Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
If we do not hit our goal we will be forced to close the site.

Current status: https://keepboardsalive.com/

Annual subs are best for most impact. If you are still undecided on going Ad Free - you can also donate using the Paypal Donate option. All contribution helps. Thank you.

what exactly are G8 Protesters protesting about?

1234568»

Comments

  • #212
    Cody Pomeray
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,648 ✭✭✭Cody Pomeray


    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    Except it's not in either of those cases the government's business.
    Oh come off it. I can guarantee you, you don't believe that.

    Lets take the first example.

    If there is 70% graduate unemployment - these are people whose education is mainly paid for by the State - is that none of the Government's business?

    If you're telling me you believe that, I'm afraid I think you're trolling.


  • #213
    Iwasfrozen
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,250 ✭✭✭✭Iwasfrozen


    Nitochris wrote: »
    There are these little things called elections in a democracy it is not based on taking turns. So if you are seen as not pulling your weight you don't get elected.
    Now you and I both know democratic mandate does not imply competency.
    To repeat from the section you quoted on barter:
    So as you can see I did in fact address the question.
    So you withdraw your suggestion of a barter system? If not you didn't answer my question at all. Also the idea of someone receiving according to their need is ridiculous no one can determine what your needs are. A person should receive according to their value either based on their intelligence strength or charisma.

    Basically doctors and popstars earn a lot because they can't be easily replaced but anyone can sweep a street so street sweepers don't command such a high price.
    As for Bangladesh it appears that you fail to understand that the conditions that led to that disaster are the same global free market which you are lauding.
    That's nonsense. I may as well claim communism caused Chernobyl.


  • #214
    Iwasfrozen
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,250 ✭✭✭✭Iwasfrozen


    Cody Pomeray wrote: »
    Oh come off it. I can guarantee you, you don't believe that.

    Lets take the first example.

    If there is 70% graduate unemployment - these are people whose education is mainly paid for by the State - is that none of the Government's business?

    If you're telling me you believe that, I'm afraid I think you're trolling.
    If there is 70% graduate unemployment then the obvious thing to do is cut free tuition fees. Lower the supply of graduates while cutting regulation to attract FDI.


  • #215
    Nitochris
    Closed Accounts Posts: 122 ✭✭Nitochris


    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    Now you and I both know democratic mandate does not imply competency.
    And with recall? And among your immediate peers, who will know if you are slacking?
    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    So you withdraw your suggestion of a barter system? If not you didn't answer my question at all. Also the idea of someone receiving according to their need is ridiculous no one can determine what your needs are. A person should receive according to their value either based on their intelligence strength or charisma.

    Basically doctors and popstars earn a lot because they can't be easily replaced but anyone can sweep a street so street sweepers don't command such a high price.
    For the last time - It was not my suggestion it was as I am now saying for the 3rd post a throwaway suggestion. And in terms of anarchy (and before you ask who brought that up I did in most of my posts) yet again we get to the central problem for you is that we have established examples of this working for a two year period in a number of areas of Spain when it was less than ideal.

    Oh and before anyone says anarchy is chaos (and this is addressed to everybody not just the poster I am replying to so as to preempt any ill informed comments) - I am referring to the political movement and the body of theory from the likes of Bakunin and Kropotkin.
    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    That's nonsense. I may as well claim communism caused Chernobyl.
    Is it really? So the continuous search for cheap low cost labour has nothing to do with global capitalism? The poor conditions, the fact that the workers were forced to labour in a factory not up to scratch?

    On the subject of people not answering questions:
    Nitochris wrote: »
    So how about the starving, the disabled, the poor etc. what access to resources do they get?


  • #216
    Iwasfrozen
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,250 ✭✭✭✭Iwasfrozen


    Nitochris wrote: »
    And with recall? And among your immediate peers, who will know if you are slacking?
    That's fine for a small little factory in Argentina or Spain but what about large corporations? I'm not even talking about the likes of IBM. I go to UCD, we never see the President and neither do I suspect would any of the lower tier staff. How are they supposed to for vote a guy they know nothing about?
    For the last time - It was not my suggestion it was as I am now saying for the 3rd post a throwaway suggestion. And in terms of anarchy (and before you ask who brought that up I did in most of my posts) yet again we get to the central problem for you is that we have established examples of this working for a two year period in a number of areas of Spain when it was less than ideal.
    imited examples of it working in a few factories. We won't be basing the next global system off that thanks. Or well I say global but following your suggestions the world won't be united any more, society would have degenerated into isolated self sufficient poverty stricken communes.
    Oh and before anyone says anarchy is chaos (and this is addressed to everybody not just the poster I am replying to so as to preempt any ill informed comments) - I am referring to the political movement and the body of theory from the likes of Bakunin and Kropotkin.
    Anarchy means no state to keep law and order. No thanks, I'll pass on that. Keep your anarchy.
    Is it really? So the continuous search for cheap low cost labour has nothing to do with global capitalism? The poor conditions, the fact that the workers were forced to labour in a factory not up to scratch?
    No it's due to lack of government regulation. Capitalism is a mindless tool. When an accident like this happens you don't blame the tool you blame the wielder of the tool, in this case the government.
    On the subject of people not answering questions:
    In what country? Your question is too general to answer.


  • Advertisement
  • #217
    Cody Pomeray
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,648 ✭✭✭Cody Pomeray


    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    If there is 70% graduate unemployment then the obvious thing to do is cut free tuition fees. Lower the supply of graduates while cutting regulation to attract FDI.
    No the question here was not 'what steps should the Government take?'. The immediate issue to which I was responding was 'is it any of the Government's business at all'?

    Can I take it you are moving from the position that graduate unemployment (or any unemployment, for that matter) is none of the Government's business?


  • #218
    Iwasfrozen
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,250 ✭✭✭✭Iwasfrozen


    Cody Pomeray wrote: »
    No the question here was not 'what steps should the Government take?'. The immediate issue to which I was responding was 'is it any of the Government's business at all'?

    Can I take it you are moving from the position that graduate unemployment (or any unemployment, for that matter) is none of the Government's business?
    The answer as always is "it depends."

    Yes the government should cut taxes, regulation and the minimum wage to attract FDI.

    No the government shouldn't provide any actual jobs themselves.


  • #219
    Cody Pomeray
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,648 ✭✭✭Cody Pomeray


    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    The answer as always is "it depends."
    Sorry, I don't really see how anyone can move on beyond this point and get to the manner of reducing unemployment, if it cannot even be established that a Government should try to reduce unemployment in the first place.

    Too many circular arguments in this thread already. Either you face the fact that a Government should generally aim to reduce unemployment, or you don't.


  • #220
    Iwasfrozen
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,250 ✭✭✭✭Iwasfrozen


    Cody Pomeray wrote: »
    Sorry, I don't really see how anyone can move on beyond this point and get to the manner of reducing unemployment, if it cannot even be established that a Government should try to reduce unemployment in the first place.

    Too many circular arguments in this thread already. Either you face the fact that a Government should generally aim to reduce unemployment, or you don't.
    Well no, because your definition is too broad. To determine the stance government, or any powerful organisation, takes on a particular issue it is first necessary to break the issue down into it's component parts and analysis each one separately without making any sweeping statements.

    I will reiterate.

    Yes the government should cut taxes, regulation and the minimum wage to attract FDI.

    No the government shouldn't provide any actual jobs themselves.


  • #221
    Nemeses
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,829 ✭✭✭Nemeses


    Iwasfrozen wrote: »

    No the government shouldn't provide any actual jobs themselves.

    Maybe so, but the government could help the costs of starting a business a little bit cheaper.


  • Advertisement
  • #222
    Karl Stein
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,687 ✭✭✭Karl Stein


    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    No the government shouldn't provide any actual jobs themselves.

    You better go over to the emergency services, care services, and teaching forums and let them know that they should leave their government jobs immediately and seek alternative employers.


  • #223
    Iwasfrozen
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,250 ✭✭✭✭Iwasfrozen


    Cathal Cloch wrote: »
    You better go over to the emergency services, care services, and teaching forums and let them know that they should leave their government jobs immediately and seek alternative employers.
    Obviously I'm not going to do that, change has to be effected slowly. Privitisation shouldn't occur over night these things have to be built up slowly.

    Not the emergency services though I wouldn't support privatisation of that. And no it's not hypocritical you have to draw the line somewhere we aren't talking about anarchy.


  • #224
    Nitochris
    Closed Accounts Posts: 122 ✭✭Nitochris


    Your post is littered with factual inaccuracy and theoretical misconceptions.

    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    imited examples of it working in a few factories.

    By a few you mean 200 factories in Argentina by 2004.

    By a few you mean you mean 3000 enterprises in the the Catatonia region alone during the Spanish Civil War, as part of a nation wide movement that involved between 5 and 7 million people.
    The rest of your post is not much better drawing on psuedo-political theory.
    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    That's fine for a small little factory in Argentina or Spain but what about large corporations? I'm not even talking about the likes of IBM. I go to UCD, we never see the President and neither do I suspect would any of the lower tier staff. How are they supposed to for vote a guy they know nothing about?
    You are showing a basic misunderstanding as in anarchism there is no hierarchy, so there is no possible comparison with the present system in UCD.

    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    We won't be basing the next global system off that thanks. Or well I say global but following your suggestions the world won't be united any more, society would have degenerated into isolated self sufficient poverty stricken communes.

    What makes you think that an political movement that is global supports isolation? The idea of isolated communes is completely opposed to even rudimentary anarchist theory. Instead we have free association between groups to overcome common problems.

    But lets return to poverty We've already seen that worker democracy results in more intelligent use of raw resources, but that's industry what about another sector - agriculture
    [QUOTE=Gaston Leval;here]
    On the other hand, better quality seeds are used. This was rendered possible by being able to buy up large stocks, which the small peasant could not afford to do in the past. Potato seeds come from Ireland and selected wheat seeds only are used. Chemical fertilizers have also been used. As modern machinery properly used--tractors and modern ploughs were obtained by exchange or bought directly from abroad--permits the soil to be more deeply worked, these seeds have produced a yield per hectare far superior to that which would have been obtained under the conditions which existed during previous years.

    These new methods have also made it possible to increase the acreage sown. In Aragon my research on the spot permits me to aflirm that generally speaking the increase in wheat crop has reached an average of 30 per cert. An increase in yield, though in a smaller proportion has been obtained for other cereals, potatoes, sugar beet, lucerne, etc.
    [/QUOTE]



    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    Anarchy means no state to keep law and order. No thanks, I'll pass on that. Keep your anarchy.
    An anarchist society does not equal a lawless society – again this is basic political theory.
    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    No it's due to lack of government regulation. Capitalism is a mindless tool. When an accident like this happens you don't blame the tool you blame the wielder of the tool, in this case the government.
    So the bosses who ran the sweatshops are blameless? The companies who benefit? As we know from this country in capitalism the state and the capitalist are in collusion.
    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    In what country? Your question is too general to answer.
    Try as a general principle.


  • #225
    Iwasfrozen
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,250 ✭✭✭✭Iwasfrozen


    Nitochris wrote: »
    Your post is littered with factual inaccuracy and theoretical misconceptions.




    By a few you mean 200 factories in Argentina by 2004.

    By a few you mean you mean 3000 enterprises in the the Catatonia region alone during the Spanish Civil War, as part of a nation wide movement that involved between 5 and 7 million people.
    The rest of your post is not much better drawing on psuedo-political theory.


    You are showing a basic misunderstanding as in anarchism there is no hierarchy, so there is no possible comparison with the present system in UCD.




    What makes you think that an political movement that is global supports isolation? The idea of isolated communes is completely opposed to even rudimentary anarchist theory. Instead we have free association between groups to overcome common problems.

    But lets return to poverty We've already seen that worker democracy results in more intelligent use of raw resources, but that's industry what about another sector - agriculture

    An anarchist society does not equal a lawless society – again this is basic political theory.
    Yes a few, 200 factories is not economy. As much as you want it to 200 factories does not make an economy. You're obviously an anarchist and so far you have failed to show how your vision of society would operate both inside the factory system and without. Instead of answering questions when asked you deride others for holding misconceptions and misunderstanding what you have said without realising the only reason these misconceptions exist is because you have thus far failed to elaborate upon how your system of the world would work.

    For example. You mentioned a few posts ago the barter system, when I justifiable asked you how you intended such a ridiculous scheme to work when paying for commodities like electricity or phone bills you immediately and predictably brushed the idea off as being a minor or passing comment you made. I presume you've withdrawn those comments though so I won't pursue them.

    Here in your post we have another example. Here you accuse me of having a misunderstanding of anarchy. But it's a misunderstanding of your version of anarchy because you have failed to adequately elaborate on your position.

    So the bosses who ran the sweatshops are blameless? The companies who benefit? As we know from this country in capitalism the state and the capitalist are in collusion.
    No they aren't. And it's up to the government to prosecute them. But it's also up to the government to make sure companies comply with regulations as they are. If the regulations aren't strict enough then it is again the government's responsibility to tighten them.
    Try as a general principle.
    I can't because the answer is it depends. If you want a more accurate answer then you have to break down the factors and analyse them one by one.


  • #226
    FTA69
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,252 ✭✭✭FTA69


    Iwasfrozen wrote: »

    No it's due to lack of government regulation. Capitalism is a mindless tool. When an accident like this happens you don't blame the tool you blame the wielder of the tool, in this case the government.

    But government regulation in economic affairs would contradict what you're on about no? Surely the "free market" would come to a natural equilibrium by itself? The sort of government regulation that would have protected the Bengali workers from this sort of thing i.e. a minimum wage, limit on hours worked etc is exactly the sort of thing you're saying shouldn't exist.

    In the libertarian fantasy, wages wouldn't go too low because people would simply go elsewhere to work and as such a decent wage would naturally emerge. In reality however, when corporations collude with governments in the Third World, desperate and unskilled people have no choice but to work for low wages in abysmal conditions. In places like Colombia, trade unionists are murdered on a regular basis for trying to organise around these issues.

    Another reality is that corporations will simply maximise their profits at the expense of health and safety, a living wage, child labour etc. To support deregulated capitalism and then blame its failures on a lack of government regulation is simply a cop out, and one that exposes the sheer idiocy of a philosophy that justifies exploitation and greed.


  • #227
    Iwasfrozen
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,250 ✭✭✭✭Iwasfrozen


    FTA69 wrote: »
    But government regulation in economic affairs would contradict what you're on about no? Surely the "free market" would come to a natural equilibrium by itself? The sort of government regulation that would have protected the Bengali workers from this sort of thing i.e. a minimum wage, limit on hours worked etc is exactly the sort of thing you're saying shouldn't exist.

    In the libertarian fantasy, wages wouldn't go too low because people would simply go elsewhere to work and as such a decent wage would naturally emerge. In reality however, when corporations collude with governments in the Third World, desperate and unskilled people have no choice but to work for low wages in abysmal conditions. In places like Colombia, trade unionists are murdered on a regular basis for trying to organise around these issues.

    Another reality is that corporations will simply maximise their profits at the expense of health and safety, a living wage, child labour etc. To support deregulated capitalism and then blame its failures on a lack of government regulation is simply a cop out, and one that exposes the sheer idiocy of a philosophy that justifies exploitation and greed.
    No one is arguing for 100% unregulated anarcho capitalism. I certainly am not.


  • #228
    FTA69
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,252 ✭✭✭FTA69


    No one is arguing for 100% unregulated anarcho capitalism. I certainly am not.

    You aren't maybe but there are many on this thread who would suggest the minimum wage should be scrapped and that it won't lead to poverty due to the supposition that people won't work for a pittance. In reality though, scrapping the minimum wage simply leads to people being forced deeper into poverty as companies will immediately seek to divert wage costs back into pure profit. That is exactly what has happened in Bangladesh, also accompanied by political corruption ( often fuelled by corporations) as well as a blind eye being turned toward the abuse of a predominantly poor and female workforce.


  • #229
    daveyeh
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 774 ✭✭✭daveyeh


    They are opposed to gates


  • #230
    Nitochris
    Closed Accounts Posts: 122 ✭✭Nitochris


    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    Yes a few, 200 factories is not economy. As much as you want it to 200 factories does not make an economy. You're obviously an anarchist and so far you have failed to show how your vision of society would operate both inside the factory system and without. Instead of answering questions when asked you deride others for holding misconceptions and misunderstanding what you have said without realising the only reason these misconceptions exist is because you have thus far failed to elaborate upon how your system of the world would work.

    I will allow that perhaps the elaboration could have been better however, I will also point out that I gave a broad outline which was quite clear. Throughout I have argued how these ideas have worked using actual examples not some theoretical construct. I made it quite clear I was using the Spanish Civil War.
    As for how it works:

    Nitochris wrote: »
    While far from ideal when these were set up in the Spanish Civil War

    in some areas money was done away with.

    Production and distribution was organised according to human needs.

    A wide variety of industries were collectivised (note not nationalised).

    And these survived for two years in the context of a civil war until military action was taken against them.
    Now those of us who support this idea admit that there were problems some of which came from the historical context and may not recur if tried again.


    I have slightly edited this to emphasize clarity. This is itself an expansion of the following to demonstrate my suggestion.
    Nitochris wrote: »
    Actually I was assuming the removal of a market economy, these collectives are run democratically so the union is not required. Also note these collectives work among a community in which there are other collectives.


    I also assumed it was clear that we were discussing non-hierarchical i.e. democratic institutions as we had been discussing these throughout, and that it was clear as indicated above these are not just isolated little pockets but are in fact interlinked. If I was mistaken in these assumptions I apologize.


    If you want a more detailed explanation of this system where do you want it - the history or the political theory boards? Take your pick and we'll go there rather than completely derail the thread. I would suggest political theory but I'll let you choose.

    Iwasfrozen wrote: »

    For example. You mentioned a few posts ago the barter system, when I justifiable asked you how you intended such a ridiculous scheme to work when paying for commodities like electricity or phone bills you immediately and predictably brushed the idea off as being a minor or passing comment you made. I presume you've withdrawn those comments though so I won't pursue them.


    In regards barter and haggling here is exactly what I wrote:
    Nitochris wrote: »
    All addressed in my earlier post actually, price and wage levels were removed by the removal of currency, and barter and haggling also exist as options. The idea of production to match human need addressed output and demand - basically mutualism.

    note that barter and haggling are explicitly mentioned as options outside of that which I am advocating and are clearly, as I have maintained through out, a passing comment. However to maintain civility you may consider the reference to barter withdrawn, providing you accept that I never promoted it in the first place.


    In regards anarchy I pointed out and you responded directly to:
    Nitochris wrote: »

    Oh and before anyone says anarchy is chaos (and this is addressed to everybody not just the poster I am replying to so as to preempt any ill informed comments) - I am referring to the political movement and the body of theory from the likes of Bakunin and Kropotkin.:




    clearly indicating that I was not talking about anarchy in the common sense understanding of pure chaos, which is precisely the definition you assumed. In your response you make several erroneous claims so point to any anarchist who suggests:

    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    Or well I say global but following your suggestions the world won't be united any more, society would have degenerated into isolated self sufficient poverty stricken communes.
    Show me an anarchist who believes that anarchy requires isolated colonies (which such a commune as you describe would be)

    And
    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    Anarchy means no state to keep law and order. No thanks, I'll pass on that. Keep your anarchy.
    Point to an anarchist theorist who claims that without a state that law and order are not possible, and therefore anarchist society will be lawless.




    As I suspect you a very much aware - you made the claim(s) so the onus is now on you to back it up with evidence. In any case we prefer the term Libertarian, a term which has be ours since the 1850s/60s, and this term has since been misappropriated by members of the political and economic right.




    I would also point out that despite your claims that I am attempting to avoid questions you have consistently attempted to avoid addressing the Spanish civil war examples that I asked about:
    Nitochris wrote: »

    By a few you mean you mean 3000 enterprises in the the Catatonia region alone during the Spanish Civil War, as part of a nation wide movement that involved between 5 and 7 million people.

    This is not the first time you have avoided the question on the Spanish Civil War on this thread either:
    Nitochris wrote: »
    And it happened and worked. For two years before it was forcefully repressed. Under mutual aid everyone is entitled to a fair portion of the communities produce. Edit 2: I am pointing out alternative models with actual precedent to correct a strawman you put forward in the post I first replied to that suggested central planning was the only alternative model to capitalism.

    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    Except it won't work long term because as you admit yourself market pressure will force the firm, one way or an other to take up the more efficient capitalist method. This may be detrimental to the workers but society as a whole benefits from their more efficient production and lower price levels.
    Nitochris wrote: »
    You are mixing the examples here last I checked the free market did not play a role in the Communist's attacks on the anarchist communes. During those two years of collectivization production is believed to have increased to levels it did not have under market forces.
    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    Even if that was the case pointing out that production increased in this one specific instance is not evidence to show workers communes are more efficient then free market companies in general. If your staff levels are too high, their wages are too high (since they set their own) and there's no way to get rid of slackers then price is going to increase as the cost of production increases, demand is going to fall and as a result the output level is going to fall. You have no answer to this because it's the truth, the free market is the most efficient system of production.
    You have also evaded again that other question I asked you this being your most recent response:

    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    I can't because the answer is it depends. If you want a more accurate answer then you have to break down the factors and analyse them one by one.
    Now as to this second question that you are trying to avoid. Every political movement and economic form has general principles which it applies to groups such as these. So you are evading the question. But I will rephrase it how does the market provide for those it excludes from a variety of advantages and privileges in order to allow full participation within the consumer economy?




    So to sum up I've asked for four things, and remember this in the context of how you are claiming that I have avoided answering questions:


    1 Show any anarchist theorist who supports the positions you attribute to anarchism?
    2 Name the forum in which you wish to learn about the Anarchist movement in the Spanish Civil war and the lesson that we can learn from that today.
    3 Address the previously put question on the Anarchist Communes in the Spanish Civil War
    4 Make your argument for the market's ability to include those excluded by capitalism?


Advertisement