Society/Culture The terror of 'socialism' being fed as a moral ideology.

(Log in to remove this ad.)

madmug

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Mar 17, 2009
Posts
14,317
Likes
7,841
Location
Hobart
AFL Club
Collingwood
Fix the 'problem' of having to accept you start at the bottom and have to work hard to build a life for YOURSELF?

Create a Utopian world where the wealth of others who've worked hard is 'redistributed' to them?

Give me a break!

That's not a problem it's the reality of life and if they can't accept it they're doomed to be losers for life.
Its not when the very social structures of society are stacked against the already socio-economically disadvantaged.

Your 'reality of life' is just a social construct. Its not some 'natural' development. Being born into a wealthy family is pure luck. Having the benefits of a stacked system may suit those at the top, but for a lot of people who work hard, never seem to get a break.

So please don't give us that crap about working hard brings great rewards. The real success stories a few & far between. Most people are just one accident or illness or economic downturn away from disaster.

Social welfare is what helps give society some security. Remember that without some sort of society, the rich aren't rich. So they need some sort of social stability to maintain themselves. If the 'poor' don't accept it, you have a major problem. Reolutions & civil wars have been started for less.
 
Joined
Sep 13, 2000
Posts
65,628
Likes
25,423
Location
Melbourne cricket ground. Australia
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Horks
Your argument simply doesn't stack up and I've proven it.



All depends on whether your focus is creating a more productive, wealthier society in general or just complaining because some people have more than you.

Like basically everyone who preaches Socialism, sounds like the latter.
When the people who have more than us ie power eg abbott and Morrison and are lazy sleazeballs yes, very much do something about it.
But I guess that’s democracy, not socialism
 

CatFan79

Premiership Player
Joined
Sep 25, 2004
Posts
4,112
Likes
2,705
AFL Club
Geelong
So please don't give us that crap about working hard brings great rewards. The real success stories a few & far between. Most people are just one accident or illness or economic downturn away from disaster.
What a meager, sorry outlook you have.

Social welfare is what helps give society some security. Remember that without some sort of society, the rich aren't rich. So they need some sort of social stability to maintain themselves. If the 'poor' don't accept it, you have a major problem. Reolutions & civil wars have been started for less.
Businesses are only in business if they have something worth selling that people can afford to buy, don't forget that. So clearly rich business owners have a vested interest in everyone being more wealthy.

Again, since when is Capitalism anti-social welfare?

Let me reiterate:
-in the US the top 1% account for more income taxes paid than the bottom 90% combined.
-poor people live a better life under Capitalism than Socialism.
 

smokingjacket

Premiership Player
Joined
Mar 30, 2014
Posts
3,519
Likes
3,584
AFL Club
Fremantle
Other Teams
Liverpool
But that doesn’t make it necessarily socialism as the requirement for it. The Nazis has the best rocket engineers in the world, for instance.
I'm not saying it's the only way, I'm saying the state, and state-heavy economies have a better record than the market at great leap science. In fact all science.
They copied what the Brits did in the 19th century, got really good at heavy industry, then failed at the next step. Their automotive industry, for instance, was laughable. More quality cars produced in West Germany than the entire Soviet bloc.
Even if it was true that the Soviet Union was just copying British industrialisation, the Soviets were able to develop superior heavy industry to Britain. It's irrelevant. I don't remember reading about the creation of the MiG-29 in a Sheffield ceramic stack.
The US had them whipped technologically by about 1965.
The fact that there was even a contest is remarkable considering the remarkable disadvantages in alliance strength and pre-industrial research depth that the Soviets had versus the US that could rake research off of the most advanced states in the world.
 
Joined
Sep 13, 2000
Posts
65,628
Likes
25,423
Location
Melbourne cricket ground. Australia
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Horks
The thing is, if the argument is socialism sucks. And the evidence is places which have gone for a pure form of socialism, then that’s right. There are many shades though.
Conversely, if you want to go a straight socialism v capitalism argument, the places used as evidence with capitalism have to be as pure too.
Soceity is better versed in capitalism, and we rarely go full blown capitalism. But honestly, where it’s happened, it sucks just as much. I suppose the great depression was one such time, but the madness of 1910 to 1945 as a block is hard to quantify in absolut terms.
Be well aware the populac as a whole embraced socialist governments after the war, and the yanks seemed to use very socialist methods to resurrect japans economy
It’s well known we pulled back significantly during the GFC, but had we not, they’re was a particularly nasty cliff to falling off.
 
Last edited:

medusala

Hall of Famer
Joined
Aug 14, 2004
Posts
34,847
Likes
6,143
Location
Loftus Road
AFL Club
Hawthorn
The thing is, if the argument is socialism sucks. And the evidence is places which have gone for a pure form of socialism, then that’s right. There are many shades though.
Conversely, if you want to go a straight socialism v capitalism argument, the places used as evidence with capitalism have to be as pure too.
Soceity is better versed in capitalism, and we rarely go full blown capitalism. But honestly, where it’s happened, it sucks just as much. I suppose the great depression was one such time, but the madness of 1910 to 1945 as a block is hard to quantify in absolut terms.
No. See Hong Kong.

Great depression was massively exaggerated due to poor govt response ie decreasing money supply, smoot hawley etc. UK experience was different.

https://www.cps.org.uk/publications/metroboom-lessons-from-britain-s-recovery-in-the-1930s/

But after the financial crisis of 1931, healthy economic growth averaged 4% a year in real terms between 1934 and 1939,stimulated primarily not by rearmament but by the successful tax and economic policies of the National Government.

The mid-1930s was a time of vibrant innovation and industrial growth. Housebuilding, car manufacturing, aircraft production and textiles all boomed while unemployment fell by almost a half between 1932 and 1937.
 

Total Power

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Aug 19, 2004
Posts
26,219
Likes
7,188
Location
Grand Finals
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Other Teams
Team Rafael Nadal
The fact that there was even a contest is remarkable considering the remarkable disadvantages in alliance strength and pre-industrial research depth that the Soviets had versus the US that could rake research off of the most advanced states in the world.
What you are saying is true, but the general public barely had access to any of the technological benefits. The difference was in how people went about their daily activities and in what conditions they lived. Communal apartments with shared kitchen and toilet were not conducive to a comfortable standard of living, you can still find them in many places in Russia and CIS. Public transport was a nightmare and factory workers were placed not according to the task they can perform "the best" but pretty random, hence output suffered. Old Soviet people still use this saying "they pretend to pay this and we pretend to work" . It's almost hilarious to hear this in this day and age. This is why amongst Soviet workers alcoholism was prevalent, and people were taking little pride in their work. Skilled workers were also demoralised. The massive effort in the Soviet Union in education to create a skilled work force could not compensate for an economy that functioned poorly. Instead, education was producing talent that was being poorly employed. The result was obvious:

The famous quote from this article in the 70's:

"Brezhnev and his colleagues wished Soviet citizens to be as prosperous as those in the capitalist nations, and to produce more for consumers they tried to incorporate innovations from the West. ".

http://www.fsmitha.com/h2/ch33-2.htm

From the 1960s there was in the world more production of consumer items such as automobiles, electronic devices, pharmaceuticals, civilian aircraft – a production that was more knowledge intensive, more plastic and less cement. There was more production for consumers – away from the kind of heavy industrial production that had developed under Stalin.The Russian Government wanted the same from the people :to increase the production and be innovative despite they could not keep up with the western countries in their technological developments in science and technology though in steel,cement ,oil their were giving tough competition to the States.
 

madmug

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Mar 17, 2009
Posts
14,317
Likes
7,841
Location
Hobart
AFL Club
Collingwood
What a meager, sorry outlook you have.



Businesses are only in business if they have something worth selling that people can afford to buy, don't forget that. So clearly rich business owners have a vested interest in everyone being more wealthy.

Again, since when is Capitalism anti-social welfare?

Let me reiterate:
-in the US the top 1% account for more income taxes paid than the bottom 90% combined.
-poor people live a better life under Capitalism than Socialism.
I dont have a sorry outlook, I just have my eyes open.

The bottom 90% would love the be born into the top 1%, earn the top 1% income. pay the 1% taxes, have a nice house, feed their family. Have international holidays, golf memberships, 3-4 cars etc.

You can tell the Homeless Poor people they're better off living under Capiltalism. Are US cardboard boxes better than Russian ones?
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Joined
Sep 13, 2000
Posts
65,628
Likes
25,423
Location
Melbourne cricket ground. Australia
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Horks
No. See Hong Kong.

Great depression was massively exaggerated due to poor govt response ie decreasing money supply, smoot hawley etc. UK experience was different.

https://www.cps.org.uk/publications/metroboom-lessons-from-britain-s-recovery-in-the-1930s/

But after the financial crisis of 1931, healthy economic growth averaged 4% a year in real terms between 1934 and 1939,stimulated primarily not by rearmament but by the successful tax and economic policies of the National Government.

The mid-1930s was a time of vibrant innovation and industrial growth. Housebuilding, car manufacturing, aircraft production and textiles all boomed while unemployment fell by almost a half between 1932 and 1937.
And peasants which survived plagues had the whip hand in negotiations with employers, supply and demand

What about sinagapore: nominally capitalist but with suffocating socialist interventions into life. But don’t try saying it’s socialist while you are there
 

CatFan79

Premiership Player
Joined
Sep 25, 2004
Posts
4,112
Likes
2,705
AFL Club
Geelong
I dont have a sorry outlook, I just have my eyes open.

The bottom 90% would love the be born into the top 1%, earn the top 1% income. pay the 1% taxes, have a nice house, feed their family. Have international holidays, golf memberships, 3-4 cars etc.

You can tell the Homeless Poor people they're better off living under Capiltalism. Are US cardboard boxes better than Russian ones?
Nearly 3 out of every 4 billionaires are self made entrepreneurs and innovators.

Continuing to harp on about the 'evil' top 1% only reflects poorly on yourself.

They probably contribute more to helping society in a year than you would in a lifetime.
 

CatFan79

Premiership Player
Joined
Sep 25, 2004
Posts
4,112
Likes
2,705
AFL Club
Geelong
Forbes, also despite what you're led to believe:

11% of Americans will join the Top 1% for at least one year during their prime working lives (age 25 to 60), according to research done by Thomas Hirschl, a sociology professor at Cornell University. But only 5.8% will be in it for two years or more.
 
Joined
Sep 13, 2000
Posts
65,628
Likes
25,423
Location
Melbourne cricket ground. Australia
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Horks
Out of interest, does the distaste of privileged people come from anything other than pure envy?

I'm sure if you all stumbled upon a few million you'd direct it all back to the Government for redistribution... Right?
More interested if you think it was wrong to bail them out in the GFC. ‘Because capitalism’

The lies laid bare for all to see

They’d barely banked the public handouts before the usual suspects were calling the Greeks and the like ‘lazy sobs’
 

Gethelred

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
May 1, 2016
Posts
6,214
Likes
11,239
AFL Club
Carlton
It's important to note that Australia doesn't spend a large amount of money defending it's enourmous resource wealth, it spends that instead on social programs and welfare services - because the United States spends so much money on their military and we are friends with them.

The USA could pull it's funding and support for it's massive military industrial complex, there'd be an economic shock from that, to divert the money into a medicare for all system and Australia would need to divert some of it's own resources from it's own social programs into defense.

Australia benefits from living under that huge eagle wing and that affords us the money to spend on making life here better for everyone.
Or, alternatively, we could raise the funding necessary to develop and cultivate our own military by ceasing the obnoxious levels of pork barrelling that goes on when right leaning governments buy votes risking our safety by overly relying on US manpower for our defense. Not to mention the level of corporate welfare that occurs, either...

And it isn't as though they get nothing out of the deal, either, or do placing military bases on Australian soil within reach of China/SE Asia mean nothing?
 

Gethelred

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
May 1, 2016
Posts
6,214
Likes
11,239
AFL Club
Carlton
Holy shit. The comprehension of some of you.

Not once did I say everyone who wants any form of socialism is evil etc. Not once did I say if you lean left you want murderous nation-wide socialism removing capitalism.

BUT,

What I am talking about are the minority that currently are pushing for that, the very small minority that wasn't there a decade ago. The very small minority that has a small possibility to grow into a larger group if more follow the stupid ideal. I did make it clear what I ******* meant too. I quite literally mean the moronic notion of the "real communism hasn't been tried yet" crowd. Why get so emotional about a thread talking about a specific type? If you're not that type - good, stop denying that their aren't those pushing for it.

As to those wanting me to give links, who's pushing it etc. Do 20 minutes of research and see that the minority do exist. I'm not stating that it's widespread or that we should be in panic mode, but to deny it is absolutely ridiculous.
Was that minority you mention truly not there a decade ago, or have you only become aware of it?

Internet, social media makes what were previously suuuuuper niche interests suddenly seem much more predominant than they were before, because of increased communication allowing like minded people to find each other, leading to increased organisation, overstated levels of influence, etc.
 

Tayl0r

Moderator
Joined
Jul 16, 2009
Posts
34,721
Likes
34,653
Location
Perth
AFL Club
Fremantle
Moderator #225
Or, alternatively, we could raise the funding necessary to develop and cultivate our own military by ceasing the obnoxious levels of pork barrelling that goes on when right leaning governments buy votes risking our safety by overly relying on US manpower for our defense. Not to mention the level of corporate welfare that occurs, either...

And it isn't as though they get nothing out of the deal, either, or do placing military bases on Australian soil within reach of China/SE Asia mean nothing?
Can you list some examples please.

$191.8 billion on social security and welfare in the budget. We get the social benefit of that because we don't need to spend that much servicing an armed forces.
 
Top Bottom