I'm no 'bleeding heart' type, but I believe times are changing, the flow of information today has shown us that things are not so simple as we might once have believed and that how we perceive the world around us is vital if we want to leave something better for those who come after us. Humanity is not a homogenous entity, and yet accepting this will allow us a greater unity.
I'm surprised some people associate leftist politics with being less free. When I talk about left, I'm not talking about communist Soviet Russia (which was more a kind of state capitalism: there still was an elite exploiting the masses), but more in the order of the social-democratic Scandinavian state:
If you live in a harsh capitalist country like the US, 'freedom' means being free to suffer, free to be exploited. If you live in a social-democratic country like Norway or Sweden, freedom means freedom from want, freedom from anxiety. At least not the anxiety of being left to squalor in poverty if you lose a job or become sick or handicapped.
In societies where there's more equality, people are much more free of depression, anxiety etc. Even the rich! For the well-off, it's psychologically better to be a little better well off than the average, than being stupendously more rich. The latter comes with a far greater deal of anxiety, suicides, crime etc., for everyone.
So, there's no real freedom without freedom from want.
@Teflon Im not asking if you are a extreme right or left, communists and nazis have little do do with this discussion really. So, just the general political direction you associate with. I dont think anyone here thinks someone is a nazi for voting right.
The schism of left/right is the problem with politics. If politicians looked to what was best for those they govern and not their own pockets or interests, we would all be better off. The whole left/right thing just generates arguments and hostility. If you look closely at both sides you will see rampant hypocrisy and narcissism amongst their ranks.
The purpose of government is to improve the lives of those governed, not get re-elected or pass legislation that makes you famous.
I generally don't get into politics on the forums, been there, done that, in the past.
Reagan was the best president in my life time.
I do have some respect for some Democratic presidents, like Kennedy and FDR. FDR took us out of the Depression and saw us through WW2. Kennedy stood up to Khrushchev during the Cuban Missile Crisis. We were so close to WW3 at that time.
I see a lot of people on here are American, and so their political sentiments and perceptions will differ greatly from those of the UK/Europe/Asia. As a Brit, I have become slowly more left-wing as I've grown older. As I said before, I don't blindly agree with everything the left says, especially not when it seems heavily backed by some aspects the media, but that's due to me not wishing to be manipulated without knowing more myself. For me, to go right equates with cynicism and depression, and I have no wish to go back down that road again. I prefer to maintain a cautious but true optimism about the future.
I wonder how one can be 'economically right, socially left'. Doesn't social mean taking care of eachother, creating a society where nobody falls of the economical cliff, wealth is more equally distributed? How can one be socially left without being economically left as well? What does 'socially' mean if sharing ain't part of it?
The schism of left/right is the problem with politics. If politicians looked to what was best for those they govern and not their own pockets or interests, we would all be better off. The whole left/right thing just generates arguments and hostility. If you look closely at both sides you will see rampant hypocrisy and narcissism amongst their ranks.
The purpose of government is to improve the lives of those governed, not get re-elected or pass legislation that makes you famous.
Well, the purpose of the government, at least a democratic one, should be to attempt to fulfil the people's will. There is a sincere difference of opinion whether we should attempt to privatize or not, because there is no *correct* way to govern. In my opinion, there are very few truths in a social world because people are so different, hence the politicians have to argue about which method/ideology makes society better. While the voters are allowed to make the decision.
Well at the moment the right and left agree on torture and war. They also agree on doing everything they can to abolish due process and many other civil liberties in the name of fighting terrorism. So I hate both choices.
@Aristillius The United States. The left used to be anti-war and anti-torture, but then Obama got elected. Apparently those things are ok as long as it's not a Republican doing them.
@Kitteh_On_A_Cloud are you indifferent to what politicans sit at parliament? Would you rather have Nazis or Socialists? Im sorry, but since you live in a democracy there is some sort of personal choice here, which actually might impact a lot of people...
The fascinating thing about both Nazis and Socialists is that both require coercion (forcing people to act in an involuntary manner). That means that both require a gun in the hands of the government to get you to give up something (or you will go to jail). A more proper axis where human well being and human nature is concerned would be to put Coercion (such as Socialism, Communism, Fascists etc.) on one side and Individual Freedom on the other. I'm an American, and I really don't choose to be a slave.
Personally, I lean centre-left economically and on people's rights.
If you've read the communist manifesto by Marx then you would know that socialism, true socialism, does not require any form of force. A socialist state created by the working class is one where it is "wanted" and requires no forcing. Also, equating Fascism (Nazi) to Socialism is a bit of a misnomer. The Nazi's were socialists in name only, not in actions.
And I'm not trying to be offensive here, but the Corporate Capitalism which has evolved from America and spread to many other countries has become the "new" form of slavery.
The original point of America and particularly American Capitalism was to give each man his own business, his own property and therefore, his own right to financial self determination.
Capitalism (at least in the US, and to an extent also here in the UK) is approaching a "critical mass" point. The original values no longer stand. Instead of owning your own business, the majority of people are working for McThis or McThat and in doing so they ARE choosing to be slaves. Admittedly with a MUCH better standard of living than the 17th/18th century slaves of old. But slaves none the less.
In Socialism you are a slave to the state. In Communism you are a slave to the community. In Corporate Capitalism you are a slave to multinational companies.
In my opinion, you call it what you like, it's a form of enforced work where you do not have financial self determination (McDonalds decides you get minimum wage. And if you don't want that you can get fu... :P). I.E. modern wage slavery.
The only difference is that the majority of people get to choose which tax avoiding multinational company they are "contracted" to (or not, many people here are desperate for a job).
I'd like to go back to old style Capitalism with basic "socialist" elements (e.g. Free healthcare, like here in the UK, free emergency services, education, etc.)
All this talk about slavery makes me so sad... What has the world become... I don't even have a job yet, yet I already feel like one of those throw-away hamburger packages you get at Mc Donald's... Almost makes me cry, actually...
All this talk about slavery makes me so sad... What has the world become... I don't even have a job yet, yet I already feel like one of those throw-away hamburger packages you get at Mc Donald's... Almost makes me cry, actually...
To quote a famous song: Things can only get better!
I'm just being a typical cynic. I'm definitely not an optimist. Off topic: I'm not a life coach either, but a friend taught me the philosophy that only you are responsible for your own emotions.
The world makes you feel like a throw-away hamburger package because *you let it*.
Things will change eventually. Things get better, then worse, then better. Repeat ad nauseum. They always do. Change is the only inevitable thing in nature, even death can be avoided by certain wobbly marine gelatin
@Dantos4 how can you be a slave to the state when you have *power* over the state? This is exactly why socialism is emancipatory for me, because only the board/stock-owners have power in corporations, and they are driven only by profit.
@Aristillius In an ideal socialist/democratic/meritocratic society I agree entirely.
My problem with Socialism (and by Marx's standards, therefore Communism by proxy) is that these power hungry sociopathic "big businessmen" in capitalist societies merely worm their way into the Government/State matters in a socialist society.
Stalin is a good example of this. Lenin is debatable so I won't use him as the example, but Stalin did try to create a socialist state and became so paranoid & obsessed with his vision of it that he destroyed the very soul of socialism. The BIG problem was that he missed out the "Dictatorship of the proletariat" part.
My problem with these power-hungry people, revolutionaries especially, is that they believe their version of socialism is so important and so perfect that it MUST be implemented. By force if necessary. And the only way to maintain it is to "do it yourself", screwing any form of democracy over (as Stalin did).
The obvious problem there is that it goes against everything Socialism stands for. In implementing and attempting to ensure socialism works, people in history (the Chinese are a great contemporary example) inevitably destroy the foundation of socialism.
I can only see Socialism being implemented in a Marxist styled revolution of the proletariat, something Che Guevarra was hit-and-miss at being successful with before his assassination.
This "Brave New World" styled world we have today pretty much prevents this revolution ever happening, in my view. People are more bothered about local celebrity gossip than who their own Governments are torturing, invading illegally, etc.
I am an overly verbose cynic, if it isn't obvious :P
As I get older, I find myself becoming more and more political. When I was younger I never liked politics, I found it boring, uninteresting. Now I am interested because the people keep electing idiots into office who want to muck up our world affairs with other countries or screw around with our rights in the Constitution.
The sad part of democracy is that most people are morons, which means they will make stupid choices and end up getting idiots and power-hungry jerks elected, time and time again.
But hey, at least we managed to stop the worst power-hungry jerk being elected the last year. That's something I guess: the lesser of two evils, at the very least.
@Dantos4 I am a socialist becuase I think that a better world is possible in the long run. Also, the abrupt change from the really back-ward dicatorship countries to another form of dictatorship is irrelevant for my own view of socialsim except to demonstrate how it should *not* be done.
Modern democracies have a far greater chance of creating a working socialist state than what Tsarist russia had. The dividing line is if people in general feel that they have power over the state, a state with transparant policies.
Comments
If you live in a harsh capitalist country like the US, 'freedom' means being free to suffer, free to be exploited. If you live in a social-democratic country like Norway or Sweden, freedom means freedom from want, freedom from anxiety. At least not the anxiety of being left to squalor in poverty if you lose a job or become sick or handicapped.
In societies where there's more equality, people are much more free of depression, anxiety etc. Even the rich! For the well-off, it's psychologically better to be a little better well off than the average, than being stupendously more rich. The latter comes with a far greater deal of anxiety, suicides, crime etc., for everyone.
So, there's no real freedom without freedom from want.
Im not asking if you are a extreme right or left, communists and nazis have little do do with this discussion really. So, just the general political direction you associate with. I dont think anyone here thinks someone is a nazi for voting right.
The purpose of government is to improve the lives of those governed, not get re-elected or pass legislation that makes you famous.
I generally don't get into politics on the forums, been there, done that, in the past.
Reagan was the best president in my life time.
I do have some respect for some Democratic presidents, like Kennedy and FDR. FDR took us out of the Depression and saw us through WW2. Kennedy stood up to Khrushchev during the Cuban Missile Crisis. We were so close to WW3 at that time.
On the World's Smallest Political Quiz (http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz) I don't score Left or Right. I score Up.
If you've read the communist manifesto by Marx then you would know that socialism, true socialism, does not require any form of force. A socialist state created by the working class is one where it is "wanted" and requires no forcing. Also, equating Fascism (Nazi) to Socialism is a bit of a misnomer. The Nazi's were socialists in name only, not in actions.
And I'm not trying to be offensive here, but the Corporate Capitalism which has evolved from America and spread to many other countries has become the "new" form of slavery.
The original point of America and particularly American Capitalism was to give each man his own business, his own property and therefore, his own right to financial self determination.
Capitalism (at least in the US, and to an extent also here in the UK) is approaching a "critical mass" point. The original values no longer stand. Instead of owning your own business, the majority of people are working for McThis or McThat and in doing so they ARE choosing to be slaves. Admittedly with a MUCH better standard of living than the 17th/18th century slaves of old. But slaves none the less.
In Socialism you are a slave to the state. In Communism you are a slave to the community. In Corporate Capitalism you are a slave to multinational companies.
In my opinion, you call it what you like, it's a form of enforced work where you do not have financial self determination (McDonalds decides you get minimum wage. And if you don't want that you can get fu... :P). I.E. modern wage slavery.
The only difference is that the majority of people get to choose which tax avoiding multinational company they are "contracted" to (or not, many people here are desperate for a job).
I'd like to go back to old style Capitalism with basic "socialist" elements (e.g. Free healthcare, like here in the UK, free emergency services, education, etc.)
Just my thoughts on the issue.
I'm just being a typical cynic. I'm definitely not an optimist. Off topic: I'm not a life coach either, but a friend taught me the philosophy that only you are responsible for your own emotions.
The world makes you feel like a throw-away hamburger package because *you let it*.
Things will change eventually. Things get better, then worse, then better. Repeat ad nauseum. They always do. Change is the only inevitable thing in nature, even death can be avoided by certain wobbly marine gelatin
Or a pencil in your mouth. It's all good.
Incidentally, happy 1st of May!
My problem with Socialism (and by Marx's standards, therefore Communism by proxy) is that these power hungry sociopathic "big businessmen" in capitalist societies merely worm their way into the Government/State matters in a socialist society.
Stalin is a good example of this. Lenin is debatable so I won't use him as the example, but Stalin did try to create a socialist state and became so paranoid & obsessed with his vision of it that he destroyed the very soul of socialism. The BIG problem was that he missed out the "Dictatorship of the proletariat" part.
My problem with these power-hungry people, revolutionaries especially, is that they believe their version of socialism is so important and so perfect that it MUST be implemented. By force if necessary. And the only way to maintain it is to "do it yourself", screwing any form of democracy over (as Stalin did).
The obvious problem there is that it goes against everything Socialism stands for. In implementing and attempting to ensure socialism works, people in history (the Chinese are a great contemporary example) inevitably destroy the foundation of socialism.
I can only see Socialism being implemented in a Marxist styled revolution of the proletariat, something Che Guevarra was hit-and-miss at being successful with before his assassination.
This "Brave New World" styled world we have today pretty much prevents this revolution ever happening, in my view. People are more bothered about local celebrity gossip than who their own Governments are torturing, invading illegally, etc.
I am an overly verbose cynic, if it isn't obvious :P
But hey, at least we managed to stop the worst power-hungry jerk being elected the last year. That's something I guess: the lesser of two evils, at the very least.
Plato seemed to have roughly pegged it correctly in his Five Regimes: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plato's_five_regimes
Sure, he was a little off, and at times they kinda fuse together... but considering the 2000++ year gap, he wasn't that far off :P
Modern democracies have a far greater chance of creating a working socialist state than what Tsarist russia had. The dividing line is if people in general feel that they have power over the state, a state with transparant policies.