Leftists

[madviking]

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

Link to video.

I don't know why I'm wasting my time arguing for madviking (no offense madviking, you're worth my time any day ), but yeah, he really lives in Northern Virginia. In fact, if you looked at his past location tags, it would say so. My avatar is a hyena. That doesn't mean I'm a hyena. Yours is Abraham Lincoln. That doesn't make you Abraham Lincoln.

//offtopic. Yes, I live in Northern Virginia. Smack dab in the middle of the DC suburbs.

 

[Yared]

Sweden would be Socialist, if it wasn't so Capitalist. But it would be Capitalist, if it wasn't so Socialist.

Hm

 

[Mathilda]

The answer to the question, that's been missed so far is:
They may come here as right-wing, but they leave left-wing.

 

[Yared]

The answer to the question, that's been missed so far is:
They may come here as right-wing, but they leave left-wing.

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.

Almost what you said

 

[Mathilda]

Oh, I remember reading that.
Must have just had a moment.

 

[Camikaze]

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.

I think it's more the fact that the points are good in their own right.

Not to say people aren't good at arguing them.

 

[civ_king]

I do not fit in any category
I dislike liberalism, communism, conservatism, socialism, libertarianism, capitalism, and Nazism
(in their pure forms)

 

[Cutlass]

I don't have a problem with the real liberals. I just have a problem with the progressives and the communists.

The real liberals are the progressives. And the progressives are more opposed to communists than the conservatives are.

 

[Yared]

Oh, I remember reading that.
Must have just had a moment.

Maybe you confused it as being part of some other thread?

 

[GhostWriter16]

The real liberals are the progressives. And the progressives are more opposed to communists than the conservatives are.

Without getting myself into a ton of trouble, I'm just going to say your posts are often partisan and make no sense. You can say absolute capitalism isn't practical, but you can't say you believe in absolute capitalism.

(Not implying that he can't call himself a capitalist, just saying, capitalism in its PUREST FORM is non government intervention, period. Whether this works is what can be debated.)

Also, I'll still be here in five years and conservative, thanks.

 

[spryllino]

(Not implying that he can't call himself a capitalist, just saying, capitalism in its PUREST FORM is non government intervention, period. Whether this works is what can be debated.)

Putting "period" after what you say and putting part of your statement in capitals does not make it true. Capitalism is a many dimensioned thing, not a magical potion. No capitalism is objectively purer than any other.

Your capitalism is simply a particular blend of ideals. You really don't want a complete absense of government intervention: that is called anarchy. You just want government intervention only in certain circumstances, for instance in criminal law. But theft is part of the economy too. When a thief steals from a consumer in the economy, the consumer has less money, and so shops and other businesses suffer. This has an effect on the economy. This is quite a natural part of the economy. So do you want the government to interfere in it? Yes, of course you do, because otherwise there will be looting and chaos.

Therefore, you are very mistaken here. Your brand of capitalism is not absolute at all, because you believe in the government interfering in all sorts of economic matters, such as crime.

 

[Ajidica]

Sorry Domination, Adam Smith, founder of capitalism, disagrees with you. In his opinion, one of governments three duties is to 'sponsor certain, indispensible public works and and institutions that could never adequately profit private investors'. He also advocated for government intervention to raise workers living standards. I took that line from my European History text book, McCay-Hill, A History of Western Society since 1300. pg 648.

Domination, have you ever heard the quote by Mark Twain "An idiot is someone who keeps doing the same thing expecting a different result."?

 

[GhostWriter16]

Sorry Domination, Adam Smith, founder of capitalism, disagrees with you. In his opinion, one of governments three duties is to 'sponsor certain, indispensible public works and and institutions that could never adequately profit private investors'. He also advocated for government intervention to raise workers living standards. I took that line from my European History text book, McCay-Hill, A History of Western Society since 1300. pg 648.

Domination, have you ever heard the quote by Mark Twain "An idiot is someone who keeps doing the same thing expecting a different result."?

I didn't say in the above that what they advocate isn't capitalism, only that it isn't capitalism in its PUREST FORM.

And even if it weren't, there's NO WAY we are more communist then the progressives. You can argue more feudalism, can't argue more communist.

 

[History_Buff]

(Not implying that he can't call himself a capitalist, just saying, capitalism in its PUREST FORM is non government intervention, period. Whether this works is what can be debated.)

Arguably your biggest misconception is this. Capitalism has never been about lack of government intervention. Adam Smith himself believed that government involvement in the economy was a necessity.

And then to look at it realistically, no capitalist system has ever existed without government intervention. Capitalism is not some naturally occurring economic equilibrium; it's a state that was conceived by 18th Century thinkers as an alternative to mercantilism, and rather carefully crafted by 19th Century governments, particularly Great Britain.

 

[civ_king]

Without getting myself into a ton of trouble, I'm just going to say your posts are often partisan and make no sense. You can say absolute capitalism isn't practical, but you can't say you believe in absolute capitalism.

(Not implying that he can't call himself a capitalist, just saying, capitalism in its PUREST FORM is non government intervention, period. Whether this works is what can be debated.)

Also, I'll still be here in five years and conservative, thanks.

um no according to Adam Smith you are wrong, also I doubt NBAfan is a Capitalist as that would imply he is a heretic

 

[Ajidica]

Domination, I think I understand what Cutlass was meaning by the right is a bit more communist than the progressives. Bear with me in my train of thought.

1. The right believes societal woes can be cured by mass charity.
2. Everyone who is able should give to charity as that is a societal duty.
3. If everyone gives to charity at their fullest extent, the extremes of ostentacious wealth and abject poverty will be averaged out to form a median baseline.
4. Once everyone is at the median baseline, Marx's communist utopia will be on its way to being achieved as there is no more class struggle.
5. The progressives do not wish really to abolish class, but more make things easier for the workers and poor.
I don't know if I interpreted Cutlass's intent properly though. Although the right tends to be more religous and some of the most succesful examples of a utopia are the religous utopias. That said, the modern Christ is a capitalist.

 

[Desmond Hawkins]

Not going to read the whole thread... will just respond to the OP.

You have clearly defined "liberal" vs. "conservative" based on the U.S. political spectrum's definition of liberal and conservative issues. The two political parties have naturally balanced out close to 50/50 in vote share, as one will move further left/right to capture share from the other if there is an imbalance. The issues will be redefined as liberal or conservative based on where the new balance is found in your country. The new balance will not be defined by issues already deemed liberal/conservative by any international standard.

The U.S isn't balanced left/right by any international spectrum of developed countries. It is balanced far-right/slightly-right. The Democratic Party occupies much of the same territory as the Conservative Party in Canada. There simply isn't a centre-left party in the U.S. Also, on economic issues, the centre-left NDP in Canda would be middle of the road in most of Europe.

Makes you wonder why there is so much scare-mongering about "socialism" when most European countries successfully govern at the extreme economic left of Canada's major political parties.

By international standards, I am a centrist.

 

[Quackers]

I'm also going to guess what Cutlass thinks too. I hope i win the prize

Cutlass believes Conservatives believe in no government intervention in the economy. Without intervention to protect workers it leads to poverty and therefore revolution and Communism. Whilst progressives want some form of intervention to secure workers rights and therefore prevent communism...

 

[GhostWriter16]

Domination, I think I understand what Cutlass was meaning by the right is a bit more communist than the progressives. Bear with me in my train of thought.

1. The right believes societal woes can be cured by mass charity.
2. Everyone who is able should give to charity as that is a societal duty.
3. If everyone gives to charity at their fullest extent, the extremes of ostentacious wealth and abject poverty will be averaged out to form a median baseline.
4. Once everyone is at the median baseline, Marx's communist utopia will be on its way to being achieved as there is no more class struggle.
5. The progressives do not wish really to abolish class, but more make things easier for the workers and poor.
I don't know if I interpreted Cutlass's intent properly though. Although the right tends to be more religous and some of the most succesful examples of a utopia are the religous utopias. That said, the modern Christ is a capitalist.

This makes sense, but still isn't true.

 

[Ajidica]

Ah, I think Quackers was right. I was slightly overlaying religous communism with the right. My bad.