Leftism

[SpaceMarine93]

This article may contain naiveness, please avoid condemning me as an idiot, which I am open to the possibility that I am. If you don't like too much text, please skip to highlighted part

Over the last few years as I begun to become politically conscious, I had been listening and reading about the long drawn out conflict that had raged since the beginning of modern politics: the conflict between Leftism and Rightism, Left wing and Right wing ideology, and the bickering between the varying factions in each wing.

While I learn, the left wing ideologies which stresses on internationalism, progressivism, multiculturalism, equality and welfare of the individual appeals to me more than the right wing ideologies which stresses on nationalism, conservatism, mono-culturalism and non interference of anyone in an individuals pursuit of happiness regardless of their plight

(I might be wrong / biased / generalizing in my description of the two political wings. Please correct me if I am wrong.)

However, frequently people i know which are politically conscious and mass media such as American media seems to utterly embraces right wing ideologies in general, even going as far as to, in my view, distort history.

Meanwhile anything that seems to show even a slight connection to the left, such as minimal wages, welfare, public school funding, allowing Muslims to build mosque on any land they could purchase, secularism, promotion of science, controlling firearms (my mother sincerely believe that Columbine wouldn't had happened if the shooters couldn't get their hands on powerful weapons) are seen as a massive totalitarian conspiracy to take over the world.


[I rant too much, so here's the main point:]

Ultimately, really, what is wrong with the idea of leftism, if the desire to maximize happiness, remove national/ethnical/religious differences between people, ensure and enforce equality and tolerance, abolish war, ignorance, hatred etc. and all the other stuff Left wing politics symbolizes, if applied pragmatically, is exactly what everyone wanted in this world?

[Eframepilot]

if the desire to maximize happiness, remove national/ethnical/religious differences between people, ensure and enforce equality and tolerance, abolish war, ignorance, hatred etc. and all the other stuff Left wing politics symbolizes, if applied pragmatically, is exactly what everyone wanted in this world?

Ha ha ha, oh wow. Sorry, that's (unfortunately) not even close to what everyone wants in this world.

• People want to maximize their own happiness and don't care as much about the happiness of others (if not actively wanting some others to suffer)
• People PRIZE their national/ethnical/religious differences
• People may say they support equality and tolerance, but they'd prefer if some were more equal than others
• Abolish war? People love war! And hatred. Ignorance isn't actively prized, but knowledge is hated if it's unpleasant (see climate change)

[SpaceMarine93]

Well then, I can see there's really no hope for Humanity then

[D.Turtle]

Thats a somewhat simplistic view of the whole thing. And a somewhat simplistic reaction to that view.

Its not a black/white problem with a simple black/white answer.

Its often a question of degrees.

Looking at your description of Leftism and what it wants to achieve, you have to realize several things (in a somewhat random order):
1. Like Eframepilot said, not everyone agrees with those goals, so there could be some opposition based on that.
2. People who do have (some of) those goals, may disagree on how to achieve them.
3. In order to achieve those goals, some personal freedom has to be given up - people may not want to give up that much freedom.
4. Some of those goals may be seen as counterproductive to other goals. Hence it becomes important to prioritize some of those goals over others.
5. People may simply be ignorant/misinformed about those goals, how to achieve them, and the effects of policies trying to achieve them.

There is a whole lot more, but that should be enough to start thinking about.

I will say the following though: The vast majority of people are not directly hostile against other people and want to harm them. Yes, even those who support goals that directly and maybe violently harm other people.

[Thanas]

How old are you again, OP?

I suggest a good reading of the works of George Bernard Shaw, Emmanuel Kant, Arthur Schopenhauer and Hegel. That should give you a good philosophical basis, and in the case of Shaw, also improves your level of culture.

[Sidewinder]

While I learn, the left wing ideologies which stresses on internationalism, progressivism, multiculturalism, equality and welfare of the individual appeals to me more than the right wing ideologies which stresses on nationalism, conservatism, mono-culturalism and non interference of anyone in an individuals pursuit of happiness regardless of their plight

As others have noted, this view of what the Left and Right represent, is overly simplified.

Meanwhile anything that seems to show even a slight connection to the left, such as minimal wages

If minimal wages rise, the labor costs of manufactured goods will rise, which require either a corresponding rise in the costs of these goods and services, or a decrease in profits earned by those providing the goods. This doesn't just affect Big Business, it affects ALL businesses, including the Mom & Pop Store around the corner, and everyone who shops there. The political difficulty in setting a minimum wage, lies in finding a balance between what people earn, and what they can buy.

welfare, public school funding

Public services are NOT FREE. They're typically funded through taxes, NOT multi-million dollar donations from concerned citizens. As above, there must be a balance between what people want, and what they can afford.

allowing Muslims to build mosque on any land they could purchase

Yes, protests against Muslims is hypocritically against "Freedom of Religion," but in case you haven't noticed, Muslim terrorists contributed greatly to an environment where a Muslim is viewed with suspicion, hatred, and outright fear.

secularism, promotion of science

Some view government promotion of these, as a violation of their "Freedom of Religion."

controlling firearms (my mother sincerely believe that Columbine wouldn't had happened if the shooters couldn't get their hands on powerful weapons)

And some people think the Virginia Tech Massacre wouldn't have happened if the victims had their hands on guns, FOR SELF-DEFENSE. Gun control is far more complicated than you think.

are seen as a massive totalitarian conspiracy to take over the world.

In case you haven't noticed, the Right Wing does not have a monopoly on self-righteous, holier-than-thou, insufferable know-it-alls.

[Starglider]

Ideology on both sides of the political spectrum is utopian. The biggest problem is not really the goals, as it wouldn't matter much if we were living in a communist paradise vs a libertarian one (they'd both be paradises). The major problem is that in both cases things tend to go horribly wrong when the idealism meets the reality of human psychology. The biggest criticisms of the socialist/communist position stem from the fact that it relies totally on government intervention and control; that government is inherently tyranical, inefficient and corrupt, that authoritarian hellholes are the inevitable outcome of communism, that confiscation of the products of labor is inherently unfair, that the enforcement of the state as the only sanctioned form of collaboration destroys natural human collaboration at small scales etc. Conversely most libertarians believe that if their philosophy was fully implemented, the vast majority of people would be able to get healthcare, education etc at least as good as what socialism could provide, due to incomes being higher and goods being cheaper. Essentially they have the same blind faith in markets that a communist has in government.

[Skgoa]

The only problem with that being of course that de facto socialism has been working great in real first world countries for halve a century.

@OP: Nothing is wrong with the Left's ideology. We want a happy and fullfilling life for everyone. The specific way to achieve this is a point of strong contention, though. BTW, over here in Europe what you would call far left is what we call far right.

[Simon_Jester]

Socialism involves state control of the means of production, Skgoa; Europe is only very weakly socialist though there are functioning socialist parties in a number of the countries involved.

Outright socialism has a more mixed track record, mostly because of necessity it only gets implemented as the product of revolutions and is thus vulnerable to all the vices of revolutionary dictatorships plus all the potential faults of a system that involves state control of the engines of economic progress.

Social democracy is a different question, since it can evolve naturally from democratic institutions without having to violently overthrow anything the society basic right (such as property ownership) at any point.

[Starglider]

The only problem with that being of course that de facto socialism has been working great in real first world countries for halve a century.

By that logic, over that last 100 years America has vastly outperformed Europe on every metric that matters (to a conservative), so we must all strive to be like the US.

[Thanas]

The only problem with that being of course that de facto socialism has been working great in real first world countries for halve a century.

By that logic, over that last 100 years America has vastly outperformed Europe on every metric that matters (to a conservative), so we must all strive to be like the US.

What metrics are those?

[General Mung Beans]

This is a whole bunch of straw-manning. Most conservatives are not selfish Randoids.

[Starglider]

By that logic, over that last 100 years America has vastly outperformed Europe on every metric that matters (to a conservative), so we must all strive to be like the US.

What metrics are those?

You are perfectly aware of all the relevant positions and there is no point trying to bait me on this. Let's see if there are any actual conservatives and/or US supporters left on this forum who want to answer that, my guess is no.

[PeZook]

You are perfectly aware of all the relevant positions and there is no point trying to bait me on this. Let's see if there are any actual conservatives and/or US supporters left on this forum who want to answer that, my guess is no.

And how about you actually support a claim you've made?

[weemadando]

that government is inherently tyranical, inefficient and corrupt,

Wrong.

I mean we could point out the fact that government's outperform private industry in a variety of areas where they both operate. But I suppose that's providing evidence, which we don't have to do in this thread.

And government is inherently tyrannical, inefficient and corrupt?

REALLY?

[Skgoa]

Socialism involves state control of the means of production, Skgoa; Europe is only very weakly socialist though there are functioning socialist parties in a number of the countries involved.

Erm, you do realize that e.g. the german governments*, both state and federal, have huge share-ownership of private industry and that the economy is in principle controled by the state? That direct influence is only taken up to the neccessary amount in reality is more due to that being the intelligent choice, "rar, markets must be free!" But in principle, the state has the constitutioal right to take an almost arbitrary amount of control in the economy.
From the point of view of someone 100 years ago, the "social market economy" is textbook socialism.

*scandinavian countries even more, but I don't know that many details about them.

Outright socialism has a more mixed track record, mostly because of necessity it only gets implemented as the product of revolutions and is thus vulnerable to all the vices of revolutionary dictatorships plus all the potential faults of a system that involves state control of the engines of economic progress.

The problem with that is of course that dictatorship and socialism are opposits. The eastern block economies started getting fucked by the people in charge very fast. I will concede the point that in a less controlled economy these people would not have at the power to do that much damage, though.

Social democracy is a different question, since it can evolve naturally from democratic institutions without having to violently overthrow anything the society basic right (such as property ownership) at any point.

Um, social democracy DID have to overthrow basic rights of the people in power at some point. And it wasn't done by asking nicely.

[Starglider]

And how about you actually support a claim you've made?

I am not personally a conservative. I gave a very brief and rough summary of the relevant philosophy, because that was the original question asked ('why does anyone think like this?').

I am not going to try and support these views, firstly because I'm not a libertarian myself, and secondly because attempting to do so on SDN is a throughly unpleasant experience. I think it's a shame that there is usually no one to argue for right wing positions in the N&P forum, and occasionally when a thread is an endless wasteland of knee-jerk socialism I feel compelled to make a comment, but I am not going to single-handedly matyr myself for a cause I don't even support.

[PeZook]

You made a pretty specific claim, that the US outperformed the EU consistently on "every measure that a conservative would care about".

If you feel you are being overwhelmed, the mods will limit your opposition to one or two posters, but you still have to support your claim if challenged, or concede.

[Kane Starkiller]

Well I don't know exactly what US libertarians or rather conservatives consider to be relevant issues but I can provide statistics about PPP GDP and per capita GDP as taken directly from Agnus Maddison.
The charts below compare statistics between USA and 12 Western European countries:Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland and UK.

Per capita GDP of 12 Western European countries as percentage of US per capita GDP:



Total PPP GDP of 12 Western European countries as percentage of US total GDP:



I'm not sure these are the measures US conservatives would "care about" but there it is.

[Bakustra]

Ideology on both sides of the political spectrum is utopian. The biggest problem is not really the goals, as it wouldn't matter much if we were living in a communist paradise vs a libertarian one (they'd both be paradises). The major problem is that in both cases things tend to go horribly wrong when the idealism meets the reality of human psychology. The biggest criticisms of the socialist/communist position stem from the fact that it relies totally on government intervention and control; that government is inherently tyranical, inefficient and corrupt, that authoritarian hellholes are the inevitable outcome of communism, that confiscation of the products of labor is inherently unfair, that the enforcement of the state as the only sanctioned form of collaboration destroys natural human collaboration at small scales etc. Conversely most libertarians believe that if their philosophy was fully implemented, the vast majority of people would be able to get healthcare, education etc at least as good as what socialism could provide, due to incomes being higher and goods being cheaper. Essentially they have the same blind faith in markets that a communist has in government.

This post is idiotic beyond belief, and explains why the fallacy of poisoning the well is not always fallacious- while it would be doing so to point people to this post whenever you open your mouth about socialism, the simple fact is that you have no idea of what the fuck you're talking about when it comes to socialism, and possibly other things. I have bolded the dumbest assertions that you have implied and proclaimed to be "facts". I will not address the one about the inherent "evil" of government, as others are doing that already, but let us look at the others:

1:it relies totally on government intervention and control. Wrong. This is not an inherent feature of socialism or of communism. Private, personal transactions have been freely allowed in the majority of socialist countries. Socialist countries do not universally dictate the private lives of their citizens and the excesses of secret police are not a part of socialism inherently either. If you are talking about government control of capital, that's not a criticism, it is a descriptive value of socialism, though one that makes "intervention" redundant.

2:that authoritarian hellholes are the inevitable outcome of communism. This is not an inevitable outcome just because you say it is. This can just as easily be applied to capitalist or pre-capitalist nations, and there have been and are communist-controlled countries and subdivisions of countries, such as Nepal and Kerala, that have not been "authoritarian hellholes". So justify this statement.

3:that confiscation of the products of labor is inherently unfair. This also applies to capitalism, you idiot. This is one of Marx's central criticisms of capitalism- the very definition of exploitation within the Marxist framework is that of a worker being paid less than the value they create is worth! That's part of why Marx considered capitalism to be inherently exploitative- the means necessary to generate profit and thus further capital necessitate exploitation of the workers. Meanwhile, government provides essential services to the populace. How are its laborers to be compensated for their work but through the contribution of wealth from its populace? This is assuming that we go with socialists rather than full-blown Marxist communists who believe in dissolving government once it has fulfilled its purpose, but you are unaware of any real distinction between the flavors of leftism beyond the tired linear model of communist<-socialist<-social democrat<-liberal.

4:that the enforcement of the state as the only sanctioned form of collaboration destroys natural human collaboration at small scales. You're repeating yourself here, and you're producing a child's conception of socialism and communism. No actual socialist state has done this. I mean, if you consider that capitalist interactions are necessary to preserve natural human collaboration, the only other interpretation of your statement that makes a kind of sense, you have without a doubt never thought about your beliefs on economics or society for more than a few seconds. (A hint: capitalism is not inherent to humanity and had to be invented.)

Half of what you wrote is nonsense derived from propaganda. The other half is not a criticism of socialism as a whole. Really, if you wanted to pretend that these weren't your genuine beliefs despite your unrepentant Reaganism/Thatcherism, then you shouldn't have tripped up and presented these as factual criticisms of socialist and communist positions. Not to mention that you don't have a clue about alternate positions like anarchism and syndicalism which invalidate even the hint of authoritarianism altogether, and which are still part of leftism as a broader set of political and economic beliefs.

[weemadando]

Maybe people should visit Australia, Canada, Britain, France or another socialist helllhole and let us know how horribly tyrannical and corrupt our governments are.

[Bakustra]

Socialism involves state control of the means of production, Skgoa; Europe is only very weakly socialist though there are functioning socialist parties in a number of the countries involved.

Erm, you do realize that e.g. the german governments*, both state and federal, have huge share-ownership of private industry and that the economy is in principle controled by the state? That direct influence is only taken up to the neccessary amount in reality is more due to that being the intelligent choice, "rar, markets must be free!" But in principle, the state has the constitutioal right to take an almost arbitrary amount of control in the economy.
From the point of view of someone 100 years ago, the "social market economy" is textbook socialism.

*scandinavian countries even more, but I don't know that many details about them.

That does not mean that they are socialist any more than Poland having private store ownership in the 1980s meant that it suddenly became capitalist. They have the potential to become socialist through legal means, but any private ownership of capital means that the country is not really socialist. From the point of view of someone 100 years ago, the social market economy is socialistic by not fully socialist.

Outright socialism has a more mixed track record, mostly because of necessity it only gets implemented as the product of revolutions and is thus vulnerable to all the vices of revolutionary dictatorships plus all the potential faults of a system that involves state control of the engines of economic progress.

The problem with that is of course that dictatorship and socialism are opposits. The eastern block economies started getting fucked by the people in charge very fast. I will concede the point that in a less controlled economy these people would not have at the power to do that much damage, though.

In practical terms, though, the problem with revolutionary socialism is not that it is revolutionary but that it is often led by an elitist vanguard who often decide that the dictatorship of the proletariat can be established by them listening to proletarian concerns rather than through actual democratic mechanisms, and that the proletariat is too uneducated to make informed decisions. While these would be minimized in a mass uprising of the kind Marx envisioned, those have been few and far between for any ideology.

Social democracy is a different question, since it can evolve naturally from democratic institutions without having to violently overthrow anything the society basic right (such as property ownership) at any point.

Um, social democracy DID have to overthrow basic rights of the people in power at some point. And it wasn't done by asking nicely.

It did that because it evolved in the semi-democratic German Empire and thus had to fight for the right to exist and be represented, though. The Fabians in England managed to implement much of what they wanted (in the form of the later Labor Party) without violent overthrow of the people in power, as well as the NDP in Canada, as well as the people who established the New Deal and Great Society in the USA, and so on and so forth.

[Simon_Jester]

Maybe people should visit Australia, Canada, Britain, France or another socialist helllhole and let us know how horribly tyrannical and corrupt our governments are.

I wouldn't even call those socialist countries- I'm trying to figure out whether Skgoa would.

Socialism involves state control of the means of production, Skgoa; Europe is only very weakly socialist though there are functioning socialist parties in a number of the countries involved.

Erm, you do realize that e.g. the german governments*, both state and federal, have huge share-ownership of private industry and that the economy is in principle controled by the state? That direct influence is only taken up to the neccessary amount in reality is more due to that being the intelligent choice, "rar, markets must be free!" But in principle, the state has the constitutioal right to take an almost arbitrary amount of control in the economy.
From the point of view of someone 100 years ago, the "social market economy" is textbook socialism.

*scandinavian countries even more, but I don't know that many details about them.

I am going to wait for others to comment on this, as I simply do not know what to say.

If I understand you rightly, your point is that a system which constitutionally permits the state to take over industrial concerns is textbook socialism whether or not it actually does so?

Outright socialism has a more mixed track record, mostly because of necessity it only gets implemented as the product of revolutions and is thus vulnerable to all the vices of revolutionary dictatorships plus all the potential faults of a system that involves state control of the engines of economic progress.

The problem with that is of course that dictatorship and socialism are opposits. The eastern block economies started getting fucked by the people in charge very fast. I will concede the point that in a less controlled economy these people would not have at the power to do that much damage, though.

My argument is one of empiricism- socialism as empirically brought into existence is either the product of democratic transfers of power or of revolution. Revolutionary socialism leads predictably to revolutionary dictatorship; you can denounce it as unsocialist if you like but it happens every damn time, like clockwork. Socialism brought about by democratic means is a very different form of socialism, and generally one in which the hallmarks of 19th century socialists' goals occur in greatly attenuated form, if at all. Whether the state could nationalize the factories or not, it does not.

Social democracy is a different question, since it can evolve naturally from democratic institutions without having to violently overthrow anything the society basic right (such as property ownership) at any point.

Um, social democracy DID have to overthrow basic rights of the people in power at some point. And it wasn't done by asking nicely.

Do you mean in the sense of "the Labour Party won the election," or are you referring to something else? My point here hinges on the matter of violent overthrow, and how the absence of it greatly alters the character of socialism compared to the character it takes on in a revolutionary environment.

[SpaceMarine93]

The only problem with that being of course that de facto socialism has been working great in real first world countries for halve a century.

By that logic, over that last 100 years America has vastly outperformed Europe on every metric that matters (to a conservative), so we must all strive to be like the US.

Whoa, really? Didn't I remember that the EU economy as a whole individually dwarfs other bloc or nation in the world, even that of the US?

[SpaceMarine93]

Maybe people should visit Australia, Canada, Britain, France or another socialist helllhole and let us know how horribly tyrannical and corrupt our governments are.

Done it. I have been to Britain and Canada, and i tell you, those places are decent. Totally not hellholes. I would assume that you are being sarcastic.