I came across this portion of the Socialist Web site

http://www.sa.org.au/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1547&Itemid=153

Which states:

1. The nature and tasks of a socialist propaganda group

The aim of socialists is to build a mass revolutionary party that can cohere working class resistance to the attacks of the capitalist class and eventually lead a revolution that will bring workers to power.

Now.. 'revolution' in the dictionary means:

"The overthrow of one government and its replacement with another."

Now.. what does 'overthrow' mean?

1. To throw over; overturn.
2. To bring about the downfall or destruction of, especially by force or concerted action: a plot to overthrow the government.

It seems to me that the old 'ban the commies' was an opportunity we missed to rid ourselves of these 'revolutionaries'.

It should be noted that the goal of the 'propoganda' unit is clearly spelt out and is connected to 'revolution'.

In my view..this is a clear statement of purpose.. ie... SEDITION.

So, I'm wondering why:

a) They are allowed to publish this rubbish.
b) Why they aren't all in jail under our anti terrorism laws.
c) Why, when such goals are stated that their efforts to support other seditious groups are not also taken into account.

If they use the word "revolution" .. then the first and most obvious meaning which comes to the Western mind would be the 'French Revolution' would it not?

The workers unfortunately David,don't have the inherent genetic ability to run the show but that should mean that they should share in the prosperity which they have help to create?Getting the balance right will be an argument that will consume our time for centuries to come.Currently due to globalisation the balance is in favour of the elites who just piss it against the wall in the name of sub- prime debacle.

Well Lenin said "The Goal of Socialism is Communism"... that says it all

and regarding the french revolution, those who replaced the french monarchy are the same as instigated the period aloled "the Terror", no different to the way Stalin followed Lenin.

Then of course, Oliver Cromwell, when dead was replaced by - the son of the Monarch he had executed.

History would suggest "revolutions" and the scum which floats up to the top of the "revolutionary" civic order, create more problems than what they replace.

as for publishing the rubbish, let the sunlight be the better environment for the seditious to wither, than in their natural dark, dank cesspools,

where they breed, feed, grow stronger and spread their corruption, unseen.

Truth is most of them are so inept, they cannot manage the revolution of a bicycle wheel and would go into melt down if their dole cheques arrived late (or do they get it EFT ?)

The other point is the environment of Australia is not condusive to revolution, life here is too good and easy, no real struggle.

Thats why so many real folk queued up (and are still queuing) to migrate here.

Cripes. Porkycrap, Arjay and the Dog Butcher in full flight. It's the Weird Sisters in drag.

"A dark cave. In the middle, a boiling cauldron.

Thunder.

Enter the three Witches

First Witch:

Thrice the brinded Labrador hath mouth'd.

Second Witch:

Thrice and once the Staffy whined.

Third Witch:

Arjay cries "'Tis time, 'tis time."

First Witch:

Round about the cauldron go;
In the poison'd entrails throw.
Toad, that under cold stone
Days and nights has thirty-one
Swelter'd venom sleeping got,
Boil thou first i' the charmed pot.

All:

Double, double, toil and trouble;
Fire burn, and cauldron bubble."

Despite all the hysterical and sinister connotations associated with the word "socialism", I think it remains the only system that guarantees ongoing mutual survival. It may not be the final answer but it certainly will be part of one.

The most basic of social systems is probably the family unit. I don't know about anybody else, but my family seems to operate as a sort of collective, where everyone contributes and shares according to their abilities and needs, without the need for buying and selling goods and services between ourselves.

This seems to also work up to the tribal level, but somewhere along the way it seemed that it became a good idea to buy and sell "shares" in what used to be commonly owned assetts and some tribe members stopped being physically productive in favour of living off the sometimes intangible proceeds of personal property ownership or the promise of future returns. This seems to work where there is the illusion a monetary system - but not forever.

As well as some apparent practical flaws in communism, capitalism is also a dead-end system. Once there are no more new markets or no resources left, it has nowhere left to go. By definition, it destroys that which makes itself possible by overconsumption and environmental exploitation.

Historically, communism (Stalinism) was associated with totalitarianism but capitalism is drifting in the same direction. Under the guise of personal protection, various freedoms and liberties are being surrendered to authority. The modern concept of the Corporation also creates a unique entity that can bypass many of the legal things that individuals cannot and can even evade government legislation and exist without national borders.

It's interesting that there are now more billionaires in Russia than in America. I guess that's because of the internal corruption that dismantled their system from within and let the old Party members line their pockets while they had the chance.

Sedition? The State banning socialism would create exactly the sort of totalitarianism that communism was associated with - our very own Thought Police and replacing one form of propaganda with another.

Polycarp-Boaz David I now see why that dog bit you.
You can if you wish find all groups on the web.
Socialism was a wonderfull dream in times that people had so very little.
It had every right in different times to want to over throw Church's, kings and all that kept them down.
Find a copy of lock out the story of a Newcastle district mine lock out put you family at that table at Christmas time one tin of camp pie .
Not a true socialist I still wonder what our world would be like if some had not fought for social justice.
The chances of those few radical socialists you have dredged up hurting us are nil.
I see your socialist few and put loony radical Christians on the table- that has real damage possibility's.

Team :) umm.. actually I should re-phrase the question.

But first...yes Belly old mate..I agree.. the ideals of socialism are noble. Ok..that said.

The question should have been as follows:

"Are the statements found in the Socialist Alternative Web site under the heading 'Socialist Propoganda Unit'....seditious?"

Can you share some thought out opinions on this single issue please?

I've read that before but lost track of where.. until I found it by accident in connection with another 'quest' :)

So..when a political group speaks of 'revolution' and preparing people for it.. and when it openly admits that it cannot persuade enough people to take over democratically.. does it not mean that they are contemplating ultimately 'violent revolution' ?

lets try to focus on this one issue please. It's not about "Is socialism a good idea" but "How does this particular group plan to achieve it"?

If the answer is in the affirmative..then it begs the question about those who are involved in, and support the 'Socialist Alternative' movement.. by financial and ideological contributions..and by their physical presense at meetings where they voice support for the cause.

Well dears, It looks like we three witches have been joined (in the fourth post) by the local succubus.

Maybe we should turn her out (in a professional sense, of course).

Now Belly / Polycarp “the ideals of socialism are noble.”

Don Quixote was considered, likewise, “noble”,

However, his antics were considered less than socially productive.

As an aside: like terrorism, sedition is in the eye of the beholder. In a socialist state the revolutionaries may be Conservative groups.

Revolution also means change. Change can come about by means other than physical force - such as cohesive power, good marketing and political influence. I think polycarp is making too much of this and is nitpicking to suit his own agenda.

Rudd has used the term 'Education Revolution' and the Howard government referred to their dismal Workchoices as an industrial relations revolution. I hardly think either of them are in danger of being arrested under our terrorism laws.

A bit of socialism in the mix would do this country a world of good to offset the 'revolution' of a more dangerous kind - the governing of our nations purely in the interests of big business without duty of care to the very citizens that drive these economies with their labour.

I am not advocating for a Socialist State of the Lenin/Marx variety just some acknowledgment that sometimes collective interests outweigh the interests of individuals by providing safety nets, a sense of community and caring for each other and the infrastructure that supports those communities.

Sure, socialists are seditious. They have the right to be seditious if we have a society which allows free speech.

From the Declaration of Independence of the United States:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal,
that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,
that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. That
to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving
their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any
Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of
the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government,
laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in
such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and
Happiness."

If one would ban the socialist website one would also have to ban the Declaration of Independence.

Without Socialists there would never be any 'rights' for those except for landowners.
Call me a socialist, accuse me of sedition, but without the social conscience we would still be living in feudal times.
Wthout a socialist agenda of some kind we would still have slavery, and the poor would be as in USA, castigated, blamed, living on the streets without hope and turning to drugs to dull the pain of their existence...
oh..
ooops ..
Well, argument explained.

Polly

Answer to your questions:

a) They are allowed to publish this rubbish.

Australia is still a democracy where we have freedom of speech.

You have freedom to 'whack-a-mozzie'.

I have freedom to call you out on your hate-speech.

b) Why they aren't all in jail under our anti terrorism laws

Because they are not terrorists. DUH!

c) Why, when such goals are stated that their efforts to support other seditious groups are not also taken into account?

Which seditious groups? Also you have judged this particular group 'seditious' no-one else. For reasons, please return to my answer to your question a).

However,

The question you should be asking yourself is this:

Would Jesus be a Socialist or a Capitalist? Explain reasons for your choice.

Fraccy says "Because they are not terrorists"

Plecican says "Sedition is in the eye of the beholder"

Then.. an explanation is given about 'educational revolution'....

Ok.. I'm trying to stay focused here :) struggggle..

But CONTEXT has to have meaning for the use of the term and how it should be interpreted.

To me.. speaking in a historical/political context..and as the article outlines the function of a Socialist Propaganda Unit is to lure/entice/attract a significant layer of the working class to the cause so that.... eventually they will be in a position to have a "revolution".

Now.. this is not talking about:

-Democratic 'revolution'
-Educational 'revolution'
-YouNameIt revolution....

it is talking about a violent revolution of which we see examples in many places and times where Marxists have carried them out.

So.... we KNOW what 'Socialists/marxists' "mean" when they use the term 'revolution'... we see it in Cuba... how it began? we all know that.

It's one thing for the public at large to 'guess' what people 'mean' by their vocabulary.. but it's another when the group concerned actually defines it themselves.. in such a case we have no option but to accept their interpretation.... am I right?

"Socialism" in the sense of the overall good of society should be the goals of the individuals in it... is noble.. but that isn't really true socialism.. which is far more and more menacing and involves way more 'control' than we see now. In fact the only way a true Socialist 'state' can function is by total control. If they don't..those with individual abilities and gifts tend to get out of control.

The best form of government is some kind of middle path, where the values it promotes are altruistic and noble...leaving the rest up to the people.
Just like you cannot 'legislate' faith in God.. you cannot legislate generosity.. but you can I guess impose very heavy taxes on people who will subsequently hate ur guts and work towards your ousting :)

Sedition is thought crime. All laws pertaining to it should be abolished.

Don't bust a garter Poly. :)

I agree with you about the middle way David but your middle way and my middle way are guaranteed to lie on a different part of the spectrum. If you are as even-handed as you believe and advocate for the middle-way why have we never seen a post from you about the negatives from the Extreme Right and the extremes of Capitalism?

Methinks you protest too much about socialists. Who do you think will look after the most vulnerable and those without economic power? Do you think that Conservative groups would have factored in social policy without the pressure from the Left (if we must stick with labels)

Fractelle asked a brilliant question about Jesus. If Jesus existed I supsect he would not have been Conservative. Jesus fought against the prevailing ethos of the day and may have even been considered seditious.

It really doesn't matter whether is a good idea or a bad idea. It also doesn't matter whether some find the ideas expressed on the web site loathsome. All that matters is whether the speech presents a clear and present danger. Speech addressed to a mob firing them up to lynch a person or burn a house down is an offense under common law called incitement. Speech advocating unspecified violence at an unspecified future date does not present a clear and present danger and is allowed in a free society.

There is a risk that a person will be inspired to violence by the site. Banning the site produces a deadening effect that those with criticisms of the government and present system will be inhibited in criticism. Taking the second course means we have a less free society. The Chinese would ban a site advocating overthrow of their system. We do not want to inhibit criticism of ours. It is a mechanism for improvement where faults in our system are pointed out.

No course is risk free in this case. If we want to keep a free society we must take the first risk.

<<"the goal of the 'propoganda' unit is clearly spelt out">>

Except the socialists spelled "propaganda" correctly. Their hostility to capitalism is far less disturbing than Polyboaz's war on syntax.

And full marks to CJ Morgan (10:09). I'm saving that one to disk.

davidf>"Speech addressed to a mob firing them up to lynch a person or burn a house down is an offense under common law called incitement."

If that's "an offence" why weren't the people calling to lynch that sexual offender recently arrested or charged? is that a case of selective, corrupt law enforcement, with it applying to some but not others? It seems then that speech wasn't the problem and only action toward such an end would constitute a crime.

davidf>"All that matters is whether the speech presents a clear and present danger."

I do not think speech presents a clear and present danger on any occassion. Action does....and only action. Isn't that obvious? Any other "offence" is really a thought crime.

While your comment sounds reasonable and balanced i think it proves that thought crime is becoming far more acceptable concept (..........by the way you better check up on sedition it assumes any thought crime against the state, on any occassion, any time).

Everyone even people inclined to intellectual, rational debate now appear entertain the notion that thought crime or speech poses "clear and present danger". Can't you stop and think about what you are saying before parroting the government for a minute? Your comment would have been reasonable to me if you understood the difference between spoken or written words and actual action. They are vastly different.

Why do adults repeat to children the proverb, "sticks will break my bones, but words will never hurt me", whilst constantly, flagrantly abusing that concept in general society? Why are Australians acting worse than children all the time? The government does not always know better, nor it is always more respectable than the Australian population.

Dear Steel,

Justice Holmes who used 'clear and present danger; as a criterion for restricting speech gave as an example yelling 'fire' in a crowded theater.

You asked: "If that's "an offence" why weren't the people calling to lynch that sexual offender recently arrested or charged?"

One may advocate anything. The people who called put no one in danger. That was not inciting a mob with access to the offender. There was not an element of 'clear and present danger'.

You may not think that speech presents a danger in any case. I advocate you yell 'fire' in a crowded theatre. I have not committed an offense by such advocacy. If you yell 'fire' in a crowded theatre you are guilty of an offense and may even cause death and injury by your speech.

Comrades,
I think you can trace most of the social norms we now take for granted, such as pensions, working hours and unemployment benefits back to those evil Labor Party Socialists who are obviously intent on overthrowing society by bankrupting the paper tiger running-dog capitalists first.

I doubt that Jesus (apparently himself unemployed during his final years) had the need for his Apostles to be locked into any Workchoices or EBA conditions.

I also thought Jesus was tried and executed for the crime of sedition.

rache Brother or is it sister there we have it we are evil, Boaz bloke no not a chance we should stop them saying what they want.
If we did free speech would be in danger on any subject.
The likely hood of this group over turning us is nil.
We are already in part socialist ,just compare our health to Americas.
Right now looking right then left are you sure capitalism can survive the thieft and miss management America has hit us with?
Is not the buying of fail banks in America socialism?

It is interesting that off all the loony lefters here, none of you could bring yourselves to criticise an organisation which advocates the implementation of a political system with, or without the support of the majority of people. That’s called totalitarianism. Seems the leftys are quite comfortable with totalitarianism if they’re in charge.

Rache,

I think you misunderstand socialism. The Labour Party reforms including pensions, working hours and unemployment benefits are social democratic in nature, not socialist.

Social democrats aim to reform capitalism democratically through state regulation and the creation of programs and organizations that work to ameliorate or remove injustices they see in the capitalist market system

Socialism in the traditional sense, aims to end the predominance of the capitalist system, or in the Marxist sense, aims to replace it entirely. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_democracy

rache: << I also thought Jesus was tried and executed for the crime of sedition. >>

Excellent point, rache - I'd thought that myself. I've also seen numerous references to Jesus and the early Christians as promoting a preindustrial kind of socialism.

<< I think you misunderstand socialism. The Labour Party reforms including pensions, working hours and unemployment benefits are social democratic in nature, not socialist.>>

It's funny you say that, because people who think terms like "loony lefters" have a place in adult discussions are usually the first to draw feeble connections between social democrats and communists.

Any time the Labor Party makes a move, it's immediately denounced as a hotbed of closet Maoists. If Rache is mistaken, it's because you and your fellow partisans have worked so hard to confuse people.

Davidf, I distinctly remember reporters on the scene reporting on people calling for the lynching of that person. I think they even had rope tied for such a fashion, calling for his execution etc. Outside the house, that's why police were on site. When I said "calling" I was referring to people *on the scene* advocating his death or lynching. I see no such requirement in law for there to be a "mob present" when one "incites violence" (in the eyes of an observer) and the sedition laws certainly don't have one.

I don't know who Justice Holmes is, but I disagree with his reasoning. Judges do not have perfect reasoning and are influenced by their attachment to the legal system and prevailing thought on the rightness of government control (if you live in a dictatorship, the judges will have remarkable thought process perfectly in line with oppressing people, completely logical).

It's rare for a judge to be fully independent of the system they are a part of and have grown attached to thinking is Just. One who stands for the citizen (in Australia), in other words.

I made a comment about the "yelling fire in a theatre" hypothetical situation (as you can see flawed from the outset in it's assumptions when you think about it) here..... if you care to read it http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2113&page=0#45030 In short yelling fire only causes harm when IDIOTS believe a COMPLETE STRANGER and don't have the DECENCY to act rationally and safely. In other words, harm from someone yelling fire is a direct consequence of those people who are gullible and irresponsible...it's their fault. No reasonable person would uncritically stampede in response to a complete stranger like that...it's an hypothetical situation that suits authority even though it has nothing to do with reality. To put it another way, in the minds of judges it is "reasonable" to blame the yelling person because of the inherent regard they have for the authority of the State (appeal to authority). Judges execute people overseas with perfect 'logic'. They are tools of the current state, even in democracy.

Jesus would be neither a socialist nor a capitalist...he would be a 'communalist' :) as He indeed was.

He and his disciples went here and there..and they relied on hospitality of those they visited but were also supported.. believe it or not..by the women..who accompanied them.

He was a 'team effort' person, the women supported them 'from their means'... which must mean they had independant means.

Plucky.. my middle way is simple. Government controls major infrastructure, (this might be debatable) ,Education, Health and Corrections, Defense and Immigration.

i.e. Those things which relate to the overall well being and security of the nation.

That doesn't mean their can't be private education and health, but it DOES mean we cannot in a million years have 'prisons for profit'.

If we take Jesus parable of the 'talents' and apply it to economic life.. he would be a capitalist in the sense of each of us having a given amount of capital.. and time to make something of it. But his parable was really about the spreading of the Gospel... now how to make $$

So.. I think the Lord recognized that people have personal intiative, and skills.. and should use them to the max. They should use them for the max for the Kingdom of God. So, if they can make a few dollars.. they should at all times be thinking of those in need.

Plucky.. I've condemned capitalism plenty of times.. and 'the Right' on economic policy...you just havn't been readddding all I write :) shameeee...and now you pick on me too ? awwwww

I'm conservative on moral issues, "Centrist" on economic issues. "very Right" on Immigration :) Ultra/extreme/hyper/super-duper 'Right' on seditious influences.

I can accept pretty much all that the SA website says EXCEPT it calling for eventual 'revolution'.. if they denounce that it might be acceptable.

Sancho..picking on my spelling is a pretty clear evidence of a lack of argument :)

CJ morgan,
Have those whitches have a cure for rabies, distemper? I think I know someone who might need the antidote.
POLYCARP I hereby revoke you internet trawling privileges. >:-|
Surfing requires the surfer to be on the top the water not the bizarre life forms depths. As penance you are required to go to Sydney and march in the next Gay Mardi Gras parade.
:-)
Seriously, we’ve already done the free speech thing to death.

All,

I don't know if anyone else picked this up but the site was the 'Alternative' Socialist.....
Alternative as in alternative medicine, alternative lifestylers, alternative as in alternative reality. Hardly mainstream anything. Most likely a bunch of arrested adolescents with angst against everything not black or emo. Their annual general meeting is held in a conference call to Lifeline. Their idea of terrorism is likely to be playing their music too loud.
I have to hand it to Polycarp he can sniff out the weird and bogus then present it as a serious question.

The real philosophic in-depth point is that their apparent definition of Socialism is at least 50 years out of date.
Communism as writ never actually happened. The USSR was a dictatorship by definition masking as Communism.

Much the same as Democracy never really existed. We as citizens get to decide from a selection of candidates and a bunch of policies chosen by a closed/controlled minority on behalf of powerful elite. Where’s the difference with China’s system today?

Sounds like the current perverted Version of Capitalism we are enduring today.
This too isn’t as it was conceived (level playing field, beneficial to the masses etc)

In short the question asked is moot based on definitional reality.

Dear Polycarp,

What an interesting thread.

But a difficult one.

At least for me.

Are Socialists Seditious?

I don't know.

That's like asking - Are all Muslims terrorists?
Are all Capitalists vultures?
Are all Homosexuals immoral?
Are all Heterosexuals wife beaters?
Are all Christians Holy People?

et cetera.

Some may be - I guess. There are extremists,
fanatics, and people prone to violence
within any group. It doesn't necessarily
follow however that the entire group is to
be blamed for the actions of a small minority
within that group.

We have laws in this country that protect us
against extremists. We live in a democratic
society where thankfully there is a distinction
between freedom, liberty and the right to the
pursuit of happiness as opposed to the interest,
control, and domination of the state over the
individual. So sedition under our democratic
legal traditions is something that has to be
proven.

Porkycarp: << 'from their means' >>

Truly amazing - Porky's channeling Marx now: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs".

Now, what about the point that Jesus was executed by the Romans for their equivalent of sedition?

Foxy this:
"We live in a democratic
society where thankfully there is a distinction
between freedom, liberty and the right to the
pursuit of happiness as opposed to the interest,
control, and domination of the state over the
individual."

Is simply not true for Australia. Take gay marriage... These people are being ACTIVELY DENIED the same rights as heterosexual people. You have religious groups implementing censorship schemes for the entire population, regardless of whether they want it or not. There are ALL SORTS of cases that demonstrate your view of this country is more or less rubbish. Seriously. We are probably the least free democratic, western country of them all. you seem to have no idea and believe all the government propaganda about freedom.

So to recap, straight off the mark, in 2004 the Australian government ACTIVELY DENIED, "the right to the pursuit of happiness". They have done this in many cases. Whether they are Labor or Liberals makes no difference.

Hi -Exammy.... me in the Gay Mardis Gras ? :) yes yes..I'll be there with a large sign quoting Leviticus 18 :) and I wonder how long they would let me live eh?

Foxy..excellent point.. and that's why I rephrased the question further down.

I suppose I could have scraped through with "Are socialists who subscribe to the doctrine outlined in that link".....seditious?

As most would have tweaked to now.. I am very much on the "If you say you believe this or that....let's see where it will take us" kind.

So.. if any scripture or ideological book says "we must rule the world" then.. I would take it that people who claim to follow that book or ideology will be open to the claim that they "are" such and such in terms of the ideas in the book. This applies also to Christians, but in each case the place of the various ideas must be understood in the totality of the book concerned.

So the physical punishment for homosexual behavior in Leviticus would not apply to us today as Jesus clearly said he came to "save" not to Judge. But judgement will come..for sure.. but only after death.

Dear Steel..the issue of 'rights' is relative to the prevailing morality of the day. There is no inherrent 'right' for homosexuals to marry.. rights do not exist outside a power structure. If they do, then we have all manner of rights such as "I don't like your ideas, they threaten me.. so I have the right to kill you" ... yes.. an extreme example.. but that's where the idea of 'rights' outside a moral framework will take us.

Now..that extreme example could equally apply to a homosexual as to a heterosexual.

Like I said.. "revolution" as described in the SA rag... that's what I regard as 'seditious' myself.

Examinator's point about them possibly being a fringe group is possibly true.. I know the Socialists tend to have more doctrinal splits than even the Brethren :) So, it would be quite unfair to cast all those claiming the label as equally seditious.

Polly, you say Jesus was a communalist?

Perhaps we need some definitions:

A)
Communalst
1. An advocate of communal living.
2. One who is more interested in one's own minority or ethnic group than in society as a whole.
3. One who is deeply concerned about the quality of community life.

B)
Socialist - very big topic Polly. So I have given my ideal of socialism.
Modern social democracy advocates the formation of a democratic state that incorporates both capitalist and socialist practices. Allowing the innovation of competition regulated by government and equality of opportunity for all irrespective of (monetary) wealth - provision of infrastructure.

Whereas the old version of socialism was to replace capitalism, thus stifling innovation and competition.

C)
Capitalist
one who owns working capital including machinery and makes money by letting others work on those machines in the past.

More recently refers to someone who supports deregulation of the market as in a free market ideology.

I think we can be very sure that Jesus never owned a business or stock shares. However, in my early bible classes, I don't recall Jesus setting up any communes either, in spite of the Jewish tradition of the kibbutz. He wasn't really into agriculture much.

I think Jesus was more in favour of equality of opportunity for all - in that respect he thought far more broadly about society than one would expect of a communalist - tended towards the big picture I think.

I am a best of both worlds type of person. Therefore I would call myself a social-democrat.

Does this make me seditious? A terrorist? These are labels you have applied to socialists, Polly. I do believe that if Jesus were alive today you would be the first to condemn him as a subversive, seditious hippy.

Ellpus “Without Socialists there would never be any 'rights' for those except for landowners.”

I doubt that could ever be proven as true but am always happy to hear opinions.

I would note, early “rights”, enshrined in such legislation as the Truck Acts, which go back around 600+ years, well before "socialism" was even a word, made no reference to ones landholding status.

Fractelle Jesus was a capitalist, it stands to reason

He was a “fisher of men” which is more akin to selling Amways than to ranting on about Marx and universal equality.

Of course he also told the parable of the “talents:, criticizing those who leave theirs under a bushel, rather than putting them to use, like a capitalist merchant banker.

Then he turned three fishes and five loaves into a feast to feed 5,000 is an exercise in entrepreneurial catering on a grand scale, something which Jamie Oliver would be proud of.

If he had been a socialist we would still be waiting for the committee to report back on the agreed programme for the fairest distribution of food.

Finally the story of the good Samaritan is an expression of individual philanthropy, one person helping another, directly and without the services of the state.

“Philanthropy” is something which is beyond the legislative comprehension of socialists. Something which mere individuals must not be allowed to afford.

“Explain reasons for your choice”

I always find your style of “terse command” deserving of contempt and trust me, your ‘contempt quotient’ is growing by the day.

Fractelle,

You can't make up your own definition of socialist. The word is already commonly understood to mean a person who supports the ideology of socialism. What you have described is the definition of a social democrat. Social democrats are by definition NOT seditious.

If, on the other hand, you believed in the overthrow of capitalism, and the replacement of our gov't, then you would be seditious.

At this point in time our country is strong enough to ignore this type of behaviour, even though it is seditious. Thankfully, due to the OBVIOUS FAILURE of communism/socialism globally, there are very few real socialists left. Those few diehards who are left pose little threat. All the talented, intelligent people who were once socialists were able to learn the lessons that history has taught and have left the fold. Only the conspiracy theorists are left.

Are Socialist Alternative seditious? I think a bit of context would be useful here. Socialist Alternative is s splinter group of International Socialists, itself an Australian branch of International Socialist Tendency. IST is a Trotskyist offshoot of the Socialist Workers Party (everyone with me so far?).

I had a bit of contact with Trotskyites in my uni days. The main danger was the possibility of dying of boredom while listening to them blather about world revolution and the glorious workers state that would arise thereafter (a bit like Godbotherers and the promise of heaven). The turgid bilge in the link that Polycarp provided is typical Trotskyite drivel.

If you take Trotskyites seriously then yes, they are plotting sedition; they intend nothing less than the overthrow of Western captitalist democracy. My understanding is that the International Socialists were a driving force behind the S 11 protests in Melbourne. But, as seen in my first para, Trotskyite organisations are endlessly splitting and conniving against each other. Many of these organisations could meet in a phone box. If you're familiar with the Judean People's Front skit from Monty Python's Life of Brian you'll get the right idea.

Here's the International Trotskyite anthem (sung to the tune of the Mickey Mouse Club theme song)
Who's the Leader of the gang
That's right for you and me?
L-E-O-N-T-R-O-T-S-K-Y
Leon Trotsky! Give him an ice-pick!
Leon Trotsky! Give him an ice-pick!
Forever we will burn our banners
High, High, High, High!!
So come along
And throw a bomb
Destroy democracy!
L-E-O-N-T-R-O-T-S-K-Y

Col

Quite frankly I don't give a damn about your "contempt Quotient".

Very funny, yes, but 'give a damn?' Nada.

For your edification it was Gordon Gecko who said "Greed is Good".

Not Jesus.

He was more into the warm and fuzzy love one another thang. Never owned a boat, nor paid anyone a wage.

Paul L

Social Democracies are alive and well in many Northern European countries, as they are more into caring for each other, they cannot by any definition be considered terrorists. BTW As I stated Socialism is a big idealogy. I prefer to use an example that is very real and actually works.

Thanks for the laughs, fellows - I couldn't have done it without you.

<< Sancho..picking on my spelling is a pretty clear evidence of a lack of argument >>

You have no argument. It's the standard Boaz formula of rambling non-sequiturs finished off with random Bible quotes. The spelling is all there is to pick on!

Paul L. – “there are very few real socialists left”?.

There may be a few billion Chinese, as well as many Laotians, Cubans and Vietnamese that may disagree with that notion.

Although those are the classic Marxist-Leninist Republics, there are also other States who retain specific references to socialism within their Constitutions – India, Venezuela, Bangla Desh, Tanzania, Egypt and Guyana for example – as well as many others who have been periodically and democratically governed by Socialist Governments from time-to-time.
Social Democrats (such as in Norway) are basically "socialism-lite" and mainly involved in establishing welfare states within the existing systems. They grew out of the socialist movement, just as modern corporatism came out of the Fascism of the 1930's.

Perhaps the next real threat to our "current way of life" may not be coming from the Left at all.

Socialist revolutions seem to be the result of too much right-wing oppression, not from sinister back-room plots alone.

wobbles, you are wasting your time with polycarp et al.

but you seem sensible and knowledgeable, and that's in short supply, particularly in a thread concerned with 'sedition'. have you found out how democracy works, in california and switzerland?

Wobbles,

The only real socialists left in China are kept on museum display immersed in embalming fluid. China is far more akin to a fascist state that a communist one these days.

And the suggestion that the results in Bolivia and Venezuela are the consequence of community support for socialism is just as laughable.

Social democract may have evolved out of socialism but they are NOT socialist by any stretch of the imagination. Look up socialism in any dictionary you like, but please don't ask me to accept your, or any other posters, wishy-washy feel-good definition.

Paul.L: << Social democract (sic) may have evolved out of socialism but they are NOT socialist by any stretch of the imagination. Look up socialism in any dictionary you like, but please don't ask me to accept your, or any other posters, wishy-washy feel-good definition. >>

I don't suppose it's occurred to you that your very narrow and negative definition of socialism mightn't encompass the breadth of the ideology?

For example, the entry at Wikipedia is probably better than any dictionary's necessarily scant definition, and it specifically refers to social democrats as socialists of a kind that propose "selective nationalization of key industries within the framework of mixed economies".

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

Also, it is correct that the SA is a fringe group of "Trots", the vast majority of whom tend to be rather grubby, if idealistic, undergraduate uni students. I don't think anybody except Porky et al takes them seriously (other than themselves, of course).

Dear Steel,

I apologise for taking so long to respond
to your post directed to me.

I missed reading it.

Regarding the rights of homosexuals,
you may be interested in the following
website:

www.saltshakers.org.au/html/P/9/B/184/ - 16k -

I googled:

Homosexuality - The Law in Australia

It seems that the laws are changing from state to state.

Take care.

CJ,

You say >> “I don't suppose it's occurred to you that your very narrow and negative definition of socialism mightn't encompass the breadth of the ideology?”

Negative definition? WTF? I defined socialism in exactly the manner described in wikipedia. The first line of the socialism entry says

“Socialism refers to a broad array of ideologies and political movements WITH THE GOAL OF A SOCIO-ECONOMIC SYSTEM IN WHICH PROPERTY AND THE DISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH ARE SUBJECT TO CONTROL BY THE COMMUNITY.”

Socialists are people who espouse the ideology of socialism which is defined in the same wikipedia article as “ an economic system of state ownership and / or worker ownership of the means of production and distribution.”

That does not cover the social democrats, who believe in incorporating some socialist ideas into a capitalist state. There’s a reason that they identified a category known as social democracy. Its because its not the same thing as socialism.

So I went to other socialist websites to see how they defined socialism.

Heres what I found

>> “The alternative to capitalism is socialism, a system that uses the potential of human talent to build a truly fair and democratic society. This society would have an economy that is democratically planned to provide for the needs of everyone. It is hard to imagine how such a system is possible and realistic, especially since attempts to set up socialism (like in Russia) have failed in the past.” http://www.socialistpartyaustralia.org/archives/1438#more-1438

You’re telling me !! !!

>> “It is only by overthrowing capitalism that we will be able to begin to build a society free from poverty and inequality.”
http://www.socialistpartyaustralia.org/archives/1438#more-1438

Its not even worth posting the “bill and ted” nonsense that the socialist alliance have on their website. Suffice to say I was astonished that they managed to leave off the “… righteous dude” and “ .. totally” from their charter.

So if you could direct me to a serious socialist party who have a definition of socialism which matches yours please be my guest.

Dear Paul,

The following website may provide you
with some further insight into the
subject:

www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=204449 - 93k

Fraccy... your definition of 'Socialist' would make me one.

But it's not what I read in the Socialist Alternative web site.

So.. as I said earlier.. I should have narrowed or tightened up the question a bit.

It would be better put "Is the Socialist Alternative doctrine of 'Propoganda Unit' seditious"? (where it refers to revolution.)

Paul L has a good point though..
-Yes they are seditious but
-No..they are not sufficiently powerful or annoying for us to worry about them.

But wait... I think they can have a much bigger impact than their numbers would suggest. G20 and that kind of thing showed they can make a few waves... although in that case I'd say it was a hotch potch of many groups.

The 'Communalist' approach did seem to fit Jesus and the disciples because of the itinerant ministry.. and the very early church was so overwhelmed with the sense of love and fellowship that "Nobody said what they had was their own" and it was all pooled. (Acts 2:42)

Unfortunately 'tribalism' caused the light of love to fade a little and the Greeks felt their widows were being neglected and the Hebrews preferred..(Acts 6) so, it didn't last long in that 'glowing' manifestation...and they did what we humans tend to do..'formed a committee' :)

But still they were not just inward looking as your definition suggested..

"They broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere hearts, 47praising God and enjoying the favor of all the people. And the Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved." Acts 2:46/7

PolyCarp when we get down to definition of socialism

Norman Mailer was pretty close

“The function of socialism is to raise suffering to a higher level”

Margaret Thatcher summarized it succinctly

“….once we concede that public spending and taxation are more than a necessary evil we have lost sight of the core values of freedom.”

And qualified the consequences

“"...(T)he larger the slice taken by government, the smaller the cake available for everyone."”

Whilst also identifying something which we are very well aware of here in Australia

"Socialists have always spent much of their time seeking new titles for their beliefs, because the old versions so quickly become outdated and discredited."

And to the cause of most socialist envy and bile she said

"The accumulation of wealth is a process which is of itself morally neutral. True, as Christianity teaches, riches bring temptations. But then so does poverty."

And of the core of economics

"Whether manufactured by black, white, brown or yellow hands, a widget remains a widget - and it will be bought anywhere if the price and quality are right. The market is a more powerful and more reliable liberating force than government can ever be."

Which we see unfolding in the (slowly) evolving liberation of China.

And to all those socialists who think the government is there to pander to their every whim and perceived need, she said

“There's no such thing as entitlement, unless someone has first met an obligation."

She’s a living treasure that lady.

Ah, the Gospel according to St Maggie the Demented.

Thanks Col.

According to Ian Robertson, "Sociology,"

"In fact, there is little basis for the
common view that capitalism and
socialism represent "either/or"
alternatives, since neither system exists
in a pure form.

In practice there is great variety in these
two kinds of economy, ranging from the most
capitalist societies, such as the United States
and Canada, through intermediate societies, such
as Britain, Sweden, to the most socialist
societeis, such as China... There is moreover,
great variety in the political systems that are
associated with both capitalism and socialism,
for democratic and authoritarian forms of
government are found in each type of economy.

For example, Sweden is socialist but democratic,
While Cuba is socialist but authoritarian:
Switzerland is capitalist and democratic, but
Chile is capitalist and authoritarian.

The concepts of "capitalism" and "socialism" each
represent merely an "ideal type," an abstract description
constructed from anumber of real cases in order to
reveal their essential features."

Robertson emphasizes that in actuality, there
are two very divergent forms of socialism in the
modern world - one practiced in authoritarian,
communist-ruled societies, (Eastern Europe and
Asia), and one practiced in democratic, pluralist
societies, mostly in Western Europe. (Denmark, Austria)
These versions
differ markedly in their degree of centralized control
of the economy, and in the liberties their citizens
enjoy.

Rache,

I think you misunderstand socialism. The Labour Party reforms including pensions, working hours and unemployment benefits are social democratic in nature, not socialist.

Social democrats aim to reform capitalism democratically through state regulation and the creation of programs and organizations that work to ameliorate or remove injustices they see in the capitalist market system

Socialism in the traditional sense, aims to end the predominance of the capitalist system, or in the Marxist sense, aims to replace it entirely. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_democracy
Posted by Paul.L, Wednesday, 17 September 2008 4:36:44 PM
Tut Tut Paul I it is you that that fails to understand SOCIAISM.
Labor is and should be Democratic Socialism not Social Democrat.
Stalinism was not Socialism it was State Capitalism or Nazism it was a Dictatorship from the top. Democratic Socialism is dictatorship from the bottom through committees the tail wagging the dog. The Community should decide, not those placed on a pedestal. Trade Unionism is Democratic Socialism which should be membership driven. The Labor Party should be membership driven whereby motions from committees set out the platform and the manifesto. Nationalised Industries our Utilities are there to serve the people not for profit but as a service. Utilities such as Electric, Gas, Railways, Minerals, Communications Hospitals, Schools should never be privatised once privatised the country is then on a slippery slope to disaster as there is never any accountabilty when greed and profit overides the needs of the consumer.

Socialism;
Government of the duds , By the duds , For the duds .

Polly: "Fraccy... your definition of 'Socialist' would make me one.

But it's not what I read in the Socialist Alternative web site."

A) It is not MY PERSONAL VERSION OF SOCIALSIM - it is one of the many and varied permutations that is actually in use by countries such as Holland, Sweden and other people friendly countries. Did you not read CJ's post? Also, Jesus has far more social tendencies you girl-smacking, dog-kicking, homophobic old man.

B) What part of the word ALTERNATIVE are you missing from the S.A. website? Just as there are extreme right wing groups like, Ku Klux Clan, the ironically titled National Socialists Party (Nazi Party), BTW is that the type of socialist you identify with? Well sit down and hold onto your socks there are extreme left wing socialist groups. And the one you have selected for this rant is not nearly as extreme as you are trying to prove.

http://www.sa.org.au/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=138&Itemid=126

I thought I'd print out their general principles behind your "terrorist" socialists:

"As Marx wrote:

"We are not among those communists who are out to destroy personal liberty, who wish to turn the world into one huge barrack...we have no desire to exchange freedom for equality. We are convinced that in no social order will freedom be so assured as in a society based upon communal ownership."

Now I am not for total government control over every human endeavour, anymore than I support total private monopolies - both are totalitarian.

To those of an open mind and relaxed disposition, check out the following:

Political conservatives more jumpy: study

At:http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2008/09/19/2368908.htm?site=science&topic=latest

Continued from above:

"Calm people tend to lean to the left side of politics, while those who react strongly to sudden noises and threatening images are more likely to support political conservatives, according to a US study.

"Individuals with measurably lower physical sensitivities to sudden noises and threatening visual images were more likely to support foreign aid, liberal immigration policies, pacifism, and gun control," say the authors of the study.

The study which included researchers from Rice University in Texas, the University of Nebraska-Lincoln, the University of Illinois, and the Virginia Institute for Psychiatric and Behavioral Genetics, appears in the latest issue of Science.

Scary stimuli

Participants in the study were selected randomly by phone and screened to determine if they held strong political beliefs, regardless of which way they leaned.

Forty-six people who were retained for the study were then asked to fill out a questionnaire asking them, among other things, about their political beliefs.

Later, two common physiological reactions to a perceived danger, blinking and skin moisture levels, were measured after the participants had heard a sudden noise and seen threatening images - a large spider on a frightened person's face, a person with a bloody face, and a maggot-infested wound.

Those who supported conservative policies such as military spending, school prayer, and the death penalty reacted strongly to the stimuli, while people who backed liberal policies such as foreign aid, pacifism, gay marriage and abortion rights were calmer.

The researchers were unable to say whether political attitude causes the physiological reaction or vice versa.

But the link that the study suggests exists between the two traits "provides one possible explanation for both the lack of malleability in the beliefs of individuals with strong political convictions and for the ubiquity of political conflict," they say."

Far from being "seditious" lefties are cool.

Therefore, conservatives are simply a bunch of nervous nellies.

Who have already demonstrated on the OLO pages that they fear:

Dogs
Homosexuals
Assertive Women
Magpies
Having a good time
Alternative Rock 'n Roll

To all the way-cool lefties out there please feel free to add to the list of "what conservatives fear"....

Emissions trading
Multiculturalism
Social justice
MUSLIMS
SIKHS
Science
Aborigines

For starters...

What do the leftie swill fear:


Other peoples individual ability

Other peoples individual success

Those they cannot control

Anyone who thinks differently

Anyone above the first step of Maslows heirarchy

Anyone who might get more out of life than them

Anyone with a smile on their face


I like this game

Anyone else want to join in….

Conservatives are:

Those who believe with blind faith in the free market when time and time again history reveals that the free market does not equate with competition in regard to wages, services to consumers and quality of product.

That profit is the only motivator. It is a motivator - but if profit is held above all other factors in a market without some regulation we get exploitation, poverty and a reduction in 'real' services.

Believe in the illusion of competition when under the extremes of capitalism competition does not exist and won't exist because of vested interests. Ask any small businessman in Australia about competition with the larger concerns and the lack of equity on land allocation (think supermarkets). Collusion wins over competition everytime.

That all things are best controlled by the private sector (see above points).

That Governments and hence the people should not collectively own or control anything even if it is in their best interests. (Look what happened to NZ power after privatisation)

Are anti-regulation at all costs (despite evidence that regulation is sometimes needed to control the extremes of capitalism).

This has been an educational experience.

I must admit that I had several prior
misconceptions about this topic.

After scrawling through several websites
I've learned that:

Capitalism does have several drawbacks
that are common to all capitalist systems:

1) Marked social inequality
2) A large and impoverished lower class
3) Repeated cycles of prosperity and recession
4) Employment and unemployment.

And that no capitalist society has yet found
a way out of these dilemmas.

On the other hand, I've learned that the type
of socialism practiced in authoritarian,
communist-ruled societies is very different
from the one practiced in democratic,
pluralist societies. These versions differ
markedly in their degree of centralized control
of the economy, and in the liberties their citizens
enjoy.

What socialists seem to fear is:

1) Social inequality
2) Injustice
3) Discrimination
4) Self-interest

And,the sociologist Ian Robertson confirms,

"Most of the countries of Western Europe have
been moving in a more capitalist direction,
for example by selling off nationalized
industries to private owners once more. Even
several less developed countries elsewhere in
the world, like India, Nigeria, and Argentia, are
also shifting away from a centrally planned economy
toward one driven by free enterprise.

The reason seems to be that, whilst socialist
societies may distribute wealth more evenly than
capitalist ones, they are less efficient in creating
wealth in the first place."

The past century has provided overwhelming evidence
that socialist economies are more bureaucratized
and less productive than capitalist ones.

There are signs however that communist-ruled
societies are embracing aspects of capitalism,
especially through their use of financial incentives.

They are finally confronting the fact that their
system is inherently inefficient.

Economic covergence does appear to be taking place,
but will political convergence also follow?

We'll have to wait and see. It may depend on
whether more liberal economic policies will lead
to democratization in the
Soviet-style economies.

Fractelle,

You say >>” Far from being "seditious" lefties are cool”

So I take it from this piece of nonsense that you are happy to equate leftism with socialism. That all lefties are socialists, is that right? Because Polys question was/is are the Socialist Alternative seditious?

And here is the definition of socialism from the Socialist Party of Australia.

>> “The alternative to capitalism is socialism, a system that uses the potential of human talent to build a truly fair and democratic society. This society would have an economy that is democratically planned to provide for the needs of everyone. http://www.socialistpartyaustralia.org/archives/1438#more-1438

>> “It is only by overthrowing capitalism that we will be able to begin to build a society free from poverty and inequality.”
http://www.socialistpartyaustralia.org/archives/1438#more-1438

So I take it because you are a leftie, which you have taken to mean the same thing as a socialist, that you also believe in the overthrow of capitalism and the rule of the “workers”? Really?

As for your utter stupidity regarding the study of political leaning and loud noises, I would point out to you that the majority of people who put their lives on the line as part of their work are conservative or right leaning. Ie Defence personnel, police etc. Its quite likely that the lefties didn’t react to the unpleasant images because in general lefties run away whenever there is anything tough to do. They simply have NO EXPERIENCE in the real world where some of us have to actually CONFONT things

Pelican,

Your conflation of conservatism and liberalism is so vacuous it is almost funny.

Economic liberalism is not conservative by any means. In fact is is anti-conservative.

Conservatism is a term used to describe political philosophies that favour tradition, where tradition refers to various religious, cultural, or nationally defined beliefs and customs. Some conservatives seek to preserve the status quo or to reform society slowly, while others seek to return to the values of an earlier time, the status quo ante.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservatism

Pelican and Fractelle,

In the spirit of the nonsense you guys have posted I have come up with a list for identifying leftists.

- Cowardice in general – Dressed up as pacifism AKA the Chamberlain complex whereby there’d be no violence if we just gave the terrorists everything they want

- Envy of other success – Small man/woman complex

- Support for any lifestyle except for the one most people choose (conservativism) – straight out Xenophobia except the lefties don’t call it that

- Crippling fear of being seen to be politically incorrect – The new blasphemy

- Unwillingness to take responsibility for their own problems – It’s the "military industrial complex" complex

- Overwhelming fear of catastrophic environmental change without any actual evidence – the “chicken little” effect which actually segues into the “new green religion” where worshippers see original sin in our actual existence on the pristine earth.

- Self Hatred – the “is this all there is” complex

- The loathing of material consumption whilst simultaneously consuming as much as anyone – the “I must have a new pair of Birkenstocks” complex

- A love affair with conspiracy theories – see the “military industrial complex”, complex

- A desire to damage our economic system – this is also part of the small man/woman complex although the “Socialism is cool” complex is also involved

- Support for all manner of totalitarian regimes and dictators – feeds into the “military industrial complex” complex, whereby everyone is really just a victim of “THE MAN” and all actions can be seen as reactions to the excesses of the military industrial complex

Support for "Alternative healing" and crystals - the new "snake oil"

Porl,
Yes but we are all usually very good looking, affable and caring human beings with an ingenious sense of humour, (refer to the best stand up comedians you know) and we don't have bad haircuts (and if we do its for a lark) and if men - do not have microscopic wangers or domineering Thatcher-like mothers – nor do we think John Howard had great ‘sex’ appeal’ This list is by no means comprehensive but I think it will suffice in reminding you ever so subtly of who you are not.

Rainier.

says >>" we are all usually very good looking ... and if men - do not have microscopic wangers ..."

I'll just bet you insisted on doing a check on all those blokes yourself, just for eucational purposes right?

Can't say I think much of the direction this thread has taken. If people can't put arguments without recourse to insults, then their opinions are of little worth.

What makes liberal democracy function is that it is able to tolerate dissent. Trotskyites (if they obey the law) should have little to fear, even if they aim to undermine the state. Likewise they represent little threat to a healthy democracy, as most people are able to see them as the nutters they are.

A true democracy should be strong enough to withstand sedition. Do we really need laws against sedition?

Fractelle,
Re the study you mentioned , I heard a grab about it on the radio , Was amused by the conclusions , Let's face it , loony controll group = mild reaction , conservative control group = strong reaction . What does this really tell us ? Conservatives are far more switched on . Only a lefty would call a failure success .

Another for Col's list ; Natural selection .

PaulL my previous post was delivered in a glib fashion as a contrast to Col's "leftie swill" post.

But I will take you up on your comment "Economic liberalism is not conservative by any means. In fact is is anti-conservative."

In Australia the current mentality of economic liberalism is representative of the Conservative. That is representing the status quo or the norm - what is accepted thinking. The trend towards economic liberalism started in the 80s and has gathered ground. How long does a trend need to be entrenched before it is considered traditional thinking.

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

PaulL, if insult is the best weapon you can muster to put forth your argument then you really must be standing on some shaky ground.

Fascinating that Pauly accuses me elsewhere of being childish - a bit of projection?

His efforts at redefining words and concepts to suit his wingnut ideas remind me of Humpty Dumpty in "Through the Looking Glass":

<< `When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, `it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.' >>

Sounds familiar, no?

A bit of comic relief to lighten
things up:

A conservative found a magic genie's lamp
and rubbed it.
The genie said: "I will grant you one wish."
The conservative said,
"I wish I were smarter."
So the genie made him smarter.
The next day the conservative became a socialist.

Smallest book in the world?

The right-wing conservatives' book of humour.

Why are most comedians left-leaning? I guess being an uptight control freak tends to excrete the humour gene.

So, in answer to Polly's question.

Are Socialists Seditious?

God, I hope so....

Hello Fractelle,

I found a few quotes on the net
that I think you may enjoy (I did):

1) "I suppose I can understand the
callous, selfish disregard
of the conservatives.
It is their pride in it
that passes me by."

2) Although it is not true that all
conservatives are stupid,
it is true that most stupid people
are conservative."

3) A good conservative is one
who doesn't want
anybody to know it."

MARX
"We are convinced that in no social order will freedom be so assured as in a society based upon communal ownership."

Which of course is a total oxymoron. 'Communal Ownership' and freedom?

That is probably where Marxism went so horribly wrong...in that simple statement. I've seen it argued most persuasively that this fundamental incorrect premise was it's downfall.

The thing is.. once the 'workers' control everything.. the SMART workers quickly work out ways of 'looking' equal but not 'being' so...they have all the trappings of the Russian Communist regime..and like Mr Mugabe.. have a palace which puts the best of Buckingham to shame.

Then...they want to be "el presidente for life" because..why do we need to change things any more.. after all..now the 'people' control everything.. and those in charge of 'the people'.. have the natural right to continue so doing.

If 'overthrowing' capitalism is a goal.. then 'maintaining' socialism by 'overthrowing' any challange goes without saying.

The idea of 'overthrowing' itself means that not enough people 'want' it. If they did.. you don't have to overthrow it..you just vote it out.

Socialist are:

-hateful
-spiteful
-resentful
-nasty
-mean....

all from the evidence of certain 'socialist' posts in this thread :)

(Not yours foxy... ur as gentle as ever)

Boaz, are you 'aware' of the number of 'times' you are forced to put words in 'quotes' because, presumably, you like there to be an air of 'mystery' about their true 'meaning'?

In this last post, you provided quotes for:

'Communal Ownership'
'workers'
'looking'
"el presidente for life"
'people'
'the people' (somehow different from just 'people'?)
'overthrowing' - three times
'maintaining'
'want' (eh?)

and finally,

'socialist'

The reason for my pointing this out to you is simply that it makes your posts impossible to read. How should we interpret 'workers', when the word is in quotes? Are they somehow not the same as the workers that we know about? If so, how do they differ?

It would help me a great deal if you dropped this habit Boaz, as your posts are difficult enough to interpret without the additional burden of guesswork that you place on your audience.

But the underlying annoyance is that they also provide you with an easy escape route, when your ideas are challenged. As they usually are.

You simply decide that you 'meant' something else, and that all us 'socialists' are conspiring to 'pervert' your information in a 'manner' that you didn't 'intend'.

Have a great day.

Foxy and Fractelle,

Just for you guys, because I know we don't have a sense of humour.

Q: What does a leftist and a beer bottle have in common?
A: They're both empty from the neck up.

Q: What has an asshole at each end, is five miles long and has an IQ of forty?
A: A leftist protest parade.

Q: What is the difference between a leftist and a puppy?
A: A puppy stops whining after it grows up.

Q: Who was the first leftist?
A: Christopher Columbus. He left not knowing where he was going, got there not knowing where he was, left not knowing where he'd been and did it all on borrowed money.

Q: How many Leftist does it take to change a lightbulb?
A: None. "Well it's not really a question of should we change it or should we not change the lightbulb, but more a question of...(blah blah waffle)"

Q: How many leftists does it take to screw in a light bulb?
A: One leftist and twenty eight delegates representing all the social, economic, and ethnic communities.

Q: How many social scientists does it take to screw in a light bulb?
A: They do not change light bulbs; they search for the root cause as to why the last one went out.

Q: How do you confuse a leftist?
A: You don’t, they are born that way

Q: What’s the difference between an Iraq terrorist and a leftist?
A: The Iraq terrorist makes fewer demands.

Q: What do you get when you cross a Jackass with an onion?
A: A whinny Leftist.

Q: How is being at a leftist convention different from being at the circus?
A: At the circus the clowns don’t beg and whine at you.

Q: How many Leftists does it take to change a light bulb?
A: It takes ten, nine to deny that darkness exists and one to hire a Republican to change it.

Q: What is a Liberal’s primary “feeling?”
A: Envy.

An old revolutionary walks across the Brooklyn Bridge one day, and he sees man of a similar age standing on the edge, about to jump. He runs over and says: "Stop. Don't do it."

"Why shouldn't I?" he asked.

"Well, there's so much to live for!"

"I'm just depressed, I've been a Communist all my life and the revolution seems as far away as ever"

"You're a Communist?"

"Yeah, why?"

"I am as well!! Did you originally join the Communist Party USA?"

"Yeah"

"Me too! Did you join the pro-Trotsky Communist League of America in 1928, which later merged with the American Workers Party to form the Workers Party of America in 1934?"

"Yeah"

"Spooky, Me too! After the WPA was expelled from the Socialist Party of America in 1936 did you then go on to join the Socialist Workers Party USA and the fourth international?"

"I did actually…"

"Me too! In the 1940 dispute did you side with Cannon or Shachtman?"

"Cannon."

"Me too! In 1962 did you join Robertson's opposition caucus, the Revolutionary Tendency?"

"Yep."

" Holly sh!t! And of course like me you were expelled and went on to join the International Communist League (Spartacist)"

"Well that goes without saying!"

"In 1985 did you join the International Bolshevik Tendency who claimed that the Sparts have degenerated into an "obedience cult""

"No way!"

"Nah, me neither. In 1998 did you join the Internationalist Group after the Permanent Revolution Faction were expelled from the ICL?"

"Yeah! I can't believe this! Maybe I won't…."

"Die counterrevolutionary scum!". And he pushes him off the edge

_______________________________________________________________________

Two leftists are making molotov cocktails. One says to the other, "So who will we throw these at then?" The other replies "What are you, some kind of f@cking intellectual?!?"

If ever one needed proof that humour is subjective, I guess that's it.

I think

Game, set and Match to PaulL

Congratulations Paul..

and Bugsy "If ever one needed proof that humour is subjective, I guess that's it. "

true

but

Under the capitalist system you get to make your subjective choice.

Under the socialist system, the government decides it for you.....

This reminds me of a poster I used to have. It predates the internet, and so with all things, the internet has expanded and changed it quite bit.

The two cows theory of government:

SOCIALISM: You have two cows. The State takes one and gives it to someone else.

COMMUNISM: You have two cows. The State takes both and gives you milk.

FASCISM: You have two cows. The State takes both and sells you milk.

NAZISM: You have two cows. The State takes both and shoots you.

BUREAUCRACY: You have two cows. The State takes both and milks one, shoots the other and throws the milk away.

CAPITALISM: You have two cows. You sell one and buy a bull.

Col Rouge and Paul L.

Just for you guys, because I know we don't have a sense of humour.

Q: What does a rightist and a beer bottle have in common?
A: They're both empty from the neck up.

Q: What has an asshole at each end, is five miles long and has an IQ of forty?
A: A rightist protest parade.

Q: What is the difference between a rightist and a puppy?
A: A puppy stops whining after it grows up.

Q: Who was the first rightist?
A: Christopher Columbus. He left not knowing where he was going, got there not knowing where he was, left not knowing where he'd been and did it all on borrowed money.

Q: How many rightist does it take to change a lightbulb?
A: None. "Well it's not really a question of should we change it or should we not change the lightbulb, but more a question of...(blah blah waffle)"

Q: How many rightists does it take to screw in a light bulb?
A: One rightist and twenty eight delegates representing all the social, economic, and ethnic communities.

Q: How many social scientists does it take to screw in a light bulb?
A: They do not change light bulbs; they search for the root cause as to why the last one went out.

Q: How do you confuse a rightist?
A: You don’t, they are born that way

Q: What’s the difference between an Iraq terrorist and a rightist?
A: The Iraq terrorist makes fewer demands.

Q: What do you get when you cross a Jackass with an onion?
A: A whinny rightist.

Q: How is being at a rightist convention different from being at the circus?
A: At the circus the clowns don’t beg and whine at you.

Q: How many rightists does it take to change a light bulb?
A: It takes ten, nine to deny that darkness exists and one to hire a Republican to change it.

Q: What is a Conservative’s primary “feeling?”
A: Envy.

-=-=-=

Pathetic jokes are pathetic

True Steel, but some people still just love watching black and white movies of Jewish clowns slapping each other and poking each others eyes out.

Everyone has a choice of course, it's entirely subjective. But not even Socialists could make you enjoy that kind of thing unless you chose it for yourself.

Porkycrap: << Socialist (sic) are:

-hateful
-spiteful
-resentful
-nasty
-mean.... >>

Hey, I didn't know Porky, Humpty and the Dog Butcher were socialists!

(But they'd have to be Trots, if they were).

Steel” Pathetic jokes are pathetic”
However, plagiarizing someone elses post, the way you did PaulL’s

is typically socialist and

In the gutter.

Socialists cannot think of anything remotely original, so just abuse what is before them , as if it were their own.

As they say in swill circles:

“What’s yours is mine and what’s mines, my own….”

Ah CJ, the Cheshire cat is back, regaling us with more vacuous comments

Paul plagiarised someone else's jokes and you commended him for it. So you both must be in the gutter and socialists.

I did not plagiarise them, I parodied them.

I don't know why idiots on the right are so obsessed with socialism as both our political parties are socialist.

Steel,

I think we already established that you don't have the first idea what socialist means.

By the way, for me to plagiarise those jokes I would have to have presented them as my own. Hands up anyone who thinks when a person tells a joke they are claiming it for themselves. I sincerely doubt you reference correctly a joke, every time you tell one. Allthough being a miserable b@stard, you probably don't have too much cause to worry about that.

I at least went and looked up a few jokes in response to Foxy's handful. You, on the other hand, instead of finding something for yourself, decided you would change the word leftist for rightist. Then again, you're not very bright.

I just love this though.

you said >> "Paul plagiarised someone else's jokes and you commended him for it. So you both must be in the gutter and socialists. "

I see. Because only socialist plagiarise, is that right?

MMMMM, delicious copypasta.

I would hazard a guess that those jokes weren't from a dedicated humor site Paul, amiright?

Bugsy "I would hazard a guess that those jokes weren't from a dedicated humor site Paul,"

like www.socialistinternational.org

or

www.socintwomen.org.uk

compared to those two sites,

AIDs look funny.

Actually on the topic

Does anyone else recall that wonderful song

"the red flag"?

Its sung to the tune "the international"...

I always find the second verse most amusing,

About a girl on the Rock of Gibraltar...

Paul perhaps you should read Col Rouge's post to understand the context of my comment. I did mention idiots for a reason.

PAUL L.. wonderful funny stuff there... never was a truer saying than 'much truth is spoken in jest' :)

PERICLES.. thank you for that timely reminder. (about quotes) I must have been infected by the Frazier episode where Frazier becomes haunted/stalked by this new friend in a wheel chair who always used his fingers to signify quotes :)

I'll try to fix that. Your criticism is welcome.

Boaz, it's my pleasure.

>>PERICLES.. thank you for that timely reminder. (about quotes)... I'll try to fix that. Your criticism is welcome<<

But it wasn't really criticism as such, so please don't stop on my account.

The usage of quotes in this manner says a great deal about the writer, and the responsibility - or otherwise - that they take for the clarity of the content of their utterings.

If you do decide to do away with them, I suspect you are going to find posting considerably more difficult, as you will have to express your thoughts more precisely, with less margin for interpretation, or misinterpretation.

Enjoy.