128 thoughts on “Monday Message Board

  1. @J-D

    We may very well be talking about different set of things that ‘these things’ are but I think I try to do those things that I can – I try to walk the walk as well as talk the talk – and demonstrate to my neighbours who have learned to trust me despite me being everything that they have been hating during the dark years of neo-liberalism, that there are alternative ways to live and that people don’t need capitalism to be rich because we already are.

    Tell me what measure you want to use to measure the unmeasurable; what level of analysis should we use to talk about ‘defeat’? Can we not talk about war?

  2. I always had my suspicions as to Bronny’s background and this confirms them;

    Bishop shared – without attribution – Kabriel’s thoughts in her maiden speech. She told the House that the remedies employed by the Labor “collectivist” government were based on two assumptions:

    “… first, that the Australian people will accept a further restriction of their liberties in order that negative trends might be averted; and, second, that every solution requires an increase in the centralisation of power and more control of government.”

    On page two of Egoessentialism, Kabriel wrote: “Every major remedy is based on the assumption that (1) people will accept a restriction on their liberties in order that the trend might be averted and that (2) every solution requires the increase of centralised control and government.”

    Bishop then said: “The continuous rise in tax of every sort imaginable, government plans and controls restrict individual decision making. All result in the inability of small, new enterprises to establish themselves.”

    Again on page two of his manifesto, Kabriel writes: “The continuous rise in tax of every sort imaginable, the various plans and controls which restrict individual decision … all result in the inability of small, new enterprises establishing themselves.”

  3. @alfred venison

    Given that the goal you recommend is the goal of doing everything within our power to assist the replacement of capitalism by democratic socialism, what actions do you recommend as contributing to that?

  4. @Julie Thomas

    Ikonoclast posted a comment containing the statement, among others, that ‘you don’t defeat capitalism with accommodationist policies.’ It seems as if Ikonoclast recommends the defeat of capitalism as a desirable goal. I responded to Ikonoclast’s comment asking about actions that would contribute to that goal. Ikonoclast has (not) yet chosen to respond to my inquiry, but you did.

    Note that ‘defeat of capitalism’ was identifed as a goal (apparently) by Ikonoclast, not by me. I don’t know whether the defeat of capitalism is a goal for you. Which goal do you want to talk about? Which actions would you recommend as contributing towards that goal?

  5. Megan :
    Just for the record, should the blindingly obvious have escaped anyone’s attention – I do not have a “group”.

    Then you are even worse.

  6. @J-D

    Thanks for that. Now I understand the context and find that I agree with you and the idea of defeating capitalism is indeed something that Ikon suggested. So if we are using the language of conflict what comes next, since it is obvious that this thing that Labor has done, that is not approved of by some of us to a greater or lesser extent, will win the next election.

    This is a very confused thread; it may as well be a Sandpit.

  7. @Julie Thomas

    I find it confusing when I ask questions and the response is ‘I agree with you’.

    ‘Do you know what time the next bus comes?’ — ‘I agree with you.’
    ‘What colour was that bird that just flew by?’ — ‘I agree with you.’
    ‘Have you got change for five dollars?’ — ‘I agree with you.’

    Doesn’t fit, does it?

  8. @Ikonoclast

    But we also have the least effective Opposition in living memory.

    There have been several less effective Oppositions in living memory.

  9. The ALP further cemented its ultra-pro-Zionist credentials by denouncing BDS and resoundingly confirming it won’t change its policy on Palestine.

    All in all the ultra-right-fascist segment of the ALP has had a win this weekend. They have proven that anything to the ‘left’ of Tony Abbott can be doormats in the ALP. And willing doormats they are.

    Of course, we shouldn’t ignore their biggest victory – ensuring that gays will never be able to get married until at least 2020. Huge victory.

  10. @J-D

    Is it my problem when you are confused?

    I have enough of my own confusion to deal with to be offering you any comfort or advice.

    And… as for things fitting…. that concept – how things or people can fit in – is highly negotiable and open to different constructions but fitting in with society seems to be a problem for some types of people and I’d like it to be easier and less confusing.

  11. @Ivor

    In what sense is a person worse for not belonging to a grouping? It is dictatorial to explicitly or implicitly demand that a person belong to a group or grouping.

    Megan holds a view that the ALP is a reactionary party. I happen to agree. You want to dictate that a person or persons can’t hold that view and indeed you get personally abusive about it. The view is fully supportable as the ALP has endorsed concentration camp policy. It is quintessentially fascistic to support concentration camps.

  12. @J-D

    How do you defeat capitalism? You change your mind. You change your thinking. You work in tiny ways to change the minds and thinking of others. If enough people change their thinking on the matter then the system is defeated. Of course, that isn’t easy. It takes populations hundreds of years to change their thinking on important matters. It took many hundreds of years to overthrow feudal thinking and pre-scientific thinking in the West. Not everything has to happen in your lifetime. It’s not all about you.

  13. @J-D

    To quote the dictionary definition.

    “Fascism is a form of radical authoritarian nationalism that came to prominence in early 20th-century Europe.”

    To “come to prominence” there must be earlier developments. Clearly, the way the British behaved overseas in the era of empire and imperialism was proto-fascistic in both spirit and action. These were proto-fascist developments growing out of British authoritarian nationalism projected abroad.

  14. @J-D

    You didn’t and I’m very relieved that you didn’t; that might be why I ask you so many questions.

  15. @J-D

    I ought to expand a little. I commented earlier in a reply to Julie Thomas that capitalism would ultimately prove self-limiting and self-defeating. This has to do with its internal and external contradictions. The internal contradiction is the antagonism between capital and labour. The external contradiction is the antagonism between the capitalist system and the biosphere. The arguments about why these are insuperable issues for capitalism are quite complex and I would suggest you do some research on the matter. It probably won’t help if I give a potted theory here.

    Next, there is the issue of being mentally bound to a self-defeating system. The self-defeating system will indubitably begin to harm people and the environment but while people remain mentally bound to the system they will see no alternative. Thus the system will persist until it causes catastrophic harm and collapses. This catastrophic collapse can be prevented if people change their minds, change their way of thinking, in time for this to be useful for prevention.

    It’s a matter of reading early signs and early warnings. If people change their thinking so they can read these signs in time then they can still develop a new system and put it on a safer path. However, if they read the signs too late, then the catastrophic collapse of the self-defeating system becomes at some point inevitable.

    Finally, it’s not about my success. I am too obscure and untalented for that. There is a period when the great thinkers are lone voices in the wilderness. Later when they are proved correct, they are punished for it. But later still, their inescapable analysis becomes accepted wisdom and everyone claims and believes “Oh, we knew it all along.”

  16. @J-D

    Why question which dictionary? Judge the definition on its merits. Accept it, criticise it or propose an alternative definition.

  17. @Ikonoclast

    You deliberately misinterpret.

    It is not wrong – this was your statement. I just indicated that for Megan, given her project, this made her position worse.

    And to even suggest that I dictate is pure, outrageous calumny.

    What abuse are you talking about? When have you ever objected to:

    – fascists,
    – die-hard ALP zombies,
    – stooge outfits,
    – fascist clown outfit

    Do you think this is civil discussion?

    Why should someone unilaterally introducing streams of such foul abuse not be called to account particularly when they are not even a member?

    Only John Passant conducts themselves like Megan.

  18. @Ivor

    Megan is explicitly criticising the organisation and not targeting individuals. Implicit in her criticism is some criticism of some individuals but I do not recall her actually naming individuals except perhaps for professional politicians. Professional politicians enter that arena where trenchant political criticism of them from various quarters is common, legitimate and to be expected whether it is demonstrably correct or not.

    You are trying to dictate the terms of the debate and discourse. You are trying to rule certain terms simply “out of court” by “dictate” rather than engaging in rational debate and demonstrating , if possible, that the terms are inapplicable. If something is true it is not outrageous calumny, it is truth. It is true that the ALP policies are demonstrably inhumane. It is true that certain ALP polcies (like certain LNP policies resemble what one would term inhumane, authoritarian and even (at least) proto-fascist policies. Well respected jurists, advocates and human rights experts, among them Julian Burnside and Micheal Kirby, have stated repeatedly that such policies are inhumane and immoral (as well a illegal under international law).

    I don’t understand and don’t ever expect to understand how you can blindly support a party which is very clearly reactionary and almost certainly beyond all reform. It’s pretty clear you don’t really understand political economy, ideology or history.

  19. @Ikonoclast

    – fascists,
    – die-hard ALP zombies,
    – stooge outfits,
    – fascist clown outfit

    is not acceptable pretend “criticising organisations”. Why are you spreading this camouflage.

    Expecting civility is not dictate. Why are spreading this camouflage?

    Do you support:

    – fascists,
    – die-hard ALP zombies,
    – stooge outfits,
    – fascist clown outfit

    Is this your “truth” ????????????

    Why would you even have the gall to even suggest that I blindly support anything ?????

    It is not up to you to judge whether people understand X, Y, or Z.

  20. @Ivor

    I support anyone’s right to call any organisation reactionary or fascist if they consider it shows those tendencies. They might be wrong or right. If they are demonstrably wrong they can be shown to be so by reasoned argument.

    I support Megan’s right to call the ALP fascists, die-hard ALP zombies, stooge outfits and a fascist clown outfit if she so chooses. If someone wants to rebut Megan’s arguments they may advance logical, cogent rebuttals if they can.

    While there may be some rhetorical exaggeration in Megan’s language, there is incontrovertible evidence that the ALP’s support of off-shore detention centres (surrounded as they are by secrecy, stripping of human rights and unexplained/unjustified deaths) equates to support for what are essentially concentration camps. That type of policy, in the modern context, is at the very least, proto-fascistic. While the ALP is not overall a fascistic organisation (yet) and while many or all or its members are not intentionally or in spirit fascistic, it remains the case that while the ALP endorses what is essentially proto-fascistic policy, the ALP remains morally tainted to a serious degree. It’s a slippery moral slope the ALP have got themselves on to.

  21. @Ikonoclast

    No one worries about organisations being identified as reactionary.

    Why throw this diversion up?

    I do not support calling the any organisation in Australia Fascist except for white power groups and rightwing elements in the Liberal party and some church associated political groups.

    I do not support calling other organisations fascists, zombies, stooges or clowns. Although I apply all these labels to those who manufacture them – plus more.

    It is not up to other people to even address diatribes such as that – just expose them for what they are.

  22. @Ikonoclast

    A better definition of ‘fascism’ would be: ‘the political movement founded by Benito Mussolini around 1914, and other similar political movements’.

  23. @Ikonoclast

    You wrote earlier that ‘you don’t defeat capitalism with accommodationist policies’.

    Please note that those are your exact words, with no paraphrasing by me.

    Now, possibly on reflection you may decide that the meaning you intended when you wrote that could be better expressed in other words. I could understand that.

    But looking at the words you used, if they do adequately capture your intended meaning, then I wonder whether you meant that ‘you don’t defeat capitalism with accommodationist policies because you defeat it with different policies’. That seems the most natural interpretation to me, which is why I’m wondering which different policies you might have had in mind. If you didn’t mean that, perhaps you meant ‘you don’t defeat capitalism with accommodationist policies because you don’t defeat capitalism with policies at all’, but in that case I would wonder why you singled out accommodationist policies for specific mention. Maybe you had some other meaning, different from both of those, that I’m failing to grasp. Your more recent comments don’t clarify the point.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s