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 > General Discussion > Were the Apostles actually 'communists'?

Were the Apostles actually 'communists'?

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 32
  7. 33
  8. 34
  9. All
[Acts of the Apostles 2:44-45]
"Now all who believed were together, and had all things in common. And sold their possessions and goods, and divided them among all, as anyone had need."

Notwithstanding Karl Marx's massive underestimation of people's need and love for superstition, it appears that the apostles had a very 'communist' socio/economic structure.

Perhaps if the communism had not set itself so directly against religion, it would be the preferred economic structure of Christians?

In any event it seems to imply that individualism and the retention of personal wealth while others starve was not their way of living.
Posted by Rob513264, Sunday, 11 March 2007 5:23:49 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
Rob, wasnt the message of Jesus that you had to give away all of your possessions in order to receive? Not many Christians live by that creed. In fact, I dont know a single one that does.
Posted by Country Gal, Monday, 12 March 2007 10:16:11 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
Yeah, talking the talk is easy, but walking the walk is harder.
This is probably what Rudd meant by Christian Socialism.

I'm pretty convinced Jesus was a socialist - plenty of his words can be attributed to socialist beliefs, but I don't recall hearing him espousing the virtues of the free market economy.
Posted by TurnRightThenLeft, Monday, 12 March 2007 10:27:43 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
Hi ... being in the business of looking at theology and the New Testament I suppose you could say that the 12 Apostles were into communism. Mind you what we have is "Luke's" idealised version of the Christian Community at the time... the so called "Golden Age" which never existed.

Jesus' main teaching role was to try to return people to the basics of acting justly and righteously which meant caring for those who didn't have a lot and making sure everyone was looked after. One of the reasons that Judaism was popular in the ancient world amongst pagans (the so called god fearers) was because of their teachings about social justice. The whole prophetic literature of the Jewish Scriptures or Old Testament is about calling people back to living justly and according to the tenets of the Law which meant that people were cared for.

Chris Lawrance
Posted by chris61, Monday, 12 March 2007 10:52:27 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
The Jerusalem christians did try to live by this rule and did communalise their assets and Paul spent a lot of time running around the 'diaspora' congregations raising money to rescue the Jerusalem group from the financial mess that ensued from their misguided, misinterpretation of Jesus' message. They were obviously a terribly ungrateful lot and despised Paul in spite of his efforts on their behalf.
Look to the Old Testament for some sound social principles. To the extent that Jesus was a socialist he was just expounding the principles at the basis of Jewish Law and condemning the abuses of power inherent in the Herodian alliance with the Romans. He was not inventing anything new.
Posted by waterboy, Monday, 12 March 2007 11:09:24 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
Country Gal,

Taking Jesus' words literally you are absolutely right and I havent seen any Christians living by that standard either.
Posted by waterboy, Monday, 12 March 2007 11:31:22 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
Interesting thread Rob513264

Rosa Luxembourg, a Polish socialist eventually murdered by the Nazis wrote an article in 1905 “Socialism and the Churches”, which can be found here: http://marxists.anu.edu.au/archive/luxemburg/1905/misc/socialism-churches.htm

It traces the history of Christianity, and discusses the Church’s misuse of Christ’s teachings to build and cement its own power and privilege.

There are no doubt some “true” Christians who attempt to live their lives according to Christ’s precepts. However, many more “Christians” are consciously or unconsciously hypocrites.

Christians certainly don’t have a monopoly on generosity - the majority of people in the world never get enough to give away anyway, yet they still share what they have around. Many ordinary people in wealthy societies, Christian or not, also give away proportionally large amounts compared to what they earn e.g. Tsunami donations, child sponsoring etc, not because of what Christ said, or for everlasting life, but because they are humans helping other humans in need – co-operation is one of the reasons why we are so successful as a species.

However, the reality is that we can’t all be ascetics. It is not ordinary people who are to blame for what goes on in the world, and they ought not to have to further deprive themselves, when there are, relatively speaking, a handful of people in the world with obscene amounts of wealth. The top 1% of the world’s adults own 40% of the world’s wealth.

To my way of thinking Christ’s main criticisms were directed at the rich and greedy few, as well as warning ordinary people that acquiring private, personal riches was not the pathway to happiness. Christ and his followers probably were communists or socialists, even revolutionaries in their own time, however not in the Marxist sense i.e. scientific socialist revolutionaries.

Giving your wealth away and living communally does not and will not change the economic system which gives rise to the obscene disparity of wealth that exists today i.e. capitalism. Revolutionary Marxists believe that the entire system needs to be changed consciously by the majority, not just individual (or even collective) behaviour within it.
Posted by tao, Monday, 12 March 2007 3:46:49 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
TEAM.. just to correct a little misunderstanding of some.

Jesus didn't actually say give away all you have as is being bandied around here. Its an important topic, so lets explore it.

When crowds of people followed Jesus for selfish reasons (He healed).. he turned to them and said

"If any man would follow me... Let him:
-Deny himself
-Take up his cross daily
-follow me.

FOR...
24For whoever wants to save his life will lose it,
but
whoever loses his life for me will save it.
What good is it for a man to gain the whole world, and yet lose or forfeit his very self?
If anyone is ashamed of me and my words, the Son of Man will be ashamed of him when he comes in his glory.

CONTEXT.. "Discipleship" the cost of following.. Loses one's life means to give it over to God. God/Christ centred and no longer self centred.

The Lord does say 'give to him who asks, and don't ask it back' so.. generosity is a principle characteristic of genuine faith. But at the same time, be aware that Jesus said in the same sermon on the mount "If you eye sins, gouge it out".. so, I believe He was calling us to reflect in the most serious way about our motives and inner condition.
Taking his words 'literally' in places where they are not meant to be, could cause overload at the emergency dept of every hospital.

Not taking them literally when they ARE meant to be literal, will produce shallow, namby pamby, hyprocritical Christians.

One most important point to note about the topic.. is how the honeymoon actually ended. Its in Acts 6:1 :)
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=51&chapter=6&version=31
I won't say what it was, but some energetic person can post it here next.....its worth a look.
1/ The problem ?
2/ The cause of the problem ?
3/ The Solution ?
Posted by BOAZ_David, Monday, 12 March 2007 7:52:01 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
BOAZ

Luke 18 22ff (Jesus speaking directly to a man, described as a ruler)
"One thing you still lack. Sell all that you have and distribute it to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me"

This is not a parable. It is Jesus direct answer to a man who asks the question "What must I do".

Like I said, if you take Jesus words literally then you ought to give away all earthly possessions.
Posted by waterboy, Monday, 12 March 2007 9:20:15 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
Yes waterboy,

I suspect Boaz is one of the many hypocritical Christians putting themselves through logical contortions to justify to themselves and us their unChristianlike behaviour. Its amazing the rubbish they come up with.

I was wondering how long it would take for Boaz to make his presence felt on this thread. Always on the hunt for an opportunity to bible bash. Pity he doesn't do some introspection. I believe it was Jesus who warned us to beware of those who do their praying in public like the evangelicals - go into your room BOAZ where only God can see you. We'll all be much better off.

Didn't Jesus say it was easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to get to heaven? Ever managed to get a camel through the eye of a needle BOAZ?

Regardless of what BOAZ says or deludes himself with, it's pretty damn clear to me what Jesus meant - and I'm not even a Christian.
Posted by tao, Monday, 12 March 2007 10:37:48 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
By the way BOAZ,

Maybe you should take Jesus' words literally. As well as "if your eye sins, gouge it out" how about 'if your tongue lies, cut it out' and 'if your fingers type delusional self-justifications, cut them off'.

:)
Posted by tao, Monday, 12 March 2007 10:55:19 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
Waterboy.. well said.. glad you came across that passage.

Consider this. Jesus knew that the man was treasuring his possessions. He pinpointed the very thing which was holding the man back. If the man was having an adulterous relationship, I have a feeling Jesus would have mentioned something along those lines.

The point about commitment, is that it must be 100% and total, this means that all we have is now Gods, rather than ours, and our use of material resources are for Him rather than for us.

There is a danger of taking a text, and without the larger context, making it a pretext.... "Jesus told this man to give away all his wealth"..so.. "we must do likewise". (and expect others to feed us"?)

Lets look at another.

"Judas went and hung himself"
"Do thou likewise"..
"What you do, do with your whole heart"

In regard to discipleship, Jesus clearly said
-"deny self"
-"Take up your cross"
-"Follow Him"

"Self" seeks riches. The Christian seeks his daily bread. There is nothing wrong with maintaining a life based on 'daily sufficiency'.
In my case, I plan to be as free as possible from the daily concerns so I can spend more time proclaiming Christ.

TAO.. *ouch* mate... hey.. If you push suchandsuch-ism, its ok, but if I proclaim Christ its 'Bible Bashing' ? :) c'mon...even steven old boy. I'll pick your ideas to bits, and ur welcome to pick mine to bits, but all in a constructive and well meaning direction I hope.

Introspection I need ? I do it regularly moit. But 'praying in public'... hmmm The pharisee was priding himself on his self righteousness, and comparing himself with 'that sinner'. When I talk to God, I tell him how unworthy I am, and express my need for forgiveness...I don't recall making any particular claim to personal holiness such as the pharisee did...do you ?
I say "Jesus is our Saviour.. come to Him in repentance and seek forgiveness" we are saved by Grace, not by being 'better' than anyone.
Posted by BOAZ_David, Tuesday, 13 March 2007 6:38:13 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
Oooooh Tao.... you are so busted :)

You pick me for 'Bible Bashing' but wait... lets see what Tao is on about here....

[The problems faced by workers the world over cannot be solved on a national basis, and can only be solved by the unification of the INTERNATIONAL working class against the international capitalist system by reorganizing society on a socialist basis i.e. according to the needs of the majority of ordinary working people.]

Now.. call me stoopid, but that sure looks like an ideological rant to me :)

Ok.. now its time to pick that to pieces. (the vultures have found the prey and are descending)

Firstly, your observations about Labor and Hawke etc (in the other thread) are very appropriate. But your RESPONSE is totally wrong.

Read Acts 6:1 to see exactly WHY it is wrong. People are still people.
You speak of an international working class ? mate..that is absolute rot.. todays 'working man' is tomorrows capitalist if you give him half a chance. Capitalism IS a problem, but so is 'Socialism' as you present it.

In the end, the best thing is a balance between private initiative and social responsibility. You cannot legislate 'morality' in the sense of changing peoples hearts, you can only legislate to restrain the selfish natural inclination of people.

Socialism didn't work for the early Church, well.. it did for a while, but.. then the beaurocracy began "Choose men from among you"

A spirit filled local Church works very well. People are cared for. Those with '2 tunics' often share one with he who has none... but don't let your left hand know what your right is doing...
You cannot 'legislate' this.. it must come from the heart.
While Jesus changes our hearts, it is a moment by moment relationship.

Socialism without God, is a barren stark wasteland of empty hopelessness....thats my opinion.
Posted by BOAZ_David, Tuesday, 13 March 2007 7:02:26 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
Boaz,

If you read my post carefully you will see that I was adjusting Country Gals post by qualifying it with "Taking Jesus words literally..."

"Biblical literalism" is a corruption of the Christian religion (or Judaism for that matter), as you say.

Actually, I think Country Gals point is valid that People in Australia, Christians included, are devoted to their material possessions.... just like the ruler in Luke 18:22. The context is relevant and only sharpens the point of the passage.

But really, this thread is about the origins of socialist and communist ideas and you have to admit it is easy to see how Jesus teachings could be interpreted in socialist and even communist terms.BUT Jesus was really a Jew calling Jews back to the principles underlying their own law. The ideas in Jesus teaching that are open to Socialist and Communist interpretation have their roots deep in Hebraic traditions. The Hebrews and subsequently the Jews knew what God required of them long before Jesus came along to remind them... yet again.
Posted by waterboy, Tuesday, 13 March 2007 8:06:46 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
Waterboy.... I don't feel the ancient Judaistic traditions show a socialist (in the modern sense of that word) approach to society, I think they have a mix of capitalist/private enterprise + social welfare in a very balanced way.
Then, there is the extra features like the year of Jubilee and many other interesting aspects which would probably make a modern Jewish Banker cringe :)

The provision for the widow and alien and fatherless are outstanding, along with the forgiveness of debt in the year of Jubilee.
The social/economic structure was such that no one should ever fall into an inescapable poverty trap.

It should be remembered though by all, that this was tied to Gods great act of Salvation in bringing the Israelites out of slavery in Egypt, and that they were constantly reminded that kindness of God to them, should result in kindness of them to their fellow man.

Socialism seems to have the idea of looking after everyone, but... it neglects that deepest need of man, to have a relationship with his creator. It also neglects that without divine authority for the ideas it is based on, it is no more valid than any other set of ideas, such as capitalism or even nihilism.

TAO may wish to comment there. (but I'll put on my protective vest and head gear first :)
Posted by BOAZ_David, Tuesday, 13 March 2007 8:23:35 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
BOAZ,

The Qumran community also seems to have practised some of these 'socialist' and perhaps 'communist' ideals.
So there is another instance of the same principles emerging within the Jewish milieu.
It seems Jesus was neither unique nor original in espousing 'socialist' principles. It was in the air. The Jewish air... BCE.

Now... wasnt Karl Marx from a Jewish family (albeit turned Protestant Christian)?
Posted by waterboy, Tuesday, 13 March 2007 3:12:23 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
David… David … David,

“Socialism seems to have the idea of looking after everyone, but... it neglects that deepest need of man, to have a relationship with his creator. It also neglects that without divine authority for the ideas it is based on, it is no more valid than any other set of ideas, such as capitalism or even nihilism.”

I, and other socialists, are quite happy to allow the validity of our “set of ideas” to be subjected to critical analysis, compared and contrasted with other “sets of ideas”, tested for truth, etc etc, and we are happy to do so without recourse to any “divine authority” – we don’t need that crutch.

In fact, the lack of divine authority, or unsubstantiated and irrational assertions, is a fundamental tenet of socialism. What that means is that statements such as “it neglects the deepest need of man, to have a relationship with his creator” being an unsubstantiated assertion, and essentially unprovable, is not a reliable basis upon which to take action. Where is your proof of a creator? Why should anyone accept your statement? Just because….. it’s the “truth”?

Similarly, comments such as:

“Read Acts 6:1 to see exactly WHY it is wrong. People are still people.
You speak of an international working class ? mate..that is absolute rot.. todays 'working man' is tomorrows capitalist if you give him half a chance”

Do you deny that there is an international working class? Do you deny that there are multitudes of workers in all countries of the world that have no way to earn their “daily bread” other than to sell their labour?
Posted by tao, Tuesday, 13 March 2007 11:39:35 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
On what objective basis do you make the generalisation that “todays ‘working-man’ is tomorrows capitalist if you give him half a chance”. Where is your proof? I would suggest that essentially most working people just want a decent roof over their heads, food on the table, education and medical care for their children, and some quality recreation, and an opportunity to contribute to their communities and reach their potential, and knowledge that they will be looked after in their old age – normal things that everyone in the world should be entitled to given our level of technological capabilities. Even if SOME of them become capitalists, it doesn’t mean ALL of them will or even want to. Don’t judge others by your own greedy standards BOAZ.

The only attempted substantiation for your comments is some irrelevant passage from a book written thousands of years ago when capitalism didn’t exist, and there wasn’t even a working class as we know it. Next thing you’ll do is tell me that the bible is the word of God, and is the only “divine authority” by which we should measure our “set of ideas”. That is, you will resort to your crutch. Not doubt you’ll tell me that my problem is that I don’t believe in God, who you can’t prove exists, and so I should just have faith and the “truth” of God’s word will be revealed to me.

In your own words “mate..that is absolute rot”.

The fact is BOAZ, that Jesus did preach against accumulating wealth – “store not up for yourselves treasures on earth”, and early Christians did live in a communal way – probably because of what he taught them. Hypocrites like you twisting his words to justify your own accumulation of worldly goods are disgusting – and I’m not even a Christian.

The deepest need of man (and woman) is not to have a relationship with his creator who doesn’t exist, but to have real relationships with each other i.e. real live human beings, which are not mediated and mutilated by inhuman capitalist property relations and religious delusions.
Posted by tao, Tuesday, 13 March 2007 11:40:37 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
Tao Tao :)

good interaction there.. except the imputation of 'greedy' motives to me. *Gentle push kick*

I see ur points.. no drama there. I don't know that Jesus taught communalism.. though it was indeed practiced by the very first Christians. Jesus DID unquestionably teach moderation and your verse is most appropriate.
One of my favorites is the one where the man had filled his storehouses, and his delimma was what to do now ? So, rather than simply enjoy life, he decides to build BIGGER store houses and accumulate more stuff.. aah..but.. BUT.. suddenly "Your soul is required of you this night" and it was all for nothing.

I feel you are locking people in when you say "There is an international working class".. its too much of 'us/them'..
Capitalism DID exist in the Old Testament. It was the economic basis of society, but they also had the checks and balances so that no one would go hungry if they didn't want to. Harvest was always not to be to the nth degree..but to allow enough for gleaners.. the fatherless and the widow and the alien.

I want to repeat another great aspect of ancient Israeli society.. the concept of Jubilee.. its worth a squizz.
In spite of the rather harsh punishments for sin, they also had very amazingly just and fair concepts of economics. Much of the 'slavery' was no worse than me working for the Commonwealth Bank to repay my mortgage. (Until I pay it off, I can't say I work 4 myself eh :)

But there is no question that private enterprise was the basic means of economic growth then. Land holdings, acquiring more land, flocks, herds...etc..straight out capitalism.

Its worth noting in that connection that as soon as Abraham and his nepher Lot reached a certain stage of economic growth, conflict arose.
They became 'bigger' than the available land, and rather than downsize their flocks, Lot just wanted more land at Abrahams expense.
Lot was the 'capitalist pig dog' :) Abraham was more the Socialist.
Posted by BOAZ_David, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 5:53:51 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
Didn't Nietzsche make an ironic observation about English socialists wanting to replace God with more of the same? Christianity and socialism are merely different denominations of the same religion appealing to the same unfounded gods for the poor and weak. They both want to solve the world's "problems", even if that means forcing people to do what's "good" for them because they're both driven by social misfits plagued by megalomania. The gulag and the inquisition both arise from the same world view and are the logical endpoints of it.
Posted by shorbe, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 2:09:13 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
Boaz,

I think you have a real conflict in your life. You are still trying to modify Jesus’ teachings to suit your activities.

Jesus said “No one can serve to masters for either he will hate the one and love the other, or else he will be loyal to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon. Therefore I say to you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat or what you will drink; nor about your body, what you will put on. Is not life more than food and the body more than clothing?”

Yet you say, “In my case, I plan to be as free as possible from the daily concerns so I can spend more time proclaiming Christ.” And now you say Jesus preaches moderation. One man’s moderation is another man’s excess. Jesus wasn’t telling you to decide how much moderation you will partake in, he was saying devote everything to God, and your daily concerns will be provided by God. You’re going about it backwards – worrying about your daily concerns before you proclaim Christ. You are hedging your bets. Do you trust in God to provide BOAZ or not? If not, if you don’t do as Jesus says, how can you honestly go about proclaiming him?

As I said before, if your fingers type self-justifying untruths, cut them off.

As to your comments: “I feel you are locking people in when you say "There is an international working class".. its too much of 'us/them'”

I’m not locking anyone into anything. The international working class is an objective fact which exists outside of what I call them. Working class people do not own the means of production and must sell their labour, and there are many of them all over the globe.
Posted by tao, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 8:41:43 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
International working class is a precise term which describes something which exists, whether I call it that or not. If the term assists members of that class to understand the exact relationship they have with the means of production, then all the better. If it assists workers to understand that they have common interests which are in opposition to “them” the international capitalist class, then much the better.

As for how you “feel” about it, having a problem with the ‘us/them’ concept is pretty rich coming from a guy who believes in a creed that consider “them” who don’t come to Christ are dastardly sinners sent by the devil to tempt “us” pure Christians, and who will burn in hell.

You are also wrong in your comments about capitalism existing in the Old Testament. The Bible describes a period of development of human production, and humanity’s ideas which arose from that stage of development – but it was nothing like modern capitalism which is again a precise term. Prior to the period described by the Bible there were no “lots” of land, people did live communally and shared the product of their labour in small groups. You are right that there was a conflict which arose from increased production, and probably population. Jesus’ teachings were an attempt to resolve and eliminate those conflicts – by trying to reverse the process. However despite 2000 years, and Christianity spreading across the globe, it didn’t make people “downsize their flock” and aren’t you glad about that? If everyone had decreased their flock, and not worked to build on technological gains, you’d still be tending the goats.

Time and production has marched on. An unscientific book written thousands of years ago which is purportedly the word of a God who doesn’t exist is not going to solve the problems we are faced with today.
Posted by tao, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 8:42:14 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
There is a key difference between the Apostles and communism/socialism - CHOICE.

Being part of the early christian church and the sharing of wealth was a voluntary choice. Being a member of a socialist country doesn't let you decide if you share your possessions or not.
Posted by StewartGlass, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 9:09:36 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
Amen Stewart.. amen !

Tao.. you describe an international working class as though they can never lift themselves OUT of it....hence you are locking them in.
A working blue collar person can get out on weekends and mow factory lawns and gradually build up a JIMS MOWING ..which is a capitalist activity. You would deny such a person this ? That is an economic prison I'd hate to live in, where nothing I dream up can ever succeed because Tao has told me "Your just working class.. you can't be an employer"

Tao.. if I was as you say, then I would not have consciously given my inheritance away.. (over 30 yrs ago) trusting in God to provide my needs. So, I don't need to goto Bishop Tao's confessional on that one mate.

Have a close look at Ancient Israel. It was basically capitalist where peole 'sold' their labor to others. Yet, it had provision for no-one to lack their daily neccessities.

Selling your labor to others is quite ok... even in a Socialist state you are selling your labor to the State.. and getting little back for it I might add..

I'm glad about one thing.. YOU ARE READING YOUR BIBLE :) and in this I rejoice !
May God bless you with insight appropriate to find Salvation in Christ. (and in him.. Life indeed)
Posted by BOAZ_David, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 9:34:43 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
BOAZ/Stew

Read Acts 5:1-11
Ananias and Sapphira might have a problem with your assertion that they had the freedom to choose. So Christianity offers a choice? Nice choice... you can hand over ALL your possessions to the apostles OR say goodnight!
Posted by waterboy, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 10:20:34 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
Boaz,

Now who is imputing? Where did I say the international working class could never get out of it? Where did I say “You’re just working class… you can’t be an employer?” NOWHERE. Get your facts right BOAZ. Don’t put words in my mouth that I didn’t say. You speak with forked tongue.

I’m not the one creating an economic prison, it already exists – in reality for millions of people. Sure there are some people who can get themselves a Jim’s Mowing franchise. Whoopdee Doo. The fact is BOAZ not everyone can be, or wants to be an employer. Not everyone wants to exploit other people’s labour – and that is what being a capitalist employer is. What ever happened to do unto others etc? You don’t want to work for others, so the solution is to employ others? What kind of logic is that? BOAZ-hypocrite logic obviously.

The fact is BOAZ, that employers need people to employ. In order to be a profitable capitalist you need a situation where people have no choice but to take the job you give them for the money you are prepared to pay – and that pay must be lower than the price you eventually sell the goods for - exploitation. If everyone went out and got themselves a franchise etc there would be no-one to employ. So an individual might be able to “get out” and become a capitalist but there must be a reserve of people who don’t “get out” for whatever reason.

Capitalism requires for its very existence a working class to exploit, the poorer the better, so don’t pretend one doesn’t exist. You are simply denying reality.

Socialism is the only solution for ALL OF THE WORKING CLASS, not just individuals within it. It is the only way that all workers will “get out”, and that humanity itself will “get out” of the coming period of capitalist barbarism.
Posted by tao, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 11:42:11 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
Socialism has helped the "working class" so well in...umm...umm...hang on, it will come to me in a second...

Eastern Europeans couldn't wait to shake off socialism. The Chinese are socialists in name only, and the rest of the socialist nations on this planet are either rapidly distancing themselves from it (or in the case of an inane few, embracing it) or held in check by corrupt, brutal regimes while the people starve. Rolling in the tanks, and the gulag and bread queue are the inevitable end points of socialism, which is precisely why Eastern Europeans couldn't wait to throw the whole thing off. Instead of living high off the hog in the capitalist West any would-be socialists should actually spend some time speaking to people who lived in "socialist" countries. However, then they'd have to encounter the hypocrisy and inanity of their positions.

Socialists are no different from any other scare-mongering priests preaching the evil of man's ways and that salvation is at hand if only X, Y and Z are followed. If they can't scare people, they'll declare revolution/crusade/jihad.
Posted by shorbe, Thursday, 15 March 2007 2:19:29 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
shorbe

You're getting socialism a little mixed up with communism, I suspect, or at the very least, you're referring to one facet of socialist theory.

You can have degrees of socialism - in theory, the Labour Party is Australia's socialist party, though you certainly won't hear them calling themselves that, for the very reason that most perceive it as a monolithic concept, when there are varying degrees.

Consider democratic socialism, which merely seeks to address flaws in capitalism. It is effectively referring to anything which counters complete free-market concepts.
For instance, if you've ever opposed the privatisation of a corporation such as Telstra, or if you've even been a proponent for rising minimum wages, you are in effect, counteracting a free market system, and advocating a course of democratic socialism.
I'm certainly of the view that there is a middle ground here, with a capitalist based economy with all core services being socialised to ensure equity of access - education, communications, water etc.

The complete socialist model, with the government directly controlling the economy would be the nasty result you describe - and to have it foisted upon you by revolutionaries is the textbook description of communism, and should be opposed at all costs...

So yeah, I think that the apostles were democratic socialists, insofar as they believed the poor deserved to be treated in a just manner - and that the rich should give to the poor when necessary (ultimately, the core precept of socialism).

Sorry if I'm sounding a little preachy - but it just gets up my nose when socialism in its entirety is assumed to be a dirty word.
Posted by TurnRightThenLeft, Thursday, 15 March 2007 4:10:28 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
The Jerusalem Church is indeed a model of early socialism, in more ways than just it’s idealism.

Like modern socialist states, it was underpinned by violence (Acts 5.1-11).

Its egalitarianism was more rhetoric than reality, with a ruling elite (Acts 6.1-7) that also controlled the purse strings (Acts 4.35), and a tendency to sectarianism and exclusiveness.

It was penurious, relying on handouts from Diaspora churches (1 Cor 16).

And it didn’t work. The Jerusalem church disappears from the historical and ecclesial map after the fall of the Temple.

Our church grew out of Diaspora churches such as those founded by Paul.

Paul was no modern-day capitalist and very egalitarian in his way, but had some recognisably small-business values of pride in economic self-sufficiency and a fierce work ethic (1 Thess 2.9, II Cor 11.7-10), and refusing to live off others, even when it is his right (1 Cor 9).

II Thess 3 outlines Paul’s view on the obligation to the balance between of including the statement “Anyone unwilling to work should not eat” which makes modern-day socialists wince
Posted by Rhian, Thursday, 15 March 2007 7:40:05 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
Great post Rhian!

That is as good a summary of the issue as we're going to get.
Posted by waterboy, Thursday, 15 March 2007 8:11:32 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
Waterboy:

Regarding Ananias and Sapphira falling dead after holding back thier possessions - if you believe God did it, then I am not one to argue with Him. If you don't believe in God then they just died of natural causes. Either way, the apostles didn't force them to be apart of the communal system. This is more than can be said of many citizens in communist or socialist societies regarding wealth distribution.
Posted by StewartGlass, Thursday, 15 March 2007 11:24:06 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
Dear Tao
I want to address one point in your last post.

You say capitalism requires a working class to 'exploit'. And that not everyone wants to be an employer..

On the first point, I disagree and agree. Its all about ethics.
"utilize" is a more friendly term when it comes to employing people.
It does not have to be an 'unfair' or unust economic relationship.

Any employer who thinks they can get away with unfair or unjust or miserly wages to their workers, will have the following outcomes.

1/ Quality of work and committment will be virtually negative.
2/ His business will therefore suffer and go down the toilet.

It is always in the interests of an employer to pay workers as much as the business can sustain. Happy workers are productive ones.
This goes for the employER as well as the employEE.
No one wants to committ all their superannuation, inheritance (if they have one) mortgate their home (again) and savings into an enterprise which has little return.

So, the checks and balances in the employer/ee relationship are that it has to work for all sides. How you get 'exploitation' out of this I don't know. YES.. there are employers who think they can 'have it all'.. pay as little as possible and get a BIG return in their business, but that type usually come unstuck sooner if not later.

Also, employees have CHOICE...they can take a walk to the next exployer who offers a better deal.

RHIAN.. great post :) love the scripture refs.
Waterboy and Stewart..ditto.. well said.

Now we just need to take Tao off for some remedial counselling :)
woops..hang on.. in his world its 'Re-Education Camps and hard labor' :) Tao.. I'm teasing old son.
Posted by BOAZ_David, Friday, 16 March 2007 5:39:37 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
Stew,

The story of Ananias and Sapphira would be pretty pointless if they just died of natural causes. It would also be a remarkable coincidence of both timing and circumstances if it happened just as described had they died of natural causes. The point is that they died BECUASE they failed to give all their possessions. It is a sign to others and carries a certain ring of compulsion if you ask me.

As the story is told, we are meant to come to the conclusion that their deaths were some sort of Divine intervention. What matters is NOT the historical veracity of the episode but the narrative and its theological purpose. It is a sign to the reader to understand the nature of God and the relationship between God and the community of Christians. It is an ugly, unpleasant story and one that is clearly abhorrent to our modern, western sensitivities. But there it is... part of the Christian tradition. Judge for yourself whether it is valid to draw any parallels to Stalin's Russia. Personally I dont because I regard this as literature and not history.
Posted by waterboy, Friday, 16 March 2007 8:19:16 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
BOAZ,

“You-say-capitalism-requires-a-working-class-to-'exploit'.-And-that-not-everyone-wants-to-be-an-employer..-

On-the-first-point,-I-disagree-and-agree.-Its-all-about-ethics.
"utilize"-is-a-more-friendly-term-when-it-comes-to-employing-people.
It-does-not-have-to-be-an-'unfair'-or-unust-economic-relationship.”

You can ‘utilize’ as many ‘friendly’ terms as you like to make you ‘feel’ better about things, but it doesn’t change the essential nature of the employer/employee relationship.

The definition of exploit is to take advantage of a person or situation unfairly or unethically for one’s own ends – look it up in the dictionary. That is what employers do.

In the final analysis, the only reason millions of people all over the world go to work for others is because they have no other way to obtain the resources on which they and their families can SURVIVE. Capitalist employers own the means by which humanity produces those resources – the tools, and they will not give the products away without ‘profiting’ from them.

What it means is that millions of people all over the world go to work every day and produce goods with their labour. But those goods don’t belong to the people who produce them, they belong to the owner of the tools, or the employer, who ‘utilizes’ workers to ‘utilize’ the tools. The employer then sells the goods produced by the workers back to the workers for a higher price than he paid to the workers to produce the goods - profit.

So the relatively few employers, who as a class own the means by which humanity produces its sustenance, take advantage of the fact that there are millions of people who can’t get what they need to survive unless they sell their labour because as a class they don’t own the tools to ‘utilize’ for their own sustenance. Employers take advantage of what is in reality a life or death situation for workers for their own profitable ends.

So as an individual employee, sure I can “walk to the next employer who offers a better deal” and I have done so, but it doesn’t change my relationship to the means of production, or the nature of my relationship to my employers, regardless of how well they treat me while ‘utilizing’ me in their ‘enlightened’ self-interest – it is still exploitation.
Posted by tao, Friday, 16 March 2007 7:29:57 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
/waits for Boaz to respond with a quote from the Bible.
/waits for tao to parrot Marx.
/waits for an original idea.
/waits for the two to go around in an endless circle based on nothing resembling reality.
Posted by shorbe, Friday, 16 March 2007 9:14:34 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
Well Shorbe,

Unfortunately we can't be all as cynical, all-knowing, all-dismissing, and all-hating as a Nietzschian like you.

No need to stick around if you don't like it. I believe syphilus, or something as equally unpleasant, was Nietzsche's end. An unedifying and humanity-hating life, madness, then death.
Posted by tao, Friday, 16 March 2007 10:05:42 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
tao: I'd say you are as cynical, dismissive and all-hating as me, whilst also claiming to be all-knowing. Personally, I find it somewhat amusing seeing you and BOAZ battle it out, although it is a bit tired. The thing is though, that despite being pretty anti-religion myself, I don't find BOAZ to be that bad. He seems somewhat personable.

Where most socialists completely miss the boat, I believe, is not over whether or not their particular doctrine is true or not, but the fact that they're so fundamentalist about it and that they have little to no sense of humour. Most of them could quite easily go and join Al Qaeda, the Neo-Nazis or any other ratbag group and no one would know the difference because it has nothing to do with the belief systems and everything to do with the dysfunctional personalities. It's all the same rhetoric. That's precisely why socialism is doomed to fail -- there's a massive irony in a movement that claims to be of or for the people yet is, beneath the surface, so anti-human and so contemptuous of people. Jesus, go and read some Kundera for Bog's sake (or ask some Czechs or Slovaks to tell you about the significance of 21/8/68), or actually go and spend time in the former Iron Curtain. In particular, go and visit the museum in Riga or the former KGB headquarters in Vilnius.

I am a misanthrope, but I'm not hypocritically trying to claim the role of mankind's benefactor.

Look though, maybe I am a smug bastard, but I can sit back and point to the history books. China's not even Communist anymore. Does anyone really think Cuba will outlast Fidel? How long will it be before Venezuela swings to an equally absurd right wing government? So what does that leave us with? Great bastions like Belarus or North Korea. You keep telling yourself that one day we're all going to go to Heaven though, I mean have a Worker's Revolution...if only we see the sins of man and accept Marx as our personal saviour.
Posted by shorbe, Friday, 16 March 2007 10:37:56 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
Shorbe,

I’ve had the discussion with you before about the difference between socialism and Stalinism. Your “argument” is bereft of serious analysis, and full of superficial and impressionistic opinion.

Instead of being facetious and relying on capitalist perpetuated “common knowledge”, “history” and generalizations, why don’t you actually try to argue a specific point that I’ve made and show me where I’m incorrect?

As for my sense of humour, well you’re just a laugh a minute aren’t you?

Excuse me if I don’t find war and exploitation amusing enough for you. Or is the problem perhaps that I don’t dismiss other peoples’ suffering as irrelevant to my own little world like you do? Why don’t you just trot off to your little self-sufficient plot of land and escape from the world – you don’t need anyone do you?

I can see humour in many things Shorbe, but I’m not about to let “personable” people get away with “friendly” little euphemisms to hide the unpalatable truth of capitalist exploitation just because someone tries to make a joke of it.

And Nietzsche’s not your Marx or Christ?

You seem to closely follow his dictum of offering up depressing negativity, and absolutely nothing constructive to humanity. Where is the originality in what you contribute?

If it’s all so pointless to you why even bother continuing to “contribute” to this forum? What do you have to offer anyone?

Pessimism the great panacea!
Posted by tao, Friday, 16 March 2007 11:54:33 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
Early Christianity was very similar to the ideals and philosophies of early communism.
"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need!" Marx

"And all that believed were together, and had all things common; And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need." (Luke Acts 2:44-45)

Somewhere along the line they both got buggered up.
Posted by michael2, Saturday, 17 March 2007 10:14:24 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
tao: Your base argument is disingenuous because you want to condemn any other ideology's worst excesses and argue such systems inevitably lead from A to B. However, you're not willing to accept any of the inevitable excesses of Marxism.

At the bottom line, any political ideology that is not pluralistic must force itself upon people who won't toe the line, which is precisely why the tanks rolled into Czechoslovakia on 21/8/68. This didn't spring out of some corruption of the true way of socialism, but was an inevitability of it as it is in any fundamentalist political ideology. It's, "people will accept what's good for them even if we have to force it upon them!" I suspect though, that trying to argue this specific point is like trying to argue with a fundamentalist Christian who believes dinosaurs did (or do) coexist with human beings. Likewise, statistics on national living standards, corruption, etc., will inevitably be dismissed as capitalist perpetuated "common knowledge" in Marxist Newspeak.

You think you're on the side of righteousness, just like any other zealot, but at the end of the day, it's just more of the same (whether the buzzwords are "workers' revolution" or "market system" or "Allah's will" or "Jesus Christ is my personal saviour"). Have you ever considered the old saying, the road to hell is paved with good intentions? What really causes a lot of the suffering in this world is people like you who think they know what's best for everyone else. Maybe you should just mind your own bloody business and stop preaching to everyone. I may be a cynical bastard, but unless you're going to argue that I'm depressing humanity by osmosis (which is a pretty long bow to draw), I'm not really affecting much at all. I don't have some utopian fantasy that I would inflict upon people given enough followers.

Nietzsche isn't my Marx or Christ because I'm quite willing to criticise him as much as any other hack philosopher. Regardless, I'm quite willing to admit I'm as full of crap as anyone else. The trouble with socialists
Posted by shorbe, Sunday, 18 March 2007 11:21:40 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
Tao & shorbe

You're both acting as if a socialism represents a complete system on its own basis, without varying levels of input.

Both capitalism and socialism are fluid, and while they are opposing one systems, they aren't mutually exclusive. Democratic socialism. Look it up, or observe my earlier post.
The 'all or nothing' style of debate really gets us nowhere.

shorbe - you're more guilty of this than tao by assuming we can't have a level of acceptable socialist tendency within a capitalist framework - believe it or not, we already do.

Tao - employers use employees to their advantage. Employees use employers to their advantage. They exploit one another. Generally, the employer has more power than the employee, which means they havem ore potential to exploit, however when unions abuse their power the situation can be reversed. Successful capitalism is about finding a balance - unfortunately, I think we're heading in the wrong direction.
Posted by TurnRightThenLeft, Sunday, 18 March 2007 12:27:00 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
TRTL: Sorry, after just re-reading this thread, I only just noticed your post to me on the 15th of March. I seem to remember your posts as being interesting and balanced, so my apologies for missing that one.

I didn't say we couldn't have variations on a theme. Obviously, I'd be silly not to acknowledge that what the Finns have is very different to what the Americans have, which is very different to what we have and so on. Obviously, there are things I do or don't like within each system, but each system is essentially pluralistic and fluid, which is what I'm arguing for.

I was talking about the brand of socialism tao espouses. It's like how whilst I'm not particularly enamoured with organised religion, most people who are so inclined go about their ordinary lives leaving others alone and don't really believe non-believers are some societal scourge, but it's those who are one-eyed with whom I have a problem.

I think we're fairly well in agreement on this, even though I suspect I'm more right wing than you are on political objectives and ideas, but our differences there don't bother me and I suspect they probably don't bother you either.

Incidentally, regarding your last sentence to tao, care to elaborate?
Posted by shorbe, Sunday, 18 March 2007 12:51:32 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
I suppose it comes down to the two concepts which have formed the mainstay of libertarian action in Australia in recent years.

Employee rights and the privatisation of services.

The most obvious examples of these are the implementation of workchoices, and the privatisation of Telstra and Qantas.

These issues are about finding balance. The workchoices legislation appears to be geared toward serving an economy that is enjoying strong growth. With skills shortages acute at the present time, I suppose I can see some benefits in redressing the advantages of employees/employers as they stand at present, however when the economy enters a downturn I'm of the belief that they will be exploited.
I'm reserving my judgement of them at present, as most of the instances of workchoices being abused have been, at the very least, misleading. But with the economy being the way it is at present there's been no reason for savvy employers to abuse their employees, as they are a resource in short supply. This won't always be the case.

In regard to privatisation - Governments will legislate all they want, but when a company is privatised, its ultimate goal shifts from providing equitable services to receiving profit. Some core industries should always be geared toward equitable distribution of services instead of profit.

This was evident in the Telstra selloff. The government attempted to a) make Telstra profitable while b) ensuring they are responsible for telecommunications infrastructure and not being able to properly charge competitors for usage. They have created a situation where Telstra is crippled, but is now forced to race against other competitors in an open market. When Telstra does manage to become competitive, it will be after it has jettisoned unprofitable services. This won't be good for rural Australia.
Issues like this have a flow on effect to urban areas - by making regional zones less attractive, it will only encourage centralisation and the problems it causes for urban infrastructure.

I don't really see how the privatisation of Qantas will ultimately benefit Australia, as it has been a successful government owned company for many decades.
Posted by TurnRightThenLeft, Sunday, 18 March 2007 4:23:50 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
Shorbe,

“tao: Your base argument is disingenuous because you want to condemn any other ideology's worst excesses and argue such systems inevitably lead from A to B. However, you're not willing to accept any of the inevitable excesses of Marxism.”

That is precisely the point. I’m not prepared to accept, and no-one should accept without thorough investigation, that Stalinism or Maoism or Castroism etc are the inevitable result of Marxism. People who claim, and unquestioningly accept, that they are, are making a causal clam where no direct “cause” has been established. It is an unsound and invalid argument that is perpetuated by capitalist, and Stalinist, propaganda. Philosophically and scientifically speaking it is nonsense.

Similarly, I’m not prepared to accept, and no-one should accept without thorough investigation, the claim that capitalism (or Christianity etc) is the benign and beneficent, or “pluralistic”, economic system that its proponents claim that it is. Philosophically and scientifically speaking it is nonsense.

You don’t even have to be a Marxist to be suspicious about such claims, just engage in some critical thinking. As an example, in a first year uni course on critical thinking I was given the following causal claim to analyse:

A study was done of 1000 long term smokers, 500 of whom had decided to give up on the advice of their doctors. It was found that the 500 who gave up had higher stress levels, higher rates of heart attacks, and higher death rates than those who didn’t quit. Of those who tried to quit and failed, stress levels were even higher, and their health outcomes were worse than those who didn’t quit and those who did. The causal claim that made was that quitting smoking caused higher stress levels which caused worse health outcomes than not quitting, and that trying to quit and failing was even worse.

cont...
Posted by tao, Sunday, 18 March 2007 8:45:43 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
There were a number of problems with this causal claim such as: (a) we weren’t told how the sample was selected, (b) we weren’t told whether there were any relevant differences in the sample, e.g the smokers who had decided to quit might have already had higher stress levels and worse health, which is why their doctors had advised them to quit, or there could have been other lifestyle factors, (c) we weren’t told how things were measured e.g. was the measure of stress objective or subjective, (d) it was implied that increased stress was the cause of worse health outcomes, but the causal link could have been reversed, or both could have been caused by some other factor, etc., etc.

Therefore, it would be foolish to go about saying that giving up smoking causes high stress which causes heart attacks and higher death rates. No doubt you wouldn’t do it.

Similarly, it is foolish to go about claiming that Stalinism, Maoism etc, are the “inevitable excesses” of Marxism.

The first mistake which is made is that people treat Marxism as some theory of power hungry madmen which was created in a vacuum and imposed on Russia. Also apparently, prior to its imposition, Russia was a fantastic place to live, and afterwards Russia existed in a vacuum unaffected by outside forces.

Another mistake which is made is that Europe was a fantastic place to live for ordinary people before and after WWI.

Another mistake is the belief that what happened in the Soviet Union after Lenin’s death, and Stalin’s usurpation of power, was based on Marxist theory, or that it was “socialist” or “communist”.

Other mistakes made are that the Chinese and Cuban revolutions were workers’ revolutions. Also, that the apparent benefits of capitalism gained by workers in the post WWII boom were the inevitable result of beneficent capitalism.

There are many more errors that people make, but these are just some fundamental ones which go to make up the overall misconception that Marxism, socialism and communism, are bound to produce oppressive national regimes.

cont...
Posted by tao, Sunday, 18 March 2007 8:46:33 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
To go back to my smoking study example, consider point (d) that rather than quitting smoking being the cause of higher stress which is the cause of worse health outcomes, it could be the reverse causal relationship, or that there could be something else which caused both.

The idea of socialism, and Marxism itself, arose out of the objective conditions of capitalism and the progression of humanity’s thought, just as capitalism arose out of the objective conditions of feudalism and the progression of humanity’s thought.

In 1917 Russia was still feudalist in political and economic form, with a backward and weak capitalist development, but nonetheless part of the global capitalist economic system. It was affected by, and a part of, the objective conditions of global capitalism.

In simple terms, the Russian Revolution was a product of objective capitalist conditions, and Marxist theory, however the capitalist conditions were at the root of both Marxist theory and the Russian Revolution.

After the Revolution, Russia was surrounded by aggressive capitalist countries – 13 capitalist countries gave financial and military assistance to the counter-revolutionary White Army. During WWI and the wars of intervention after the Revolution (i.e. capitalist wars), millions of Russians were killed, including hundreds of thousands of the most advanced communist workers. This exhaustion of human resources, coupled with Russia’s backward economic development, made for hard-going. Also the leaders of the Revolution believed that revolutions in other more advanced capitalist countries, particularly Germany (i.e. international revolution), were immanent and Russian workers would be assisted by international workers and their advanced technology. However the German uprising was betrayed by its leaders and defeated by the capitalists – paving the way for Hitler and the Nazis. All of this, and more, allowed the counter-revolutionary Stalin to usurp power – Stalin then purged Russia of all opposition, including “true” Marxists, such as Trotsky etc.

cont...
Posted by tao, Sunday, 18 March 2007 8:47:26 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
So to suggest that there is a straight line from Marxism to Stalinism, and that the horrors of Stalin are a direct outcome of Marxism or are “Marxist”, when the Revolution was enveloped - from start to finish, and on all sides- and invaded by capitalism, and when both Marxism and the Revolution both arose from capitalism itself is in your term “disingenuous”, and completely philosophically unsound. Or, as you say, full of crap.

As for “pluralistic” ideologies which are allegedly not forced upon people, I suppose you mean capitalism. Does capitalism tolerate other ideologies (except of course the opiates of the masses providing they adapt to capitalist ideology)? Can I, and masses of other people, live any other way than under capitalist economic relations? Do I not have capitalist ideology shoved down my throat daily?

As for my comment “Pessimism the great panacea”, I was merely pointing out that while you accuse Christians of peddling the panacea of blissful afterlife, and socialists of peddling the panacea of utopia on earth, you peddle the panacea of pessimism – because nothing will ever be better i.e. humans are inherently bad or stupid or selfish or whatever, they are destined to misery. Therefore, if we only stop hoping for something better, we will all, if not be happy now, at least not be unhappy. Such a view, and philosophy, comes from your misanthropic disposition – you have no faith or optimism in humanity – and so, you go about spreading your unconstructive pessimism and implore people to do nothing and accept the status quo. :-) Didn’t you get the joke? ;-)

If you would like to have a constructive discussion, and stop relying on capitalist perpetuated “common knowledge” and facetious pessimism, I would be happy to oblige.
Posted by tao, Sunday, 18 March 2007 8:50:16 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
tao: A constructive discussion is never going to happen because you claim to have a monopoly on truth and for you there is no compromise. A basic example of this is that you claim that the practical examples of socialism haven't been real socialism, yet you want to rip into capitalist theory for practical examples based upon a non-free market system. That's fine. Ultimately though, there won't be a workers' revolution not because people have been brain-washed, oppressed or exploited, but because most people aren't idealists or ideologues and they do compromise.

I actually do think that in many ways, there is hope for the future (and my misanthropy is half tongue in cheek), and that real progress has been made in many areas of human endeavour. Certainly, there are going to be ups and downs and any improvements we do achieve may very well be tempered by drawbacks. I just think that people aren't the two dimensional charicatures painted by any ideology, which is where I believe you make your mistake.
Posted by shorbe, Monday, 19 March 2007 10:40:11 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
TRTL: The IR legislation has been a boon for small business, whereas decent employers of small businesses were crippled in the past. There's certainly a ratbag element who wanted these laws so they could exploit their employees, but a large number just wanted some breathing space.

However, I take your point about the IR laws potentially being a lot worse under different economic circumstances, and it's something I'm still weighing up. Whilst I'm generally not a fan of government intervention in the market, I think if for no other reason than practical terms, because I'm right wing, it's better to have a centre-right government where I don't get everything I want than to get everything in the short term, only to see a massive backlash and then end up with a very left of centre government.

Even on issues where I do agree with them (and there are plenty where I don't!), the Howard government is always a bridge too far and what really worries me about that is that when they lose this year, the opposition will get in not necessarily because people want the ALP, but because they don't want the Coalition. That's equally as problematic. The long term future of this country requires stability, perhaps with a little oscillation, not a pendulum like (re-)action every seven to ten years.

I guess where we will disagree about privatisation is that ultimately, a really successful business makes a lot of profit precisely because it satisfies consumer demand really well, and that any business that excessively chases profits is only thinking short term. The market will correct itself eventually, though I'm sure you'll disagree.

I agree with your points on Telstra, though I think if things had been done differently, it might have worked out. Most privatisations in this country have been a complete balls-up (and many have turned out worse than before), and there's been far too much short term thinking all round. I think that's indicative of our wider cultural mindset right now though.

I don't know enough about QANTAS to comment on it.
Posted by shorbe, Monday, 19 March 2007 11:06:51 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
"The market will correct itself eventually, though I'm sure you'll disagree"

Actually I do think the market will correct these problems, but not before a lot of people suffer needlessly - though I think in many instances, there are some services which are never going to be profitable without government sponsorship.

The most obvious example of this, I suppose, is the variance between services in urban areas as opposed to regional.
Logically, if providing these services to regional areas is unprofitable, the question needs to be asked whether people are justified in living in these areas if they don't have the income to support the higher service costs, coupled with a desire to live there that is strong enough to encourage them to pay for these services.

The issue is, that this will only encourage further centralisation in the urban areas. I've yet to see any evidence that either State or Federal governments consider regional areas, and the secondary consideration of privatisation as a crucial issue for the infrastructure problems that many areas are facing (see the water problems in SEQ and Melbourne to see what I mean).

There is also the issue of primary industry - in an ideal free market, one supposes that primary exports would be profitable enough for industry to provide the infrastructure if they want their farming operations to succeed. This approach certainly works for mineral resources.
The reason I bring this up, is that primary industries are often located in sparsely populated areas. The issue of service provision impacts heavily on their success.
The problem is, that with Australian exports competing against subsidised produce from other nations, they're operating on an unfair market and struggle to be profitable despite best practice. This is another issue, though you can see how all these issues are interwoven, and although it's a bit of a wiggly line, you can see how a connection can be drawn between privatisation and a wealth of issues affecting the Australian economy.
Posted by TurnRightThenLeft, Monday, 19 March 2007 2:10:39 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
HA!

This must be a joke, right Shorbe?

You tell me that I think I have a monopoly on truth. Yet you just know, without demonstrating that you have read, let alone understood Marxism and socialism, that “practical examples of socialism” ARE “real socialism. You know it Shorbe – that’s why it’s true – you just know it. You can just say what you like without having to substantiate it, or study it, or show why it is so, its just THE TRUTH, because Shorbe says so. You might as well be saying that you just know God exists, so he does.

As for my apparent desire to attack capitalism based on “practical examples based on non-free market systems” – no, I’m quite happy to analyse and criticise pure capitalist theory, and all its variants – that is actually what Marx did, but how could you know that if you haven’t actually studied him?. By the same token, you ought to be prepared to analyse and criticise pure Marxist theory, which means actually reading it and digesting it, not just bandying about trite well worn phrases and superficially lumping all “leftist” sounding demagogues into the category “Marxist” or “socialist”.

You tell me that there is no compromise for me, but I didn’t see you compromise, or even demonstrate that you understood, or reasonably attempted to understand, what I wrote about causal claims. What I wrote was not even Marxist, just standard philosophical and scientific practice. You just came back at me with the same personal attacks and assumptions about what socialism is, and what socialists are. Who is painting a two-dimensional caricature here?

Apparently, I think I know what’s best for everyone, I should mind my own business and stop preaching– well to start off with, no-one twisted your arm to read or contribute to this thread, you’re the one who stuck your nose in where we horrid Christians and socialists could bash it around a bit, and made facetious little comments about us to boot
Posted by tao, Monday, 19 March 2007 9:34:11 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
Let’s look at some of the opinionated judgements, sermons and directives you’ve given:

“Where most socialists completely miss the boat, I believe”,

“they're so fundamentalist about it and that they have little to no sense of humour”

“it has nothing to do with the belief systems and everything to do with the dysfunctional personalities.”

“You think you're on the side of righteousness, just like any other zealot, but at the end of the day, it's just more of the same (whether the buzzwords are "workers' revolution" or "market system" or "Allah's will" or "Jesus Christ is my personal saviour").”

“What really causes a lot of the suffering in this world is people like you who think they know what's best for everyone else.”

“Maybe you should just mind your own bloody business and stop preaching to everyone.”

Do you see any FACTS or ANALYSIS as opposed to SUPERFICIAL OPINIONS and DEROGATORY COMMENTS in the above diatribes? I might be insulted if it wasn’t so apparent that you are, in football parlance - playing the man, not the ball.

This must be the quality logic and reasoning you would like us to all live our lives by is it?

Nice little deception too! Accusing others of pushing a barrow and pretending you’re not pushing-your-own. If we were to believe the impression you gave, it was that you had no personal-interest in the capitalist-system – you, through superior “common-sense” could just see the bleeding-obvious, that capitalism was the best we can hope for. In actual fact you do have an interest in the capitalist system - your hip-pocket.

I was actually wrong on something you know. I thought your philosophy, and comments, came from your misanthropic disposition. The truth is actually that you are a “right wing” capitalist, which is why you must roam around this forum looking for socialists, and their ideas, and smash them any way you can. So much for “pluralist” ideology. Anyone who doesn’t see things as you do has “missed the boat”, “no sense of humour”, a “dysfunctional personality”, is a “zealot” and a busy body preacher.
Posted by tao, Monday, 19 March 2007 9:35:47 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
As for your comment: “Ultimately though, there won't be a workers' revolution not because people have been brain-washed, oppressed or exploited, but because most people aren't idealists or ideologues and they do compromise”. You then proceed to tell TRTL “because I'm right wing, it's better to have a centre-right government where I don't get everything I want than to get everything in the short term, only to see a massive backlash and then end up with a very left of centre government”

Well what in the hell is a backlash, if not a potentially revolutionary-situation? If the masses don’t feel oppressed and exploited, why would there be a backlash? How does a “very left of centre government” gain power if not because they appeal to the ideals of the masses? What is “everything I want” – a “free market”?

You are on this forum to encourage people to compromise – centre right instead of far left – thus maintaining the capitalist system, and your own economic interest. It is no wonder you are such a fan of Nietzsche:

“As socialism is a doctrine that the acquisition of property ought to be abolished, the people are as alienated from it as they could be. And once they have got the power of taxation into their hands through the great parliamentary majorities they will assail the capitalists, the merchants and the princes of the stock exchange with a progressive tax and slowly create a middle class which will be in a position to forget socialism like an illness from which it has recovered.”

A man after your own heart (or that stone where it should be). Nietzsche actually hated the working class “rabble”, and had disdain for scientific-method, historical-research, rational-thinking and objective-truth, preferring instinct and myth – right up your alley.
Posted by tao, Monday, 19 March 2007 9:36:17 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
“Whom do I hate most among the rabble of today? The socialist rabble, the chandala apostles, who undermine the instinct, the pleasure, the worker's sense of satisfaction with his small existence—who make him envious, who teach him revenge. The source of wrong is never unequal rights but the claim of “equal” rights—Nietzsche's The Anti-Christ , 1888
Nietzsche’s philosophy was largely a reaction to the growth of socialism in Germany, and laid some of the philosophical foundations for fascism and Nazism. You probably even believe you are one of his superior ranks.

A right little deceiver you are Shorbe.

So as far as I’m concerned Shorbe, you can accuse me of whatever you like – it is merely a cover for your own lack of intellectual rigor, and to hide the barrow of your own economic interests which you are pushing. At least I’m honest about what I believe, as Marx wrote:

“The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions. Let the ruling classes tremble at a Communistic revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win. “

No, I don’t believe there will be a constructive discussion. Our interests are completely opposed. You are not willing to “compromise” unless it is a temporary compromise designed to ward of a “backlash”, deceive workers, and further your own ends – as with all good capitalists – you are only in it for yourself. I don't need to charicature you Shorbe - you are what you are.
Posted by tao, Monday, 19 March 2007 9:37:31 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
tao - that's all a little extreme isn't it? Okay, shorbe has some right wing views, but I've always found questions to be more effective than accusations.
I also happen to agree with him when he says he would prefer a government doesn't go too far in one direction, as it will inevitably head the opposite way.
You say that this is the manifestation of the will of the people - of course it is. But this will has been created by the extremities of policy that have been foisted upon them.

tao - I'd be interested in hearing what economic rationale you would envision for Australia, and how such a system could be practically implemented. For all your railings against shorbe, I've yet to hear how you would have a socialist system introduced to Australia with the will of the people - people who have consistently elected a conservative government over the last decade.
Posted by TurnRightThenLeft, Tuesday, 20 March 2007 9:34:59 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
"I also happen to agree with him when he says he would prefer a government doesn't go too far in one direction, as it will inevitably head the opposite way."

TRTL: You're in league with the evil capitalists!

"For all your railings against shorbe, I've yet to hear how you would have a socialist system introduced to Australia with the will of the people - people who have consistently elected a conservative government over the last decade."

That's the ultimate question, though I suspect it will go begging.

Anyhow...

I accept your point about the viability of rural areas, and I think the ultimate solution is for them to put their prices up so they can then afford to pay higher costs for other things.

Of course, as you mentioned, Australia seems to be trying to play free trade while just about everyone else isn't. It is a ridiculous situation, and I think we need to have some balls and tell other nations that if they're not going to drop their subsidies then neither are we. I'm pro-free trade, but not if everyone else is working the system against us. That's just crazy.

Personally, I'd like to see Australia move towards a notion of long term self-sufficiency and sustainability in as many areas as possible so we're not at the mercy of other nations bullying us economically. I think ultimately, a lot of it comes down to a level of self-respect at the foreign affairs level.

Also, I think there's a lot of empty rhetoric on this issue from the Australian public -- everyone says they don't like industry moving off-shore, yet how many buy locally produced items? We have to acknowledge that in order to maintain industry, we have to support it, and we can't have our cake and eat it too. Part of it is business, part of it is government, but there's a lack of consumer responsibility also in all this. Maybe the price to pay for supporting a local industry is that we have less stuff. I think we're very much addicted to consumerism.
Posted by shorbe, Tuesday, 20 March 2007 12:02:21 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
Oh TurnRightTurnLeft… sorry.

Which part did you consider extreme?

Was it that I called Shorbe a “right wing” capitalist? Is that a dirty word, even though that is what he calls himself? Was it the bit about him sticking his nose into this forum? Was it the bit about suggesting that he had deceived us by pretending he had no personal interest in maintaining the capitalist system? Perhaps it was the part about his lack of intellectual rigor?

Which of Shorbe’s comments did you not consider extreme?

Apparently according to Shorbe, I’m a social misfit plagued by megalomania, a fundamentalist with no sense of humour, a zealot, have a dysfunctional personality, cause a lot of suffering, and should mind my “own bloody business” and stop preaching.

Or perhaps it was extreme of me to logically refute the veracity of Shorbes’ unquestioning beliefs about “inevitable excesses” of Marxism.

Shorbe hasn't produced one shred of evidence, or logical substantiation of his beliefs, yet he goes about calling people derogatory names – in fact he entered this thread being derogatory. But according to you I am railing, and Shorbe is not.

Why don't you go back and read this thread and the various arguments and see how much Shorbe has written about socialism or socialists which is objectively verifiable, or logically sound, and not just his subjective opinion. Then come back and show me.

And have a look at what I've said about capitalism or socialism or Christianity and come back and show me whether I have attempted to use facts and reasoning, not just opinion. And have a look at whether I've formed opinions and made comments about Shorbe which are based on what he has said on this forum, and not what I pluck out of the air. Then come back and show me. Show me what I’ve said that is “extreme” or incorrect. I’ll be happy to debate it with you, and, believe it or not, concede if I’m wrong.

cont...
Posted by tao, Tuesday, 20 March 2007 10:05:08 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
Perhaps you both might attempt to use facts and reasoning to disprove what I’ve said about capitalism or socialism or Christianity, instead of making comments about my “extreme” personality etc.

This thread is not actually about me putting forward a socialist vision for Australia, or whether we should have a far left government or a centre right government, it is about whether or not the Apostles were really socialist, that is why I have not elaborated such a thing here. To pretend that it is, and that because I haven’t, the rest of my arguments are somehow invalid is just a diversionary tactic - an attempt to avoid responding to issues which are presently being discussed – namely Shorbe’s claim that Stalinism is an “inevitable excess” of Marxism.

I note Shorbe still has not commented intelligently on my logical refutation of his specific causal claim – one must presume, because he can’t.
Posted by tao, Tuesday, 20 March 2007 10:06:17 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
tao: I'm still waiting for you to answer TRTL's question. That's what I was getting at with my points about the inevitable excesses of Marxism and causal claims. I was hoping that maybe you'd answer TRTL on that, even if you wouldn't answer me.

I'll restate it.

If people don't want a revolution, or if there is one, and people later decide they don't want it then, what happens?

Unless you're prepared to let the (idea of) revolution fade away, by necessity, the tanks must be rolled out. That's precisely what happened in Czechoslovakia after the Prague Spring, because those Czechs and Slovaks may have re-embraced capitalism fully!

By setting up a single political endpoint, you instantly polarise the entire world into "true believers" and "non-believers" (who include those, such as TRTL, who pretend to be left but are really just sympathisers or apologists for capitalists such as me).

Despite your claims that capitalism isn't pluralistic, I don't see the Amish being forced to buy SUVs or Nike shoes.

One of the problems I've always encountered with Marxists is that there's no way to apply the concept of falsifiability to their arguments. TRTL and I have been discussing politics, and I'm quite willing to admit that many of the concepts I'm in favour of have not turned out well, and that we can measure such things clearly.

However, for Marxists, a bad outcome means that "socialism wasn't truly followed" or "capitalist forces ganged up on socialists" or
that "people didn't have class consciousness". There's always an out, and there's no possibility of falsifiability. That's where I think your arguments lack intellectual rigour, so touche.

Substitute "the will of God", "heretics", "true believers" and "faith" into the above paragraph and tell me how Marxism is different from a fanatical religion. How is arguing with you going to be any different to arguing with a religious fundamentalist?
Posted by shorbe, Wednesday, 21 March 2007 6:39:32 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
Just like we hear in the horror movies :) "I'm BAAAA-AAACK" ok..

SHORBE.. you raise a good point believe it or not.. your 'awaits' post was ok... but I won't use the Bible this time just to make you happy.....

Tao is of the view that there should be no 'employers' and that all employers by DEFINITION will be harsh and greedy and exploitative UNfairly....

TRTL makes a good point "Fluidity" but there is not much flexibility in Tao's argument.

EMPLOYERS..... "BAD"
EMPLOYEES......"GOOD" and exploited unfairly by the above.

The problem is.. the SAME human nature which makes the 'employERS' 'bad' is at work in the poor hapless employEES.

He also seems to fail to recognize that most people actually like the idea of being able to better their life situation by using their creative abilities in ways which benefit them, and their families.

OK.. biblical allusion coming up :) so you can tune out...

HERE.... -> The issue which made ancient Israel (capitalist social system) different from Tao's bleak vision, was their relationship with God. Social Justice and fairness were enshrined in their covenant relationship with God.

God recognizes that people in the real world fall on hard times, and have to survive by 'selling' their labor or land or goods to carry them through the famines etc.. or the bad business decisions...
BUT.. God also made it such that there was no 'poverty trap'...
Look up 'Jubilee' as a biblical concept.

In a closed materialistic system..without God, we are at the mercy of relativistic human whim. Tao..take note mate. The 'whim' can be a Stalin or a Fred Hollows. I prefer something a bit more certain.

Humans naturally tend toward greed.(Socialist or Capitalist humans) the PROPHETS were constantly REMINDING the people about their social and economic responsibilities.
Posted by BOAZ_David, Thursday, 22 March 2007 7:37:20 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
Shorbe

With regard to your comments about falsifiability, I’m not quite sure what you mean. It sounds like you have moved from Nietzsche to Popper. What you seem to be suggesting is that rather than view things as a whole, we should apply an idea to a small section of the system, i.e. in a quantifiable place and time and to particular problem – a reform of some sort, and then measure the effects, then we can see if the idea works or not – falsifiable. So you have some hypothesis and you test it and can demonstrate its veracity as a hypothesis – or not.

You then take it a step further, viewing socialism as an isolated-theory or reform tested in a certain place and time, you believe that the veracity of socialism as a hypothesis has not been demonstrated by “practical-examples” - you think socialism has been falsified – it has been proven incorrect and we should discard it as a theory. The implication is then, that of two competing theories – socialism and capitalism – socialism has been falsified, but capitalism has not – so capitalism must be correct, or better, or whatever. Your criticism of Marxists then stems from the fact that despite proof that their theory is “false” they try to get out of this obvious falsification by coming up with excuses – how infuriating!

However it seems to me that the concept of falisifiability doesn’t work that way at all. All it seems to be saying is that we can’t have, or test for, positive-knowledge that a theory is true, because even though some theory appears to be a plausible explanation for some phenomenon, there may be another explanation for it.

What apparently follows from this is that the only thing we can “positively” do is demonstrate that a particular theory is not a plausible explanation of something, i.e. it is falsified, and therefore discard that theory, and we can come to no conclusion about what is true, except that it has not yet been falsified.
Posted by tao, Thursday, 22 March 2007 2:48:48 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
This all seems logically plausible, and possibly incontrovertible. However falsifying a theory does not necessary lead to a conclusion that a theory is “false” which is where I believe you “miss-the-boat”. If we can’t positively know anything because there could be some other explanation, how do we know we have actually falsified-something and it should be discarded, or that there is no other explanation for our results.

Take the smoking-study for example. Say the hypothesis they were testing was that quitting-smoking is beneficial to health - the results of the study have falsified the hypothesis. Or, say the hypothesis was that quitting-smoking leads to increased risk of heart-attack - the results have not falsified the hypothesis. What conclusion can we draw? Can you say that quitting-smoking is not beneficial to health (i.e. that the first hypothesis is false), or that quitting smoking does lead to increased risk of heart attack? I’d say the only conclusion you can draw is that the first-hypothesis has been falsified, and the second has not. Should we discard the first hypothesis, or should we look for other explanations for the results? And then, what action should we take? Given our “knowledge” of other factors, and other explanations, it would not be sensible to throw the baby out with the bathwater and tell everyone not to bother quitting-smoking on the basis of either the falsification of the first-hypothesis, or the non-falsification of the second.

So, to go back to the idea of measuring some small reform in isolation and testing for falsifiability, even if you did get some measurable-results, you could never say that something was a success because there could be other explanations, and while you might be able to falsify the idea, you could never really say it was a failure because there could be other explanations.
Posted by tao, Thursday, 22 March 2007 2:49:25 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
Falsifiability might be acceptable when you have an isolated-system in a laboratory in which you can control all variables – then you might be able to have “positive-knowledge” that the factor you are testing is the one that falsified the theory (although by its own logic that is impossible). However in the complex world of human socio-economics it is pretty dodgy. For example, take the Howard Government’s private-health-care-rebate – the theory was to encourage more people to take out private-health-insurance thereby relieving the burden on the public system. To falsify this theory you could (a) show that more people had private health insurance than before the rebate’s introduction, and/or (b) that the burden on the public-health-care-system has not been decreased. Now, you might be able to objectively show that more people have private-health-insurance, and less people were relying on the public system. The theory is therefore not falsified. Howard claims success! However, what if the reason for the increase in private-health-insurance wasn’t due to the rebate, but was due to the fact that funding to the public-health-system was cut, public health services got worse, and people decided that they had better take out private-health-insurance? Apparently this is the case in NSW. So what you actually measure has a bearing on what the “truth” is (even though the falsification-concept holds that we can’t actually know the “truth”). If you isolate what you are measuring, and ignore inconvenient-factors, you can make the data fit what you want it to say. The theory’s not falsified, so the private-health=insurance rebate must work (even though we can’t know it works).

Then this theory can be used to look at all sorts of little concepts and conditions of capitalism in isolation from everything else. Sectarian-violence in Bagdad has nothing to do with the US invasion, its all to do with those evil-religious-nutters and insurgents who just want to kill and control others and want a religious-caliphate. Ignore the fact that prior to the invasion, Iraq was a secular country where the people were relatively peaceful.
Posted by tao, Thursday, 22 March 2007 2:49:59 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
In fact the US-invasion of Bagdad had nothing to do with US-capitalism at all, only US-style-democracy in isolation which the President who stole the 2000 election decided beneficently to spread to the Middle-East. None of these things would falsify your concept of capitalism as benign.

Then, you take the falsifiability-concept, and apply it to Marxism. However you do it a little differently this time. First, you categorise every person or thing which ever had a sniff of Marxism about it as Marxist or Socialist or Communist – no need to examine them to see if there are any differences (or “falsify” your own idea) – they are all the same. Only after that do you completely isolate YOUR-CONCEPT of “socialism” or “Marxism” from everything else – it just exists in a bubble unaffected by outside-forces. Then you hold up the horrors to me and say “see Marxism is falsified” – therefore you must be crazy. Then, because I try to point out why I don’t accept the veracity of what you have said, because there are other-explanations, you claim that I’m not accepting the falsification of Marxism. And because I don’t accept the “falsification” of YOUR-CONCEPT of Marxist-theory as evidence that Marxist-theory is FALSE, Marxism is just another fundamentalist-religion and I must therefore believe it on faith.

Yet the falsification-concept doesn’t of itself allow anything to be proven false, it just says that we can’t have positive knowledge that something is true. But one would imagine that you think that what you’re saying is true! You must be believing it on faith!

As with most theories (and particularly post-modern anti-Marxist ones) that try to deny that there is an objective truth (i.e. something that exists independently of what we subjectively think about it, or that we can gain-knowledge of that objective-truth) it disappears up its own arse. Such theories essentially deny that there is such a thing as truth, only to assert that the theory itself is the truth – but if there is no truth then the theory itself cannot be true. The falsifiability-theory, once falsified, must be discarded!
Posted by tao, Thursday, 22 March 2007 2:51:21 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
"Oh, that was easy," says tao, and for an encore goes on to prove that black is white and gets himself killed on the next zebra crossing.
Posted by Bugsy, Thursday, 22 March 2007 3:33:12 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
Posted by BOAZ_David, Friday, 16 March 2007 5:39:37 AM
‘Any employer who thinks they can get away with unfair or unjust or miserly wages to their workers, will have the following outcomes.
1/ Quality of work and committment will be virtually negative.
2/ His business will therefore suffer and go down the toilet.’

This will come as a surprise to the hundreds of companies like Nike who make a fortune exploiting cheap Asian labour and an excellent example of the self-delusion in which free-market advocates indulge.

It has always interested me that when a tyrannical leader rises under communism it is deemed to be a fault of communism when a tyrannical leader rises under democracy it is deemed to be the fault of the individual (remember Hitler was elected).

And as for the ‘inevitable’ excesses of Marxism – traditional ‘primitive’ societies right across the globe from time immemorial have practiced communalism without such excesses and moreover practiced it within a sustainable economic model. The consumption driven capitalist model must inevitably run out of things to consume and when it does there will be hell to pay.

Far be it from me to get back on topic but ‘were the Apostle’s communists?’ was the question - a simple yes or no could be at least part of the answer, couldnt it?
Posted by Rob513264, Thursday, 22 March 2007 4:01:01 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
Simple answer: Sure they were communist, but they certainly weren't Communists.

Jews have been noted to be communal in their living arrangements in modern times as well, take a look at the kibbutzim in Israel. But they would not be called Communists.

Any discussion on Marx to answer a question like this is actually hilarious. Keep up the insanely good work! I look forward to the next entry with great anticipation.
Posted by Bugsy, Thursday, 22 March 2007 4:12:45 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
"Far be it from me to get back on topic but ‘were the Apostle’s communists?’ was the question - a simple yes or no could be at least part of the answer, couldnt it?"

'Yep' but with shades of 'no', and quite possibly 'never', though if interpreted in a manner that is pro-socialism, then 'of course', but then again, many free market individuals would say 'not likely,' while the majority agree it's a 'quite possibly I guess though it was a long time ago.'

In other words, the usual babble that accompanies religion and politics, which increases exponentially when you put them together.
Posted by TurnRightThenLeft, Thursday, 22 March 2007 4:39:49 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
Rob... given that 'communist' has a historical point in time definition, associated with Marx and Engles... it is impossible that the Apostles could be 'communists' in that sense.

They were definitely 'communal-ists' to a point. Though Paul was financially independant on his journeys, working as a tentmaker either as a self employed person, or.. hiring himself (and his tentmaking skills) out to others.

So, that dispenses with the question.

Now..back to Tao :) and your own observation about Nike etc.

In my 2 point summary I should have added "except where labor supply is very strong' for the 'quality of work will suffer if treatment is poor".

This also raises another side of the bigger issue. "Labor Supply"
That again comes back to the values and ethics of a government.
Do they deliberately seek to have an oversupply of workers so they can keep wage rates and conditions down ?

They could. But would they ? Maybe for a while, until the revolution :) Smart governments also know that existing grievances are where radical/extremist/revolutionary groups gain support and thrive.

So, for my 2 point explanation there, lets add a framework.

1/ In a developed nation like Australia, the 2 points will by and large stand valid. (High employment)
2/ In a developing country like Indonesia, there is a bigger possibility of unfair exploitation. But remember, that a government can legislate to prevent unfair exploitation.

Will it ? hmmm graft and corruption come to mind.
Are capitalist societies alone prone to such ? Nah.. look at China.

The problem with all that is the human condition, SIN in short. Solve that, and you solve the rest.
This is why I say it does not matter which 'system' is in place so much, but the ethics/values and vision of those IN the system.
Are they Redeemed, renewed and ready to build a just society ? In Christ they have a good chance of being so.
Posted by BOAZ_David, Friday, 23 March 2007 1:37:21 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
BOAZ,

Unfortunately Christians arent perfect. "They are just forgiven."
So, if Christians remain sinful, then clearly Christianity is NOT the solution you claim it to be.
If you need historical OR contemporary examples of corrupt Christian churches I will happily oblige but Im sure you are familiar with them.
Posted by waterboy, Friday, 23 March 2007 2:53:40 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
tao: Once again, four whole posts (and presumably very close to 1,400 words) and you still didn't answer the question. You're not doing a Ph.D. in something like cultural studies are you?
Posted by shorbe, Friday, 23 March 2007 7:57:43 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
I was actually aware that the Apostles predated Marx by a considerable margin and hence my presentation was ‘communists’ in inverted commas.

I highlighted this point because while Communism is anti-religion and so its policy with respect of religion is understandably rejected by religious people, the baby should not be cast out with the bathwater, and the economic model of communism is actually v close to what the apostle’s practiced and advocated.

And I have grave reservations about Paul’s claim to represent the teaching of Jesus anyway – his remark about forgiving the sins of the unrepentant so as ‘to heap more coals upon their heads’ seems to me to be the exact opposite of the wish of Jesus
Posted by Rob513264, Saturday, 24 March 2007 12:56:52 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
WATERBOY
yes, I concede that the transformation of a social group through repentance and faith will not bring in unending utopia. It does for a while, but their is a cycle which occurrs that I have observed a number of times.
1/ Revival... repentance.. re-discovering the first love for God.
2/ Excessive worship and unending meetings....
3/ Some have personal and work related responsibilities, so they fade from the wave of revival related meetings.
4/ The other 'spiritual' mob tend to frown on this, which eventually leads to social breakdown of some relationships.
5/ The wave breaks.. the foam spreads.. and the water slides back into the sea.

While that sounds quite bleak, and pessimistic, the key to understanding it so it does not recurr is in the first point. Its the need to avoid a pendulum experience. But having said that, in no way am I suggesting that careful adherance by all members of society to Christian faith and principle can be achieved other than at the personal level, and not universally. We all have our own problems, issues and backslidings for various reasons. Hence, the principle "You who are strong should bear with the failings of the weak" says Paul.. and "Consider how to stir one another up to good works and love" Says the author of Hebrews. So, its a team effort.

I still feel though that in earthly terms, a Christ centred society will do much better than a human/self centered one.

Rob. You misunderstand Pauls point "heaping burning coals" is about 'doing everything possible to OPEN the way to restoration of the enemy to God' . The more they are encountering the Grace of God, the more responsible they are. We don't show kindness to bring harm on them but restoration.
On topic.. The economic principles of Marxism/communism failed for the same reason they temporarily failed for the early disciples. But communism has no concept of divine restoration/forgiveness...only 'legislation' and brute force.
Posted by BOAZ_David, Saturday, 24 March 2007 9:01:14 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
Rob,

Forgiveness,in Christian theology, isthe outcome of God's judgement which is described by the metaphor of the refiners fire. Itis a mistake to regard the fire (heaping of coals) as destructive in this context. Inthe process of refining, the fire is 'constructive', purifying or perfecting.
Paul instructs them to forgive because that is God's will. The 'coals' are not sent inorder to destroy but to elicit the good.
And,of course,this isin NO WAY tobe taken literally.

BOAZ,

The IDEA of a God that requires only that we love one another is certainly a powerful idea. Of allthe possible guiding principles for life I can think of no other that is more worthy or more likely to lead to a personally satisfying life or that might work to form a more compassionate and humane society. The trick really is how to hold onto it in the face of lifes ugly little realities.

The story ofthe early church is the story ofa political struggle. The struggle of the powerless against the dominating force of the Roman occupiers of Palestine/Israel. In large part their struggle was directed against the 'insiders',Herod,the Chief Priests and so on who, by their cooperation with the Roman Occupiers, betrayed the people and participated with the Romans inthe exercise of dominating power. They understood the principle that 'power corrupts'. They were taking a beating at the wrong end of that pineapple. They also understood the power of passive resistance... well.... some did. Notwithstanding the idiosyncracies of various churches or the sometimes bizzare metaphysics which they adopted they did identify one or two simple but profound principles for life that are as valid and worthy today asever. Perhaps there even was one man who represented these principles in such a powerful way that his name came to represent the whole people.

I think itis unsurprising that modern socialism emerged within the milieu of 19th Century European, Jewish/Protestant intellectualism and that there is a direct connection with the 'communalistc' idealism that existed in the early church. Nordo I find it surprising thatit ultimately found its corrupted expression in modern communism.
Posted by waterboy, Saturday, 24 March 2007 10:54:15 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
Aah Shorbe,

Life is not explained by succinct little comments that are apparently incontrovertible, assertions (at least some of us believe) must be backed up with evidence of fact and reasoning.

“If-people-don't-want-a-revolution,-or-if-there-is-one,-and-people-later-decide-they-don't-want-it-then,-what-happens?”--This-must-be-the-old-individual-choice-chestnut.

Were there people who didn’t want the French Revolution, or the American Revolution? Can anyone decide they want to go back to feudalism, or British Rule? I bet the kings wanted to go back – too bad for them.

Have the people of the world who have been invaded and subjugated by capitalist imperialists had any choice about it? When the Russians had their revolution did the 13 capitalist countries who fought against them respect their choice?

I don’t mean here to condone the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia, or anywhere else for that matter – they weren’t “revolutions” or “revolutionary” invasions at all – revolutions come from below. But what is different about the US invasion of Iraq “spreading democracy” than Soviet invasions “spreading revolution”? On a superficial level (by which I mean there are probably different specific factors which would need to be studied), not much at all – both of them are attempting to subjugate the population for their own ends.

What I often find is that capitalists hold up as evidence of capitalism’s beneficence the atrocities of one system, whether it is alleged “socialism” or Islam, or whatever, and ignore their own, excusing them away as “spreading democracy” or “spreading freedom” or some sort of lesser evil.

Despite popular misconceptions, socialism isn’t something which is imposed from above, it comes from below. And revolutions don’t just happen because madmen con the people – there are objective conditions which cause people to spontaneously struggle against the existing conditions (what you might call a “backlash”). In simple terms, what happens as a result depends on the objective factors, and who is the most conscious, who has the best strategy and articulates it, and who gains the most support (and the most powerful support) from the people, and what action is taken.

cont
Posted by tao, Saturday, 24 March 2007 12:06:24 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
The French Revolution didn’t happen because a few people decided to get rid of feudalism, the main driving force was the changes to the means of production – the scientific and industrial revolutions – economic progress could no longer be contained within the feudalist economic and political structure. Once the consciousness of people caught up with the objective conditions the revolution occurred, and nothing could really stop it – the nobility had lost its power to stop it. Capitalism now spans the globe whether people like it or not and, in one way or another, quite a few people don’t like it.

A socialist revolution won’t occur because a few people want to get rid of capitalism. The complete globalisation of production is now coming into conflict with the nation state system. As the objective conditions become worse for more and more people – through bad working and social conditions, economic downturn, increased militarism, maybe even the draft – they will start looking for other options. For example, even if the ALP win the next election, what difference will it make to a lot of people, and what could the ALP actually do to stem the flood of capital, and jobs, to Asia? In fact, the ALP and the unions often carry out policies that the conservatives wouldn’t be able to carry out – Hawke & Keating deregulation etc. - there are definite reasons the ALP has been unable to gain electoral support – workers were burnt the last time – if they win this time, it is only because the Coalition has become unelectable. It won’t take long for the ALP to reveal their true colours, what then for workers? Really all socialists do is explain why these things happen, and what they believe the solution is – it is then up to workers to decide who to believe. At the moment Marxists consider that their task, and that of workers, is to build a mass international political party which fights for the interests of workers independently of any capitalist parties.

“By-setting-up-a-single-political-endpoint,-you-instantly-polarise-the-entire-world-into-"true-believers"-and-"non-believers"-“Despite-your-claims-that-capitalism-isn't-pluralistic,-I-don't-see-the-Amish-being-forced-to-buy-SUVs-or-Nike-shoes.”

cont...
Posted by tao, Saturday, 24 March 2007 12:07:22 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
There is irony in you using a peculiar religious sect which shuns the “excesses” of capitalism as an example of capitalism’s fantastic pluralism. Probably the only reason they manage to do it is because of a strong vision of their blissful-afterlife which you apparently think is as hopelessly utopian as socialism.

Anyway, just because there are people in the world who don’t indulge in consumerism, doesn’t mean they can avoid, or are unaffected by capitalist-economic-relations. I don’t know much about the Amish, but I’d say they own their land, and probably have to pay taxes etc. I would suggest that such attempts to withdraw from the world are actually a reaction to the social conditions of capitalism, rather than a shining example of capitalism’s pluralism. Shutting oneself away is not a solution. If I don’t like capitalism, are you suggesting I join the Amish? Is this “pluralist”?

Capitalism tolerates the Amish and similar groups because they don’t actually pose a threat to its foundations, either by ideals or growth in numbers, in fact they can be used as examples of “individual-choice”. Try setting up a few socialist-communities which start growing and see how long it takes for a new McCarthy to emerge. Apparently in the US anti-war groups (not necessarily socialist in orientation) of normal middle class people have been infiltrated by spies, provocateurs etc. You probably don’t believe me, but hey, that’s your choice. Check out all the hubbub about US-government phone-tapping and data-mining etc.

You suggest that socialists set up a “single-political-endpoint”. I’d suggest that capitalists want a single-economic-endpoint – capitalism, only it doesn’t matter what political-form it takes - capitalism profits in a democratic-republic like the US, a constitutional-monarchy like the UK, an autocratic-monarchy like the Saudis or Jordan, an autocratic-regime such Putin’s Russia, a religious-state such as Israel, or even a “communist” state like China. Capitalists don’t care about political-form as long as they can make a profit. What you don’t realise (or maybe you do) is that the big-capitalists are in power regardless of which form or colour of government appears as their front.
Posted by tao, Saturday, 24 March 2007 12:07:59 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
So yes, there is a single-political-endpoint to socialism - that is workers in power. And there is a single-economic-endpoint – an end to capitalist exploitation. The product of the work all of humanity will be returned to humanity for everyone’s benefit, not to make a few peoples’ bank balance bigger.

However that doesn’t mean that people won’t have “choices”, or that we’ll all be oppressed. Workers will have full control of their workplace, and will decide in a truly democratic fashion (worker democracy not bourgeois democracy) what will be produced, rationally on the basis of human need, not profit. Workers will collectively own the product of their own labour, and will dispose of it as they see fit. As they eliminate the excesses of chaotic capitalist-production, and the production of useless killing-machines, and bring about full employment, they will not need to do as much necessary work individually or collectively, and their time will be freed up to attend to truly creative and constructive pursuits.

Just because you don’t, and may never, see the need for a revolution, that doesn’t mean that workers at the coalface won’t. And if the majority decide that they want a socialist revolution, won’t you accept the will of the majority? If you don’t like it, you are free to join counter-revolutionary forces and shoot down workers at the barricades. Otherwise you can just “mind-your-own-business” and let it flow over you as you suggest that workers do now. Perhaps you could try to convince your employees to continue working for a fraction of what they produce – good luck on that one!

Ultimately, the so-called pluralist “choice” you are talking about maintaining is that of a relatively few people to own the means of production which should be owned by the whole of humanity, and to continue exploiting the majority of humanity for their own ends.

Sorry all, will return to topic next time.
Posted by tao, Saturday, 24 March 2007 12:09:11 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
I am left wondering if; any post, at any time, in any forum, in any country has ever changed anyone's opinion on anything.
Posted by Rob513264, Saturday, 24 March 2007 3:39:54 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
Of course not Rob. Forums are where we go to practice defending our opinions.
Posted by waterboy, Saturday, 24 March 2007 3:53:32 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
To return to the topic of the Apostles being communists, I don’t know if anyone bothered to read the link I posted in my first post, however, Rosa Luxembourg makes the following points:

1 The proletariat class from which Christianity arose was different to today’s working class in that they were peasants driven from the land to cities which could not absorb them because the work in the cities was done by slaves. The proletariat therefore did not work, and were beggars.

2. The early Christians’ ideas were that the rich should share their wealth with the poor – they DEMANDED that the products of work (of slaves) should be owned in common - i.e. they were communists. However, this did not challenge the right of the rich to own all the land, tools, slaves etc.

3. Luxembourg claims socialists or communists (which she calls Social Democrats – whole history behind this – can’t go into it here), while having a similar ultimate goal, have a completely different idea of how it is to be achieved:

"We do not want the rich to share with the poor: we do not want either charity or alms; neither being able to prevent the recurrence of inequality between men. It is by no means a sharing out between the rich and the poor which we demand, but the complete suppression of rich and poor". This is possible on the condition that the source of all wealth, the land, in common with all other means of production and instruments of work, shall become the collective property of the working people which will produce for itself, according to the needs of each. The early Christians believed that they could remedy the poverty of the proletariat by means of the riches offered by the possessors. That would be to draw water in a sieve! Christian communism was not only incapable of changing or of improving the economic situation, and it did not last.”
Posted by tao, Sunday, 25 March 2007 3:13:03 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
Early Christians were communists, just not in the Marxist sense.

We can see in BOAZ’s hypocritical arguments how Christianity was not only incapable of transforming society, it has also been used by the rich to perpetuate systems that continue to oppress the poor – the very people Christ wanted to help.

It could be argued (as BOAZ has done) that socialism is also incapable of transforming society. As you might guess, I disagree and am quite willing to debate it!
Posted by tao, Sunday, 25 March 2007 3:14:18 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
Actually tao, your ideas on socialism ignore one fundamental thing about human nature. That of STATUS. And it is so fundamental, it's evolutionary. All social mammals have a social heirarchy which has status and reproductive rights and attractiveness associated with it.

When talking about people, Marx also makes the mistake that what he thinks is fundamental in what they want, and that is to be productive and enjoy the fruits of their labour. When actually it isn't, at least not with the general population. Attempting to destroy or remove hierarchical social structures and replace them with non-hierarchical ones (ie everyone being "equal" or close to) is a folly as it is doomed to only be replaced with another hierarchical structure based on status. That's what happened in Russia, what happened in China and continues to happen everywhere. Believing that everyone, including the "workers" want anything else is nonsense.
Posted by Bugsy, Sunday, 25 March 2007 5:25:33 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
Bugsy,

The one thing you apparently ignore is that humans have a fundamental difference with other social mammals – which is that we have the ability to think consciously about ourselves, and the consequences of our actions – hence we have notions of truth, justice, fairness etc. We can also think consciously about our environment, and modify it – which is the reason we have the technological advances that we do.

If you prefer not to use the brainpower nature has endowed you with, that is your choice. If you wish to remain a monkey in the jungle, be my guest. But don’t expect me, and the rest of humanity, to accept such nonsense.

As for STATUS, well there are all sorts of ways that we can reward and recognise people for genuine useful effort, however there is no need to give them a larger share of the collective product of the labour of all while the rest of humanity starves.

As for your comments about people NOT wanting to be productive and enjoy the fruits of their labour, again, speak for yourself. As far as I’m concerned, there is nothing more rewarding than a job well done. My problem with it is that I don’t enjoy the full fruits of my labour, nor do I have the choice to direct them to others who might benefit from them – my boss owns them and becomes richer because of them – without doing the work I am doing. This process is what Marx called alienation. Humans are alienated from the product of their own labour which is then used against them.

It is not ordinary people who don’t want to be productive, it is the rich who expect to profit from other peoples’ labour while doing little for it themselves.

And there is nothing essentially wrong with humans trying to reduce the amount of effort they use to produce their sustenance – its called technological progress. The more we can free ourselves of manual labour, the better we will be able to realise our full human potential.
Posted by tao, Sunday, 25 March 2007 8:12:31 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
Tao,

Marx adopted from Hegel the somewhat romantic notion of Man as Homo Faber, Man the Maker. Alienation is, for Marx, then mans disconnection from that which he makes. In selling his labour he is 'alienated' from discretion in what he makes, the means for making it and from that which he makes which is not his and which he might in fact never see. The essence of his work is lost and in its place he receives money which dominates him and which he comes to worship.

So, according to Marx, your workers can never fulfill their human destiny no matter how much money they earn.

Bargaining for higher wages is an entirely free-enterprise activity serving no greater purpose than to increase the degree of alienation by 'selling their souls' for more of the 'alienated essence' of their existence. The more they earn, the more they desire the 'false fruits' of their labour the less likely they are to join in the revolution and risk losing their precious idol.

Marxs ideology is utterly imbued with a romantic nostalgia for an imagined past when man 'enjoyed the fruits of his labour'and thus 'fulfilled his human potential'. Pardon the tired old cliches. Perhaps he was thinking of a time when, as monkeys, we got to eat the berries we picked for ourselves. Well we'd all like to go back up into the trees and live out Marx's ideal life wouldnt we. Unfortunately we have kids to feed and educate so they can go to university and read Marx.... and for that we need money. Bad luck tao/Karl.. seems we can't live with it and we can't live without it.

Looking forward now to your next sh..load of drivel.
Posted by waterboy, Sunday, 25 March 2007 9:16:59 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
You may subscribe to idea that humans are a blank slate, entirely conscious beings that are able to shape their desires and override impulses and ways of tinking that are shaped by evolution. However, I do not. Nor do most psychologists.

As a perfect example of this, what did Fidel Castro and his bunch do as soon they took power in Cuba? What about Lenin and Trotsky (you obviously don't like Stalin) after the Russian Revolution? Did they immediately hand power over to the workers? Or did they set themselves up as leaders of the people, presumably because the workers needed reeducating as to what they really wanted?

Crap, total crap. Good day to you sir.
Posted by Bugsy, Sunday, 25 March 2007 10:04:42 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
Oh terrific Bugsy and Waterboy,

The ultimate form of intelligent criticism - faecal abuse.

If you two are an example of the heights to which humanity is limited then maybe you are right. Or maybe your type will be bred out of existence by evolution - here's hoping.

However, I prefer to hold humans in higher esteem. I choose not to judge humanity by its lowest common denominator. Call me naive, romantic etc, I don't care. Far better than thinking we will all end up like you.
Posted by tao, Sunday, 25 March 2007 10:50:10 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
Ironically, I was only directing my comments to your philosophy. You have now chosen to make it personal by commenting on our intelligence, nice one.

I put it to you that in fact you do not hold humanity in high esteem at all, because you idealise what humanity and human nature should be and don't deal with it as it actually is. This is a common mistake among "socialists" (or Marxists or communists or whatever you want to call yourselves). It's a failed philosophy, we now know why, get over it. Move on.
Posted by Bugsy, Sunday, 25 March 2007 11:18:23 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
Tao,

You mistake rejection of your ideology for personal rejection.
If the language is colourful that is simply in a spirit of robust debate and not directed personally.
While Marx may have made a profound contribution to our understanding of history and the way we do history...
his economic pontifications were just a load of cobblers and his social analysis has long since proved to be flawed.
Posted by waterboy, Monday, 26 March 2007 7:56:01 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
waterboy and Bugsy: Nice one!

tao: I guess we disagree about the fundamentals of human nature. Personally, I don't believe that humans are much more than sophisticated apes who are motivated by fear, greed, envy, aggression, competiton and a whole lot of other "negative" emotions. Those have helped, and will continue to help, us survive. Of course, they also cause us plenty of problems too, but in the main, they've been tested by evolution. People are not driven by higher ideals, and the only reason people help each other is for mutual survival. However, people are essentially triblistic, and there's a point where "the other" becomes seen more and more as "the other". As such, people begin to see it as detrimental to their own survival to help such people.

People only have the luxury of the brotherhood of man when there are small numbers of them and low (or no) competition for resources (although there will always be competition for mates). After that, we're no different to lions, hyenas and jackals fighting over scraps at the end of the herbivores' migration.

Workers everywhere don't want an international brotherhood, they just want to be top dog. That's why (here comes Nietzsche again), all revolutions are doomed to fail. Once the slaves turn the tables, some of them inevitably become the new masters (secular or religious). Those who remain idealistic either get knifed in the back (individuals) or conquered/wiped out (groups of people). History has shown all of this time and again, and will continue to do so.
Posted by shorbe, Monday, 26 March 2007 10:02:28 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
You're right shorbe, but the fact that you are correct belies a greater danger.

You say that humanity is based on greed and this will never change - but this argument also acts in an apologetic fashion.
Implicit in the argument is the notion that there is little hope for drastic improvement in the workings of power.

Capitalism is effective namely because control of the economy, to a large degree, is taken away from the individual and placed more in the impersonal requirements dictated by supply and demand.
The problem is that every system will inevitably decay - the key driver behind socialism has been the fact that capitalism will inevitably result in wealth - and power - being in the hands of just a few.

Ironically, it is this accumulation of wealth and power that renders capitalism flawed. Capitalism's driving principle - greed - will ensure that the wealthy and powerful use their influence to distort the market.

This in turn leads to other problems - I believe it was Hobson who first theorised that capitalism as a financial system would generate warfare.

Of course, I tend to think Hobson didn't foresee the rising power of the middle class when he pointed out that the European imperialist expeditions (an earlier form of foreign investment) of the 1700's were largely generated by the lack of investment opportunities available in Europe at the time (poor with no spare money, and very rich with more than they can possibly spend = insufficient consumer activity & a stagnant economy leading to recession).

I suppose what I'm getting at in a roundabout fashion, was that while it's simple to view capitalism as encouraging the powers that be to secure resources, it is perhaps an even stronger requirement than many think.
It's going to get more intense in future. While the imperialist tendencies of old won't be directly repeated (there are plenty more investment opportunities today).
I suspect that this in turn necessitates greater regulation rather than reduced, if we are to achieve the best outcomes for the individual and avoid conflict.
Posted by TurnRightThenLeft, Monday, 26 March 2007 11:15:47 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
TRTL: I think you're right on many things. However, I believe conflict is inevitable. People are selfish. Despite all the feel good environmentalism or notions of ending world poverty, we're not going to do that. To do either or both (and I think the two are mutually exclusive actually), we'd have to reduce our standards of living way below what they currently are, or experience a massive world-wide population decline. People simply wouldn't go for either. As such, there will be conflict, and it will be open conflict because it will be too big and too obvious to hide the blatant resource grab that will happen by mid-century. There are simply too many people already who consume far too many resources, but bring China (and probably a few other rapidly developing nations) onboard and it's almost certain to happen in my lifetime.

Yes, it's apologetic, but it's going to happen, whether we want it to or not, so I think it's better to be on the winning side of history. It would suck to be in a smallish, undeveloped nation, but that's too bad for them I guess. All we can hope for is that we maintain something resembling what we currently have, even if that means we have to export even more tyranny and if we end up as part of a larger (American?) political bloc that goes to war with China or any other major political bloc.

I personally think that we're headed for less democracy and far more authoritarianism. If anything, we're going to head more in the direction of a beefed-up Singapore because the majority of people won't put up with some bunch of ferals or civil libertarians if it threatens their shopping malls or supermarkets and the wars that will be needed to stock the shelves.

No political ideology is going to provide a solution to 12 billion people (projected by mid-century) squabbling over degraded land, collapsed fishing stocks, minimal fossil fuels, etc.
Posted by shorbe, Monday, 26 March 2007 2:11:54 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
Fair enough shorbe... but doesn't the argument that there are fewer resources necessitate a revision of how these resources are distributed?

Capitalism does direct wealth into fewer hands - this has been socially acceptable, as the trickle down effect has been sufficient to improve the lives of people throughout the western world.

If the supply of resources, and therefore profit, begins to decline, then in the interest of maintaining capitalism and a better way of life for most, wouldn't it be necessary to regulate that perhaps, more of the profits go toward the lower echelons?

This concept is absolute anathema to the free market economy - but if we are indeed in for increased conflict over resources (and I think you're right, we are) and if the profits remain in the hands of a few while the majority suffer, then isn't that going to weaken Australia internally? At a time when we need to possess strength, won't we be inviting conflict and weaken ourselves if we refuse to countenance these possibilities?
Posted by TurnRightThenLeft, Monday, 26 March 2007 3:11:35 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
TRTL: Yes, you're right in a predictive sense, though I don't think your solution will actually be a good solution.

I used to consider myself somewhat libertarian, but I realise that's as much of a pipe dream as socialism, even though I think the Market is a good idea. It's a failed ideology (if, indeed, classical liberalism was ever really accepted by many at all), as all ideologies will be in a world of shrinking resources (absolute or relative to numbers of people). In such a situation, pragmatism will win the day.

"Right wing" economic policy is becoming, and will become, less and less accepted by most people. Those who were on the fence will get off the fence.

On the other hand, "right wing" social policies will become more and more popular. We will see a massive reduction (if not end) in immigration. Many civil liberties will disappear, and the government will become increasingly regulatory in most important areas of our lives.

However, none of this will necessarily entail better services for everyone. This will be put to us as being "for the good of the nation" but I'm not sure that the upper class/politicians will necessarily lose power or wealth. You can be sure that the politicians and their friends will make sure they're all right, whilst insisting that small businesses and the middle class in general bear the cost. People will fall for this too because people in this country resent the successful because people in this country are irresponsible financially.

The irony in moving away from a market system is we will see the middle class disappear or be completely beholden to the political class because of fear of the lower class, and this will exacerbate the nation's woes, which will in turn require more restrictions "for the good of the nation".
Posted by shorbe, Monday, 26 March 2007 5:30:36 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
TRTL: I'd like to say something further about the financial position of people in this country.

Aside from sport, people in this country resent success. Rather than looking at the fact that they've blown all their money on booze, cigarettes, gambling or takeaway food, or have splurged on home theatre systems (in houses bigger than they need), overseas holidays, or any other consumer items, people want to point the finger at those who have foregone short term pleasure for long term financial success.

We have governments with no vision in this country that pork barrell only for the next election instead of making long term investments in the future of the nation, but I think that's only a reflection of our national psyche. Australia used to be a country where financial prudence was considered a virtue, and accordingly, we were a successful and prosperous nation. Now, we (well, not me) have maxed out credit cards. At the bottom of it, no one made Australians financially irresponsible but themselves. No one made us all rush out and buy plasma TVs instead of paying off the mortgage faster or saving/investing in another way. Sure, we have tough times ahead, and sure that will be taken out on people who have been clever and careful, but I don't believe Australia's future woes will be anyone's fault but our own. I take it as given that politicians and their cronies will always feather their own nests, but people can't seem to get it into their thick skulls in this country that if you not only waste your own money, but punish the financially prudent, then you're dooming yourself to be a banana republic.

My big beef these days is not the politicians (whom I consider to be like any other incurable parasite), but the multitude of morons with maxed-out credit cards burning holes in their pockets.
Posted by shorbe, Monday, 26 March 2007 5:46:07 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
I see what you're getting at, and I suspect we're both agreed there's always going to be that disparity of wealth, it's just the way things are... I suppose, as always, the devil is in the detail. It's all in the fine print I suppose.

A few things that need considering I suppose, are thus;

Our birth rate isn't particularly high, and countries with far less by way of resources have much higher populations and still a first world quality of live - Japan for instance, though this is largely fuelled by a work ethic and competitive culture Australians are unlikely to match.

Theoretically however, our resources and vast space for agriculture (yes much of it is desert and unusable, but we still have much more arable land per head of capita than other nations) mean that we could sustain our way of life, or at least, a comparable way of life, for quite some time - longer than most anyway.

The issue then becomes, how should you sustain this way of life?
I agree with your sentiments regarding credit cards and over-spending, but not necessarily on the attitude toward the upper classes. I'd say one thing Howard has nailed, is the fact that people now see themselves as being rich one day, and resent too much intrusion on taxing business. It's how he's remained in power for a decade.

The problem I envision, is that we don't place enough of a value on core industries, despite the fact that in terms of trade, they're really all we have that competes with the big players globally.
As the world heads for a more dangerous place, these are going to be the industries that matter - this is the long term shortsightedness that we are guilty of displaying.
We reduce our agricultural R&D funding, we refuse to subsidise exports while competitors do so with impunity, we invest little in education, all the while privatising key assets and opening them up to foreign ownership.
Posted by TurnRightThenLeft, Monday, 26 March 2007 7:56:00 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
A fascinating discussion shorbe and TRTL. A might depressing though. Your predictions are certainly grim.

What I really would like to know from you learned people is whether you think there is any political ideology that can take us off our future-destroying path and lead us to sustainability, with urgency. Or more particularly, how we could possibly adapt our current system of governance in Australia.

I know this is taking the discussion in a bit of new direction, but it has evolved so far from the original subject that I think this is fair and reasonable.

Sometimes I think that an adaptation of our political setup could happen very easily, and I have repeatedly implored Rudd, and Beazley before him, to take up the challenge. I could envisage major change in the right direction if just one person, the federal Labor leader, embraced it.

Then at other times I think that it is completely hopeless. If we can’t even abolish such grossly disgustingly antidemocratic aspects of our politics as compulsory preferential voting and blatant favour-buying political donations, then where are we at? How can we possibly ever get away from vested-interest profit-driven growth-promoting short-term decision-making by our federal and state governments?
Posted by Ludwig, Tuesday, 27 March 2007 8:29:20 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
Posted by BOAZ_David, Friday, 23 March 2007 1:37:21 PM
“In my 2 point summary I should have added "except where labor supply is very strong' …”

Well ‘labour supply is very strong’ on Earth at the moment – perhaps you could suggest another planet on which your theories would be relevant?

Posted by shorbe, Monday, 26 March 2007 10:02:28 AM
“Workers everywhere don't want an international brotherhood, they just want to be top dog. That's why (here comes Nietzsche again), all revolutions are doomed to fail. Once the slaves turn the tables, some of them inevitably become the new masters (secular or religious). Those who remain idealistic either get knifed in the back (individuals) or conquered/wiped out (groups of people). History has shown all of this time and again, and will continue to do so.”

Quite true, but as you say, ‘some of them inevitably become the new masters’ – that does not imply that all of them ‘just want to be top dog’ only that some of them do. And while your observation is absolutely correct, that all revolutions soon morph into another radically iniquitous hierarchy, does that necessarily mean that we should entirely abandon our attempts to be free from our animal natures and establish a more sophisticated and humane system?

The great problem I find with the ‘we can't beat them so we join them’ strategy, however effective it may be for the individual, is that in ‘joining them’ we add to the invincibility of the status quo and so compromise any attempt to establish a better system.
Posted by Rob513264, Tuesday, 27 March 2007 9:25:12 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
A "more sophisticated and humane system" Rob? We are constantly striving for a "better system". But I think that you had something else in mind, yes? What "better system" do you have in mind? If it's anything like socialism based on Marx's ideas, keep looking.
Posted by Bugsy, Tuesday, 27 March 2007 10:13:44 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
Rob: I think every political ideology has within it the seed of its own destruction. The problem with our system is that ultimately, it's rare for anyone to get the numbers to take a hard stand on anything, and so we end up fiddling while Rome burns, so to speak. Solutions might be possible, but we'd have to give up many of our civil liberties.

Ludwig: Ultimately, people are not going to give up their consumer lifestyles until it's quite possibly too late. Furthermore, in terms of sustainability, we'd have to completely redesign our houses to be more resource efficient. We'd also have to completely redesign our cities so that people and goods (particularly food) don't have to travel massive distances. We'd need to seriously rethink (and modify) our entire lives, and there's too much established already, as well as too many vested interests.

Other ideas might include a drastic drop in immigration to the point where our population stabilises or declines and a much tighter control on property speculation and other measures that would make housing more affordable.

Also, if the government were really serious about making things okay for people, it would severely restrict their financial decisions because a lot of people aren't financially responsible. It would have much greater control over the banks, it would limit the line of credit people have access to, and it would compulsorily invest say, 20%+ of people's income into super, whilst severely restricting alcohol, tobacco and gambling. I'm sure we could think of a whole lot of other measures that would be "for people's own good".

There are three problems, however. Firstly, we probably couldn't trust governments to have this much control and actually do the right thing (whether because of corruption or incompetence). Secondly, seriously limiting the responsible wealth creators because of the irresponsible could have some serious unintended consequences. Finally, the ultimate problem in this country is that everyone wants a "strong Australia" or to "save the environment" yet no one wants to pay higher prices for anything and/or cut back consumption.
Posted by shorbe, Tuesday, 27 March 2007 10:45:09 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
"What I really would like to know from you learned people is whether you think there is any political ideology that can take us off our future-destroying path and lead us to sustainability, with urgency. Or more particularly, how we could possibly adapt our current system of governance in Australia"

Hmm... the problem here, is that there isn't the will to do so. I also suspect that there won't be until there is no choice in the matter.

If there was a way to do so, then I suspect it would have to be explicitly tied in with the economy - I don't think that this is a problem that can be mended with a political fix - not a political fix on its own.
The beauty of the market system, is that on a day to day basis it will regulate itself and it will accommodate the minutiae of supply and demand.
The ugliness is, that it has no regard for long term sustainability, be it economic, social or environmental.

So... how do we plan for the future if we're operating from within this framework? How do we remain competive while scaling back consumption?

It's a tough one and I wouldn't presume to have all the answers - though I do know some things we can do.

First, I think we need to consider what kind of sustainability we're aiming for - are we attempting a holistic form of sustainability that aims to maintain our entire environment with very little impact?
This is the kind of sustainability we're not going to adopt until we are forced to.
The second kind however - sustainability in terms of social harm and being able to meet the needs of our people, that is more realistic at present.

Clearly this kind of solution isn't going to work forever, with a degrading environment, but at this point in history, I'm afraid we need to start taking steps, and this one is one we can at least aim for.

Cont'd
Posted by TurnRightThenLeft, Tuesday, 27 March 2007 3:08:46 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
Things like global warming are raising massive concerns at present, and while I'm no sceptic, I think in terms of lives, providing food is going to be more of a challenge.

Look here for more: http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=5435

The logical response to this problem, is to encourage research and development into agriculture, as well as maximise arable land.
Agriculture in the northern territory is a fine example - while there have ben failures, there have also been huge successes, sometimes turning dry land into an agricultural paradise. At present, Bill Heffernan's in charge of a $20 million inquiry into water solutions. He's not due to report until 2012, but I can tell you right now, his solution will be to relocate farmers.

The other part of the response, is to seriously consider protectionist trade policies & subsidies.

So how will this help Australia internationally? if we restrict imports (aside from risking the wrath of the WTO) won't we be slowing down production in other parts of the world?

Short answer: yes, but we need to look after ourselves first, and it will help ensure future prosperity when food prices inevitably rise.

Long answer: Australian producers will be more efficient than other places in the world, due to our comparatively higher labour costs to third world countries. This will be a blueprint we can share with the world to aid production.
Plus, we are more likely to be environmentally sound than our poorer competitors. This in turn will be another useful skill and trade that can be spread to other places.

By then, if we are producing much more food than we can consume, we will be able to trade it, and ensure a prosperous future.

This is only one element... I'll get to more when I can post more.
Posted by TurnRightThenLeft, Tuesday, 27 March 2007 3:18:45 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
TRTL: I don't really have much to say in response to your past three posts that I didn't already say in my last response to Rob and Ludwig. All that you've said so far has been fairly correct, or at least insightful, and I'm waiting for your next post.

I guess I just wish we had more people at least thinking about these issues like you do. I'd like to think that the general Australian populace did think about the bigger picture more, but if they did, I suppose we wouldn't end up with the short-sighted ratbags at all levels of politics from the major parties. Putting aside my reservations about voting and the system of government we have in this country, even if I were for it, I would still find myself very, very unenthusiastic about all of our options.
Posted by shorbe, Tuesday, 27 March 2007 10:57:00 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
shorbe,
“Those who remain idealistic either get knifed in the back (individuals) or conquered/wiped out (groups of people). History has shown all of this time and again, and will continue to do so.”

Does this not imply that it is not so much the idealism that is the problem but the back-knifers and the conquistadors?

Bugsy,
“But I think that you had something else in mind, yes? What "better system" do you have in mind? If it's anything like socialism based on Marx's ideas, keep looking.”

I’d settle for any system based on co-operation rather than competition and it would be kind of nice if it didn’t involve blowing up innocent peasants including children in some part of the world.

With address to an earlier remark about human selfishness – when I was studying psychology at uni, we were dealing with ‘common psychological misconceptions’ and they told us that it had been experimentally established that ‘competitiveness’ which most people assume is natural because it seems so, is actually culturally acquired.

Even though co-operative systems are more efficient, more sophisticated and more 'humane' than competitive systems the problem for co-operative systems is that when they co-exist with competitive systems, the competitive systems quite simply steal all their profits (as per the back-knifers and conquistadors of previous mention).

This is not a fault of the selflessness of co-operative systems per se but rather a fault of the selfishness of competitive systems. And for many people the price of abandoning selflessness and embracing selfishness just to be on the winning side is simply too high a price to pay – I sympathize with people who change sides and concede that it is probably the intelligent thing to do however I also think it is entirely unreasonable to insist that everyone should adopt the selfish model
Posted by Rob513264, Wednesday, 28 March 2007 12:41:05 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
Rob, you didn't answer the question, you just told us what you didn't want. The way you phrased it to makes it difficult to disagree with you, as many people would probably like (or not like, as the case may be) the same things. A cooperative system with less competition, brilliant! What is it?
Posted by Bugsy, Wednesday, 28 March 2007 12:55:35 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
So... I'd say the first step, is maximising Australia's food output as an investment in what will inevitably become a growth industry.

(as an aside here, is it just me, or is the most interesting dichotomy in Australia politics, is the fact that the National Party claims to be in favour of small government, yet regulation of agricultural trade is arguably their prime goal. Yet they align themselves with the Liberal party, presumably based on shared conservative social values. I suspect this is why the Nats are in decline).

Mineral resources are also going to increase in value, though I suppose the key difference here is the fact that these aren't renewable supplies (though we do have an awful lot).
A logical response to this would be to maximise our value adding procedure - instead of allowing profits and opportunities to go to other nations, if we can boost our local manufacturing industry we will benefit - there is also the fact that we wouldn't have to deal with the same costs associated with shipping, which makes achieving a profit margin easier.

The unfortunate consquence of this however, is that we'll be competing with other nations who place a much lower cost on labor.
Manufacturing isn't going to go away however - there's always going to be a need for planes and cars and so on (regardless of what fuel we end up using).
Basically, this will mean that we need to simply keep our manufacturing capability alive, even if it is somewhat comatose. If the world is headed for a stage when we have to accept a lesser standard of living and lower wages, then we will have to accept that fact, and presumably, we can enter the manufacturing game competing on the lower wage level of other nations, armed with the knowledge that we as a nation have the resources to do the job - and if necessary, Australia could boost those prospects by reducing exports to competitors.
Posted by TurnRightThenLeft, Wednesday, 28 March 2007 2:01:31 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
The WTO of course, would have a very dim view of this, though as things get tighter, I suspect a few nations are going to start baulking at WTO restrictions.

One important political development of the next few decades will be whether the US decides to start backing WTO resolutions via the use of force in order to maintain the status quo. If we can get around this via a close relationship with the US then we'll be in a very good position.
One of the chief arguments surrounding the Iraq war has been whether it was purely motivated by economic interests... it would be interesting to assess how closely the WTO resolutions tend to favour American interests.. I do know the EU has been ordered to restrict sugar subsidies over the next few years, though I'm not sure if that's the same for the US, who are serial subsidisers.

The Australian-US relationship is of course, an important one, though I don't think it takes nearly as much maintenance as we've been giving it. We don't need particular favour as long as our interests run parallel with the US, and as long as we retain friendly relations and offer at least token support to US ventures (even just support personnel instead of military), they're hardly going to let Australian resources fall into the hands of opponents if they can prevent it. If they can't prevent it, then it wouldn't matter anyway.
Making our support for the US little more than gestures would also have the effect of relaxing members of opposing blocs, though most of this politicking would be of only passing importance.

Our relationship with China and India will increase in importance, though they're likely to be the first to object if we in any way try to restrict our exports of natural resources. The US on the other hand, won't object one jot (well, maybe to India). Here's where the relationship to the WTO will prove very interesting, as theoretically, they'd be backing China if we were to restrict exports their in favour of boosting other projects.
Posted by TurnRightThenLeft, Wednesday, 28 March 2007 2:09:50 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
Shorbe et al,

Well what a load of twaddle.

The only bright spot was Rob.

You all admit that the system is screwed, yet you’re convinced we have to keep it and just tweak it here and there with things like protectionist policies and limiting credit and enforced savings.

If you limited credit for those inveterate non savers (i.e. poor people), where would the banks make all their money? There is a reason banks give credit so easily you know – because they make money from it. You wouldn’t want to restrict their “free market” would you? If people stopped using credit the economy would shrink drastically and it would probably bring on a recession.

The main reason so many people can’t save is that they are on such low incomes. Yet you want to force them to save a proportion of their income when it doesn’t fully cover their needs now. Ironically you’ve got a problem with the alleged lack of “choice” of socialism, now you want to force people to save.

As for protectionist policies - don’t you get it? Capital is now highly mobile – it moves where it gets the best return – nothing is going to make it stay in Australia if it can get better returns elsewhere. Nothing will protect Australian industry if manufacturing can be moved to low wage regions. The objective logic of capitalism and the drive for profit cannot be reversed because a few people, or the government, have some "good" intentions.

Capitalism is in an advanced state of decay. The contradictions within it mean that it cannot be fixed or reformed, and never could.

You people are deluding yourselves.
Posted by tao, Wednesday, 28 March 2007 4:58:18 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
TRTL: Something I forgot is that I don't agree entirely that people see themselves as being rich one day. I think people see themselves as being rich one day based upon good times continuing indefinitely, but have no back up plan should the economy turn.

Regarding the Coalition, it does seem like they're strange bedfellows (the Nats being agrarian socialists and all), but then, the Liberal Party seems like a bizarre mix when you consider the range of stances it supposedly encompasses.

As far as everything else, I suspect there would be all sorts of unintended consequences. As tao points out, capital is global.

tao: I don't actually want to force people to save money. I was pointing out that I could come up with ideas of saving people from themselves, but that ultimately, I don't want to do such things.

The main reason most people in Australia can't save has nothing to do with income and everything to do with spending. Here are two revelations for you that don't require anyone to be Warren Buffet: live within your means and pay yourself first (10% is a good starting figure). When people smoke a pack a day, drink a couple of slabs per week, gamble, don't prepare their meals at home, etc. (not to mention throwing money at consumer goods) of course they won't have any money left to save. This applies equally to those on high or low incomes. I know you won't (though others may), but I suggest you read this book as the authors went to great lengths to research the lifestyles and thinking patterns of the wealthy:

http://www.amazon.com/Millionaire-Next-Door-Thomas-Stanley/dp/0671015206

To pick but one example from capitalism, do you know why I don't have a problem with the outrageous interest fees charged on credit cards? Because I have the self-discipline to live by the maxim: if you can't pay cash, you can't afford it.

Personal responsibility and a little common sense have everything to do with the fact that despite the fact that it's unlikely that I'll ever earn a lot of money, I'll still be financially stable.
Posted by shorbe, Wednesday, 28 March 2007 5:50:20 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
Shorbe,

Well la-de-da-daa.

Must be a good view down your nose from up there on your moral high-horse.

Do you not understand the basic fact that to be “wealthy” there must be others who are not wealthy? If everyone in the world had what the wealthy had, they wouldn’t be wealthy, they’d be normal.

Do you not understand that the richest 1% of adults in the world own 40% of the wealth in the world? Do you not understand that the poorest 50% of people own 1% of the wealth? This is not because of personal habits, it is because the economic-system perpetuates it. And you know what? Those richest 1% ALL WANT MORE – where do you think they are going to get it from - their own labour?

In an ANU report released last year it was found that, after declining from 1921 to 1980, the income share of the top 1 percent rose from under 5 percent in 1980 to 9 percent in 2002. The share of the top 0.5 percent soared from 2.95 percent to approximately 6 percent over the same period. The share of the top 0.1 percent, which had fallen to approximately 1 percent of the total in the 1980s, more than doubled to over 2 percent by the end of the 1990s. These are only top incomes for which information was available in tax returns i.e. Kerry Packer doesn’t count.

If, as a share of the whole, the proportion of income going to the rich is increasing, then it means that the proportion going to the rest of us is less. This pattern is continuing – and it is a world wide pattern. If the share of total income for the lowest 80% of people keeps decreasing, then 80% of people must get poorer and poorer, relative to the wealthy.

It might be possible for you as an individual, with your holier than thou ways, to be “secure”, however it is impossible for everyone to do so. Sure ANYONE can “make it” in capitalism, but not EVERYONE can “make it”.

Get real shorbe
Posted by tao, Wednesday, 28 March 2007 8:09:02 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
tao: You get real, you're as up yourself as I am.

Firstly, you're assuming there's a pie that stays the same size. Objective measures of standard of living such as life expectancy, infant mortality, daily energy intake, etc. have all steadily improved the world over, not just in the West. One of the big lies perpetuated by your ilk is that it's been a zero sum game in this respect. By your logic, if our life expectancy is at or near 80 years of age now, it must be what, eleven (and falling) in the developing world? Heaven forbid that you should actually admit that it's not all doom and gloom for people in other parts of the world, and that the scientific progress (which has been most pronounced and rapid under capitalism), might have improved people's lives.

Secondly, the poor in the West are fat and have Playstations. They die from self-inflicted causes such as heart disease or lung cancer. Obesity is a disease of poor people. Why should I feel sorry for these idiots if they want to eat, smoke or drink themselves into an early grave, or if (through the marvels of modern science) they manage to make it into old age, just because they've had less foresight than the average squirrel, why should I be expected to pick up the tab?

As for the developing world, they're realising that as soon as they dump antiquated political and economic theories, corrupt governments and backward religions (the last two both being tautologies, I know, but still...) they start to move ahead in leaps and bounds.

I know it's really hard for you to accept that any successes of people in life have had anything to do with a psyche of personal responsibility and I suspect this all cuts so close to the bone with you because you indulge in that most Aussie of pursuits: dropping by the TAB on your way to pick up a pack of Winnie Blues before heading down to your local to piss what remains of this week's pay up against a wall.
Posted by shorbe, Wednesday, 28 March 2007 11:01:59 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
Shorbe,

Are you Col Rouge in disguise? I’m sure I’ve had this discussion before, and you are becoming just as irrational as him.

If you go back to the causal-claim discussion you can see that your argument is flawed, or at the very least, not conclusive. You claim that millions of people are poor because they eat the wrong food, smoke too much, drink too much, and gamble too much. You claim that all of these social behaviours, or anti-social behaviours, are the result of individual propensities within each person which then cause them to be poor. However, it could be the other way around – they could engage in all of these anti-social behaviours because of their socio-economic position in society – lack of education, lack of opportunity, lack of community, lack of entertainment, lack of money. By your own “falsification” concept, you can’t even say you have positive knowledge that your theory is true – but of course YOU JUST KNOW ITS TRUE.

And of course it has nothing to do with the corporations who produce junk food, cigarettes, alcohol, and gambling-venues – no doubt they’re just “meeting demand” according to you – they don’t have to take responsibility for their actions. They can take advantage of the millions of “losers” in the world.

These issues are social issues, not individual issues.

And just because Western countries over the last 50 years have had better conditions doesn’t mean that it is going to stay that way, or that there is equality. In a 2005 UN Human Development Program report it was found that “health outcomes in the United States, the world’s richest country, reflect deep inequalities based on wealth and race.”

The UN-Development-Program report includes what it calls a “human-poverty-index” for the 20 wealthiest countries, to “better reflect the extent of human deprivation that still exists” among the populations of these major economic powers. By this measure, the US ranks next to last among the top 20, only ahead of Italy. On such indices as life-expectancy, and especially infant-mortality, the world’s “sole-superpower” lags significantly behind many other countries.
Posted by tao, Thursday, 29 March 2007 12:46:44 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
UNICEF also presented a report in 2005 on the growth of child poverty in OECD countries. According to the UNICEF definition, the countries with the largest proportion of children in poverty are Mexico (27.7%) and the US (21.9%). In the EU, Italy has the highest proportion of child poverty, with 16.6 percent, followed by Ireland (15.7%), Portugal (15.6%) and Britain (15.4%). These countries are followed by Canada, Australia and Japan, each with more than 14% of children growing up in poverty.

Yes, 21.9% of children live in poverty in the richest country on earth, that exemplar of capitalism – USA. That is more than one fifth of children in the USA in poverty. And inequality is increasing.

Now, even if you could somehow blame the individual parents for their gross irresponsibility with their money (where the minimum wage is something like US$6 per hour – HUGE!), should the sins of the parents be visited on their children? 21.9% of them? (Oh sorry, you probably think they shouldn’t have children – you’ll be arguing for sterilisation of the poor next)

You carry on about individual responsibility, but it never extends to social responsibility i.e. responsibility for the society we actually live in – the one that you actually enjoy the benefits of, and that many others are adversely affected by. You’d just prefer to make your pompous judgements about millions of other people, and bury your head in the sand.
Posted by tao, Thursday, 29 March 2007 12:47:51 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
Thanks for your responses shorbe and TRTL.
.

“Well what a load of twaddle.”

Now that’s nice of you tao! So just what is it that you object to here? The very notion of wanting to discuss the best system of governance that will direct us towards sustainability? Or are you just pulling out a small part of shorbe’s argument (increased financial regulation of the people by governments, and protectionist policies) and branding him/her, TRTL and Ludwig as twaddlers because of it?

You have a good knowledge of matters discussed on this thread. But this unfriendly look-down-your-nose-at-all-others attitude is highly off-putting.

“You all admit that the system is screwed, yet you’re convinced we have to keep it and just tweak it here and there with things like protectionist policies and limiting credit and enforced savings.”

That is a pretty unfortunate interpretation. These things were suggested as part of a possible solution, not the main points of consideration and certainly not the whole answer.

”You people are deluding yourselves.”

We are searching for answers to critically serious issues here. We all agree that the overall appraisal is extremely grim. No one in this discussion is deluding themself.

Can I ask you the same question that I put to shorbe and TRTL;

Is there any political ideology that can take us off our future-destroying path and lead us to sustainability, with urgency. Or more particularly, how could we possibly adapt our current system of governance in Australia?
Posted by Ludwig, Thursday, 29 March 2007 5:22:21 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
tao: I've never said that capitalism is a perfect system. It, like all systems, has its flaws, though ultimately you haven't explained how it is that these starving masses in the U.S. are also the fattest people in the U.S. There's a very interesting situation.

I can accept the position of people broadly within the left because they base their beliefs upon reality, but just want to modify the system to reflect their own beliefs. However, talking to someone who believes in Marxist theory is like talking to someone who, despite seeing a whole lot of broken figures at the bottom of a ravine believes that if only he closes his eyes tighly enough and flaps his arms hard enough, this time, he really will be able to fly; or, it's like talking to someone who still really believes that this year, Santa Claus will come down the chimney. It's kind of amusing in a way, but it's mainly just embarrassing.

People do ultimately have responsibility and their woes are their fault. People have free will to realise that their behaviours are counter-productive to their own existences and do something to modify their behaviours, which is what some people choose to do. People are not simply acted upon by external forces. I don't say this from any ethical standpoint any more than I comment on lions vs zebras or lions vs hyenas from an ethical standpoint. If (just hypothetically, because we all know it will never happen) a revolution did happen, well that would be too bad for me for not being smarter or more active in preventing it. It certainly wouldn't be unfair to me. Likewise for those who won't help themselves now.

At the end of the day though, this is all academic because your ideology won't come to pass and will be consigned to the status of historical curiosity. I'll still be doing quite nicely under capitalism. Keep believing though, and one day you might have Heaven/The Revolution. You're right, people like you do keep others wealthy. For that, I must be thankful.
Posted by shorbe, Thursday, 29 March 2007 7:10:14 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
tao- Rather than speaking of harmonious world systems (which most view as impractical) I am speaking of things that can be done. Call them tweaks if you will.
In turn, I ask you to outline a process by which your system will be enacted. Instead of blowing hot air about the evils of capitalism, tell me in practical terms how you would see it fixed, with reference to the current political climate. I'm afraid if you can't do that, all your posts are is hot air and misguided idealism. If you can and your system realistically takes into account man's desire for possessions and willingness to break the rules, then bravo.

In my view, some of the most crucial developments of the next century or so, will be an increased awareness and acceptance of warfare based on trade principles - resources, as opposed to political reasons.
It is interesting that most of our prime trade rivals are our allies. Were this not the case, I suspect we would see more by way of economic warfare.

Consider this - an age old practice in warfare is to sabotage the supplies of your enemy, cutting supply lines and so forth. Attacking the logistical side of things I suppose.

Since WW2, western nations haven't really gone to war with one another, or even against economic rivals. With the rise of india and china, perhaps one day this will change. (Not any time soon).

Now... it's quite fascinating how trade and business operations will continue between enemies even during a time of war. Even if a government attempts to prevent trade occurring with an enemy it won't necessarily take hold.
Economic ties are now global... but as resources get scarce and competition heats up, I envision that governments at war will do more to attempt to cripple the economy of their enemies, whether that is sabotaging their exports or influencing trading partners within their own borders. Where it gets complex, is where the approval of the business community is required, with their own myriad of economic interests.
Posted by TurnRightThenLeft, Thursday, 29 March 2007 10:44:03 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
Ludwig,

““Well-what-a-load-of-twaddle.”

Now-that’s-nice-of-you-tao!-So-just-what-is-it-that-you-object-to-here?-The-very-notion-of-wanting-to-discuss-the-best-system-of-governance-that-will-direct-us-towards-sustainability?-Or-are-you-just-pulling-out-a-small-part-of-shorbe’s-argument-(increased-financial-regulation-of-the-people-by-governments,-and-protectionist-policies)-and-branding-him/her,-TRTL-and-Ludwig-as-twaddlers-because-of-it?

You-have-a-good-knowledge-of-matters-discussed-on-this-thread.-But-this-unfriendly-look-down-your-nose-at-all-others-attitude-is-highly-off-putting.”

If you would care to read the entire thread, you will see that according to Shorbe, I’m a social misfit plagued by megalomania, a fundamentalist with no sense of humour, a zealot, have a dysfunctional personality, cause a lot of suffering, and should mind my “own bloody business” and stop preaching. Once I demonstrated conclusively that Shorbe's arguments were full of holes, he gave up any pretence at reasoned argument, coming to the conclusion that I also “indulge in that most Aussie of pursuits: dropping by the TAB on your way to pick up a pack of Winnie Blues before heading down to your local to piss what remains of this week's pay up against a wall”

I’ve been called “extreme” and “railing” by TRTL, my “philosophy” has been called crap, and my posts have been called a s..tload of drivel.

Who is being unfriendly here?

You don’t seem to take exception to the above personal attacks and unsubstantiated rubbish, yet you apparently take exception to me calling the last few posts in this thread twaddle. Have you not read the whole thread, or do you just have double standards?

I don’t object to discussing the best system of governance, my point is that the massive and myriad problems humanity faces will not be solved within the capitalist framework. Yet none of you actually bother to think outside the box of capitalism. In fact, many of the problems are actually caused by the profit system itself – they are connected by the same thread – the drive for profit.

You asked the very question yourself “How-can-we-possibly-ever-get-away-from-vested-interest-profit-driven-growth-promoting-short-term-decision-making-by-our-federal-and-state-governments?” In an economic system where the driving force is profit, and competition for profit, we can’t. The only solution is to change the economic system to one in which human need is the driving force, not profit.

cont...
Posted by tao, Friday, 30 March 2007 9:27:21 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
You seem to be concerned with environmental-problems - which can only be solved by humans recognising that they need a healthy environment to live in. Most of us do recognise this, but corporations and capitalists only recognise the “need” to make profit, everything else including the environment is a means to that end. They privately control the use of resources and their “right” to make profit on their capital is the predominant “right” in society to which everything else is subordinated – that is why it is called capitalism. The logic of capitalism is to profit from natural resources, whether they are environmental-resources or human-resources, and once depleted, move on to the next resources. As individuals we can “do our bit” but we have no control over the main offenders.

In order to solve environmental problems and be “sustainable”, resources must be brought under the democratic-control of people whose primary goal is not profit – i.e. about 90% of humanity who are not capitalists. Anything else is just a bandaid-solution, a tweak, or in my opinion, twaddle.

You say “We are searching for answers to critically serious issues here.” I agree, but it seems to me you are going around in circles and never dealing with the fundamental-cause of pretty much all of the serious issues, and obstacle to solving them. You describe any “critically serious issue” and I would bet capitalism has played an inextricable role. The capitalist system contains fundamental contradictions which cannot be resolved by capitalist measures – and we need to think outside the box

I am quite happy to elaborate on the implementation of some other system, however presently it seems I have to keep arguing in circles because some people refuse to acknowledge a valid point, and resort to abuse and nonsense. There is a dialectical nature to argument in which we ought to be able to agree on certain points, then move on, and eventually come closer to some truth. But it means that people have to be honest, and essentially, must actually be in it to find truth. Anything else is "twaddle".
Posted by tao, Friday, 30 March 2007 9:38:42 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
TRTL,

“In my view, some of the most crucial developments of the next century or so, will be an increased awareness and acceptance of warfare based on trade principles - resources, as opposed to political reasons.
It is interesting that most of our prime trade rivals are our allies. Were this not the case, I suspect we would see more by way of economic warfare.”

Modern warfare is always “based-on-trade-principles” and for resources. WWI, WWII, and now the Middle-East, to name a few, were all for resources and markets.

The Middle-East has some of the biggest oil fields in the world – why else do you think the US invaded Iraq, and look like invading Iran? They want control of the oil, and they want to keep their rivals (China, India, Russia, Europe etc.) out. The ‘battle of ideologies’ between “democracy” and “Islam” is a cover drummed up to make people believe there is some sort of legitimate reason for what is essentially an illegal aggressive war and occupation.

Your description of the contradiction of economic-competitors being allies is one of the fundamental contradictions of capital. Presently, the US’s competitors are gingerly toeing the line with regard to Iran – they are “allies” within the UN issuing resolutions against Iran, however if the US does invade, those competitors will have a choice to make – whether they try to get in on the act with the US, or against it. And the US, being the most desperate because of its declining economic position, and having done the spadework, is not going to give the spoils of war away cheaply.

What you call and “acceptance-of-warfare-based-on-trade-principles” is really an acceptance of barbarism for profit. When the clay falls from the eyes of ordinary-people as to why their rulers are sending them to war to kill and be killed – i.e. for the profit of the few - the “current-political-climate” will change drastically – that is when the revolutionary-struggle will begin in earnest . “Man’s desire for possessions” will recede into the background before the question of socialism or barbarism.
Posted by tao, Friday, 30 March 2007 10:27:16 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
tao: The reason you have to keep arguing in circles is twofold.

Firstly, you continue to dodge the question that has been put to you time and again.

Secondly, you deny the fundamental of human nature that people are greedy, they are driven by the desire for more things, that they are indeed capitalists. Humans, like other animals, are driven by the status of having access to more resources than others, both because of their own immediate needs (and those of their offspring) and also so they can secure a more (or several more) attractive mates. There is no such thing as exploitation, only degrees of success in the bigger game. The lion isn't stupid -- he gets the lionesses to do the hard work and then he gets dibs on what they catch. That's neither right nor wrong, it simply is.

You're right on your point about Islamaphobia being a smoke screen for a resource grab. Any appeals to abstract nouns are merely a way of disguising the truth. However, the same is true for any who would appeal to higher notions of man in other ways through religion or socialism. The underdog must also argue for abstract nouns so that it can turn the tables on the top dog, and thus gain power.

I'm extremely suspicious of anyone who claims to be "for the average person" because I think such a person is either using that as a smoke screen for a personal power grab, or actually believes it, but will unwittingly do the leg work for someone else's personal power grab because there is always someone else manipulating these idealistic fools.

It's all about power. Anyone who is not after power (whether he or she realises or cares to admit it or not) is biologically unfit and also not to be trusted.
Posted by shorbe, Saturday, 31 March 2007 8:59:05 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
Shorbe,

Do you acknowledge that your causal claim that Stalinism is the “inevitable excess” of Marxism is flawed?

Do you acknowledge that your “falsifiability concept” proves nothing other than that YOU can have no positive knowledge that YOUR THEORY - that Stalinism is the “inevitable excess” of Marxism - is correct?

Do you recognise that your “falsifiability concept” also means that YOU can have no positive knowledge that YOUR THEORY - that humans are inherently selfish, greedy, lazy, irresponsible, capitalists, whatever and that therefore a better economic system and world is impossible – is correct?

Do you recognise that your “falsifiability concept” also means that YOU can have no positive knowledge that YOUR THEORY – that poverty is caused by individual irresponsibility – is correct?

Until you can acknowledge these things – that there may be other explanations for the phenomena you are describing, and that not everything you say is automatically the truth, and that others quite legitimately see things from a different perspective than you and could have valid points, then we are going round in circles.

Your propensity to make unsubstantiated, nonsensical, and logically invalid comments was amusing, but is now, in your words “embarrassing”.

For example you know claim that it is the fundamental of human nature to be capitalist. You must be frigging joking. Human beings have a history of 40,000 years or more, yet the capitalist economic system has only existed for 300-400 of them.

You claim that my “ideology” is a personal power grab, or can be manipulated for someone else’s personal power grab. Yet you don’t appear to see or acknowledge that your ideology can be manipulated in exactly the same way, and is actually the ideology of those in power at the moment. You are progressing through all of the variations and tricks to justify capitalist ideology, your latest being Social Darwinism.

Don't judge others by your own standards Shorbe. You might only be after personal power, but there are plenty of others who are not, me included.
Posted by tao, Saturday, 31 March 2007 10:08:28 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
"that is when the revolutionary-struggle will begin in earnest"

Tao, you want to put down the Marxist books for a minute and
perhaps pick up some evolutionary psychology books, to educate
yourself a little.

Fact is that yup, people, as other species, are driven by
self interest. You cannot ignore evolution theory.

Altruism and reciprocal altruism are all part of the
evolutionary psychology debate. When we study why people
are altruistic, there are in fact good reasons. Firstly
cooperation is one way for a species to achieve more.
Secondly if we fmri scan people doing altruistic things,
we find that reward/pleasure centres of their brains light
up. In other words, being altruistic, makes some people
feel good. As its in peoples interest to feel good,
they are in fact doing it for quite selfish reasons :)

Tao, its high time you educated yourself beyond the
old Marx dogma, the infomation is out there, if you
are interested.
Posted by Yabby, Saturday, 31 March 2007 1:58:28 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
Posted by Yabby, Saturday, 31 March 2007 1:58:28 PM
"Altruism and reciprocal altruism are all part of the
evolutionary psychology debate. When we study why people
are altruistic, there are in fact good reasons. Firstly
cooperation is one way for a species to achieve more.
Secondly if we fmri scan people doing altruistic things,
we find that reward/pleasure centres of their brains light
up. In other words, being altruistic, makes some people
feel good. As its in peoples interest to feel good,
they are in fact doing it for quite selfish reasons :)"

Valid observations, invalid conclusion. Just because there is a sound logical explanation of a link between behaviours and rewards does not necessarily imply that the explanation describes a causal relationship. Also the fact that something is true in some cases does not necessarily imply that it is true in all cases.

You may know a lot about evolutionary psychology but your grasp of logic leaves something to be desired.
Posted by Rob513264, Saturday, 31 March 2007 2:43:01 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
tao: I'm still not going to answer the question about the inevitability of Stalinism from socialism until you answer the question about what to do about the masses of people who won't accept the revolution, or who want to change back after the revolution.

You want to say my claims about Marxism are unsubstantiated. Fine, I'll accept that. Now admit the same about capitalism. You'll never do that though because you're as dogmatic as you claim me to be, and so it does go around in a circle.

When exactly did capitalism begin? Were Phonecian merchants capitalists? Whenever people trade they engage in capitalism, and that this has been happening for a long time in human history.

I realise that my ideology could (and should) very easily be manipulated as a personal power grab, although I think that it wouldn't be particularly successful to say, "I'm going to manipulate you so I can have power over you". People are gullible, but not that gullible. Hence, if I really wanted to do that, I'd become a TV evangelist or union boss.

You're using all the usual Marxist tricks to justify the Machiavellianism of socialism -- paint the world as a dichotomy, never concede a point, ignore any questions, turn your opponent's points back on him and keep throwing mud until something sticks. We're both doing it. You're being Machiavellian by claiming you're not doing that and I'm being Machiavellian because I'm claiming I'm being honest about doing it (whilst still doing it). Of course you're not after power. No one ever is. I know, and send me a cheque in the mail and I'll post the warranty to you later.

Ultimately, I don't have to worry about who is winning this intellectual pissing contest because my ideology is omnipresent. The irony of your position is that it's confined to third world hell holes dependent upon nefarious capitalist organisations for handouts, or to individuals in the West who have to do likewise, and that must really, really grate on socialists.

Say hi to your boss on Monday for me!
Posted by shorbe, Saturday, 31 March 2007 4:17:16 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
Thanks for the comprehensive response tao.

You wrote; “Well what a load of twaddle. The only bright spot was Rob.”

So it was pretty clear that you had just cast ol’ Ludwig on the junkpile along with shorbe and TRTL.

I considered it to be of poor form to strongly offside a new participant who had not thrown any dirt at you nor criticised your views at all. But I appreciate your complaints about the insults that have been thrown at you on this thread. So let’s put it behind us and get into the debate.

“… the massive and myriad problems humanity faces will not be solved within the capitalist framework.”

I think that ultimately they will be addressed within this framework… but not before we have huge economic, social and environmental turmoil.

“…many of the problems are actually caused by the profit system itself”

Absolutely.

“The only solution is to change the economic system to one in which human need is the driving force, not profit.”

Yes. But does this mean embracing socialism or adapting capitalism, or what precisely? I am particularly interested in the Australian situation. I can’t imagine a radical departure from capitalism, but I can envisage a significant refocusing of primary principles. But not before a major catastrophe.

I can see how socialism or communism with the right leadership and community support could very effectively address our problems. Similarly, the right benign dictatorship could do the trick. But there is no way that we could get one of these systems implemented in Australia, although we could probably increase socialistic aspects.

continued
Posted by Ludwig, Sunday, 1 April 2007 5:40:59 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
The very system we have could work, if we could just get the right motives in place. And it seems to me that the right motives will come….after we realise the consequences of being ruled by the wrong motives. In other words; after we face the social and environmental catastrophe caused by the profit motive and expansionist policies.

So I wonder whether the political system really that matters that much. It is the realisation that we have to live within our means that matters. And if we collectively have that, then just about any form of governance would work, as far as sustainability and the protection of out future are concerned.

“The capitalist system contains fundamental contradictions which cannot be resolved by capitalist measures – and we need to think outside the box”

It is all very well to think out side of the box. But we also need to think within the parameters of possible change. I doubt that something that is completely outside of the box of capitalism is even within the realms of possibility in Australia.

So that leads us back to “twaddle” – type arguments. I think that the things that shorbe and TRTL have mentioned simply must be the sort of things that we need to look at. We need to modify our system from within, not put up a whole new system and expect it to be embraced.

But of course we have got to get to the point where human need, not profit, is the main driving force, before we can expect significant change. And again, I can’t see that happening to a significant extent until it is basically too late to prevent a major societal crash.

So obviously what I would love to know tao is how we can develop this fundamental motivational change before we are forced to do it, and within a timeframe that we can prevent the worst of the consequences of our current profit-above-all-else folly.
Posted by Ludwig, Sunday, 1 April 2007 5:44:14 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
Good one Rob,

Not only does Yabby’s logic come up short, we could also draw a conclusion from his example that, contrary to Shorbe’s claims that “greed” is the fundamental survival characteristic of humans, not only do we have the ability do “altruistic” things, i.e. things that benefit others without apparent benefit to ourselves (except maybe psychological and physiological), but that it is ultimately in our collective survival interest to do them – which is why we have developed the feel good reward. It could be argued that co-operative behaviour is an evolutionary adaptation which enabled the human species to be successful – in fact given our relatively long development to “self reliant” adulthood, if we didn’t engage in mutually beneficial individual behaviour, our species would probably not exist today. Indeed our “self sufficient” adulthood is not really “self sufficiency” at all, because we are always reliant on others for our survival.

This self-interested altruism is a far cry from the greedy, selfish, alienating, and humanity destroying behaviour we see capitalists engaging in, and which capitalists like Shorbe try to ascribe to all of humanity.

Yabby you said: “Tao,-its-high-time-you-educated-yourself-beyond-the-old-Marx-dogma,-the-infomation-is-out-there,-if-you-are-interested.”

It is high time you educated yourself about what Marxism is – the information is out there if you are interested, however I suspect you are not.

Far from being a “dogma” Marxism draws upon all of the cultural achievements of mankind, including and particularly, science. Marxism, or dialectical materialism, recognises that everything is constantly in a state of change, and that static descriptions of things, or logical categories, are at best incomplete and at worst obsolete or incorrect. Marxism seeks to understand, at any given point of time and over history, by analysing its internal contradictions and the external forces acting upon it (i.e. attempting to view something in its entirety (or at least what we know of it)), at what stage in a PROCESS something, and in particular human society, is. A Marxist theory or conclusion, being scientific, is always open to modification, or abandonment, if sufficient evidence becomes available to disprove or invalidate it.
Posted by tao, Sunday, 1 April 2007 11:37:19 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
Ludwig,

I will respond to your specific questions later, however my following comments to Shorbe might give you an idea about how Marxists see that things won’t be solved within a nationalist and/or capitalist framework. Marxists take an international and historical perspective – capitalism is global and an historical stage in human economic-development. It might be helpful for you to consider the economic-system like an ecosystem – a change to one part inevitably affects another.

Shorbe,

“tao:-I'm-still-not-going-to-answer-the-question-about-the-inevitability-of-Stalinism-from-socialism-until-you-answer-the-question-about-what-to-do-about-the-masses-of-people-who-won't-accept-the-revolution,-or-who-want-to-change-back-after-the-revolution.”

I believe I answered your question here: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=464#9575

Further to your last post, I note you actually contradict yourself. You say that humans are fundamentally greedy which is the driving force of our behaviour, but you also say that various ideologies appeal to “higher notions of man”. Doesn’t this suggest that our behaviour is not solely determined by our basest biological instincts or functions such as “greed” (which is a debatable “instinct”), but can be affected by our higher “ideals” or “notions”?

Do 19 year olds sent off to kill innocent Iraqis and possibly themselves do it for “greed” or do they do it because of higher notions of “freedom” and “democracy”. Granted some join up for the money (although not necessarily greed for possessions), but I would hazard a guess that training someone to actually kill someone else would entail a lot of psychological preparation, including telling them they are doing it for a cause.

Do 19 year old suicide-bombers kill themselves and innocent people for “greed” or is it for some higher notion of Allah or martyrdom? Sure they might think they are getting 72 virgins, but they are not doing these things for material reward on earth, it is not “greed” for possessions – and they must be carefully inculcated into their “cause”.

To you and me, these young people are misguided, however they are evidence that people don’t just do things for “greed”. People can be very self-sacrificing even if it is, as Yabby says, self-interested “altruism”.

Marxists don’t deny the less than idealistic aspects of “human-nature” or human-behaviour, however they recognise that much of our behaviour is socially-conditioned.
Posted by tao, Sunday, 1 April 2007 11:46:17 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
Apart from the basic survival drives and behavioural characteristics, much of our behaviour is learned, or develops as a result of social conditions. Human behaviour is complex, and not fully understood scientifically, and it is disingenuous to suggest that one behavioural characteristic such as “greed” will always, and in all conditions, outweigh other more “selfless” behaviours.

In fact, Marxists consider that because human technology has the capacity to produce more than enough for everyone’s survival, if it was owned and distributed rationally and equally amongst all people, the impetus to “selfish” behaviour would abate. It could be argued that the biological drive to ensure one’s own survival only turns into “greed” or becomes destructive to others when there is not enough to go around, or the perception is that there is not enough to go around.

The “selfish” behaviour we see in capitalist society is different to behaviour that would have been exhibited in feudalism, or in more primitive society. In primitive societies, the means-of-production, such that they were, were owned in common within a tribe or family, and the products of their labour were owned in common - individual poverty and homelessness would have been pretty much inconceivable – they naturally shared what they had. Their social norms were based on their means-of-production.

This is not to say that Marxists believe we should go back to primitive production, or that capitalism was not progress. Marxists consider human history is a process of mankind progressively gaining more control over the natural environment, through the understanding and manipulation of it. It is also a history of class struggle – different classes, based on different means-of-production, at different times hold power. The development of modern capitalism (characterised by industrial capital and wage labour – mass socialised production) was the result of technological progress.

The Enlightenment period was a product of, and furthered, that technological transformation. Early capitalist theory and ideology like that of Adam Smith was based on the interest of, and was the product of the thought of, small scale producers
Posted by tao, Sunday, 1 April 2007 11:46:54 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
Enlightenment thought was progressive in that it, among many things, broke humanity from the hold of religion and brought scientific thought and method to the fore as a means of knowing the world. Private property was also a necessary stage, and product, of economic-development, and the Enlightenment furnished the ideology that legitimised private property rights against the divine right of the feudalist nobility and Church - progress.

However small scale production inexorably developed into large scale industry and monopolies and capitalist-ideology developed accordingly. Capitalism also brought into being a propertyless class in whose interest it is to further develop human thought, to break free from capitalist-ideology and economic-relations, just as capitalism broke humanity from feudalism and religion. Whatever you call it - socialism, communism, or Marxism, or anything else - the next stage of economic-development (i.e. progress) will be to abolish private property in the means-of-production, i.e. abolish the right of the few to own the means-of-production (just as capitalism abolished divine-right) and bring the means-of-production under the democratic-control of all of humanity.

None of this is to say that a socialist revolution will inevitably occur, however if it doesn’t, Marxists believe that the logic of capitalism will reduce humanity to barbarism, examples of which we can see in WWI, WWII and now the Middle East. Capitalism is no longer a progressive-force, and capitalists who want to maintain their own power and wealth at the expense of the rest of humanity are now reactionary – they are attempting to hold back progress, just as the nobility was reactionary and attempted to hold back progress. The only solution is an international-socialist-revolution i.e. the working class forcibly taking power. Stalinism and Maoism were also reactionary and counterrevolutionary because they actually assisted in the strangulation of revolutionary movements.

A socialist-revolution will not just happen spontaneously – Marxists consider although that the objective conditions of capitalism will produce a revolutionary situation, in order for a revolution to occur the working class must become conscious of its task and will be required to consciously struggle against reactionary forces.
Posted by tao, Sunday, 1 April 2007 11:47:44 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
Tao and Rob, no flaws in my thinking at all! The thing is,
there are alot smarter people then you two, working in the field
of neuroscience and understanding how the mind works. The mind
is what the brain does.

I disagree with Shobe, greed is not a basic condition of
human nature, but self interest is. There is a difference.
Some people are greedy, but they are greedy, no matter which
system is employ. Greedy officials, greedy religious nuts,
you name it, they exist under whatever system you create.
Altruism and reciprocal altruism are part of human nature
too, but once again, there is a compotent of self interest.
Even in love. Do you not love somebody, because how they
make YOU feel?

In my experience, some of the wealthiest poeple, don't in
fact do it for the money at all. Money is simply a measure
as to how well they are doing. 500 grandmothers ago we
still lived in caves, genetically thats not very long ago.
That tribal hunter instict still applies. For many of these
guys, going out and making a killing, is a huge mental buzz,
thats why they do it.
Look at the two wealthiest men on the planet, giving their
fortunes away to charity.

There is no need to be greedy under a capitalist system.
Plenty of 50+ people are saying they have enough for security,
time for a tree change or sea change etc. A capitalist system
gives us the option to do that, unlike socialism, where Govt
officials get most of the benefits.

Under Marxism, there is simply no good reason of self interest
to bother getting out of bed. I will be provided for anyhow,
so I might as well let others do the work and screw the system.
So of course it fails again and again.

You ignore human nature at your peril
Posted by Yabby, Sunday, 1 April 2007 1:59:49 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
Tao - as I've mentioned earlier - I hear plenty of rhetoric but not much by way of practicalities.

When it comes to implementing socialism, I understand the why. You've yet to tell me the how, which is all I'm really interested in.

We're all agreed that capitalism has flaws. Most are agreed that this is the case for socialism.
In order to make a realistic case for socialism, you'll need a lot more than a collection of flaws associated with capitalism.
Posted by TurnRightThenLeft, Sunday, 1 April 2007 5:24:03 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
"Far from being a “dogma” Marxism draws upon all of the cultural achievements of mankind, including and particularly, science. Marxism, or dialectical materialism, recognises that everything is constantly in a state of change, and that static descriptions of things, or logical categories, are at best incomplete and at worst obsolete or incorrect. Marxism seeks to understand, at any given point of time and over history, by analysing its internal contradictions and the external forces acting upon it (i.e. attempting to view something in its entirety (or at least what we know of it)), at what stage in a PROCESS something, and in particular human society, is. A Marxist theory or conclusion, being scientific, is always open to modification, or abandonment, if sufficient evidence becomes available to disprove or invalidate it.
Posted by tao, Sunday, 1 April 2007 11:37:19 AM"

HAHAHAHAHAHA
Good one tao, April 1st right? At least you got it in before noon!
Posted by Bugsy, Sunday, 1 April 2007 7:07:01 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
tao: I was going to post a big, long response, but I thought I'd just summarise it like this (which might be perceived as being a bit glib):

Marxist, do you acknowledge these flaws in your theory?
/Marxist endlessly rehashes Marx, and then goes on to argue that what everyone thinks was an example of socialism wasn't really socialism.

Capitalist, do you acknowledge these flaws in your theory?
/Capitalist endlessly rehashes Smith, Friedman, Heinlein, etc., and then goes on to argue that what everyone thinks was an example of capitalism wasn't really a free market.

Religious person, do you acknowledge these flaws in your belief system?
/Religious person endlessly rehashes major prophet, and then goes on to argue that what everyone thought was an example of said religion wasn't actually a true faith.

Etcetera.
Posted by shorbe, Sunday, 1 April 2007 8:27:31 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
On another matter, I think I should have used the term "self interest" instead of greed. It's much more encompassing of human behaviour. I stand corrected.

I also should have said "so-called higher notions of man" rather than just "higher notions of man". As to people who buy into these, if they're really genuine, I think they're suffering from some sort of mental illness. Honestly, if I said I believe in Zeus and talk to him, people would think I was off my tree, or at least having a laugh. Likewise, the notion of "fighting for peace" or invading and occupying someone's country to free them is bizarre to me. Maybe that sort of double speak is necessary to justify a power grab, but to me, anyone who really, truly believes any foreign expedition is about so-called higher notions of man has either been had, is lying to himself, or is off his tree. I think the Iraq War is a complete balls up, not because I give a rodent's earlobe about the Iraqi people (I figure if those clowns were too stupid or lazy to get rid of a dictator and are stupid enough to fight a civil war, then there's not much I could do for them even if I wanted to, but then the majority of them also believe in imaginary friends), but because anyone with half a brain could have seen that Iraq was certain to turn into Vietnam Phase 2. Also, if anyone really cared about helping people, there were, and are, a whole lot of higher priorities than Iraq. Zimbabwe doesn't have oil though.
Posted by shorbe, Sunday, 1 April 2007 8:31:47 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
Yabby, 1 April
“Tao and Rob, no flaws in my thinking at all!”
Anyone can make a statement – which is all you’ve done here.
Your lack of an actual defence demonstrates your lack of an actual defence.

“The thing is, there are alot smarter people then you two,
working in the field of neuroscience and understanding
how the mind works.”
You are obviously not one of them.

“Altruism and reciprocal altruism are part of human nature
too, but once again, there is a compotent of self interest.”

This is different from what you said before,
I have no problem with the idea that self-interest
is a component (I presume that is what you meant)
in altruism – you stated previously that it was all self-interest.

“Look at the two wealthiest men on the planet, giving their
fortunes away to charity.”

Yeah, old Bill Gates only kept US$58 billion for himself
He is really doing it tough now.

“Under Marxism, there is simply no good reason of self interest
to bother getting out of bed. I will be provided for anyhow,
so I might as well let others do the work and screw the system.
So of course it fails again and again.”

The world is full of people doing work for no monetary reward
I believe Australia has one of the highest volunteer rates in the world
For example, almost the entire bush fire brigade is volunteer.
People contributing to this forum do so without monetary reward.
I guess this means your theory falls apart or perhaps you would
Care to explain why the things that motivate people to volunteer
Would not also motivate people under a Marxist type of system.

“You ignore human nature at your peril”
And you ignore common sense at yours.
Posted by Rob513264, Monday, 2 April 2007 2:27:50 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
"I guess this means your theory falls apart or perhaps you would
Care to explain why the things that motivate people to volunteer
Would not also motivate people under a Marxist type of system."

My theory does not fall apart at all! People volunteer their
time for much the same reasons as philanthropy. Firstly they
have the choice to do it or not. They are not being compelled
by the state or anyone else. Clearly they believe in whatever
they are giving their time or money to.

Given that choice, they then make it as they believe in it,
then feel good about being able to pat themselves on the
back for being so altruistic. Following your feelings is
common human behaviour.

Now if the state forces you or tries to force you to do
something, thats quite different. Tell me how many people
feel great about sending off their income tax cheque.
Yet the same people will willingly give large amounts to
charity, for the reasons I have explained.

Your volunteer firefighters are a great example of that.
I have a firetruck here and when smoke rises in summer,
we all rush off to help extinguish the blaze. People enjoy
the cameraderie etc that goes with it. Yet if the Govt
tried to compel us to do all that without compensation,
there would be a huge outcry!

I remind you that Bill Gates has donated more to charity
then anyone else, he has also stated that he intends to
give most of the rest of his money away too. He is still
young after all. The hardest part with philanthropy is
making sure that its spent wisely and not just wasted,
as is often the case. Thats the problem with giving
the Govt any extra. The huge waste that we all see,
in the way its spent.
Posted by Yabby, Monday, 2 April 2007 5:59:54 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
Yabby said it pretty well, but there's an additional factor which wasn't mentioned: the fact that whatever economic system we choose has to apply to everyone.

There is really no comparison between volunteering and contributing to a state system.

Aside from the points Yabby mentioned, there is the fact that not everybody contributes to charities. Many people are only interested in rorting the system.
It is the way of things, that those who are most skilled at looking after their own interests have a way of reaching positions of importance. This occurs under capitalism, but capitalism recognises that people look after their own interests.

People often to charitable things because they feel good that they have made the choice to do these things.

Is it still philathropy if you are forced to do it? Would people still feel good about it?

Rob - it's fair enough to make those points. To try and say that this bowls over these theories really is putting the cart before the horse.
Posted by TurnRightThenLeft, Monday, 2 April 2007 8:54:56 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
Posted by TurnRightThenLeft, Monday, 2 April 2007 8:54:56 AM
“There is really no comparison between volunteering and contributing to a state system.”

Yes there is, if the state looks after the community, as it is supposed to do, people contributing either way are contributing to their community. People's major objection to contributing to the state is that they dont like what the state does with the money. Personally, I would like to see the firies paid rather than spending the bucks on invading foreign countries.

Posted by Yabby, Monday, 2 April 2007 5:59:54 AM
“Now if the state forces you or tries to force you to do
something, thats quite different.”

Under the current system the state forces you to work to survive
and pay your taxes – it is really not very different at all.

“…we all rush off to help extinguish the blaze. People enjoy
the cameraderie etc that goes with it.”

I think you argue against yourself here. You show how you yourself are motivated by things other than financial reward. Camaraderie exists in workplaces also you know. And people still get paid for their work under communist systems – your condemnation is based on a misrepresentation.

“I remind you that Bill Gates has donated more to charity
then anyone else…”

And sacrificed nothing – do you really think a man with $58 billion wants for anything – the only thing that has changed for him is his public perception in that many people now look on him as a philanthropist rather than a thief of other people’s ideas, eg the mouse, icon based OS’s, etc.

I think a lot of the objections to co-operative systems raised here would be better represented not so much by the term ‘capitalism’ as ‘privatisation’. The major objection to communist type economic systems seems to be that people are not allowed to amass huge amounts of private wealth. The other objections raised seem to me to be fundamentally smokescreens for this one objection which no-one seems to want to name because it is so obviously egocentric.
Posted by Rob513264, Monday, 2 April 2007 4:51:55 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
Rob, you miss the point yet once again. Given the population of a nation, there will always be people who think that the state wastes
money, gives it to the wrong people or spends it wrongly. So paying
tax becomes a burden, they pay as little as possible. Meantime
they still volunteer their time for things they believe in, as
that makes them feel good. Tell me where on earth people happily
pay extra tax?

Under our system you are not forced to work. You are free to head
for the hills and be a hippy, living under bridges. You will not
starve and you'll have free healthcare. If you want more then that
from society, fair enough, you have to do your share and be paid
according to how society values your contribution. You'll then
be forced to pay tax, to pay for those hippies etc who don't.

Under our system, you are also free to be creative in your work,
to do things you love to do for instance and be paid for them.
Market economics allows for that, marxist systems don't.

I don't argue against myself at all. People want choices, not
compulsion. Choices make us feel good, compulsion by others make
us feel bad. We tend to do the things we feel good about, not visa
versa.

Why are you so intent that somebody like Bill Gates should make
huge sacrifices? He could freely keep the lot until his dying day,
as some do. Fact is that he's doing more for the poor then anyone
else on the planet. He got rich by preventing the greed of others,
like Apple, when they refused to sell their software system to others.
He played a huge role in you having cheap access to PCs and the net etc. You should thank him :)
Posted by Yabby, Monday, 2 April 2007 5:37:00 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
You make egocentrism sound like a bad thing! I have no qualms about stating that one of my goals is to amass huge amounts of wealth, preferably at the expense of people like tao. ;P
Posted by shorbe, Monday, 2 April 2007 6:18:33 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
Posted by Yabby, Monday, 2 April 2007 5:37:00 PM

“Rob, you miss the point yet once again.”

Perhaps, perhaps it is you who miss the point (once again).
Do you always agree with how the money is spent within the fire service.
The fact that you do not always agree with it however
does not stop you contributing does it?

“Tell me where on earth people happily
pay extra tax?”

Cuba. Although the insertion of ‘extra’ into your question is misleading
as there is no extra required – in fact if the government did not spend so
much on protecting private investment in other places, taxes would almost
certainly be reduced. I don’t have the reference but I have heard from a
reliable source that the US alone has spent $76,000,000,000,000
on ‘defence’ since WWII. The mind boggles at the ‘tax-cuts’ they could
have had. Note: That amount is independent from the cost of all
the damage the ordnance inflicted.

“You are free to head for the hills and be a hippy, living under bridges. You will not
starve and you'll have free healthcare.”

Oh, sing thou from the neo-con songbook. Our streets are full of homeless people
who live in appalling poverty – you may consider that a real choice – I don’t.
cont...
Posted by Rob513264, Monday, 2 April 2007 6:43:38 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

“Under our system, you are also free to be creative in your work,
to do things you love to do for instance and be paid for them.”

There is nothing intrinsic in communalism that restricts creativity or people doing what they love.

“People want choices, not compulsion. Choices make us feel good, compulsion by
others make us feel bad. We tend to do the things we feel good about, not visa versa.”

Do you really think that the people living under ‘market economies’ who are forced in their millions
to work in sweatshops around the world to feed their families are really doing what they want.
You are propagating right-wing propaganda at its worst.

“Why are you so intent that somebody like Bill Gates should make
huge sacrifices?”

I didn’t say that, again you criticism relies on misrepresentation. I merely pointed out that his philanthropy
actually cost him nothing and so he should not get credit for making a sacrifice he never made.

“Fact is that he's doing more for the poor then anyone else on the planet.”

It is true that he has given more to the poor (people without computers wasn’t it?)
but it is equally true that by retaining a personal fortune of $58 billion dollars he is keeping more money from the poor than anyone else.

“He got rich by preventing the greed of others,”

[Belly Laugh]Oh, please, I have a hernia.

“He played a huge role in you having cheap access to PCs and the net etc. You should thank him :)”

I do, every day. But the good things people do, do not excuse the bad things they do, not in my book anyway.
Posted by Rob513264, Monday, 2 April 2007 6:48:06 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
"The major objection to communist type economic systems seems to be that people are not allowed to amass huge amounts of private wealth"

Actually, no. That's about the one thing I agree with in the communist system. It's everything else that is wrong with it.

It's more the fact that in removing enterprise from the free market and handing it to government, you are exposing it to corruption within government, which would normally be constrained by competition.

It's the fact that communism, is essentially a term for socialism imposed by force.

It's the fact that while I've been willing to put forth ideas for limiting the damage on Australia being inflicted by free market capitalism, I nobody can practically tell me in logical steps how they would institute socialism, or indeed, communism.

It's the fact that socialists seem to pretend corruption will go away under that system, or at the very least, don't appear to acknowledge it and suggest practical means by which it will be constrained.

It's the fact that socialism relies upon the goodwill and honesty of the greater masses, while pointing out how much money people accrue and rort under capitalism.

There is one overarching problem: the problem with capitalism is it allows people to gather more money than they possibly need. It plays on people's greed.
Yet we are told to believe that socialism will change this? The only way this can be changed is if people are forced into not be able to accrue this wealth.
Tell me - who decides when and how to prevent people becoming this rich? And how to prevent these people in charge from doing what everybody does under the capitalist system, which is to look after themselves?

And for crying out loud - somebody please explain how a socialist system is to be introduced into modern day Australia.
I've said it before and I'll say it again - if you can't, you're just blowing idealistic hot air around and you're not dealing with practicalities.
Posted by TurnRightThenLeft, Monday, 2 April 2007 7:48:13 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
Tao, I tracked you to here via the member search facility. I have been off-line for quite a while and do not wish to contribute to this particular discussion. I just wanted to reach you to alert you to a book which I feel should be read by all individuals professing an interest in their fellow man. It is "Whats left. How liberals lost their way" by Nick Cohen.
You have previously advised me to extend my horizons by reading certain books and I am now returning the favour. Let me know what you think after reading it in its entirity. I do not want an in depth critique just your overall response and whether it has resulted in any change in your outlook.
Regards
Logical?
Posted by Logical?, Monday, 2 April 2007 8:32:33 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
Cuba? ROFL You mean that country, where everyone risks their
lives to escape, where a dual economy exists. Those who
can make some illegal dollars by being say hookers for tourists,
they thrive, the rest just get pesos. Now now Rob, get serious
please. Funny how private enterprise is coming back into Cuba.
Perhaps even old Fidel realises what a failure Cuba has been.

Regarding the fire service, I can and do choose to give what
I want, when I want. If I disagreed with how money was spent,
I could simply withdraw. Its my choice, thats the issue.
My point remains, when people do things freely and willingly,
it often makes them feel good to be altruistic, so they assist.
When compelled by the state and forced, they will rebel.
Taxation versus philanthropy is a typical example.

You are clearly a young whippersnapper, or you would know
the history of the PC and how Bill Gates got rich. In
the early 90s there were two choices, MS-DOS or Apple.
Apple cost a fortune, MS-DOS was unusable for normal people,
so few owned computers. Gates brought out Windows 3 for about
$46.50, which any computer could use, not just Apple.
The nett result was 100s of millions of PCs were suddenly
sold, so he got rich. He got rich by destroying Apple's
greedy monopoly, consumers benefitted, including me.
Why should I be upset by that?

My point remains, you are free to be a hippy and go and
live in a commune somewhere, if you prefer that to bridges.
You choose to work.

In communist systems there certainly is denial of liberty.
Govt officials decide what you will do and what you will earn.
I prefer to choose myself thank you. I also prefer to let
consumers decide what they want to buy, not the State.
What is your problem with market economics? Jealousy of
the rich?
Posted by Yabby, Monday, 2 April 2007 8:57:31 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
TRTL
“"The major objection to communist type economic systems seems to be that people are not allowed to amass huge amounts of private wealth" Actually, no…the problem with capitalism is it allows people to gather more money than they possibly need.”

?

Yabby,
I thought the neo-con song of Cuba was that everybody loved Cuba and Castro
so much because he had brain-washed them. You can't have it both
ways or do you just change tune according to which
argument you are trying refute?

Family businesses have been privately owned there continuously since the revolution.
It is only that the size of the business was limited.
I would argue that the fact that Cuba has survived in the global economy under brutal embargoes
from not only the most powerful economic force in the world
but also its closest neighbour is a testament to the resilience of its structure.

Are you really happy with the way the money is spent in the Rural Fire Service?
I was very disappointed that they decided not to provide fire-proof cells
in the trucks but then a mate of mine was cooked in the cabin of his truck
along with 3 of his mates in the Waterfall fires of 1978.

My problem with market economics is that it is a ‘survival of the fittest’ system
and the fittest to survive in a competitive market economy tends to be
the most ruthless and unscrupulous exploiters of other people’s labour,
eg sweatshops in Asia (or Lakemba).

Just as we have state control of personal behaviour through laws enforced by police
to stop the ruthless and unscrupulous members of the culture exploiting everyone
else so we also need state control of business for exactly the same reasons.

I would love to be rich and I have a number of times in my life been in
a position to get rich if only I sacrificed my principles. Unfortunately I am
afflicted with the belief that my principles are more important than
money – sad, I know.
Posted by Rob513264, Tuesday, 3 April 2007 5:02:09 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
Rob - reread my post. You'll see that the one thing I agree with you that is good in socialism is the idea of preventing too much wealth accumulating into fewer hands.

The 'Actually no' refers to the fact that you say this is everyone's problem with socialism.

It isn't the problem. It's the one good thing, the aim of socialism. It is everything aside from that aim that is flawed.

That goal sounds nice in theory. In theory only.

The bad thing about socialism is that it is totally impractical - nobody can tell me how they would introduce it to Australia.
Posted by TurnRightThenLeft, Tuesday, 3 April 2007 9:08:10 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
Rob, I have no idea what the neo con song is, for I don't follow their
ideas or opinions, I form my own, issue by issue. But then on another
thread somebody suggested that I was a left wing preacher, so there
you have it :)

Cuba basically survived because of Russian subsidies. When they were
cut, it was a disaster. I actually think the Americans made a big
mistake. If they had not boycotted Cuba, old Fidel would have been
shot long ago, by one of his countrymen.

Our fire service works quite differently to yours. If we relied
on the Govt, fires would regularly destroy our countryside nearly
every year, due to lightning strikes. They have some State fire
trucks, but relying on them would not be much chop. So most farmers
around here own their own dedicated fire truck, equipped and ready
to go. Mine is a 4wd with a 1200l tank, which does virtually nothing
else for 6 months of the year, but be ready for the next fire.
I paid for it and maintain it, thats my contribution. I also attend
any fires where I am required. Its the fact that hundreds of vehicles
like mine are around this area, that stops fires. We farmers then
all chippped in to buy a huge pump, so we can refill somewhere near
the scene of the fire. Paddling our own canoe on this one is far
more effective then anything the Govt can do.

We don't really have a "survival of the fittest economy. There
are all sorts of rules, protecting consumers and workers. But yup,
the greedy will keep trying to invent ways to outsmart them. The
same people would spend their lives trying to be in charge of
a communist system, for that would mean the most benefit for
them.

Unlike you, I have no desire to be rich, but just to be comfortable
and happy. I don't need expensive toys to be happy and no need
to impress anyone, so wealth itself as a goal is not my goal.
Posted by Yabby, Tuesday, 3 April 2007 8:05:10 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
Ludwig,

With regard to heaping you on the junkpile with the rest, it does look that way, so I apologise. I think you are at least trying to come to some truth, but I seriously have my doubts about Shorbe. (This is not to suggest that I think I have the monopoly on truth, just that, having been through all the arguments and logic over and over, I have not yet seen a better explanation than Marxist-theory).

““The-only-solution-is-to-change-the-economic-system-to-one-in-which-human-need-is-the-driving-force,-not-profit.”

Yes.-But-does-this-mean-embracing-socialism-or-adapting-capitalism,-or-what-precisely?-I-am-particularly-interested-in-the-Australian-situation.-I-can’t-imagine-a-radical-departure-from-capitalism,-but-I-can-envisage-a-significant-refocusing-of-primary-principles.-But-not-before-a-major-catastrophe.-“

In the final-analysis, capitalism cannot be “adapted” or reformed. Where the primary principle of the economic-system is profit, everything else must be subjugated to that principle. Any “reforms” that are made in the interest of human-need or the environment, apart from the fact that they take so long and so much struggle to be implemented and are never the full measure required, are only temporary, and will give way in the face of pressure brought to bear in the future.

Take for example uranium-mining and the ALP’s no new mines policy – enough pressure has been brought to bear on them by those wanting to profit from uranium-mining that they have caved – and so has Peter Garrett for chrissake – it is sickening watching him explain their environment policies – this is a guy who formed his own anti nuclear party. Now, uselessly, they are saying they are happy to open more mines, but oppose nuclear power in Australia. How long until they cave on that one? Your guess is as good as mine.

The Greens are no better because ultimately, all they end up doing is “pressuring” the major parties, and because they don’t challenge the profit system itself, must eventually cave in to the profit motive.

Now, I make no judgement about uranium-mining and nuclear-power and whether we should be using it – although my instinctive response is that we shouldn’t – because the information we are provided with about all energy forms is limited, conflicting, and influenced by the various competing interests of different players. And these interests are ultimately affected by the drive for profit.
Posted by tao, Tuesday, 3 April 2007 11:02:26 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
Even “green” energy producers still need to make profit. Take electricity - we can elect to pay extra for “green” electricity which is all well and good, but what if you can’t afford it, and even if you can, why should you have to? To my way of thinking, if we as a society want more people to use green energy then it should cost less than ordinary energy, or residential end users should be subsidised. The argument is always that “someone has to pay for it” (i.e. the infrastructure etc) and we should all “do our bit”. Well why doesn’t the “someone” who makes the profit from selling us the energy pay for it out of their profits? The answer is that nothing is to get in the way of profits, they wouldn’t “do their bit” it if not to make profit, and we have no say in it. Yet if we didn’t have to pay the profit component at all – i.e. we cut out the middle man and ran it ourselves, which workers already do anyway – we could make the best and most cost effective decisions for humans and the environment.

Of course there is also the national/international problem. We can’t just come up with “solutions” in our country to solve “our” problems because we are environmentally and economically dependent/interdependent on the rest of the world.

“The-very-system-we-have-could-work,-if-we-could-just-get-the-right-motives-in-place.-And-it-seems-to-me-that-the-right-motives-will-come….after-we-realise-the-consequences-of-being-ruled-by-the-wrong-motives.-In-other-words;-after-we-face-the-social-and-environmental-catastrophe-caused-by-the-profit-motive-and-expansionist-policies.”

You are right that we are heading for a social and environmental catastrophe caused by the “profit motive”, but there is nothing that can be done about it within the capitalist system that will comprehensively solve the problems we face. What you call the “right motives” are socialist motives i.e. human social needs. Profit motives of a relatively few people in the world are in fundamental opposition to social needs of the majority. To assert that social needs are more important than profit, you effectively assert that no-one has the right to exploit the social need of others for profit.
Posted by tao, Tuesday, 3 April 2007 11:02:59 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
So, for example, everyone has a need for a roof over their head – it is a social need. Therefore, no-one has the right to exploit a person’s need for housing to make profit - ever. The same with medicine, education, essential services, food etc. This means that profit cannot be derived from such things.

To decide that environmental-needs take precedence over profit, then you determine that the environment cannot be exploited for profit - ever.

There are no half measures or “balance” because if you allow a few people to profit from social needs, or to exploit the environment for profit, then in reality profit takes precedence.

It is impossible for social-needs to predominate in a system where the profit-motive rules - the right to profit currently pervades every aspect of our lives. The profit-system and all of its laws and mechanisms to protect private-property and exploitation must be dismantled completely. Those who benefit from the profit-system are not going to give it up easily, which is why an international-socialist-revolution is required – i.e. it must be taken from them.

Political, social and economic upheavals are inevitable in the coming period and masses of ordinary people will be drawn in, radicalised, and forced to intervene, particularly against the inevitable militarism which will be engaged in by the various “great” powers to secure their piece of the pie as in the two world-wars. The only social force which has the power to stop it is the international-working-class whose interests are irreconcilably opposed to war and destruction of social-conditions Whether the result is the “catastrophe” you speak of will depend on what program, principles and perspective the radicalised masses adopt. Marxists consider that the only solution is for workers internationally to unite to build a mass-party which fights for social needs against the profit-system.

If the social and environmental problems we face, including war, are a product of the capitalist-system, then they cannot be solved except through the abolition of capitalism. A movement against these things must be a movement against capitalism.
Posted by tao, Tuesday, 3 April 2007 11:03:28 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
tao: I'm actually just interested in taking the piss out of idealists more than anything because I realise that anything I say to you will be met by great slabs of regurgitated Marx.

I could roll out all the predictable anti-Marxist arguments, so you could then roll out all the predictable Marxist counter arguments, and so on and so forth. I'll see your class consciousness and raise you a trickle down economics and off we go.

The trouble is that, as TRTL keeps pointing out, no one has actually pointed out the practicalities of this. It's all very well for you to talk about how the revolution will come one day, but Marxists have been saying that for how long now, and through how many major wars/economic downturns/environmental crises/Bert Newton television series? It's like some form of Millenarianism. "No, wait, it will definitely happen in 1999. Okay, 2000. No, 2005. Hang on, no really, this time it's definitely going to happen in 2010."

If you wonder why no one takes Marxists seriously these days, it's because they're on a par with all those people who stocked up on bottled water because they were convinced Y2K was going to mean we'd all be relearning how to use flint axes. Maybe ninety, fifty, perhaps even twenty, years ago people actually took Marxism seriously, but now, it's all a bit of a giggle really.

(Actually, I think everyone knew it was well and truly a failed ideology by 1987, there was just a lot of arms spending at stake. Incidentally, I urge you to look up on YouTube the interview with Frank Zappa where he talks about how it was his idea to bring down the Berlin Wall, and the telephone conversations he had with Soviet officials, and how he got made a special cultural attache by the CzechoSlovak government. Actually, I urge you to look up any interview with that man -- they're all hilarious -- there's also a really good one where he talks to David Letterman about a Broadway musical he's written.)
Posted by shorbe, Tuesday, 3 April 2007 11:57:39 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
Shorbe,

No Marxist worth their salt would ever say that a socialist revolution was "inevitable". However, if a revolution doesn't occur humanity will be reduced to barbarism.

To get a picture of what that will be like, take a look at Iraq. An agressive invasion in the interests of US capitalism has led to bloody civil war and hundreds of thousands of deaths - barbarism.
Posted by tao, Wednesday, 4 April 2007 8:49:30 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
Apostles communist? John Ball,Thomas Munzer,Jan Bockelson, the Taborites, the Anabaptists, would certainly agree , All humans created equal under god is certainly animal farm stuff. The meek shall inherit the earth , freedom is found in toil for the lord , to turn the trees to ashes, drain the bogs and share equally the wealth. Munzer's call to punish the royalty and merchants for their wickedness. Christianity is the father and mother of communism, the concept of the lay preacher stems directly from early protestant communist communities. The first half of 20th century Europe was a product of the ancient struggle between its communist protestant history and its fascist Catholic history. The New Testament does reflect the communist radicalism of Jesus against the Fascist state of Rome. In the story of Jesus the communist triumphs as immortal unable to be extinguished by the fascist state. In the real world fascism crushed Jesus and his communism by taking the symbology on board and regulating Christianity as if it were an army of fascism. The only escape for Christianity was the enlightenment so today most churches are prosperity cults concerned with worldly wealth , with its communist past manifesting in guilt for exploiting others to gain wealth or its fascist past manifesting in trying to influence secular laws based on religious ideology or "values or morality" as such ideologies are (often wrongly) claimed to be.
Posted by West, Wednesday, 4 April 2007 9:24:38 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
tao: Not to mention invasions of a whole bunch of eastern European countries, the Korean peninsula, Tibet, Nepal, parts of south-east Asia, and of course, Afghanistan, to name but a few by Communist forces. I'm sure the average Tibetan is glad of all this, and I'm sure the average Czech or Pole is missing the hell out of Marxism. In fact, so much so that they're probably buying a pair of Nike sneakers to mourn the event.

I guess it's okay when Marxists rape and pillage against non-conformers to achieve their ends though, because it's all for the "good of the people". It's kind of like screwing for virginity really, isn't it?

I know what you're going to say though, "but they're not real Communists". To that, I'll reply, but real capitalists don't believe in the notion of "the state" or "invasions". Now let's get out of theoretical caricatures and into the real world.
Posted by shorbe, Wednesday, 4 April 2007 10:09:55 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
tao... you still haven't provided real answers here, as to implementation.

Let's say you were elected tomorrow, as a federal MP with a decent bit of clout in modifying Australian policy.

What moves would you honestly make?

And if you would prefer not to make changes from a government position, then fine. What position would you prefer?

What practical actions can you suggest? Have you got anything other than rhetoric?

If you want to debate your point, you first need to make people believe it is a possibility. Otherwise, it is little more than railing against the status quo.
Posted by TurnRightThenLeft, Wednesday, 4 April 2007 12:38:53 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
Tao, great response. Thankyou.

I appreciate the Marxist philosophy of moving right away from the profit motive. But I just can’t see that it could ever be embraced in Australia, or that it is necessary to divorce ourselves from the profit incentive.

“The profit-system and all of its laws and mechanisms to protect private-property and exploitation must be dismantled completely.”

No I don’t think so. I can see Australia becoming much more socialistic, but never to the extent of dismantling the profit-based system or laws protecting private property.

“It is impossible for social-needs to predominate in a system where the profit-motive rules”

I don’t think the profit motive is a bad thing per se. Rather, a system where there is no profit incentive and where everyone is basically equal despite highly unequal abilities and motivation just seems fundamentally flawed.

Within a democratic system both the profit motive and strong socialistic ideals should be able to coexist. The trick is to get the community and government to strike the right balance.

Some moves have been made in this direction, but as you say it lags far behind what is needed.

It is not a matter of dumping capitalism in favour of Marxism, nor of reforming capitalism, it is a matter of reforming our brand of democracy, so that capitalism can be kept under control… and a much better social-needs regime can be implemented.

continued
Posted by Ludwig, Wednesday, 4 April 2007 1:48:25 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
It seems that the only way that this reform is going to occur is as a result of a series of significant stings. That is, social upheavals of sufficient magnitude to make governments implement the necessary legislation to prevent them from happening again, and for the general community and the big end of town to accept the need for this, and not vote them out of office.

After a few significant stings, we will all hopefully realise the imperative of developing a sustainable paradigm. And once this is in peoples’ headspace, it will just follow automatically….with our capitalist system intact and a much better brand of democracy to keep it in its place.

The political significance of social imperatives will slowly rise up as the general community becomes more concerned about the future. This will compete directly with the profit-at-all-costs pressures that governments feel from big business and economic growthists.

But more importantly, it will lead to modifications within business in the balance between short-term profit and long-term security and between profit at all costs and the generation of a good image as a worthy corporate citizen. Once this takes hold, I can envisage many businesses gearing themselves up for the longer term, even if it is at considerable loss of short-term profits.

The profit motive will take on a longer term vision.

Once we get it straight in our collective heads, the profit motive can actually work in favour of us reaching sustainability.

The trouble is though that we will apparently need various upheavals to make it happen, and the momentum is bound to trail way behind what we really should be launching fully into right now.

It also seems that these upheavals have to fully manifest themselves. No amount of warning seems to work. This can’t be more obvious than with the water crisis in all our major population centres, which still have absurd unmitigated high population growth!

I can’t see how a Marxist revolution or any other political structure/strategy can speed up the effort towards sustainability.
Posted by Ludwig, Wednesday, 4 April 2007 1:54:12 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
Tao, you just don't get it lol.

If you look at our rise in standard of living, its largely
happened because of innovation and the corresponding rise
in productivity. You have all sorts of so called "crazy"
people out there in the real world, doing their thing, being
creative and inventive.

90% of those people might fail, but the few% who do have
great ideas, are people who change the world. Their freedom
to innovate, freedom to raise capital to prove the world wrong,
their freedom to do their thing, is why we all have a better
standard of living.

That kind of innovation simply does not happen, without
a capitalist system. Once bureaucrats take control, its a
disaster. Waste and lack of innovation are the order of the
day.

In that sense, the small amount of profit made compared to
turnover, becomes irrelevant. Losses from lack of innovation
and lack of caring about waste are such, that the system
collapses. We've seen that time and time again.

Thats why under your idealistic theories, it lands up as
a lose lose situation for everyone expect the few who have
the power in their sweaty little hands.

Thats also why competition is required in a market economy.
Without it, you have cosy little monopolies developing.
Thats exactly why consumers are the largest beneficiaries
of globalisation, the consumer become king, voting with
their wallet, every day.

Without innovation, you are not going to solve the world's
long term problems either. Mind you, with population increasing
by 80 million a year, why should I care, until people get
real about ever increasing world population?
Posted by Yabby, Wednesday, 4 April 2007 2:41:11 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
Shorbe,

“Now let's get out of theoretical caricatures and into the real world.”

How about you actually get out of superficial caricatures and into examining the real world. Start by examining what socialism, or Marxism, is instead of what YOU THINK it is.

Marxist theory conceives of communism as an international (or probably more precisely a world community in which there are no nations), classless society in which the state has withered away i.e. there is no state. From this conception it follows that there has never been a “communist state” – the term is an oxymoron. It seems reasonable that, if we are going to be discussing the consequences of “Marxism”, then we ought to be using Marx’s conception of socialism and communism.

You however, take as your starting point the “assumption” that certain past or existing states or regimes are “communist” or “socialist” or “Marxist”. This “assumption” is not based on an analysis of Marxism or the actual nature of the states or regimes you are lumping into the category “Marxist”, it is based on your opinion. Your argument (or what passes for argument when not simply derogatory attacks) then flows from that opinionated assumption. You are using a different definition (or opinionated assumption) to the Marxist conception, which definition you insist I must accept.

But why should I, having actually made a study of Marxism (albeit limited at this stage), accept your impressionistic opinionated assumption when it is abundantly clear to me from your superficial arguments that you have not made any such study, or really attempted to understand Marxism at all?

Marxist theory is above all a scientific method of analysis and a guide to action. In a scientific discussion, if the molecular formula of water is H2O, confusion will ensue if someone believes that the composition of water is H2O2 (which is actually hydrogen peroxide – or bleach). And in practice, there will be a remarkably different result if you apply H2O to your hair, or H2O2. It is important to know the difference.
Posted by tao, Wednesday, 4 April 2007 11:32:18 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
Yet you don’t appear to want to know whether or not there is a difference. To you it is, as you say, an “intellectual pissing contest” which you don’t even care about “winning” because your ideology is “omnipresent” - i.e. you’ve picked the “winning” side and you’re running with it, so you don’t have to even bother seriously thinking about whether what you are saying is logically consistent or based on facts.

Yet you arrogantly expect me and others to accept your opinionated assumptions or “caricatures” of Marxism when you have admitted that you don’t think seriously about their validity.

And the fact is that it is not just an “intellectual pissing contest”. There are billions of people in the world who suffer daily. There are people on this thread and elsewhere who are really concerned about the state of the world, and care about humanity. Marx spent his entire life studying and analysing social and economic forces in an endeavour to assist humanity in its quest to solve its problems. Many others have devoted their lives to the same cause, and died for it.

You have expressed on many occasions your hatred of humanity, and your indifference to human suffering. You, in your imagined financial security, don’t care enough to seriously examine a theory which has already had a huge impact on the world, and may hold the key to transforming it, and instead facetiously and uninformedly deride it. Why on earth should anybody take you seriously?
Posted by tao, Wednesday, 4 April 2007 11:32:56 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
Marx was wrong, get over it already.
Posted by Bugsy, Wednesday, 4 April 2007 11:47:03 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
tao: Try applying the same analysis to capitalism.

You insist capitalism is a certain way, yet if you actually read the strongest advocates of capitalism, you'd find they're nothing like what you claim is capitalism.

You keep harping on about the invasion of Iraq, yet hardcore libertarians are just as opposed to that as you are. Go and really read some Friedman or Heinlein, or even look up modern libertarians such as Claire Wolfe, Lew Rockwell or L. Neil Smith. Go and look up the Free State Project, or the Free State Wyoming. These guys don't believe in the state either, much less all the nonsense you're attributing to them. Clearly, you haven't done an in depth study of capitalism and its adherents.

Show me a country that's truly capitalistic, has free markets and non-state intervention. The U.S.? Wrong. Australia? Wrong. So, I'll see your "the U.S.S.R wasn't Marxist" with "well, the U.S.A. doesn't have a free market economy".

You want to characterise capitalism and capitalists as a bunch of neo-con, Project for the New American Century sorts (whom libertarians often rail against), yet you get all uppity if someone dares suggest Stalin was a Marxist. Which way is it? Do we judge an ideology by its idealists or its practical implementation; by what it could or should be, or by what it is or was?

In a sense, it's not so much that I do or don't hate people. I believe in the old maxim: the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Maybe you do want to save the world (personally, I think you thrive off drama and turning life into one big fairy tale of "good" vs "evil"). Maybe it's just that people don't want to be saved. It seems to me there's something quite condescending, and thus, ultimately misanthropic, about any ideology that assumes people are stupid (lack class consciousness) and need to be saved (via a workers' uprising) from themselves and others.
Posted by shorbe, Thursday, 5 April 2007 12:04:55 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
Shorbe,

“there's something quite condescending, and thus, ultimately misanthropic, about any ideology that assumes people are stupid (lack class consciousness) and need to be saved (via a workers' uprising) from themselves and others.”

Where have I said that people are stupid? Where do Marxists call people stupid?

You are the one that goes around calling people stupid - “if those clowns were too stupid or lazy to get rid of a dictator and are stupid enough to fight a civil war”. Presumably, by your own criteria, your assumption that Iraqis are stupid makes you condescending and misanthropic.

You misrepresent what is meant by the term class consciousness. People can have consciousness, or lack of consciousness, about many things, but it doesn’t mean they are stupid, or that Marxists judge them as stupid.

For example, I was once in an emotionally abusive relationship which I kind of knew, but not really (for a number of reasons which I won’t go into). It wasn’t until the pain became almost unbearable that I started to really question what was going on (really to try to stop the pain) and gradually, and at times in a flood, I became conscious of this or that piece of the puzzle and put it together in some sort of cohesive framework i.e. I became fully conscious (or at least more conscious than I was). Once conscious of such things I could then decide what I would and would not accept in a relationship, and take control over how I would behave rather than just react. (And I lived happily ever after! ;-) )

Now you might call me stupid, and after it all I must have said 100 times “I can’t believe I was so stupid”, but it wasn’t really stupidity, it was more a lack emotional and psychological coping skills (or good relationship education so to speak), a lack of awareness of my own emotional state and personal power, and a lack of understanding of the dynamics of relationships.
Posted by tao, Thursday, 5 April 2007 8:51:58 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
cont...

And no-one could have “saved me” from it or myself, it was up to me to want to improve my situation, and then the resources and information that was always available from those more conscious than me could be of some use.

Similarly no Marxist can “save” anyone, or wants to. Far from thinking people are stupid, Marxists believe that the individual members of the working class, for a number of reasons, are not aware of the dynamics of capitalist society, or that they collectively constitute the most powerful class in capitalism, or of their own fundamentally essential and most valuable role in human economics. As you said your “ideology” (i.e. capitalist ideology) is omnipresent – it pervades everything. Just as in my relationship I was told “you are nothing” and treated accordingly, in capitalism the working class is constantly told “you are nothing” and particularly “you are a powerless individual” and treated accordingly.

Marxists don’t create the pain which will cause working class consciousness to awaken – capitalism does that, however they, having the benefit (or curse) of consciousness, come to the conclusion that it is their task consciously prepare for when it does.
Posted by tao, Thursday, 5 April 2007 8:52:53 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
"Just as in my relationship I was told “you are nothing” and treated accordingly, in capitalism the working class is constantly told “you are nothing” and particularly “you are a powerless individual” and treated accordingly."

Tao, you should read Daniel Goleman's "Emotional Intelligence".
What you were, was emotionally engulfed, which is pretty common.

What you don't understand, is the powerfull potential of capitalism
for anyone who chooses. That fact that you and others are badly
informed, is the real problem, rather then the system.

For people to achieve at their potential, whatever it is, they
need freedom. Capitalism, for all its faults, is the only system
to provide those freedoms. You have the potential to do whatever
you like, once you understand the system. Do you really think that
the 2 students who created say google, could have done it under
any other system? I doubt it. Yet Google, or Youtube, are all hits,
created by small people with a dream. Consumers have decided.

Marxism will always fail, for one reason. Those bureaucrats who
run the show, will feather their nests, bugger the rest.
So the system bogs down, eveyone loses.

It seems to me that the problem is you, not the system
Posted by Yabby, Thursday, 5 April 2007 10:05:15 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
Yabby,

Yes...I was always told, in my relationship, and within my family that “The problem is you” and that I should just accept the situation, and what they told me as the truth...as are most abused people.

You seem to be implying that my problems were purely the result of my on personal emotional “unintelligence” – I was “engulfed” by my own emotions – the rest wasn’t real. I acknowledge that I was partly responsible for the situation. However, in the end I was physically abused (once). Do you blame me for that too?

I have read Emotional Intelligence and many other things. Of particular assistance to me at one point was the Tibetan Book of Living and Dying – very good for learning that a lot of emotional suffering is caused by our perceptions of how things should be. I have since gotten myself on track emotionally, and with a lot of help from others, however what came out of that period was a recognition that much of what I had been told all of my life about the way the world is, and particularly about me being “the problem” and “selfish”, was not true.

It is typical of an abuser to tell those they abuse that they are “the problem”.

The working-class are always being told that they must be more productive, that they don’t work hard enough, that they must be more flexible, that their demands for pay-rises and better working-conditions are unreasonable, or selfish, that we just can’t afford proper education or medical-care for their children, that they should just be happy with their lot. The working-class, and their needs and demands, are always “the problem”.

It’s all a pack of lies. Workers do ALL of the work and create ALL of the wealth. There is no rational reason why they shouldn’t enjoy the ALL of benefits of their work – good housing, medical care, education etc. There is no reason why they can’t run it ALL themselves.

Give me one rational reason why one person should profit from another person’s, or many other peoples’, labour.
Posted by tao, Thursday, 5 April 2007 11:59:31 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
West
“Christianity is the father and mother of communism”

It is nice that someone remembers what this thread was actually about – I really think if this conversation is to continue someone should start a new thread something like Communism/Socialism vs Capitalism/Private Ownership. Personally I am not that interested in it as I agree with TRTL that it is a theoretical argument (at the moment anyway) though I thought theoretical arguments were what we were doing here.

Yabby
“I actually think the Americans made a big
mistake. If they had not boycotted Cuba, old Fidel would have been
shot long ago, by one of his countrymen.”

That sounds suspiciously like moral support for assassination to me. [Is that the
sensation of my blood running cold?]. What kind of condition do you think the Australian economy would be in if America placed the same sort of embargoes on us that they put on Cuba? Do you think we would last as long? I think not.

“There are all sorts of rules, protecting consumers and workers.”
Agreed, but apparently still not enough – for a recent reference look at Fincorp. Of course any system will have people trying to subvert it. And in any system that will probably happen (if history be the judge) my argument is basically that it is government’s job to govern, they are in the best position to act across the board and they should be the most easily accountable and transparent to the people who elect them. Private companies, notwithstanding scrutiny by ASIC etc, need to operate in a much more protected and private way to ensure their good business practices are not divulged to their competitors. This privacy however also operates to make it easier for them to hide their less than good practices. Governments are not entitled to this sort of privacy because their position is not vulnerable the way the position of a private company is.

“Unlike you, I have no desire to be rich, but just to be comfortable
and happy.”

To me being comfortable would be ‘being rich’.
Posted by Rob513264, Friday, 6 April 2007 12:26:50 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
TurnRightThenLeft
“Rob - reread my post…The 'Actually no' refers to the fact that you say this is everyone's problem with socialism.”

Re-read my post, I didn’t say it was ‘everyone’s problem’, I said ‘the major obstacle seems to be’. Exaggerating a point of view to an extreme and then criticizing it because it is too extreme is a cheap trick since very few, if any, extremes are valid.

‘nobody can tell me how they would introduce it to Australia.’
Probably the same way it is introduced in other countries - by electing socialist governments
Posted by Rob513264, Friday, 6 April 2007 12:28:30 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
Ludwig,

What is a “better brand of democracy”?

How can “capitalism be kept under control”?

Why do governments feel “profit at all-costs pressures” from big business and economic growthists?

How will “profit-motive take on a longer term vision”?

If the political significance of social-imperatives (which presumably will come from ordinary people) will rise up and compete with profit, why should ordinary people (i.e. those who don’t make “profit”) who see social-imperatives as more important than profit, allow those whose “profit at all-costs” behaviour has caused many of the problems to retain their “profit at all-costs” mechanisms?

The social and economic-upheavals you predict are actually coming – and they are as you say, caused by the profit motive. There is some saying (I can’t remember it exactly) which is that a problem cannot be solved using the same level of thinking as that which created the problem in the first place. If the profit-motive and capitalists cause the problems, why would we think that capitalists will be able to solve them within their own level of thinking? And why should we limit our own thinking to that level?

The massive upheavals which are coming are precisely those which will expose the limitations of bourgeois ideology and society and bring about a resurgence in Marxist thinking.

“I can’t see how a Marxist revolution or any other political structure/strategy can speed up the effort towards sustainability.”

For one thing, a socialist revolution would ultimately result in all wealth, resources and human knowledge being in the hands of ordinary people who want to solve the problem of “sustainability” in a truly democratic fashion. We could then use it to make a concerted effort to come up with solutions instead of having to scrounge for the crumbs in competition with massive subsidies for coal, oil and nuclear companies. We could make human and environmental needs a priority, which is the only way to solve the problem.

I should also add, because I didn't make it clear in my last post to Shorbe, that Marxists believe that ordinary people are intelligent enough to run things themselves.
Posted by tao, Friday, 6 April 2007 9:54:52 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
Tao

“Workers do ALL of the work and create ALL of the wealth. There is no rational reason why they shouldn’t enjoy the ALL of benefits of their work – good housing, medical care, education etc. There is no reason why they can’t run it ALL themselves.”

There are plenty of reasons why they can’t run it all themselves.

Firstly, I presume that you define workers as being primary producers and secondary workers: value-adders. That is; those who actually create wealth. And that you exclude tertiary workers: those who provide services but not goods and hence are not actually creating wealth.

Obviously any society needs a services sector, which draws off the primary wealth base. This includes government and law-enforcement and all sorts of things. Without this, you would simply have anarchy. We would have a situation where the more aggressive organised themselves well and suppressed the rest. Massive inequality would prevail.

It seems to be completely contradictory to talk about good services; “medical care, education, etc”, when the workers who provide these services are not wealth generators!

.
This is a fascinating discussion. But at the risk of being seen to try and hijack this debate, the thing that REALLY matters is how on earth we adapt our system of governance so that we can quickly come to live within our means, and avoid the looming catastrophic economic, social and environmental collapse.

Would anyone care to build on the theme presented in my posts of 4 April?
Posted by Ludwig, Friday, 6 April 2007 10:49:57 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
Ugh! I keep forgetting to refresh the thread before I post. I didn’t see your last post before I put mine up |;>\
Posted by Ludwig, Friday, 6 April 2007 10:59:41 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
Back to the topic were the apostles communist? The apostles are literature characters but to indulge in the fantasy of text were those characters communist. The answer is a definite yes because they gave up their individuality to serve their adopted community. They sacrificed their families and material possessions to be as on community. Communists!
Posted by West, Friday, 6 April 2007 11:04:19 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
tao: To address your point about workers owning the means of production, I would say the following.

In capitalist theory, individuals trade, which is a convenience. Without specialisation, this is unnecessary, as people are self-sufficient. However, people soon realised that specialisation was more efficient. You grow grain and I raise a pig, and then we haggle and trade. Some people chose (and choose) to work for others. Owning the means of production (ie. a business) means taking on extra responsibility and risk. Many people (including myself) aren't willing to do that, so we work for others. The market balances risk and return. To give an example, if I were a farmer say, eight thousand years ago, I might have thought, "I wonder if it would make more sense to catch that animal and pen it, than go off and hunt it every time?" Of course, that would require me to set aside a percentage of my grain crop (and thus, temporarily reduce my own standard of living) in what might turn out to be a risky venture. However, there's the incentive of (greater) future returns. If everyone ate all of their grain, yet still got to come and have some of my animal later, then I'd be losing out, and hence, there'd be absolutely no incentive for technological innovation or forward planning (eg. the domestication of animals).

Now I know you want to characterise capitalism as a particular thing, but if you really read most capitalist theorists, you'll see that whilst many don't inherently oppose companies getting too big, what they do oppose is them having political influence via the enforced state (which they see as a violent and oppressive body). Most are actually in favour of small communities of individuals, which is how they try to run their lives. That's why they sometimes call themselves "anarcho-capitalists" and why they subscribe to principles such as the "non-aggression principle".

Of course, the reality is that we don't have free market capitalism (and probably never will), we have something quite different, but that's also your defence of socialism. Theory or practice?
Posted by shorbe, Friday, 6 April 2007 11:34:59 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
“What is a ‘better brand of democracy’?”

Tao it is one in which governments actually do their job: look after the bests interests of the community. In Australia this would mean decisions being made in an impartial manner, instead of being biased by what big business wants, what can be done by government in the short term at the expense of the longer term and what can be thrown at problems before elections. It would mean the abandonment of political donations which by their very nature incur favours, the abandonment of the disgusting compulsory preferential voting system, and various other changes to fair-up the whole deal.

“How can ‘capitalism be kept under control’?”

With proper and fair governance. But this would require the above reforms, and most importantly it would need the mindset of the community to be behind a regime of better democracy, better social policy and sustainability.

“Why do governments feel ‘profit at all-costs pressures’ from big business and economic growthists?”

Because big business makes big profits and can give big donations and big taxes. Because the sort of people who succeed in business are the sort of people who aggressively lobby decision-makers for what they want. Because most politicians come from the same sort of money- and success-chasing background. Because big business holds great sway in the over media and power over voter opinion. Etc.

continued
Posted by Ludwig, Friday, 6 April 2007 1:52:43 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
“How will ‘profit-motive take on a longer term vision’?”

When it becomes apparent to businesses that their future is in jeopardy due to looming massive changes in society, they will be likely to take on a longer term perspective to ensure their survival. Many will at least, while others will just maximise what they can get in the short term and then cut and run. As community perception of the urgency to reach sustainability increases, the view of short-term profit-taking at the expense of our future will darken, and pressure will be brought to bear on companies to take a longer term view.

“If the political significance of social-imperatives… retain their “profit at all-costs” mechanisms?”

They wouldn’t allow the profit-at-all-costs mentality to remain. It would become a profit-in-balance-with-social-imperatives mentality.

“And why should we limit our own thinking to that level?”

We wouldn’t be. By thinking with the necessary collective significance about the imperatives of sustainability as opposed to continuous expansionism or of quality of life instead of economic growth, we would be thinking on a very different level to what we currently are
Posted by Ludwig, Friday, 6 April 2007 1:58:19 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
Tao, we all benefit from each others labour, as part of normal
relations with others. When your mom cleaned your room, or
cooked for you, you benefitted. If your partner fixes your car,
you benefit. If you sleep with him, even if you don't really
feel like it, he benefits from your labour :)

The big issue is this: We all need to make a living in this
world, one way or another. To me labour is simply another
commodity, that some indivduals decide to sell. In our dealings
with one another, we have to decide what things are worth.
If I for instance invent something, or build a house in my
spare time, it has a value. Who decides that value?

The only solution is a marketplace. Tao has this set little
mindframe about what capitalism is meant to be. To me its
a marketplace where values are decided, rather then have
them imposed by Govts.

At the end of the day, the best person to decide what they
would like to purchase, is the consumer. The best person to
decide how they should earn an income, is the worker. Some
workers don't want a boss, cool, they become self employed.

Yes workers can run things for themselves, that is what they
should do. They are free to form companies, free to produce
products or services. Any group of workers can form a cooperative
and do their own thing, under our system. Main thing is they
focus on consumers and produce what they want.

What has shown to be a disaster, is rather then market economies,
we have state planned economies. Its been a dismal failure time
and time again, wherever it was tried, for a myriad of reasons.

Rob, Cuba is a typical example of a failed state economy.
The US boycott simply provided an excuse for Fidel, for his
huge failure. I remind you that many countries have thrived,
even with UN boycotts. The US is but one country. If they
boycotted Australia, we sould simply trade with Japan or
China!
Posted by Yabby, Friday, 6 April 2007 2:01:23 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
Ludwig, you want to stop and think about what "big business"
actually is. Yup, you have the odd billionaire around the place,
but if you look at the big picture, they are few and far between.
If you look at say the ASX 300, most so called "big business"
is in fact run by employed CEOs, or chief workers. Most
of these guys worked their way up the chain, they are paid
for their labour.

Who drives them for ever more profits? Mostly its managers
of superannuation funds, who call the shots these days.
Look at the share registry of most big companies, super funds
dominate. That one trillion $ of super fund money is not just
a figment of imagination, its real and its invested in big
business, on behalf of Australian workers.

Why do CEOs keep driving for more profits? Quite simple,
if they don't perform, its soon made clear to them by
super fund managers that they should resign or be fired.

Why do super fund managers keep pushing for higher profits?
Quite simple, they want to show how good they are at investing
workers money, so want to show as high a return as possible.
If they do well, compared to their peers, then can then
claim pay rises for being so clever. Self interest drives
the system, all the way down the line. That just seems to
be part of human nature, to ignore it would be foolish.

Regarding the future, there is an interesting test in
psychology, called the marshmallow test, performed on
5 year olds. It seems people stay the same through most
of their lives, as they acted when 5 years old. Some will
live for today, some think ahead. Changing human behviour
is a huge ask. IMHO people will only learn through pain alot
of the time.
Sad but true, in so many cases.
Posted by Yabby, Friday, 6 April 2007 2:34:46 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
I've just had a heap of work dumped in my lap so I am unable to continue with this thread so will unsubscibe, and I feel the subject has strayed a bit far from the original anyway. Cheers.
Posted by Rob513264, Friday, 6 April 2007 4:26:46 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
Yabby, yes I use ‘big business’ in a very broad sense. Perhaps I should be referring to the whole business community.

I don’t think it really matters whether it be super funds or shareholders or whatever that drive CEOs and companies to maximise profits. I can understand fully why they have that basic motive.

What really matters is the power and the will of governments to mitigate it. And this comes back to the will of the general community.

As you say, engendering that will, or changing human behaviour, basic priorities and thought processes, is a huge ask.

I agree that it is only likely to happen to the necessary extent after a lot of pain has been felt.
Posted by Ludwig, Saturday, 7 April 2007 11:41:34 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
"What really matters is the power and the will of governments to mitigate it. And this comes back to the will of the general community."

Ludwig, yup the general community is the real problem. Govts
push for more, as it can be shown that if people have more
in their pockets, they will more often then not re elect a
Govt. It seems to me that some people are just never content
with their lot, whatever they have, its not enough. Thats
the real problem.

I'm at a point in life where I'm not rich, but I'm comfortable.
Sometimes I'll sell something, based on what I think its worth,
ie how much effort I had to put in to produce it, rather then
the market value. People are quite shocked lol, they think
its unusual, as they are so used to everyone pushing for every
penny that they can get.

The interesting thing has been that in return, when I purchase
something from them, they usually volunteer to be quite modest
in their charges.

My conclusion is that happiness is very much a state of mind.
Some people will never be content, whatever they have, they
will want even more. Others will stop and examine their lives
and realise that all things considered, they have it pretty
good compared to others in this world. Clearly for those
who always want more, money can't buy happiness, so in a sense
I feel sorry for them.
Posted by Yabby, Saturday, 7 April 2007 4:07:40 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
Shorbe,

I will first repeat my statement previously made to Yabby – Give-me-one-rational-reason-why-one-person-should-profit-from-other-people’s-labour. I put it to you that you can’t.

This is one of the issues at the core of your apparent “theory or practice” conundrum:

“Of-course,-the-reality-is-that-we-don't-have-free-market-capitalism-(and-probably-never-will),-we-have-something-quite-different,-but-that's-also-your-defence-of-socialism.-Theory-or-practice?”

On the surface your argument seems plausible - it appears as if both capitalist-theory and Marxist-theory never work “in-practice” and therefore can be lumped in the same basket of useless-theories.

However, there is a fundamental-contradiction in capitalist-theory which cannot be resolved-logically, or in-practice within capitalism. Capitalist-theory says that labour is the sole producer and measure of wealth. It then tries to explain why workers – the producers-of-wealth – should not keep the full-value of what is produced by their labour, but that employers or capitalists should privately-accumulate the share of what is produced by that labour which is surplus to the requirements of the labourers to survive. I can’t go fully into it here but an interesting-summary is Engels’ introduction to Marx’s Wage-labour and Capital http://marxists.anu.edu.au/archive/marx/works/1847/wage-labour/intro.htm. Yet for all of capitalist-theory’s attempts at giving “rational” explanations and justifications, there is no rational-reason why one person should profit from other people’s labour. The theory is based on an irrationality, and is itself inherently irrational. In trying to justify this irrationality, capitalist-theory (or Political-Economy) is forced to abstract notions which are not based on the material-reality, contradictions, and ultimately, patent lies.

Now, regardless of what you say about the reality, or non-reality, of “free markets” and capitalist-theory not including war, and individual capitalists’ preferences, and the “practice” of true capitalism etc, this aspect, i.e. the paying of workers less than the full-value of what they produce, and capitalists taking the rest, is “practiced” throughout capitalism – it is the material-reality. Wage-labour and the private-accumulation of the surplus-value of labour i.e. capital, underpin the entire system. In this sense capitalism “works in-practice” the way it is supposed to – capitalists enrich themselves by the labour of others – and this “profit motive” is the economic-foundation of society – the mode of production, and is the basis of all decisions and ideas (ideology) produced by capitalists.
Posted by tao, Saturday, 7 April 2007 6:01:29 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
As an example of the way this works, consider pharmaceutical-companies which exist solely to make profit – they invest in drug-research with a view to what is profitable, not to what is necessary for humanity – HIV in Africa for example. If the massive resources available to pharmaceutical-companies were focussed on a cheap fast cure for AIDS, chances are we might have found one by now. But face it, how much profit could be made from curing poor people? Profit first, human need second. We see this all the time – look at global warming – it is now widely acknowledged that CO2 emissions must be reduced immediately, but we won’t do anything that is detrimental to “the-economy” which really means “profits”, particularly of oil and coal-companies. It pervades every aspect of our lives.

Marx not only exposed the incompleteness and irrationality of “capitalist-theory”, he showed how the actual “practice” of capitalism itself (regardless of whatever theory was used to explain or justify it) would inexorably lead to monopolies, depressions, impoverishment of workers, competition for resources and markets, colonisations and war. Every “measure” taken by capitalists – protectionist policies, anti-monopoly policies, “free trade” policies, tariffs, subsidies, war, Keynesian-economics, etc, is an attempt by them to maintain these two fundamental and inextricable “practices” - wage-labour and capitalist-accumulation, and to get a bigger share of the pie themselves. There is an objective logic to capitalist “practice” which moves independently of “theories” and even the intentions of individuals. We look at people like Hitler, and even George-Bush, and think they are madmen, but in fact they are actually propelled by the logic of capitalism. They are the face of the faceless-capitalists called to serve capitalism in times of crisis, the more extreme the crisis, the more extreme its representatives.

Marx is credited with formulating what is variously called the “materialist conception of history”, dialectical materialism, or scientific socialism. Materialist philosophy basically says that our ideas are a product of the material world, as opposed to “idealist” philosophy which says that ideas came before the material world from someone like God who created it
Posted by tao, Saturday, 7 April 2007 6:02:39 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
Dialectical materialism says that in nature a “thing” is always in the process of becoming “something else” and consists of antagonistic and opposing forces, the resolution of which forces results in the “something else”. Nature is in a constant process of resolving contradictions.

Marxists study the historical development of human society, as a part of nature, which changes from one mode of economic production to the next as new technologies are developed to produce what sustains it. Humans are in a constant process of resolving contradictions, however unlike the rest of nature which is unthinking, they are able to consciously intervene into events.

Marx studied how changes in the mode of production resulting from new-technologies produced antagonisms between the feudal class and the new rising bourgeois class (capitalists), and how the resolution of those antagonisms resulted in a new ruling class – the bourgeoisie. But the new mode of production produced its own contradictions and antagonisms which will eventually require resolution, a major one being the antagonism between wage-labour and capital, which are in reality two sides of the one coin. Marx demonstrated how the interests of capital and wage-labour are diametrically opposed – the higher the profit on capital, the lower the share of productive wealth is paid in wages. Increasing profits for the capitalist class can only come at the expense of the living conditions of the working class. This is what produces the extreme polarisation of wealth we are currently seeing.

However the logic of capitalism and the inexorable process of this extreme polarisation, war and destruction in the interests of the capitalist class, is unsustainable and ultimately untenable for the working class which spontaneously (and to start with unconsciously) struggles against it for its own interests in an attempt to resolve the contradiction.
Posted by tao, Saturday, 7 April 2007 6:03:09 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
Marx’s study led him to the conclusion that for workers (and humanity as a whole) the only satisfactory resolution for them was to become the new ruling class, and he got an idea of what that would be like from the Paris Commune of 1871 when the starving Parisian workers took over Paris for 70 odd days before being massacred by the bourgeoisie– summary here: http://marxists.anu.edu.au/archive/marx/works/1871/civil-war-france/intro.htm. They instituted their own government and their own decrees in their own interests. This is what socialists believe needs to happen internationally.

However, Marx saw that the international socialist revolution which is required will not come about spontaneously, and will be fought tooth and nail by the capitalists (as it was in Russia), and in order for it to occur and be successful the working class will be required to be conscious of the nature of capitalism and their membership of their “class”, and act consciously and strategically in a unified effort to take power and keep it in the face of counterrevolution. This is where Marxism – the use of dialectical materialism as an analytical tool, and guide to action - comes in.

So it is not that Marxist-theory doesn’t work “in-practice”, it is just that, to this point, the working class, despite a number of small wins, has been defeated by the capitalists. True socialism i.e. international socialism has not yet been “practiced”. The theory, unlike capitalist-theory, does not contain a fundamental irrationality or contradiction. Marxist-theory seeks to expose and resolve contradictions. However so far, the implementation of “Marxist-theory” by the working class and its leaders has faced enormous opposing forces which it has not yet been able to overcome - as predicted by the theory itself.

I am out of words, so will address your other points, and Ludwig’s, later.
Posted by tao, Saturday, 7 April 2007 6:03:57 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
Tao, you are so bogged down with all these old theories, that
you forget to look at the big picture, as it exists today.

Those lines you draw between capital and labour are becoming
more and more blurred. Fact is that the middle class these
days are in fact quite wealthy. Your millionaire next door
is a plumber, cleaning contractor, small business operator,
you name it, they are there in quite large numbers. These
people usually don't display wealth, doesent mean they
are poor.

A huge number of Australians own their own homes. Something
like 50% have ASX shares, owned directly. The richest
group are the retirees, those grey nomads you see travelling
around the country in their caravans.

If you look at the numbers, there are actually very few
really rich people in Australia, but heaps with quite
a bit. So your old clear lines of 100 years ago are gone.
So down the toilet of history, go your many theories :(

HIV research is being done, by philanthropy, paid for
by some of those evil capitalists :) CO2 emissions
are a global problem, not just a capitalist caused problem.
Fact is everyone who can, uses electricity, drives a car,
no matter where they are.

Tao, time for you to put down those books, get out and
smell the roses :) Heaven is here and now, its too late,
once the worms get ya...
Posted by Yabby, Saturday, 7 April 2007 8:37:23 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
tao: Once again, we get back to the fact that you're convinced there's a monolithic vision and practice of capitalism, and an inevitability about all of that. Yet you won't grant even the remotest possibility of the same flaws to your own theory.

If you're really so convinced of all this, I suggest you go and find Lew Rockwell's e-mail and suggest he and Karl Rove go and hang out together, because you know, they don't really have diametrically opposing world views. Maybe they could shoot some hoops, or take a Latin dance class together or something. Or, I don't know, maybe you could try to set Dick Cheney and Claire Wolfe up on a blind date. I'm sure they'd find they actually have a lot in common over a glass of red wine in a candlelit French (or is that Freedom? Hehe) restaurant.
Posted by shorbe, Sunday, 8 April 2007 10:23:00 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
I will be away for the next few days so will see if anyone is still on this thread when I get back.

Shorbe,

Didn’t you read my post? I said that regardless of what you or anyone says is “capitalist theory”, the fundamental practice of capitalism is to pay workers less than the full value of their labour, with the rest going to the capitalists’ profit. That is capitalism. That is what happens in capitalism wherever it is practiced, under whatever system, and regardless of whatever measures regulate it. Do you deny this is the case?

In capitalism, production is social i.e. done by many people, while ownership of the means of production, and the goods produced is private. It is a contradiction, and cannot be justified rationally. Its unrestrained practice produces polarisation of wealth which is unsustainable and must be resolved in some way. It produces competition between capitalists, and capitalist powers, which leads to war. It’s got nothing to do with “theory” of the gazillions of bourgeois economists – it has its own logic and internal laws (by which I mean laws of motion not legislation).

International socialism will be the resolution of that particular contradiction, and many others produced by it. Production is social, and ownership of the means of production will be social, as will be the goods produced. (Which is not to say that socialism will not produce other contradictions which need resolving).
Posted by tao, Monday, 9 April 2007 11:50:17 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
It is not that I don’t grant the possibility that there are some flaws in “my own theory”, it is that I haven’t yet found them, and none of the things you have said have demonstrated that there are any flaws. Most of your criticisms are superficial and show little understanding of Marxism, capitalism, history, or even basic logic, or a willingness to try to understand them. Yet you cannot deny that I have thought seriously about your comments and addressed them seriously.

I have not always thought this way. I used to accept without question the things you are saying, and say them myself. I even used to vote Liberal. However I gradually became “conscious” that something wasn’t right – particularly the Iraq war and all of the lies that went to justifying it – why would they lie to us? – and began trying to find explanations, and ultimately a solution.

Marxism was a product of the early stages of capitalism – it exposed capitalism’s inherent contradictions which would inevitably require resolving. Capitalism (and all of it its “theorists”) has not resolved its own contradictions because it can’t, and Marx’s work, and the work of those that followed him, are relevant to this day. If you read some of his work you could be forgiven for thinking he was writing today. In fact, some capitalist economists use Marxist economics because it is the best explanation of capitalism.

However, as you have admitted, you have no interest in studying or thinking seriously about any of this, you are happy to rest on your laurels because your “ideology” is “omnipresent”. If every human thought like this, we would never progress. You consider it an “intellectual pissing contest” which only goes to show that you believe that what you think is “intellectual piss”.
Posted by tao, Monday, 9 April 2007 11:53:00 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
"Production is social, and ownership of the means of production will be social, "

Tao, we already have that. In fact we have a potpourri of various
economic theories, but as a whole its working ok, better then
anything else that anyone else has suggested. We also have a
market economy, which is still the most efficient way to do things
and give both consumers and producers freedom to establish values,
without bureaucrats taking over everything.

Around 30% of GDP is spent by Govt. People have education, healthcare,
they don't starve. In Australia, we spend around
90 billion $ just on welfare payments, not exactly chicken feed.

To assume that capitalism is to blame for all wars, or Iraq, is
highly simplistic and suggests to me that you don't have the foggiest
about human nature.

Warring over territory was around a long time before economic theories
appeared. In fact you can trace it right back to our chimp ancestors,
who still do it, as they form war parties to guard their territory.
The only ones who have solved it are bonobos. They just all have
lots of sex together, so the males are too buggered to fight about
anything :)

Putting Iraq down to capitalism is once again simplistic. Fact
is that 911 caused a huge shock in America, they basically thought
that with their huge army, they were safe in this world, especially
within the US. America was shaken to its core, all their theories
were wrong.

Osama was talking that oil should be worth 132$. The neocons realised
that if the Haus of Saud fell over, the West was buggered, as our
economies all have relied on cheap oil. We use 80 million barrels
a day, without it you can close the whole show down overnight.

Given that they had helped convert both Japan and Germany into far
more stable democracies, they figured that they could do the same
in the Middle East, not allowing for religious or cultural differences.
So they convinced a less then smart Bush, that is what
needed doing. The rest is history.
Posted by Yabby, Monday, 9 April 2007 1:02:13 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
Looks like this thread will become scripture when climate change destroys technological modes of production and those who survive by good genes and location , location , location return to the economy of hunting and gathering.
Posted by West, Monday, 9 April 2007 2:39:12 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
West, you'll have to stay tuned, to the next thrilling installment,
about the future of planet earth!

I'd have thought that somebody would address population at some
point. We've gone from 1.6 billion to 6.6 billion in a hundred years.
Yet the Catholics etc still encourage us to add even more people.
So we add another 80 million a year. Once we hit 9-10 billion,
imagine the pressure on the environment.

Some believe that only humans matter and that we'll keep inventing
new ways to cope with whatever is thrown at us.

Personally I believe that nature will eventually sort it all out.
If its not sustainable, eventually it crashes in one almighty
fast bang. Without biodiversity, we won't have a humanity.

Perhaps the planet will land up spinning with little more then
ants and cockroaches, they are the ultimate survivors. At least
they won't be so foolish as to invent religions :)
Posted by Yabby, Monday, 9 April 2007 9:10:54 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
tao: There's no point in debating intellectually. You claim that you have looked really deeply into capitalism, yet that I (or anyone else) couldn't possibly know about real Marxism, that any objection raised isn't the real deal. As I originally pointed out, it's like arguing with a religious zealot. I know, I know, all your thoughts, analyses and experiences are infinitely more authentic than any non-Marxist's could ever be. I could have (and have had) this very same conversation with other religious nuts (including hardcore capitalists), only they just replace your terminology with their own.

If you did some sort of meta-analysis, you might step outside yourself and your ideology for a moment, and you'd see the formula for what it is: distort human nature, set up a false dichotomy between good and evil, argue that the world is corrupt/sinful/bad, argue that if only people see the truth they can reach utopia. Simple formula, now insert your own terms.

I don't accept any of your original premises, and you don't accept any of mine. However, those (for one reason or another) are at our psychological cores, so we build them up as unassailable fortresses. I'm cynical about the whole enterprise, but at least I can see them for what they are. Of course, that doesn't necessarily mean I have any desire to come down from my fortress, but at least I recognise I'm in one (which is part of the fortress itself -- part of the protection is in claiming a cynical detachment).

You're driven by dog psychology -- bite first so you won't get bitten first. It's basically like people carrying on a blood feud generations after the original event -- all you know is that you have to rabidly defend your position, and you perceive anyone else who might step outside the situation to see how absurd it is (even for just a moment) as showing weakness.

If it's that important for you to win, fine. I suspected I was a fool for ever engaging you on this topic. Now I've confirmed it! I'm unsubscribing.
Posted by shorbe, Tuesday, 10 April 2007 1:14:23 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
tao - if shorbe's wrong, then you'd be able to tell me a practical method of implementing socialism in modern Australia.

I've asked repeatedly, but you've ignored the request. Therefore, I can only conclude, he is right as you are totally unable to give me practical examples. Instead, all I hear is theory.

Earlier, I argued that socialism exists on more of a sliding scale, rather than the two extremities espoused by free marketeers and socialists. I also believe that the answer lies somewhere in this middle ground, and I suggested ways of operating within a capitalist framework to deliver better outcomes than a total free market ideology.

They were simply 'tweaks' if you will - though you argue that the entire system needs an overhaul.

Fine. If that's what you believe. But how tao? how? Tell me how you would do this in the modern world? How is this to be done? To be honest, I'm getting sick of all these abstract concepts. It's all well and good to be right (and I'm not saying you are, but on many scores you're right in assessing the flaws of capitalism) but if you can't do anything about it, it's utterly and completely useless.
Posted by TurnRightThenLeft, Tuesday, 10 April 2007 3:41:39 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
“I argued that socialism exists on more of a sliding scale, rather than the two extremes espoused by free marketeers and socialists”

Absolutely TRTL.

The key to proper governance in Australia is to get this more socialistic brand of capitalism, or democracy, implemented.

Indeed, this would be improving democracy, or implementing real democracy in place of our currently highly dodgy pseudodemocracy.

Is it not the FUNDAMENTAL purpose of a democratic government to control the market ideology and make it work for the good of the whole community, now and forever more?

A more socialistic democracy would simply be more democratic democracy!

So now that we have presumably got past the exhaustive discussion of Marxist theory, CAN WE CONCENTRATE ON WHAT REALLY MATTERS: how we get the right brand of social democracy implemented before it is too late, rather than the current slow conversion to it as a result of our damaged resource base and ever-increasing demand base.
Posted by Ludwig, Wednesday, 11 April 2007 8:34:34 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
Well Ludwig, if it's looking at effective democracy, we are struck by the problem that has been with democracies since they were first created - the sliding scale of accountability and red tape.

Every government is open to abuse - in theory we have checks and balances at a certain point, to prevent a government acting in its own interests rather than that of the people. But of course, it isn't this simple.

The question becomes, how much action do we want our government to be able to take?
I've always wanted to see preferential voting removed, and far more independents operating as an ameliorating influence - the thing is, if you hamper governments in making decisions, theoretically, it would be much tougher for them to push through significant change.

Hampering the movements of government can be through greater influence wielded by the opposition or third parties, or more laws restricting what the powers that be can or can't do.

Here's the rub - say we get a government that is honestly dedicated to sustainability - something you're evidently in favour of, and something I wouldn't mind seeing either. Heck, to placate me as well, lets say they're willing to consider protectionist trade policies where appropriate.

In theory, we have a government we both like the look of - but do we then give them more leeway to do what we both feel needs to be done? If a government is going to be serious about significant environmental change, they will come up against strong business interests which will be represented amongst all tiers of politics. Is the answer to hand government more power?

It's a tough one - I certainly can't answer it, though I dare say increasing transparency would be a positive step that wouldn't necessarily hamper due process, if due process is indeed followed - the problem here, is what we require of this process.
Posted by TurnRightThenLeft, Thursday, 12 April 2007 9:36:12 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
TurnRightTurnLeft,

“if-you-can't-do-anything-about-it,-it's-utterly-and-completely-useless”

Are you suggesting that I, or anyone, must single-handedly do something? Are you suggesting that capitalism can do something which is not “utterly and completely useless” when it is the cause of most of our problems?

Socialism is not about demagogic leaders, it is about ordinary people becoming involved in political life, coming to understand the capitalist system, recognising what needs to be done, and doing it.

Over many decades there have been many impediments to ordinary people recognising the truth about capitalism and capitalist “democracy”, however the irrationalities and contradictions are now becoming so obvious that they cannot be ignored. More and more people are waking up to the fact that there is something terribly wrong with our “democracies”.

As an example, last November millions of people turned out to the US midterm elections to vote against the war in Iraq. Many voted for the Democrats in the belief that doing so might bring an end to the war. Yet the Democrats won’t end the war. Sure they posture as if they disagree, but in reality they work for the same capitalist establishment as the Republicans. The decay of US capitalism means that it actually can’t get out of Iraq, because the reasons it went in there still exist – that is control of oil, and importantly, keeping its competitors out. The objective logic of capitalism means that the US must offset its declining economic position by resorting to militarism, taking over other countries and using their resources – like Hitler did.

Regardless of their non binding resolutions, the Democrats, because they are a capitalist-party working in the interests of US-capitalism, keep voting to fund the war, and at some point in the not-too-distant future, Americans who want out of the war are going to come into conflict with the Democratic-Party. In order to maintain US-capitalism’s interest in the Middle-East, the Democrats are going to have to ignore the wishes of the American people.
Posted by tao, Saturday, 14 April 2007 1:02:34 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
The war must be funded somehow, and the people who pay the price are ordinary workers, through cuts in social-services – health, education, welfare etc. – and with their lives. Conversely, the rich get tax cuts. The polarisation of wealth increases. Add to this the competition with, and loss of jobs to cheap-labour countries and the situation for working people is becoming more and more dire.

The same process is happening all over the Western-world, although perhaps less sharply than in the US. The working class internationally is systematically being stripped of the social and economic gains it won in the post war period – including democratic rights.

The actions of US capitalism have huge repercussions for other capitalist powers (including China) which are in competition with it for resources and markets. If the US continues on its imperialist rampage, what are the others going to do about it? It is no accident that they are all building up their military capabilities. And again, who pays the price for the increased militarism? The working class of these countries. And the working class in all of these countries will come into conflict with their own ruling classes, particularly the “social democratic” parties which are essentially capitalist parties.

So what you might be able to see here is that the interests of ordinary working people in all countries (i.e. internationally) are diametrically opposed to the interests of their respective ruling classes. The objective conditions of capitalism and its coming crisis, and the inability of ordinary people to bring their leaders to account through the traditional capitalist “democratic” avenues, will cause more and more people to question the entire system, and look for alternative solutions.

The interests of workers all over the world are the same, and socialists believe that the only way to resolve the problems of capitalism is for workers to remove capitalists from power and take power themselves on the basis of socialist principles – i.e. ownership of the means of production is social. However, capitalists won’t give up their wealth and power easily, and a revolution will be required.
Posted by tao, Saturday, 14 April 2007 1:03:26 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
What results from the coming convulsions will depend on what action is taken, and what action is taken will depend on what perspective ordinary people have – i.e. what level of understanding of capitalism they have, and what strategy they have to resolve the situation.

This is where socialists come in. The reason that “theory” takes such a prominent role in socialism is that, as in most things in life, in order to get somewhere you have to know where you are, where it is you are going, and how you are going to get there – i.e. a goal and a plan for action. Marxist-theory, or dialectical-materialism, is the tool which Marxists use to analyse and understand capitalism, where humanity needs to go if it wants to progress or even save itself, and what action we must take to get there. There is no short cut to this, and it is “utterly and completely useless” to act without first understanding the situation and formulating a strategy. (Which of course is not to say that socialists are always right, or don’t make mistakes).

Socialists are not parliamentary politicians who appear at election time and make various promises to get elected and then ignore the electorate the rest of the time. They do participate in elections, mostly to publicise their ideas and program. They would take power electorally if voted in, but that is not their most immediate goal, particularly at the moment, and anyway, a revolution is not likely to occur solely by parliamentary “democracy”.

What socialists see as the most important thing currently is to prepare and educate workers and develop their understanding of capitalism, particularly that capitalism is incapable of resolving its own crisis, and that workers are going to have to intervene, and what strategy is required. This is what they do “practically” because otherwise any action taken will lead workers back into the dead end of capitalism
Posted by tao, Saturday, 14 April 2007 1:04:19 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
As part of the “strategy”, they believe that the working class must build a mass international-party based on international socialist principles. To do this, workers must understand international socialist principles, therefore they must be educated – and educate themselves.

This all requires workers to become actively politically involved in solving the problems of capitalism in their own interests independently of capitalist parties who don’t really want them involved at all. Although it doesn’t seem as though workers are interested at the moment, the objective conditions will push them towards becoming involved - however there is no guarantee of a socialist-revolution (and there won’t be one without a plan for one).

The other thing about socialism is that it will not be like bourgeois-democracy where you vote for a party every three years on the basis of vague policies, and have little else to do with politics. Everyone will be involved in the decision making process – say on the basis of workplaces which elect delegates to councils and committees, and who are subject to regular elections, and instant recall.

So you might be able to gather from this that we won’t just implement socialism in Australia, it will be dependent on the international situation because the current economic system is global. And we won’t just elect a socialist party and hope they keep their promises, socialism will result from the interaction of complex social and economic forces – most importantly the intervention of the working class.

If you are interested in a socialist election program see here: http://www.wsws.org/articles/2007/feb2007/sep-f10.shtml
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2007/mar2007/nick-m23.shtml
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2007/mar2007/nick-m19.shtml
Posted by tao, Saturday, 14 April 2007 1:05:13 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
Keep selling those Green left and Resistance papers on the street corners and universities man, Che lives!

You have convinced me tao, all those sit-ins in the uni administration buildings will finally pay off when the student proletariat finally shake off their capitalist oppressor shackles and join the socialist revolution!

The bourgeois lecturers and university administration will bow down to the power of the student might and grant free education for all and limitless LSD supplies (from the chemistry dept)!

Anyone found counteracting or undermining these manifest destinies of mankind will be ridiculed on YouTube and OLO forevermore!

Anyone found ridiculing their betters with fecal references will be taunted until they know better!

Moreover, anyone who doesn't think the socialist revolution will succeed is a moron, and will be treated to at least 3, yes 3, postings until they submit to the power of socialism!
Posted by Bugsy, Saturday, 14 April 2007 2:58:17 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
And Bugsy it is what most Christians do to force their beliefs on others, demonstrating that the Apostles were communists.
Posted by West, Saturday, 14 April 2007 4:12:32 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
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 32
  7. 33
  8. 34
  9. All

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