Goodbye Bronwyn

[wide eyed and legless]

Not disagreeing with a lot of what you say, except for the last paragraph. If it wasn't for those who control the means of production, where would those who work the hardest work.
There will always have to be people willing to invest in industry which in turn provides employment, they are neither use without each other.

 

[Liam_snorkel]

Is it racially motivated... no its not.

If it's not racially motivated you'd have to have been living under a rock for the last 2 years, I don't think ignorance is any kind of excuse for participating in it. I suggest reading some of Stan Grant's commentary on the issue, such as this piece:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jul/30/i-can-tell-you-how-adam-goodes-feels-every-indigenous-person-has-felt-it

I'm a white fella too BTW.

 

[Leviathan]

Reading some of the last few pages here brings this to mind "It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt."

 

[goomboogo]

WEAL, do you believe the ALP of 2015 is a socialist organisation? It seems a very difficult proposition to argue when they ascribe to the same neo-liberal economic principles as the LNP. For that matter, the vast majority of governments around the world follow the same economic doctrine.

 

[contrarian]

Not disagreeing with a lot of what you say, except for the last paragraph. If it wasn't for those who control the means of production, where would those who work the hardest work.
There will always have to be people willing to invest in industry which in turn provides employment, they are neither use without each other.

I don't actually have a problem with people who invest heavily in business doing well out of it. I do have a problem with the concept that all you have to do is work hard and you will be a success. There are a lot of people in the developed world who work bloody hard just to get by.

The relationship between how hard you work and what you earn is tenuous at best. That is my issue rather than the structure of capitalism per se.

 

[Dave70]

One of the big lies of capitalism is that those who work the hardest reap the greatest rewards. Those who control the means of production reap the rewards at he expense of those who work the hardest!

Depends on how you define 'rewards'. The personal satisfaction that comes from a hard days work or financial compensation? Likely you'll be paid just as modestly planting rice in a communist run paddy as a capitalist one. Rice is worth what its worth on the open market regardless if its out of the PRC or India.
If the bloke who owns the farm had to mortgage everything he owned to by it, make sure the bills get paid every month etc..etc, he took the risk. Why he shouldn't reap the rewards?
A great brickies laborer will always be a laborer no matter how hard he works. Its not until he buys a ute and employs other laborers so he can take on more work he'll go further. Pretty soon he may find himself off the tools and working from an office liaising with builders instead of lugging barrows of cement. Capitalism is an attitude. Its a housewife making relish in her kitchen and flogging it in the local farmers market. Its a kid with a lemonade stand. Its about working smarter as much as it is about working harder, and nobody in this country is precluded.

 

[Ducatiboy stu]

No one ever gets rich working for someone else...unless maybe its a huge multinational and you make it to exec level...but even then there are only a few who can ever make it

ALL the people I know who are resonabely well off worked for themselves, not for someone else

 

[contrarian]

I completely agree and don't have a problem with this at all. I was more responding to the point that everyone in Australia has a fair go.

While I agree that no one is precluded different people start from very different positions which are of variable advantage or disadvantage.

For me a fair go implies a relatively level playing field which we don't have currently. This is very different from the opportunity to have a go and everyone in Australia definitely has this.

 

[Weizguy]

As Henry Ford said, 'A man can if he thinks he can, a man can't if he thinks he can't'

...and Brony thought that she could get free helicopter flights as a perk, until someone told her that she's a can't!

 

[Airgead]

And anyone who could remotely mistake Obama for a socialist should lose their teaching job instantly. On the grounds of being profoundly stupid.

Seriously, if you think that is anything remotely like socialism you are really badly misinformed.

And booing one person can't be called racist - ********. That's just stupid. Same as saying that calling one person an abbo or **** (or wog or towel head) isn't racist because one person isn't a race. It's self justifying claptrap.

Where's the facepalm emoticon on this phone.

Edited because autocorrect hates me

 

[Ducatiboy stu]

For me a fair go implies a relatively level playing field which we don't have currently. This is very different from the opportunity to have a go and everyone in Australia definitely has this.

And this is one issue I have with what the LNP want to do to higher education.

They want to push the idea that only those with money can get a decent education, and screw the rest. All this does is to increase the divide between the have's and the have not's, and ironically its these pricks making these decisions as to who can get an education got theirs for free, under a Labor thought out policy

Can anyone spot the hypocrisy there...

 

[Dave70]

No one ever gets rich working for someone else...unless maybe its a huge multinational and you make it to exec level...but even then there are only a few who can ever make it

ALL the people I know who are resonabely well off worked for themselves, not for someone else

Conversely most of the bankrupts I know - and have been caught by - also worked for themselves. Sometimes it was their fault, other times they were just another domino. Many lost literally everything they owned.

 

[Ducatiboy stu]

It does go both ways.

I know businesses that subcontracted and went under on big projects like the BER, Highway upgrades etc because the terms of payment where unjust ( where talking 9-12mnths before payment...I **** you not). And its allways the little guys that get ****** over.

 

[wide eyed and legless]

WEAL, do you believe the ALP of 2015 is a socialist organisation? It seems a very difficult proposition to argue when they ascribe to the same neo-liberal economic principles as the LNP. For that matter, the vast majority of governments around the world follow the same economic doctrine.

If you had asked the same question before the Labor Party Conference I would have said emphatically no, but that same section 2 which I quoted was put forward to be amended at the conference by Luke Foley here is his amendment.
The Australian Labor Party has as its objective the achievement of a just and equitable society where every person has the opportunity to realise their potential.
“We believe in an active role for government, and the operation of competitive markets, in order to create opportunities for all Australians, so that every person will have the freedom to pursue their wellbeing, in co-operation with their fellow citizens, free from exploitation and discrimination”.
When he got up to put forward the amendment he was greeted with jeers and shame, so does that mean the ALP are happy with the original 1921 objective?

 

[seamad]

The original 1921 objective has been changed several times over the years, the last time being 1981, with some 23 additions.At this years conference foley and sheldon proposed this motion, which passed despite some jeering of foley

The party’s principles and objectives were last reviewed properly at a special national conference in 1981. Australia and the world have changed substantially since that time.
The 1981 debate was preceded by a comprehensive and substantial consultation process.
This conference resolves to commence a review of our socialist objective, with a view to replacing the existing language with the most appropriate and modern set of principles and objectives for the Australian Labor party.
This review shall be led by a broadly representative panel, appointed by national executive at its first ordinary meeting after this conference. Terms of reference are to be finalised by national executive but are to include:

• an obligation to seek input from all members and affiliated unions of the party;
• an obligation to undertake a process of active discussion and consultation;
• an obligation to circulate draft proposals and identify those proposals that are most likely to be adopted by consensus.

The quote of foley's you supplied was from, i understand , an earlier speech

 

[wide eyed and legless]

1. 
   “The Australian Labor Party is a democratic socialist party and has the objective of the democratic socialisation of industry, production, distribution and exchange, to the extent necessary to eliminate exploitation and other anti-social features in these fields”.
   

This objective has never changed and is still written as above in the ALP constitution.

 

[Airgead]

Let me ask another question... WTF is so bad about socialism anyway?

Surely having the "objective of the democratic socialisation of industry, production, distribution and exchange, to the extent necessary to eliminate exploitation and other anti-social features in these fields” is a pretty damn good objective. If only they would stick to it and not head further down the US style neoliberal, hyper individualist path that they seem hell bent on following.

I ask again - WTF makes socialism so bad? Surely giving the workers a social stake in the means of production (the goal of socialism) is a worthy goal.

For the more hysterical types, before replying, read up on the difference between socialism and communism. A social stake in the means of production does not mean state control.

 

[kaiserben]

Poor Bronnie! This new gig is definitely beneath a woman of her station.

https://instagram.com/p/6g3Makutwx/

 

[wide eyed and legless]

Your right about socialization as a means of production may not mean state control, there are various ways of interpretation what it does mean according to ALP is to be owned by a co-operative of its employees.
At the last conference of the ALP one of their objectives is,
Democratic control and strategic social ownership of all Australian natural resources for the benefit of all Australians
The question then is would it work, if we were all the same I would say yes but we are not we are all different with different ideas.

 

[Airgead]

The question then is would it work, if we were all the same I would say yes but we are not we are all different with different ideas.

Just saying "it won't work because reasons" is a cop out not a critique.

In what way does having different ideas stop us extending the benefits of production to those doing the actual production (ie: rewarding the workers fairly for working). Unless that different idea is to get rich off the back of other people's labor?

How can extending the economic benefits of labor to those undertaking the labor rather than concentrating the benefits in the hands of a few, be a bad thing? And if anyone mentions trickle down economics I will burst into fits of incredulous laughter. The ancient Athenians played around with that for a while then decided it didn't work because the rich hoarded their extra wealth. We have known trickle down is a fallacy for well over 2000 years now.