Socialist Party's policies

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

yes I do - not a coup - not a refendum but a revolution

And how exactly do you think this could happen? Through violent means or not? Would you storm the Dail before executing the Tsar's Taoiseach's family? This idea of a revolution is continually mentioned by Paul Murphy and it always sounds like he thinks he's in Russia in 1917. He's been asked what happens if the Govt. falls, an election is held and the next Govt. implements Austerity? His answer is 'another revolution'. So in essence, until we (the people) elect a Govt. which Mr.Murphy is happy with, we should expect revolution after revolution.

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

that changes the economic basis of society and leads to implementing active democratic participation of the population rather than the sham of democracy that is representaitve parliamentarianism.

Rhetoric, rhetoric and more rhetoric. Seriously wtf is 'active democratic participation'? Referendums for every piece of Legislation? Online votes of confidence/no-confidence for the Govt.? The only reasonable and most efficient way to participate democratically is voting every 4/5 years; more frequently is a waste of time in campaigning and resources, and less frequently is less ideal. This frequency is the best, hence why pretty much the entire world has it. But of course it is just a 'sham' in your eyes.

Bob24 wrote: »

Could you the name of a communist regime anytime in history which would have allowed the opposite change?

Why would people need to vote for anything when their every need is understood and delivered by glorious communist leaders?

K_user wrote: »

Nothing is more terrifying to me than these people getting any sort of power, or influence.

Organising protests and ranting to the media about unpopular water charges does not make a person an expert in industry and the complexities of running massive state owned companies.

Forcing large companies into state ownership will flatten economic growth. A fast growing economy produces more jobs and more wealth. A stagnant market, or a lack of economic growth, is good for no one. As the other countries in Europe, our trading partners, would continue to get richer, we would be priced out.

Also we have learned over the past few years just how wasteful state run companies are. The more money a poorly performing program wasted, the more money was budgeted the next. And that is simply because a market driven company watches its costs, the cheaper the better. While a state run company is backed by the states money, so it has no reason to concern itself with market problems. So privatised companies are stream lined for efficiency, while state run companies are filled with middle management who get paid every week just to push paper around.

A country that nationalises large companies also kills off innovation and entrepreneurship. A small company can’t compete against state companies feeding off each other. And any company that succeeds is in danger of being taken over.

Socialism doesn’t work. It has never worked. Its all rhetoric and big ideas. There is always an excuse for why it went wrong, and that next time it will be better. Capitalism isn’t perfect, but it has allowed a vast proportion of the human race to enjoy the benefits of thriving economies. Capitalism offers big rewards for productive people while socialism offers a parade of bureaucratic red tape that over burdens the very people its trying to make things easier for.

The arrogance is actually astounding - and demonstrates that dismissive attitude of right-wing new-liberal hacks.

From their perspective the only people who can run an economy are right-wing hacks - the only people that can run a company are the capitalist elites - the only people who can be creative and innovative are those who operate on the basis of e profit motive and out of greed.

Now the reality is somewhat different - capitalist elites dominate the world economy - the same elites operate on the basis of making as much money as possible as quickly as possible - they can engage on attacks on an entire country's economy - they don't care whether an economy is growing or declining because they can make money from either development - and they are directly responsible for the current economic catastrophe. In order to boost profits the capitalist elites a attempting to drive jobs, wages and working conditions back to the 1930s - zero hour contracts, increased use of bonuses, increased drive to convert the minimum wage into a maximum wage and an increased race to the bottom.

Capitalism no longer works - it's role in developing industrialisation is over - it cannot grow the world economy on any kind of a sustainable basis - it's not a case that it isn't perfect, it is a case that it doesn't work.

A democratically planned socialised economy is capable of not along creating better levels of economic growth, it is capable of creating sustainable economic growth without the bubble and crash nature of modern capitalism. A socialised economy is capable of significantly more innovation and creativity because it would not be confined within the straight jacket of having to make a profit. Indeed, even in the current economy, most of the innovation comes from people and institutions that do not operate on the basis of profit.

Last point - on democratic public ownership - the necessity of taking the key sectors of the economy into public ownership is necessity to facilitate long term economic planning. For other companies this would have significant benefits - the bubble / crash cycle would no longer impact on the operation of companies - companies, farmers, shops would have guaranteed prices for their goods and contracts that would be guaranteed. The operation of the economy for need and not for profit would ensure cooperation for research and innovation rather that competition and duplication - an end to massive wastage of money on advertising (advertising hundreds of different brands of the same products - most of which people don't actually need) etc.

The standing criticism of a democratically planned socialised economy is that the USSR demosrated it couldn't work. The Bolshevik Revolution occurred in an economy that was not industrialised but was overwhelmingly agrarian and semi-feudal. A democratically socialised economy was not possible without industrialisation and this was the reason why the Bolsheviks developed the market based NEP. Industrialisation on a democratic basis was not possible without assistance from an advanced industialised Western economy (developing from a workers revolution in a western country). Stalin and the bureaucracy (which comprised primarily of old Tsarist elements) drove industrialisation through a centralised economy - and despite the basis of this industrialisation it demonstrated the potential of economic development when the contradictions of capitalism were removed. The democratisation of the Stalinist economies could have led to major steps forward in economic development (and this was the primary demands of all the movements against Stalinism in Eastern Europe up until 1989.

Socialism nor a democratically planned socialised economy cannot be sustained without international implementation. Capitalism is globalised and in order to replace capitalism a socialised economy would involved international solidarity and cooperation. That is why the Socialist Party argues for the building of an international workers movement to fight in the interests of working class people.

Deleted User wrote: »

Where is the evidence, theory or even suggestion of any of that being realisable though Jolly Red Giant?

Let's talk it all through. That's what this thread should be for (look at title). A chance to discuss the policies of socialism / socialist parties.

The floor is open, your audience awaits.

I have demonstrated how it would work - if you want to present a coherent argument that demonstrates how capitalism is superior or why a democratically planned socialised economy would not work then be my guest,

Deleted User wrote: »

Where have you demonstrated it? I'd be very interested in reading it if there are any links to posts etc?

I have outlined the current nature of globalised capitalism and the alternative of a socialised economy - if you want to contradict either assertion then outline your views.

As for links and posts - what are you looking for?

Good loser wrote: »

The capitalist system is what currently runs the world as we know it. I don't see much too wrong with that.
Iron ore and raw materials from Austrailia to Japan and China; finished products from China to all the world; textiles from the far east to rich countries; oil from the Middle East to Europe and US; timber and food products criss crossing the world; innovation, entertainment, high technology, medical advances from the US. Capitalist fracking in US reducing dependence on imported oil and the market reducing the world price in consequence from $100 to $60 per barrell.

Why don't you spend an evening in a betting shop sometime to understand how efficient the market is?

Russia was an industrialised country in 1917.

I'm not pro-communist at all, but this is untrue. Before 1917 and even after Lenin's death, Russia was not industrialised at all; it was predominantly agricultural and most citizens were peasant farmers. Stalin's 5 year plans industrialised Russia, he made Russia the economic powerhouse it became in the Cold War. Whilst it's entirely possible that Russia could've become a mega power in a Capitalist system, Communism, specifically Stalin's economic policies, made Russia an industrialised country.

Deleted User wrote: »

You have outlined ideals. Nothing tangible that we can test/prod and come out with always positive answers.

If I say my ideal for the country is "Full employment, no drugs, equal opportunities for all, no policing necessary", that should sound very agreeable to most.

However where's the flesh, how do I achieve this? How can it exist within the existing world? What happens if X happens elsewhere? What if Y causes Z to happen?

You will have to define the parameters of your 'what if' scenario - the problem with trying to discuss what you suggest is that those who oppose a socialised economy want to 'debate' the topic within the confines of capitalist economics.

I read somewhere once that it's the belief of some historians that industrialization would have happened under Tsar Nicholas II regardless and that Stalin just did a Putin (or perhaps vice versa) and made it look like he did everything. No idea where I read it. If anyone knows I'd appreciate it as it seems like an unusual and perhaps badly founded opinion.

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

You will have to define the parameters of your 'what if' scenario - the problem with trying to discuss what you suggest is that those who oppose a socialised economy want to 'debate' the topic within the confines of capitalist economics.

I'd like to know what would have specifically happened if Dell was nationalised as Ruth suggested would/should have happened.

What would have been the plan for maintaining the supply chain - presumably Dell have people (not directly employed by Dell Limerick but by the parent company) all around the globe sourcing parts, and also use their bulk purchasing power to get both the best prices and the best credit terms from their suppliers. How would newDell maintain this. Failure to do so will see the price at which they can ultimately sell shoot up.

On the sales side was the plan to continue to sell as 'Dell' or were we launching under a new product name? If the former how would we handle the inevitable court cases with the liklihood that 'real' Dell would attempt to get embargoes on the fake product being sold in other countries. If the latter (sell under a new name) then who was going to provide the expertise on taking a brand new product to international markets.

(Fwiw, I voted for Ruth in both DubWest by-elections in this Dail but am disappointed so far. She just can't come out with "we'd have nationalised it" without making an attempt to explain what this means at factory level).

oscarBravo wrote: »

Well, yes. More accurately, we want to know how you propose to get there from where we are now, and as such what the costs and benefits will be.

It is not possible to outline how the future could develop - nobody has a crystal ball (despite what many on here claim to predict for a socialised economy). Any socialist worth his/her salt would not make any claims for socialism outside of the fact that a democratically planned socialised economy would be more stable and more productive that the basket case that is free market capitalism.

For example, all this talk of a revolution. When I hear "revolution", I think "violence". If your ideal society requires violence to achieve it, then I want no part of it, and neither do most right-thinking people.

A commonly peddled misconception by right-wing hacks. A revolution is defined as a movement for fundamental change - nothing more and nothing less. No socialist supports violence - all socialists recognise that the ruling elites may use violence to resist a revolutionary movement and as a consequence the workers movement will, if necessary defend itself.

The Russian Revolution, which took place in a country that was, in effect, a semi-feudal dictatorship, was relatively peaceful (very few people were killed during the revolution). Most of the deaths occurred as a result of the right-wing forces launching a vicious and violent counter-revolution forcing the revolutionary movement to defend itself.

In 1973 in Chile, when a similar revolutionary movement threatened the existence of capitalism in Chile (and threatened to spread to mass movement elsewhere in Latin AmericA) the ruling elites used vicious repression and counter-revolution to overthrow a democratically elected (in a limited parliamentary democracy) socialist government - a counter revolution that paved the way for 25 years of brutal dictatorship.

Violence in revolutionary movements is a characteristic of nationalist movements, not socialist movements. Even the so-called Marxist revolutions in China, Cuba and other predominantly peasant countries were, at their core, nationalist, not socialist, movements, that went over to the camp of Stalinism because of the counter-revolutionary intent of imperialism.

If you mean something by "revolution" other than a violent wresting of power from the existing structures of government, then the onus is on you to explain your meaning of an otherwise rather well-understood word.

As I pointed out - the 'well-understood word' is a deliberate right-wing distortion of the word to serve their political propaganda. Recent events in this country demonstrate that when working class people get organised and work in unison thee is no force in a country that can stop it. The mass movement against wate charges is a very early stages embryonic indication of the potential of the power of an organised movement of working class people. A politically conscious and extensively organised movement of working class people could not be stopped by the ruling elites - their power only exists because working class people do not realise the power we, as a social class, have to change society.

And then there's the whole business of democratic planning. I run a smallish business - how does it function in your non-capitalist society?

Small businesses in a capitalist society are exploited by the ruling elites, in a similar (but not he same) fashion as workers. Small businesses a subjected to the same contradictions of capitalism as the rest of society and suffer the same consequences. Capitalism only serves one sector of society - what is commonly termed the 1% ( in reality it is the 0.01%) - every other sector of society serves to line their pockets and bend to their power.

Will I be precluded from working in that business?

Even asking the question in the way you do demonstrates the propaganda of the ruling elites - that socialists want to take your business and your money - when in reality socialists want to facilitate working class people taking control of their own destiny out of the hands of the 1%.

So - no - you would not be precluded from working in your business - in fact your business would be far more secure under a socialised economy.

Will I be required to make my particular skills available for the same level of reward as a neuro-surgeon or a ditch-digger?

Again - a common misconception based on propaganda - socialism does not argue that everyone is treated on the basis of the lowest common denominator - the objective is not to lower the living standards of the euro-surgeon to that of the ditch digger - it is to raise the living standards of e ditch digger to that of the neuro-surgeon. That is not done by redistributing wealth, but by creating wealth (redistribution of the 1% would be necessary in the initial stages of the socialised economy to facilitate economic planning) - the planned socialised economy would raise living standards by planning for free universal health care, free universal education, free good quality housing, free and widely expanded public transport etc - with the intent that financial resources would not determine life opportunities.

What if I don't want to?

What if you don't want to do what?

It's all very well mouthing the same old tired clichés about how capitalism doesn't work, but as a business owner, it's working for me,

It may be working for you at the moment - but at any stage the economy could be catapulted into another major crisis and your business could go tits up. The benefits you get at the moment from capitalism are hanging by a thread because of the anarchy of the markets.

and it seems to be working for my employees as well.

The benefits to your employees are far less secure than your (very flimsy) benefits. You may view that your employees are secure and happy - and they may well be (and if they are not they might be hesitant about telling you) - but if your company were to hit any kind of financial trouble their individual concerns and benefits would go out the window in order for your to try and protect your business - that is the nature of capitalism.

If you want me and them to help you achieve your socialist Utopia,

Another misconception - the idea of a socialist utopia is more propaganda nonsense. Socialism is simply a better way of organising society - human society will always be face by new and ongoing challenges - socialism offers an opportunity to progress society, to grow the economy - modern globalised capitalism is a system of ongoing crisis that is forcing more and more people into poverty for the protection of the profits of the elites.

you're going to have to explain how it will be better for all of us.

The explanation to you and to your employees would not and is not the same - precisely because you have different class interests to your employees. You are part of a social class that is known in classic politicL terms as petty-bourgeois (individuals who have the economic basis that offers the aspiration of being part of the bourgeoisie or the ruling elites) while your employees are part of the working class - they have different politicL, economic and social interests. For you - the benefit of a socialised economy would be the security of prices and costs (inflation would not be a factor in a socialised economy) the security of interest rates (interest rate fluctuations are a symptom of capitalism and in today's world reflect speculation more than movements in the real economy) and the benefits of a secure income for your customers.

If you're not prepared to convince us of that, then we're not going to buy into your ideas,

The is another misconception here - I am not purporting to convince you of anything - I am funðmentally advocating the interests of your employees, not the interests of the people who run their own business. You, as a person who runs their own business, would benefit from a socialised economy in the ways that I have outlined above - but that socialised economy can only come about by the organised actions of the working class. Furthermore, I am not attempting to get anyone to 'buy into' anything. Every social class has its own class instincts and class motivations. My objective as a socialist is to get working class people to look at their position in society, question their outlook and the propaganda of the elites, draw their own conclusions, listen to their gut and go with their own class instincts. Capitalism forces workers to organise to defend their interests - and it is this organisation and collective action that determines the political and social outlook of working class people. The anti-water charges campaign has demonstrated to thousands of working class people the class nature of our society and for the first time in more than a generation working class people are learning what social class means, the power that they have as a social class and the class nature of society - that is why the political landscape of this country (and many other countries) is being so fundamentally altered.

and you're doomed to keep spouting them at an uncaring Internet and wondering why the glorious revolution hasn't happened yet.

I have been a political activist for more than thirty years. I participate on forums on the Internet for two reasons 1. I find it relaxing (it allows me to spout off at people who I have a fundamentally different outlook to - and 2. It helps my develop my own political outlook (and that is something that is constantly changing and evolving). I do not expect to influence anyone - although a couple of people have joined the Socialist Party as a result of initial contact on the Internet.

Since I became a conscious socialist 32 years ago I have been utterly convinced that working class people will, at a certain point in time, move to determine their own future and I have had and continue to have an absolute confidence that this will happen. When it will happen I do not know, what will be the outcome of this movement I do not know, if I wil be around to see it I do not know - but I have a confidence that working class people will develop and understanding that when they act as a class there is no power capable of stopping us.