I wanna to be the one with the last word on this commy argument. Na na

For the above two respondents, the true word is 'internationale'.

And for those who missed where it is at, look to the NT. Crime, drugs, unhealth and GST corruption.

There, the internationale, the Gov, an education institution, and educators are linked (poven fact).

tao, if you look at the 'Kids Rule' link you will see the reds under the bed of our society. And you are correct though tao, the mono-thinking (ie stupid) marxologists wont hear me. In fact they ignored a lot of people, and people paid dearly for it. And you know, it is typical of Maoist marxologists to label people they cant talk too because of monology unthinking. Labor here does it all the time, they are whitebread, yet the poor deears can't understand their inherited language (ie over centuries (note:stupid)). Just cant work it out.

da da

Relda, Relda, Relda,

Would you expect something different from a political party? Do you think they should encourage people to join another party and vote for them? I suppose John Howard’s line should be “Who do you trust to keep interest rates low? Trust the ALP, vote ALP”. Ridiculous!

You continually misrepresent Marxist views.

Marxists (which is what I assume you mean by “egalitarians”) don’t see individual human differences as immoral, it is the “subsequent experiences” they take issue with. The differences between the “subsequent experience” of being born to an Indian rubbish dump, or a mansion in Toorak. Such differences are unnecessary when we have the technological capacity to provide basic human requirements (and more) for all. What hope does a child living in a rubbish dump have to express his “individuality”?

“forcing people to live and act in the same way” This is your interpretation, no Marxist has ever said that all people should live and act in the same way. The individual differences you are so interested in defending are the rights of the few to exploit the labour of many, the rights of 10% of people to private property while 90% do not have those rights, the rights of the minority to an abundance of everything while the majority scrabble for the crumbs from their tables.

I see you’ve gone from “demonic forces” as the explanation for mass human misery to “luck”. You’ll do anything to avoid examining the social, political and economic system that generates such “luck”.

You expect perfection from Marxism but excuse the imperfections of the current system which are like the proverbial elephant in the lounge room which everyone ignores.

You may see no reason to change the system - yet, but more and more people do because more and more people have nothing to lose.

It is not those who want to lift all humans out of the material and spiritual poverty of capitalism, who are patronising, but you who says that people should just accept such poverty as the luck of the human condition.

Excuse me tao,

but i must say: what rot.

The enlightenment Marxology which you preach, is but an imagination. Is the cart before the horse? Are the 24hrs half dark or half light? Marx came as a result of technology, and not before it. Simple.

But i think you may be on to something in this latest post of yours -something to do with luck. So, i have some questions for you (as usual). Is there a classic Marxist nation or political system anywhere which represents the dream of equality for all? And if there is, can you describe the conditions of same?

Next point, whilst howling down capitalism as the world of evil, have you been out into the world and seen evil capitalism at work? I mean places like new-york, hong-kong, singapore, europe etc. In those kinds of places, you will notice, most people are equal in their standard of living. Just as in africa, where many are equal in their living standards.

So, this being true, which of the Marxology fantasys should be applied here. I mean, given that most of Aus is well off, just what would enlightenment marxology & monology intend for us? And can you tell us why we in capitalist worlds dont all head for poverty countries in sympathy of Marxology?

Gadget,

Was your last post serious?

“have-you-been-out-into-the-world-and-seen-evil-capitalism-at-work?-I-mean-places-like-new-york,-hong-kong,-singapore,-europe-etc.-In-those-kinds-of-places,-you-will-notice,-most-people-are-equal-in-their-standard-of-living.-Just-as-in-africa,-where-many-are-equal-in-their-living-standards”

To start with, do you understand what it means when you say “most people are equal in their living standards” and “many are equal in their living standards”? It means that living standards are not equal, and even if they were – equal to what? If I thought you were smarter I’d say this was a case of deliberate sophistry, however I doubt you even know how stupid your comments are.

You seem to be attempting to disregard differences between advanced countries like the US and Europe and poorer countries, and to say that within certain places living standards are “equal” which somehow proves that capitalism is working. According to you, poorer countries obviously should not be counted when measuring capitalism’s success. You are wrong on two counts: Firstly, capitalism is a global economic system, the poorer countries are engaged in it and often are the worst affected because they are exploited by the rich of wealthier countries. Secondly, even advanced countries are experiencing increased polarisation of wealth.

“equal” living standards in New York and the US – absolute phooey
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2006/jan2006/hous-j16.shtml US living standards down

Home foreclosures in the US soar http://www.wsws.org/articles/2006/oct2006/frcl-o09.shtml

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2006/apr2006/rich-a19.shtml

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2006/oct2006/forb-o16.shtml :
“The total combined wealth of the 400 richest Americans now stands at $1.25 trillion. This figure has expanded by $120 billion in only one year.
The figure $1.25 trillion is practically unfathomable. But to give some indication of its magnitude, consider that if it were divvied up among the entire US population of 300 million, every man, woman and child could be cut checks of well over $4,000. Or contemplate that the net worth of the 400 wealthiest Americans now far surpasses the value of the entire Canadian economy, as measured by GDP, and is nearly twice the GDP of Australia. Perhaps most strikingly, the personal wealth of the Forbes 400 now stands at over 10 percent of the total American GDP.”

continued from above.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2005/apr2005/unic-a01.shtml is an article on a UNICEF Report on increasing child poverty in advanced countries: Some quotes:
“The-study-found-that-child-poverty-has-risen-in-17-of-24-OECD-(Organisation-for-Economic-Co-operation-and-Development)-member-states-since-1990,-and-that-the-situation-confronting-children-in-most-of-the-countries-examined-has-worsened,-regardless-of-which-definition-of-poverty-is-used.”
“In-the-OECD-states,-more-than-45-million-children-are-growing-up-in-families-that-must-make-do-on-less-than-50-percent-of-the-average-income-of-the-respective-country.”
Child poverty rates:

US 21.9% (yes 21.9% in the richest country in the world!)
Italy 16.6%
Germany 10.2%

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2005/sep2005/unhd-s16.shtml is a link to an article on a 2005 UN Human Development Report, a quote from which follows:
“The-report-uses-the-example-of-last-year’s-devastating-tsunami-that-killed-some-300,000-people-to-underscore-the-human-cost-of-poverty.-Every-year,-10.7-million-children-die-before-their-fifth-birthday.-“Every-hour-more-than-1,200-children-die-away-from-the-glare-of-media-attention,”-the-authors-write.-“This-is-equivalent-to-three-tsunamis-a-month,-every-month,-hitting-the-world’s-most-vulnerable-citizens—its-children.-The-causes-of-death-will-vary,-but-the-overwhelming-majority-can-be-traced-to-a-single-pathology:-poverty.””

Your comments on Africa are patently ridiculous: http://www.wsws.org/articles/2006/sep2006/hung-s06.shtml “According to the Oxfam report, whilst the average “developing world” figure for under-nourishment is 17 percent, in sub-Saharan Africa the figure is 33 percent. For Central Africa it is 55 percent. On average the number of African food emergencies per year since the mid 1980s has tripled.
The report acknowledges that the situation is not going to improve. It states, “Another failure is on the horizon. The commitment ... to halve hunger by 2015, as part of the Millennium Development Goals, will not be met by in Africa at current rates of progress.””

Here are many articles on global inequality http://www.wsws.org/sections/category/news/eco-ineq.shtml

And in Australia , most are “well off”. Not apparently, those 123,000 homeless people as reported in The Age a week or so ago.
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2006/sep2006/ineq-s18.shtml growth in inequality
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2006/oct2006/debt-o12.shtml House repossessions soar
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2006/feb2006/ceos-f13.shtml CEO wages vs average people.
Just because they don’t put it on Channel 9 or in the Murdoch press, doesn’t mean poverty and disparity of wealth doesn’t exist.

Your comments are absurd.

tao

I will concede you on one point only, the disparity between the mega rich and everyone else. To clarify, the forbes people and those of their ilk.

Now your masses of copy/paste are overwhelming, and dont warrant much of a reply as they are all representative of the socialist world view of whose flag you fly.

But i will say this however. Just because the sun shines, doesnt mean there isnt a dark spot somewhere in the world. The trouble with bent socialism, is that on the one hand it freaks at what it sees as exploitation, and ignores realities. Here in WA there is a great iron ore mine. Now they have taken thirty years to remove one hill to the depth of its original height. It is a world supplier. Now if socialism counted all the hills in Aus, there would be enough ore to last forever eh.

So while socialists and commy-capitalists (of the Russian ilk) battle the world for domination, the roaring pussy cat of socialism is being ignored as we all get on with it. How about that ey.

If you look at bent socialism in China, when Mao was da man, you will see 65 million reasons why no-one should listen to a word you suggest. There, the old order of things was brought asunder, culture (socialists beware) was anihilated, and capitalism is the next thing to happen. So, besides wiping out 65 million liberlas, Mao did nothing for socialism except give it a bad name.

Does socialism realise that it has taken 6000 years to get modernity and comfot to arise in two hundred years? Which agrarian will ultimately not support this?

Now, what do we have in Australia, tao?