If you are Left-Wing, please explain why
Scroll to see replies
Original post by felamaslen
They didn't know that Iraq would descend into...
Yeah, they did, they knew that thousands and thousands of innocent Iraqis would be killed and maimed when they launched their war on Saddam but they didn't care because they wanted Saddam out so they fabricated a reason and launched the planes. You should be ashamed of defending them.
Original post by Axiomasher
Yeah, they did, they knew that thousands and thousands of innocent Iraqis would be killed and maimed when they launched their war on Saddam but they didn't care because they wanted Saddam out so they fabricated a reason and launched the planes. You should be ashamed of defending them.
Actually, any decent civilised person would have wanted Saddam out. What came after Saddam - the beatings, the beheadings, the general misery which continues to this day - happened as a result of Islamist insurgents taking over the country. I am not pretending Bush had a sincere, humanitarian motive for the war, and am sorely disappointed that you are trying to construe the argument as such. Your accusations are transparent in their absurdity and sinister in their deceit.
if socialists want to answer a few questions I've always had in the back of my mind then I have some queries:
Spoiler
(edited 10 years ago)
Original post by captain.sensible
1) do you think you can decide better for other people than they can themselves in terms of their economic decisions?
1) do you think you can decide better for other people than they can themselves in terms of their economic decisions?
No, hence why I support self-management in the workplace, i.e. socialism.
2) do you think should have that moral right? to treat people like fools when they can't live their economic lives without a government telling them what to do and to take from one to give to the other?
See above.
3) do you have a higher claim on other people's wealth/property than them themselves? if it's a tax of over 50% then it sure looks like it. why should you claim such a right for yourself in the name of democracy when this principle of doing good with other people's money can extend to justify potentially any transgression of individual rights so long as it is voted on by a mob majority?
I oppose the Lockean-capitalist conception of private property completely.
Also, it's worth noting that for most of her term, Thatcher had a top tax rate of 60%. So according to you, was Maggie a raging leftie?
4) what do you think provides a more rational control of the means of production economically: private or public ownership; is a government bureaucrat more motivated to controlling a company than an economic stakeholder, namely the owner? and why?
Neither, I think worker control is better.
5) in a socialist society where it is more equitable in terms of time and happiness to be middle class and not a property owner and therefore not highly taxed in comparison to someone who is wealth (or would be wealthy) who is worked like a dog and then taxed most of their money, how do you account for that lack of employment if the wealth isn't coming into the country through competition (e.g. if you pay people too much you won't be able to sell things cheap enough locally or internationally for people to want to buy it and therefore no profit will come in) in order to create the institutions that will create those jobs? we can create public jobs by hiring people to dig with spoons instead of machines, but will that be sustainable when we're paying people higher than they should be earning in proportion to their input and therefore losing money to help create those employment positions?
Firstly, what you're describing here is not socialism, but Keynesian social-democratic capitalism.
Secondly, wealthy property owners generally do not 'work' in the same sense that everyone else does precisely because they can afford to simply live off the income from their assets, never mind being 'worked like a dog'.
Thirdly, turning the question round: If you don't tax the rich, and they don't spend the money but instead save it or send it to another country, where is the demand necessary for the economy to function going to come from?
6) if you believe in authoritarianism for economics
Which I don't, and this is an obvious loaded question.
7) why do you think eastern europe is so poor today in comparison to western europe when they started out relatively equal economically pre-communism in the region?
Firstly, not true - Eastern Europe was noticeably poorer than Western Europe in the early 20th Century.
Secondly, Eastern Europe's growth has actually stalled since the end of Stalinism, not because of it. For most of the Cold War, Eastern Europe grew at more or less the same rate as Western Europe.
I have no love for the Soviet Union and certainly have no wish to resurrect it or anything like it, but to retrospectively pretend it was an economic basket-case is simply bad historical revisionism.
Thirdly, it's worth asking why Western Europe saw such high growth rates in the post-war decades. The answer - because it adopted the Keynesian, high tax, interventionist model of capitalism that you denounced earlier.
8) would you rather the poor were poorer provided the rich were less rich? if you tax people enough to deter the cause of employment, how can you create the wealth to provide for those in the majority class through such institutions?
I refer you to the aforementioned post-war model of capitalism.
If you're talking about a genuinely socialist economy rather than just a modified capitalist one, then the concept of 'employment' would likely not exist, certainly not in the same sense as in capitalism.
9) if you can't trust people to make their economic decisions, for better or worse
Again, loaded question.
10) if freedom causes exploitation in your mind
And another loaded question.
(edited 10 years ago)
r
what workplace? the workplace that somebody else owns? how can you self-manage yourself on someone else's property and decide your own terms/wages when I don't consent to it? the only self-management that is available is either self-employment or establishing your own private business
you haven't answered my question above.
1) why? and how so? e.g. what is your concept of property and what is your remedy? is it abolishing private property? does that mean nobody can own anything?
2) "yes", although in comparison to the labour party she seemed right wing at the time, though today she'd be pretty socialistic
control of property they voluntarily purchase together? or worker control of properties that they robbed to get? and how is it better? how do workers have the best incentives an the best reasons for working when they aren't working for themselves? and how can workers be the best people to determine business policy? you mean all the workers collectively deciding such policies? that would be a mess, and obviously they wouldn't be qualified to make good/informed decisions
I was talking about a socialist society where it's not quite communist but wages are not very bi-polar and aren't too drastically different, meaing that in terms of effort, it is much more easy to be a middle class (or even poor) individual than a "rich"" person because the rich would have to work that much harder to become rich that it would simply not be worth the effort for how much is gained in return.
and they purchased that property it the first place through money and thus appealing to their market (e.g. "work"; work doesn't always need to be physical work, it can be intellectual work too, or it can simply be using one's talents), whereas "workers" never did that, although they are free to save up their money and then invest it in something like that if they feel they could manage such a property well to gain a profit. and if they feel they are being worked like a dog they can quit and find a better employer whom will likely gain more money and good work through this.
they don't save it up *perpetually*, they can invest it economically to gain more, hence why they are sometimes as rich as they sometimes are. if nobody saves up money, who is using it to establish employment facilities? having people with money doesn't literally create employment; there needs to be a vessel to appeal to that demand effectively and properly. overall it is better for the economy to save money than to spend it, because the end result of using it to invest is more economically prosperous in the long run. and what do you mean "where is the demand?", as if that's to suggest that because they don't spend, nobody has any money? you're thinking of the economy like a pie - there's no fixed amount, money is always coming into the economy, and everybody is getting it without there being a transfer from one to another in a strict sense; one's loss is not another's gain in a lot of situations, e.g. if the money comes from international trade. if rich people own properties, though they save a lot of money, they still pay their employees, an if they were rich and didn't invest the money, eventually (without work) they'd lose their money over time. and the concept of "if you don't tax the rich nobody will get any money for demand" is silly - firstly if you tax the rich, less employment is a result, and this assumes that poor and middle class people don't get money without this method, but they get their money from wages, not benefits.
no it isn't, you're presumably talking about socialism opposed to anarcho collectivism, which you might be (I never asked but you never mae the distinction), but if your name is "anarchism" then understandably that could be the case, but from that, it's (anarcho-collectivism) a relative impossibility; humans do not like having to work together like that, it runs against their rational judgement, their creativity and their nature.
I never said that, I said that it is poorer now, and I asked that because of the end of communism and the modern comparison between east and west europe after the effects of communism. why do you think eastern europe is so much poorer than western europe tooday (opposed to pre-communism)?
no it didn't, that's absurd, what would possibly imply that?
how? what makes you think historians are mistaken? are you a professional historian? claiming that something is historically believed is false because of historical revisionism seems extremely far-fetched as an excuse
you think the UK was better off in the 60s and 70s than it was in the 90s and 2000s? really? I'd beg to differ, at the end of the 70s things due to the long term~ effects were a mess because of that model of government spending, and even james callaghan admitted this in light of keynesian economics. it's why we still don't use it
which didn't last very long at all
If you're talking about a genuinely socialist economy rather than just a modified capitalist one, then the concept of 'employment' would likely not exist, certainly not in the same sense as in capitalism.
explain
no it's not. why else would you argue against private property and private wage management? I thought you called it "working people like dogs"? isn't that your motive?
if freedom in socialism isn't understood to be exploitative economically, what is it?
Original post by anarchism101
No, hence why I support self-management in the workplace, i.e. socialism.
what workplace? the workplace that somebody else owns? how can you self-manage yourself on someone else's property and decide your own terms/wages when I don't consent to it? the only self-management that is available is either self-employment or establishing your own private business
Original post by anarchism101
See above.
you haven't answered my question above.
Original post by anarchism101
I oppose the Lockean-capitalist conception of private property completely.
Also, it's worth noting that for most of her term, Thatcher had a top tax rate of 60%. So according to you, was Maggie a raging leftie?
Also, it's worth noting that for most of her term, Thatcher had a top tax rate of 60%. So according to you, was Maggie a raging leftie?
1) why? and how so? e.g. what is your concept of property and what is your remedy? is it abolishing private property? does that mean nobody can own anything?
2) "yes", although in comparison to the labour party she seemed right wing at the time, though today she'd be pretty socialistic
Neither, I think worker control is better.
control of property they voluntarily purchase together? or worker control of properties that they robbed to get? and how is it better? how do workers have the best incentives an the best reasons for working when they aren't working for themselves? and how can workers be the best people to determine business policy? you mean all the workers collectively deciding such policies? that would be a mess, and obviously they wouldn't be qualified to make good/informed decisions
Firstly, what you're describing here is not socialism, but Keynesian social-democratic capitalism.
I was talking about a socialist society where it's not quite communist but wages are not very bi-polar and aren't too drastically different, meaing that in terms of effort, it is much more easy to be a middle class (or even poor) individual than a "rich"" person because the rich would have to work that much harder to become rich that it would simply not be worth the effort for how much is gained in return.
Secondly, wealthy property owners generally do not 'work' in the same sense that everyone else does precisely because they can afford to simply live off the income from their assets, never mind being 'worked like a dog'.
and they purchased that property it the first place through money and thus appealing to their market (e.g. "work"; work doesn't always need to be physical work, it can be intellectual work too, or it can simply be using one's talents), whereas "workers" never did that, although they are free to save up their money and then invest it in something like that if they feel they could manage such a property well to gain a profit. and if they feel they are being worked like a dog they can quit and find a better employer whom will likely gain more money and good work through this.
Thirdly, turning the question round: If you don't tax the rich, and they don't spend the money but instead save it or send it to another country, where is the demand necessary for the economy to function going to come from?
they don't save it up *perpetually*, they can invest it economically to gain more, hence why they are sometimes as rich as they sometimes are. if nobody saves up money, who is using it to establish employment facilities? having people with money doesn't literally create employment; there needs to be a vessel to appeal to that demand effectively and properly. overall it is better for the economy to save money than to spend it, because the end result of using it to invest is more economically prosperous in the long run. and what do you mean "where is the demand?", as if that's to suggest that because they don't spend, nobody has any money? you're thinking of the economy like a pie - there's no fixed amount, money is always coming into the economy, and everybody is getting it without there being a transfer from one to another in a strict sense; one's loss is not another's gain in a lot of situations, e.g. if the money comes from international trade. if rich people own properties, though they save a lot of money, they still pay their employees, an if they were rich and didn't invest the money, eventually (without work) they'd lose their money over time. and the concept of "if you don't tax the rich nobody will get any money for demand" is silly - firstly if you tax the rich, less employment is a result, and this assumes that poor and middle class people don't get money without this method, but they get their money from wages, not benefits.
Which I don't, and this is an obvious loaded question.
no it isn't, you're presumably talking about socialism opposed to anarcho collectivism, which you might be (I never asked but you never mae the distinction), but if your name is "anarchism" then understandably that could be the case, but from that, it's (anarcho-collectivism) a relative impossibility; humans do not like having to work together like that, it runs against their rational judgement, their creativity and their nature.
Firstly, not true - Eastern Europe was noticeably poorer than Western Europe in the early 20th Century.
I never said that, I said that it is poorer now, and I asked that because of the end of communism and the modern comparison between east and west europe after the effects of communism. why do you think eastern europe is so much poorer than western europe tooday (opposed to pre-communism)?
Secondly, Eastern Europe's growth has actually stalled since the end of Stalinism, not because of it. For most of the Cold War, Eastern Europe grew at more or less the same rate as Western Europe.
no it didn't, that's absurd, what would possibly imply that?
I have no love for the Soviet Union and certainly have no wish to resurrect it or anything like it, but to retrospectively pretend it was an economic basket-case is simply bad historical revisionism.
how? what makes you think historians are mistaken? are you a professional historian? claiming that something is historically believed is false because of historical revisionism seems extremely far-fetched as an excuse
Thirdly, it's worth asking why Western Europe saw such high growth rates in the post-war decades. The answer - because it adopted the Keynesian, high tax, interventionist model of capitalism that you denounced earlier.
you think the UK was better off in the 60s and 70s than it was in the 90s and 2000s? really? I'd beg to differ, at the end of the 70s things due to the long term~ effects were a mess because of that model of government spending, and even james callaghan admitted this in light of keynesian economics. it's why we still don't use it
I refer you to the aforementioned post-war model of capitalism.
which didn't last very long at all
If you're talking about a genuinely socialist economy rather than just a modified capitalist one, then the concept of 'employment' would likely not exist, certainly not in the same sense as in capitalism.
explain
Original post by anarchism101
Again, loaded question.
no it's not. why else would you argue against private property and private wage management? I thought you called it "working people like dogs"? isn't that your motive?
Original post by anarchism101
And another loaded question.
if freedom in socialism isn't understood to be exploitative economically, what is it?
(edited 10 years ago)
Original post by olmyster911
I'd describe myself as centre.
I don't believe I lean either way, however, I am currently in favour of the conservatives.
I believe the country needs a stable economy that can compete with the rest of the world, because more growth in the economy means the country can begin to spend some money again.
I don't agree with excessive privatisation; I adore the NHS.
I don't support the unlimited amount of time one can spend on benefits (apart from genuine cases of disability), and favour the American approach where a person can only have been claiming for a certain period of time in their life before it is stopped.
I think we need to increase our troop numbers and technological spending in the armed forces.
We should increase the number of police officers on the streets and introduce tougher sentences for criminals, and deport any foreign criminals without an appeal.
I think we need to increase science and research spending by a very large amount in order to progress as a nation.
I believe immigration should be capped to people who can prove they have a good amount of money and who are going to be contributing to society (such as a doctor or nurse).
I believe the government should do more to provide green subsidies, such as solar panels to households, and invest in nuclear power (that is not supported by foreign investment like the Chinese).
Lastly, I am not religious but would still encourage the role of the church and other faith organisations in government because they have a large following.
Posted from TSR Mobile
I don't believe I lean either way, however, I am currently in favour of the conservatives.
I believe the country needs a stable economy that can compete with the rest of the world, because more growth in the economy means the country can begin to spend some money again.
I don't agree with excessive privatisation; I adore the NHS.
I don't support the unlimited amount of time one can spend on benefits (apart from genuine cases of disability), and favour the American approach where a person can only have been claiming for a certain period of time in their life before it is stopped.
I think we need to increase our troop numbers and technological spending in the armed forces.
We should increase the number of police officers on the streets and introduce tougher sentences for criminals, and deport any foreign criminals without an appeal.
I think we need to increase science and research spending by a very large amount in order to progress as a nation.
I believe immigration should be capped to people who can prove they have a good amount of money and who are going to be contributing to society (such as a doctor or nurse).
I believe the government should do more to provide green subsidies, such as solar panels to households, and invest in nuclear power (that is not supported by foreign investment like the Chinese).
Lastly, I am not religious but would still encourage the role of the church and other faith organisations in government because they have a large following.
Posted from TSR Mobile
I agree with all aside from the last one, looks like I have similar points to you
"how? what makes you think historians are mistaken? are you a professional historian? claiming that something is historically believed is false because of historical revisionism seems extremely far-fetched as an excuse"
It is well accepted that the Leninists/Stalinist brought Russia out of the third world and into the second world. That is why the west was so terrified of it, it wasn't because of the inhuman regime, it is because Russia stopped being a third world country that would support the growth of the west but instead broke free and grew itself.
He has answered all your questions just fine. The problem is you don't seem to be able to compute them as you don't seem to understand what socialism actually is and what the socialist were advocating. Your understanding comes from what the two great propaganda machines of the last century have called socialism, both of whom had no interest in spreading the idea of genuine socialism. It is fine when someone argues against socialism when they understand what it is but so many don't even seem to be able to think outside the box they have been placed in making it impossible to discuss it properly.
Core principle of socialism = workers control the means of production aka "those who work on the mills own the mills" now go an tell me how the soviet union created that.
It is well accepted that the Leninists/Stalinist brought Russia out of the third world and into the second world. That is why the west was so terrified of it, it wasn't because of the inhuman regime, it is because Russia stopped being a third world country that would support the growth of the west but instead broke free and grew itself.
He has answered all your questions just fine. The problem is you don't seem to be able to compute them as you don't seem to understand what socialism actually is and what the socialist were advocating. Your understanding comes from what the two great propaganda machines of the last century have called socialism, both of whom had no interest in spreading the idea of genuine socialism. It is fine when someone argues against socialism when they understand what it is but so many don't even seem to be able to think outside the box they have been placed in making it impossible to discuss it properly.
Core principle of socialism = workers control the means of production aka "those who work on the mills own the mills" now go an tell me how the soviet union created that.
Original post by captain.sensible
what workplace? the workplace that somebody else owns? how can you self-manage yourself on someone else's property and decide your own terms/wages when I don't consent to it? the only self-management that is available is either self-employment or establishing your own private business
what workplace? the workplace that somebody else owns? how can you self-manage yourself on someone else's property and decide your own terms/wages when I don't consent to it? the only self-management that is available is either self-employment or establishing your own private business
First and foremost, this is moving the goalposts. Your initial question was about what form of decision-making I advocate, but now you're trying to change it to a question of the morality/legality of that form.
That said, yes I fully support workers taking control of means of production from capitalists for themselves.
1) why? and how so? e.g. what is your concept of property and what is your remedy? is it abolishing private property? does that mean nobody can own anything?
I'm quite flexible in this regard, but in general I favour a system of ownership based around occupancy and or use as opposed to the absenteeism inherent to capitalism.
2) "yes", although in comparison to the labour party she seemed right wing at the time, though today she'd be pretty socialistic
Setting to one side for the moment all the problems with viewing the political spectrum in this way, "socialist" is not just a synonym for "left-wing",
Also, if your definition of socialism is managing to define Thatcher as a socialist, I think it's pretty obvious that your definition is wrong.
control of property they voluntarily purchase together? or worker control of properties that they robbed to get?
Again, goalpost-moving. Your initial question was simply what I thought was more rational.
But to repeat what I said above, yes I fully support workers taking control of means of production from capitalists for themselves.
and how is it better? how do workers have the best incentives an the best reasons for working when they aren't working for themselves? and how can workers be the best people to determine business policy? you mean all the workers collectively deciding such policies? that would be a mess, and obviously they wouldn't be qualified to make good/informed decisions
So, to use your words, 'you think you can decide better for other people than they can themselves in terms of their economic decisions'?
I was talking about a socialist society where it's not quite communist but wages are not very bi-polar and aren't too drastically different, meaing that in terms of effort, it is much more easy to be a middle class (or even poor) individual than a "rich"" person because the rich would have to work that much harder to become rich that it would simply not be worth the effort for how much is gained in return.
Firstly, while pretty much any socialist would argue that a socialist society would have a tendency to be more equal, a society could theoretically be very unequal yet still be socialist. Socialism isn't defined by equality of income, or the tax rate, but by workers controlling the means of production.
Secondly, how do you know they would have to work harder to become rich? Why do you assume that getting rich requires hard work but just staying at your current middle class or even poor status quo doesn't? Does that fact that a job is high-paying automatically make it more difficult than one that is low-pay?
and they purchased that property it the first place through money
And where does that money come from? Most of the time, previous profits. And so on and so on until you reach a pre-capitalist society.
they don't save it up *perpetually*, they can invest it economically to gain more, hence why they are sometimes as rich as they sometimes are. if nobody saves up money, who is using it to establish employment facilities? having people with money doesn't literally create employment; there needs to be a vessel to appeal to that demand effectively and properly. overall it is better for the economy to save money than to spend it, because the end result of using it to invest is more economically prosperous in the long run.
"But this long run is a misleading guide to current affairs. In the long run we are all dead."
and what do you mean "where is the demand?", as if that's to suggest that because they don't spend, nobody has any money? you're thinking of the economy like a pie - there's no fixed amount, money is always coming into the economy, and everybody is getting it without there being a transfer from one to another in a strict sense; one's loss is not another's gain in a lot of situations, e.g. if the money comes from international trade. if rich people own properties, though they save a lot of money, they still pay their employees, an if they were rich and didn't invest the money, eventually (without work) they'd lose their money over time. and the concept of "if you don't tax the rich nobody will get any money for demand" is silly - firstly if you tax the rich, less employment is a result, and this assumes that poor and middle class people don't get money without this method, but they get their money from wages, not benefits.
Yes, money circulates and this provides a solution to the demand problem. However, if money is removed from circulation (such as if the rich hold onto their money rather than spending it back into the economy again), then this solution becomes more difficult.
no it isn't
Yes it is, it contains the assumption that socialism = 'authoritarianism in economics', an assumption which many if not most socialists would reject.
you're presumably talking about socialism opposed to anarcho collectivism, which you might be (I never asked but you never mae the distinction), but if your name is "anarchism" then understandably that could be the case, but from that, it's (anarcho-collectivism) a relative impossibility; humans do not like having to work together like that, it runs against their rational judgement, their creativity and their nature.
I don't want to get sidetracked onto a debate on the viability of anarchism here, but what exactly do you mean by "anarcho-collectivism"? While there is a tendency within anarchism called that, a lot of non-anarchists seem to use the term in a far broader sense, often including anarcho-communists, syndicalists and mutualists as well.
I never said that, I said that it is poorer now, and I asked that because of the end of communism and the modern comparison between east and west europe after the effects of communism. why do you think eastern europe is so much poorer than western europe tooday (opposed to pre-communism)?
Partly because they were poorer to start with, partly because the Eastern Bloc was worse hit by the economic crisis of the late 1970s than Western Europe, but mostly because of the mess most of Eastern Europe went through in the 1990s.
no it didn't, that's absurd, what would possibly imply that?
Statistics. e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_regions_by_past_GDP_(PPP)#Europe_1830.E2.80.931938_.28Bairoch.29
GDP (PPP) in millions of 1990 International Dollars:
USSR/Former USSR:
1950 - 510,243
1973 - 1,513,070
2003 - 1,552,231
Now, it doesn't take a genius to work out from that that the USSR saw far higher growth in the 1950s and 1960s than in the decades since then.
Also, from those numbers, the GDP of the USSR in 1950 was roughly 37% of that of Western Europe. By 1973 it was still about 37%, i.e. their GDPs were growing at more or less the same rate.
how? what makes you think historians are mistaken? are you a professional historian? claiming that something is historically believed is false because of historical revisionism seems extremely far-fetched as an excuse
Which historians are saying this exactly?
Seriously, think about what this kind of argument would have to involve. You'd be saying that the country which was a global superpower and had an empire spanning huge parts of the globe for half a century was actually an economic basket-case the whole time.
you think the UK was better off in the 60s and 70s than it was in the 90s and 2000s? really? I'd beg to differ, at the end of the 70s things due to the long term~ effects were a mess because of that model of government spending, and even james callaghan admitted this in light of keynesian economics. it's why we still don't use it
I don't recall mentioning the UK in particular, but yes. The economic experiences of countries like Italy, Greece and Japan in the 1950s and 1960s aren't called 'economic miracles' for nothing.
If you want particular numbers, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post%E2%80%93World_War_II_economic_expansion#Global_economic_climate
OECD countries saw nearly 5% average annual growth during the 1960s, compared to around 2% in the 1980s.
As for the crisis of the 1970s, yes, capitalism has crises now and then, but I would remind you that we're in one at the moment - one which is largely considered to be worse than the 1970s crisis.
which didn't last very long at all
About 25 years is quite a long time.
explain
If we assume the socialist economy we're talking about is still a market one for the sake of comparison (a non-market one would be more difficult to compare), firms would be co-operatives, which people would not so much be 'employed by' as 'members of'.
no it's not. why else would you argue against private property and private wage management?
Because I consider them oppressive. In fact, I believe private property in means of production prevents people from making their own economic decisions.
if freedom in socialism isn't understood to be exploitative economically, what is it?
Does it not occur to you that your definition of 'freedom' might not be the same as a socialist's?
Mr Sensible just got schooled. 
There's a reason why the top 5 most developed and equal countries are Norway, Australia, Sweden, Netherlands and Germany.
(edited 10 years ago)
Original post by ChaoticButterfly
Mr Sensible just got schooled.
Why thank you.
Original post by olmyster911
I've only been on TSR for a number of weeks, however, I have noticed that the majority of users are left wing voters. I am not. I would like to know the main reasons why someone who would identify themselves as left wing, or a labour voter, are inclined to be that way and believe in those ideas.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Posted from TSR Mobile
They'll tell you its not overly left-wing, but TSR is the only place I have ever seen people declare that a person on benefits has the right to create a family funded by the taxpayer.
Wouldn't that be survival of the weakest? Not very productive for the human race?
The "state" doesn't exist. You mean its the job of taxpayers to ensure their citizens have a good quality of life- even those who don't want to work?
The "state" doesn't exist. You mean its the job of taxpayers to ensure their citizens have a good quality of life- even those who don't want to work?
Original post by Exodus
Because I care about things other than myself.
Best response.
Original post by Reformed2010
There's a reason why the top 5 most developed and equal countries are Norway, Australia, Sweden, Netherlands and Germany.
1) Norway, Netherlands and Sweden are not the most developed.
2) Norway and Australia have raw materials, big-time
3) Germany has a weak currency, great for exports and has the tripartite education system (the thing Labour got rid of in this country..... a right-wing idea)
You meant to say:
There's a reason why North Korea has the world's weakest economy and why USSR and China changed to right-wing policies?
Original post by ChaoticButterfly
It is well accepted that the Leninists/Stalinist brought Russia out of the third world and into the second world. That is why the west was so terrified of it, it wasn't because of the inhuman regime, it is because Russia stopped being a third world country that would support the growth of the west but instead broke free and grew itself.
Attention- reality check!
The reason America was so frightened of the USSR is because they thought they were WAY-more advanced than the USSR actually was. Why do you think the USSR had to have so much propaganda? Just like North Korea!
The USSR spent all of their money on weapons- thats why the Americans were afraid. Russia is still a complete ****-hole. Why do you think its called as an emerging market??? Its on the same level as Mexico in economic terms!?!?
Did you never ask yourself why all mega-socialist countries (except the scandinavian countries) have so much violence? Because nobody wants the socialism!
Socialism contradicts how life works. Life is about survival of the fittest and socialism keeps the weak around.
Socialism is great........ just look at France..... those with wealth are all emigrating to London!
Original post by Axiomasher
II believe that society should involve the equitable distribution of needs and responsibilities.
Not equal distribution of workload then? Funny that.....
Original post by Chlorophile
Firstly, I think the right-wing is in the majority on TSR. Secondly, Labour isn't really left wing and hasn't been for a long time. I affiliate myself with the left because I think it is more likely to achieve a better future for everyone. The right is synonymous with exploitation and selfishness, two things I hate bitterly.
Would you call a Lion "selfish" for eating a Zebra?
Original post by Obiejess
Serve or wipe their backside?
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Working Class / Left wing football clubs?
- steering to the left when doing a parallel park
- Germany: Marches against the far right draw over 200,000
- A level physics
- How the radical left turned America's cities into slums.
- Module 6 question biology
- Green Party supporting Left Wing Terrorist Jailed
- Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??
- Force Diagram (A2 Edexcel)
- Lee Anderson defects to reform
- St Marys Durham Boughton Wing?
- The Official TSR Fantasy Premier League 2023/24
- Help
- Realism 30 marker Help - sociology ALEVEL
- A teacher wanted to cane me when I was 14 but I am 28 now
- A level chemistry help please
- CFD results, can somebody help
- I just sat yr 12 jan exams, it went horrible
- who is donald trump
- Physics question resultant force
Latest
Trending
Last reply 1 day ago
Even Europe’s far-right firebrands seem to sense Brexit is a disaster- The GuardianLast reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 4 days ago
Sunak rejects offer of youth mobility scheme between EU and UKLast reply 1 week ago
Rayner denies wrongdoing over council house sale amid police reviewLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 3 weeks ago
TSR Big Discussion #1: What should be top priority to protect the environment?Last reply 3 weeks ago
Where do you stand on the political spectrum (8values)? – Take a quiz here!Last reply 3 weeks ago
2024 UK general election speculation and build-up threadLast reply 3 weeks ago
No progress made on half of UK government’s levelling-up targetsLast reply 3 weeks ago
Trump needs a $464m bond in six days. What if he can't get it?Trending
Last reply 1 day ago
Even Europe’s far-right firebrands seem to sense Brexit is a disaster- The GuardianLast reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 4 days ago
Sunak rejects offer of youth mobility scheme between EU and UKLast reply 1 week ago
Rayner denies wrongdoing over council house sale amid police reviewLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 3 weeks ago
TSR Big Discussion #1: What should be top priority to protect the environment?Last reply 3 weeks ago
Where do you stand on the political spectrum (8values)? – Take a quiz here!Last reply 3 weeks ago
2024 UK general election speculation and build-up threadLast reply 3 weeks ago
No progress made on half of UK government’s levelling-up targetsLast reply 3 weeks ago
Trump needs a $464m bond in six days. What if he can't get it?
