State your case why/why not. Why do you think they work? What do you think would help make them work?

Poll to come

Poll

do socialist governments work?

In terms of policy spending welfair high spending big government etc the most socialist Australian government in the last 50 years would have been the Howard government.

The answer is definatly no - they were terrible.

Whaddaya mean by "work?"

... wrote on Apr 9^th, 2013 at 7:44pm:

Whaddaya mean by "work?"

This is a valid question.

No answer yet.

Please define "work".

Dnarever wrote on Apr 9^th, 2013 at 7:42pm:

In terms of policy spending welfair high spending big government etc the most socialist Australian government in the last 50 years would have been the Howard government.

That's funny coming from a Liberal Government.

No socialism is un-natural.

If you look at the natural world competition, innovation, diversity and survival of the fittest is the law of the jungle.

Socialism attempts to control these things and once you start messing with any one of them things stuff up.

In the wild socialists become extinct because they fail to innovate and adapt.

Socialist Governments try to redistribute wealth away from the innovators and give it to the unachievers.  This due to lack of reward or incentive for effort will eventually retard innovation to the extent where nobody gives a schitt and you get colonised or wiped out. :(

Mnemonic wrote on Apr 9^th, 2013 at 9:20pm:

Dnarever wrote on Apr 9th, 2013 at 7:42pm: In terms of policy spending welfair high spending big government etc the most socialist Australian government in the last 50 years would have been the Howard government. That's funny coming from a Liberal Government.

Rubbish.  The Howard Govt provided the biggest personal income tax cuts in Australian history whilst paying off a $90 odd billion debt residual from Keating.

A boom economy with record company profitability and low unemployemt will naturally collect more tax revenues than a basket case Govt like we have now.

It's a big world & there is a place in it, for many, MANY things!

The world is also, usually in balance & if its systems lean too far, one way or another, then the system usually counteracts that lean, by pushing it back into it's rightful place.

YES, THERE IS A PLACE FOR SOCIALIST GOVERNMENTS, but it must be seen IN THE GREATER CONTEXT, OF MAINTAINING A SYSTEMIC BALANCE, because without the right balance the whole system may crash!   

Pearls before swine, Perce....  :(

Socialism needs everyone to be the same to exist.

Everyone is different.  We are all individuals.  Therefore socialism is impossible. 8-)

And that is why socialist governments don't work.

Are we talking about planning committee style socialism? Or the socialism we have here were the private sector completely funds public?

"Socialist governments always run out of other people's money"

namnugenot wrote on Apr 9^th, 2013 at 10:20pm:

"Socialist governments always run out of other people's money"

Do they?

If so, are you saying that in order to "work" a government needs money?

greggerypeccary wrote on Apr 9^th, 2013 at 10:23pm:

namnugenot wrote on Apr 9th, 2013 at 10:20pm: "Socialist governments always run out of other people's money" Do they? If so, are you saying that in order to "work" a government needs money?

No he's saying "Socialist governments always run out of other people's money" :(

Swagman wrote on Apr 9^th, 2013 at 10:30pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Apr 9th, 2013 at 10:23pm: namnugenot wrote on Apr 9th, 2013 at 10:20pm: "Socialist governments always run out of other people's money" Do they? If so, are you saying that in order to "work" a government needs money? No he's saying "Socialist governments always run out of other people's money" :(

1. Do they?

2. Why is that relevant?

Swagman wrote on Apr 9^th, 2013 at 9:32pm:

Rubbish.  The Howard Govt provided the biggest personal income tax cuts in Australian history whilst paying off a $90 odd billion debt residual from Keating. A boom economy with record company profitability and low unemployemt will naturally collect more tax revenues than a basket case Govt like we have now.

I was referring to Dnarever's comment about the Howard Government being a socialist one.


Swagman wrote on Apr 9^th, 2013 at 9:57pm:

Socialism needs everyone to be the same to exist. Everyone is different.  We are all individuals.  Therefore socialism is impossible. 8-)

I disagree. I think you're talking about "pure socialism." In a pure socialist system, everyone owns everything collectively and nobody owns anything individually. Resources are not concentrated where they are needed. There is no leadership and therefore no sense of direction because people can't figure out what to do and who should have the authority.

On the opposite extreme, you have "pure capitalism," where there are no "collectives." That means that there is no community and no company. It's every man for himself. There is no co-operation. There is only competition. Without co-operation, however, people can't organise and coordinate toward common goals (because this would violate the condition of there being no collectives and no common interests).

Socialism doesn't require that everybody is equal. No, that's pure socialism. Socialism can exist without the absolute ideal of absolute equality because there are different degrees of socialism. It's a matter of finding the right balance. Companies, corporations, firms and organisations are themselves a form of socialism (a subtle one). Anywhere where you have co-operation and common goals, you have socialism. Ever heard of "corporate values?" That's a form of socialism within a company. :)


Swagman wrote on Apr 9^th, 2013 at 9:25pm:

No socialism is un-natural.

Of course it's unnatural. Anything man-made is unnatural. Socialism is man-made. Socialism is human. Socialism is contrary to nature because in nature, in the wild, animals kill and eat each other out of selfishness and self-preservation.


Swagman wrote on Apr 9^th, 2013 at 9:25pm:

If you look at the natural world competition, innovation, diversity and survival of the fittest is the law of the jungle.

"Survival of the fittest" and the "law of the jungle" is barbaric and contrary to civilisation. Do you want to reduce us to wild animals?


Swagman wrote on Apr 9^th, 2013 at 9:25pm:

Socialism attempts to control these things and once you start messing with any one of them things stuff up.

The world didn't stuff up with socialism. It stuffed up without it. This is why the society and culture of wild animals hasn't advanced much in the last few million years. They haven't changed. Socialism, the collective interest, is the reason why modern civilisation was possible. Socialism is what gave us the advantage we have over other animals. If the rest of the Animal Kingdom ever started a war with us, we'd win.


Swagman wrote on Apr 9^th, 2013 at 9:25pm:

In the wild socialists become extinct because they fail to innovate and adapt.

Of course a human baby left in the wild would starve because it didn't know how to fend for itself. This is what community is for, it is for an interdependent species. That's what the human race is. It's an interdependent species. We can't survive on our own. We have to co-operate and share resources.


Swagman wrote on Apr 9^th, 2013 at 9:25pm:

Socialist Governments try to redistribute wealth away from the innovators and give it to the unachievers. This due to lack of reward or incentive for effort will eventually retard innovation to the extent where nobody gives a schitt and you get colonised or wiped out. :(

Of course if you had a pure socialist system you would be wasting resources by not directing them to areas that would be useful, but if socialism can be applied in degrees, then like I said before, it's a matter of finding the right balance.

.

Anything works if yuppies are not involved in it...

corporate_whitey wrote on Apr 10^th, 2013 at 1:08am:

Anything works if yuppies are not involved in it...

Yuppies .......... you're picking on yuppies now?

Yeh, yuppies are ruining the place, its time to get offensive back at them,...Johnny rotten gave those yuppies on the project what for tonight - he really ruined their night for them...

Phallic Baldwin wrote on Apr 9^th, 2013 at 7:25pm:

State your case why/why not. Why do you think they work? What do you think would help make them work? Poll to come

Poll doesn't make sense without some definition of what you consider to be a socialist government.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zN7lhX2eQE4&sns=em


Bill Maher: We are all socialists whether you like the word socialism or not.

Quote:

Poll doesn't make sense without some definition of what you consider to be a socialist government.

That would be just about anyone to the left of Genghis Khan, wouldn't it?

Swagman wrote on Apr 9^th, 2013 at 9:25pm:

No socialism is un-natural. If you look at the natural world competition, innovation, diversity and survival of the fittest is the law of the jungle.Socialism attempts to control these things and once you start messing with any one of them things stuff up. In the wild socialists become extinct because they fail to innovate and adapt. Socialist Governments try to redistribute wealth away from the innovators and give it to the unachievers.  This due to lack of reward or incentive for effort will eventually retard innovation to the extent where nobody gives a schitt and you get colonised or wiped out. :(

Disagree ... humans have always had to work together to survive. A tribe had to work as a cohesive unit or the whole tribe died. Sure, we were competitive against a common enemy (other tribes, wild animals etc) but the local unit was unitied in everything ... if one couldn't hunt the hunters proviced for him / her whilst they did something else for the tribe. In todays world there is no cohesive unit. It's dog eat dog, every man for himself.

Norway says hi

Socialist governments reward mediocrity and laziness while punishing individualism and personal effort.

So yeah they're great if your a lazy retard looking for a free ride.



Good thing is they eventually fail and disappear and allow the political middle to take over.

Mnemonic wrote on Apr 9^th, 2013 at 11:05pm:

I was referring to Dnarever's comment about the Howard Government being a socialist one

So was I


Mnemonic wrote on Apr 9^th, 2013 at 11:05pm:

Socialism doesn't require that everybody is equal. No, that's pure socialism. Socialism can exist without the absolute ideal of absolute equality because there are different degrees of socialism

In the context of this thread the characteristics of 'pure' socialism is relevant to the discussion.

The watered down version still strives towards the pure version so to speak and for this reason I draw my conclusion that socialist governemnts on the whole 'do not work'.

They do not work as I said because everyone is different.  Yes individuals can band together and be social as you & John Smith describe to assist the common good but this is not socialism.

Families (tribes) may be socialist to a degree yet a family (tribe) still ends up with an alpha male running the show.  It is not democratic.  The alpha male tends to be the biggest / smartest specimen.  The best hunter or the best fighter and after a few thousand years the richest member who buys the best hunter and the best fighter..... ;)

Self interest is why socialism fails.  Self interest drives the natural world and human societies.  Individual animals and species adapt and innovate due to self interest to survive.  Without self interest they become extinct.  Socialism as an ideology attempts to erase self interest and it is therefore pushing schitt up a very tall mountain because that's not gunna happen.....ever...and that's why socialist governments don't work... ;)l

Swagman wrote on Apr 10^th, 2013 at 9:22am:

Self interest is why socialism fails

I would say greed is why socialism fails . Humans being want more even though it's not always in their self interest.

John Smith wrote on Apr 10^th, 2013 at 9:26am:

Swagman wrote on Apr 10th, 2013 at 9:22am: Self interest is why socialism fails I would say greed is why socialism fails . Humans being want more even though it's not always in their self interest.

Touche'.......

Greed is just a socialist's definition for self interest. 

Swagman wrote on Apr 10^th, 2013 at 9:37am:

John Smith wrote on Apr 10th, 2013 at 9:26am: Swagman wrote on Apr 10th, 2013 at 9:22am: Self interest is why socialism fails I would say greed is why socialism fails . Humans being want more even though it's not always in their self interest. Touche'....... Greed is just a socialist's definition for self interest.

Hey swagman are you avoiding this thread for some reason?

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1365459525

SOB

Swagman wrote on Apr 10^th, 2013 at 9:37am:

John Smith wrote on Apr 10th, 2013 at 9:26am: Swagman wrote on Apr 10th, 2013 at 9:22am: Self interest is why socialism fails I would say greed is why socialism fails . Humans being want more even though it's not always in their self interest. Touche'....... Greed is just a socialist's definition for self interest.

or, alternatively,  self interest is a capitalists definition of greed.

.

John Smith wrote on Apr 10^th, 2013 at 9:39am:

Swagman wrote on Apr 10th, 2013 at 9:37am: John Smith wrote on Apr 10th, 2013 at 9:26am: Swagman wrote on Apr 10th, 2013 at 9:22am: Self interest is why socialism fails I would say greed is why socialism fails . Humans being want more even though it's not always in their self interest. Touche'....... Greed is just a socialist's definition for self interest.  or, alternatively,  self interest is a capitalists definition of greed.

...that would be "The Invisible Hand"

Yuppies make us poor...

Did we ever get clarification on what OP meant by "work"?