past all the jargon, past 'fetus' this and 'termination' that, what are we really left with?

Strangely enough, these have probably always existed, long before Jesus walked this planet, people no longer need to hide and feel ashamed for such things, and hopefully this is now preventing complex psychological damage and things such as generational truma etc, we 're slowly growing up here to! Funnily enough, our own trumas are deeply embedded here, when you consider major events such as launderies etc, so yea, we really have come a long way, in preventing such disastrous outcomes

Geuze

ShatterAlan wrote: »

These are your words:

"While SF and PBP don't use the term "unchecked immigration", clearly they wish for more immigration / looser laws."




Could you, kindly, qualify that statement?


Better still....might you show us all this "clearly" of which you speak?

https://www.pbp.ie/policies/racism-and-immigration-policy/


Summary
Oppose Racism in all its forms – legislate to make racism a hate crime.
Oppose the policy of Fortress Europe – welcome a proportion of those fleeing war and persecution.
Legislate to End Direct Provision System.
Oppose all deportations – treat refugees and asylum seekers with dignity and respect.
Integrate Migrants – Give them Voting Rights.
Oppose all forms of Islamophobia.
Support the right of Muslim people, along with all other religions, to practice their religious beliefs
Reverse Cuts to Traveller Supports – oppose state racism against Travellers.
Establish an Independent National Housing Agency to oversee the delivery of safe and culturally appropriate Traveller Accommodation.
Reverse cuts to Traveller services and the improvement of those services, to include Education, Health, Employment and Equality programmes.
Public inquiry into the Carrickmines Tragedy.
Traveller representation in the Seanad and other organs of the state.
No Platform for Fascists – oppose them on the streets if necessary.



The second, third and fourth points mean more immigration.

The fourth point means allowing illegal immigrants to stay here - it means actually welcoming them.

Genuine refugees are welcomed, and we are accepting 6,900 of them.

The vast majority of AS are bogus, they are illegal immigrants, yet PBP want to welcome them!!!

Blush_01

Geuze wrote: »

Yes.

I note that some cousins of mine support BLM.

Maybe they don't realise that BLM are communists?

I often think the best argument against this is to look at the fall of the Berlin wall.

People were trying to escape from communism, not to it!!!



BLM also seem to want babies/children reared collectively, instead of in families. Do their supporters realise this?

Do you mean like in crèches that exist to keep the capitalist wheels turning so the parents can all go out to work and keep the corporations happy while just about having a roof over their heads as long as nobody gets sick?

That's so communist.

nofools

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

That's libertarian, not liberal. Check up Jo Jorgensen in the recent presedentisl election in the US (some people have accused her costing Trump the ejecting by taking votes away from him in key states)

I know that, that is why i raised the distinction.

Modern liberals don't like the idea because they seem to like state control of everything (for our protection or what?)

That is illiberal in my book.

atilladehun

I was genuinely pondering the exact opposite thread. I still don't understand conservatism. How can you force your view on other people's lives.

Even the Catholic mass is vastly different around the world. Just let people live their lives.

Liberalism isn't out to get you, it's not communism or any of the other horrors mentioned on this thread.

It stems from people recognising how large institutions (family, governments, religions) can and have abused people throughout all of history and the establishment compounded it. That doesn't mean we throw out those systems, we work to make them better through democracy and it's freedom.

We, society, put in place better preventions, education, investigation and reprimand to improve that but we also give people the freedom to escape it.

We know these problems exist because millions around the world have told us. Including in Ireland. Anyone around since the 80s knows every year there's stories about how the church or the government or a sports club abused women, children and men and how that was shunned and hidden in the past. That's not acceptable.

It's attitudes changing that allow those people the freedom to tell us of the abuse. Which in turn leads to attitudes changing.

If we stick to the old ways we will continue to hurt in the old ways.

nofools

atilladehun wrote: »

I was genuinely pondering the exact opposite thread. I still don't understand conservatism. How can you force your view on other people's lives.

Even the Catholic mass is vastly different around the world. Just let people live their lives.

Liberalism isn't out to get you, it's not communism or any of the other horrors mentioned on this thread.

It stems from people recognising how large institutions (family, governments, religions) can and have abused people throughout all of history and the establishment compounded it. That doesn't mean we throw out those systems, we work to make them better through democracy and it's freedom.

We, society, put in place better preventions, education, investigation and reprimand to improve that but we also give people the freedom to escape it.

We know these problems exist because millions around the world have told us. Including in Ireland. Anyone around since the 80s knows every year there's stories about how the church or the government or a sports club abused women, children and men and how that was shunned and hidden in the past. That's not acceptable.

It's attitudes changing that allow those people the freedom to tell us of the abuse. Which in turn leads to attitudes changing.

If we stick to the old ways we will continue to hurt in the old ways.

The problem is that modern liberalism has a religious bent to it.

I find netflix badly shoehorning the typical talking points into their shows now.

I noted the use of "white trash" and "stupid men" in a recent show whereas the opposite wording would have the show cancelled. There is a very clear agenda within that.

Nothing liberal about forcing a particular view or reinforcing stereotypes.

BalcombeSt4

Geuze wrote: »

This suggests that workers become shareholders?

So people would be workers and capitalists at the same time, like sole traders already are?

An Irish farmer works the land, and owns the land.

They are a worker and a capitalist.

No, mate you mistunderstood, I'm not having a go I just want to help you understand, I don't know how you came to the conclusion that their politcal ideology is capitalism.
Capitalsm =Bosses control the means of production
Socialism Workers conrol means of production.
They clearly hated the new system,.
But this is not a isolated campaign, spontanous workers action was happening all of the world. Of course everyone knows the great Russian February revolution in 1917 but it was hi-jacked by Lenin who's party was beaten badly in the first Democratic election (probably the last) in Russia loosing to the Left-Revolutonary Socialist party, but a week later Lenin launcheda a coup againnst the new government & installed a red terror state. Russia was not a workers' Republic, the large peasent society had no say in in how things were run, Marx actually believed there was great revolutionary potenial in peasent society, but this was supressed by Lenin. Stalin gets a lot of bame for the all the bad & horrific things that happened & rightly so, but Stalinism was a natural progression of Leninism.
The Soviet Union was not controled by the workers but by the
radical intelligentsia, who whipped the population up into the society they wanted, people on the left should not aspire to this or celebrat it.

I'm a Democatic Socialist. My posistion is the same or very close to Orwell, who saw first hand the Stalinist/Lenist tyranny which split the the armies of the armies of the left & Franco, Italian Fascist & Nazi bombers rolled right over their Lefitist miltas & took Madrid. If you read the great Homeage to Catalonia you will see the phrase "Trotsky/Fascist" repeated several times which means people on the Left who opposse Stalinism.
Orwell wrote:

The Spanish war and other events in 1936-37 turned the scale and thereafter I knew where I stood. Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism, as I understand it. It seems to me nonsense, in a period like our own, to think that one can avoid writing of such subjects. Everyone writes of them in one guise or another. It is simply a question of which side one takes and what approach one follows. And the more one is conscious of one’s political bias, the more chance one has of acting politically without sacrificing one’s aesthetic and intellectual integrity. What I have most wanted to do throughout the past ten years is to make political writing into an art. My starting point is always a feeling of partisanship, a sense of injustice. When I sit down to write a book, I do not say to myself, ‘I am going to produce a work of art’. I write it because there is some lie that I want to expose, some fact to which I want to draw attention, and my initial concern is to get a hearing.

And thats pretty much were I stand. But mass mobalisation of workers action came to Ireland as well, which is just a footnote in the history of 1918 - 1923.
Of course there was the Limerick Soviet which did win it's shot term objetive.

The Monghan Asylum Soviet happened & was decared 2 months before the Limerick soviet. The word Soviet just means a workers' council or council of workers. Upon declaration of the soviet, a red flag was flown over the building. In response armed police were sent to remove the workers, however, they had barricaded themselves inside. The operators of the Asylum were forced to negotiate with the workers. Workers won a 56-hour week and a pay rise for both male and female staff. A further concession was that married staff were to be allowed go home after their shifts ended.

The Manchester Guardian reported on the rise of workers councils in Clonmel

"It is particularly interesting to note the rise of the Workers’ Councils in the country towns. The direction of affairs passed during the strike to these councils, which were formed not on a local but a class basis. In most places the police abdicated and the maintenance of order was taken over by the local Workers’ Councils… In fact, it is no exaggeration to trace a flavour of proletarian dictatorship about some aspects of the strike.’

But the period is reduced to remembering a handful of men, dashing Michael Collins, angry Cathal Brugha & sneaky Dev. There playing their roles like the history books want, mass workers action is seen as the work of the Devil by the clergy. And Ireland becomes a most backward, priest ridden, Catholic fundamentalist society. "Fallen Women" were forced to give their baby away to a American families which was a racket for the nuns, & women were to do forced labour or take a brutal beating. For all intents & purposes they prisoners in a concentration camp.

I mean you get the idea. Kevin O' Higgins remarked

"We are probably the most conservative minded revolutionaries that ever put through a successful revolutions.

When hesays "we" he means the Clongowes Woods boys, "job for the lads".
When a Labour MP/TD brought up the words of Pearse Proposing that "Ireland's natural resources be vested in the state"
O'Higgin's replied "it would be unwise to embody in the constitution what certainley looks a communist doctrine."
I never knew Joan Burton & Eammon Gilmore were secret communist agents.

During the land agitation of 1919 - 1923, the paper "The Watch Word of Labour" described what was happening in Carlow.

"The Red commandants had perfected their plan

of campaign, and the rank and file are ready. This was to have been no mere stay-out holiday strike. The time

is past

when battles are won by men on holiday.

The experience

of last year's land strikes has proved that if the proletariat of the land are to win against the organised farmers, victory only comes through organised aggression, not organised passivity... Terrorism is the most potent of Labour's weapons, and while every other weaponry in our armoury must be used, it is on the

Red Terror

that our greatest reliance must be placed." https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1057%2F9780230503779_11

Carlow? On Red Terror? (I'm not advocatintg this btw)

Well look, I've made the point, the Irish are not a by nature backword conservative people, the elites & professional upper middle class are but Ireland broke free of British Liberal rule & after the civil war walked in to a Catholic run ultra-Conservative state and all the horrors & censorship that followed from 1924 - 60's/70's, & finally threw the Holy Sea off after all the horrors were exposed in the 90's & 00's. I despise Lord Carson but he was right about Hom Rule being Rome Rule.
Theres still along way to go but Ireland is now one of the more liberal countries in Europe & is seeminly becoming more & more left-wing..

Sorry If I made any spelling errors but I'm using On Screen Keyboard because I'm waiting on a new KB & it took over a hour to type. If there's anything you notice you want spelled properly just ask & if you want links to quotes ask me & I'll send them.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

nofools wrote: »

I know that, that is why i raised the distinction.

Modern liberals don't like the idea because they seem to like state control of everything (for our protection or what?)

That is illiberal in my book.

nofools wrote: »

The problem is that modern liberalism has a religious bent to it.

I find netflix badly shoehorning the typical talking points into their shows now.

I noted the use of "white trash" and "stupid men" in a recent show whereas the opposite wording would have the show cancelled. There is a very clear agenda within that.

Nothing liberal about forcing a particular view or reinforcing stereotypes.

Putting the word "modern" before liberal doesn't mean anything as the people you discribe aren't actually liberal in any sense of the word. Not knowing the difference implies a lack of knowledge as to what the word "liberal" actually means.

Geuze

BalcombeSt4 wrote: »

No, mate you mistunderstood, I'm not having a go I just want to help you understand, I don't know how you came to the conclusion that their politcal ideology is capitalism.
Capitalsm =Bosses control the means of production
Socialism Workers conrol means of production.

Under Democratic Socialism, which I believe the US politician AOC supports, who, exactly, would/own control companies?

Would it be State ownership, like semi-states in Ireland, e.g. An Post, etc.

Or would the workers more directly own the means of production, i.e. the workers own shares in the firms?

Would competition between firms be allowed?

Or would each firm be a monopoly?



EDIT: I found some answers, it's a broad church, from market socialism to more non-market versions.

Thanks.

Geuze

It's not helpful that democratic socialism is a different outlook than social democracy.

BalcombeSt4

Here is a list of other Irish Soviets for anyone interested
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_soviets#Subsequent_soviets

• 4.1 Knocklong Soviet
• 4.2 Waterford Soviet
• 4.3 Bruree Soviet
• 4.4 Cork Harbour Soviet
• 4.5 Other soviets
• 5 Fall of the soviets

ShatterAlan

Geuze wrote: »

Nobody in Ireland thinks that all welfare recipients "scam the system".

It seems that even mentioning that some recipients are defrauding the system is frowned upon by socialists/RTE.

It's hardly allowed to even question the continued rise in DA recipients. I have rarely seen it discussed.

Example: PBP state "don't hassle the unemployed".

Given that some of the unemployed choose long-term welfare, and make no effort to get a job, while thousands of immigrants manage to find one, then of course we should help/support/challenge the unemployed to get a job. (I mean outside of COVID)

Oh yes they DO. Not [all] complainants of welfare but some. You said NONE. Incorrect. There are those in Ireland who think that EVERYONE on the dole is a freeloader, scamming the system and well able to work but would prefer to be given a "free house" which doesn't exist, leave the buggy at the bus stop because they'll just get another one. Free drugs in clinics.....it's true a poster actually tried to sell that crock.



Again not ALL......

ShatterAlan

Geuze wrote: »

This suggests that workers become shareholders?

So people would be workers and capitalists at the same time, like sole traders already are?

An Irish farmer works the land, and owns the land.

They are a worker and a capitalist.

You've completely missed the point.


If you took the time to read and digest, e.g. Capital [Das Kapital] by Marx you might have a better grasp.


Yes, an Irish or Dutch or Argentinian farmer "works" the land that he owns. And if he is a benevolent person his wife, sons and daughters who put their shoulder to the wheel will equally share the fruit of their labour.


Someone who works and gets rewarded is NOT a capitalist. That's not what capitaliism is. Capitalism is the accumulation of wealth predicated on the labour of others...including debt.


Now before you scratch your head and ask "Well...what's the alternative? Communism?" I would ask you this.....why is collectivism such a filthy concept amongst the moneyed classes and elites?


Why was free healthcare, electricity and petrol in Libya so anathema to the world. A country floating on oil? Likewise Venezuela? Likewise Brazil? Likewise Indochina?


These place are upstarts. They don't wan't be exploited which is the core of capitalism.



People don't understand capitalism. They think it's the concept of "work hard, keep your nose clean, don't fcuk with system and BOOM...you'll be sorted!"


By the same token, people think that the only alternative to capitalism is that we all live in tents in the fcuking wilderness and wash ourselves once a year.



And that, my friend, is called propaganda.....AND failure to communicate [CHL]

BalcombeSt4

Geuze wrote: »

It's not helpful that democratic socialism is a different outlook than social democracy.

Well it being Democratic is the is the point.

Tony Benn said the most radical idea is not Communism, Anarchism, Syndaclism etc... but Democracy. And I knew exactly what he was saying. When the Free State was formed ministers lowered the old age pension by 8 shillings a year & slashed teachers pay but increased their ministerial wages from £700 a year to £1,700

When I was talking about Irish workers rising up, as I understand it means Democratic Socialism is extending democracy to the industrial sphere.

People are confused, like Jordan Peterson who thinks Marxism is some type Liberal anarchy & chaos. He links all forms of socialism & Marxism with te brutality of the Russian state even tho the state was brutal way before Lenin & Trotsk, his biggest bit & lie is 100, 000, 000, 1 hundred million people died in Communist counries. Thats a real nice rounded of numbsr for him. He got it from the debunked & discredit Black Book of Communism, even two people distanend them selfs fom the book.
A good book would to see how many died from imperial conquest & war.


Also people seem to be confused with Marxism, Marxism-Leninism, Stalinism Communism, Socialism, & Democratic Socialism. So here is a video of Chomsky in simple terms.

That shouldvery simple for people who have a grasp on socialism, marxism & lenism.

ShatterAlan

Geuze wrote: »

Of the 2 million recipients / 3.25 million beneficiaries, I'd say maybe 10% are fraudulent?

You'd "SAY", or you can prove?

ShatterAlan

nofools wrote: »

Sure but you can't say you want communism while earning a living from some capitalist platform.

Those scumbags bother me.

Aren't we talking about liberalism.....a social concept rather than an economic model?


But while you're barking about communism and capitalism....can you define either?

ShatterAlan

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Oh for fûcks sake, that is stupid beyond belief :rolleyes: Over 300 people shot trying to escape to the west. Not spies or agents just ordinary people who wanted to live in freedom.

Then why did they not just apply for travel visas? How many people have been shot dead trying to cross the Mexico-US border in 17 years? 300? Or more?

Wages were higher in the West, housing and food were subsidised in the East. So win-win for the commuters, until the wall went up... Another way people took advantage of the system pre-wall was to wait until they graduated then defect to the West.

Wages were higher....were they? Are you just making this nonsense up?

And there I was thinking you were trying to maintain that they were being held against their will yet were free to swan off to the west everyday.
What's you next BS excuse? That the commies were only too happy to have all these commuters come back with their pockets bulging to spend in East Germany?

People in East Berlin could read the future, eh? They said to themselves "Oh, I'll just wait until I'm of age before going to a place that I'm allowed to go to anyway."? And if wages were so high in West Berlin and prices so low in East Berlin...you know just crossing a road then why didn't so many West Berliners move to the East of Berlin to avail of chickenfeed rents while earning a king's ransom back in the French/British/American sectors?

Yeah because if they wanted to see their families ever again, they had to. They would give one spouse an exit visa but not the other, for example. Of course many others were just refused permission with no reason given (and merely applying to travel to the West could put you under suspicion.)

They also generally gave pensioners permission to travel, as if they stayed in the West then they'd no longer be a burden on the state.

If people were given visas to legally travel to West Berlin/West Germany then why would they not be allowed to return? And why would they not be allowed to bring their families with them? They didn't defect. And they were allowed to return of their own volition. Again, are you just trying to make Cold War movie crap up? I was in Red Square in 1988 and took photographs of cops, soldiers, buildings. Now you are probably of the idiotic opinion that anyone with a camera in the USSR was dragged away and questioned. The cops posed with me.

Yes I have. You need to bear in mind it all ended over 30 years ago now, people tend to remember the favourable things about the past (we see this about our own country too), and overlook the less good. They even coined a word for it - Östagie - nostalgia for the East. Also anyone who was in their teens / early 20s when communism ended would have been unlikely to have experienced personally many of the downsides of the system. The experience of being a child, going to school and going to college isn't that different no matter what country you're in. They had the marxist BS to pay lip service to in school, we had the catholic BS to do the same...

You have? And what, pray-tell, did they tell you? That they spent their days looking over their shoulders? That if they were caught listening to Iron Maiden they would be sent to the gulag? They didn't have Levi's and Burger King and hence just didn't want to live? Because my friends tell me a very different story.

Between 1951 and 1955, 300,000 people moved from West Germany to East Germany. Can you explain that?

Is your explanation "better weather" along with your other meaningless excuses? Surely the first few hundred who moved would have gotten a letter back saying "For fuck's sake lads don't the remaining hundreds of thousands of ye come here. It's hell. I'm about to be hanged. Hope this letter reaches someone."

46 Long

ShatterAlan wrote: »

Yes, an Irish or Dutch or Argentinian farmer "works" the land that he owns. And if he is a benevolent person his wife, sons and daughters who put their shoulder to the wheel will equally share the fruit of their labour.

Someone who works and gets rewarded is NOT a capitalist. That's not what capitaliism is. Capitalism is the accumulation of wealth predicated on the labour of others...including debt.

A farmer may own the means of production, but he's still going to hire in labour as needed to help with harvests and other busy times of the year.

ShatterAlan wrote: »

Now before you scratch your head and ask "Well...what's the alternative? Communism?" I would ask you this.....why is collectivism such a filthy concept amongst the moneyed classes and elites?

Why was free healthcare, electricity and petrol in Libya so anathema to the world. A country floating on oil? Likewise Venezuela? Likewise Brazil? Likewise Indochina?

A working internet connection or five minutes in any of those countries should be more than enough to disabuse you of the notion that socialism or communism is a good idea. Lofty ideals and student union politics have a funny habit of crumbling when you've seen Venezuelans eating from trash cans and prostituting themselves to buy toilet paper.

Wanderer78

It disturbs me to see that these debates always end up in the same place, I.e. socialism v's capitalism, strangely enough folks, there's been many forms of capitalism!

Hotblack Desiato

Lots of Trumpian, foaming-at-the-mouth nonsense snipped.

ShatterAlan wrote: »

And there I was thinking you were trying to maintain that they were being held against their will yet were free to swan off to the west everyday.

Yes, pre-61 they were. The frontier was a line painted on the ground. That was the period you were talking about in that part of your post, remember?

People in East Berlin could read the future, eh? They said to themselves "Oh, I'll just wait until I'm of age before going to a place that I'm allowed to go to anyway."?

At the time, yes they could cross over freely.
"Nobody has any intention of building a wall." - Walter Ulbricht, June 15 1961.

If people were given visas to legally travel to West Berlin/West Germany then why would they not be allowed to return?

The vast majority of exit visa applications were refused.
Nobody said they weren't allowed to return. Although plenty of Soviet and DDR dissidents were deported to the West and their citizenship revoked so they could not return.

And why would they not be allowed to bring their families with them?

Read the post you are replying to.

I was in Red Square in 1988 and took photographs of cops, soldiers, buildings.

So what?

Between 1951 and 1955, 300,000 people moved from West Germany to East Germany. Can you explain that?

There were people all over Germany who were committed communists, going back to the Weimar era.
There were also eejits like Angela Merkel's father who moved to the East to preach.

Dyr

BalcombeSt4 wrote: »

Well it being Democratic is the is the point.

Tony Benn said the most radical idea is not Communism, Anarchism, Syndaclism etc... but Democracy. And I knew exactly what he was saying. When the Free State was formed ministers lowered the old age pension by 8 shillings a year & slashed teachers pay but increased their ministerial wages from £700 a year to £1,700

When I was talking about Irish workers rising up, as I understand it means Democratic Socialism is extending democracy to the industrial sphere.

People are confused, like Jordan Peterson who thinks Marxism is some type Liberal anarchy & chaos. He links all forms of socialism & Marxism with te brutality of the Russian state even tho the state was brutal way before Lenin & Trotsk, his biggest bit & lie is 100, 000, 000, 1 hundred million people died in Communist counries. Thats a real nice rounded of numbsr for him. He got it from the debunked & discredit Black Book of Communism, even two people distanend them selfs fom the book.
A good book would to see how many died from imperial conquest & war.


Also people seem to be confused with Marxism, Marxism-Leninism, Stalinism Communism, Socialism, & Democratic Socialism. So here is a video of Chomsky in simple terms.

That shouldvery simple for people who have a grasp on socialism, marxism & lenism.

And without further ado, we enter into Holocaust whataboutery and denial.

Sure the Reds only killed multiples of what Hitler did, whats the big deal? It's not like it was a 100 millionty or anything

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Geuze wrote: »

Under Democratic Socialism, which I believe the US politician AOC supports, who, exactly, would/own control companies?

Would it be State ownership, like semi-states in Ireland, e.g. An Post, etc.

Or would the workers more directly own the means of production, i.e. the workers own shares in the firms?

Would competition between firms be allowed?

Or would each firm be a monopoly?



EDIT: I found some answers, it's a broad church, from market socialism to more non-market versions.

Thanks.

From this post on, I can't help reading everything in the voices of Reg and Francis from the People's Front of Judea...

CountNjord

Is liberalism a bit like spirituality ??

You can make it up as you go along and even worship the no 14 bus if that's what makes you happy ???

Or is it just a word thrown around by people who are obsessed with sociology, and people who are very confused, love moving the goalposts according to the latest trends or what side of the bed they got out of...

To be liberated is to feel free, feel like you're happy with your life.

Or am I wrong ???

Geuze

ShatterAlan wrote: »

Oh yes they DO. Not [all] complainants of welfare but some. You said NONE. Incorrect. There are those in Ireland who think that EVERYONE on the dole is a freeloader, s

If there are people in Ireland who think that all 2 million recipients of welfare are "scammers", then I suggest that those people be ignored.

Clearly, all 2 million recipients are not scammers, and anybody who suggests that they are, is wrong/crazy/deluded.

To focus in on just unemployment payments, again, anybody who suggests that all recipients of JSB and JSA are scammers is wrong.

BalcombeSt4

Geuze wrote: »

Nobody in Ireland thinks that all welfare recipients "scam the system".

It seems that even mentioning that some recipients are defrauding the system is frowned upon by socialists/RTE.

It's hardly allowed to even question the continued rise in DA recipients. I have rarely seen it discussed.

Example: PBP state "don't hassle the unemployed".

Given that some of the unemployed choose long-term welfare, and make no effort to get a job, while thousands of immigrants manage to find one, then of course we should help/support/challenge the unemployed to get a job. (I mean outside of COVID)

Socialist RTE haha.

The guys who enforced the censorship section 31 are secret reds under the beds.

I mean in a backwards sort of way you are correct.

This Order directs Radio Telefís Éireann to refrain from broadcasting matters of a particular class which, in the opinion of the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs, would be likely to promote, or incite to, crime or would tend to undermine the authority of the State.

I imagine this is something like the Politburo's in the Communist blocs instructed their state broadcasters to enforce their own rules. Like when Reagan spoke on Soviet TV they had to turn the pitch up of his voice so he sounded like a chipmunk (not sure if that's true, hope it is tho.)