Robert Taylor and idleidolidyll's political debating thread

[Street Gerbil]

THe USSR was corrupted by authoriatrianism and as such it could not be defined as actually socialist. It was a dictatorship and the definition from that abusive dictatorship is merely propaganda. That you rely on propaganda rather than text book definitions or truly authoritative sources like Marx or Adam Smith speaks volumes.

The vast majority of participants of this discussion are brainwashed by the capitalist propaganda. The rest is brainwashed by the communist propaganda. Makes sense. Thank you at least for not bringing imperialism into the mix...
But seriously, whether or not the implementation failed so utterly because the theory was perverted and corrupted in the process or because the theory itself was flawed is irrelevant in the framework of the discussion. That much was proven, so to speak, empirically. The topic is not whether one should trust the propaganda of Marx, Bakunin, Trotsky, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, or Pol Pot. They never actually had a say as to what -isms are. They only speculated what measures can influence the transition from one -ism to the other. Again, before debating on who is on the right or on the wrong, it makes sense to establish a sort of a common ground.
What I am referring to is the philosophical tool that was thought out when Soviet propaganda machine wasn't even in the blueprints, a cornerstone of Marxism by the way, defining the determining factors of capitalismness, socialismness, or communismness of the society. Speaking of which, what is the name of the science I am referring to?

[slowpoke]

On a slightly different tack:
Why is it that a supposed "blow out" in wages (say an increase of 5% rather than 3%) is decried as "inflationary" yet a 10% increase in company profits is celebrated as "growth"?

[scumdog]

Whereabouts in the world does "socialism", as a form of government freely chosen by the population of that country, exist?

I was going to kinda pop the same question!!

So now two of us await a response - from 'somebody'.

[idleidolidyll]

Again, before debating on who is on the right or on the wrong, it makes sense to establish a sort of a common ground.

You're right: serious discussion can't be had unless the definitions are made and agreed to beforehand.

I've tried to do this but keep running into the brick wall of ingrained propaganda descriptions as opposed to logical definitions based on authoritative sources.

Unfortunately you too seem to have fallen into the same trap. I hope I'm wrong.

[idleidolidyll]

Whereabouts in the world does "socialism", as a form of government freely chosen by the population of that country, exist?

In the same place as "capitalism" as a form of government freely chosen by the people of 'that' country: nowhere and everywhere.

that you select just one and not the other shouts your position.

However, clues can be found in SOME names: social democrat, conservative etc

as i've noted a few times here though, political parties must be measured not on the words they assign to themselves but against strict definitions and terminology in an objective manner.

to believe self labelling is to believe propaganda as we've seen constantly from some who say that communism id socialism and commercialism is capitalism. There is a reason they all have different names: they are different plain and simple.

I have posted a website here that evaluates politicians and political parties on an objective basis using the SAME criteria for each one. That's closer than any of the opinions offered here but of course even though it is objective and authoritative, those whose opinions it doesn't support refuse to even acknowledge it let alone hold a valid discussion.

As for 'socialist' and 'capitalist' governments; there are no pure forms of either in existence only governments that tend greatly toward each philosophy. These too can be found if one were to have the integrity to look at the websit objectively.

[scumdog]

It must be SO frustrating being so right and knowing it all - yet not being supported by a swarm of acolytes posting the same kind of stuff on KB

[idleidolidyll]

It must be SO frustrating being so right and knowing it all - yet not being supported by a swarm of acolytes posting the same kind of stuff on KB

No, I don't really give a damn

The recent survey on the Govt cash surplus confirms to me that Kiwis in general are smarter on average than the Kiwis who post here.

Kiwis with a tertiary education or above want the government to spend the extra money on social policy NOT on tax cuts.

Less educated people want tax cuts.

The right wingers are whining for tax cuts here.

[scumdog]

No, I don't really give a damn

The recent survey on the Govt cash surplus confirms to me that Kiwis in general are smarter on average than the Kiwis who post here.

Kiwis with a tertiary education or above want the government to spend the extra money on social policy NOT on tax cuts.

Less educated people want tax cuts.

The right wingers are whining for tax cuts here.

Yup.

ALL fact, no opinion here folks...move along, nothing to see.

[idleidolidyll]

Yup.

ALL fact, no opinion here folks...move along, nothing to see.

yes and no

reading some posts there is fuck all to see, reading others we can see excellent opinions and facts

dismissing all because you feel aggrieved in some mysterious way is also informative

[scumdog]

You're right: serious discussion can't be had unless the definitions are made and agreed to beforehand.

And who is going to organise the definitions that are to be 'made and agreed to' - and by whom are they meant to be agreed to by??

And is it fact or opinion (myth?) that serious discussion needs 'definition' to be of value??

[Hitcher]

In the same place as "capitalism" as a form of government freely chosen by the people of 'that' country: nowhere and everywhere.

that you select just one and not the other shouts your position.

However, clues can be found in SOME names: social democrat, conservative etc

as i've noted a few times here though, political parties must be measured not on the words they assign to themselves but against strict definitions and terminology in an objective manner.

to believe self labelling is to believe propaganda as we've seen constantly from some who say that communism id socialism and commercialism is capitalism. There is a reason they all have different names: they are different plain and simple.

I have posted a website here that evaluates politicians and political parties on an objective basis using the SAME criteria for each one. That's closer than any of the opinions offered here but of course even though it is objective and authoritative, those whose opinions it doesn't support refuse to even acknowledge it let alone hold a valid discussion.

As for 'socialist' and 'capitalist' governments; there are no pure forms of either in existence only governments that tend greatly toward each philosophy. These too can be found if one were to have the integrity to look at the websit objectively.

Why didn't you just say "there aren't any". That would have been answer enough, without the veiled ad hominems you claim to so fervently detest.

[idleidolidyll]

Why didn't you just say "there aren't any". That would have been answer enough, without the veiled ad hominems you claim to so fervently detest.

because that would be playing your game and i'd rather do it my way

as for the veiled ad hom; please show me one

piss or get off the pot

[idleidolidyll]

And who is going to organise the definitions that are to be 'made and agreed to' - and by whom are they meant to be agreed to by??

And is it fact or opinion (myth?) that serious discussion needs 'definition' to be of value??

it doesn't matter who does it only that it is fair and objective.

I've offered a website and in return all i've seen is propaganda and baseless opinion

as for your last question: yes, without it the debate is worthless opinion

[davereid]

SCUMDOG "And is it fact or opinion (myth?) that serious discussion needs 'definition' to be of value??"
idleidolidyll "as for your last question: yes, without it the debate is worthless opinion"

Its the other way around. If you "define" something before you debate it, you lose the power to "re-define" it after its found to be different to what you thought.

Better to reach the definition after looking at how it works, and what happens.

ie.. An apple falls - we call it gravity. But we don't define it, until we understand it. Otherwise we end up calling it something else, because the definition we gave it was wrong.

[idleidolidyll]

I suggest many of you should broaden your description of 'communism' and look back further in time. 'Communism' did not begin with Marx just as capitalism did not begin with Smith; both have existed in many forms and at many times in the past.
Consider the purity of the systems examined and the motivations of the leaders. Concentrate not on the words of the leaders, but on their actions (Hitler said he was a socialist but his actions indicate he was a capitalist/fascist. Bush says he is a compassionate conservative but he kills at his leisure).

From what I have seen, the failures of modern communism have not been because of communism per se but because of the nature of man to seek control and power over others. In effect, the failure of soviet communism came through the arrogant, dictator personality of Stalin followed by the greed of subsequent leaders (greed of course indicates an authoritarian or capitalist streak not communist ideology).

Likewise though, capitalist societies are also failures and have been dragged down by the greed of those who demand to rule; people like Pinochet, Bush and Reagan. Their failure is indicated in the vast disparity in opportunity within those societies and the ruptures in culture and society caused by that disparity.

I have indicated recently and in the past that I favour neo-socialism. That is a system, like Denmark etc, where capitalism exists but is subordinate to social policy. IMO, those are the successes of today, not the USA. Those are the societies that produce the most valid outcomes: happiness, equality and contentment.
The combination of fundamental socialist principles with the freedom to create ones own small world through business OR culture creates a more successful society as measured not by the ridiculous 'wealth' indicator but by the Quality of Life and Happiness indicators.

Wealth and money is not a valid indicator of happiness and contentment.