Forum

 
  Back to OzPolitic.com   Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register
  Forum Home Album HelpSearch Recent Rules LoginRegister  
 

Pages: 1 ... 15 16 17 18 19 
Send Topic Print
are we citizens or subjects? (Read 15285 times)
Mattyfisk
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 91855
Gender: male
Re: are we citizens or subjects?
Reply #240 - Mar 13th, 2019 at 12:24pm
 
I say, G, have you noticed that FD never actually delivers an argument? In this thread, he's quote-bombed you and drilled you with questions, said he refuses to spoon feed us by providing examples (as everybody else has done) and responded with sulky one-liners about communists.

As an ardent marine life enthusiast, it reminds one of a sea creature: the Portuguese man o'war. This creature just blobs along with the current. It has no spine or central nervous system. It stings anyone who gets near.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
polite_gandalf
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 20023
Canberra
Gender: male
Re: are we citizens or subjects?
Reply #241 - Mar 13th, 2019 at 1:35pm
 
Mattyfisk wrote on Mar 13th, 2019 at 12:24pm:
I say, G, have you noticed that FD never actually delivers an argument?


The term that popped into my head when reading FD's posts in this thread was 'virtue signalling'. As in:

- you are wrong because capitalism lifts people out of poverty - a fact that needs no explanation
- arguing against me just proves you are swallowing filthy communist propaganda
- would you prefer third world sweat shop workers starve??
- Explain your alternative - you have none - its actually you who is confused here, you naive socialist!
Back to top
 

A resident Islam critic who claims to represent western values said:
Quote:
Outlawing the enemy's uniform - hijab, islamic beard - is not depriving one's own people of their freedoms.
 
IP Logged
 
Spatchcock
Senior Member
****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 480
Gender: female
Re: are we citizens or subjects?
Reply #242 - Mar 13th, 2019 at 1:35pm
 
My thread has been completely ruined by you guys arguing completely off topic useless drivel about capitalism that has been done to death for the last 50 years, talking the basics and not in depth theories and acting like you are knowledgeable on the topic

This is a circle jerk!
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
polite_gandalf
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 20023
Canberra
Gender: male
Re: are we citizens or subjects?
Reply #243 - Mar 13th, 2019 at 1:35pm
 
bump
Back to top
 

A resident Islam critic who claims to represent western values said:
Quote:
Outlawing the enemy's uniform - hijab, islamic beard - is not depriving one's own people of their freedoms.
 
IP Logged
 
polite_gandalf
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 20023
Canberra
Gender: male
Re: are we citizens or subjects?
Reply #244 - Mar 13th, 2019 at 1:36pm
 
I apologise spatchcock - I concede I didn't even look at the OP
Back to top
 

A resident Islam critic who claims to represent western values said:
Quote:
Outlawing the enemy's uniform - hijab, islamic beard - is not depriving one's own people of their freedoms.
 
IP Logged
 
Spatchcock
Senior Member
****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 480
Gender: female
Re: are we citizens or subjects?
Reply #245 - Mar 13th, 2019 at 1:38pm
 
I put a lot of effort and original work in to this thread and you come back with completely unrelated off topic drivel about economic theory and yet you are not talking in depth stuff but the basics you learn in high school that has been around 50 years.

This is petty and emotional stuff. You should be above it.

Instead you're proving your knowledge and understanding, which no one seems to have anyway.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
polite_gandalf
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 20023
Canberra
Gender: male
Re: are we citizens or subjects?
Reply #246 - Mar 13th, 2019 at 1:47pm
 
ok I tried to read the OP, but to be honest its quite difficult. Its difficult to pin down a coherent point that I can respond to.

But I agree blowing off the legs of little girls is bad and should be avoided.
Back to top
 

A resident Islam critic who claims to represent western values said:
Quote:
Outlawing the enemy's uniform - hijab, islamic beard - is not depriving one's own people of their freedoms.
 
IP Logged
 
Mattyfisk
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 91855
Gender: male
Re: are we citizens or subjects?
Reply #247 - Mar 13th, 2019 at 5:08pm
 
polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 13th, 2019 at 1:35pm:
Mattyfisk wrote on Mar 13th, 2019 at 12:24pm:
I say, G, have you noticed that FD never actually delivers an argument?


The term that popped into my head when reading FD's posts in this thread was 'virtue signalling'. As in:

- you are wrong because capitalism lifts people out of poverty - a fact that needs no explanation
- arguing against me just proves you are swallowing filthy communist propaganda
- would you prefer third world sweat shop workers starve??
- Explain your alternative - you have none - its actually you who is confused here, you naive socialist!


These were the arguments during the Cold War, when the Soviets presented state capitalism as an alternative to liberal democracy. It was easy to clear the floor by bringing up the gulags. Say no more. What do you want? Communism?

But this was just Western ideology. It missed the point entirely. Russia and other countries developed rapidly under state capitalism (they never practiced communism, even Soviet economists said that, communism was always just around the corner). But the Soviet version of capitalism, with its 4 year plans and national targets, often delivered. It was not subject to the economic crises the West had. The Soviets had economic growth throughout the Great Depression. When developing countries or states considered which side to join (if the choice wasn't made for them), the USSR would have looked promising.

Today, it's simply not possible. Without Soviet investment and technical advisors, it's impossible to implement a form of capitalism directed and owned by the state. The World Bank, IMF and foreign capital sees to that. In some countries who've flirted with these policies, a bit of currency manipulation has put an end to that little experiment. North Korea and Cuba are just two examples.

So no, G, no one here's preaching communism, merely the kind of state intervention you pointed out that was used during the GFC.

And if I'm not mistaken, the GFC and these policies caused populations to turn to the promise of populism. Clearly, globalisation had cheated them, as had their governments, who bailed out the banks rather than their home loans.

But populist economic policies have never been spelt out, just a mish-mash of nationalist slogans, anti-immigration rhetoric and support for leaders who talk sht. Since the Cold War ended, capitalist ideology has become so engrained that the US Democrats would choose a Hillary over a Bernie, or in the U.K, anyone other than a Jeremy Corbyn, who only got in with the vote of The Labour rank and file, not the machine.

In the US today, people are actually considering the sort of "socialist" policies that, since LBJ, have ostensibly been unthinkable. In reality, however, these policies are simply what most other developed countries in the world already have: universal health care, carbon reduction policies, free or subsidised tertiary education.

Who knows? If Bernie is able to make that case over the inevitable Trump jibes, fake news and howls from the Fox News presenters, people might be willing to go with Sanders. They've already gone with the unthinkable and elected Trump, and in the U.K, Corbyn would get in if a vote was held today.

The Cold War is over. FD's case, although he won't explain it, is redundant. There are alternatives to neoliberalism as even Trump has shown.
Back to top
« Last Edit: Mar 14th, 2019 at 12:30am by Mattyfisk »  
 
IP Logged
 
Mattyfisk
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 91855
Gender: male
Re: are we citizens or subjects?
Reply #248 - Mar 13th, 2019 at 5:09pm
 
Spatchcock wrote on Mar 13th, 2019 at 1:38pm:
I put a lot of effort and original work in to this thread and you come back with completely unrelated off topic drivel about economic theory and yet you are not talking in depth stuff but the basics you learn in high school that has been around 50 years.

This is petty and emotional stuff. You should be above it.

Instead you're proving your knowledge and understanding, which no one seems to have anyway.


No worries, Spatchcock. I'd feel the same. Threads, however, always go their way.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Mattyfisk
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 91855
Gender: male
Re: are we citizens or subjects?
Reply #249 - Mar 13th, 2019 at 5:10pm
 
I blame Islam.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47043
At my desk.
Re: are we citizens or subjects?
Reply #250 - Mar 13th, 2019 at 6:23pm
 
polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 13th, 2019 at 11:03am:
freediver wrote on Mar 12th, 2019 at 7:04pm:
f? Have you not figured this out yet Gandalf?


Its your argument I haven't figured out FD - as in whenever someone points out the appalling conditions of third world labourers in a capitalist system, your only retort is to rhetorically ask 'would you prefer they starve'. You're not exactly presenting anything better than "not starving" that capitalism can offer these people. I suspect thats because you understand the fundamental point that its never capitalism per se that "lifts people out of poverty" - but specific intervention by the government and organization of labour, two things that the capitalists detest and fight tooth and nail against.

freediver wrote on Mar 12th, 2019 at 7:04pm:
The failure of a corporation is not a failure of capitalism, and too big to fail does not imply, to any rational person, the failure of capitalism.


It wasn't "a" corporation FD, it was a whole bunch of them, and consisted the backbone of the
entire US financial sector. It was a systemic rot culminating from a toxic culture amongst the entire capitalist class - a culture that was arguably inevitable in a capitalist system that becomes more and more deregulated and unaccountable. You seem to not appreciate just how dire the situation was in 2008 FD, and it was saved in large part by the feds pumping trillions to prop up these rotten institutions. Of course you could argue that the government should have simply let those corporations fail, and the market would have corrected itself (which many free-marketeers were advocating) - survival of the fittest. But there is no telling the devastation this would have caused to great swathes of the working, as well as the middle class masses. And if you're telling me that this sort of periodic corrective devastation is inherent in the system, and therefore expected and 'normal', then its not a great selling point for capitalism.

freediver wrote on Mar 12th, 2019 at 7:04pm:
instability does not mean failure


Depends on your perspective. If you are one of the poor working class sods being exploited by the capitalist system, what you euphemistically term "instability" is likely to mean you can no longer afford to buy food to keep you alive, or you lose your home, or you get buried alive by that unapproved appartment block that "the system" deemed unworthy to maintain. But hey, as long as the capitalists themselves can take their ill-gotten bonuses, cut their losses and move on to the next 'make money out of thin air' project - the system will be fine.

The system won't "fail" in these situations, but humanity will.


Gandalf, have you figure out yet whether "not starving" is the best that capitalism can offer? I didn't realise I would have to make that my argument.

What is the "capitalist class" and where are you getting this idiocy from? Your mosque, or the local socialist club?

Are you offering any kind of alternative to capitalism, or just having a elaborate whinge? Why are you so afraid to say what you stand for?
Back to top
 

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!
WWW  
IP Logged
 
polite_gandalf
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 20023
Canberra
Gender: male
Re: are we citizens or subjects?
Reply #251 - 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. Fortunately though we have governments and organized labour to come to the rescue.

Also, it was you who presented the "not starving" defense of capitalism, when confronted with the reality that capitalism always prefers to look for workers with the least bargaining power, rather than stay and negotiate with the ones that do (ie offshoring Australian manufacturing).

freediver wrote on Mar 13th, 2019 at 6:23pm:
I didn't realise I would have to make that my argument.


Indeed you verily do FD. That is if you want to be anything resembling coherent. Otherwise its just meaningless virtue signalling.

You could start by presenting a convincing argument for why its capitalism, and not governments being "anti capitalist", that lifts people out of poverty. I'm afraid simply repeating inane lines like "its self evident", "you can see it" "why should I spoonfeed you?" and other versions of "it is because I say it is" - won't cut the mustard.

And to clarify, no one is suggesting that free markets are not a good thing or that they don't produce the wealth that brings us our prosperity. However it is not the "capitalist system" that magically lifts people out of poverty - that system would work to ensure the masses aren't lifted out of poverty, and that wealth is restricted to the tiny proportion of the population that controls the capital. As you say, this 'pure' system would give the masses the great privilege of not starving to death, and not much else. It entrenches inequality. To generate true prosperity equally throughout society, the free market must to some respect be - for want of a better word - 'hijacked' by a centralized public institution - typically a government - to force capitalists to distribute wealth equitably. But this process is not capitalism - it is anti-capitalist. I think Karnal termed it social democracy - that will do. And capitalists will fight against it, whether its using their capital to subvert democracy and undermine policies like public health, corporate taxation and corporate regulation, or simply giving local manufacturing the middle finger and moving offshore. Fortunately social democracies have been quite successful in neutering capitalism, especially in western Europe. They still utilise the benefits of the free market, but social democracies prevent capitalists from hoarding the wealth for themselves. In America, its basically a horror story - yet even there it is not completely unfettered capitalism as there are at least some pissweak social safety nets (differing from state to state).
Back to top
 

A resident Islam critic who claims to represent western values said:
Quote:
Outlawing the enemy's uniform - hijab, islamic beard - is not depriving one's own people of their freedoms.
 
IP Logged
 
Spatchcock
Senior Member
****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 480
Gender: female
Re: are we citizens or subjects?
Reply #252 - Mar 13th, 2019 at 7:42pm
 
polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 13th, 2019 at 1:47pm:
ok I tried to read the OP, but to be honest its quite difficult. Its difficult to pin down a coherent point that I can respond to.

But I agree blowing off the legs of little girls is bad and should be avoided.


It's about the government deciding what is the best way for us to think and that dangerous ideas are pursued by the government, and that we are not allowed access to these ideas because it can affect our voting patterns. Essentially we have fake democracy and government propaganda wings. It has nothing to do with economics.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47043
At my desk.
Re: are we citizens or subjects?
Reply #253 - Mar 13th, 2019 at 8:48pm
 
Quote:
As you say, this 'pure' system would give the masses the great privilege of not starving to death, and not much else.


This is not what I say Gandalf. This is you projecting communist idiocy onto me.

What percentage of Australia's population do you think would be on the brink of starvation without welfare?
Back to top
 

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Mattyfisk
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 91855
Gender: male
Re: are we citizens or subjects?
Reply #254 - Mar 13th, 2019 at 9:04pm
 
freediver wrote on Mar 13th, 2019 at 6:23pm:
polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 13th, 2019 at 11:03am:
freediver wrote on Mar 12th, 2019 at 7:04pm:
f? Have you not figured this out yet Gandalf?


Its your argument I haven't figured out FD - as in whenever someone points out the appalling conditions of third world labourers in a capitalist system, your only retort is to rhetorically ask 'would you prefer they starve'. You're not exactly presenting anything better than "not starving" that capitalism can offer these people. I suspect thats because you understand the fundamental point that its never capitalism per se that "lifts people out of poverty" - but specific intervention by the government and organization of labour, two things that the capitalists detest and fight tooth and nail against.

freediver wrote on Mar 12th, 2019 at 7:04pm:
The failure of a corporation is not a failure of capitalism, and too big to fail does not imply, to any rational person, the failure of capitalism.


It wasn't "a" corporation FD, it was a whole bunch of them, and consisted the backbone of the
entire US financial sector. It was a systemic rot culminating from a toxic culture amongst the entire capitalist class - a culture that was arguably inevitable in a capitalist system that becomes more and more deregulated and unaccountable. You seem to not appreciate just how dire the situation was in 2008 FD, and it was saved in large part by the feds pumping trillions to prop up these rotten institutions. Of course you could argue that the government should have simply let those corporations fail, and the market would have corrected itself (which many free-marketeers were advocating) - survival of the fittest. But there is no telling the devastation this would have caused to great swathes of the working, as well as the middle class masses. And if you're telling me that this sort of periodic corrective devastation is inherent in the system, and therefore expected and 'normal', then its not a great selling point for capitalism.

freediver wrote on Mar 12th, 2019 at 7:04pm:
instability does not mean failure


Depends on your perspective. If you are one of the poor working class sods being exploited by the capitalist system, what you euphemistically term "instability" is likely to mean you can no longer afford to buy food to keep you alive, or you lose your home, or you get buried alive by that unapproved appartment block that "the system" deemed unworthy to maintain. But hey, as long as the capitalists themselves can take their ill-gotten bonuses, cut their losses and move on to the next 'make money out of thin air' project - the system will be fine.

The system won't "fail" in these situations, but humanity will.


Gandalf, have you figure out yet whether "not starving" is the best that capitalism can offer? I didn't realise I would have to make that my argument.


Not at all, FD. Any argument will do. Have you figured out how to make one yet?
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Pages: 1 ... 15 16 17 18 19 
Send Topic Print