Do you know any Communists?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 21-02-2014 03:53PM

Davarus Walrus wrote: »

It could be argued that Jesus Christ was a communist.

fundi wrote: »

It could be argued that Mandela in his younger days was a communist.

And will it be...?

Lefticus Loonaticus · 21-02-2014 04:13PM

RonnieRocket wrote: »

I thought it was a strange question. The Cold War is over. Capitalism won and Communism is now broadly seen as the laughing stock ideology for the gullible and uneducated. Are Commies still seen as a threat? It's a bit totalitarian to ban a political ideology in my opinion. Do you know any Commies? Somebody out there is voting for Joe Higgins...

Not too sure about statistics, but wiki says they had 11% of the french vote in the 2012 presidential election with a total of 3,985,000 votes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Communist_Party#Popular_support_and_electoral_record

In Ireland 2011 election, 2,243,000 votes was the totality of the vote, according to http://www.idea.int/vt/countryview.cfm?CountryCode=IE.

So, with my red tinted glasses on, one could say that more people voted communist in france in 2012 than the entire electoral vote of Ireland in 2011.

Davarus Walrus · 21-02-2014 05:25PM

Joe Higgins was outside Pearse Street Dart station on Wednesday going on about water charges, property tax, bondholders and the working class. With that Murphy lad who got Higgins seat in Europe when he got elected to the Dáil. Dislikeable looking sort of chap.

Didn't stay around to listen as I had to get home to watch XPosé.

olly_mac · 21-02-2014 05:41PM

fundi wrote: »

It could be argued that Mandela in his younger days was a communist.

He was a member of the South African Communist Party, so I think it's a given

I know many Communists, and enjoy debating with them. They are all intelligent, committed people, and while I would not agree with all they say, I respect their views.

Frank Lee Midere · 21-02-2014 08:16PM

Davarus Walrus wrote: »

Joe Higgins was outside Pearse Street Dart station on Wednesday going on about water charges, property tax, bondholders and the working class. With that Murphy lad who got Higgins seat in Europe when he got elected to the Dáil. Dislikeable looking sort of chap.

Didn't stay around to listen as I had to get home to watch XPosé.

Ireland is the only place where socialists oppose property taxes, and stay mum on wealth or inheritance taxes. Which probably explains the fact that the broad working classes hate them.

Frank Lee Midere · 21-02-2014 08:18PM

Charles Rocher wrote: »

Community ownership of the means of production I was alluding to rather than individual ownership.

In your original posts you mentioned the US where people helped each other. That's (largely) private property owners helping each other.

Frank Lee Midere · 21-02-2014 08:23PM

Benny_Cake wrote: »

Soviet communism leaned far more on Lenin than Marx - with concepts such as the role of a vanguard party and democratic centralism contributing towards the totalitarian state which the Soviet Union swiftly became. The communist parties which came to power in other countries all followed the Soviet model. For better or worse, the word communism is associated with that particular model in most people's minds. Which is a shame, because it's never been more critical to examine alternatives to the current economic system.

To be fair the Leninists waited for spontaneous working class revolution they'd still be waiting. Some of them still are. I suppose the workers didn't read enough theory.

One more point here. It's not enough to criticise any existing system you have to have a credible alternative. Capitalism is highly flawed, but analysis of flaws is not proof of the alternative theory.

Annasopra · 21-02-2014 08:41PM

Frank Lee Midere wrote: »

Ireland is the only place where socialists oppose property taxes, and stay mum on wealth or inheritance taxes. Which probably explains the fact that the broad working classes hate them.

It's actually very bizarre that "socialists" oppose property tax

goose2005 · 21-02-2014 08:58PM

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

By American standards, we're probably all commies.

Even Nixon was a filthy commie by modern American standards - he wanted socialised healthcare, a guaranteed minimum income, put extra taxes on the wealthy and set up all sorts of health & safety and environmental regulation

Frank Lee Midere · 22-02-2014 12:25AM

goose2005 wrote: »

Even Nixon was a filthy commie by modern American standards - he wanted socialised healthcare, a guaranteed minimum income, put extra taxes on the wealthy and set up all sorts of health & safety and environmental regulation

Yes. Remarkable isn't it. I actually have a soft spot for tricky dicky.

sin_city · 22-02-2014 12:58AM

Tiddlypeeps wrote: »

I think both extremes have issues.

Pure capitalism is unworkable because you can't really own something if there is no state to recognise ownership, which needs taxes. It also promotes a system of unfairness once wealthy individuals establish themselves. It causes oligopolies which eventually result in a scenario where it is impossible to compete. The early days of capitalism are ok since everyone has the ability to cut out their own piece of the pie if they work hard, but when it hits it's mature phase you get a scenario where only a handful of companies own everything and a working class person can never possibly obtain a lifestyle better than they are born into, no matter how hard they work or how intelligent they are, which completely goes against capitalist ideals.

We'vev never had pure capitalism and it would be great....Imagine companies were not allowed lobby politicians to put up regulations to stop others from entering.

You can place taxes on sales of goods at a very low level...Look at how the USA grew in the 1800s with none or little tax.

Tax pay interest on borrowings from the banking cartels that own the central banks....A first step to have real capitalism is to have competition of currencies.

Pure competition...The tech industry is one of the most capitalistic we have...nokia was huge a few years ago, then Apple, then samsung...lots of companies come in and go out...Consumer wins...prices go down and products improve.

Total capitalism is very dangerous for the rich...someone else can come along and the consumer will choose their products so barriers have to be put up to prevent this.

All the large companies today have created barriers to prevent smaller competition from getting into the market...

This is not part of capitalism....You don't understand capitalism if you think it is dangerous....it would free up workers from false dependence on the state.

Karl Stein · 22-02-2014 01:33AM

sin_city wrote: »

Pure competition...The tech industry is one of the most capitalistic we have

Oh dear. You'd have more competition at a farmers market.. where the people selling Granny Smiths won't sue you for selling Golden Delicious.

See what I did there?

Karl Stein · 22-02-2014 02:03AM

sin_city wrote: »

We'vev never had pure capitalism and it would be great....Imagine companies were not allowed lobby politicians to put up regulations to stop others from entering.

What you're essentially saying here is 'imagine humans not being humans'. Forget it.

You can place taxes on sales of goods at a very low level...Look at how the USA grew in the 1800s with none or little tax.

How much wealth was created on the back of the millions of slaves working 16 hours a day, 6 days a week for a couple of centuries? Also, the US was very protectionist which is essentially placing high taxes on goods from other 'competitors'.

Pure competition...The tech industry is one of the most capitalistic we have...nokia was huge a few years ago, then Apple, then samsung...lots of companies come in and go out...Consumer wins...prices go down and products improve.

Too simplistic. The tech industry owes much of its growth to publicly funded R&D, buying up of expensive hardware when only public money could do it, state granted and enforced patents, state granted and enforced copyrights, state granted corporate privileges etc.

All the large companies today have created barriers to prevent smaller competition from getting into the market..

You're making the mistake of thinking this would not happen in the absence of the state which is daft. The state is just human beings - it's not an entity separate from men.

You don't understand capitalism if you think it is dangerous

You're confusing the fabled free market with Capitalism.

cloud493 · 22-02-2014 02:16AM

Are sinn fein not reds? Been said to me a few times that has.

Mjollnir · 22-02-2014 02:20AM

sin_city wrote: »

We'vev never had pure capitalism and it would be great....Imagine companies were not allowed lobby politicians to put up regulations to stop others from entering.

Indeed, we have. The abuses and corruption that came with it were known as "The Gilded Age", typified by Robber Barons, cartels, trust and syndicates.

Why are you lying about this?

Pure competition...The tech industry is one of the most capitalistic we have...nokia was huge a few years ago, then Apple, then samsung...lots of companies come in and go out...Consumer wins...prices go down and products improve.

And every single one of those enjoyed and still enjoy massive subsidies in various forms from gov'ts, esp Samsung.

Please try knowing what you're braying about before actually braying.

Total capitalism is very dangerous for the rich...someone else can come along and the consumer will choose their products so barriers have to be put up to prevent this.

History proves this to be vacuous daydreaming. It's not dangerous in the least for them.

All the large companies today have created barriers to prevent smaller competition from getting into the market...

And this wouldn't happen in your Fantasy Land scenario because.....?

This is not part of capitalism....You don't understand capitalism if you think it is dangerous....it would free up workers from false dependence on the state.

It's quite clear that not only do you not know capitalism (and you utterly misrepresent both it and other systems/philosophies) but you're laughably ignorant of some very basic history.

Please be less so.

420Sw4gBro9000 · 22-02-2014 02:57AM

I know quite a few communists actually.

What happens if you tick yes?
If a Chinese person is applying surely it can't go against them to tick yes?

KyussBishop · 22-02-2014 04:02AM

sin_city wrote: »

We'vev never had pure capitalism and it would be great....Imagine companies were not allowed lobby politicians to put up regulations to stop others from entering.

You can place taxes on sales of goods at a very low level...Look at how the USA grew in the 1800s with none or little tax.

Uhm, these taxes 'distort' the 'free market' - making your capitalism 'unpure'. You can't have pure capitalism, while also having a state - they are mutually exclusive.

KyussBishop · 22-02-2014 04:04AM

sin_city wrote: »

Pure competition...The tech industry is one of the most capitalistic we have...nokia was huge a few years ago, then Apple, then samsung...lots of companies come in and go out...Consumer wins...prices go down and products improve.

A whole bunch of tech companies, Apple included (who were recently in court for fixing ebook prices), are being brought to court in May for running a cartel, that fixed worker wages - 'free markets' indeed:
http://pando.com/2014/01/23/the-techtopus-how-silicon-valleys-most-celebrated-ceos-conspired-to-drive-down-100000-tech-engineers-wages/

Steve Jobs threatening Palm's CEO into joining illegal wage fixing, unsuccessfully:
http://pando.com/2014/02/19/court-documents-reveal-steve-jobs-blistering-threat-to-ceo-who-wouldnt-join-wage-fixing-cartel/

Optional interesting follow-ups:
http://pando.com/2014/02/18/meet-the-man-silicon-valleys-ceos-turn-to-when-they-want-to-justify-screwing-workers/

Companies involved in illegal price fixing: Apple, Google, Pixar/Disney, Intel, Adobe, eBay and Intuit.

GerB40 · 22-02-2014 04:57AM

Tiddlypeeps wrote: »

I think both extremes have issues.

Pure capitalism is unworkable because you can't really own something if there is no state to recognise ownership, which needs taxes. It also promotes a system of unfairness once wealthy individuals establish themselves. It causes oligopolies which eventually result in a scenario where it is impossible to compete. The early days of capitalism are ok since everyone has the ability to cut out their own piece of the pie if they work hard, but when it hits it's mature phase you get a scenario where only a handful of companies own everything and a working class person can never possibly obtain a lifestyle better than they are born into, no matter how hard they work or how intelligent they are, which completely goes against capitalist ideals.

Pure communism doesn't create an environment that encourages innovation, this is quite likely to cause economic stagnation. I think this is pretty much unworkable too because it requires individuals who run the state to be incorruptible.

I don't think either of these systems have ever existed in their pure form in the real world, and if they did it certainly hasn't happened at any sort of scale. (Please correct me if I'm wrong)

I don't really have any solid views on which economic theory is best, it's constantly changing because there is no perfect answer. I definitely believe in at least a little socialism, but my mind is constantly being changed on the degree of it. Pretty much all versions of it suffer pretty badly from corruption and cronyism. It's what causes state bodies to become bloated and inefficient and it's what causes large corporations to control markets and stifle competition.

To a certain degree direct democracy helps with the above corruption but that comes with its own set of issues. People don't always know whats best, money can still buy votes since marketing campaigns can convince people to vote in a way that's not necessarily best for them, large reform becomes very difficult because people are afraid of change etc etc. But I do think this is a better option than the current system in Ireland. But a system that better combats the issue would be preferable, I just don't know of any.

This seems to be the most well informed piece on this thread so far. If I had to surmise this whole discussion so far it would be:
Communism = Good on paper, bad in reality.
Capitalism = Fairly flawed but no better alternative.
I could be wrong but fück it, I'm no philosopher...

jank · 22-02-2014 05:09AM

biko wrote: »

I think communism works well on a small scale but terrible on a grand scale. Capitalism on any scale is pretty ****.

Can you give me an example anywhere when Communism worked well on a small scale. Like we have large countries like Russia and China that have tried it, hasn't worked out that well. Small countries have tried it too, Cuba, Cambodia and Laos for example. Not exactly roaring success stories. Meanwhile countries that have embraced the free market and liberty in Asia such as South Korea, Japan, Singapore and Hong Kong enjoy standards of living that is the envy of the rest of Asia…. Capitalism is not perfect but it is a million times better than Communism.

Napper Hawkins · 22-02-2014 05:20AM

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

And will it be...?

They were.

Napper Hawkins · 22-02-2014 05:20AM

Napper Hawkins wrote: »

They were.

Oh no they weren't.

jank · 22-02-2014 05:23AM

biko wrote: »

The main issue I have with capitalism is that it's not intended for the whole society. It's intended to create rulers/owners that can then get rich off the backs of the masses that have no other choice but to take menial jobs. Certainly, you can succeed in capitalist society as well as in communist society.

Wow, just wow. I would expect this from some posters but you? Tell me, where in the world can one really succeed as well as say in Canada, USA or Australia or even free market Europe. Why are millions of people trying to get into these countries and not into Cuba and North Korea. Even today Cubans try and flee their homeland in order the get a better live for themselves in the USA. Family that are left behind and punished usually We had the examples of old where millions, yes millions had to flee the eastern block. Did you forget the Berlin Wall? A system that has to imprison (yes that what it was) its own population to stop them escaping to those 'imperialist evil money hungry' western counties is already a failure. Just look at the stats and see 'where people vote with their feet'. Case.Closed.

I know it is popular to hate capitalism at the moment but lets not lose the run of ourselves and think communism is actually something we should try again or even something that is worthwhile to try again.

jank · 22-02-2014 05:30AM

KyussBishop wrote: »

.

Every single country in the western world, uses central planning, in their public services

I don't think we should really be trying to extol the virtues of public serices and hide the problems now do we? Public serves are generally vastly inefficient, cost a fortune and the people who run them are unaccountable for their actions. The tax payer of course has no choice but to fund their public services through taxation or otherwise face jail. At least with a private company if they mess you about or piss you off you can chose not to use their services but with government services one usually has no choice in the matter, the irony of this is is that the poor are usually stuck with this crap and those that can afford it can avail of private services that offer better bang for buck and a better service generally.

jank · 22-02-2014 05:39AM

Charles Rocher wrote: »

Community ownership of the means of production I was alluding to rather than individual ownership.

In a capitalist free country, one can do that. Check out the Amish community for example. That is the thing about a free country. Once can try and become a billionaire, one can also live a peaceful live in a quiet rural Amsih community or live in a hippy commune, or set up some weird new-age community where people are free to get stoned off their faces on LSD. There is a reason why the counter cultural revolution started in American and not say Russia or China.

jank · 22-02-2014 05:42AM

KyussBishop wrote: »

The Post-Keynesian school pretty much has all of the solutions we need for the economic crisis, figured out - and they're even slowly finding ways to work-around traps like the Euro and EU political deadlock, which would otherwise block seeking out alternative policies.

If that was the case, why isn't the EU growing at a faster rate than say the USA or have lower unemployment rates? I think its a very black and white argument you put forward.

jank · 22-02-2014 05:47AM

Charles Rocher wrote: »

Too simplistic. The tech industry owes much of its growth to publicly funded R&D, buying up of expensive hardware when only public money could do it, state granted and enforced patents, state granted and enforced copyrights, state granted corporate privileges etc.

That is what is what is called a contract and countries that have free markets and the rule of law where contract disputes can be aired in a court of law have done better than other countries with out a rule of law. Even Ayn Rand herself instated that courts should remain in a state as they would need to do the usual things that courts do. Prosecute unlawfulness, resolve disputes and so on.

KyussBishop · 22-02-2014 06:33AM

jank wrote: »

I don't think we should really be trying to extol the virtues of public serices and hide the problems now do we? Public serves are generally vastly inefficient, cost a fortune and the people who run them are unaccountable for their actions. The tax payer of course has no choice but to fund their public services through taxation or otherwise face jail. At least with a private company if they mess you about or piss you off you can chose not to use their services but with government services one usually has no choice in the matter, the irony of this is is that the poor are usually stuck with this crap and those that can afford it can avail of private services that offer better bang for buck and a better service generally.

Your entire post is based on this premise, yet you don't show me doing that - so you're replying to something you've completely made up (as usual).

Why did you even bother quoting me? You clearly just want to rail against public services in general, so don't pretend you're actually replying to someone - just be a bit more honest about it, and write the rant without pretending it is a reply to anyone.

KyussBishop · 22-02-2014 06:39AM

jank wrote: »

If that was the case, why isn't the EU growing at a faster rate than say the USA or have lower unemployment rates? I think its a very black and white argument you put forward.

It's the neoclassicals (New Keynesians/Keynesians) that determine economic policy, not the Post-Keynesians.

jank · 22-02-2014 08:30AM

KyussBishop wrote: »

Your entire post is based on this premise, yet you don't show me doing that - so you're replying to something you've completely made up (as usual).

You mentioned public services as some sort of flawless model one should be able to replicate in place of … something.. as a way to be more 'democratic', or something to that affect. All i did was show, rightly that public services are by no means flawless and in fact are terribly run in the most part and totally unaccountable for their actions. The most democratic thing in the world in the consumer as they can pick and chose each and every day what products and services they will buy. Yet because these companies are successful they are the bad guys. If you don't like Coca Cola, Facebook or Nike, then don't buy or use their products. If one doesn't like that fact that the HSE is grossly inefficient and offer a below standard health service well tough luck as the unions won't buckle unless you give them a pay off and you expect to avail and pay for shoddy health services until the end of time via your tax euros.

Do you know any Communists?

Comments