Leftists

[muhtesem insan]

1) Some said before but i need to repeat it. Liberalism is not a leftist ideology. Leftism starts with social democracy and goes till anarchism. Liberalism is in the right of political spectrum. (But world is shifting to right with immense speed in a couple of decades it could be a left ideology but not yet.)
2) Socialism and Social Democracy are two different things. I won't go into detail but Sweden is Social Democracy (not socialism), Cuba is a Socialist State (There's no such thing as a communist state, it's an oxymoron Communism is a stateless society)

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Really, this isn't a thread trying to deny anyone the right to be liberal, insulting anyone for being liberal, exc.

However, I find it odd, that while in the US liberals/conservatives are evenly split pretty much, on this forum most people (And even most Americans) are pro-big government, pro-large welfare state, pro-many government programs, anti-Iraq war, anti-Israel, exc. (Could name more, but you get the picture.)

I understand more posters than not differ on a couple of these points, but overall, posters fit the mold of above. Why?

Please don't take this thread to somewhere it isn't supposed to go. This is not the place to debate whether liberals or conservatives are "Better" or anything like that, just to find out why there are so much more of a percentage of liberals here than in the real world.

Also, by conservative here, I don't mean conservative to the extent I am. I'm talking about even moderate conservatives, or even moderates, like those who waver between the GOP and dems. Why are so many posters, including Americans, liberal?

I find your oversimplification of people's outlook on life disturbing.

Do you have some sort of filing fetish where you feel the need to catalogue all kinds of different people into 2, not more, neat little cupboards? Does more nuance makes brain go ouch? Also notice that when your definition of real world meets a border or an ocean it cowardly retreats back to the infirmary and sits in the corner mumbling inanely about "the horror".

 

[Link]

Bc conservatives aren't good at Civ. They beeline to Theology, convert to Christianity, and then declare war on all the heathens.

 

[ParadigmShifter]

I find your oversimplification of people's outlook on life disturbing.

Do you have some sort of filing fetish where you feel the need to catalogue all kinds of different people into 2, not more, neat little cupboards? Does more nuance makes brain go ouch? Also notice that when your definition of real world meets a boarder or an ocean it cowardly retreats back to the infirmary and sits in the corner mumbling inanely about "the horror".

Avast! Repel the boarders me hearties!

 

[Dudemeister]

yeah, you just cant run from boarders.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

I seem to have made a little booboo there.

 

[TheAlamo]

They were very rare at that time but they did exist.

A dictionary in the 1500's defined dragon (That age's word for dinosaur) as an extremely rare but still existing species.

Wait, what?

 

[ParadigmShifter]

Valka's already applied a modslap to that topic. Obviously we can debunkdiscuss it in Sci/Tech though.

 

[Princeps]

Well, I think that conservatism is more parochial and insular, where as leftist liberalism and libertarianism are international and inclusive. For example, Islamic Conservative movements hate Christian Conservative movements, and therefore these two cannot work together (except perhaps when it comes to cracking the heads of atheists and such). European conservatism is rooted less in religion and social conservatism, so they don't want to be so much associated with people who think the earth 6000 years old and who deny evolution. Conservatives in catholic Europe and protestant Europe are also fairly different. Japanese, Russian, Chinese and Indian conservatives are all very different from each other and can be often bellicose toward each other, whereas leftist movements in most countries are holding largely the same believes. There is no quintessential conservative that is the same in all countries.

 

[Yared]

The forum attracts a lot of people who live outside of the US. In Sweden, it'd be harder to find people who aren't:

pro-big government,
pro-large welfare state,
pro-many government programs,
anti-Iraq war,
anti-Israel;

as easy as it is to find them in the US.

Why? Because what you consider to be a HUMONGOUS welfare state and government isn't considered overly-big to us.

Anti-Iraq: It seems like one of the most pointless wars waged by the US ever, since its reason for going there was unfounded and non-existent.

Anti-Israel is more because of our Swedish media. It can be a little one-sided.

a) am European so I actually have a grasp of what constitutes a "left". our definitions are probably very different. hint: US Democrats aren't leftish as a rule. centrist at the best of times.
b) got an education. this is no jibe. I started out as a moron and then got some general sense knocked into me. I was your typical 14-year-old homophobe. met some gay guys and learned about what our people did to them.
c) moved to another country and learned about what others thought of us. now that is an eye-opener and made me rethink what I thought was true.

I used to be conservative until I came here. It's just that the liberals are so good at argueing their point that I switched left.

Internet goers in general tend to be more lefty. This is because IN GENERAL, younger people lean to the left while older people lean to the right, and most of the tech-savvy, internet using, forum frequenting individuals tend to be young (15-25). Just look at the polls about age distribution on OT if you don't believe me.

And even the views of the "leftists" on this forum tend to differ wildly. There really isn't much of a thing as a "leftist" group, in the same way that there really isn't such a thing as "rightist". For example, I am a socialist who believes in democratic running of business, while other posters might be more pro-capitalist, but still deemed "lefty" because of their stance on social issues such as gay rights and abortion.

Because all he republicans are grumpy seniors who don't play video games.
And of course, because the few conservatives who are around sure as heck aren't gonna try to save you from the liberal dogpile.

This.

The only conservative my age around is NBAfan, and it's not like he posts often.

 

[plarq]

Well, I think that conservatism is more parochial and insular, where as leftist liberalism and libertarianism are international and inclusive. For example, Islamic Conservative movements hate Christian Conservative movements, and therefore these two cannot work together (except perhaps when it comes to cracking the heads of atheists and such). European conservatism is rooted less in religion and social conservatism, so they don't want to be so much associated with people who think the earth 6000 years old and who deny evolution. Conservatives in catholic Europe and protestant Europe are also fairly different. Japanese, Russian, Chinese and Indian conservatives are all very different from each other and can be often bellicose toward each other, whereas leftist movements in most countries are holding largely the same believes. There is no quintessential conservative that is the same in all countries.

Leftists are divided by class; rightists are divided by nation.

 

[muhtesem insan]

Leftists are divided by class; rightists are divided by nation.

correction: Leftist know they're divided by class; rightists do not

 

[GhostWriter16]

3000, do you watch a lot of Glen Beck? You have a quote in your sig, and say your from the Socialist States of America. I am a Conservative who doesn't think Obama is Socialist, but I still am a conservative. I guess I am a Conservative who likes small government. Still, Sarah is a great comedian!

I don't watch it too much, but I do agree with most of what Glenn Beck says.

And yey! Somebody commented on the United Socialist States thing. Anyhow, it was kind of a joke, the US isn't a socialist state proper, but they do have socialism, and people who say we are completely capitalist are in denial.

I would call Obama, and most on the left socialist. As for "Conservatives," like Mccain, I don't usually use the title, since they are supposed to be political "Allies." However, I will acknowledge they don't love capitalism either (Though Obama hates it.)

Because "in real life" it is not more equal. The United States is politically far to the right of most of the rest of the world. So what you call "conservative" and "liberal", most other people would call "very conservative indeed" and "mildly conservative", or perhaps "extreme right" and "moderate right", since the whole "conservative"/"liberal" language is American and doesn't really apply to other countries. You really need to stop trying to shoe-horn other systems into this simplistic dichotomy.

Obama, for example, is considered on the extreme left in America, at least by "conservatives". But if he were British, he would probably fit in pretty well with the Conservative party (the "conservative" one, Americans); if he were in the Labour party (the "liberal" one, Americans) he would probably be considered a Blairite and not properly left-wing (Americans, Blair is disliked by the left in Britain because although he was Labour he moved the party further to the right and disowned socialism). In political terms David Cameron (the British prime minister, Americans) is probably more "liberal" than Obama, yet he is the leader of the Conservative party and on the right. This shows you how much British politics as a whole is to the left of American politics as a whole, and the same thing applies to most countries.

So that is the simple answer to your question. The United States may be split evenly between what Americans call "conservative" and "liberal", but politically, the United States is unusual and does not reflect the situation elsewhere. Most of the rest of the world is what Americans would call "liberal". This is an international forum. Any American is going to find it more left-wing or more "liberal" than what they are used to. Instead of asking why so many people here seem to be "liberal", you should really be asking why the United States is so "conservative". That's the real issue.

I must admit this sickens me a lot. Is there ANY real right wingers in England?

Anyway, to point out, the majority of Americans here are leftist too, even though people have reasonably answered the question.

1) Some said before but i need to repeat it. Liberalism is not a leftist ideology. Leftism starts with social democracy and goes till anarchism. Liberalism is in the right of political spectrum. (But world is shifting to right with immense speed in a couple of decades it could be a left ideology but not yet.)
2) Socialism and Social Democracy are two different things. I won't go into detail but Sweden is Social Democracy (not socialism), Cuba is a Socialist State (There's no such thing as a communist state, it's an oxymoron Communism is a stateless society)

Most people (I think) consider Sweeden socialist, could be wrong though.

 

[Princeps]

I would call Obama, and most on the left socialist

Socialism in the classical sense calls for the collective ownership and control of the means of production and major property. Obama does not advocate this nor does most of the left wing. Obama didn't even try to nationalize the banks or the car companies when he had the chance to do so. Thus your label is misguided.

 

[muhtesem insan]

Most people (I think) consider Sweeden socialist, could be wrong though.

Only people would think sweden as a socialist state are the ones who does not know what socialism is. Socialism is what USSR had or Cuba has. No private ownership of means of production.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Socialism in the classical sense calls for the collective ownership and control of the means of production and major property. Obama does not advocate this nor does most of the left wing. Obama didn't even try to nationalize the banks or the car companies when he had the chance to do so. Thus your label is misguided.

Actually, 2 of the 3 American car companies are government-owned.

Only people would think sweden as a socialist state are the ones who does not know what socialism is. Socialism is what USSR had or Cuba has. No private ownership of means of production.

I'm pretty sure the "Normal" definition of socialism is where everything is run democratically. I'm not sure if Sweeden has that. I would consider all modern governments to have some socialism and the EU to be basically socialist.

 

[muhtesem insan]

I'm pretty sure the "Normal" definition of socialism is where everything is run democratically. I'm not sure if Sweeden has that. I would consider all modern governments to have some socialism and the EU to be basically socialist.

You're wrong. Socialism is an economic and political theory based on public ownership or common ownership and cooperative management of the means of production and allocation of resources.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism

 

[Princeps]

Actually, 2 of the 3 American car companies are government-owned.

Ah, yes I forgot about that. The government stake is something like 60 % and it will probably be sold off. Still, it doesn't constitute socialism since the company is not collective or government controlled nor is it fully owned by government. A temporary government majority stake in a company isn't socialist: many anti-socialist regimes have so as well. Public ownership is a necessary part of socialism, but it isn't sufficient. Socialism in the classical sense prescribes the complete collectivization of the means of production, property and land and their control by democratic representative institutions. Again, Obama still doesn't fit the classical definition of a socialist. The economy of the US is overwhelmingly controlled by private institutions, allocation decisions are made overwhelmingly by private companies, etc. And Obama has done little to change that, even when he had the chance to do so. Even the car companies are not government controlled (even though two of them are partially owned).

I'm pretty sure the "Normal" definition of socialism is where everything is run democratically. I'm not sure if Sweeden has that

Yes, socialism could be defined as something like that. Collective ownership and extension of democracy into most economic decisions. Even in Sweden, this is not the case. And it certainly doesn't describe Obama's economic policies.

 

[Earthling]

Short answer - this actually goes for the entire Internet - people on the Internet are often younger than the general population, and more diverse - old white people are not the majority of Internet users while they are a huge proportion of conservatives, in the United States of course.

 

[Yared]

Sweden isn't Socialist. We actually have a coalition-government composed of the People's Party, the Christian Democrats, the Moderates and the Center Party. CD and M are both pretty right-wing, the CD being on. Center and People's Party are Center-right.

The biggest party is the Social Democrats, but due to the united efforts of the aforementioned parties, they're not in rule.