Socialism is a 'scientific' idea according to its inventors. But none of their prediction have ever come about.  Socialism is an a system of ideas by hypocritical opportunists to beguile the ignorant and the resentful.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZN_BRKY2dL4


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7QaZEGcoGXo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z-SdftH0mfA





.

Socialism is:

1 Millions dead
2 Freedom unknown
3 Nothing to show for it.

TD

Quote:

But none of their prediction have ever come about.

Whose predictions?

I read somewhere that a lot of the ideas never came about because Das Kapital warned everyone what was going to happen.

freediver wrote on Oct 31^st, 2021 at 6:53pm:

Quote: But none of their prediction have ever come about. Whose predictions?

Sound it out:


Socialism is a 'scientific' idea according to its inventors. But none of their prediction have ever come about.  Socialism is an a system of ideas by hypocritical opportunists to beguile the ignorant and the resentful.


Apologies for not making it size 24 and red to start with.

who invented socialism?

I don't have any faith in unchecked socialism, or in unchecked capitalism. The must be a middle way that combines the best of both systems while eliminating the bad. 

Frank wrote on Oct 31^st, 2021 at 8:49pm:

freediver wrote on Oct 31st, 2021 at 6:53pm: Quote: But none of their prediction have ever come about. Whose predictions? Sound it out: Socialism is a 'scientific' idea according to its inventors. But none of their prediction have ever come about.  Socialism is an a system of ideas by hypocritical opportunists to beguile the ignorant and the resentful. Apologies for not making it size 24 and red to start with.

Whose predictions?

Also, what predictions?

In the long term socialism is going to be known as the flawed system that died a little before the other flawed system capitalism.

Anyway socialism has been making a big comeback in recent years.

The US for instance is basically socialism for the rich.

Quote:

The US for instance is basically socialism for the rich.

Ah, the one true socialism.

Take away all socialistic policies and watch what happens.

Belgarion wrote on Oct 31^st, 2021 at 9:08pm:

I don't have any faith in unchecked socialism, or in unchecked capitalism. The must be a middle way that combines the best of both systems while eliminating the bad.

We of the West constantly struggle and juggle with a mix of rampant capitalism and socialism... even politicians benefit from an aspect of socialism, since their salaries etc are determined by an allegedly independent group, and as a block and not as individuals....

Every viable society is a mix of socialism and capitalism... what these turkeys are talking about is not socialism, it is Communism, Stalinism, Maoism etc... none of which were socialism.

Some of that stamp love to deliberately confuse the two so as to make it look as if the heathen out there who receives free medical or social security is causing society to fail and collapse.... absolute idiots... elitists, delusionals, proto-fascists, social Neanderthals, Dark Age tyrants, dreamers of a feudal system that suits them, and all other forms of slime....

Dnarever wrote on Oct 31^st, 2021 at 9:28pm:

In the long term socialism is going to be known as the flawed system that died a little before the other flawed system capitalism. Anyway socialism has been making a big comeback in recent years. The US for instance is basically socialism for the rich.

:D :D :D

Touch your left ear.
Touch your right ear.
Ooops, you shatt your pants.


Let's try again...
Touch your left ear.....

John Smith wrote on Oct 31^st, 2021 at 8:51pm:

who invented socialism?

sore end ... you claim that socialism is 'according to it's inventors, a scientific idea'.

I'll ask again, who invented socialism?

John Smith wrote on Nov 1^st, 2021 at 9:08pm:

John Smith wrote on Oct 31st, 2021 at 8:51pm: who invented socialism? sore end ... you claim that socialism is 'according to it's inventors, a scientific idea'. I'll ask again, who invented socialism?

'Scientific socialism' - the one that made all the 'scientific' predictions -  Marx, Engels, Lenin.

Frank wrote on Oct 31^st, 2021 at 6:27pm:

Socialism is: 1 Millions dead 2 Freedom unknown 3 Nothing to show for it. TD

Why do you keep posting crap about socialism.

we all know that what you're really referring to is communism - which is NOT
socialism, nor even close to it.

I blame the decades of anti-socialism propaganda spewed by the USA - which
also refuses to acknowledge that socialism is not communism.

You really do need to educate yourself about the differences, which are many.

Kat wrote on Nov 2^nd, 2021 at 6:08am:

Frank wrote on Oct 31st, 2021 at 6:27pm: Socialism is: 1 Millions dead 2 Freedom unknown 3 Nothing to show for it. TD Why do you keep posting crap about socialism. we all know that what you're really referring to is communism - which is NOT socialism, nor even close to it. I blame the decades of anti-socialism propaganda spewed by the USA - which also refuses to acknowledge that socialism is not communism. You really do need to educate yourself about the differences, which are many.

It's the one easy way to identify uneducated right-wingers.

They have no idea what socialism actually is, and they are unable to differentiate it from communism.

Always gives me a good laugh.

Socialism is about punishing the successful in life and lining their own pockets. The term ‘champagne Socialist’ came about when successful socialists make excuses for their own success, and ‘unsuccessful’ socialists deride the successful in life other than their own party (Labor/ Labour/socialist/Marxist) compatriots (brothers and sisters).

You can identify the forum Marxists a mile off.

In their life activities they symbolize the best of German philosophy, French politics, and British economics, synthesizing all three elements to bring forth “Scientific Socialism.”

Scientific Socialism has three principal divisions, namely, philosophy, economics, and politics. In philosophy, Marx took the theory of dialectics which he found in Hegel, and, casting out its idealism, placed it on its feet as a theory of dialectical materialism which, when applied to human society, became a theory of historical materialism. In the field of economics Marx based himself upon the theory of value as labor which had already been suggested by the Classical School of British economists before him, and thereby worked out a theory of surplus value and the laws of accumulation of capital, analyzing adequately for the first time both the structure and evolutionary functioning of the capitalist system. In politics, both Marx and Engels grasped the principles of the class struggle which already had been stated by working class elements, and developed them into a thesis leading to a new system of society, Socialism or Communism, through the institution of a Dictatorship of the Proletariat.

As Marx put it: “And now as to myself, no credit is due to me for discovering the existence of classes in modern society nor yet the struggle between them. Long before me bourgeois historians had described the historical development of this class struggle and bourgeois economists the economic anatomy of the classes. What I did that was new was to prove: (1) that the existence of classes is only bound up with particular, historic phases in the development of production; (2) that the class struggle necessarily leads to the dictatorship of the Proletariat; (3) that this dictatorship itself only constitutes the transition to the abolition of all classes and to a classless society. (*1)

To sum up, Scientific Socialism was both a method as well as a content or body of scientific conclusions, later becoming both a theory and a practice. Just as it is impossible to separate program from strategy, and both from tactics, so it is impossible to divide the philosophical from the political and economic, or the method from the data. All are bound up together by the monist materialism of life.

https://www.marxists.org/archive/weisbord/conquest17.htm

SCIENTIFIC SOCIALISM
The term scientific socialism was used by Friedrich Engels to characterize the doctrines that he and Karl Marx developed and distinguish them from other socialist doctrines, which he dismissed as utopian socialism. Engels regarded the Marx-Engels doctrines as scientific in that they laid bare the secret of capitalism through the discovery of surplus value, and explained (with a theory known in the USSR as historical materialism) how capitalism would inevitably be overthrown and replaced by socialism. The concept "scientific socialism" made Marxist doctrines more attractive to many than rival socialist doctrines by suggesting that equality and the end of exploitation were not only desirable but also inevitable.

Scientific socialism was introduced to Russia in the late ninenteenth century. After the Bolshevik victory in the civil war, scientific socialism became part of the official ideology of the USSR. The term itself was frequently used loosely to designate a doctrine concerning the development of a Soviet type of society. Much of the actual content of the doctrine varied over time in accordance with the concrete policies of the Soviet state.

https://www.encyclopedia.com/history/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/scientific-socialism


Real socialism.

Kat wrote on Nov 2^nd, 2021 at 6:08am:

Frank wrote on Oct 31st, 2021 at 6:27pm: Socialism is: 1 Millions dead 2 Freedom unknown 3 Nothing to show for it. TD Why do you keep posting crap about socialism. we all know that what you're really referring to is communism - which is NOT socialism, nor even close to it. I blame the decades of anti-socialism propaganda spewed by the USA - which also refuses to acknowledge that socialism is not communism. You really do need to educate yourself about the differences, which are many.

You are deeply and doggedly ignorant about every aspect of socialism - philosophical, economic, political. I don't think you have read anything about it but if you have, you understood none of it.

Frank wrote on Nov 1^st, 2021 at 9:16pm:

John Smith wrote on Nov 1st, 2021 at 9:08pm: John Smith wrote on Oct 31st, 2021 at 8:51pm: who invented socialism? sore end ... you claim that socialism is 'according to it's inventors, a scientific idea'. I'll ask again, who invented socialism? 'Scientific socialism' - the one that made all the 'scientific' predictions -  Marx, Engels, Lenin.

socialsim was invented with the French revolution ... want to try again?

After all, if you're going to attribute something to the 'inventor', you should make sure they invented it.

John Smith wrote on Nov 2^nd, 2021 at 8:56pm:

Frank wrote on Nov 1st, 2021 at 9:16pm: John Smith wrote on Nov 1st, 2021 at 9:08pm: John Smith wrote on Oct 31st, 2021 at 8:51pm: who invented socialism? sore end ... you claim that socialism is 'according to it's inventors, a scientific idea'. I'll ask again, who invented socialism? 'Scientific socialism' - the one that made all the 'scientific' predictions -  Marx, Engels, Lenin. socialsim was invented with the French revolution ... want to try again?

;D ;D ;D

You are even more ignorant than Kat. To his credit, he is not trying, he just IS. You, on the other hand make a sustained effort to be stupid, confused and ignorant AND BOAST about it.

"The French revolution invented socialsim" (sic).

Which one, dicko?

Sweden must be a horrible place to live.

freediver wrote on Oct 31^st, 2021 at 9:18pm:

Frank wrote on Oct 31st, 2021 at 8:49pm: freediver wrote on Oct 31st, 2021 at 6:53pm: Quote: But none of their prediction have ever come about. Whose predictions? Sound it out: Socialism is a 'scientific' idea according to its inventors. But none of their prediction have ever come about.  Socialism is an a system of ideas by hypocritical opportunists to beguile the ignorant and the resentful. Apologies for not making it size 24 and red to start with. Whose predictions? Also, what predictions?

Frank?

Pedro Curevo wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2021 at 4:15am:

Sweden must be a horrible place to live.

It has some borderline rabid communism aspects..... some concept harboured in its deepest mind that the State is infallible and all power resides in the state and the people are its vassals and totally subject to its demands ...... be more than careful of that - be on absolute watch for it... it IS, after all, a feminist thing and of course they are excluded from vassalhood .... there is no Divine Right of Elected Government any more than there was a Divine Right of Kings....

I mean - they DID create ABBA... every time that silly movie Mamma Mia comes on I shudder and turn it off... what WAS Pierce thinking?  Just last night he was killing bad guys by the dozen and shagging beauties relentlessly - now this?

Mamma Mia!!

freediver wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2021 at 7:36am:

freediver wrote on Oct 31st, 2021 at 9:18pm: Frank wrote on Oct 31st, 2021 at 8:49pm: freediver wrote on Oct 31st, 2021 at 6:53pm: Quote: But none of their prediction have ever come about. Whose predictions? Sound it out: Socialism is a 'scientific' idea according to its inventors. But none of their prediction have ever come about.  Socialism is an a system of ideas by hypocritical opportunists to beguile the ignorant and the resentful. Apologies for not making it size 24 and red to start with. Whose predictions? Also, what predictions? Frank?

Marx and Engels.

Practically all their predictions.


Starting with the inevitable impoverishment of the proletariat in the most advanced capitalist countries (according to 'scientific' socialism (another silly, hollow prediction)), leading to another inevitability, the proletarian revolution. That in turn would lead to the abolishion of all classes, thereby ringing in the end of class struggle, the very animating force of all history. That's the highlights but all the details along the way are false as well.
Marxist speculation is a victim of wanting to be scientific and believing their own propaganda that since they are talking scientifically, their predictions are inevitable. But it is revolutionary zealotry, much of it driven by the infighting within the workers' movements of their time.

I give some credit to Marx and Engels for their sociological descriptions of 19th century Western European capitalism, that is, their assessment of the present they lived in. 
But when it comes to their forecasting history on the basis of their false, pseudo-scientific philosophy of history, politics, politically economy,  they were hopelessly wrong at every turn.  It is materialist messianism. It's fusty, dusty, mouldy nonsense. No wonder it appeals only to the ignorant and to the educated chancers who wish to grab onto leading the ignorant. Like Lenin.


If you want to read the primary sources https://www.marxists.org/archive/index.htm
Australian section  https://www.marxists.org/history/international/comintern/sections/australia/index.htm


Remember, “It is not the truth of Marxism that explains the willingness of intellectuals to believe it, but the power that it confers on intellectuals, in their attempts to control the world. And since...it is futile to reason someone out of a thing that he was not reasoned into, we can conclude that Marxism owes its remarkable power to survive every criticism to the fact that it is not a truth-directed but a power-directed system of thought.”

Quote:

Starting with the inevitable impoverishment of the proletariat in the most advanced capitalist countries

Can you quote this prediction?

Frank wrote on Nov 2^nd, 2021 at 10:07pm:

John Smith wrote on Nov 2nd, 2021 at 8:56pm: Frank wrote on Nov 1st, 2021 at 9:16pm: John Smith wrote on Nov 1st, 2021 at 9:08pm: John Smith wrote on Oct 31st, 2021 at 8:51pm: who invented socialism? sore end ... you claim that socialism is 'according to it's inventors, a scientific idea'. I'll ask again, who invented socialism? 'Scientific socialism' - the one that made all the 'scientific' predictions -  Marx, Engels, Lenin. socialsim was invented with the French revolution ... want to try again? ;D ;D ;D You are even more ignorant than Kat. To his credit, he is not trying, he just IS. You, on the other hand make a sustained effort to be stupid, confused and ignorant AND BOAST about it. "The French revolution invented socialsim" (sic). Which one, dicko?

given that  Marx, Engels ad Lennin weren't involved in any of them, what does it matter which one?

It really must hurt to be as stupid as you ;D ;D

John Smith wrote on Nov 4^th, 2021 at 7:11pm:

Frank wrote on Nov 2nd, 2021 at 10:07pm: John Smith wrote on Nov 2nd, 2021 at 8:56pm: Frank wrote on Nov 1st, 2021 at 9:16pm: John Smith wrote on Nov 1st, 2021 at 9:08pm: John Smith wrote on Oct 31st, 2021 at 8:51pm: who invented socialism? sore end ... you claim that socialism is 'according to it's inventors, a scientific idea'. I'll ask again, who invented socialism? 'Scientific socialism' - the one that made all the 'scientific' predictions -  Marx, Engels, Lenin. socialsim was invented with the French revolution ... want to try again? ;D ;D ;D You are even more ignorant than Kat. To his credit, he is not trying, he just IS. You, on the other hand make a sustained effort to be stupid, confused and ignorant AND BOAST about it. "The French revolution invented socialsim" (sic). Which one, dicko? given that  Marx, Engels ad Lennin weren't involved in any of them, what does it matter which one? It really must hurt to be as stupid as you ;D ;D

;D ;D ;D ;D


We know you are thick and simple, Gino. No need to keep proving it.

Do tell, though - HOW did the 'French revolution invent socialism', as you maintain? 

Have a gabagool, have a garlic cannoli and gather your thoughts before you explain.

Go on.

Frank .... I absolutely love your work!

What did you study at Uni?

Lisa Jones wrote on Nov 4^th, 2021 at 9:00pm:

Frank .... I absolutely love your work! What did you study at Uni?

I was fortunate to study "the the psychology of the individual" with Professor Jeeves under the guidance of Mr Wodehouse.

freediver wrote on Nov 4^th, 2021 at 6:19pm:

Quote: Starting with the inevitable impoverishment of the proletariat in the most advanced capitalist countries Can you quote this prediction?

Frank?

freediver wrote on Nov 4^th, 2021 at 6:19pm:

Quote: Starting with the inevitable impoverishment of the proletariat in the most advanced capitalist countries Can you quote this prediction?

https://www.marxists.org/subject/economy/authors/pe/pe-ch09.htm


I did provide this general marxist.org link before.  You shouldn't be arguing about things you know fcc-all about FD and are not prepared to read up on. 

But then there would be no ozpolitic forum.....

Socialism is a wide spectrum - what people seek to discuss is not true socialism, but a form of Fascism to cater to a self-appointed elite, and does that catering by utilising ever facet of the power of the state - the social - to attain that end for themselves.

That kind of thing is not socialism, but is more properly Stalinism and similar, and has all the usual destructive elements of any extreme ideology.

An ideology is a system of thoughts - not a science - and has as much bearing to the real world as traveling to the moon by thought.

Socialism is not alone in being a rabid/extreme ideology - the ultimate Robber Baron capitalist idea, based on no facts, is that the Godly will prosper as a right, and any failure indicates a lack of Godliness....

Weird, but true - and as I said - a system of thoughts, not facts.

Extreme Socialism is no different from Extreme any other ideology.... Socialism pure is a melding of the needs and of people as a society, and is as far removed from Extremism as .... traveling to the moon via thought....

If the rope is too tight, it will break .... if it is too loose, it will not function..... there is middle ground.....

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Nov 5^th, 2021 at 1:06am:

Socialism is a wide spectrum - what people seek to discuss is not true socialism, but a form of Fascism to cater to a self-appointed elite, and does that catering by utilising ever facet of the power of the state - the social - to attain that end for themselves. That kind of thing is not socialism, but is more properly Stalinism and similar, and has all the usual destructive elements of any extreme ideology. An ideology is a system of thoughts - not a science - and has as much bearing to the real world as traveling to the moon by thought. Socialism is not alone in being a rabid/extreme ideology - the ultimate Robber Baron capitalist idea, based on no facts, is that the Godly will prosper as a right, and any failure indicates a lack of Godliness.... Weird, but true - and as I said - a system of thoughts, not facts. Extreme Socialism is no different from Extreme any other ideology.... Socialism pure is a melding of the needs and of people as a society, and is as far removed from Extremism as .... traveling to the moon via thought.... If the rope is too tight, it will break .... if it is too loose, it will not function..... there is middle ground.....

Thanks, HD!!   :P


“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.”
"The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”

John Smith wrote on Nov 1^st, 2021 at 9:08pm:

John Smith wrote on Oct 31st, 2021 at 8:51pm: who invented socialism? sore end ... you claim that socialism is 'according to it's inventors, a scientific idea'. I'll ask again, who invented socialism?

Wasn't soreend - that could have been haemorrhoids ?

Frank wrote on Nov 1^st, 2021 at 9:06pm:

Dnarever wrote on Oct 31st, 2021 at 9:28pm: In the long term socialism is going to be known as the flawed system that died a little before the other flawed system capitalism. Anyway socialism has been making a big comeback in recent years. The US for instance is basically socialism for the rich. :D :D :D Touch your left ear. Touch your right ear. Ooops, you shatt your pants. Let's try again... Touch your left ear.....

This might help ?

https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/41MHbDW-sDL._SX328_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg

https://www.amazon.com.au/Comic-Toolbox-How-Funny-Youre/dp/1879505215/ref=pd_sbs_1/358-4572894-3361149?pd_rd_w=i80Wn&pf_rd_p=d2574d8c-175e-480b-b38a-b7825d12a6fc&pf_rd_r=ZC1YWFQR3QA6JYBYKHSP&pd_rd_r=52af71e1-5d1f-4817-9941-35a797d2e3ed&pd_rd_wg=V09Y5&pd_rd_i=1879505215&psc=1

How to be funny even if you're not

Please get some education and try again.

John Smith wrote on Nov 2^nd, 2021 at 8:56pm:

Frank wrote on Nov 1st, 2021 at 9:16pm: John Smith wrote on Nov 1st, 2021 at 9:08pm: John Smith wrote on Oct 31st, 2021 at 8:51pm: who invented socialism? sore end ... you claim that socialism is 'according to it's inventors, a scientific idea'. I'll ask again, who invented socialism? 'Scientific socialism' - the one that made all the 'scientific' predictions -  Marx, Engels, Lenin. socialsim was invented with the French revolution ... want to try again? After all, if you're going to attribute something to the 'inventor', you should make sure they invented it.

How was that? How was socialism invented with the French revolution? Which one? THE French Revolution or some of the other French revolutions - they are excitable chappies, the frogs, their revolutions come about regularly: 1789, 1830, 1848, 1871, 1968. Which one? All of them?

" After all, if you're going to attribute something to the 'inventor', you should make sure you tell us who you mean, no?

But I am asking far too much of you, Gino. Gabagool? Have two.

https://www.encyclopedia.com/history/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/scientific-socialism

SCIENTIFIC SOCIALISM
The term scientific socialism was used by Friedrich Engels to characterize the doctrines that he and Karl Marx developed and distinguish them from other socialist doctrines, which he dismissed as utopian socialism. Engels regarded the Marx-Engels doctrines as scientific in that they laid bare the secret of capitalism through the discovery of surplus value, and explained (with a theory known in the USSR as historical materialism) how capitalism would inevitably be overthrown and replaced by socialism. The concept "scientific socialism" made Marxist doctrines more attractive to many than rival socialist doctrines by suggesting that equality and the end of exploitation were not only desirable but also inevitable.

Scientific socialism was introduced to Russia in the late ninenteenth century. After the Bolshevik victory in the civil war, scientific socialism became part of the official ideology of the USSR. The term itself was frequently used loosely to designate a doctrine concerning the development of a Soviet type of society. Much of the actual content of the doctrine varied over time in accordance with the concrete policies of the Soviet state.

Frank wrote on Nov 5^th, 2021 at 9:29am:

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Nov 5th, 2021 at 1:06am: Socialism is a wide spectrum - what people seek to discuss is not true socialism, but a form of Fascism to cater to a self-appointed elite, and does that catering by utilising ever facet of the power of the state - the social - to attain that end for themselves. That kind of thing is not socialism, but is more properly Stalinism and similar, and has all the usual destructive elements of any extreme ideology. An ideology is a system of thoughts - not a science - and has as much bearing to the real world as traveling to the moon by thought. Socialism is not alone in being a rabid/extreme ideology - the ultimate Robber Baron capitalist idea, based on no facts, is that the Godly will prosper as a right, and any failure indicates a lack of Godliness.... Weird, but true - and as I said - a system of thoughts, not facts. Extreme Socialism is no different from Extreme any other ideology.... Socialism pure is a melding of the needs and of people as a society, and is as far removed from Extremism as .... traveling to the moon via thought.... If the rope is too tight, it will break .... if it is too loose, it will not function..... there is middle ground..... Thanks, HD!!   :P “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.” "The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”

This is a HD:- 

https://assets.primecreative.com.au/imagegen/cp/black/480/360/s3/cougar-assets/tradeuniquecars/gallery1804/holden-hd-front.jpg

Frank wrote on Nov 4^th, 2021 at 9:36pm:

freediver wrote on Nov 4th, 2021 at 6:19pm: Quote: Starting with the inevitable impoverishment of the proletariat in the most advanced capitalist countries Can you quote this prediction? https://www.marxists.org/subject/economy/authors/pe/pe-ch09.htm I did provide this general marxist.org link before.  You shouldn't be arguing about things you know fcc-all about FD and are not prepared to read up on.  But then there would be no ozpolitic forum.....

I am not arguing anything Frank. I am asking for a quote. Where is it?

Frank wrote on Nov 5^th, 2021 at 11:16am:

https://www.encyclopedia.com/history/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/scientific-socialism SCIENTIFIC SOCIALISM The term scientific socialism was used by Friedrich Engels to characterize the doctrines that he and Karl Marx developed and distinguish them from other socialist doctrines, which he dismissed as utopian socialism. Engels regarded the Marx-Engels doctrines as scientific in that they laid bare the secret of capitalism through the discovery of surplus value, and explained (with a theory known in the USSR as historical materialism) how capitalism would inevitably be overthrown and replaced by socialism. The concept "scientific socialism" made Marxist doctrines more attractive to many than rival socialist doctrines by suggesting that equality and the end of exploitation were not only desirable but also inevitable. Scientific socialism was introduced to Russia in the late ninenteenth century. After the Bolshevik victory in the civil war, scientific socialism became part of the official ideology of the USSR. The term itself was frequently used loosely to designate a doctrine concerning the development of a Soviet type of society. Much of the actual content of the doctrine varied over time in accordance with the concrete policies of the Soviet state.

That's actually a very worthy read.

My communist political economy professor at Sydney Uni (Professor Frank Stilwell) always used to dismiss anyone who attempted to differentiate btwn socialism and communism.

He'd always say :

Socialism/Communism? It's essentially the same thing; just a different pathway. The latter merely advocates radical revolution. That's all.

We used to just look at him and try not to be too alarmed. 😳

Lisa Jones wrote on Nov 6^th, 2021 at 10:21am:

Frank wrote on Nov 5th, 2021 at 11:16am: https://www.encyclopedia.com/history/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/scientific-socialism SCIENTIFIC SOCIALISM The term scientific socialism was used by Friedrich Engels to characterize the doctrines that he and Karl Marx developed and distinguish them from other socialist doctrines, which he dismissed as utopian socialism. Engels regarded the Marx-Engels doctrines as scientific in that they laid bare the secret of capitalism through the discovery of surplus value, and explained (with a theory known in the USSR as historical materialism) how capitalism would inevitably be overthrown and replaced by socialism. The concept "scientific socialism" made Marxist doctrines more attractive to many than rival socialist doctrines by suggesting that equality and the end of exploitation were not only desirable but also inevitable. Scientific socialism was introduced to Russia in the late ninenteenth century. After the Bolshevik victory in the civil war, scientific socialism became part of the official ideology of the USSR. The term itself was frequently used loosely to designate a doctrine concerning the development of a Soviet type of society. Much of the actual content of the doctrine varied over time in accordance with the concrete policies of the Soviet state. That's actually a very worthy read. My communist political economy professor at Sydney Uni (Professor Frank Stilwell) always used to dismiss anyone who attempted to differentiate btwn socialism and communism. He'd always say : Socialism/Communism? It's essentially the same thing; just a different pathway. The latter merely advocates radical revolution. That's all. We used to just look at him and try not to be too alarmed. 😳

Just remember Moans, Socialism is what keeps you in dole and in that housing commission flat you are clogging up with all the grease and fats you pump into your fat mouth every day.

Frank wrote on Nov 5^th, 2021 at 11:10am:

How was that? How was socialism invented with the French revolution? Which one? THE French Revolution or some of the other French revolutions - they are excitable chappies, the frogs, their revolutions come about regularly: 1789, 1830, 1848, 1871, 1968. Which one? All of them?

Were Marx, Lenin and Engels  involved in any of them? If not what does it matter which one?

god you're a moron

John Smith wrote on Oct 31^st, 2021 at 8:51pm:

who invented socialism?

Stupid question.

Nobody invented socialism.

Socialism developed over time. Since ancient times in fact.

freediver wrote on Nov 6^th, 2021 at 9:37am:

Frank wrote on Nov 4th, 2021 at 9:36pm: freediver wrote on Nov 4th, 2021 at 6:19pm: Quote: Starting with the inevitable impoverishment of the proletariat in the most advanced capitalist countries Can you quote this prediction? https://www.marxists.org/subject/economy/authors/pe/pe-ch09.htm I did provide this general marxist.org link before.  You shouldn't be arguing about things you know fcc-all about FD and are not prepared to read up on.  But then there would be no ozpolitic forum..... I am not arguing anything Frank. I am asking for a quote. Where is it?

Did you look at the above link? Did you look at the Communist manifesto? Any of the other articles at the link I provided, marxism.org?

The General Law of Capitalist Accumulation.
Relative and Absolute Impoverishment of the Proletariat
The development of capitalism leads, with the accumulation of capital, to enormous wealth being concentrated in few hands at one pole of bourgeois society, with a growth in luxury and parasitism, dissipation and idleness among the exploiting classes; while at the other pole the burden of exploitation becomes continually more intense, and unemployment and poverty increases among those whose labour is the creator of all wealth.

“The greater the social wealth, the functioning capital, the extent and energy of its growth, and therefore also the absolute mass of the proletariat and the productiveness of its labour, the greater is the industrial reserve army.... The relative mass of the industrial reserve army increases therefore with the potential energy of wealth. But the greater this reserve army in proportion to the active labour army, the greater is the mass of a consolidated surplus-population whose misery is in inverse ratio to its torment of labour... This is the absolute, general law of capitalist accumulation." (Marx, Capital, Kerr edition, vol. 1, p. 707.)

The general law of capitalist accumulation gives concrete expression to the operation of the basic economic law of capitalism-the-law of surplus-value. The striving to increase surplus-value leads to an accumulation of wealth in the hands of the exploiting classes and to the growth of impoverishment and degradation of the propertyless classes.

As capitalism develops, a process of relative and absolute impoverishment of the proletariat takes place.

.

John Smith wrote on Nov 6^th, 2021 at 12:31pm:

Frank wrote on Nov 5th, 2021 at 11:10am: How was that? How was socialism invented with the French revolution? Which one? THE French Revolution or some of the other French revolutions - they are excitable chappies, the frogs, their revolutions come about regularly: 1789, 1830, 1848, 1871, 1968. Which one? All of them? Were Marx, Lenin and Engels  involved in any of them? If not what does it matter which one? god you're a moron

YOU asserted that "socialsim was invented with the French revolution", shitfer. Why don't you explain what you meant?

Frank wrote on Nov 6^th, 2021 at 1:23pm:

John Smith wrote on Nov 6th, 2021 at 12:31pm: Frank wrote on Nov 5th, 2021 at 11:10am: How was that? How was socialism invented with the French revolution? Which one? THE French Revolution or some of the other French revolutions - they are excitable chappies, the frogs, their revolutions come about regularly: 1789, 1830, 1848, 1871, 1968. Which one? All of them? Were Marx, Lenin and Engels  involved in any of them? If not what does it matter which one? god you're a moron YOU asserted that "socialsim was invented with the French revolution", shitfer. Why don't you explain what you meant?

It's not my assertion, it's wiki's ....you'll have to ask them


T
Quote:

he history of socialism has its origins in the 1789 French Revolution and the changes which it brought, although it has precedents in earlier movements and ideas.

why did you lie when you said Marx, Engels and lenin invented it?

Frank wrote on Nov 6^th, 2021 at 1:23pm:

John Smith wrote on Nov 6th, 2021 at 12:31pm: Frank wrote on Nov 5th, 2021 at 11:10am: How was that? How was socialism invented with the French revolution? Which one? THE French Revolution or some of the other French revolutions - they are excitable chappies, the frogs, their revolutions come about regularly: 1789, 1830, 1848, 1871, 1968. Which one? All of them? Were Marx, Lenin and Engels  involved in any of them? If not what does it matter which one? god you're a moron YOU asserted that "socialsim was invented with the French revolution", shitfer. Why don't you explain what you meant?

Frank....are you still having fun with the ignorant and those who never finished high school?

It's clear they CANNOT understand your posts. Hell they CANNOT remember let alone understand their own posts.

John Smith wrote on Nov 6^th, 2021 at 1:29pm:

Frank wrote on Nov 6th, 2021 at 1:23pm: John Smith wrote on Nov 6th, 2021 at 12:31pm: Frank wrote on Nov 5th, 2021 at 11:10am: How was that? How was socialism invented with the French revolution? Which one? THE French Revolution or some of the other French revolutions - they are excitable chappies, the frogs, their revolutions come about regularly: 1789, 1830, 1848, 1871, 1968. Which one? All of them? Were Marx, Lenin and Engels  involved in any of them? If not what does it matter which one? god you're a moron YOU asserted that "socialsim was invented with the French revolution", shitfer. Why don't you explain what you meant? It's not my assertion, it's wiki's ....you'll have to ask them T Quote: he history of socialism has its origins in the 1789 French Revolution and the changes which it brought, although it has precedents in earlier movements and ideas. why did you lie when you said Marx, Engels and lenin invented it?

:D :D ;D ;D


You had too much gabagool and garlic cannoli, Gino!

Frank wrote on Nov 6^th, 2021 at 1:17pm:

freediver wrote on Nov 6th, 2021 at 9:37am: Frank wrote on Nov 4th, 2021 at 9:36pm: freediver wrote on Nov 4th, 2021 at 6:19pm: Quote: Starting with the inevitable impoverishment of the proletariat in the most advanced capitalist countries Can you quote this prediction? https://www.marxists.org/subject/economy/authors/pe/pe-ch09.htm I did provide this general marxist.org link before.  You shouldn't be arguing about things you know fcc-all about FD and are not prepared to read up on.  But then there would be no ozpolitic forum..... I am not arguing anything Frank. I am asking for a quote. Where is it? Did you look at the above link? Did you look at the Communist manifesto? Any of the other articles at the link I provided, marxism.org? The General Law of Capitalist Accumulation. Relative and Absolute Impoverishment of the Proletariat The development of capitalism leads, with the accumulation of capital, to enormous wealth being concentrated in few hands at one pole of bourgeois society, with a growth in luxury and parasitism, dissipation and idleness among the exploiting classes; while at the other pole the burden of exploitation becomes continually more intense, and unemployment and poverty increases among those whose labour is the creator of all wealth. “The greater the social wealth, the functioning capital, the extent and energy of its growth, and therefore also the absolute mass of the proletariat and the productiveness of its labour, the greater is the industrial reserve army.... The relative mass of the industrial reserve army increases therefore with the potential energy of wealth. But the greater this reserve army in proportion to the active labour army, the greater is the mass of a consolidated surplus-population whose misery is in inverse ratio to its torment of labour... This is the absolute, general law of capitalist accumulation." (Marx, Capital, Kerr edition, vol. 1, p. 707.) The general law of capitalist accumulation gives concrete expression to the operation of the basic economic law of capitalism-the-law of surplus-value. The striving to increase surplus-value leads to an accumulation of wealth in the hands of the exploiting classes and to the growth of impoverishment and degradation of the propertyless classes. As capitalism develops, a process of relative and absolute impoverishment of the proletariat takes place.

Are you claiming that the two highlighted quotes say the same thing?

Frank wrote on Nov 6^th, 2021 at 1:39pm:

John Smith wrote on Nov 6th, 2021 at 1:29pm: Frank wrote on Nov 6th, 2021 at 1:23pm: John Smith wrote on Nov 6th, 2021 at 12:31pm: Frank wrote on Nov 5th, 2021 at 11:10am: How was that? How was socialism invented with the French revolution? Which one? THE French Revolution or some of the other French revolutions - they are excitable chappies, the frogs, their revolutions come about regularly: 1789, 1830, 1848, 1871, 1968. Which one? All of them? Were Marx, Lenin and Engels  involved in any of them? If not what does it matter which one? god you're a moron YOU asserted that "socialsim was invented with the French revolution", shitfer. Why don't you explain what you meant? It's not my assertion, it's wiki's ....you'll have to ask them T Quote: he history of socialism has its origins in the 1789 French Revolution and the changes which it brought, although it has precedents in earlier movements and ideas. why did you lie when you said Marx, Engels and lenin invented it? :D :D ;D ;D You had too much gabagool and garlic cannoli, Gino!

is that an admission that you lied about who invented it? Why do you feel the need to lie Frank? Is your argument so flimsy that you need to lie in order to give it some sort of substance?

freediver wrote on Nov 6^th, 2021 at 1:39pm:

Frank wrote on Nov 6th, 2021 at 1:17pm: freediver wrote on Nov 6th, 2021 at 9:37am: Frank wrote on Nov 4th, 2021 at 9:36pm: freediver wrote on Nov 4th, 2021 at 6:19pm: Quote: Starting with the inevitable impoverishment of the proletariat in the most advanced capitalist countries Can you quote this prediction? https://www.marxists.org/subject/economy/authors/pe/pe-ch09.htm I did provide this general marxist.org link before.  You shouldn't be arguing about things you know fcc-all about FD and are not prepared to read up on.  But then there would be no ozpolitic forum..... I am not arguing anything Frank. I am asking for a quote. Where is it? Did you look at the above link? Did you look at the Communist manifesto? Any of the other articles at the link I provided, marxism.org? The General Law of Capitalist Accumulation. Relative and Absolute Impoverishment of the Proletariat The development of capitalism leads, with the accumulation of capital, to enormous wealth being concentrated in few hands at one pole of bourgeois society, with a growth in luxury and parasitism, dissipation and idleness among the exploiting classes; while at the other pole the burden of exploitation becomes continually more intense, and unemployment and poverty increases among those whose labour is the creator of all wealth. “The greater the social wealth, the functioning capital, the extent and energy of its growth, and therefore also the absolute mass of the proletariat and the productiveness of its labour, the greater is the industrial reserve army.... The relative mass of the industrial reserve army increases therefore with the potential energy of wealth. But the greater this reserve army in proportion to the active labour army, the greater is the mass of a consolidated surplus-population whose misery is in inverse ratio to its torment of labour... This is the absolute, general law of capitalist accumulation." (Marx, Capital, Kerr edition, vol. 1, p. 707.) The general law of capitalist accumulation gives concrete expression to the operation of the basic economic law of capitalism-the-law of surplus-value. The striving to increase surplus-value leads to an accumulation of wealth in the hands of the exploiting classes and to the growth of impoverishment and degradation of the propertyless classes. As capitalism develops, a process of relative and absolute impoverishment of the proletariat takes place. Are you claiming that the two highlighted quotes say the same thing?

In the context of what Marx thought to be a necessary condition of a proletarian revolution.
He thought that capitalist accumulation would lead to the polarisation of the class struggle. The burgeioise would become richer and the proleariat poorer, to an intolerable level, leading to a revolution in the most civilised countries almost simultaneously.

The collected works of Marx, Enels and Lenin run to 50 volumes,  fd, so plenty of hay in which you can look for hairs to split. But the communist manifesto is available online, fd. Do you want me to get the link for you or do you think you could locate it by yourself?  It has a communist catechism, what communists believe.

Frank wrote on Nov 6^th, 2021 at 1:55pm:

freediver wrote on Nov 6th, 2021 at 1:39pm: Frank wrote on Nov 6th, 2021 at 1:17pm: freediver wrote on Nov 6th, 2021 at 9:37am: Frank wrote on Nov 4th, 2021 at 9:36pm: freediver wrote on Nov 4th, 2021 at 6:19pm: Quote: Starting with the inevitable impoverishment of the proletariat in the most advanced capitalist countries Can you quote this prediction? https://www.marxists.org/subject/economy/authors/pe/pe-ch09.htm I did provide this general marxist.org link before.  You shouldn't be arguing about things you know fcc-all about FD and are not prepared to read up on.  But then there would be no ozpolitic forum..... I am not arguing anything Frank. I am asking for a quote. Where is it? Did you look at the above link? Did you look at the Communist manifesto? Any of the other articles at the link I provided, marxism.org? The General Law of Capitalist Accumulation. Relative and Absolute Impoverishment of the Proletariat The development of capitalism leads, with the accumulation of capital, to enormous wealth being concentrated in few hands at one pole of bourgeois society, with a growth in luxury and parasitism, dissipation and idleness among the exploiting classes; while at the other pole the burden of exploitation becomes continually more intense, and unemployment and poverty increases among those whose labour is the creator of all wealth. “The greater the social wealth, the functioning capital, the extent and energy of its growth, and therefore also the absolute mass of the proletariat and the productiveness of its labour, the greater is the industrial reserve army.... The relative mass of the industrial reserve army increases therefore with the potential energy of wealth. But the greater this reserve army in proportion to the active labour army, the greater is the mass of a consolidated surplus-population whose misery is in inverse ratio to its torment of labour... This is the absolute, general law of capitalist accumulation." (Marx, Capital, Kerr edition, vol. 1, p. 707.) The general law of capitalist accumulation gives concrete expression to the operation of the basic economic law of capitalism-the-law of surplus-value. The striving to increase surplus-value leads to an accumulation of wealth in the hands of the exploiting classes and to the growth of impoverishment and degradation of the propertyless classes. As capitalism develops, a process of relative and absolute impoverishment of the proletariat takes place. Are you claiming that the two highlighted quotes say the same thing? In the context of what Marx thought to be a necessary condition of a proletarian revolution. He thought that capitalist accumulation would lead to the polarisation of the class struggle. The burgeioise would become richer and the proleariat poorer, to an intolerable level, leading to a revolution in the most civilised countries almost simultaneously. The collected works of Marx, Enels and Lenin run to 50 volumes,  fd, so plenty of hay in which you can look for hairs to split. But the communist manifesto is available online, fd. Do you want me to get the link for you or do you think you could locate it by yourself?  It has a communist catechism, what communists believe.

I want you to quote Marx actually saying what you claim he said.

freediver wrote on Nov 6^th, 2021 at 3:28pm:

Frank wrote on Nov 6th, 2021 at 1:55pm: freediver wrote on Nov 6th, 2021 at 1:39pm: Frank wrote on Nov 6th, 2021 at 1:17pm: freediver wrote on Nov 6th, 2021 at 9:37am: Frank wrote on Nov 4th, 2021 at 9:36pm: freediver wrote on Nov 4th, 2021 at 6:19pm: Quote: Starting with the inevitable impoverishment of the proletariat in the most advanced capitalist countries Can you quote this prediction? https://www.marxists.org/subject/economy/authors/pe/pe-ch09.htm I did provide this general marxist.org link before.  You shouldn't be arguing about things you know fcc-all about FD and are not prepared to read up on.  But then there would be no ozpolitic forum..... I am not arguing anything Frank. I am asking for a quote. Where is it? Did you look at the above link? Did you look at the Communist manifesto? Any of the other articles at the link I provided, marxism.org? The General Law of Capitalist Accumulation. Relative and Absolute Impoverishment of the Proletariat The development of capitalism leads, with the accumulation of capital, to enormous wealth being concentrated in few hands at one pole of bourgeois society, with a growth in luxury and parasitism, dissipation and idleness among the exploiting classes; while at the other pole the burden of exploitation becomes continually more intense, and unemployment and poverty increases among those whose labour is the creator of all wealth. “The greater the social wealth, the functioning capital, the extent and energy of its growth, and therefore also the absolute mass of the proletariat and the productiveness of its labour, the greater is the industrial reserve army.... The relative mass of the industrial reserve army increases therefore with the potential energy of wealth. But the greater this reserve army in proportion to the active labour army, the greater is the mass of a consolidated surplus-population whose misery is in inverse ratio to its torment of labour... This is the absolute, general law of capitalist accumulation." (Marx, Capital, Kerr edition, vol. 1, p. 707.) The general law of capitalist accumulation gives concrete expression to the operation of the basic economic law of capitalism-the-law of surplus-value. The striving to increase surplus-value leads to an accumulation of wealth in the hands of the exploiting classes and to the growth of impoverishment and degradation of the propertyless classes. As capitalism develops, a process of relative and absolute impoverishment of the proletariat takes place. Are you claiming that the two highlighted quotes say the same thing? In the context of what Marx thought to be a necessary condition of a proletarian revolution. He thought that capitalist accumulation would lead to the polarisation of the class struggle. The burgeioise would become richer and the proleariat poorer, to an intolerable level, leading to a revolution in the most civilised countries almost simultaneously. The collected works of Marx, Enels and Lenin run to 50 volumes,  fd, so plenty of hay in which you can look for hairs to split. But the communist manifesto is available online, fd. Do you want me to get the link for you or do you think you could locate it by yourself?  It has a communist catechism, what communists believe. I want you to quote Marx actually saying what you claim he said.

The first highlight is a paraphrase of his theory about how the revolution would come about in the 'final throes of capitalism', the second is a direct quote from ONE of his works. 
I do not have an electronic verson of the MECW so I can't do text search for you for all the other expressions of this theory.  If you want to go through all their ideas, consult the marxist.org site.

If you have any reason to dispute what I said and linked to, come out with it.


He also predicted that ghe socialist revolution would happen almost simultaneously in the mist civilised countries - England, US, France, Germany. That's  in the Manifesto. See if you can locate it.

Third, everywhere the proletariat develops in step with the bourgeoisie. In proportion, as the
bourgeoisie grows in wealth, the proletariat grows in numbers. For, since the proletarians can be
employed only by capital, and since capital extends only through employing labor, it follows that
the growth of the proletariat proceeds at precisely the same pace as the growth of capital.

Simultaneously, this process draws members of the bourgeoisie and proletarians together into the
great cities where industry can be carried on most profitably, and by thus throwing great masses
in one spot it gives to the proletarians a consciousness of their own strength.

Moreover, the further this process advances, the more new labor-saving machines are invented,
the greater is the pressure exercised by big industry on wages, which, as we have seen, sink to
their minimum and therewith render the condition of the proletariat increasingly unbearable. The
growing dissatisfaction of the proletariat thus joins with its rising power to prepare a proletarian
social revolution.

The term ‘bourgeoisie’ is a technicality of the Marxist theory. But it has a real human reference, and that reference is you and me. We who own property, deal in markets, collect salaries, have spouses and children, and live by the ordinary day-to-day morality of neighbourliness, are the people whom Lenin set out to destroy. We are the targets of resentment, and Marxism is the theory of that resentment.

One thing we should surely learn from the Russian revolution is that resentment is always on the lookout for the theories that will justify it. And the lesson that bore in on me in vivid and unforgettable ways during my own journeys behind the Iron Curtain, is that resentment, when it finally takes power, spells the death of politics. The real purpose of politics is not to express resentment but to contain and conciliate it. When, in the wake of the Grenfell fire, leading political figures began calling for a ‘day of rage’, and for the requisitioning of bourgeois property, I heard again the voice of that old resentment. And I asked myself how could it be that the lesson has not been learned?

The problem is not a lack of literature. Invocations of communist terror abound, and include masterpieces that all educated people should know, such as Koestler’s Darkness at Noon, Pasternak’s Doctor Zhivago and Solzhenitsyn’s Gulag Archipelago. However, resentment easily overrides the evidence. Just as anti-Semitism has survived constant reminders of the Holocaust, so does the Marxist vision survive the accumulated testimony to its murderous legacy. Resentful people cherish their hatred more than they respect the rights of those who arouse it.

For this reason it is surely time to establish museums devoted to the Marxist legacy. We have a model, indeed, in the House of Terror, established in Budapest in 2002 under the directorship of Maria Schmidt. This commemorates the victims of both fascism and communism, and has been controversial for that very reason. Even in Hungary, leftist intellectuals tell us that the two evils cannot be compared, and that to commemorate their victims in a single museum is to deny their most important difference: that the aims of communism were good, those of fascism bad. It is precisely in order to counter that kind of apology that Maria Schmidt has turned the same light on both ideologies. The aim of both, she insists, was the same. What difference does it make that one focused its resentment on the Jews, the other on the bourgeoisie, when the primary aim was in both cases the mass murder of their victims? Or do we say, with Eric Hobs-bawm, that in the one case, but not in the other, the end justified the means?
Roger Scruton

Frank wrote on Nov 6^th, 2021 at 4:35pm:

Third, everywhere the proletariat develops in step with the bourgeoisie. In proportion, as the bourgeoisie grows in wealth, the proletariat grows in numbers. For, since the proletarians can be employed only by capital, and since capital extends only through employing labor, it follows that the growth of the proletariat proceeds at precisely the same pace as the growth of capital. Simultaneously, this process draws members of the bourgeoisie and proletarians together into the great cities where industry can be carried on most profitably, and by thus throwing great masses in one spot it gives to the proletarians a consciousness of their own strength. Moreover, the further this process advances, the more new labor-saving machines are invented, the greater is the pressure exercised by big industry on wages, which, as we have seen, sink to their minimum and therewith render the condition of the proletariat increasingly unbearable. The growing dissatisfaction of the proletariat thus joins with its rising power to prepare a proletarian social revolution.

Who are you quoting now? The first paragraph sounds very Malthusian.

freediver wrote on Nov 7^th, 2021 at 10:06am:

Frank wrote on Nov 6th, 2021 at 4:35pm: Third, everywhere the proletariat develops in step with the bourgeoisie. In proportion, as the bourgeoisie grows in wealth, the proletariat grows in numbers. For, since the proletarians can be employed only by capital, and since capital extends only through employing labor, it follows that the growth of the proletariat proceeds at precisely the same pace as the growth of capital. Simultaneously, this process draws members of the bourgeoisie and proletarians together into the great cities where industry can be carried on most profitably, and by thus throwing great masses in one spot it gives to the proletarians a consciousness of their own strength. Moreover, the further this process advances, the more new labor-saving machines are invented, the greater is the pressure exercised by big industry on wages, which, as we have seen, sink to their minimum and therewith render the condition of the proletariat increasingly unbearable. The growing dissatisfaction of the proletariat thus joins with its rising power to prepare a proletarian social revolution. Who are you quoting now? The first paragraph sounds very Malthusian.

Cheeses, fd. Tsk, tsk   ::) ::)  Take a wild guess.

You asked me to quote Marx.  You still haven't located the Communist Manifesto, have you?

Frank wrote on Nov 7^th, 2021 at 10:08am:

freediver wrote on Nov 7th, 2021 at 10:06am: Frank wrote on Nov 6th, 2021 at 4:35pm: Third, everywhere the proletariat develops in step with the bourgeoisie. In proportion, as the bourgeoisie grows in wealth, the proletariat grows in numbers. For, since the proletarians can be employed only by capital, and since capital extends only through employing labor, it follows that the growth of the proletariat proceeds at precisely the same pace as the growth of capital. Simultaneously, this process draws members of the bourgeoisie and proletarians together into the great cities where industry can be carried on most profitably, and by thus throwing great masses in one spot it gives to the proletarians a consciousness of their own strength. Moreover, the further this process advances, the more new labor-saving machines are invented, the greater is the pressure exercised by big industry on wages, which, as we have seen, sink to their minimum and therewith render the condition of the proletariat increasingly unbearable. The growing dissatisfaction of the proletariat thus joins with its rising power to prepare a proletarian social revolution. Who are you quoting now? The first paragraph sounds very Malthusian. Cheeses, fd. Tsk, tsk   ::) ::)  Take a wild guess. You asked me to quote Marx.  You still haven't located the Communist Manifesto, have you?

Here is a good Marx quote ?


Quote:

One morning I shot an elephant in my pajamas. How he got into my pajamas I'll never know.

When Republicans blather about socialism, they are not talking about actual socialism, which is an economic system in which the means of production, that is, the factories and industries, are owned by the people (which really means they are owned by the government).

True socialism has never been popular in America, and really no one is talking about it in the USA today.

Regulation of business and the building of infrastructure is not socialism.

Look at what Abraham Lincoln said:

“legitimate object of government, is to do for a community of people, whatever they need to have done, but can not do, at all, or can not, so well do, for themselves---in their separate, and individual capacities.” Those things included, he wrote, “public roads and highways, public schools, charities, pauperism, orphanage, estates of the deceased, and the machinery of government itself.”

AiA wrote on Nov 8^th, 2021 at 12:49am:

When Republicans blather about socialism, they are not talking about actual socialism, which is an economic system in which the means of production, that is, the factories and industries, are owned by the people (which really means they are owned by the government). True socialism has never been popular in America, and really no one is talking about it in the USA today. Regulation of business and the building of infrastructure is not socialism. Look at what Abraham Lincoln said: “legitimate object of government, is to do for a community of people, whatever they need to have done, but can not do, at all, or can not, so well do, for themselves---in their separate, and individual capacities.” Those things included, he wrote, “public roads and highways, public schools, charities, pauperism, orphanage, estates of the deceased, and the machinery of government itself.”

What is 'true socialism and where has it been popular?

Socialism varies from nation to nation and the combination with other factors is different for each one.

It's not just a single cut and dried approach to governance.... every culture has a different approach to life and thus a different approach to the way it organises its society... you simply cannot discuss socialism as a single all-encompassing entity.

The US has a different mix of socialism/capitalism from the UK or Australia or Nu Zulland or Thailand or China...

So what we are discussing here is a form of... for want of a better term and in small letters not capitals - national socialism as applies to every individual nation.

Which one do you wish to hang today??

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Nov 8^th, 2021 at 9:35am:

Socialism varies from nation to nation and the combination with other factors is different for each one. It's not just a single cut and dried approach to governance.... every culture has a different approach to life and thus a different approach to the way it organises its society... you simply cannot discuss socialism as a single all-encompassing entity. The US has a different mix of socialism/capitalism from the UK or Australia or Nu Zulland or Thailand or China... So what we are discussing here is a form of... for want of a better term and in small letters not capitals - national socialism as applies to every individual nation. Which one do you wish to hang today??

By that reckoning capitalism varies from place to place as well and every country is a mix of socialialism and capitalism.  The question is what makes socialism socialism and what would it look like if the capitalist bit was eliminated and just socialism would be left?

It would be like the Soviet Union and its satellites in the 1950s and 60s, as North Korea now - a system that is evidently a failure because it cannot move on from its inhumanity, it can only dissolve in failure.

The unmatchable advantage democracy has over socialism is its ability to self- correction, economically as well as socially.

In other words it's  not a pseudo-scientific 19th century fantasy by two graphomaniac German gits, one kept by the other, boasting of having discovered THE animating firce of all history, historical materialism,  and armed with this discovery, built the castle in the sky they called 'scientific socialism' to which their followers sent more murdered people than probably all other ideologiesm managed to kill for their truth,  combined.

What grappler means is that real economic systems are on a spectrum from true socialism to laissez faire capitalism. This doesn't mean that the definition of socialism changes every time the context does.

"I refuse to join any club that would have me as a member."

freediver wrote on Nov 8^th, 2021 at 6:54pm:

What grappler means is that real economic systems are on a spectrum from true socialism to laissez faire capitalism. This doesn't mean that the definition of socialism changes every time the context does.

Of course it means just that. Unless you are humpty dumoty and you choose what a word means.

Social security, medicare, age care, progressive taxation are not socialism.  Socialism has some necessary atributes and these are not them.

I am talking about 'scientific socialism' the stuff of Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin, Castro, Kim etc - starting with socialising production, capital,  resources, labour, dispensing with regular elections where the socialisation of the economy could be genuinely reversed, thought control, restriction of intellectual liberty etc.

greggerypeccary wrote on Nov 8^th, 2021 at 7:47pm:

"I refuse to join any club that would have me as a member."

No club would ever want you near them.

Frank wrote on Nov 8^th, 2021 at 8:04pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Nov 8th, 2021 at 7:47pm: "I refuse to join any club that would have me as a member." No club would ever want you near them.

"Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend. Inside of a dog it's too dark to read".

Dnarever wrote on Nov 8^th, 2021 at 9:05pm:

Frank wrote on Nov 8th, 2021 at 8:04pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Nov 8th, 2021 at 7:47pm: "I refuse to join any club that would have me as a member." No club would ever want you near them. "Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend. Inside of a dog it's too dark to read".

You cannotta foola me - there isa no sanity clause.

Frank wrote on Nov 8^th, 2021 at 7:59pm:

freediver wrote on Nov 8th, 2021 at 6:54pm: What grappler means is that real economic systems are on a spectrum from true socialism to laissez faire capitalism. This doesn't mean that the definition of socialism changes every time the context does. Of course it means just that. Unless you are humpty dumoty and you choose what a word means. Social security, medicare, age care, progressive taxation are not socialism.  Socialism has some necessary atributes and these are not them. I am talking about 'scientific socialism' the stuff of Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin, Castro, Kim etc - starting with socialising production, capital,  resources, labour, dispensing with regular elections where the socialisation of the economy could be genuinely reversed, thought control, restriction of intellectual liberty etc.

Ah - well I don't have time for that sh1t - I'll leave it to the experts.... use defining terms... remember when I discuss Muslim things - I differentiate between Islam and Islamism.. as an example.. for women's things it is Women and feminism, two separate groups.....

So when you say Socialism and socialism - it is difficult for people to be on the same page - same as any discussion of national socialism as opposed to National Socialism... sure to bring a bite out of the unwashed....

First Define Your Terms..... then we'll talk.............

What is YOUR correct title for Extreme Socialism?  Fasco-Socialism?  Doesn't quite hack it....

You need a new term since the worn-out Communism doesn't do it any more, either...

I like Socio-Fascism myself..... same thing, different sheep skin....  8-)

Communism and Neo-liberal capitalism are two sides to the same coin.

Those that are polarised to either one are the sheeple.

If we are to become children of the universe and not just the Earth then we need a new coin.

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Nov 10^th, 2021 at 12:09am:

Frank wrote on Nov 8th, 2021 at 7:59pm: freediver wrote on Nov 8th, 2021 at 6:54pm: What grappler means is that real economic systems are on a spectrum from true socialism to laissez faire capitalism. This doesn't mean that the definition of socialism changes every time the context does. Of course it means just that. Unless you are humpty dumoty and you choose what a word means. Social security, medicare, age care, progressive taxation are not socialism.  Socialism has some necessary atributes and these are not them. I am talking about 'scientific socialism' the stuff of Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin, Castro, Kim etc - starting with socialising production, capital,  resources, labour, dispensing with regular elections where the socialisation of the economy could be genuinely reversed, thought control, restriction of intellectual liberty etc. Ah - well I don't have time for that sh1t - I'll leave it to the experts.... use defining terms... remember when I discuss Muslim things - I differentiate between Islam and Islamism.. as an example.. for women's things it is Women and feminism, two separate groups..... So when you say Socialism and socialism - it is difficult for people to be on the same page - same as any discussion of national socialism as opposed to National Socialism... sure to bring a bite out of the unwashed.... First Define Your Terms..... then we'll talk............. What is YOUR correct title for Extreme Socialism?  Fasco-Socialism?  Doesn't quite hack it.... You need a new term since the worn-out Communism doesn't do it any more, either... I like Socio-Fascism myself..... same thing, different sheep skin....  8-)

This is the Humpty Dumpty argument: words mean what you want them to mean.  "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."

You are choosing, mixing and matching, so whetever argument is presented you can easily say, 'define socialism' and when it is defined, you say, "oh, but that's  not what it means to ME!"
And then you toss in a word salad of undefined and confused ideas just to keep it all as multi-headed and ever-changing so you never have to clarify what you mean and think because you know one thing for sure, that you are grappling with a lot of contradictory and vague ideas. Your idea of socialism seems to boil down to 'nice' and capitalism as 'nasty'.


Here is the ACTUAL meaning of socialism:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Communist_Manifesto

https://www.britannica.com/topic/socialism

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/socialism.asp

https://www.thoughtco.com/a-definition-of-socialism-3303637

Frank wrote on Nov 10^th, 2021 at 8:54am:

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Nov 10th, 2021 at 12:09am: Frank wrote on Nov 8th, 2021 at 7:59pm: freediver wrote on Nov 8th, 2021 at 6:54pm: What grappler means is that real economic systems are on a spectrum from true socialism to laissez faire capitalism. This doesn't mean that the definition of socialism changes every time the context does. Of course it means just that. Unless you are humpty dumoty and you choose what a word means. Social security, medicare, age care, progressive taxation are not socialism.  Socialism has some necessary atributes and these are not them. I am talking about 'scientific socialism' the stuff of Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin, Castro, Kim etc - starting with socialising production, capital,  resources, labour, dispensing with regular elections where the socialisation of the economy could be genuinely reversed, thought control, restriction of intellectual liberty etc. Ah - well I don't have time for that sh1t - I'll leave it to the experts.... use defining terms... remember when I discuss Muslim things - I differentiate between Islam and Islamism.. as an example.. for women's things it is Women and feminism, two separate groups..... So when you say Socialism and socialism - it is difficult for people to be on the same page - same as any discussion of national socialism as opposed to National Socialism... sure to bring a bite out of the unwashed.... First Define Your Terms..... then we'll talk............. What is YOUR correct title for Extreme Socialism?  Fasco-Socialism?  Doesn't quite hack it.... You need a new term since the worn-out Communism doesn't do it any more, either... I like Socio-Fascism myself..... same thing, different sheep skin....  8-) This is the Humpty Dumpty argument: words mean what you want them to mean.  "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." You are choosing, mixing and matching, so whetever argument is presented you can easily say, 'define socialism' and when it is defined, you say, "oh, but that's  not what it means to ME!" And then you toss in a word salad of undefined and confused ideas just to keep it all as multi-headed and ever-changing so you never have to clarify what you mean and think because you know one thing for sure, that you are grappling with a lot of contradictory and vague ideas. Your idea of socialism seems to boil down to 'nice' and capitalism as 'nasty'. Here is the ACTUAL meaning of socialism: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Communist_Manifesto https://www.britannica.com/topic/socialism https://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/socialism.asp https://www.thoughtco.com/a-definition-of-socialism-3303637

I agree with Grappler. You often see people go round in circles for pages because they are using the same words but speaking different languages. He is not choosing. He is asking you to be specific so he doesn't have to guess.

freediver wrote on Nov 10^th, 2021 at 6:02pm:

Frank wrote on Nov 10th, 2021 at 8:54am: Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Nov 10th, 2021 at 12:09am: Frank wrote on Nov 8th, 2021 at 7:59pm: freediver wrote on Nov 8th, 2021 at 6:54pm: What grappler means is that real economic systems are on a spectrum from true socialism to laissez faire capitalism. This doesn't mean that the definition of socialism changes every time the context does. Of course it means just that. Unless you are humpty dumoty and you choose what a word means. Social security, medicare, age care, progressive taxation are not socialism.  Socialism has some necessary attributes and these are not them. I am talking about 'scientific socialism' the stuff of Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin, Castro, Kim etc - starting with socialising production, capital,  resources, labour, dispensing with regular elections where the socialisation of the economy could be genuinely reversed, thought control, restriction of intellectual liberty etc. Ah - well I don't have time for that sh1t - I'll leave it to the experts.... use defining terms... remember when I discuss Muslim things - I differentiate between Islam and Islamism.. as an example.. for women's things it is Women and feminism, two separate groups..... So when you say Socialism and socialism - it is difficult for people to be on the same page - same as any discussion of national socialism as opposed to National Socialism... sure to bring a bite out of the unwashed.... First Define Your Terms..... then we'll talk............. What is YOUR correct title for Extreme Socialism?  Fasco-Socialism?  Doesn't quite hack it.... You need a new term since the worn-out Communism doesn't do it any more, either... I like Socio-Fascism myself..... same thing, different sheep skin....  8-) This is the Humpty Dumpty argument: words mean what you want them to mean.  "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." You are choosing, mixing and matching, so whetever argument is presented you can easily say, 'define socialism' and when it is defined, you say, "oh, but that's  not what it means to ME!" And then you toss in a word salad of undefined and confused ideas just to keep it all as multi-headed and ever-changing so you never have to clarify what you mean and think because you know one thing for sure, that you are grappling with a lot of contradictory and vague ideas. Your idea of socialism seems to boil down to 'nice' and capitalism as 'nasty'. Here is the ACTUAL meaning of socialism: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Communist_Manifesto https://www.britannica.com/topic/socialism https://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/socialism.asp https://www.thoughtco.com/a-definition-of-socialism-3303637 I agree with Grappler. You often see people go round in circles for pages because they are using the same words but speaking different languages. He is not choosing. He is asking you to be specific so he doesn't have to guess.

I have been specific - I always talked about Marxist 'scientific socialism', supporting my points with quotes and links from authoritative sources.  Never seen any alternative links, definitions, articulations, sources from either of you.
So I am not surprised that the two of you agree. 

You don't appear to have disagreed with anything Grapps actually said. I expect all three of us are in agreement, if only you could get over your apparent fear of what he will do with it.

freediver wrote on Nov 10^th, 2021 at 8:56pm:

You don't appear to have disagreed with anything Grapps actually said. I expect all three of us are in agreement, if only you could get over your apparent fear of what he will do with it.

Free My People!!  Pharoah - Let My People GO!

And as for word salad - I speak English and always say what I mean... Socialism is as varied as the groups that choose to use it - from the United States all the way to.. well .. North Korea.... so what is needed is careful delineation of each different strand... sort of like a multiple Hydra-headed Corona virus... but without necessarily being virulent in all of its strands.....

Hardly my fault that some cannot follow English - I am used to speaking with professors and such, and they always know what I say, and disagree if they choose... to me what I say is just common everyday language - but it stupifies some.....

Had that problem with Gandalf today - he cannot see the see the forest of disrupting the flimsy protections provided by Law for the trees in his eyes from advocating feminist emotion-driven ideas....  steeped in the latter, he knoweth not the difference ....

Hope he's a Labor schill - might work its way back to the Party, that defeat he suffered today with the rhetoric of the current lot... maybe they will learn that their ideas do not always float well in public, as opposed to in the echo chamber of the party room...


Welcome to Grappler Free University - no charge for education - we leap tall buildings of multiple issues at a single bound....

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Nov 10^th, 2021 at 10:59pm:

freediver wrote on Nov 10th, 2021 at 8:56pm: You don't appear to have disagreed with anything Grapps actually said. I expect all three of us are in agreement, if only you could get over your apparent fear of what he will do with it. Free My People!!  Pharoah - Let My People GO! And as for word salad - I speak English and always say what I mean... Socialism is as varied as the groups that choose to use it - from the United States all the way to.. well .. North Korea.... so what is needed is careful delineation of each different strand... sort of like a multiple Hydra-headed Corona virus... but without necessarily being virulent in all of its strands..... Hardly my fault that some cannot follow English - I am used to speaking with professors and such, and they always know what I say, and disagree if they choose... to me what I say is just common everyday language - but it stupifies some..... Had that problem with Gandalf today - he cannot see the see the forest of disrupting the flimsy protections provided by Law for the trees in his eyes from advocating feminist emotion-driven ideas....  steeped in the latter, he knoweth not the difference .... Hope he's a Labor schill - might work its way back to the Party, that defeat he suffered today with the rhetoric of the current lot... maybe they will learn that their ideas do not always float well in public, as opposed to in the echo chamber of the party room... Welcome to Grappler Free University - no charge for education - we leap tall buildings of multiple issues at a single bound....

Well, carefully delineate, then. Go on. I have clearly delineated what I mean and what socialism means. 
You an fd are still on the amorphous,  'it's like anything' word salad level, calling everything that has some social or societal angle 'socialism'.

Socialism as we know it is a mix of capitalism and absolute socialism - even China while being ostensibly communist, has a massive capitalist component.  Even North Korea, held up as the example of a despotic socialist state, is actually a cartel-run socio-capitalist nation that uses capitalist enterprise to further itself when it feels it suits.

What is needed here, as I suggested a long time ago in this discussion, is a term that adequately describes Extreme Socialism, so that the discussion could be freed up. Communism as a term has lost its balls... doesn't have the bite it once did ..... we need a new one.

If we can start there, we can all be on the same page. 

I dunno..... extreme socialist nations are essentially Fascist in action.... controlled by a (self-appointed) elite for essentially their benefit...  Fascialism?

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Nov 11^th, 2021 at 9:54am:

Socialism as we know it is a mix of capitalism and absolute socialism - even China while being ostensibly communist, has a massive capitalist component.

Had a capitalist component.

Deng Xiaoping's great experiment is rapidly being wound back.

Up to something like 10% of the highest ranking among the cartel have been expelled for practising and profiting from Deng and Zheng eras capitalism that had (according to the Xi faction of the cartel) descended into blatant fraud and corruption.

Of course, the truth will be more prosaic, in that the Xi faction is merely reeling in the fish they were happy to let swim in that polluted cartel pond, until it came time to seize absolute power by destroying competing cartel factions.

Orwell had a lot to say on the murderously fractious nature of the Spanish socialists' cartel when they were fighting Franco's fascists... They couldn't help but turn on each other in the middle of an ideology-driven civil war.

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Nov 11^th, 2021 at 9:54am:

Socialism as we know it is a mix of capitalism and absolute socialism - even China while being ostensibly communist, has a massive capitalist component.  Even North Korea, held up as the example of a despotic socialist state, is actually a cartel-run socio-capitalist nation that uses capitalist enterprise to further itself when it feels it suits. What is needed here, as I suggested a long time ago in this discussion, is a term that adequately describes Extreme Socialism, so that the discussion could be freed up. Communism as a term has lost its balls... doesn't have the bite it once did ..... we need a new one. If we can start there, we can all be on the same page.  I dunno..... extreme socialist nations are essentially Fascist in action.... controlled by a (self-appointed) elite for essentially their benefit...  Fascialism?

:D ;D ;D

And what is fascism, then? Capitalism? Extreme?

Just adding more vague, undefined notions to the salad.

Frank wrote on Nov 11^th, 2021 at 10:52am:

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Nov 11th, 2021 at 9:54am: Socialism as we know it is a mix of capitalism and absolute socialism - even China while being ostensibly communist, has a massive capitalist component.  Even North Korea, held up as the example of a despotic socialist state, is actually a cartel-run socio-capitalist nation that uses capitalist enterprise to further itself when it feels it suits. What is needed here, as I suggested a long time ago in this discussion, is a term that adequately describes Extreme Socialism, so that the discussion could be freed up. Communism as a term has lost its balls... doesn't have the bite it once did ..... we need a new one. If we can start there, we can all be on the same page.  I dunno..... extreme socialist nations are essentially Fascist in action.... controlled by a (self-appointed) elite for essentially their benefit...  Fascialism? :D ;D ;D And what is fascism, then? Capitalism? Extreme? Just adding more vague, undefined notions to the salad.

Just trying to establish common terms we can all use on the same page.... only suggestions.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Nov 11^th, 2021 at 10:02am:

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Nov 11th, 2021 at 9:54am: Socialism as we know it is a mix of capitalism and absolute socialism - even China while being ostensibly communist, has a massive capitalist component.  Had a capitalist component. Deng Xiaoping's great experiment is rapidly being wound back. Up to something like 10% of the highest ranking among the cartel have been expelled for practising and profiting from Deng and Zheng eras capitalism that had (according to the Xi faction of the cartel) descended into blatant fraud and corruption. Of course, the truth will be more prosaic, in that the Xi faction is merely reeling in the fish they were happy to let swim in that polluted cartel pond, until it came time to seize absolute power by destroying competing cartel factions. Orwell had a lot to say on the murderously fractious nature of the Spanish socialists' cartel when they were fighting Franco's fascists... They couldn't help but turn on each other in the middle of an ideology-driven civil war.

Ah the old decadent profiteer Imperialist running dogs... The New Cultural Revolution that will restore to the Revolution its fundamental values and return the People's Republic to its real drives and purposes in life...

During the Cultural Revolution, the Gang of Four and other Ultra-Leftists listed nine categories of political-social undesirables; intellectuals were at the bottom of the list and were called the 'stinking Number Nine'.   The Line-up of the undesirables was:-  landlords, rich peasants, counter-revolutionaries, moral degenerates, rightists, renegades, enemy agents, capitalist roaders, intellectuals.

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Nov 11^th, 2021 at 2:22pm:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Nov 11th, 2021 at 10:02am: Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Nov 11th, 2021 at 9:54am: Socialism as we know it is a mix of capitalism and absolute socialism - even China while being ostensibly communist, has a massive capitalist component.  Had a capitalist component. Deng Xiaoping's great experiment is rapidly being wound back. Up to something like 10% of the highest ranking among the cartel have been expelled for practising and profiting from Deng and Zheng eras capitalism that had (according to the Xi faction of the cartel) descended into blatant fraud and corruption. Of course, the truth will be more prosaic, in that the Xi faction is merely reeling in the fish they were happy to let swim in that polluted cartel pond, until it came time to seize absolute power by destroying competing cartel factions. Orwell had a lot to say on the murderously fractious nature of the Spanish socialists' cartel when they were fighting Franco's fascists... They couldn't help but turn on each other in the middle of an ideology-driven civil war. Ah the old decadent profiteer Imperialist running dogs... The New Cultural Revolution that will restore to the Revolution its fundamental values and return the People's Republic to its real drives and purposes in life... During the Cultural Revolution, the Gang of Four and other Ultra-Leftists listed nine categories of political-social undesirables; intellectuals were at the bottom of the list and were called the 'stinking Number Nine'.   The Line-up of the undesirables was:-  landlords, rich peasants, counter-revolutionaries, moral degenerates, rightists, renegades, enemy agents, capitalist roaders, intellectuals.

At the core of all communist revolutions, after the facade of social justice has crumbled, lie the worms of resentment and revenge towards the affluent and intelligent.

Communists do not love the poor... They hate the rich.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Nov 11^th, 2021 at 3:56pm:

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Nov 11th, 2021 at 2:22pm: NorthOfNorth wrote on Nov 11th, 2021 at 10:02am: Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Nov 11th, 2021 at 9:54am: Socialism as we know it is a mix of capitalism and absolute socialism - even China while being ostensibly communist, has a massive capitalist component.  Had a capitalist component. Deng Xiaoping's great experiment is rapidly being wound back. Up to something like 10% of the highest ranking among the cartel have been expelled for practising and profiting from Deng and Zheng eras capitalism that had (according to the Xi faction of the cartel) descended into blatant fraud and corruption. Of course, the truth will be more prosaic, in that the Xi faction is merely reeling in the fish they were happy to let swim in that polluted cartel pond, until it came time to seize absolute power by destroying competing cartel factions. Orwell had a lot to say on the murderously fractious nature of the Spanish socialists' cartel when they were fighting Franco's fascists... They couldn't help but turn on each other in the middle of an ideology-driven civil war. Ah the old decadent profiteer Imperialist running dogs... The New Cultural Revolution that will restore to the Revolution its fundamental values and return the People's Republic to its real drives and purposes in life... During the Cultural Revolution, the Gang of Four and other Ultra-Leftists listed nine categories of political-social undesirables; intellectuals were at the bottom of the list and were called the 'stinking Number Nine'.   The Line-up of the undesirables was:-  landlords, rich peasants, counter-revolutionaries, moral degenerates, rightists, renegades, enemy agents, capitalist roaders, intellectuals. At the core of all communist revolutions, after the facade of social justice has crumbled, lie the worms of resentment and revenge towards the affluent and intelligent. Communists do not love the poor... They hate the rich.

Looking at that list you do see envy and malice and resentment and distrust of intellectuals etc... all based on feelings...

Just reading "A Short History of Stupid"... interesting but flawed, I think. Xitler, of course, is using the excuse of capitalist roading to get rid of any potential opposition.... who will be next on the list?

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Nov 11^th, 2021 at 2:19pm:

Frank wrote on Nov 11th, 2021 at 10:52am: Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Nov 11th, 2021 at 9:54am: Socialism as we know it is a mix of capitalism and absolute socialism - even China while being ostensibly communist, has a massive capitalist component.  Even North Korea, held up as the example of a despotic socialist state, is actually a cartel-run socio-capitalist nation that uses capitalist enterprise to further itself when it feels it suits. What is needed here, as I suggested a long time ago in this discussion, is a term that adequately describes Extreme Socialism, so that the discussion could be freed up. Communism as a term has lost its balls... doesn't have the bite it once did ..... we need a new one. If we can start there, we can all be on the same page.  I dunno..... extreme socialist nations are essentially Fascist in action.... controlled by a (self-appointed) elite for essentially their benefit...  Fascialism? :D ;D ;D And what is fascism, then? Capitalism? Extreme? Just adding more vague, undefined notions to the salad. Just trying to establish common terms we can all use on the same page.... only suggestions.

Tossing in more and more undefined terms is establishing nothing other than your confusion which we are not going to have in common.

"Socialism is a mix of capitalism and absolute socialism".  :o   Absolute socialism - what is that?? Socio-capitalism??   Despotic socialist state ( as if there was any other kind)??  Sounds like ideas you invented and only you know (??) the meaning of.

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Nov 11^th, 2021 at 4:08pm:

Just reading "A Short History of Stupid"... interesting but flawed, I think. Xitler, of course, is using the excuse of capitalist roading to get rid of any potential opposition.... who will be next on the list?

Yes... I believe the Xi faction of the cartel is making the grab for ultimate power that rivals or exceeds that amassed by Mao, himself.

Although, fraud and corruption are not restricted to the non-Xi faction of the cartel. The entire cartel is corrupt and irreformable.

Frank wrote on Nov 11^th, 2021 at 4:19pm:

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Nov 11th, 2021 at 2:19pm: Frank wrote on Nov 11th, 2021 at 10:52am: Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Nov 11th, 2021 at 9:54am: Socialism as we know it is a mix of capitalism and absolute socialism - even China while being ostensibly communist, has a massive capitalist component.  Even North Korea, held up as the example of a despotic socialist state, is actually a cartel-run socio-capitalist nation that uses capitalist enterprise to further itself when it feels it suits. What is needed here, as I suggested a long time ago in this discussion, is a term that adequately describes Extreme Socialism, so that the discussion could be freed up. Communism as a term has lost its balls... doesn't have the bite it once did ..... we need a new one. If we can start there, we can all be on the same page.  I dunno..... extreme socialist nations are essentially Fascist in action.... controlled by a (self-appointed) elite for essentially their benefit...  Fascialism? :D ;D ;D And what is fascism, then? Capitalism? Extreme? Just adding more vague, undefined notions to the salad. Just trying to establish common terms we can all use on the same page.... only suggestions. Tossing in more and more undefined terms is establishing nothing other than your confusion which we are not going to have in common. "Socialism is a mix of capitalism and absolute socialism".  :o   Absolute socialism - what is that?? Socio-capitalism??   Despotic socialist state ( as if there was any other kind)??  Sounds like ideas you invented and only you know (??) the meaning of.

That's where YOU are confused.. Sweden and a few other countries are 'socialist - nobody would call them despotic states.  Like many here on other issues, you seek blacks and whites where there are none... all the cats are grey, I'm afraid.

So I'll say again.... what is needed is a group of terms that define the various combined values of capitalist/socialist states, from Ultra-Socialist to Ultra-Capitalist.

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Nov 11^th, 2021 at 5:56pm:

Frank wrote on Nov 11th, 2021 at 4:19pm: Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Nov 11th, 2021 at 2:19pm: Frank wrote on Nov 11th, 2021 at 10:52am: Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Nov 11th, 2021 at 9:54am: Socialism as we know it is a mix of capitalism and absolute socialism - even China while being ostensibly communist, has a massive capitalist component.  Even North Korea, held up as the example of a despotic socialist state, is actually a cartel-run socio-capitalist nation that uses capitalist enterprise to further itself when it feels it suits. What is needed here, as I suggested a long time ago in this discussion, is a term that adequately describes Extreme Socialism, so that the discussion could be freed up. Communism as a term has lost its balls... doesn't have the bite it once did ..... we need a new one. If we can start there, we can all be on the same page.  I dunno..... extreme socialist nations are essentially Fascist in action.... controlled by a (self-appointed) elite for essentially their benefit...  Fascialism? :D ;D ;D And what is fascism, then? Capitalism? Extreme? Just adding more vague, undefined notions to the salad. Just trying to establish common terms we can all use on the same page.... only suggestions. Tossing in more and more undefined terms is establishing nothing other than your confusion which we are not going to have in common. "Socialism is a mix of capitalism and absolute socialism".  :o   Absolute socialism - what is that?? Socio-capitalism??   Despotic socialist state ( as if there was any other kind)??  Sounds like ideas you invented and only you know (??) the meaning of. That's where YOU are confused.. Sweden and a few other countries are 'socialist - nobody would call them despotic states.

:D :D :D :D

Sweden, Denmark, Norway are - ready? are you sitting down?  - constitutional monarchies. As are The Netherlands, Belgium, UK. None of them are socialist countries.

You are confusing social welfare, social democratic parties, social safety net etc  with socialism. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sAozEkFyuPs&t=18s

Bolivians Organize National Strike Against Socialism
https://www.breitbart.com/latin-america/2021/11/11/bolivians-organize-national-strike-against-socialism/

Frank wrote on Nov 12^th, 2021 at 9:59am:

Bolivians Organize National Strike Against Socialism https://www.breitbart.com/latin-america/2021/11/11/bolivians-organize-national-strike-against-socialism/

Breitbart news? OMG.....

Meanwhile you are apparently content with entrenched poverty and homelessness in OZ. Your-satisfaction with  the status quo in Oz is sickening,  as if your ideological  attack on "socialism"  will achieve anything.

thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 12^th, 2021 at 10:39pm:

Frank wrote on Nov 12th, 2021 at 9:59am: Bolivians Organize National Strike Against Socialism https://www.breitbart.com/latin-america/2021/11/11/bolivians-organize-national-strike-against-socialism/ Breitbart news? OMG..... Meanwhile you are apparently content with entrenched poverty and homelessness in OZ. Your-satisfaction with  the status quo in Oz is sickening,  as if your ideological  attack on "socialism"  will achieve anything.

Toooo fccn Chinese, that shrieking.   
Shove it up your duck.

Frank wrote on Nov 12^th, 2021 at 10:42pm:

Toooo fccn Chinese, that shrieking.    Shove it up your duck.

Ladies and gentlemen, an example of how a RW ideologue reacts when invited to face the reality of entrenched poverty in his own nation.....

Amazing how important socialism is to the right when there has not been a prominent socialist present in over 80 years.

In fact the biggest threat from socialism is the rights socialism for the wealthy which is alive, well and supported by the anti socialists.

Dnarever wrote on Nov 13^th, 2021 at 7:06pm:

Amazing how important socialism is to the right when there has not been a prominent socialist present in over 80 years. In fact the biggest threat from socialism is the rights socialism for the wealthy which is alive, well and supported by the anti socialists.

What IS socialism to your mind, ducky?  Are you able to articulate it? Dare you?

None of thd other pro-socialism bozos here are willing or able to articulate their understanding (?) of socialism.  They think it just means 'noice'.

Frank wrote on Nov 14^th, 2021 at 9:56am:

What IS socialism to your mind, ducky?  Are you able to articulate it? Dare you? None of thd other pro-socialism bozos here are willing or able to articulate their understanding (?) of socialism.  They think it just means 'noice'.

A bit rich coming from you, when my simple question about entrenched poverty elicited a vacuous and vicious ad hominen attack.   

Would YOU care to define 'socialism'? And  what relevance does your definition have to modern politics,   eg in the US where Bernie Sanders defines himself as a 'democratic socialist'? 

Frank wrote on Oct 31^st, 2021 at 8:49pm:

Socialism is an a system of ideas by hypocritical opportunists to beguile the ignorant and the resentful.

Thanks for YOUR definition. Very enlightening.

And you blame entrenched poverty amid extreme wealth on .....who?   

thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 15^th, 2021 at 2:12pm:

Frank wrote on Oct 31st, 2021 at 8:49pm: Socialism is an a system of ideas by hypocritical opportunists to beguile the ignorant and the resentful. Thanks for YOUR definition. Very enlightening. And you blame entrenched poverty amid extreme wealth on .....who?

Ideologues like you.  Who else?
Socialist China has twice the number of billionaires than in the US.Urban households’ per capita income was 29,831 yuan – almost $4,500 a year = $12  a day.
Rural households have a per capita income of only 9,892 yuan – about $4 dollars a day.

... then you need first to determine and substantiate whether or not 'capitalism' is the opposite of socialism, and then lay out a series of terms to define the various kinds of capitalism....

Robber Baron Capitalism is a bit hard on the tongue...
Smash n' Grab also...
Gordon Gecko... well - it alliterates.....

For every one of the multiple kinds of 'socialism', there is likely a form of 'capitalism' that may be its near opposite..... but nothing is fixed....

'bozos', eh - well - I guess that leaves me out since I am seeking to establish common language so we can all be on the same page... pure rational thinking that....

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Nov 15^th, 2021 at 5:39pm:

... then you need first to determine and substantiate whether or not 'capitalism' is the opposite of socialism, and then lay out a series of terms to define the various kinds of capitalism.... Robber Baron Capitalism is a bit hard on the tongue... Smash n' Grab also... Gordon Gecko... well - it alliterates..... For every one of the multiple kinds of 'socialism', there is likely a form of 'capitalism' that may be its near opposite..... but nothing is fixed.... 'bozos', eh - well - I guess that leaves me out since I am seeking to establish common language so we can all be on the same page... pure rational thinking that....

You are master of talking PAST the point.

You are calling for a definition and common language but never offer any clarity or definition, only multiply your random half made-up, half-remembered concepts that need definition themselves.  You have even opened up the territory of 'socialism' and 'capitalism'. so anything is like anything else and so you have escaped all need for clarifying what YOU actually mean by two little Bwianesque quotation marks.
So bozos is correct.

Frank wrote on Nov 11^th, 2021 at 7:50pm:

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Nov 11th, 2021 at 5:56pm: Frank wrote on Nov 11th, 2021 at 4:19pm: Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Nov 11th, 2021 at 2:19pm: Frank wrote on Nov 11th, 2021 at 10:52am: Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Nov 11th, 2021 at 9:54am: Socialism as we know it is a mix of capitalism and absolute socialism - even China while being ostensibly communist, has a massive capitalist component.  Even North Korea, held up as the example of a despotic socialist state, is actually a cartel-run socio-capitalist nation that uses capitalist enterprise to further itself when it feels it suits. What is needed here, as I suggested a long time ago in this discussion, is a term that adequately describes Extreme Socialism, so that the discussion could be freed up. Communism as a term has lost its balls... doesn't have the bite it once did ..... we need a new one. If we can start there, we can all be on the same page.  I dunno..... extreme socialist nations are essentially Fascist in action.... controlled by a (self-appointed) elite for essentially their benefit...  Fascialism? :D ;D ;D And what is fascism, then? Capitalism? Extreme? Just adding more vague, undefined notions to the salad. Just trying to establish common terms we can all use on the same page.... only suggestions. Tossing in more and more undefined terms is establishing nothing other than your confusion which we are not going to have in common. "Socialism is a mix of capitalism and absolute socialism".  :o   Absolute socialism - what is that?? Socio-capitalism??   Despotic socialist state ( as if there was any other kind)??  Sounds like ideas you invented and only you know (??) the meaning of. That's where YOU are confused.. Sweden and a few other countries are 'socialist - nobody would call them despotic states. :D :D :D :D Sweden, Denmark, Norway are - ready? are you sitting down?  - constitutional monarchies. As are The Netherlands, Belgium, UK. None of them are socialist countries. You are confusing social welfare, social democratic parties, social safety net etc  with socialism.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sAozEkFyuPs&t=18s

These countries would best be described as having a social democratic system of government, as does Australia.

rhino wrote on Nov 15^th, 2021 at 10:36pm:

Frank wrote on Nov 11th, 2021 at 7:50pm: Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Nov 11th, 2021 at 5:56pm: Frank wrote on Nov 11th, 2021 at 4:19pm: Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Nov 11th, 2021 at 2:19pm: Frank wrote on Nov 11th, 2021 at 10:52am: Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Nov 11th, 2021 at 9:54am: Socialism as we know it is a mix of capitalism and absolute socialism - even China while being ostensibly communist, has a massive capitalist component.  Even North Korea, held up as the example of a despotic socialist state, is actually a cartel-run socio-capitalist nation that uses capitalist enterprise to further itself when it feels it suits. What is needed here, as I suggested a long time ago in this discussion, is a term that adequately describes Extreme Socialism, so that the discussion could be freed up. Communism as a term has lost its balls... doesn't have the bite it once did ..... we need a new one. If we can start there, we can all be on the same page.  I dunno..... extreme socialist nations are essentially Fascist in action.... controlled by a (self-appointed) elite for essentially their benefit...  Fascialism? :D ;D ;D And what is fascism, then? Capitalism? Extreme? Just adding more vague, undefined notions to the salad. Just trying to establish common terms we can all use on the same page.... only suggestions. Tossing in more and more undefined terms is establishing nothing other than your confusion which we are not going to have in common. "Socialism is a mix of capitalism and absolute socialism".  :o   Absolute socialism - what is that?? Socio-capitalism??   Despotic socialist state ( as if there was any other kind)??  Sounds like ideas you invented and only you know (??) the meaning of. That's where YOU are confused.. Sweden and a few other countries are 'socialist - nobody would call them despotic states. :D :D :D :D Sweden, Denmark, Norway are - ready? are you sitting down?  - constitutional monarchies. As are The Netherlands, Belgium, UK. None of them are socialist countries. You are confusing social welfare, social democratic parties, social safety net etc  with socialism.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sAozEkFyuPs&t=18s These countries would best be described as having a social democratic system of government, as does Australia.

Indeed - one variation on the socialist theme... a fine mix of monarchy, capitalism, cheese and socialism.

Now what is your term for Extreme Socialism in which the state takes all power openly to control everything?  ES is a bit awkward - we need a term with bite... Stalinism had its day.... Maoism a little different... all basically playing Warlord Emperor.... what IS the term for that extreme end of socialism?

Frank wrote on Nov 15^th, 2021 at 4:10pm:

thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 15th, 2021 at 2:12pm: Frank wrote on Oct 31st, 2021 at 8:49pm: Socialism is an a system of ideas by hypocritical opportunists to beguile the ignorant and the resentful. Thanks for YOUR definition. Very enlightening. And you blame entrenched poverty amid extreme wealth on .....who?    Ideologues like you.  Who else? Socialist China has twice the number of billionaires than in the US.Urban households’ per capita income was 29,831 yuan – almost $4,500 a year = $12  a day. Rural households have a per capita income of only 9,892 yuan – about $4 dollars a day.

China has 4 times the US population. Gini inequlaity is actually worse in the US even though US per capita income is 5 times that of China. Not a good look.

Meanwhile Elon Musk is wealthier ($300 billion)  than the bottom 150 of the world's nations. Google the world GDP list)

US global  hegemony, practicing  your evil ideology of self-interest above collective well-being is directly responsible for this insane situation, because the US has enjoyed reserve global currency status since WW2. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TyqgWYIVgQI

An attempted communist “act of repudiation” failed in Cuba on Monday at the home of the family of political prisoner Andy García Lorenzo, where his family took the opportunity to sing protest songs and chant in the faces of its would-be repressors.

García, 23, is among the estimated thousands arrested on July 11, a day during which human rights groups believe nearly 200,000 people on the island took the streets to demand an end to the 62-year-old communist regime there. The Castro dictatorship responded to widespread peaceful protests with disproportionate violence, engaging in public beatings, arrests, and shootings of suspected dissidents – and even witnesses to the protests – in the aftermath of the event.




Everyone loves socialism - except the people.

Frank wrote on Nov 17^th, 2021 at 7:30am:

An attempted communist “act of repudiation” failed in Cuba on Monday at the home of the family of political prisoner Andy García Lorenzo, where his family took the opportunity to sing protest songs and chant in the faces of its would-be repressors. García, 23, is among the estimated thousands arrested on July 11, a day during which human rights groups believe nearly 200,000 people on the island took the streets to demand an end to the 62-year-old communist regime there. The Castro dictatorship responded to widespread peaceful protests with disproportionate violence, engaging in public beatings, arrests, and shootings of suspected dissidents – and even witnesses to the protests – in the aftermath of the event. Everyone loves socialism - except the people.

You can't answer reply #103? Doesn't fit with your ideological anti-'socialist' rant?

Note; politics is a contest between  outcomes generated by private sector self-interest, and collective prosperity achieved by government planning, the latter being  necessary because people have widely different abilities to compete in private sector markets.

The society that best achieves a synthesis of these two opposing principles  via  its political system, will be the most successful in raisng living standards for all.

I can see an uncomprehending  US becoming increasingly desperate in the next decade, as the Chinese economy continues on its unstoppable growth trajectory...

Frank wrote on Nov 17^th, 2021 at 7:30am:

An attempted communist “act of repudiation” failed in Cuba on Monday at the home of the family of political prisoner Andy García Lorenzo, where his family took the opportunity to sing protest songs and chant in the faces of its would-be repressors. García, 23, is among the estimated thousands arrested on July 11, a day during which human rights groups believe nearly 200,000 people on the island took the streets to demand an end to the 62-year-old communist regime there. The Castro dictatorship responded to widespread peaceful protests with disproportionate violence, engaging in public beatings, arrests, and shootings of suspected dissidents – and even witnesses to the protests – in the aftermath of the event. Everyone loves socialism - except the people.

You said 'communism' then segued into 'socialism..... I'm afraid you can't do that kind of maneuver without flaps and full power... you'll stall at the top of your flip......

thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 17^th, 2021 at 12:39pm:

Frank wrote on Nov 17th, 2021 at 7:30am: An attempted communist “act of repudiation” failed in Cuba on Monday at the home of the family of political prisoner Andy García Lorenzo, where his family took the opportunity to sing protest songs and chant in the faces of its would-be repressors. García, 23, is among the estimated thousands arrested on July 11, a day during which human rights groups believe nearly 200,000 people on the island took the streets to demand an end to the 62-year-old communist regime there. The Castro dictatorship responded to widespread peaceful protests with disproportionate violence, engaging in public beatings, arrests, and shootings of suspected dissidents – and even witnesses to the protests – in the aftermath of the event. Everyone loves socialism - except the people. You can't answer reply #103? Doesn't fit with your ideological anti-'socialist' rant? Note; politics is a contest between  outcomes generated by private sector self-interest, and collective prosperity achieved by government planning, the latter being  necessary because people have widely different abilities to compete in private sector markets. The society that best achieves a synthesis of these two opposing principles  via  its political system, will be the most successful in raising living standards for all. I can see an uncomprehending  US becoming increasingly desperate in the next decade, as the Chinese economy continues on its unstoppable growth trajectory...

The Chinese are migrating to the West. Westerners are not migrating to China. Why?
Because human flourishing is NOT just economic, although the US and the West provide a better economic foundation for human flourishing than China, with its $12/day 'success story'.

The worst thing about China and socialism is the brutal, oppressive manner in which the communist vanguard drive, control and stifle their people in a 'competition' with the capitalist West. Like the Soviets, they focus on increasing production numbers of steel, concrete, consumer goods (exported to the West who can pay for them), lengths of rail and roads etc (from a very very low base).

But they never crow about how unhappy their people are - coming in at 82nd, between Congo and Ivory Coast.
https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/happiest-countries-in-the-world

Human Development index:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Development_Index
Top 50 = Western countries plus HK, Singapore, Japan, S Korea and a smattering of oil rich sheikdoms.

China, Cuba, N Korea - nowhere.

Frank wrote on Nov 17^th, 2021 at 2:01pm:

The Chinese are migrating to the West. Westerners are not migrating to China. Why?

Plenty of Westerners set up businesses in China, in the heady days of 10% growth. But now geopolitics (ie US paranoia) is destroying the opportunities.



Quote:

Because human flourishing is NOT just economic, although the US and the West provide a better economic foundation for human flourishing than China, with its $12/day 'success story'.

Er.. was it you who said China has double the number of billionaires as the US?  In any case China has a middle class of 400 million people, bigger than the US. 


Quote:

The worst thing about China and socialism is the brutal, oppressive manner in which the communist vanguard drive, control and stifle their people in a 'competition' with the capitalist West.

Actually "socialist" China has strayed down the free market road for too long, hence Xi's call to strive for common prosperity, now that a middle class bigger than the US has been achieved. Meanwhile half the US population can't find $600 dollars from savings in an emergency, no nice holidays or freedom from financial stress for them.

  https://www.cnbc.com/2021/01/11/just-39percent-of-americans-could-pay-for-a-1000-emergency-expense.html


Quote:

Like the Soviets, they focus on increasing production numbers of steel, concrete, consumer goods (exported to the West who can pay for them), lengths of rail and roads etc (from a very very low base).

No they are focusing on 'common prosperity'...and developing world leading AI and IT.


Quote:

But they never crow about how unhappy their people are - coming in at 82nd, between Congo and Ivory Coast. https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/happiest-countries-in-the-world Human Development index: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Development_Index Top 50 = Western countries plus HK, Singapore, Japan, S Korea and a smattering of oil rich sheikdoms. China, Cuba, N Korea - nowhere.

Chinese satisfaction with their government, >90%.

https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2020/07/long-term-survey-reveals-chinese-government-satisfaction/

T"he survey team found that compared to public opinion patterns in the U.S., in China there was very high satisfaction with the central government. In 2016, the last year the survey was conducted, 95.5 percent of respondents were either “relatively satisfied” or “highly satisfied” with Beijing"



The US? Hyper-partisanship in a divided society resulting in the Jan 6th riots, and claims of a rigged election.

Socialism?

---

thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 19^th, 2021 at 12:16am:

Chinese satisfaction with their government, >90%. https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2020/07/long-term-survey-reveals-chinese-government-satisfaction/ T"he survey team found that compared to public opinion patterns in the U.S., in China there was very high satisfaction with the central government. In 2016, the last year the survey was conducted, 95.5 percent of respondents were either “relatively satisfied” or “highly satisfied” with Beijing"

;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Thank you, that made my day.

Frank wrote on Nov 19^th, 2021 at 7:25am:

Thank you, that made my day.

Good, but it's a pity you are content with - blind to - the hyper-partisanship and entrenched poverty in your own nation, while bleating on about 'socialism', whatever that is.

thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 20^th, 2021 at 2:16pm:

Frank wrote on Nov 19th, 2021 at 7:25am: Thank you, that made my day. Good, but it's a pity you are content with - blind to - the hyper-partisanship and entrenched poverty in your own nation, while bleating on about 'socialism', whatever that is.

Oh? So now you don't know what socialism is but defend and advocate for it anyway.  I quoted authoritative sources and provided links from https://www.marxists.org/ .  If you still dont know what socialism is then you will never know. Using emotionally incontinent Global Times Chinese socialis rhetoric  - hyper, entrenched, bleating - indicates that you are actively blind to what it is - or you are a very eager little propagandist FOR it.

Frank wrote on Nov 20^th, 2021 at 2:34pm:

Oh? So now you don't know what socialism is but defend and advocate for it anyway.

No, I advocate for sustainable shared prosperity.

Whereas you turn a blind eye the the hyper-partisanship and entrenched poverty ravaging the democracies, while bleating about historical examples of "socialism" that have no relevance to today's national and global macro-economic  problems.   

Frank wrote on Nov 14^th, 2021 at 9:56am:

Dnarever wrote on Nov 13th, 2021 at 7:06pm: Amazing how important socialism is to the right when there has not been a prominent socialist present in over 80 years. In fact the biggest threat from socialism is the rights socialism for the wealthy which is alive, well and supported by the anti socialists. What IS socialism to your mind, ducky?  Are you able to articulate it? Dare you? None of thd other pro-socialism bozos here are willing or able to articulate their understanding (?) of socialism.  They think it just means 'noice'.

Who ever said that I am pro socialism. You have repeatedly proven that you have no idea what it is. Is this the reason you want for me to tell you ?

Dnarever wrote on Nov 20^th, 2021 at 8:00pm:

Frank wrote on Nov 14th, 2021 at 9:56am: Dnarever wrote on Nov 13th, 2021 at 7:06pm: Amazing how important socialism is to the right when there has not been a prominent socialist present in over 80 years. In fact the biggest threat from socialism is the rights socialism for the wealthy which is alive, well and supported by the anti socialists. What IS socialism to your mind, ducky?  Are you able to articulate it? Dare you? None of thd other pro-socialism bozos here are willing or able to articulate their understanding (?) of socialism.  They think it just means 'noice'. Who ever said that I am pro socialism. You have repeatedly proven that you have no idea what it is. Is this the reason you want for me to tell you ?

What IS socialism to your mind, ducky? Are you able to say?

No.

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/ae/de/ba/aedebab319e07e1664e3f6d6514658aa.jpg

Frank wrote on Nov 21^st, 2021 at 12:03am:

What IS socialism to your mind, ducky? Are you able to say?

Are YOU able to consider an economy that works for all?

....which is Bernie Sanders' definition of 'socialism', not bogged down by historical precedents which have nothing to do with the current global reality, in which the market economy has achieved global dominance after the fall of the USSR.

You are just using your anti-"socialist"  rant to avoid  implementation of an economy that works for all,  to serve your own greedy purposes.

thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 20^th, 2021 at 5:05pm:

Frank wrote on Nov 20th, 2021 at 2:34pm: Oh? So now you don't know what socialism is but defend and advocate for it anyway.  No, I advocate for sustainable shared prosperity. Whereas you turn a blind eye the the hyper-partisanship and entrenched poverty ravaging the democracies, while bleating about historical examples of "socialism" that have no relevance to today's national and global macro-economic  problems.

No you don't! You advocate for sitting around and feeling entitled to grab as many free handouts for yourself as you can while others do the hard yards.

Not only are YOU greedy and selfish....you're also dishonest in describing yourself as an advocate for sustainable shared prosperity. Those key words are the very basis of left wing BS extremist propaganda.

Actually while I have you here....where are you posting from? You're definitely not from Australia. 

Edit : No need to answer. You're a paid troll posting from outside Australia. All good.

thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 22^nd, 2021 at 3:04pm:

Frank wrote on Nov 21st, 2021 at 12:03am: What IS socialism to your mind, ducky? Are you able to say? Are YOU able to consider an economy that works for all? ....which is Bernie Sanders' definition of 'socialism', not bogged down by historical precedents which have nothing to do with the current global reality, in which the market economy has achieved global dominance after the fall of the USSR. You are just using your anti-"socialist"  rant to avoid  implementation of an economy that works for all,  to serve your own greedy purposes.

Every economy works for all.  Just not equally, regardless of effort and contribution.  The question is - what to reward and what not to.
Equality - ie an economy that works for all,  regardless of contribution and effort - is idiotic. It's the socialist eyewash that seduces the stupid, the resentful and the envious .

Socialism is one of the greatest ideals... But, like all ideals, the closer you get to them, the greater the cost... i.e. If everyone's equal, then no one can be greater than, nor rise above anyone else.

And then it becomes insidious, such that it is an imposed gravity to all those who can and want to rise as their ability would take them.

thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 17^th, 2021 at 12:39pm:

I can see an uncomprehending  US becoming increasingly desperate in the next decade, as the Chinese economy continues on its unstoppable growth trajectory...

I bet you don't see anything from that little dark dingy cubicle you're posting from.

And I also bet you're an external paid troll too.

So how much does Chairman Xi Jinping pay you for each post you make from your little cubicle there?

1 or 2 cups of noodles per day?

NorthOfNorth wrote on Nov 22^nd, 2021 at 9:00pm:

Socialism is one of the greatest ideals... But, like all ideals, the closer you get to them, the greater the cost... i.e. If everyone's equal, then no one can be greater than, nor rise above anyone else. And then it becomes insidious, such that it is an imposed gravity to all those who can and want to rise as their ability would take them.

There is nothing in Socialism that dictates one cannot strive for excellence. The point is that  the roots get nourished, not just the top of the tree.

Frank wrote on Nov 22^nd, 2021 at 8:35pm:

thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 22nd, 2021 at 3:04pm: Frank wrote on Nov 21st, 2021 at 12:03am: What IS socialism to your mind, ducky? Are you able to say? Are YOU able to consider an economy that works for all? ....which is Bernie Sanders' definition of 'socialism', not bogged down by historical precedents which have nothing to do with the current global reality, in which the market economy has achieved global dominance after the fall of the USSR. You are just using your anti-"socialist"  rant to avoid  implementation of an economy that works for all,  to serve your own greedy purposes. Every economy works for all.  Just not equally, regardless of effort and contribution.  The question is - what to reward and what not to. Equality - ie an economy that works for all,  regardless of contribution and effort - is idiotic. It's the socialist eyewash that seduces the stupid, the resentful and the envious .

So how do those 'envious' etc get a shot at the big time?  Just asking.....

For those of you with a mind, I plague every ideologist - I play no favourites here.... or anywhere else....

How does a poor boy with a huge IQ get to be a doctor when his parents beat him, starved him, deprived him, and punished him for being born, and his entire society worked against him since he was a peasant? By accepting that private school twerps who have no real idea should be the top guns?

Grow me a life.... you might learn something from doing so.

mothra wrote on Nov 22^nd, 2021 at 11:41pm:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Nov 22nd, 2021 at 9:00pm: Socialism is one of the greatest ideals... But, like all ideals, the closer you get to them, the greater the cost... i.e. If everyone's equal, then no one can be greater than, nor rise above anyone else. And then it becomes insidious, such that it is an imposed gravity to all those who can and want to rise as their ability would take them. There is nothing in Socialism that dictates one cannot strive for excellence. The point is that  the roots get nourished, not just the top of the tree.

Fair point - as long as all are treated equally...

mothra wrote on Nov 22^nd, 2021 at 11:41pm:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Nov 22nd, 2021 at 9:00pm: Socialism is one of the greatest ideals... But, like all ideals, the closer you get to them, the greater the cost... i.e. If everyone's equal, then no one can be greater than, nor rise above anyone else. And then it becomes insidious, such that it is an imposed gravity to all those who can and want to rise as their ability would take them. There is nothing in Socialism that dictates one cannot strive for excellence. The point is that  the roots get nourished, not just the top of the tree.

That's true. The ideal of socialism is noble.

The Marxist, 'From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs', could have been lifted from the bible.

Until the 'realpolitik' of human nature is applied to it.

Sure, to each according to his needs, and when members of a privileged power elite decide that a government-purchased Maserati and holiday homes are in accordance with their needs?

How do they pay for privileging the elites? By 'economising' on the basic needs of the masses.

As was a common joke in eastern Europe, 'They pretend to pay us and we pretend to work'.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2021 at 5:48am:

mothra wrote on Nov 22nd, 2021 at 11:41pm: NorthOfNorth wrote on Nov 22nd, 2021 at 9:00pm: Socialism is one of the greatest ideals... But, like all ideals, the closer you get to them, the greater the cost... i.e. If everyone's equal, then no one can be greater than, nor rise above anyone else. And then it becomes insidious, such that it is an imposed gravity to all those who can and want to rise as their ability would take them. There is nothing in Socialism that dictates one cannot strive for excellence. The point is that  the roots get nourished, not just the top of the tree. That's true. The ideal of socialism is noble. The Marxist, 'From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs', could have been lifted from the bible. Until the 'realpolitik' of human nature is applied to it. Sure, to each according to his needs, and when members of a privileged power elite decide that a government-purchased Maserati and holiday homes are in accordance with their needs? How do they pay for privileging the elites? By 'economising' on the basic needs of the masses. As was a common joke in eastern Europe, 'They pretend to pay us and we pretend to work'.

Instead of tiredly relaying worst case scenarios from the past, think upon how aspects of Socialism are applied to the most successful countries on the planet.

If you need a nudge, have a look at Scandinavia.

https://www.ozpolitic.com/album/forum-attachments/Socialism.jpg

Bobby. wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2021 at 6:52am:

https://www.ozpolitic.com/album/forum-attachments/Socialism.jpg

Mice don't actually like cheese overly, and it is very bad for them.

Just thought something educational should come out of your ridiculous meme.

mothra wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2021 at 6:50am:

Instead of tiredly relaying worst case scenarios from the past, think upon how aspects of Socialism are applied to the most successful countries on the planet. If you need a nudge, have a look at Scandinavia.

Yes, the Scandinavian countries are the usual goto's for the success of socialism established by popular demand.

They are also constitutional monarchies (Scandinavia being Norway, Sweden, and Denmark).

It is notable that those European countries with constitutional monarchies tend to be remarkably stable and peaceful.

Maybe its constitutional monarchies that deliver the stability which many ascribe to socialism (particularly regarding Scandinavia).

mothra wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2021 at 6:50am:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Nov 23rd, 2021 at 5:48am: mothra wrote on Nov 22nd, 2021 at 11:41pm: NorthOfNorth wrote on Nov 22nd, 2021 at 9:00pm: Socialism is one of the greatest ideals... But, like all ideals, the closer you get to them, the greater the cost... i.e. If everyone's equal, then no one can be greater than, nor rise above anyone else. And then it becomes insidious, such that it is an imposed gravity to all those who can and want to rise as their ability would take them. There is nothing in Socialism that dictates one cannot strive for excellence. The point is that  the roots get nourished, not just the top of the tree. That's true. The ideal of socialism is noble. The Marxist, 'From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs', could have been lifted from the bible. Until the 'realpolitik' of human nature is applied to it. Sure, to each according to his needs, and when members of a privileged power elite decide that a government-purchased Maserati and holiday homes are in accordance with their needs? How do they pay for privileging the elites? By 'economising' on the basic needs of the masses. As was a common joke in eastern Europe, 'They pretend to pay us and we pretend to work'. Instead of tiredly relaying worst case scenarios from the past, think upon how aspects of Socialism are applied to the most successful countries on the planet. If you need a nudge, have a look at Scandinavia.

;D ;D

You are confusing social services and social cohesion and solidarity with socialism. None of the Scandinavian countries are socialist, never were.
If China and North Korea were like Sweden we would have no problems with them. But, alas, they are socialists, so we have problems.

https://youtu.be/sAozEkFyuPs

NorthOfNorth wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2021 at 7:01am:

mothra wrote on Nov 23rd, 2021 at 6:50am: Instead of tiredly relaying worst case scenarios from the past, think upon how aspects of Socialism are applied to the most successful countries on the planet. If you need a nudge, have a look at Scandinavia. Yes, the Scandinavian countries are the usual goto's for the success of socialism established by popular demand. They are also constitutional monarchies (Scandinavia being Norway, Sweden, and Denmark). It is notable that those European countries with constitutional monarchies tend to be remarkably stable and peaceful. Maybe its constitutional monarchies that deliver the stability which many ascribe to socialism (particularly regarding Scandinavia).

And maybe it's because the overwhelming number of citizens are housed, educated, fed, employed, medicated and the beneficiaries of benevolent justice?

Frank wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2021 at 7:03am:

mothra wrote on Nov 23rd, 2021 at 6:50am: NorthOfNorth wrote on Nov 23rd, 2021 at 5:48am: mothra wrote on Nov 22nd, 2021 at 11:41pm: NorthOfNorth wrote on Nov 22nd, 2021 at 9:00pm: Socialism is one of the greatest ideals... But, like all ideals, the closer you get to them, the greater the cost... i.e. If everyone's equal, then no one can be greater than, nor rise above anyone else. And then it becomes insidious, such that it is an imposed gravity to all those who can and want to rise as their ability would take them. There is nothing in Socialism that dictates one cannot strive for excellence. The point is that  the roots get nourished, not just the top of the tree. That's true. The ideal of socialism is noble. The Marxist, 'From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs', could have been lifted from the bible. Until the 'realpolitik' of human nature is applied to it. Sure, to each according to his needs, and when members of a privileged power elite decide that a government-purchased Maserati and holiday homes are in accordance with their needs? How do they pay for privileging the elites? By 'economising' on the basic needs of the masses. As was a common joke in eastern Europe, 'They pretend to pay us and we pretend to work'. Instead of tiredly relaying worst case scenarios from the past, think upon how aspects of Socialism are applied to the most successful countries on the planet. If you need a nudge, have a look at Scandinavia. ;D ;D You are confusing social services and social cohesion and solidarity with socialism. None of the Scandinavian countries are socialist, never were. https://youtu.be/sAozEkFyuPs

They all have strong Socialist policies.

mothra wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2021 at 7:05am:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Nov 23rd, 2021 at 7:01am: mothra wrote on Nov 23rd, 2021 at 6:50am: Instead of tiredly relaying worst case scenarios from the past, think upon how aspects of Socialism are applied to the most successful countries on the planet. If you need a nudge, have a look at Scandinavia. Yes, the Scandinavian countries are the usual goto's for the success of socialism established by popular demand. They are also constitutional monarchies (Scandinavia being Norway, Sweden, and Denmark). It is notable that those European countries with constitutional monarchies tend to be remarkably stable and peaceful. Maybe its constitutional monarchies that deliver the stability which many ascribe to socialism (particularly regarding Scandinavia). And maybe it's because the overwhelming number of citizens are housed, educated, fed, employed, medicated and the beneficiaries of benevolent justice?

Isn't that an example of respecting human dignity, rather than necessarily a result of political socialism?

mothra wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2021 at 7:06am:

Frank wrote on Nov 23rd, 2021 at 7:03am: mothra wrote on Nov 23rd, 2021 at 6:50am: NorthOfNorth wrote on Nov 23rd, 2021 at 5:48am: mothra wrote on Nov 22nd, 2021 at 11:41pm: NorthOfNorth wrote on Nov 22nd, 2021 at 9:00pm: Socialism is one of the greatest ideals... But, like all ideals, the closer you get to them, the greater the cost... i.e. If everyone's equal, then no one can be greater than, nor rise above anyone else. And then it becomes insidious, such that it is an imposed gravity to all those who can and want to rise as their ability would take them. There is nothing in Socialism that dictates one cannot strive for excellence. The point is that  the roots get nourished, not just the top of the tree. That's true. The ideal of socialism is noble. The Marxist, 'From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs', could have been lifted from the bible. Until the 'realpolitik' of human nature is applied to it. Sure, to each according to his needs, and when members of a privileged power elite decide that a government-purchased Maserati and holiday homes are in accordance with their needs? How do they pay for privileging the elites? By 'economising' on the basic needs of the masses. As was a common joke in eastern Europe, 'They pretend to pay us and we pretend to work'. Instead of tiredly relaying worst case scenarios from the past, think upon how aspects of Socialism are applied to the most successful countries on the planet. If you need a nudge, have a look at Scandinavia. ;D ;D You are confusing social services and social cohesion and solidarity with socialism. None of the Scandinavian countries are socialist, never were. https://youtu.be/sAozEkFyuPs They all have strong Socialist policies.

They don't. They have social democratic policies which are as far from socialism as national socialist policies. Socialism nationalises capital, social democracy does not. Huge difference, the heart of the matter.
All of the West has social democratic policies, a.k.a are welfare states. But they are not socialists.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2021 at 7:15am:

mothra wrote on Nov 23rd, 2021 at 7:05am: NorthOfNorth wrote on Nov 23rd, 2021 at 7:01am: mothra wrote on Nov 23rd, 2021 at 6:50am: Instead of tiredly relaying worst case scenarios from the past, think upon how aspects of Socialism are applied to the most successful countries on the planet. If you need a nudge, have a look at Scandinavia. Yes, the Scandinavian countries are the usual goto's for the success of socialism established by popular demand. They are also constitutional monarchies (Scandinavia being Norway, Sweden, and Denmark). It is notable that those European countries with constitutional monarchies tend to be remarkably stable and peaceful. Maybe its constitutional monarchies that deliver the stability which many ascribe to socialism (particularly regarding Scandinavia). And maybe it's because the overwhelming number of citizens are housed, educated, fed, employed, medicated and the beneficiaries of benevolent justice? Isn't that an example of respecting human dignity, rather than necessarily a result of political socialism?

And what do you think is the objective of Socialism if not human dignity?

Frank wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2021 at 7:18am:

mothra wrote on Nov 23rd, 2021 at 7:06am: Frank wrote on Nov 23rd, 2021 at 7:03am: mothra wrote on Nov 23rd, 2021 at 6:50am: NorthOfNorth wrote on Nov 23rd, 2021 at 5:48am: mothra wrote on Nov 22nd, 2021 at 11:41pm: NorthOfNorth wrote on Nov 22nd, 2021 at 9:00pm: Socialism is one of the greatest ideals... But, like all ideals, the closer you get to them, the greater the cost... i.e. If everyone's equal, then no one can be greater than, nor rise above anyone else. And then it becomes insidious, such that it is an imposed gravity to all those who can and want to rise as their ability would take them. There is nothing in Socialism that dictates one cannot strive for excellence. The point is that  the roots get nourished, not just the top of the tree. That's true. The ideal of socialism is noble. The Marxist, 'From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs', could have been lifted from the bible. Until the 'realpolitik' of human nature is applied to it. Sure, to each according to his needs, and when members of a privileged power elite decide that a government-purchased Maserati and holiday homes are in accordance with their needs? How do they pay for privileging the elites? By 'economising' on the basic needs of the masses. As was a common joke in eastern Europe, 'They pretend to pay us and we pretend to work'. Instead of tiredly relaying worst case scenarios from the past, think upon how aspects of Socialism are applied to the most successful countries on the planet. If you need a nudge, have a look at Scandinavia. ;D ;D You are confusing social services and social cohesion and solidarity with socialism. None of the Scandinavian countries are socialist, never were. https://youtu.be/sAozEkFyuPs They all have strong Socialist policies. They don't. They have social democratic policies which are as far from socialism as national socialist policies. Socialism nationalises capital, social democracy does not. Huge difference, the heart of the matter. All of the West has social democratic policies, a.k.a are welfare states. But they are not socialists.

Nobody said they were Socialists, Frank. Defensive much?

What was said, and what is demonstrably true, is that they have implemented Socialist policies into their system of government. As have we.

They've done it more though, and they are doing far better than we. Although we're in there swinging. Need to get the lNp out before too much damage is done.

mothra wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2021 at 7:21am:

And what do you think is the objective of Socialism if not human dignity?

By analogy, fish swimming in the same stream do not have to be the same species. If they could talk, maybe they would not be able to define water.

Socialism is not imposed in Scandinavia. Scandinavian social outcomes (their acting on a sense of decency) are evoked by the nature of the people... If the political movement of socialism did not exist or became extinct, it's almost certain the Scandinavians would not need any imposed political sensibility to act the way they do.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2021 at 7:29am:

mothra wrote on Nov 23rd, 2021 at 7:21am: And what do you think is the objective of Socialism if not human dignity? By analogy, fish swimming in the same stream do not have to be the same species. If they could talk, maybe they would not be able to define water. Socialism is not imposed in Scandinavia. Scandinavian social outcomes (their acting on a sense of decency) are evoked by the nature of the people... If the political movement of socialism did not exist or became extinct, it's almost certain the Scandinavians would not need any imposed political sensibility to act the way they do.

Both conjecture and semantics.

The best of Australia ahres likeness with Scandu=inavia. You crediting Liz?

Socialism surpassed the status quo of Constitutional Monarchies ... and the clever ones have adapted it.

mothra wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2021 at 7:36am:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Nov 23rd, 2021 at 7:29am: mothra wrote on Nov 23rd, 2021 at 7:21am: And what do you think is the objective of Socialism if not human dignity? By analogy, fish swimming in the same stream do not have to be the same species. If they could talk, maybe they would not be able to define water. Socialism is not imposed in Scandinavia. Scandinavian social outcomes (their acting on a sense of decency) are evoked by the nature of the people... If the political movement of socialism did not exist or became extinct, it's almost certain the Scandinavians would not need any imposed political sensibility to act the way they do. Both conjecture and semantics. The best of Australia ahres likeness with Scandu=inavia. You crediting Liz? Socialism surpassed the status quo of Constitutional Monarchies ... and the clever ones have adapted it.

What else explains retaining the British monarch as the Australian head of state?

Australians have a deep sensibility towards egalitarianism, which can effectively explain the evolving of Australian society without invoking the effects of political socialism.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2021 at 7:54am:

mothra wrote on Nov 23rd, 2021 at 7:36am: NorthOfNorth wrote on Nov 23rd, 2021 at 7:29am: mothra wrote on Nov 23rd, 2021 at 7:21am: And what do you think is the objective of Socialism if not human dignity? By analogy, fish swimming in the same stream do not have to be the same species. If they could talk, maybe they would not be able to define water. Socialism is not imposed in Scandinavia. Scandinavian social outcomes (their acting on a sense of decency) are evoked by the nature of the people... If the political movement of socialism did not exist or became extinct, it's almost certain the Scandinavians would not need any imposed political sensibility to act the way they do. Both conjecture and semantics. The best of Australia ahres likeness with Scandu=inavia. You crediting Liz? Socialism surpassed the status quo of Constitutional Monarchies ... and the clever ones have adapted it. What else explains retaining the British monarch as the Australian head of state? Australians have a deep sensibility towards egalitarianism, which can effectively explain the evolving of Australian society without invoking the effects of political socialism.

Again, you;re just playing semantics.'

The fact f the matter is both AUstralia and Scandinavia have aspects of Socialism embedded in our societies. And despite your  claims to the contrary, such was not als=ways the case.

mothra wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2021 at 7:58am:

Again, you;re just playing semantics.' The fact f the matter is both AUstralia and Scandinavia have aspects of Socialism embedded in our societies. And despite your  claims to the contrary, such was not als=ways the case.

Correlation is not causation.

Just societies do not need a philosophy of imposed political socialism to exist.

In fact, the imposition of political socialism is almost certainly the catalyst for reactionary anti-socialism, which requires of the state to impose increasingly more restrictions on the people, that can descend, ultimately, into totalitarianism.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2021 at 8:02am:

mothra wrote on Nov 23rd, 2021 at 7:58am: Again, you;re just playing semantics.' The fact f the matter is both AUstralia and Scandinavia have aspects of Socialism embedded in our societies. And despite your  claims to the contrary, such was not als=ways the case. Correlation is not causation. Just societies do not need a philosophy of imposed political socialism to exist. In fact, the imposition of political socialism is almost certainly the catalyst for reactionary anti-socialism, which requires of the state to impose increasingly more restrictions on the people, that can descend, ultimately, into totalitarianism.

What a load of hysterical nonsense. Societies in this day and age are sophisticated enough to put in checks and balances against despotism.

Just accept, although you alre3ady did and i'm bemused as to why you've backtracked, that Socialism has some fanntastic ideas and  whether or not those ideas have been conveniently coincidentally applied by all of these countries that are highly successful or not, they remain fabulous ideas.

The rest is just your rather tedious semantics. Think i'll leave it here.

mothra wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2021 at 7:24am:

Frank wrote on Nov 23rd, 2021 at 7:18am: mothra wrote on Nov 23rd, 2021 at 7:06am: Frank wrote on Nov 23rd, 2021 at 7:03am: mothra wrote on Nov 23rd, 2021 at 6:50am: NorthOfNorth wrote on Nov 23rd, 2021 at 5:48am: mothra wrote on Nov 22nd, 2021 at 11:41pm: NorthOfNorth wrote on Nov 22nd, 2021 at 9:00pm: Socialism is one of the greatest ideals... But, like all ideals, the closer you get to them, the greater the cost... i.e. If everyone's equal, then no one can be greater than, nor rise above anyone else. And then it becomes insidious, such that it is an imposed gravity to all those who can and want to rise as their ability would take them. There is nothing in Socialism that dictates one cannot strive for excellence. The point is that  the roots get nourished, not just the top of the tree. That's true. The ideal of socialism is noble. The Marxist, 'From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs', could have been lifted from the bible. Until the 'realpolitik' of human nature is applied to it. Sure, to each according to his needs, and when members of a privileged power elite decide that a government-purchased Maserati and holiday homes are in accordance with their needs? How do they pay for privileging the elites? By 'economising' on the basic needs of the masses. As was a common joke in eastern Europe, 'They pretend to pay us and we pretend to work'. Instead of tiredly relaying worst case scenarios from the past, think upon how aspects of Socialism are applied to the most successful countries on the planet. If you need a nudge, have a look at Scandinavia. ;D ;D You are confusing social services and social cohesion and solidarity with socialism. None of the Scandinavian countries are socialist, never were. https://youtu.be/sAozEkFyuPs They all have strong Socialist policies. They don't. They have social democratic policies which are as far from socialism as national socialist policies. Socialism nationalises capital, social democracy does not. Huge difference, the heart of the matter. All of the West has social democratic policies, a.k.a are welfare states. But they are not socialists. Nobody said they were Socialists, Frank. Defensive much? What was said, and what is demonstrably true, is that they have implemented Socialist policies into their system of government. As have we. They've done it more though, and they are doing far better than we. Although we're in there swinging. Need to get the lNp out before too much damage is done.

I am sensing slipperiness: they are not Socialists, they just implemented Socialist policies.

But welfare provisions are not Socialist policies. They are what Bismarck called ' practical Christian" policies ( as North alluded).

Otto von Bismarck established the first welfare state in a modern industrial society, with social-welfare legislation, in 1880s Imperial Germany. Bismarck extended the privileges of the Junker social class to ordinary Germans. His 17 November 1881 Imperial Message to the Reichstag used the term "practical Christianity" to describe his program. German laws from this era also insured workers against industrial risks inherent in the workplace. (Wiki).


Socialism - this thread's topic- is the second stage of the Marxist-Leninist political program, between the dictatorship of the proletariat and communism. Socialism starts with the nationalisation of capital, land, resources. Without that, it's not socialism.
Welfare is not socislism. What you and others are calling socialism is social democracy.

mothra wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2021 at 8:11am:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Nov 23rd, 2021 at 8:02am: mothra wrote on Nov 23rd, 2021 at 7:58am: Again, you;re just playing semantics.' The fact f the matter is both AUstralia and Scandinavia have aspects of Socialism embedded in our societies. And despite your  claims to the contrary, such was not als=ways the case. Correlation is not causation. Just societies do not need a philosophy of imposed political socialism to exist. In fact, the imposition of political socialism is almost certainly the catalyst for reactionary anti-socialism, which requires of the state to impose increasingly more restrictions on the people, that can descend, ultimately, into totalitarianism. What a load of hysterical nonsense. Societies in this day and age are sophisticated enough to put in checks and balances against despotism.

Like the Chinese cartel? North Korea? Afghanistan? Myanmar? Saudi Arabia? Venezuela? Uzbekistan? Belarus? Eritrea?....

NorthOfNorth wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2021 at 5:48am:

The Marxist, 'From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs', could have been lifted from the bible.

Correct; but the 2nd part of that famous phrase needs modification, to take account of the role of incentive and greed in the productivity of individuals. In other words, equality of outcome is not desirable, to maximize productivity; "need" must be modified by reward, meaning that some will have greater access to discretionary spending than others, owing to greater contribution.

Now the value of the particular contribution is up for debate, and this is where the Job Guarantee of MMT comes in: there is no special contribution made by the CEO of Colacola who is flogging diabetes and obesity (ie junk consumerism) than the worker conscientiously tending a public garden. In fact the latter adds to the community's amenity, while the former destroys the community' health.


Quote:

Until the 'realpolitik' of human nature is applied to it. Sure, to each according to his needs, and when members of a privileged power elite decide that a government-purchased Maserati and holiday homes are in accordance with their needs? How do they pay for privileging the elites? By 'economising' on the basic needs of the masses. As was a common joke in eastern Europe, 'They pretend to pay us and we pretend to work'.

Correct, and addressed above.

Given the acceptance of the  current 'invisible hand'  market economy, established in most of the world since the collapse of the USSR, MMT offers a way to balance public sector outcomes, on behalf of 'common prosperity'; with private sector outcomes, on behalf of private greed and personal enrichment.

John Smith wrote on Oct 31^st, 2021 at 8:51pm:

who invented socialism?

A welsh textiles manufacturer and philanthropist, Robert Owen.

Lisa Jones wrote on Nov 22^nd, 2021 at 8:22pm:

No you don't! You advocate for sitting around and feeling entitled to grab as many free handouts for yourself as you can while others do the hard yards.

Oh dear, your 'Pavlov dog'-like interpretation the phrase "shared prosperity" has resulted in you erroneously telling me what I advocate..

In fact I am advocating the first part of Marx's famous phrase "From each according to his ability...."

ie, participation in the economy at above poverty level, because a just, functional economy  is one which guarantees above poverty participation, according to ability.

(The 2nd part of Marx's statement "to each according to his needs" doesn't take account of the role of incentivizing individual greed in productivity, which is why the soviet model failed).


Quote:

Not only are YOU greedy and selfish....you're also dishonest in describing yourself as an advocate for sustainable shared prosperity. Those key words are the very basis of left wing BS extremist propaganda.

Er.... back to 'shared prosperity'... or "an economy that works for all" .... or 'common prosperity', it's perfectly achievable, in terms of the explanation I outlined above.

Your apology for the ignorant ad hominem  is accepted .


Quote:

Actually while I have you here....where are you posting from? You're definitely not from Australia.  Edit : No need to answer. You're a paid troll posting from outside Australia. All good.

I'm here to destroy your 'survival of the fittest', 'poverty is deserved',  'private wealth above collective well-being', 'sovereignty of the individual' evil ideology.

Nom de Plume wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2021 at 4:47pm:

A welsh textiles manufacturer and philanthropist, Robert Owen.

Nice to gain interesting information like this,  a relief from  the usual ideological rants from the Right, when discussing 'socialism'.

thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2021 at 4:04pm:

Now the value of the particular contribution is up for debate, and this is where the Job Guarantee of MMT comes in: there is no special contribution made by the CEO of Colacola who is flogging diabetes and obesity (ie junk consumerism) than the worker conscientiously tending a public garden. In fact the latter adds to the community's amenity, while the former destroys the community' health.

You don't have to buy and consume Colacola, you know.
And the Gulags and various re-education camps are seen as 'public gardens' for the greater good.
I am all for the greater public good as long as it's not some monster like Stalin, Mao, Xi or Kim is telling me what it is.



Quote:

Given the acceptance of the  current 'invisible hand'  market economy, established in most of the world since the collapse of the USSR, MMT offers a way to balance public sector outcomes, on behalf of 'common prosperity'; with private sector outcomes, on behalf of private greed and personal enrichment.

The market economy pre-dates the collapse of the Soviet Union by about 300 years, at least.

What I like about conservatism is that it gets on with life without needing some 'economic theory of life', like Marxism or MMT.
Experimental science has made a huge improvement to human life. You cannot say the same for experimental 'social science'. Society is what people make it among themselves, not something that a theoretician, sitting in a library or a monster sitting in a politburo, tells them to make it.

thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2021 at 5:03pm:

Nom de Plume wrote on Nov 23rd, 2021 at 4:47pm: A welsh textiles manufacturer and philanthropist, Robert Owen. Nice to gain interesting information like this,  a relief from  the usual ideological rants from the Right, when discussing 'socialism'.

Oh, nice indeed. Utopian socialist communes are thriving everywhere, ever since. Oh yes.

thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2021 at 5:03pm:

Nom de Plume wrote on Nov 23rd, 2021 at 4:47pm: A welsh textiles manufacturer and philanthropist, Robert Owen. Nice to gain interesting information like this,  a relief from  the usual ideological rants from the Right, when discussing 'socialism'.

Marx and Engels, differentiated, however, their own scientific conception of socialism from Owen's societies. They argued that Owen's plan, to create a model socialist utopia to coexist with contemporary society and prove its superiority over time, was insufficient to create a new society. In their view, Owen was a Utopian, since his objective was "to discover a new and more perfect system of social order and to impose this upon society". They believed that socialism would erupt from within the class conflict itself as a result of the inherent contradictions of capitalism. Moreover, socialism could only be achieved by violent revolution, since the bourgeoisie would always be able to deflect and block peaceful attempts.
Wiki

thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2021 at 4:04pm:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Nov 23rd, 2021 at 5:48am: The Marxist, 'From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs', could have been lifted from the bible. Correct; but the 2nd part of that famous phrase needs modification, to take account of the role of incentive and greed in the productivity of individuals. In other words, equality of outcome is not desirable, to maximize productivity; "need" must be modified by reward, meaning that some will have greater access to discretionary spending than others, owing to greater contribution. Now the value of the particular contribution is up for debate, and this is where the Job Guarantee of MMT comes in: there is no special contribution made by the CEO of Colacola who is flogging diabetes and obesity (ie junk consumerism) than the worker conscientiously tending a public garden. In fact the latter adds to the community's amenity, while the former destroys the community' health. Quote: Until the 'realpolitik' of human nature is applied to it. Sure, to each according to his needs, and when members of a privileged power elite decide that a government-purchased Maserati and holiday homes are in accordance with their needs? How do they pay for privileging the elites? By 'economising' on the basic needs of the masses. As was a common joke in eastern Europe, 'They pretend to pay us and we pretend to work'. Correct, and addressed above. Given the acceptance of the  current 'invisible hand'  market economy, established in most of the world since the collapse of the USSR, MMT offers a way to balance public sector outcomes, on behalf of 'common prosperity'; with private sector outcomes, on behalf of private greed and personal enrichment.

What is common and ultimately fatal to those socialist countries that have taken the well-worn and inevitable path into authoritarianism before totalitarianism, is gargantuan corruption as the needs of the political elite extends to needing to be, say, billionaires and/or impose absolute control over the people they oppress.

The Chinese cartel will prove itself to be the most corrupt political elite in human history... They'll easily beat out Stalin, Mao, the Kims and all the Caesars combined... If they haven't already.

There are no checks and balances in socialism. That's why it is invariably and inevitably a fccd experiment.

The VERY IDEA of checks and balances, separation of powers, regular review and correction by the people are essentially conservative, cautious principles, not revolutionary, world changing progressive ones. When you have absolute theoretical certainty you do not have caution, checks, reviews, etc.

Socialism is for over-confident, sheltered morons - ie middle class little bourgeois pricks.

.

Frank wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2021 at 6:00pm:

There are no checks and balances in socialism. That's why it is invariably and inevitably a fccd experiment. The VERY IDEA of checks and balances, separation of powers, regular review and correction by the people are essentially conservative, cautious principles, not revolutionary, world changing progressive ones. When you have absolute theoretical certainty you do not have caution, checks, reviews, etc.

And, crucially, no independent fourth estate, to independently investigate corruption.

Frank wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2021 at 5:40pm:

thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 23rd, 2021 at 5:03pm: Nom de Plume wrote on Nov 23rd, 2021 at 4:47pm: A welsh textiles manufacturer and philanthropist, Robert Owen. Nice to gain interesting information like this,  a relief from  the usual ideological rants from the Right, when discussing 'socialism'. Oh, nice indeed. Utopian socialist communes are thriving everywhere, ever since. Oh yes.

Well on the upside, we can thank him for the 8 hour work day.

Mind you and as to Marx... he was not impressed with Socialists...

It is no wonder that Marx condemned the bourgeois radicals as well as the Utopian Socialists. Men like Fourier (see Lecture 21), Owen and Saint-Simon (see Lecture 22), or P. J. Proudhon gave society panaceas -- bandaids. Marx offered practical solution based upon the inexorable laws of history itself. Where the Utopian Socialists were imbued with moralisms (Robert Owen is perhaps the classic case), Marx saw revolutionary praxis (practice). Marx detested romanticism, emotionalism, sentimentalism and humanitarianism of any kind. They were bourgeois. He did not want to appeal to the idealistic feelings of his audience. The manifestoes, histories, outlines and critiques which he wrote make little or no reference to moral progress, eternal justice, the rights of man, the fight for civilization or any other species of bourgeois rhetoric. The class war must and will be fought.

http://historyguide.org/intellect/lecture24a.html#:~:text=Where%20the%20Utopian%20Socialists%20were%20imbued%20with%20moralisms,appeal%20to%20the%20idealistic%20feelings%20of%20his%20audience.

Makes me wonder why the Moth raves about Marx.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2021 at 5:48pm:

thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 23rd, 2021 at 4:04pm: NorthOfNorth wrote on Nov 23rd, 2021 at 5:48am: The Marxist, 'From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs', could have been lifted from the bible. Correct; but the 2nd part of that famous phrase needs modification, to take account of the role of incentive and greed in the productivity of individuals. In other words, equality of outcome is not desirable, to maximize productivity; "need" must be modified by reward, meaning that some will have greater access to discretionary spending than others, owing to greater contribution. Now the value of the particular contribution is up for debate, and this is where the Job Guarantee of MMT comes in: there is no special contribution made by the CEO of Colacola who is flogging diabetes and obesity (ie junk consumerism) than the worker conscientiously tending a public garden. In fact the latter adds to the community's amenity, while the former destroys the community' health. Quote: Until the 'realpolitik' of human nature is applied to it. Sure, to each according to his needs, and when members of a privileged power elite decide that a government-purchased Maserati and holiday homes are in accordance with their needs? How do they pay for privileging the elites? By 'economising' on the basic needs of the masses. As was a common joke in eastern Europe, 'They pretend to pay us and we pretend to work'. Correct, and addressed above. Given the acceptance of the  current 'invisible hand'  market economy, established in most of the world since the collapse of the USSR, MMT offers a way to balance public sector outcomes, on behalf of 'common prosperity'; with private sector outcomes, on behalf of private greed and personal enrichment. What is common and ultimately fatal to those socialist countries that have taken the well-worn and inevitable path into authoritarianism before totalitarianism, is gargantuan corruption as the needs of the political elite extends to needing to be, say, billionaires and/or impose absolute control over the people they oppress. The Chinese cartel will prove itself to be the most corrupt political elite in human history... They'll easily beat out Stalin, Mao, the Kims and all the Caesars combined... If they haven't already.

So my point about moderate and extreme is taken?  ONLY those countries that take that path fail and/or implode?  The others, which employ facets of socialism alongside facets of capitalism, remain safe and successful?

There's one hell of a lot of authoritarianism going down here and now in this allegedly only remotely socialist country.... so it seems this impulse to overbearing power is not only the province of the extreme socialists...

I believe, with further thought, you may find that this impulse to overbearing power is a common factor in any society/nation... it's just that in some it is nipped in the bud and the perpetrators banished to the outer darkness... some nations have a sensible enough electorate to not let the twerps go too far...

That said - I still say the labeling of Chairman Dan as a Lockdown Fascist is a bit much... stay home you dopey Victorians and get your vaccinations.... you're stuffing things up for the rest of us...


Grappler Footnote:-  Such a pleasure to meet and talk with ordinary folk who, in the main, hold much the same views as I do... vox populi.... met a couple today at the mechanic's and the lady said that we suffer and endure under a 'dualocracy' of two parties separated by the thickness of a piece of toilet paper..... segues into my Government Of Two Parties.... so many people hold these views - how is it that the Twin Torturers keep 'winning' elections? Are elections real... let's see when the council election comes along and I'm working in the voting place for the Guv .... I get to take part in the initial count of votes...... and party politics has no place in local government that is intended to provide direct services to the electorate.... no wasting our rates on their social bullshit.....