NationStates Jolt Archive

It will not do to deny one side or the other, to say that one is false and the other true. A true solution is only possible by rising above the level of the two antagonistic principles and taking them both up to the level of a higher conception, in which both opposites are reconciled.

All thought, all reason, contains immanent contradictions which it first posits and then reconciles in a higher unity, and this particular contradiction of infinite divisibility is reconciled in the higher notion of quantity. The notion of quantity contains two factors, namely the one and the many. Quantity means precisely a many in one, or a one in many. If, for example, we consider a quantity of anything, say a heap of wheat, this is, in the first place, one; it is one whole. Secondly, it is many, for it is composed of many parts. As one it is continuous; as many it is discrete. Now the true notion of quantity is not one, apart form many, nor many apart from one. It is the synthesis of both. It is a many in one. The antinomy we are considering arises from considering one side of the truth in a false abstraction from the other. To conceive unity as not being in itself multiplicity, or multiplicity as not being unity, is a false abstraction. The thought of the one involves the thought of the many, and the thought of the many involves the thought of the one. You cannot have a many without a one, any more than you can have one end of a stick without the other.

Stop hitting each other with your end of the stick and you might find that you can stick together better than what you thought.

I'm far-left because total economic "liberty" harms the true liberties of the people. It's ridiculous.

Yes, but with one wing you can go round and round in circles, which is what most politicans do. :)

I'm far-left because total economic "liberty" harms the true liberties of the people. It's ridiculous.


Socialist central planning by the government destroys the essential tool — competitively formed market prices — by which people in a society make rational economic decisions.

Both extremes take away liberties for the one and the many my friend. Simply that, while we are currently emphasizing one extreme, you call for the other to be fixated upon to cause a nulling effect of certain points in society you don't wish to be dominant. But that process can not last indefinately because the same imblanace will occur at some point, only at the opposite end of the spectrum.

Posting a thread like this is like painting "Push Me" on the Big Red Button of a nuke.

Left or right, we sometimes have to agree to differ.

Ah, but you can fly on a wing and a prayer ;) :D :D

However, it is indelibly true that our personal sentiments pertinent to political inclination are what dictate the political arena in a democratic state, since the very presence of a myraid of possible leaders is the inherent democratic principle. A true union of political, or ideological, concepts, whilst harmonious, would simply constitute mediocrity incarnate, an unwillingness to accept that only through conflict, argument and discussion can rationality be procured. Admittedly, a fractitious and divisive political establishment inexorably neglects various, and alternate, social classes, however, mediocrity detracts from all.

Socialist central planning by the government destroys the essential tool — competitively formed market prices — by which people in a society make rational economic decisions.

Both extremes take away liberties for the one and the many my friend. Simply that, while we are currently emphasizing one extreme, you call for the other to be fixated upon to cause a nulling effect of certain points in society you don't wish to be dominant. But that process can not last indefinately because the same imblanace will occur at some point, only at the opposite end of the spectrum.

The fuck? No.

A competetive market is only an "essential tool" in a Capitalist society. You don't know what you're talking about.

I bet you think Communism is exactly like that which was used by the U.S.S.R.

Define socialism.

Define capitalism.

Define communism.

I'd bet my bottom dollar that everyone has a different definition. And with no common ground and understanding, how can anyone have a reasonable argument about either?

The fuck? No.

A competetive market is only an "essential tool" in a Capitalist society. You don't know what you're talking about.

I bet you think Communism is exactly like that which was used by the U.S.S.R.

I might be misguided here, and I implore you to correct me if I am, howvere, I was somewhat under the impression that the uSSr was founded upon inherently and purely Marxist principles?

If you had these two wings, they'd both pull in different directions and youd fall and die. Think about it...

I'd bet my bottom dollar that everyone has a different definition. And with no common ground and understanding, how can anyone have a reasonable argument about either?

It doesn't matter what the definition is, what matters is how the ideas turned out in the real world. Capitalism works, and communism has proven itself to be a monumental failure when they tried to put it in to practice. So, for the real world, the definition of communism as the USSR/China/North Korea is what is the most correct, because that is what actually happened.

I might be misguided here, and I implore you to correct me if I am, howvere, I was somewhat under the impression that the uSSr was founded upon inherently and purely Marxist principles?

It may have been what it was founded upon, but it sure as hell wasn't what they practiced.

Socialism, capitalism, anarchy, fascism. They're all terrible if used on their own. I have to say, I'm a boring moderate with occasional fascist moments (which do pass), and moderately socialist leanings (which mean I fly east :D ).

I'm far-left because total economic "liberty" harms the true liberties of the people. It's ridiculous.

Did you even bother to read the original post?

A lot of people consider themselves above the spectrum. Me? I'm a Republican/liberatarian hybrid (I believe Reagan and Barry Goldwater were ones). Many prominent liberatarians, like William Niskanen, consider themselves above the spectrum. I consider myself a part of it. I want to radically alter society, but with elements we have today. Put them together, and I am "centrist" :p .

It may have been what it was founded upon, but it sure as hell wasn't what they practiced.

Is anybody actually acapble of defining what the soviet Union practiced?

However, it is indelibly true that our personal sentiments pertinent to political inclination are what dictate the political arena in a democratic state, since the very presence of a myraid of possible leaders is the inherent democratic principle. A true union of political, or ideological, concepts, whilst harmonious, would simply constitute mediocrity incarnate, an unwillingness to accept that only through conflict, argument and discussion can rationality be procured. Admittedly, a fractitious and divisive political establishment inexorably neglects various, and alternate, social classes, however, mediocrity detracts from all.

This is a first, but I agree with you here. In a perfect world maybe we could find some kind of synthesis of left and right with all the positive aspects of both, but in the world we've got it's the conflict between the two that challenge our ideas and let them evolve. The problem is that most of our democracies are pretty stagnant and don't have healthy debates over this kind of thing. Most seem to be two-party systems where both parties agree on almost everything but hide this with loud debates over a couple of minor issues. Proportional representation is a step in the right direction.

It may have been what it was founded upon, but it sure as hell wasn't what they practiced.

That's the problem; how are you going to guarantee that when you institue Communism it will be practiced the same it is preached? So far every attempt at this "perfect theory" has ended in total failure at the cost of millions of lives.

Is anybody actually acapble of defining what the soviet Union practiced?
State Capitalism?

I agree, for the record, with Potaria. The Statement that Free Market = Free People is absolutely stupid and incorrect. I bet the people on the bottom don't think it's free that there's a bunch of people richer than them for no real good reason (often the case in highly capitalistic or religious societies)

But in reply to the original post, the fight between the Right and the Left will always continue. It will never end. The Right may have "won" the Cold War, but that doesn't mean communism is over and done with, because Communism and Bolshevism and all things revolutionary all start from the bottom up by their nature. This, along with religion, is a war that will never end. So, while Karl Marx or Friedriech Engels never even took control of a country, they are the ultimate warmongers in the history of the world.

I'm neither really. I think for myself and do what's right depending on the situation. I don't give a damn about Conservatives or Liberals...Republicans or Democrats. They are both full of corrupt politicians just trying to line their pockets and don't give a damn about the people.

I disagree with right-wing views on both economic and on personal issues. Sorry, but I don't compromise. :p

I disagree with right-wing views on both economic and on personal issues. Sorry, but I don't compromise. :p

However, right wing politics engender the prospeity to facilitate a more extensive welfare state in concurrance to satiating the necessities of the more affluent, whereas left wing economic policied inexorably induce economic collapse.

However, right wing politics engender the prospeity to facilitate a more extensive welfare state in concurrance to satiating the necessities of the more affluent, whereas left wing economic policied inexorably induce economic collapse.
Depends on timescales. Besides, we all seem to assume ceteris paribus, which is nonsensical.

However, right wing politics engender the prospeity to facilitate a more extensive welfare state in concurrance to satiating the necessities of the more affluent, whereas left wing economic policied inexorably induce economic collapse.
Yep, collapsing just like China is now. Hold on a sec, China's booming. Whoopsies.

Yep, collapsing just like China is now. Hold on a sec, China's booming. Whoopsies.

However, relatively few, if any nations, possess the extensive workforce that the Chinese do.

Yep, collapsing just like China is now. Hold on a sec, China's booming. Whoopsies.

No, a very small portion of the population is benefitting while the rural areas suffer with 25% unemployment, a badly imbalanced and aging population, and brutal economic inequality that is due to the government's mismanagement of the economic development of the country. Don't forget that the government has no experience running the economy and they have no way of keeping inflation under control. China's economy is booming only for those who were already well off and educated. There's no opportunity for the poor, and they don't benefit from it.

No, a very small portion of the population is benefitting while the rural areas suffer with 25% unemployment, a badly imbalanced and aging population, and brutal economic inequality that is due to the government's mismanagement of the economic development of the country. Don't forget that the government has no experience running the economy and they have no way of keeping inflation under control. China's economy is booming only for those who were already well off and educated. There's no opportunity for the poor, and they don't benefit from it.
I agree. And I'm a rampaging lefty.

However, right wing politics engender the prospeity to facilitate a more extensive welfare state in concurrance to satiating the necessities of the more affluent, whereas left wing economic policied inexorably induce economic collapse.

You're half right. Capitalism is needed to establish prosperity, but it does not give a fair system (as you imply - name me some right-wingers in favor of a strong welfare state, would you?). It serves simply as an adequate developmental model.

Socialism, on the other hand, has never been tried on a large scale in the true sense (via. empowering workers as the goal has always been), so it is impossible to argue that socialism "inexorably induces economic collapse".

No, a very small portion of the population is benefitting while the rural areas suffer with 25% unemployment, a badly imbalanced and aging population, and brutal economic inequality that is due to the government's mismanagement of the economic development of the country. Don't forget that the government has no experience running the economy and they have no way of keeping inflation under control. China's economy is booming only for those who were already well off and educated. There's no opportunity for the poor, and they don't benefit from it.

That's because China's economy is more prevalent in the urban areas with urban development, factories, shipbuilding, etc etc. It's obvious that in a country like China the ones that are closest to jobs are going to be the ones that *have* jobs. I'd like to see figures for China's employment *urban* rates. Clearly it's impossible to have just the working class, a small group of educated people is needed to keep things running properly. Of course, they have no way of knowing how to run a country because when the original Communist Party government was set in place, the world had changed completely. China's just learning. It'll be interesting to see what it's like in 30 years when China will dominate the world's economy alongside India. At that point their government will have a choice - become truly Socialist and provide better Education, Healthcare, and Military Service to their people, or they'll just fuck it up. It's something i can't wait to see.

It never will cease to amaze me that people act as if they believe the very things which they consciously lie about. I.E.: Right-wingers can argue on the side of liberty (or freedom, whatever the differnce is) but the very being of conservatisms is skeptical about the possibilites of happiness (and any other subtle notion) being the same for all individuals. Or even remotely objective.
They are probably right, don't get me wrong. But all policies knew (and still know) how to be the wolf in sheep's clothing. Liberatarians are libertarians for the sake of privilege and unilateral efficiencies, not for the noble (or even "noble") idea of liberty.
I'm by no means a Marxist, but one thing of what he said still has a ring to it:
"philosophers have argued about what the world is, the point, however, would be to change the world".

That's because China's economy is more prevalent in the urban areas with urban development, factories, shipbuilding, etc etc. It's obvious that in a country like China the ones that are closest to jobs are going to be the ones that *have* jobs. I'd like to see figures for China's employment *urban* rates. Clearly it's impossible to have just the working class, a small group of educated people is needed to keep things running properly. Of course, they have no way of knowing how to run a country because when the original Communist Party government was set in place, the world had changed completely. China's just learning. It'll be interesting to see what it's like in 30 years when China will dominate the world's economy alongside India. At that point their government will have a choice - become truly Socialist and provide better Education, Healthcare, and Military Service to their people, or they'll just fuck it up. It's something i can't wait to see.

It's almost impossible to calculate Chinese unemployment because the government statistics are unbeliveably padded to make the regime look good (unlike the US or UK, where they try to keep them accurate, although there are always some distortions); the Economist believes they are as high as 10%. The US headline rate is 4.9%, and the more inclusive rate (with several classes of other unemployment factored in) is only 5.7%.

If China modernizes and makes itself a true market economy with a multiparty democratic government, it will thrive with real gains rather than inflated statistics and paper wealth. They need to get rid of the outdated quasi-Communism and liberalize. They will become a modern, well developed nation and equally influential as the G8 and close to the US. If they keep the present course, they will collapse. However, with 1.3 billion people and a huge landmass, socialism will be a bureaucratic disaster unless they design it very carefully and keep constant pressure on curbing bureaucracy.

However, right wing politics engender the prospeity to facilitate a more extensive welfare state in concurrance to satiating the necessities of the more affluent, whereas left wing economic policied inexorably induce economic collapse.
This is true. Sadly, right wing governments, while pursuing their (generally) sensible economic policies want to keep check of people at the same time. One of the better ways of running a country would be with right wing economic ideals and a more Liberal (please note the capital 'L') approach to social policy. Politicians never seem able to reconcile these two things, as to them, strict economic policy goes hand in hand with strict social policy, and, on the other side of the coin, a liberal economic policy goes hand in hand with liberal social policy. The public always wants the best of both worlds, the politicians always want to stay in power. How do they do that? Go for where the publics' heart lies - their wallets. If you can keep the public wealthy enough, they really don't give a damn about their personal freedoms. A man is happier rich and captive than poor and free.

A man is happier rich and captive than poor and free.

Not me.

Honestly, I don't know why China is a topic in this debate. It is bizarre by any account: it PARTLY preserves a failing system that is based on an INTERPRETATION of an INTERPRETATION of an INTERPRETATION of Marxism (Deng to Mao to Lenin to Marx). Ultimately, the failures of its association with the market economy have it resembling the Victorian age more than anything, and are what's on offer with globalisation as the rule: it could be argued that the disparities in a "developing" economy are going to show up in the "developed" world (if it's not happening already). Paradoxically, this would tend to give reason to another Marxist interpretation, one that is more orthodox (considering that it was Lenin and his followers, not Marx, who argued for the "need" for things to change, as opposed to change "occuring"). According to this, everything about the class struggle or whatever would apply now more than ever: all history between cca. 1917 and now would've been a minor delay.

"Captive" and "Free" are pretty subjective. Of course, being poor is in itself a loss of freedom, which is why economic freedom has turned out to be as viable in real life as communism. Both are theoretically possible but just don't happen in practice.

"Captive" and "Free" are pretty subjective. Of course, being poor is in itself a loss of freedom, which is why economic freedom has turned out to be as viable in real life as communism. Both are theoretically possible but just don't happen in practice.

Then, why not let the state handle sections of the economy with a management that would ensure something for most (if not everybody)? I see this as a pragmatical aknowledgement, not as daydreaming. Especially when the state is legitimate (and, by God! any democracy is, even if capital may argue against it).
What is the issue here? That we might lose something we are not sure of ever having? Especially, when we might have it already, and could keep it forever (given that it is not of anybody's to give)?
Sartre said: "We were never freer than under German occupation". I don't think he meant that the Germans gave France political liberties, so it just goes to stress the subjective in the idea. Even more so, when you could (or can) find few who agree with this.

Anarchy and Herblore is completely correct. There are more political ideologies than liberals and conservatives and you can agree with things liberals think is correct and things conservatives think is correct at the same time.

Some dude noticed a mild correlation with certrain liberties concerning liberalism and conservatism. He said liberals like social freedom and economic restrictions and that conservatives like social restrictions and economic freedom. This is of course completely full of holes, restrictions could range from laws which ensure one person has all the money or everyone getting paid the same. You could for instance have a government which gives everyone's parents baby tokens when they are born, toddler tokens when they are 2, primary school tokens whn they are 5, secondary school tokens when they are 12, college tokens when they are 16 if they do well in high school. Before finally giving them a sum of money when they are 18 aswell as necessity tokens for the rest of their life to ensure they never get into poverty. Or something, but allow the person to make as much money as they like and spend it as they deserve for all their hard work.

What is that? Liberalism? Conservatism? A mixture of both? Neither? You can look at it like that if you want, or you can just look at it rationally and it's ACTUAL existant properties.

I'm in favour of the government interfering with the market when the market doesn't produce a desirable outcome. I can't stand the idea that whatever outcome the market produces is automatically the best one, this just seems like blind faith to me.

What is that? Liberalism? Conservatism? A mixture of both? Neither? You can look at it like that if you want, or you can just look at it rationally and it's ACTUAL existant properties.

Today, it will have to pass for socialism, I guess.

Not me.

I am.

when the market doesn't produce a desirable outcome

Hm. Desirable for whom?

Anarchy and Herblore is completely correct. There are more political ideologies than liberals and conservatives and you can agree with things liberals think is correct and things conservatives think is correct at the same time.

Some dude noticed a mild correlation with certrain liberties concerning liberalism and conservatism. He said liberals like social freedom and economic restrictions and that conservatives like social restrictions and economic freedom. This is of course completely full of holes, restrictions could range from laws which ensure one person has all the money or everyone getting paid the same. You could for instance have a government which gives everyone's parents baby tokens when they are born, toddler tokens when they are 2, primary school tokens whn they are 5, secondary school tokens when they are 12, college tokens when they are 16 if they do well in high school. Before finally giving them a sum of money when they are 18 aswell as necessity tokens for the rest of their life to ensure they never get into poverty. Or something, but allow the person to make as much money as they like and spend it as they deserve for all their hard work.

What is that? Liberalism? Conservatism? A mixture of both? Neither? You can look at it like that if you want, or you can just look at it rationally and it's ACTUAL existant properties.

I agree, I think the political debates in most countries are pathetic and limit everyone's perception to the current situation, give or take a few minor differences. The labels "liberal" and "conservative" in the US just confine the debate and lump certain beliefs together.

Define socialism.

Define capitalism.

Define communism.

I'd bet my bottom dollar that everyone has a different definition. And with no common ground and understanding, how can anyone have a reasonable argument about either?
What always amuses me is that capitalists define their ideology in its most ideal terms, while describing socialist theory in the worst terms, as it was implemented in the USSR.

Similarly, socialists do the same thing.

This is a first, but I agree with you here. In a perfect world maybe we could find some kind of synthesis of left and right with all the positive aspects of both, but in the world we've got it's the conflict between the two that challenge our ideas and let them evolve.
Sweden seems to have nailed it. Their system has the best of both systems.

A lot of people consider themselves above the spectrum. Me? I'm a Republican/liberatarian hybrid (I believe Reagan and Barry Goldwater were ones). Many prominent liberatarians, like William Niskanen, consider themselves above the spectrum. I consider myself a part of it. I want to radically alter society, but with elements we have today. Put them together, and I am "centrist" :p .
Libertarians are capitalists, thus right-wing. Reagan was not a libertarian, because he was so anti-drugs.

Yep, collapsing just like China is now. Hold on a sec, China's booming. Whoopsies.
China is ultra-capitalist.

Hm. Desirable for whom?

That is a good point, and that's what democracy is for. I don't think our economic system has kept up with democracy, in that democracy values equal rights for everyone no matter who their parents are, while economically we allow high degrees of privelege and disadvantage.

That is a good point, and that's what democracy is for. I don't think our economic system has kept up with democracy, in that democracy values equal rights for everyone no matter who their parents are, while economically we allow high degrees of privelege and disadvantage.

Equal rights (or, even, equalish - which is still considerable) cover many areas, and a democracy can go a long way in ensurig most of them, so I guess we agree on this.
However, state management as a rule is not a danger to liberties. My point was that it shouldn't be thought of as a mere crisis solution (if you think about it, my argument is closer to Keynes than to Lenin: Lenin applied state control - and an idiotic one - only throught the civil war, and it was "redeemed" only with Stalin). The argument of it being "inefficient" is mostly unilateral, and it always finds examples in the former Soviet block (incidentally, I am aware of what happened here, as well - i'm Romanian). There are thoroughly differen examples in Scandinavia - or at least, there used to be.
State control is not a fringe, and it comes natural (though, I admit, it shouldn't be total) in countries that percieve taxes as rent and wealth as privilege. No, not Cuba and China. Rather France and Canada.
I could argue against these countries as well, on some issues. But I wouldn't give it a thought to speak of what a Libertarian would call "inefficiency".

I believe this thread is derailing because of misunderstandings.
Left/right is relative to where you leave (left is progressive and right is conservative).
Liberal/Republican is the left/right in the USA -very close to each other, if not similar.
Capitalism/Communism - Communism is an evolution of capitalism, through the path of socialism. You can't really oppose the two. Communists don't believe capitalism is bad. Capitalists are the higher class of a capitalist society. What they think is irrelevant.

Equal rights (or, even, equalish - which is still considerable) cover many areas, and a democracy can go a long way in ensurig most of them, so I guess we agree on this.
However, state management as a rule is not a danger to liberties. My point was that it shouldn't be thought of as a mere crisis solution (if you think about it, my argument is closer to Keynes than to Lenin: Lenin applied state control - and an idiotic one - only throught the civil war, and it was "redeemed" only with Stalin). The argument of it being "inefficient" is mostly unilateral, and it always finds examples in the former Soviet block (incidentally, I am aware of what happened here, as well - i'm Romanian). There are thoroughly differen examples in Scandinavia - or at least, there used to be.
State control is not a fringe, and it comes natural (though, I admit, it shouldn't be total) in countries that percieve taxes as rent and wealth as privilege. No, not Cuba and China. Rather France and Canada.
I could argue against these countries as well, on some issues. But I wouldn't give it a thought to speak of what a Libertarian would call "inefficiency".

I don't think "control" is really the right word, that suggests fully planned economies and state monopolies. I agree with Keynesian economics too, and don't see the problem with the state regulating the market, such as laws against pollution, unfair labour etc. Efficiency is generally good, but should not be the main measure of an economy.

I'm disappointed in you all. You're thinking in terms of left-right. I thought you knew better. :rolleyes:

I'm disappointed in you all. You're thinking in terms of left-right. I thought you knew better. :rolleyes:

Well, would you care to explain it in different terms?

Well, would you care to explain it in different terms?
Somethings, such as politics, cannot be explained simply by saying, "Gar, this is left!", or "Gar, this is right!". If people don't understand politics, then don't dumb it down for them to where it's represented by a left-right scale.

humans are more socialist than individualist (which can be converted into capitalism) Its evolutionary. If it was the reverse tribal cohesion would fall apart and we would be picked off by saber tooth tigers

I think society like a pendulum swings between the extremes of left and right but ultimately towards the left. In europe, which I think is the most advanced seat of civilization at the moment, hence why im using it as an example, there were less civil rights and lower living standards especially among the poor 200 years ago than there is now. The social nature of humans slightly over rides their selfishness. I think technology has a large role to play in the socialization of societies. Im sure that 19th century parlimentarians in Britain would consider their country to be at this moment a home for bolshevists.

The main threats to this progress are natural disasters and war. But ultimately if allowed to continue systems unnatainable now like communism and from that anarchism will be rendered as workable models.

Capitalism is fundamentally self destructive. Its already tearing apart the social fabric by virtue of its nature. Communism was never really implemented. In the first few weeks of the russian revolution it was crushed out of existence.

Somethings, such as politics, cannot be explained simply by saying, "Gar, this is left!", or "Gar, this is right!". If people don't understand politics, then don't dumb it down for them to where it's represented by a left-right scale.

Well, OK. I don't really see how we were being that simplistic...

I don't think "control" is really the right word, that suggests fully planned economies and state monopolies. I agree with Keynesian economics too, and don't see the problem with the state regulating the market, such as laws against pollution, unfair labour etc. Efficiency is generally good, but should not be the main measure of an economy.

I was trying to beyond euphemisms, that is why I chose to say "control" (instead of "management"?).
I do not see an evil in state-controled health-care. It is not vital statistics to me that, through private ownership, somebody's health improved (we will not look at the amassing of people who's health failed to - probably, not a universal occurence, but one looking, from where I stand, as a more frequent one).
I do not see an evil in the state exercising control over domains of general interest (no matter how hard to define these seem to be, you can do more wrong in not defining them at all).
What I do see an evil in (and also, am amazed at, since it is a huge paradox) is businesses that hold the state at ransom. It happens more and more, and it is done in defiance of democracy - since it establishes a system parallel to laws and regulations presented to the public, and is always beyond control. In the US, it goes as lobbying, on the principle that anybody can do it. Yeah, right. Even if it were so (and it isn't: the reason for it being frowned upon almost anywhere else in the world), it is not something that has stood a vote.
People were denied the required transparency - the system will encourage dettachement.

humans are more socialist than individualist (which can be converted into capitalism) Its evolutionary. If it was the reverse tribal cohesion would fall apart and we would be picked off by saber tooth tigers

I think society like a pendulum swings between the extremes of left and right but ultimately towards the left. In europe, which I think is the most advanced seat of civilization at the moment, hence why im using it as an example, there were less civil rights and lower living standards especially among the poor 200 years ago than there is now. The social nature of humans slightly over rides their selfishness. I think technology has a large role to play in the socialization of societies. Im sure that 19th century parlimentarians in Britain would consider their country to be at this moment a home for bolshevists.

The main threats to this progress are natural disasters and war. But ultimately if allowed to continue systems unnatainable now like communism and from that anarchism will be rendered as workable models.

Capitalism is fundamentally self destructive. Its already tearing apart the social fabric by virtue of its nature. Communism was never really implemented. In the first few weeks of the russian revolution it was crushed out of existence.

Interesting analasys. But how can technology developed by capitalists naturally lead to socilisation of society?

I personally believe that society is naturally neither left nor right. Most people just go with the flow! :p

humans are more socialist than individualist (which can be converted into capitalism) Its evolutionary. If it was the reverse tribal cohesion would fall apart and we would be picked off by saber tooth tigers

I think society like a pendulum swings between the extremes of left and right but ultimately towards the left. In europe, which I think is the most advanced seat of civilization at the moment, hence why im using it as an example, there were less civil rights and lower living standards especially among the poor 200 years ago than there is now. The social nature of humans slightly over rides their selfishness. I think technology has a large role to play in the socialization of societies. Im sure that 19th century parlimentarians in Britain would consider their country to be at this moment a home for bolshevists.

The main threats to this progress are natural disasters and war. But ultimately if allowed to continue systems unnatainable now like communism and from that anarchism will be rendered as workable models.

Capitalism is fundamentally self destructive. Its already tearing apart the social fabric by virtue of its nature. Communism was never really implemented. In the first few weeks of the russian revolution it was crushed out of existence.
Please, read my past posts.

Why are you left-wing or right-wing? You need two wings to fly.

Official Keruvalia Award for Cheesiest Title Ever.

The "left-right" spectrum is... To old! and it's was overtake by many factor.

1. The left right design 2 spectrum fussioned in one: Open vs Clossely, Pro-Social vs Pro-marked.
2. It's don't define the power of authority axe's.
3. It's don't define the pragmatism axe's (pramatic/idealistic).
4. It's don't define anything in the moral order.

I agree with the difficulty in defining right and left (even beyond "depends on where you were born", and all the way to "depends on what your country was doing in the last 2 centuries"). That is why I would like them to stick around, given that they are starting points. We can each be precise about what we think they mean, and don't become absurd while doing it.

Official Keruvalia Award for Cheesiest Title Ever.
Ah, it is cheesy, but not too bad XD
Methinks the wings decided to rip the bird into halves!

O.k:
So i'm moderatly "left", but it's don't give all the dimension about political think...

I'm left because i'm an anti-war because war is a double lossing think.

1. economicly... A country destrcted be a war can't be as so good as is would like to be.
2. Socialist: It's destruc familly.

But i belive in both, socialisme value and the think of the free-market.