I'm not happy with Helen!

[paturoa]

I have been talking with some people at work and we compiled this list of stuff.

In no particular order, and I had to google a couple of them to get some numbers

- Paid $892m of our money to buy Air New Zealand - oops lets not tell the public about the other $150M - oh and there is no political influence.

- Paid $78m? of our money to start up another commercial bank - we must have a critical bank shortage.

- Re-intoduced elected Health Boards - well that worked.

- Trashed competition to ACC - so how much more are we paying now - oops lets really not tell anyone that.

- NZCEA - dumbing down???

- Charter for TVNZ - WTF?

- Social spending has increased by ?? - I couldn't find any reliable numbers on that.

- First Capital Gains tax introduced (Shares) - look out more coming!

- Leglistated prices, unbundling and seperation of Telecom (FFS it is a PRIVATELY owned company - must have been too expensive to buy - would they do this if they bought it - NZPO - who can remember that?)

- Restructured the power industry - what about investment in renewable vs more money from thermal on the spot market - well thats working isn't it.

- Bought the rail road tracks for $1 (ssshhh lets not tell them about the other $200M and by the way where is the $100m from Toll?)

- Upped personal income tax rates.

- Several lots of additional petrol tax to pay for roads - hang on what about tolling?

- Totally ignored the Crime referrundum - significantly reduced crime? - lets not debate by how much it has increased.

- Are about to criminalise smacking - most polls show significant majority opinion the other way - democracy anyone?

- Significantly reduced hospital waiting lists through several injections of $??? M - couldn't find that either.

- No more guns in the Air Force

- Artists can go on the dole - WTF?


So what do you think? Are you grumpy too?

Have I missed any other gems?

[pete376403]

Don't blame Labour for the power restructuring - that was Nationals Max Bradford.
Kiwi Bank - excellent idea. Means some of the profits stay in this country instead of all being repatriated to Aus.
Spanking law? Last time I looked Sue Bradford was Green Party

[paturoa]

Don't blame Labour for the power restructuring - that was Nationals Max Bradford.

Yep - my bad - fixed it up for us though???

[Skyryder]

You just wait for all the bitching if Key ever becomes the Prime Minister. Was not too long ago when Rob Muldoon 'fooled' the electorate to give Rowling the boot. I use to think this country had some political maturity but now I'm not too sure. Got a bad feeling history is not too far away from repeating itself.

Skyryder

[Hitcher]

Well, you voted for her...

And if you pay politicians to make laws, don't blame them when they do.

In terms of nutsville legislation you forgot about the dangerous dogs legislation.

[pete376403]

Some of the worse legistlation may be the result of MMP - with the minor parties getting support for their ideas (eg repeal of section 59) in exchange for support of the majority party. Not just Labour, dont forget that Winston had a few conditions in exchange for supporting National as while back

[sinned]

You forgot about the Skyhawks we sold and then found they weren't sold. While we couldn't have won world war 3 with them the airforce was doing a very good job acting as a practice enemy for the Australian forces.

Don't worry about a change in government as most of the 600+ permanently leaving NZ to go over the ditch each week are predominately those who would vote her out. This is a permanent shift for NZ and once the $NZ runs out of puff NZ will be the Cuba of the south pacific. So buy your new bike now while you can afford it.

[Deviant Esq]

How about the legalising prostitution bill? Holy shit, fucking, why. When it first got floated I thought it was a good idea. Oh, how wrong I was. It's legitimised (sp) a "career" that many young girls would have never considered taking up. Don't know about Auckland and K road, but Christchurch has seen a pretty big increase in the number of girls working in the industry. Far too many underage girls too, what a waste of young ladies with potential. And now it's legal, it's been legitimised to them. Bah!

[YLWDUC]

How about the legalising prostitution bill? Holy shit, fucking, why. When it first got floated I thought it was a good idea. Oh, how wrong I was. And now it's legal, it's been legitimised to them. Bah!

The thing with this one is that once somethings legit is supposed to be legislated controlled and taxed, just like everything else. Its a good idea in principle but the government let us down by not following through.

Just like the skyhawks that cost us about $1million a month to keep servicable just so we can apparently sell them to someone......... I have a very large bone to pick with Uncle Helen.

[Jantar]

Don't blame Labour for the power restructuring - that was Nationals Max Bradford.
Kiwi Bank - excellent idea. Means some of the profits stay in this country instead of all being repatriated to Aus.
Spanking law? Last time I looked Sue Bradford was Green Party

Yes, the initial restructruring was National. Notice that Max Bradford is no longer an MP and that National have been out of office for the longest period of their history?
However the latest rounds of restructuring were all Labour. That includes splitting of lines and generation so that Dunedin City had to sell Waipori Power Station and Central Electric had to sell all their power stations and lose the lines side of the business as well. The electricity market that was self regulating under a free market system now has a Electricity Governence Committee that is government appointed, and when they do act in the public interest the chairman gets sacked.

Spanking Law? It is Labour who are pushing it forward under urgency. The Greens do not have that power.

[doc]

You have it all wrong our dollar is again climbing to set a new record. House prices have gone through the roof. I need a credit card to fill my bike and finance to get it serviced. There are a lot of people out there that think Helen is doing just dandy. Someone is benefiting 'Labour did bring in the "Trickle up" theory didn't they ?

[Bass]

It has been said and IMO with some truth, that a country gets the government that it deserves. I have never really understood what motivates anyone to want to be a politician. I guess there are a few who genuinely want to make a difference, but they quickly get swallowed by the party system.
So far as Helen goes, I have 2 areas of concern. The first is that she has never had a real job and by a real job, I mean one that has contributed directly and immediately to the net wealth of NZ. In so far as I can see, she has been groomed for politics right from university.
My second worry is that she has never raised a family.
Now there is nothing wrong with either of these choices and I suspect that she is a VERY able lady and probably very intelligent and shrewd as well. However, as PM she has major influence over the 2 main activities of the majority of her constituents (work and family) while having very limited personal experience of either.

[idleidolidyll]

As opposed to real wages and income almost halving under Nationals odious Employment Contracts Act and it's sellout of NZ to the lowest bidder?

I'd still vote Helen

Yes, yes, I DO know about Roger Douglas and the sellout under Labour when he was in control of the purse. That was the Claytons Labour Govt and it's quite telling that he and his cronies went on to form the most right wing party in NZ: ACT

In the hands of National and ACT, NZ will be just a minimum wage economy controlled by multinationals mainly from the USA

[ManDownUnder]

She's just been talking to the most powerful man in the Western World (and the comments he passed about Duncan Garner's suit look promising). I'll bet the Whitehouse are on the phone to a few sweatshops getting them replicated as we speak!

See - that's $50,000 in airfares well spent! What more could you ask?

[SPman]

In the hands of National and ACT, NZ will be just a minimum wage economy controlled by multinationals mainly from the USA
It already is, isn't it?
Courtesy of the National party mopping up what was left after Douglas and co shafted the country on behalf of their mates!People do have short memories - the last National regime cemented this country at the bottom of the financial pecking pile - or has everyone forgotten that!

[idleidolidyll]

It already is, isn't it?
Courtesy of the National party mopping up what was left after Douglas and co shafted the country on behalf of their mates!People do have short memories - the last National regime cemented this country at the bottom of the financial pecking pile - or has everyone forgotten that!

No, many of remember that but sadly migrants and youth have to learn the lesson from the beginning.

National and ACT woiuld have us mimic the USA: a fascist nation in all but name controlled completely by corporate backhanders and the military

ALL parties are flawed but at least Labour is centrist rather than nationalist right wing warmongers.

Where's that political compass again............ahh, here it is:
http://www.politicalcompass.org/

Very interesting but go directly here to see where NZ's political parties fall on the 2 main political scales: http://www.politicalcompass.org/nz2005

note the position of ACT and National: extreme right wing

Now go here and take the political test yourself to identify where YOU fit on the same chart (that's where your real aleginces should lie): http://www.politicalcompass.org/questionnaire

I fall quite close to the Greens and frankly, that's how I vote too but I also use one of my votes against the right wing specifically; sometimes that means using one for Labour

[idleidolidyll]

Problem is that too many people forget the past and are easily manipulated by a few issues rather than looking at the overall values and social concious of political parties.

who are the right wing beholden to, the ordinary people or to the wealthy and corporations?

it sure as hell can't be the ordinary people given they drove real wages for this sector right down and their tax policies would INCREASE the burden on that sector and lighten it on the wealthy and corporates

[Pixie]

So far as Helen goes, I have 2 areas of concern. The first is that she has never had a real job and by a real job, I mean one that has contributed directly and immediately to the net wealth of NZ. In so far as I can see, she has been groomed for politics right from university.

Clark was first noted as a potential politician,when her girlfriend,Heather Simpson, realised she could manipulate her like a puppet when she had her hand up her.

[davereid]

Helen has also been responsible for the "boy racer" legislation. You may say "great", but what it does is deny you your day in court. ie if a Policeman says you skidded your tyres then away goes your car.

Its actually a very major change in way citizens interact with enforcement authorities, and a very major backward step in a country that professes a belief in a transparent and honest legal system.

And we won't even mention the zillions spent developing stratergies to introduce Toll roads and electronic vehicle tagging. After all, why bother the voter with such minor issues !

Hmm and a democracy that sees 90% support for the sensible sentencing trusts petition just ignored.

[SPman]

Helen has also been responsible for the "boy racer" legislation. You may say "great", but what it does is deny you your day in court. ie if a Policeman says you skidded your tyres then away goes your car.

Its actually a very major change in way citizens interact with enforcement authorities, and a very major backward step in a country that professes a belief in a transparent and honest legal system.

And we won't even mention the zillions spent developing stratergies to introduce Toll roads and electronic vehicle tagging. After all, why bother the voter with such minor issues !

Hmm and a democracy that sees 90% support for the sensible sentencing trusts petition just ignored.
Well - they have "boy racer" legislation over in Oz as well, the "anti hoon" laws!
Did she influence the local governments over here?
I think not!
Toll roads etc - get them all around the world.
Vehicle tagging? - the Poms are way ahead.
Sensible sentencing trust petition ignored - damn good thing! The number of people in NZ who think prisons are a holiday camp, never ceases to astound me. NZ'ers are second only to the Yanks, I think for throwing people into gaol - typical - get a problem and try and hide it so it goes away!
NZ gaols are not , generally pleasant places!

[idleidolidyll]

NZ'ers are second only to the Yanks, I think for throwing people into gaol -

not certain if we're that far up but sadly too many are in prison for the wrong 'crimes' just like in the US, mainly cannabis, and because they couldn't afford good lawyers while some of the really bad abusers, the white collar criminals and the murderers/rapists etc, seem to get relatively light sentences.

on that one i'm with the sensible sentencing people: throw murderers in prison forever but stop sending dope smokers and even some growers to prison for doing something way less harmful than drinking.

3 Royal Commissions / Govt Investigations have found our laws on cannabis to be ridiculous and more harmful than the weed itself.

That's what Nandor's compromise legislation was all about: he couldn't get house agreement to change the cannabis laws so he proposed a law that removed the police record and travel restirctions after a few years: one of THE most harmful things about the present policing of the law.

Yep, it aint particularly a Labour thing, it's an issue thing

as i've said, when it comes to parties, weigh the overall intent not any one or two policies.
who represents YOU? who represents THEM?

that's why I suggested taking this test: http://www.politicalcompass.org/questionnaire

it places you personally in relation to the parties.

[idleidolidyll]

To be fair, asking you to take that test without giving you my score is dishonest so here ya go:

Your political compass

Economic Left/Right: -6.63
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.23



that makes me a Greenie and yes, that's how i generally vote

[MisterD]

that's why I suggested taking this test: http://www.politicalcompass.org/questionnaire

it places you personally in relation to the parties.


Interesting, but flawed, I think....probably as reliable as those new-age-psychobabble personality tests some of those corporations you despise so much run on prospective employees.

I've just done it, and it put me slap in the middle on the y-axis and just to the left on the x....:killingme

[Lias]

I fall quite close to the Greens and frankly, that's how I vote too but I also use one of my votes against the right wing specifically; sometimes that means using one for Labour

We'll never agree on the politics, but I will agree that political compass is a far better way of defining pollitical views than the traditional left/right.

I'm very slightly left on the left/right axis(between NZ first & Maori), but i'm up past Destiny on the authoritarian/libertarian axis.

If you look at the German or British charts, I fall up around the National Democrats / BNP. Which is probably why we dont agree on most anything :innocent:

[idleidolidyll]

Interesting, but flawed, I think....probably as reliable as those new-age-psychobabble personality tests some of those corporations you despise so much run on prospective employees.

I've just done it, and it put me slap in the middle on the y-axis and just to the left on the x....:killingme

everythings flawed but it's a damn sight more reliable than getting carried away with a couple of specific policies

the basis of the test is that the political parties were 'polled' (through media analysis) with the exact same questions: it is, in that way, a reality test

so you 'should' be voting Labour but you probably vote more right wing?

[idleidolidyll]

We'll never agree on the politics, but I will agree that political compass is a far better way of defining pollitical views than the traditional left/right.

I'm very slightly left on the left/right axis(between NZ first & Maori), but i'm up past Destiny on the authoritarian/libertarian axis.

If you look at the German or British charts, I fall up around the National Democrats / BNP. Which is probably why we dont agree on most anything :innocent:

thanks for taking the test and having the balls to post it.
yes, we'll never agree on some politics but i am happy to have your opinion.

imo, the worst cases of abuse in govt occur not from the economic divide, left and right; but from the authoritarian divide.

the worst abusers have generally been authoritarian regardless of their economic position: hitler, mao, thatcher, bush versus the dalai lama, gandhi etc

that makes your position dangerous; things like "unitary executive" are merely other ways to say "dictator"

i understand why people want 'strength' in govt but sadly the strenght eventually becomes self interest and monoploy of power

[MisterD]

so you 'should' be voting Labour but you probably vote more right wing?

Yep. There must me a missing z axis...

[Lias]

the worst abusers have generally been authoritarian regardless of their economic position: hitler, mao, thatcher, bush versus the dalai lama, gandhi etc

Strangely I dont like mao or bush, but I think hitler did alot of good before he went mad, and I <3 Maggie Thatcher to pieces.. I think someone should take her DNA, Rob Muldoons DNA, mix it, and make the result the god-emperor of the universe :yes:

[idleidolidyll]

Yep. There must me a missing z axis...

i agree, it's not missing but it's often not visible

i call it the propaganda axis

[idleidolidyll]

Strangely I dont like mao or bush, but I think hitler did alot of good before he went mad, and I <3 Maggie Thatcher to pieces.. I think someone should take her DNA, Rob Muldoons DNA, mix it, and make the result the god-emperor of the universe :yes:

before they went mad............................i agree actually

same goes for Mao, Mugabe, Mahatir etc

Thatcher? Mate, I lived under thatcherism in the 80's. More to the point, I lived in Wales and SAW the violence that accompanied thatcherism

Muldoon though was actually quite liberal and 'left' at first (before HE went mad). He was kinds the antithesis of roger douglas

[idleidolidyll]

gotta go friends

beer o'clock

i'll pick this up later; it's been refreshing to have a political discussion without real venom

[MisterD]

i agree, it's not missing but it's often not visible

i call it the propaganda axis

Ok, I'll bite. Care to expand on that?

[idleidolidyll]

Ok, I'll bite. Care to expand on that?

ask me later, that was pretty much a flippant line but it does have some depth

it really is beer o'clock, a mate has just phoned and on his way with the liqid

wouldn't want to look like a computer nerd now would i

later MisterD, so long and thanks for all the fish

[Mr Merde]

......... I have a very large bone to pick with Uncle Helen.

I really hope not, she mightnt appreciate the length or girth.

[idleidolidyll]

Ok, I'll bite. Care to expand on that?

OK, briefly

it refers to the intention of politicians to deceive and make you vote in their favour even though your true philosophy might be in contrast

often the power of money and it's ability to publicise makes that much difference

MisterD, I'm not attacking you personally on this, it's just how I see things.

of course your replies and those of lias are useful and add balance

[MisterD]

OK, briefly

it refers to the intention of politicians to deceive and make you vote in their favour even though your true philosophy might be in contrast

often the power of money and it's ability to publicise makes that much difference

MisterD, I'm not attacking you personally on this, it's just how I see things.

of course your replies and those of lias are useful and add balance

Looking forward to picking up on this later, I think there's probably something in what you are saying (speaking as someone who's profession is sales).

I think though that there has to be a true third dimension to this, otherwise the weighting given views from either side of the traditional L-R spectrum is what ultimately affects where that one averaged point comes out.

Enjoy the beer.

[badlieutenant]

I remember when labour got in and I was going to give my old employer a hard time (he been a staunch nationalist). When I did, he laughed and said it didnt worry him because he has always been better off financially under labour in the past.
I can appreciate national, but dont trust them, Labour on the other hand at seem to have the concerns of people in general as a focus, weather they get it right or not at least its a goal I can live with.
I would probably listen to the complaining if the first post sounded less like a bitch and tried adding something that labour had done right, sort of a balanced view type of thing.

[Ixion]

I'm very slightly left on the left/right axis(between NZ first & Maori), but i'm up past Destiny on the authoritarian/libertarian axis.



Anarchist!

-8.23 economics
+5.45 authortarian

Right up with Comrade Stalin


I think the Z axis reflects one's position on a globalist-localisation scale.

Feudalism, for instance was highly authoritarian. But also be localised, non global. The mediaval church was authoritarian, and global. Hence the disagreements. The Greens are not really very anarchistic., But they are highly globalist. The WestCoasters are anarchistic (even more so than the Greens). But highly localised.

So they will never agree. The West Coasters say "Cutting down these trees is good . It will create local jobs. We should have the right to use our local resources for local benefit." The Greens say " No no, cutting down those trees will contribute to global warming and cause polar bears to go extinct. Resources, wherever they may be, must be used for global benefit". Both left wing. Both somewhat anarchist . But totally differing on the global vs local scale.

This contrast is becoming more and more important, and is not reflected in the (now probably outdated) two axis political model. Most Kiwis are fairly local oriented. Comes with being on an island.

[MisterD]

I think the Z axis reflects one's position on a globalist-localisation scale.



Interesting, I was thinking along the lines of practical v idealistic...one of my bugbears with Labour type policies is the impracticality and waste associated with some of their idealistic policies.

Case in point: Tax credits, a nice idealistic method of wealth re-distribution which has the typical Labour drawback of requiring the employment of one set of people to take money off us, and another set to give it back.

[Flatcap]

Interesting, I was thinking along the lines of practical v idealistic...one of my bugbears with Labour type policies is the impracticality and waste associated with some of their idealistic policies.

Case in point: Tax credits, a nice idealistic method of wealth re-distribution which has the typical Labour drawback of requiring the employment of one set of people to take money off us, and another set to give it back.

This is a great work for the dole scheme. I for one enjoy the fact that these "Public Servants" get to play with my money before handing it on to beneficiaries.

Better they pay for their own LCD TV with my money rather than nick mine directly

[Flatcap]

National and ACT woiuld have us mimic the USA: a fascist nation in all but name controlled completely by corporate backhanders and the military

ALL parties are flawed but at least Labour is centrist rather than nationalist right wing warmongers.




You say that as if it is a bad thing - I for one hope the Yanks will come and save us when Indonesia invades

[paturoa]

I would probably listen to the complaining if the first post sounded less like a bitch and tried adding something that labour had done right, sort of a balanced view type of thing.

It was only meant as a bitch.

I see a lot of stuff here that I do not want the government to do.

I see too many fundamentals, that I IMHO, have got worse in the last ~8 years ......
....the role of governments (nanny state), commerce, education, health, transport, utilities, personal freedom, crime / law and order, TAX, & a bunch of dumb shit stuff.

I suspect that the political compass thing isn't tuned very well as I was just in the bottom left quadrant, yet I am not happy about the list of stuff in the first post?

And what really scares me is what happens next year. I don't see clear signals / policy statements from any of the other "options" that convinces me that these things will start improving.....

[smoky]

I've lived & worked in a few countries, came back to NZ 3 years ago - to a different NZ, a better NZ.
If you look around at the successful governments in the world, they all have the same 'keesington' (I think that’s how you spell it) economic model; They say; What business does a government have running phone companies, railways, coal mines, schools, hospitals and so on. So they privatise and sell.
They manage inflation via interest rates, while encouraging productivity.
Tax and save until there’s a down turn, then increase social spending in a down turn.

Socialist, democratic, rightwing, leftwing - whatever, they are all following the same idea's as far as I can see.
While Labour hasn't sold hospitals or schools or social housing - they will eventually - they are all being groomed and set up for it. The process and pace they are following is the difference between Labour and National;
National would just create a fictional competition and sell them off to their mates at reduced prices – never mind the immediate consequences, let the dependants die - it'll sort it's self out with natural economic balances sooner or later.
Labour is actively looking for partners like NGO's and Iwi groups - and funding their growth and capability to take over the provision of social services like schools, hospital and social housing - so it can ultimately pull out of providing those services.
The problem is as they invest in these entities it’s pushing up government spending – that’s contributing to inflation, house prices are only one pressure, government spending is the biggest pressure.

But what do I know :zzzz:

[davereid]

The Greens say " No no, cutting down those trees will contribute to global warming and cause polar bears to go extinct."

Yep, the Greens DO say that.

A tree grows, absorbing carbon. Then it dies, and lies in the litter on the forest floor, releasing all the carbon as it decays.

ie Forests are not carbon sinks, they are carbon neutral.

To make a forest work as a carbon sink, you have to cut all the trees down, and put then somewhere where they wont rot. (Not in a leaky house.) Then plant new trees.

[Brett]

There are so many angry things I want to say about Helen, but I gotta scoot out the door for a ride...so I will leave with only one...
I think it was $13,000,000 that got sent to fund OVERSEAS abortion. We cant even F#ucking look after our own kids, yet we are funding the murder of them overseas? CYFS have not got enough resources and the result is that babies, yes babies are stuck with druggie mothers who, when hey cry, get fed P to keep them quiet cause the mother is too high to think straight.

Dont even get me started on the anti-smacking bill. I really really detest having Helen lead out country with her band of miscreants.

[idleidolidyll]

Looking forward to picking up on this later, I think there's probably something in what you are saying (speaking as someone who's profession is sales).

I think though that there has to be a true third dimension to this, otherwise the weighting given views from either side of the traditional L-R spectrum is what ultimately affects where that one averaged point comes out.

Enjoy the beer.

OK MisterD,

The first thing to note is that just the discussion of different ways to identify party and voter compatibility is an indication of open mindedness and extremely worthwhile.

There are many many ways that we can identify or classify the actions of political parties and reference them back to our own philosophies and our own personal cultures (specifically YOUR culture, not you family's, not your ethnic group etc; YOUR personal culture).

As part of my studies I had the opportunity to be exposed to many differnt paradigms and theories. I consider those of Geert Hofstede and Michael Bond invaluable as well as those of Maslow and many others. These people recognised that there are a myriad different cultures and ways of seeing the worlkd and they tried to offer more useful ways to categorise and understand.

I offered the political compass because it has that handy dandy test and is an attempt to get away from the quite ridiculous idea of merely left and right wing. It recognises that certain kinds of authority are likely to act in certain ways and seeks to identify these and compare/contrast yours with that baseline.
In that way the charts are extremely useful in exposing much political propaganda generally directed at "Right Wing" "Left Wing". You can see on the charts that some parties may be left wing but authoriatrian or right wing but liberal etc. That is a fundamentally important idea to understand in order to recognise propaganda and distinguish it from facts and valid opinions.
As I suggested to Lias, the 'issue' may not be one of left versus right but of social liberalism versus authoritarianism. It is no coincidence that Hitler, Mao, Stalin and Bush all feature very high on the authoritarianism scale; as they say: "Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely". Authoritarianism may be a fine concept but unless there are extremely good safequards, it often degrades to dictatorships, oligarchies and other forms of coercive power management. You can see by the chart that this can happen regardless of the right or leftness of the economic policies and the result is usually violence, discrimination, "us and them", racism etc.

On the other hand, the extreme of social liberalism is total anarchy. This rarely gains traction in modern societies but it's danger is the evntual collapse of society with a similar degradation into factions that consider themselves 'superior' in some way and more deserving. In a way that is a U-turn on liberalism and actually a return to authoritarianism but it is one of the possible scenarios. Anarchy is destructive for those who do not have the necessary skills to survive by themselves.

Obviously we need a balance between the two just as we need a balance between the extremes of communism and capitalism. If you've read and understoof Karl Marx you'll recognise that as socialism. Marx termed socialism as a mid way point between communism and capitalism; a place where elements of BOTH are practiced in society and benefit the people relatively equally.
Contrary to propaganda, socialism is NOT left wing, it is centrist on the economic scale.

Now back to my comment about the "propaganda scale".

I believe this is the most important to understand and yet the least well understood. We are all subject to propaganda all our lives: nationalism, race based debates, political, religious, philosophical. In these modern times most of us are exposed to the bulk of our 'news' through the mainstream media and, as anyone who has studied media knows, the media usually gives you 'news' in a way that frames it so that their own viewpoint is presented as the 'most valid'.
However, when we consider that mainstream media is predominantly owned and controlled by 'right wing authoritarians", we should understand that it is THAT viewpoint that is most emphasised.
The fact is that the various media are capitalist organisations that wish to make a profit. They do this not by subscription but through advertising. It is the power of the advertising dollar that most determines what is and what isn't news. If a large corporations suggests that it will pull it's advertising forever if a certain article or viewpoint is presented, then you should understand that the media is most likely to pull the story or rewrite it to minimise it's negative effect on the advertiser.
The myth of the left wing media is just that, a myth. Studies in the USA and other western nations have shown that the overall agendas of almost all mainstream media orgs is 'right wing authoritarian". That's not surprising when you consider that 90% plus of all the so called mainstream media is owned by just half a dozen extremely capitalist authoritarian organisations.

Obviously there is an awful lot kore to it but when I suggested that the "prpoaganda axis" skews 'your' perception in contrast to your fundamental human philosophy, it must be understood that most of the power of propaganda is through the media and therefore most of the 'push' is toward the right upper quadrant even though your score might have been very centrist and more like Labour's.
Things like the propaganda link suggesting that 'socialism is communism' that 'free markets will give everyone equal opportunity' etc DO tend to push people away from the lefy/lower quadrant even if they personally believe in left/lower human philosophies.
In the USA it's even worse with serious nationalism and militarism underlined and underpinned with things like singing the national anthem every day in school and recruiting for military cadets in junior high school before the kids really have the knowledge of what they are signing up for.

I'll leave it there at this point, I suspect I'm gonna have to break this post in parts anyway. I'm mopre than happy to continue if others also are.

[idleidolidyll]

This is a great work for the dole scheme. I for one enjoy the fact that these "Public Servants" get to play with my money before handing it on to beneficiaries.

Better they pay for their own LCD TV with my money rather than nick mine directly

you might think this is odd but i agree with work for the dole schemes; freeloaders destroy ANY system

[Ixion]

Yep. Social welfare was supposed to be to help the worker, not the shirker.Nobody hates the bludger more than the working man.

Is why left wing economy doesn't work with a libertarian regime. Too easy for people to evade their responsibilities. You need labour camps to reeducate those who don't want to pullt heir weight.

[idleidolidyll]

You say that as if it is a bad thing - I for one hope the Yanks will come and save us when Indonesia invades

I understand why you might say that but I think it is an anchronism and that the reality of it is that WE are more likely to be called in AGAIN to support America's abusive, unjust wars, than the opposite. We are also MORE likely to be a target if we are aligned with the USA than if we are neutral.

Vietnam was a massive mistake by NZ. We blindly supported our 'allies' in a war that was fought because of lies and unwarranted fear than for humanitarian reasons: 2-4 million people died because of that injustice.

The allies promised Uncle Ho free and fair elections and an end to French colonialism if Ho and his supporters fought against the Japanese.
The allies went back on that promise and eventually the war ensued from that broken promise.

Likewise, Indonesia has much to hate the US for. It was instrumental in the overthrow of Sukarno and in placing Suharto in Power. The USA has a tradition of forked tongue. It speaks democracy and freedom but it manifestly SUPPORTS tyranny, dictatorship and greed.
When they helped throw out Sukarno, major resources were privatised (basically given away to foreign interests in exchange for bribes). The CIA also gave Suharto lists of people the USA suggested should be killed and their will was done. Companies like Nike qwere then able to turn the economy of the country into a perpetual wage slave one where wages were always kept down and social responsibility was also kept down.

It is no surprise then that the USA was the 1 Security Council vote that prevented the UN intervening to stop the genocide in East Timor.

You might support the USA but I don't, I have read of and understand too many of their lies.

[idleidolidyll]

Yep. Social welfare was supposed to be to help the worker, not the shirker.Nobody hates the bludger more than the working man.

Is why left wing economy doesn't work with a libertarian regime. Too easy for people to evade their responsibilities. You need labour camps to reeducate those who don't want to pullt heir weight.

and that's why socialism is the best path; a middle road between laissez faire (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rls=RNFA,RNFA:1970--2,RNFA:en&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=laissez+faire&spell=1) capitalism and communism.
It is no accident that the countries most often at the top of the scales of contentment, quality of life etc, are socialist (communist social policies mixed with capitalist economy): Norway, Finland and yes, even NZ from time to time.

[ManDownUnder]

you might think this is odd but i agree with work for the dole schemes; freeloaders destroy ANY system

Ageed. You want money into your economy? Put something into MY economy

It's a transaction - it has to be. There ALWAYS needs to be something in it for both sides, even if that something is only the promise of benefit in future days (i.e. you get through the tough times and we'll request payback in times of plenty).

The downside I can see is where this compulsory work impacts the services of extablished organisations... That points at taskforce green type work then - cleaning up beaches, stuffing envelopes etc.

I've never had a day on the dole in my life, and I doubt I will. It's no accident

[idleidolidyll]

The downside I can see is where this compulsory work impacts the services of extablished organisations... That points at taskforce green type work then - cleaning up beaches, stuffing envelopes etc.



That is only a part of the problem. The basis of capitalism is that it MUST forever expand or it will fail. To forever expend, no work can be excluded from the profit motive and extremist capitalism depends on laissiez faire practices and the rejection of ALL govt curbs on its excesses.

So, no matter what kind of work is chosen for the dole schemes, capitalism will always 'catch up' or complain and demand to make a profit from it even if that means taking it away from the state system.

With even the lunbering giant (or 800lb gorilla if you will) that is America finally seeming to understand that the environment is important, green schemes too will soon become capitalist ventures and an expansion of the capitalist system.

[jrandom]

I've never had a day on the dole in my life, and I doubt I will...

Neither have I, but with careful and creative financial structuring over the last decade (ahem) I've probably managed to avoid income tax to the value of a couple years' worth of the dole.

Swings and roundabouts.

For what it's worth, my political compass position matches idleidolidyll's (and Gandhi's). In spite of that, I'll probably vote red next election; Auntie Helen will need all the party votes she can get to keep John Key's corporate lackeys and their greedy money-shuffling fingers where they belong - ranting from the opposition benches.

I live in Mr Key's electorate, surrounded by the bourgeois likes of MDU, so my candidate vote isn't really going to achieve diddly-squat. Come to think of it, maybe the ALCP would like someone to noisily against the leader of the opposition on his home turf?

Heh.

[Ixion]

And yet, in recent times (last 20 years) the National party has been staunchly Socialist ("we are all socialists nowdays"); while the most determined right wing economic program was Roger Douglas, a member of the then Labour government!

I'd suggest that Roger's followers were a lot keener on money shuffling than Muldoon's

[idleidolidyll]

And yet, in recent times (last 20 years) the National party has been staunchly Socialist ("we are all socialists nowdays"); while the most determined right wing economic program was Roger Douglas, a member of the then Labour government!

I'd suggest that Roger's followers were a lot keener on money shuffling than Muldoon's

National 'socialist'?

hilarious, National is as 'socialist' as George Bush.

Douglas's ACT party might be worse but National is predominantly capitalist NOT socialist, not even close.

Witness the John Keys Carbon giveaway; a direct bribe of some 2.5 billion dollars from the taxpayer to business. Very much the Bush way.

[Ixion]

..National is predominantly capitalist NOT socialist, not even close.

...

And Labour is not ?

Based on the fundamental touchstone of Socialism, the nationalisation of the means of production, distribution and exchange ; or the reverse (privatisation); the record of the National party is more Socialist than the Labour party. Of course, one problem is that past actions are no guarantee of future ones. The bastards on either side are quite capable of betraying the people once in power, no matter what stories they tell before election.

[Hitcher]

What New Zealand's political spectrum needs is more parties at the extremes -- such as a nice dry communist party and a positively combustible right-wing party. I'm sick and tired of all the limp-wristed, namby-pamby parties we have that want to camp on what they think are "centrist" policies.

The trick to winning an election in New Zealand is to form a "Talkback Radio Party": pro-death penalty, pro-smacking, anti-Asian immigration, anti-NCEA, anti-parole, pro-work for the dole, etc. And then emigrate to Australia...

[Ixion]

Well, the sentiments on talk back radio seem to be supported by an awful lot of people. If they weren't the radio stations would be unlikely to continue the programs. The advertisers would see to that.

So if an awful lot of people want such policies - isn't that sort of what "democracy" is about (not that I'm much of a fan of democracy myself).

It often seems that liberals are all in favour of democracy , just so long as it doesn't extend to non liberal ideas. Which is an '-ocracy' of a different sort.

[idleidolidyll]

Ixion

Saying National is 'socialist' because it incorporates a few elements of social welfare is like saying communism is capitalist because it uses money.

It is the predominant or overall balance that determines whether a system is communist, capitalist or something between.

I refer you back to the political compass; national is very much a right wing (capitalist) party and, on that one scale, is opposite to the Greens not to Labour. Labour is centrist, slightly centre right in fact.

[idleidolidyll]

And Labour is not ?

Based on the fundamental touchstone of Socialism, the nationalisation of the means of production, distribution and exchange ; or the reverse (privatisation); the record of the National party is more Socialist than the Labour party. Of course, one problem is that past actions are no guarantee of future ones. The bastards on either side are quite capable of betraying the people once in power, no matter what stories they tell before election.

" Based on the fundamental touchstone of Socialism, the nationalisation of the means of production"

and there ya go; i just KNEW someone would ascribe communist ideals to socialism

nationalisation of the means of production is the foundation of COMMUNISM, the opposite is capitalism: laissez faire capitalism in fact.
Once more, socialism is a mid way economic ideal that includes elements of BOTH capitalism and communism.

Limiting the debate is a fallacy. Limiting the debate's timeframe to specifically include Rogernomics but to exclude the formation of social welfare is a fallacial tactic.

National is definitely NOT more socialist, it is more capitalist.

[SPman]

Your political compass

Economic Left/Right: -4.63
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.77

Another Green - sort of where I voted, although I put in a plug for the Maori party as well.
More an old Values supporter!

[idleidolidyll]

What New Zealand's political spectrum needs is more parties at the extremes --

Looking at countries that DO have a more evenly spread range of political parties (Germany), it is clear that NZ is actually underepresented on the extreme left but not the right wing.

It's all about perspective. Yanks think anything 'left' of the Good Ol Party Republicans) is communist or left wing. In fact the USA really doesn't have a functioning left, it merely has the right wing and the extreme right wing.

In NZ the Labour partry is usually painted as 'left' and that is certainly in part due to the yanks and their control of much of the media. In fact Labour is centre right while National is very right wing and also very authoritarian.

Again, go back and look at the different country charts on that continuum.

[SPman]

National is definitely NOT more socialist, it is more capitalist.
I think people confuse Muldoon with the National party!
Muldoon was a misguided socialist in National guise, like the Douglas crowd were frustrated capitalists, until they got into power

It was all put back to normal with the Bolger/Richardson/Shipley tyranny of the 90's, that effectively shot NZ in both feet!

The only difference between the Republicans and Democrats these days, seems to be the color of their marketing letterheads!

[Toaster]

I have been talking with some people at work and we compiled this list of stuff.
...

So what do you think? Are you grumpy too?

Have I missed any other gems?

Dude, I agree with you wholeheartedly. Bling awarded. Mate I am fed up with the lack of democracy and fair media under this govt. She is a controlling manipulative person who has pushed her social engineering barrow all the while when they pay lip-service to the people, taxes, surpluses and and that good economic stuff that they are supposed to focus on. I am sick of working my ass off to fund every lazy pricks lifestyle too.

[Toaster]

Well, you voted for her...

And if you pay politicians to make laws, don't blame them when they do.

In terms of nutsville legislation you forgot about the dangerous dogs legislation.

Hey! I live in nutsville. Gonna have to shoot me five rotties, twelve ridgebacks and four pitbulls.... once I can afford the petrol to put in me redneck pickup to go to council to get consent to fart on my property and discharge a firearm without incurring a carbon debit or upsetting the local townies who live in the country and call the cops evertime they hear 'bang'. :sick:

[Ixion]

Well, social welfare is not a determinant of socialism. America has a comprehensive social welfare system. China (nominally a Communist country) does not. So social welfare is not an indicator . Nor is social welfare (or its absence) an indicator of where a society lies on the "left vs right" economic scale. Historically, social welfare schemes tended to accompany left wing economics, because both were favoured by the trade union movement. But they are different things.

For instance, the Tudor guilds operated a sophisticated social welfare system, under the aegis of a totally capitalist economy.

To my mind, the determinator of where a party lies on the economic left/right axis, is it's position with regard to ownership of assets. From the extreme left wing (the State owns everything and private property is illegal) to the extreme right (the State owns nothing, all "property" - including utility services, schools etc , is privately owned).

Nowdays , we may I think ignore discussion of the "pure" economies, Communism on the one hand and Adam Smith capitalism on the other, simply because no major country would be able to implement them.

And, on such a basis , I would say that NONE of the present NZ political parties can be deemed Socialist, because none of them endorse public ownership , even of essential services. Labour's record, even in very recent years , is a sorry one. Watercare. Air NZ. Railways. Private toll roads. Privatisation of the health system. These are not the policies of a Socialist government. National is neither better than worst, just more honest about where it stands. The Greens are worse than Labour.

You appear to distinguish the parties on where they stand with regard to social welfare, which is understandable , because this is one of the few discernable differences (others are foreign policy, though both are happy to sell us out to the global corporates; and environmental policy). But social welfare, as I note above is not an indicator of economic position. If anything it is an indicator of centralisation vs localisation -The state will look after you, versus your family or wrokmates will look after you- (see my coment above) ; or authoritarian/libertarian position - you will contribute, via taxes, whether you wish to or not, versus I will make my own charitable decisions.

Note that a propensity to war, or otherwise, is universal. Socialist, communist, fascist, capitalist, all are equally likely to call for war , or peace, as best suits their purpose.

[idleidolidyll]

Well, the sentiments on talk back radio seem to be supported by an awful lot of people. If they weren't the radio stations would be unlikely to continue the programs. The advertisers would see to that.

So if an awful lot of people want such policies - isn't that sort of what "democracy" is about (not that I'm much of a fan of democracy myself).

It often seems that liberals are all in favour of democracy , just so long as it doesn't extend to non liberal ideas. Which is an '-ocracy' of a different sort.


Oh dear, where do i start? :gob:

As I said right from the start; placing too much emphasis on one or a few specific issues will confuse not elucidate. It will allow a prty to gain power and misuse that power as if it was a mandate just because the electorate voted on the one or threee 'issues' rather than on the balance of a political party's proposed or hidden aims.

As for talk back, much of talkback is publicly funded and therefore spared a great deal of the wrath of advertisers. Also, because of it's nature, it is not really possible to control the issue that much with the threat of the advertising dollar. Certainly somewhat but not in a major way. I've even done it myself a couple of times: changed the subject being discussed with a few arranged phone calls.

Sadly of course, many people DO vote on specific issues ignoring the larger picture. It's unlikely IMO that National would ever have power again if that were not the case, it is just too far removed from the basic needs, desires, ethics and culture of working class NZ.

You've seen that I am less than appreciative when people ascribe communist theories as socialism. Well the term 'liberal' is just as odious.

Liberal what? Capitalists actually WANT liberalism on one hand. They want to be free to use their money and power liberally to fuck over anyone and anything that gets in their way. That's what laissez faire means.

Social liberalism is an entirely different continuum but it so often gets thrown in as a 'left wing' concept. All it is really, is the idea that peole should be allowed to do as they wish as long as that does not harm others.

So when people start chucking the word 'liberal' around, usually describing their idea of the 'left', I just groan and think "propaganda"

[idleidolidyll]

Well, social welfare is not a determinant of socialism.

Social welfare is a communist ideal that was intoduced by the Labour Party in NZ. That party also practiced capitalist ideals and is therefore rightly termed 'socialist'

That amerika has it too is more a carry over from the respect that FDR had than a reflection on current america. If Bush could get rid of it he would and he is in fact destroying it in stages by privatising it's elements.

[idleidolidyll]

The only real reason right wing systems still have social welfare is to stop the 'masses' rising and throwing them out completely. Without it, capitalism would be even more heartless.

That said, Bush et al are doing a damn fine job of eliminating it and their tax schemes and overspending may put the final nail in the coffin.

The 'cost' of social welfare will soon be said to unustainable in the US due to the reduced tax take since Bush (because of the reduction of taxes from the wealthy) and due to the cost of the Iraq war. That is already the case in fact and many social welfare programmes in the US have been cut drastically.

[Ixion]

" Based on the fundamental touchstone of Socialism, the nationalisation of the means of production"

and there ya go; i just KNEW someone would ascribe communist ideals to socialism

nationalisation of the means of production is the foundation of COMMUNISM, the opposite is capitalism: laissez faire capitalism in fact.
.

The original (1917) Clause 4 of the UK Labour party constitution


"To secure for the workers by hand or by brain the full fruits of their industry and the most equitable distribution thereof that may be possible upon the basis of the common ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange, and the best obtainable system of popular administration and control of each industry or service."



Note that the Labour party specifically rejected Communism (in both UK and NZ- you cannot be a memeber of the NZ Labour party if youa re a Communist)

Are you arguing that the Attllee (UK) or Savage/Fraser (NZ) governments were in fact Communist ? Because they were strongly in favour of nationalisation, and actually carried out a great deal of it.

[idleidolidyll]

To my mind, the determinator of where a party lies on the economic left/right axis, is it's position with regard to ownership of assets.

With respect Ixion, the descriptions and determinators of communism, capitalism and socialism have been set and set by a man voted the greatest philosopher of the 20th century: Karl Marx

YOUR idea of what they are is merely a political manipulation and can be described along the propaganda axis I desribed earlier. The manipulation of word meanings is a propaganda tactic from start to finish.

I prefer discussion based on real definitions (not wikipedia), the following is Marx paraphrased:


Capitalism: An economic system where the means of production is controlled by capitalists (the wealthy)

Communism: An economic system where the means of production is controlled by the people through the State.

Socialism: A state existing between the two extremes combining elements of both. A transitional state.

[_Gina_]

It's been ages since I have enjoyed reading such healthy debate concerning NZ politics.
Not only that, but some new words to pronounce in my head.

III - Elucidate

You tend to use this alot, could you use another word in it's place please?
I just don't like the way it sounds in my head.


Cheers
G

:sunny:

[idleidolidyll]

The original (1917) Clause 4 of the UK Labour party constitution


Note that the Labour party specifically rejected Communism (in both UK and NZ- you cannot be a memeber of the NZ Labour party if youa re a Communist)

Are you arguing that the Attllee (UK) or Savage/Fraser (NZ) governments were in fact Communist ? Because they were strongly in favour of nationalisation, and actually carried out a great deal of it.

Ixion

Just because a government specifically rejects communism per se, does not mean they do not have communist philosophy as part of their culture.

I refer you to Karl Marx. Socialism is a system that contains elements of BOTH communism and capitalism.

[jrandom]

To be perfectly honest, I don't think most arguers on the subject know what they're going on about.

I give you, for example, the illiterate ranters in this thread blithering about their taxes being used to support bludgers.

The main economic question is whether to redistribute wealth or not. People tend to be selfish on that issue - folk with good earning potential, or plenty of assets laying around, hate giving it away, whereas folk who would typically end up on the middling-to-low end of the socioeconomic scale quite like the idea of a levelling-out, thank you very much. Taxation, regulation, social welfare, public utility ownership - it's all a simple question of whether or not to redistribute.

The main social question, as opposed to economic, is one of the acceptance or rejection of an overarching objective morality - the question of whether behaviour that is not immediately and obviously harmful should be legally regulated.

There's no easy answer to anything, and either way, there will always be a halfwit somewhere, bitching and moaning.

And here we are, arguing about the definitions of socialism and communism. Whether or not socialism is Communism Lite, or something different, isms are generally no more than an excuse for strawman arguments. Issues and ideas should always be debated on their own merits.

[idleidolidyll]

It's been ages since I have enjoyed reading such healthy debate concerning NZ politics.
Not only that, but some new words to pronounce in my head.

III - Elucidate

You tend to use this alot, could you use another word in it's place please?
I just don't like the way it sounds in my head.


Cheers
G

:sunny:

ha!ha!

OK: clarify, explain, explicate, expound, spell out, interpret

[_Gina_]

Or I should just fuck off to the LOTPIHGAD??

:D

[_Gina_]

ha!ha!

OK: clarify, explain, explicate, expound, spell out, interpret
I choose explicate. Sounds good. Thanks.

:innocent:

[jrandom]

Not only that, but some new words to pronounce in my head.

III - Elucidate

You tend to use this alot

Out of 32 times that the word 'elucidate' has ever been used in KB posts, including that one of yours, there, idleidolidyll has used it thrice, and Ixion once.

That makes idleidolidyll responsible for 9.375% of KB's obvious over-use of the word.

I move that we take him out back and shoot him.

Communist style.

[idleidolidyll]

To be perfectly honest, I don't think most arguers on the subject know what they're going on about.

I give you, for example, the illiterate ranters in this thread blithering about their taxes being used to support bludgers.

The main economic question is whether to redistribute wealth or not. People tend to be selfish on that issue - folk with good earning potential, or plenty of assets laying around, hate giving it away, whereas folk who would typically end up on the middling-to-low end of the socioeconomic scale quite like the idea of a levelling-out, thank you very much. Taxation, regulation, social welfare, public utility ownership - it's all a simple question of whether or not to redistribute.

The main social question, as opposed to economic, is one of the acceptance or rejection of an overarching objective morality - the question of whether behaviour that is not immediately and obviously harmful should be legally regulated.

There's no easy answer to anything, and either way, there will always be a halfwit somewhere, bitching and moaning.

And here we are, arguing about the definitions of socialism and communism. Whether or not socialism is Communism Lite, or something different, isms are generally no more than an excuse for strawman arguments. Issues and ideas should always be debated on their own merits.

thatnks fish

part of the problem is that capitalism has always relied on a large pool of unemployed to help employers keep wages down. However, that creates a real problem in that those unemployed cannot just be left to rot, that's political suicide as a large numner of disaffected citizens is what starts revolutions.

therefore they are given a security blanket and the extent of that security blanket becomes a perpetual political football with one side saying it's not enough and the other saying it's too much.

Wise men have noted that when a system is weighted too much in favour of the capitalists, revolution will inevitably follow.

regarding word meanings and 'isms'

i agree to some extent but you should note my comments on word manipulation being propaganda. That comes from both sides.

The best way to start a political debate would be to agree on specific word meanings and as I have already said, I prefer the original meanings of the three here as defineed by Marx not as manipulated by subsequant generations of politicians.

[idleidolidyll]

Out of 32 times that the word 'elucidate' has ever been used in KB posts, including that one of yours, there, idleidolidyll has used it thrice, and Ixion once.

That makes idleidolidyll responsible for 9.375% of KB's obvious over-use of the word.

I move that we take him out back and shoot him.

Communist style.

Oh my god, soon i'll be shot for being too 'intellectual'

sorry guys, i refuse to dumb down. think of it as a learning experience :yes:

[jrandom]

Sorry, I have to do this.

In Soviet Russia, 'elucidate' over-use you!

[idleidolidyll]

Well deserved bling to all for not getting personal and abusive while discussing one of the most inflammatory subjects outside religion.

thanks y'all

gotta take a rest now, my ovaries hurt................or is that my brain, i dunno

[idleidolidyll]

probably as reliable as those new-age-psychobabble personality tests some of those corporations you despise so much run on prospective employees.

I've just done it, and it

ahh, Myers Briggs tests

was taught how to fuck them up in those tests doing my communication degree

when you break it down, the MB test only works when people really are totally honest and even then not too well. If you understand the basis of it all, it's not hard to 'cheat'

Of course the notion of 'total honesty' when speaking to prospective employers is a stretch: most people tend toward inflation.............

[_Gina_]

Out of 32 times that the word 'elucidate' has ever been used in KB posts, including that one of yours, there, idleidolidyll has used it thrice, and Ixion once.

That makes idleidolidyll responsible for 9.375% of KB's obvious over-use of the word.

I move that we take him out back and shoot him.

Communist style.
Rack the gauge!
Lock 'n' load!
Fire in the hole!!!

My bad, I was just looking to distract from the fact that I didn't like the way it sounded in my head.

:dodge:

[Ixion]

With respect Ixion, the descriptions and determinators of communism, capitalism and socialism have been set and set by a man voted the greatest philosopher of the 20th century: Karl Marx

YOUR idea of what they are is merely a political manipulation and can be described along the propaganda axis I desribed earlier. The manipulation of word meanings is a propaganda tactic from start to finish.

I prefer discussion based on real definitions (not wikipedia), the following is Marx paraphrased:


Capitalism: An economic system where the means of production is controlled by capitalists (the wealthy)

Communism: An economic system where the means of production is controlled by the people through the State.

Socialism: A state existing between the two extremes combining elements of both. A transitional state.

With respect, your definitions are incorrect. An economic system where the means of production is controlled by the State is Socialism (the dictatorship of the proletariat) not Communism

And while it is correct that socialism was viewed by Marx as a transitional step on the way to Communism, it is not correct to view this in economic terms. the transitional nature was related to the governance of the state.

I assume that ytou will be willing to accept "The Communist Manifesto" as being a correct statement of Marx's position (after all, he wrote it!)



(¶2.72) These measures will, of course, be different in different countries.
(¶2.73) Nevertheless, in the most advanced countries the following will be pretty generally applicable:
1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3. Abolition of all right of inheritance.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
5. Centralization of credit in the hands of the state by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
8. Equal obligation of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the population over the country.
10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of child factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc.
(¶2.74) When in the course of development class distinctions have disappeared and all production has been concentrated in the hands of a vast association of the whole nation, the public power will lose its political character. Political power, properly so called, is merely the organised power of one class for oppressing another. If the proletariat during its contest with the bourgeoisie is compelled by the force of circumstances to organise itself as a class; if by means of a revolution it makes itself the ruling class and, as such, sweeps away by force the old conditions of production, then it will, along with these conditions, have swept away the conditions for the existence of class antagonisms and of classes generally, and will thereby have abolished its own supremacy as a class.
(¶2.75) In place of the old bourgeois society, with its classes and class antagonisms, we shall have an association in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all.


Socialism is the journey, Communism the destination .


That the nationalisation of the means of production transport and exchange was a basic principle of the original Labour party is incontestable - if they had not believed in this they would not have nationalised all the industries that they did. They were Socialists. They were not Communists .


BTW I do not know who voted Marx as the greatest philosopher of the century. (You say 20th but I assume you mean 19th since he died in 1883). I think that must have been a partial electorate.

[Delerium]

Thats part of the problem though isnt it. You have such a large welfare base, so many people relying on it that whenever a mention of stopping the free handouts is spread that party wont get in. Their voting power is so large. The more people that form the handout demographic the less people there is to pay and support it. The so called 'middle class' is the most difficult demographic to be in, because they receive a large tax rate and minimal help. therefore it is coming to the point that your better off earning less.

The hardest way to get ahead is to work hard. NZ is now a low wage economy and the most unaffordable places to buy a home (comparing average wage to house price, on average I beleive it is 7.2 times the average wage to buy a home.

Next point, why do critical services such as fire, and ambulance staff get less than some beneficiaries? why have some of them been reported on 70 odd thousand a year? I dont understand the logic behind it.

[NighthawkNZ]

NZ is now a low wage economy and the most unaffordable places to buy a home (comparing average wage to house price, on average I beleive it is 7.2 times the average wage to buy a home.


tell me about it... sigh.

[YLWDUC]

She's just been talking to the most powerful man in the Western World

But George talks with lots of men every day, why should Uncle H be any different?

[jrandom]

the MB test only works when people really are totally honest...

But it's so comforting to belong to an identifiable subgroup. Makes one feel less alone.

INTJs, represent!

[jrandom]

Fire in the hole!!!

Oooh errr.

Any time you like, my dear, but not without protection, mm kay?

[Hitcher]

INTJs, represent!

You cannot be serious.