tao - that's all a little extreme isn't it? Okay, shorbe has some right wing views, but I've always found questions to be more effective than accusations.
I also happen to agree with him when he says he would prefer a government doesn't go too far in one direction, as it will inevitably head the opposite way.
You say that this is the manifestation of the will of the people - of course it is. But this will has been created by the extremities of policy that have been foisted upon them.

tao - I'd be interested in hearing what economic rationale you would envision for Australia, and how such a system could be practically implemented. For all your railings against shorbe, I've yet to hear how you would have a socialist system introduced to Australia with the will of the people - people who have consistently elected a conservative government over the last decade.

"I also happen to agree with him when he says he would prefer a government doesn't go too far in one direction, as it will inevitably head the opposite way."

TRTL: You're in league with the evil capitalists!

"For all your railings against shorbe, I've yet to hear how you would have a socialist system introduced to Australia with the will of the people - people who have consistently elected a conservative government over the last decade."

That's the ultimate question, though I suspect it will go begging.

Anyhow...

I accept your point about the viability of rural areas, and I think the ultimate solution is for them to put their prices up so they can then afford to pay higher costs for other things.

Of course, as you mentioned, Australia seems to be trying to play free trade while just about everyone else isn't. It is a ridiculous situation, and I think we need to have some balls and tell other nations that if they're not going to drop their subsidies then neither are we. I'm pro-free trade, but not if everyone else is working the system against us. That's just crazy.

Personally, I'd like to see Australia move towards a notion of long term self-sufficiency and sustainability in as many areas as possible so we're not at the mercy of other nations bullying us economically. I think ultimately, a lot of it comes down to a level of self-respect at the foreign affairs level.

Also, I think there's a lot of empty rhetoric on this issue from the Australian public -- everyone says they don't like industry moving off-shore, yet how many buy locally produced items? We have to acknowledge that in order to maintain industry, we have to support it, and we can't have our cake and eat it too. Part of it is business, part of it is government, but there's a lack of consumer responsibility also in all this. Maybe the price to pay for supporting a local industry is that we have less stuff. I think we're very much addicted to consumerism.

Oh TurnRightTurnLeft… sorry.

Which part did you consider extreme?

Was it that I called Shorbe a “right wing” capitalist? Is that a dirty word, even though that is what he calls himself? Was it the bit about him sticking his nose into this forum? Was it the bit about suggesting that he had deceived us by pretending he had no personal interest in maintaining the capitalist system? Perhaps it was the part about his lack of intellectual rigor?

Which of Shorbe’s comments did you not consider extreme?

Apparently according to Shorbe, I’m a social misfit plagued by megalomania, a fundamentalist with no sense of humour, a zealot, have a dysfunctional personality, cause a lot of suffering, and should mind my “own bloody business” and stop preaching.

Or perhaps it was extreme of me to logically refute the veracity of Shorbes’ unquestioning beliefs about “inevitable excesses” of Marxism.

Shorbe hasn't produced one shred of evidence, or logical substantiation of his beliefs, yet he goes about calling people derogatory names – in fact he entered this thread being derogatory. But according to you I am railing, and Shorbe is not.

Why don't you go back and read this thread and the various arguments and see how much Shorbe has written about socialism or socialists which is objectively verifiable, or logically sound, and not just his subjective opinion. Then come back and show me.

And have a look at what I've said about capitalism or socialism or Christianity and come back and show me whether I have attempted to use facts and reasoning, not just opinion. And have a look at whether I've formed opinions and made comments about Shorbe which are based on what he has said on this forum, and not what I pluck out of the air. Then come back and show me. Show me what I’ve said that is “extreme” or incorrect. I’ll be happy to debate it with you, and, believe it or not, concede if I’m wrong.

cont...

Perhaps you both might attempt to use facts and reasoning to disprove what I’ve said about capitalism or socialism or Christianity, instead of making comments about my “extreme” personality etc.

This thread is not actually about me putting forward a socialist vision for Australia, or whether we should have a far left government or a centre right government, it is about whether or not the Apostles were really socialist, that is why I have not elaborated such a thing here. To pretend that it is, and that because I haven’t, the rest of my arguments are somehow invalid is just a diversionary tactic - an attempt to avoid responding to issues which are presently being discussed – namely Shorbe’s claim that Stalinism is an “inevitable excess” of Marxism.

I note Shorbe still has not commented intelligently on my logical refutation of his specific causal claim – one must presume, because he can’t.

tao: I'm still waiting for you to answer TRTL's question. That's what I was getting at with my points about the inevitable excesses of Marxism and causal claims. I was hoping that maybe you'd answer TRTL on that, even if you wouldn't answer me.

I'll restate it.

If people don't want a revolution, or if there is one, and people later decide they don't want it then, what happens?

Unless you're prepared to let the (idea of) revolution fade away, by necessity, the tanks must be rolled out. That's precisely what happened in Czechoslovakia after the Prague Spring, because those Czechs and Slovaks may have re-embraced capitalism fully!

By setting up a single political endpoint, you instantly polarise the entire world into "true believers" and "non-believers" (who include those, such as TRTL, who pretend to be left but are really just sympathisers or apologists for capitalists such as me).

Despite your claims that capitalism isn't pluralistic, I don't see the Amish being forced to buy SUVs or Nike shoes.

One of the problems I've always encountered with Marxists is that there's no way to apply the concept of falsifiability to their arguments. TRTL and I have been discussing politics, and I'm quite willing to admit that many of the concepts I'm in favour of have not turned out well, and that we can measure such things clearly.

However, for Marxists, a bad outcome means that "socialism wasn't truly followed" or "capitalist forces ganged up on socialists" or
that "people didn't have class consciousness". There's always an out, and there's no possibility of falsifiability. That's where I think your arguments lack intellectual rigour, so touche.

Substitute "the will of God", "heretics", "true believers" and "faith" into the above paragraph and tell me how Marxism is different from a fanatical religion. How is arguing with you going to be any different to arguing with a religious fundamentalist?

Just like we hear in the horror movies :) "I'm BAAAA-AAACK" ok..

SHORBE.. you raise a good point believe it or not.. your 'awaits' post was ok... but I won't use the Bible this time just to make you happy.....

Tao is of the view that there should be no 'employers' and that all employers by DEFINITION will be harsh and greedy and exploitative UNfairly....

TRTL makes a good point "Fluidity" but there is not much flexibility in Tao's argument.

EMPLOYERS..... "BAD"
EMPLOYEES......"GOOD" and exploited unfairly by the above.

The problem is.. the SAME human nature which makes the 'employERS' 'bad' is at work in the poor hapless employEES.

He also seems to fail to recognize that most people actually like the idea of being able to better their life situation by using their creative abilities in ways which benefit them, and their families.

OK.. biblical allusion coming up :) so you can tune out...

HERE.... -> The issue which made ancient Israel (capitalist social system) different from Tao's bleak vision, was their relationship with God. Social Justice and fairness were enshrined in their covenant relationship with God.

God recognizes that people in the real world fall on hard times, and have to survive by 'selling' their labor or land or goods to carry them through the famines etc.. or the bad business decisions...
BUT.. God also made it such that there was no 'poverty trap'...
Look up 'Jubilee' as a biblical concept.

In a closed materialistic system..without God, we are at the mercy of relativistic human whim. Tao..take note mate. The 'whim' can be a Stalin or a Fred Hollows. I prefer something a bit more certain.

Humans naturally tend toward greed.(Socialist or Capitalist humans) the PROPHETS were constantly REMINDING the people about their social and economic responsibilities.