Left-Wing Folk

[Flavus Aquila]

Some questions for all Left-leaning members:

What draws you to the left, over the right?

What are the pros/strengths/benefits/positives/etc. of the left-wing to you?

Any other comments which might help a right-wing crank understand what they're missing.

 

[BrokenDaniel]

The few things that are commonly seen as left, although it doesn't mean it actually is, since it's so relative depending on the country:
I don't see why things like healthcare should be a private enterprise, specially considering the costs of it and how necessary it is, also the amount of utilities that people in the bussiness get from it, it's just ludicrous. Public schools should have better quality, with better teachers, i don't see why privileged idiots (family mainly) should stand a better chance because of social standing, they are still idiots, it doesn't even depend on quality and competence, it's all about elitism based on dubious bases (contacts and social standing). Most corporations can go on and fuck themselves too, bunch of colluded assholes.
I'm actually not a left wing leaner, if anything i guess i'm a bit conservative in my views compared to most of my friends irl anyway.

 

[Wyote]

I'll start off by saying I don't really truly identify with the left. I just find the right to be too much of a circus to even entertain the idea of identifying with it. Asking me to identify with the left versus the right is like asking me to choose between eating a piece of old bread or eating some smelly fungus from a rock. Neither is very appealing, but I might be able to stomach the bread.

I can sum up what "draws" me to the left if there is anything and that is: progress

The right does not inherently stand for progress. Individual fiscal progress maybe, but not social or cultural progress. I suppose it's difficult for a right wing person to see their own party lacking in this area, but the age of individual achievement is over. Psychologically and sociologically striving for achievement through cooperation is most beneficial to our species. Wealth distribution is largely, globally already in place and is responsible for raising the bar for entire societies. We are in the age of Macro thinking and right wings are operating on a micro individualistic level.

That being said, I do whole-heartedly believe that the more we move toward socialism, the more dangerously close to an apathetic stagnant world we create. I have no answer here really, other than I'm glad for both parties and I think the two party system is amazing because it constantly pulls the other so that neither one gets out of control. I guess more than anything I am for both parties. It's an amazing system.

I don't really see pros/strength outweighing left over right. To me, the best option is being an independent thinker. As such, my views often fall on the Libertarian line, but I hesitate to "identify" with that as it would simply pigeonhole me into a particular line of thinking.

Positives of the left:

Social Progress
Economic Equality

 

[#@&5&49]

...Asking me to identify with the left versus the right is like asking me to choose between eating a piece of old bread or eating some smelly fungus from a rock. Neither is very appealing...

I have no answer here really, other than I'm glad for both parties and I think the two party system is amazing because it constantly pulls the other so that neither one gets out of control. I guess more than anything I am for both parties. It's an amazing system.

I don't really see pros/strength outweighing left over right. To me, the best option is being an independent thinker. As such, my views often fall on the Libertarian line, but I hesitate to "identify" with that as it would simply pigeonhole me into a particular line of thinking….

I have to admit I was hesitant to venture into this thread, but I agree with pretty much everything [MENTION=251]Wyote[/MENTION] has said.

 

[JJJA]

The only meaningful progress the left seems to make in order to attract my attention is social liberalism. In terms of literally every other issue, whether that be foreign affairs, decisions from previous left-led governments (British perspective) or economic stability, the left has always left the United Kingdom in a pile of shit with not enough manpower and money to clean it up. You can't keep taking money from other people and think this constitutes economic stability or equality. In-regards to foreign policy, I think the very recent left-wing coalition of opinion is completely tepid, cowardly and at-worst utterly suicidal. If the left wishes to represent real leadership in the battle for equality, then it needs to seriously reform its own attitude toward Western Civilization; it needs to stop smearing the society that keeps it safe at night whilst our enemies wish to burn us to the ground. Don't make the same error of judgement that Neville Chamberlain did in assuming that the enemy will bow down to pacifism once we surrender our own will to fight.

 

[brightmoon]

Right wingers tend to be overly concerned about government and the power of government. Reagan said government is not the solution but the problem. The question to ask is who controls the government and its agenda? The answer is multinational corporations and the very wealthy. Money equals power and influence over not only public institutions but over society as a whole. Take the meltdown of 2008 when the investment banks were bailed out but individuals were left to fend for themselves. Only the government which represents ALL the people can curtail the influence of private institutions that act exclusively in their self interest. Issues like poverty mean nothing to them. Producing goods as cheaply as possible and maximizing profits are their sole concern. Then ideas, like trickle-down economics and the meritocracy are invented and sold as truths when they have nothing to with reality. The fact is the capitalist system needs to be heavily regulated or power becomes concentrated in the hands of the few and the only counter balance that exists besides unions is government.

Also consider social issues. If it wasn't for liberals there would be any civil rights for women, minorities, or LGBTQ. Conservatives are happy with the status quo and often look back to a golden age that never really existed. The 1950s were great for white middle class men, but everyone else lived under an oppressive social condition that did not provide equality of opportunity. Institutions like Jim Crow laws were defended by conservatives at that time as necessary and equal treatment that we expect today had fought for. People need to be reminded of these facts.

Also consider the right wing blundering into foreign wars and entanglement, meddling in the affairs of other countries without thinking about or considering the consequences. Consider the invasion of Iraq under false pretenses (where were the "weapons of mass destruction"?) which destabilized the whole region and led to the creation of a worse menace than Saddam Hussein --ISIS. The left does not immediately jump to the idea of using military force to solve problems which is the way things should be. Everytime we don't use military force right away, right wingers bring up Neville Chamberlain and appeasement, but they forget about Vietnam, an utterly useless war where millions of people died for nothing because Western powers wanted to impose their will on a country that wanted self determination and were prepared to fight for it.

 

[JJJA]

[MENTION=14199]brightmoon[/MENTION]

It is actually the contrary belief which most right-wingers (in Europe) subscribe to. They often heavily propose a protectionist society which is almost completely non-interventionist, leaving aside a few Neo-Conservatives in the GOP. Why do you think it was a right-wing decision to invade Iraq? George Bush was GOP, yes, but you are also forgetting his very close partner in the coalition: British Prime Minister Tony Blair who led Britain under a left-wing government and still opted for toppling Saddam's awful regime and quite rightly so. Are you going to just slap on so-called universally 'bad' decisions onto right-wingers without even looking at the facts of ISIS? This weak straw-man involving the words 'destabilized the region'; could you possibly elaborate on that? The region has been destabilized for over a thousand years and has seen many terrible regimes come and go but one thing has always remained the same: Jihadist Islamofascist groups have always operated in this region attempting to fight the Jews and other types of Muslims. I think that people that wish to blame the West on the most recent excuse to bomb Americans is a dangerously deluded logical fallacy. It is the argument I hate most of all which claims that if we did absolutely nothing to fight murderous scum, then the absolutely murderous scum would suddenly stop murdering? Absolute nonsense. It is quite easy to define ISIS and to explain why they exist and why they operate. They do not care about avenging Saddam Hussein. They only care about gaining every piece of territory from non-Muslims and handing it back to the Caliphate and rewarding suicide murderers for killing innocent people. Do not confuse their excuses with our excuses. Their excuse is our foreign policy, but that is simply their method of claiming flippant self-defense tactics. Has it honestly gotten to the point in-which people of this Cult of Capitulation prefer to listen to the excuses of terrorists instead of listening to the real reasons concerning why Saddam was toppled? He committed so many atrocities and crimes it is rather disingenuous to not include how awful he was in a thread like this and then proceed to bash the decision to get rid of him when we all know why he had to go, plain and simple. Black and white. Case and point.

The invasion of Iraq couldn't have been more justified. Saddam Hussein violated every international treaty, spat in the face of the United Nations by harbouring terrorist gangs, running a fascist dictatorship (bringing himself to power via a murderous coup d'état), and gassing a few Kurds to put it rather mildly.

If Capitalism was regulated, it would no longer be considered Capitalism. We'd actually be living within Bernie Sanders' wet dream of regulated markets, high taxes and absolutely zero change in the so-called wealth 'inequality' which would still mean that the top 1% would remain. The corporations you speak of actually rely on larger government regulation of smaller businesses in order to completely eradicate competition. Corporations have and can exist in societies very different to Capitalist governments (take a look at China for a good example).

Appendix: Mentioning Vietnam does not automatically refute the Neville Chamberlain analogy. The reason I use it is because of how relevant it still is. History can repeat itself in more subtle ways than one might expect. I, like most people, personally detest the intervention in Vietnam, but I only see Vietnam (in your argument) as a means to smear right-wingers and place literally all of them in the same category of wishing to intervene in every matter imaginable, which certainly isn't my principle. Both left and right wingers support and do not support interventionism. The British Shadow Foreign Secretary is a leading Socialist in this country and he made a very adept speech advocating intervention in Syria. It seems using Vietnam, then, was simply a crutch used for you to bash this very mixed group you refer to as 'right wingers'. Very wishy washy.

 

[Eventhorizon]

I honestly believe that left wing folk do not see nor do they play out the consequences of their choices. "I want it, I dont care how its achieved. " attitude. What they want by itself isnt bad. Its that theres no thought process to get to it.

But the right has its own set of mind boggling inconsistencies. Like, why do they continue to pander to the religious aspects of our society even as we have traveled into the 21st century.

 

[brightmoon]

[MENTION=13855]JJJA[/MENTION]

So the power vacuum created by the removal of Saddam had nothing to do with the rise of ISIS? Sorry I don't buy it, not for a second. Saddam was not a good guy, he did gas his own people and repeatedly violated international law. Was he worse than many of those in the region that we call friends and allies like the Saudis? That's up for debate isn't it? I'll tell you something-- those facts are less than than "black and white" for me.

You seem ignore that these groups like ISIS don't just organically grow and form on their own. They have history and there definite historical reasons for why they exist and to just say that Islamofascist groups have always existed in the region is naïve and ignores the historical context of the region. That was my point in bringing up Vietnam. Those people at the time did not understand Southeast Asia and blindly promoted intervention and military action as the solution without understanding the ramifications of their actions. Do such interventionist exist on the left, yes of course they do, but that does negate the fact that neo-conservatism is primarily a right wing movement.

The appeasement argument has been used and abused to justify every single military operation since World War II. The Bush administration again invoked to justify Gulf War II. This idea that Saddam Hussein was an imminent threat to the West because he was developing weapons of mass destruction and that anyone who opposed the war was an "appeaser" turned out to factually incorrect, and it was based upon assumption derived from poor intelligence gathering and just plain ignorance at best, or at worse, willful manipulation of information (remember the allegation that Saddam was buying yellow cake uranium) to justify the war. In other were the justifications based on stupidity or a calculated manipulation to start the war? I think that the Bush Administration knew that Saddam was nothing more than a minor regional player and invented the whole WMD story to justify the war. I guess that's up to history to decide.

Capitalism is already regulated by the way, largely because libertarianism is unworkable and is a fantasy that was never existed and truly never will exist. We are now just talking about who benefits from the regulation and what kind of regulation should exist. Too much of that regulation is set to the favour those who run the capitalist system already and are further rigging it to advance their interests.

 

[brightmoon]

I honestly believe that left wing folk do not see nor do they play out the consequences of their choices. "I want it, I dont care how its achieved. " attitude. What they want by itself isnt bad. Its that theres no thought process to get to it

What does this mean?? For me the needs of many do overweigh the needs of the few. So I have no idea what you talking about. I guess you should elaborate.

 

[Stu]

What draws you to the left, over the right?

The right tends to be overly individualistic. I believe it is actually called "neoliberalism" Believing that open markets guided by the profit motive was all a society really needed to insure fair enough distribution of goods and services.
But all it really does is reintroduce a Robber Barron economic situation but now on a global scale. For me, making Criminal Justice, Health Care, Education, Transportation Infrastructure, National Monetary Policy, all be dictated by open markets and the profit motive invites corruption.

What are the pros/strengths/benefits/positives/etc. of the left-wing to you?

First you have to accept the weakness and guard against them, nepotism, cronyism, incompetence, and all around corruption. Whenever large scale enterprises are run by bureaucracies there is an open invitation for all of these things.

That said we are still moving on a line away from feudalism toward meritocracy.

Pros.....Political/economic systems which accept that generational inequality must be addressed while embracing the most democratic systems for selecting candidates to assume positions of power. As open and free a press as is possible and a Criminal Justice system that is well funded and held to the highest ethical standards.

Any other comments which might help a right-wing crank understand what they're missing.

Take a close look at Clive Bundy.

 

[hk427f3]

 

[invisible]

I am a big believer in equal access to certain things that I regard as human rights, such as healthcare and education. Sometimes a person who is born into a poorer family has poorer access to educational and health opportunities than a person born into a wealthier family. They didn't do anything to deserve it, and they couldn't have controlled it. In this situation, the organisation of the economy actively perpetuates social inequality - and I think that this impoverishes society, because it imposes artificial impediments in the flowering of genetically gifted brains that may have been arbitrarily born into impoverished circumstances. I'm not saying that I don't think people who have worked hard for their money shouldn't be allowed to spend it on enriching the lives of their children, through for example privileged cultural or travel opportunities, but I don't think it's good that children in rich families should have privileged access to superior healthcare and education. It's unfair, and it's bad for humanity.

 

[Azereiah]

"Left Wing" and "Right Wing" in the United States are inherently messed up terms. There isn't even a solid definition for them anymore - it seems as though everybody who doesn't wholeheartedly agree with everything the selfish/hateful/bigoted Republican party is considered a "libtard".

I'm more drawn to the "left" than the "right" because the "left" at least pretends to care about people. Nationalized healthcare, regulations that keep people from having their lives ruined (or ended) by no fault of their own, etc. just seem like they're absolutely necessary for a society to be happy and free. I'm also forcibly shoved into the "left" category by the "right" because I happen to believe that everyone should have equal rights and opportunities, and people should stay out of eachothers' personal lives, which seems really strange to me, because the "right" always claims that personal freedoms are a must.

Tax-paid tuition for university and free public healthcare are, of course, a must. People dying just because they can't afford the hospital bill is sickening to me. People with talent being wasted because they can't pay for a job that fits their personality and wants is also sickening to me. But just as sickening is this climate of corporate welfare. Laws across the USA make it prohibitively difficult and expensive for small businesses and startups to get going, and nearly guarantee the success of monopolistic businesses. A business that runs in the red constantly has no right to exist, and businesses that make it nigh impossible for other people to get a foothold significantly damage the income potential of the lower classes.

 

[the]

Because I like upsetting the balance.

im a have not so I don't feel bad about taking from the haves. The government has the monopoly on violence so if I can steer the government to redirect resources to me then I am better off.

 

[invisible]

I have sometimes heard people joke that America is dominated by two distinct political parties: one conservative, the other liberal, and both right-wing. Well, actually, I don't think those people were really joking.

 

[JJJA]

[MENTION=14199]brightmoon[/MENTION]

We attacked Saddam in 1991 because he invaded and annexed another sovereign state. Retaliating against the staunch aggressor was the least we could have done and is what we have always been doing since the beginning of World War 2. I don't care who uses the Chamberlain analogy, I am using it for this purpose and to remind us of who the enemy is. It isn't Bush, it isn't 'right wingers', it is ISIS. They have been created to fulfil their duty to Allah and to restore the Caliphate and to kill all kafirs and infidels. They are the enemy we must not appease and I don't respect anyone that wishes to make excuses for these people; as if that suddenly makes us the criminal mastermind behind terrorist organisations being created all over, as if that gives the West no platform to defend itself. It's absolutely disgraceful and to think that it is both the left and the right that thinks on such immoral terms; equally outrageous.

Appendix: Resorting to excuse-making for groups such as ISIS and saying "They wouldn't be so mean to us if we weren't so mean to them" constitutes a scenario in-which you are blaming the victims of their crimes for daring to suggest that terrorists and international criminals receive no justice and for us to simply let them walk across borders for the sake of nihilism and not wishing to offend some people. I don't honestly care if you are left or right wing. I care if you are rational, and since you are so obsessed with wishing to dish out blame on only one group of very broad people, whilst simultaneously blaming the victims, it seems that those opposing the right certainly do not hold the moral high ground. I will fight these people without any hesitation and I won't let pathetic capitulation get the better of my senses.

I am sure you would be glad to be reminded of the first aggression that was actually done by the United States onto another sovereign land was in self-defence against the Barbary states. The sub-sections of the tyrannical Ottoman Empire took Americans (and other Europeans) to be sold off as slaves and this was at a time before the United States was an official state as we see it today. What makes this an interesting event to bring up is because it proves that the actions undertaken by groups like ISIS are not dependent on the actions of the Americans or the West. These groups are working independent of self-responsibility and completely ignore the consequences of their actions because they are blowing people up for living in the wrong country and believing in the wrong fairy tale. It doesn't matter if we topple a dictatorship, it will not stop these scum bags from blowing people up. During the Barbary wars, they were the aggressors. During this war, they still remain the aggressors.

 

[Eventhorizon]

[MENTION=13855]JJJA[/MENTION]

So the power vacuum created by the removal of Saddam had nothing to do with the rise of ISIS? Sorry I don't buy it, not for a second. Saddam was not a good guy, he did gas his own people and repeatedly violated international law. Was he worse than many of those in the region that we call friends and allies like the Saudis? That's up for debate isn't it? I'll tell you something-- those facts are less than than "black and white" for me.

You seem ignore that these groups like ISIS don't just organically grow and form on their own. They have history and there definite historical reasons for why they exist and to just say that Islamofascist groups have always existed in the region is naïve and ignores the historical context of the region. That was my point in bringing up Vietnam. Those people at the time did not understand Southeast Asia and blindly promoted intervention and military action as the solution without understanding the ramifications of their actions. Do such interventionist exist on the left, yes of course they do, but that does negate the fact that neo-conservatism is primarily a right wing movement.

The appeasement argument has been used and abused to justify every single military operation since World War II. The Bush administration again invoked to justify Gulf War II. This idea that Saddam Hussein was an imminent threat to the West because he was developing weapons of mass destruction and that anyone who opposed the war was an "appeaser" turned out to factually incorrect, and it was based upon assumption derived from poor intelligence gathering and just plain ignorance at best, or at worse, willful manipulation of information (remember the allegation that Saddam was buying yellow cake uranium) to justify the war. In other were the justifications based on stupidity or a calculated manipulation to start the war? I think that the Bush Administration knew that Saddam was nothing more than a minor regional player and invented the whole WMD story to justify the war. I guess that's up to history to decide.

Capitalism is already regulated by the way, largely because libertarianism is unworkable and is a fantasy that was never existed and truly never will exist. We are now just talking about who benefits from the regulation and what kind of regulation should exist. Too much of that regulation is set to the favour those who run the capitalist system already and are further rigging it to advance their interests.

Im sorry but would you like to back your statements on libertarianism up? Give examples of how you think it cant work in the real world and why?

 

[Eventhorizon]

"Left Wing" and "Right Wing" in the United States are inherently messed up terms. There isn't even a solid definition for them anymore - it seems as though everybody who doesn't wholeheartedly agree with everything the selfish/hateful/bigoted Republican party is considered a "libtard".

I'm more drawn to the "left" than the "right" because the "left" at least pretends to care about people. Nationalized healthcare, regulations that keep people from having their lives ruined (or ended) by no fault of their own, etc. just seem like they're absolutely necessary for a society to be happy and free. I'm also forcibly shoved into the "left" category by the "right" because I happen to believe that everyone should have equal rights and opportunities, and people should stay out of eachothers' personal lives, which seems really strange to me, because the "right" always claims that personal freedoms are a must.

Tax-paid tuition for university and free public healthcare are, of course, a must. People dying just because they can't afford the hospital bill is sickening to me. People with talent being wasted because they can't pay for a job that fits their personality and wants is also sickening to me. But just as sickening is this climate of corporate welfare. Laws across the USA make it prohibitively difficult and expensive for small businesses and startups to get going, and nearly guarantee the success of monopolistic businesses. A business that runs in the red constantly has no right to exist, and businesses that make it nigh impossible for other people to get a foothold significantly damage the income potential of the lower classes.

Selfish, hateful, bigoted. ... what world do you live in. Oh let me guess, you listen to only left wing media that pushs those ideas. Well good for you. Remain ignorant of the world and keep are head in the sand. Im sure all of the worlds issues will just blow by.

 

[Eventhorizon]

Conservatives are far from perfect but when the choice is them or people who dont live on the same planet the choice becomes amazingly clear and simple.