The Left

ReefBreak

The Left.

Wrong about Marxism and it's ability to deliver in the real world.
Wrong about appeasement of the Nazis prior to WW2.
Very Wrong about Communism and it's ability to deliver a "utopian" society- see Russia, China and the former Eastern Europe.
Wrong about the First Gulf War - "another Viet Nam for the US".
Wrong about the Afghanistan War - "another Viet Nam for the US".
Wrong about the Second Gulf War - "another Viet Nam for the US".

This may be a rather asinine post, but I feel we're fortunate that the the vast majority do not listen to the Far Left. Otherwise, we may be living under a fascist German regime/totalitarian Communist regime.

6 pages of Righty v Lefty arguing follows...

Johnmb

6 pages of Righty v Lefty arguing follows...

Not really, it just shows an incredible amount of ignorance on the part of some people that they would consider only left wing people to be anti-this war.

bonkey

Originally posted by ReefBreak
The Left.

...

This may be a rather asinine post, but I feel we're fortunate that the the vast majority do not listen to the Far Left. Otherwise, we may be living under a fascist German regime/totalitarian Communist regime.

Are you referring to The Far Left, or The Left here?
It'd also be nice if you actually showed that these stances were symptomatic of whichever political leaning you decide you're talking about, and not just make broad generalisations deciding both a single stance and a single reason apply to such a large group.

Besides it wasnt the left who are anti- any of these wars. Its the pro-war people decrying anyone who refuses to believe them as "lefties". Similarly, "the left" has rarely said "its gonna be another Vietnam. Some may have said that, but is that enough to base a generalisation on for the entire spectrum of Left-leaning individuals ? I somehow doubt it.

And seeing as you have just qualified someone else's post as "A typically moronic/populist post from the usual ill-informed types", dont you think you should actually make sure that you are properly informed and presenting a well-considered position right about now....and not something you admit may indeed be asinine?

jc

ReefBreak

I was referring to the FAR Left. Boyd-Barret of the Socialists/McKenna of the Greens et al.

Meh

Originally posted by ReefBreak
Wrong about appeasement of the Nazis prior to WW2.

So Neville Chamberlain was a leftie? And there was me, thinking the Conservative party in the UK was right wing.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Johnmb
Not really, it just shows an incredible amount of ignorance on the part of some people that they would consider only left wing people to be anti-this war.

Personally I also would tend to disagree with the current conflict.

And trust me, I'm right wing.

Very right wing.

bonkey

Originally posted by ReefBreak
I was referring to the FAR Left. Boyd-Barret of the Socialists/McKenna of the Greens et al.

Ah. That would explain why "The Left" was the name of the topic, the post, and the contents of the first sentence, where as "Far Left" got mentioned once, much further down....and was immediately followed by "Righty vs Lefty".

So thats 1 out of 5 references which were actually correctly referencing what you were talking about, and 4 out of 5 which were misleading....if you see my point.

jc

gwbtbahs

Sich Heil! Sich Heil! Sich Heil!

dathi1

Not really, it just shows an incredible amount of ignorance on the part of some people that they would consider only left wing people to be anti-this war.

Dead right I think most of my Political leanings are on the Right especially on social issues etc...but when it comes to international affairs I'm also against this war. Come to think of it there are a quite a few right-wingers who were / are against this particular war...Ken Clarke comes to mind.

dathi1

And trust me, I'm right wing.

how far ?

Victor

Reefbreak, which left are you talking about liberals or socialists?

This may be a rather asinine post, but I feel we're fortunate that the the vast majority do not listen to the Far Left. Otherwise, we may be living under a fascist German regime/totalitarian Communist regime.

So if we listened to say the SWP and followed them, we would end up under a facist regime? I just don't understand that. "This may be a rather asinine post" - I concur.

Originally posted by dathi1
how far ?

You don't want to know.

mike65

Its true that the left, far or near, dont have a monopoly
on the anti war but the basic point is correct.

The far left have been wrong about everything they have put store in since the a coherent (!) far left movement took shape. Many have'nt got over the Berlin Wall coming down it seems to me. Paradise Postponed eh?

Mike.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by mike65
The far left have been wrong about everything they have put store in since the a coherent (!) far left movement took shape. Many have'nt got over the Berlin Wall coming down it seems to me. Paradise Postponed eh?

In many cases I would tend to agree, but the opposition to this conflict has been too wide to be attibuted as simply another loonie left campaign.

President Chirac is hardly a socialist, is he?

Victor

Originally posted by mike65
The far left have been wrong about everything they have put store

Everything? Even the colour of the sky?

I'm sure if you take many far right groups you will find the same.

mike65

Victor just becasue one sides wrong that does'nt mean
the other is correct...

As for Chirac, well after 40 years in public life he took a principled stand and guess what?
It coincided exactly with overwhelming French public opinion. What were the chances of that happening....?

Cynical moi?

Mike

DadaKopf

Leave left-right labels to the academics. Why not concentrate on the actual issues? Here's a question for you: rich tea or digestive?

Victor

Originally posted by mike65
Victor just becasue one sides wrong that does'nt mean
the other is correct...

Thank you, that is a big part of my point, quite often both extremes are wrong, so Reefbreak is targetting a group (the "far left") that by it's very nature is prone to being wrong. It's like saying school dunces don't go to college.

So is Bush / (random politician) right in slashing his tax base and his thereby his ability to implement policy and discouraging workers on lower / middle incomes? Remember the way socialist governments would get for not balancing the books?

Or his abolishing the estate tax? Surely that just discourages work, the basis of all economic reckoning.

Éomer of Rohan

Oh I rubbed my hands with glee when this one came up LOL. Where to begin eh? I will speak for socialists only of course. The 'left' tends to be such a catch all term after all.

Wrong about Marxism and it's ability to deliver in the real world.
Wrong about appeasement of the Nazis prior to WW2.
Very Wrong about Communism and it's ability to deliver a "utopian" society- see Russia, China and the former Eastern Europe.
Wrong about the First Gulf War - "another Viet Nam for the US".
Wrong about the Afghanistan War - "another Viet Nam for the US".
Wrong about the Second Gulf War - "another Viet Nam for the US".

On communism and the various models in the world; China is based on a system called Mao-Dengism which is the agricultural variant of Stalinism which is a perversion of Marxism, coming closer to Nazism than communism. All the models of communist economies and governments modelled themselves on Stalinism as it brought aid from Soviet Russia which was by the time of the Second World War totally corrupted by the Stalinist ideal. Thus, the fact remains, however the 'Right' like to dispute it that a Marxist system has never been tested - only corruptions thereof.

The pro-Trotskyist/anti-Stalinist socialists/communists did advocate that the British should attack Hitler and clear out the fascist menace. of course, labour and conservatives had the house majority between them and outvoted everyone else - with some Conservatives supporting appeasement also.

On 'another vietnam for the US' - I don't know what literature from 'the left' that you read but at no stage did we say 'Yes these wars WILL be another vietnam for the US' - it was always a possibility; fortunes of war dictate, proven time and again in defiance of Sun Tzu, that the battle does not always go to the stronger side. We as socialists concentrated rather on the underlying hypocrisy of reactionary warmongers such as George Bush, the belligerent noises emanating from Britain and America, the gradual and unnoticed shift in American attitudes from 'Iraq has no connection with Bin Laden' to 'WMD and terrorists are our reasons for war with Iraq, right down to the allocation of US Multi-National Enterprises as part of USAID.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
On communism and the various models in the world; China is based on a system called Mao-Dengism which is the agricultural variant of Stalinism which is a perversion of Marxism, coming closer to Nazism than communism. All the models of communist economies and governments modelled themselves on Stalinism as it brought aid from Soviet Russia which was by the time of the Second World War totally corrupted by the Stalinist ideal. Thus, the fact remains, however the 'Right' like to dispute it that a Marxist system has never been tested - only corruptions thereof.

Actually, centralized planning to the level found in Marxist or Stalinist economics was rejected in Corporatism. Corporatism in fact implemented a system not unrelated to Keynesianism, and as a matter of fact Keynes even went so far as to write an essay on why he loved the German economic system

And using the, it didn’t fail because it was never tried excuse doesn’t cut it.

The pro-Trotskyist/anti-Stalinist socialists/communists did advocate that the British should attack Hitler and clear out the fascist menace.

So what? The pro-Trotskyist/anti-Stalinist socialists/communists supported Ceausescu in the 1980’s too.

On 'another vietnam for the US' - I don't know what literature from 'the left' that you read but at no stage did we say 'Yes these wars WILL be another vietnam for the US'

Not yet proven. My suspicion (and I’ll admit it is supposition) is that Iraq will not be another ‘Vietnam’, but that Afghanistan may well prove to be another... well, ‘Afghanistan’.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by daveirl
Also in all fairness how can you classify the Greens as 'Far Left'?

In fairness the Green party, while the most moderate of the far left, would still be on the far rather than centre left of the political scale. It's interesting to note that many Green party activists will tend to be former traditional (e.g. anarchist, Trotskyite, etc.) far left activists - with a job and mortgage (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/2926157.stm).

Typedef

I resent that comment.

I don't have a mortgage.

simon_partridge

Originally posted by The Corinthian
President Chirac is hardly a socialist, is he?

And conversely, Tony Blair supposedly represents the left-wing party in the UK.

This issue certainly transcends the already over-simplistic righty vs lefty debate, and is to my mind determined by (a) how much information people receive about what's really going on (at a guess I'd say the media tells us about half the facts about the situation, the rest being 'classified') and (b) how they choose to interpret the information they do receive.