It's almost impossible to refute 2400 words of pro socialist gobbledygook and anti free market propaganda in 350 words, but I'll try.

With the fall of the Berlin Wall, the collapse of socialist economic models everywhere, and the examples of socialist paradises like Cuba and Venezuela around for everybody to examine, how anybody can still think that socialism has any merit is beyond me.

But Tristram is a believer. He goes on and on about equality. But I can tell you right now, that one form of equality that Tristram will never agree to is equality of taxation. No-o-o-o way, Jose. His whole concept of economics is to tax the rich lemons until their pips squeak so that he and his comrades can pretend to be sticking up for the "poor." And if there are not enough "poor" to get political power, then import them from third world sheetholes where Tristram knows they are always going to be a social problem forever.

Then Tristam can bang on forever about "equality" again. You see civil libertarians once demanded "equality of opportunity", but when they got it, it wasn't enough. The idea was that the poor oppressed, (who are equal to everybody else in intelligence and motivation) if given "equality of opportunity", would be raised from their lowly status and all become high school valedictorians. But that didn't happen. So Tristram and his comrades now bang on about "equality of outcomes". That is, unless every poor person ceases to exist in free market economies, and become equal in every way with the upper classes, then something is wrong with free market economies. This requires "affirmative action" where the poor become "more equal" by getting special considerations.

It's all a rort to curry favour with minorities.

It's exactly the same idiotic thinking that saw the Chinese Red Army remove badges of rank from their uniforms because rank badges automatically suggested inequality. When the Chinese Army invaded Vietnam it got it's arse kicked. Socialism is exactly like religion. You just have to beli-i-i-e-ve, and it will be pie in the sky when you die.

1 thought Australia had become rich enough that no one had to eat tripe these days.

Still Tristan dishes it out, & obviously expects us to consume it.

Come on mate, that garbage is long past it's use by date, & we should move well away from such proven stupidity.

Tristan Ewins has a PhD
LEGO & Hasbeen,
The above is ample explanation ! No need for 350 words.

"It's almost impossible to refute 2400 words of pro socialist gobbledygook and anti free market propaganda in 350 words, but I'll try."

Can't argue with that...

Tristan, I really think it's time to your big-boy pants on.

None Dare Call It Conspiracy
The Plan Of The International Bankers To Create a World Socialist Super-State

http://modernhistoryproject.org/mhp?Article=NoneDare

- Please read this, learn something new and kindly unscramble your brain -

"His whole concept of economics is to tax the rich lemons until their pips squeak so that he and his comrades can pretend to be sticking up for the 'poor'."

Is the glass half full or is it half empty?

Socialism was never about lifting up the poor in the first place;
More likely bringing down the middle class to the level of the poor.

Creates an easy source of manageable labour.
Puts a smaller entitled group in charge, with everyone else under the whip.

I'd love to see Tristan practice what he preaches.
Posted any selfies behind a plow lately Tristan?

The critics missed this passage in my article:

"But many Socialists themselves have assumed 'perfect equality' is unachievable and undesirable, even under socialism at least until 'absolute abundance' is achieved - though given the relative nature of prosperity that might be a long way off.

Social Democratic Marxists Karl Kautsky and Eduard Bernstein variously made that point that for the foreseeable future there would remain differences of remuneration based on skill, effort, and the undesirable and unpleasant nature of some labour."

It is said that a cat may look at a king, but to have someone like this lefty even mention Jordan Peterson's name, let alone criticise him, is a step way too far.

Peterson believes in an open battlefield of ideas ; on that I tend to agree.

Tristan,

What I find irritating is the regurgitation of facile statistics. The quote from the guardian that the richest 26 people make as much as the lowest 50% is highly bogus for several reasons:

1 - The exchange rates and costs of living in different countries make the comparison ridiculous. For example people in Africa can live reasonably in Africa on $200 p.m. while in any OECD country one can clearly not.

2 - The salaries / benefits received in Aus would put just about everyone in Aus in the top 1% of earners in the world.

etc.

JP also indicated that men earn more than women because of the jobs they choose, not only the free time. Jobs that are outdoors, carry high risks (such as on oil platforms) and long hours earn more. Trying to even jobs out to make bricklayers and garbage collectors 50% women is an obvious non starter.

I tend to disagree with Peterson on most of the issues he argues for. And his particular take on merit and equity

If merit was involved in political appointments/nominations? The political landscape would look completely different. Why, our current backstabbing PM. has a history of corporate and management failures as his CV. Which he never ever addresses.

If we were serious about gender equity in politics/allowed merit to decide outcomes? We'd double the size of every electorate then nominate two people a man and a woman for every seat, Ditto every party contesting.

Corporate failures as Morrison would seem to be? Just wouldn't get a guernsey! Equality of opportunity has to start with a means-tested education system right up to tertiary and beyond.

And just allow the cream to rise to the top regardless of social status or personal wealth. be conducted at a different place than the school or college and verified and exams taken by the student whose name is on the paper.

And results need to be vindicated by further reexamination without prior notice. To stop the practice of wealthy parents buying degrees for lacklustre offspring. Merit must be the final arbiter at school and college.

After that, the only way to further entrench fairness and equity is via cooperative capitalism that guarantees those who create all our wealth with their hands and minds, gets the lions share. As opposed to privileged drones/extreme capitalism, whipping others for their purchased results. Which they then go on and claim credit for!

Like the self-made man born in the log cabin hewn from the wilderness, with his own bare hands.

It just doesn't take any particular skill to buy land on the periphery and just sit on it until rezoning makes it more valuable.

For mine, I apply an inflation-adjusted capital gains tax that wiped out all such profit unless the land was fully developed as a new housing estate replete with all required infrastructure.

A skilled orator and debater, an extremely intelligent Peterson seems reasonable at first glance, but all smoke and mirrors on closer examination?
Alan B.

ttbn,
Nobody should ever be above criticism from anybody!

____________________________________________________________________________________

Armchair,
Did you notice the text of what you linked to was written just before the collapse of Bretton Woods?

>Socialism was never about lifting up the poor in the first place;
Iknow you're easily hoodwinked, but I'm still quit surprised you've fallen for that kind of propaganda!

And speaking of propaganda...
____________________________________________________________________________________

Tristan,
Last time you were here you tried to spread the propaganda that Venezuelan economic collapse was the result of foreign intervention "making the economy scream". I explained why that was not true. When you responded with a claim about "very harsh sanctions" I explained why this was incorrect. So it's disappointing that you're at it again!

The "usurper" is himself an elected socialist, and he acted according to the Venezuelan constitution (which had been written by the socialists). Why won't you support his efforts to free his nation from a tyrannical leader whose incompetence has wrecked the country's economy?

FWIW I agree that there shouldn't be military intervention in Venezuela without a UN mandate. But in no way does that justify the status quo.

Dear Tristan,

I wouldn't bother too much with this lot, anyway the notion of Australia being an egalitarian nation along side the Scandinavian countries has gone up in smoke and it won't be until the baby boomers die off that there will be any chance of retrieving it.

In a couple of years time the number of private hospitals will outstrip the public ones in this country. Nearly 40% of our kids go to private schools of which over 80% are religious.

The last election did seem to be an opportunity to stem the tide even a little but that fell over.

Now it is all about personal 'aspiration' not aspiration for the kind of country we want to become. Australia use to do things like lead the drive for the vote for women, the 40 hour week, supporting the UN. Now we get dragged kicking and screaming to SSM well after even the Irish.

Now aspiration is getting one's kids into a private school, being able to afford private medical health insurance, and getting a bunch of negatively geared properties.

The mantra from this bunch of economic rationalists is 'we want to put more money in your pocket because you are the best person to decide how to spend it'.

If there was ever an indication of the continuing demolition of the remaining vestiges of socialist policies in this country that would have to be it.

There is absolutely no way we could institute a scheme like Medicare now. I was proud to be part of a nation which instituted it. That nation has pretty well gone.

"would remain differences of remuneration based on skill, effort, and the undesirable and unpleasant nature of some labour."

Coming back to reality Tristan?
- That sounds like Capitalism -

These Socialist Lefties for "Equality" may be a few Fries Short of Happy Meal

but you've got to admire their sincerely held intellectual honesty in supporting Stalin all through his purges, enforced famines

and sundry mass murders http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Stalin#Death_toll_and_allegations_of_genocide

Not to mention such Lefties being the perpetual pawns of Soviet-Russian propaganda, right up to the Putin day.

Who wouldn't be impressed with the "Internationalist" Kommunist Lefties sincere pacifism - in backing up the "Stalin-Hitler Pact"

of World War Two http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov%E2%80%93Ribbentrop_Pact

Socialism may be fairer than capitalism, but less fair or equitable than cooperative capitalism!

Co-ops by their very nature, fairer than socialism and have no need of outside intervention by entities like unions for the workforce to get an extremely fair shake!

Provide a much fairer share of the corporate profits they create. But never ever demand more from the enterprise than it can safely carry, share the good times and the downturn equally. Because the workforce/shareholders have real skin in the game!

Unlike socialism, do not carry the dead weight of indolent drones and control freaks! Never get too big to fail, are far and away, the most productive and efficient business model!

Were we ever rational enough to preference (facilitate, fund) cooperative capitalism over all other investment/business models, we'd go from strength to strength! Turbocharge the economy!

Co-ops stood alone as almost the only free market, private enterprise, business models that survived the Great Depression, largely intact.

Where they dominate the business landscape, recycle the same money over and over, making every one dollar do the economic work of seven or more, via the usual economic flow-on factors.

Both communism and extreme capitalism require slaves for their success/survival. Carry unproductive drones!

Rogue Bosses in the first instance, blaming everyone and everything else for their all too often poor results/failures!

Communism carries deadbeat drones and no incentives or tangible reward to produce! Make one job carry three workers, have endless demarkation disputes and far too many chiefs and few too Indians.

We are not just stalled where we are, but the corporate cowboys at the helm can only apply more of the same old, same old failed paradigms of the past to further exacerbate rather than fix our raft of failures/problems/divisions!
Alan B.

Of course socialists don't believe in absolute equality, Tristan. The first thing I learned after figuring out that socialism is a joke, is that the ones going on, and on, about "equality" were the biggest snobs around. They were socialite socialists who really knew how to look down on their inferiors. The strangest thing about socialism is how it appeals to the progeny of the middle classes, and to rich celebrities? Perhaps they are just championing an egalitarian society to compensate for the fact that they not only were born with silver spoons in their mouths, they got the whole silver service?

Phd's defending International Socialism is like feminists defending Islam. Or Jews defending National Socialism. Still, you sure stick out from the crowd if you do that, and I think that is the point. Socialite socialists think they are intellectually superior to the lower classes, and morally superior to the upper classes, who are usually their parents.

Let's see how Tristam's socialism is working out now.

Cuba People have to bring their own blankets and lightbulbs when they go to hospital.

Venezuela. Government has taken over 1800 business and the average Venezualan has lost 7 kilograms in weight since the socialists took over. Critics are murdered.

Britain. Public health system now so bad that bureaucrats are deciding who gets medical care and lives, and who does not and dies.

"Democratic socialism" usually means one person one vote, once. When everything goes south, democratic socialism turns into good old regular socialism, where as Stalin once quipped "It doesn't matter who votes, it only matters who counts the votes."

Bernie Sanders was quoted as saying that Venezuela was a socialist miracle which was putting America to shame. He remarked after Hugo Chavez took over, "Look at Venezuela now!" Yeah, look at it now.

Of all the modern innovations which define the modern world today, internet, computers, Iphones, forensic DNA testing, and even going back in history to include steam engines, railways, motor cars, photography, telephones, radio, radar, jet engines, flight, and electricity, how many were invented in socialist countries?

Answer, none.

Mr Ewins writes, "Here's to genuine equality of opportunity, and to such a degree of economic equality that would put paid to 'the capitalist aristocracy', lift working people and all citizens up from exploitation and poverty, and empower ordinary citizens in democracy."

Yeah, you go for it comrade! Bring on the Gulags and firing squads. Let's make 'the capitalist aristocracy' pay. Make them pay in blood. That's the way of Marx. Destroy civilisation. Praise Satan and all the evil we can spread around the world. Just like Antifa. That's the way to do it. Bully and bash.

But then, what would I know? I'm just one of those idiots who Peterson's references appeal to, you know, the easily convinced and ideologically prejudiced deplorable moron, apparently. I'm not like yourself who has a PhD in academic group-think compliance and socially immoral eliteness. Obviously I'm one of the expendables. I do my thinking independently. How can I fit in with your empowered ordinary sheeple citizens? Where do I fit in? I don't, do I? So I'm one of the people to be eliminated.

I don't want other people's wealth. I know the taste of poverty, but I'm not exploited. I make sure of that. I want my own happiness, richer or poorer. Above all else in life, I want freedom. So, what about freedom Mr Ewins? It didn't appear once in your rant. I know, I searched for it. It's not there. How do I fit in with your communist manifesto of greed and blood soaked glory?

You listen up here Mr Ewins, I won't be giving up my freedom for you or anyone else without a fight. You just come and try, bring it on mate. Marxism is slavery and I think you wish to be the slave master with the lie of empowering ordinary citizens in democracy. The only people who would get sucked in by that lie are those who are easily convinced and ideologically prejudiced.

Lego and VoxUnis don't understand where I'm coming from. Rosa Luxemburg, Karl Kautsky, Eduard Bernstein, Julius Martov - were all Marxists and strong critics of Lenin at the same time. That's close to where I'm coming from. But I'm interested in ethics too ; so I'm also inclined to look to the Neo-Kantians as well. I'm not a philosophical materialist or an atheist either. VoxUnis ; I'm not going you for lack of an academic background ; but look into things before judging. The Nordics never had 'Gulags'. The Critical Theorists were always against Stalinism. I've said again and again that I think parts of the Left enforce internal conformity through the threat of ostracism. I think that's wrong. But the Right ostracises and bullies its enemies as well. But - just like Peterson - you're judging all socialist politics through the example of Stalinism. I'd bet you don't know the first thing about the people I mentioned and what they stood for. I don't think the Venezuelan Government is ideal either ; though it achieved good things under Chavez ; but we've seen this before with Chile and Allende. I say stop the sanctions, let things settle down , then have UN-supervised elections. I say no to an invasion or a coup.

Just off the top of my head the Soviets invented the first Satellite. Saab and Volvo were prestigious and successful Swedish brands during the socialist years.

You want to know my sympathies: look to the Austro-Marxists ; especially during the 1917-1934 period. They believed in 'revolutionary reforms' and a 'democratic path to socialism'. They failed only because of a Fascist coup ; and the fact they left everything to negotiations and did not fight back until too late.

you only have to look at the quota system now to see how dumbed down our political system is by promoting women not on merit. I mean Labour recently demoted a man to give Kristine Keanally a job. Unfortunately the Liberal party is not a lot better. Women generally are not good leaders.

Well there you have it.
It's another flawed concept.

Lets consider the concept of a 'democratic path to socialism'.
Would it not stand to reason that for a nation of people to democratically elect 'socialism' then you'd have to have more people who fall into the category of 'have not' than people that fall into the category of 'have'?

And if a country was that poor in its natural wealth that more people were 'have nots' than 'haves' then I don't see how everyone working together will change things.

If we have Capitalist Heathcare and Socialist Healthcare (as an example) then socialism is the base level.

Promoting the base level at the expense of the higher level is a downgrade.
You're promoting a downgrade.

People are not going to vote for this when their nation has already escaped 3rd world poverty.
There is no democratic path to socialism.

But there is a refinement of Capitalism that includes aspects of Socialism for the best outcome in governing a nations citizens.

Hello Mr Ewins, how do you do?

You suggest that I might not know where you're coming from. Well, I think I do. However, you are correct in assuming I don't know the people you listed and I'll tell you, I don't really want to know. Anyone who sails under the colours of Marx is instantly tainted in my book. I have read the Communist Manifesto 1848 in detail and I know that any sub-variant of it will not be to my taste. I have a strong dislike of Karl Marx, his theories, manifesto and his disciples. No sub-variant of Marxism has any good in it, in my opinion. Your discussion is kind of like, which particular flavour of poison would I prefer?

I have studied this stuff mate and I don't like it. You specify your sympathies as being in the vicinity of Austro-Marxists. Well, ok. But I do not entertain anything with "Marx" in it. I'm very happy for you to hold those sympathies, but please stop trying to convince me that they're in my best interests. I do know that they are not.

Anyway, all the very best to you Mr Ewins and I thank you kindly for taking the time to express your views to me. In the meantime I'll continue to hold my views as I expect that you'll hold yours. Nothing personal, but I hope in time you guys lose the political war. In fact why not give up now and surrender? We're very forgiving people over this side of the wire. You might even get to like us and have some fun instead of the usual leftist victimisation and misery.

What none of the idealist Leftists don't appear to grasp is that the only reason they actually exist is due to the enterprise & contributions by conservatism orientated folk.
What exactly do leftists contribute to a Nation's coffers ? I don't actually know of any leftists in any enterprise, they only seem to be milling around Govt departments.

Dear individual,

Come on mate stop with the dross. Germany is a very successful socialist democracy although admittedly they haven't been subjected to extremely high and punitive levels of sanctions from the world's largest superpower.

The Scandanavian countries do it just a little differently and “have chosen a mixed economic system that reduces the gap between the rich and the poor through redistributive taxation and a robust public sector while preserving the benefits of capitalism.”
http://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/100714/nordic-model-pros-and-cons.asp

They all are examples tempering capitalism to serve as many of their citizens as possible. They are very, very far from the US style capitalism.

Yep Tristan enjoying all the benefits of Western civilisation while pushing dogmas that have left to nothing but death and suffering except for the elite. Go figure and he's not alone.

Dear runner,

pigs arse.

The most hardcore capitalistic society among first world nations is the US.

This is the result;

"Babies born in America are less likely to reach their first birthday than babies born in other wealthy countries in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), a new study found. While infant mortality rates have declined across the OECD since 1960, including in America, the U.S. has failed to keep pace with its high-income peers, according to a report published in the journal Health Affairs.

Compared to 19 similar OECD countries, U.S. babies were three times more likely to die from extreme immaturity and 2.3 times more likely to experience sudden infant death syndrome between 2001 and 2010, the most recent years for which comparable data is available across all the countries. If the U.S. had kept pace with the OECD’s overall decline in infant mortality since 1960, that would have resulted in about 300,000 fewer infant deaths in America over the course of 50 years, the report found.

The reasons the U.S. has fallen behind include higher poverty rates relative to other developed countries and a relatively weak social safety net, says lead author Ashish Thakrar, medical resident at the Johns Hopkins Hospital and Health System."

Those which are more avowedly socialist in their approach look after their citizens welfare far better.

Austro-Marxism created 'Red Vienna' - which was seen as a paragon of social democracy during the 1917-1934 period. They created a movement based on the principle of 'growth from within'. For workers whose lives who otherwise be dull, they led the creation of workers sport, radio, orchestras, libraries ; as well as first class public housing with hot running water, communal laundry facilities, swimming pools. This was paid for through progressive taxation. Which was possible because Vienna was established as a separate province. To get this in perspective you have to remember we're talking 1917-1934. These services, cultural movements and infrastructure were rare for the time.

The Austro-Marxists controlled the army in 1917 ; but as time moved on they formed their own militia to 'defend the republic and the democratic road to socialism'. However as time moved time fascist militias also formed ; and the Austro-Marxists gave up their grip on the armed forces. This meant that in 1934 - when they won the national elections - the fascist forces were able to dissolve the parliament. For many weeks they negotiated behind the scenes ; but in the meantime the fascists confiscated their arms and arrested their leaders. Determined resistance finally began spontaneously ; but the weakened Schutzbund militia could only hold out for a week by then.

The clerical Fascist Dolfuss took control. But the clerical fascists were hostile the Nazism ; and he was assassinated by Nazi agents. Austria was swallowed up by Nazi Germany in 1938.

The Austro-Marxists were not Stalinists. Today we would probably call them left social democrats. They were Marxists ; but more so in the spirit of the original social democracy.

BTW you don't have to take Marxism as an entire doctrine. As I said, I'm not a philosophical materialist ; and I think ethics must inform social movements rather than having a 'purely practical' outlook. I also believe in God. Marxism is an incredibly diverse historical movement.

Germany is a very successful socialist democracy
Steeleredux,
Well, the people I speak with in Germany must only pretend to be German because they say nothing that confirms what you're claiming !

Say what you like, I like Peterson and in fact at least a couple of other guys, like Milo Yiannopoulos and Ben Shapiro.
Now you all know I'm not a fan of some elite Jews and of course queers, but I am a realist and have an objective stance on life, and these guys, each in their own field or way, are worth listening to.
Peterson is a great orator, and regularly stops to 'think' about what he is about to say.
He is experienced in what he says, and most of all he is objective.
He believes, as do the other two, that by speaking your mind, if a listener is offended by what you say, it is you who are at fault, because if he did not intend to offend, then you are at fault.
If you did intend to offend, then you simply succeeded in making your point.
Free or more important, 'hate' speech is just as necessary as any other forms of speech.
Without it, you are not conveying your message.
If there are snowflakes who are so mentally and emotionally deficient, it is they who are in the 'abnormal' category and therefore should avoid any and all human contact for fear of self harm.
These people, by definition, are mentally ill.
Recently I read of a 'wallflower' that, believe it or not had to leave a church sermon, because what the preacher? was saying was SO BAD!
A PREACHER?, in CHURCH?, REALLY?
So come on people, let's all grow up a little and stop trying to bring us all down to the level and mentality of 3 year olds.
The overarching point here is that you're NOT 3 year olds so then act your ages, and stop bitching about nothing!
In case you need to be reminded, it's called FREE SPEECH!
Yes like everything in life, like marriage, you get the good with the bad, you don't get to cherry pick.

Tristan, the only model of Socialism that ever worked was National Socialism, which the Russians and the Chinese are adopting, right now. That is, give the wealth creators as much economic freedom as possible (ie, the free marketers were right, all along), while still maintaining absolute political control. Only time will tell whether this will work. The problem with all forms of socialism is that absolute power corrupts absolutely, and socialists just can't stop controlling the wealth creators and meddling in the economy. They think that prosperity can be obtained by decree.

As for that shining example of Swedish socialism.

Sweden is no longer a socialist country. In the 1970's and 80's went partway down that path with a big taxing and big spending government which bought up public companies like Absolut Vodka, and it nearly went broke. The very high taxes were not enough to finance the Swedish national health care system, and it's health system resembled the Soviet or Cuban model. It's funny how people must get right to the edge of catastrophe before they figure out they are heading in the wrong direction. Although apparently, Phd's can never figure it out.

Finally Sweden did what you consider anathema. They cut taxes on their most productive people and productive entities. They cut public spending. Reduced regulations and government interference. Privatized government businesses, including the rail system. Sold Volvo to the Nationalist Socialist Chinese. Eliminated inheritance taxes. But most of all, they reformed their unsustainable social security system, actually privatizing the pension system to something resembling a superannuation fund. This privatized pension system introduced the sensible idea that social security payouts had to reflect the degree of Swedish economic solubility. Pensioners got more if the economy did well. Best of all, Sweden allowed parents to choose their own schools, and they encouraged private schools because they were more cost effective and better performers than public schools.

Oddly enough, Sweden taxes it's poorest at a higher rate than it's most productive, on the principle that the poor are the primary users of government services. User pays

on the principle that the poor are the primary users of government services. User pays
LEGO,
I agree with user pays but shouldn't Govt services then be value for money ? Where's the value in my tax dollars forfeited when so much of it goes to dug addicts, criminal defence, highly paid but useless bureaucrats etc ?

And the most socialist country is Venezuela whose treatment of its citizens is amongst the most appalling in the world.

Just about every country on the world that tried to push forward its socialist agenda has had to wind it back. The main consequences were that their economies were shrinking and their talented individuals that were taxed at 90% marginal tax simply moved to tax friendly countries.

proof re: Sweden ; and keep in mind what people get back from the welfare state as well.

Sweden was successful in the 50s and 60s too. Their Rehn-Meidner model created a high wage, full employment economy to fuel their welfare state.

Sweden has been slowly retreating since the 80s. But much of their historical example is still inspiring.

Also around about the 1980s Sweden implemented its policy "The Strong Society" which was all about welfare for the poor and disadvantaged.

If they've really gone that far backward recently I'd like to see it confirmed. As I said I know there's been a retreat.

Tristan, Sweden followed a fairly typical arc - it got rich through free market principals, and then decided that being rich was easy and you could load the system up with all sorts of taxes to fund all sorts of welfare, and it wouldn't make any difference.

It took them a while to work out that was wrong, and they are now gradually dialling back.

It's interesting, but when you look at the World Happiness Index Australia and Sweden are statistically identical. http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/show-post-article.asp?comment=360193

Graham Y, what happened to the link. Thought it was unusual for an 'insiders' comment or link to be 'pulled'.

Graham ; though Sweden achieved full employment when other European countries couldn't. And their industry policies made sure many of those were high wage jobs. A strong welfare state and strong industry policies meant industry could continuously evolve and develop in new directions without social insecurity for workers. This was the 'Rehn-Meidner model'. But in the 70s and 80s the Social Democrats attempted to institute Meidner Wage Earner Funds. Workers had salary sacrificed to help the nation's competitiveness, and contain inflation. Now they wanted collective capital share as compensation. That ended bipartisanship between capital and labor on the basics of the 'Swedish model'. Capital has been pushing back since - and there has been a slow but very significant retreat since then.

Collective consumption and social insurance means less room overall for personal discretion. But if you're getting a better deal on socialised medicine, child care, roads etc ; *at the end of the day* you will probably have more room for discretionary expenditure *after essentials*. So for instance ; if state schools were of the highest quality ; and parents didn't feel the need to cough up tens of thousands for private education to 'give their kids an edge'.

Now let's see Tristan.

International Socialism failed in the Soviet Union, Red China, North Korea, Cuba, East German, Poland, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Bulgaria, Romania, Chile, Venezuela, and Vietnam. All it did was create totalitarian states right out of 1984 with failed economies. National Socialism did better in that it was more economically successful, examples Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, and today's China and Russia, but once again it resulted in totalitarian states that was prone to creating militarily aggressive governments looking to expand their countries borders through military aggression.

And the only "success" that you claim was some mob of commies who got power in Vienna before another bunch of socialists of a different stripe kicked them out of power? These "Vienna" socialists, you claim, got it absolutely right.

I think that would be a very hard sell to the public, Tristan.

Look Tristam, we got a guy here on OLO called Runner who isn't a bad bloke at all, and he is sensible about most things. But the thinks that the bloody universe was created in 6 days and nothing you can say to him will convince him any different. He needs to believe this insanity so much that he can turn off his objective reasoning circuits and believe in total bloody nonsense. Are you sure that your own need to believe absolute rubbish about Vienna socialism as being The Saviour of The World has not done the dame thing to your brain's capacity for objective thinking, as it has done to poor Runner's?

As for Sweden's reversal on socialism, try

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0lxD-gikpMs&t=18s

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=udqrpYbArCI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jq3vVbdgMuQ

It's funny, you have an electrician like me instructing a PhD on research. But at least my brain has not become vestigial by the debilitating effects of studying for a PhD at uni.

Has Academic Gobbledeegook ever created any economic growth ?

The arguments about Austrian Socialism stand ; it was an example of what democratic socialism could achieve.

The US won the Cold War at a terrible cost. Massacres, murder and torture on a massive scale in Central and South America, Indonesia, Indo-China, Taiwan, South Korea.

Fascism was a variant of capitalism ; Nazism arguably the worst variant.

The Nordics also showed what is possible. For decades achieving close to full employment, high wages, and strong social security.

Yes I'm a socialist. But all I'm arguing for now is to raise our progressive tax levels to the OECD average.

If you support Medicare you should have no problem extending that into Dental and Aged Care. And if you want workforce participation up you should back child care subsidies. And if you have any humanity you should back action on mental health.

If Hugh White is right and we can no longer depend on the US - in the future we'll be more independent - but will need to increase Defence expenditure. But if we can increase Defence expenditure we can also increase spending on frontline services.

Tristan, I was brainwashed at school into thinking that Nazism was an offshoot of capitalism, and it was extreme right wing thinking. Then I read a book by a former German soldier who fought in the Soviet Union during WW2, and he wrote something that struck a chord with me and got me thinking straight.

The book was "The Forgotten Soldier" by Guy Sajer. In it, he wrote the prophetic words "....we were dying in our millions to destroy a system of government that was almost identical to our own." That got me thinking. Nazism is the National Socialist German Workers Party. Then I found a quote from Adolph Hitler. He said.

We are socialists, we are enemies of today's capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions."

Speech of May 1, 1927

Now what is the essential difference between International Socialism and National socialism? International Socialism was supposed to be Internationalist, or what we call "globalist" today. But it was not. It was a Kremlin centred ideology which masqueraded as an internationalist movement to appeal to you PhD types who dream of a unified world, where countries are ruled by an intelligent, graduate class, and there is no war or crime. Nationalist Socialists differ in two ways.

National Socialists, are smart enough to figure out that governments owning the means of production is a recipe for economic catastrophe, and they are unashamedly nationalist in character.

But both are socialist and both are totalitarian. Germany in 1919 had a fledgling democratic government but the allies did something stupid which they did not repeat after WW2. They "squeezed the German lemon until the pips squeaked). The resulting abject poverty of the Germans let to the creation of competing socialist systems and resulted in a civil war. Hitler hated the Jews because Jews were prominent leaders in the internationalist socialist movement in Germany

"....we were dying in our millions to destroy a system of government that was almost identical to our own."

One Pro-Jew (Bolsheviks)
One Anti-Jew (Nazis)

"National Socialists, are smart enough to figure out that governments owning the means of production is a recipe for economic catastrophe, and they are unashamedly nationalist in character."

Adolf Hitler turned The Weimar Republic into an economic powerhouse
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weimar_Republic

(With the help of Jewish financier Max Warburg)

Max Warburg, was brother to Paul Warburg who started the US Federal Reserve.
Paul's son James Warburg was a member of the Council on Foreign Relations.
He gained some notice in a February 17, 1950, appearance before the U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations in which he said, "We shall have world government, whether or not we like it. The question is only whether world government will be achieved by consent or by conquest."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Warburg

Hitler also had some links to Ingolstadt University where Adam Weishaupt studied. (Founder of the Illuminati)

What You're Not Supposed to Know About America's Founding
http://youtu.be/364cxeR5EAg

"It was a Kremlin centred ideology which masqueraded as an internationalist movement to appeal to you PhD types who dream of a unified world, where countries are ruled by an intelligent, graduate class, and there is no war or crime. Nationalist Socialists differ in two ways."

Moses Mordecai Marx Levy, alias Karl Marx, wrote 'The Communist Manifesto' in 1848.

Vladimir Lenin, leader of the Russian Social Democratic Workers Party seized control of the government in Russia in October 1917.

Socialism in England prior to the rise of Soviet Russia

'Socialism and Religion' was a pamphlet was first published by the Socialist Party of Great Britain in London in 1910.
http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/pamphlet/socialism-and-religion/

LEGO ; Nazi Germany was capitalist ; there was an alliance between the (private) military industrial complex and the fascist state. It was a corporatist state.

The USSR was a Stalinist regime ; based on nationalised state planned industry ; but also on pervasive Terror and surveillance.

It's Terror and surveillance the regimes held in common ; not the rest.

In any case I have never been a Stalinist. I'm not even a Trotskyist. lol. I take a lot from Marx which makes sense to me ; but not everything.

Again: I believe in a central place for Ethics in politics ; and I am not a philosophical materialist. Like many of the Austro-Marxists my ideal scenario is one of 'revolutionary reforms' ; implemented democratically.

Hey Tristan,
I just wanted to take the opportunity to give thanks and credit to you;
For always taking part in the discussions that arise from your own articles.

I think it does an author credit when they face the criticism;
It gives them a chance to defend their ideas, clarify it for others and learn something from your detractors.

I may not agree with the things you advocate;
I may sometimes criticise, put you down and make fun of your ideas.
But you are a person of conviction in your beliefs and it takes courage to take the criticism and still come back for more.

- It's up to you to find the path that leads to convincing others that your ideas and arguments have merit, if in fact they do.

I still think you should go back and read 'None Dare Call it Conspiracy' as I've suggested before.

Many Thanks for responding to all our collective criticisms.

Not sure what happened their ALTRAV except I'm obviously not a good proof reader. This is the link https://worldhappiness.report/ed/2019/changing-world-happiness/.

Tristan, I think economic settings can only be proven in the long run. I've managed to track Swedish unemployment back to the 60s. Figure 1 in this document gives you 1960 through to 1995 https://www.government.se/49b743/contentassets/55ea8aad93fd4ecab52d13c0bad444f5/anders-forslund-unemployment---is-sweden-different, and unemployment is lower than the EU for quite a period of time, and then starts to catch up. This link will take you up to the present https://tradingeconomics.com/sweden/unemployment-rate. Bottom line is that with all that extra tax and regulation Sweden's performance is fairly typical of the rest of the OECD.

VENEZUELA ?

Some commenters have mentioned the failed Latin American socialist experiment that is Venezuela.

Well TRISTAN the Venezuelan Government war on its own people is even WORSE than even you can deflect

See http://en.rfi.fr/americas/20190705-venezuela-death-squads-have-killed-forc-7000-18-months-un of 5th July 2019

The UN has reported "VENEZUELA DEATH SQUADS HAVE KILLED 7000 IN 18 MONTHS"

"The UN has released a report claiming that the rule of law in Venezuela has been ‘eroded’

after it found that nearly 7,000 people have been killed in the last 18 months by state forces.

The report claims that in 2018, the Venezuelan government registered 5,287 killings which they

classified as resulting due to ‘resistance to authority’ being shown by those killed.

A further 1,569 killings of this nature were reported from the beginning of this year to May 19th [2019]...."

Tristan,

Fascism/ National Socialism is closer to communism than capitalism especially with regards its tight political control, with the key differences being the allowance of non governmental control of most businesses because of the recognition of improved efficiency.

Communist China is a prime example.

7000... pfffttt

Well, back in April I read this:

40k Venezuelans killed by US Sanctions – Report
http://youtu.be/cgi7TDNh5Ps

It's the US that wants its hands on Venezuelan oil.
Which is the reason they like Iran can't sell their own.
And both those countries would be richer than the US, if not for the US's policies of economic warfare against others.

The truth is there's obviously a policy that every independent country on the planet (one's that cannot be conquered or controlled by 'democracy') MUST be brought to heel and brought under a global umbrella.

All these nations are having hell metered out collectively upon their citizens for a foreign global plan, no more no less.

The right to self determination is bs.
They only use that when they wish to make a piecemeal out of someone else that works towards their goals.

So what's the death toll for Yemen, and Syria?
And for what oil and oil pipelines?
When they keep guilt-tripping us that it's about climate change?

What total utter bs
You add that number to the other one.
And the finger of blame points to the US (and it's allies)

if the reports of death squads in Venezuela are true I would be appalled ; as that is exactly what the Left has faced in Central and South America so many times. Truth is we don't know what's true and what's not in an information war. I hope it's untrue ; but I know this is the reality of power.

Tristan,

This is from UN after interviewing >500 people from the UN which is hardly a US puppet.

"Venezuelan security forces are sending death squads to murder young men and stage the scenes to make it look like the victims resisted arrest, a new UN report said.

Government figures showed deaths ascribed to criminals resisting arrest numbered 5,287 last year and 1,569 by May 19 this year. The report, issued on Thursday by United Nations human rights chief Michelle Bachelet, decried a "shockingly high" number of extrajudicial killings.

Families of 20 men described how masked men dressed in black from Venezuela's Special Action Forces (FAES) arrived in black pick-up trucks without licence plates. Witnesses said the death squads broke into houses, took belongings, and assaulted women and girls, sometimes stripping them naked....

The report - which drew on 558 victim accounts, witnesses of violence and other sources - said the killings were part of a strategy by the government of President Nicolas Maduro aimed at "neutralising, repressing and criminalising political opponents and people critical of the government"."

To Tristan.

Nationalist Socialist Germany was a totalitarian state which differed from Internationalist Socialist states only in that it rejected the idea of the State owning all of the means of production and distribution. Which, I might point out, is exactly the model that Russia and China have adapted today. The Chinese Communist Party, which has adopted the National Socialist political and economic model, would think that you were crazy if you called their system of government "capitalist." They are not capitalists, they are communist totalitarians who finally had to admit that their socialist economic model was a failure.

Sooner or later, every International Socialist (Communist) government figures out that state control of the means of production and distribution results in economic catastrophe, and they change to a Nazi style system of totalitarian government and a limitted degree of free market economics. This caused some dismay among the Americans. They wanted the Russians and Chinese to stay Communist because they wanted them to keep stuffing everything up.

If you want ethics in government, then you should be advocating for free market democracy. Look up the corruption index for every country on Earth and it is the white, Protestant, democratic European countries that have the lowest corruption index. There must be something fundamentally right about the culture of these people which stresses the virtues of honesty, truth, and a sense responsibility to the community as a whole.

Trying to be an apologist for socialism is like Runner trying to explain how the universe was created in six days. Most older people would look at you askance and wonder what is wrong with you.

There is no comparison between democratic, free market states and socialist totalitarian states who are using similar economic systems. Unless you factor in that the democracies were usually never stupid enough to adapt the socialist economic model in the first place. And if they did (like Sweden) they eventually reached the point where they back pedalled, fast.

Hey SM,

Cause and Effect

It looks like their targeting members of the opposition or those considered to be supportive of or actively involved if foreign sponsored regime change. This is what happens when you try to conduct regime changes on other counties by providing foreign military, intelligence and financial support to an opposition.

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/07/report-venezuela-death-squads-kill-young-men-stage-scenes-190704170704105.html

Always interesting to read about the person saying it too.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelle_Bachelet

Hey LEGO,
"There is no comparison between democratic, free market states and socialist totalitarian states who are using similar economic systems."

I think you're being a little bit naive there;
At the very least - try to take in the bigger picture

If you're a 'democratic' country, you get access to global trade and financial markets.
If you're not a 'democratic' country
You get targeted for destruction;
- By being denied access to trade and financial markets.

From there it doesn't take much for a nation to implode.
Especially if there's boots on the ground trying to make it happen.
You impose the economic warfare 'sanctions' as collective punishment on the entire nation in the hope in emboldens the people to support the removal of the incumbent government.
Organise protests, civil disorder and damage to government property to force a confrontation with government.
The government needs to stand behind it's police and military otherwise those same people wont stand behind the government, so what you need to do is have your people violently attack those government people, forcing a a reaction where they take it too far and then show the footage (globally) and push the narrative that "the government is attacking the people', that it's a 'regime' and the leader a 'dictator'; and that he 'needs to be removed for the good of the nation and its people'.
You have your people infiltrate media supportive of the opposition and use them to deliberately shed the government in a bad light;
- And so that the government liberality comes after those reporters.

Because you WANT the government to come after the press, so you can say the 'government is attacking free speech' and 'attacking members of the press'.
All these things erode the governments legitimacy, and life for the citizens will become more difficult because of the sanctions.
You claim to want to bring in humanitarian aid, as cover for weapons.
You arm and fund militia groups,
You create false flag events,
You attack the economy.

[Cont.]
You don't have these things in democracy;
Because it's not designed to fail,

It's got failsafes.
- You get more cash if you play the game and sell the nation out.
It's called a bailout, an IMF loan.

Democracy is a bus, that takes us to our destination where we get off.
- One World Government -
And it's a tool in which an entire nations wealth can be built and taken from the people at the same time.
- All whilst the nation is left in perpetual endless debt.

For this segment of the game:

You have to keep people within a range.

You have to keep people happy enough that they're not going to speak out to risk giving up the comforts they're already accustomed to;
- Whilst not making them angry enough that they will assemble and stand against the government.

Keep them within that range and you can more or less do whatever you want.

Then you fund both sides of government so that it doesn't move either right or left without your say so;

Or you capitalise on playing both sides against the middle whilst continually shifting the goal posts in your favour.

Jesus Christ AC. Your worldview is so bizarre that I doubt if you and I can ever reach a consensus on anything. But I will give it a try. I will start off with the basics as you obviously have trouble recognising simple concepts.

There are two types of government in the world, totalitarian and democratic. Democratic governments can generally solve internal disputes and rid themselves of incompetent governments using elections. Democratic governments do not go to war with democratic governments. Some totalitarian governments are relatively benign and are not a threat to world peace. They do not try to acquire nuclear weapons, nor act aggressively, or try to export their usually crazy socialist ideology on other countries. Example Vietnam, Singapore under Lee Kuan Yew, or the old Yugoslavia ruled by Tito, the man who created the Non Aligned movement. In the case of these benign and usually stable totalitarian states, they can have very good relations with the democracies and do business with them. It was once hoped that China would become one of these states.

But it is the totalitarians with expansionist ideas, who try and obtain nuclear weapons, who think that their crazy ideas (or religion) should be adopted by everybody, and who sponsor terrorism within neighbouring countries to get that end, who are the problem. Especially if the majority of their own populations would hurl them out on their ears if there was ever an election. In such cases there are only three options to deal with such regimes.

1. Do nothing and let them keep doing whatever they are doing.
2. Go to war with them.
3. Impose sanctions and hope that their own populations will eventually rise up and throw them forcefully out of power.

Your quote that "Democracy is a bus..." was spoken by Turkish dictator wannabee Edrogan who finds democracy to be an inconvenience to the sort of Greater Turkey he envisions. My belief is that he wants Turkey recreate the Turkish Empire, and he wants Turkey to expand either into the Balkans or into Arab lands.

Reading these posts gives a crystal clear indication why our world is in such a mess !

I hope you are not making inferences to my posts, Individual? I am shocked and deeply hurt.

Hitler played to the working class earlier in the peace. Rohm and the SA were "fascist anti-capitalists". Hitler killed Rohm and the SA leadership on 'the night of the long knives' to demonstrate his disposition to capitalists in Germany. ie: Germany was to be a fascist, corporatist state, but not a socialist one.

The Coalition's 'ensuring integrity' legislation would not look out of place in a totalitarian state. And capitalism presents itself today as a 'closed system'. It refuses to be relativised. And every time a radical anti-capitalist movement arises it is undermined from within and without.

The problem is that capitalists won't accept a 'democratic path to socialism'. Economies are wrecked by destabilization, there's the threat of possible coups, people either give in to capitalism as a closed system or - like Lenin - they turn to extreme strategies amid extreme circumstances. (if it ever gets to that point)

For now my personal political objectives are modest. But as Noam Chomsky has argued - the key to maintaining capitalism is to allow intense debate - but within a narrow ideological frame. I want democratic socialism to be a strong element in the debate.

We need a much deeper pluralism ; along the lines argued by Chantal Mouffe.

Probably for decades into the future a 'hybrid system' is in the interests of capitalists, and of workers and citizens.

Into the future we might want to experiment gradually with different mixes of competition and co-operation, planning and markets.

More radical voices should have a voice ; but the problem again is capitalism's 'closed' nature, the threat of repression and isolation. Because we're in a global system 'no country can entirely go it alone.' So the most radical might want to make uncompromising critiques of capitalism ; but the problem is finding a way 'to take the world with us' to such a point that provides a barrier to destabilisation, isolation, repression.

nb: Rohm's variety of fascism is not 'socialist' in my book either ; given I see internationalism as an essential part of socialism. But it was in its way 'anti-capitalist'.