Forums → WEPR → Left wing economics
| 134 | 18566 |
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
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
Want to know why no big company wants to fund a socialist candidate?....Gee I wonder why. Companies keep the people ignorant so they can keep their cash flowing. why would a big company ever want a third party candidate? The republicans and democrats are filthy rich thanks to big buisnesses. it's unfair, companies should be involved with the government, the government should be involved with companies ( regulate! )
And I don't live in Germany. I was talking about the United States and why a third party candidate never wins or is ever heard of.
it's unfair, companies should be involved with the government
Should not , sorry!
And I don't live in Germany. I was talking about the United States and why a third party candidate never wins or is ever heard of.
well in the us the companies are involved with each other, you are describing it yourself.
and i just tool germany to show the example, that no matter where you live, mostly there are only two parties everyone wants to vote on.
and if the people in america would have the need of a socialist party, they can easily found one and start making a campaign. in the time of the internet it is no longer such an expensive thing to get peoples attention.
look at the pirate party. they are not filthy rich, they are not a mainstream party, and evereyone has heard of them. but almost noone votes for them.
i still do not get your point about the lack of democracy based upon the lack of socialism in a country.
if socialism would be a wish for the people, why would so many oppose the health care reform?
it simply isnt so popular in the us
sorry just have seen your should not.
just cross out the sentence i made about that
and if the people in america would have the need of a socialist party, they can easily found one and start making a campaign. in the time of the internet it is no longer such an expensive thing to get peoples attention.
Or maybe it's common sense that the CEOs don't want the people controlling them.
look at the pirate party. they are not filthy rich, they are not a mainstream party, and evereyone has heard of
them. but almost noone votes for them.
Maybe in Sweden and Europe where they are somewhat democratic socialist now, but not in the United States.
i still do not get your point about the lack of democracy based upon the lack of socialism in a country.
if socialism would be a wish for the people, why would so many oppose the health care reform?
it simply isnt so popular in the us
Uhm, because for the most part they're either rich or conservatives who agree with everything rich people say? A rich person would not want to give up some of his health care quality to improve it for others that need it.
sorry just have seen your should not.
just cross out the sentence i made about that
wwooops i made a response, sorry!
Oh no, everyone has greed. But i'd rather have people like them than consumer-America controling our economy!
Why would you rather have people like them? If they're experts, they'll know exactly how to screw everyone over to make themselves rich.
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.
I think I covered this entire argument in "No one votes for them". Coupled with voter apathy (which you arrive at when people in the country don't care about politics one way or another because it's working fine for them), and there you have it. If people are happy about their lives, they could care less about what the government is doing.
It's not as democratic as it claims to be.
That's your opinion, and, it is I'm afraid very wrong.
Democracy:
government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system.
And that's all there is to it. The people elect representatives in a free electoral system, and the people who vote decide to vote for democratic or republican canidates & not the others that show up on their ballots. They win, they run the government. If you don't feel that's democracy, you don't understand what the word actually means.
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!
Just because you've been to college doesn't make you smart enough to run a buisness. Like.. should I trust a programmer with art direction? Or an art director with organizing the teams deadlines? Should I trust someone from HR to fix the network or servers if they go offline? Why should I trust any person who has specialized their role to doing something that isn't *running the buisness* to run the buisness? It's a silly idea.
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.
Then you don't know what freedom of expression is. It's the freedom to have cheesy court shows, or have channels that air pornographic content, or bible study, or the news, or whatever program you want to air, print, or post online. You may not like all of those things, but restricting them is removing the freedom of the people, and in the U.S.A. - that's unconstitutional.
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!
That's what they have now - if you make the government control the media to the point where you dictate what they can & can't say - that's exactly what you're asking for.
thelistman, I dont understand you. One second you seem to be a die hard leftist and the other a complete rightist, god dam.
Maybe in Sweden and Europe where they are somewhat democratic socialist now, but not in the United States.
and still noone wants to vote for them.
and do americans do not have the internet, which is the major source of their campaign.
or its the people who just do not care.
and if so its very democratic
Why would you rather have people like them? If they're experts, they'll know exactly how to screw everyone over to make themselves rich.
That's too oversimplified, with such a tight system and our federal government as the overseers, I just don't see how possible that is unless you give an example.
I think I covered this entire argument in "No one votes for them". Coupled with voter apathy (which you arrive at when people in the country don't care about politics one way or another because it's working fine for them), and there you have it. If people are happy about their lives, they could care less about what the government is doing.
What type of argument is that? Just because it hasn't been resisted that doesn't justify it! Slavery wasn't changed for hundreds of years because of propaganda and voter apathy, but does that justify slavery? Does that justify the system? I think not!
Then you don't know what freedom of expression is. It's the freedom to have cheesy court shows, or have channels that air pornographic content, or bible study, or the news, or whatever program you want to air, print, or post online. You may not like all of those things, but restricting them is removing the freedom of the people, and in the U.S.A. - that's unconstitutional.
I can't use terrorism as a freedom of speech, I can't go in my yard and play heavy metal music to express myself without someone calling the cops and using force to make me stop. What do you mean? Just because they can't do it on TV that doesn't mean they can't have their own opinions. I can't go on TV and voice my opinions....unless I have money.
That's what they have now - if you make the government control the media to the point where you dictate what they can & can't say - that's exactly what you're asking for.
No, they can still say what they want elsewhere, and this pretains to what I responded to above.
That's too oversimplified, with such a tight system and our federal government as the overseers, I just don't see how possible that is unless you give an example.
Tight system? Where have you been for the last few years, under a rock? Bernard Madoff's ponzi scheme ringing any bells?
What type of argument is that? Just because it hasn't been resisted that doesn't justify it! Slavery wasn't changed for hundreds of years because of propaganda and voter apathy, but does that justify slavery? Does that justify the system? I think not!
'Because no one votes for them'? A rather good argument in a democracy actually. Additionally, your comparison of no one voting for socialism and slavery being somehow equally tragic is insulting.
I can't use terrorism as a freedom of speech, I can't go in my yard and play heavy metal music to express myself without someone calling the cops and using force to make me stop. What do you mean?
This further assures me that you don't know what freedom of speech is. You can't force something down someone's throat. That's one of the reasons why there are decibel limits to how loud you can be doing something, even on private property because the sound becomes public. Terrorism similarly is infringing on the rights of others to be terror free.
You can, however record a heavy metal album and release it on the internet, or on CD for people to listen to it if they *choose* - and that's the key note there. With television stations as well - I don't have to watch CNN, or MSNBC, or terrible daytime court reality shows... but I can. If I want to.
And yes, it costs money to voice your opinions on TV - and on the internet too; after all, it is costing you to post on this forum. ISPs don't give you internet access for free. It's money in exchange for goods or services. Television works the same way.
Tight system? Where have you been for the last few years, under a rock? Bernard Madoff's ponzi scheme ringing any bells?
I'd say that socialims isn't exactly a wishy washy system when it comes to how tight the market is regulated and watched by the government.
'Because no one votes for them'? A rather good argument in a democracy actually. Additionally, your comparison of no one voting for socialism and slavery being somehow equally tragic is insulting.
It's the truth. The United States needed to fight a war just to end the greed of private property. In this case owning slaves. The U.S. version of a democracy didn't help at all. And it tooks centuries for other nations as well because of voter apathy and the media!
This further assures me that you don't know what freedom of speech is. You can't force something down someone's throat. That's one of the reasons why there are decibel limits to how loud you can be doing something, even on private property because the sound becomes public. Terrorism similarly is infringing on the rights of others to be terror free.
This further assures me that you're not listening. You can say whatever you want... I didn't say "THE BIG BAD GOVERNMENT IS GONNA COME AND MAKE YOU ALL SHUT THE FUDGE UP!"
You can, however record a heavy metal album and release it on the internet, or on CD for people to listen to it if they *choose* - and that's the key note there. With television stations as well - I don't have to watch CNN, or MSNBC, or terrible daytime court reality shows... but I can. If I want to.
And yes, it costs money to voice your opinions on TV - and on the internet too; after all, it is costing you to post on this forum. ISPs don't give you internet access for free. It's money in exchange for goods or services. Television works the same way.
Come over one day and do that in my yard for about one hour.
I'd say that socialims isn't exactly a wishy washy system when it comes to how tight the market is regulated and watched by the government.
That's funny - you said in your original post:
But take into account that in democratic socialism the government DOES NOT control companies, or most of the economy.
So, how can you have a government that tightly regulates the economy, but also does not control companies or the economy? You've contradicted yourself.
It's the truth. The United States needed to fight a war just to end the greed of private property. In this case owning slaves. The U.S. version of a democracy didn't help at all. And it tooks centuries for other nations as well because of voter apathy and the media!
Didn't help at all? Well - they democractically elected Lincoln.. and he was the president that pushed for abolishment. Sounds like democracy in action to me. My other point was that comparing the plight of a political party not being elected to people being enslaved are not equally bad things. In one case, you have a party that isn't being elected because no one is voting for them, and in the other, you have humans being instructed to do something against their will, not being paid for it, and being disciplined violently if they rebel. They're not the same, so please don't compare them.
I didn't say "THE BIG BAD GOVERNMENT IS GONNA COME AND MAKE YOU ALL SHUT THE FUDGE UP!"
The bold/all-caps is.. unwelcome. Please remain calm. If you're putting government limits on the media, it's a hop-skip and a jump to a government that decides they want to further limit the media. When you put a precedent in place for any kind of censorship, it opens to door to leaders that would exploit further censorship.
Come over one day and do that in my yard for about one hour.
? I don't even know what you're talking about with that one. Is it supposed to be a threat.. or? Did you read that part of my post?
So, how can you have a government that tightly regulates the economy, but also does not control companies or the economy? You've contradicted yourself.
Not at all, they are the overseers. The people atually make the decision. If there is a crook, the people either can choose to expose him or the overseers step in.
Didn't help at all? Well - they democractically elected Lincoln.. and he was the president that pushed for abolishment. Sounds like democracy in action to me. My other point was that comparing the plight of a political party not being elected to people being enslaved are not equally bad things. In one case, you have a party that isn't being elected because no one is voting for them, and in the other, you have humans being instructed to do something against their will, not being paid for it, and being disciplined violently if they rebel. They're not the same, so please don't compare them.
Did you know that the Republicans were a radical, very liberal, third party back then? We needed to break away from the mainstream parties. You're making my argument about third parties look rather appealing to solve our problems.
The bold/all-caps is.. unwelcome. Please remain calm. If you're putting government limits on the media, it's a hop-skip and a jump to a government that decides they want to further limit the media. When you put a precedent in place for any kind of censorship, it opens to door to leaders that would exploit further censorship.
Wait, i thought you I had the freedom to express myself any way I wanted no matter what! WHETHER OR NOT IT LOOKS LIKE THIS IT'S MY FREEDOM, RIGHT?.
And they can publicly say what they want for the fifth time, just not on the TV 24/7.
? I don't even know what you're talking about with that one. Is it supposed to be a threat.. or? Did you read that part of my post?
You said "actually, you can!"
Not at all, they are the overseers. The people atually make the decision. If there is a crook, the people either can choose to expose him or the overseers step in.
This doesn't make any sense. Maybe if you explain better?
Did you know that the Republicans were a radical, very liberal, third party back then? We needed to break away from the mainstream parties. You're making my argument about third parties look rather appealing to solve our problems.
Not really.
No one is voting for socialism today, that's why they're not in power.
People voted in president Lincoln, that's why he got elected & was in power.
See the difference? That's democracy. If there's a demand for those third parties, people will vote for them. Seeing that people haven't voted for third parties - guess there isn't a demand for them in anything approaching the majority.
Wait, i thought you I had the freedom to express myself any way I wanted no matter what! WHETHER OR NOT IT LOOKS LIKE THIS IT'S MY FREEDOM, RIGHT?.
You sure can. I mean, the moderators might disagree as it's a private forum & they set the rules - but I won't stop you. On the flip-side of the coin, I'm only exercising my right to inform you that I dislike it when people 'speak' in all-caps. Do what you like.
You said "actually, you can!"
So.. you didn't read it. Okay, here are the bits you needed to pay attention to:
That's one of the reasons why there are decibel limits to how loud you can be doing something, even on private property because the sound becomes public.
That was me saying you're not allowed to play heavy metal as loud as you want in your own backyard.
You can, however record a heavy metal album and release it on the internet, or on CD for people to listen to it if they *choose*
That was me saying that you can cut records in a studio and sell them or distribute them as you please so that people can freely buy/pick it up and listen to it. You'll note I don't mention a 'backyard' in that sentence.
You must be logged in to post a reply!