The Wholesome Photo of the Month Thu May 09, 2024 11:01 | Anti-Empire
In 3 War Years Russia Will Have Spent $3... Thu May 09, 2024 02:17 | Anti-Empire
UK Sending Missiles to Be Fired Into Rus... Tue May 07, 2024 14:17 | Marko Marjanović
US Gives Weapons to Taiwan for Free, The... Fri May 03, 2024 03:55 | Anti-Empire
Russia Has 17 Percent More Defense Jobs ... Tue Apr 30, 2024 11:56 | Marko Marjanović
Anti-Empire >>
Indymedia Ireland is a volunteer-run non-commercial open publishing website for local and international news, opinion & analysis, press releases and events. Its main objective is to enable the public to participate in reporting and analysis of the news and other important events and aspects of our daily lives and thereby give a voice to people.
Julian Assange is finally free ! Tue Jun 25, 2024 21:11 | indy
Stand With Palestine: Workplace Day of Action on Naksa Day Thu May 30, 2024 21:55 | indy
It is Chemtrails Month and Time to Visit this Topic Thu May 30, 2024 00:01 | indy
Hamburg 14.05. "Rote" Flora Reoccupied By Internationalists Wed May 15, 2024 15:49 | Internationalist left
Eddie Hobbs Breaks the Silence Exposing the Hidden Agenda Behind the WHO Treaty Sat May 11, 2024 22:41 | indy
Human Rights in Ireland >>
Fifteen Year-Old Swiss Girl Taken into Care After Parents Refuse to Consent to Course of Puberty Blo... Wed Jul 24, 2024 15:00 | Dr Frederick Attenborough
A Swiss girl has been been taken into care because her parents stopped her taking puberty blockers, breaching a ban on conversion therapy. Is this what Labour means by a "full, trans-inclusive ban on conversion practices"?
The post Fifteen Year-Old Swiss Girl Taken into Care After Parents Refuse to Consent to Course of Puberty Blockers appeared first on The Daily Sceptic.
Net Zero is Impoverishing the West and Enriching China Wed Jul 24, 2024 13:30 | Will Jones
The West's headlong rush to jettison fossil fuels and hit 'Net Zero' CO2 emissions is impoverishing us while enriching China, which is ramping up its coal-fired industry to sell us all the 'green' technology.
The post Net Zero is Impoverishing the West and Enriching China appeared first on The Daily Sceptic.
The Threat to Democracy Wed Jul 24, 2024 11:29 | James Alexander
'Populists' like Donald Trump and Nigel Farage are a "threat to democracy", chant the mainstream media. In fact, they are just reminding our politicians what they are supposed to be doing, says Prof James Alexander.
The post The Threat to Democracy appeared first on The Daily Sceptic.
In the Latest Weekly Sceptic, Nick Dixon and Toby Young Talk About Biden?s Withdrawal, Kamala Harris... Wed Jul 24, 2024 09:00 | Toby Young
In the latest Weekly Sceptic, the talking points are whether Biden was the victim of a palace coup, Kamala Harris's staggeringly bad speeches and Kim Cheatle's humiliation.
The post In the Latest Weekly Sceptic, Nick Dixon and Toby Young Talk About Biden?s Withdrawal, Kamala Harris?s Chances and the Kim Cheatle?s Shame appeared first on The Daily Sceptic.
Wanted: Climate Researcher to Write Extreme Weather Just-So Stories to Serve Up to Credulous Media Wed Jul 24, 2024 07:00 | Chris Morrison
If you wondered where the MSM get all their lurid stories attributing 'extreme weather' to climate change, look no further than a new job ad for a "researcher" focused on creating alarmist propaganda, says Chris Morrison.
The post Wanted: Climate Researcher to Write Extreme Weather Just-So Stories to Serve Up to Credulous Media appeared first on The Daily Sceptic.
Lockdown Skeptics >>
Voltaire, international edition
Netanyahu soon to appear before the US Congress? It will be decisive for the suc... Thu Jul 04, 2024 04:44 | en
Voltaire, International Newsletter N°93 Fri Jun 28, 2024 14:49 | en
Will Israel succeed in attacking Lebanon and pushing the United States to nuke I... Fri Jun 28, 2024 14:40 | en
Will Netanyahu launch tactical nuclear bombs (sic) against Hezbollah, with US su... Thu Jun 27, 2024 12:09 | en
Will Israel provoke a cataclysm?, by Thierry Meyssan Tue Jun 25, 2024 06:59 | en
Voltaire Network >>
View Comments Titles Only
save preference
Comments (16 of 16)
Jump To Comment: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16Anyone wanting to jump into this debate could do worse than reading Marx's views on Private Property and Communism at this link:
Well, Cael, as most of us here have been without property for centuries, many of us are now experimenting at being enslaved by it, including the computer I am looking at.
Marx was right to say:
"(5) A being only considers himself independent when he stands on his own feet; and he only stands on his own feet when he owes his existence to himself. A man who lives by the grace of another regards himself as a dependent being. But I live completely by the grace of another if I owe him not only the maintenance of my life, but if he has, moreover, created my life – if he is the source of my life."
The problem is that communism as practised in the last 100 years didn't allow anyone to stand on their own feet. Everyone was dependent on the state instead, and the state didn't once wither away as Marx hoped it would. The electorate prefers the crassness of materialism to the impossible promise of a leadership that ends up running a form of feudalism.
Your refering to soviet style Communism, which clearly had major flaws. The work of formulating a system which can bring genuine democratic control of the economy is ongoing. Im not sure Im understanding you right, but you seem to be saying that Stalinism didnt bring any increase in happiness or justice, so lets just stick with what we have? My appologies if Im misreading you.
We have some democratic control - acts are passed limiting prices and fostering competition, etc.
And some state ownership of industry - ESB, An Post, Iarnrod, etc.
But not total control, and not total state ownership, because that doesn't work.
Our "democratic" aspect is a bit flakey as well, but that's also much better than industrial conscription. The fact is, most politicians of all parties want to spend money and are not too fussed about generating it.
Yes "democracy" is pretty flaky here all right. Its more of a charade Id say. The limits you mention are to keep things running reasonably smoothly between capitalists, and to try to stop them driving the general population to actual revolt. They are certainly not in place to help the people, and are certainly not there to exert any sort of democratic control over capital. You not really correct in say that no politicians are interested in generating capital,only inspending it. Have a look at Venezeula.
Better flakey than dead bodies all over.
In the last century trade unions and leftist politicians came to realize at least that pension plans buying shares was a good way to save money for their members, and are constrained by that. And by their own generous salaries and pension plans. But it works, mostly.
Capital is now beamed around between satellites and is beyond control. All you can do is use it as best you can.
Venezuela is generating capital, but only because foreign science and capital developed their oil industry in the first place, and then started consuming it. That sucked in a labour force that remained poor and votes for Chavez. He didn't create anything, but he can use the money wisely - or not.
I think you are judging Chavez unfairly. Sure he is in a much better position than a lot of countries because of oil, but his government still has to make wise decisions about how best to use resources. It seems to me that Chavez is leading the way in demonstrating a working socialism for the 21st century. Its based on state/people's investment in the country's major industries and the provision of state/people's
venture capital to small and medium businesses. This leads to a situation where the workers become the end for which capital works, rather than, as in liberal capitalism, the workers remain a means to the unknown ends of autonomous capital.
I would recommend you to read a very good article at the related link titled "A New Program for Democratic Socialism."
Just in regard to you comment about better flakey than bodies all over. You thinking this is a direct result of the kind of capitalist disinformation we get bombarded with all the time from the media. But that is the less subtle end of the scale. The usual is that the present status quo is the only thing realistic - the only show in town, as Gerry Adams likes to say. The threat is that if socialist policies - particularly in regard to land pricing, were implemented, there would be a flight of capital out of the country and we would all be left in poverty. This threat does not stand up in Ireland for a number of reasons.
One is that there is already a flight of capital under the current neo-liberal system. Irish residents hold security assets of over 1.2 trillion euro abroad. Nine billion was invested in foreign commercial property deals by Irish residents in 2006 alone.
Another is that, if you take out the public service, land/housing transactions and domestic consumption - which are not transferable out of the country anyway, you are left with the foreign multinationals - which account for over ninety per cent of 26 county exports. Now, the foreign multinationals would be delighted if land prices were controlled in Ireland. Such controls would mean that their workers would not be forced to seek higher wages to pay insane repayments and rents, and would leave Ireland able to compete with Eastern Europe in attracting foreign capital.
Basically, in Ireland capital = land. The native Irish economy has not developed beyond that. Most land is inherited - so the usual profile of the "Irish capitalist" is not the successful entrepreneur, scientist or even celeb personality, but the doctor, lawyer or farmer who has inherited some land. The inherent conservative nature of these people means that they will never invest in anything but land and construction. This represents a dead hand on the Irish economy. The mass of people become mere machines supplying an increase of cash capital to the land capital of a tiny group. The Irish economy, under the weight of this dead hand simply cannot generate companies large enough to enter the world market. Only a very few Irish companies have managed this. Not a single new Irish company has been quoted on the US Nasdaq since 1999. Meanwhile, Isreal, with a population similar to Ireland lists seventy companies on the Nasdaq. Today, we face a land crisis as acute as anything Michael Davitt faced. Again, a tiny group of feckless individuals hold the rest of us to ransom. People may vote reps into Leinster House, but this tiny group calls the shots. How long can we tolerate this? Ten years of unprecedented global boom has been squandered down a property drain. Irish manufacturing has an even smaller world market share than it did 15 years ago. The multinationals are looking to cheap land and a young educated workforce in Eastern Europe - and we have nothing to replace them with. Meanwhile, this tiny group of landowners send the money the mortgage payers give them abroad into fantastic property schemes all over the globe. Over twelve thousand billion already.
Sorry, thats twelve hundred billion, not twelve thousand billion
You are right, but below that tiny group are hundreds of thousands who are better off now in a smaller way. We have tried to get up off our knees in the last few centuries and have made an imperfect start in the 1990s. Political freedom meant nothing without an economic benefit as well.
Take the council estates built by county councils (in these "26 counties") from the 1930s on. When people had the chance to "buy the key" / buy their freehold at a discount, they did. I have neighbours who bought their homes in the 1970s for £1,500 - a lot of money then - and are now sitting on a €350,000 asset. Some will blow the difference in the pub, at the races, on a car, and others are buying flats in Spain to rent out, or travelling the world.
The whole land question moved away from Davitt's ideal nationalisation solution because a poor farmer on 15 acres in about 1900 could not afford to make improvements without borrowing against his asset. The state would have replaced the Anglo-Irish landlords, and the margin in farming wasn't big enough to allow the state to lend money to farmers for improvements. What started as a cash-flow solution has ended up looking like a huge rip-off, but a lot of farmers also went bust between 1900 and 1990.
As for the fat cats, enough is never enough. But in a match if you are winning 10-9 you are not going to slack off until your opponent levels up to 10-10, you are going to try for 11-9.
This is the usual argument for modern neo-liberalism. The little man has got a little share of the cake. In reality, it dosnt matter to the average person what the house they own is worth, because most people will just live in it. They wont re-mortgage it to buy flats in Spain. And even if they did , how does this modernise the Irish economy? How does it lessen our dependence on the multi-nationals? Of course, those who are paying the rack rents in the cities, particularly Dublin, and those who are paying mortgages in negative equity would certainly question what neo-liberalism has done for them. For this economy to start working for the Irish people we need to stop pouring money into the accounts of a tiny few landowners, who have no idea what to do with that money - except buy more land abroad. They are bleeding us to death. 1200 billion is some haemorrage.
in Ireland every begger looks down on another begger, i think they would rather stay beggers and have it to say that they are better than someone than live in equality where they coudnt look down on anybody.
Ive just been reading in an article on the IRBB that the situation is actually worse than I had said. When you leave out the value of principal residences, then 1% of the population "own" 36% of the wealth. 17% of the population live in constant borderline poverty. And some people imagine there is democracy in Ireland??
The article is from IRIS and is called "A nation divided by wealth." It can be read at the related link.
"When you leave out the value of principal residences"
To omit the above is a corruption and that fact only highlights the immature nature of a corrupt organisation.
High King, a chara, even if you leave in the value of ordinary peoples homes, then you still get a figure of 1% of the population owning 20% of the wealth. 5% of the population own 40% of the wealth. However, most people do not consider their homes to be an "asset" to be used as venture capital. This is the reason why saying that 1% of the population own 36% of the wealth is valid. In fact the figure of 36% vastly underestimates the real situation. In reality this 1% of people own practically all the wealth that is free for use in the generation of more wealth. The rest is spread so thinly amoung the other 96% of the population, that no critical mass of capital can be accumulated, indeed, most of the wealth that comes into their hands must be handed over to the 1% in the form of rents and mortgages. The vast majority of Irish citizens exist merely as money gatherers for this 1%. As I said above, this 1% have no idea what to do with this money except send it abroad to buy foreign land and buildings. The foreign multi-nationals pay money to Irish workers, then the Irish workers pay over that money to the Irish Landlords. Nothing much else happens. A native Irish industrial base remains a vague aspiration. Indeed, it is an aspiration that is often scoffed off as a figment of Eamonn DeValera's imagination.