NationStates Jolt Archive

I think its time for another big socialist thread. This time, though, I want to examine all of the different strains of leftist ideology, based on the opinions of both allies and adherants as well as opponents. Please no flaming, I would like to keep the discussion civil and enlightening.

I'll start off by listing various left ideologies and what I personally think about them right now.

Socialism
As a broad category, all left ideologies either fit under socialism or are heavily influenced by socialism. Thus, I can't really say much about just socialism
Anarchism
Personally, I think that it is the only real way to acheive freedom and equality as well as end oppression
Marxism
Not a big fan. Really a very broad category that has many subsets.
Democratic socialism
Used to be an adherant, but now I think that it is tends towards hopeless reformism. Some strains, particularly Socialist Party USA, are much more revolutionaryily oriented.
Left communism
I personally like it. It's very close to Anarchism/Libertarian socialism, and puts some of Marx's better critiques and insights to good use.
Libertarian socialism
Very similar to anarchy. I like it
Post-left anarchy
Strange ideology that tries to get leftism without actually being leftist
Social democracy
I think that it is hopeless reformist, but it is better than nothing.
SyndicalismReally more of a method than an ideology. Still, a very valid point of view.

Wait a minute, socialism is for right wingers too, thats what nazis and fascists are, right wing socialists.

Wait a minute, socialism is for right wingers too, thats what nazis and fascists are, right wing socialists.

That is a contradiction in terms. Though it is tempting to call them right-wing socialists, they are more of corporatist statists who co-opted some of socialist ideology and terminology in a pick-and-choose manner to give some mass appeal to their totalitarian ideologies.

Wait a minute, socialism is for right wingers too, thats what nazis and fascists are, right wing socialists.

In much the same way as North Korea is democratic...

Anarchism can be right-wing, too.

Aww, man... screw this, I'm going back to doctoring comic books.

Wait a minute, here in Sweden we've had Social democrats in charge for atleast 80 years with only a few breaks, and it's done wonders, and whenever the right wing gets in charge the whole country gets screwed up again, the ideology of social democrats is for everybody to have equal rights to become whatever they want to, equal right to hospitals, education, not at all an oppresion or anything, I'm a liberal social democrat, and most of what social democrats believe is that people have a free will, i could see them do a few changes though.
Read up?

I would be considered left wing, but I am neither a Marxist, Communist, Socialist or Anarchist so there. :P I am like a raw egg in yo hands and you can't deal with me nigga.

Anarchism can be right-wing, too.
While so called anarcho-capitalists oppose a central government, they're rather accomodating towards other forms of heirarchical power relationships. I believe the primary end result of such a system would be to open new avenues for exploitation, tyranny and corruption, so I really have to doubt their sincerity when it comes to critiquing authoritarianism.

While so called anarcho-capitalists oppose a central government, they're rather accomodating towards other forms of heirarchical power relationships. I believe the primary end result of such a system would be to open new avenues for exploitation, tyranny and corruption, so I really have to doubt their sincerity when it comes to critiquing authoritarianism.

That's true. That said, I'm no anarcho-capitalist.

I'm all for Libertarian socialism.

I don't think Social Democracy should be classified as hopeless, it more refers to less radical social changes within an established pluralist democracy. In case point, Scandinavian state welfare socialism takes place within an immensely wealthy state with high taxes, but lots of welfare and social support. I support this mostly because there is, I think alot of things Marx did not predict about the future.

I am skeptical also about democracy and socialism, mainly because pro-business reactionaries can hijack the system and abolish state welfare. For this reason I do not advocate authoritarianism so much as the socialist policies being constitutionally established and put in stone for good.

It needs to be established that helping the poor, dislocated and marginalized of society is not controversial, and that national control of assets is best so that greedy exploitive firms at home and abroad cannot rob the people. In short there needs to be unassailable safeguards for social support within the mainframe of the state.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scandinavian_welfare_model
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swedish_welfare
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Model

I had a big post on this other NSG communist thread which I set out my idea for socialist transition etc, I will try and find it shortly.

I think its time for another big socialist thread. This time, though, I want to examine all of the different strains of leftist ideology, based on the opinions of both allies and adherants as well as opponents. Please no flaming, I would like to keep the discussion civil and enlightening.

I'll start off by listing various left ideologies and what I personally think about them right now.I'm not clear on what it is you wish to debate, but I guess I'll have a go at it.

Socialism
As a broad category, all left ideologies either fit under socialism or are heavily influenced by socialism. Thus, I can't really say much about just socialismIn this day & age, socialism is more a set of moral principles than a set of political theories.

Anarchism
Personally, I think that it is the only real way to acheive freedom and equality as well as end oppression Anarchism is an umbrella term for any socio-political theory opposing the concept of a state.Marxism
Not a big fan. Really a very broad category that has many subsets.
Left communism
I personally like it. It's very close to Anarchism/Libertarian socialism, and puts some of Marx's better critiques and insights to good use.The Commie Left is supposed to be Marxism. t least traditionally. However, Marxism & Commie Leftism seems to cover anything from traditional Libertarian Socialism, to actual Marxism.
I'm personally opposed to Marxism because the theory seems to hold that by creating a state of extreme inequality, equality will be achieved. Libertarian socialism
Very similar to anarchy. I like it Not just very similar. It's the same damn thing. Libertarian Socialism is non-rightwing anarchism.Post-left anarchy
Strange ideology that tries to get leftism without actually being leftistHeh. No, Post-Lefties seek to break away from the so far ineffective political strategies of the left. It's about pre-anarchy activities.Social democracy
I think that it is hopeless reformist, but it is better than nothing. I prefer nothing. Social democracy maintains inequal power relations, most notably mercantilism. Objectively that shit kills more people than anything else on the planet these days, so calling it "better than" whatever, implies a - to me - damn strange yardstick.SyndicalismReally more of a method than an ideology. Still, a very valid point of view.Bare bones syndicalism is a non-hierarchal organisational form. Normally though, it refers to a socio-political theory for maintaining a functional anarchy.

A-Capitalism
Holds that capitalism, and by extension, resource ownership, isn't based on inequal powerrelations, and thus is the only mechanism needed to maintain an equal society. I think...

I've never quite understood how Anarcho-communists plan on abolishing private property without the use of organised tyranny (read government). Seeing as anarchy is simply the ultimate free market, and seeing as there will always be scarcity of certain goods, commodities, and services, how will they prevent private property from occurring?

It seems to me that you very quickly reach a cross roads with anarcho-communism, one road leads to anarchy, the other leads to communism.

Socialism
As a broad category, all left ideologies either fit under socialism or are heavily influenced by socialism. Thus, I can't really say much about just socialism


I don't think so.
Imo, socialism can be splitted in two major groups: "utopian" socialism (Proudhon) and scientifical socialism (Marx). The first comes directly from the Age of Enlightenment and French revolution, while the latter comes from the left-wing Hegel school.
Anyway, any kind of socialism focuses about better average living standards.


Anarchism
Personally, I think that it is the only real way to acheive freedom and equality as well as end oppression

It depends. "Left-wing" anarchy is usually defined as the total absence of any kind of law, leading to a rule-by-force imo. "Right-wing" anarchy (Bakunin) is a different sort of thing - it is supposed to be a society that has no need for laws and government, because of extremely high moral and ethical standards - and high economical and political consciousness - imbued in ANY person living in the society. I agree that it would be great, but I'm not that optimist about mankind - I think that a "right-wing" anarchy is the ultimate utopia. By the way, I always wondered why (at least here in Italy) this kind of anarchy is "right-wing". Shouldn't it be the other way?
By the way, many communists (including myself) see "right-wing" anarchy as the social organisation that is bound to follow communism in the dialectical developement of the progress of human society. Socialism (the State acting as organising body of large-scale production and politics), then communism (the State organising large-scale production only, census classes losing any difference in political power), then anarchy (no State needed anymore).


Marxism
Not a big fan. Really a very broad category that has many subsets.

Marxism isn't a government system - it is a philosophical/sociological theory, looking at the dialectical (in the meaning of Hegel) developement of the intercourse (economical and political) between different classes as the main key to a scientifical analysis of society. Karl Marx developed the communist movement from such analysis, but the marxist theory can be applied to analyse any society - and I'm sure that the average social philosopher is able to use it to prove a lot of other political/economical systems as valid.


Democratic socialism
Used to be an adherant, but now I think that it is tends towards hopeless reformism. Some strains, particularly Socialist Party USA, are much more revolutionaryily oriented.

Well, socialism IS about democracy. Removing the political power coming from the differences between census classes (the bourgoisie system) and birth/force (the aristocratical system).


Left communism
I personally like it. It's very close to Anarchism/Libertarian socialism, and puts some of Marx's better critiques and insights to good use.

Uh... define "left-" and "right-" -wing communism... I think I agree with you, but some more explanation needed.


Libertarian socialism
Very similar to anarchy. I like it

What is the difference between libertarian socialism and democratic socialism? Explain, please.


Post-left anarchy
Strange ideology that tries to get leftism without actually being leftist

Uh? What's that?


Social democracy
I think that it is hopeless reformist, but it is better than nothing.

If by social democracy you mean Sweden for example, I think that is not hopeless - look at the economy and at the rights of the citizens. Not my ideal system, but very good in comparison to the rest of the world.


SyndicalismReally more of a method than an ideology. Still, a very valid point of view.
Large syndicates (worker unions) are needed in any kind of democracy that has major private economical players.
That's one of the things that make me say that the US (example) are a republic, but not a democracy. There is no balance between the political power of major economical players and wage workers. In Italy (example) we have the "National Collective Work Contract" (Contratto Collettivo Nazionale di Lavoro) system - the contract fixing minimal wages and working condition standards: is signed by agreement between the "capitalist's" union (Confindustria, Confcommercio) and the major trade unions, under the supervision of the government. I think that this is a better system, although far from perfect, as it gives some balance. Also in Italy it is forbidden to fire a worker because he's striking, and it is forbidden to replace him in any way. This is because striking is a constitutional right of workers.

i don't believe reformism is so hopeless. just gonna take a long time is all. better than forcing a reigime onto people who aren't ready for it

Also in Italy it is forbidden to fire a worker because he's striking, and it is forbidden to replace him in any way. This is because striking is a constitutional right of workers.

So if you have a worker who is sleeping on the job and not doing anything the company cannot replace him with someone more competent?

i don't believe reformism is so hopeless. just gonna take a long time is all. better than forcing a reigime onto people who aren't ready for it

Exactly right, and socialism is about that transition period from capitalism to communism, it's in-between.

There's a reason there are 1.7 million+ unemployed Italians. They're suffering so the ones who have a job have a little more security.

Odd. You have any recommended reading for me on the subject?

So if you have a worker who is sleeping on the job and not doing anything the company cannot replace him with someone more competent?
There's a reason there are 1.7 million+ unemployed Italians. They're suffering so the ones who have a job have a little more security.

Odd. You have any recommended reading for me on the subject?
I'm afraid not. I freely admit that the Italian economy isn't my speciality, though it's often mentioned in the German media as the alternative if reforms aren't pushed though, ie an encrusted, immovable relic doomed to collapse.

That being said, Italy has a similar problem to Germany with its underdeveloped south.

So if you have a worker who is sleeping on the job and not doing anything the company cannot replace him with someone more competent?

Yes. That is a problem. The enterpreneur has to call the labour inspectorate and go through a lenghty iter to fire him, because of terrible bureaucracy. It is a price we have to pay to guard the workers' rights, but some better measures are needed - there is an ongoing political debate about how to safeguard workers' rights while bettering industrial competitiveness. At least, anyway, pregnant women and sick people don't get fired on a whim.

There's a reason there are 1.7 million+ unemployed Italians. They're suffering so the ones who have a job have a little more security.

Actually, many officially unemployed Italians aren't really unemployed, because of an extremely large "underground" economy. Latest estimates rate the "black" economy at about 30 G€ of lost tax incomes, about the sum of the 2007 tax-and-economy programming bill. That is - if no one evaded taxes in Italy, we could cut our taxes to a ridiculous amount. Holy crap!

I'm afraid not. I freely admit that the Italian economy isn't my speciality, though it's often mentioned in the German media as the alternative if reforms aren't pushed though, ie an encrusted, immovable relic doomed to collapse.

That being said, Italy has a similar problem to Germany with its underdeveloped south.

Most of the problem with italian economy is that there are too few majors - and they hold a monstrous political power (FIAT, Pirelli, Finmeccanica) - and a huge net of small enterprises (<15 employees) who don't have the economical force for funding research and innovation. Add corruption, bureaucracy and mafia, and you'll have the picture.

Maybe we should take the discussion about italian economy to another thread, lest we hijack this one.

Exactly right, and socialism is about that transition period from capitalism to communism, it's in-between.

quite. however socialism also needs to be implimented slowly.
human nature needs to change before anything can happen, and that's partly what socialism would be about - a slow change of the workings of the economy and change of an individual's motivations and interests.

It is a price we have to pay to guard the workers' rights, but some better measures are needed - there is an ongoing political debate about how to safeguard workers' rights while bettering industrial competitiveness. At least, anyway, pregnant women and sick people don't get fired on a whim.

This simply will mean the employer will be more careful about who he hires, and be forced to use statistical predjudices before hiring (ie. Don't hire marries women of child bearing age).

If you make it harder to fire the avarage worker it also makes it harder for the avarage worker to get hired. And atleast in a freer labour market less regulation bureaucracy and cost are needed.

quite. however socialism also needs to be implimented slowly.
human nature needs to change before anything can happen, and that's partly what socialism would be about - a slow change of the workings of the economy and change of an individual's motivations and interests.

Which brings the question: What if socialism fails to change the human nature?

Which brings the question: What if socialism fails to change the human nature?

then i am wrong in my assessment of mankind and communism cannot be.

i believe in socialism/communism because i want to believe there is something better for everybody in the future. if that future cannot exist then it'd be a great shame :(

however i believe human nature to be mostly shaped by environment, so to change the environment would allow for a change in nature to allow the egalitarianism required for progress towards better things :)

Hey, OP, why isn't Liberalism on the list? Or does that count as Center?

Liberalism is an entirely different ideology from socialism.

However (mainly in the USA) liberalism and socialism get crossed over and are seen as the same thing.

Which can be understandable due to the similarities between Modern-Liberalism and Neo-Revisionist Socialism.

Also with the fact that America has only two major parties, the liberal party the Democrats are in comparison very left wing compared to the conservative Republican party, which can lead the impression that Liberalism is a strand of socialism.

Hey, OP, why isn't Liberalism on the list? Or does that count as Center?

Maybe because classic liberalism includes free market capitalism. I'm just guessing though. And liberalism is subjective depending on where you live.

then i am wrong in my assessment of mankind and communism cannot be.

i believe in socialism/communism because i want to believe there is something better for everybody in the future. if that future cannot exist then it'd be a great shame :(

however i believe human nature to be mostly shaped by environment, so to change the environment would allow for a change in nature to allow the egalitarianism required for progress towards better things :)

Sounds too much like religion for me.

Sounds too much like religion for me.

that's why its ideological. rather than realist.

I don't think so.
Imo, socialism can be splitted in two major groups: "utopian" socialism (Proudhon) and scientifical socialism (Marx). The first comes directly from the Age of Enlightenment and French revolution, while the latter comes from the left-wing Hegel school.
Anyway, any kind of socialism focuses about better average living standards.

It is still then impossible to just talk about socialism without dividing it up into subcategories.

It depends. "Left-wing" anarchy is usually defined as the total absence of any kind of law, leading to a rule-by-force imo. "Right-wing" anarchy (Bakunin) is a different sort of thing - it is supposed to be a society that has no need for laws and government, because of extremely high moral and ethical standards - and high economical and political consciousness - imbued in ANY person living in the society. I agree that it would be great, but I'm not that optimist about mankind - I think that a "right-wing" anarchy is the ultimate utopia. By the way, I always wondered why (at least here in Italy) this kind of anarchy is "right-wing". Shouldn't it be the other way?
By the way, many communists (including myself) see "right-wing" anarchy as the social organisation that is bound to follow communism in the dialectical developement of the progress of human society. Socialism (the State acting as organising body of large-scale production and politics), then communism (the State organising large-scale production only, census classes losing any difference in political power), then anarchy (no State needed anymore).

There's nothing "right-wing" about Bakunin or Anarchist-Communism, which is what I was speaking about when I wrote "Anarchy." I think that the major differnece you are talking about are the differences between the mainstream accepted definition of "anarchy" (ie., chaos) and what anarchists themselves seek to achieve.

Marxism isn't a government system - it is a philosophical/sociological theory, looking at the dialectical (in the meaning of Hegel) developement of the intercourse (economical and political) between different classes as the main key to a scientifical analysis of society. Karl Marx developed the communist movement from such analysis, but the marxist theory can be applied to analyse any society - and I'm sure that the average social philosopher is able to use it to prove a lot of other political/economical systems as valid.

Sorry about the confusion, but I was writing about Marxism as a governing philosophy, either as in Pre-reformist Social Democracy or as in Marxism-Leninism. I'm not a big fan of mainstream Marxism's theories about the socialist revolution. Acheiving classlessness and equality by centralizing all economic power in the hands of state is counter-intuitive.

Well, socialism IS about democracy. Removing the political power coming from the differences between census classes (the bourgoisie system) and birth/force (the aristocratical system).

Democratic socialism many times tends towards the same kinds of hopeless reformist struggles that bogged down social democracy. It is also many times based on state control of the means of production, but revolutionary strains as I mentioned, are much more focused on direct action and revolution from below.

Uh... define "left-" and "right-" -wing communism... I think I agree with you, but some more explanation needed.

"Left Communism is a term describing a whole range of communist viewpoints which oppose the political ideas of the Bolsheviks from a position which is asserted to be more authentically Marxist and proletarian than the views of Leninism held by the Communist International after its first two Congresses. Left Communism is also sometimes referred to as the Communist Left," according to Wiki.

It's also known as Libertarian communism. In many ways, it is a synthesis of the libertarian socialist/anarchist views of Bakunin and Kropotkin with the libertarian strains of Marx's ideas.

Left communism is a self-created label. They emphasize "left" because they consider Leninism and Social Democracy to be essentially reactionary in character. There is some truth to that.

What is the difference between libertarian socialism and democratic socialism? Explain, please.

Libertarian socialism is a philosophy that encompasses Left Communism, Anarchism and revolutionary democratic socialism. It is based around the rights of the individual and a rejection of both private power as well as state power.

Uh? What's that?

Basically, its an attempt to end hierarchy and domination without being a leftist ideology. It's really a not very constructive ideology.

If by social democracy you mean Sweden for example, I think that is not hopeless - look at the economy and at the rights of the citizens. Not my ideal system, but very good in comparison to the rest of the world.

No doubt. But the problem with it is that it buys off and co-opts genuine social change. Capitalism has been hindered in Sweden, but not slain. Now, it's slowing starting to grow back and undo the changes that have been won. It's simply an unsustainable model that preserves existing relationships of power.

Large syndicates (worker unions) are needed in any kind of democracy that has major private economical players.
That's one of the things that make me say that the US (example) are a republic, but not a democracy. There is no balance between the political power of major economical players and wage workers. In Italy (example) we have the "National Collective Work Contract" (Contratto Collettivo Nazionale di Lavoro) system - the contract fixing minimal wages and working condition standards: is signed by agreement between the "capitalist's" union (Confindustria, Confcommercio) and the major trade unions, under the supervision of the government. I think that this is a better system, although far from perfect, as it gives some balance. Also in Italy it is forbidden to fire a worker because he's striking, and it is forbidden to replace him in any way. This is because striking is a constitutional right of workers.

Syndicalism as an ideology is a method of acheiving socialism by overthrowing capitalism form within and appropriating the means of production for the workers.

Sounds too much like religion for me.

No more religious than a belief in perfectly competitive markets.

Hey, OP, why isn't Liberalism on the list? Or does that count as Center?

American and Canadian Liberalism fit within the realm of social democracy. As such, it hasn't been exclusively a left ideology. Though there were both right-wing and left-wing Classic Liberals, "liberalism" as an ideology is generally considered right-wing in much of the world (as in "liberal markets").

That is a contradiction in terms. Though it is tempting to call them right-wing socialists, they are more of corporatist statists who co-opted some of socialist ideology and terminology in a pick-and-choose manner to give some mass appeal to their totalitarian ideologies.

The Nazis claimed to be socialist, and were in the beginning, then they sold out.

Personally I'm not very fond of any left-wing ideology, they have few aspects that appeal to me. The Right is better, if not perfect.

The Nazis claimed to be socialist, and were in the beginning, then they sold out.

Personally I'm not very fond of any left-wing ideology, they have few aspects that appeal to me. The Right is better, if not perfect.

I love opinions, 'n all, but I find that they are much more interesting when they are backed up with reasoning. Why exactly do you think that Right-Wing is better?

I love opinions, 'n all, but I find that they are much more interesting when they are backed up with reasoning. Why exactly do you think that Right-Wing is better?

I find I prefer the Right. I prefer it because I would benefit more from the implimentation of some of those idiologies. Therefore I personally believe that way is better. It is a subjective matter. I personally dislike the idea of socialism and general leftism as it does not suit my circumstances.

Why do you believe that the Left is superior?

I find I prefer the Right. I prefer it because I would benefit more from the implimentation of some of those idiologies. Therefore I personally believe that way is better. It is a subjective matter. I personally dislike the idea of socialism and general leftism as it does not suit my circumstances.

Why do you believe that the Left is superior?

I believe leftism is superior because it is opposed to inequalities of power, whether it is private or State created. It is based around compassion and respect for individuals.

I believe leftism is superior because it is opposed to inequalities of power, whether it is private or State created. It is based around compassion and respect for individuals.

Why should power be distributed equally?
Does everyone deserve the same degree of power, no matter what they do or how they contribute?
It is only based around compassion and respect as long everyone shows these qualities in equal and great measure, something people are not prone to doing. Once that stops the situation collapses because no one has the capability to make a ruling or stop the argument before it becomes serious conflict. Besides if you really believed in giving everybody complete freedom and equality then surely I and my associates have the right to believe what we do (and even act upon it).

Why do you believe that the Left is superior?Because leftwing ideologies usually aren't centered in leeching off others to quite the same extreme extent rightwing ideologies are. Similarly, leftwing ideology tends to be less concerned with forcing people to live as the elite wants them to, but that's oly true for the mainstream ideologies.

When not talking mainstream ideologies, it's a different barrel of kettels. Though I have some very serious doubts about the sustainability of anti-authoritarian rightwing ideologies, I'm all for trying. I've yet to come across any that propose a more murderous economic system than the one we already have, and they per definition afford greater personal freedom than what we have today, so even if the shit doesn't work out - which I can't imagine it will - it's not like we're likely to lose anything by trying.
I am an anti-authoritarian leftwinger, so naturally I'm all for having a go at one of those ideologies.

I'm utterly opposed to authoritarian ideologies, left & right, because I simply cannot possibly imagine anyone'd ever be in a better position to make decisions for us than we are ourselves.
Slavery isn't abhorrent just because it keeps people poor. It is abhorrent primarily because it reduces us sentient beings to objects. Whether it's done by some idiot leftwinger claiming it's "for our own good", or by some idiot rightwinger claiming it's "for the good of the state" makes no fucking difference.

Because leftwing ideologies usually aren't centered in leeching off others to quite the same extreme extent rightwing ideologies are.
What a strange sentence...

What a strange sentence...Any chance you'll elaborate on that?

Any chance you'll elaborate on that?
It's sort of given, isn't it?

The whole idea of socialist ideologies is that people involuntarily* pay or work a bit extra so that other people can live a bit better.

The whole idea of free market ideologies is that economic relationships are characterised by voluntary exchanges of one thing for another, the value of which is to be determined by the parties and them alone.

So how is the free market more about "leeching from people" than socialism?

*though generally the idea is that once you force people, they get used to it and then do it voluntarily, more or less

So how is the free market more about "leeching from people" than socialism?Because 'voluntary' has nothing to do with it. The measure of success in a free market, and especially in what passes for a free market in mainstream ideologies, left & right, is to make people dependent on the services you provide, enabling the provider to set the price at the expense of the consumer.

I'm curious. How do you explain the inequal distribution of wealth in the world. Is it simply that 80% of everyone are so fucking stupid they need guardians (and quite a few of them funerals), is it because mercantilist tendencies dateraped capitalism, or is it perhaps because that 'voluntary' thing goes out the window as soon as resource ownership is established?

Or something else entirely maybe?

So how is the free market more about "leeching from people" than socialism?


You know what the answer would be, and you know the evidence will be emotion biased subjective observations, so why ask that?

Anarchism can be right-wing, too.

Anarchism is non wing

Sympathetic to far right ecenomics (smaller and smaller government) and far left socially.

Social democracy
I think that it is hopeless reformist, but it is better than nothing.
How is it hopeless? Where it has been implemented, it has delivered the highest standard of living in history to humans.

Anarchism can be right-wing, too.
Not in a way taken seriously outside the internet.

Which brings the question: What if socialism fails to change the human nature?
Capitalism did it, so can any system.

I believe leftism is superior because it is opposed to inequalities of power, whether it is private or State created. It is based around compassion and respect for individuals.
Yes. I think that the left is better because at its core, the right to life is the most important right. At the core of right wing ideologies is the right to private property as the most important right. I disagree with that.

Yes. I think that the left is better because at its core, the right to life is the most important right. At the core of right wing ideologies is the right to private property as the most important right. I disagree with that.

Many rightists consider the right to life to be a property right, and those who don't will not argue that right to property is the superlative of the two.

Many rightists consider the right to life to be a property right, and those who don't will not argue that right to property is the superlative of the two.
They may not openly argue it, but their views, actions and policys display it.

For example:

"I'll shoot anyone who tries to steal my wallet."

"I should not have to pay for anyone else's healthcare."

Now that's not all right-wingers, but it does represent a good chunk of libertarians and conservatives.

Because 'voluntary' has nothing to do with it.
So in other words, when you went and bought your latest music CD, you did so because someone forced you to?

The measure of success in a free market, and especially in what passes for a free market in mainstream ideologies, left & right, is to make people dependent on the services you provide, enabling the provider to set the price at the expense of the consumer.
But of course, since many providers are doing that, they keep each other in check.

I'm curious. How do you explain the inequal distribution of wealth in the world.
Government.

Modern governments formed out of power bases created through coercion and force. They gave advantages to their friends and families.

Then governments went out into the world and colonised it, effectively enslaving hundreds of millions of people.

Then governments in those former colonies were busy again giving advantages to their friends and families, screwing up what colonialism had left of their countries' economies.

Is it simply that 80% of everyone are so fucking stupid they need guardians (and quite a few of them funerals)...
I don't think so, but I'm not an objectivist either.

...is it because mercantilist tendencies dateraped capitalism...
More or less, yes.

...or is it perhaps because that 'voluntary' thing goes out the window as soon as resource ownership is established?
No, you can't really say that. Many people have written huge books trying to prove it, but so far don't seem to have convinced anything like sufficient majorities to for example really abolish resource ownership anywhere.

You know what the answer would be, and you know the evidence will be emotion biased subjective observations, so why ask that?
Hmmm...I don't know. It's just what we do on NSG.

Don't ask me existential questions at 9:20 in the morning! :(

"I'll shoot anyone who tries to steal my wallet."

Self-defense is not a violation of the right to life.

If you take away the knife that I attempt to stab you with, it would be very difficult to argue that my property rights have been violated.

I should not have to pay for anyone else's healthcare.

The right to life is a negative right, not positive. You are obligated not to interfere into another's life.

Under which category would "bolshevism" be? I have more then my share of words about it.

then i am wrong in my assessment of mankind and communism cannot be.

i believe in socialism/communism because i want to believe there is something better for everybody in the future. if that future cannot exist then it'd be a great shame :(

however i believe human nature to be mostly shaped by environment, so to change the environment would allow for a change in nature to allow the egalitarianism required for progress towards better things :)
Human nature is irrelevant in the face of reason.

They may not openly argue it, but their views, actions and policys display it.

For example:

"I'll shoot anyone who tries to steal my wallet."

"I should not have to pay for anyone else's healthcare."

Now that's not all right-wingers, but it does represent a good chunk of libertarians and conservatives.
Only if you assume the right to life is inalienable. And, of course, no good libertarian would deny you the freedom to give away or sell anything of yours, including your rights.

By attempting to steal the wallet, the thief has done just that.

I believe in a Welfare State very similar to the model employed by the Scandinavians, but far more restricted. It would allow state owned companies to operate as normal based on the profit motive like capitalism, but be taxed immensely by the state, everything would be. A large Government Regulatory body would allow employers from the companies to pay their workers set wages defined by the market etc, but that this govt body would assign 'social worth's to individual jobs and subsidize each workers wages accordingly, these subsidies would be paid via immense business and individual taxes, but the people wouldn’t really notice as their wages will be higher.

Over time the stigma associated with such jobs as Public Servants and the community jobs would be lost as they are paid more, because they put more into society, while more greedy workers would end up with far less, thus shaping the society slowly over times to the mindset of communism.

I am also very much against democracy, mainly because the greedy and not yet indoctrinated people would 'vote out' the socialist path to communism. So in the socialist transition period (may take many decades) a restrictive government will control the media and political stuff, etc. Of course consumer goods and the like will always be available for people to buy with their subsidized wages, and so people will try and help society more by better jobs of more 'social worth' to buy more consumer items.

This is using the capitalist mind frame of the population in the transition to produce a socialist and selfless result, and this will suffice until the population are more communist and less greedy, which will of course take a long time. I trust not the petty ever-changing whim of the 'mob' to simply vote out socialism, but I trust their deep aspirations, and so to do what is best for them.

Self-defense is not a violation of the right to life.

If you take away the knife that I attempt to stab you with, it would be very difficult to argue that my property rights have been violated.
I said steal my wallet, not kill me. Shooting someone who tries to kill you could be justified. But killing someone who tries to take your property? No way. To say otherwise puts the right to property on an equal if not superior plane to the right to life. Which is what I said in the first place.

The right to life is a negative right, not positive. You are obligated not to interfere into another's life.
Please clarify in the context of how it applies to the right to life and healthcare.

Only if you assume the right to life is inalienable. And, of course, no good libertarian would deny you the freedom to give away or sell anything of yours, including your rights.

By attempting to steal the wallet, the thief has done just that.
Thanks for proving my initial assertion! I would really like to give you a high five, and a cookie. :fluffle:

I am also very much against democracy, mainly because the greedy and not yet indoctrinated people would 'vote out' the socialist path to communism. So in the socialist transition period (may take many decades) a restrictive government will control the media and political stuff, etc. Of course consumer goods and the like will always be available for people to buy with their subsidized wages, and so people will try and help society more by better jobs of more 'social worth' to buy more consumer items.

This is using the capitalist mind frame of the population in the transition to produce a socialist and selfless result, and this will suffice until the population are more communist and less greedy, which will of course take a long time. I trust not the petty ever-changing whim of the 'mob' to simply vote out socialism, but I trust their deep aspirations, and so to do what is best for them.
You are quite extreme. Out of curiosity, where do you live?

I believe in a Welfare State very similar to the model employed by the Scandinavians, but far more restricted. It would allow state owned companies to operate as normal based on the profit motive like capitalism, but be taxed immensely by the state, everything would be. A large Government Regulatory body would allow employers from the companies to pay their workers set wages defined by the market etc, but that this govt body would assign 'social worth's to individual jobs and subsidize each workers wages accordingly, these subsidies would be paid via immense business and individual taxes, but the people wouldn’t really notice as their wages will be higher.

Over time the stigma associated with such jobs as Public Servants and the community jobs would be lost as they are paid more, because they put more into society, while more greedy workers would end up with far less, thus shaping the society slowly over times to the mindset of communism.

I am also very much against democracy, mainly because the greedy and not yet indoctrinated people would 'vote out' the socialist path to communism. So in the socialist transition period (may take many decades) a restrictive government will control the media and political stuff, etc. Of course consumer goods and the like will always be available for people to buy with their subsidized wages, and so people will try and help society more by better jobs of more 'social worth' to buy more consumer items.

This is using the capitalist mind frame of the population in the transition to produce a socialist and selfless result, and this will suffice until the population are more communist and less greedy, which will of course take a long time. I trust not the petty ever-changing whim of the 'mob' to simply vote out socialism, but I trust their deep aspirations, and so to do what is best for them.


So you think you the minority have the divine right to install a tyranny on the majority that doesn't want you? Lets see how that ended last time,.....gulag camps, Siberia,......yes what a charming future.

Thanks for proving my initial assertion! I would really like to give you a high five, and a cookie. :fluffle:
I'm not on your side. I think you should be allowed to give away or sell your rights.

In fact, why shouldn't you? Why does society deny you that freedom?

So you think you the minority have the divine right to install a tyranny on the majority that doesn't want you? Lets see how that ended last time,.....gulag camps, Siberia,......yes what a charming future.

Not a majority as such, but just those who will bring about socialism, a government for the people, but not by the people.

In a First World country (I am Australian btw) wage subsidies would be easily managed by massively taxing high profit business, as opposed to doing it on an individual level. Although since I wrote that comment a while ago, I have moderated quite a bit, and I believe (as in my first post in this thread) that other socialist safeguards could established, such as unassailable constitutional rights for the populace to have social support from the cradle to the grave, and state wage subsidies based on the social worth of their job.

People always overreact and bring up random excuses like the State capitalism under Stalin etc, mostly being pro-business people themselves. But quoting examples of countries that have said they are socialist, but are not, does nothing to diminish the inherent class struggle evident throughout the world.


I don't think Social Democracy should be classified as hopeless, it more refers to less radical social changes within an established pluralist democracy. In case point, Scandinavian state welfare socialism takes place within an immensely wealthy state with high taxes, but lots of welfare and social support. I support this mostly because there is, I think alot of things Marx did not predict about the future.

I am skeptical also about democracy and socialism, mainly because pro-business reactionaries can hijack the system and abolish state welfare. For this reason I do not advocate authoritarianism so much as the socialist policies being constitutionally established and put in stone for good.

It needs to be established that helping the poor, dislocated and marginalized of society is not controversial, and that national control of assets is best so that greedy exploitive firms at home and abroad cannot rob the people. In short there needs to be unassailable safeguards for social support within the mainframe of the state.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scandinavian_welfare_model
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swedish_welfare
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Model

But quoting examples of countries that have said they are socialist, but are not, does nothing to diminish the inherent class struggle evident throughout the world.
"Evident", hey?

So far I haven't spotted it yet, except for maybe in Green Day lyrics.

What I see is lots of people, individuals, not classes, trying to make a good life for themselves and their families.

And occasionally you get dangerous nutcases saying that we're really all fighting each other. Whether they call it "race", "culture", "nation" or "class" is irrelevant.

I'm not on your side. I think you should be allowed to give away or sell your rights.
The thief stealing your wallet doesn't somehow give away away his right to live. All he gives away is the right to own what he steals from you.

In fact, why shouldn't you? Why does society deny you that freedom?
I have a few answers for that one, but I won't derail this thread with it.

How is it hopeless? Where it has been implemented, it has delivered the highest standard of living in history to humans.



I've always been confused by this, too. The Scandinavians currently enjoy the highest standard of living out of any nation that exists or ever has existed. I don't see how you can call that hopeless.

Perhaps it's just because it doesn't have the climax and glory of a revolution.

What I see is lots of people, individuals, not classes, trying to make a good life for themselves and their families.

And occasionally you get dangerous nutcases saying that we're really all fighting each other. Whether they call it "race", "culture", "nation" or "class" is irrelevant.
While I disagree with violent class struggle, or indeed any violent struggle, it's quite clear that you're just trying to play divide and rule here. Classes do exist, and that's why class solidarity movements exist. Their aim is to prevent people like you from unduly ruling them in the name some perverted form of "individualism", and thus they are banding together to try to make a better life for themselves.

You really are sly.

I don't see how you can call that hopeless.
To me it just shows that if you have something of a consensus, you can make almost anything work.

I mean, I wouldn't like the idea of paying that much money to the state, but it seems like the Swedes for example are happy to do it. So I'm not gonna go and tell them that they're wrong.

It should be said though that "standard of living" is a tricky bugger to measure.

The thief stealing your wallet doesn't somehow give away away his right to live. All he gives away is the right to own what he steals from you.
He never had that right; it wasn't his stuff.
I have a few answers for that one, but I won't derail this thread with it.
Isn't that sort of debate exactly what this thread is for? If the disagreement between socialists and non-socialists is based on whether rights are inalienable, we need to discuss that.

Their aim is to prevent people like you from unduly ruling them in the name some perverted form of "individualism", and thus they are banding together to try to make a better life for themselves.
But not every member of the working class is a member in such a group, right?

So you're not really talking about classes, you're talking about individuals who band together in these groups.

I'm not denying that there are interest groups, but I deny that there are classes in the sense of historical dialectics, which come from the same intellectual tradition which came up with the struggle of different races or nations for supremacy. Whether you say the white race is struggling against the barbarians for survival and a fair go in the world, or the working class is struggling against the bourgeoisie makes little difference to me.

You really are sly.
:p

So you're not really talking about classes, you're talking about individuals who band together in these groups.
And more relevantly, they're doing so voluntarily.

Why bother debating? History has pretty much settled that debate, that they're all either doomed to fail dictatorships or second-rate relative to those that permit economic freedom to their citizenry.

He never had that right; it wasn't his stuff.
That's what I mean. He has no right to your stuff, but you have no right to his life.

Isn't that sort of debate exactly what this thread is for? If the disagreement between socialists and non-socialists is based on whether rights are inalienable, we need to discuss that.
The trouble is that you think a thief signs some sort of contract that renders his life forfeit if his crime doesn't go according to his plan.

How is it hopeless? Where it has been implemented, it has delivered the highest standard of living in history to humans.
How are you measuring that?

That's what I mean. He has no right to your stuff, but you have no right to his life.
Nor does he, if he surrenders it.
The trouble is that you think a thief signs some sort of contract that renders his life forfeit if his crime doesn't go according to his plan.
What if he did? What if the law clearly grants me the power to kill him? Then he knowlingly surrendered his life.

Nor does he, if he surrenders it.
You keep making this claim that he somehow surrenders his life by trying to rob your stuff. He doesn't.

What if he did? What if the law clearly grants me the power to kill him? Then he knowlingly surrendered his life.
Then the law is wrong, because it doesn't hold the right to life above all other rights.

People always overreact and bring up random excuses like the State capitalism under Stalin etc,

How much longer are leftists going to keep milking that? :rolleyes:

Don't forget "market socialism"...the kind of socialism that could actually work...where the means of production are owned by the state but are operated by individuals who market their skills for money. It's essentially a society based on value without "surplus value". In capitalist society, one who comes to personally own her share of the means of production, can then charge those who wish to use these resources to produce capital, thus forcing them to engage in "surplus labour" to pay the owner of this resource without earning a profit themselves before they can actually profit from their skills. By contrast, in a market socialist society, one's profits are detirmined by their skills and their ability to market those skills, regardless of external economic conditions.

The fundamental flaw of "market socialism", of course, is the same flaw that pervades ALL forms of socialism...the impossibility of venture capital. The government can't waste tax money to fund risky ventures, thus there would be minimal innovation.

The right to life is a negative right, not positive. You are obligated not to interfere into another's life.Nope. The right to life means the right to the necessities required to sustain life, which makes it a positive right. You are referring to freedom from murder. Not the same thing.

Nor does he, if he surrenders it.

What if he did? What if the law clearly grants me the power to kill him? Then he knowlingly surrendered his life.So then does this mean that by living in a state that taxes you, you knowingly surrender that portion of your "property"?

Under which category would "bolshevism" be? I have more then my share of words about it.

"Bolshevism" isn't really a legitimate left-wing ideology, but I guess you could put it under the heading of "Marxism." I don't care for Bolshevism either.

Human nature is irrelevant in the face of reason.

Human nature is very relevant to reason. How humans determine what is reasonable is highly subjective.

Perhaps socialism could work, but I'm not inclined to try at again. It never seems to turn out too well.

I think I quite like the way the anarcho-capitalists are obsessed with theory. It means that they will have no bearing on the real world.

Nope. The right to life means the right to the necessities required to sustain life, which makes it a positive right. You are referring to freedom from murder. Not the same thing.

By who's definition?

You keep making this claim that he somehow surrenders his life by trying to rob your stuff. He doesn't.
So he suffers no consequence at all from trying to steal my stuff? I'm not allowed to defend my stuff?
Then the law is wrong, because it doesn't hold the right to life above all other rights.
Why should it? And more importantly, why do you demand that right be inalienable?

Nope. The right to life means the right to the necessities required to sustain life, which makes it a positive right. You are referring to freedom from murder. Not the same thing.
No, it's not the same thing. The right to life is only a freedom from murder. The positive right you're describing is the right to live.

I think I quite like the way the anarcho-capitalists are obsessed with theory. It means that they will have no bearing on the real world.
That's a complete non sequitur. One doesn't follow from the other.

So he suffers no consequence at all from trying to steal my stuff? I'm not allowed to defend my stuff?

Why should it? And more importantly, why do you demand that right be inalienable?

Yeah, but killing someone over a wallet is a bit much, don't you think? I mean, we're talking about stealing a wallet, not trying to kill you or your family. Certainly you are allowed to defend your stuff, but placing a wallet above a human life in importance seems pretty backwards to me.

The right to life is the most important one. Without it, none of the rest matter. It's hard to enjoy a right to property if you don't have a right to life.

I think I quite like the way the anarcho-capitalists are obsessed with theory. It means that they will have no bearing on the real world.

Just like biologists.

To me it just shows that if you have something of a consensus, you can make almost anything work.
Except that Sweden won't be the paradise people make it out to be forever. It suffers from high taxation, falling capital expansion, increasing costs on part of the welfare system and somewhat high unemployment. Much like any other European country. Nor is its PPP that high really ; it's lower than the US'. Norway is the only Scandinavian country yet to suffer such repercussions, mainly because its oil industry provides it with abundant capital.

Human nature is very relevant to reason. How humans determine what is reasonable is highly subjective.
I'll agree on this one. Furthermore, reason is an inherent part of man's nature. It affects his evolution. It cannot be divorced from his nature precisely because it is what distinguishes him from the other animals.

So he suffers no consequence at all from trying to steal my stuff? I'm not allowed to defend my stuff?
He should suffer the loss of liberty that comes with jail time.

You are not allowed to defend your stuff with lethal force, but you are allowed to defend your life with it.

Then the law is wrong, because it doesn't hold the right to life above all other rights.Why should it?
And you prove my point again. Thanks.

Not a majority as such, but just those who will bring about socialism, a government for the people, but not by the people.
A dictatorship by the poor then? What makes you think the majority will not react to this and implement a fascist state instead? The majority middle class and the wealthy classes are after all the most powerful portions of society combined.

One has to be either very intelligent or very crazy to be an anarchist. One also has to be either very intelligent or very crazy to be a communist. Hence, I must be either double-very-intelligent or double-very-crazy because I'm an anarcho-communist. Considering that I'm confused by Algebra 2, I'm sure that I perscribe to the latter.

He should suffer the loss of liberty that comes with jail time.

You are not allowed to defend your stuff with lethal force, but you are allowed to defend your life with it.


And you prove my point again. Thanks.

The point that your position is based on foundationless platitudes? No problem.

Human nature is very relevant to reason. How humans determine what is reasonable is highly subjective.
Reason is based entirely on logic. There's no subjectivity there.

Wait a minute, here in Sweden we've had Social democrats in charge for atleast 80 years with only a few breaks, and it's done wonders, and whenever the right wing gets in charge the whole country gets screwed up again, the ideology of social democrats is for everybody to have equal rights to become whatever they want to, equal right to hospitals, education, not at all an oppresion or anything, I'm a liberal social democrat, and most of what social democrats believe is that people have a free will, i could see them do a few changes though.
Read up?

I was about to write the exact same thing, except you can substitute the word "Sweden" for "Iceland".

Reason is based entirely on logic. There's no subjectivity there.
Perhaps, but it is a part of human nature, in that it's unique to us from what we know. The ability to reason conceptually is our distinct evolutionary feature.

By who's definition?

No, it's not the same thing. The right to life is only a freedom from murder. The positive right you're describing is the right to live.There's not really any difference between the right to life and the right to live. If there's no right to live, then there can't be any right to life.

There's not really any difference between the right to life and the right to live. If there's no right to live, then there can't be any right to life.

The right to live implies one may need some resources to achieve this. Either in the form of expencive medical drugs, food you can't provide yourself, shelter I can't provide myself with etc..

The right to life is a natural right, insomuch that it simply exists to begin with and can only disapear if a 3rd party takes it away.

You see the difference now?

The right to live implies one may need some resources to achieve this. Either in the form of expencive medical drugs, food you can't provide yourself, shelter I can't provide myself with etc..

The right to life is a natural right, insomuch that it simply exists to begin with and can only disapear if a 3rd party takes it away.

You see the difference now?I see that people are using them differently, however the different definitions are not implied within the words themselves, and therefore I don't see why the differences are relevant, except to make people sound better when they say they believe in the right to life.

Perhaps, but it is a part of human nature, in that it's unique to us from what we know. The ability to reason conceptually is our distinct evolutionary feature.
And as such, any aspect of human nature that disagrees with reason can be rationally overridden.

One has to be either very intelligent or very crazy to be an anarchist. One also has to be either very intelligent or very crazy to be a communist. Hence, I must be either double-very-intelligent or double-very-crazy because I'm an anarcho-communist. Considering that I'm confused by Algebra 2, I'm sure that I perscribe to the latter.

there are also a lot of youngsters who think it's cool to be far-left. they aren't crazy but also not extremely intelligent, they just follow the rest and ruin it for the more serious leftists.

like those people who wear ché t-shirts but don't know what he had done.

there are also a lot of youngsters who think it's cool to be far-left. they aren't crazy but also not extremely intelligent, they just follow the rest and ruin it for the more serious leftists.

like those people who wear ché t-shirts but don't know what he had done.

A lot of them may eventually mature into serious leftists. We just need to be the big brother/sister and send them on the path of Che-shirtless righteouness.

And as such, any aspect of human nature that disagrees with reason can be rationally overridden.
Definitely.

Definitely.
But if that's true, then there can never be a valid "human nature" objection to the free market.

there are also a lot of youngsters who think it's cool to be far-left. they aren't crazy but also not extremely intelligent, they just follow the rest and ruin it for the more serious leftists.

like those people who wear ché t-shirts but don't know what he had done.

I know that Ché Guevarro was a guerilla leader who fought in the Cuban Revolution and then went off to a South American country to help a revolution there, and he ended up being captured and executed without trial.

I do not believe it to be "cool" to be far-left. I might not be completely serious, but I know that I will be in time.

A dictatorship by the poor then? What makes you think the majority will not react to this and implement a fascist state instead? The majority middle class and the wealthy classes are after all the most powerful portions of society combined.

Our friend here thinks that Dictatorship of The Party over the Proletariat will bring about socialism. Unfortunately, he is lost. Leninist tactics will never bring about anything but dictatorial bureaucratic collectivism.

But if that's true, then there can never be a valid "human nature" objection to the free market.

But that's completely irrelevant. Neither you nor anyone else has proven that your concept of the free market is even superior to the mutualist concept of a free market, let alone that a free market is the indeed better than no market at all.

But if that's true, then there can never be a valid "human nature" objection to the free market.Or to communism.

Definitely.

Why do you say so?

I do not believe it to be "cool" to be far-left.

Not cool, no... but it can be fun.

Because I see no reason to act on pure impulses.

You do anyway. Everyone does. We are not really "rational creatures" in any absolute sense; we are just more rational (or, at least, so we think) than other animals.

Why do you say so?
Because I see no reason to act on pure impulses.

You do anyway. Everyone does. We are not really "rational creatures" in any absolute sense; we are just more rational (or, at least, so we think) than other animals.
Of course, but that doesn't mean I should, say, simply rape someone because I feel the urge to. In this case I can reason and act otherwise.

Of course, but that doesn't mean I should, say, simply rape someone because I feel the urge to. In this case I can reason and act otherwise.

Of course.

What exactly is the point you are making?

Of course.

What exactly is the point you are making?
You asked me why I agreed with Llewdor, I am giving you the answer.

You asked me why I agreed with Llewdor, I am giving you the answer.

No, your earlier point - the post to which Llewdor replied.

I'm wondering how your conclusion that we can use reason to avoid rape leads to the conclusion that there is no "human nature" objection to economic structures.

No, your earlier point - the post to which Llewdor replied.

I'm wondering how your conclusion that we can use reason to avoid rape leads to the conclusion that there is no "human nature" objection to economic structures.
Which is not something I posited, so you're best off asking the person who actually made that assertion.

Which is not something I posited, so you're best off asking the person who actually made that assertion.

Ah, nevermind. I misunderstood what you were getting at.

I know that Ché Guevarro was a homicidal psychopath who only rose to prominence in the Cuban Revolutionary movement because of his willingness to execute (without trial) anyone and everyone who disagreed with him. [He] then went off to [] South America with the intention of igniting "20 more Vietnams", and he ended up being captured in Bolivia (having attempted to start a revolution nobody wanted), whereby he reaped what he had so zealously sown.

I do not believe it to be "cool" to be far-left. I might not be completely serious, but I know that I will be in time.

You're welcome.

You're welcome.

QFT.

QFT.


You and your "Quoted for Truth"s. :p

You and your "Quoted for Truth"s. :p

QF- er, I mean...hehe. :p

Or to communism.
Which is why I base my objection on reason.

But that's completely irrelevant. Neither you nor anyone else has proven that your concept of the free market is even superior to the mutualist concept of a free market, let alone that a free market is the indeed better than no market at all.
That the absence of a market eliminates all incentive to produce strikes me as a pretty big reason.

Not cool, no... but it can be fun.

Yes... the last radical leftist debate I got in was "ninjas or pirates." We settled on a combination of the two: "pinjas."

That the absence of a market eliminates all incentive to produce strikes me as a pretty big reason.

Slavery has its incentives to produce, but I wouldn't call it a market.

It is notable that most non-market incentives are not what most would consider good, however.

In the end, however, it is not the market that is important (depending on how it is defined), but the consent of the individuals involved. No market is fine if it is the general will of those participating.

Yes... the last radical leftist debate I got in was "ninjas or pirates." We settled on a combination of the two: "pinjas."

One ninjirate could fuck up at least 20 pinjas and the pinjas wouldn't even realize they had been fucked up.

The point that your position is based on foundationless platitudes?
Deliberately insulting other posters is trolling. Here's my point that you proved:
Yes. I think that the left is better because at its core, the right to life is the most important right. At the core of right wing ideologies is the right to private property as the most important right. I disagree with that.
That's post #49.

Also in Italy it is forbidden to fire a worker because he's striking, and it is forbidden to replace him in any way. This is because striking is a constitutional right of workers.

C'est la meme en Quebec :)

Deliberately insulting other posters is trolling.
Worried he might take your job? :D

Deliberately insulting other posters is trolling.
Insulting?

Your position was based entirely on a poorly defined right to live, and an inalienable right at that.

Because it's an inalienable right, it's a right you have, but you're not free to use it as you see fit. I fail to see how that's an improvement on, well, anything.

You kept referring back to this poorly defined concept without ever being willing to examine what it meant. That makes it look like a foundationaless platitude to me.

Which is why I base my objection on reason.And which reason is this?

I'll go for Democratic Socialism, thank you very much. And the only reason it could be considered "Hopeless reformism" is because the capitalists make sure that Socialists can't get elected ANYWHERE in this country! Even in places where the working class/middle class (The middle class and the working class are now kind of mushing together, but that's a completely different story) are abundant. Plus most members of any Socialist movements are like "Whatever" with their ideas. Instead of just sitting down and taking punches, we need to stand up and take the capitalists down a notch! We need to actually start doing something! Unfortunately I'm not even at the voting age yet, so I can barely do anything.

And which reason is this?
A fairly basic syllogism, actually.

If humans have reason, and reason can override human nature, then no human social system can be opposed on the basis of human nature, because reason can supercede it.

A fairly basic syllogism, actually.

If humans have reason, and reason can override human nature, then no human social system can be opposed on the basis of human nature, because reason can supercede it.Yes, but how does reason lead you to the conclusions that you have reached regarding economic systems?

Yes, but how does reason lead you to the conclusions that you have reached regarding economic systems?
Uncertainty.

Sure, I like to measure outcomes to see what each system does, and I have personal preferences regarding how I think society should run, but mostly I lack sufficient evidence to hold opinions on a bunch of issues, so I have no interest in wasting resources trying to fix things I don't see as problems.

Uncertainty.

Sure, I like to measure outcomes to see what each system does, and I have personal preferences regarding how I think society should run, but mostly I lack sufficient evidence to hold opinions on a bunch of issues, so I have no interest in wasting resources trying to fix things I don't see as problems.So then you don't think Canada's tax structure needs to be changed at all?

The US is a good example of a country in which candidates are only elected if business and corporations support them with money, this is why at least in the short-term socialist transition period, that democracy must be suppressed. As my previous posts have explained.

The US is a good example of a country in which candidates are only elected if business and corporations support them with money, this is why at least in the short-term socialist transition period, that democracy must be suppressed. As my previous posts have explained.

That never seems to work... the whole suppression of democracy... once suppressed, it's rather hard to bring back.

The US is a good example of a country in which candidates are only elected if business and corporations support them with money, this is why at least in the short-term socialist transition period, that democracy must be suppressed. As my previous posts have explained.
No thanks. You can keep your USSR-style abomination to yourself.

The US is a good example of a country in which candidates are only elected if business and corporations support them with money, this is why at least in the short-term socialist transition period, that democracy must be suppressed. As my previous posts have explained.
Socialism without democracy is impossible, as all the Eastern Bloc states and China have virtually proved.

So then you don't think Canada's tax structure needs to be changed at all?
Sure I do. There's plenty of historical evidence on the negative impact of corporate capital taxes, for example.

Sure I do. There's plenty of historical evidence on the negative impact of corporate capital taxes, for example.Oh, I see. So how severely would you change the tax structure, if it was up to you?

Oh, I see. So how severely would you change the tax structure, if it was up to you?
I haven't given that a lot of thourgh, to be honest.

I'd probably eliminate payroll taxes, raise the basic personal exemption (so more low-income folks wouldn't pay income taxes), and flatten the income tax system. If I needed more revenue, I'd want to make that up with sales taxes and state lotteries (voluntary taxation). The sales tax would probably be applied similarly to the current Goods and Services Tax, where necessities (like groceries) are exempt. And in one little piece of social engineering, I'd make books tax exempt, too (because I want people to read more).

My more radical changes would happen on the government spending side, really. Stop subsidising or operating businesses. Stop discouraging competition. Generally interfere in people's lives less.

Why do you ask?

Why do you ask?Because your economic left/right score is +10, which contradicts your statements about uncertainty...so I was looking to see how pragmatic you were with regard to your ideal.