What is 'left wing', and why is it bad? - Page 3 - 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.
#14892746
@Paddy14 chamaco, I happen to think people gravitate over time to what makes sense to them and many people will never commit what is called 'class suicide'. I have met a lot of very comfortable people who always want to believe that meritocracy exists and that the system is fair and that is why they are in a good position. It is very hard for people to accept injustice. But the way things are set up in these economic systems run by modern capitalism....fairness has very little to do with many people' lives.

My premise is fairly straight forward. Take the stress of struggle that leads to excesses and violence away. Go for basic needs being met. And the priority in human society should be exactly society and not capital. Humans first. Profit last. Profit after all only exists because of human labor and human value to all resources. Material and intellectual. By putting human needs in society FIRST and profit in a subservient or a subjugated and controlled position....you reach a better level of society.
#14892758
Tainari88 wrote:My premise is fairly straight forward. Take the stress of struggle that leads to excesses and violence away. Go for basic needs being met. And the priority in human society should be exactly society and not capital. Humans first. Profit last. Profit after all only exists because of human labor and human value to all resources. Material and intellectual. By putting human needs in society FIRST and profit in a subservient or a subjugated and controlled position....you reach a better level of society.


I agree with your premise. It is straight forward, logical and common sense. There is, however, a fly in your ointment. Humans are genetically hard wired for survival on a micro level ... not a macro (society) level. Our survival instinct which was fine during the "cave man" period is no longer appropriate these days. We no longer must endlessly pile up shit to assure our survival but .... that is what we do. I cannot see this ever changing. While there are many like yourself who see the falseness and injustice of such mindless behavior, those with the biggest piles also have the resources to protect their piles. And they will protect their piles of shit with ruthless abandon. Sometimes they become a bit too obvious and experience setbacks such as the Russian Revolution. The next few decades should see if there will be a second American Revolution.
#14892983
Paddy14 wrote: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?


In the absolute most basic rule of things, the right wing wants to protect rights.

The left wing wants to expand rights.

But you can pivot from here. In the US, for instance, before the Civil War it was the rightwing protecting their rights as slaveholders. It was the left demanding an extension of rights to include blacks.

If we go a hundred years ago, I think it's fair to see the same basic (though simplified dynamic).

In Australia, as in most of the Western World, you have some rights to free speech. But you can't functionally practice it in the same way that someone that owns a media empire can practice it. You theoretically have a right that you cannot practice. The right wants to protect the right of the corporation to keep the media; the left wants to expand the media to be owned or controlled by everyone.

Lenin wrote:In capitalist society, providing it develops under the most favourable conditions, we have a more or less complete democracy in the democratic republic. But this democracy is always hemmed in by the narrow limits set by capitalist exploitation, and consequently always remains, in effect, a democracy for the minority, only for the propertied classes, only for the rich. Freedom in capitalist society always remains about the same as it was in the ancient Greek republics: freedom for the slave-owners. Owing to the conditions of capitalist exploitation, the modern wage slaves are so crushed by want and poverty that "they cannot be bothered with democracy", "cannot be bothered with politics"; in the ordinary, peaceful course of events, the majority of the population is debarred from participation in public and political life.

...Democracy for an insignificant minority, democracy for the rich--that is the democracy of capitalist society. If we look more closely into the machinery of capitalist democracy, we see everywhere, in the “petty”--supposedly petty--details of the suffrage (residential qualifications, exclusion of women, etc.), in the technique of the representative institutions, in the actual obstacles to the right of assembly (public buildings are not for “paupers”!), in the purely capitalist organization of the daily press, etc., etc.,--we see restriction after restriction upon democracy. These restrictions, exceptions, exclusions, obstacles for the poor seem slight, especially in the eyes of one who has never known want himself and has never been inclose contact with the oppressed classes in their mass life (and nine out of 10, if not 99 out of 100, bourgeois publicists and politicians come under this category); but in their sum total these restrictions exclude and squeeze out the poor from politics, from active participation in democracy.

Marx grasped this essence of capitalist democracy splendidly when, in analyzing the experience of the Commune, he said that the oppressed are allowed once every few years to decide which particular representatives of the oppressing class shall represent and repress them in parliament!


Of course, since writing that Lenin did win. He opened the press to everyone, and almost immediately there was a demand for a pogrom to kill all the Jews. When bodies started piling up they had to shut that down just as the Civil War was coming. And it never really opened up in the same way again.
#14892986
Zionist Nationalist wrote: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

Where do you get these ideas about socialism Zionist? That is not how socialism works at all. No human society ever has people exactly the same with the same abilities. That never has existed in human history. Didn't it occur to you that that is not what socialism says or how it works? Do people who are disabled, or who suffer some disability do we stop sending them social security checks because they are not the same as their neighbor next door who also receives a social security check but who doesn't need a wheelchair or etc? How do you think the armed forces deal with their soldiers? Every soldier is a general, lieutenant, etc? No. There are a very diverse group of people all with differing abilities, outcomes and so on who are all within a system that is economic and receiving benefits. That doesn't contradict a socialist system. Why do you think it did so may I ask?

The next part about 'if you divide resources equally it collapses'. That is the exact opposite of what it does. If you have a bunch of money and resources hoarded and not distributed or not in circulation by a large portion of society you have the conditons for recession and depression. Didn't you know that? A very wealthy individual who only can sleep in one bed at a time and consume three meals a day and even if they have an army of servants and employees, shall never be able to create the services, and larger market that a bunch of lower middle class people and working class people with the same amount of wealth spending on consumer goods, services, and etc. It also gives the individual (who is rich) the right to sit on his money for decades and not lending it to small business people and others. Also impeding growth because small businesses are the life blood of most societies. Not huge businesses like Walmart. You did not know this Zionist?





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



All this is sheer shit Zionist. Sorry to tell you but you are way off.

In fact, currently new anti biotic drugs are not being developed if they are not as profitable to produce as the current ones who are in the market. Didn't you hear of that dude who inflated the price of his drugs by a lot for sheer profit because there are no caps on drug manufacturers. If Profit enters the pharmaceutical industry and the medical field? It is dangerous as hell for many. Many people are going to Thailand, Colombia, etc for medical procedures because the USA system is too unwieldy, expensive and difficult and way too inaccessible if you have private insurance restrictions.

You really believe Zionist that a society has not right to tell a person who owns 10 vacation homes and has 15 cars in their garage and has x amount of property and has two kids and a wife living in a home with 10 bedrooms that there is a limit to their 'luxury' because they need to consider the needs of a bunch of other people in society who for example, a family of four with wife and two kids needs at least a two bedroom home with clean water and a cheapo car to get the kids to school etc? That the luxury person has a right to excess but the family with the two kids has NO right to even what is reasonable? What kind of fucked up society values are those? Luxury is fine if the majority of the world's people have their basic needs met and are in a good circumstance and can live with a security of mind that their kids are going to get decent educations, their dental needs are met, their health is taken care of, they have job security and they have a future with stability.

That is what a decent human society should be able to provide to working people of all sorts in all professions. But if that is not true about the vast majority--of the world's people.....but the luxury lovers think they have a God-given right to luxury and fuck the rest? Sorry, I will put a restriction on these assholes. Maybe you would not....but I would. How much luxury do people need?

I am of the idea that a janitor needs at least 2 weeks paid vacation in a nice place once a year guaranteed. And so does a doctor, a lawyer and so on. All people. If you believe that the vast majority should live oppressive, stressed and unstable and scrambling lives with very little to aspire to for themselves and their children? Then you are going to be herding the masses into crime, drugs and bullshit that is expensive down the road. It is guaranteed. Do you think working people in many societies don't notice how others who do have a lot more than they do live? And they don't notice how they never get even the basic care they need to remain with hope in this world? People are not dumb Zionist. Especially working class people, lower middle class and middle class regular folk. None of them are dumb or stupid. They notice what is going on and they notice unfairness. All humans have a radar for injustice.

Human beings are good at avoiding exploitation too. If someone can make $1.00 more an hour and get better benefits somewhere else down the road near their present job? They will do it. Why? Because who the hell loves being exploited Zionist? Would you?

You better get a better understanding of how socialism works. For now? You have a very flimsy notion of what it is about.
#14892989
@The Immortal Goon said:

In the absolute most basic rule of things, the right wing wants to protect rights.

The left wing wants to expand rights.

But you can pivot from here. In the US, for instance, before the Civil War it was the rightwing protecting their rights as slaveholders. It was the left demanding an extension of rights to include blacks.

If we go a hundred years ago, I think it's fair to see the same basic (though simplified dynamic).

In Australia, as in most of the Western World, you have some rights to free speech. But you can't functionally practice it in the same way that someone that owns a media empire can practice it. You theoretically have a right that you cannot practice. The right wants to protect the right of the corporation to keep the media; the left wants to expand the media to be owned or controlled by everyone.


That is a fine summary of the differences.

I think the Right also sees itself as protecting tradition. Tradition can be something wonderful like in Mexican society Mayan cooking techniques and pulque making, and traditional forms of art are....or something horrible like no worker rights and docking employees pay for what they are not really responsible for. One has to understand the differences.

Most conservative thought @Paddy14 has to do with not wanting to include or expand rights like TIG mentions. They are about denial of human beings being able to live with more freedoms. They are big believers in privileges and freedoms but only for the people they want to make sure remain in power positions. Traditionally in the USA this means very wealthy people, very pro system of capitalism and banker class folks. They want to be the ones calling the shots and denying others any rights. For me? Again....it is about selfish and exclusionary tendencies. Racists, monarchists, retrograde machistas, class conscious, hating on the vulnerable, deny children, women, old and infirm, disabled, etc rights. They love saying no to those whom they want to abuse. How do I feel about that tendency in the Right wing pigs in this fora? Absolute disgust and dislike. I can't begin to tell you how low life one has to be in mentality to go there. But they go there....because they expound and want to reinforce these values of theirs in the world.

I find it repulsive in the extreme.

But that is me. I am a passionate Latina and not about another culture with 'emotionless' politics. No can do. I am not part of the dry and passionless political scene. That is not my culture. Not today, tomorrow or ever.

All this no emotion involved political discussion is totally alien in the Spanish speaking world. Which is my primary cultural paradigm. How a British run website sees it? It is up to them. But I won't lie to the world and say I like or have no emotion about the low life Right style of denying people their rights for selfish crap. That is what evil in the world is about.

:) :D
#14892995
jimjam wrote:I agree with your premise. It is straight forward, logical and common sense. There is, however, a fly in your ointment. Humans are genetically hard wired for survival on a micro level ... not a macro (society) level. Our survival instinct which was fine during the "cave man" period is no longer appropriate these days. We no longer must endlessly pile up shit to assure our survival but .... that is what we do. I cannot see this ever changing. While there are many like yourself who see the falseness and injustice of such mindless behavior, those with the biggest piles also have the resources to protect their piles. And they will protect their piles of shit with ruthless abandon. Sometimes they become a bit too obvious and experience setbacks such as the Russian Revolution. The next few decades should see if there will be a second American Revolution.


Jimjam, my answer to this is simple. Have you ever read the great book by some primatologists called "Chimpanzee Politics"? Lol. It is about a chimp finding a big pile of bananas and he decides to not tell his fellow chimps about this 'cache'. Eventually the other chimps find out about it when he is caught gorging selfishly on it while the rest of the group had to search far and wide for food. They punished him. They beat him badly.

Those are our closest primate cousins there....and their solution to lack of social consciousness is beat that chimp's ass bloody so he gets the message. The beaten up chimp never went back to hording behaviors.

Here is the link (funny stuff to read but so true about human behavior in politics as well):

https://www.amazon.com/Chimpanzee-Polit ... 0801886562

Lol. The other answer is about first grade values taught to little elementary school kids. Share your toys, share your space, and be respectful and share, wait your turn, and don't be selfish and don't be disrespectful. Consider others' needs. And there are consequences for not doing so. Negative mostly. After a school year with that? Most if not all of the 1st graders are sharers......and start enjoying each others company more. If a teacher in a first grade classroom can get little kids to adopt that value system socially within a school year? Why can't a society who dumps all these selfish shit paradigms for human society worldwide that is about 'get your own' and 'screw the next guy', 'cut off the head of your competitor', and 'who cares about group needs'......and they adopt a new paradigm in many nations? You got a great progression. It won't happen without a power struggle. But that it is possible to implement, to reinforce and to create in many human governments and societies cooperating in mutual benefit? ABSOLUTELY.

No doubt in my mind. If it can work with six year olds with little experience in life, it definitely can be done with adults with a lot of experience. It just requires a total shift in values and in what Marx dealt with.....material conditions and historical conditions. Humans learn. We adapt. We drop one oppressive system and adopt a new one. It all depends. On what we must do. And there will be a time where the selfish competition crap thought centrally internationally common capitalist system will wear out its usefulness. As all things do in this world. Just you see...jimjam.
#14893265
Tainari88 wrote:@Paddy14 chamaco, I happen to think people gravitate over time to what makes sense to them and many people will never commit what is called 'class suicide'. I have met a lot of very comfortable people who always want to believe that meritocracy exists and that the system is fair and that is why they are in a good position. It is very hard for people to accept injustice. But the way things are set up in these economic systems run by modern capitalism....fairness has very little to do with many people' lives.

My premise is fairly straight forward. Take the stress of struggle that leads to excesses and violence away. Go for basic needs being met. And the priority in human society should be exactly society and not capital. Humans first. Profit last. Profit after all only exists because of human labor and human value to all resources. Material and intellectual. By putting human needs in society FIRST and profit in a subservient or a subjugated and controlled position....you reach a better level of society.


I totally agree - but I read somewhere that humans are a bit like squirrels or ants who store up resources to last them through to times when these will be hard to find. But unlike the animals or insects, we have made this mean storing up more resources than we can ever use. And I still don't understand the attitude that the poor have their laziness and ignorance to blame for their being poor. Nobody starts out life in exactly the same position, and isn't it up to society to provide for people - whether they are kids, or OAPs, who can't provide for themselves? My dad (who is - I think - a conservative,) says that if we don't accept that responsibility as a society, we will have to accept a very violent society, and living isolated in gated communities. He says that is not a civilisation.
#14893464
SolarCross wrote: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


If you're being payed lower than the minimum wage (illegal) or at a minimum wage that's still poverty level; Yeeees, you're being exploited and cheated.

Even when it comes to legal wages; ever heard of wage theft? It's almost rampant now in Australia.
#14893703
redcarpet wrote:If you're being payed lower than the minimum wage (illegal) or at a minimum wage that's still poverty level; Yeeees, you're being exploited and cheated.

Even when it comes to legal wages; ever heard of wage theft? It's almost rampant now in Australia.


Thanks for that, but do you mind if I ask you a question? Please don't take it the wrong way - I'm not being a smart-arse or a grammar Nazi, or anything like that - but why do some people spell the past tense of 'to pay' as 'payed', instead of 'paid'? I noticed it a lot on American forums where I used to lurk. Is it standard in American-English?

I'm asking cos I used that spelling in a composition, and I got marked wrong, and a telling off from our English teacher - he said you can only use 'payed' in the ship sense, as in 'payed out a rope'. :hmm:
So how deadly is it?

I would say that Sivad's supposition is that dise[…]

That comes from an incorrect translation. The sin[…]

@Julian658 They are always deployed. No they […]

Coronavirus '33'

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UrCsMPTZbIk