So who's the terrorist again?

[idleidolidyll]

Exactly. So vote for ACT for a real change. Because otherwise it will be all National or Labour, with maybe a bit of the "I did not accept the donation" Winston Peters as Kingmaker. Who wants that.

ACT now has Sir Roger Douglas, who saved NZ from bankruptcy in the 80s back in the fray.

Who would you rather have as finance minister - "I'll rail on about donations but accept them on the sly" Winston Peters, "All you're getting is a packet of Chewing Gum" Michael Cullen, or economic guru Sir Roger Douglas.

ACT; the ultimate fascist

Douglas; the ultimate betrayer, a man who almost bought NZ to its knees

If you want the ultimate in extreme capitalsim, vote for the acters

[Biggles41]

nah, one is centrist the other is fascist

BTW: if you have a point please make it

I'm not trotting off to the library on your whim.

would you trot off and read Failed States: The Abuse of Power and the Assault on Democracy just on my word?

Yes I would thanks for the tip I like reading.

[idleidolidyll]

Yes I would thanks for the tip I like reading.

good for you, so do i

but i already have a stack of books unread and waiting

so again; if you have an argument, please make it

[nudedaytona]

If you want the ultimate in extreme capitalsim, vote for the acters

That's why I'm voting for them: Because I want the ultimate in tax cuts. Only ACT are promising to substantially reduce tax rates, which means that I can afford more to:

spend on my motorcycle
buy new motorcycle
save more
spend more on my girlfriend
buy house
get married and start family

essentially do more of whatever I feel like that makes me happy. You might call it fascism, but I call that giving me control over my own hard-earned money.

[svr]

Mate,
I've said it many times

SOCIALISM

Socialism: A system in which the people control the means of production.

Capitalism: A system in which capitalists control the means of production (Capitalists are the wealthy few who control the capital; money)

BTW: Almost all social progress on this planet has been forced from the 'left'.

I think the original conception of socialism (i.e. Morris not post 1850 Marx) - admirably humanistic as it was - has been so deeply tainted by 20th history that those of us on the left should set it to rest for good. It's a historical loser. Its also out of date i.e. socialism is administratively incompatible with a highly specialized division of labour. The (revolutionary) socialist threat did temper capitalism and has been essential for workers conditions, however.

You are right in that:
1. the pure impulse of socialism was democracy i.e. not just financial but moral control of the means of production by`the people'. People should be aware that politically speaking we now exercise very little control over the world we live in. The problem is you can't identify `the people' anymore - its not a simple class of non-owners whose interests can be identified by that single fact (We all know rich middle-class non-owners whose interests are aligned to capital)
2. The Left is indeed responsible for much social progression. The Left of course defines itself in opposition to conservativism so its a bit of a tautology. But it's not an easy good (= new) vs evil like the left makes out: Conservatives are right to believe that institutions usually exist for good reasons and shouldn't be torn down by idealistic fashion.

The Left just doesn't need socialism anymore. What it needs is to be clear about its bottom line goals & ideals:
1. Real Democracy (the democratic possibilities of the internet are not even discussed - why not?) Electioneering and governmental politics make me sick. Everyone should feel the weight of political responsibilty for local and national decisions on a daily basis, not just those that want power over others.
2. Citizenship rights, an equal chance for all from birth. This is an ideal but I agree with Rawls that this is a necesary condition to a just society. Practically speaking it requires at the very least free education & healthcare for all. If people are denied dignity we all end up having to pay.
3. Production for the democratically determined consumption of needs, not open ended wants. If anyones got some ideas on how this can be organised I'm all ears...
One thing is certain: the big recent experiment of want-based production / consumption has ended in failure. What now?

Enough ranting. Any bright ideas out there?

[idleidolidyll]

That's why I'm voting for them: Because I want the ultimate in tax cuts. Only ACT are promising to substantially reduce tax rates, which means that I can afford more to:

spend on my motorcycle
buy new motorcycle
save more
spend more on my girlfriend
buy house
get married and start family

essentially do more of whatever I feel like that makes me happy. You might call it fascism, but I call that giving me control over my own hard-earned money.

and when they cut taxes, what else will they cut to give you that money?

health
education
ACC
roading
social services
family support
everything that helps the lower paid in fact.

watch the private companies take all that over and within a decade they will be WAYYY more expensive than they aver could be

that's pretty much the lesson in yankland: reduce government to pay for tax cuts and increase the cost of services by farming them out to megacorps

[svr]

That's why I'm voting for them: Because I want the ultimate in tax cuts. Only ACT are promising to substantially reduce tax rates, which means that I can afford more to:

spend on my motorcycle
buy new motorcycle
save more
spend more on my girlfriend
buy house
get married and start family

essentially do more of whatever I feel like that makes me happy. You might call it fascism, but I call that giving me control over my own hard-earned money.

You'll also have to spend more on a security gate to keep out the starving poor, pay for more prisons, spend more and more on consumer goodies but still be increasingly poor compared to new really rich, and spend a lot more ensuring your kids have reasonable health care and education etc. etc.
Its not facism, its the consumer-capitalism treadmill that Act just want to speed up. And no its not happiness either.

[idleidolidyll]

I think the original conception of socialism (i.e. Morris not post 1850 Marx) - admirably humanistic as it was - has been so deeply tainted by 20th history that those of us on the left should set it to rest for good. It's a historical loser. Its also out of date i.e. socialism is administratively incompatible with a highly specialized division of labour. The (revolutionary) socialist threat did temper capitalism and has been essential for workers conditions, however.

nope: the problem is not socialism, it's propaganda.
when the word socialism is used, propaganda has made people think stalin etc.
stalin was a communist who abused the word socialism for propaganda purposes.
likewise people will think hitler and his 'socialist party'. however, hitler was never actually a socialist, he was a nationalist supported by corporates and the catholic church. later it is recognised that he was a fascist (not as fascist as mussolini but a fascist for sure). fascism is of course a right wing ideology

when defining socialism, it is important to note that if it becomes dominated by a dictator, it is no longer socialism.
simply put, socialism is the control of power by the people as a whole

You are right in that:
1. the pure impulse of socialism was democracy i.e. not just financial but moral control of the means of production by`the people'. People should be aware that politically speaking we now exercise very little control over the world we live in.

hell yes and that is perhaps the biggest problem: we have become less and less able to affect the circumstances of our own situations

The problem is you can't identify `the people' anymore - its not a simple class of non-owners whose interests can be identified by that single fact (We all know rich middle-class non-owners whose interests are aligned to capital)
2. The Left is indeed responsible for much social progression. The Left of course defines itself in opposition to conservativism so its a bit of a tautology. But it's not an easy good (= new) vs evil like the left makes out: Conservatives are right to believe that institutions usually exist for good reasons and shouldn't be torn down by idealistic fashion.

that's not actually the point. conservatives also reject the erection of institutions that challenge their status quo, their grip on power; they refuse to allow equanimity for those they consider less than themselves in fear of losing their edge

The Left just doesn't need socialism anymore. What it needs is to be clear about its bottom line goals & ideals:
1. Real Democracy (the democratic possibilities of the internet are not even discussed - why not?)

democracy, the will of the people or a basic principle of socialism
we do still need it regardless of the fact that you don't want to use the word but want to use the principles

Electioneering and governmental politics make me sick. Everyone should feel the weight of political responsibilty for local and national decisions on a daily basis, not just those that want power over others.

the electoral reform act is flawed but the past grubby way politicians sold favour for support was even worse.
i support state funded parties

2. Citizenship rights, an equal chance for all from birth. This is an ideal but I agree with Rawls that this is a necesary condition to a just society. Practically speaking it requires at the very least free education & healthcare for all. If people are denied dignity we all end up having to pay.

can't find any fault in that
allowing health, education and access to the necessities of life to be dominated by capitalism is a recipe for trouble and misery.

3. Production for the democratically determined consumption of needs, not open ended wants. If anyones got some ideas on how this can be organised I'm all ears...
One thing is certain: the big recent experiment of want-based production / consumption has ended in failure. What now?

sadly it hasn't ended and there are many trying to keep it alive.
consumerism is a weapon we are battered with every day of our lives

Enough ranting. Any bright ideas out there?

the problem remains:
not enough people think intelligently about politics and many who do, think of it as a way to give them an edge over others at the cost of their misery etc

i see no real solution only compromise and that will be an eternal battle

[Biggles41]

good for you, so do i

but i already have a stack of books unread and waiting

so again; if you have an argument, please make it

I'm not here to argue anything really but the notion that the Queen has no power is I feel very wrong, especially when you look into their blood lines and the bloodlines of most of the powers that run this planet and their relationship to each other and also where these blood lines originate from.

Also the Babylonian brotherhood and secret society's such as the Scottish Rite Freemasons, Rosicrucian society, Skull and bones society or any of the secret society's and there relationships to the Black Nobility and the monetary banking system that has been designed to enslave mankind all have links back to the royal dynasty's of Europe.

As for Democracy and freedom and the freedom of the human spirit - sorry no such things exist or will exist whilst fear is being created - using "Problem - Reaction - Solution" processes so as people will give up the freedoms and writes.

[idleidolidyll]

thanks svr

we may not agree completely but we are pushing in a similar direction and the intelligent debate is more than welcome

[svr]

thanks svr

we may not agree completely but we are pushing in a similar direction and the intelligent debate is more than welcome

Actually, on rereading my post, I would say that my bottom line is the same as the early utopian socialists. My advice would be to ditch the concept of socialism but keep the ideals: peoples brains turn off when they hear socialism and that ends any discussion.

[nudedaytona]

You'll also have to spend more on a security gate to keep out the starving poor, pay for more prisons, spend more and more on consumer goodies but still be increasingly poor compared to new really rich, and spend a lot more ensuring your kids have reasonable health care and education etc. etc.
Its not facism, its the consumer-capitalism treadmill that Act just want to speed up. And no its not happiness either.

The consumer-capitalism treadmill - what bullshit. All of us have choices about what to spend on and how much to save - no-one forces you to do anything. It's called democracy. If you're not happy, you need to look at the choices that you made to get you in this state.

The poor won't be starving because tax cuts benefit them as well - they will be more motivated to work harder and earn more money because they will keep more money as well.

You need to let go of this jealousy. Why should you care if I get richer, especially if you are getting richer yourself? Sure - tax cuts always leave the wealthy better off, but that is because they have more to begin with. I don't care if the new really rich are better off than me, as I can make my own choices about how to spend or save my own money.

ACT is actually not going far enough. While reducing tax rates it is still proposing a progressive tax system that taxes people more, the more they earn. This still penalises people for working harder and earning more. We should have a flat tax rate of say 25% so people know they keep the same proportion of extra income they make, if they choose to work harder.

[idleidolidyll]

I'm not here to argue anything really but the notion that the Queen has no power is I feel very wrong, especially when you look into their blood lines and the bloodlines of most of the powers that run this planet and their relationship to each other and also where these blood lines originate from.

you're right to a point: i was exaggerating.
queeny does have power but she only has that power because western society supports capitalist control to a large extent. in NZ her titular power is granted by us the people and that grant can be withdrawn if abused.

should bessie ever try to actually exercise control in a more fundamental manner i suggest she'd see revolution and a population calling for her axing and even her head (if the extremes were approached)

Also the Babylonian brotherhood and secret society's such as the Scottish Rite Freemasons, Rosicrucian society, Skull and bones society or any of the secret society's and there relationships to the Black Nobility and the monetary banking system that has been designed to enslave mankind all have links back to the royal dynasty's of Europe.

the 'elite' societies and organisations are often the capitalists in the background pulling the strings of their puppets in politics. The Bilderberg Group for instance is a weathy elite who use capitalism to create the world that best suits them. If it benefits others, that's merely a byproduct not the main aim.

As for Democracy and freedom and the freedom of the human spirit - sorry no such things exist or will exist whilst fear is being created - using "Problem - Reaction - Solution" processes so as people will give up the freedoms and writes.

that last bit is right on the money and that is in fact what those in control want: keep us in fear of something and we are easier to manipulate

i try to reject that propaganda every day and in fact that is the crux of most of my posts

well spoken

[Biggles41]

that last bit is right on the money and that is in fact what those in control want: keep us in fear of something and we are easier to manipulate

i try to reject that propaganda every day and in fact that is the crux of most of my posts

well spoken

Thank you Idle

I'm pleased you are on a similar wave length, not many people are but hopefully more will start to awaken soon in fact it is starting to happen but all good things take time (Like a good cheese)

Cheers and Goodnight

[svr]

the problem remains:

i see no real solution only compromise and that will be an eternal battle

People are at root social and it follows (I hope) that people are moral by nature. Maybe its time to give radical democracy a try? (and real education...)
The 20th century shows that democracy should not sacrificed to theory.