184 replies to this topic

[Rob Randall]

Yes of course, historically every attempt at communism has turned into an awfully evil and repressive dictatorial regime, oftentimes resulting in mass murders and genocides. But someone like Isitt will always hold a hope for a Democratic Socialist system that works.

 

There's never been a true Socialist or Communist state the way Marx and Engels envisaged.

 

They've all been socialist/capitalist hybrids and there's no consistency to their success. 

 

Some hybrids, like ours or ones in Scandinavia work pretty well. Others in Africa, Asia and the Americas, well, you know the story.

 

I would venture that these failed states had little to do with pure Communism, more like Socialism was the cloak that evil totalitarian dictators used to impose their twisted ideology onto their victims.

 

And that has nothing to do with the reforms that ensured our children no longer have to toil in factories or that you will never be turned away from a hospital due to lack of money.

Edited by Rob Randall, 17 December 2018 - 10:10 AM.

[29er Radio]

Mr Isitt seems to me to be a populist and if the general population started to compare him to leaders like Trump, it may help his (Bens) supporters think through some of his proposals that I cant imagine he has done much of himself. 

[jonny]

Socialize the means of production / de-commodify housing & food, etc. 

 

Maintain a democratic political system (not a dictatorship).

 

This is Isitt's ideology.

 

Utopian socialism with perfect fairness and equity sounds so lovely, but it is impossible. Any time there is a system, some people will game it.

 

The danger being, where do we stop? Where do you stop with socialized food and housing? Does private land ownership become illegal? Do they start taking land away from people who own "too much"? Historically, it hasn't taken long for the bread lines to start. Any time government begins to provide something it becomes rationed (education, health care, transit, roads, housing, food). Any time government takes over the means of production, freedom is lost. 

[jonny]

Mr Isitt seems to me to be a populist and if the general population started to compare him to leaders like Trump, it may help his (Bens) supporters think through some of his proposals that I cant imagine he has done much of himself. 

 

No, he's much worse than a populist. He's an ideologue. 

[Nparker]

...Does private land ownership become illegal? Do they start taking land away from people who own "too much"? ...

You mean those who suffer from Ben's version of "affluenza"? 

[jonny]

There's never been a true Socialist or Communist state the way Marx and Engels envisaged.

 

Because taking people's property and rights away requires a dictatorship. Dictators love power and don't want to give it up and end up using force and violence to keep power. These countries end up with bureaucratic boss class (i.e. the party) running the state machine. 

 

"True" socialism requires the working class to rise up en masse and take over the means of production from the capitalists, which has only ever happened once, AFAIK (Spain - 1930's). 

 

People are ultimately self interested enough that they don't want to share all that they own with everybody else, including those who are lazy and do not work hard. 

 

Humans are diverse, disparate, evolving beings. Society is a messy, constantly changing place. Socialism is an ideology. Nothing more, nothing less. As with any ideology, it's overly simplified and ignores the realities of human motivation and desires. 

[PraiseKek]

Nothing worse than a populist. Popular ideas are icky and have no place in democracy. What we need is a democracy with only one party to vote for.

[aastra]

 

What we need is a democracy with only one party to vote for.

 

But don't be obvious about it. Split the ruling party into two or three wings that have distinctive branding. Then make them squabble over nonsense like the heroes and villains of pro wrestling. It would take ages for people to catch on.

[spanky123]

Nothing worse than a populist. Popular ideas are icky and have no place in democracy. What we need is a democracy with only one party to vote for.

 

Seems to have worked in China. 

[Mike K.]

But don't be obvious about it. Split the ruling party into two or three wings that have distinctive branding. Then make them squabble over nonsense like the heroes and villains of pro wrestling. It would take ages for people to catch on.

 

Do you have any idea how difficult it is to have an argument with yourself?

[aastra]

It's easy. You don't know what you're talking about.

[Jackerbie]

It's easy. You don't know what you're talking about.

 

Unsure if these are instructions or an observation

[aastra]

It was actually a demonstration.

[Bingo]

Do you have any idea how difficult it is to have an argument with yourself?

 

It's easy if you take off your noise cancelling headphones.

[Bingo]

It's easy if you take off your noise cancelling headphones.

 

But then I am forced to confront my inner jekyll.

[Bingo]

But then I am forced to confront my inner jekyll.

 

Well, you can't hyde from that forever.

Yikes! where are my headphones?

[FogPub]

People are ultimately self interested enough that they don't want to share all that they own with everybody else, including those who are lazy and do not work hard. 

 

Humans are diverse, disparate, evolving beings. Society is a messy, constantly changing place. Socialism is an ideology. Nothing more, nothing less. As with any ideology, it's overly simplified and ignores the realities of human motivation and desires. 

The problem almost entirely stems from greed - including excessive greed - not just being socially acceptable, but being validated* and rewarded** at every opportunity. 

 

* - e.g. it's written into corporate law that a publicly-traded corporation exists to provide the best possible return to its shareholders...which means by law a corporation is expected to be greedy.

 

** - e.g. look at how one's social success is measured first and foremost by financial success.

 

Excessive greed was-is the downfall of communism and is well on its way to being the downfall of capitalism as well.  No system can work well for long until excessive greed is made to be unacceptable or even abhorrent in the eyes of general society.

[AllseeingEye]

I'm not a communist or a socialist (not even close!) but I think it's worth mentioning that socialism (social ownership of the means of production) does not necessarily mean a dictatorship political system.

 

The accusations ASE & others have made about Mr Isitt's ideology seem to assume that propounding communism/socialism equates to advocating for dictatorial political systems as well. This isn't necessarily the case, and Mr Isitt will dismiss your concerns swiftly if it appears you cannot see the distinction.

 

Yes of course, historically every attempt at communism has turned into an awfully evil and repressive dictatorial regime, oftentimes resulting in mass murders and genocides. But someone like Isitt will always hold a hope for a Democratic Socialist system that works.

 

Again, I don't buy into Isitt's utopian fantasy ideology (I think it would produce a dystopian nightmare), but let's at least understand what he's advocating for before we attack it. 

 

Socialize the means of production / de-commodify housing & food, etc. 

 

Maintain a democratic political system (not a dictatorship).

 

This is Isitt's ideology.

What "accusations" are those precisely Sam?

 

They are mostly observations and fairly educated opinions based on and gleaned from a plethora of online sources including the VicNews interview in 2016 which will take you all of 30 seconds to look up, in addition to various YouTube and other videos and selected bytes of Ben decrying colonial this and imperialist that with particular emphasis on capitalist imperialists (apparently communist or Marxist imperialism is ok - at least I've never read nor seen an interview with him decrying that. If you can find such a thing by all means please do post it).

 

His ridiculous and downright insulting Fairfield "affluenza" comment would be laughable if it weren't so impudent and wrong headed. I lived in Fairfield for five years and while I was admittedly a long way from living on the street I was equally equidistant from being 'affluent' in the commonly accepted sense of the term. I was, and am, a hard working middle-class white collar management type: IOW apparently pretty much the demographic that our friend Ben has decided is undesirable because - in addition - I am that worst of all possible things, a white male of British-European stock. The horror, the horror....

 

In addition his scholarly works include a treatise on those awful capitalists (once again) and specifically dastardly post WWI Canadian militarists who forced some of our poor downtrodden working class to embark on an ill-fated military campaign to Russia ostensibly to stem the Bolshevik Revolution. Of course all the while he completely and utterly ignores the butchery and savagery being perpetrated by the Bolsheviks largely upon their own population. Capitalists engage in that behavior and they are evil imperialists. Bolshevik-Communist-Marxists do it and well - apparently - sacrifices in the name of the People have to be made, mister.....

 

I can read language and interpret and infer nuance relatively well. I don't need to have a copy of Das Kapital handy to figure out anyone resorting to that language over and over and over....and over....is coming from a certain political viewpoint. That ain't rocket science.....

 

And while what you say may ultimately be true, unless you are in fact Ben himself I'm unsure how can you assert with confidence  in your final sentence that "this is Isitt's ideology." Are you sitting right there in his kitchen listening in as he sounds out and scribes his own personal philosophy and political ideology?

 

I for one am getting fed up with class this, and capitalist/imperialist that - Ben just focus on fixing the effing potholes and other infrastructure needs of the core, and weighing development proposals on their actual merits rather than on whether in your opinion they are waging a class war on the working poor (I'm pretty sure they're mainly trying to fulfill market and consumer demands). Do that and I for one can live with your loonier tendencies and statements. That's what earplugs are for.....

Edited by AllseeingEye, 17 December 2018 - 08:46 PM.

[rjag]

The problem almost entirely stems from greed - including excessive greed - not just being socially acceptable, but being validated* and rewarded** at every opportunity. 

 

* - e.g. it's written into corporate law that a publicly-traded corporation exists to provide the best possible return to its shareholders...which means by law a corporation is expected to be greedy.

 

** - e.g. look at how one's social success is measured first and foremost by financial success.

 

Excessive greed was-is the downfall of communism and is well on its way to being the downfall of capitalism as well.  No system can work well for long until excessive greed is made to be unacceptable or even abhorrent in the eyes of general society.

 

 

No, a corporation or a business is expected to return a profit. ie ROI. Profit does not equate to greed. If a private or publicly traded business sells a product or service, there is an expectation of profit. 

 

Grocery stores on average return 3-4% on the goods they sell after they have paid their employees and all other overhead. 

 

You are correct that where people believe a business is 'gouging' will probably not last very long. Martin Shrkeli is a prime example. 

 

 

 

“The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase its Profits” Milton Friedman

Edited by rjag, 17 December 2018 - 08:45 PM.

[Mike K.]

The problem almost entirely stems from greed - including excessive greed - not just being socially acceptable, but being validated* and rewarded** at every opportunity. 

 

* - e.g. it's written into corporate law that a publicly-traded corporation exists to provide the best possible return to its shareholders...which means by law a corporation is expected to be greedy.

 

** - e.g. look at how one's social success is measured first and foremost by financial success.

 

Excessive greed was-is the downfall of communism and is well on its way to being the downfall of capitalism as well.  No system can work well for long until excessive greed is made to be unacceptable or even abhorrent in the eyes of general society.

 

• The vast majority of corporations never turn a profit.
• Many successful corporations begin by accruing significant amounts of debt, which is then paid off over a period of time once the corporation begins to turn a profit.
• The amount of time between the founding of a corporation and it being 100% self-sustaining can take many years, even decades.
• Corporate profits also translate to corporate investment, helping to sustain other corporations through their formative years or re-investing capital in a variety of investment channels, some of which may be charitable or philanthropic or investments in a society's culture, education, research or the arts.

Corporations don't just hoard money. They employ individuals. They invest in their communities and they ultimately provide services that society needs.