What is 'left wing', and why is it bad? - Page 2 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

All sociological topics not appropriate or suited to other areas of the board.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#14892613
Heisenberg wrote:Very kind of you to say so. :)

@Potemkin Agreed. Donald Trump and the current GOP may be the living embodiment of the right wing id. :lol:


It is the Right Wing Id. Lol. Climate change deniers. Mafia connections. Corruption. Appearance obsessed. Anti Intellectual. Vulgar Noveau Riche, etc etc. The Donald Dude is the Epitome of Right Wing low life stuff. :D
#14892616
Zionist Nationalist wrote:Capitalism reward individual skill and success

Socialism takes money from successful people and give it to poor losers
thus making everyone "equal" (poor)


Capitalism a system that work for only 1% and despises the 99% that actually produces wealth. It is the system of take the money and run and come back to the house of the workers and steal periodically.

That way everyone who is working class (the vast majority continues to support the tiny minority with money with the vain hope of one day being part of the 1%). The reality is that many conservative Right wing voters and people who are of working class background, who love traditionalist rightist thoughts? Are fools. They are like people who buy powerball and have 1: 200 million chance of winning, but make plans to buy themselves that mansion and drive that Bentley.....because they bought the ticket.

I find that a very uniquely American USA white redneck conservative thought process. Most older societies with class systems in place for thousands or hundreds of years have learned that is not realistic. But the USA? Fantasy.
#14892617
War is irrelevant to one's ideology, countries go to war to defend or extend their interests, and both left-wing laymen as well as the ideological Left support war. I guess it can be said that people at this present time standing on the left corner tend to follow anti-war policies more than right-wing people do but that is purely circumstantial and it should not detract from the reality about war. Thucidides is the only way to properly understand war and the struggle for power which is an end goal for survival. War is certainly not conducted on the basis of the left or right wing identity of the political staff and demos.
#14892625
Tainari88 wrote:Capitalism a system that work for only 1% and despises the 99% that actually produces wealth. It is the system of take the money and run and come back to the house of the workers and steal periodically.

That way everyone who is working class (the vast majority continues to support the tiny minority with money with the vain hope of one day being part of the 1%). The reality is that many conservative Right wing voters and people who are of working class background, who love traditionalist rightist thoughts? Are fools. They are like people who buy powerball and have 1: 200 million chance of winning, but make plans to buy themselves that mansion and drive that Bentley.....because they bought the ticket.

I find that a very uniquely American USA white redneck conservative thought process. Most older societies with class systems in place for thousands or hundreds of years have learned that is not realistic. But the USA? Fantasy.



not raelly.

capitalist system give everyone an opportunity to be seuccesful

the reason why the most wealth is at the top 1% is because the top 1% are the most talanted and succesful
but you also got the top 5 and top 10 percents

the poor people (bottom 5-10% depends on the country) are lazy people who usually too stupid or too lazy to do anything about their lives

a socialist system does not reward individual succes and just condemns everyone to eternal stagnation
#14892629
Zionist Nationalist wrote:not raelly.

capitalist system give everyone an opportunity to be seuccesful

the reason why the most wealth is at the top 1% is because the top 1% are the most talanted and succesful
but you also got the top 5 and top 10 percents

the poor people (bottom 5-10% depends on the country) are lazy people who usually too stupid or too lazy to do anything about their lives

a socialist system does not reward individual succes and just condemns everyone to eternal stagnation


None of these assertions of yours is true.

Take your first quote there: "Capitalist system gives everyone the opportunity to be successful." How? Give me specifics. In today's modern society how successful can you be in this information age without having some great basic skills? How do you obtain these skills? Are all people given many opportunities to succeed? How?

The second quote: The top 1% are the most talented and successful. In what ways? Did you know that most wealth in the USA is inherited. Not self made? If it is inherited how is a person with a rich daddy, more innately talented than a poor person without a rich daddy? Explain.

Poor people bottom 5% to 10% are too lazy and too stupid? Well if that was true then the poor would be a very unchanging group and so would the middle class. Everyone is in their proper place and no real fluctuations in wealth now? But that is not true.

Look at this video Zionist:



according to the video above? The socialism is about most people having sustainable lives and not living in abject horrific infra human conditions. If you are against that? The problem of fairness is with you Zionist. Not with the socialist perspective.

You are invalid.

Wake up little Susie, wake up.
Last edited by Tainari88 on 28 Feb 2018 19:51, edited 1 time in total.
#14892632
Zionist Nationalist wrote:a socialist system does not reward individual succes and just condemns everyone to eternal stagnation

I guess that's why the Russia went from semi-feudal backwater to inventing space travel in a period of 40 years, then.
#14892643
Got to realize Heisenberg....socialism is the boogieman. People got to be lifted by their bootstraps.

You know Heisenberg you try to discuss how economic systems evolve with many conservatives. It doesn't register.

You say:

You got the Roman Empire. Citizens and slaves. Senators and peasants, etc etc.

You then got slaves who you own like animals and who don't even have a right to their own bodies, or to have families of their own. Basically just beasts of burden. But like animals you water them and feed them and house them but just barely so you can keep functioning.

You move on to wage labor. Under capitalism.

There is an evolution of economics.

Then comes the state that spends on trying to stabilize boom or bust economics in capitalism. You tell them....Roosevelt's New Deal. Why did it happen? If capitalist jobs with no social safety net for workers was necessary? Why not just slash and defund all of the New Deal stuff if it is not working for most people today? Get rid of unemployment insurance, widow's insurance, food stamps, subsidized section 8 housing, free health clinics, and military pensions, military etc benefits. Just go back to the 1920's. They don't or can't answer that.

Why? Because they don't want to know about socialism. They think it is unnecessary. No real thought about why it emerges in the first place. If it is not necessary and people don't think it is of any value? Get rid of it. Donald Trump doesn't just say 'zero for social security. Let the pensioned off people DIE without a check anymore." Why not? They are either disabled, on SSI , or SS checks, and etc etc. Why not just throw off millions if socialism is easy to ditch?

Because it won't go well for them if they do. Why? I always say....just ask the why questions til they deal with the reason why the socialism is here. Because they love myth.
#14892646
Heisenberg wrote:I guess that's why the Russia went from semi-feudal backwater to inventing space travel in a period of 40 years, then.


I was referring to financial stagnation

in Soviet Russia everyone were poor


Capitalism is not perfect but socialism is worse

@Tainari88

lets say we want to implement a socialist system in the US how will it work?

soviet system collapsed
China is no longer socialist

and the few socialist countries today are poor

how can we create a successful socialist system?


I know about all those problems of wealth inequality but I still dont think socialism will solve this problem
#14892654
anasawad wrote:What about the large portion if not majority of the 1% whom inherited their wealth ?
Did they inherit it because they're talented and smart ?


Anasawad--the top 1% are according to the video off the charts with exaggerated wealth. What the American middle class and working class fail to address is that kind of exaggerated differences or gaps in wealth and power if allowed to run unchecked for a very long period of time and if allowed to worsen and grow to the point of more than 50% of people not being able to have homes, get educations, get health care, get adequate educations without financial burdens of many decades to deal with, not being able to do many things? It stagnates social mobility completely. It won't take a very long time to realize that the USA system has ceased to be the 'land of opportunity'. I don't see it as the land of opportunity.

I can get a free university education for my kid outside of the USA easier than staying in it. I can buy a home now that is more affordable for my family outside of it. I can make my wealth stretch longer and be more productive outside of it. I can get my health care needs met better outside of it. That is NOW.

The reason for immigration for many for the USA has to do with this that I wrote in 2011. Here:

Oops, it is a link to a thread. Wellsy has it. Got to ask him. Lol. Anyway:


Once those conditions I wrote above are known and spread around the globe? The USA will lose all ability to retain any real growth in many sectors. The international banker capitalist class will remain powerful. But the overall power and wealth of the American working and middle classes will not be much different and might even become worse than many other nations around the world. It is inevitable.

The young are going to be bearing the brunt of it all. The debts, the lack of purchasing power, the lack of infrastructure that is updated, the closing of any ability to climb out of survival mode. Writing checks of $500, $800, $1000 a month to cover health care costs, student loans, more expensive food, insurance, etc costs. Over time? It will limit severely social mobility in all parts of the society.

And it is interesting. The young in the USA are going to be overwhelmingly in the next one hundred years non Europeans. Period.
#14892663
Zionist Nationalist wrote:I was referring to financial stagnation

in Soviet Russia everyone were poor


Capitalism is not perfect but socialism is worse

@Tainari88

lets say we want to implement a socialist system in the US how will it work?

soviet system collapsed
China is no longer socialist

and the few socialist countries today are poor

how can we create a successful socialist system?


I know about all those problems of wealth inequality but I still dont think socialism will solve this problem


Capitalism is a prevailing system all over the world Zionist. It has its feet in many continents. And it is internationalist. So? If you want to change the power balance internationally of capitalism worldwide? They will fight back. They will isolate you, cut you off from trade and markets and squeeze you to CONFORM. Most of the socialist nations have felt that pinch. No single socialist nation is a monolith or the same. All have different histories. The capitalists all want to say socialism inherently is flawed and doesn't work. That is a total lie. If that were true all communally held property systems, all military Veteran systems, all social security, etc systems all over the world would be rejected roundly. They are not.

The reality is socialism works for some aspects of what are called mixed economies. But it is a temporary fix. The way the economy works for today's world requires a very interesting interdependent and very cooperative and socialist model. But it goes against the 1% worldwide. So? It is actively opposed. Violently and virulently.

China or the PRC is in the state capitalist mode. But even they are going to have to change their policies if they hope to survive their pollution transition stages. If you see the documentary "After the Flood" film? There is an economist from India talking about how many world resources are consumed by the average American vs the average Bangladeshi, Indian, German, Japanese, Chinese, etc. If all of these large population nations consumed like an upper middle class American does? We would be on the fast track to extinction.

The solution is going to have to be about internationalist cooperative models. Not hierarchical competitive capitalist models without any sustainable or any sort of measured planning. We might even be too late already for not getting hit hard with resource scarcity and having the majority of the world stuck with backlashes that are hard to deal with. If you stick to capitalist models of 'if there is no way of making money or profit in large margins off of it? We won't invest in it. We will allow or prefer for millions of billions of humans to die rather than change our paradigm and our most sacred premise. Profit above all else is not going to work when you might have many nations with differing interests developing nuclear bombs and only the ones who go nuclear not being invaded by a series of powerful and aggressive international capitalist controlled places.

The shift is going to have to happen. The alternative is non stop war, and some very unstable economic issues. Once you spend so much that you can't balance anything and all the money of a nation goes to servicing a debt and nothing for investment or growth? You become a slave state to that banker class. No going back without some kind of violent shake up. It is the only reality.

Socialism is about stability Zionist. It tries to create some kind of stability so that the gaps don't get so bad between socioeconomic classes that violence and total social collapse and economic collapse is inevitable. That is what is interesting to me. It is the only logical route. But the attachment the pro competition and monopoly based exaggerated international banking and capitalist class along with powerful corporations---have to retaining power....they prefer some kind of explosive reaction to logical stability.

It is what they choose to happen. By not dealing with the reasons for inequality. And wanting to hold on to power too long....beyond what is reasonable. BTW, that has happened in almost every past human civilization and empire known to human history. The elites and the powerful hold on to power, grow corrupted, and go to constant wars, exhaust their resources both human and natural to the point of collapse and then lose and abandon the Empire, civilization and are forgotten in the dustbin of history. Then something else emerges over time to replace it. Usually a bit more technical and logical....and the cycle starts over again. War advances and is applied to civilian things too.

It is very interesting.
#14892677
The solution is going to have to be about internationalist cooperative models. Not hierarchical competitive capitalist models without any sustainable or any sort of measured planning. We might even be too late already for not getting hit hard with resource scarcity and having the majority of the world stuck with backlashes that are hard to deal with.


it wont work simply because of human nation and greed

thats also why socialism does not work because if you divide resources equally eventually the system will collapse as not all humans are equal even if you try very hard to make it so
some are stupid with low iq some are handicaped some have problematic background equality is impossible right now maybe in the far future when all humans become robots


The elites and the powerful hold on to power, grow corrupted, and go to constant wars, exhaust their resources both human and natural to the point of collapse and then lose and abandon the Empire, civilization and are forgotten in the dustbin of history. Then something else emerges over time to replace it. Usually a bit more technical and logical....and the cycle starts over again. War advances and is applied to civilian things too.


socialism does not solve this issue. there will always going to be a ruling class with acces to luxuries that the average person dont have

Im not saying some socialist elements are bad

but you cant have a nation based entirely on socialism this will not work


the solution to the resources problem have nothing to do with socialism rather than science and research finding new resources should be top priority not only because they will be almost depleted in a few decades but also because dependence on oil is strengthening enemies of the west (Russia,Arab/Muslim world,Iran)



also lack of competition leads to stagnation

soviet union had awful products for daily use because lack of competition in the market
and the reason why soviet union made rockets to space and advanced in science and military was competition with the "evil imperialists"
a state forced competition for political reasons
#14892710
Zionist Nationalist wrote:Socialism have failed everywhere

and the nordic countries are not socialist they just have some socialist elements in them

China has never had an economic recession.

Could this be owing to their adherence to Marxist economic principles? I think yes.
#14892720
SolarCross wrote:Yeah China had a "Great Leap Forward" instead. :lol: :knife:

Image

:moron:


Maybe you should read a history book.

China reformed itself after the death of Mao, from 1977.

Deng Xioping is widely credited, by Chinese, for having saved China.

Mao Zedong was a great military commander and founder of the modern Chinese nation, but his dictatorship was ultimately disastrous and led to the destruction of a lot of progress. This is all well acknowledged.

Perhaps if Mao would have done a George Washington and relinquished power things would have been different? Nobody really knows.

The USA had chattel slavery at the time of its founding, and this institution persisted for nearly another one-hundred years, until it was finally overthrown as consequence of the horrible American Civil War.

One factoid related to the events of the Great Leap Forward that is often ignored, which I throw in for the reason of this ignorance, is that the communes were intended to be self-sufficient, in order to enable China to survive a nuclear war--a nuclear war which almost indeed occurred in the 1950s.

I'm not an apologist for Mao, but people are clearly stuck in the past on China, and that is really to their own detriment. People have been criticizing China and dismissing China continuously, based on their perspective of China in the 1960s. Meanwhile, China is emerging as the new superpower, and the achievements since the 1970s of lifting masses of people out of poverty since the 1970s are unequaled in the history of the world.

How did China avoid a serious recession during the 2008-9 events, when the whole globe was plunged into economic crisis--despite the overgrown America-bound export sector, which suffered from a tremendous secular demand shock? The answer is that it did so through state intervention in the economy.

I have heard people continually dismiss China for years, and every one of them has been proven wrong, in my eyes. So keep clinging to the vestiges of past Chinese failure, it should be sufficient to blind you from adapting to the changing world, to your own detriment. That is due justice, for those who prefer to wallow in ignorance.
#14892722
Deng Xioping, turned it all around by copying his neighbours who were all far ahead of China. Deng was reading Keynes not Marx. Keynes the right-wing capitalist imperialist.

None of you are qualified to say anything about economics much less rule on it.

The lesson of the 20th century is that leftists are nasty retards on economics.
The lesson of the 21st century is that leftists are nasty retards on social engineering too.

At some point you just have to face the facts that your job serving fries at Mickey D's that you have is not some terrible injustice being inflicted on you, that you are secretly destined for greater things. The truth is that you are there because that is really where you belong, it is the best you can ever do. At least you live in the first world, count your blessings.
#14892725
SolarCross wrote:Deng Xioping, turned it all around by copying his neighbours who were all far ahead of China. Deng was reading Keynes not Marx. Keynes the right-wing capitalist imperialist.

None of you are qualified to say anything about economics much less rule on it.

The lesson of the 20th century is that leftists are nasty retards on economics.
The lesson of the 21st century is that leftists are nasty retards on social engineering too.

At some point you just have to face the facts that your job serving fries at Mickey D's that you have is not some terrible injustice being inflicted on you, that you are secretly destined for greater things. The truth is that you are there because that is really where you belong, it is the best you can ever do. At least you live in the first world, count your blessings.

I live in China now, I'm not living in the decadent US, much less working at a fast food restaurant.

Economics is a dynamic field, Keynes' contributions are well respected by leftist economists. No doubt understanding of Keynes has contributed to the dynamic Chinese approach to economic governance in China. At its core Chinese economics is still decidedly Marxist.

You are guilty of attempting to invent reality to suit your narrative, not the other way around.
#14892726
Paddy14 wrote:My friends say I'm a bit left wing, and someone here said the same thing when I joined.

We learned about Communism, and socialist societies like The Soviet Union and Cuba in class, and they were total dictatorships - I'm not anything like that. :?:

So what would make you call anyone (not just me,) left wing, and why would that make him a bad person?

I'm not being defensive or anything, I'm just curious about what people think and why they think it. :)


This thread has probably moved out of being any help to you at all.

If it helps, a few years ago some of us put together a communist reading list.

But I’ll try to fill in some basic gaps now.

Judging from your name you may be Irish or have Irish background. The Irish revolution was, in half, a communist revolution. James Connolly, a communist that Lenin admired, led the military wing of the revolution.

To this day, Irish activists tend to be considered leftists.

Since you brought up communism in particular, there are many different flavors.

In our most basic pitch, we believe that by studying history we can draw conclusions for today and tomorrow. Typically this means, as others pointed out, that we want to use the power of civilization to benefit as many people as efficiently as possible and eventually, in time, not need a state at all.

So far as dictatorships go, there are two things to consider:

1. These are things that happened and need to be understood. We do not deny that everything was imperfect. There is plenty of discussion to be had about specifics.

2. As lamentable as these things may be, virtually every country that had been socialist (or is) is doing considerably better today than it was before the revolution.

3. Capitalist experiments, like the French Revolution, the Cromwellian Commonwealth, and even the US policy toward Natives and blacks, often compare as bad or worse against the socialistic growing pains of nations.

For instance the famine in Ukraine is usually cited as a death count against Stalin, while scores more dead in an Indian famine Churchill didn’t allow relief to help is considered a mere footnote.

Let us know if you have specific questions, or PM me.
#14892733
Thanks to everyone for your interesting replies. We haven't done much Economics yet in class, but we did a bit about different countries and how they are governed in History and Social Studies.

But I guess I was asking how wanting society to be fair, and not wanting huge gaps in equality, and not wanting people to suffer cos of that inequality, makes people left wing. Like doesn't everyone want those things? AFIK, my mum and dad vote Conservative, but they want those things too.

And I know everyone is born into different families, with different levels of education, and different opportunities, so there will always be some differences in wealth - but it is the extremes I am talking about. I go to a private school in Australia, which is quite expensive, and even though my dad has a professional practice, I know my parents sometimes struggle a bit with all the expenses (so I never ask for expensive presents and stuff like that). But I also know that I am lucky in that way - like there is one kid in my class whose parents are really struggling, and he never goes on any school trips or anything that costs extra.

I don't think that is fair, and I wonder if that is why people say I'm a bit of a lefty. I don't know anything about politics, and it's another 4 years before I can vote, so I really don't understand this left/right thing. Does anyone, including 'righties', not want society to be fair, and does anyone really want people like this kid to be left out of things cos of reasons he has no control over?
Trump, Oh my god !

It was never in reference to Epstein's suicide(Au[…]

And if we use someone’s past history as an indica[…]

The Evolution Fraud

Yes, and thank you for defining which things are […]

Is it true Sima Qian's Records Of The Grand Histo[…]