The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > ‘Political Correctness’ mostly beaten-up, but is there a grain of truth? > Comments

‘Political Correctness’ mostly beaten-up, but is there a grain of truth? : Comments

By Tristan Ewins, published 6/12/2018

On the other hand parts of the self-identifying left these days have in many instances distanced themselves from class politics instead embracing identity politics and liberalism.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. Page 8
  10. 9
  11. All
[Cont.]
You sing the praises of socialism. Why?
Why do you think socialism is better than capitalism?
If you really want to pick the arguments apart the place we will end up is one where we see both ideologies flaws.
The place you really want to go isn't one or the other outright, it's been done before with horrific consequences.
It's in fine tuning a mixture of the two in a way where the benefits's of each ideology compliment the flaws of the other.

I'll tell you why I praise capitalism.
It's the idea that the person most suited or skilled for a particular task be given the responsibility of doing that task.
Its the idea that you choose the life you want, but you must accept the consequences of your choices.
It's the idea that if you only want to work 2 hrs a day and be rewarded for 2 hrs work you can do that.
But if you wish to get ahead and work 12 hrs a day and be rewarded for 12 hrs work you can do that too.

But capitalism IS flawed.
2 people go for the 1 job, and there can only be one winner which should always be issued on the basis of merit.
Someone always loses, and the loser gets nothing.
No job, no opportunity to take part in society.

What you need to do is fix that flaw.
Use the 5% unemployed pool of workers capitalism requires to prevent wage growth and create a socialist base-level employment system that ends the 'I can't get a job excuse'.
Double dole for full time work doing things to help the nation.
- And right there you'll have made a fairer and more efficient system.
And you'll remove many of the causes of these social programs you say we need but really don't, if you just help people to help themselves.

How do you provide free health and education if you don't provide a free job in order to pay for it?
Posted by Armchair Critic, Sunday, 9 December 2018 5:40:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
UBI is like this:
'We'll give everyone a $300 weekly paycheck before we even think about work.'
It's a system based around a free handout, when it should be based around a free hand-up.
Your paying the money out before it's even been earned.
ITS A FLAWED CONCEPT.

- Not to mention the actual numbers involved make it ridiculous.
- And most people don't any pay more in tax on full time wages than what they'd get on unemployment benefits, so how would it work - realistically?

And how is your system one that promotes and rewards participation?
And how does progress occur if we don't make decisions based on merit?

The only way you can make it work is if the UBI is about equal to the price of a bag of rice...

There was something I almost missed when I addressed your earlier response -
"A fair degree of redistribution is acceptable also; as 'supply and demand in the labour market' don't necessarily deliver justice."

This is insane thinking.
Anything that moves away from the idea that 'the best person qualified person for the job (male or female) should get the job' is ridiculous.
I don't even know how you could be so brainwashed as to entertain this line of thinking.
I don't understand how its possible a uni educated persons mind is devoid of logic.

So you're saying 'supply and demand in the labour market don't necessarily deliver justice' and that 'redistribution is acceptable'.
What you're talking about is creating artificial demand for women and minorities employment based on social justice rather than actual ability.

That's not the worst part - What you're saying is that it's ok to discriminate against whites (being the nations traditional inhabitants) and males (being the traditional working class) and non-gays, non conservatives etc. in order to pursue this ideological agenda.

All of your ideas are flawed, sorry.
Posted by Armchair Critic, Sunday, 9 December 2018 5:54:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
//Many people here are older Australians, and many did not have the opportunity to have a University education in air-con paid for as part of the 'social wage'.//

The rest of them are young enough to have enjoyed the benefits of free university or HECS, so if they missed out on university it's because they didn't study hard enough to earn a place, not because they were too poor.

No wonder they have such bad case of sour grapes and green-eyed resentment of those who did go to uni; the folks who were too poor can blame the system, but the dim kids have nobody to blame but themselves for playing silly buggers in class when they should have been listening.
Posted by Toni Lavis, Sunday, 9 December 2018 7:49:45 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
- Before someone else points out my error -
"What you're saying is that it's ok to discriminate against whites (being the nations traditional inhabitants)..."

Yes, I messed that one up.
- Obviously indigenous are the nations traditional inhabitants;
I suppose traditional 'culture', (or something) might've been better.
Posted by Armchair Critic, Sunday, 9 December 2018 8:52:30 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Armchair Critic ; Ideally I would like socialism ; genuine socialism ; what I would call a democratic mixed economy. But to be clear - most countries you would call socialist in fact have capitalist economies. Economies based o the profit motive, the exploitation of labour, private and concentrated ownership of the means of production. What you are talking about in part is 'meritocracy' ; which could have a place in both socialism and capitalism. The social wage and welfare state can in part be motivated my meritocracy. That is: there is redistribution in recognition that 'supply and demand in the labour market' doesn't fully relate to merit. On the other hand there's Marx's 'from each according to ability, to each according to need'. The social wage and welfare state can also be about providing for the needs of human beings regardless. The reality is that we live under capitalism, though - and the social wage and welfare state only moderate capitalism's extremes. But it means a great deal to those who may otherwise face ruin, destitution etc. Capitalism also involves inefficiencies in some cases compared with a socialist economy. Hence many economies compromised and allowed natural public monopolies for instance. On the other hand competition can drive quality and responsiveness. War Communism under the Bolsheviks showed the danger of taking change too far too quickly. Hence my preference is a 'democratic mixed economy'. ie: you don't abolish the market - you democratise it. Inc collective capital formation, co-operative enterprise etc.
Posted by Tristan Ewins, Sunday, 9 December 2018 9:04:38 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
@Foxy, Sunday, 9 December 2018 2:16:26 PM

What charming language Foxy. And from a PC-addict too.

That's what's wrong with PC-speak. It gives some people privilege to snipe at others whilst denying others an equal right of reply.

And what's with this stupid equation? "I am Iron Man!"? I'm thinking you must be a blonde Foxy. Are you a blonde?

For correct interpretation of "male" and "man" refer to the following:

http://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/male
Male
Adjective - Of or denoting the sex that produces gametes, especially spermatozoa, with which a female may be fertilized or inseminated to produce offspring.

http://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/man
Man
Noun - An adult human male.

There is a difference. Of course, under the new PC-dictionary "male" has now become a noun to describe the gender of men, boys and trans men, and is in broad usage. That's another thing wrong with PC; it corrupts language.

So, in the spirit of non-PC and in accordance with your inappropriate precedent I'm going to tell you that-

Acting like a c--t
won't make yours any tighter.
Posted by voxUnius, Monday, 10 December 2018 11:05:52 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. Page 8
  10. 9
  11. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy