Do you know any Communists?

KyussBishop · 24-02-2014 02:04PM

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

It can work, just not on a national level in today's society. Whether it could work in a utopia is debateble, but even then it's relative.

I'd actually agree that it can work on a local/community level - but only until someone deliberately tries to exploit it; trying it on a small-scale, reduces the chances of someone trying to exploit it, letting it last longer.

Though I've not read up on the theory behind Communism/anarchism much, but that is my impression of it.

Jonny7 · 24-02-2014 02:15PM

karma_ wrote: »

God forbid anyone gets philosophical. You think it's a choice? LOL We are trained to consume, it's watered and fed to us on a daily basis and if we didn't the whole system would fall around us and collapse.

We aren't "trained", it's human nature

Ever wondered why is there a demand for iPads, when cheaper alternatives are in most cases a superior product? Mate you don't even understand your own ideology and in itself that's terrifying.

Luxury goods have been in demand since we first started to collect/create them, e.g. precious stones

Basic anthropology, and basic supply and demand

coolemon · 24-02-2014 02:16PM

Tiddlypeeps wrote: »

I'm just gonna ask outright because you keep dancing around the issue.

How would you actually implement the system you are talking about? I'm talking logistics here, not vauge fuzzy ideas of what the world will look like when it gets there, I'm asking how do you get it there?

I am not skirting around the issue. (I dont think I have been asked this question already?)

I cant say how it will be implemented. I can only point to historical attempts, such as the Spanish Revolution or the Paris Commune. Or even the Limerick Soviet.

All of these usually revolve around workers seizing control of their workplaces and running them in a collective and co-operative way -> abolishing the existing currency and the 'owning class'.

This required the formation of decantralised states or militias to defend this new social arrangement against a hostile (capitalist) social order -> Franco's Spain, Britain, etc.

Now whether that is how it will occur again, I dont know.

Two videos:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=js0FR8GkBEo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jPl_Y3Qdb7Y

karma_ · 24-02-2014 02:18PM

Tiddlypeeps wrote: »

This is a load of crap tbh. I don't want to derail the thread but I think it's important to make the point, show me this iPad alternative that is both cheap and superior.

I could name any number but I'll name one. The Kindle Fire HDX which is not only better but half the price.

LeBash · 24-02-2014 02:26PM

Most Commies i know are nothing but lay abouts. They are the kind of people who live on the dole and have no ambition to get a job.

Realistically in the red dream these guys have, everyone would have to contribute to the state and geting up at 12 and taking a picture of the yellow pack cereal they are eatting wouldnt pass as work.

While i myself would be left of center (if you want to call it that) i would be all for the idea of getting rid of the dole and replacing it with a labour exchange.

Cleaning grafity, litter pick up, cleaning river banks etc and recieving a sum of money exceeding the dole for their work. Which none of these communists i know agree with.

In short, theres a lot of lazy people i know who claim to be reds but im sure there are some genuine lads and girls out tgerealso.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 24-02-2014 02:39PM

LeBash wrote: »

Most Commies i know are nothing but lay abouts. They are the kind of people who live on the dole and have no ambition to get a job.

Realistically in the red dream these guys have, everyone would have to contribute to the state and geting up at 12 and taking a picture of the yellow pack cereal they are eatting wouldnt pass as work.

While i myself would be left of center (if you want to call it that) i would be all for the idea of getting rid of the dole and replacing it with a labour exchange.

Cleaning grafity, litter pick up, cleaning river banks etc and recieving a sum of money exceeding the dole for their work. Which none of these communists i know agree with.

In short, theres a lot of lazy people i know who claim to be reds but im sure there are some genuine lads and girls out tgerealso.

Why would a lazy person promote a system in which it's pretty much impossible to be lazy...? You sure you know these people as well as you think you do, or is it just what you want to believe?

Tiddlypeeps · 24-02-2014 02:41PM

coolemon wrote: »

I am not skirting around the issue. (I dont think I have been asked this question already?)

I cant say how it will be implemented. I can only point to historical attempts, such as the Spanish Revolution or the Paris Commune. Or even the Limerick Soviet.

All of these usually revolve around workers seizing control of their workplaces and running them in a collective and co-operative way -> abolishing the existing currency and the 'owning class'.

This required the formation of decantralised states or militias to defend this new social arrangement against a hostile (capitalist) social order -> Franco's Spain, Britain, etc.

Now whether that is how it will occur again, I dont know.

Two videos:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=js0FR8GkBEo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jPl_Y3Qdb7Y

Neither Spain, Paris or Limerick are communist states (unless I've missed something big?). I don't know a lot about the history of those places but I can only assume, from the current lack of communist regimes in those places, that those attempts ultimately resulted in failure?

If those places were communist for a short period of time, was it pure communism (moneyless etc)?

I apologise if those videos answer my questions, I can't watch them at the moment because I'm in work.

coolemon · 24-02-2014 02:58PM

Tiddlypeeps wrote: »

Neither Spain, Paris or Limerick are communist states (unless I've missed something big?). I don't know a lot about the history of those places but I can only assume, from the current lack of communist regimes in those places, that those attempts ultimately resulted in failure?

If those places were communist for a short period of time, was it pure communism (moneyless etc)?

I apologise if those videos answer my questions, I can't watch them at the moment because I'm in work.

Communist state is an oxymoron as communism is stateless.

The Paris Commune, the Spanish Revolution and the Limerick Soviet were destroyed by outside forces, not because they failed as a system.

As communism is stateless, it essentially requires the system to be on a global scale. This, since hostile forces exist externally and therefore defensive and coercive capabilities are required.

Socialism - in the Marxist and Anarchist tradition - is a stage where organised coercive forces exist and are required to the defend the system from external coercive forces. This is where Marxism and Anarchism differ. Marxists favour the establishment of a state (a full-time organised coercive institution, decentralised or centralised) - while Anarchists favour semi-permanent defence militias.

Communism only exists when the state has "withered away" and where no external threats exist.

AFAIK, only in the case of the Paris commune and the Spanish Revolution was money abolished. Not in the Limerick Soviet.

Jonny7 · 24-02-2014 03:13PM

coolemon wrote: »

As communism is stateless, it essentially requires the system to be on a global scale. This, since hostile forces exist externally and therefore defensive and coercive capabilities are required.

So what you are saying is - it exists in theory only

To exist in the world world is impossible unless every other system is identical?

A form of pure global communism.. do you have non video links to this version? (sorry for jumping into this late maybe I've missed in earlier posts)

Tiddlypeeps · 24-02-2014 03:33PM

karma_ wrote: »

I could name any number but I'll name one. The Kindle Fire HDX which is not only better but half the price.

Sorry I forgot to respond to this. The Kindle Fire is not superior to the iPad. While they have similar internals the iPad wins out every so slightly on screen, audio and gets better benchmarks on performace (I can bore you with details here if you really want). However the OS and app stores are the major selling point, iOS is a thousand times more intuitive than Android and is supported by a lot more big name developers. The quality of apps on Android is unfortunately still ****e (it is improving tho).

Is it worth twice the price? That's hard to say, it really depends on how much that extra money really means to you. The Kindle Fire is a really great cheaper alternative, but superior it is not.

I'm not an Apple fanboy. I hate Mac, I have to use one for work but would much much rather be on a Windows PC. But I have to give them credit where it's due, they have done a fantastic job with their tablets and phones. Some people might buy them simply because of the expense and for the prestige of owning one, but that doesn't take away from the fact that they are, more often than not, superior to the competition.

coolemon wrote: »

Communist state is an oxymoron as communism is stateless.

The Paris Commune, the Spanish Revolution and the Limerick Soviet were destroyed by outside forces, not because they failed as a system.

As communism is stateless, it essentially requires the system to be on a global scale. This, since hostile forces exist externally and therefore defensive and coercive capabilities are required.

Socialism - in the Marxist and Anarchist tradition - is a stage where organised coercive forces exist and are required to the defend the system from external coercive forces. This is where Marxism and Anarchism differ. Marxists favour the establishment of a state (a full-time organised coercive institution, decentralised or centralised) - while Anarchists favour semi-permanent defence militias.

Communism only exists when the state has "withered away" and where no external threats exist.

AFAIK, only in the case of the Paris commune and the Spanish Revolution was money abolished. Not in the Limerick Soviet.

Nothing here convinces me that communism is workable in the real world. Outside forces are always going to be an issue. Are you aware of any ways around this?

Temaz · 24-02-2014 03:39PM

LeBash wrote: »

i would be all for the idea of getting rid of the dole and replacing it with a labour exchange.

Cleaning grafity, litter pick up, cleaning river banks etc and recieving a sum of money exceeding the dole for their work. Which none of these communists i know agree with.

In short, theres a lot of lazy people i know who claim to be reds but im sure there are some genuine lads and girls out tgerealso.

Those are the jobs of City councils and such. Tough work as well.

coolemon · 24-02-2014 03:48PM

Jonny7 wrote: »

So what you are saying is - it exists in theory only

To exist in the world world is impossible unless every other system is identical?

A form of pure global communism.. do you have non video links to this version? (sorry for jumping into this late maybe I've missed in earlier posts)

As a concept, and by its rightful meaning, communism is necessarily a global system. I don't know about identical. We are talking more broadly about a mode of production - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mode_of_production

Socialism can exist, however, on a non-global level.

I don't know what you mean. A version of what would like?

coolemon · 24-02-2014 03:55PM

Tiddlypeeps wrote: »

Nothing here convinces me that communism is workable in the real world. Outside forces are always going to be an issue. Are you aware of any ways around this?

Because you have to read more on the subject. As I say, you will be full of pre-suppositions and assumptions that I cannot possibly address here. You are trying to piece these little bits of information together when really, it requires more background reading.

Marxism and most types of anarchism are based upon a 'historical materialist' conception of history - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_materialism

That is, it is not a case of trying to figure out the details of how that society might work, but rather that, through an analysis of existing capitalism and history, that historical trends are identifiable.

History is the history of class struggle, as Marx put it. And those class divisions and antagonisms are as real now as they were when Marx was alive. Ones which, if history is anything to go by, confront each other periodically. At times resulting in the suppression of one class by another. There are, essentially, two main classes which exist today. Despite what some might argue.

The Marxist contention is that, for a variety of reasons they identify, the proletariat will suppress the capitalist class.

Inevitable would be too strong a word.

Get Real · 24-02-2014 03:57PM

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

The wages a person demands in our society is based on their education, skill, experience and the amount of personal risk and responsibility they are willing to take on........

For example I'm currently studying actuarial science. I'm not putting myself through 14 hard exams because I enjoy it. I'm doing it because Actuaries are paid a lot of money..............

I agree with your sentiment. But disagree with this part. Wages are determined by the supply of labour in the economy not by how skilled/ educated they are.

Now don't get me wrong, often, people who are skilled/ educated earn good wages, but thats because in general they are in short supply and need to be attracted/ poached to a certain company that requires their skill set.

Now, there is a short supply of IT graduates, so wages in IT can be high, if everyone were to go out tomorrow and do IT, wages would fall as there would be too much supply for the amount of jobs available,

the same would happen if the demand for IT services fell, job numbers would contract and the over supply of qualified people would lead to a fall in wages.

A perfect example of this is during the boom. A person could go out and learn a skilled trade, at the age of 18, be earning good money, not because of their skills (which of course qualify them for a job) but because there was not enough supply of labour and companies needed to expand and attract.

Now, those same people, who are just as skilled, are earning far less because of an over supply of labour in the market.

Congrats on your actuarial science

and that is good money, but not because you studied it, because there is a shortage of supply of suitably qualified people. If there are 1000 vacant jobs, and only 700 qualified people, wages will be attractive, if everyone rushed to study the same as you, and the supply jumped to 2000 fighting for 1000 jobs, employers can have their pick. The good old free market :pac:

The Hill Billy · 24-02-2014 04:03PM

I have a cousin who identifies with being a "Stalinist".
In response to an earlier comment about Commies being lay-abouts - that's certainly not the case in relation to this particular man. He was a very hard worker all his life.
An insufferable pain in the arse when he gets talking politics in the pub, but after a few scoops it can be quite entertaining.

Tiddlypeeps · 24-02-2014 04:19PM

coolemon wrote: »

Because you have to read more on the subject. As I say, you will be full of pre-suppositions and assumptions that I cannot possibly address here. You are trying to piece these little bits of information together when really, it requires more background reading.

This is not a good enough answer. If you want someone to take your views seriously you must at least be willing to at least explain them. If you cannot explain them then you do not understand them.

All I want to know is how can this theory be successfully put in to practice. Is it possible and if so how? Putting a system in place that is quickly quashed out is not what I would call successful. Saying read more on the subject is not a good enough answer to this question. If you cannot answer it then I will have to assume the answer is no.

If the answer to the above is no then it makes any further debate about the merits of such as system redundant.

Iwasfrozen · 24-02-2014 04:21PM

KyussBishop wrote: »

Uhm, miscalculation (often deliberate) of risk, and fraudulent reselling of assets with a premium low-risk rating, when they were in fact extremely risky, is what contributed enormously to the economic crisis.
Actuaries played their part in destroying a chunk of the world economy, and they still have their salaries and bonuses - they don't face personal risk anywhere near proportionate to the damage they can cause.

The way fraud works today, is that corrupt actuaries/accountants get hired by CEO's in banks/financial institutions, in order to cook the books and give financial instruments rosy classifications, so that institutions can (on paper) make a lot of short term profits, which get distributed to complicit workers (including the actuaries/accountants) and CEO's as immediate salary and bonus payments, while the firm itself becomes insolvent (pending a rescue/bailout later on - i.e. the public pays for all their reckless profits).

Since there is often only an obscured paper trail left behind, and no willingness on the part of authorities to really investigate this stuff (and with complicit paid off workers, having no incentive to blow the whistle), the people involved just get to walk away and do the whole thing again in another firm.
This is how Accounting Control Fraud works.

These days, I'm starting to come more around to the idea that many Libertarians (not all, but the most dedicated among them) are really just the trainee financial fraudsters of the future - and that it is plainly visible that most of them don't actually believe the crap they are spouting, but it is advantageous for them (and other free-marketeers) to spout that line, as it makes them compatible to fit in with the right circles, demonstrating that they can be trusted to stay quiet about fraud, so they can participate and share the gains.

It's no coincidence, that the mindset displayed, seems to merge perfectly with one that would excuse and participate in fraud - indeed, it (fraud) is something that free-marketeers and Libertarians often try to deny or pour-doubt on the very existence of it, which all fits pretty well.

Uh huh, look Kyuss despite what you may think the majority of actuaries are very sound people and in no way corrupt. The majority of us work in life assurance firms NOT financial institutions and if you're going to start off a conversation based on the premise (without evidence I may add) that my entire profession is corrupt well, I won't be participating in it.

24-02-2014 04:30PM

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Uh huh, look Kyuss despite what you may think the majority of actuaries are very sound people and in no way corrupt. The majority of us work in life assurance firms NOT financial institutions and if you're going to start off a conversation based on the premise (without evidence I may add) that my entire profession is corrupt well, I won't be participating in it.

Considering the amount of oversight and rules and overseeing and disciplinary proceedings up to and including losing your licence to practise, the idea is mad
Not impossible, but they're obsessed with adhering to legislation and legal docs

coolemon · 24-02-2014 04:41PM

Tiddlypeeps wrote: »

All I want to know is how can this theory be successfully put in to practice. Is it possible and if so how? Putting a system in place that is quickly quashed out is not what I would call successful. Saying read more on the subject is not a good enough answer to this question. If you cannot answer it then I will have to assume the answer is no.

If the answer to the above is no then it makes any further debate about the merits of such as system redundant.

You have to understand that by posting here (in after hours) - with people who are full of misconceptions - that I could go all day irrespective of how well I were to answer your questions. I know this to be the case. Its like arguing with a devout Christian about the un-realness of God, and who has a narrow frame of reference and a particular ideological disposition. For your part, you should read more on the subject if you want to understand it better.

In the mean time, I will (as I have been) answer your questions.

You are asking me how to put it into practice. I have already explained. It is not my place to say that. I do not have a crystal ball. Implementation is the task of the working class - not me. In reality - all I can do, in line with Marxist theory, is identify the nature of the class conflict which exists - and to promote a discussion of proletarian control on that basis.

Perhaps you could be more specific with your question? Otherwise its like me asking you what will Ireland be like in the year 2200 and expecting a serious answer.

Jonny7 · 24-02-2014 04:42PM

Tiddlypeeps wrote: »

This is not a good enough answer. If you want someone to take your views seriously you must at least be willing to at least explain them. If you cannot explain them then you do not understand them.

All I want to know is how can this theory be successfully put in to practice. Is it possible and if so how? Putting a system in place that is quickly quashed out is not what I would call successful. Saying read more on the subject is not a good enough answer to this question. If you cannot answer it then I will have to assume the answer is no.

If the answer to the above is no then it makes any further debate about the merits of such as system redundant.

I fully agree, theories are interesting on paper - but their proper merit is in real world use and application

A common excuse for the failure of different strata of communism is that they were never properly implemented as intended or "did not have enough time"

And therein lies the major fault of many types of communism - idealism

Designed for an idealistic world (not real world) and designed for idealistic human nature (not real world self-interest and competition)

Iwasfrozen · 24-02-2014 04:43PM

Get Real wrote: »

I agree with your sentiment. But disagree with this part. Wages are determined by the supply of labour in the economy not by how skilled/ educated they are.

Now don't get me wrong, often, people who are skilled/ educated earn good wages, but thats because in general they are in short supply and need to be attracted/ poached to a certain company that requires their skill set.

Now, there is a short supply of IT graduates, so wages in IT can be high, if everyone were to go out tomorrow and do IT, wages would fall as there would be too much supply for the amount of jobs available,

the same would happen if the demand for IT services fell, job numbers would contract and the over supply of qualified people would lead to a fall in wages.

A perfect example of this is during the boom. A person could go out and learn a skilled trade, at the age of 18, be earning good money, not because of their skills (which of course qualify them for a job) but because there was not enough supply of labour and companies needed to expand and attract.

Now, those same people, who are just as skilled, are earning far less because of an over supply of labour in the market.

Congrats on your actuarial science and that is good money, but not because you studied it, because there is a shortage of supply of suitably qualified people. If there are 1000 vacant jobs, and only 700 qualified people, wages will be attractive, if everyone rushed to study the same as you, and the supply jumped to 2000 fighting for 1000 jobs, employers can have their pick. The good old free market :pac:

Yes of course you're right. I was just elaborating not the sake of Cooleman. I believe it was Henry Ford (though correct me if I'm wrong) who said "everything is worth what it's purchaser will pay for it." and that includes the labor market.

KyussBishop · 24-02-2014 04:58PM

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Uh huh, look Kyuss despite what you may think the majority of actuaries are very sound people and in no way corrupt. The majority of us work in life assurance firms NOT financial institutions and if you're going to start off a conversation based on the premise (without evidence I may add) that my entire profession is corrupt well, I won't be participating in it.

First off, you are putting forward a lie by saying I labelled all actuaries corrupt.

Second of all, you are ignoring the fact that much of the financial crisis, was (at a fundamental level) caused by deliberately miscalculated risk, partially given credibility by actuaries, in financial firms - and that much of the crisis was driven by miscalculated risk.

For someone training to be an actuary, you should know that a life assurance firm is a financial institution. You're completely ignorant of financial/economic history if you think life assurance firms are immune from fraud.

Tiddlypeeps · 24-02-2014 05:03PM

coolemon wrote: »

You have to understand that by posting here (in after hours) - with people who are full of misconceptions - that I could go all day irrespective of how well I were to answer your questions. I know this to be the case. Its like arguing with a devout Christian about the un-realness of God, and who has a narrow frame of reference and a particular ideological disposition. For your part, you should read more on the subject if you want to understand it better.

In the mean time, I will (as I have been) answer your questions.

You are asking me how to put it into practice. I have already explained. It is not my place to say that. I do not have a crystal ball. Implementation is the task of the working class - not me. In reality - all I can do, in line with Marxist theory, is identify the nature of the class conflict which exists - and to promote a discussion of proletarian control on that basis.

Perhaps you could be more specific with your question? Otherwise its like me asking you what will Ireland be like in the year 2200.

I am not asking you to predict the future, or even to submit a fool proof plan of change. Just a basic outline of a plan that seems possible.

If you cannot provide this I am going to have to stick with my view that it cannot be implemented. This does not mean that I am closed off to dialogue on the issue.

This is not an impossible ask either. For example my own personal view is that we should probably aspire to something along the lines of the Scandinavian system. It's not a perfect system but it works really well for them. For example Norway are consistently labeled the happiest country in the world in any studies done on the subject. So to implement this I would take a good look at their tax system, their health service, their education and social protection systems and I'd do my best to replicate them here.

It's not a perfect plan, things would need to be changed along the way because our country is not identical to any of the Scandinavian countries. It is a workable plan tho, not some idealist view of what could be if only everybody in the world could both changed how they view things and agree on implementing the same system.

karma_ · 24-02-2014 05:06PM

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Yes of course you're right. I was just elaborating not the sake of Cooleman. I believe it was Henry Ford (though correct me if I'm wrong) who said "everything is worth what it's purchaser will pay for it." and that includes the labor market.

Henry Ford also started a mini revolution in industry when he more than doubled his workers wages which helped create a larger middle class.

coolemon · 24-02-2014 05:30PM

Tiddlypeeps wrote: »

I am not asking you to predict the future, or even to submit a fool proof plan of change. Just a basic outline of a plan that seems possible.

If you cannot provide this I am going to have to stick with my view that it cannot be implemented. This does not mean that I am closed off to dialogue on the issue.

This is not an impossible ask either. For example my own personal view is that we should probably aspire to something along the lines of the Scandinavian system. It's not a perfect system but it works really well for them. For example Norway are consistently labeled the happiest country in the world in any studies done on the subject. So to implement this I would take a good look at their tax system, their health service, their education and social protection systems and I'd do my best to replicate them here.

It's not a perfect plan, things would need to be changed along the way because our country is not identical to any of the Scandinavian countries. It is a workable plan tho, not some idealist view of what could be if only everybody in the world could both changed how they view things and agree on implementing the same system.

It is much easier for you to point to Scandinavia and develop policies that might work here, than it is for me to answer the question you are asking - as you have an existing frame of reference and an entire social and economic infrastructure in which to 'mesh' those ideas.

Marxism, for a start, is really about getting back to the basics. Of questioning, from the very foundations up, why things are the way they are.

You know you might see Scandinavia as a possible model for Ireland. I see Scandinavia as a very temporal economic phenomenon with inherent social and economic antagonisms. Antagonisms which necessarily produce economic and social problems, either now, or in the future. Environmental damage, economic depression, war, hunger, systematic exploitation.

In this day and age, an age of globalisation and global capitalism, I think, it is not possible to separate out, for example, Scandinavia as a success story. The shirt on a Scandinavians back was made in a sweatshop. The Ipad in a Scandinavians hand is manufactured in an oppressive factory withy nets on the roof to prevent suicide. The oil in a Scandinavians car is diluted with the blood dead Iraqis. The labour employed making Saab Gripen fighter jets are paid for by third world despots. The Volvo range of cars produces massive amounts of greenhouse gases just to produce.

And so on, and so on.

These are real problems (off the top of my head). And they are problems much of which Marxists identify with how capitalism works -> an inherent logic.

Iwasfrozen · 24-02-2014 05:31PM

KyussBishop wrote: »

First off, you are putting forward a lie by saying I labelled all actuaries corrupt.

Second of all, you are ignoring the fact that much of the financial crisis, was (at a fundamental level) caused by deliberately miscalculated risk, partially given credibility by actuaries, in financial firms - and that much of the crisis was driven by miscalculated risk.

For someone training to be an actuary, you should know that a life assurance firm is a financial institution. You're completely ignorant of financial/economic history if you think life assurance firms are immune from fraud.

Have you ever stopped to consider even for a second that people in the financial sector tend to be anti-regulation because they enjoy finance and they enjoy how the system works? Not everything is about money Kyuss and I can guarantee you only a small minority of financial professionals are corrupt and internal discipline is very harsh when (not if) they're caught.

Actuaries played their part in destroying a chunk of the world economy, and they still have their salaries and bonuses - they don't face personal risk anywhere near proportionate to the damage they can cause.

This is what you said, Actuaries. Not some Actuaries, Actuaries. I reject your premise that all Actuaries/Accountants are corrupt, I have no doubt there are a corrupt minority in this profession just like any other profession but to tar everyone with the same brush does a massive dis-service to the industry.

I'm aware life assurance firms are financial institutions but I think you'll find their involvement with the sub-prime mortgage sector to be rather limited. Constrained to perhaps investments but not to the amount that would cause the crisis.

Iwasfrozen · 24-02-2014 05:32PM

karma_ wrote: »

Henry Ford also started a mini revolution in industry when he more than doubled his workers wages which helped create a larger middle class.

Indeed he did. A visionary man, though for obvious reasons I'll stop short of calling him great.

coolemon · 24-02-2014 05:35PM

Tiddlypeeps wrote: »

I am not asking you to predict the future, or even to submit a fool proof plan of change. Just a basic outline of a plan that seems possible.

If you cannot provide this I am going to have to stick with my view that it cannot be implemented. This does not mean that I am closed off to dialogue on the issue.

This is not an impossible ask either. For example my own personal view is that we should probably aspire to something along the lines of the Scandinavian system. It's not a perfect system but it works really well for them. For example Norway are consistently labeled the happiest country in the world in any studies done on the subject. So to implement this I would take a good look at their tax system, their health service, their education and social protection systems and I'd do my best to replicate them here.

It's not a perfect plan, things would need to be changed along the way because our country is not identical to any of the Scandinavian countries. It is a workable plan tho, not some idealist view of what could be if only everybody in the world could both changed how they view things and agree on implementing the same system.

It is much easier for you to point to Scandinavia and develop policies that might work here, than it is for me to answer the question you are asking - as you have an existing frame of reference and an entire social and economic infrastructure in which to 'mesh' those ideas.

Marxism, for a start, is really about getting back to the basics. Of questioning, from the very foundations up, why things are the way they are.

You know you might see Scandinavia as a possible model for Ireland. I see Scandinavia as a very temporal economic phenomenon with inherent social and economic antagonisms. Antagonisms which necessarily produce economic and social problems, either now, or in the future. Environmental damage, economic depression, war, hunger, systematic exploitation.

In this day and age, an age of globalisation and global capitalism, I think, it is not possible to separate out, for example, Scandinavia as a success story. The shirt on a Scandinavians back was made in a sweatshop. The Ipad in a Scandinavians hand is manufactured in an oppressive factory with nets on the roof to prevent suicide. The oil in a Scandinavians car is diluted with the blood dead Iraqis. The labour employed making Saab Gripen fighter jets are paid for by third world despots. The Volvo range of cars produces massive amounts of greenhouse gases just to produce.

And so on, and so forth.

These are real problems. And they are problems inseparable from the so-called success of the Scandinavian model. Problems of which Marxists identify with how capitalism works -> of an inherent logic.

What happens if workers don't have an ipad, a new car to look forward to and a job? - you have problems. But they are problems on the back burner for this temporal moment in time.

Where we are at now is basically one of starting a discussion about capitalism. Marxists and anarchists clearly don't have the support to do much else. The guns are buried.

Tiddlypeeps · 24-02-2014 05:45PM

coolemon wrote: »

It is much easier for you to point to Scandinavia and develop policies that might work here, than it is for me to answer the question you are asking - as you have an existing frame of reference and an entire social and economic infrastructure in which to 'mesh' those ideas.

Marxism, for a start, is really about getting back to the basics. Of questioning, from the very foundations up, why things are the way they are.

You know you might see Scandinavia as a possible model for Ireland. I see Scandinavia as a very temporal economic phenomenon with inherent social and economic antagonisms. Antagonisms which necessarily produce economic and social problems, either now, or in the future. Environmental damage, economic depression, war, hunger, systematic exploitation.

In this day and age, an age of globalisation and global capitalism, I think, it is not possible to separate out, for example, Scandinavia as a success story. The shirt on a Scandinavians back was made in a sweatshop. The Ipad in a Scandinavians hand is manufactured in an oppressive factory withy nets on the roof to prevent suicide. The oil in a Scandinavians car is diluted with the blood dead Iraqis. The labour employed making Saab Gripen fighter jets are paid for by third world despots. The Volvo range of cars produces massive amounts of greenhouse gases just to produce.

And so on, and so on.

These are real problems (off the top of my head). And they are problems much of which Marxists identify with how capitalism works -> an inherent logic.

An example exists for the system I'm advocating because it works pretty well. The system you are advocating has been tried, many times. You cannot point to any success stories because it has never worked. You would have a reasonable argument if what you are suggesting had never been attempted, but since it has it's a very weak argument.

The rest of your post is just pure sensationalism. Over simplifying issues that are far from simple.

coolemon · 24-02-2014 05:51PM

Tiddlypeeps wrote: »

An example exists for the system I'm advocating because it works pretty well. The system you are advocating has been tried, many times. You cannot point to any success stories because it has never worked. You would have a reasonable argument if what you are suggesting had never been attempted, but since it has it's a very weak argument.

The rest of your post is just pure sensationalism. Over simplifying issues that are far from simple.

The system you point to does not work. It might work in your mind because the problems I mentioned are trivialised. And those I mentioned are by no means exhaustive.

And there you go with the usual "it has been tried". I already told you that it is based upon historical materialism. It does not matter whether it has been tried or not for that reason.

Do you know any Communists?

Comments