Right? Left! Left? Right!
- Thread starter Richard Cribb
- Start date
Cheezy the Wiz
Socialist In A Hurry
The parts of the economy that employed most of the traditional supporters of the radical left now exist in other countries thanks to deindustrialization and outsourcing. You know, all that "imperialism is the final stage of capitalism" stuff.
Fifty
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I don't meant to imply that this was the norm. According to her (and keeping in mind this was coming to me through her not perfect english), they had to subsist on dog food for awhile because they were receiving shipments of food that were subsequently stolen by some sort of official (soldiers maybe? I'm not real aware of the specific circumstances).
In any case, she most definitely gets teary when discussing her life in Poland, and she most definitely considers her working class life in the USA much better.
1) While some (not all!) foodstuffs were of terrible quality and might probably be derogatorily called "dog food" as of today, specially manufactured doggy food was, iirc, a concept entirely unknown in USSR. Maybe Poland was different, though?.
2) People were indeed frequently challenged with situation where a local "supermarket" was only supplied with two weeks old mincemeat, bread, noodles, rotten cabbages and caramel bonbons, whereas e.g. sugar or potatoes were impossible to find. However the situation described seems somewhat extreme for any postwar period.
She also said turnips were extremely common as a staple when not much else was available.
@Richard Cribb: You reap what you sow.
So Capitalism is dead? Now I'm curious.
Cheezy the Wiz
Socialist In A Hurry
No: it has transcended to its highest form. All that is left now is to meet its antecedent: but will it be socialism or fascism? That's what we get to decide.
Unfortunately I can see it decided in the all-pervasive talent show viewer-decides format, and it ain't pretty
azzaman333
meh
Whatever Kevin Rudd is, I'm not.
amadeus
Apply directly to the forehead
Obama is the highest form of capitalism?
dragodon64
Noble
I'm extremely socially liberal, no government intervention with just about any activity that doesn't directly harm others. Economically, I support basic free market forces with government intervention to balance external benefits/costs, which is pretty much socialist, except I hate common ideas like universal healthcare, since I don't consider it a basic human right or anything.
That's not really socialist at all.
Desmond Hawkins
Deity
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2002
- Messages
- 9,922
You aren't even remotely socialist. In most countries you would be decidedly to the right wing.
jessiecat
Divine Monarch
So you support "socialist" govt. intervention to support the "free market", like subsidies to US farmers, steel makers, car makers, tax breaks to domestic corporations etc. to give them the edge against foriegn competition yet you still think the market is "free"? Don't you realize how illogical that is?
Yet you "hate" common ideas like universal healthcare as health is not a basic human right? So what is a basic human right then? Right to live? Right to carry a gun? Right to buy video games and eat junk food? Anything?
I think Greg Iles' main character Penn Cage said it best in The Quiet Game: "I'm not [a flaming liberal]. I'm a flaming humanist."
My political concern is for the well-being of humanity in general: I want universal healthcare and education, I want cradle-to-grave protection for people so that they might enjoy their lives free from financial distress; I think war serves financiers and glory-whores more than it serves people. These opinions and others like them make me a "leftist".
My political concern is for the well-being of humanity in general: I want universal healthcare and education, I want cradle-to-grave protection for people so that they might enjoy their lives free from financial distress; I think war serves financiers and glory-whores more than it serves people. These opinions and others like them make me a "leftist".
dragodon64
Noble
@ shortguy and Sobieksi: yeah, but I live in America, I might as well use the standards here...
Okay, I do support subsidies to farmers, but not for their sake. The free market is pretty nice, but left to it, mankind would starve to death since people too poor to afford food don't count under demand. I take it you know what externalities are?
In the production of products and services, certain benefits and costs may be placed on individuals not involved. For example, university education reduces the chances of criminal activity, but that isn't represented by the market now is it? By providing ease of access into higher education, the government provides the extra benefit to society. Likewise public transportation is much more fuel efficient than private, even if it is less convenient. By providing cheap public transportation, the government benefits the economy and the environment.
I don't support the American steel industry, or protection from foreign competition in almost all conditions.
Right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness is a very good summary of what I believe. On the gun issue, I wish I lived in a society that rejected guns for what they are, but I don't. I live in a society where guns are loved and thought of as protectors. So while I wish guns were banned, the law alone would mean nothing without cultural change.
So you support "socialist" govt. intervention to support the "free market", like subsidies to US farmers, steel makers, car makers, tax breaks to domestic corporations etc. to give them the edge against foriegn competition yet you still think the market is "free"? Don't you realize how illogical that is?
Yet you "hate" common ideas like universal healthcare as health is not a basic human right? So what is a basic human right then? Right to live? Right to carry a gun? Right to buy video games and eat junk food? Anything?
Okay, I do support subsidies to farmers, but not for their sake. The free market is pretty nice, but left to it, mankind would starve to death since people too poor to afford food don't count under demand. I take it you know what externalities are?
In the production of products and services, certain benefits and costs may be placed on individuals not involved. For example, university education reduces the chances of criminal activity, but that isn't represented by the market now is it? By providing ease of access into higher education, the government provides the extra benefit to society. Likewise public transportation is much more fuel efficient than private, even if it is less convenient. By providing cheap public transportation, the government benefits the economy and the environment.
I don't support the American steel industry, or protection from foreign competition in almost all conditions.
Right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness is a very good summary of what I believe. On the gun issue, I wish I lived in a society that rejected guns for what they are, but I don't. I live in a society where guns are loved and thought of as protectors. So while I wish guns were banned, the law alone would mean nothing without cultural change.
That's not even left wing by American standards, dude.
What? Really?
I more or less agree with the guy.. (or I tl;dr his post)
The left wing here are the progressives. He would be a moderate democrat at the most. If you don't support universal healthcare, you're probably not a leftist by US standards. Centrist by US standards and center-right by universal standards.
Hmm, OK. That's a fairly obvious choice unless the person has a vested interest in for-profit HMOs..
aelf
Ashen One
This is not an externality issue, sorry. Having no food is not a good with an external cost because it is not a good. This is a distribution problem, and is either thematically a humanitarian issue or a social justice issue. Someone would be right to say that this has more to do with socialism than 'regular' government intervention as a market-correcting mechanism.
dragodon64 said:
Yes, these are cases of positive externalities. But they are also issues about merit goods. They would simply not be produced enough from the point of view of society a whole under the free market even without taking into account their positive externalities.
And I believe it is the case that some people do not believe in the concept of merit goods, as they insist that the government is not responsible for providing you a quality life - you have to work for it. Simply put, you must again believe in some concept of the public good and the role of government in ensuring it (although from a purely economic point of view, the goal can be said to be ensuring the optimal level of production - but when was the last time a politician campaigned on the platform of the Pareto optimum?).
dragodon64 said:
Strategic industries.
dragodon64 said:
Obviously, and I'm getting to the main point of my post, if you believe in social justice and the public good in the way that you described, you believe in more extensive rights than you imply. Those rights you listed do not necessarily imply that the government must take an active part in making sure that people have a minimum standard of living (like not starving, having decent education and a low-crime and clean environment). You have to believe in some economic rights as well.
So, why not a good public healthcare system that is affordable to everyone, for one? Something that is just as important, if not more important, than the things you mentioned, since good health is a crucial element of the quality of life. You seem rather confused as to where you stand, and if that's the standard in America, Americans are confused as well.
