lefties and righties

Von

Originally posted by American

You aren't defending yourselves. You are under our nuclear umbrella, and under our protection,

Where was that protection in the 70's? I don't mind if you're just taking the pi$$, you're a card sir.

Aspro

No problems Bonkey.

CiaranC

I find it amusing that Americans think of democrats and those who control the US media as leftist.

In the mainstream US political arena, there is only the right - and the far right. Sure, one is left of the other, but only in the sense that Mussolini was left of Hitler.

American

Originally posted by bonkey

Absolute rot.

yes, it is rotten that I don't have time tonight to answer these questions. But I'll try to hit this thread first tomorrow.

American

Originally posted by adnans
j
whats this about Red Country America and Blue Country America that you keep talking about? and then you proceed to include far left in the Blue Country? can you explain please.

adnans

There is a cultural divide in America between the the urban and the rural areas of the country. It pivots around the way we see government in our lives and the way we see religion in our lives.

In the last Presidential election in 2000, the television news programming department, possibly arbitrarily, chose red as the color to show the States that Bush won and used blue as the color to show the States that Gore won.
The division in the country is seen, however, most graphically when you look at a counties map of the United States, red being counties that voted predominantly for Bush and blue being counties that voted predominantly for Gore. Our States are subdivided into counties for more local governmental functions.
The politically active or politically interested people in the counties that voted for Bush have taken to referring to themselves as living in "Red Country" as a way to emphasize their feeling like a separate nation from those that live in Blue Country. Red Country is the heartland of America, rural in it's thinking, patriotic, and religious. Sophisticated urbanites, who live in Blue Country, think of us as "Fly Over" country, because they never think about all those living in these vast areas of the United States that slip beneath their planes as they head from one coast to another.

Don't know how to post a picture of the counties map.

American

Originally posted by CiaranC
I find it amusing that Americans think of democrats and those who control the US media as leftist.

In the mainstream US political arena, there is only the right - and the far right. Sure, one is left of the other, but only in the sense that Mussolini was left of Hitler.

Then I assume the people in your country are all leftist, some of them far leftist, if that is your perspective. And that your political parties range from the philosophies of Stalin to those of Marx and Lenin.

In the U.S. Democrats are wannabe Socialists. The Greens on the far left wannabe Utopians. The mainstream doesn't wannabe bothered. Republicans on the right wannabe left alone by government. And those to the far right see the U.N. as a One World conspiracy to take away their guns and their freedom and abolish the U.S. and enslave them under a U.N. flag.
The Libertarians, however, are a bit of a mix of both sides, prefering Repubican economics and military policy but wanting to legalize all vices, like drugs and anything to do with sex. They are very big on personal freedom, and thus against big government and government authority over their personal choices.
It is my personal judgment, which hardly anyone shares, that the Libertarian Party will compete more and more with the Democrats for status as one of the top two parties in the U.S.

The Corinthian

Left wing and right wing are fairly meaningless but practical terms. When I went to college in Ireland, the left wing was a mixture of IRA sympathisers (who were not in Fianna Fail), libertarians and a few Marxist-Whateverists. Right-wingers were largely catholic traditionalists with a smattering of politically-incorrect wanna-be Thatcherites and crypto-fascists.

Then the wall came down in Berlin. Slowly we found that the divide between left and right wing began to become narrower (as they began to vie for the more attractive ‘middle ground’) and the terms became somewhat redefined. Fringe groups, such as the Socialist Workers or Youth Defence, stayed, but to be honest every country has its mostly harmless fringe groups.

So what I witnessed led me to believe that there’s no hard and fast definition for left or right wing. Why is Fascism right wing? The majority of its ideologies can be defined as socialist or left wing. Why is Communist China left wing? It’s equally viable to consider it right wing. Would one tend to see the Soviet Communist Party as leftwing in 1917 and rightwing in 1980?

Left and right wing from my understanding of history (i.e. I vaguely remember reading about this, but would have to dig up the reference) appear to come from the classical distinction between conservative and liberal (revolutionary) elements within a society. The former abhors any change; the latter is far too fond of it.

Left and right are thus the two sides of the same coin; neither can exist without the other for long, as much because they define each other. And each acts as a watchdog to the other, one pushing for change, the other slowing it down, each in its own way stopping the extremes of chaos or stagnation.

Perhaps that is a better definition of these polls rather than to attribute them to any particular ideologies.

My two cent.

Aspro

Originally posted by The Corinthian
So what I witnessed led me to believe that there’s no hard and fast definition for left or right wing. Why is Fascism right wing? The majority of its ideologies can be defined as socialist or left wing. Why is Communist China left wing? It’s equally viable to consider it right wing. Would one tend to see the Soviet Communist Party as leftwing in 1917 and rightwing in 1980?

The divide between left and right has never been starker. If the waters appear to have been muddied it is because, as I said earlier, those institutions that have come traditionally from the Left, such as the Labour Party, ICTU, Sinn Fein, New Labour in Britain etc. have leaderships which have driven them wholesale to the right.

They purport to represent ordinary people but whenever they are put to the test they fail miserably. Examples:

Labour Party: Have been in coalition governments on many occasions in the history of the state and have made precious little difference. No ideological difference with FF or FG. Support double taxation in the form of service charges and will rally to the side of big business before they defend ordinary people every time.

Trade Union bureaucracies: Infamous for selling out their members (prime example - the Liverpool dockers). Is it any wonder trade union membership has fallen dramatically when you have to fight on two fronts - against the boss and against the union?

Sinn Fein: Had the opportunity to make a difference being in government in the North for the first time. What do they do? Start closing hospitals. Different history but same route as Labour.

New Labour: Enough said.

There is a huge vacuum for a genuine Left, not just in Ireland, but Britain and worldwide. People have confused perceptions of what is Left - and this has been a factor in Sinn Fein's increased support in the South over the last while and will result in them getting a few more TDs in the next election.

It's important not to confuse populism with socialist politics. Fascism and neo-fascists like Jorg Haider and his Freedom Party in Austria highlight certain economic issues that affect ordinary people but instead of blaming the endemic inequalities of our society he takes the usual far right road of blaming immigrants.

Fascism is right wing because it stifles any change that would benefit ordinary people and seeks to crush their rights while defending the interests of the ruling class.

For a better definition of fascism see:
http://www.publiceye.org/eyes/whatfasc.html

Stalinist China and Russia were left wing in ideology but right wing in leadership. The societies were meant to be based on the interests of the working class but were dominated by bureaucratic elites who stifled change and used repressive measures to ensure their continued control. Without a genuine and democratic input by the bulk of society in the planned economies the eventually ground to a halt and collapsed resulting in the reinstallment of capitalism - "when the wall came down".

Therefore:

Would one tend to see the Soviet Communist Party as leftwing in 1917 and rightwing in 1980?

Answer: Yes. The Bolshevik Party was the most democratic and revolutionary party ever seen in 1917 when capitalism was overthrown in Russia - therefore most definitely Left.
When the revolution did not spread to Germany and further it left the country isolated and trying to fight a war against 21 armies, while peasants in the countryside were staving. A small elite grew around Stalin, determined to usurp power for themselves in this difficult period - so gradually the party moved further to the right in Stalin's attempts to have total control.

Left and right are thus the two sides of the same coin; neither can exist without the other for long, as much because they define each other. And each acts as a watchdog to the other, one pushing for change, the other slowing it down, each in its own way stopping the extremes of chaos or stagnation.

As long as we live in an unequal society where some have, and most haven't there will always be the Right - trying to keep things the same to benefit the "haves" - and the Left fighting for change, equality and fairness for everyone else.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Aspro
Fascism is right wing because it stifles any change that would benefit ordinary people and seeks to crush their rights while defending the interests of the ruling class.

You're missing my point. After all, socialism will crush the rights of ordinary people because it is tyanny by the majorty. Does that make it not 'fascist'? Regardless of it's flavour (Stalinist, Trotskist, etc.).

Also, Fascism is change - not change you may agree with - but change nonetheless. In some cases it did not change the ruling class, but was the ruling class that it failed to change any better than the ruling class imposed by Communist societies (please don't give me any rubbish about how they weren't really Communist).

American

Originally posted by bonkey
I am not fully aware of the laws regarding the American presidency, but I always thought the presidents were limited to serving two terms of office, which would be why Clinton didnt try to get a third term.
After Franklin Delano Roosevelt broke the tradition set by George Washington and stood for election for third and a fourth terms, the country decided to codify the two term tradition in the XXII Amendment to our Constitution. I have such a low opinion of former President Clinton that I wouldn't even put it passed him of trying to get around this constitutional law, if he had not had stiff opposition from a determined and armed minority.

Also, I would be more inclined to say that Gore, having won the popular vote, was entitled to contest the election until such times as the law decided that he had lost. This is what he did.
What he did was break the tradition of the 20th century in America that a close election for President is not contested, but graciously accepted to preserve unity in the country. Being entitled to do something does not mean it is considered right to do it.
And there are a significant number of people who believe that Bush did not lose the legal popular vote. If you eliminate the votes of noncitizens and felons and outright fraudulent votes, then Gore's numbers would drop considerably.
There are Democrat precincts where 120% of the registered voters voted. Some people estimate that the percentage of noncitizens voting is 2% of the electorate; some people think it is higher.
If you look at the counties (political subdivisions of our States), Gore won in only 677 counties which contained 127 million of our population, while Bush won in 2434 counties which contained 143 million of our population.

If you are saying that Gore lost because of the threat of a bunch of gun-toting civilians, then I ... have to pity the American system
Gore did not lose because of gun-toting civilians, but because he lost the electoral vote under our system. Gore was not able to steal the election because of civilians who have guns in their homes and who would not have allowed theft of the election to stand.

American

Originally posted by The Corinthian

Left and right are thus the two sides of the same coin; neither can exist without the other for long, as much because they define each other. And each acts as a watchdog to the other, one pushing for change, the other slowing it down, each in its own way stopping the extremes of chaos or stagnation.

My two cent.

Very well stated, and worth a great deal more than two cents.
I'm inclined also to take the long view that you have espoused here.

American

Originally posted by Aspro
we live in a world with two major classes - the working class who produce the wealth and the ruling class who own it.
The right wing fights in the interests of the ruling class, and the left wing in the interests of the working class. ...
You cannot represent the people AND the profits. One of them has to take precedence.

Do you really believe that people who have managerial or ownership positions do not work? If you had ever put a company together and employed people you might get a different view.

The small business owners in the United States employ the majority of the employees here. And small business owners typically work longer hours than any of their employees, and get "paid" only after the payroll is met, if there is anything left over. Typically they also get fewer benefits than their employees.

And they don't rule much of anything.

I'm sure the experience is much different in Ireland and Europe where there are still crowned heads.

Ah, I wish you would watch Gettysburg with Martin Sheen and Jeff Daniels, and discuss it with me.

Baz_

Posted by american:
I'm sure the experience is much different in Ireland and Europe where there are still crowned heads.

I'll be expecting a flame or two for that. There are no crowned heads in Ireland, and Ireland aren't ruled by England, or any other monarchical state, so there isn't even indirectly a crowned head in Ireland.

Posted by american:
The small business owners in the United States employ the majority of the employees here. And small business owners typically work longer hours than any of their employees, and get "paid" only after the payroll is met, if there is anything left over. Typically they also get fewer benefits than their employees.

I'm sure aspro didnt mean the small business owner but the large business owner Rupert Murdoch et al.

Posted by american:
If you eliminate the votes of noncitizens and felons and outright fraudulent votes, then Gore's numbers would drop considerably.

and bushs thats a stupid point.

Baz_

Originally posted by American

Ah, I wish you would watch Gettysburg with Martin Sheen and Jeff Daniels, and discuss it with me.

Are you serious about this point, you want people to watch a movie made in America for their historical reference?? Movies which I might add are fraught with Americanisms, and biased by the directors own political views, and agenda. Get a grip man, if there is a reason I don't like America its because of the twenty movies worth of American propaganda they spew out a year, sickening. For an example that submarine piece of ****, the decoding box (enygma???) was found first by the British I believe, and a good few months before the Americans, what a load of BS that film was.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by American
Very well stated, and worth a great deal more than two cents.

Maybe a little less - I was thinking in Euros

The small business owners in the United States employ the majority of the employees here. And small business owners typically work longer hours than any of their employees, and get "paid" only after the payroll is met, if there is anything left over. Typically they also get fewer benefits than their employees.

This may be drifting a little OT, however...

The phisiocrats, who were the first recognisable proponents of what was to become economics, considered land to be effectively the only input or value of a market. Other inputs, such as labour were not considered. Needless to say, we would consider this to be an inaccurate assessment of value, today.

Aspro's view makes a similar error, in which it ignores investment as an input. That investment could be capital, or the risk of effectively working for free for a venture that may fail, or even going to college when you could be earning a wage instead.

I'd agree with American's highlighting of small business owners plight. I know of one small IT company here in Ireland, where the directors (to make ends meet) have not paid themselves since March! Why? You take the rough with the smooth as a capitalist - you make the investment that may allow you to become a big business owner in the end.

Originally posted by Aspro
we live in a world with two major classes - the working class who produce the wealth and the ruling class who own it.
The right wing fights in the interests of the ruling class, and the left wing in the interests of the working class. ...
You cannot represent the people AND the profits. One of them has to take precedence.

Back on topic now, I suppose...

Two major classes? That one went out of fashion a good while ago. You still view left and right with old ideologies. As a matter of fact you even appear to ignore the middle class (which frankly makes up the bulk of the population in first world countries). And what of the class that neither produces nor owns the wealth? Those who chose not to work, but are happy (or resigned) to avail of the State's financial assistance? Would you classify them as working?

It's not the 19th century anymore. Many of Marx's economic theories were found to be incorrect and Communism was a white elephant (please don't play the "it was State Capitalism" card - that's just a fudge).

Please consider the question objectively and without the aid of rhetorical dogma.

(Edited to clarify that when I'm talking about the "State's financial assistance" I mean the government of a Nation State as opposed to the US)

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Aspro
Fascism is right wing because it stifles any change that would benefit ordinary people and seeks to crush their rights while defending the interests of the ruling class.

Another interesting commentary on fascism can be found here:

http://www.freeradical.co.nz/solo/sechrest_fascism.html

As long as we live in an unequal society where some have, and most haven't there will always be the Right - trying to keep things the same to benefit the "haves" - and the Left fighting for change, equality and fairness for everyone else. [/QUOTE]

You seem to make the assumption that only the Left is "fighting for change, equality and fairness for everyone else", or for 'the common good'. There are two fatal conclusions to this view:

1. The Right acts against 'the common good' and hence evil, and

2. The Left is good and the only correct option.

Had you not considered that the Right may consider itself to be acting for 'the common good' and view the Left to be acting against it?

Your viewpoint appears partisan and almost religious in its certainty that ‘God’ is on your side...

Whenever I find myself in a discussion on Left vs. Right, I can’t but feel that Nietzsche hit the nail on the head when he wrote "Do not do battle with monsters, lest you become a monster; and when you look long into an abyss, the abyss looks into you".

dahamsta

I have such a low opinion of former President Clinton that I wouldn't even put it passed him of trying to get around this constitutional law, if he had not had stiff opposition from a determined and armed minority.

Your opinion means little or nothing in this case. Clinton didn't try for a third term, and never even looked like he was going to attempt it. An American citizen you may be, a magician you ain't, so stop trying to pull rabbits out of hats.

If you eliminate the votes of noncitizens and felons and outright fraudulent votes, then Gore's numbers would drop considerably.

And Bush's wouldn't? When it comes to felons and fraud, the Republicans win every time.

adam

Aspro

Originally posted by The Corinthian
You're missing my point. After all, socialism will crush the rights of ordinary people because it is tyanny by the majorty. Does that make it not 'fascist'? Regardless of it's flavour (Stalinist, Trotskist, etc.).

No, because fascism is based around one single fuhrer, one party totalitarian rule - Hitler, Mussolini, Franco

True democracy means government by the majority - obviously doesn't exist under fascism. Also didn't exist under Stalinism, whether that be Russia post-1923, China, Cuba etc.

Notice I said "Stalinism" as opposed to communism or socialism. There is a diametric difference. Otherwise Stalin's purges would not have murdered millions of genuine socialists, and Trotsky would not have been assassinated.

If you can't acknowledge that fact then I suspect you are one of those ex-college heads who was turned completely off left wing politics by the Socialist Workers Party and now has a knee-jerk reaction to it. Even those most reactionary of intellectuals and commentators have to acknowledge that there is a world of difference between Stalinism and genuine democratic socialism.

Two major classes? That one went out of fashion a good while ago. You still view left and right with old ideologies. As a matter of fact you even appear to ignore the middle class (which frankly makes up the bulk of the population in first world countries). And what of the class that neither produces nor owns the wealth? Those who chose not to work, but are happy (or resigned) to avail of the State's financial assistance? Would you classify them as working?

Sounds like Tony Blair talking now. We live in a classless society yadda yadda. Except you have negated your argument. If the idea that there are two major classes in society is unfounded, how could the middle class "make up the bulk of the population in first world countries"??
What are they in the middle of? Lunch and dinner??

The majority in society based on Marx's class analysis is the working class - those whose only means of surviving is by selling their ability to work to the highest bidder - those who have no independent financial means of sustaining themselves i.e. profession or practice, or the ownership of capital.

Now you can call me a crank, but it's a fact that "The Times" newspaper in Britain held a readers poll in 1999 and Good old Karl Marx was voted the greatest thinker of the millenium. And that paper isn't exactly the mouthpiece of the proletariat, now is it?

It's not the 19th century anymore. Many of Marx's economic theories were found to be incorrect and Communism was a white elephant (please don't play the "it was State Capitalism" card - that's just a fudge).

Many people misquote and misinterpret Marx just for the point of discrediting his analysis. After all, capitalism still exists, the world is still a grossly unfair and unequal place so obviously those at the top don't want us plebs concluding that there is an alternative to the profit-driven madness.

Those who purposely or unknowingly misunderstand marxism and socialism treat it as utopian dogma. First mistake: "nice idea, it'll never work". So is curing cancer and AIDS. Does that mean we stop trying?? It is a methodology. A way of analysing the world we live in and striving to change that to benefit the majority by taking the wealth and resources into public ownership, cutting the working week, increasing employment, enabling EVERYONE to utilise their talents and abilities to their fullest extent and having full participation in accountable and truly democratic running of the world.

You don't have to agree with me, but you do have to acknowledge at least one thing (based on the needs of the majority of people in our world) and that is - capitalism doesn't work.

American

Originally posted by Baz_


Are you serious about this point, you want people to watch a movie made in America for their historical reference??

Yes, because most of them made now are tripe at best. This one stated a few American ideals correctly at least, and showed men who were brave enough to stand and fight for those ideals.

Turn it around, and suggest a film that you admire as having something to say about your country that rings true.

I'll bite first and tell you what I thought was good about your film and what I learned.

Gargoyle

Originally posted by dahamsta
If you eliminate the votes of noncitizens and felons and outright fraudulent votes, then Gore's numbers would drop considerably.

And Bush's wouldn't? When it comes to felons and fraud, the Republicans win every time.

adam

I think your views are very skewed here by where you get your information. The Irish media tends to lift up the Democratic party (no surprise there...the Kennedys), while the Republican party is demonized.

If you look back objectively over history, you'll see both parties have their share or dark past. If anything in the last 40 years, I'd say the Democrats are ahead in the fraud category.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Aspro
True democracy means government by the majority - obviously doesn't exist under fascism. Also didn't exist under Stalinism, whether that be Russia post-1923, China, Cuba etc.

Depends how you exercise that ‘government by the majority’. Who can vote and for what? Is representative democracy a true democracy? Should we vote for individuals to represent us or have a referendum on every law? Should everyone have the vote, or only those who exercise it? Is democratic right awarded by merit or a duty to be exercised?

In short, your definition of ‘true democracy’ is just that – yours. Let’s not forget that the classical Greek interpretation of democracy (the guys who invented it) was a far cry to what we would consider ‘democratic’ today. Actually, Plato’s Republic was pretty fascist (to coin another much bandied term).

‘Democracy’ in Russia vanished long before Stalin, unless you consider a one party State to be ‘democratic’. If that’s the case fascist corporatism is equally ‘democratic’, if not more so.

Notice I said "Stalinism" as opposed to communism or socialism. There is a diametric difference. Otherwise Stalin's purges would not have murdered millions of genuine socialists, and Trotsky would not have been assassinated.

Naughty - you’re playing the "it was State Capitalism" card

If you can't acknowledge that fact then I suspect you are one of those ex-college heads who was turned completely off left wing politics by the Socialist Workers Party and now has a knee-jerk reaction to it. Even those most reactionary of intellectuals and commentators have to acknowledge that there is a world of difference between Stalinism and genuine democratic socialism.

Actually, I was quite ‘right wing’; if you want attribute a label to it. When in college I always found the Socialist Workers as an irritation at worst. A secular equivalent of a religious fundamentalist group recruiting freshers who wanted friends. They did, and still do, wonders for the right wing cause.

I did often socialize with a few ‘far-left’ activists, from time to time and cracking jokes about the Socialist Workers was a common interest. That and beer.

As for ‘genuine democratic socialism’, what would you mean by that? It’s easy to promote utopia if you don’t have to prove it exists. And if you fail to prove it, you can always say that it was never ‘genuine democratic socialism’ in the first place.

Many people misquote and misinterpret Marx just for the point of discrediting his analysis.

Had you considered that some are not misquoting or misinterpreting Marx and still discrediting his analysis? That his economic and social theories were based upon the still relatively young social sciences and that his predictions of worker exploitation in the industrialized World just didn’t materialize?

Those who purposely or unknowingly misunderstand marxism and socialism treat it as utopian dogma. First mistake: "nice idea, it'll never work". So is curing cancer and AIDS. Does that mean we stop trying??

That’s fair enough (although I vaguely remember something that Marx said about if something doesn’t work, don’t waste your time on it). Should we try again with fascism?

You don't have to agree with me, but you do have to acknowledge at least one thing (based on the needs of the majority of people in our world) and that is - capitalism doesn't work.

Does that mean we stop trying to make it work??

Aspro

Originally posted by The Corinthian
In short, your definition of ‘true democracy’ is just that – yours.

The definitions of genuine democracy weren't my definitions but rather the result of the objective situations leading up to and during the Russian Revolution where democracy was defined by the formation by the people themselves (independently of any one party) of community and factory councils - the soviets. They weren't an abstract intellectualisation of democracy but the genius of ordinary people in the fire of changing times.

For more background see:
http://www.geocities.com/~johngray/raclef.htm

Who's to say in another situation that ordinary people will not come up with the same sort of democratic initiatives. Ordinary people can find practical solutions to problems in their own communities - drugs, facilities, anti-social behaviour - by way of mass action and unity. Why not on a grander scale? It's been done before and it'll be done again.

Had you considered that some are not misquoting or misinterpreting Marx and still discrediting his analysis? That his economic and social theories were based upon the still relatively young social sciences and that his predictions of worker exploitation in the industrialized World just didn’t materialize?

Now you're just taking the piss, m8! Celtic Tiger - massive superprofits made - workers tied to partnership agreements keeping wages down - pathetically low minimum wage - under 18's and immigrant workers being exploited - non-union employers - the list is endless.

- capitalism doesn't work. Does that mean we stop trying to make it work??

Who's trying? And for whom? As a progressive mode of production for the betterment of humankind it's clearly past its sell-by date:

[URL][/url]http://home.clear.net.nz/pages/cpa/news/worldeconomy.htm

As for ‘genuine democratic socialism’, what would you mean by that? It’s easy to promote utopia if you don’t have to prove it exists. And if you fail to prove it, you can always say that it was never ‘genuine democratic socialism’ in the first place.

What I mean is the society that was begun in Russia from 1917 to 1923. It wasn't the ideology that failed but rather the objective circumstances - war weariness, a country in tatters from centuries of tsarist decay, a concerted effort by 21 armies of imperialism to destroy the new-found society, and the fact that it all happened in Russia and not Germany (a far more industrialised country).

If you want proof of all the initial benefits and wonders read:

http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/works/1930-hrr/

The world is a lot different nowadays. We're all a lot closer together and next time we'll get it right!

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Aspro
Now you're just taking the piss, m8! Celtic Tiger - massive superprofits made - workers tied to partnership agreements keeping wages down - pathetically low minimum wage - under 18's and immigrant workers being exploited - non-union employers - the list is endless.

But are things improving or disproving from the conditions of the ordinary worker during the nineteenth century when Marx made his prediction? Yes they have. And what he argued was that they would get worse.

If you want proof of all the initial benefits and wonders read:

http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/works/1930-hrr/

You’re joking, aren’t you? Pointing me to a partisan site to read the truth? You might as well send me to http://www.tfccs.com/index.jhtml for objectivity.

The world is a lot different nowadays. We're all a lot closer together and next time we'll get it right!

OK, you’ve convinced me that you believe, but can you convince me of more than your faith in the proletariat?

dahamsta

I think your views are very skewed here by where you get your information.

What you think has absolutely no bearing on this matter, because you have no idea where I get my information.

The Irish media tends to lift up the Democratic party (no surprise there...the Kennedys), while the Republican party is demonized.

I have the Internet at my fingertips, I don't need to rely on the Irish media.

If you look back objectively over history, you'll see both parties have their share or dark past.

Absolutely.

If anything in the last 40 years, I'd say the Democrats are ahead in the fraud category.

But I couldn't in all good faith agree with that.

adam

dahamsta

You don't have to agree with me, but you do have to acknowledge at least one thing (based on the needs of the majority of people in our world) and that is - capitalism doesn't work.

I acknowledge that. Neither does communism, fascism, socialism, and whatever other "ism's" you can come up with. It comes back to the title of the thread - you've got lefties, you've got righties, and ne'er the twain shall meet. Unless you're New Labour of course.

adam

Aspro

You’re joking, aren’t you? Pointing me to a partisan site to read the truth? You might as well send me to http://www.tfccs.com/index.jhtml for objectivity.

I could point you to a number of sites, interviews, whatever but this just happens to be the most comprehensive coverage of the events of the period by a key participant. If you're looking for someone to say "I was there, but I didn't take sides" then you're looking for a phantom. It was imo the single greatest event in history. You were either revolutionary (majority, Left) or reactionary (minority, Right).
And considering it has been the single most attacked, falsified and rubbished period of history by the establishment and the fact that anyone who could tell the truth was either murdered by Stalin or is dead a long time anyway, it's about as real as you'll get.

But are things improving or disproving from the conditions of the ordinary worker during the nineteenth century when Marx made his prediction? Yes they have. And what he argued was that they would get worse.

Well, you could say we're not sending the kids down the mines any more, but then again, in the case of Britain that's cos they were all shut down by Thatcher leaving the north of England as an industrial wasteland. Child labour is still prevalent in the neo-colonial world, and even in present day Ireland a sixteen year old can work, but is not eligible for the minimum wage and can't vote. Most of the new technology industries are not unionised and the ethic is toward "casualisation", "flexibility" and other such buzz words that undermine workers rights and leaves them with a terrible feeling of insecurity with all the psychological and sociological knock-on effects that ensue.

So have things got worse - comparatively - hell yeah. I shudder to think just how badly we're all going to be affected by this recession. I never want to have to survive on the scratcher again. It's a miserable existence.

OK, you’ve convinced me that you believe, but can you convince me of more than your faith in the proletariat?

You're right. I have a lot of faith in ordinary people and none in capitalism to meet our needs. I can't convince you or anyone else with mere words. As Marx said "conditions determine consciousness". It will be upcoming world economic events that will affect the way people view the world. The advantage that myself and the Socialist Party have is the lessons of history that have been passed down through the workers movement for the last 150 years. "We have nothing to lose but our chains"

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Aspro
And considering it has been the single most attacked, falsified and rubbished period of history by the establishment and the fact that anyone who could tell the truth was either murdered by Stalin or is dead a long time anyway, it's about as real as you'll get.

Doesn’t David Irving say something similar about the Nazi period

So have things got worse - comparatively - hell yeah. I shudder to think just how badly we're all going to be affected by this recession. I never want to have to survive on the scratcher again. It's a miserable existence.

Well you have a scratcher to fall back on – I’d love to see you survive on the scratcher you would have had 150 years ago.

It ridiculous for you to say things are worse in the industrial World (and I stress I’m only discussing the industrial World, the ‘neo-colonial’ or developing World is another argument). Things are better. Things are improving. By evolution, not by revolution.

You're right. I have a lot of faith in ordinary people and none in capitalism to meet our needs. I can't convince you or anyone else with mere words. As Marx said "conditions determine consciousness". It will be upcoming world economic events that will affect the way people view the world. The advantage that myself and the Socialist Party have is the lessons of history that have been passed down through the workers movement for the last 150 years. "We have nothing to lose but our chains".

Immutable, romantic, deluded dogma. The only lessons learned are the ones that you wanted to learn, to shield yourself from 150 years of social evolution.

Hmmm… Adam posted a good point.

American

Originally posted by Aspro

You're right. I have a lot of faith in ordinary people and none in capitalism to meet our needs. I can't convince you or anyone else with mere words. As Marx said "conditions determine consciousness". It will be upcoming world economic events that will affect the way people view the world. The advantage that myself and the Socialist Party have is the lessons of history that have been passed down through the workers movement for the last 150 years. "We have nothing to lose but our chains"

Putting your faith in ordinary people fails to take human nature into account, where regulated capitalism harnesses human nature.
I'll try to edit an essay I wrote, admittedly not that good, on The American Way, only to show how the political right in America views our way of doing things.

Most people in America want a society whose bright promise is truly open to all. A society which tears down the walls that separate us and make us suspicious and resentful of one another. A society based on enduring values instead of the gratification of the moment.
Many people in America want this, but we have wasted a lot of time because we are in fundamental disagreement over the best way to achieve it. I believe the engine of free enterprise coupled to the ideals and faith of our founding fathers is the answer and not the siren song of socialism.
Socialism puts faith in government, which is a false god. Socialism saps the spirit and energy of people and weakens each succeeding generation until the foundations of society crumble. Socialism is a house built on sand. Socialism is a pyramid scheme, a Ponzi scheme, the riskiest scheme of all for those at the bottom of the pyramid.
I am a practical person. If communism or socialism worked, I would support them, but they don't. The early Christians experimented with communism but abandoned it. The Russian people experimented with it and failed to improve their lot. Around the world, the best-kept secret is that socialism is slowly failing, too, propped up mostly by the dynamism of American advances in agriculture, science, medicine and technology and protected by our enormous expenditures on their defense while they pay little.
By grace or luck, America has stumbled onto the answers for providing the greatest good for the greatest number of people.
1) The framework of self-government, the brilliant Constitution of the United States, mostly conceived after arduous studies of all the historical forms of government by one of our greatest founding fathers, James Madison.
2) The freedoms and ideals enumerated in the Bill of Rights and the Declaration of Independence, penned by Thomas Jefferson.
3) The creative energy and spirit of the diverse immigrant and native people of the country harnessed to the free enterprise system of personal rewards for efforts expended, a system that has created more and better food, housing, clothing, transportation, communication, medicine, you name it than any other economic system.
4) Public education of all citizens, paid for by all, so that all have the opportunity to attain the knowledge necessary for continued self-government as well as personal advancement.
5) All this, maintained by public service by private citizens, and the devotion and sacrifice of patriots.

Von

Originally posted by American

Do you really believe that people who have managerial or ownership positions do not work?

I suspect Phil Knight's average day is probably quite radically different from that of the people who actually make his shoes in the sweatshops.

Putting your faith in ordinary people fails to take human nature into account, where regulated capitalism harnesses human nature.

Who does the regulating would you mind telling us? Certainly not the "ordinary people" you have no faith in. Who then? The neo-liberal laissez faire economic agenda being pursued by the world's dominant business interests is resolutely opposed to regulations.

From here
"Liberalising the movements of capital worldwide has proved a powerful weapon against democracy and the social contract, much as was anticipated by the framers of the (Bretton Woods) international economic order in the 1940s. Unregulated capital flow can be used very effectively to undermine attempts by individual governments to introduce progressive measures. For instance, any country trying to stimulate its economy or increase its health spending is likely to find this deviant behaviour instantly punished by a flight of capital. This capital mobility since the Bretton Woods system was essentially dismantled from the early 1970s and has led to what some economists have called a "Virtual Senate" of financial capital that is able to decide social and economic policy just because they can shift funds around. "

The idea that greed, repression and exploitation are all ok because of "human nature" is a silly primitive point. If that were the case then every murderer and rapist should be pardoned cos "human nature" made them commit their crimes. You don't sound like a barrel of laughs (indeed none of the american posters do) but I suggest you listen to Bill Hicks. Time to evolve as he said.

Aspro

The USA. That good old bastion of capitalism. The world's largest economic power. Free market economics, investment, the engine of free enterprise and self-government.
Well, ladies and gentlemen let's have a look at some of the wonderful statistics:

Poverty and homelessness in America:

http://www.nlchp.org/h&pusa.htm

yes, and more poverty:

http://www.nationalcampaign.org/prelease/pap2001.htm

and, even more poverty

http://sites.netscape.net/immortalgodking/poor

the gap between rich and poor grows ever larger:

http://www.prospect.org/print/V6/22/wolff-e.html

[/URL] http://www.house.gov/sabo/ie.htm

and larger still:

http://www.globalpolicy.org/socecon/inequal/2001/0401rich.htm


and the ensuing world economic crisis will be disastrous, not only for ordinary Americans, but for ordinary people throughout the world. Why? Capitalism fails to provide for the majority because it is run in the interests of a minority of super-rich:

http://home.clear.net.nz/pages/cpa/...orldeconomy.htm

Originally posted by American
Putting your faith in ordinary people fails to take human nature into account, where regulated capitalism harnesses human nature.

I'm an ordinary person, my friends and family are ordinary people - and we're not screwing each other over to make money. No such thing as regulated capitalism these days, as Von pointed out. The neo-liberal agenda of privatisation and attacks on workers rights is the order of the day. Capitalism does not harness human nature. It unleashes the greed of the few upon the lives of the many.

Originally posted by American
Socialism puts faith in government, which is a false god. Socialism saps the spirit and energy of people and weakens each succeeding generation until the foundations of society crumble. Socialism is a house built on sand. Socialism is a pyramid scheme, a Ponzi scheme, the riskiest scheme of all for those at the bottom of the pyramid.

Socialism does not put it's faith in government, it's beauty lies in the democratic ownership of the means of creating society's wealth, the means of production, by the majority - the "socialisation of production". So instead of a small elite of private profiteers making billions while the majority of us struggle to get by - that vast wealth is dispersed among us, and reinvested into production, education, health and other public services - which could transform our world within a generation.

Some people always have to come out with the same tired old chestnuts - it'll never work, human nature, Russia etc.

Socialism was a project begun in Russia, but which was hi-jacked by Stalin and his cronies - and which was never given the chance to come to fruition. Read Trotsky's "The Revolution Betrayed" for a detailed analysis. However despite the fact that the political and democratic side was destroyed by Stalin, the economic model of a planned economy was maintained. There can be no denying that it was socialist economics that transformed Russia from a backward, unindustrialised, feudal peasant nation into an economic and military superpower, including space exploration within a matter of 40 years. That is unprecedented. It is a hint of the heights that could be attained under a plan of production where greed and profit are not a factor and there is democratic control by the masses of ordinary people.

Stalin was able to maintain power only because the overthrow of capitalism was confined to Russia. China, Cuba etc. were artificial models of the planned economy modelled on Stalinism - "the deformed workers states" that were thrust on the people from above, as opposed to being created from below.

Ever after they were all incorrectly and deliberately identified as "communist" or "socialist" states. Marx would have turned in his grave. The lack of democracy in those countries was the greatest ideological coup that our so-called leaders could have had. Despite the fact that revolution was sweeping Europe and America in the 1910s and 20s, after Stalin et al, our ruling classes could preach their propaganda to us, propping up their unjust system, and resulting in events like the McCarthyite witchhunts of the 1950's.

Originally posted by The Corinthian
Immutable, romantic, deluded dogma. The only lessons learned are the ones that you wanted to learn, to shield yourself from 150 years of social evolution.

It was a political revolution that overthrew Suharto in Indonesia, Milosevic in Serbia, Ceaucescu in Romania, that led France to the brink of revolution in 1968 and that changed the consciousness of the Irish people in 1916 and led to the eventual break-up of the British Empire.

If "150 years of social evolution" has meant that I can live in a house and you can have your programming job - while billions live in abject poverty, have half our life expectancy and die of curable diseases then that is not evolution. That is going backwards. That is a tragedy that is unacceptable when we see that the 10 richest people on the globe own $133 billion. 10 ****ing people!!

http://www.undp.org/teams/english/facts.htm

Things must change and I stand by my beliefs. These days the only thing holding people back is the brainwashing that says "it's always been like this, there's no otherway of doing things, there'll always be poverty, unemployment, disease, war etc. etc."

If we accept that, then we have failed as human beings.