NationStates Jolt Archive

Since the fall of the Soviet Union and the effective death of real Communism in China - and the effective marginalization of the Left in the United States, is there a long history of people on the Left "giving up"?

I've noticed a retreat of people on the Left from public discourse - and not just in this forum.

In an age when a copy of Das Capital is more likely to be a coffee table decoration in the home of someone who wishes they were trendy, is the Left dying out?

Depends. The Soviet Union fell because it was a shitty, near-Totalitarian regime.

Red China's not too hot, either.

I'm farther left on Social issues than pretty much anybody, and I never back down from aything or any one.

Is there a long history of people on the Left "giving up"?
They definitely like using hit-and-run tactics, especially on me (a libertarian), that's for sure

What I've seen in my experiences here is the Democrats giving up, not the entire left(ignoring the fact that Democrats aren't really left. they're about as close as you'll get).

Well, it depends. I'm far, faaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaar Left, and I never back down from anything or any one.

The Soviet Union fell because it was almost Totalitarian, and Communist China really isn't Socialist, either.
Depends. The Soviet Union fell because it was a shitty, near-Totalitarian regime.

Red China's not too hot, either.

I'm farther left on Social issues than pretty much anybody, and I never back down from aything or any one.
Why'd you post twice?

EDIT:
Oh, one got deleted.

Authoritarian leftists such as the old soviet union have as much in common with authoritarian right wingers as they do us liberal leftys.

They're only 90 degrees off the alignment of each.

You could just as easily ask "do Authoritarians give up easily?"




But it would still be irrelevent and borderline trolling..........

You'll have to explain what you mean by, "left". Are you thinking of left-wing economics or a liberal social attitude? Ah, I mean, when you speak of the left's marginalisation in the US, does that just mean the Democrats? That doesn't seem to sit perfectly with the US's opposition to the USSR and China under Democratic regimes, so I'm a little confused. If you're talking about movements other than the Democratic party, it would seem that you were talking about the marginalisation of fringe groups anyway, which is a bit redundant.

Just days ago I was trying not to fall asleep during a tirade on Latin America turning pink, so I'd have to say, generally, "no".

(And from my own experience, there was a time that I could have been called a patriot and something approaching conservative. Retrospectivelly I call that, "being a teenager" so again, no. I probably shouldn't have asked those questions, myself, because the chances are that I'll forget to come back to this thread after I go for another beer... now. Ah, but don't take that as giving up ;) )

I haven't given up.

I'm not a commie though, either.

Why'd you post twice?

EDIT:
Oh, one got deleted.


Yeah, forum lag.

Since the fall of the Soviet Union and the effective death of real Communism in China - and the effective marginalization of the Left in the United States, is there a long history of people on the Left "giving up"?

I've noticed a retreat of people on the Left from public discourse - and not just in this forum.

In an age when a copy of Das Capital is more likely to be a coffee table decoration in the home of someone who wishes they were trendy, is the Left dying out?
Besides the whole prelude argument being irrelevant, when faced with an army of people who believe they are correct and everyone else is wrong and are stubborn beyond reason, I would venture to guess the "leftists" pass out from lack of sleep from trying to argue points to people staring at them looking for horns.

i don't know, this question is too hard.

I've never lived through the Soviet Union and only became a Communist a few years ago and I hope I never give up my beliefs which are essential for the future of humanity. The collapse of the USSR was a huge loss for some on the left although there are many socialists around the world who continue to fight for democracy and social justice and in Latin America there has been a massive increase in support for the left over the last few years.

Besides the whole prelude argument being irrelevant, when faced with an army of people who believe they are correct and everyone else is wrong and are stubborn beyond reason, I would venture to guess the "leftists" pass out from lack of sleep from trying to argue points to people staring at them looking for horns.
Possibly, except your argument doesn't hold water when they argue with libertarians. They tend to back down just as quickly, perhaps because they can't deal with people who believe in personal responsibility.

They definitely like using hit-and-run tactics, especially on me (a libertarian), that's for sure

Uhh. We libertarians are Left.

Uhh. We libertarians are Left.
Socially, yes, Economically, no. Best of both worlds, really.

Possibly, except your argument doesn't hold water when they argue with libertarians. They tend to back down just as quickly, perhaps because they can't deal with people who believe in personal responsibility.

it seems to me that the libertarian socialists have been having the same arguments with american libertarians for years now. not much backing down at all over there - not much progress either.

i can't speak for other alleged members of the left though.

Possibly, except your argument doesn't hold water when they argue with libertarians. They tend to back down just as quickly, perhaps because they can't deal with people who believe in personal responsibility.
I believe in personal responsibility. I also believe in responsible government

I found this interesting little animation showing the left right movement of the ruling parties in Europe from 1945 to 1988. I think it shows that there was no real trend in either direction.
http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/euro1970.htm

It is the second map on the page that is interesting. The first one just really shows the Warsaw Block/Western Europe dividing line.

I don't know where the idea comes from?

Russia - theoretically a communist regime... survived for the best part of a century, though it was falling apart for much of it... mainly, I suspect, because of the depredations of the non-communist world, who desperately WANTED it to fail.

So - one 'left-wing' regime that 'gave-up' decades after it's inception.

Italy - Fascist state, and thus 'right-wing'... dissolved with the death of it's figurehead, Mussolini.

Germany - Nazi state, and thus 'right-wing'... already dissolving with the death of it's figurehead, Hitler.

China - perhaps a closer model of communism than Russia... still going strong, although making something of a transition on it's ECONOMIC model.

It doesn't really seem that extreme 'left-wing' regimes crumble any faster than extreme 'right-wing' regimes... quite the reverse, if anything.


Perhaps, though - in view of the NS forum.... maybe we are REALLY discussing why left-wing posters might retire earlier from a debate?

(Hard to tell - the original poster seemed to be talking about NS and the real world).

Perhaps, the current 'left-wing' follows a Jesus-like pattern, and has decided that it isn't worth getting rabid about any issue... and so make their points, find themselves banging their heads against a wall, and go do something else instead? A sort of digital-martyr thing?

I also believe in responsible government
"Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys."
~O'Rourke

:p

Uhh. We libertarians are Left.
Please don't speak for us (by using "we").

Get to know the philosophy (or party) before making a glaring error like claiming that we are all "left".

Libertarianism, by it's nature, isn't accurately reflected in dualistic terms such as right or left.

I'm down, or up.

Bored? Tired of the same old straw man arguments? Tired of the response to everything being Bill Clinton's pecadillos? Yes.

I would never consider the Soviet Union or China on the left.

They're more Totalitarian (especially the U.S.S.R.).

I have no idea what you're talking about. Perhaps you're mistaking boredom for giving up. If I get bored with a thread I just move on for a while. Giving up, no. Short attention span, yes.

Heh, I tend to leave when I get bored.

If there's a thread that no longer amuses me, I'm gone. Simple as that.

China - perhaps a closer model of communism than Russia... still going strong, although making something of a transition on it's ECONOMIC model.

It doesn't really seem that extreme 'left-wing' regimes crumble any faster than extreme 'right-wing' regimes... quite the reverse, if anything.

Okay, now look at number of people killed for each regime except the Nazi's. Include the Spanish fascist movement. Russia, China, the Khmer Rouge, and N.K. have killed how many people again? When you are willing to kill that many people to hold onto power you'll stay in power for at least a little while.

They're more Totalitarian (especially the U.S.S.R.).

They gave those boys all of the whiskey they could handle along with the car keys. And as we discovered, it was a hearse.

What else did you think would happen when the State owned everything?
Oh, that's right. Peace, love, and prosperity! :p

I tend to get frustrated when people keep repeating the same things over and over no matter how many times you debunk them.

However, that tends to happen more with religious people in discussions than anything. Or bigots.

I tend to get frustrated when people keep repeating the same things over and over no matter how many times you debunk them.

However, that tends to happen more with religious people in discussions than anything. Or bigots.


Got that right.

Actually looking at the world as a whole leftism is actually undergoing something of a revival. Five leftist governments have come to power in recent months in several major South American countries, Venenzuela, Brazil, Chile, Argentina and Uruguay. Look at Europe, where most countries have socialist governments. Even in countries with conservative regimes like France, the basic tenets of the welfare state are adhered to. A far right government was just voted out of power in India.

I think left-wing people give up no more or less easily than people with both wings.

I think left-wing people give up no more or less easily than people with both wings.


Your comedic brilliance is stunning.

I think left-wing people give up no more or less easily than people with both wings.
If (and only if) you're a Libertarian, that was an amusing statement.

Okay, now look at number of people killed for each regime except the Nazi's. Include the Spanish fascist movement. Russia, China, the Khmer Rouge, and N.K. have killed how many people again? When you are willing to kill that many people to hold onto power you'll stay in power for at least a little while.

Which matters how?

Absolutely not. Wanna make something of it?

Which matters how?
Villification

Since the fall of the Soviet Union and the effective death of real Communism in China - and the effective marginalization of the Left in the United States, is there a long history of people on the Left "giving up"?

I've noticed a retreat of people on the Left from public discourse - and not just in this forum.

In an age when a copy of Das Capital is more likely to be a coffee table decoration in the home of someone who wishes they were trendy, is the Left dying out?
So because Republicans are more popular in America now, you reckon that the left is dying? You mention the USSR and China. Very few lefties in the west identify with these countries or have anything positive to say about them.

Rather on this forum I have always noticed that conservatives (you are one of the most notable exceptions) typically stayed away from challenging discussions and tended to just give up and start flaming in arguments they were losing.

I might as well point to the slew of left-wing victories in South America (most recently Uruguay) over the past 10 years to conclude that the Right is dying.

Since the fall of the Soviet Union and the effective death of real Communism in China - and the effective marginalization of the Left in the United States, is there a long history of people on the Left "giving up"?

I've noticed a retreat of people on the Left from public discourse - and not just in this forum.

In an age when a copy of Das Capital is more likely to be a coffee table decoration in the home of someone who wishes they were trendy, is the Left dying out?

All lefties are commies (or more accurate Stalinists) now?

Did I miss a meeting?

Get to know the philosophy (or party) before making a glaring error like claiming that we are all "left".

Not everyone that calls themselve libertarian use it in the American sense. In fact, where I live it is effectively synomynous with Anarchist (with less negative overtones).

All though I agree that not all libertarians are left.

Which matters how?
Only that right wing countries tend to rely more upon the will of the people whilst communist governments tend to rely upon the suppresion of the people.

Only that right wing countries tend to rely more upon the will of the people whilst communist governments tend to rely upon the suppresion of the people.
Really? Using GnI examples. I would say that neither inherently more rely upon the will of the people, rather then the suppresion of the people.

Surely a countries that encourages a free society and respects the liberty of the citizens rely upon the will of the people and countries with dictatorship rely upon the suppression of the people?

Only that right wing countries tend to rely more upon the will of the people whilst communist governments tend to rely upon the suppresion of the people.

Yes, because Hitler and Mussolini both ruled by handing out candy.

Really? Using GnI examples. I would say that neither inherently more rely upon the will of the people, rather then the suppresion of the people.

Surely a countries that encourages a free society and respects the liberty of the citizens rely upon the will of the people and countries with dictatorship rely upon the suppression of the people?

Exactly - the reason I question AB's point, was because the regimes HAVE ruled longer by determination, or shorter by lack of the same.

Doesn't seem to divide over 'party lines' - and seems to be FAR MORE about the ambitions of the person (or people) in the seat of power, than the political 'orientation' of the regime.

Actually looking at the world as a whole leftism is actually undergoing something of a revival. Five leftist governments have come to power in recent months in several major South American countries, Venenzuela, Brazil, Chile, Argentina and Uruguay. Look at Europe, where most countries have socialist governments. Even in countries with conservative regimes like France, the basic tenets of the welfare state are adhered to. A far right government was just voted out of power in India.

Name one Socialist nation in Europe.

Name one Socialist nation in Europe.

France has a 'socialist' government.

My country has got itself a new shiny absolute majority left leaning goverment... All The left wing parties grew.. including the Communist party :p

Zapatero took Spain a year ago, by the looks of it, Berlusconi is going to fall too.. Dunno about Blair and shroeder.. Chirac isnt doing to well.. is the left retreating? Well, i'd say we are advancing..

Since when? Last time I checked France was capitalist like the rest of europe.

Name one Socialist nation in Europe.

Flat truth here is that most nations in the world operate on a hybrid of capitalism and socialism. Things like highways, ports, schools, medicine, armed forces, welfare, retirement, power plants, and mass transit are governmentally operated or administered programs, while the bulk of business is privately owned and operated. This is true of the US, of Canada, of Denmark, of all the socialists havens of Europe. The only differences between them is how far they go in one direction or another: Whether healthcare is universal (Canada) or just subsidized (U.S.), whether income tax is 30% or 40%, we're just splitting hairs.

Name one Socialist nation in Europe.

Sweden is the prime example of Social Democracy.

With the other Scandinavian countries also qualifying I think.

Although nearly all the European countries have fairly high levels of socialisation.

Since when? Last time I checked France was capitalist like the rest of europe.

Funny, last time I checked, the U.S. was socialist, just like the rest of North America. ;)

Zapatero took Spain a year ago, by the looks of it, Berlusconi is going to fall too.. Dunno about Blair and shroeder.. Chirac isnt doing to well.. is the left retreating? Well, i'd say we are advancing..

I can't tell you anything about Shroeder, but I can about Blair. Blair is definitally a prime example of a retreating leftie. He's retreated into 'New Labour'
Urrggh, tories in disguise.

Since when? Last time I checked France was capitalist like the rest of europe.
Ahh, the old "take one aspect of something and pretend that the whole is the same."

The Left is there. We just...hide. Yeah.

As Howard Dean said, it is no longer socially accepted to be a Democrat. At least in the Tyranny of USA.

the current American Left wing sure folds faster than a nun in a poker game. they let the righties get away with anything and everything, only occasionally piping up long enough to mutter something about tax reform. i'm even more disgusted with Democrats than i am with neo-cons, because at least the neo-cons are driven and sly...the Dems are pathetic these days.

I can't tell you anything about Shroeder, but I can about Blair. Blair is definitally a prime example of a retreating leftie. He's retreated into 'New Labour'
Urrggh, tories in disguise.
He didn't retreat. He was always the same.

One of his first actions of Labour was to rewrite clause 4. Instead of the promise to nationalise it now praises business and entrepreneurship (although it is spelled properly).

It isn't that the left has retreated. Populations change, and the general ideals of the population change with them. Europe is moving to the right (or centre, depending on how you look at it), and since the aim of political parties is to get elect and therefore have to change to accomadate the new opinions and so they can get elected.

Yes, because Hitler and Mussolini both ruled by handing out candy.
Actually if you really look at Hitler's political tactics, he was first and foremost a populist. For instance, originally on the issue of cross-marriages between jews and christians he planned to go with business as normal and abduct then kill them all. However, the spouses of those jews got together and protested and he ended up letting them go. He held power in the end because of the people and he wouldn't do anything that would damage his power base. Since he didn't suppress all people outright that meant he had to give in to what the majority or even a vocal enough minority wanted. Instead he was very, very careful about building public animosity towards those he would dispose of. Had the population of Germany as a whole stood up to him WWII would probably have not ocurred the way it did.

He didn't retreat. He was always the same.

One of his first actions of Labour was to rewrite clause 4. Instead of the promise to nationalise it now praises business and entrepreneurship (although it is spelled properly).

It isn't that the left has retreated. Populations change, and the general ideals of the population change with them. Europe is moving to the right (or centre, depending on how you look at it), and since the aim of political parties is to get elect and therefore have to change to accomadate the new opinions and so they can get elected.

Not all of Europe is moving to the left.

Since when? Last time I checked France was capitalist like the rest of europe.

Have you, perhaps, researched?

I didn't say that France doesn't operate as a capitalism, I said it had a 'socialist' government.

the current American Left wing sure folds faster than a nun in a poker game.

You have obviously never played poker with a nun (they have powers).

Although seriously, from my ivory tower in Merry Olde England is seems the Democrats are just the Republicans' (or rather Neo-Conservatives) whipping boys. Judging by the amount of stuff that they allow the Republicans away with which is reported at any rate.

They practically gave Bush the election seeing as they elected someone with a charisma bypass.

they let the righties get away with anything and everything, only occasionally piping up long enough to mutter something about tax reform. i'm even more disgusted with Democrats than i am with neo-cons, because at least the neo-cons are driven and sly...the Dems are pathetic these days.

I'll defer to you on this one.

People are using confusing terminology.

Is Europe left-leaning in general? Yes

Do European nations have many welfare programs(ie welfare states)? Yes

Is Europe Socialist(I.e. nationalizing business and industry)? no, unless i missed something.

Do some research. "Market Socialism" is the word of the day.

Name one Socialist nation in Europe.

Current Social Democrat/Socialist governments of Europe

Social Democrats /Green Coalition - Germany
Social Democrats - Sweden
Socialist Worker's Party - Spain
Centre/Social Democrats Coalition - Finland
Venstre (Liberal) - Denmark
Labour - UK
Progressive Democrats - Ireland
Progressive Party - Iceland

Actually if you really look at Hitler's political tactics, he was first and foremost a populist. For instance, originally on the issue of cross-marriages between jews and christians he planned to go with business as normal and abduct then kill them all. However, the spouses of those jews got together and protested and he ended up letting them go. He held power in the end because of the people and he wouldn't do anything that would damage his power base. Since he didn't suppress all people outright that meant he had to give in to what the majority or even a vocal enough minority wanted. Instead he was very, very careful about building public animosity towards those he would dispose of. Had the population of Germany as a whole stood up to him WWII would probably have not ocurred the way it did.

The same is true for ANY regime... even the darkest tyranny is usually highlighted by acts of benevolence to SOME... and ANY regime can be overthrown if it be truly the will of the whole population.

Yes - Hitler was a populist... but he also ruled with an iron fist, no matter HOW MANY layers of velvet gloves he wore.

You contradict yourself... "he was very, very careful about building public animosity towards those he would dispose of"... contrasted to "he had to give in to what the majority or even a vocal enough minority wanted".

Perhaps you are forgetting the Jews, the Romani, etc? Hitler appealed to whichever majorities or minorities were EXPEDIENT, not necessarily who was loud, or important.

They practically gave Bush the election seeing as they elected someone with a charisma bypass.


Hey now, low blow... that worked for the Tories for a while... :)

Not all of Europe is moving to the left.

Oh the shame. Doing something that I had, not 5 minutes before, got at Compuq for.

My mistake.

Actually if you really look at Hitler's political tactics, he was first and foremost a populist. For instance, originally on the issue of cross-marriages between jews and christians he planned to go with business as normal and abduct then kill them all. However, the spouses of those jews got together and protested and he ended up letting them go.

That was not because he was a populist though. That was since his power wasn't consolidated, he could not be as radical as he wanted. The SA could easily beat up a few members of the KPD, but for them to go after middle-Germany was unthinkable at the time.

Another example of this is the first time he attempted to close Jewish shops. There was uproar, and he retreated with his tail between his legs.

He wasn't a populist, he was an opportunist if anything, even though he jumped before he should he quickly back pedeled if he realised it could effect his power.

He held power in the end because of the people and he wouldn't do anything that would damage his power base.

Which would make him an opportunist. You may as well claim that Lenin was relitively (relitive to the other Bolsheviks) economically liberal because he came up with the NEP.

Hey now, low blow... that worked for the Tories for a while... :)
True.

John Major, the man that ran away from the circus to become an accountant.

:)

Is Europe Socialist(I.e. nationalizing business and industry)? no, unless i missed something.

Yep, you missed the fact that socialism (in the sense of watered down benign communism) is more then nationalising.

True.

John Major, the man that ran away from the circus to become an accountant.

:)

Couldn't write a better story, could you... and the guy was actually 'grey', too... scary. :)

Couldn't write a better story, could you... and the guy was actually 'grey', too... scary. :)
I used to think the "ran way from the circus" thing was just made up for comic effect.

Fact is sometimes stranger then fiction.

Yep, you missed the fact that socialism (in the sense of watered down benign communism) is more then nationalising.

More then Nationizing:Yes

But I would still call Europe Socially Left, not Socialist.

More then Nationizing:Yes

But I would still call Europe Socially Left, not Socialist.

Actually, I agree with that. I think that if Karl Marx were to look at the policies of the social democratic parties of Europe, he would be appalled.

More then Nationizing:Yes

But I would still call Europe Socially Left, not Socialist.

Umm, Socialism is economic policy not social policy. You can be either socially conservative or liberal and still be a socialist.

More then Nationizing:Yes

But I would still call Europe Socially Left, not Socialist.

Well, friend... YOU are welcome to call it 'Socially Left', if you want.

It's your right.

Doesn't change the fact that much of Europe has nominally 'socialist' government.

Current Social Democrat/Socialist governments of Europe

Social Democrats /Green Coalition - Germany
Social Democrats - Sweden
Socialist Worker's Party - Spain
Centre/Social Democrats Coalition - Finland
Venstre (Liberal) - Denmark
Labour - UK
Progressive Democrats - Ireland
Progressive Party - Iceland
You're flat out wrong. I know that in America "Progressive Democrats" would imply very leftist tendencies, but the party is actually the most pro-business in Ireland's history. They get about 5% of the vote most of the time.

Yes many social democratic parties are in power in Europe, but none of them want to overthrow capitalism and nationalise everything.

Socialism is not simply universal nationalization of property. It can also be the nationalization of large programs or programs deemed too important to be left to the public to administer. In this light, the U.S. is socialist by virtue of it's federally funded interstates, ports, and armed forces.

Even "Red" China is a blend of socialism and capitalism.

It doesn't cut both ways. You can't invoke a "one-drop" rule that any trace of free enterprise makes a capitalist nation anymore than say any nationalized program makes a nation socialist.

Actually, I agree with that. I think that if Karl Marx were to look at the policies of the social democratic parties of Europe, he would be appalled.
If Marx looked at the SDP shortly after it first started he would be appaled imo too.

Anyway, not all socialist parties were based upon Marx's ideas. The SDP was (which is why I refered to it above). But the Labour party owes more to craft conservatism within the Union, the Fabians and Maynard-Keynes then to Marx and Engels.

I've never lived through the Soviet Union and only became a Communist a few years ago and I hope I never give up my beliefs which are essential for the future of humanity. The collapse of the USSR was a huge loss for some on the left although there are many socialists around the world who continue to fight for democracy and social justice and in Latin America there has been a massive increase in support for the left over the last few years.

just a question for those who espouse the beliefs "which are essential for the future of humanity":

when the workers and/or government take over the business of a country... what will you do when your economy fails?

Economy is best under free enterprise. You might not like the fact that there are poor people in the world, but when we are FREE, the cream tends to rise to the top... because people do NOT have equal gifts.

so you would marginalize talent/success in favor of forcing economic equality on everyone.. you would take away the ability of talented/driven entrepreneurs to drive a robust economy.

So how exactly do you make your economy work in a communist/totally socialist system of forced economic equality?

Umm, Socialism is economic policy not social policy. You can be either socially conservative or liberal and still be a socialist.

Yes, and economically Europe is essentially capitalist.

j
when the workers and/or government take over the business of a country... what will you do when your economy fails?

Yay assumptions! (Just because I kinda-agree with this doesn't mean it is not an assumption).

Economy is best under free enterprise. You might not like the fact that there are poor people in the world, but when we are FREE, the cream tends to rise to the top... because people do NOT have equal gifts.

Heh, someone one think Norman Tebit is the cream. (Well he is rich and thick)

You are using subjective opinions. Remember not everyone feels that material wealth is the be all and end all of life, or that an economy is judged solely on the wealth it delivers to a certain portion of society.

so you would marginalize talent/success in favor of forcing economic equality on everyone.. you would take away the ability of talented/driven entrepreneurs to drive a robust economy.

Remember Edmonton!

Ikea is from one the most socialist idustrialised nations.;)

So how exactly do you make your economy work in a communist/totally socialist system of forced economic equality?
Meh, I'll let a communist answer this.

You're flat out wrong. I know that in America "Progressive Democrats" would imply very leftist tendencies, but the party is actually the most pro-business in Ireland's history. They get about 5% of the vote most of the time.

Yes many social democratic parties are in power in Europe, but none of them want to overthrow capitalism and nationalise everything.

Well, right. I know that many of the social democratic parties of Europe have many strong pro-business tendencies. Obviously Goran Persson or Matti Vanhanen aren't going to start sporting Che berets with red stars anytime soon.

I was just stating a list of the governments of western Europe that are governed by supposedly left-leaning parties. Obviously I was wrong in the case of Ireland. I suppose it's much like how the Liberal Party of Australia or the Liberal Democratic Party of Japan is actually a conservative party.

Yes, and economically Europe is essentially capitalist.
Argument by repetition does not work.
Argument by repetition does not work.
Argument by repetition does not work.
Argument by repetition does not work.
Argument by repetition does not work.
Argument by repetition does not work.
Argument by repetition does not work.

As YFP pointed out, the one cut drop doesn't work either.

Try "Economically, Europe is becoming more capitalist"

France has a 'socialist' government.
I thought that the conservatives were in power in France?

Ikea is from one the most socialist idustrialised nations.;)

shyeah and the dude who owns ikea is one of the richest people in the world! sorry, i know this is your point but i thought not everybody will be aware of this.

Sweden is very 'socialist' on a relative scale against most other European (even World) - for example the government supplies fuel for free or pays for heating bills in the winter for everybody, as far as i understand :)

I think the arguement should be what is left and right? I read on a previous post that Libertarians are right on economics and left on social issues. I think there has to be a better definition of what is left and right. To me, simply put, left means you want more government, right means you want less. Libertarians are totally to the right, meaning they want less government interference in economics and less government enterference in social issues. If you go by my definition, the Repuklicans are right when it comes to economics and left when it comes to social issues. The Demoncats are left when it comes to economics and right when it comes to social issues. George Orwell explained this best when he analyzed the whole idea of Nazism and Communism. There is no vast difference. They are both to the left.

Obviously Goran Persson or Matti Vanhanen aren't going to start sporting Che berets with red stars anytime soon. Don't bet on that. Of course Vanhanen isn't Social Democrat at all... but Persson could...

You contradict yourself... "he was very, very careful about building public animosity towards those he would dispose of"... contrasted to "he had to give in to what the majority or even a vocal enough minority wanted".
Not really. He was essentially able to dehumanize the jews for the general populace and nobody really liked the Roma but the cross-married jews brought the argument into what was pretty much an individual basis. As in "Oh, well most jews might be evil but if these ones are married to christians then they can't be that bad" Thusly had he disposed of them there possibly would have been a nasty backlash among the general population. That's pretty much why he backed off and wouldn't touch it. The leftist authoritarian response is generally to crush any resistance and grind the populace down until they no longer object.

I thought that the conservatives were in power in France?
Due to combination of low turn out, poor choices and a neo-fascist being in the running for President. Le Pen got through to the second round* therefore Chirac got the conservative vote, the liberal vote, the socialist vote, the old people vote, the dog vote etc (essentially anyone not fascist). When your 'supporters' are trying to elect you using the slogan "Crook not nazi" and refer to you as the worm. It pretty much tells you you are not liked.

Yes France has a conservative leader, but it is not conservative (ie Gaullist), AKAIK, there is currently cohabitation in the French government with the Prime minister being a socialist and with the socialist holding considerable power in the parliament.

*IIRC The French presidential election is done in two rounds. In the first round, everyone runs. The winner and runner up go through to the second round and that is the final vote for president.

shyeah and the dude who owns ikea is one of the richest people in the world! sorry, i know this is your point but i thought not everybody will be aware of this.
Ingvar somethingoranother

I remember using that example in my European Politics exam last year, only to find out later that the day before the exam he had moved the corporate HQ to German since it was more business friendly. :headbang:

Still got a god mark though.

I think the arguement should be what is left and right? I read on a previous post that Libertarians are right on economics and left on social issues. I think there has to be a better definition of what is left and right. To me, simply put, left means you want more government, right means you want less. Libertarians are totally to the right, meaning they want less government interference in economics and less government enterference in social issues. If you go by my definition, the Repuklicans are right when it comes to economics and left when it comes to social issues. The Demoncats are left when it comes to economics and right when it comes to social issues. George Orwell explained this best when he analyzed the whole idea of Nazism and Communism. There is no vast difference. They are both to the left.
People generally associate the lefty's in the US with greater social freedom and lesser economic freedom. Those on the right are generally concerned with lesser social freedom and more economic freedom. That's where that perticular view comes from.

just a question for those who espouse the beliefs "which are essential for the future of humanity":

when the workers and/or government take over the business of a country... what will you do when your economy fails?
What's your definition of economic success or failure?

Economy is best under free enterprise. You might not like the fact that there are poor people in the world, but when we are FREE, the cream tends to rise to the top... because people do NOT have equal gifts.
And so what you're saying is that we should just... let them starve, is that it?

so you would marginalize talent/success in favor of forcing economic equality on everyone.. you would take away the ability of talented/driven entrepreneurs to drive a robust economy.

Interesting point. Theoretically, talent isn't marginalised under a socialist system. No system works unless the people best qualified for the job are doing it. If they excel, then their talent is realised, isn't it?

And again. The question becomes a matter of the definition of economic success or failure.

So how exactly do you make your economy work in a communist/totally socialist system of forced economic equality?
Under a purely socialistic system, from what I understand, workplaces are governed more or less like employee cooperatives, where all employees have a share in the success or failure of the business. There's your incentive right there.

It's basically a concentric system of councils and forums, but in this case, authority on production and management is from the bottom up, not the top down as would be the case of say, the Soviet Union or the Board of Directors of a major corporation.

It may sound rather unwiedily, but if you consider the advances in telecommunications, supply chain management, and transportation, now more than ever it is possible to make such a system work efficiently, concertedly, and effectively.

It's funny to think about it, when
NSAP the german Nazi party is short for:
"National Sozialistische Arbeiter Partei"
(well for those who don't understand german it is
National Socialistic Workers Party. :P )

Nazi is short for National Socialist.
(in the original meaning).

I mean how can it really be confused with a right wing party.

*IIRC The French presidential election is done in two rounds. In the first round, everyone runs. The winner and runner up go through to the second round and that is the final vote for president.
I didn't know this.

And that's pretty funny. :)

I thought that the conservatives were in power in France?
They are, and have been most of the time since 1958. Mitterand was the only 5th Republic French president to have deviated from the moderate conservative pattern.

It's funny to think about it, when
NSAP the german Nazi party is short for:
"National Sozialistische Arbeiter Partei"
(well for those who don't understand german it is
National Socialistic Workers Party. :P )

Nazi is short for National Socialist.
(in the original meaning).
It was a catch all name. Along with his original manifesto that praised both capitalism and socialism, simply so he could get support from all quarters.

He was an opportunist. He also pretended to be a democrat, doesn't make him so.

I didn't know this.

And that's pretty funny. :)
No idea why it is like that though. Maybe for events like that. :confused:

It was a catch all name. Along with his original manifesto that praised both capitalism and socialism, simply so he could get support from all quarters.

He was an opportunist. He also pretended to be a democrat, doesn't make him so.

It doesn't change the actual "official politics" for the worker. His target was the german workers and he talks about government owned factories. (well it sounds a little more socialistic than Facistic for me.) I do know he later became a cult figure in german politics in the 1930's. It has many facistic things, but it was build upon a socialistic base. You could say Stalin also was a facistic dictator, but do you do that?
The point is that both dictators comes from a left background, but you would actually describe them more like fascistic.

We left-wingers just understand that there are more important things to do than killing everyone else... :)

Argument by repetition does not work.
Argument by repetition does not work.
Argument by repetition does not work.
Argument by repetition does not work.
Argument by repetition does not work.
Argument by repetition does not work.
Argument by repetition does not work.

As YFP pointed out, the one cut drop doesn't work either.

Try "Economically, Europe is becoming more capitalist"

I'm not repeating. You said "Socialism is economic policy". I agreed and said "and economically Europe is essentially capitalist." Therefore Europe cannot be Socialist.

Western Europe has been capitalist for pretty much the past 200 years. Capitalism with Strong progressive Social policies is still capitalism. Eastern Europe making a transtion to capitalism. Not completely there yet, but they are closer to capitalism then Socialism.

Just because a political party has "social" or Socialist in its name does'nt make it Socialist(remember National Socialist Party?)

I'm not arguing that any system is better then the other here. Just that Europe is Socially left, but still capitalist.

No idea why it is like that though. Maybe for events like that. :confused:
I don't know why they use that system in France, but it is used in other countries too. Especially in countries with more than 2 parties. In finland we have 3 major parties, and 2-4 possible swing-vote parties. These all can place candidates. This second round system is a way to avoid candidates being elected with only a small proportion of the popular vote.
There won't be second round if one candidate wins a majority on the first round.

We get to vote more! YAY!

It doesn't change the actual "official politics" for the worker. His target was the german workers and he talks about government owned factories.

It was a catch all name for a cathc all party. Like I said before, he was an opportunist. He didn't care who voted for him as long as they voted for him. Considering that the SDP were huge, he had to make them weaker. Attacking their vote base make a lot of sense.

He was the master of double-think. He wass so good at it, other believed it to, it became contagious. In speeches he claimed that Jews were all Communists. This would be unremarkable, except that he also said that the Jews were all capitalists too.

(well it sounds a little more socialistic than Facistic for me.) I do know he later became a cult figure in german politics in the 1930's. It has many facistic things, but it was build upon a socialistic base.

Yes, but not because he was a socialist though.

You could say Stalin also was a facistic dictator, but do you do that?

Funny you should say that, because I do.

The point is that both dictators comes from a left background, but you would actually describe them more like fascistic.

Dictators come from all sorts of backgrounds. This labelling one vague sweep of ideologies is rubbish, Dictators exist for themselves at everyone else expense and will use any mean nesassery to get control. The simply reflect the ambient political atmosphere

We left-wingers just understand that there are more important things to do than killing everyone else... :)

Ha,ha funny that Stalin killed more people than hitler did. In the working camps. Saying that left-wingers don't kill them who oppose them would be a litt lie. China and Northkorea did also had their working camps for the political opposits.
It should be more like we communists think there is more important thinks than political debate. So let us shoot the demonstrants or run them over with tanks. Or even better let them work till they die in some far out region were they are hidden away from the public :P

As we all know there haven't been a real Communistic country yet. Only some dictatorships that look like communist countries. An Ideal Communistic country is practically impossible. Not that Das Kapital isn't tempting. It does have some good idea's.

I say we do things more like say the Singaporeans in that, when they were building up the city, they decided to take the best of both socialistic and capitalistic ideologies and turn it into a plan for success.

Of course, it should be done without the authoritarian streak.

I'm not repeating. You said "Socialism is economic policy". I agreed and said "and economically Europe is essentially capitalist." Therefore Europe cannot be Socialist.

Western Europe has been capitalist for pretty much the past 200 years. Capitalism with Strong progressive Social policies is still capitalism. Eastern Europe making a transtion to capitalism. Not completely there yet, but they are closer to capitalism then Socialism.

Just because a political party has "social" or Socialist in its name does'nt make it Socialist(remember National Socialist Party?)

I'm not arguing that any system is better then the other here. Just that Europe is Socially left, but still capitalist.

Compuq, you haven't addressed any of my complaints against your argument. You're claiming that any free market element makes a nation capitalist while ignoring the fact that these nations have socialist elements as well. Why can't someone make your same case, and say that any socialist element in a nation makes it socialist?

I say to you again, do some research. Look up "Market Socialism."

I'm not repeating. You said "Socialism is economic policy". I agreed and said "and economically Europe is essentially capitalist." Therefore Europe cannot be Socialist.

You are repeating. Nearly every post you make eventually leads up to "Europe is capitalist not socialist." You have offered no proof of the fact, just that it is capitalist. Facts others have given you have dismissed/ignored, and you still say "Europe is capitalist not socialist." I was replying to a bogus point you made, and you still continue. Meh. Better then an essay I suppose.

Western Europe has been capitalist for pretty much the past 200 years. Capitalism with Strong progressive Social policies is still capitalism.

Why are you bringing up anything to do with social policies, capitalism and socialism are economical theories/ideologies. Social policies are completely irrelevent in determining if an area is capitalist or socialist.

Eastern Europe making a transtion to capitalism. Not completely there yet, but they are closer to capitalism then Socialism.

Do you have a scale? You imply it by saying "they are closer to capitalism then Socialism."

Just because a political party has "social" or Socialist in its name does'nt make it Socialist(remember National Socialist Party?)

Yes, because we have loads of political opportunist using any method nessasery to gain control and create a dictatorship. However those parties don't have 'socialist' in their names.

Anyway, I never claimed that just because something says it is a duck, that makes it a duck. Although, if something sounds like a duck, walks like a duck, looks like a duck and says its a duck, I would call it a duck.

I'm not arguing that any system is better then the other here. Just that Europe is Socially left, but still capitalist.

Dammit, social policy has nothing to do with anything.

Dictators come from all sorts of backgrounds. This labelling one vague sweep of ideologies is rubbish, Dictators exist for themselves at everyone else expense and will use any mean nesassery to get control. The simply reflect the ambient political atmosphere

Your right, but many people tend to oversee that fact. North Korea is called communistic. When it is ruled by an Iron-fist dictator. There aren't any real Communistic countries. They are either ruled by a dictator or the military, which makes them fascistic.

Then you could talk about. Left-wing as socialistic states. Then Denmark is a very left-wing state. Because it has a lot of well-fare politics. Like everybody can get a home. Even how poor they are. If you don't have a job you get social aid (which is very high). And everybody don't have to pay to get a operation done on a hospital.

Wow, Denmark is sounding like a really nice place!

Your right, but many people tend to oversee that fact. North Korea is called communistic. When it is ruled by an Iron-fist dictator. There aren't any real Communistic countries. They are either ruled by a dictator or the military, which makes them fascistic.

Then you could talk about. Left-wing as socialistic states. Then Denmark is a very left-wing state. Because it has a lot of well-fare politics. Like everybody can get a home. Even how poor they are. If you don't have a job you get social aid (which is very high). And everybody don't have to pay to get a operation done on a hospital.

There are a lot of strings attached to Danish welfare aid, as far as I know. For example, one absolutely must go in for job training and placement assistance, and if a job is located for a welfare recipient, the job absolutely must be taken otherwise that person risks having benefits revoked. Not a bad thing, I think but I'm just pointing out that it's not like Denmark just throws money about.

Ha,ha funny that Stalin killed more people than hitler did. In the working camps.

Remember where I said that I call Stalin a fascist (it is only a few posts above)?

Well, I'd like to cash in that particular cheque.

Saying that left-wingers don't kill them who oppose them would be a litt lie. China and Northkorea did also had their working camps for the political opposits.

For a flippant remark you are making a whole fuss about this. Although I would also claim the PRNK is fascist. China is closer to a capitalist dictarship imo.

It should be more like we communists think there is more important thinks than political debate. So let us shoot the demonstrants or run them over with tanks. Or even better let them work till they die in some far out region were they are hidden away from the public :P


*sigh* :( [S]He called himself 'left-wing.' Not Communist. The two terms are not synonymous.

As we all know there haven't been a real Communistic country yet. Only some dictatorships that look like communist countries. An Ideal Communistic country is practically impossible. Not that Das Kapital isn't tempting. It does have some good idea's.

Capital describes the way capitalism works, it is not a political tretise (despite being instrumental in Marxist theory).

Capital describes the way capitalism works, it is not a political tretise (despite being instrumental in Marxist theory).
Right. The Manifesto of the Communist Party is actually the document that handles the politics of it.

Anarchic Conceptions, Do YOU think Europe is Socialist? The question of whether Europe is or is not Socialist is more a matter of opinion(like what is Socialism or Capitalism?) then fact. You Forgot Poland brings up 'Market Socialism', which i do not consider to be Socialism.

Anarchic Conceptions, Do YOU think Europe is Socialist? The question of whether Europe is or is not Socialist is more a matter of opinion(like what is Socialism or Capitalism?) then fact.

Interesting that you say that :rolleyes:

You Forgot Poland brings up 'Market Socialism', which i do not consider to be Socialism.

Really? What do you consider it. Because it is no where near Capitalism. The only thing that the two share is a belief in the free market. It has also been around for a long time and is advocated by socialists, and was thought up by socialists.

"Interesting that you say that"

You did'nt answer my question ;)

There are a lot of strings attached to Danish welfare aid, as far as I know. For example, one absolutely must go in for job training and placement assistance, and if a job is located for a welfare recipient, the job absolutely must be taken otherwise that person risks having benefits revoked. Not a bad thing, I think but I'm just pointing out that it's not like Denmark just throws money about.

In Denmark if you don't work you still get the social benefits. You don't actually have to go to job training or anything like that. They can't take the benefits away, but they can just begin to see if you live in an apartment or an self owned house they say that you are "rich" and therefore don't need the social benifits (That is if you don't go to job training/education). If you don't own anything they still give you social benefits. You have to be an active job seeker to get the social benefits of course.
But since all education is free it would be rather stupid not to get any. Since you get paid (though a very tiny sum) to take one.
In many ways Denmark is a country of possibilities. No matter if you come from a rich or poor family. You can always make it to the top (educational wise) and economically.
There aren't any real beggers in Denmark. You can choose to live the life you want to. So if you want to be homeless you can choose to, but then you don't get any social benefits. But then you can go to the homeless centers and get an apartment and get the social benefits.
If you can't work. You get Social benefits.
The problem is in Denmark that the taxes are so damn high.
Personal income tax is 39% for the people with lowest income
and around some 65% for the higher income.
(you pay income tax even if you are on social benefits).
And there are more taxes... 25% on every thing you buy goes to the government.
Then there are Sugar taxes, Gasolin taxes, Alcohol tax, property tax, and so on........

"Interesting that you say that"

You did'nt answer my question ;)

I think it is neither. It is a bastard child produced by having socialist and capitalist governments at various which have formed a non entity mish mash of both.

(Sorry, missed the question mark the first time round :))

"also called liberal socialism economic system representing a compromise between socialist planning and free enterprise, in which enterprises are publicly owned but production and consumption are guided by market forces rather than by government planning. A form of market socialism was adopted in Yugoslavia in the 1960s in distinction to the centrally planned socialism of the Soviet Union. …"

http://www.britannica.com/eb/article?tocId=9051012


publicly owned? What percentage of the european economies are publicly owned?

"From 1946 until 1981, the public sector changed little in scope. Following the Socialist Party’s victory in 1981, however, state ownership and control expanded dramatically. By 1983, about 9 percent of the labor force worked in enterprises controlled by the state." I know France is not all of Europe. But thats the only country I can find right now. I'm sure some are much higher, but are they over the 50% mark?

http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761568934_4/France.html


"I think it is neither. It is a bastard child produced by having socialist and capitalist governments at various which have formed a non entity mish mash of both.

(Sorry, missed the question mark the first time round )"

Can we agree on calling it a "Mixed Economy"? The France article reminded me of that term.

Capital describes the way capitalism works, it is not a political tretise (despite being instrumental in Marxist theory).
I wont argue that. But there are false assumptions in Karl Marx's "Das Kapital". That the Communistic theories build upon. Therefore Communistic regimes can't exists more than temporarily. There hasn't been real communistic regimes yet because people actually do things for their own good and not for the good of the society.

If you can find a real communistic country please say so.

Apoligy for confusing the left-wing and Communism.
(I do know the difference though).

"also called liberal socialism economic system representing a compromise between socialist planning and free enterprise, in which enterprises are publicly owned but production and consumption are guided by market forces rather than by government planning. A form of market socialism was adopted in Yugoslavia in the 1960s in distinction to the centrally planned socialism of the Soviet Union. …"

http://www.britannica.com/eb/article?tocId=9051012


publicly owned? What percentage of the european economies are publicly owned?

[quote]"From 1946 until 1981, the public sector changed little in scope. Following the Socialist Party’s victory in 1981, however, state ownership and control expanded dramatically. By 1983, about 9 percent of the labor force worked in enterprises controlled by the state." I know France is not all of Europe. But thats the only country I can find right now. I'm sure some are much higher, but are they over the 50% mark?

http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761568934_4/France.html

You are only looking at a brief synopsis of something fairly complex. Mitterand was ambitious.

"I think it is neither. It is a bastard child produced by having socialist and capitalist governments at various which have formed a non entity mish mash of both.

(Sorry, missed the question mark the first time round )"

Can we agree on calling it a "Mixed Economy"? The France article reminded me of that term.


Sure.

heh, consensus in NS :D

I wont argue that. But there are false assumptions in Karl Marx's "Das Kapital".

Yep. In fact Marxists were some of the first to realise that. Almost as soon as Marx was buried Engels set about changing the theory (well not so much as change as pull to extremely odd conclusions). However, Bernstein was probably the first Marxist to seriously go about revising Marx and trying to fix up some of the incorrect assumptions (I'm afraid I don't have the quotation with me at the moment, but he claimed it was nesassery to sort it all out).

Bernsteins criticisms included his theory of history (claiming he was too tunnel visioned and ignored non-economic variables and that he was too deterministic [Engels and the contemporary Marxists more so]) and that Capitilism was capable and had sorted out its internal contradictions that would make it fail.

That the Communistic theories build upon. Therefore Communistic regimes can't exists more than temporarily.

Although Communist leaders have altered Marx. Usually before the revolution. And since I know about Marx then about Communist dictatorships I cannot make a descent stab at this point.

There hasn't been real communistic regimes yet because people actually do things for their own good and not for the good of the society.

Personally I don't feel that that is the only reason they don't work. I think that they cannot work due to the over emphasis of revolution (or rather the type of revolution that they call for)

If you can find a real communistic country please say so.

Apoligy for confusing the left-wing and Communism.
(I do know the difference though).

Good :)

Sure.

heh, consensus in NS :D
Meh... You left-wing people DO give up too easily...

Meh... You left-wing people DO give up too easily...
Well that was also my opinion. I just never showed my hand ;)

Um, well, most liberals have a very low idiot tolerence. Especially if they're stubborn. So we just kinda leave to let you guys blow each other up.

Personally I don't feel that that is the only reason they don't work. I think that they cannot work due to the over emphasis of revolution (or rather the type of revolution that they call for)

Well it was just as an example. It is one of the most known.
I didn't knew if you read "Das Kapital".

Um, well, most liberals have a very low idiot tolerence. Especially if they're stubborn. So we just kinda leave to let you guys blow each other up.

Yeah
Let us all make bombs for world peace :P

Along with chemical weapons.

Man, that'd be perfect.

I dunno, it seems to me that lately the world has been turning there backs on capitilism, i think pretty soon, there might be another "left wing flare up," the best exaple i can give is Vennezula, more and more their becoming more friendly with castro and more and more socialist.......... i dunno i think we're just laying low until more people realise it's time for a change, which i'm pretty sure will come in this decade. but thats just me...... wat yea think?

Maybe in poorer countries.

The U.S.S.R. already fell, and Red China's becoming capitalist as well. Then again, these two nations really weren't Socialist. China's more of a totalitarianism, and the U.S.S.R. was a genuine Totalitarian state.

Maybe in poorer countries.

The U.S.S.R. already fell, and Red China's becoming capitalist as well. Then again, these two nations really weren't Socialist. China's more of a totalitarianism, and the U.S.S.R. was a genuine Totalitarian state.

The interesting thing is that in Latin America (correct me if I'm wrong please), it looks like in a few places it will be revolution by the balot box rather then by the ammo box.
It will be interesting to see if that will be more sustainable and closer to the ideal then the more famous regimes are/were.

Along with chemical weapons.

Man, that'd be perfect.

Don't forget all the Biological weapons.. :)
There are so many different weapons to choose from and so few countries with an official excuse to bomb. :D

The interesting thing is that in Latin America (correct me if I'm wrong please), it looks like in a few places it will be revolution by the balot box rather then by the ammo box.
It will be interesting to see if that will be more sustainable and closer to the ideal then the more famous regimes are/were.


you're pretty right, however we know from the 2000 US elections that balot boxes aren't always 100% fool-proof, so there could still be some trouble

you're pretty right, however we know from the 2000 US elections that balot boxes aren't always 100% fool-proof, so there could still be some trouble

Going on the official side (that is, disregarding the Greg Palasts), Bush winning was due to the constitution rather then the corruption. A case I think more due to the size of the country than anything else.

Although I agree that balot boxes can (and are with alarming frequency) be stuffed. AFAIK, this has not been the case in Venesuela. A trend that I hope continues. Makes me wish I could live forever, not for personal reasons, just for curiosity to see where the world ends up.

Anyway, I am being romantic, please don't burst my bubble quite yet, it's all I have :D

Going on the official side (that is, disregarding the Greg Palasts), Bush winning was due to the constitution rather then the corruption. A case I think more due to the size of the country than anything else.

Although I agree that balot boxes can (and are with alarming frequency) be stuffed. AFAIK, this has not been the case in Venesuela. A trend that I hope continues. Makes me wish I could live forever, not for personal reasons, just for curiosity to see where the world ends up.

Anyway, I am being romantic, please don't burst my bubble quite yet, it's all I have :D


sorry i'm not a pessimss just a opptimiss with alot of experenice. I'm hoping that some liberal, left-winged, socialist, or communist super powers come to power and a social revolution comes b/c shits getting very bad and we need change SOON!!!

Not sure what you mean by that...but I'll take a guess.

Basically, I give up a lot more than most, even though I'm a lefty. The reason is, if I fought for my leftist beliefs, I would be going against my belief that everyone has the right to believe what they wish.

I could never force my commie beliefs on anyone, even if I had the power to. Some people just cannot function under communism, just like some people will never work with capitalism. The only exceptions to that rule is when legalizing something doesn't hurt anyone else. Like homosexual marriage. Stuff like that I'll fight for.

-Asylum Nova

North Korea is called communistic.

only by people selling something. in addition to the fact that none of the marxist-leninist-stalinist-whateverist countries ever claimed to be practicing communism, north korea totally ditched the entire concept of marxism from its constitution back in the 70s.

Don't forget all the Biological weapons.. :)
There are so many different weapons to choose from and so few countries with an official excuse to bomb. :D


Hmm... How about bombs filled with Roach feces? That can contain some nasty diseases.

only by people selling something. in addition to the fact that none of the marxist-leninist-stalinist-whateverist countries ever claimed to be practicing communism, north korea totally ditched the entire concept of marxism from its constitution back in the 70s.
Yeh. Practicing 'juche', or self-reliance: "autonomy in ideology, independence in politics, self-sufficiency in economy, and self-reliance in defense."
It's a whole other planet.

I thought that the conservatives were in power in France?

Did you know that, as a fruit, an 'Orange' is practically impossible?

You know why?

Because it is ROUND. And it is ORANGE. And it is FRUITY.

Can you believe that? I mean HOW ILLOGICAL is that? Round AND fruity AND orange!!! How could that be?


France can be 'conservative' (i.e. it can resist change), can be capitalistic (i.e. it can trade on capital), and it can be 'socialist' (i.e. it can follow a 'socialistic' agenda). None of those concepts NEED to be considered ONLY in their absolute, so NONE of those concepts require exclusivity... which makes me wonder why people keep assuming that they do?

Not really. He was essentially able to dehumanize the jews for the general populace and nobody really liked the Roma but the cross-married jews brought the argument into what was pretty much an individual basis. As in "Oh, well most jews might be evil but if these ones are married to christians then they can't be that bad" Thusly had he disposed of them there possibly would have been a nasty backlash among the general population. That's pretty much why he backed off and wouldn't touch it. The leftist authoritarian response is generally to crush any resistance and grind the populace down until they no longer object.

No - SOME Leftist authoritarian regimes have attempted to crush and grind the populace down... but that is likely to be more because of the 'authoritarian' than the 'leftist', don't you think?

What you have described is Hitler persecuting those it was EXPEDIENT to persecute, and allowing others relative comfort - at least until THEY became a problem/unnecessary/viable sacrifices.

I wouldn't paint Hitler as a populist, more a master of playing on the fundamental cowardice of large groups of people... the "I'm-alright, jack" mentality.

Did you know that, as a fruit, an 'Orange' is practically impossible?

You know why?

Because it is ROUND. And it is ORANGE. And it is FRUITY.

Can you believe that? I mean HOW ILLOGICAL is that? Round AND fruity AND orange!!! How could that be?
Okay, that was funny.
Good one.
:p

Okay, that was funny.
Good one.
:p

I maim to please. :)

Depends. The Soviet Union fell because it was a shitty, near-Totalitarian regime.

Red China's not too hot, either.

I'm farther left on Social issues than pretty much anybody, and I never back down from aything or any one.

Not to mention there were some pretty bloody massacres of the left by the right in China in the days leading up to the cultural revolution, and the left still persevered. Sure they had some pretty fucked up ideas on what constituted socialism, but they sure as hell gave it a good try.

Yeah, they did. But they really didn't have to go with such a bastardized system of Socialism.

At least the Chinese people are persevering. Just look at how their economy is booming --- I mean, wow. That fucking place is gonna be great in twenty years or so.

I dunno, it seems to me that lately the world has been turning there backs on capitilism, i think pretty soon, there might be another "left wing flare up," the best exaple i can give is Vennezula, more and more their becoming more friendly with castro and more and more socialist.......... i dunno i think we're just laying low until more people realise it's time for a change, which i'm pretty sure will come in this decade. but thats just me...... wat yea think?

Well, if you define capitalism as the system set forth by Adam Smith then that's not really a turn away from capitalism. Adam Smith said that whenever any economic entity gets so powerful that it is able to dominate trading conditions then it is the governments job to fight it. That's what Venezuela is doing with the IMF.

The IMF is not capitalism any more than having congress vote to abolish civil liberties is democracy.

The IMF is just being used as a tissue thin veil of legitimacy for powerful countries to control the trade of weaker ones. To tell it to go to hell is not really socialism.

Since the fall of the Soviet Union and the effective death of real Communism in China - and the effective marginalization of the Left in the United States, is there a long history of people on the Left "giving up"?

I've noticed a retreat of people on the Left from public discourse - and not just in this forum.

In an age when a copy of Das Capital is more likely to be a coffee table decoration in the home of someone who wishes they were trendy, is the Left dying out?
The simple answer is NO

http://literateshirts.com/proud-liberal-sm.png

Personally, I don't think that left wingers are for giving up, and to say that the decline of the Soviet Union and "Communism" in China is a major impetus for left wing retreat is to oversimplify not only the motivation of people on the left-end of the spectrum but the importance of those regimes to left-wingers.

Left wingers, like conservatives, are people who believe in ideas, not countries.

But anyway.

I think that the nature of the left wing is changing, to be sure. I spent a very short time as an ignorant cadre of a revolutionary leftist organisation, only to leave because I couldn't swallow the ideology 100% and was incapable of marching in-step with whom I assessed to be sleep-walking ideologues with no true concept of twenty-first century political realities.

The people that I ran with argued that the shadowy and ambiguous "system" was the very nurturer of economic oppression, but in reality, I cannot believe that one must overthrow democracy in order to institute democracy. It goes against common sense.

I confidently believe that most left-wing decision-makers are learning to be more politically saavy, especially in the developing world, taking the existing institutions and utilising them to the fullest extent that their citizen's rights allow.

A big reason for me quitting my association with those people was because they still believed in the old revolutionary fervour of the previous century, complete with rabble-rousing and overthrow of systems. They support politicians like Hugo Chavez and (to an extent) Lula, but what they forgot was that the only revolution of the masses that took place in those countries was, as was said by someone else here, the revolution in the voting booths across Venezuela and Brazil.

That fucking place is gonna be great in twenty years or so.

at least if you like the worst of stalinism combined with the worst of capitalism.

at least if you like the worst of stalinism combined with the worst of capitalism.

Sounds like my kinda TV.

I don't see why the author of this thread would be curious as to why the left-wing supposedly gives up easily. I'm quite certain he fumed with the rest of the right when Al Gore refused to concede the 2000 Election right away.

Besides the whole prelude argument being irrelevant, when faced with an army of people who believe they are correct and everyone else is wrong and are stubborn beyond reason, I would venture to guess the "leftists" pass out from lack of sleep from trying to argue points to people staring at them looking for horns.

I thought the whole idea of public discourse was to talk and discuss - not to somehow make people agree with you.

I'm sure that to some right wing people, you appear to be someone who is stubborn beyong reason (even though that may not be true), and they may be imagining that you're looking for the horns on their head.

I am just wondering why people like Zepp just give up.

I thought the whole idea of public discourse was to talk and discuss - not to somehow make people agree with you.

I'm sure that to some right wing people, you appear to be someone who is stubborn beyong reason (even though that may not be true), and they may be imagining that you're looking for the horns on their head.

I am just wondering why people like Zepp just give up.
It could be due to all of the right-wingers just sitting around bashing him and claiming America never does anything bad, ever. Discussion is fruitless and non-existant here: you want to start a topic about pros and cons of America, people will just end up yelling at each other, one side sitting around baselessly praising America or doing it based on imaginary, egotistical factors and bashing the "america haters" for either being "unpatriotic" or "stupid foreigners who don't matter" and the other side trying to point out cons based on things America is doing and trying to point out that you don't have to be "pro-every-fucking-thing-america-does" to be "patriotic" and that America's decisions affect the rest of the world too

It could be due to all of the right-wingers just sitting around bashing him and claiming America never does anything bad, ever. Discussion is fruitless and non-existant here: you want to start a topic about pros and cons of America, people will just end up yelling at each other, one side sitting around baselessly praising America or doing it based on imaginary, egotistical factors and bashing the "america haters" for either being "unpatriotic" or "stupid foreigners who don't matter" and the other side trying to point out cons based on things America is doing and trying to point out that you don't have to be "pro-every-fucking-thing-america-does" to be "patriotic" and that America's decisions affect the rest of the world too

Well, I don't say that the US never does anything bad. I do, however, think that what the US does is based in realpolitik - not in Christian theology.

Whether there are any pros or cons to that are another topic. I am, however, surprised that people find themselves surprised that the US has developed a unique capability over the years.

One of the salient lessons of Vietnam was that the US needed to be able to credibly project power - with little loss to its own troops - without using nuclear weapons. Prior to that, we thought people would back down if we threatened the use of nukes (even if we didn't say it out loud, the nukes were there). I call this the "lesson of Vietnam" - and it is different from the lesson that most people on the Left thought we learned. The lesson is that we should use technology and military tactics that enable the US to win against large conventional forces and small insurgencies - at will - with 1/10th the casualty rate or less that we used to suffer in previous wars. We should also make high rate military gains on the ground - and be able to subjugate virtually any nation on earth at will without the use of nuclear weapons.

This revolution has been coming - it wasn't a secret. It didn't suddenly become possible the moment that Bush was sworn in.

I offer no moral apology (or even a moral judgment) on that capability - its development or employment. Regardless of who the President is, sooner or later, that capability would have been employed. The US exercises its power in its own interests - just like every other nation on earth.

No other nation on earth has it. That doesn't make me a pro-American left-basher just because I'm pointing it out. Neither does it mean I'm baselessly praising America.

If I was to say that realpolitik is a more realistic and more successful approach to foreign policy, I'm sure there would be some idealistic people who would bash me for it, but I am not here to change their minds.

If I admire anything about US foreign policy today, I admire it's purity. The US is a survivor. And its actions are unclouded by conscience, remorse, or delusions of morality.

no

No, as a raving socalist my self i will fight untill my legs are off and my lungs are full of blood.

Hasta la victoria sempra!

decided that it isn't worth getting rabid about any issue... and so make their points, find themselves banging their heads against a wall, and go do something else instead?

That'd be it. I certainly have better things to do than argue my politics for hours on end on an internet forum where my opponent is as likely to refute me by quoting the bible as by calling me anti-American. I've got a job, see...

Since the fall of the Soviet Union and the effective death of real Communism in China - and the effective marginalization of the Left in the United States, is there a long history of people on the Left "giving up"?

I've noticed a retreat of people on the Left from public discourse - and not just in this forum.

In an age when a copy of Das Capital is more likely to be a coffee table decoration in the home of someone who wishes they were trendy, is the Left dying out?

I consider myself, in relation to some here, to be on the left of the political spectrum, however the Soviet Union and communism (anywhere in the world) had nothing to do with my politics or any relation to them.

I don't think that I'm giving up yet and don't have any intention of ever giving up, so maybe some are, but not me.

Maybe they aren't giving up, maybe they're just not bothering to enter into debates with people where you may as well be banging your head against a brick wall. I know I've not used this forum for long, but I do seem to get the impression that some don't ever listen or accept that their may be an alternative viewpoint which may be valid.

I have a new theory: We leftists have something called "a life" and therefore cannot spend 24 hours arguing politics on an internet forum with people who won't change their minds anyway. We'd rather talk to people who could change their minds.

I have a new theory: We leftists have something called "a life" and therefore cannot spend 24 hours arguing politics on an internet forum with people who won't change their minds anyway. We'd rather talk to people who could change their minds.
hey i take offense at that. i'm leftist and i don't have a life thank you very much :mad: