• Congratulations to the Class of 2024 on your results!
    Let us know how you went here
    Got a question about your uni preferences? Ask us here

Juliar betrays australia, destroys our economic future (6 Viewers)

scuba_steve2121

On The Road To Serfdom
Joined
Dec 2, 2009
Messages
1,343
Gender
Male
HSC
N/A
You don't even know what your arguing. You went in with this lazy idea that you could just attack perceived flaws in social democracy and that would somehow justify calling it communism, that as exposed for the fallacious, lazy argument that it was and now your just spinning like a top, not going anywhere.
social democracy leads to growth in government that in time resembles something of a socialist/ fascist state

that is what I argue

that is why I call a social democrat a socialist because what they believe in sets precedents to allow big government and no freedom

you're an idiot if you believe the government won't keep growing until it collapses 1989 style
 

scuba_steve2121

On The Road To Serfdom
Joined
Dec 2, 2009
Messages
1,343
Gender
Male
HSC
N/A
maybe just maybe they won't grow and they will realise how stupid they have been and will cut welfare, other programs and taxes, but given the current political discourse that is a pipe dream
 

funkshen

dvds didnt exist in 1991
Joined
Nov 5, 2006
Messages
2,137
Location
butt
Gender
Male
HSC
N/A







the unmistakable march towards australian federal government state socialism (with coalition governments leading the way)
 

peikoff

Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2010
Messages
43
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
N/A
You don't even know what your arguing. You went in with this lazy idea that you could just attack perceived flaws in social democracy and that would somehow justify calling it communism, that as exposed for the fallacious, lazy argument that it was and now your just spinning like a top, not going anywhere.
^This

perfect analysis
 

Lentern

Active Member
Joined
Aug 3, 2008
Messages
4,980
Gender
Male
HSC
2008
social democracy leads to growth in government that in time resembles something of a socialist/ fascist state

that is what I argue

that is why I call a social democrat a socialist because what they believe in sets precedents to allow big government and no freedom

you're an idiot if you believe the government won't keep growing until it collapses 1989 style
Socialism is fine, socialism is perfectly compatible with peaceful and democratic values. Communism is not.
 

scuba_steve2121

On The Road To Serfdom
Joined
Dec 2, 2009
Messages
1,343
Gender
Male
HSC
N/A
Socialism is fine, socialism is perfectly compatible with peaceful and democratic values. Communism is not.
explain the difference in your view between socialism and communism before we go any further
 

funkshen

dvds didnt exist in 1991
Joined
Nov 5, 2006
Messages
2,137
Location
butt
Gender
Male
HSC
N/A
meanwhile, pacific free trade zone.

socialism is far more violent than communism. at least, socialism through redistributive justice is, as it is necessarily violent. communism is far more peaceful and democratic because workers will voluntarily produce common goods.
 

scuba_steve2121

On The Road To Serfdom
Joined
Dec 2, 2009
Messages
1,343
Gender
Male
HSC
N/A
meanwhile, pacific free trade zone.

socialism is far more violent than communism. at least, socialism through redistributive justice is, as it is necessarily violent. communism is far more peaceful and democratic because workers will voluntarily produce common goods.
everybody has their own idea of what the difference between communism and socialism is

some people think there is a huge difference others think they are just interchnagable words

I as yet have not come to a good definition yet, so I just prefer to use the term socialism to stand for the government owning the means of production (that includes people) and in the process destroying freedom
 

funkshen

dvds didnt exist in 1991
Joined
Nov 5, 2006
Messages
2,137
Location
butt
Gender
Male
HSC
N/A
you can't define the system through its consequences m8, although it is of course right to point them out.

the whole point is that it is a debate. (almost) everyone comes at it with different axioms. you don't have to be a marxist to be a socialist etc etc. so it really is quite absurd to talk about such things in abstract terms.

its like people who say Christianity is by definition a religion of peace. totally irrelevant (see: crusades, european wars of religion, taiping rebellion etc)
 
Last edited:

scuba_steve2121

On The Road To Serfdom
Joined
Dec 2, 2009
Messages
1,343
Gender
Male
HSC
N/A
you can't define the system through its consequences m8, although it is of course right to point them out
I look at the outcomes not the intentions. if we only ever thought about intentions we would of fucked ourselves long ago
 

Lentern

Active Member
Joined
Aug 3, 2008
Messages
4,980
Gender
Male
HSC
2008
explain the difference in your view between socialism and communism before we go any further
Socialism is an exclusively economic system like capitalism, it merely refers to a system whereby a central government assumes possession of capital before redistributing it directly and indirectly in an egalitarian way. Communism is a whole system of government encompassing, it is completely incompatible with democracy as nearly all the literature, Marx, Engels, Lenin, Trotsky, Mao etc insist that power is obtained through the proletariat rising up against the incumbent government and re-arranging society as a dictatorship of the proletariat, atleast for some time anyway. Anyone who claims to be both a communist and a pacifist is either a liar or a fool, it cannot be done likewise any "communist party" that contests a democratic election and who seriously has no ambitions to form government beyond the democratic process is similarly naive. The doctrines simply do not allow it. Socialism might be a fairly integral party of communism, but socialism can occur completely independent of it.
 

cosmo kramer

Banned
Joined
Apr 29, 2010
Messages
2,582
Location
Forever UNSW
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
2006
i think we're playing a bit of a semantic game here

when people refer to "communism" they usually arent referring to the theoretical state of society postulated by marx to be the DENOUEMENT OF ALL HISTORY AND THE DIALECTIC but the kind of socialist regimes set up in the 20th century that (putatively) were trying to bring this state of society about
 

funkshen

dvds didnt exist in 1991
Joined
Nov 5, 2006
Messages
2,137
Location
butt
Gender
Male
HSC
N/A
I look at the outcomes not the intentions. if we only ever thought about intentions we would of fucked ourselves long ago
yeah but defining an abstraction by its consequence is a case of the tail wagging the dog.

also what cosmo said. you are not defining socialism, you are defining and inferring from "examples of socialism."
 

scuba_steve2121

On The Road To Serfdom
Joined
Dec 2, 2009
Messages
1,343
Gender
Male
HSC
N/A
Socialism is an exclusively economic system like capitalism, it merely refers to a system whereby a central government assumes possession of capital before redistributing it directly and indirectly in an egalitarian way. Communism is a whole system of government encompassing, it is completely incompatible with democracy as nearly all the literature, Marx, Engels, Lenin, Trotsky, Mao etc insist that power is obtained through the proletariat rising up against the incumbent government and re-arranging society as a dictatorship of the proletariat, atleast for some time anyway. Anyone who claims to be both a communist and a pacifist is either a liar or a fool, it cannot be done likewise any "communist party" that contests a democratic election and who seriously has no ambitions to form government beyond the democratic process is similarly naive. The doctrines simply do not allow it. Socialism might be a fairly integral party of communism, but socialism can occur completely independent of it.
oh ok, so in your view its about how it occurs fair enough
 

scuba_steve2121

On The Road To Serfdom
Joined
Dec 2, 2009
Messages
1,343
Gender
Male
HSC
N/A
i think we're playing a bit of a semantic game here

when people refer to "communism" they usually arent referring to the theoretical state of society postulated by marx to be the DENOUEMENT OF ALL HISTORY AND THE DIALECTIC but the kind of socialist regimes set up in the 20th century that (putatively) were trying to bring this state of society about
yea this ^
 

Lentern

Active Member
Joined
Aug 3, 2008
Messages
4,980
Gender
Male
HSC
2008
oh ok, so in your view its about how it occurs fair enough
And how it maintains it, a communist party can't really seize government in a marxist coup but then begin to transition to democratic elections and still be communist.
 

Lentern

Active Member
Joined
Aug 3, 2008
Messages
4,980
Gender
Male
HSC
2008
i think we're playing a bit of a semantic game here

when people refer to "communism" they usually arent referring to the theoretical state of society postulated by marx to be the DENOUEMENT OF ALL HISTORY AND THE DIALECTIC but the kind of socialist regimes set up in the 20th century that (putatively) were trying to bring this state of society about
The right will because they know the legacy of Mao's cultural revolution and the Stalinist purges mean that communism evokes distasteful connotations of brutal dictatorships. Except for a few idiot sociology students at universities nobody from the left will ever refer to themselves as a communist.
 

scuba_steve2121

On The Road To Serfdom
Joined
Dec 2, 2009
Messages
1,343
Gender
Male
HSC
N/A
The right will because they know the legacy of Mao's cultural revolution and the Stalinist purges mean that communism evokes distasteful connotations of brutal dictatorships. Except for a few idiot sociology students at universities nobody from the left will ever refer to themselves as a communist.
they prefer the term environmentalists these days XD
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 6)

Top