Why are the Irish afraid of the Hard Left?

[C. Flower]

I guess that the above proves that Marx has not been utterly discredited by those who were his disciples and set up police states and that Communism is not as bankrupt as the Anglo-Irish Bank...........and all in 36 syllables.

No more so than the US by the Indonesian events, or the Church by paedophiles?

I think that there is fear of the "hard left" amongst the well-to-do everywhere, as they fear that equality might leave them worse off.
The dominant set of ideas of society is that of the most powerful social class of the day. It is in the interests of this class to expend a lot of time and resources in "proving Marx discredited." In Ireland, the Church is of course anti-communist (as communism is atheist and opposed the the Church as an institution) and has been in the past a forceful and effective propogandiser against communism.

[riposte]

No more so than the US by the Indonesian events, or the Church by paedophiles?

I think that there is fear of the "hard left" amongst the well-to-do everywhere, as they fear that equality might leave them worse off.
The dominant set of ideas of society is that of the most powerful social class of the day. It is in the interests of this class to expend a lot of time and resources in "proving Marx discredited." In Ireland, the Church is of course anti-communist (as communism is atheist and opposed the the Church as an institution) and has been in the past a forceful and effective propogandiser against communism.

Cass.... my father's favourite saying re politics was "the real communists are in the church" ....... and he always regaled me with a story of how he saved a "communist" from being thrown into the Liffey when he was returning home from a night shift in The Irish Press in the 1950s.

[C. Flower]

Cass.... my father's favourite saying re politics was "the real communists are in the church" ....... and he always regaled me with a story of how he saved a "communist" from being thrown into the Liffey when he was returning home from a night shift in The Irish Press in the 1950s.

There was a generation of priests who engaged with "Liberation Theology", som of whom were murdered for their pains. That tendency has long been quashed by the Vatican and was never more than a marginalised group.

I'm delighted with your father, but I take it he was not a priest

[riposte]

There was a generation of priests who engaged with "Liberation Theology", som of whom were murdered for their pains. That tendency has long been quashed by the Vatican and was never more than a marginalised group.

I'm delighted with your father, but I take it he was not a priest

He had no time for the clergy ..... but he spent a fortune on oil for the Sacred Heart Lamp .... lol !!

[bormotello]

Bullsh*t - religion is based on mysticism
- Marxism is based on materialism

Religion based on myths, mysticism only inheritance of past when it could provide easy answers on difficult questions, modern religions like scientology don’t have much mysticism. Main myth of Marxism is that if workers will take care about themselves, they will become rich without any effort.

In fact Marx's analysis of the nature and consequences of modern finance capitalism was spot on

Marx was concentrated on formulas instead looking deep into human nature. He didn’t realise that economy is mixture accounting and psychology.

Now socialism was a foreign importation (from those dasterdly brits) - and the workers were still 'unfit' - despite doing the job without difficulty. This is just one of hundreds of examples of working class people taking control of society into their own hands and demonstrating that they are far MORE capable of running society that any capitalist gobsh*te.

So far it has been only achieved by Stalin, who had really true workers state. He had to kill a lot of “Marxists”, who were not capable to create anything and were only could supply a lot of rhetoric. He realised that bureaucracy is the biggest enemy of socialism and only way to preserve control in workers hands is continue purges. This is why he hated so much by establishment from both sides and who spreading lies about him.

Actually he was far from a moral person and was quite the degenerate at times - e.g. taking pleasure at smashing up shop windows when he got drunk. His work was based on a scientific analysis of capitalism and the inevitable consequences of its development and ultimate degeneration.

Mentioning affair between Lenin and Inessa Armand is like telling Christians that Jesus had an affair with Maria Magdalena. It is possible to make a good porno about lechery in Communist party in 1917. But despite that those people truly believed in what they were doing.

And here you demonstrate a complete and absolute ignorance of everything Marxism is about. Marx never claimed to have answers 'for all questions'
- or even answers for any questions. Neither do any modern day Marxists.
Marxism is a method of analysis and action - nothing more and nothing less.

If you mean Trotskyism, then it more about moaning, which they call analysis. Stalinism is more about action and achieving targets at any price. This is why political establishment likes Trotskyism, because it doesn’t pose any danger and create visibility of political tolerance, and hates Stalinism, because it anti-establishment by nature.

If you want to look for people who know all the answers then look no
further than the likes of Merkel and her lapdogs in the Dail. They
believe that they are absolutely right in terms of the measures they are
introducing - and what is more - they believe that they have an absolute
moral authority to introduce massive austerity that is pauperising whole
swathes of society. They have an arrogance that they should not be
challanged and they have a mystical belief that they are right and no
one should dare question their programme or dare to stand up and fight
back.

Do you mean that people should get money for nothing and somebody must work harder to provide various parasites live in comfort?

[toxic avenger]

Marx's analysis in Capital was based on a materialist approach - that matter and material processes exist before thought. Was he correct, in your view, in declaring that all knowledge is a true reflection, through the processes of the brain (cognition), of the material universe?

No, not in my view. That's why I say I'm economically Marxist, but my political outlook in general is more old style British working class left (the one that owed more to Methodism than Marxism).

I will say though that, as a historian, Marx's dialectical materialism is a very useful tool for analysing the progression of history.

[Maximus]

but I feel that the left has to look beyond Marx and athiesm and look towards Christian Socialism as the better future for to aim for the left in Ireland.

But strong political association with religion leads down a right wing route. Look at FF/FG/LAB here or the Republicans in the US. All strong right wing leaning parties(the Labour Party to an extent.

Religion sets down rules, tough restrictions and in general is not progressive. It is the complete opposite to what socialism is about.

[bormotello]

Religion sets down rules, tough restrictions and in general is not progressive. It is the complete opposite to what socialism is about.

What do you know about socialism?

[fluffybiscuits]

What do you know about socialism?

That is resulted in one of the lower infant mortality rates in the world (Cuba)
Access to free health care (UK)
People gain access to a decent education (China,Cuba etc etc.)

Is there anything else you would care to know

[C. Flower]

No, not in my view. That's why I say I'm economically Marxist, but my political outlook in general is more old style British working class left (the one that owed more to Methodism than Marxism).

I will say though that, as a historian, Marx's dialectical materialism is a very useful tool for analysing the progression of history.

So you know that capitalism has passed it's sell by date and moved into it self-destruct phase, but you think we should keep on trying to make it more egalitarian, rather than replace it?

[toxic avenger]

So you know that capitalism has passed it's sell by date and moved into it self-destruct phase, but you think we should keep on trying to make it more egalitarian, rather than replace it?

Not 'rather than', 'before we'.

I could be dead from old age long before capitalism finally swallows itself - does that mean we sit twiddling our thumbs waiting for it? We live in a capitalist system, we shall do for the forseeable future, and while this is so then unions must still organise and campaign and strike, workers must fight their corner, and we should at least try to organise capitalism on a slightly less insane basis than it has been since the 1970s. None of which invalidates the supposition that capitalism is indeed, by virtue of its inherent contradictions, doomed.

[Iolo]

That sums it up perfectly Holly ....... no need for lengthy pedantic argument's about the various sects that claimed be be Marx's true heirs.

Christianity has been totally vindicated by those claiming to be heirs of Jesus, naturally.

[Iolo]

I find this all a bit baffling. My father was a Christian Sociaist, and he had no trouble with Marx's analysis. He thought Marx was totally right about economics, a product of his own society about Christianity and not a writer of holy books or a founder of spotless truthful religions otherwise. I don't know what the OP means by 'Christian Socialist': it has meant more things even than 'Christianity', I think.

[C. Flower]

Not 'rather than', 'before we'.

I could be dead from old age long before capitalism finally swallows itself - does that mean we sit twiddling our thumbs waiting for it?

I'm mystified why you assume that that is what I, or any Marxist, does. After all, "the point is, to change it"

[toxic avenger]

I'm mystified why you assume that that is what I, or any Marxist, does. After all, "the point is, to change it"

I don't assume any such thing - my question was rhetorical. You asked:

but you think we should keep on trying to make it more egalitarian, rather than replace it?

And I answered that I don't see any contradiction between the two positions, then asked that question as a means of illustrating that no contradiction exists - it wasn't an accusation.

I'm having a contentious posting period the last few days, I'm going to assume it's my own way of phrasing things. I should probably take a break from it for a while.