Hi Lance,
Bushranger Ned wrote:
> I am at odds with the last comments by Tony Mockeridge and the aggressive
> manner in which he has singled out one individuals faults for all the
> trouble with prejudice and racism in this country.
I think that Tony believes, as many of us do, that the Prime Minister has a great
influence over
the tone of his administration. Just compare how Australians saw themselves under
Keating and the
difference once Howard's myopic, mean-spirited style took over. In that regard, yes,
he can be
blamed. He encouraged the prejudice and racism in this country. Despite what he said,
his
actions, his legislation and his encouragement of the fascist Ein Reich encouraged the
racists to
come out of hiding and take on legitimacy under the banner of free speech.
This is what he is responsible for. Yes, the racists were there already - he certainly
didn't
create them and yes, there are racists in his party but, how legitimate would their
attitudes
have been if the PM had made his disapproval clear in no uncertain terms? The racists
would have
stayed in their hidey-holes.
Howard will encourage whatever dissent he can among the 'proles' so that he and his
buddies can
skim the cream off the wealth of this country. By the time anyone (meaning the
majority) wakes up
there will be very little of this country left to share.
> It would however be more
> effective to actually look at the political and value systems beliefs of
> those people who call them selves liberals and how that much power and
> capitalist control over so many years by western domination can lead to so
> much disfranchising and disempowering and marginilsation firstly of black
> people and people of different ethnicity, women at large and people with
> any kind of disability.
> Liberal right wing philosophy is centered around the individual without
> respect of the community at large or the different groups in society,
> liberal people think only with their greed for wealth and how to make a fast
> buck of someone else and often at someone else's demise.
> Liberally minded people think that everyone should look out for themselves
> and have no one to blame for the way they but themselves.
I have no disagreement there. I believe there are a great number of sociopaths to be
found among
the 'pillars of society'.
> As a mature age student I'm learning at present about the four types of
> capitalism.
>
> a/ Financial - money wealth
> b/ Physical - power - institution, large hospitals , multinational
> skyscraper type minds
> c/ Human - how many people are employed or unemployed
> d/ Social - what people put into a society without earning income, i.e.
> volunteer efforts, organising change, based on personal ideology with others
> that sort of thing.
>
> Well guess what Liberals only concern themselves with the first three.
Yes, but Howard keeps telling them they should be more involved with the fourth item
although I
think he does it so he can withdraw even more government funding and it makes him look
good.
> China would concern itself first and foremost with the last.
This is where I would have to disagree most vehemently! What was Tiannamen Square all
about if
not to protect the first three of your list above? Greedy, power-hungry people who
feather their
own nests are not limited to the capitalist system.
> Russia seems to have lost power because it forgot about social capital and
> spent more time on the others.
No, it didn't forget and it always has spent more time on the others for those in the
top
echelons of the party. Russia is where it is because it didn't stick with the man who
brought in
change slowly and cautiously and went with a power-hungry, loudmouth drunk who sold
his soul to
the US and let the criminals take over. Not that the Russian people can be blamed -
they had no
experience in choosing for themselves. They liked Glasnost and Perestroika and who can
blame them
for falling for the offer 'to have it all and to have it now'?
> A socialist or person believing in positive outcomes for all people would
> believe in ensuring the rights of people are first and foremost in peoples
> eyes. A socialist ideal would consider how to bring about equality for all
> of its society and not just the fortunate 10% of this country.
> A socialist view would consider the rights of the first people to own this
> land and be recognised as the owners throughout the world.
> A socialist would publicise the fact that all people who have arrived in the
> last 211 years are immigrants, a socialist would recognise English
> domination over the Irish as this country developed.
> A socialist person would recognise a person right to protest and demand
> change.
> A socialist person would recognise that in order to have equality in society
> that others have to be less equal. (less equality for men greater
> opportunity for women, less employment for white Australians greater
> employment for black Australians.)
> A socialist person would recognise that change for society comes from within
> the community and not from dominant wealthy people.
> A socialist would recognise the need for consultation and effective
> negotiation with positive outcomes.
> A socialist would recognise the need for radical confrontation if peoples
> needs are not being met.
I believe the danger lies in labels. Labels are limiting. One cannot go around with
eyes closed
and say that socialism is perfect - it isn't. Given a choice, it it much preferable
over the
stereotypical conservative but both have problems and lose sight of justice when it
suits them.I,
for one, have never understood the possibility of a 'right-wing' union. It should be a
contradiction in terms but, unfortunately, it isn't.
Trudy
-------------------------------------------------------
RecOzNet2 has a page @ http://www.green.net.au/recoznet2
To unsubscribe from this list, mail [EMAIL PROTECTED], and in the body
of the message, include the words: unsubscribe announce or click here
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?Body=unsubscribe%20announce
This posting is provided to the individual members of this group without permission
from the
copyright owner for purposes of criticism, comment, scholarship and research under
the "fair
use" provisions of the Federal copyright laws and it may not be distributed further
without
permission of the copyright owner, except for "fair use."
