FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Corbyns Lefty-ness
Corbyns Lefty-ness
Jump to: Newest in thread
 |
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
There's much criticism thrown about with regards to Trotskyists, Marxists and Socialists...and '1980s failed policies'
I'm curious as to this vitriol.... There must be a reason why people are attracted to the left...
Why do lefties claim privitatisation is bad and capitalists feel public ownership is completely inefficient...?
Is one side proven to be more economically sound..?
Is the USSR, Bolshevik Revolution evidence of the danger of socialism or are people taking sides based on ignorant viewpoints...
I'm generally very curious so truly appreciate your answers .
For anyone interested, with the little I know, I tend towards the right economically, but the left pulls me because it preaches equality...it's all quite confusing  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *olgateMan
over a year ago
on the road to nowhere in particular |
Communism works perfectly on paper. There has never been an effective alternative to capitalism.
The problem at the moment is the promotion of a Neo liberalism that takes the worst facets of capitalism and pushes them. The world is moving from political elected governments to an industrial oligarchy |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"There's much criticism thrown about with regards to Trotskyists, Marxists and Socialists...and '1980s failed policies'
I'm curious as to this vitriol.... There must be a reason why people are attracted to the left...
Why do lefties claim privitatisation is bad and capitalists feel public ownership is completely inefficient...?
Is one side proven to be more economically sound..?
Is the USSR, Bolshevik Revolution evidence of the danger of socialism or are people taking sides based on ignorant viewpoints...
I'm generally very curious so truly appreciate your answers .
For anyone interested, with the little I know, I tend towards the right economically, but the left pulls me because it preaches equality...it's all quite confusing "
Yes one side is proven to be more economically sound. There isn't a single communist country that didn't run out of money or see its citizens starve. Communism is one of histories true horrors and is every bit as evil as facism. In Britain we prefer to turn a blind eye to this fact because we threw in our lot with communists to defeat facists.
Socialism is just watered down communism with elections.
The public / private debate is tiresome and ridiculous. Public institutions are no more run for the benefit of the people than any other organisation. Private ownership needs decent regulation which has been sorely lacking for some time now. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"There can never be equality because of human nature and the desire for more. All communism creates is a black market"
Meanwhile capitalism (in it's modern form) gives individuals and businesses a mandate to utilise human labour as a cheap commodity - in addition a society run on the lines of capitalism usually creates huge class divides, disparity between incomes and entrenched societal roles eg If you are born in a working class background you require a lot of good fortune to work your way into the middle class bracket so to speak, and a lot more hard work and personal time and money expended than say someone who was born into that background who simply wants to maintain their standard.
Ultimately neither work purely when implemented. You require socialism to regulate capitalism, and capitalism to stimulate market growth -usually.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"There can never be equality because of human nature and the desire for more. All communism creates is a black market
Meanwhile capitalism (in it's modern form) gives individuals and businesses a mandate to utilise human labour as a cheap commodity - in addition a society run on the lines of capitalism usually creates huge class divides, disparity between incomes and entrenched societal roles eg If you are born in a working class background you require a lot of good fortune to work your way into the middle class bracket so to speak, and a lot more hard work and personal time and money expended than say someone who was born into that background who simply wants to maintain their standard.
Ultimately neither work purely when implemented. You require socialism to regulate capitalism, and capitalism to stimulate market growth -usually.
"
Capitalism can lead to inequity whilst communism always leads to starvation!
Socialism doesn't regulate capitalism. Regulators regulate capitalism. The empirical fact that most regulators have been shit is more to do with the corruption of capitalism by idiot politicians than anything inherent to the system. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"There's much criticism thrown about with regards to Trotskyists, Marxists and Socialists...and '1980s failed policies'
I'm curious as to this vitriol.... There must be a reason why people are attracted to the left...
Why do lefties claim privitatisation is bad and capitalists feel public ownership is completely inefficient...?
Is one side proven to be more economically sound..?
Is the USSR, Bolshevik Revolution evidence of the danger of socialism or are people taking sides based on ignorant viewpoints...
I'm generally very curious so truly appreciate your answers .
For anyone interested, with the little I know, I tend towards the right economically, but the left pulls me because it preaches equality...it's all quite confusing
Yes one side is proven to be more economically sound. There isn't a single communist country that didn't run out of money or see its citizens starve. Communism is one of histories true horrors and is every bit as evil as facism. In Britain we prefer to turn a blind eye to this fact because we threw in our lot with communists to defeat facists.
Socialism is just watered down communism with elections.
The public / private debate is tiresome and ridiculous. Public institutions are no more run for the benefit of the people than any other organisation. Private ownership needs decent regulation which has been sorely lacking for some time now. "
Yep, if we could have a public population which could reliably use for example private healthcare, I'm sure we would, but those set up have been run ineffectively and as a result people shy away from them. People want the assurance of good regulation of any product/service. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Communism works perfectly on paper."
No, it fails on account of basic human motivation. The average person who is above average isn't going to exert themselves for the benefit of the average person who is below average. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"There can never be equality because of human nature and the desire for more. All communism creates is a black market
Meanwhile capitalism (in it's modern form) gives individuals and businesses a mandate to utilise human labour as a cheap commodity - in addition a society run on the lines of capitalism usually creates huge class divides, disparity between incomes and entrenched societal roles eg If you are born in a working class background you require a lot of good fortune to work your way into the middle class bracket so to speak, and a lot more hard work and personal time and money expended than say someone who was born into that background who simply wants to maintain their standard.
Ultimately neither work purely when implemented. You require socialism to regulate capitalism, and capitalism to stimulate market growth -usually.
Capitalism can lead to inequity whilst communism always leads to starvation!
Socialism doesn't regulate capitalism. Regulators regulate capitalism. The empirical fact that most regulators have been shit is more to do with the corruption of capitalism by idiot politicians than anything inherent to the system. "
I see and get your point and somewhat agree. However perhaps poor regulators and the intermingling of business and government is what pushes some people further to socialism? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Because most lefties, are mad and have no concept that the money they like to spend with wild abound, was actually earned by some one else, who then had that money robbed off them by a over generous well fair state |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"There's much criticism thrown about with regards to Trotskyists, Marxists and Socialists...and '1980s failed policies'
I'm curious as to this vitriol.... There must be a reason why people are attracted to the left...
Why do lefties claim privitatisation is bad and capitalists feel public ownership is completely inefficient...?
Is one side proven to be more economically sound..?
Is the USSR, Bolshevik Revolution evidence of the danger of socialism or are people taking sides based on ignorant viewpoints...
I'm generally very curious so truly appreciate your answers .
For anyone interested, with the little I know, I tend towards the right economically, but the left pulls me because it preaches equality...it's all quite confusing
Yes one side is proven to be more economically sound. There isn't a single communist country that didn't run out of money or see its citizens starve. Communism is one of histories true horrors and is every bit as evil as facism. In Britain we prefer to turn a blind eye to this fact because we threw in our lot with communists to defeat facists.
Socialism is just watered down communism with elections.
The public / private debate is tiresome and ridiculous. Public institutions are no more run for the benefit of the people than any other organisation. Private ownership needs decent regulation which has been sorely lacking for some time now.
Yep, if we could have a public population which could reliably use for example private healthcare, I'm sure we would, but those set up have been run ineffectively and as a result people shy away from them. People want the assurance of good regulation of any product/service. "
The main problem with public ownership is that you have an idiot politician tinkering every few years to further their own career. I don't envy the people trying to run public institutions!
The biggest problem with private companies is that most of them now have faceless owners because they are actually owned by hedge funds and pension funds rather than individual people. Most of these 'owners' couldn't give a crap about anything other than next quarters results. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
So well said, let's be honest those of us who have strived to do well in our lives have no problem the supporting the genuinely needy, but get pissed off supporting the idle piss takers who frequent our society |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"There can never be equality because of human nature and the desire for more. All communism creates is a black market
Meanwhile capitalism (in it's modern form) gives individuals and businesses a mandate to utilise human labour as a cheap commodity - in addition a society run on the lines of capitalism usually creates huge class divides, disparity between incomes and entrenched societal roles eg If you are born in a working class background you require a lot of good fortune to work your way into the middle class bracket so to speak, and a lot more hard work and personal time and money expended than say someone who was born into that background who simply wants to maintain their standard.
Ultimately neither work purely when implemented. You require socialism to regulate capitalism, and capitalism to stimulate market growth -usually.
Capitalism can lead to inequity whilst communism always leads to starvation!
Socialism doesn't regulate capitalism. Regulators regulate capitalism. The empirical fact that most regulators have been shit is more to do with the corruption of capitalism by idiot politicians than anything inherent to the system.
I see and get your point and somewhat agree. However perhaps poor regulators and the intermingling of business and government is what pushes some people further to socialism? "
Capitalism requires 'creative destruction' meaning that people lose their job on a car production line because a machine can do it more efficiently but then a new job is created to maintain the machine. Economic growth is the constant pursuit of efficiency.
What attracts people to the left is when they don't want to or can't keep up with the pace of change.
To be fair, it doesn't serve anyone well to have a huge chunk of the population sat around unemployed. But equally the more you pander to them, the less motivated they are to get new skills that the economy actually needs. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *olgateMan
over a year ago
on the road to nowhere in particular |
"Communism works perfectly on paper.
No, it fails on account of basic human motivation. The average person who is above average isn't going to exert themselves for the benefit of the average person who is below average. "
That is why it works on paper and not in reality |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"There can never be equality because of human nature and the desire for more. All communism creates is a black market
Meanwhile capitalism (in it's modern form) gives individuals and businesses a mandate to utilise human labour as a cheap commodity - in addition a society run on the lines of capitalism usually creates huge class divides, disparity between incomes and entrenched societal roles eg If you are born in a working class background you require a lot of good fortune to work your way into the middle class bracket so to speak, and a lot more hard work and personal time and money expended than say someone who was born into that background who simply wants to maintain their standard.
Ultimately neither work purely when implemented. You require socialism to regulate capitalism, and capitalism to stimulate market growth -usually.
Capitalism can lead to inequity whilst communism always leads to starvation!
Socialism doesn't regulate capitalism. Regulators regulate capitalism. The empirical fact that most regulators have been shit is more to do with the corruption of capitalism by idiot politicians than anything inherent to the system.
I see and get your point and somewhat agree. However perhaps poor regulators and the intermingling of business and government is what pushes some people further to socialism?
Capitalism requires 'creative destruction' meaning that people lose their job on a car production line because a machine can do it more efficiently but then a new job is created to maintain the machine. Economic growth is the constant pursuit of efficiency.
What attracts people to the left is when they don't want to or can't keep up with the pace of change.
To be fair, it doesn't serve anyone well to have a huge chunk of the population sat around unemployed. But equally the more you pander to them, the less motivated they are to get new skills that the economy actually needs."
I wouldn't say that is the only reason why people are attracted to the left. And to some extent I think you need a government which puts people a little before progress. eg, progress and efficiency are great, but as you said, they often lead to the destruction of one job, which might create one or two more as a product - government therefore should be prepared to create apprenticeships/graduate schemes ect to allow to prepare and train people for these new roles, which is something which we've seen government do less of. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Communism works perfectly on paper.
No, it fails on account of basic human motivation. The average person who is above average isn't going to exert themselves for the benefit of the average person who is below average.
That is why it works on paper and not in reality"
If your paper doesn't factor in human motivations!
Marx was a moron and forgot to factor in rises in productivity to his analysis, even though Adam Smith had explained it decades earlier. If Marx had factored it in, it would have destroyed his entire theory. He was probably too busy with drinking and bar fights to worry about minor details though. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"There can never be equality because of human nature and the desire for more. All communism creates is a black market
Meanwhile capitalism (in it's modern form) gives individuals and businesses a mandate to utilise human labour as a cheap commodity - in addition a society run on the lines of capitalism usually creates huge class divides, disparity between incomes and entrenched societal roles eg If you are born in a working class background you require a lot of good fortune to work your way into the middle class bracket so to speak, and a lot more hard work and personal time and money expended than say someone who was born into that background who simply wants to maintain their standard.
Ultimately neither work purely when implemented. You require socialism to regulate capitalism, and capitalism to stimulate market growth -usually.
Capitalism can lead to inequity whilst communism always leads to starvation!
Socialism doesn't regulate capitalism. Regulators regulate capitalism. The empirical fact that most regulators have been shit is more to do with the corruption of capitalism by idiot politicians than anything inherent to the system.
I see and get your point and somewhat agree. However perhaps poor regulators and the intermingling of business and government is what pushes some people further to socialism?
Capitalism requires 'creative destruction' meaning that people lose their job on a car production line because a machine can do it more efficiently but then a new job is created to maintain the machine. Economic growth is the constant pursuit of efficiency.
What attracts people to the left is when they don't want to or can't keep up with the pace of change.
To be fair, it doesn't serve anyone well to have a huge chunk of the population sat around unemployed. But equally the more you pander to them, the less motivated they are to get new skills that the economy actually needs.
I wouldn't say that is the only reason why people are attracted to the left. And to some extent I think you need a government which puts people a little before progress. eg, progress and efficiency are great, but as you said, they often lead to the destruction of one job, which might create one or two more as a product - government therefore should be prepared to create apprenticeships/graduate schemes ect to allow to prepare and train people for these new roles, which is something which we've seen government do less of. "
I'm surprised trade unions aren't more interested in this though. For example, driverless trains on the underground are inevitable in the future but instead preparing their members to transition, the trade unions just fight the inevitable. Maybe they can delay it a bit but every time they strike it just turns the public more and more against them. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I'm surprised trade unions aren't more interested in this though. For example, driverless trains on the underground are inevitable in the future but instead preparing their members to transition, the trade unions just fight the inevitable. Maybe they can delay it a bit but every time they strike it just turns the public more and more against them. "
No matter the advance there will always be Luddites who will waste energy resisting those advances rather than fighting to ensure advances benefit all.
Trade Unions are Luddite organisations not socialist organisations as most think. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I'm surprised trade unions aren't more interested in this though. For example, driverless trains on the underground are inevitable in the future but instead preparing their members to transition, the trade unions just fight the inevitable. Maybe they can delay it a bit but every time they strike it just turns the public more and more against them.
No matter the advance there will always be Luddites who will waste energy resisting those advances rather than fighting to ensure advances benefit all.
Trade Unions are Luddite organisations not socialist organisations as most think."
So in an ideal world, would Labour stop taking trade union funding to free itself from the luddites? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"So in an ideal world, would Labour stop taking trade union funding to free itself from the luddites? "
In an ideal world no political party would rely on the patronage of wealthy private interest groups to finance their bids for power. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"So in an ideal world, would Labour stop taking trade union funding to free itself from the luddites?
In an ideal world no political party would rely on the patronage of wealthy private interest groups to finance their bids for power."
Do you think it would help if the parties were public funded? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
