We may use cookies to help customize your experience, including performing
analytics and serving ads.
Learn More
Forums → WEPR → Left wing economics
| 134 | 16154 |
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
Left wing economics are full of trash. (well most of them)
All they want is to get there little greedy hands on americans tax money . So they make up all thees wild ideas of the economy going down enless yuo give them money
You must be at the top of your history class.
Left wing economics are full of trash. (well most of them)
All they want is to get there little greedy hands on americans tax money . So they make up all thees wild ideas of the economy going down enless yuo give them money!
Could you please define the following for me:
enless
Also. . .ever watched the news? The idea of the economy going down is real and in danger of coming true.
The idea of the economy going down is real and in danger of coming true.
Especially in the conservative nation of the United States...the economy isn't great.
Also. . .ever watched the news? The idea of the economy going down is real and in danger of coming true.
1) The mainstream media is not a reliable source.
2) The reason the idea of the economy going down is real is because of programs like these ridiculous stimulus packages that are just used to buy votes for politicians. Obamacare would finish us off.
You must be at the top of your history class.
History isn't written by the ones who were right, it was written by the ones who were left.
Is that how it really went when capitalism was born in Europe? Poor British children forced into labor? If you're working in a terrible factory and you're in a horrible work environment, chances are if you had a choice you'd be somewhere else. Once all of the good jobs are taken, someone who went to college might end up being a garbage burner living off a terrible pay check and working two dead-end jobs a day, just waiting for a job to open up and hoping on a dream that has long become an illusion.
If you knew the choice was there or really had the desire, yes you would be somewhere else. And, most people are. You really demonize the companies and their factories. You assume the worst of them and pick out the worst exceptions in the system. There will always be a place out there that has worse conditions than somewhere else, and that goes for socialism too. Socialism doesn't do anything to change it further. And also, you have to live your own dreams, you have to take action, not just sit around and wait for it to come to you, because it won't.
Government regulations are what stop monopolies from happening, and if you get a monopoly you get zero competition, and therefore since that company has all of the wealth and controls all production in that sector, where is the incentive for them to make their products in good quality? A monopoly with no government regulations is bound to control the prices of everything as well. In an ideal capitalist system, you get the highest quality for the lowest price. But if there is no government regulation to stop monopolies from forming, that won't last very long.
Ok, what i don't like about your paragraphs is they don't explain why. I try to explain my arguments the best I can instead of throwing them out there. Like, explain exactly how government intervention stops monopolies? Competition doesn't just deteriorate over time. In fact, with no government intervention, it increases over time. If governments always were stepping in, like imposing regulations and restrictions and penalties to companies, less people would be enthusiastic about starting a business as it would be more tiresome and costly. It would also decrease their profits. Government intervention decreases incentive = decreases competitors = decreases competition. Checkmate.
You explain very well how monopolies destroy many advantages of the free market, but don't explain very well what causes them and how government intervention stops them. =p
First of all, the owner of a company will never keep giving and giving to his workers no matter how hard they work. And the CEO needs the proletariat or the simple worker at a desk job. I would completely support a semi-capitalist system if it was possible for everyone to be millionaire while cyborgs and robots do all of the dirty work. But that just is a Utopian dream. No matter what, you'll always have people that are poor. I appreciate that a lot of rich people do work hard, but they sometimes become greedy, they exploit other people, and in doing so their becoming rich will hurt someone else. They would put them selves above their own country men for the sake of themselves becoming more and more rich and powerful, and power corrupts in human nature.
Your first point is answered already, because humans can only work so hard. However, he will reward them for good ideas and for further educating themselves. The more credentials you have the more money you will make because you are more valuable to the company. It is impossible for everyone to be a millionaire and for cyborgs to do all the work because who would give it to them? I wouldn't. They're not doing anything for me.
I agree that there will always be poor people, it says that in the Bible.
The greedy rich people you speak of, are rich because they are 'greedy'. They're greed did a lot of good for a lot of other people. But, there are some people who do exploit others, like Bernie Madoff, who is now in jail.
A socialist economy doesn't always mean that you will have absolutely 100% nationalization of the means of production. If America were to be categorized as a socialist nation, the United States could still have a private Wal-Mart or Microsoft that would run basically the same way they did when America was deemed capitalist. Sweden is socialist only because they have a lot of government regulations on private companies ,they use government-directed trade, they have free medical and dental care and they have control of companies in sectors such as electricity. Sweden is a socialist republic, but it's no Soviet Union.
Socialism is a statistic. It is % of private vs. public money and assets. No company would operate the same under socialistic regulations. Some strong companies like Wal-Mart and Microsoft may survive, but they will hurt, and even more importantly new businesses will never happen destroying jobs. These lack of new competition will lead to monopolies which will destroy what is left of the market.
Ever hear of supply and demand? Consumer confidence? Every ten years something in one of those areas ( either supply or demand ) can slip. Why is it that under capitalism, the GDP shoots down every so often and then shoots back up? In the 1990s Sweden's economy collapsed and now we have the strongly regulated market economy of Sweden you see today a decade later.
I don't see what point you're trying to make here. You can't expect the market to stay the same. If it did it wouldn't be as great a system as i say it is. And to be honest, I don't care one bit about Sweden.
If under capitalism if you allow private markets to do whatever they want, stupid choices will always happen. Government regulations have proven themselves to be needed. Think if under pure capitalism an airline company failed, where is the bail out money? How will people get from one state to another quickly? How badly will it hurt the economy since other CEOs need airlines to get from place to place especially if globalization is well under way? Face it, we just need a mix of capitalism and government.
And stupid choices will not be made under any other system? The only way to prevent people from making stupid choices is to prevent them from making choices which is wrong. Freedom is very important.
If an airline fails, any smart government wouldn't provide any bail out. People could use other airlines, or even other modes of transportation as there are many. And no one 'needs' airlines. They are a luxury. The other airlines would quickly take its place. If there weren't other airlines to take its place, then we're not talking about a free market.
Eventually, it becomes impossible for everyone to be a millionaire and by that logic happiness is prerogative of those who get their first.
Of course it is impossible for everyone to become a millionaire, but your logic is flawed in the second part of that statement. Of all people, you should know that money doesn't buy happiness. It just buys everything else.
1) The mainstream media is not a reliable source.
Duh. But facts are facts, even if the [evil music]MAINSTREAM MEDIA[/evil music] is delivering them. Plus, I'd say the stock market plummeting, unemployment skyrocketing, and a bunch of businesses failing is enough evidence, eh? Also I assume you got my gist, aye? You seem pretty intelligent - so I can safely assume you got the message of my statement, so no need to nitpick about details no-one really cares about.
2) The reason the idea of the economy going down is real is because of programs like these ridiculous stimulus packages that are just used to buy votes for politicians. Obamacare would finish us off.
Never said anything about that. . . .
Though I think that the stimulus packages have to be a reasonable amount of money and have to come at the right time - and I do think Obama's had lots of room for improvement.
details no-one really cares about.
details matter quite a bit. you can have a man with you, you can have a suicidal man with you.
Especially in the conservative nation of the United States...the economy isn't great.
from what i recall democrats have been in control of congress since 2004
Also. . .ever watched the news? The idea of the economy going down is real and in danger of coming true.
let's follow Obama's plan of spending more!
If under capitalism if you allow private markets to do whatever they want, stupid choices will always happen. Government regulations have proven themselves to be needed
government isn't a magical box of smartness
details matter quite a bit
Why don't you quote the whole sentence next time. I gave a valid message, and was talking about specific details, not details as a whole.
-------
from what i recall democrats have been in control of congress since 2004
Democrats are *not* actually left-wing.
let's follow Obama's plan of spending more!
Or your plan of. . .doing nothing except complaining. Awesome plan.
government isn't a magical box of smartness
I actually agree with this. :O
government isn't a magical box of smartness
No kidding. But if you combine different sectors of intelligent people like economists, members of the government and even a few businessmen instead of in capitalism where the government and the businessmen have little contact there would probably be less screw ups. And it's been proven in the past with government regulations on what people can sell and how they market what they're selling. In addition, pollution has decreased in part because of government regulations on the industries using fossil fuels.
Government intervention decreases incentive = decreases competitors = decreases competition.
Your turn to explain why that even makes sense.
thelistman,
i think you are a great person and you know what you are talking about. everything that you said was right.keep up the good work
Government intervention decreases incentive =Â decreases competitors = decreases competition.[/quote]
[quote]Your turn to explain why that even makes sense.
if you are taxed alot you do not want to be active in the economy until these decrease because you would make less profit than normal, less business competition is a result of that.
But if you combine different sectors of intelligent people like economists, members of the government and even a few businessmen
and how would you find out who is intelligent if everyone is paid the same?
Or your plan of. . .doing nothing except complaining. Awesome plan.
congress set up a wall declining everything Bush suggested for his second term
Democrats are *not* actually left-wing.
sorry for thinking the left is mainly compromised of them
sorry for thinking the left is mainly compromised of them
The real left is composed of communists, socialists, etc.
The U.S. left (aka moderate right) consists of Democrats.
if you are taxed alot you do not want to be active in the economy until these decrease because you would make less profit than normal, less business competition is a result of that.
That doesn't even make any sense, just because you're taxed a lot why does that mean you would not want to be "active"? What do even mean by "active"? If you don't compete you'll fail and lose all of your money.
You must be logged in to post a reply!