Forums → WEPR → Left wing economics
| 134 | 18589 |
Everyone that I know who calls themselves a "Socialist" or "Communist" is an extreme hypocrite. A simple definition of Socialism is where âproperty and the distribution of wealth are subject to control by the community.â Socialism also calls for Workerâs Councils to take over the means of production. It is a working class movement. I can respect an organized working class. I am going to be a teacher in the future and will make crap for a salary. But that is my choice. Capitalism gives me equal opportunity to pick my career. I could have been an engineer making at least $50K first year. But because of Capitalism, I have a choice. And I decided to become a teacher. I believe in the Capitalist system because it makes people work for their money. Socialism is an oppressive system that tries to stop the natural order of economics.
Something I have seen lately is the number of âSocialistsâ who have appeared amongst the youth of America. Are they here to go against their parents? Maybe. Every generation has children who do not agree with their parents. Are they here to start a revolution? Possibly... All generations have their âwanna-be revolutionaries.â Or are they here because they want to stir things up? This is what I think they are after. From what I have seen the average left-economist has been a spoiled, rich, drugged up, white kid who wants to rebel against society.
All of my friends who claim to have left-wing economic values are all white and are from wealthy families. I find it a bit weird that they continually talk about how the "white race" oppresses everyone. Even as they argue this, they continually do things to bring down the working class and minorities.
One of my college friends who labels himself as a âleftist socialist revolutionaryâ grows marijuana and sells it for a huge profit. I noticed most of his customers were of ethnic minorities as well. When I asked how this was compatible with Socialism and racial equality, he ignored me at first. He later explained that marijuana was a symbol for the leftist movement. He never explained how selling it for huge profits was compatible with his beliefs though. I continued to press him on the issue, and all he could come up with was âIâm spreading the love equally like Socialism calls for!â His hypocrisy was so evident that I did not even have to continue questioning him.
Another friend of mine who claims Socialism is the greatest thing ever continuously shops at Wal-Mart, a massive corporation. She apparently has no problem with Wal-Mart and her economic beliefs, because she is ill-informed. I asked her if it was okay for a Socialist to shop at Wal-Mart, and she said it was no problem. She did not see the problem with it.
Another example of economic leftist hypocrisy that I have is within the gay community. I know several gay people from college. Many of them wear âCheâ t-shirts. If you do not know who Che is, then look here: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Che_Guevara, His photo on the right side is a symbol for Socialists and Communists across the globe. In fact, most Historians agree that it is the most important photo of all time. You can see his image on shirts like this: http://www.geocities.com/socialist_action/che.gif). Ernesto âCheâ Guevara was one of the most devoted Communists I have read about. Yet he had thousands of Christians killed for their beliefs. He had hundreds executed for owning large plots of land. More importantly for this argument, Che had thousands of people executed for being homosexual. Now how could any homosexual wear a t-shirt with Cheâs image on it? Economic left wingers love Che for his devotion to Socialism and Communism, yet they blind themselves to the fact that he was a ruthless killer of homosexuals, religious people, and those who owned land. This is yet another hypocrisy of left-wing economists.
The best example I have is of my geography teacher in college. He was a devout Communist. He denied the Cambodian and Bosnian genocides (both committed by Communists). He denied the purges of Stalin and the Ukranian Famine he caused. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_terror, and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor). Stalin killed more than Hitler, yet this teacher claimed Stalin was one of the most democratic rulers ever. This teacher stuck by his die-hard Communist ideology. But one day, I found him shopping in a Wal-Mart. Just like my friend who claimed to be a Socialist, this man was shopping in a Wal-Mart. I did not have to say anything to him, but once he saw me there, his face turned red and he walked away. The next class he kicked me out when I argued that the Bosnian genocide was real. In fact, I had just seen a video of Bosnians being killed, execution style, by Communist forces. He told me that the video was fake, and then he kicked me out of class. He could not deal with the truth, so he got rid of me... typical Socialist thought.
I know that we live in a Capitalist society. Socialists and Communists have to live by making money in the society that exists. But when they shop at Wal-Mart (instead of local âMa and Paâ stores), or when they sell drugs for unbelievable profits, or when they support a mass killer like Che, they are being complete hypocrites. I have to wonder about the devotion of these so called âSocialistsâ and âCommunists.â They can claim to be economic left-wingers all they want, but by their actions, they cannot deny their love for Capitalism.
- 134 Replies
I'm not sure why many of my quote symbols were replaced with "�" I copied it from Microsoft Word, maybe there was an issue there.
We know that "ure" Communism doesn't work, but we also know that "ure" Capitalism doesn't work. If this were truly a capitalist economy, then we wouldn't have welfare, anti-trust laws, and we wouldn't bail out companies that are on the brink of shutting down (like airlines).
"Socialist" is really just a self-referential word and the term has undergone such changes that the broadness of the term now can't really serve as some goals to strive for. Sweden is a socialist country just because they need government regulation over some of their exports. In the U.S. we pay farmers to not grow crops because too many crops will drive prices down and no one will make any money. Socialism is basically government control over a sector or sectors of the economy. Certainly there are stigmas attached to the term, but I certainly wouldn't mind socialized health care, energy management, and communications.
So, my point is that Socialism and Wal-Mart are not diametrically opposed. You can still have free market economics with government regulation in some sectors.
Your post is quite long, and raises some good points, but I have a few issues.
First, this sounds more like a screed against hypocrites than a screed against communism. I'm sure you can find people that are die-hard capitalists making use of welfare, or medicare, or subsides, or whatnot. That doesn't make capitalism bad, and your examples don't show that communism is bad.
Second, the plural of anecdote is not data. You cite a few experiences you've had with socialists who happen to be hypocrites. That doesn't mean there aren't socialists who aren't hypocrites.
Rather broad brush you paint with there.
Third, while communism definitely failed in the USSR, for reason that are party the fault of communism and partly not, socialism is alive and well. The Scandinavian countries are heavily socialist, and they boast some of the best quality of life in the world. Europe as a whole is strongly socialist, and they have most of the best economies and lowest violence in the world. Moegreche already pointed out a lot of socialist programs that most people don't want to get rid of.
Don't get me wrong, I'm pretty libertarian myself, and I'm not a big fan of socialism. I personally think we should do away with a lot of the socialist programs in the US like welfare, medicare, medicaid, and social security. But to say that socialism is awful because communism failed and you know a couple of dinguses that call themselves communist is missing the big picture.
I'm a hypocrite?
And I thought you were a left-wing, anti-capitalist anarchist! See you have changed over the years.
Dude, this was like a year and a half ago. I've changed much since then. Also, you should not revive old topics. It's just bad forum etiquette.
What would have happened if I wanted to make a topic about left-wing politics?
That's fine. But when a topic hasn't been posted on in about 2 weeks, it's dead and should remain dead.
As for the thread itself:
Left Wing economics are by far more democratic and provide far better income equality than right wing ones do. Why put a few people in charge of the economy who only care about their own profits when you could put experts and economists in those positions? The free market isn't free! Its only freedom for a few people suck in millions and suck away the money that others need and need badly! Under a socialist economy or a mixed economy, the people control the means of production and they control where the money goes. In fact, people can make even more money under socialism than they would under capitalism; the workers divide the profits a would-be company makes in accordance to how hard everyone worked. In such a socialized economy, the guy who slacks off will not get as much money as the guy or girl who has been working his/her booty off for the company! So that dispels this worry that under socialism we are going to have all these chumps just hanging around living as parasites under the mass of welfare, when really they'll just end up getting the bare minimum to survive for not working at all. So there is no real incentive not to be a hard worker. Under capitalism on the other hand, the workers would get less money because corporate CEOs would hog all the wealth. right wing economics are simpley out of control and prone to fail because there is no limit as to how much money a single person can make! Private investors who thrive off greed should not control our economy! But take into account that in democratic socialism the government
DOES NOTcontrol companies, or most of the economy. The people do, the tax paying citizens do. The government would be more like a coach who enforces the laws and provides health care, shelter, public schooling, jails, they'll be the ones who are responsable for passing bills and pretty much keeping a strong military and police force. Like I said a tad bit earlier, the tax payers are the ones who really make all the decisions, the government would be more like our back up.
The United States is a text book example of how undemocratic capitalism really is! The democrats and republicans are not as different as the ignorant media makes them look. They are just two factions of the exact same belief system! Why can't a libertarian ever win the election under capitalism? Why cannot a socialist? A centrist? A communist? A pirate party candidate? This is flagrantly not as democratic as the current federal government and corporation claims it is! The media and corporate America controls the country, not the tax paying citizens! Is that truly a democracy? It sounds more like oligarchy if you ask me!
How do you think we are going to be greener if we have greedy corporations like GM and Ford? Or oil companies? They are not going to conform to this "make America greener" theme. How do you think we're going to stop bullying with such a totally free media that sets an example for others to segregate themselves from the community in accordance to what label they have? Nationalize it all (not the entire media of coarse).! The people can make it easier to force that much needed change from a corporate pollution-causing cess pool to a green state of the people!
Join the fight for socialism! Don't listen to corporations telling you that there is no point in voting for any kind of third party! Do not conform so easily to what Hannah Montana or Tony Montana tells you! Socialism is just more democratic than any playable capitalist system, I do not care how many Republicans and conservative Democrats claim it is a dictatorship allowing no freedom. Sweden is very much a socialist nation, and it's very democratic. Vote Socialist America! Left wing economics for the win!
Why put a few people in charge of the economy who only care about their own profits when you could put experts and economists in those positions?
And those experts and economists would only care about the people & not be greedy themselves, right?
...yeah, sure...
the people control the means of production and they control where the money goes.
take into account that in democratic socialism the government DOES NOT
control companies, or most of the economy. The people do, the tax paying citizens do.
Part of the problem with this system is that a lot of the workers or people on the lower end of the scale have more wages then brain cells to rub together. Call me crazy, but I don't want to put someone who is vastly undereducated even *partly* in charge of running a company or the economy, because they're not an excellent canidate that is capable of making decisions that will be the best for the company in the long term.
The United States is a text book example of how undemocratic capitalism really is!
Uh huh. You might want to expand on that.
Why can't a libertarian ever win the election under capitalism? Why cannot a socialist? A centrist? A communist? A pirate party candidate?
Because no one votes for them? That sounds like a pretty democratic decision to me. I mean, the green party in Canada barely gets any votes at all, and funny enough - they don't have many if any elected representatives in our parliament. Should parties that people *don't* vote for get more seats then parties that people vote for? That doesn't sound democratic to me.
As for the argument that ballot access is too restrictive state by state, if you're independant of the two major U.S.A. political parties I don't think it's unfair to provide evidence that there *is* a demand for a third party on the ballot in the form of signatures. If there really is a demand for it, it should be pretty easy to get people to sign - year after year though, they still struggle because people don't want to vote for them. Whether you like it or not, that *is* democracy.
How do you think we are going to be greener if we have greedy corporations like GM and Ford? Or oil companies? They are not going to conform to this "make America greener" theme.
Then the country will leave them behind and they'll go bankrupt. It's likely that good companies will change with the times & recognize what the world, and also people, want. The ones that don't, will fail & disappear.
How do you think we're going to stop bullying with such a totally free media that sets an example for others to segregate themselves from the community in accordance to what label they have? Nationalize it all (not the entire media of coarse).!
So... you want to take a 'free' media, and exercise control over them. Maybe you're not familiar with the United States of America's constitution, but you should invest a few minutes in reading the first amendment.
Join the fight for socialism!
No. You'd need to provide a much better argument.
And those experts and economists would only care about the people & not be greedy themselves, right?
...yeah, sure...
Oh no, everyone has greed. But i'd rather have people like them than consumer-America controling our economy!
Uh huh. You might want to expand on that.
Why hasn't a Libertarian ever won an election? Why not a Centrist? I find it strange that the people would want to vote for the same two parties for a century and beyond. The media and the lobbyists control who wins, not so much the ballot box.
Because no one votes for them? That sounds like a pretty democratic decision to me. I mean, the green party in Canada barely gets any votes at all, and funny enough - they don't have many if any elected representatives in our parliament. Should parties that people *don't* vote for get more seats then parties that people vote for? That doesn't sound democratic to me.
As for the argument that ballot access is too restrictive state by state, if you're independant of the two major U.S.A. political parties I don't think it's unfair to provide evidence that there *is* a demand for a third party on the ballot in the form of signatures. If there really is a demand for it, it should be pretty easy to get people to sign - year after year though, they still struggle because people don't want to vote for them. Whether you like it or not, that *is* democracy.
It's not as democratic as it claims to be. ( See previouse response. )
Then the country will leave them behind and they'll go bankrupt. It's likely that good companies will change with the times & recognize what the world, and also people, want. The ones that don't, will fail & disappear.
Now that is where you're wrong, the companies aren't filled with knuckle heads as you say. These people needed to be educated... no one will hire a complete dead beat who didn't go to college and doesn't know what they're doing. And if the companies fail, the workers will loose their jobs. They have a reason to work hard for the company!
So... you want to take a 'free' media, and exercise control over them. Maybe you're not familiar with the United States of America's constitution, but you should invest a few minutes in reading the first amendment.
You can have your opinion and you can express it, but I don't think judging people on TV shows that show people dressing up like ****s and making sterio types is really freedom of expression. Those are the things that I think should be regulated. As for the News, very little regulation, I'd rather have a private News crew actually telling the people what time it is than one that spews a bunch of government propaganda!
No. You'd need to provide a much better argument.
I would tell you the same, my friend.
Why hasn't a Libertarian ever won an election? Why not a Centrist? I find it strange that the people would want to vote for the same two parties for a century and beyond. The media and the lobbyists control who wins, not so much the ballot box.
can you prove this or is this just an assumption that you are making.
it is a pretty normal phenomenom in democratic country, that after a while there are two or max.4 parties that take turns in winning the election.
its the peoples vote. if you are unhappy with it, so be it. but you cannot claim that something is undemocratic, because your political choice is not that popular.
can you prove this or is this just an assumption that you are making
Read a book on U.S history for twenyth century presidents. I never saw a single libertarian or socialist ever get to be president.
Read a book on U.S history for twenyth century presidents. I never saw a single libertarian or socialist ever get to be president.
i am asking you not about proof that there hasnt been a liberitarian or socialist president, but about proof, that it is not the peoples vote, which puts other presidents in office
Ever see an add on TV for a socialist or Libertarian? Do third parties really have a fair fight against the Republicans and Democrats? Did you even realize that the Republicans and Democrats are just two factions of the exact same system? The media controls whoever gets to be president. Because all Americans do is what the media tells them.
Ever see an add on TV for a socialist or Libertarian? Do third parties really have a fair fight against the Republicans and Democrats? Did you even realize that the Republicans and Democrats are just two factions of the exact same system? The media controls whoever gets to be president. Because all Americans do is what the media tells them.
well last time i checked you had to pay for your ads on tv. so if noone donates for your cause you end up without a chance an it indicates that noone wants to vote for you.
but in germany, where every party gets campaign money directly from the state, so everyone has equal chances there are still 2 parties dividing the win. mostly they need one of the smaller parties to form a coalition, so you have 4 parties that win every time.
is it also because the media tries to control everyone
You must be logged in to post a reply!