Boo the Boogeyman is coming to get you :lol:

Seriously though, as has been pointed out many times, none of you have any fucking idea what socialism or communism is and what the actual issues with it are. "They want to own what you have" :roll:

Then what's your definition then?

You sugarcoat socialist ideals like its nothing to fear

Edited by Socawho: 24/6/2016 09:25:55 AM

"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery."

- Winston Churchill.

You are so naive in believing their nonsense that "we will be equal brothers, jobs for everyone, a home- and eventually a car.

Read Animal Farm. And then read it again until the message sinksin.

The Socialists despise the thing that is called money...and would rather people live off a loaf of bread and be miserable rather than aspirational while they dine on good food laughing at the sheep that followed them and thought that the socialist utopia meant everyone would be happy

People honestly think Australia will become fully socialist?...

-PB

Some here do I think. Some I think are just trolling. Why they'd want to make themselves look stupid I have no idea but whatever floats your boat eh? :lol:

a hectic schedule at this conference and a different timezone has meant I haven't been able to keep up with this thread

but I remember on another thread I had a discussion about how some conservatives fear that if you keep expanding the welfare state you will eventually snap and become a communist dictatorship (and then pointed out how communist dictatorships tended to come through a violent overthrow of the government and the rich not through helping the poor)
Someone asked if anyone actually believed that (was it bethfc?). I had to convince the poster that yes some people do but conceded that its probably mostly an american thing
but apparently there are aussies that seem to believe that too

which socialist do you want?

French socialist: Violently overthrow the monarchy to put in a democracy
Christian socialist: abstain from cheating on your wife and give alms to the poor
State socialist: Ward off critics of the monarchy by making more public policy that helps the poor and incrementally reducing your (the monarchs) power
Bourgeois socialism: aim to get rich and then use your wealth for philantropy
Marxist socialism: Make all means of production public

Did I miss any?
How's my history? :D

Please see below definitions for your reference and let me know how they do not explicitly relate to a violation of individual property rights. Thanks.

Sorry not me mate from memory.

I'm not a massive fan of a welfare state but it's a necessity to maintain a quality of life. My gripe with welfare is middle class welfare where there is no means testing for childcare rebates. You could earn 3mil a year and be eligible.

either socceroo_06 believes taxes on the wealthy being used to help the poor, wage regulations and unions are going to lead to a dictatorship or he sees the worst thing about communism was that the rich got taxed....you know as opposed to the dictatorship, millions of deaths

Yeah this is actually the point I was making, there are issues with overregulation in markets too (e.g. in Venezuela). My :roll: about "They want to own what you have" is that they actually believe people here are suggesting that.

sure but I'm guessing you dont believe that the welfare state will lead to a dictatorship

What are you on about? :lol:

I want a minimal government on classical liberal lines, balanced budget and promotion of individualism and enlightenment ideology.

Edited by socceroo_06: 24/6/2016 10:11:43 AM

Not likely. But there are many within Labor who want bigger government, higher taxes, malicious attitude to private wealth (except their own) etc. Even Labor describes itself as a 'democratic socialist party' it its party manifesto so while they may tolerate capitalist structure for a while many see the end game being socialism and that means the government takeover of the means of the production, abolition of private wealth and property (except their own) and overthrow of capitalism. So any creeping towards more public interference in our lives, higher taxes, laws legislating against free speech, bigger bureaucratic control over the country is really emblematic of a push towards democratic socialism, which would then warp into full blown socialism at some point because humans, no matter how morally pure they think they are, are all agents of self interest beyond all else.

The whole socialism v capitalism dichotomy is just an ideological tug of war between the political class and the wealthy, both want to control and exploit workers.



Edited by rusty: 24/6/2016 10:14:31 AM

Can you explain what you mean by enlightenment ideology?

-PB

More intellectual debate/interchange rather than the ad-hominem slurs we see in parliament now. Evidence/Scientific based policies as opposed to ones grounded in tradition and faith.

The problem is "the wealthy" and "the poor" are relative terms, and their definition is fluid.

IMO there are no *really* poor people in Australia. The vast majority of Asutralians have quality shelter, free quality health care, access to affordable food and water, fee education.

OTOH very few are truly wealthy with a few notable exceptions, of course.

Nevertheless the bulk of taxes are being paid people who are not especially more well off than those who pay no income tax (currently half of all income earners either pay zero income tax or get back what they pay so they pay no net income tax).

In fact the top 20% of income earners pay 73% of all income tax-and it doesn't take an especially high income to get in the top 20%.

Its this 20% that gets vilified for things like getting $40 p/w off their tax bill because they have an investment property. Its this 20% who will be asked to pay for Labors welfare policies should they get elected.

Meanwhile one of society's "Duncan's" who pay nothing will come up on ABC TV and ask why he doesn't get a tax cut.

Question is if them paying 73% isn't enough, what is the right percentage? 80%? 90%? 100% so that 4 out every 5 workers pays zero tax? Is that sustainable?

The person who designed the Safe Schools program , Roz Ward, is a full fledged communist...

It starts with brainwashing youth to get the votes ..

I wouldn't write it off

You're starting to sound like Waleed Aly:lol:

Fuck there's some thick c_unts here.

Roads, public schools, the defence force, the public hospital system, national parks, medicare, universities (to a degree), the welfare system are all paid out of a central pool of money collected by the government.

That's an example of socialism. Surely even your most pig headed, anti pinkos here can't argue that that is a bad thing.

There are degrees of socialism. From your Cuban / North Korean style to your Australian / Sweden type.

I can't see a single person here arguing for a North Korean / Cuban style system of 'socialism' to be implemented here and yet that's all you see repeated as nauseum by a few of the dumbest, most ignorant people imaginable.

edit: remove redundant apostrophe.


Edited by toughlove: 24/6/2016 11:02:09 AM

if you quote marxist socialism as a critique of labour then I'm gonna wonder what in the world you are on about

I quoted definitions from the dictionary.

Did the Duncan get his toaster in the end?...I think he got 60k from crowdfunding...now if those numpties who donated 60k were true to their core values of all things being equal then they should be forking out for everyone else like him as well

Edited by Socawho: 24/6/2016 11:18:28 AM

There's good and bad in everything...good things in socialism ...good things in capitalism..you take the good stuff from both and leave out the bad

The tax problem is what is the issue...

You get a low income family that is not intelligent enough to stop producing kids and they get bigger handouts as they have more kids ...versus the single person without any kids who gets fuck all and is working for themselves to stay afloat...
There is nothing in terms of tax breaks for the single employed person without kids who is less reliant on handouts as opposed to the low income family with 5 plus kids and don't work

Edited by Socawho: 24/6/2016 11:28:53 AM

Didnt both sides happily bring in a baby bonus to increase the population.
"Want more citizens but dont want to pay for the burden"???

Not really. All of those areas of government are funded by taxes collected from private individuals and companies, so if anything you could argue they are examples of capitalism.

Socialism isn't a "central pool of money collected by government", it is system of distribution, people collect from it not vice versa.

That's true..

I'm not against a baby bonus...providing the amount of kids don't extend beyond 3 or 4 in a family .

I'm happy to pay my fair share of tax which I do.

Of course not. I'm not in a position to draw those sorts of links.