What rubbish. The Liberal Party has been a liberal party since John Howard, and even he was slipping to the left - loosing his seat for it.

Australia is under the control of socialists, no matter what they call themselves. We badly need a true conservative party, Right Wing, if you like, to get some balance back. But, of course, there is little indication that Australians care very much about who stuffs up the country. Perhaps being a colony of China might wake them up. Too late then, though.

Not by a long stretch of any imagination! Just ask Alan Jones!

Because I've exhausted my daily ration on the other thread, let me apologise for some of the spelling mistakes and grammatical errors in the other article! Courtesy of Grammarly, the editorial service, ALLGORYM, that corrects and edits all my contributions! And does some of it by removing whole blocks of typed text and inserting it into previously typed text!

Thus forcing me a disabled and partially blind pensioner, to remove the entire post on some occasions And then begin the laborious, for me, task of completely retyping the entire post!

It's called marketing and seeks to get me from the current program onto the premium service!

And would that I could! Given the stress, this service now contributes to my daily routine, which includes LG an ultra-right intolerateambastin party! Before this sentence was corrected by Grammarly, it actually made some sense!

I'm leaving this contribution as Grammarly has corrected it! So you can all see how good the deliberately nonsensical service is!
Alan B.

I understand this might be complicated for some people;
In our 2 party system 'The Labor Party' (the left) is the liberal party;
And 'The Liberal National Party' (the right) are the conservative party.

Only a totally radical ratbag lefty could ever wright such as bit of garbage.

The Liberals got so fat left under Turnbull they were left of even Whitlam, & equally stupid in most things.

It is idiots like this bloke who have helped Labor drift so far left that their first preference vote has never been lower. It is only by buying preference votes with out taxes they still relent.

I guess his objective here is to get the Libs to move so far left, they drop more votes, thus helping labor.

Turnbull 'Left of Whitlam'? Did he want to radically expand socialised medicine or socialise the resources industries? No? In that case what you say is untrue. Turnbull was more of a 'liberal Liberal'; but he paid for it.

Also even the 'Conservatives' say they're 'classical Liberals' as well. But that doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

For those among us raving on about the country
being under the control of socialists?

Two sociologists are sitting by a swimming pool.
One turns to the other and asks -

"Have your read Marx?"

To which the other replies -

"Yes it's those damn wicker chairs!"

I reckon if you told the average Australian that the Liberal Party is no loner liberal, the response would be "Duh!"
But most people here are blind to the obvious.

Only people who hate what made this country the envy of the world could possibly promote socialism. I doubt whether Tristan would have the luxury of writing such putried rot if socialism had taken more ground than it has over the last 40 years. Thank God for the quite Australians who really are a lot more compassionate than the virtue signalling, violent, nasty getup clowns.

runner,

Coming from someone like yourself -
who's always angry, critical,
cynical, and judgemental.A self-proclaimed
Christian - who's the antithesis of Christ's
teachings - and all you do is complain online -
most people feel - I wouldn't want to be friends
with someone like that in real life.
Socialism is the least of your problems.
Do you even know what socialism is?

Hi Foxy

coming from someone who has shown total contempt for conservatives like Abbott, Trump and Dutton it is impossible to take you seriously. As I , said those who embrace socialism themselves are expert virtue signalling but underneath are nasty and hateful. You again prove my point.

runner,

Criticising politicians, their behavior,
and policies does not equate to hate speech.
But your drive-by comments offer nothing of
any substance.

Try again.

runner,
Considering the lies Trump's told, why don't you think he deserves contempt?
Have you forgotten that Christians are meant to be on the side of truth?

And I noticed your failure to answer Foxy's question: do you even know what socialism is?

What's your definition of socialism?
And what is it that you think made Australia the envy of the world?

'What's your definition of socialism?'

the ideology the abc has been pushing for decades. Can you name one successful socialist country Aiden. I am sure you can find millions killed by the ideology if you were interested only slightly in the truth.

You also ask

'And what is it that you think made Australia the envy of the world?'

You mean to tell me that the millions who want to and have come here hate the place? You really have no idea Aiden. Its a pity the socialist who continually poop on the West don't just leave. Problem is the countries that have adopted socialist ideology like Venezuala are not very liveable.

You didn't answer the question, Runner.

So again: what do you think socialists believe?

And what do you think socialists want?

do you even know what socialism is?
Aidan,
Of course we know, it's the system where you reward the non-performers & persecute the undeserving & eventually run out of other peoples' money !

runner,
If your definition of socialism is "the ideology the abc has been pushing for decades" then I can't really identify any socialist country, successful or otherwise.

I do know, though, that Venezuela ISN'T socialist by that definition.

>You mean to tell me that the millions who want to and have come here hate the place?
No, your comprehension is atrocious! I didn't ask you why you regard Australia as the envy of the world; I asked you what you thought made it that way.

Socialists support the welfare state but that does not define socialism. Catholic Centrists also supported welfare and trade unions. A lot of people also distinguish between socialism and social democracy ; that makes sense in some contexts ; but personally I consider myself supportive of the original (radical) social democracy. There was a time when the Liberal Party (along with the DLP) supported welfare and wage arbitration. And so too did a lot of ideological liberals. So what we have here is the branding of anyone to the Left of Ayn Rand as 'socialist'. Personally as a socialist I also support a democratic economy and the fight against exploitation. Ideally I want to see a larger public sector and a radical expansion of co-operatives ; as well as a role for collective capital mobilisation and co-determination. (ie: workers represented on company boards) But we live in the 'real world' of global capitalism and intelligent socialists have to account for that. And there's no clear, immediate 'way out' without hurting the very people you're trying to help. But anyway - the whole point is that it's not only socialists who oppose neo-liberalism. Centre-Left self-identifying social democrats, old school centrists, small 'l' liberals - are critical also. Not everything to the Left and Rand and Hayek is 'socialist'.

Lots of people here willing to ask the question :what is socialism? But no one seems prepared to venture an answer.

A little while back Belly started a thread about socialism. When I asked him and others what their definition was, no one ventured an answer. Belly thought the question was tantamount to a personal attack!!

Socialism is one of those terms that has lost all mean...if it ever had a meaning. Ask 10 people and you'll get 11 definitions.

I know what the term means to me, but it needs to be defined each time its used otherwise everyone talks at cross purposes.

My definition is that socialism is communism-lite. Whereas communism requires that the means of production be owned by the people (ie the state), socialism requires that the means of production be controlled by the state. Communism = dictatorship. Socialism might allow democracy but always fails that aim in the real world.

The ramifications of socialism are different to its aims. Inevitably, in so far as it has happened every time to date, socialism spirals into violence, dictatorship, want and massive inequality. Its not the aim of the ideology but the result.

Another trait of socialism is that while such states are arguably successful, socialists happily call said state socialist. As soon as it it spirals out of control, they suddenly decide its never really was socialist eg Venezuela.

Dear mhaze,

Medicare is a socialist form of attending to the healthcare of the populations.

That is why it is referred to as socialised medicine and it works.

Yet in a hypercapitalistic country like the US it is an anathema to both its ruling class as well as a sizable chunk of the population.

What is your stance on socialised medicine?

Bravo. I fine article describing the sad and regressive state of Australia. The living standards for workers are declining while corporate profits grow and bosses take home ever-increasing salaries. The old idea then present in Australia of a basic wage and an 8 hour day has disappeared in our imposed quest to be more 'efficient'.

The misnamed 'liberal' party is the conservative party. It has grown more conservative with time, certainly under that idiotic, alcoholic Abbot and now with the religious zealot scomo.

What Australia does need is a true left perspective, with politicians like Corbyn, AOC and Sanders. I see none on the horizon, but my fingers are crossed.

What I fine amusing is that Tristan an avowed marxist (a doctrine that has killed over 100m in the last century) is trying to judge the Liberal party on its "liberalism".

Liberals prefer smaller government and less government interference in their lives, however, they are not averse to public institutions providing services and assets where the public good far outweighs the profit potential or rules and regulations that significantly improve the lives of people. (such as seat belt requirement and competition rules)

On the grand scale, the comparison between labor and liberals, the liberals are way more "liberal" than Labor or the greens.

SR,

Medicare is socialised medicine??

Well, given that a very large minority of the country also has private insurance, that we have any number of private hospitals, that most doctors are private practitioners, and that the entire health system would collapse without these things, I think it might be a stretch to call our health system socialised.

Besides, I was talking about socialism as a national system. I don't really know that looking a one part of one part of the national economy and calling that socialised is valid.
After all, even that one part of one part only exists because the national capitalist economy generates sufficient wealth to make Medicare affordable.

We have a series of social programmes that are paid for by the various governments. That isn't socialism.

As to your utter misunderstanding of the US health system, you might like to research further and/or elsewhere. The US also has a range of social medical programmes like Medicare, Medicaid, CHIP, and various health services for veterans.

True socialised medicine only exists in truly socialist/communist countries. See Cuba for details. Oh and please please please don't come back with stories about how wonderful the Cuban health system is.

___________________________________________________________

On a side note, today is the one year anniversary of Liz Warren announcing DNA 'proof' that she was an Indian. Remember? Well to celebrate, and after being reminded of it, Fauxahontas deleted all internet records of that event. All tweets, videos, all mentions of her 'heritage'...all gone. If only you could do the same with all your posts on the issue on OLO, heh? If you ask Graham nicely.....

So Liz Warren was caught up in a bout of wishful thinking.....no different to the masses to be found at congregational churches

Shadow Minister ; I'm not sure whether to think of myself as a 'Marxist' these days or a 'Post-Marxist' ; but yes I identify with the Marxist tradition. For instance the pre-Bolshevist social democracy ; and Austrian social democracy in the 1920s and early 1930s. On the other hand I don't consider myself a Stalinist or a Bolshevik. Marxists like Karl Kautsky and Rosa Luxemburg (while radically different from one another) had critiques of Bolshevism from a 'democratic Left' perspective. The fact is that 'real politics' is brutal. Just look to what's happening in Syria now. What happened to the Left in Argentina, Indonesia, Chile. I believe we have to fight that brutality. Both capitalism and socialism can 'go wrong'. 'Outside pressure' makes that more likely where Terror is seen as the only option to avoid collapse. That's what I want to avoid.

We have a mixed health system in Australia. But much more socialied than in the US. Medicare saves money and delivers at a number of levels. The PBS (Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme) saves Australian consumers billions. But the public system needs more resources. The danger where more and more people go for private health and education is you get 'private affluence, public squalor' and a starkly divided society. But look to Finnish education system. About 100% public and some of the best results in the world.

One thing for sure in the medical system is that if you pay private medical insurance as well as medicare when you go for treatment you pay again. I have experienced this. If you simply pay medicare the tax payer will pick up the tab. Socialism penalises those who try and contribute. Drug addicts fill our emergency centres at hospitals and get all sorts of treatment for free while many elderly wait for years to receive treatment. Medicare despite rhetoric has really been a failure. It supports all sorts of social engineering, killing unborn babies etc but denies people trying to contribute to society in many cases.

Dear Tristan,

Well said. There is a current line being touted by the neocons in this country that medicare is there only for those who can't afford private health insurance. It is a debasing of our communal health system and marching us off to a US style arrangement which will be horrendous.

Dear mhaze,

You really did get butt hurt when I cleaned you up on the Warren issue didn't you. You just can't let it go. It obviously still smarts doesn't it. The DNA showed she had Indian heritage but the orange buffoon didn't want to cough up the money. Why you feel the need to constantly defend him I don't know.

Anyway to be clear Warren is not high on my list at all. Her stance on Israel is deplorable and there are 3 or 4 Democrat candidates I feel are far more worthy to receive the nomination than her with Bernie at the top of the list.

But that doesn't excuse the bullying attacks on her by that cowardly draft dodging used car sales man who you seem so utterly smitten with. For every thing that could be laid at her door there are a thousand worse things that can be laid at his.

Get over it.

atta-boy SR,

Just pretend that you didn't make a fool of yourself over Fauxahontas and hope that no one bothers to check the actual data. Interesting tho' that you prepared to bald-facedly lie. I'll bear that in mind. Funny that you still assert she's Indian when she's trying hard to pretend she never claimed that and the media are trying hard to hide it as well.
_____________________________________________

"...with Bernie at the top of the list".
I almost had a heart-attack when I read that. (grin!)

Dear mhaze,

Why are you diverting this thread? You got completely shown up when we last debated this and it seems it is eating you up. If you want to get trounced again I am more than happy to do so but not here. Take in over to the General Discussion and I will oblige.

Dear Mhaze,

«My definition is that socialism is communism-lite. Whereas communism requires that the means of production be owned by the people»

I agree with this definition that socialism is communism-lite, but what is communism?

While communism might also have economic implications, this is not its essence: communism is the belief or attitude as if all the people [of a country], whether they like it or not, constitute a community and that the success of that community is the rationale for us to be living here on this earth.

In this sense, the Liberal party too is guilty of communism, because they too speak in such terms, for example when debating whether or not a prisoner or an asylum-seeker ought to be "released into the community". They are not debating whether the person ought to be allowed to live their own life, or whether they ought to be allowed to live with their family and friends, no, all they can think of is that "community" of theirs. They possibly have different economic policies, but their language betrays their nature, communists them all!

'Community' is the notion we only survive collectively ; that we must organise collectively to survive. And 'we find ourselves' in community and not just as isolated individuals. This is not 'full on communism' in the Marxist sense. (though Marx shares the assumption) In the Marxist sense 'communism' is a condition of absolute abundance and plentiful freedom to live as we choose as a consequence. Small experiments (eg: the kibbuztim in Israel) have tried to put communist principles into practice. But in the Marxist sense communism depends on abundance which Marx agrees is created by capitalist development in the first place. That said ; we can put communist principles into practice when we implement under the principle "from each according to ability, to each according to need". This is what Hayek and Rand oppose in any form. For them we are all in it alone as individuals ; in it for ourselves ; and unless you have the support of family it's 'sink or swim' no matter what problems (eg: disability) you may have. Hayek supports a place for family but has nothing to say about those who don't have those supports. (or how fair that is to specific families) Many systems put the Marxist principle into practice to an extent. They are also overwhelmingly capitalist. To demand 'a pure system here and now' (in either the Marxist or the neo-liberal sense) is impractical extremism. Lenin learned this after the disaster of War Communism.

Eric Aarons was a life-long Marxist who engaged seriously with Hayek. The following is a review (which the right-wingers will probably hate). But it is conceded that markets and individual motivations are part of the picture ; as are personal determination of needs structures via markets. see the following review of mine from many years ago:

http://hayekversusmarx.blogspot.com/2011/07/responding-to-eric-aarons-hayek-versus.html