NationStates Jolt Archive

After a century of a bitter ideological war between the right cause and leftism, a verdict can be delivered on which side has prevailed. One but has to look at the powerful capitalist state emerging from the shambles of a dilapidated Soviet Union to witness the inexorable rise of the right. Leftist parties see their membership shriveling across the world; even recidivistic France appears to have permanently cast off the insidiousness of socialism, wholeheartedly rejecting the antiquated ideas of Marx and Royal. China's financial markets have received a breath of fresh air after stagnating under oppressive and deleterious governmental control; this invigorating deregulation has spurred fantastic growth, plainly exposing the fatuity of state intervention. This liberalizing trend is evident throughout the world, with the exception of such countries as North Korea; indeed, this salient absence speaks volumes as to the efficacy of free markets, given the impecuniousness of the North Korean state compared to its southern counterpart. Recent victories in Switzerland and Poland swept in staunchly pro-business parties; this pattern has been clear throughout post-Communist Europe, as Eastern European nations have rejected the economic shackles of leftism and embraced the engine of growth that is capitalism. The withering left is left desperately grasping at issues such as health-care in order to keep itself afloat, yet the tide relentlessly rises higher and higher. Privatization is on the menu throughout the world, and numerous countries are savoring it -- the rotten timber of state ownership is being cut down, and nascent private firms are taking its place, healthier and stronger than their predecessors. Taxes are systematically being cut to spur private enterprise, liberating the people from overbearing states. And as the remorseless march of right-wing ideals continues unabated, leftist leaders will be hard-pressed to delude their loyal followers into believing the filth which they spew.

All this inevitably begs the question: for how much longer will the left continue to exist as a viable political force? Poll coming.

After a century of a bitter ideological war between the right cause and leftism, a verdict can be delivered on which side has prevailed. One but has to look at the powerful capitalist state emerging from the shambles of a dilapidated Soviet Union to witness the inexorable rise of the right. Leftist parties see their membership shriveling across the world; even recidivistic France appears to have permanently cast off the insidiousness of socialism, wholeheartedly rejecting the antiquated ideas of Marx and Royal. China's financial markets have received a breath of fresh air after stagnating under oppressive and deleterious governmental control; this invigorating deregulation has spurred fantastic growth, plainly exposing the fatuity of state intervention. This liberalizing trend is evident throughout the world, with the exception of such countries as North Korea; indeed, this salient absence speaks volumes as to the efficacy of free markets, given the impecuniousness of the North Korean state compared to its southern counterpart. Recent victories in Switzerland and Poland swept in staunchly pro-business parties; this pattern has been clear throughout post-Communist Europe, as Eastern European nations have rejected the economic shackles of leftism and embraced the engine of growth that is capitalism. The withering left is left desperately grasping at issues such as health-care in order to keep itself afloat, yet the tide relentlessly rises higher and higher. Privatization is on the menu throughout the world, and numerous countries are savoring it -- the rotten timber of state ownership is being cut down, and nascent private firms are taking its place, healthier and stronger than their predecessors. Taxes are systematically being cut to spur private enterprise, liberating the people from overbearing states. And as the remorseless march of right-wing ideals continues unabated, leftist leaders will be hard-pressed to delude their loyal followers into believing the filth which they spew.

All this inevitably begs the question: for how much longer will the left continue to exist as a viable political force? Poll coming.

Missed ya.

Gotta admit, i'm impressed with your ability to type this out without so many guffaws and chortles that you would slip on a letter or some punctuation.
Not bad.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paragraph

Leftist economic policies will last for a while, I think. As more and more factories and jobs relocate to China and India, the US and Europe will have to adopt a more pro-business, less regulatory economic stance in order to survive. No more welfare...

I'm afraid it will last for a long time, considering the fact that classical liberalism has 'died out' in all political senses yet is continually supported by a minority (of which I place myself in). I think that such will happen.

Not to say conservative ideas will survive... quite the contrary; every time there is a large change the conservative ideas of the time die.

unfortunately Earth (and as such reality) don't go well with capitalism so I guess we are all doomed

http://www.makower.com/blogpix/world_os.gif

we need more Earth's!

I wish trolls would die.*









*Not a death threat on anyone, just a wish that the idea of posting nonsense to get a response, would go away

Even as it grows, the left is already dead. Soon the world will see its faults and break away from it.

It's good to have a "devil's advocate" of sorts in politics, but liberalism as it is is becoming a degenerative, downward spiral to global society.

and your post makes me beg this question: How much longer will it be until people stop seeing this kind of stuff in black and white?

every time there is a large change the conservative ideas of the time die.
Like a large ... maybe ... climate change?

but liberalism as it is is becoming a degenerative, downward spiral to global society.

which is bad?

E
It's good to have a "devil's advocate" of sorts in politics, but liberalism as it is is becoming a degenerative, downward spiral to global society.

ven as it grows, the left is already dead. Soon the world will see its faults and break away from it.
Wha-hahahahahahahohohohoho hee hee haha ha*snort*hahahahohoho!
http://www.websmileys.com/sm/happy/516.gif

Seriously, get your wayback machine and go visit the darkages again, you simulated trog.

I wish trolls would die.*You been with a woman, Zophael? It's like dying... you moan, cry out. You get to a spot that has you begging for release. Once, I was an Angel of Death... now, I die every day... when I have the cash.

*Not a death threat on anyone, just a wish that the idea of posting nonsense to get a response, would go awayYou mean like spamming in Moderation? ;)

unfortunately Earth (and as such reality) don't go well with capitalism so I guess we are all doomed

http://www.makower.com/blogpix/world_os.gif

we need more Earth's!

There is a great big place called "Space". That is where the overflow will go.

Originally posted by The Brevious
Like a large ... maybe ... climate change?

Laugh out Loud, I must say.

They will die in more ways than ideologically, methinks. (*enjoys reconciling environmentalism with libertarianism)

There is a great big place called "Space". That is where the overflow will go.

its 1981 :confused:

and we don't need Space (well we do but you get the picture) we need Earths

Laugh out Loud, I must say.*bows*
At least i got something good out of the day ... *goes back to porn and moving furniture* :p


They will die in more ways than ideologically, methinks. (*enjoys reconciling environmentalism with libertarianism)
Oh yeah, scrabbling desperately for any collateral damage they can inflict on the way.

There is a great big place called "Space". That is where the overflow will go.
Like the space between most conservatives' ears?
No, no ... that's just a type of vacuum, not really *space* ... as in, information may enter, but it becomes crunched, manipulated and confabulated into something of a much lower information value/content, then comes out as a giant, vitriolic axial spew.
*thinks of astronomical correlation*

Progressivism is far from dead. In fact, the pendulum is already starting to swing back toward it.

Progressivism is far from dead. In fact, the pendulum is already starting to swing back toward it.

The body politic pinata.
http://www.bbspot.com/Images/News_Features/2003/06/pinata.jpg

*thinks of astronomical correlation*Hmm.. What sucks all that matters into oblivion, and spews the mangled leftovers in to space as random noise in jets of unparalleled size? Ah, I know! A black hole.

Hmm.. What sucks all that matters into oblivion, and spews the mangled leftovers in to space as random noise in jets of unparalleled size? Ah, I know! A black hole.
If it wasn't a core philosophical underpinning for them, i suspect they'd deny that too. :D

After a century of a bitter ideological war between the right cause and leftism, a verdict can be delivered on which side has prevailed. One but has to look at the powerful capitalist state emerging from the shambles of a dilapidated Soviet Union to witness the inexorable rise of the right. Leftist parties see their membership shriveling across the world; even recidivistic France appears to have permanently cast off the insidiousness of socialism, wholeheartedly rejecting the antiquated ideas of Marx and Royal. China's financial markets have received a breath of fresh air after stagnating under oppressive and deleterious governmental control; this invigorating deregulation has spurred fantastic growth, plainly exposing the fatuity of state intervention. This liberalizing trend is evident throughout the world, with the exception of such countries as North Korea; indeed, this salient absence speaks volumes as to the efficacy of free markets, given the impecuniousness of the North Korean state compared to its southern counterpart. Recent victories in Switzerland and Poland swept in staunchly pro-business parties; this pattern has been clear throughout post-Communist Europe, as Eastern European nations have rejected the economic shackles of leftism and embraced the engine of growth that is capitalism. The withering left is left desperately grasping at issues such as health-care in order to keep itself afloat, yet the tide relentlessly rises higher and higher. Privatization is on the menu throughout the world, and numerous countries are savoring it -- the rotten timber of state ownership is being cut down, and nascent private firms are taking its place, healthier and stronger than their predecessors. Taxes are systematically being cut to spur private enterprise, liberating the people from overbearing states. And as the remorseless march of right-wing ideals continues unabated, leftist leaders will be hard-pressed to delude their loyal followers into believing the filth which they spew.

All this inevitably begs the question: for how much longer will the left continue to exist as a viable political force? Poll coming.

It's a cycle. We have periods of unmitigated greed, then we have the rebellion against it... then there's the phase of doublethink, where some people try to convince themselves that the period of greed actually worked (this time round, we call it libertarianism), and the cycle starts again.

It has to be said, in terms of the cycle sticking in the 'social conscience' stage, the Soviet Union and their spiritual brothers had a surprisingly long innings this time. Indeed, it pretty much took a concerted effort to undermine the ideology to uproot it, and the job's still not done yet.

Another couple of cycles (couple hundred years maybe? Maybe sooner) and maybe we'll find ourselves stuck in the sort of society where it is profitable to be good at a job, and actually rewarded to do something constructive, rather than to live in parasitical fashion off the efforts of others.

Progressivism is far from dead. In fact, the pendulum is already starting to swing back toward it.

Which pendulum? By and large, every country has it's own. The op is correct that we are seeing a right-wing swing in much of Europe. Simultaneously, both the US and Australia seem to be moving more toward the centre.

In a way, the op is right. What we knew as the extreme left - communist/socialist, marxist or maoist factions - are dying. The dreadful examples of the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe have discredited them, and the good ideas they did have are all long since plundered and mainstreamed by less extreme parties and factions. They have nothing more to say, and no good to do.

But that hardly means an end to the left as a whole. Moderate socialist and progressive parties are common around the world, and I don't see them going away any time soon. They provide a needed balance to the right, and a voice to their believers. The left isn't going anywhere.

It has to be said, in terms of the cycle sticking in the 'social conscience' stage, the Soviet Union and their spiritual brothers had a surprisingly long innings this time. Indeed, it pretty much took a concerted effort to undermine the ideology to uproot it, and the job's still not done yet.

On the contrary -- the Evil Empire collapsed on the basis of its own putrid foundation. It was unable to compete with the West due to the inherent backwardness of its economic system.

On the contrary -- the Evil Empire collapsed on the basis of its own putrid foundation. It was unable to compete with the West due to the inherent backwardness of its economic system.
Is that why capitalist Russia has a weaker economy, more poverty, lower standards of living and lower life expectancy than the Soviet Union ever had?

Besides, I always thought that the Soviet Union collapsed because Ronald Reagan flew into Moscow with his x-wing fighter and fired one shot into the Kremlin's single weak spot, causing it to explode. :rolleyes:

I always thought that the Soviet Union collapsed because Ronald Reagan flew into Moscow with his x-wing fighter and fired one shot into the Kremlin's single weak spot, causing it to explode. :rolleyes:
He and The Duke had plenty of practice with liberals beforehand ... whoop, i meant "whomp rats".
Winner of Thread.

Which pendulum? By and large, every country has it's own. The op is correct that we are seeing a right-wing swing in much of Europe. Simultaneously, both the US and Australia seem to be moving more toward the centre.
Don't forget Latin America, which appears to be in a full left-wing swing currently.

And also remember that the pendulum can swing back and forth rather quickly. Just five years ago the left was making gains in Spain and France and looked very strong in Germany.

Don't forget Latin America, which appears to be in a full left-wing swing currently.

And also remember that the pendulum can swing back and forth rather quickly. Just five years ago the left was making gains in Spain and France and looked very strong in Germany.

True. It's very hard to predict.

Is that why capitalist Russia has a weaker economy, more poverty, lower standards of living and lower life expectancy than the Soviet Union ever had?

Actually, Russia's economic resurgence is a wonder to behold -- its prodigious growth is a testament to the efficacy of its economic system. Indeed, that's why Putin, a pseudo-authoritarian ruler, enjoys such a high approval rating; social disgruntlement melts away in the face of steadily growing affluence. You are correct that Russia experienced a vast structural deficiency in the early 1990s; however, this was a vestige of the woefully inefficient Soviet Union and has long since been rectified. Furthermore, poverty, unless measured by a relative scale, has rapidly decreased following free-market reforms. How many people do you see waiting in bread lines in modern-day Russia as compared to two decades ago? The standard of living has correspondingly surged upwards as most Russians now have access to luxury goods as opposed to only the basic necessities of life, if that. As for life expectancy, I have no statistics on that; however, if I had to hazard a guess, I would assume that the propagation of AIDS throughout the country has had dire consequences.

Besides, I always thought that the Soviet Union collapsed because Ronald Reagan flew into Moscow with his x-wing fighter and fired one shot into the Kremlin's single weak spot, causing it to explode. :rolleyes:

Reagan was instrumental in highlighting the intrinsic flaws in the communist system, thus hastening its inevitable downfall, true. However, he was a true thinking man: he achieved his goal not through military means, as you would suggest, but through shrewd economic maneuvering.

After a century of a bitter ideological war between the right cause and leftism, a verdict can be delivered on which side has prevailed. One but has to look at the 1powerful capitalist state emerging from the shambles of a dilapidated Soviet Union to witness the inexorable rise of the right. 2 Leftist parties see their membership shriveling across the world; 3 even recidivistic France appears to have permanently cast off the insidiousness of socialism, wholeheartedly rejecting the antiquated ideas of Marx and Royal. China's financial markets have received a breath of fresh air after stagnating under oppressive and deleterious governmental control; this invigorating deregulation has spurred fantastic growth, 4 plainly exposing the fatuity of state intervention. This liberalizing trend is evident throughout the world, with the exception of such countries as North Korea; indeed, this salient absence speaks volumes as to the efficacy of free markets, given the impecuniousness of the North Korean state compared to its southern counterpart. Recent victories in Switzerland and Poland swept in staunchly pro-business parties; this pattern has been clear throughout post-Communist Europe, as Eastern European nations have rejected the economic shackles of leftism and embraced the engine of growth that is capitalism. The withering left is left desperately grasping at issues such as health-care in order to keep itself afloat, yet the tide relentlessly rises higher and higher. Privatization is on the menu throughout the world, and numerous countries are savoring it -- 5 the rotten timber of state ownership is being cut down, and nascent private firms are taking its place, healthier and stronger than their predecessors. 6 And as the remorseless march of right-wing ideals continues unabated, leftist leaders will be hard-pressed to delude their loyal followers into believing the filth which they spew.

All this inevitably begs the question: for how much longer will the left continue to exist as a viable political force? Poll coming.

1 - Which economic powerhouses are they then? The Russian economy is entirely built on it's oil and gas reserves, whilst the other former Soviet countries barely register on the economic world stage.

2 - Leftist parties across western Europe, South Asia and South America are growing not declining. Wrong again FAG.

3 - Exactly how does one election victory mean the end of political party, let alone the end of a political ideaolgy?

4 - Are you really honestly trying to use CHINA as an example of non-interventionist government:eek:?

5 - How wonderful is privatisation? Tell that to all the poor train passengers in Britain, or all the poor people in the US bankrupted when they're ill. But of course they are poor people and don't register on your radar dp they MTAE?

6 - Tell that to the people of Venezuela:D

Don't forget Latin America, which appears to be in a full left-wing swing currently.

And also remember that the pendulum can swing back and forth rather quickly. Just five years ago the left was making gains in Spain and France and looked very strong in Germany.

I don't assume that the road to free-market dominance will be smooth or without minor glitches. I am aware that there are cyclical variations in political viewpoints. However, the overall trend is clearly to the right -- for example, the behavior, written as a function, might be:

conservatism index = sin( year - 2007 ) + year ^ 0.5

I don't mean this as a accurate model, but rather as a general graph which accounts for these disturbances while maintaining an overall pattern towards the wholehearted acceptance of the free market.

Yeah so, it seems that FAG is as good as trolling as ever. You guys fall right for it every time.

FAG: Liberals suck! LOL liberalism is dead. [Insert thesaurus-circumlocution here.]
Liberals: No! Liberalism is not dead! It's fascist capitalists who are dead! Right-wing asshole!
FAG: Commie!
Liberal: Corporate whore!

(continue ad nauseam)

That's all this thread is, that's all it was meant to be.

FAG: Liberals suck! LOL liberalism is dead. [Insert thesaurus-circumlocution here.]
Liberals: No! Liberalism is not dead! It's fascist capitalists who are dead! Right-wing asshole!
FAG: Commie!
Liberal: Corporate whore!

(continue ad nauseam)

That's all this thread is, that's all it was meant to be.

You forgot your role in this enthralling little dialogue, Greater Trostia. Indeed, you consistently post nothing of substance, but rather engage in vituperation. This unfortunate invective which you employ does not further the discussion whatsoever and can be categorized as "spam." Thus, you are the worst offender here. I shall please ask you to refrain from posting if you cannot positively contribute anything to the subject at hand. Thank you.

Neither the left nor the right will ever really die, since each is the antithesis of the other. It's just foolish to think that either will ever 'win'. Like someone already said, it's cyclical.

You forgot your role in this enthralling little dialogue, Greater Trostia. Indeed, you consistently post nothing of substance, but rather engage in vituperation. This unfortunate invective which you employ does not further the discussion whatsoever and can be categorized as "spam."

hypocrisy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypocrite)

Oh, and also... THERE HAVE NEVER BEEN ANY COMMUNIST STATES IN THE WORLD. There have been attempts, but they have failed. This however, does not mean that communism is dead or a bad idea. Nine times out of ten, the first few times a radical change is implemented, it fails. What do you do? You realize the mistakes that were made and try again. If you fail, someone else sees your mistakes, and tries again. Sooner or later, you get it right.

You forgot your role in this enthralling little dialogue, Greater Trostia. Indeed, you consistently post nothing of substance

When you post something of substance, you will be worthy of a reply with substance. As you have not, you are not, and his comment was utterly appropriate for the thread.

hypocrisy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypocrite)

Oh, and also... THERE HAVE NEVER BEEN ANY COMMUNIST STATES IN THE WORLD. There have been attempts, but they have failed.

That's because communism, quite literally, is "made of fail."

Neither the left nor the right will ever really die, since each is the antithesis of the other. It's just foolish to think that either will ever 'win'. Like someone already said, it's cyclical.

I have to take issue with that, Ifreann. I do NOT believe the right and left are antitheses. Instead, I see them as complementary.

Without the influence of the other, the one self destructs. Extreme Laissez-Faire capitalism is just as destructive as extreme Marxism - neither is actually viable in the long term.

Not two ends of a line. Two sides of a coin. And no coin has only one side.

I have to take issue with that, Ifreann. I do NOT believe the right and left are antitheses. Instead, I see them as complementary.

Without the influence of the other, the one self destructs. Extreme Laissez-Faire capitalism is just as destructive as extreme Marxism - neither is actually viable in the long term.

Not two ends of a line. Two sides of a coin. And no coin has only one side.

Coins actually have three sides :p

But antitheses may have been the wrong term. My point was that the dominance of one will lead to dissenters turning to the other, and on and on the circle spins. Maybe it'll settle down eventually and we'll all live in some manner of centrist paradise.

That's because communism, quite literally, is "made of fail."

read the rest of my post before responding please.

read the rest of my post before responding please.

Yes, you have an irrational and unsubstantiated faith that communism will eventually "get it right." Apparently, your basis for this notion is that communism is a radical idea and therefore bound to succeed. This is not a logically rigorous line of reasoning, I'm afraid to say; indeed, all extant evidence suggests that leftism is a bankrupt ideology in an economic (and social) sense.

Aaanndd the king of purple prose strikes again! He should write romance novels.

Yes, you have an irrational and unsubstantiated faith that communism will eventually "get it right." Apparently, your basis for this notion is that communism is a radical idea and therefore bound to succeed. This is not a logically rigorous line of reasoning, I'm afraid to say; indeed, all extant evidence suggests that leftism is a bankrupt ideology in an economic (and social) sense.

The only way Communisim works is in very small groups where everyone knows what's going on and makes the choice to be a part of it. Communisim fails in large groups because large groups of people are, for lack of a better word, stupid. Someone has to be the boss because of this, and that just leads to the whole 'some pigs are more equal than others' thing.

Which pendulum? By and large, every country has it's own. The op is correct that we are seeing a right-wing swing in much of Europe. Simultaneously, both the US and Australia seem to be moving more toward the centre.

In a way, the op is right. What we knew as the extreme left - communist/socialist, marxist or maoist factions - are dying. The dreadful examples of the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe have discredited them, and the good ideas they did have are all long since plundered and mainstreamed by less extreme parties and factions. They have nothing more to say, and no good to do.

But that hardly means an end to the left as a whole. Moderate socialist and progressive parties are common around the world, and I don't see them going away any time soon. They provide a needed balance to the right, and a voice to their believers. The left isn't going anywhere.


True, I should have specified the US. Europe's going through a bit of xenophbic phase right now. You're absolutely right about Leninism/Stalinism, and good riddance. Unfortunately, they've left a legacy of stigma on the entire Left.

Yes, you have an irrational and unsubstantiated faith that communism will eventually "get it right." Apparently, your basis for this notion is that communism is a radical idea and therefore bound to succeed. This is not a logically rigorous line of reasoning, I'm afraid to say; indeed, all extant evidence suggests that leftism is a bankrupt ideology in an economic (and social) sense.

yea, because Laissez-Faire is so much better, lets all work all ass off so those who sit on their ass all day can make assloads of money.

and my reasoning behind my post is not that simply because communism is a radical idea it's going to work, but that with any radical idea is going to have bugs anytime it's first tried, and that one or two failures a bad idea does not make, simply bad execution.

Lmao, you're such a silly little troll, FAG.

This thread is a failure of the free market.

yea, because Laissez-Faire is so much better, lets all work all ass off so those who sit on their ass all day can make assloads of money.

What is this? A contest to use the string "ass" as many times as you can in one sentence? In either case, it betrays a rudimentary (at best) understand of laissez-faire capitalism.

Yeah, that's why the Right in the US is, right now, losing votes quicker than Bush can make Iraqi children lose limbs. That's why the entirety of South America is becoming much more left-winged and - surprise - that's working well for it. That's why Australia itself is swinging left.

You must be wishing you knew what "left" means right now, aren't you, F&G?

Yeah, that's why the Right in the US is, right now, losing votes quicker than Bush can make Iraqi children lose limbs. That's why the entirety of South America is becoming much more left-winged and - surprise - that's working well for it. That's why Australia itself is swinging left.

Refer to the equation I provided previously. These are but minor, short-term glitches in a process that has been ongoing for decades. Indeed, virtually all of Europe is swinging to the right.

Refer to the equation I provided previously. These are but minor, short-term glitches in a process that has been ongoing for decades.

The same thing can be said about the election of the right-wingers in Europe. Only, in this case, it would be true. As people evolve, they'll start forgetting about unevolved things such as the Right.

As people evolve, they'll start forgetting about unevolved things such as the Right.

Are you saying that Europeans are insufficiently evolved in comparison to Latin Americans? It is an indisputable fact that the world has been shifting towards free-market capitalism with the exception of minor hiccups in places such as North Korea, Cuba, and Venezuela.

Refer to the equation I provided previously. These are but minor, short-term glitches in a process that has been ongoing for decades. Indeed, virtually all of Europe is swinging to the right.

Or to paraphrase:
'Lets just ignore all those bits I'm wrong and focus on where I'm right'

Are you saying that Europeans are insufficiently evolved in comparison to Latin Americans? It is an indisputable fact that the world has been shifting towards free-market capitalism with the exception of minor hiccups in places such as North Korea, Cuba, and Venezuela.

1- No, glitches, as YOU said.

2- And yet there's more and more welfare, and more and more help to those that need it, and more and more tolerance, and more and more separation between church and state, against the evil wishes of the Right.

However, he was a true thinking man
http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2007/5/1/215939.shtml?s=ic
The phantoms people chase when power is an issue. :eek:

Or to paraphrase:
'Lets just ignore all those bits I'm wrong and focus on where I'm right'

The overwhelming preponderance of evidence supports my thesis; although we cannot disregard evidence to the contrary, it does not negate the underlying trend. If one was to devise a "conservatism index" and calculate its value each year, one would realize that it would be steadily increasing, indicating a strong correlation between the year and the conservatism index. Now, statistical science isn't perfect -- there will always be a few blips. However, the important thing is the overarching structure (ie, a paradigm shift from the left to the right).

The overwhelming preponderance of evidence supports my thesis; although we cannot disregard evidence to the contrary, it does not negate the underlying trend. If one was to devise a "conservatism index" and calculate its value each year, one would realize that it would be steadily increasing, indicating a strong correlation between the year and the conservatism index. Now, statistical science isn't perfect -- there will always be a few blips. However, the important thing is the overarching structure (ie, a paradigm shift from the left to the right).

And you somehow know this to be true, despite the lack of a conservatism index.

And since there's so much evidence, I'm sure you'll have no trouble getting some that shows that the whole planet is, overall, becoming more conservative.

And you somehow know this to be true, despite the lack of a conservatism index.

And since there's so much evidence, I'm sure you'll have no trouble getting some that shows that the whole planet is, overall, becoming more conservative.

Indeed -- I cited how many countries have become more free-market oriented. You, on the other hand, were only able to cite a handful of counter-examples.

Socialism will not go away for as long as there is scarcity of resources (which, in my humble opinion, will be forever).

Basically any socialist/communist/left view is a rebellion against the current/private property/market way of allocating scarce resources, sometimes more justified than other times. No matter what you do, the only way to end socialists getting votes and support and being visible in the public arena would be to adopt it - then it would fail*, and the whole cycle starts all over again.

*And this isn't so much an ideological point as a matter of learning: there has never been a case of socialism being introduced on anything bigger than a small community scale without failing. Every society that reached above some minimum level of development had a property economy. We have plenty of economic theory to suggest why that is the case. So I'm not making a controversial statement.

Indeed -- I cited how many countries have become more free-market oriented. You, on the other hand, were only able to cite a handful of counter-examples.

You must be mistaking me with someone else, I haven't cited anything.

You must be mistaking me with someone else, I haven't cited anything.

Don't worry, s/he'll still run with it. Just bask in all its ..."Glory".

The left is not dying it is just that labels of left and right are not useful anymore in the past economy and politics went hand in hand now countries can follow an economically right wing course but maintain a libertarian politically left ideology, the day communism dies completely is the day democracy dies, without an economic left alternative there can be no real debate, we need to find a real middle ground totalitarian communism didn't work , but if we keep going right we will find problems with that too, corporations should stay out of politics and the government should regulate corporations as much as they have to, to keep the people and their democratic function safe, look at India when it was basicly ruled by the East India Company, that was economically far right exploitations and that was not good for that country or for the global economy.

Indeed -- I cited how many countries have become more free-market oriented. You, on the other hand, were only able to cite a handful of counter-examples.

You claimed "the whole of Europe". I pointed out the American continent and Australia. What's exactly the difference here?

The left will rise again when people come to their senses.

That article's rubbish. Don't know where they got their statistics from.

The radical left is being forced to change because the theoretical structure built by Marx and Engels for communism is too rigid and specific. Not only that, but it was designed for a different, 19th century industrial (not a computerised, post-industrial society). While theoretical communism had a strict framework of policy set out by Marx and subsequent 19th Century communists the radical right, by its very definition, doesn't have organisation and so it had nothing to change. It naturally moves with the times only according to each individual's and small group's views. Socialism and the left is simply adapting to a new world. Look at the third-way, neo-socialism, democratic socialism, and social democracy under Blair and Hawke/Keating (Aus). Leftist polices which included a market economy (floating the dollar, privatising certain industries) but expanding government provided services such as education and healthcare.

The left is not disappearing at all, it is transforming.

The Nufud

The EU will soon become a socialist construct:D

Seriously though I think the OP is a little bit mislead, apart from the sparse paragraph breaks, rhetorical tone and trollishness, I think his knowledge his very limited. Classifying all those who disagree with him on some monolithic and homogeneous 'Left' does him little credibility, against this perception the truth is we don't have a secret command bunker under the Kremlin.

State ownership from my pov as a Marxism in itself represents another kind of capitalist concentration, be these monopolistic elements be an apparachik state, a corporation or other private wealth holdings. Having a state entails 'representation' of the people, which in turn leads to corruption and the state itself developing it's own interests contrary to the common good, they become the economic class. I believe I made this point in a much longer post in that other Communist thread, maybe the OP should have posted this tirade there instead.

The left will rise again when people come to their senses.

Unless everybody decides to stop watching TV and the mass-media politically-bought brainwashing that makes people so deluded about the HOLY FREE MARKET, by the social classes and corporate suits benefited by right-wing politics, that it inevitably has, this isn't going to happen soon. In fact the brainwashing from the mass media, although much more discrete and better disguised, is not so different from Soviet propaganda and State-sponsored Cuban TV broadcasts.

Between FOX and Indymedia, I prefer the latter because they don't lie claiming they are impartial and unbiased and openly admit they are left-winged. I wonder if there will be a day when all these lies will be debunked and the media will openly admit they are right-winged, pro government or supporting a specific candidate and political party instead of lying again and again they are impartial. Lies shouldn't be a merchandise for sale.

Only a catastrophic social disaster provoked by a even greater gap between the rich and poor and by another crisis like 1929s to put down the belief in the "God Market and its Holy Invisible Hand" could change that.

Finally, today big corporations run the show in politics in most "democracies"(more doublespeak and lies, as in fact they are corporate oligarchies) and also control direct or indirectly most communication channels except for the Internet(hopefully no fascist pig will manage to lobby Internet censorship to it in the West), and they won't support or broadcast to the masses ideologies that are against their interests.

If one was to devise a "conservatism index" and calculate its value each year, one would realize that it would be steadily increasing, indicating a strong correlation between the year and the conservatism index. Now, statistical science isn't perfect -- there will always be a few blips. However, the important thing is the overarching structure (ie, a paradigm shift from the left to the right).
First, you need to differentiate between (a) the actual economic conditions within a country and (b) the wishes and political beliefs of its people. These two are almost never the same in dictatorships, and they are often quite different even within democracies. Notice, for example, how the European Union is expanding its powers despite vehement and bitter opposition from the people of Europe.

Now, I will grant you that over the past 20 years, capitalism has made huge gains in field (a). Most governments really have tended to adopt free market reforms - even when they explicitly promised not to. But I don't see any shift to the right in field (b). That is to say, I don't see any shift to the right in public opinion. All I see is a shift to the right in government, largely due to left-wing parties that have chosen to abandon their left-wing stances in spite of vigorous opposition from their own rank and file (e.g. Labour in Britain, the SPD in Germany).

The right is indeed advancing, but it is only able to do so by ignoring public opinion. And besides, this has only been going on for 20 years. I'd like to remind you that the gains made by the left from 1945 to 1980 far outweigh the gains made by the right from 1980 to the present day. At least in Europe - but Europe seems to be the only place you care about anyway.

What is this? A contest to use the string "ass" as many times as you can in one sentence? In either case, it betrays a rudimentary (at best) understand of laissez-faire capitalism.

Actually, that is exactly how laissez-faire works. a few corporations end up with monopolies, those in charge sit around and get rich, everyone else is forced to work long hours for little pay.

Also, please look at Latin America, I think that pretty much discredits any evidence of a right-ward shift.

Also, please look at Latin America, I think that pretty much discredits any evidence of a right-ward shift.

Most are just trying to look like leftists, while behind the scenes they pat the head of the corporate interests. Politics are much more than just a linear definition of left and right.

Thus, you are the worst offender here.

I'll be the judge of that, if you don't mind. Waitaminute - I *AM* the judge of that, and I don't need your permission.

From what I can tell, you've posted the same trollish posts you always post. I thought you'd wandered on to annoy some other stomping ground ... or maybe I'd only wished that. Give it some consideration, wouldja?

As for who is best and who is worst at breaking the rules, I'd gonna say that everyone who qualifies is equally "worst". Keep it up and I'll be glad to present your prize.

As for who is best and who is worst at breaking the rules, I'd gonna say that everyone who qualifies is equally "worst". Keep it up and I'll be glad to present your prize.

Err...what rule did I break, exactly? I simply presented my theory as to the forthcoming demise of leftism -- indeed, this is similar to Fukuyama's thesis in his classic work, The End of History and the Last Man. Has intellectual ferment been banned in my absence? If so, I apologize for my transgression.

On the contrary -- the Evil Empire collapsed on the basis of its own putrid foundation. It was unable to compete with the West due to the inherent backwardness of its economic system.

There were several contributing factors... and organised crime was probably a bigger factor than any kind of perceived 'backwardness'.

Western powers deliberately fought the ideology... as they would, obviously... fatcats will always oppose anything that does away with fatcats.

In the US, they had to embrace a halfway-house version... a lot of social programs to appease the workers, coupled with somehow convincing the faithful proleteriat that communism is intrinsically anti-Christ.

The fact that the American workers sucked down that sack of shit, kind of means they deserve to get screwed by capitalist selfishness, I guess.

You seem to forget - or just don't know? - that the USSR beat the US into space. First to field a satellite. First to put a living creature in orbit. First to put a man in space.. etc... not so 'backward' maybe.

You seem to forget - or just don't know? - that the USSR beat the US into space. First to field a satellite. First to put a living creature in orbit. First to put a man in space.. etc... not so 'backward' maybe.

Yes -- and they did so with the help of German scientists (as did we). If anything, this is a testament to the scientific prowess of Nazi Germany (a predominantly free-market society).

Yes -- and they did so with the help of German scientists (as did we). If anything, this is a testament to the scientific prowess of Nazi Germany (a predominantly free-market society).

Most corporations were state-sponsored enforced monopolies or oligopolies in that time. That is where the word "Corporatism" came from.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatism#Corporatism_and_Fascism

Some critics equate too much corporate power and influence with fascism. Often they cite a quote claimed to be from Mussolini: "Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power.

There is a very old argument about who controlled whom in the fascist states of Italy and Germany at various points in the timeline of power. It is agreed that the army, the wealthy, and the big corporations ended up with much more say in decision making than other elements of the corporative state

Note: Straight to the point, the Nazi Capitalism was heavily controlled by the State on behalf of the interests of monopolistic groups, and I'm sure state intervention in economy has nothing to do with a free market. The "Far right" title is deceptive as it actually means "Highly authoritarian right" instead of neoliberal.

Yes -- and they did so with the help of German scientists (as did we). If anything, this is a testament to the scientific prowess of Nazi Germany (a predominantly free-market society).

So.. .'they' had help from Germans.. and 'we' had help from Germans... and their 'backward' society STILL managed to beat us into space?

You're talking through your hat, my friend.

Yes -- and they did so with the help of German scientists (as did we). If anything, this is a testament to the scientific prowess of Nazi Germany (a predominantly free-market society).

Nazi Germany regulated wage and price levels and heavily controlled importation and the use of raw materials and levied high taxes on small businesses, not to mention the imposition of racial restrictons on business. In what way is this indicative of free market policy?

So.. .'they' had help from Germans.. and 'we' had help from Germans... and their 'backward' society STILL managed to beat us into space?

You're talking through your hat, my friend.

There was a rather interesting MSN.com article resently. It was talking about how the U.S government was not worried about the soviets getting into space. In fact, it was the media that blew the threat out of proportion and got the populace in a panic. The president at that time was happy that the soviets had gotten into space. If we had really wanted to we could have gotten into space before the soviets, but we were rather lax about it. This is from MSN.com, a rather liberal newsgroup. I do not have the link but if you dig, you could find it.


Edit: Resently as in 1 month ago.

Given that about 15 years of Conservative government under Thatcher and Major lowered the the percentage of government spending from about 43% to about 42% I'd say that the left is still pretty strong. In Europe any classical liberal party that actually wants to get elected advocates a level of provision of public services and government regulation of the economy that would give a reformist socialist an orgasm and cause a 19th century classical liberal to aphyxiate.

Nazi Germany regulated wage and price levels and heavily controlled importation and the use of raw materials and levied high taxes on small businesses, not to mention the imposition of racial restrictions on business. In what way is this indicative of free market policy?

Oh don't confuse him. It's easier to speak in abstract generalities than to explore the various complexities of these economic and social systems. He will continue to ignore the evidence to the contrary and focus on the minute points left in his argument. This is the MO of MTAE/FAG. He will present data that exists only in his own head as "factual analysis" of some sort. It's really a boring experience to continue to feed into his crap. MY opinion is that he takes arguments that are meant to inflame people and tries to argue indefensible positions. It's an exercise is his ability to spin regardless of the information presented to the contrary.

1. Nazi Germany was not an open economic system. It was controlled by a minority of interests consisting of large corporation. Many of these corporations were in bed with the United States at this time as we were more than willing to sponsor the rise of the Third Reich. Witness the rise of multinational corporation whose goal is to help no one country, but only the sickly wealthy overlords they serve. Meant to evade responsibility and limit liability on the world stage, these corporations have amassed wealth far beyond most nation states. With their control of commerce they bring power than can corrupt any government. Whether they are democratic (sic), authoritarian, dictatorial, etc. they are all susceptible to corporate power. This is the point at which the concept of "New World Order" took it's deadly hold. You really think individuals hold the power and control like they should in a true "capitalist" system? You are either naive or just lying.

2. The current Russian system is worse off than the former system. The former system was undermined by organized crime and a tremendous amount of corruption. This corruption still exists and is a primary reason why most Russian citizens still suffer.

3. Latin America and much of Europe are still under leftist regimes. This is not the "leftist" used in modern American terms, but the more classical sense of the term.

4. China, while moving towards a more free market type of system is also a corporate state. Large corporations are exploiting the masses for massive economic gains. While this helps the few at the top the rest of the population is forced to work relentlessly for meager wages.

5. The reliance on tax cuts, as cited by the OP is detrimental in the long term if you cannot reign in spending. The current President has helped push through massive spending bills with the help of a friendly congress for six years. Along with massive bailouts for the airline industry, oil/gas subsidies (tell me again why companies making record profits need taxpayer money?), and now the home lending bust, the United States is not in an advantageous position. Add to that massive discretionary spending on Iraq and the fed is forced to adjust monetary policy hoping to fend off inflation and a recession. Tax cuts are a great idea but only if you can cut spending. The US dollar is weak and will start to create an even more blaring inequity in trade deficits. It will drive up costs of imports such as petroleum and force the populace to strain under their already tight budgets. I repeat tax cuts are a good thing and can spur economic growth. This is negated when the currency upon which you trade is devalued. All growth gains will show weaknesses in nearly every other area of note as seen in current economic indicators.

6. Stop feeding the troll as I will do now.

The only way Communisim works is in very small groups where everyone knows what's going on and makes the choice to be a part of it. Communisim fails in large groups because large groups of people are, for lack of a better word, stupid. Someone has to be the boss because of this, and that just leads to the whole 'some pigs are more equal than others' thing.

True communism is like direct democracy and insects. Past a certain size, none of them can breathe.

all idiologies will die, right, left, up down and sideways, when we are all starving do to envirnmental colapse, if that's what it takes to wake up and realize they are all fantasies for which people have sold down the river the kind of world we all have to live in.

as for people helping each other and cooperating, for the sake of being others being able to do the same for them, when the time inevitably comes that they will need to be themselves, we would never have created any sort of civilization beyond kinship groups living in caves if we hadn't started doing so.

the only thing monetary economics has given us are certain advances in tecnologies. some of which have been bennificial, some of which haven't, and many of which have been merely trivial.

i wouldn't call what corporate economics is doing now, to each of us and the world we all have to live in, exactly "working" to anyone's bennifit either.

as for moving on into space, there's just one little problem: breathing mixture. it isn't just there here, and it isn't there at all, unless we take with us fully functioning ecosystems, something we seem to inadiquatly appreciate the only one we've currently got. and maybe not everyone realizes this yet, but without it there wouldn't be an us.

i'm NOT advocating any idiology. what i am advocating is not being prejudiced and fanatical about them, which is really just a boneheaded distraction from reality to do so anyway.

reality beyond human illusions, that does not begin and end with them. little things like air and food and so on. something that little green pieces of paper having anything to do with, is not a default condition of anything.

=^^=
.../\...

This thread clearly shows both sides are still alive. They're here arguing. I'm also inclined to think this arguing will continue forever, so that means their ideologies must both remain alive forever too. QED.

Ballotonia

Even communism, which has never worked anywhere it's been tried, has supporters who insist it's the world that is at fault, not their model-if I had a nickel for every time I've heard "Communism has never been utilized properly"

SOme people have no idea just how sick we middle people are of you leftists and rightists. But you will when the Happy Medium rises to power! :)

Even communism, which has never worked anywhere it's been tried, has supporters who insist it's the world that is at fault, not their model-if I had a nickel for every time I've heard "Communism has never been utilized properly"

You don't seem to understand what unreconstructed theory is my friend, since when do us socialists have to take responsibility for Stalin or some statist countries which killed and oppressed in the name of socialism? Sometimes I think on this issue the right seems to be the one advocating collective responsibility, this isn't even guilt by association, it's guilt by vague political links. I mean I don't say that the Right have to take responsibility for Hitler even though he practiced capitalism and was the end result of regressive and reactionary far-right dogma. For both sides of politics to pile on the weights of history to somehow make they're point is childish at best, and ignores the individual circumstances and the timeframe of some brutal socialist (and capitalist) regimes, and to try and do so is absurdest at best.

And this is the kind of crap which hurts us good Marxists and lets the reactionaries attack us and we don't defend ourselves, that the idea that our ideas have been tried and failed is silly political point-scoring at best, and ignores the myriad forces of history. The Right's obsession with the Soviet Union and Stalin isn't out of sorrow for they're victims, it's a calculated attempt by reactionary forces to undo worker power and political gains for equality in favor of a backward step.

Somehow every time 'Stalin' is brought up us Marxist are supposed to bow our heads and apologize, which completely ignores the myriad historical forces of the time, the nature of the world then etc. This is of course the Rightist tendency to view 'the Left' as some monolith, byzantine and homogeneous entity. Us on the left need to overcome this, we don't have to apologize for anything, we were born into this world and that's that. We need to realize the reactionary tactics and they're undying hatred of equality, solidarity and popular power, we need to view this at it's most simple to avoid distortions; this is a material class struggle against the historical and present forces of reactionism, a force built upon the most unethical and brutal uniform logic of the utilitarian free market, a force that will exploit anything.

After a century of a bitter ideological war between the right cause and leftism, a verdict can be delivered on which side has prevailed. One but has to look at the powerful capitalist state emerging from the shambles of a dilapidated Soviet Union to witness the inexorable rise of the right. Leftist parties see their membership shriveling across the world; even recidivistic France appears to have permanently cast off the insidiousness of socialism, wholeheartedly rejecting the antiquated ideas of Marx and Royal. China's financial markets have received a breath of fresh air after stagnating under oppressive and deleterious governmental control; this invigorating deregulation has spurred fantastic growth, plainly exposing the fatuity of state intervention. This liberalizing trend is evident throughout the world, with the exception of such countries as North Korea; indeed, this salient absence speaks volumes as to the efficacy of free markets, given the impecuniousness of the North Korean state compared to its southern counterpart. Recent victories in Switzerland and Poland swept in staunchly pro-business parties; this pattern has been clear throughout post-Communist Europe, as Eastern European nations have rejected the economic shackles of leftism and embraced the engine of growth that is capitalism. The withering left is left desperately grasping at issues such as health-care in order to keep itself afloat, yet the tide relentlessly rises higher and higher. Privatization is on the menu throughout the world, and numerous countries are savoring it -- the rotten timber of state ownership is being cut down, and nascent private firms are taking its place, healthier and stronger than their predecessors. Taxes are systematically being cut to spur private enterprise, liberating the people from overbearing states. And as the remorseless march of right-wing ideals continues unabated, leftist leaders will be hard-pressed to delude their loyal followers into believing the filth which they spew.
Mostly slightly right, to be honest.

That said, the Parti Socialiste candidate was quite close to winning the presidential election, and would have done so, had she not continually shot herself in the foot through the whole bloody campaign with utterly ludicrous policies (90% of your previous wages for the first year of unemployment benefit? Unfeasible).

Oh and post-communist Europe hasn't really become any more predominately right-wing, other than in Poland where there's been a ridiculous anti-Communist witch-hunt for the last 15 or so years.

There are still pretty successful socialist parties - for example the Bulgarian Socialist Party got about 34% of the vote in 2005, although due to the way that their system works, this means that they got far less influence than that would suggest (the winning party get 200 extra seats in addition to its proportion of the 200 that everyone gets a share of).
All this inevitably begs the question: for how much longer will the left continue to exist as a viable political force? Poll coming.
Doesn't really exist much in Europe any more, only in France, where it's quite a powerful movement. The various 'Socialist' and 'Labour' parties of most of Europe lost their really leftist policies in the early 90s, when they realised that people were becoming optimistic again.

The only reason that it really succeeds in France is because they have Eastern European levels of unemployment.



What the left (still a bit much to call it one movement, mind) really needs is a change of tac. No more Marxist wankery, no more imagining that money grows on trees, and no more simply relying on a support base of the poor and students, it needs to broaden itself out to the rich (and also cut tax rates on the rich, so that they get their support) by talking about increased worker productiveness etc., or they'll never win an election without some kind of crisis going on, which is the usual way.

The Swedish Social Democratic Party is a decent example of this.

This thread reeks of right-wing wishing thinking, if anything the left is coming back worldwide, I mean just look at the governments of the world and many have center-left or socialist dispositions. The fact is, we live in elective systems worldwide and the working class proletariat majority will always have the power. It’s just that the right have to continually think up new tactics to maintain their minority elitist control, be it ‘liberal democracy’ to create political apathy, indifference and cynicism of politics, or in extreme cases violent reactionary counter-revolution (e.g. Hitler, Pinochet, military juntas etc). At the end of the day the choice is simple, its majority rule versus minority rule, progression versus regression, and no matter the devices the right throws up to confuse the silent majority, eventually people will come to see the capitalist tyranny as it truly, and they need do is kick in the door and the whole rotten edifice will come crashing down.

‘A small amount of the rich requires an abundance of poor.’

True communism is just as impossible as true democracy.

Both are but the thin facades of the powers that be. Ideologies and philosophies change as the market demands, but our owners are one and the same.

This thread reeks of right-wing wishing thinking, if anything the left is coming back worldwide, I mean just look at the governments of the world and many have center-left or socialist dispositions.
No, not really, since at the moment things are chugging along OK, we have a bunch of economically liberal governments around the world. The next 4 years are probably going to be bad economically, and
The fact is, we live in elective systems worldwide and the working class proletariat majority will always have the power.
No, they don't, though, because they don't hold the majority of wealth, which is what allows anything to get done, as much as you'd love to believe otherwise.

You can't raise an army, administrate large areas of land, educate a great deal of people or indeed have any kind of industry without a lot of capital to kick it off.

Something that 'the working class proletariat' (incidentally, you should be disgusted with yourself for classifying a vast plethora of people into one group) simply does not have on an individual basis.
It’s just that the right have to continually think up new tactics to maintain their minority elitist control, be it ‘liberal democracy’ to create political apathy, indifference and cynicism of politics
What, as opposed to some kind of fairyland direct democracy which will lead to things getting done out of the goodness of peoples' hearts?

Nah. Doesn't happen. Look at 1917-1918 Russia.

"Here, have control over your factories"
"Oh, thanks"
*utter stagnation of the economy and only a subsistence level of consumer goods is produced, leading to farmers having no decent reason to produce goods, as their crop would be essentially worthless*
violent reactionary counter-revolution
This is why you Marxists piss me off to no end. "Violent reactionary counter-revolution". I can't believe you also missed of "bourgeois, enemy of the proletariat, oppressive pigdogs", which would have completed the litany of idiocy that you guys spew out in your dogmatic little way.

Do you honestly think that anyone actually cares what you think after you write some bullshit phrase like that, other than other Marxists who'll give you a pat on the back for your 'contribution to class warfare', all the time being propped up by their very much MC parents?

Because they don't.
(e.g. Hitler, Pinochet, military juntas etc)
Yes, those were bad indeed. But the fact that the leftist parties were too incompetant and basically arrogant to do anything other than sit back and complain as they were taken away is a bit of a disgrace.

See also the PSI in Italy. They were the largest party, with the most support, and because of their ideological rather than pragmatic nature, they were kicked out of power for their utter complacency.
At the end of the day the choice is simple
No, it isn't, this is another massive flaw with most Marxists. The world is not black and white, it's various shades of grey. It's not lovely kind Marxists and their proletariat leading to some kind of Utopia through a revolution, triumphing over those bourgeois counter-revolutionary pigdogs, the top-hat wearing reactionaries.

Because in every revolution by a Marxist group, there is a very, very quick realisation that you need an educated ruling elite, with more privalages than everyone else, or else they don't work hard to keep their place, and you need The Rest, who look up to a rich, powerful ruling elite and seek to get into their position.

That is how society works. And will work, forever.
its majority rule versus minority rule
Let's hope not, seeing as most people aren't particularly capable of ruling a country or other state.
progression versus regression
That happens in every society, all things being well. The USSR, China, the US and EU have all leapt forwards in one manner or other, and all have different ideologies.
and no matter the devices the right throws up to confuse the silent majority, eventually people will come to see the capitalist tyranny as it truly, and they need do is kick in the door and the whole rotten edifice will come crashing down.
Let's hope it doesn't, for your sake and mine.
‘A small amount of the rich requires an abundance of poor.’
And an abundunce of those of some degree of wealth would require a small amount of the super-rich. Or nobody would be motivated to do anything, and they would simply all become poor.

After a century of a bitter ideological war between the right cause and leftism, a verdict can be delivered on which side has prevailed. One but has to look at the powerful capitalist state emerging from the shambles of a dilapidated Soviet Union to witness the inexorable rise of the right. Leftist parties see their membership shriveling across the world; even recidivistic France appears to have permanently cast off the insidiousness of socialism, wholeheartedly rejecting the antiquated ideas of Marx and Royal. China's financial markets have received a breath of fresh air after stagnating under oppressive and deleterious governmental control; this invigorating deregulation has spurred fantastic growth, plainly exposing the fatuity of state intervention. This liberalizing trend is evident throughout the world, with the exception of such countries as North Korea; indeed, this salient absence speaks volumes as to the efficacy of free markets, given the impecuniousness of the North Korean state compared to its southern counterpart. Recent victories in Switzerland and Poland swept in staunchly pro-business parties; this pattern has been clear throughout post-Communist Europe, as Eastern European nations have rejected the economic shackles of leftism and embraced the engine of growth that is capitalism. The withering left is left desperately grasping at issues such as health-care in order to keep itself afloat, yet the tide relentlessly rises higher and higher. Privatization is on the menu throughout the world, and numerous countries are savoring it -- the rotten timber of state ownership is being cut down, and nascent private firms are taking its place, healthier and stronger than their predecessors. Taxes are systematically being cut to spur private enterprise, liberating the people from overbearing states. And as the remorseless march of right-wing ideals continues unabated, leftist leaders will be hard-pressed to delude their loyal followers into believing the filth which they spew.

All this inevitably begs the question: for how much longer will the left continue to exist as a viable political force? Poll coming.

What a stupid flame-baiter. It IS fascinating that you can have such a worthlessly large vocabulary AND the complete inability to be objective or intelligent.

Well done!! Kindly step off my planet. That's valuable oxygen you're respirating.

Yeah, that's why the Right in the US is, right now, losing votes quicker than Bush can make Iraqi children lose limbs. That's why the entirety of South America is becoming much more left-winged and - surprise - that's working well for it. That's why Australia itself is swinging left.

You must be wishing you knew what "left" means right now, aren't you, F&G?

The problem with your statement about the US is that President Bush is not representative of the right. "Neo-Conservatism" is an odd mix of the two, mostly the worst of the two sides.

Real Conservatives:

Tax cuts are proven perfection to stimulate an economy and be fair to the people who overpay taxes, but you do not do huge tax cuts while ratcheting UP spending. War for national defense (Afghanistan) is the entire point of the military, while elective war (Iraq) is not. The FBI is critical to "establish justice" and "ensure domestic tranquility", but broad powers of surveillance on just anybody is unconstitutional. The CIA is critical to "provide for the common defense" and "secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity", but a nation must be careful with rendition and should not hold prisoners for such extensive periods without due process. It goes on and on, but I don't have that much more time to type.

Only when Conservatives have re-asserted what it means to be conservative will this discussion of "left" and "right" (as it is distinguished in the US) be clear again.

Until then, proponents of the tinpot dictator of Cuba and his Venezuelan lapdog will mistakenly believe that Republican = Conservative which has not been true for this President and his Congress.

The problem with your statement about the US is that President Bush is not representative of the right. "Neo-Conservatism" is an odd mix of the two, mostly the worst of the two sides.

Real Conservatives:

Tax cuts are proven perfection to stimulate an economy and be fair to the people who overpay taxes, but you do not do huge tax cuts while ratcheting UP spending. War for national defense (Afghanistan) is the entire point of the military, while elective war (Iraq) is not. The FBI is critical to "establish justice" and "ensure domestic tranquility", but broad powers of surveillance on just anybody is unconstitutional. The CIA is critical to "provide for the common defense" and "secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity", but a nation must be careful with rendition and should not hold prisoners for such extensive periods without due process. It goes on and on, but I don't have that much more time to type.

Only when Conservatives have re-asserted what it means to be conservative will this discussion of "left" and "right" (as it is distinguished in the US) be clear again.

Until then, proponents of the tinpot dictator of Cuba and his Venezuelan lapdog will mistakenly believe that Republican = Conservative which has not been true for this President and his Congress.

Bush is closer to the Right than Castro is to the Left. Why do you assume otherwise? The Left doesn't stand for dictatorships - indeed the South America dictatorships began here when the RIGHT couped the LEFT out.

Both conservativism and liberalism will probably remain as long as humans still exist and the political landscape resembles what it is now. I would be quite surprised if conservatives succeeded in squashing all competition in the future simply because human nature rarely permits such limited options to remain unopposed.

Political ideologies as broad as liberalism are all but immortal. I'd say that liberalism and conservatism will have the same lifespan - they are dueling opposites. As long as there are conservatives, there will be people who vehemently disagree with them. Those people will be liberals.

Not that liberalism and conservatism will live forever. We centrists are plotting your demise as we speak.;)

If liberalism is so good why it has destroyed all the countries in which it has been implied???And why it was first been to power by dictatorhships in Latin America???Why 70% percent of the people living in East and Central Europe says that their life was better before capitalism?(Bear in mind that I am anti-stalinist) I suppose that you are fully aware that in the place where liberalism was implied,Latin America,has done a turn to the "dying left",right??

Europe is facing a strong attack in every political and social freedom whether the gap between rich and poor is getting bigger,the poor get poorer and the rich richer.Does the capitalist theory has to say anything about it???

Capitalism is killing Earth too.Free market uses too much energy,capital and working force.The hunger for profit is killing the planet,forests are being burned,sea is being polluting.Where is capitalism going to exploit the people when it destroyes Earth?

In 1900 Lenin said about Third World "Misery without end".One hundred years later things are even worse.What capitalism has done with the people of the Third World???It just made them more...

As for my country,Greece, the poor are getting poorer and the rich extremely rich and the middle class is getting poor.Therefore the left,reformist and stalinist party took 13%,the socialist party 37% and the right 41%.And the people of the socialist party demand their party to take a left turn.

Cheers..... :cool:

We centrists are plotting your demise as we speak.;)
Hal-le-fucking-lu-jah.
:)

After a century of the remorseless march of right-wing ideals continues unabated

that's because oligarchies cut throats of women, children, and grandparents.

http://www.soaw.org


people are just trying to survive and build a livable world,
yet they've had their throats slit for corporate profits.


left-right,
bli-blah.
who cares.

the few own almost all the wealth,
while the vast majority of the earth's population, the poor, live
in squalor