In Defence of the IUP: A Kalashnikov Special
Day 1,056, 13:56
•
Published in Ireland 
•
by
•
by Brian Boru
Live feed from Tel Aviv
As many people know, I have had my arguments with many in the IUP.
There was a time (which perhaps continues to this day), when its membership would rather see Ireland destroyed than see it under an administration influenced or related to me. A whole host of reasonably valid reasons exist or existed for that attitude. The IUP was the primary opponent of the massively powerful ISRP back when I was at the peak of my power, I am an internationally recognised radical leftist, I am far from innocent on various fronts, the list continues.
However, I must step in when someone attempts to slander the Irish Union Party with accusations that it is socialist and neo-communist. I must step in when certain people have such little understanding of what the IUP actually stands for that they warn of great consequences if the party attempts to take care of its own membership. I am of course speaking of Ian E Coleman's article.
In particular, I challenge this quote:
"The ramifications of this kind of government run non-profit companies are great in number and severe in long-term consequence."
Let's analyse that shall we?
Who exactly loses out if the party company trend continues?
The party membership certainly don't. They get secure employment, in companies which they have some influence over decisionmaking and management. Furthermore, the community atmosphere in the party is greatly increased by a shared economic perspective.
The economic health of the country certainly doesn't lose out, as secure employment will mean more people buying and a more fluid market. Competition between party companies will insure prices remain as low as possible. Key military materiél will be manufactured in greater amounts than previously due to a larger employed workforce.
The government certainly doesn't lose out, as with greater economic health and more taxes coming in mean that revenues will be higher, which means greater spending power for our government, which means a better ability to defend the Republic.
So who does lose out?
A tiny group of long term investors, representing less than 1% of eIreland's total population.
Here's the real kicker, it isn't even certain they will lose out either! After all, they can tax dodge more easily than any other group thanks to the Monetary Market.
Conclusion:
Criticising the IUP for taking care of their membership is foolish.
Criticising the IUP for attempting to bring down the economy unwittingly is the act of an ideologue.
Brian Boru,
eIrish exile.
An Lucht Oibre Abú
Facebook
Twitter
Discord
Comments
The guy is good.
Thanks Brian, that's an article that will shut the nay-sayers up.
here are the other articles as reference
http://www.erepublik.com/en/article/iup-member-companies-fine-wine-or-poison--1541091/1/20
http://www.erepublik.com/en/article/a-reply-to-colemans-article-1541452/1/20#comments
Welcome to the Left-Wing IUP comrades \o/
Ha holy crap....I never thought id see the day. Kudos Brian.
If only I had the eEnery to revive the IFP.....
lol dylan
imo this is a great step for IUP and a long time coming. there was a period where ideas and planning to get this going was underway but due to infighting it all fell through. i consider the attacks from outside a sign of weak minds trying to falsely discredit a programme that will weaken the weak minded's party membership that is in a tailspin.
cheers IUP, ní neart go cur le chéile!
That's essentially socialist economy right there.
One thing that would never happen in a situation where non profit organisations owned most of the market is investment.
And Investment is very important. There can be no progression of the economy and the companies in it if there was no investment.
Except parties will invest in the economy.
If the ICA/Labour precedent is worth anything, it has taught us that party run companies expand naturally requiring more investment.
"Thanks Brian, that's an article that will shut the nay-sayers up."
If you think that you are very narrow minded. There is very little in this article to actually shut up the nay-sayers.
@ Rath you, and many others, are incorrect for several reasons
First of all I would like to point out that the co-opt model is not really a political model, contrary to popular belief.
In real life Ireland there are several co-opt movements.
Among the most known ones are the co-opt creamery movement
Here is an example http://www.rosscarbery.ie/lisavaird_coop/
And the credit union movement
Here is an example http://www.youghalcu.ie/
Those movements has been around for a long time, and they have NOT tried to overthrow any economical system.
In fact RL Ireland is built upon co-opt movements. The farming communities used to work on those principles, and to some extent that spirit lingers in parts of the country side.
In cities we have parks etc. that are co-ops.
In fact it is fair to say that the phenomenon of co-opts is not a political movement at all.
The reasons why so few realize that co-opts are not dangerous left wing extremists that wants to ruin our way of life is probably due to several things.
The general disappoint in left wing politics after the 70-ties combined with the fact that the left wing movements ALSO uses ideas about co-opts is one.
And unfortunately the left wing movements often wants to use the co-opts as examples of how unique they are. While they should have credit for using the co-opt model to some extent, it is actually not at all theirs to solely claim.
Further more, popular pulp economics of today seems to be short sighted and lack a historical perspective. Hence they preach simplified truths of the market, and unfortunately we can see in today's Ireland how accurate their views has been and how "far" they have taken us.
I am sorry for the rant, but I happen to like the co-opt movements, and I am not at al socialist for it. (:
Total number of votes (that is expected to represent number of active players of Ireland) also includes Irish citizens(hip) living out of Ireland unlike Brian Boru. So it is actually lesser than this but also there are probable multi/fake accounts and foreign workers.
(I hope to create a report showing demographics soon)
If market is saturated or oversaturated, presence of a new company only rises wages due to increasing demand of labour. And this increase in wages also increase prices. So in a closed economy, this leads to a paradoxical problem where you should either choose high wage or low prices as they can't be together.
(If it was me, I'd prefer low prices (ie low wages) as treasure map income is quite steady but this is another story)
Thanks to eRep game mechanics (which are not applicable in RL), free market is vulnerable to almost non-profit companies and communes if they have a sizeable share.
Communes exploit workers in a reversed way (according to Marx) and non-profits exploit investor ie so-called enterpreneur.
Of course market will not hesitate to consume their sacrifices but in long term this is clearly against regular companies where profit is expected.
Luminara, I don't like your tone in reference to my citizenship.
I gave Ireland two years, and regardless of my guilt in certain matters, I contributed to eIrish history as much as anyone who has been around that long.
Also, your economics are way off in ways I could explain in an entirely separate article..
@Brian Boru
Just stating the fact as who I am to ask people why they changed their citizenship.
[removed]
e-Kane, you make good Real Life examples with a very specific task of helping people who would otherwise not be able to avail of those services. But the big difference between those RL examples and what I said. Is that, "where non profit organisations owned most of the market". The word "most" is very important there, sure you can have some charitable organisations and not have them effect the market overly, but if you have most of the market taken over by non profit organisations. Then you'll struggle to find investment throughout the economy, people would have to buy gold to upgrade their companies or get donations from the public.
[removed]
@ Rath Well worded. Hopefully I will learn to write shorter pieces also (; I agree with you the a market dominated by one thing is not a market with diversity. It is not our goal either.
Something like that would be more a labour goal I suspect. While I do not agree with the "labour package that is aimed for all", I commend them for acting as well as speaking
I look forward to arguing against them in future debates
Well paying jobs are never a bad thing imho. I have not seen anything on here that would give me pause to think what the IUP is doing is wrong. In fact, I suspect it has been done informally for a long time. Just because it has a name now, doesn't mean it has suddenly become wrong.
@ Connell: I'd say that investment is much easier when there are several "owners" with vested interests in the success of the company. 10 people working there will have access to a possible 10 treasure maps per month to invest.
The company isn't a "non-profit" business (despite the fact I think it was claimed to be in the announcement) More realistically it's a Co-OP. Therefore investment is just as viable as with a regular company should the workers be convinced of its utility. The profit isn't disappearing, just going into more hands.
One benefit of this is that the government earns additional tax revenue since profits if invested in a company are subject to no tax, and if withdrawn in a certain way are similarly untaxed.
Luminara is an absolute oddball :/
As long as they dont circumvent the tax system its all gravy. If they do the common thing and pay employees in kind or through donation then it is bad for the government and by extension the country.
Ps Che is no hero.
@Yuri Orlov Industries (aka whomever he is)
I consider 'oddball' as a compliment which I hadn't heard many nowadays.