Robert Taylor and idleidolidyll's political debating thread

[Ocean1]

What bill is this?

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/st...461095&ref=rss

And you're too late:

http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/sh...ight=kill+bill

[Winston001]

Love a political stoush. I started my life being a true-blue right-winger as a farmer's son. Then I got poisoned at university and believed in pure communism - the theory as opposed to what actually happened.

When I eventually became self-employed there were a lot of hard lessons to learn about the nature of my fellow man. Trust, honesty, diligence, good faith, all of these qualities were often found wanting in employees and customers. I know that is a harsh and sweeping generalisation but I justify it on the basis that good decent people became the source of comment in our office - they were appreciated because they stood out.

Eventually I became an ardent supporter of Roger Douglas and later the ACT party. Time has softened those views.

These days liberalism crossed with social democracy seems the best mix.

At the heart of the matter I think every human is selfish and cooperates for selfish reasons. It is genetic. Our society is so large that we need some government control of the individual to protect the weak from the strong.

It is the element of control which we argue over. My only complaint about socialism is that it takes no account of genetic drives of human nature.

[idleidolidyll]

I'm aghast!
It seems that it's worthless debating here over capitalism, socialism etc when so many don't even understand the meanings of the epithets assigned to various systems.

lets make it clear, essentially, the difference between socialism and capitalism is one of power. We may talk about money, finance and policy but in the end, the essence of capitalism is for the power to be in the hands of the capitalists (the wealthy few) while under socialism, the power is in the hands of the people.

Prior to the many socialist revolutions around the globe, even those not CALLED as such, we had absolute monarchies and under these, the wealthy few OWNED people, property, land and assets. They (a relatively few individuals) owned every damn thing and they controlled every aspect of the ordinary persons life. They might assign you a piece of land to farm if you were lucky but if not, you begged or hired yourself out for food and lodgings. The rich capitalists could pretty much do what they wanted including kill those who disagreed with them.

Ordinary people started thinking about this and looking for ways to get rid of it. Socialism lies within those freedom movements. Power was taken away from absolute rulers and their henchmen and we replaced it with democracy etc where the people have the power (supposedly) and the wealthy are kept in check by that power.

If socialism had not thrown out capitalism (extremis), we would all still be serfs today. But never fear, the new monarchies are corporates who control governments and subvert our rights and our democracies.

One need only look at the roots of those words, socialism and capitalism, to understand their motivations and where the power lies in each.
Socialism is about building societies where people are not abused. Capitalism is about controlling wealth and cornering it for the wealthy. If a few crumbs drop from the table, those mindless automatons, who THINK they are capitalists, will drool and thank their masters for the gift.

[idleidolidyll]

I think North Korea beckons for you! I also have a book on Erich Honecker (spelling? ) if you would care to borrow it, its an intersesting study into the minds of these people.

And very soon I and the many like minded will not be able to argue in this way with you because of a bill before the ruling politburo that is going to restrict freedom of speech.

oh dear, more propaganda as argument; when will the fallacies cease?!

as i've said many times already, extreme authoritarianism (fascism) is the root of the worst evil in government.

try to get a grip

[idleidolidyll]

What absolute rubbish !

Firstly, your comment that your wages have dropped in real terms is true. But capitalisim is not to blame, socialisim is.

bollocks, Douglas was a fraud in labour and his formation of the right wing ACT party is all the proof needed. You seem easily fooled by the words people assign to themselves. If I tell you I'm your King will you bow down at my knee?
RIGHT wing policies put in place by Roger Douglas as well as National Govts which followed that fake Labour Party are to blame for most of the drop in income.
They sold us out.

The ONLY way you get a higher income is by producing more. And there is no doubt that capitalist systems are better at producing that communist or socialist systems.

Oh but there IS doubt. The amount of waste in capitalism is massive and the way that capitalism ignores the negative effects of its policies in order to justify their supposed efficiency is a joke (pollution, human abuse, slaughter, reductions in free time etc)

2. You are confused about capitalisim and tyranny. Capitalists, socialists, communists, just anyone is capable of tyranny.

No I'm not. I've already spoken here about the problems with fascism (as per Hitler, Bush and Stalin). However, I have no confusion at all: capitalism is a system that places power in the handsa of the few (Capitalists) while socialism places power in the hands of the many (Citizens).
If capitalism and capitalists had their way, there would be no democracy. Successive Yank and Brit govts supporting dictatorships like Suharto and Pinochet emphasise that point.

The Kings of old liked their wealth - but they were not capitalists.

Of course they were, they were the pinnacle of capitalism and corporates drool at the power they had.

They took land using force and made the inhabitants of that land their subjects.

Sounds just like the USA all over the globe with it's bullshit wars and it's perpetual lies: killing for resources is the same thing.

They made themselves and their supporters rich by imposing taxes, on wine, on barley etc etc. This sounds like what exactly ? Willing buyer - willing seller, negotiated price?

What has capitalism got to do with willing anything? The Oxford dictionary say it's about Capitalists controlling the means of production (power).

It was liberalism and socialist ideals that resulted in democracy.


Nope it sounds like communisim and socalisim!

Wow! You really ARE deluded! Gasp!

Capitalism and socialism have always existed, well, for a very very long time anyway. That they were not CALLED as such is irrelevant, a pig is still a pig even if you call it a tree.

Adam Smith and Karl Marx may have written definitive works on the subjects but they did not invent them. Early Christianity seems to be the very epitome of socialism for instance.

[idleidolidyll]

In its most pure form, it may have some minor flaws, however please name 1 country where socialism works on all levels... This outta be good.

Oh my gawd! Ignorance surely is bliss!

socialism is a social/economic theory somewhere between capitalism and communism. It uses parts of both to achieve a working solution.

Pure capitalism (monarchies etc) are about self and greed, pure communism is about suborning self into society.

The MIDDLE way is socialism. Sure, there are degrees of socialism but there can never be a pure socialist state, the very idea is hilarious. There can only be socialist policies.

As for the post above yours, I'm still laughing!
The amount of propaganda in the west over the definition of socialism is utterly hilarious! Even more hilarious is that suckers are born every day and so many believe that bullshit.

It seems a lot of people don't have access to dictionaries or encyclopedia and they therefore argue from a point of ignorance rather than a point of knowledge.

Someone pick me up, I just fell on the floor laughing!

[idleidolidyll]

In its most pure form, it may have some minor flaws, however please name 1 country where socialism works on all levels... This outta be good.

oops, that'd be the post 2 above yours; what a dippy piece of ignorant propaganda

[idleidolidyll]

In its most pure form, it may have some minor flaws, however please name 1 country where socialism works on all levels... This outta be good.

faced with a conundrum, finn runs away crying wolf

ROTFLMFAO!

[davereid]

Originally Posted by davereid
What absolute rubbish !

Firstly, your comment that your wages have dropped in real terms is true. But capitalisim is not to blame, socialisim is.

bollocks, Douglas was a fraud in labour and his formation of the right wing ACT party is all the proof needed. You seem easily fooled by the words people assign to themselves. If I tell you I'm your King will you bow down at my knee?
RIGHT wing policies put in place by Roger Douglas as well as National Govts which followed that fake Labour Party are to blame for most of the drop in income.
They sold us out.

The ONLY way you get a higher income is by producing more. And there is no doubt that capitalist systems are better at producing that communist or socialist systems.

Oh but there IS doubt. The amount of waste in capitalism is massive and the way that capitalism ignores the negative effects of its policies in order to justify their supposed efficiency is a joke (pollution, human abuse, slaughter, reductions in free time etc)

2. You are confused about capitalisim and tyranny. Capitalists, socialists, communists, just anyone is capable of tyranny.

No I'm not. I've already spoken here about the problems with fascism (as per Hitler, Bush and Stalin). However, I have no confusion at all: capitalism is a system that places power in the handsa of the few (Capitalists) while socialism places power in the hands of the many (Citizens).
If capitalism and capitalists had their way, there would be no democracy. Successive Yank and Brit govts supporting dictatorships like Suharto and Pinochet emphasise that point.

The Kings of old liked their wealth - but they were not capitalists.

Of course they were, they were the pinnacle of capitalism and corporates drool at the power they had.

They took land using force and made the inhabitants of that land their subjects.

Sounds just like the USA all over the globe with it's bullshit wars and it's perpetual lies: killing for resources is the same thing.

They made themselves and their supporters rich by imposing taxes, on wine, on barley etc etc. This sounds like what exactly ? Willing buyer - willing seller, negotiated price?

What has capitalism got to do with willing anything? The Oxford dictionary say it's about Capitalists controlling the means of production (power).

It was liberalism and socialist ideals that resulted in democracy.


Nope it sounds like communisim and socalisim!
[/COLOR]

No. You simply don't understand the basics. I don't really care what the Oxford dictionary says about capitalisim.

Of course there will always be those who want control above all else. Some will be capitalist. But control of resources is NOT a caplitalist issue, it happens regardless.

Capitalisim is simple. Its a willing buyer, and a willing seller, who negotiate and reach agreement. No force. No government, no coercion.

Clear your mind. Go back in time. How did it start ?

Well, most likely there was a community. One guy grew grain. Another farmed sheep. There was most likely a pretty girl who traded too. The guy who made the bread from the grain sold some of his grain to the guy who made beer. He traded beer with the prositute. CAPITALISIM had arrived.

But one day, a guy with a sword arrived. He announced that he was the king, your new government. He became very rich, and through taxation so did his mates. But he wasn't a capitalist.

He was just a cunt.

He ended freedom, free trade, and by his distribution of wealth to those he decided were worthy, he became the fisrt socialist.

Thats the difference. Capitalisim = willing buyer, willing seller. No Oxford dictionary required to redefine it as somehing else. Socialism = government. tax, force, compulsion, violence.

[Winston001]

The MIDDLE way is socialism. Sure, there are degrees of socialism but there can never be a pure socialist state, the very idea is hilarious. There can only be socialist policies.

Umm..... you still haven't answered Finn's question.

And not to be unkind - because I admire your enthusiasm - but isn't it rather shooting yourself in the foot to say that pure socialism is laughable? Unfortunately that's exactly what others are saying.....

It seems a lot of people don't have access to dictionaries or encyclopedia and they therefore argue from a point of ignorance rather than a point of knowledge.

Someone pick me up, I just fell on the floor laughing!

I don't think it is useful to argue dictionary definitions. These are political and economic philosophies we are discussing and everyone who cares enough to post has some knowledge of the real world impact of these ideas.

[davereid]

capitalism is a system that places power in the handsa of the few (Capitalists) while socialism places power in the hands of the many (Citizens).
If capitalism and capitalists had their way, there would be no democracy. Successive Yank and Brit govts supporting dictatorships like Suharto and Pinochet emphasise that point.
The Oxford dictionary say it's about Capitalists controlling the means of production (power).
It was liberalism and socialist ideals that resulted in democracy.
[/COLOR]

No. You simply don't understand the basics. I don't really care what the Oxford dictionary says about capitalisim.

Of course there will always be those who want control above all else. Some will be capitalist. But control of resources is NOT a caplitalist issue, it happens regardless.

Capitalisim is simple. Its a willing buyer, and a willing seller, who negotiate and reach agreement. No force. No government, no coercion.

Clear your mind. Go back in time. How did it start ?

Well, most likely there was a community. One guy grew grain. Another farmed sheep. There was most likely a pretty girl who traded too. The guy who made the bread from the grain sold some of his grain to the guy who made beer. He traded beer with the prositute. CAPITALISIM had arrived.

But one day, a guy with a sword arrived. He announced that he was the king, your new government.

He became very rich, and through taxation so did his mates.

But he wasn't a capitalist.

He was just a cunt.

He ended freedom, free trade, and by his distribution of wealth to those he decided were worthy, he became the first socialist.

Thats the difference. Capitalisim = willing buyer, willing seller. No Oxford dictionary required to redefine it as somehing else. Socialism = government. tax, force, compulsion, violence.

[Robert Taylor]

faced with a conundrum, finn runs away crying wolf

ROTFLMFAO!

And the last word goes to.....and the game of one upmanship goes to?

Just been reminded yet again that hard core socialists always think they are so right.

Power hungry socialists are just as corrupt as the worst excesses of unchecked capitalism and / or facism. It is very much in evidence here in NZ.

[idleidolidyll]

Umm..... you still haven't answered Finn's question.

Why would I bother? Finns 'question' was a silly evasion of my question.

And not to be unkind - because I admire your enthusiasm - but isn't it rather shooting yourself in the foot to say that pure socialism is laughable?

Nope, that's called honesty and those who actually understand the philosophy behind the names will also understand why it's silly.

Unfortunately that's exactly what others are saying.....

I don't think it is useful to argue dictionary definitions. These are political and economic philosophies we are discussing and everyone who cares enough to post has some knowledge of the real world impact of these ideas.

Of course it's useful to offer REAL definitions. A HUGE part of the problem with this debate is the ignorance of a few and the ease at which many are suckered by right wing propaganda.

No, people might care but so many are just plain ignorant (and that's a fact not an attack)

[idleidolidyll]

No. You simply don't understand the basics. I don't really care what the Oxford dictionary says about capitalisim.

Of course there will always be those who want control above all else. Some will be capitalist. But control of resources is NOT a caplitalist issue, it happens regardless.

duh! it's the CORE issue!

Capitalisim is simple. Its a willing buyer, and a willing seller, who negotiate and reach agreement. No force. No government, no coercion.

I understand the vall too well; capitalism is an economic system in which control of the means of production is in the hands of those with the money. In that system, it is they who dictate to all others what they can buy, how much it will cost, as well as how they will live their lives given that the pure form of capitalism invests absolute power in the capitalists. It is nothing less than a return to serfdom.

Clear your mind. Go back in time. How did it start ?

Well, most likely there was a community. One guy grew grain. Another farmed sheep. There was most likely a pretty girl who traded too. The guy who made the bread from the grain sold some of his grain to the guy who made beer. He traded beer with the prositute. CAPITALISIM had arrived.


But one day, a guy with a sword arrived. He announced that he was the king, your new government.

He became very rich, and through taxation so did his mates.

But he wasn't a capitalist.

He was just a cunt.

He ended freedom, free trade, and by his distribution of wealth to those he decided were worthy, he became the first socialist.

Here's a better analysis:
A long time ago groups of people were for the most part related and they by and large supported each other. However, with the advent of communities, some managed to corner a product or idea and use it to gain advantage and control over others (religion fits that bill nicely). Once they had tasted power they lusted for more and the capitalist system, relying on and rewarding greed, was the very system to give it to them.

Much later, after centuries of servitude, the people had had enough and decided to kick out the capitalists and give power to the people (thanks Oliver Cromwell etc). Taking that power was a long slow process but it developed into full blown democracy: a perfect socialist concept.

Thats the difference. Capitalisim = willing buyer, willing seller. No Oxford dictionary required to redefine it as somehing else. Socialism = government. tax, force, compulsion, violence.

ROTFLMFAO!! Hilarious indeed, you throw out the very definition of capitalism and then think I'm interested in your silly arguments?

[idleidolidyll]

And the last word goes to.....and the game of one upmanship goes to?

Just been reminded yet again that hard core socialists always think they are so right.

Power hungry socialists are just as corrupt as the worst excesses of unchecked capitalism and / or facism. It is very much in evidence here in NZ.

by definition, the power hungry are authoritarians and in extremis are fascists.

That describes your favourite model to a tee: Amerikkka

Helen has a looonnngggg way to go before she becomes as corrupt as most yank politicians

BTW: did you miss the bit where i said clearly that i don't support Labour?

slap! wake up Robert