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.
realitykeeper wrote: » Well then that would have contributed to the longevity of the USSR and lessened the misery.
Emery Victorious Bolt wrote: » Declaring it illegal only forces it underground.
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.
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.
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.
BalcombeSt4 wrote: » You don't know do you? You haven't got the slighest clue what your talking about.
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).
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
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.
BalcombeSt4 wrote: » 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).
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?
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!
Mad_maxx wrote: » Both FF and FG are like every other party here, big government tax and spend merchants