MedVision ad

Union Board Elections 2006 (1 Viewer)

Status
Not open for further replies.

withoutaface

Premium Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2004
Messages
15,098
Gender
Male
HSC
2004
Re: Union Board Elections 2006 - UPDATED 26/4

wheredanton said:
I have to back melbie on the point that most of the many of the above places were not based on anything like Marx envisaged. Put it this way, Marx would have not been happy to see Pol Pot do what he did based on some vague notion of his theory of the class.

Same goes for Lenin. When the Leninist fellows discovered more Marx writings that went against what they were doing they proptly lost it.
It was relevant to the situation, given we were talking about Quah's version of communism (ie the CCP type).
 

wheredanton

Retired
Joined
Oct 10, 2005
Messages
599
Location
-
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
2002
Re: Union Board Elections 2006 - UPDATED 26/4

withoutaface said:
It was relevant to the situation, given we were talking about Quah's version of communism (ie the CCP type).
Quah is much better on everyone's ignore list. It's much nicer on my conscious to not know what he has to say. It is simply scary that someone actully holds the ideas that he does.
 

ujuphleg

oo-joo-fleg
Joined
Jan 2, 2004
Messages
3,040
Location
Sydney
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
2004
Re: Union Board Elections 2006 - UPDATED 26/4

*cough* Topic? Communism is very interesting and all, but this is a discussion about our elections.

I suggest that those of you who haven't should take a look at idMedia, the University's Independent Media Society.

They have 3 articles on the elections, and can be seen here:

http://digest.idmedia.org.au/2006/16april06/union_board_elections_1/
http://digest.idmedia.org.au/2006/edition-forty-one/union_board_elections_2/
http://digest.idmedia.org.au/2006/edition-forty-two/union_soapbox/
 

melbournian

mexian expat
Joined
Apr 28, 2003
Messages
100
Gender
Male
HSC
2003
Re: Union Board Elections 2006 - UPDATED 26/4

withoutaface said:
Mixed economy. Putting the failures of mixed economies down to failures in laissez faire philisophy is just as fallacious as putting them down to socialism.
I agree with you to an extent. However, I am criticising actually existing capitalism. Laissez faire, if it did exist, where everyone has agency, everyone is equal, may indeed be a better system than we have now. But the fact that it doesn't. My critique is directed at the world we live in NOW.


Or they could, like, you know, not trade at all? Nobody forces countries to trade, and if they can generate enough food to feed themselves and are losing out under free trade (doubtful, but let's go with it), then they should stop trading. If they can't grow enough crops to feed themselves, then it's not the other countries' faults that they are dying of starvation.
No one forces them to trade. Try telling that to governments who have been forced to open there economies up by structual adjustment packages etc.

If people are dying from starvation, it is a global responsibility to do something, not a national responsibility. No one should be living in luxury (ie. western conspicuous consumption), while people are dying because they cannot eat. I believe there is an extra 2/3 food production in the world than what is needed to feed the entire world. Much of this can also be blamed towards export dumping of primary commodities, meaning huge amounts of produce sits in fields to rot, rather than been given to feed those who are staving.

This isn't a simple opt-in or opt-out system. You ignore that countries are forced into these situations through the actions of various actors across time (ie. European colonialism etc.).


More breakthroughs have occurred in the last 100 years in more liberal countries than less liberal ones.
Look at Scandanavia or Japan. Those breakthroughs have occured via statist and activist interventionist policies.

You made the first claim, being that patents rob Africans of AIDS drugs. Now I ask you to back that assertion up with evidence showing that these drugs would have been developed without copyright.
I say that they have robbed them.

Maybe they wouldn't have developed without patents, I cannot say they can or can't. But this isn't the burden for me to prove. You are the one suggesting that under socialism they wouldn't be able to deveop. You prove it. Don't shift the blame onto me, just because you know such things are not falsifiable.

I could just as easily call these economies socialism, because a large proportion of their production is controlled by the states. Stop constructing strawmen.
1. There is a difference between socialism and communism.
2. Communism has no requirement for the state. In face, Marx says the state are an instrument of the Capitalist class. While I don't agree completly with that (as you can see, I mentioned above that there is room for statist policies), it is evident that communism isn't about state control over the means of production, but rather the peoples control.

Why then, has the general trend been as countries become less liberal economically, people have more and more freedoms stripped from them, and earn significantly lower real wages?
Evidence please? Please prove your assertation.

Look at Scandanvia and welfare statist policies. Higher wages. Look at the destruction of the welfare state in the United States since Johnson's 'great society', lower wages.

In the developing world, you are looking very simplistically. Subsistence production and production within the family are not measured. Yet these contribute greatly to the quality of life. Liberal regimes have destroyed these. While wages may in some (keyword: some) circumstances may be higher, the destruction of other sources of quality of life (ie. production outside the market) are not taken into account. However, the evidence does suggest liberal regimes have lowered wages and not only lowered wages, but made employment increasingly insecure as capitle becomes increasingly mobile countries must accept low wages and poor regulation.

And pseudo-capitalist states have not provided the freedom necessary for maximum quality of life. What's your point?
As I said. I am criticising actually existing capitalism, not the neoclassical idal of lassez faire capitalism. While I could easily criticise it, in this conversation I have never criticised the neoclassical ideal.
.[/QUOTE]

Supposably I am contradictory. Very rich coming from you. Stop avoiding backing your assertations up, stop shifting the blame and respond directly to critisms in your arguement (rather than avoiding them).
 

melbournian

mexian expat
Joined
Apr 28, 2003
Messages
100
Gender
Male
HSC
2003
Re: Union Board Elections 2006 - UPDATED 26/4

ujuphleg said:
*cough* Topic? Communism is very interesting and all, but this is a discussion about our elections.

I suggest that those of you who haven't should take a look at idMedia, the University's Independent Media Society.

They have 3 articles on the elections, and can be seen here:

http://digest.idmedia.org.au/2006/16april06/union_board_elections_1/
http://digest.idmedia.org.au/2006/edition-forty-one/union_board_elections_2/
http://digest.idmedia.org.au/2006/edition-forty-two/union_soapbox/
Ok, sorry :p

Read those last night.
 

melbournian

mexian expat
Joined
Apr 28, 2003
Messages
100
Gender
Male
HSC
2003
Re: Union Board Elections 2006 - UPDATED 26/4

wikiwiki said:
Some people are better than others, the global economy has winners and losers. Africans are LOSERS. That is the way it has always been, and always will be. They just can't compete with Western Civilisation.
Has it?
The United States as the global hegemon is a 20 century creation. Egypt was certainly wealthy in the past. Same as the middle east.

Powers rise and fall.

No. I wouldn't kill him. I probably wouldn't punch him (although I'd be tempted to). But i would certainly tell him how much of a dickhead he is.
 

ujuphleg

oo-joo-fleg
Joined
Jan 2, 2004
Messages
3,040
Location
Sydney
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
2004
Re: Union Board Elections 2006 - UPDATED 26/4

Please guys, topic, Union elections?!

Communism, the re-arrangment of Justin's face, Western Civilisation and Africans have nothing to do with this. Its student politics.

I wish some of the other candidates would come on and talk to us instead of the Jo&Quah duo....
 

what971

Now in Oriental Flavour!
Joined
Aug 13, 2005
Messages
1,645
Gender
Female
HSC
N/A
Re: Union Board Elections 2006 - UPDATED 26/4

The global economy has winners and losers. Africans are LOSERS.

Looks like International Studies has taught you well. ;)
 

transcendent

Active Member
Joined
Jan 5, 2005
Messages
2,954
Location
Beyond.
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
N/A
Re: Union Board Elections 2006 - UPDATED 26/4

Is there a candidate that campaigns against not eating meat? They should make a video like the Eat Lamb for Australia or Sam Neill and Red Meat one. Maybe I'll actually vote this time if they campaign for $5 steak lunches without conditions applied.
 

withoutaface

Premium Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2004
Messages
15,098
Gender
Male
HSC
2004
Re: Union Board Elections 2006 - UPDATED 26/4

Well, seems the factional hacks have done their dealings leaving us completely fucked over. Roz has chosen to preference Rose, while not preferencing us at all, Danielle and Tom have exchanged preferences, and Tanner is giving us a pitiful 4th preference or something ridiculous. This is despite Roz promising us her third preference. Seems they've decided to make it easy for themselves by rigging it so none of us get in.

Vote 1 Monica and Tim for a Union that actually cares about student needs, rather than being dominated by petty factionalism.
 

melbournian

mexian expat
Joined
Apr 28, 2003
Messages
100
Gender
Male
HSC
2003
Re: Union Board Elections 2006 - UPDATED 26/4

withoutaface said:
Well, seems the factional hacks have done their dealings leaving us completely fucked over. Roz has chosen to preference Rose, while not preferencing us at all, Danielle and Tom have exchanged preferences, and Tanner is giving us a pitiful 4th preference or something ridiculous. This is despite Roz promising us her third preference. Seems they've decided to make it easy for themselves by rigging it so none of us get in.

Vote 1 Monica and Tim for a Union that actually cares about student needs, rather than being dominated by petty factionalism.
Suck shit.
You know, people are actually smart enough that if they know they can put their own prefrences down (in fact I did that on the SRC, so I could put Quah and Watson last and second last respectivly. :D

Prefrence deals aren't rigging. Rigging elections is what George Bush does.
If you can't handle politics, don't get involved.
 

withoutaface

Premium Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2004
Messages
15,098
Gender
Male
HSC
2004
Re: Union Board Elections 2006 - UPDATED 26/4

What does George Bush have to do with anything? The Republican party's completely gone down the shithole anyway.
 

melbournian

mexian expat
Joined
Apr 28, 2003
Messages
100
Gender
Male
HSC
2003
Re: Union Board Elections 2006 - UPDATED 26/4

btw, who is Tanner prefrencing.
 

melbournian

mexian expat
Joined
Apr 28, 2003
Messages
100
Gender
Male
HSC
2003
Re: Union Board Elections 2006 - UPDATED 26/4

withoutaface said:
What does George Bush have to do with anything? The Republican party's completely gone down the shithole anyway.
Nothing. Just saw a good opportunity for some George W bashing :D
 

withoutaface

Premium Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2004
Messages
15,098
Gender
Male
HSC
2004
Re: Union Board Elections 2006 - UPDATED 26/4

Tanner's things are going to say vote for him first, then say "The following are nice people: Rose, Roz, Monica" or something along those lines. No real order in the preferences.
 

jogad

New Member
Joined
May 6, 2006
Messages
10
Gender
Female
HSC
2010
Re: Union Board Elections 2006 - UPDATED 26/4

melbournian said:
Suck shit.
If you can't handle politics, don't get involved.

certainly something i have been thinking about!

unfortunately i have this one big problem of .. well .. a severe loathing of the way politics works nowadays, which i wish could be changed (although it's improbable, at least i can say i TRIED).

like, for instance (and getting back on topic) look at what is happening in these elections: the candidates with the most money behind them, and the "nicest person" factor (which is such a idiotic thing to judge someone by [like, if i got taxed 50% more, i wouldn't be any happier about it no matter how nice the person was!]).

i actually will preference the liberals because i think they are being realistic with the vsu thing. there is no way, no way in hell that i'd go anywhere near a rancid greenie. i hate those morons! :burn:
 

melbournian

mexian expat
Joined
Apr 28, 2003
Messages
100
Gender
Male
HSC
2003
Re: Union Board Elections 2006 - UPDATED 26/4

jogad said:
certainly something i have been thinking about!

unfortunately i have this one big problem of .. well .. a severe loathing of the way politics works nowadays, which i wish could be changed (although it's improbable, at least i can say i TRIED).

like, for instance (and getting back on topic) look at what is happening in these elections: the candidates with the most money behind them, and the "nicest person" factor (which is such a idiotic thing to judge someone by [like, if i got taxed 50% more, i wouldn't be any happier about it no matter how nice the person was!]).

i actually will preference the liberals because i think they are being realistic with the vsu thing. there is no way, no way in hell that i'd go anywhere near a rancid greenie. i hate those morons! :burn:
Don't stand then.

Who cares who you are prefrencing. Its not like anyone is going to vote for you anyway (if no one votes for Quah, no ones going to vote for you).
 

jogad

New Member
Joined
May 6, 2006
Messages
10
Gender
Female
HSC
2010
oh, and btw

everyone knows they're going to be voting for hacks, yet they will still vote for them

people = stupid?
people = cynical..?

what do you think?

(and i'm not refering to myself.. just speculating in general)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)

Top