In his speech to the WEF in Davos, newly elected Argentine President, Javier Milei, warned that the “Western world is in danger”. Those people who are supposed to be defending the West have been co-opted by a vision of the world that leads to “socialism and thereby to poverty”.

Leaders have abandoned freedom for different versions of “what we call collectivism”, he said.

He referred to the experience in his own country: adopted the model of freedom in 1860; enjoyed 35 years of being a world power, then embraced collectivism and poverty, dropping to number 140th in the world.

In promoting the beauty of freedom and capitalism, Milei reminded the audience that in the year 1800, about 95% of the world's population lived in poverty. Thanks to capitalism, only 5% of the population lived in poverty by 2020. “Free trade capitalism as an economic system is the only instrument we have to end hunger, poverty and extreme poverty across our planet.”

Capitalism has lifted out of extreme poverty 90 per cent of the world’s population, and has continued to do this “faster and faster”. The world has never been richer. Countries that enjoy freedom are 12 times richer than those who do not. The lowest percentile in terms of distribution in free countries is better off than 90 per cent of the population in repressed countries. Poverty is 25 times lower and extreme poverty is 50 times lower. Citizens in free countries live 25% longer than those in repressed countries.

Countries with the virtues of capitalism and freedom are not defending those virtues and freedoms. Theoretical claptrap and greed are opening up the doors to socialism, poverty, misery, and stagnation. Socialism is a failed economic policy that has also murdered over 100 million people.

Milei uses his own country as an “empirical demonstration” that no matter how rich you may be, if measures are adopted that hinder the free functioning of markets, free competition, free price systems, if you hinder trade, if you attack ownership of private property, the only possible fate is poverty.

Surely socialism brought much pain and its absence is a relief, but why attribute that relief to capitalism?

Socialism is one type of enslavement and capitalism is another, each with its own characteristic range of suffering.

True freedom is from ALL types of enslavement!

Yuyutsu

What do you suggest?

Dear Yuyutsu,

I assume you weren't a fan of the Kibbutz system then?

Of course socialism owes a lot to significant and not so significant Jewish figures.

Argentina has embraced the largest Jewish population in South America standing at about 200,000 now.

To call Argentina socialist is really silly and only for the ill-educated and the inane. The early 1990's Argentina privatized 115 enterprises between 1990 and 1994 during a wave of capitalist acquisitions of public entities across the region, one of the highest rates on the continent. The scale and speed of what happened in Argentina drove a lot of discontent with the country recording: "As of 2003, negative views of privatization ranged from 53% in Honduras to 83% in Argentina."
http://policydialogue.org/files/publications/Estache_Privatization_in_Latin_America.pdf

They even privatised the Buenos Aires Zoological Gardens. The degree of privatisation of their economy outstrips even Australia.

However failures in privatisation, in the Argentine water sector for instance lead to the government intervening to cancel some contracts in the early 2000's, but a lot of damage had already been done. Socialist leaning political parties gain popularity because of the failures of the capitalist driven privatisations.

Now we have a new demagogue whose solution is to scour around for more things to privatise as though this will be the magic bullet.

Back to try more of the same. It really is the height of insanity.

Dear Critic and Ttbn,

«I assume you weren't a fan of the Kibbutz system then?»

There is "Kibbutz" and there is "system":

Life in a Kibbutz was very fulfilling for some,
they lived and shared everything with friends with whom they had common values and common goals.
I could have been interested myself if I had a similar group of friends with similar values and goals.
Even now, even in Australia, there are similar groups of monks/nuns who share, "From each according to his/her ability, for each according to his/her needs": they don't feel any grudge about it because they all devote their lives to serve a common purpose.
Actually, a Christian friend of mine runs a similar informal small group, here in Australia.

But when that comes to a "system", that's not my cup of tea.

«What do you suggest?»

To do away with forcing systems (including states) on people where policies and lifestyle are dictated from without rather than derived from the people's own inclinations.

For some, socialism fits like a glove, so let them exercise it freely with like-minded people.
Others are competitive by temperament, so let them form societies of like-minded people where they can work hard constantly striving to outdo each other.
And then there is also so much between and besides.

Statistically that implies smaller societies,
but these will be voluntary and happy societies.

True, smaller societies do not achieve as much materially,
a smaller society is unlikely to land people on the moon, for example:
This is fine by me, this is a cost I am more than happy to pay.

Enough was said and many books written about the evils of a socialist system (including Ayn Rand's), so I don't need to add.

But regarding capitalism, I happen to be watching the old 1960's series "Bewitched" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bewitched).
While it is about the adventures of a witch marrying a mortal, I am not here now to discuss witchcraft, but find the series a great parody on American capitalism.

The husband's (Darrin) boss, Larry Tate, is the distinct stereotype of a capitalist pig. He runs an advertising company (itself being one of the ugliest and most predatory aspects of capitalism) and whenever and wherever he smells money and the ability to grab clients from his competitors, be it day or night (or weekend), he uninhibitedly intrudes on his employee and his wife (the witch), bursts into their house uninvited, demanding them both to turn their life around, lie, cheat and otherwise behave unconscionably so he can secure the deal.

Once you see more about the ugly face of capitalism here: http://bewitched.fandom.com/wiki/Larry_Tate
and of course if you get a chance to watch the series itself, you will surely have second thoughts whether capitalism has done any good for the world.

There are three options only: capitalism and socialism, and communism. Some people don't differentiate between the last two.

I'm not rich, but a capitalist society is the only sort I wish to live in.

Dear Ttbn,

I am not an expert on economics, so perhaps you are correct that from a one-dimensional economic/materialistic standpoint there are only these three options (none of which I like), yet non-materialistic societies are possible as well.

"The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing
of blessings. The inherent virtue of socialism is the
equal sharing of miseries."

(Winston Churchill).

Without Capitalism, Socialism would not get funding !
Just try to imagine a socialist Public Service !

Indyvidual

And as is said, true no matter how hackneyed, the Socialists eventually run out of other people's money.

Yuyutsu

I thought that the kibbutz system was kaput, but apparently about 100, 000 of Israel's 10 million people still live that way. Not all that popular anymore; and I can't see it working in Australian society. Capitalism or Socialism: people are not what they once were.

I recently started to reread the ‘Benedict Option’, which impressed me the first time. This time, after a couple of chapters, I gave it away; people are just not like that anymore; they don't cooperate, don’t muck in together; it's all about individualism. Everything is about ‘number one’, particularly among younger people.

Some people still insist that everything will be OK. They are more hopeful than realistic. I see only bad times ahead, and I'm pleased that I am OBE

Bring back Margaret Thatcher?

By some measures, in 1900, Australia and Argentina were the two wealthiest nations on earth per capita. Primarily this was because both were riding the sheep's back to prosperity. Comparisons between their respective paths is interesting and instructive.

While Australia went down the path of light (very light) Fabianism, seeking to distribute a portion of the wealth among all its citizens, it rarely forgot that the only way to distribute wealth over the long term is to actually create the wealth. So Australia's path was liberal capitalism, growing the nation's wealth and therefore that of the citizens. (Now I know the usual suspects will object here that the redistribution wasn't perfect and didn't meet their unattainable standards, but by world standards the lower classes in Australia have done remarkably well.)

Argentina on the other hand went down the path of simply giving away the wealth in the belief that the goose would continue to lay golden eggs. Over the decades, Argentina sought all sorts of ways to have its cake and eat it too, but the most enduring of these were the Peron years and those that followed in his footsteps. Peronism is basically fascist-lite so talking of periods pf nationalisation or privatisation are really superfluous. The state sought to control the economy, guide growth and keep the populace on side by unsustainable welfare.

Its all recently unravelled for all to see which of course explains the rise of Milei. It'll be interesting to see the outcome of his economic revolution but I fear the problems are too big for one man to solve in one period. There will be economic pain and, while the population seems reconciled to that for the moment, history shows that is unlikely to remain the case.

Dear Ttbn,

Yes, the Kibbutz system is not completely kaput, but been highly privatised, meaning that in most kibbutzim (but not all) people own their own home, take most of their salaries home, and all that remains is an extra layer of social safety net beyond what the state of Israel provides.

The older generation had to reluctantly allow that because they found that otherwise the young were leaving the kibbutz and not returning there after their military service.

«people are not what they once were.»

The people of the Kibbutzim once gathered to parade in a big demonstration against Chamberlain's 1939 "white paper" which severely restricted Jews from arriving and purchasing land in Israel.

First marched the young women, shouting "we shall not give".
Next marched the young men, shouting "we shall take it by force".
Finally marched the old men, shouting "that thing will never rise".

Who cares?

mhaze said- Peronism is basically fascist-lite so talking of periods pf nationalisation or privatisation are really superfluous. The state sought to control the economy, guide growth and keep the populace on side by unsustainable welfare.

Answer- In Stephen Hicks video's on Classical Fascism it seems to have elements of Socialism. Musolini was apparently originally a Socialist.

Comment-
Bring back Margaret Thatcher?

Answer- Margaret Thatcher's interviews were great.

Without Capitalism, Socialism would not get funding !
Just try to imagine a socialist Public Service !
Posted by Indyvidual

Answer- Kudos Indyvidual

There are three options only: capitalism and socialism, and communism. Some people don't differentiate between the last two.

I'm not rich, but a capitalist society is the only sort I wish to live in.
Posted by ttbn

Answer- I believe that Traditionalism is in a different Non-Locke Liberal continuum of politics and so is outside the capitalist vs communists dichotemy. Of course those of Terror French Revolution identity would label Traditionalism as Far Right even though it is one of the oldest forms of politics.

Capitalism is a tool in the tool box not our tyrant. But any society that doesn't reward the productive are doomed.

I liked the quote from Churchill- I think he was a bit harsh on Chamberlain.

From memory the Fascist Dialectic is closer to the Hegelian Dialectic than the Marxist Dialectic (Material vs Class).

"Classical Fascism it seems to have elements of Socialism. "

We've been down this road before. Fascism, including Nazism, was indeed socialism with a nationalist flavour. Yes, Mussolini was originally a socialist and only formed the National Fascist Party after the Italian Socialist Party, of which he was a high ranking member, opposed entering WW1.

Likewise the Nazis were a workers party, with Hitler saying Nazism was what communism would look like if it was also nationalist.

Peron, and he wasn't alone around the world, bought into the notion that government could control and guide the economy for the benefit of all. History has proven that notion false but many have failed to learn the lesson.

Again, the path Argentina has embarked on is ambitious and of interest internationally. It is the only way Argentina can salvage its well-being, but whether they, or any nation, can stay the course is doubtful.

While on communism.... 21/1/2023 was the 100 year anniversary of the death of one of histories most despicable mass murders, Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov, better known as Vladimir Lenin.

The venue at which Milei was allowed to make his speech is a surprising one.

The WEF is a private club of the super-rich that presumes to tell the rest of us how we will live in their dystopian view of the future.

The WEF is not interested in capitalism helping everyone; it's all about them.

The very sinister WEF was recently described as an “anti-human, psychopathic death cult”: our deaths, not theirs.

WEF's lunacy is evident in its message for this year: the biggest threat to the world is misinformation! Not cost of living, security, threats from China and Islamism. No. The biggest threat is misinformation!

The “misinformation” they are concerned about, of course, is the truth about the WEF and other fascists arseholes like them.

post-truth mhaze,

Well that is a rather myopic view of what happened.

The closer truth is the elite in Argentina were always reluctant tax payers.

Albeit a little simplistic this is a more reasonable take on the differences.

"In 1951, Argentina and Australia's economies were almost twins. Similar GDP, similar sources of income, and a similar inflation problem.

Australia was flush with cash from the United States wanting wool uniforms for its men fighting in the freezing cold Korean war.

US dollars flooded into Australia, making everyone very rich and happy, but this made the cost of living go up by 25 per cent in a year.

The treasurer — a Barnaby Joyce-esque figure named Artie Fadden — wasn't going to cop this.

He raised income taxes by a third, making himself very unpopular, and Australians very angry.

The treasurer called it responsible; the papers called him a gangster. But it did the job and inflation ground to a halt.

Argentina didn't tax people like Australia did, and this is a key reason the two economies are so different today."
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-08-13/how-did-argentina-end-up-with-100-per-cent-inflation-/102707204

Dear Yuyutsu,

The Kibbutz system was still a major contributor to the Israeli economy well into this century.

"In 2010, there were 270 kibbutzim in Israel with a total population of 126,000. Their factories and farms account for 9% of Israel's industrial output, worth US$8 billion, and 40% of its agricultural output, worth over US$1.7 billion."
Wikipedia

It certainly has loosened some of the deeply socialist/collectivism ideals that made it so significant and contribute so much to the growth of Israel, but it is a powerful example of those ideals in practice.

SR,

Now let's see. My post was an overview of the past century and your's focused on one event in one year. Yet mine is myopic? We must have differing meanings for that word.

Its rather funny that the ABC would think that raising taxes was the key difference. The ABC is always in favour of higher taxes - you've gotta fund them somehow.

Still if this 'analysis' were to hold any water, then we'd need to see inflation in Australia decline after the Fadden fiscal contraction and inflation continuing to grow in Argentina. Indeed inflation did decline in Australia. But it ALSO declined in Argentina, even without the tax hikes. Indeed, there was a period in the mid-1950s where the Argentine inflation rate went negative. So the claims of your ABC analysts are bunkum.

Proper economic analysis of the comparison between these "settler societies" (Australia, Canada, Argentina, NZ, etc) shows that the main difference was that some encouraged the development of alternate wealth to the agricultural bounty of the early 1900's while others (ie Argentina) didn't. This was a failure of government, a failure of culture, but primarily a failure of economic philosophy ie capitalism v. Socialism

ttbn

"I'm not rich, but a capitalist society is the only sort I wish to live in."

So lets start by cutting off your aged welfare, then we'll see how "rich" you really are.

Paul1405,
Let’s start by paying you on merit & without the Peter Principle safety net & see how far you’ll get.

Indy,

Are you a Capitalists, except for every second Wednesday when you collect your Socialists welfare from 'Centerlink'. I think you have convinced yourself that your lie, that in someway you financed your fortnightly welfare payment, is true. No fella, its not true, all your aged welfare is paid for by us taxpayers today! Bring on a SENIORS NATIONAL SERVICE. How many of you old fellas on this Forum have your snouts in the welfare trough? Indy, ttbn, and others, put your hands up, Jose', Hassy, mhaze, a few more!

"How many of you old fellas on this Forum have your snouts in the welfare trough?"

I often wonder if there's a fair bit of projection in Paul's regular assertions that he's not on welfare. The fact is none of us can know for sure about each other's economic circumstances....but educated guesses can be made. But just assuming everyone who has opinions different from yours are on welfare (as Paul does) is the opposite of educated.

More on topic, the level of welfare offered in Australia is only sustainably possible in a modern capitalist nation. Paul won't understand that.

mhaze

There is a good chance that he is projecting. He disparages ‘old farts’ all the time, but won't reveal his own age. He says very little about himself, which would be OK if he didn't assume so much about the rest of us.

His latest form of abuse is ‘gubba’, which is an aboriginal name for non-aborigines. When I asked him if was aboriginal himself or was he just misappropriating aboriginality, he did not answer, but came up with some other idiotic comment not worth remembering.

But, as he is one of the three narcissists, we really can't expect anything else from him. He is incapable of any other behaviour. If he wasn't such an oik, you might even feel sorry for him.

mhaze,

Now I understand, you are a Communists posting as you do on this Forum to make the Fascists look bad, and I must say, you are doing a fine job at it!

ttbn,

I'm at least 10 years younger than you, you admitted to being an octogenarian...an octo for short. Yes I am a self funded retiree, and yes, I also fund you and millions of others like you on aged welfare, which you did admit. Indy is rather proud of his Pensioner status, he even believes the dosh came out of his fortnightly dole cheques for 50 years to finance all his aged welfare today. Old Fart is a frame of mind, not measured by revolutions around the Sun. Can be an Old Fart at 25. Aboriginal heritage, Great Grandfather on my mother'S side had a KOORI mother, and a GUBBA father. TTBN you and I could be related! How about that!

If anyone is out there who is fluent in gibberish, please translate Paul's last post to me.

Kudos mhaze, ttbn, Indyvidual.

Kudos Kid,

Is that a coded message which means; You are collecting a fat Socialist pension as well, Just like the 3 named... Isn't Socialism marvellous for you guys, free medical, free bus, free free free, even free beer and pokie money, thanks to us poor suffering tax payers, all to waste down at gods waiting room every fortnight!

A self funded retiree,
Paul1405,
Haha, very funny. Writing off the pettiest of petty expenses & getting your Super contributions boosted by the Taxpayers i.e. paying as little Tax as possible etc.?
From what I have witnessed, self funded retirees are generally pretty hefty parasites, particularly those with rental properties !

Ya gotta laugh.

This is interesting...

http://ari.aynrand.org/issues/government-and-business/individual-rights/The-Myth-about-Ayn-Rand-and-Social-Security/

In the book Atlas Shrugged Henry Rearden receives his taxes back in the form of a gold bar from Ragnar Danneskjöld.

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

Ragnar Danneskjöld

One of Galt's first followers, and world-famous as a pirate, who seizes relief ships sent from the United States to the People's States of Europe. He works to ensure that once those espousing Galt's philosophy are restored to their rightful place in society, they have enough capital to rebuild the world. Kept in the background for much of the book, Danneskjöld makes a personal appearance to encourage Rearden to persevere in his increasingly difficult situation, and gives him a bar of gold as compensation for the income taxes he has paid over the last several years. Danneskjöld is married to the actress Kay Ludlow; their relationship is kept hidden from the outside world, which only knows of Ludlow as a retired film star. Considered a misfit by Galt's other adherents, he views his actions as a means to speed the world along in understanding Galt's perspective.

Henry "Hank" Rearden

Henry (known as "Hank") Rearden is one of the central characters in Atlas Shrugged. He owns the most important steel company in the United States, and invents Rearden Metal, an alloy stronger, lighter, cheaper and tougher than steel. He lives in Philadelphia with his wife Lillian, his brother Philip, and his elderly mother. Rearden represents a type of self-made man and eventually divorces Lillian, abandons his steel mills following a bloody assault by government-planted workers, and joins John Galt's strike.

Ayn Rand died of lung cancer

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayn_Rand#Later_years

There is also the question- the communists say that if you disagree with social security then you shouldn't receive social security but you still need to provide for social security through taxation. But this just makes the "communist class" stronger and the "productive class" weaker. The "Productive Class" believes that 1. the social security system shouldn't exist for everybody NOT 2. if the social security system exists then those of the productive class shouldn't avail themselves. It's a subtle point.

The fall back position for the "productive class" appears to be to consider taxation as a form of compulsory insurance. Productivists aren't against insurance- they are against making it compulsory- because it locks in resources and is mismanaged.

Traditionalists might believe OTOH that land shouldn't be traded it should stay within the family under a primogeniture system and shouldn't be able to be seized in the case of debt. Most Traditionalists would believe in "productive principles" within a stable traditionalist framework.

Rand believes that value is the same as life- if someone gets life for free- someone else has to give up some of their life. Rand and other "productivists" seem to believe that being productive isn't actually difficult- even someone in a wheelchair can make porridge for someone that doesn't have time to cook it. But societies "red tape" often prevents people from converting their house/ apartment into a breakfast bar. "Red tape" seems to be a source of despotism in society- yet communism is all about a "red tape" managed economy. You could argue that in some cases despotism exists because free trade isn't more wide spread

Communism sees the world through the lense of Dialectic Materialism as I understand comes down to Money vs Class Consciousness. Other ideological systems see money as one element of importance in the social system. Perhaps money is over emphasized within Marxist communism because it comes from Capitalism in a sense. European "Traditionalism" OTOH is perhaps a system that existed before Capitalism mainly in Europe due to more sparsely populated tribal regions.

Communism isn't just about how money is distributed within society- it advocates a world wide nihilistic totalitarian genocidal system where there are no individuated cultures- multiculturalism is part of communism. Gustav Le Bon, John Anderson, Adam Curtis, and others talk about how the breakdown of traditional structures disempower the community in the name of empowerment. Communist strategists including Lenin, Stalin, Trotsky, Alinsky, even Bernay's seemingly use the power of the state against the people rather than as a way to empower the people- they seem to fear the people. Communism rejects Traditional society.

Traditionalism OTOH is perhaps a system where vested interests are tied to the interest of a nation or region. Sometime opaque and difficult to attack externally. Systems of primogeniture and aristocracy are designed to be stable and resilient to external attack and diffusion over generations, promoting through loyalty.

Capitalism OTOH seemingly sees money as the abstraction and ultimate of value without consideration of non-monetary value.

Some ideologies are more open to a live and let live philosophy- Atlas Shrugged paraphrasing says that "we don't tell people what to believe, but we're not going to do business with those that want to kill us". Where as many communist societies have actively enforced speech and thought though counter revolution programs and town square killings. In a sense the intolerant communist tactic here may be more effective that the tolerant one if you consider the lesson on warfare from "The Untouchables"- "if they send one of ours to the hospital we send one of theirs to the morgue".

Dear Canem Malum,

«Ayn Rand died of lung cancer»

Ayn Rand advocated smoking as an expression of freedom.
In her book, dissidents recognised each other by smokes with the $ sign.

- She was not always right!

The only thing wrong about taxes, is that they are sometimes taken from people against their will,
that is either by violent force, by coercion or by stealing; and that is why it is morally wrong to benefit from that money.

Besides that issue, social security is a very good thing.
It secures not only the recipients, but also the wealthy:
thanks to social security we enjoy very low levels of crime in Australia.
Nobody has to break into your house because they are hungry.
This means we don't need fences and gates, padlocks, alarms and armed guards to keep us safe.
- paying for the above could cost you even more than you pay in taxes.
There are no robbers that stop us in road intersections while we wait for the green light and at gunpoint demand our car keys, as commonly occurs in many other countries that do not have social security.
There are very few beggars in Australia to harass us wherever we go or even knock on our doors, menacing and disturbing our peace at any hour.
The level of frauds, both online and offline, coming from within Australia is extremely low.
- We should count our blessings, and be proud to pay our taxes voluntarily!

Everybody in Australia pays tax, no matter how poor they are. It's called GST. Rich and poor all pay the same percentage on most things they buy. The employed and the unemployed. Maybe they could increase that to take the pressure off the whining rich. It's been talked about enough. Governments need to cut spending rather than increasing their spending - starting with huge subsidies to rich, foreign people investing in "renewable" energy, which costs everyone more than fossil fuel energy.

The GST is a Tax that would be good were not so much of it wasted & misappropriated & literally stolen by negative gearing & bureaucracy !

In Australia Capitalism has provided a great deal.

Our capitalist economy has been able to deliver for
the disadvantaged and the less fortunate. We have a
comprehensive social safety net - a National Disability
Insurance Scheme, unemployment and sickness benefits,
access to tertiary education, paid parental leave, health
care - to name a few.

It has been our capitalist economy that has allowed Australia
to provide so much for Australians.

That's why so many want to come and live here.

When government engages in activities that I don't support my taxes aren't been spent properly. In society sometimes losses in some areas result in gains in others but this is becoming less true. More and more of my franchise is seemingly being given away to those that seek to destroy me either by action or omission. Taxation is a significant component of that.

CM

Sure thing.

Taxpayers' money going to Hamas via "charities" wouldn't be popular with most Australians, surely.

Anyone who takes aged welfare, and other forms of welfare, and then claims they only agree with Capitalism is a hypocrite, and we sure have a bunch of those on this Forum! As a Progressive, I support a mixed democratic liberal society with the entrepreneur benefits of Capitalism mixed with the social justice benefits of Socialism. Of the regular posters here, Foxy and Steele are similar, of the other regulars, most are extreme right wing supporters of Totalitarianism. End of story.

What you are saying, Paul, is that your minority of 3 loopy Lefties are at odds with the more conservative majority. That’s on par with the rest of society, and what has always been the case on OLO. You are not telling us anything that we didn't already know. Glad to see that you have finally realised it.

ttbn,

There are several others who are progressive people who post here, but not that regularly, David, Banjo, a couple of others. As you are the most prolific forum poster, and there are 2 or 3 others of your ilk running a close 2nd and 3rd, you have a slight majority here on this rather conservative forum. For greater Australia yep, if a survey was taken of octogenarians, nonagenarians and centenarians in society I'm sure you would be in a safe political opinionated majority. I don't know what they call people over the age of 109, dead I suppose.

Hi Paul,

Accusations of "Loopy Lefties?" being a minority,
are dubious at best. Both here on this forum and in communities.

Lets make comparisons. How many seats does One Nation have in
Parliament. Where is Cory B. today? Who won the last
election? And finally Which discussions and by whom - attract
the largest numbers of responses?

A Minority?
Hardly!

Hi Paul,

They call themselves conservatives. They're not.
They don't want to conserve what we now have. They'd
rather take this country backwards. They're not conservatives,
they're regressives. And the country they seek is the
cultural backwater of the past.

Paul

Weren't the last words of your post "End of story"? I knew it was too good to be true.

Foxy tells us "That's why so many want to come and live here."

The reasons she listed were all the free stuff Australia gives its citizens. I agree that the vast majority of immigrants come here for the benefits Australia gives them, not to benefit Australia.

More fool us.

Paul, misunderstanding as usual, thinks that welfare is a socialist policy tacked onto capitalism. He's wrong. Welfare is very much part of capitalism. Indeed, only capitalism is successful enough to be able to afford the type of benefits Australia (and most other capitalist nations) gives it citizenry.

But it all misses the point. Socialism is an economic system. Capitalism is an economic system. Fascism is an economic system. As is communism. They are all designed to create wealth and distribute it. Capitalism just does it better than all the others - creating more wealth and distributing it more equitably

Unlike Capitalism, Socialism can’t pay for itself !

Dear Mhaze,

«Socialism is an economic system. Capitalism is an economic system. Fascism is an economic system. As is communism. They are all designed to create wealth and distribute it.»

That is the problem with them all!

As you just correctly pointed, none are based on what is right, none are based on what is good, only on wealth.

Even though we are constantly told what terrible people we are by the hate-filled renegades within, people want to come here. The population has just hit 27 million. As mhaze suggests, Immigrants don't say, “I must go to Australia to help out”. They come for what is already here, built up over two centuries by British settlement and the ancestors of those Brits, and select Europeans. There was nothing worth having before they arrived: Stone Age people whose lives were short and brutish, but who were also raised up by British and some European settlement, and capitalism.

Not too many immigrants, legal and illegal, are escaping from capitalism, democracy or constitutional monarchies.

I'm not sure if Hamas is a listed terrorist group but the Tamil Tigers were apparently collecting money in Australia for a while until someone dobbed them in.

Interesting that Thomas Sewell's group is protesting with the Pro-Palestinian's/ Hamas- one of the few times where he would side with the woke communists I expect. JK Rowling was seemingly amused at woke/ communist claims.

Sounds like a poor misled 17 year old was egged on by communists against Cory Bernardi.

There were reports of a Hong Kong supporter freelance journalist getting it in the face with a communist quick lime milk shake and almost lost his eye.

If Australian's have created the wealth of Australia don't they deserve to benefit from it- rather than redistributing it to corporate moochers and looters for the Government skim. I would rather have businesses in Australia that actually produce value for Australia. You know businesses of Australian's, by Australian's, for Australian's- businesses are governments or institutions too.

Remember The Declaration of Independence

As I understand Stephen Hicks said- Marxist Mussolini became Fascist Mussolini and wrote that material money was too narrow within Marxist Class Conscious Dialectic Materialism and should be broadened to include cultural capital.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uY6NDeXymNQ

I think that progressives are regressives, just like Communist fair equality isn't fair or equal, Commie economics is poverty, Commie state ownership of property and business creates poverty and death, Commie Anti-War policy is genocide, Feminist is Commie code for Anti-Family, Multiculturalism is Commie code for Anti-White genocide, and Commie Utopia is "Hell on Earth". Only an enemy could wish communism on a nation. Capitalism is a tool that can be used and misused- The Liberal Arts are "the 'art' and principle of Learning to be free". How can nature be regressive? Perhaps Foxy is regressive.

Ronald McDonald is Commie!.......this guy and his fixation with Communism, all this "reds under the beds stuff". Give it a rest! As for all this kudos stuff, those of your ilk look bad enough, without you piling on as well.

CM

“Australia has already imposed sanctions on Hamas, Hizballah and Palestinian Islamic Jihad in their entirety, and a further 17 persons and seven entities with links to these groups.

Once listed for sanctions, it is a criminal offence to use or deal with the person or entity's assets, or to make assets available to them. This is punishable by up to 10 years' imprisonment and/or heavy fines.”

That comes from Wong's website.

And, I believe that “progressives”, “regressives”, ultra-Leftists of the kind who post here, along with all the juvenile delinquents on the streets, are not “just like Communists”; they ARE communists, the real deal. Cunning Communists come in all guises, shapes and forms.

Happy Australia Day.

Yes "the real deal communists" surprising who you see around the traps- make sure you wear your "Vote No" T-shirt today out and about- it's still a thing at the state level. Imagine Lydia Thorpe as "strip bar brawler" Queen of Australia (and maybe "Yes spitter" Emeritus Professor Denise Ferris- Albonese probably gave her the Order of Australia for her salivating expertise).

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2023/10/02/07/75754251-12582763-Andrew_Thaler_was_at_a_Yes_campaign_event_in_Cooma_south_east_NS-a-2_1696228412226.jpg

Beautiful demonstration of Australia's university elite. So much for the high moral ground or even the low moral ground this is just immoral.

Since the change in university funding in the 1990's the education industry has put trillions into the pockets of universities and professors just like Denise Ferris- they as Woke/ Communists spit in the faces of Anglo Australian's and the Western World to fill their pockets with the blood sweet and tears of democracy.

Close Australia's Education Industry.

Ignorance can be educated.
Crazy can be medicated.
But there's no cure for stupid.

Well Paul1405 sounds like an apologist for Commies and their 100 million dead.

Good on you Paul1405 Kudos- hope your family is proud of you (sarcasm).

Hypocrite Diaries:

Communist until you get rich.
Feminist until you get married.
Atheist until the airplane starts falling.

Hey Paul,

Don't you hate it when you have to be polite to people
you really want to throw a brick at.

Hi Paul,

Apparently you're an apologist for commies.

Who knew!

Sorry should have read... Sounds like a poor misled 17 year old was egged on by communists against Fraser Anning.

Who's Fraser Anning?

CM

The Greens, often referred to by retired Labor Senator, Stephen Conroy, as "filth", are well on the way to being commos - if they haven't already arrived.

Bandt now wants Liarnese to go further with his tax lies/ballsup, and 3 sitting Labor MPs have publicly advised that they don't like it.

There could be more disappointment ahead for man who blew the Voice.

ttbn- Sounds like 20% Carbon Reductions scandal all over again. Looks like they are very conscious about leveraging their relationship. The electorate needs to be aware of how this distorts the vote on issues.

Capitalism should be part of the system, not be the system !

Kudos Indyvidual I agree.

Indyvidual

What do you see as the other part of the system? It seems to me that capitalism takes care of everyone in Western societies that still have actual, not make-believe, capitalism as we now have, with governments meddling all the time.

Capitalist societies have rich people, reasonably well off people, and poor people. The wealth and industry of the first two provides for the last group.

What more is needed?

What more is needed?
ttbn,
A mentality that uses capitalism for society first & foremost & everyone pays the same rate of Tax. Capitalism for a greedy minority exploiting rather than providing is what we have now !

True freedom is from ALL types of enslavement!
Yuyutsu,
That is a purely idealist quote as no-one is totally free ever. Greed, desire & everything are enslavement ! The only way to be totally free is to be such a crap of a being that doesn't give a toss about anyone & anything !

Dear Indyvidual,

You certainly took my words well beyond their intended context.

Nevertheless, looking at the broadest sense, what you say is true:
Greed and desire are indeed forms of enslavement.

«The only way to be totally free is to be such a crap of a being that doesn't give a toss about anyone & anything !»

And that would be a real saint:
Being totally free, does not imply refraining from action - one can still act for the benefit of the world without any enslaving personal desire!

"Fight for the sake of duty, treating alike happiness and distress, loss and gain, victory and defeat. Fulfilling your responsibility in this way, you will never incur sin"
[Bhagavad Gita 2:38]

We can chose to evaluate our own mentality & compare it with the mentality of those whose mentality is to exploit !
Economic success for is 99% exploitation courtesy of the apathy of the parasites who don't give a damn about their fellow citizens !