Go Back   AFA Forums > Secularism and Social Issues > Politics

Politics Political issues which help or hinder our society

Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #51  
Old 10th March 2017, 07:32 PM
pipbarber pipbarber is online now
AFA Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 1,771
Default Re: Why the tax system favors gentrification

Communism? Seriously? You know when grandpa reaches for the cigar and says smoking never hurt anyone...thats the above discussion!

Economic equality is utter bullshit in my view and not only impossible but undesirable on absolutely every level. If you want equality in tennis, remove the net. If you want equality in chess, make the checkmate an illegal move. What happens then is the destruction of the vicarious delight of the game.

I know there was a nod of the head to incentive above but for me incentive is everything, it's will and desire and its why we dont just stay in bed all day. But i'm not a rabid pro-capitalist i just dont care if someone is. I dont care if someone wants to have trillions of dollars in the bank and spend their every day wheeling and dealing and making more and more and more money...dont care, not one bit.

Universal income is the way forward. Food, rent, utilities, basic clothes and a reasonable expendable income that can be increased at will, or not, if so chosen. In other words, a basic level of needs to be met by the state to enable human flourishing, beyond that you can do whatever the fuck you want. Thats not communism to me but maybe i'm assuming a historical definition of the word that isnt appropriate here?
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 10th March 2017, 07:38 PM
Strato's Avatar
Strato Strato is offline
If only!!
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: The Bellarine, Geelong.
Posts: 4,611
Default Re: Why the tax system favors gentrification

I guess advancing economic and social equity is like atheism and feminism. One has to at least keep up the discourse to help change the thinking and the status quo.

With true socialism people have been made to believe they have everything to lose by the American 20th Century propaganda campaign driven by capitalism, by State victimisation of those even sympathetic to the vision.

Though the McCarthyism and J. Edgar Hoover era is widely seen as dark days for freedom and rights, socialism is demonised in America. Australians subscribe to that position. Pauline might cry 'McCarthyism,' but she's no pinko.
__________________
You have been kissing the hand of someone who is not circumcised - you are better off kissing a goat's arse.
Habib Huhsin Alathas.
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 10th March 2017, 08:17 PM
Darwinsbulldog's Avatar
Darwinsbulldog Darwinsbulldog is online now
AFA Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Perth
Posts: 17,303
Default Re: Why the tax system favors gentrification

Quote:
pipbarber said View Post
Communism? Seriously? You know when grandpa reaches for the cigar and says smoking never hurt anyone...thats the above discussion!

Economic equality is utter bullshit in my view and not only impossible but undesirable on absolutely every level. If you want equality in tennis, remove the net. If you want equality in chess, make the checkmate an illegal move. What happens then is the destruction of the vicarious delight of the game.

I know there was a nod of the head to incentive above but for me incentive is everything, it's will and desire and its why we dont just stay in bed all day. But i'm not a rabid pro-capitalist i just dont care if someone is. I dont care if someone wants to have trillions of dollars in the bank and spend their every day wheeling and dealing and making more and more and more money...dont care, not one bit.

Universal income is the way forward. Food, rent, utilities, basic clothes and a reasonable expendable income that can be increased at will, or not, if so chosen. In other words, a basic level of needs to be met by the state to enable human flourishing, beyond that you can do whatever the fuck you want. Thats not communism to me but maybe i'm assuming a historical definition of the word that isnt appropriate here?
It does not appear you have read or understood what I wrote above, with respect.
Historically, yes, communist states have tended to be repressive, but I gave the reasons for that. But an historical description of communism does not allow for the fact that rabidly anti-communist opposition made a large contribution to those states becoming more repressive!

In fact, I think you are not all that far away from blaming the victims here. In Russia, the Czar had to go. He pissed into solid gold pots while most of his people starved. He got them into an expensive world war, which was mainly caused by imperial nations fighting over the resources of the third world.

True, the Soviet revolution turned sour, even before the civil war. But intervention by the west gave Soviet no opportunity to evolve moderation.
What would have happened if the anti_soviet forces won the civil war? The reinstatement of feudalism or arch capitalism, where many more peasants would end up starving?

Remember that in the early part of the twenty century, most of the states against the new Soviet Union were [mainly] European Christian constitutional monarchies, whose involvement in the USSR to restore the [former] status quo, which meant capitalism, monarchy and Christianity. The Russian people had had quite enough of that, and so any paranoia about the west was not entirely unjustified.

Understand that I am NOT trying to erect an apologist argument for particular communist regimes, but trying to illustrate that the severity of these regimes had as much to do with external factors as internal ones.

So no, I refuse to be hysterical about the concept of communism, or believe that it is structurally incapable of providing good government, especially if such systems are allowed to evolve to moderation without external interference from reactionary forces.

And what of the hypocrisy in World War Two, when suddenly, the Soviet Union became strong and steady allies in the fight against Nazism!

To my mind, any sort of revolution can lead to unfortunate circumstances. The idea that Nazism arose without cause, or that Germans are inherently a warlike people is just garbage. People under pressure do strange things. The harsh Treaty of Versailles, and nativity of "Western" leaders were as much a cause of Nazism as Hitler himself.

The same goes for the demonization of Communism. Instead of accepting a fait accompli and accepting the new Soviet government, the "West" reacted hysterically. Was trade and diplomacy tried? NO. Not really. That was not the agenda circa 1920. The agenda was to destroy the new regime.

The same dumb foreign policy is seen during more modern times. The USA in particular supporting fascist regimes in South America and elsewhere to use against any government that smelled even faintly of the left.

Saddam Hussein in Iraq was created by the West as a foil for the Iran theocracy, and he too "backfired" on his creators.

If the USA and it's allies want to be real world policemen, then they need to be a little less ideological and start acting like honest brokers.

Look, I am not saying that communism is paradise, or that we should not oppose repressive regimes, but surely foreign policy can be more nuanced than "Go kill the commies".
And on the subject of anti-communism, persuading a regime to accept a MacDonald's store in Moscow or Beijing is probably more subversive, and less costly in human life, than a god-damned war. [Which has been the standard counter to Communism until comparatively recently].
__________________
Just stick to the idea that science tests falsifyable hypotheses to destruction.
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 10th March 2017, 08:20 PM
pipbarber pipbarber is online now
AFA Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 1,771
Default Re: Why the tax system favors gentrification

I just dont see why the discussion of economic freedom is framed around the ancient paradigms of socialism and communism when both have justifiable historic, political and cultural baggage of such magnitude that they are poison to actual progressive economic change. It just doesnt help. Marx has no skin in the game in the 21st century in my opinion, let him rot in the gulag of his tomb.

Automation and AI will make most people redundant, and that's awesome, provided we can devise a system where people can still flourish. Marx would argue that are species being is based on work and owning the means to production so where does that leave him when people can have great and fulfilling lives without owning anything or working? That leaves him in the 19th century.
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 10th March 2017, 08:39 PM
pipbarber pipbarber is online now
AFA Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 1,771
Default Re: Why the tax system favors gentrification

Quote:
Darwinsbulldog said View Post
It does not appear you have read or understood what I wrote above, with respect.
Historically, yes, communist states have tended to be repressive, but I gave the reasons for that. But an historical description of communism does not allow for the fact that rabidly anti-communist opposition made a large contribution to those states becoming more repressive!
Yes but isnt this the same argument that christianity is only flawed by its practitioners? A religion, like and ideology, is nothing more than the sum of its parts.

Quote:
In fact, I think you are not all that far away from blaming the victims here. In Russia, the Czar had to go. He pissed into solid gold pots while most of his people starved. He got them into an expensive world war, which was mainly caused by imperial nations fighting over the resources of the third world.

True, the Soviet revolution turned sour, even before the civil war. But intervention by the west gave Soviet no opportunity to evolve moderation.
What would have happened if the anti_soviet forces won the civil war? The reinstatement of feudalism or arch capitalism, where many more peasants would end up starving?

Remember that in the early part of the twenty century, most of the states against the new Soviet Union were [mainly] European Christian constitutional monarchies, whose involvement in the USSR to restore the [former] status quo, which meant capitalism, monarchy and Christianity. The Russian people had had quite enough of that, and so any paranoia about the west was not entirely unjustified.

Understand that I am NOT trying to erect an apologist argument for particular communist regimes, but trying to illustrate that the severity of these regimes had as much to do with external factors as internal ones.

So no, I refuse to be hysterical about the concept of communism, or believe that it is structurally incapable of providing good government, especially if such systems are allowed to evolve to moderation without external interference from reactionary forces.
I get that foreign meddling fucked things up but i reject communism, not just from it's historical failures, but philosophically and economically. You know how people say its a good idea in principle but not in practice? For me it is far worse in principle that it ever was in practice.

Quote:
And what of the hypocrisy in World War Two, when suddenly, the Soviet Union became strong and steady allies in the fight against Nazism!

To my mind, any sort of revolution can lead to unfortunate circumstances. The idea that Nazism arose without cause, or that Germans are inherently a warlike people is just garbage. People under pressure do strange things. The harsh Treaty of Versailles, and nativity of "Western" leaders were as much a cause of Nazism as Hitler himself.

The same goes for the demonization of Communism. Instead of accepting a fait accompli and accepting the new Soviet government, the "West" reacted hysterically. Was trade and diplomacy tried? NO. Not really. That was not the agenda circa 1920. The agenda was to destroy the new regime.

The same dumb foreign policy is seen during more modern times. The USA in particular supporting fascist regimes in South America and elsewhere to use against any government that smelled even faintly of the left.

Saddam Hussein in Iraq was created by the West as a foil for the Iran theocracy, and he too "backfired" on his creators.

If the USA and it's allies want to be real world policemen, then they need to be a little less ideological and start acting like honest brokers.

Look, I am not saying that communism is paradise, or that we should not oppose repressive regimes, but surely foreign policy can be more nuanced than "Go kill the commies".
And on the subject of anti-communism, persuading a regime to accept a MacDonald's store in Moscow or Beijing is probably more subversive, and less costly in human life, than a god-damned war. [Which has been the standard counter to Communism until comparatively recently].
I'm not demonizing communism or trying to defend the hypocrisy of the west. I'm saying communism is a bad idea from top to bottom in the same way that i would say christianity is a bad idea from top to bottom. Its completely flawed because it is based on spurious and false notion of 'human nature.' Not demonizing it though, got no problem with communists, just think communism is utter hokum and useless for the humanist challenges of tomorrow.
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 10th March 2017, 08:39 PM
Darwinsbulldog's Avatar
Darwinsbulldog Darwinsbulldog is online now
AFA Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Perth
Posts: 17,303
Default Re: Why the tax system favors gentrification

Quote:
pipbarber said View Post
I just dont see why the discussion of economic freedom is framed around the ancient paradigms of socialism and communism when both have justifiable historic, political and cultural baggage of such magnitude that they are poison to actual progressive economic change. It just doesnt help. Marx has no skin in the game in the 21st century in my opinion, let him rot in the gulag of his tomb.

Automation and AI will make most people redundant, and that's awesome, provided we can devise a system where people can still flourish. Marx would argue that are species being is based on work and owning the means to production so where does that leave him when people can have great and fulfilling lives without owning anything or working? That leaves him in the 19th century.
Communism/ socialism are rather new boys on the block-capitalism/feudalism have been around for a long time.

Actually, socialism is more natural for a social species. I am not saying we be drones in a hive, but we have to work out how to get on better. Allowing vast inequalities in income and wealth to persist is only going to lead to a world of hurt.

And where did you read that socialism/communism bans private ownership??? It doesn't, it moderates private ownership. It is not only about group ownership. So I think you are straw-manning my argument here.

Most leaders in authoritarian states realise that compulsion and repression give diminishing returns. Even psychopaths can realise this in some circumstances. Even Stalin in WW2 [under pressure from the Nazi threat] loosened some of the thumbscrews of control, and in particular, soft-pedalled the dogma. He made the war into a conflict to save "Mother-Russia" rather than his former rhetoric of saving communism. He instituted Guards units [based on combat merit], rehabilitated Soviet generals from the Gulags [many were sent to prison whether they were guilty of being anti-Soviet or not], and put them back in charge of the armies and units, which also improved Soviet fortunes against the Nazi invaders.

But I agree we have drifted from the point a little. Certainly the economic challenges of the future will have to be novel, and not based on any form of previous government. But whatever happens, the system will have to be reasonably fair. if it is not, there will be pitchforks eventually. Because if there is any lesson from history, it is that. People will only put up with repression for so long, whether it be ideological, religious or economic.
__________________
Just stick to the idea that science tests falsifyable hypotheses to destruction.
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 10th March 2017, 09:04 PM
Darwinsbulldog's Avatar
Darwinsbulldog Darwinsbulldog is online now
AFA Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Perth
Posts: 17,303
Default Re: Why the tax system favors gentrification

pipbaber wrote:-
Quote:
Yes but isnt this the same argument that christianity is only flawed by its practitioners? A religion, like and ideology, is nothing more than the sum of its parts.
No, I don't think that is a good analogy at all. What I am saying is that there has been no fair test of communism, due to interference. It is as if you are making a test of surfing, but every time you put a novice surfer in the water, you chop off one leg-of course the surfer will fall in the water, and you prove that surfing is impossible!

But let's try two other tests, you let the novice surfer practice for a bit. He will fall off, probably often, but eventually she will get there. Or you put an experienced surfer on the board, who has long practice surfing with only one leg. Yay, surfing can work!

Communism had no time to adapt, or to evolve without serious interference. That serious interference almost guaranteed a repression of dissent.

Christianity does work, but in a very dysfunctional way, from our perspective. But I do agree, even if 100% of Christians did it right, it is still an appalling system [like most religions, because it is based on faith rather than reason and evidence].

Quote:
I get that foreign meddling fucked things up but i reject communism, not just from it's historical failures, but philosophically and economically. You know how people say its a good idea in principle but not in practice? For me it is far worse in principle that it ever was in practice.
Again, there has been no fair test of communism in principle. I am not saying that communism would definitely work, I am just saying there has been no fair test.
To my mind, communism's weakness is the private incentive. Capitalism has a weakness too, the overemphasis of personal incentive at the cost of social goods.

Quote:
I'm not demonizing communism or trying to defend the hypocrisy of the west. I'm saying communism is a bad idea from top to bottom in the same way that i would say christianity is a bad idea from top to bottom. Its completely flawed because it is based on spurious and false notion of 'human nature.' Not demonizing it though, got no problem with communists, just think communism is utter hokum and useless for the humanist challenges of tomorrow.
Communism and capitalism both have flaws, because of what I argued above. Both have to be practised in moderation, but unfortunately, we can point to many instances where the practice of both has been flawed.

And I think the problem with both is not that the basic ideas are totally unsound, but rather they are practised dogmatically. Rather than used as guides to behaviour, they become objects of rigid ideology, and inevitably, conflict. In other words, most devotees of either system adopt them as sorts of "religion".
__________________
Just stick to the idea that science tests falsifyable hypotheses to destruction.

Last edited by Darwinsbulldog; 10th March 2017 at 09:05 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old 10th March 2017, 09:26 PM
Strato's Avatar
Strato Strato is offline
If only!!
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: The Bellarine, Geelong.
Posts: 4,611
Default Re: Why the tax system favors gentrification

I agree pip, universal income is really what is required. America again needs to learn from Australia. The wealthier they are, the more tax they pay. Neo-liberalism is indefensible doctrine.

If individuals are free to make trillions, what of the impact of that on the ordinary citizens and the environment, the world?

John Cleese was indicting of James Packer, declaring building casinos is a horrible way to make money, preying on people's weaknesses.

Putin looks after himself and his oligarchs. He first abolished democracy and crushes dissent. He will commission to have anyone seriously threatening him liquidated.

From the Wiki article: 1960s

'The Cuyahoga River caught fire in Ohio. Fires had erupted on the river many times, including 22 June 1969, when a river fire captured the attention of Time magazine, which described the Cuyahoga as the river that "oozes rather than flows" and in which a person "does not drown but decays." This helped spur legislative action on water pollution control resulting in the Clean Water Act, Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement, and the creation of the federal Environmental Protection Agency.'

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1960s

Obama upgraded this legislation. Trump intends to utterly abolish it. This is because his golf resort in Florida uses an obscene amount of water though it feeds no one, only his prestige and those of his class. It, not the average Joe has to flourish. What does Trump care if some river catches fire again?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/ent...b05cf0f4015c99

With their license to make their trillions comes often harmful determination over the lives of the many. Socialism in politics exercises constraint, taxes on the super wealthy .1% to enable the flourishing of the ordinary citizen, pursue international peace and the environment ongoing. It arises from social conscience and justice.

We can't rely on the Bill Gates and Warren Buffet style philanthropist to address disadvantage and poverty. There has to be rational and prudential redistribution.

Commercialism is deleterious. Education is indispensable. How do we demote the one and promote the other?
__________________
You have been kissing the hand of someone who is not circumcised - you are better off kissing a goat's arse.
Habib Huhsin Alathas.
Reply With Quote
  #59  
Old 10th March 2017, 10:38 PM
pipbarber pipbarber is online now
AFA Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 1,771
Default Re: Why the tax system favors gentrification

Quote:
Darwinsbulldog said View Post
Communism/ socialism are rather new boys on the block-capitalism/feudalism have been around for a long time.

Actually, socialism is more natural for a social species. I am not saying we be drones in a hive, but we have to work out how to get on better. Allowing vast inequalities in income and wealth to persist is only going to lead to a world of hurt.
I agree, we agree on the problem i think, our differences are in the remedy.

Quote:
And where did you read that socialism/communism bans private ownership??? It doesn't, it moderates private ownership. It is not only about group ownership. So I think you are straw-manning my argument here.
Huh, i didnt say it bans private ownership. Species being requires ownership in the means of production, that could be private or collective and i refute that. People can live perfectly happy productive lives without ownership of their production, but that is philosophically impossible from a Marxist position. It cannot happen because that is not human nature, again, according to Karl.

Quote:
Most leaders in authoritarian states realise that compulsion and repression give diminishing returns. Even psychopaths can realise this in some circumstances. Even Stalin in WW2 [under pressure from the Nazi threat] loosened some of the thumbscrews of control, and in particular, soft-pedalled the dogma. He made the war into a conflict to save "Mother-Russia" rather than his former rhetoric of saving communism. He instituted Guards units [based on combat merit], rehabilitated Soviet generals from the Gulags [many were sent to prison whether they were guilty of being anti-Soviet or not], and put them back in charge of the armies and units, which also improved Soviet fortunes against the Nazi invaders.

But I agree we have drifted from the point a little. Certainly the economic challenges of the future will have to be novel, and not based on any form of previous government. But whatever happens, the system will have to be reasonably fair. if it is not, there will be pitchforks eventually. Because if there is any lesson from history, it is that. People will only put up with repression for so long, whether it be ideological, religious or economic.
I agree completely. I think we're arguing over labels.

Even so, I just dont think the answer is in the past.
Reply With Quote
  #60  
Old 10th March 2017, 10:51 PM
pipbarber pipbarber is online now
AFA Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 1,771
Default Re: Why the tax system favors gentrification

Quote:
Darwinsbulldog said View Post
pipbaber wrote:-


No, I don't think that is a good analogy at all. What I am saying is that there has been no fair test of communism, due to interference. It is as if you are making a test of surfing, but every time you put a novice surfer in the water, you chop off one leg-of course the surfer will fall in the water, and you prove that surfing is impossible!

But let's try two other tests, you let the novice surfer practice for a bit. He will fall off, probably often, but eventually she will get there. Or you put an experienced surfer on the board, who has long practice surfing with only one leg. Yay, surfing can work!

Communism had no time to adapt, or to evolve without serious interference. That serious interference almost guaranteed a repression of dissent.

Christianity does work, but in a very dysfunctional way, from our perspective. But I do agree, even if 100% of Christians did it right, it is still an appalling system [like most religions, because it is based on faith rather than reason and evidence].
It's a good analogy and it may be fair but i find myself still thinking that even if 100% of communists did it right it would still be appalling because it is based on a particular and specific conception of human being and not on reason and evidence.

Quote:
Again, there has been no fair test of communism in principle. I am not saying that communism would definitely work, I am just saying there has been no fair test.
To my mind, communism's weakness is the private incentive. Capitalism has a weakness too, the overemphasis of personal incentive at the cost of social goods.

Communism and capitalism both have flaws, because of what I argued above. Both have to be practised in moderation, but unfortunately, we can point to many instances where the practice of both has been flawed.

And I think the problem with both is not that the basic ideas are totally unsound, but rather they are practised dogmatically. Rather than used as guides to behaviour, they become objects of rigid ideology, and inevitably, conflict. In other words, most devotees of either system adopt them as sorts of "religion".
Yeah i think thats a fair call and again, i'm not defending our wild capitalism here, just dissing on communism but yes, both systems have a certain religiosity about them in regard to their blind adherence.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +11. The time now is 07:37 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Feedback Buttons provided by Advanced Post Thanks / Like (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.