To understand where the left is heading with their "bleeding hearts" policy - everyone need to understand the foundation of their thinking

It is steep in socialism and communism

The link below is a start on a comparison between socialism, communism and capitalism

http://www.webpages.uidaho.edu/engl_258/lecture%20notes/capitalism%20etc%20defined.htm

I've not seen anyone here supporting absolute socialism.

A socialist democracy, yes. It's what we NEED, whether you can see it or not.

But absolute socialism is no better than rampant unregulated capitalism.

And for surprisingly similar reasons.

Kat wrote on Nov 5^th, 2015 at 10:09am:

I've not seen anyone here supporting absolute socialism. A socialist democracy, yes. It's what we NEED, whether you can see it or not. But absolute socialism is no better than rampant unregulated capitalism. And for surprisingly similar reasons.

Have a look at the Australian Greens and their policies

"socialism refers to state ownership of common property, or state ownership of the means of production. "

Wrong.

Maqqa wrote on Nov 5^th, 2015 at 10:15am:

Have a look at the Australian Greens and their policies

What?
Literally nothing about the Greens is "full socialism" they are a typical orthodox Keynesian Social-Democratic party. In their policy platform it literally says the free-market is the most important role in combating climate change.

How lame.

Kiron22 wrote on Nov 5^th, 2015 at 10:18am:

Maqqa wrote on Nov 5th, 2015 at 10:15am: Have a look at the Australian Greens and their policies What? Literally nothing about the Greens is "full socialism" they are a typical orthodox Keynesian Social-Democratic party. In their policy platform it literally says the free-market is the most important role in combating climate change. How lame.

I didn't say read their rhetoric - I said look at their policies

This is their opening line on the economy

"Only the Greens have the guts to stand up to billionaire companies so we can manage our economy in a way that cares for people and the environment."

What's a billionaire company? Is it just bad Engwrish?

It's academic anyway. The global financial system will not allow even an approximation of absolute socialism.

bogarde73 wrote on Nov 5^th, 2015 at 10:30am:

It's academic anyway. The global financial system will not allow even an approximation of absolute socialism.

Rich and powerful.

bogarde73 wrote on Nov 5^th, 2015 at 10:30am:

It's academic anyway. The global financial system will not allow even an approximation of absolute socialism.

Agreed if you are looking at control by majority

However we've seen these minority groups increasing their share if the political pie which then influence the balance of power e.g. Labor/Green

It is important we understand the difference between a Greens group and Independent group - one is a socialist

I would think not - a proper balance of socialism and capitalism has worked reasonably well - well, sometimes - in Australia, so with the proper fine tuning it might well work.

Total control over every part of the economy, resources, industry etc by the State is extreme, and never works in reality.  On the other hand unconstrained and uncontrolled capitalism has never worked, either.

It's a balance, and that balance is currently way out of whack due to poor management by successive governments addicted to their ideologies.

As I've said before, under the 'socialist' concept so abhorred by the 'right' these days, of an Awards system etc - BOTH sides knew within reason what costs and profits could be generated, and thus both could manage for prosperity more easily than under the current hodge-podge of agreements that actually, in most cases, cost more than paying award rates.

You can't seriously tell me that an electricity supplier paying a contractor $90 to read one meter is a cost saving measure - when it used to cost around $20 for an employee to do it.  When Telstra 'out-sourced' line work etc, the guy who set up the phone here said he was doing less work for more money, after being laid off as an employee and reinstated as a contractor.

As someone said - sometimes you need to do a System Restore......

Honestly think that Socialism shouldn't be marred by the poor Stalinist systems and their ripoffs of the past for several reasons.

- They in no way conformed to Socialist theory or material conditions outlined by Marx.

- Marx envisioned Socialism as a system that would appear as a system when Capitalist contradiction basically causes an implosion of the system (which may happen at any crisis in the future)

- The time table for Marx's predictions have not even hit yet (but looking at global economic statistics we are heading there but not for at least another 30-40 years will we hit serious crisis as predicted by Marx using current global economic statistics) it is also likely that WW2 and WW1 delayed his predictions by decades because of the huge destruction of wealth and population.

- Socialism is a futurist system which is built on high-tech technology, robotics and computing, Marx in the 1850s outlined this with OCC.

- Lenin incorrectly identified Imperialism as "late stage Capitalism" which of course served the period he was in, but doesn't actually match Marx's economic critique in Das Kapital in which he identified robotics and automation as late-stage Capitalism.

- The Soviet Union even if it cared about Socialist theory seriously (it didn't, Stalin turned it into a thinly veiled Neo-Russian Empire) didn't exist in a time of computer modelling or fiber communications or high tech computing (your computer today is more powerful than most computers in the world combined when the USSR existed)

If you wanted to do a planned Socialist economy (not that Socialism = Planning), I honestly think it would be possible. How you would do it is use AI to simulate a market based on consumer inputs tracked over a period of time in a real market and then distribute basic goods based on those models, you would then have consumer goods and new products produced based on a sort of digital crowdsourcing model in which data again is input back into the system to make predictions and calculations on production.

One must also remember a Socialist society is largely an anti-materialism society based on sustainability, so the sheer scale of goods produced would never actually have to come anywhere near Capitalism.

On another point, once singularity (exponential explosion of AI intelligence after self-awareness) occurs, Capitalism is ****ed and we will in most likeliness move towards a more planned system if we like it or not.

Socialism is simply Revenge of the Losers.  ;D

Q) Will absolute socialism, now work in Australia OR anywhere else?
A) No!

Q) Will the Liberal version of Capitalism, now work in Australia OR anywhere else ?
A) No!

Q) Will absolute Communism, now work in Australia OR anywhere else ?
A) No!

Q) Will any of the "old style isms", now work in Australia OR anywhere else?
A) No!

Basically, we will have to move past the "old style Economics" of both Liberal & Labor and start anew, with something that is fair to all or we will just do more damage, than is otherwise coming, anyhow!

Finally, that damage is coming, irrespective of what the Liberal & Labor Politicians may say, which is simply full of self-serving CRAP!
Credible
Reliable
Abundant
Paradoxes

Kat wrote on Nov 5^th, 2015 at 10:09am:

I've not seen anyone here supporting absolute socialism.

.......... ;D :D

http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b76/timbo2530/Kat.jpg

Grappler Deep State Feller wrote on Nov 5^th, 2015 at 12:04pm:

I would think not - a proper balance of socialism and capitalism has worked reasonably well - well, sometimes - in Australia, so with the proper fine tuning it might well work. Total control over every part of the economy, resources, industry etc by the State is extreme, and never works in reality.  On the other hand unconstrained and uncontrolled capitalism has never worked, either. It's a balance, and that balance is currently way out of whack due to poor management by successive governments addicted to their ideologies. As I've said before, under the 'socialist' concept so abhorred by the 'right' these days, of an Awards system etc - BOTH sides knew within reason what costs and profits could be generated, and thus both could manage for prosperity more easily than under the current hodge-podge of agreements that actually, in most cases, cost more than paying award rates. You can't seriously tell me that an electricity supplier paying a contractor $90 to read one meter is a cost saving measure - when it used to cost around $20 for an employee to do it.  When Telstra 'out-sourced' line work etc, the guy who set up the phone here said he was doing less work for more money, after being laid off as an employee and reinstated as a contractor. As someone said - sometimes you need to do a System Restore......

That's it Grappler, a balanced system, what we used to call a mixed economy I think.
As to whether the system is currently "out of whack", that's a variable circumstance.
Take the Awards system, it's arguable that that is "out of whack" in terms of being too inflexible in the current & future global economy. It was fine 30 years ago.
But basically I agree with you.

A "Mixed economy" is still a Capitalist one and is still subject to the mass contradictions of Capitalism.

There are also several issues with the "balancing act" the biggest one is that is class warfare. Poor and working class people have little say in the development of society, youth have absolutely no say. In terms of power all power flows with capital and thus corporations control Government and when they need to win an election, they just market to the groups they need to convince to continue corporate stranglehold.

Another one is that as Capitalism becomes more precarious due to its internal contradictions, crisis becomes worse and more frequent, its likely there will be a massive downturn in  the Global Economy in 2016, thats just 8 years after the largest downturn since the 1920s. Who has to pay for this? Of course the public and the poor. Billions injected into banks and their CEOs.

We can already see a global oligarchy consolidating power, the myth and illusion of balance is slowly falling to pieces.

The sad thing is the left is nowhere to be seen, whenever these contradictions and antagonisms arise, someone the energy of the people is always co-opted into something stupid.

Australia will have full Socialism eventually because its inevitable, as the old saying goes, Socialism or Barbarism.
Governments across the west are already starting to look towards Asian authoritarian capitalism as a model. LKY is constantly brought up more and more these days in economic discussion.

innocentbystander. wrote on Nov 5^th, 2015 at 12:46pm:

Socialism is simply Revenge of the Losers.  ;D

And once again you demonstrate your ignorance on the matter.

virtually all of Australian politics is right of centre, even the greens on average are at the centre.

innocentbystander. wrote on Nov 5^th, 2015 at 12:46pm:

Socialism is simply Revenge of the Losers.  ;D

Which party is currently working to increase taxes and being defended by people saying that it is ok because the state will look after the less well off via welfare ?

Isn't it true that the current Liberals are heading in the socialist high taxing high compensation direction ?

I would argue the Libs are more towards the far-right of the scale.

Classic reactionary party, not conservative.

Look at Europe, look at New Zealand, their conservative parties are literally more socially progressive than Labor, in Europe, conservative parties are throwing billions at renewable energy trying to corner a new industry. The UK tories and NZ tories legalized gay marraige.

Australian Liberal party and elements of Labor have more in common with groups like the Tea Party Republicans and UKIP than actual proper old conservative parties.

Statistically the Howard government were the most socialist government of the last 40 years.

Dnarever wrote on Nov 5^th, 2015 at 1:54pm:

Statistically the Howard government were the most socialist government of the last 40 years.

So what are the socialist measurements?

Socialism wouldn't work because the majority either admire success or are successful. Socialists, for the most part, hate success because they cannot aspire to it themselves.

Muttley wrote on Nov 5^th, 2015 at 2:01pm:

Socialism wouldn't work because the majority either admire success or are successful. Socialists, for the most part, hate success because they cannot aspire to it themselves.

Thats funny, because Engels was a rich factory owner, Lenin led an entire country and won a war against the rest of the world. Both pretty successful.

Socialists understand that Capitalism is unsustainable and strive to build a better future and society. While all you care about is personal wealth, Socialists care about humanity.

Muttley wrote on Nov 5^th, 2015 at 2:01pm:

Socialism wouldn't work because the majority either admire success or are successful. Socialists, for the most part, hate success because they cannot aspire to it themselves.

Most socialist society eventually ends up as a capitalist society

The exception is Norway - but they have massive oilfields to fund the socialist policies

Kiron22 wrote on Nov 5^th, 2015 at 2:10pm:

Muttley wrote on Nov 5th, 2015 at 2:01pm: Socialism wouldn't work because the majority either admire success or are successful. Socialists, for the most part, hate success because they cannot aspire to it themselves. Thats funny, because Engels was a rich factory owner, Lenin led an entire country and won a war against the rest of the world. Both pretty successful. Socialists understand that Capitalism is unsustainable and strive to build a better future and society. While all you care about is personal wealth, Socialists care about humanity.

Lenin was protesting against a monarchy in late 1800's

Engels/Marx are both philosophers of the year 1850's - enough said

Kiron22 wrote on Nov 5^th, 2015 at 2:10pm:

Muttley wrote on Nov 5th, 2015 at 2:01pm: Socialism wouldn't work because the majority either admire success or are successful. Socialists, for the most part, hate success because they cannot aspire to it themselves. Thats funny, because Engels was a rich factory owner, Lenin led an entire country and won a war against the rest of the world. Both pretty successful. Socialists understand that Capitalism is unsustainable and strive to build a better future and society. While all you care about is personal wealth, Socialists care about humanity.

Jeez, now that's a lot of "successful" socialists. Lenin "led an entire country" to what?

Was it a socialist/communist who paid your wages or were you really a successful capitalist ?

This has nothing to do with personality or who pays what.

Socialists tend to be people who identify issues in Capitalism be it oppression, exploitation, insustainability etc etc and wish to build a better future where the productive power of all can be used to give a life to everyone.

You also have a very first worldist bias rich view. One social mobility is not actually that fluid even in first world countries, your birth generally defines who you are and who you will be.

Second what chance does some kid born in a slum in Bangladesh or Africa have to become successful or even live a fulfilling life? 00000000000000000000000000000000.1%

Being sychophantic towards capital isn't just lazy, its smacking sad. There is nothing wrong about thinking or striving towards a post capital future.

Maqqa wrote on Nov 5^th, 2015 at 10:04am:

To understand where the left is heading with their "bleeding hearts" policy - everyone need to understand the foundation of their thinking It is steep in socialism and communism The link below is a start on a comparison between socialism, communism and capitalism http://www.webpages.uidaho.edu/engl_258/lecture%20notes/capitalism%20etc%20defined.htm

maqqa knows nothing except propaganda for elitist purpose aka distraction from MALCOLMS COPPER INTERNET ELECTION THAT WE HAD TO HAVE  :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D:D :D :D :D :D :D :D

THE PUBLIC OPINION ON COPPER HAS SET LIKE CONCRETE SORRY   ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Muttley wrote on Nov 5^th, 2015 at 2:01pm:

Socialism wouldn't work because the majority either admire success or are successful. Socialists, for the most part, hate success because they cannot aspire to it themselves.

wHERE DOES MONEY COME FROM?

yES, YOU CAN EAT MY C** NOW BUDDY  :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D

Maqqa wrote on Nov 5^th, 2015 at 2:16pm:

Kiron22 wrote on Nov 5th, 2015 at 2:10pm: Muttley wrote on Nov 5th, 2015 at 2:01pm: Socialism wouldn't work because the majority either admire success or are successful. Socialists, for the most part, hate success because they cannot aspire to it themselves. Thats funny, because Engels was a rich factory owner, Lenin led an entire country and won a war against the rest of the world. Both pretty successful. Socialists understand that Capitalism is unsustainable and strive to build a better future and society. While all you care about is personal wealth, Socialists care about humanity. Lenin was protesting against a monarchy in late 1800's Engels/Marx are both philosophers of the year 1850's - enough said

eNOUGH SAID FROM THE PRIVATE SCHOOLED IDIOT WHO REFUSES TO ELABORATE UNDER THE DIRECTION OF TOFFEE NOSED WEIRDOS WHO ALL INHERITED WEALTH  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Maqqa wrote on Nov 5^th, 2015 at 2:12pm:

Muttley wrote on Nov 5th, 2015 at 2:01pm: Socialism wouldn't work because the majority either admire success or are successful. Socialists, for the most part, hate success because they cannot aspire to it themselves. Most socialist society eventually ends up as a capitalist society The exception is Norway - but they have massive oilfields to fund the socialist policies

WHERE DOES MONEY COME FROM?

THANX FOR PLAYING  :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D

innocentbystander. wrote on Nov 5^th, 2015 at 12:46pm:

Socialism is simply Revenge of the Losers.  ;D

SOCIALISM IS SIMPLY MONEY: you should read a book sometime  ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;)

Kat wrote on Nov 5^th, 2015 at 1:22pm:

innocentbystander. wrote on Nov 5th, 2015 at 12:46pm: Socialism is simply Revenge of the Losers.  ;D And once again you demonstrate your ignorance on the matter.

Your deranged idea of the perfect society is one where you can murder all the LNP voters and replace them with unemployed Muslims and Africans.   :D

Kiron22 wrote on Nov 5^th, 2015 at 12:36pm:

Honestly think that Socialism shouldn't be marred by the poor Stalinist systems and their ripoffs of the past for several reasons. - They in no way conformed to Socialist theory or material conditions outlined by Marx. - Marx envisioned Socialism as a system that would appear as a system when Capitalist contradiction basically causes an implosion of the system (which may happen at any crisis in the future) - The time table for Marx's predictions have not even hit yet (but looking at global economic statistics we are heading there but not for at least another 30-40 years will we hit serious crisis as predicted by Marx using current global economic statistics) it is also likely that WW2 and WW1 delayed his predictions by decades because of the huge destruction of wealth and population. - Socialism is a futurist system which is built on high-tech technology, robotics and computing, Marx in the 1850s outlined this with OCC. - Lenin incorrectly identified Imperialism as "late stage Capitalism" which of course served the period he was in, but doesn't actually match Marx's economic critique in Das Kapital in which he identified robotics and automation as late-stage Capitalism. - The Soviet Union even if it cared about Socialist theory seriously (it didn't, Stalin turned it into a thinly veiled Neo-Russian Empire) didn't exist in a time of computer modelling or fiber communications or high tech computing (your computer today is more powerful than most computers in the world combined when the USSR existed) If you wanted to do a planned Socialist economy (not that Socialism = Planning), I honestly think it would be possible. How you would do it is use AI to simulate a market based on consumer inputs tracked over a period of time in a real market and then distribute basic goods based on those models, you would then have consumer goods and new products produced based on a sort of digital crowdsourcing model in which data again is input back into the system to make predictions and calculations on production. One must also remember a Socialist society is largely an anti-materialism society based on sustainability, so the sheer scale of goods produced would never actually have to come anywhere near Capitalism. On another point, once singularity (exponential explosion of AI intelligence after self-awareness) occurs, Capitalism is ****ed and we will in most likeliness move towards a more planned system if we like it or not.

Quoting Marx and Lenin doesn't exactly enhance your credibility. And supporting 'planned economies' is laughable since they were one of the biggest failures in history.  Communism fails because there are very few retards like you. Everyone else wants choice, opportunity, freedom and good food.

Dnarever wrote on Nov 5^th, 2015 at 1:32pm:

innocentbystander. wrote on Nov 5th, 2015 at 12:46pm: Socialism is simply Revenge of the Losers.  ;D Which party is currently working to increase taxes and being defended by people saying that it is ok because the state will look after the less well off via welfare ? Isn't it true that the current Liberals are heading in the socialist high taxing high compensation direction ?

Yes I would say that true conservatism is dead, big government and endless welfare is now entrenched, there is no going back, its all downhill from here, or uphill if you dream of a commie utopia  :(

innocentbystander. wrote on Nov 5^th, 2015 at 3:04pm:

Kat wrote on Nov 5th, 2015 at 1:22pm: innocentbystander. wrote on Nov 5th, 2015 at 12:46pm: Socialism is simply Revenge of the Losers.  ;D And once again you demonstrate your ignorance on the matter. Your deranged idea of the perfect society is one where you can murder all the LNP voters and replace them with unemployed Muslims and Africans.   :D

Your idea of a perfect society is exactly that: an idea that exists in your racist head  :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D

Do you smoke the crack-pipe and play war games with your w****** tryhard mates  :o :o :o ... you know- the ones where you are all talk and talk and talk and talk and talk until the wall looks sexy  ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::)

innocentbystander. wrote on Nov 5^th, 2015 at 3:08pm:

Dnarever wrote on Nov 5th, 2015 at 1:32pm: innocentbystander. wrote on Nov 5th, 2015 at 12:46pm: Socialism is simply Revenge of the Losers.  ;D Which party is currently working to increase taxes and being defended by people saying that it is ok because the state will look after the less well off via welfare ? Isn't it true that the current Liberals are heading in the socialist high taxing high compensation direction ? Yes I would say that true conservatism is dead, big government and endless welfare is now entrenched, there is no going back, its all downhill from here, or uphill if you dream of a commie utopia  :(

You're an idiot: define 'true conservatism'... you can't because you're a smokin' smoker  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

mariacostel wrote on Nov 5^th, 2015 at 3:08pm:

Kiron22 wrote on Nov 5th, 2015 at 12:36pm: Honestly think that Socialism shouldn't be marred by the poor Stalinist systems and their ripoffs of the past for several reasons. - They in no way conformed to Socialist theory or material conditions outlined by Marx. - Marx envisioned Socialism as a system that would appear as a system when Capitalist contradiction basically causes an implosion of the system (which may happen at any crisis in the future) - The time table for Marx's predictions have not even hit yet (but looking at global economic statistics we are heading there but not for at least another 30-40 years will we hit serious crisis as predicted by Marx using current global economic statistics) it is also likely that WW2 and WW1 delayed his predictions by decades because of the huge destruction of wealth and population. - Socialism is a futurist system which is built on high-tech technology, robotics and computing, Marx in the 1850s outlined this with OCC. - Lenin incorrectly identified Imperialism as "late stage Capitalism" which of course served the period he was in, but doesn't actually match Marx's economic critique in Das Kapital in which he identified robotics and automation as late-stage Capitalism. - The Soviet Union even if it cared about Socialist theory seriously (it didn't, Stalin turned it into a thinly veiled Neo-Russian Empire) didn't exist in a time of computer modelling or fiber communications or high tech computing (your computer today is more powerful than most computers in the world combined when the USSR existed) If you wanted to do a planned Socialist economy (not that Socialism = Planning), I honestly think it would be possible. How you would do it is use AI to simulate a market based on consumer inputs tracked over a period of time in a real market and then distribute basic goods based on those models, you would then have consumer goods and new products produced based on a sort of digital crowdsourcing model in which data again is input back into the system to make predictions and calculations on production. One must also remember a Socialist society is largely an anti-materialism society based on sustainability, so the sheer scale of goods produced would never actually have to come anywhere near Capitalism. On another point, once singularity (exponential explosion of AI intelligence after self-awareness) occurs, Capitalism is ****ed and we will in most likeliness move towards a more planned system if we like it or not. Quoting Marx and Lenin doesn't exactly enhance your credibility. And supporting 'planned economies' is laughable since they were one of the biggest failures in history.  Communism fails because there are very few retards like you. Everyone else wants choice, opportunity, freedom and good food.

Haven't travelled much have ya  :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D

Muttley wrote on Nov 5^th, 2015 at 2:01pm:

Socialism wouldn't work because the majority either admire success or are successful. Socialists, for the most part, hate success because they cannot aspire to it themselves.

Success is a sign you can game whatever system you are part of, be is a dictatorship, communist, capitalist or something else. The idea there is so sort of moral positive equivalence with success is utter crap.

innocentbystander. wrote on Nov 5^th, 2015 at 3:04pm:

Kat wrote on Nov 5th, 2015 at 1:22pm: innocentbystander. wrote on Nov 5th, 2015 at 12:46pm: Socialism is simply Revenge of the Losers.  ;D And once again you demonstrate your ignorance on the matter. Your deranged idea of the perfect society is one where you can murder all the LNP voters and replace them with unemployed Muslims and Africans.   :D

You are a twat.

Grow up.

Kytro wrote on Nov 5^th, 2015 at 5:45pm:

Muttley wrote on Nov 5th, 2015 at 2:01pm: Socialism wouldn't work because the majority either admire success or are successful. Socialists, for the most part, hate success because they cannot aspire to it themselves. Success is a sign you can game whatever system you are part of, be is a dictatorship, communist, capitalist or something else. The idea there is so sort of moral positive equivalence with success is utter crap.

I think that is a bit simplisticly stated. Sure, success is not necessarily evidence of a moral position, but nor is the opposite true - which is often stated on here.  Success does sometimes flow from moral and ethical positioning, but is not always the case or even often. Success is often the product of sheer dumb luck!

Kat wrote on Nov 5^th, 2015 at 5:54pm:

innocentbystander. wrote on Nov 5th, 2015 at 3:04pm: Kat wrote on Nov 5th, 2015 at 1:22pm: innocentbystander. wrote on Nov 5th, 2015 at 12:46pm: Socialism is simply Revenge of the Losers.  ;D And once again you demonstrate your ignorance on the matter. Your deranged idea of the perfect society is one where you can murder all the LNP voters and replace them with unemployed Muslims and Africans.   :D You are a twat. Grow up.

You've already stated that LNP supporters should be killed. He is completely accurate. You are lucky that liberals are far more moral and ethical than you could probably even conceive. If we weren't, you'd be dead or in jail long ago.

mariacostel wrote on Nov 5^th, 2015 at 6:07pm:

Kytro wrote on Nov 5th, 2015 at 5:45pm: Muttley wrote on Nov 5th, 2015 at 2:01pm: Socialism wouldn't work because the majority either admire success or are successful. Socialists, for the most part, hate success because they cannot aspire to it themselves. Success is a sign you can game whatever system you are part of, be is a dictatorship, communist, capitalist or something else. The idea there is so sort of moral positive equivalence with success is utter crap. I think that is a bit simplisticly stated. Sure, success is not necessarily evidence of a moral position, but nor is the opposite true - which is often stated on here.  Success does sometimes flow from moral and ethical positioning, but is not always the case or even often. Success is often the product of sheer dumb luck!

success is often inherited  :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D

Kiron22 wrote on Nov 5^th, 2015 at 12:36pm:

Honestly think that Socialism shouldn't be marred by the poor Stalinist systems and their ripoffs of the past for several reasons. - They in no way conformed to Socialist theory or material conditions outlined by Marx. - Marx envisioned Socialism as a system that would appear as a system when Capitalist contradiction basically causes an implosion of the system (which may happen at any crisis in the future)

He wanted the workers to take control of the means of production by force, and not wait for any 'contradictions'. There was then to be, in Marx's idealistic vision, a temporary dictatorship of the workers. Then next stage was then communism, where state borders wither away and each person works according to their needs and ability.

mariacostel wrote on Nov 5^th, 2015 at 6:08pm:

Kat wrote on Nov 5th, 2015 at 5:54pm: innocentbystander. wrote on Nov 5th, 2015 at 3:04pm: Kat wrote on Nov 5th, 2015 at 1:22pm: innocentbystander. wrote on Nov 5th, 2015 at 12:46pm: Socialism is simply Revenge of the Losers.  ;D And once again you demonstrate your ignorance on the matter. Your deranged idea of the perfect society is one where you can murder all the LNP voters and replace them with unemployed Muslims and Africans.   :D You are a twat. Grow up. You've already stated that LNP supporters should be killed. He is completely accurate. You are lucky that liberals are far more moral and ethical than you could probably even conceive. If we weren't, you'd be dead or in jail long ago.

And so are you.

Kiron22 wrote on Nov 5^th, 2015 at 2:10pm:

Muttley wrote on Nov 5th, 2015 at 2:01pm: Socialism wouldn't work because the majority either admire success or are successful. Socialists, for the most part, hate success because they cannot aspire to it themselves. Thats funny, because Engels was a rich factory owner, Lenin led an entire country and won a war against the rest of the world. Both pretty successful. Socialists understand that Capitalism is unsustainable and strive to build a better future and society. While all you care about is personal wealth, Socialists care about humanity.

lol. So much so that they've killed millions to prove it.

absolute socialism won't work anywhere, nor will absolute capitalism, to work you need a blend of both.

Will absolute socialism work in Australia

what do you call income tax ?

this is socialism by proxy

namaste

mariacostel wrote on Nov 5^th, 2015 at 6:08pm:

Kat wrote on Nov 5th, 2015 at 5:54pm: innocentbystander. wrote on Nov 5th, 2015 at 3:04pm: Kat wrote on Nov 5th, 2015 at 1:22pm: innocentbystander. wrote on Nov 5th, 2015 at 12:46pm: Socialism is simply Revenge of the Losers.  ;D And once again you demonstrate your ignorance on the matter. Your deranged idea of the perfect society is one where you can murder all the LNP voters and replace them with unemployed Muslims and Africans.   :D You are a twat. Grow up. You've already stated that LNP supporters should be killed. He is completely accurate. You are lucky that liberals are far more moral and ethical than you could probably even conceive. If we weren't, you'd be dead or in jail long ago.

To be fair that was when Kat was off his meds.......that's when his National Socialist personality shows itself .... :D

          http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b76/timbo2530/4752fc54-e254-4213-81fb-b9b87f7b9967.jpg

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Nov 5^th, 2015 at 6:42pm:

lol. So much so that they've killed millions to prove it.

Because Capitalists are such loving angels. Reminder that more people die in a single decade from famine in Capitalist countries than died in the entirety of "Socialist" countries.

Also a bit rich calling Stalin and his puppets Socialists, when they actively rewinded every social gain of the revolution, restored the Orthodox church and implemented harsh social conservatism.

Actually funny that you right wingers hate Stalin at all, seems right up your alley! complete disregard for human rights, massive social conservative that hated gays and Muslims.

Funny when real Socialists turn up, Capitalists always find a way to point guns and massacre them.

You should read George Orwells Homage to Catalonia, presents a completely different perspective of what real Socialism is and the brave, loving real Socialists that tried to make freedom a reality, then were gunned down by Capitalists, Stalinists and embargoed by the west. Men, Women, Children, all mass murdered. Its a story that sadly repeats all over the world. The death count of the CIA alone must be in the tens of millions easily.

Famines aren't usually the fault of the capitalist system, but rather idiotic people with no foresight breeding beyond their means.

Full socialism only ever works by force, hence why they have had to kill millions in trying to get it to work.

[quote author=Timbo2530 link=1446681869/49#49 date=1446714946]
To be fair that was when Kat was off his meds.......that's when his [i]National Socialist personality shows itself .... :D
[/i]
       


I think he just misses Pol Pot.  :(

innocentbystander. wrote on Nov 5^th, 2015 at 9:34pm:

[quote author=Timbo2530 link=1446681869/49#49 date=1446714946] To be fair that was when Kat was off his meds.......that's when his [i]National Socialist personality shows itself .... :D [/i]         I think he just misses Pol Pot.  :(

And his opposition here, with no idea whatsoever, doesn't even begin to miss Stalin and Hitler.... the two greatest Caesars in modern history.... but with much less humanity that the original Julius Caesar...

All those who oppose reason and common sense here, such as those who lambast Kat without any substantiation, are no different from the greatest tyrants who have ever lived... except that no one of you has any real power... thank god.

I guess you'll just have to rely on your proxies like Tony and Joey, and Kevie and Bob Carr and all the rest, and even Julia ... just neo-Fascist dictators in disguise without one single clue about real people.....

I guess to those theoretisists among you - that makes me a Trotsky-ite.

Never been more wrong....

innocentbystander. wrote on Nov 5^th, 2015 at 9:34pm:

[quote author=Timbo2530 link=1446681869/49#49 date=1446714946] To be fair that was when Kat was off his meds.......that's when his [i]National Socialist personality shows itself .... :D [/i]         I think he just misses Pol Pot.  :(

And I think you're a frigging idiot.

Thus nature balances.

Grappler Deep State Feller wrote on Nov 6^th, 2015 at 12:44am:

such as those who lambast Kat without any substantiation

Except there is plenty of substantiation  ;D

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Nov 5^th, 2015 at 6:40pm:

Kiron22 wrote on Nov 5th, 2015 at 12:36pm: Honestly think that Socialism shouldn't be marred by the poor Stalinist systems and their ripoffs of the past for several reasons. - They in no way conformed to Socialist theory or material conditions outlined by Marx. - Marx envisioned Socialism as a system that would appear as a system when Capitalist contradiction basically causes an implosion of the system (which may happen at any crisis in the future) He wanted the workers to take control of the means of production by force, and not wait for any 'contradictions'. There was then to be, in Marx's idealistic vision, a temporary dictatorship of the workers. Then next stage was then communism, where state borders wither away and each person works according to their needs and ability.

That worked well, didn't it?

Kiron22 wrote on Nov 5^th, 2015 at 8:01pm:

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Nov 5th, 2015 at 6:42pm: lol. So much so that they've killed millions to prove it. Because Capitalists are such loving angels. Reminder that more people die in a single decade from famine in Capitalist countries than died in the entirety of "Socialist" countries. Also a bit rich calling Stalin and his puppets Socialists, when they actively rewinded every social gain of the revolution, restored the Orthodox church and implemented harsh social conservatism. Actually funny that you right wingers hate Stalin at all, seems right up your alley! complete disregard for human rights, massive social conservative that hated gays and Muslims. Funny when real Socialists turn up, Capitalists always find a way to point guns and massacre them. You should read George Orwells Homage to Catalonia, presents a completely different perspective of what real Socialism is and the brave, loving real Socialists that tried to make freedom a reality, then were gunned down by Capitalists, Stalinists and embargoed by the west. Men, Women, Children, all mass murdered. Its a story that sadly repeats all over the world. The death count of the CIA alone must be in the tens of millions easily.

Would you care to try and justify the BS in the highlighted bit, Vladimir?  What is it about communists that they lie so easily? Is propaganda your only skill?

innocentbystander. wrote on Nov 5^th, 2015 at 9:34pm:

[quote author=Timbo2530 link=1446681869/49#49 date=1446714946] To be fair that was when Kat was off his meds.......that's when his [i]National Socialist personality shows itself .... :D [/i]         I think he just misses Pol Pot.  :(

There is still Putin and assorted dictators for him to love.

innocentbystander. wrote on Nov 5^th, 2015 at 9:34pm:

I think he just misses Pol Pot.  :(

The same Khmer Rouge that was funded by the United States and Britain to kill Communists?  ;D

Who overthrew the Rouge? Oh right, dirty reds  ;D

Kiron22 wrote on Nov 6^th, 2015 at 8:46am:

innocentbystander. wrote on Nov 5th, 2015 at 9:34pm: I think he just misses Pol Pot.  :( The same Khmer Rouge that was funded by the United States and Britain to kill Communists?  ;D Who overthrew the Rouge? Oh right, dirty reds  ;D

Still waiting on your justification for the stupid statement about famine deaths.

Kiron22 wrote on Nov 6^th, 2015 at 8:46am:

innocentbystander. wrote on Nov 5th, 2015 at 9:34pm: I think he just misses Pol Pot.  :( The same Khmer Rouge that was funded by the United States and Britain to kill Communists?  ;D Who overthrew the Rouge? Oh right, dirty reds  ;D

What does that have to do with Kat missing Pol Pot?  ::)

innocentbystander. wrote on Nov 6^th, 2015 at 9:20am:

Kiron22 wrote on Nov 6th, 2015 at 8:46am: innocentbystander. wrote on Nov 5th, 2015 at 9:34pm: I think he just misses Pol Pot.  :( The same Khmer Rouge that was funded by the United States and Britain to kill Communists?  ;D Who overthrew the Rouge? Oh right, dirty reds  ;D What does that have to do with Kat missing Pol Pot?  ::)

It will be interesting to see where he got his Khmer Rouge reference from i.e. it was supported by the US and Brits

Its literal historical fact. Use google.

The Khmer Rouge was backed, funded and trained by the US and Britain. SAS were stationed in Khmer Rouge camps and were in charge of training.

"Enemy of my enemy is my friend" The Khmer rouge was a genocidal, insane, ethno-centric group, they despised Vietnamese and the US and UK were more than happy to facilitate that. Thatcher literally called them the most "reasonable" group to lead Cambodia.

Kiron22 wrote on Nov 6^th, 2015 at 8:46am:

innocentbystander. wrote on Nov 5th, 2015 at 9:34pm: I think he just misses Pol Pot.  :( The same Khmer Rouge that was funded by the United States and Britain to kill Communists?  ;D Who overthrew the Rouge? Oh right, dirty reds  ;D

Do you have any links to this comment ??? ;) ;)

aussie100percent wrote on Nov 6^th, 2015 at 10:35am:

Kiron22 wrote on Nov 6th, 2015 at 8:46am: innocentbystander. wrote on Nov 5th, 2015 at 9:34pm: I think he just misses Pol Pot.  :( The same Khmer Rouge that was funded by the United States and Britain to kill Communists?  ;D Who overthrew the Rouge? Oh right, dirty reds  ;D Do you have any links to this comment ??? ;) ;)

The Vietnamese invaded - ancient grudge...

Grappler Deep State Feller wrote on Nov 6^th, 2015 at 10:51am:

aussie100percent wrote on Nov 6th, 2015 at 10:35am: Kiron22 wrote on Nov 6th, 2015 at 8:46am: innocentbystander. wrote on Nov 5th, 2015 at 9:34pm: I think he just misses Pol Pot.  :( The same Khmer Rouge that was funded by the United States and Britain to kill Communists?  ;D Who overthrew the Rouge? Oh right, dirty reds  ;D Do you have any links to this comment ??? ;) ;) The Vietnamese invaded - ancient grudge...

You don't know do you?

Maqqa wrote on Nov 6^th, 2015 at 11:23am:

Grappler Deep State Feller wrote on Nov 6th, 2015 at 10:51am: aussie100percent wrote on Nov 6th, 2015 at 10:35am: Kiron22 wrote on Nov 6th, 2015 at 8:46am: innocentbystander. wrote on Nov 5th, 2015 at 9:34pm: I think he just misses Pol Pot.  :( The same Khmer Rouge that was funded by the United States and Britain to kill Communists?  ;D Who overthrew the Rouge? Oh right, dirty reds  ;D Do you have any links to this comment ??? ;) ;) The Vietnamese invaded - ancient grudge... You don't know do you?

;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Maqqa wrote on Nov 6^th, 2015 at 11:23am:

Grappler Deep State Feller wrote on Nov 6th, 2015 at 10:51am: aussie100percent wrote on Nov 6th, 2015 at 10:35am: Kiron22 wrote on Nov 6th, 2015 at 8:46am: innocentbystander. wrote on Nov 5th, 2015 at 9:34pm: I think he just misses Pol Pot.  :( The same Khmer Rouge that was funded by the United States and Britain to kill Communists?  ;D Who overthrew the Rouge? Oh right, dirty reds  ;D Do you have any links to this comment ??? ;) ;) The Vietnamese invaded - ancient grudge... You don't know do you?

Yes. We do.

BTW, did you now that Ho Chi Minh first approached the USA to help him gain Vietnam's independence
from the French?

No?

He did.

They told him to eff off because they were in bed with the pro-colonial South Vietnamese 'government'.

So he asked the USSR and they offered to help. He accepted.

Ho was no more a communist than you are.

But he used it as a means to an end. And rightly so.

Yes, we WERE on the wrong side in Vietnam.

Maqqa wrote on Nov 6^th, 2015 at 11:23am:

Grappler Deep State Feller wrote on Nov 6th, 2015 at 10:51am: aussie100percent wrote on Nov 6th, 2015 at 10:35am: Kiron22 wrote on Nov 6th, 2015 at 8:46am: innocentbystander. wrote on Nov 5th, 2015 at 9:34pm: I think he just misses Pol Pot.  :( The same Khmer Rouge that was funded by the United States and Britain to kill Communists?  ;D Who overthrew the Rouge? Oh right, dirty reds  ;D Do you have any links to this comment ??? ;) ;) The Vietnamese invaded - ancient grudge... You don't know do you?

Bit sluggish upstairs, aren't you?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambodian%E2%80%93Vietnamese_War

"The Cambodian–Vietnamese War was an armed conflict between the Socialist Republic of Vietnam and Democratic Kampuchea. In Vietnam, the war is called ""The campaign of counter-invasion at Vietnam's national South-West border" - Chiến dịch Phản công Biên giới Tây-Nam Việt Nam. The war began with isolated clashes along the land and maritime boundaries of Vietnam and Kampuchea between 1975 and 1977, occasionally involving division-sized military formations. On 25 December 1978, Vietnam launched a full-scale invasion of Kampuchea and subsequently occupied the country and removed the Khmer Rouge from power."

5-6 fools on this forum need to smarten up and shut up until they can handle the truth.  When you lot get past your high school, maybe you'll start to learn some things.  Until then don't expect to get the vote handed to you when you have nothing to offer but this kind of senseless garbage.   ;D  ;D  ;D

Owned again....

Kat wrote on Nov 6^th, 2015 at 5:07pm:

Yes. We do. BTW, did you now that Ho Chi Minh first approached the USA to help him gain Vietnam's independence from the French? No? He did. They told him to eff off because they were in bed with the pro-colonial South Vietnamese 'government'. So he asked the USSR and they offered to help. He accepted. Ho was no more a communist than you are. But he used it as a means to an end. And rightly so. Yes, we WERE on the wrong side in Vietnam.

Yep - Major George Patti was the man on the spot from OSS.  And I didn't even need to google that.... supplied the Vietnamese with arms to fight the Japanese and then the same uppity Viets fought the French when they wanted to come back after the end of WWII.

The ancient Khmer and Viets have always fought one another, for about two thousand years.....

Amazing, neh?  More amazing is the way the arrogant kids here (Cambodia was called the Kingdom of the Cruel Children under the Pol Pot regime in which fifteen year old kids with guns controlled entire villages and murdered, according to a Khmer I know, 50% of the population)  think they know better than their betters every time.

Give the vote to 16 year olds?  Not on your life! Hand a loaded gun to a hormone-crazed fool?  NEVER!

Me?  An International Man of Mystery?   Never made that claim......... don't have to....