When Gandalf first revealed he was a socialist, I asked what kind. It turns out he is the capitalist kind. It's hasn't really progressed from there. I think it's a bit like being a peace-loving Muslim.

He won't say if he made this crap up himself or is just parroting it from somewhere else. Perhaps he is embarrassed about where he got it from:


polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 13^th, 2019 at 7:20pm:

freediver wrote on Mar 13th, 2019 at 6:23pm: Gandalf, have you figure out yet whether "not starving" is the best that capitalism can offer? Capitalism offers a lot FD, so long as you are the one at the top of the food chain. The veritable "one percenters" For everyone else? Not so much.

Yes, Gandalf did actually ponder that:


polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 12^th, 2019 at 3:00pm:

The point is, if the best capitalism can offer is "not starving", then its hardly a great selling point for it is it?

Gandalf the exploiter:


polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 12^th, 2019 at 9:57am:

And yes I would prefer the Bangladeshi garment workers are able to get slave-like work if it prevents them starving. And I would definitely continue to do my part to exploit them by buying my target shirts - so that at least something ends up in the meagre pockets of the exploited worker - as opposed to, you know, dying.

Oh no, Gandalf is taking their freedom:


polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 8^th, 2019 at 7:43pm:

How is a garment worker in Bangladesh "free" when her choices are a) for her and her family to starve to death and b) work at unregulated exploitative shithole a, b or c that will pay you no more than you need to stay alive? I note you mentioned previously non-slaves even have the option to travel to work. Wow, lucky them! Hey, half starving garment worker with no savings and the sole income for your whole family - you are free to take that non-existent car of yours and spend half your day driving yourself God-knows how many miles on unsealed dangerous roads- just so you can find a job just as crappy as the ones available in your village!

You're not trying to detract like Aussie does?

Afterall - you do have a 'poor' Jesuit sitting on the golden throne of Papal wealth in the Vatican.  ;)

Cartalism and socialism are not necessarily contradictory terms.

You can have a free market economic system with a government that spends more on social services than necessary, essentially subsidising it, as we have in Australia.

Lots of people would describe Australia as socialist. It definitely has socialist policies. However, socialism is used as a dirty word by ideologies with conservative political leanings and military/government associations.

This is because the ideas of socialism are reflective of the ideas of communism, and communism was the enemy and a threat to the government maintaining confidence.

So again, ideas were very bad and needed to be suppressed, not because free healthcare is bad, but because socialism is communism and if people realised these good ideas are socialist then people might trust the government less due to "electoral interference".

This is why people campaign against socialism in high profile places. Because they are government lobbyists and influence agents.

There is no way you could say helping the needy is bad.

But they would rather you feel that this system is bad and watch the homeless freeze and starve than allow "electoral interference" to occur.

Everything the government does is for votes. Everything the government is advised to do by departments is for political stability.

The end.

Fair question - What Kind?

But there are so many grades of socialist that you need - if dealing fairly - to state which brand you are discussing.

All viable nations these days operate on a mix of capitalism and socialism, with neither being allowed to get out of control.

Some suggest that this is 'Big Brother' in action... I beg to differ... look around you....... Bob Menzies was a socialist of one kind.... as was his government.

Now please proceed.....

Spatchcock wrote on Mar 14^th, 2019 at 10:23pm:

Cartalism and socialism are not necessarily contradictory terms. You can have a free market economic system with a government that spends more on social services than necessary, essentially subsidising it, as we have in Australia. Lots of people would describe Australia as socialist. It definitely has socialist policies. However, socialism is used as a dirty word by ideologies with conservative political leanings and military/government associations. This is because the ideas of socialism are reflective of the ideas of communism, and communism was the enemy and a threat to the government maintaining confidence. So again, ideas were very bad and needed to be suppressed, not because free healthcare is bad, but because socialism is communism and if people realised these good ideas are socialist then people might trust the government less due to "electoral interference". This is why people campaign against socialism in high profile places. Because they are government lobbyists and influence agents. There is no way you could say helping the needy is bad. But they would rather you feel that this system is bad and watch the homeless freeze and starve than allow "electoral interference" to occur. Everything the government does is for votes. Everything the government is advised to do by departments is for political stability. The end.

Wrong - start again....

On reading your full blurb, you are essentially correct..

Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Mar 14^th, 2019 at 10:44pm:

Spatchcock wrote on Mar 14th, 2019 at 10:23pm: Cartalism and socialism are not necessarily contradictory terms. You can have a free market economic system with a government that spends more on social services than necessary, essentially subsidising it, as we have in Australia. Lots of people would describe Australia as socialist. It definitely has socialist policies. However, socialism is used as a dirty word by ideologies with conservative political leanings and military/government associations. This is because the ideas of socialism are reflective of the ideas of communism, and communism was the enemy and a threat to the government maintaining confidence. So again, ideas were very bad and needed to be suppressed, not because free healthcare is bad, but because socialism is communism and if people realised these good ideas are socialist then people might trust the government less due to "electoral interference". This is why people campaign against socialism in high profile places. Because they are government lobbyists and influence agents. There is no way you could say helping the needy is bad. But they would rather you feel that this system is bad and watch the homeless freeze and starve than allow "electoral interference" to occur. Everything the government does is for votes. Everything the government is advised to do by departments is for political stability. The end. Wrong - start again.... On reading your full blurb, you are essentially correct..

No this is true. A regulated free market with taxes etc exists in many places with taxes used to provide social services.

The ever polite Gandalf is sitting back on this one to see how FD tackles the new challenger  ;)

freediver wrote on Mar 14^th, 2019 at 10:13pm:

When Gandalf first revealed he was a socialist, I asked what kind. It turns out he is the capitalist kind. It's hasn't really progressed from there. I think it's a bit like being a peace-loving Muslim. He won't say if he made this crap up himself or is just parroting it from somewhere else. Perhaps he is embarrassed about where he got it from: polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 13th, 2019 at 7:20pm: freediver wrote on Mar 13th, 2019 at 6:23pm: Gandalf, have you figure out yet whether "not starving" is the best that capitalism can offer? Capitalism offers a lot FD, so long as you are the one at the top of the food chain. The veritable "one percenters" For everyone else? Not so much. Yes, Gandalf did actually ponder that: polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 12th, 2019 at 3:00pm: The point is, if the best capitalism can offer is "not starving", then its hardly a great selling point for it is it? Gandalf the exploiter: polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 12th, 2019 at 9:57am: And yes I would prefer the Bangladeshi garment workers are able to get slave-like work if it prevents them starving. And I would definitely continue to do my part to exploit them by buying my target shirts - so that at least something ends up in the meagre pockets of the exploited worker - as opposed to, you know, dying. Oh no, Gandalf is taking their freedom: polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 8th, 2019 at 7:43pm: How is a garment worker in Bangladesh "free" when her choices are a) for her and her family to starve to death and b) work at unregulated exploitative shithole a, b or c that will pay you no more than you need to stay alive? I note you mentioned previously non-slaves even have the option to travel to work. Wow, lucky them! Hey, half starving garment worker with no savings and the sole income for your whole family - you are free to take that non-existent car of yours and spend half your day driving yourself God-knows how many miles on unsealed dangerous roads- just so you can find a job just as crappy as the ones available in your village!

What's your point? There has been a consistent  growth for leftward movement of young people and growing support for and interest in socialism. Central to the perspective of your warped stance, genuine socialism is the understanding that there is not a single social problem confronting humanity—from climate change, to poverty and unemployment, to authoritarianism and war— Or do you support such agendas? Appears to me that you do along with racism and xenophobia.

Only through the political mobilization of the international working class in a revolutionary movement can we overturn capitalism and establish a society based on social need, not private profit.

Capitalism days are numbered. Just like your racism

A shocking statistic has come to light: Venezuelans lost 19 pounds on average over the past year because of food shortages.

Hunger was declining in Venezuela too until recently. The percentage of Venezuela’s population suffering from undernourishment fell from 14% in 1991 to “5% or lower” in 2015, the latest year for which the United Nations has data. Since then, the situation has rapidly deteriorated. In a single year, the number of cases of severely undernourished children in Venezuela’s capital city, Caracas, doubled.

The reason? Venezuela’s socialist economic policies, briefly sustained by fleeting high oil prices, led to hyperinflation and a societal collapse. If Venezuela continues on its present course, hunger is likely to become more widespread.

We can all be thankful that undernourishment has become rarer globally. But the case of Venezuela demonstrates that progress is not inevitable—suicidal economic policies, like socialism, can rapidly extinguish the prosperity we enjoy.

I don't want to defend Venezuela but it is under sanctions and therefore restricted from being a part of the global market and trading with national economies that are.

jordan is quite reflective on this


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6h_mMVwQnAk

Spatchcock wrote on Mar 15^th, 2019 at 6:44am:

I don't want to defend Venezuela but it is under sanctions and therefore restricted from being a part of the global market and trading with national economies that are.

you do realise   Venezuela was once the 4th richest country dont you with high GDP....Obama brought in sanctions in 2015...western countries dont do that lightly....

oil prices dropped  to the extent those in charge of the economy SOCIALIST   couldnt cope they didnt plan on that happening....their economy was ruined by mismanagement..and of course corruption...

the sanctions have escalated the place is now dire....my daughters motherinlaw has a sister there..been there about 40 odd years  there is almost no communication... and shes in poor health... so not good at all...

The term “socialism” is very poorly defined. A lot of American conservatives label any government funded social programs or regulation of private industry as socialism. By that definition, all wealthy countries are both socialist and capitalist, including Switzerland and all the Scandinavian countries. It's just a question of how the two are balanced.

Marla wrote on Mar 15^th, 2019 at 4:54am:

freediver wrote on Mar 14th, 2019 at 10:13pm: When Gandalf first revealed he was a socialist, I asked what kind. It turns out he is the capitalist kind. It's hasn't really progressed from there. I think it's a bit like being a peace-loving Muslim. He won't say if he made this crap up himself or is just parroting it from somewhere else. Perhaps he is embarrassed about where he got it from: polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 13th, 2019 at 7:20pm: freediver wrote on Mar 13th, 2019 at 6:23pm: Gandalf, have you figure out yet whether "not starving" is the best that capitalism can offer? Capitalism offers a lot FD, so long as you are the one at the top of the food chain. The veritable "one percenters" For everyone else? Not so much. Yes, Gandalf did actually ponder that: polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 12th, 2019 at 3:00pm: The point is, if the best capitalism can offer is "not starving", then its hardly a great selling point for it is it? Gandalf the exploiter: polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 12th, 2019 at 9:57am: And yes I would prefer the Bangladeshi garment workers are able to get slave-like work if it prevents them starving. And I would definitely continue to do my part to exploit them by buying my target shirts - so that at least something ends up in the meagre pockets of the exploited worker - as opposed to, you know, dying. Oh no, Gandalf is taking their freedom: polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 8th, 2019 at 7:43pm: How is a garment worker in Bangladesh "free" when her choices are a) for her and her family to starve to death and b) work at unregulated exploitative shithole a, b or c that will pay you no more than you need to stay alive? I note you mentioned previously non-slaves even have the option to travel to work. Wow, lucky them! Hey, half starving garment worker with no savings and the sole income for your whole family - you are free to take that non-existent car of yours and spend half your day driving yourself God-knows how many miles on unsealed dangerous roads- just so you can find a job just as crappy as the ones available in your village! What's your point? There has been a consistent  growth for leftward movement of young people and growing support for and interest in socialism. Central to the perspective of your warped stance, genuine socialism is the understanding that there is not a single social problem confronting humanity—from climate change, to poverty and unemployment, to authoritarianism and war— Or do you support such agendas? Appears to me that you do along with racism and xenophobia. Only through the political mobilization of the international working class in a revolutionary movement can we overturn capitalism and establish a society based on social need, not private profit. Capitalism days are numbered. Just like your racism

Gandalf becomes a capitalist every time he is asked to think about it rationally, but he generally prefers to sprout empty headed socialist mantras, like you.

The free market, entrepreneurship, private enterprise, whatever you want to call it, undeniably creates wealth for a society. This is a good thing and is to be welcomed and encouraged. However without government regulation, this wealth would go only to the business elites. This is fine, if you have no pretense about capitalism actually 'working' in the sense that it benefits all of society and lifts people out of poverty. Problem is, free marketeers like FD do have that belief - the old 'trickle down' malarky. The less regulation, the more enterprise, the more profits, and ultimately the more wealth to benefit all of society. The non-capitliasts (ie the workers) inevitably benefit because its in the best interests of the capitalists to make them benefit - as it makes for more productive workers. Thats in a nutshell what I term "capitalism" - leave the market as free as possible, and keep the government out of it = prosperity for everyone. Yay. Problem is, its complete bunkum, and its been well and trully proven as bunkum. If you want an example, look at the results of the Trump tax cuts - most of it went to business bottom lines and shareholders - bugger all to the employees.

Pedro Curevo wrote on Mar 15^th, 2019 at 8:46am:

The term “socialism” is very poorly defined. A lot of American conservatives label any government funded social programs or regulation of private industry as socialism. By that definition, all wealthy countries are both socialist and capitalist, including Switzerland and all the Scandinavian countries. It's just a question of how the two are balanced.

Capitalism is equally poorly defined.....

cods wrote on Mar 15^th, 2019 at 8:00am:

Spatchcock wrote on Mar 15th, 2019 at 6:44am: I don't want to defend Venezuela but it is under sanctions and therefore restricted from being a part of the global market and trading with national economies that are. you do realise   Venezuela was once the 4th richest country dont you with high GDP....Obama brought in sanctions in 2015...western countries dont do that lightly.... oil prices dropped  to the extent those in charge of the economy SOCIALIST   couldnt cope they didnt plan on that happening....their economy was ruined by mismanagement..and of course corruption... the sanctions have escalated the place is now dire....my daughters motherinlaw has a sister there..been there about 40 odd years  there is almost no communication... and shes in poor health... so not good at all...

So how does anyone manage the economy well when faced with sanctions and falling income due to falling prices?  Would a Fascist government have done better under the same conditions?  Would a totally free range capitalist government have done any better?

I'm curious..

Pure capitalism doesn't exist. Every nations economy lives on a spectrum.
Every economy has some degree of socialism or it wouldn't work

The_Barnacle wrote on Mar 15^th, 2019 at 3:34pm:

Pure capitalism doesn't exist. Every nations economy lives on a spectrum. Every economy has some degree of socialism or it wouldn't work

Very true barnacle - succinctly put.

polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 15^th, 2019 at 1:57pm:

The free market, entrepreneurship, private enterprise, whatever you want to call it, undeniably creates wealth for a society. This is a good thing and is to be welcomed and encouraged. However without government regulation, this wealth would go only to the business elites.

The 1%?

Where do you get this crap from Gandalf? Are you making it up on the spot?

cods wrote on Mar 15^th, 2019 at 8:00am:

Spatchcock wrote on Mar 15th, 2019 at 6:44am: I don't want to defend Venezuela but it is under sanctions and therefore restricted from being a part of the global market and trading with national economies that are. you do realise   Venezuela was once the 4th richest country dont you with high GDP....Obama brought in sanctions in 2015...western countries dont do that lightly.... oil prices dropped  to the extent those in charge of the economy SOCIALIST   couldnt cope they didnt plan on that happening....their economy was ruined by mismanagement..and of course corruption... the sanctions have escalated the place is now dire....my daughters motherinlaw has a sister there..been there about 40 odd years  there is almost no communication... and shes in poor health... so not good at all...

You know it's possible the idea for sanctions against Venezuela was done by national security agencies in order to show the world that socialist policies don't work to prevent "electoral interference" of people talking about how socialism works and benefits all?

Spatchcock wrote on Mar 15^th, 2019 at 10:22pm:

You know it's possible the idea for sanctions against Venezuela was done by national security agencies in order to show the world that socialist policies don't work to prevent "electoral interference" of people talking about how socialism works and benefits all?

so you agree that the sanctions were put in place to make Venezuela fail so that the capitalist can then say 'socialism doesn't work' ..... yes, I think that was Cods whole point from the beginning. ::)

John Smith wrote on Mar 16^th, 2019 at 10:08am:

Spatchcock wrote on Mar 15th, 2019 at 10:22pm: You know it's possible the idea for sanctions against Venezuela was done by national security agencies in order to show the world that socialist policies don't work to prevent "electoral interference" of people talking about how socialism works and benefits all? so you agree that the sanctions were put in place to make Venezuela fail so that the capitalist can then say 'socialism doesn't work' ..... yes, I think that was Cods whole point from the beginning. ::)

oh dear and they were put in place by OBAMA   how does that work?.... ::) ::)

does any lefty think the bum falling out of oil prices had anything at all to do with miss management by the socialist govt of Venezuela big fall into poverty?.. which happened well before OBAMA put  his sanctions into operation.


it was once the richest nation in latin Amerika...

it wasnt that long ago!

its so easy to read it up with mr google....

its got nothing to do with me..

its just facts..real facts....the people have nothing now...not even decent food or medication ...and whats maybe a lot worse... not much HOPE>

cods wrote on Mar 16^th, 2019 at 10:21am:

oh dear and they were put in place by OBAMA   how does that work?.... Roll Eyes Roll Eyes

if you think Obama was a socialist then you're a fool

John Smith wrote on Mar 16^th, 2019 at 10:31am:

cods wrote on Mar 16th, 2019 at 10:21am: oh dear and they were put in place by OBAMA   how does that work?.... Roll Eyes Roll Eyes if you think Obama was a socialist then you're a fool

If Gandalf can be a socialist, why not Obama? You are letting people like Marla with their quaint ideas define socialism.

This video explains the different forms of Socialism:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vyl2DeKT-Vs

This video explains the different Economic Schools of Thought:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s5Kx6-nyVkk

freediver wrote on Mar 15^th, 2019 at 6:17pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 15th, 2019 at 1:57pm: The free market, entrepreneurship, private enterprise, whatever you want to call it, undeniably creates wealth for a society. This is a good thing and is to be welcomed and encouraged. However without government regulation, this wealth would go only to the business elites. The 1%? Where do you get this crap from Gandalf? Are you making it up on the spot?

FD, if there really was something you wanted me to explain, rather than simply hurl invectives, you could always try and construct a coherent question for me to answer.

That is *IF* you actually wanted to discuss this sensibly, rather than, you know, just hurl invectives for your own gratification.

freediver wrote on Mar 19^th, 2019 at 9:08am:

John Smith wrote on Mar 16th, 2019 at 10:31am: cods wrote on Mar 16th, 2019 at 10:21am: oh dear and they were put in place by OBAMA   how does that work?.... Roll Eyes Roll Eyes if you think Obama was a socialist then you're a fool If Gandalf can be a socialist, why not Obama? You are letting people like Marla with their quaint ideas define socialism.

no, just as I'm not letting idiots like you define socialsim

polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 20^th, 2019 at 2:02pm:

freediver wrote on Mar 15th, 2019 at 6:17pm: polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 15th, 2019 at 1:57pm: The free market, entrepreneurship, private enterprise, whatever you want to call it, undeniably creates wealth for a society. This is a good thing and is to be welcomed and encouraged. However without government regulation, this wealth would go only to the business elites. The 1%? Where do you get this crap from Gandalf? Are you making it up on the spot? FD, if there really was something you wanted me to explain, rather than simply hurl invectives, you could always try and construct a coherent question for me to answer. That is *IF* you actually wanted to discuss this sensibly, rather than, you know, just hurl invectives for your own gratification.

Can you explain where you get this crap from, or whether you just make it up?

ho hum, I tried...  :-/

freediver wrote on Mar 14^th, 2019 at 10:13pm:

When Gandalf first revealed he was a socialist, I asked what kind. It turns out he is the capitalist kind. It's hasn't really progressed from there. I think it's a bit like being a peace-loving Muslim. He won't say if he made this crap up himself or is just parroting it from somewhere else. Perhaps he is embarrassed about where he got it from: polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 13th, 2019 at 7:20pm: freediver wrote on Mar 13th, 2019 at 6:23pm: Gandalf, have you figure out yet whether "not starving" is the best that capitalism can offer? Capitalism offers a lot FD, so long as you are the one at the top of the food chain. The veritable "one percenters" For everyone else? Not so much. Yes, Gandalf did actually ponder that: polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 12th, 2019 at 3:00pm: The point is, if the best capitalism can offer is "not starving", then its hardly a great selling point for it is it? Gandalf the exploiter: polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 12th, 2019 at 9:57am: And yes I would prefer the Bangladeshi garment workers are able to get slave-like work if it prevents them starving. And I would definitely continue to do my part to exploit them by buying my target shirts - so that at least something ends up in the meagre pockets of the exploited worker - as opposed to, you know, dying. Oh no, Gandalf is taking their freedom: polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 8th, 2019 at 7:43pm: How is a garment worker in Bangladesh "free" when her choices are a) for her and her family to starve to death and b) work at unregulated exploitative shithole a, b or c that will pay you no more than you need to stay alive? I note you mentioned previously non-slaves even have the option to travel to work. Wow, lucky them! Hey, half starving garment worker with no savings and the sole income for your whole family - you are free to take that non-existent car of yours and spend half your day driving yourself God-knows how many miles on unsealed dangerous roads- just so you can find a job just as crappy as the ones available in your village!

Indeed. Capitalist socialists are known in Australia and the mother country as Fabian Socialists.

In Europe, based on the writing of Karl Marx, they're known as social democrats.

You?

freediver wrote on Mar 15^th, 2019 at 6:17pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 15th, 2019 at 1:57pm: The free market, entrepreneurship, private enterprise, whatever you want to call it, undeniably creates wealth for a society. This is a good thing and is to be welcomed and encouraged. However without government regulation, this wealth would go only to the business elites. Where do you get this crap from Gandalf? Are you making it up on the spot?

From you, I think, FD.

The_Barnacle wrote on Mar 15^th, 2019 at 3:34pm:

Pure capitalism doesn't exist. Every nations economy lives on a spectrum. Every economy has some degree of socialism or it wouldn't work

Very true.

Spatchcock wrote on Mar 14^th, 2019 at 10:23pm:

Cartalism and socialism are not necessarily contradictory terms. You can have a free market economic system with a government that spends more on social services than necessary, essentially subsidising it, as we have in Australia. Lots of people would describe Australia as socialist. It definitely has socialist policies. However, socialism is used as a dirty word by ideologies with conservative political leanings and military/government associations. This is because the ideas of socialism are reflective of the ideas of communism, and communism was the enemy and a threat to the government maintaining confidence. So again, ideas were very bad and needed to be suppressed, not because free healthcare is bad, but because socialism is communism and if people realised these good ideas are socialist then people might trust the government less due to "electoral interference". This is why people campaign against socialism in high profile places. Because they are government lobbyists and influence agents. There is no way you could say helping the needy is bad. But they would rather you feel that this system is bad and watch the homeless freeze and starve than allow "electoral interference" to occur. Everything the government does is for votes. Everything the government is advised to do by departments is for political stability. The end.

Interestingly, for communists, socialism is only one step along the way - as is capitalism.

Lenin saw that Russia had not been through capitalism - they still, essentially, had a feudal economy. Lenin's initial policies were designed to be capitalist.

Lenin threw this away when he socialised agriculture. Small farmers, or Kulaks, were becoming too powerful for their own good.

polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 21^st, 2019 at 11:13am:

ho hum, I tried...  :-/

Did you try explaining where you get this crap from? Not sure what is so hard about that Gandalf.