All Things Australia-ish

[Vlad n U 2]

Yeah, I pretty much second that. Also, tax the bourgeoisie and let the workers control the means of production although that is pretty much socialism in its most basic explanation.

I'm passionate.

[intedomine]

Originally Posted by Vlad n U 2

I don't know, when thinking about the nation now, it just seems to me that there are plenty more right-wing people than leftists? Not based on fact or anything, just a hunch.

I wouldn't say that. It probably feels that way because of the whole anti-Carbon Tax/Greens/Gillard (leftist at heart) thing going around at the moment, and with the "alternative" (because so many people still consider there to be only two political parties in Australia) being the far-right scAbbott, we seem very flung to the right.

I actually think that Australians for the most part, still have an egalitarian and progressive inclination, although the motivation to act upon this spirit, is stifled and dissuaded by shit media outlets (7,9,3AW, News Limited)

[KhanadaRhodes]

Originally Posted by Vlad n U 2

Yeah, I pretty much second that. Also, tax the bourgeoisie and let the workers control the means of production although that is pretty much socialism in its most basic explanation.

I'm passionate.

haha, exactly. economically there will never really be true equality but the countries with lower inequality rates oh don'tcha know just happen to be most socialist countries. the rich can be rich, but they don't need to be richer.

it shouldn't be every man for himself; the rich have an obligation to society as a whole to help those less fortunate. and let's be honest, they're not going to miss that small fraction of their income. when you already have way more money than you can spend in a lifetime, you might as well give back.

[Vlad n U 2]

Originally Posted by KhanadaRhodes

haha, exactly. economically there will never really be true equality but the countries with lower inequality rates oh don'tcha know just happen to be most socialist countries. the rich can be rich, but they don't need to be richer.

it shouldn't be every man for himself; the rich have an obligation to society as a whole to help those less fortunate. and let's be honest, they're not going to miss that small fraction of their income. when you already have way more money than you can spend in a lifetime, you might as well give back.

It is somewhat of a shame that there are no true socialist nations in the world now (I'm not convinced that Cuba is socialist or state capitalist, but I suppose they're the latter since they're now privatising real estate from what I know), social-democratic Scandinavia is the best leftist thing the world has, and like you said, the inequality rates are very, very low (as my exposition for school at the start of the year proved).

[Axver]

Originally Posted by Vlad n U 2

Yeah, I'm quite sure that a social-democrat would be centre-left, seeing as they retain the capitalist mode of production. Axver's the most extreme social-democrat there ever was, though.

Social democracy is a bit torn, in that many social democrat parties have been pushed a bit closer to the centre since the eighties by the challenge of neocons, with many ostensibly social democratic parties now following "Third Way" economics ... in a cliched way, you could call them sell-outs to the right wing man. I view myself as more of a traditional social democrat in the Scandinavian tradition. Economically speaking, I am not a socialist if "socialism" is defined as government control of the means of production (which may not be the definition in theory, but often is in practice). I do not believe in the need for revolution; I view a more evolutionary, democratic reformist method as the best way to achieve an equitable, just society.

I guess I am closest to welfare state capitalism in that sense; I believe in the freedom of individuals to compete with the government on a level playing field, but in the government providing services to all. In my ideal society, there would be no need for private individuals to compete as the government would provide all services efficiently and effectively, but I think some degree of competition on a practical level redresses inefficiencies. I distinguish between provision of services and of goods - the government should provide healthcare, education, public transport, etc., but I see no reason for the government to be involved in, say, food retail (supermarkets and the like), except to avoid and break up uncompetitive monopolies/duopolies (hello Coleworths). And if you don't like the public option for schools, go nuts and found a private school.

Originally Posted by KhanadaRhodes

if i were to put my views quite simply, i'm a big fan of the welfare state. healthcare is a right not a privilege, ensuring the poor and old don't live without basic needs like food, electricity, water, house, etc., i'd even go so far as to say free tertiary education. given how much it's needed these days for the most basic of jobs, it should be provided free of charge to people. it's not fair that those who cannot afford it are already at a greater disadvantage.

and of course rights. gay marriage, freedom of speech, no censorship. any government needs to kept in check and reminded of what they do wrong. i'm not a big fan of tax cuts either. sure it seems nice when you get a nice little cheque but it always comes at a cost. some funding gets cut which might even affect you directly - so it's in one pocket, out the other. seems pointless to me. i've no problem with paying 50% income tax if i live in an area with nice roads, low crime, i don't have to lose my shit if i fall and break my arm and find i need surgery, wondering how i'll pay for it.

k i'll shut up now

All of this. I especially wish the Australian government had never stopped free tertiary education!

I suppose I'm so firmly left-wing because I believe in a high degree of state intervention; I see the government existing to look after its citizens, thus it should work and provide for them. I just do not necessary view this intervention as always happening on socialist lines. And my social and environmental views are about as progressive as they come.

[Vlad n U 2]

Originally Posted by Axver

Social democracy is a bit torn, in that many social democrat parties have been pushed a bit closer to the centre since the eighties by the challenge of neocons, with many ostensibly social democratic parties now following "Third Way" economics ... in a cliched way, you could call them sell-outs to the right wing man. I view myself as more of a traditional social democrat in the Scandinavian tradition. Economically speaking, I am not a socialist if "socialism" is defined as government control of the means of production (which may not be the definition in theory, but often is in practice). I do not believe in the need for revolution; I view a more evolutionary, democratic reformist method as the best way to achieve an equitable, just society.

I understand what you mean, but socialism is not socialism if the means of production are controlled by the government/bureaucracy and not by the workers. If it is, then it would probably have to be labelled as state capitalist government. So I would think it would be unfair to classify, say, the USSR as socialist.

And to add to that, you can't really have socialism without democracy.

[Axver]

But this is the thing: how can the means of production be controlled without government? Any ostensible control by the "workers" (whatever that means nowadays) requires some sort of governing body to manage everything.

I accept that government is here to stay and believe in putting it to use for everybody's benefit. This is why I am especially infuriated by the self-serving news-cycle politics we have descended into. It benefits nobody and is doing all kinds of damage to the future.

(This post isn't to say I oppose socialism or communism though; I see them as coming from a similar place and ideals to me. If you want to know what I can't stand, it's laissez-faire capitalism.)

[Vlad n U 2]

Originally Posted by Axver

But this is the thing: how can the means of production be controlled without government? Any ostensible control by the "workers" (whatever that means nowadays) requires some sort of governing body to manage everything.

I completely understand what you're getting at, to be honest. I don't think we've actually seen true socialism/communism in this world, and so I understand your doubts. I still very much believe it's doable, and we'll never know until it's tried.

[cobl04]

I have finally purchased Things Bogans Like

[cobl04]

Just flicked through it. Fucking hilarious.

Also, major, major lols:

[Axver]

Originally Posted by cobl04

Also, major, major lols:

Aaaahahahaha!

[Vlad n U 2]

[Earnie Shavers]

Smile Sydney! You're on English TV!

(too soon?)

[cobl04]

Khe Sahn is in the top 40!

[Alisaura]

Originally Posted by cobl04

Just flicked through it. Fucking hilarious.

Also, major, major lols:

Is that legit?

[Axver]

OK, South Australians, why exactly is Rann stepping down as premier?

[Vlad n U 2]

Because he is fat and he has a big butt and he likes to smell his own butt.

[Axver]

You should go into a career of political analysis.

[cobl04]

I was a professional twice over: I was both an analyst and a therapist. I was the world's first analrapist.

[Cin]

are you also a never nude?