The Question of Leftist Framentation

[holy king]

indeed.

 

[REDY]

What's moderating your economic compass score then? Weeping for the poor folk in a rich land? If you are in India, I can understand the welfare more.

Proper education to everyone for example.

 

[Quackers]

The LEFT is doing very well in the UK. All the proclaimed "progressives" in the house of commons are implementing the DNA database, CCTV camaras and countless other attacks on liberty to pave way for the future Stalinists.

Too bad a lot of our population is too drugged up on welfare to vote for anyone else.

 

[holy king]

those guys are not really what this thread is about.

 

[Ecofarm]

In the US, our left would oppose those things more than the right. I don't think our "progressives" are fans of the Patriot Act(s).

 

[Winner]

I see some progress in current crisis(not in Social democracy but in their voters), maybe we need something worse.

What progress? The Soc. Dems aren't proposing ANY budget cuts whatsoever. They just want to continue in this suicidal policy of increasing debts.

In this country, the left = national suicide.

 

[Harshad]

To refine what I've said before in the social group and to borrow something from a liberal philosopher, I think the future of the left-wing lies in its ability to find and work within an overlapping consensus. That is to say in forging an alliance from things that can be broadly agreed to.

The action-oriented nature of Marxism lends itself to this, since you would be able to find plenty of allies to fight for certain causes. Whether you will agree with them years down the road is a question better left largely unanswered. Who knows what the future will bring? Better work on the present than end up doing nothing at all. After all, we don't go about our business constantly planning for and worrying over whether our friends and family would betray us tomorrow, even if they don't think exactly like we do.



Then you only have a surface understanding of left-wing thought. The left is not against you enjoying the fruits of your labour. In fact, its main issue is with the fact that capitalists prevent workers from fully enjoying the fruits of their labour (i.e. exploit the workers). I think the need for public ownership of the means of production is to take them away from the exploitative capitalist and put them in the hands of the workers who actually do the producing.

That somehow the conclusion of all this has been interpreted as to take away the fruits of the workers' labour and redistribute them is I think an issue, and probably a problem, that needs to be examined closely.

Tell me, in the publication of any of Chomsky's work, how many under paid people come between him, and a stack of books at your local store? In fact, think of any leftest produced book. I don't see any of them giving a share of the gross to help out the wage slaves necessary for his or her book to be a success.

 

[aelf]

Tell me, in the publication of any of Chomsky's work, how many under paid people come between him, and a stack of books at your local store? In fact, think of any leftest produced book. I don't see any of them giving a share of the gross to help out the wage slaves necessary for his or her book to be a success.

He's not the publisher or the owner of the bookstores, is he? So how is he a capitalist? Are you going to blame a worker for the misdeeds of the company he works for? If you're going to accuse some leftist of being just another dirty exploiter, you gotta be able to prove that he's the one doing the exploiting. Besides, many books produced by the left are anti-copyrighted or copylefted, so I think you're definitely reaching there.

Also, leftism doesn't mandate charity. That's the right. Leftists fight for a system that is more just, and in that sense they don't believe in charity as a corrective measure. The right is the side that preaches the need for charity because they know that so many are screwed over by their system.

 

[Newbunkle]

Both extremes screw people over.

 

[aelf]

Both extremes screw people over.

It depends on what you mean by extremes. Most of the time, people have no idea what these extremes are, and to tell you the truth attempts to put politics on a spectrum are so convoluted that I don't blame people for being confused.

Also, I disagree that only the extremists in the right-wing screw people over. All of them screw people over because they believe in an inadequate scheme of freedoms.

 

[Desmond Hawkins]

Conversely (probably using the word wrong)... how is the Right so successful at putting aside disagreements to gain power so easily?

I don't think it is just that the Left likes to split hairs.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

No, thanks.

I'm consistantly anti-government power (anti-authoritarianism), whether to legislate excessive morals or dominate capital. And then we get to foreign policy... where my authoritarianism comes raging forward in defense of human rights. Really, human rights is the only time I will violate my anti-authority stance. Minimal regulations and property ownership by the state is, of course, necessary.

I see abortion, environmental pollution and world-development as human rights issues.

So then your position is that authoritarianism is only bad if its the government doing it. God forbid an organization at least in theory responsible to the people is authoritarian, as opposed to ones who are not, and blatantly so.

 

[Harshad]

He's not the publisher or the owner of the bookstores, is he? So how is he a capitalist? Are you going to blame a worker for the misdeeds of the company he works for? If you're going to accuse some leftist of being just another dirty exploiter, you gotta be able to prove that he's the one doing the exploiting. Besides, many books produced by the left are anti-copyrighted or copylefted, so I think you're definitely reaching there.

Also, leftism doesn't mandate charity. That's the right. Leftists fight for a system that is more just, and in that sense they don't believe in charity as a corrective measure. The right is the side that preaches the need for charity because they know that so many are screwed over by their system.

Alright, name all the famous leftest who do not copyright there books.


My point is, he hammers what capital does to the worker, yet he willingly and knowingly takes advantage of the process. He could have said to the publisher, "Tell you what, instead of paying me an exorbitant amount of money, I will only take a reasonable sum, and I want an assurance that the rest be divided equally among people involved in the production and manufacture of the printed product."

Of course, that is hypocritical in and of itself. After all, he is against copyrights, so anything other then putting the work out there is hypocritical for him.

I don't see how you can reasonably deny that he is a hypocrite. (Which isn't to say I don't respect his work in and of itself)

 

[aelf]

Alright, name all the famous leftest who do not copyright there books.

People like Bonefeld and Holloway have copyleft or anti-copyright on their books, but I wonder how many famous leftists you even know, so I doubt you've heard of them. I think the Critical Marxists also didn't have their books copyrighted. IIRC, the Horkheimer book I read isn't.

But you want the names of all? I have to name all the famous leftists in order to prove to you that all leftists are not capitalists in disguise? Give me a break. You know that's a BS condition.

My point is, he hammers what capital does to the worker, yet he willingly and knowingly takes advantage of the process. He could have said to the publisher, "Tell you what, instead of paying me an exorbitant amount of money, I will only take a reasonable sum, and I want an assurance that the rest be divided equally among people involved in the production and manufacture of the printed product."

And why would the publisher listen? It's not up to him to tell the publisher how to manage it, is it? Writers are often at the mercy of the publisher and not the other way round, you know.

I also don't think Chomsky earns exorbitant amounts of money from his books. Please quote his income tax statements to prove this. In all likelihood his publishers are the ones who earn lots of money, and I simply don't think they are all that amenable to sharing the wealth, are they?

Of course, that is hypocritical in and of itself. After all, he is against copyrights, so anything other then putting the work out there is hypocritical for him.

I don't see how you can reasonably deny that he is a hypocrite. (Which isn't to say I don't respect his work in and of itself)

Then I don't see how you can reasonably live in present day society. Everything you do for a living will just make you part of the capitalist system, right? I suppose according to people like you leftists have to be Diogenes of Sinope or live in caves in the jungle and not have anything to do with the world in order not to be hypocrites.

I suppose the fact that some of them spend their whole lives fighting for systemic change is not enough. They also have to be eligible for cannonisation. But not so rightists. I wonder where such standards came from. Who is the real hypocrite here?

 

[Traitorfish]

Exactly, because there is so much fragmentation. It was the perfect opportunity to make a real change and it was/is/maybe it isn't lost. Nothing happene din the western world bar a few isolated examples, but South America is very clearly heading in the right direction...

Case in point, Uruguay just elected a new President, José Mujica, who not only represents a Leftist party, the Movement of Popular Participation, but the Broad Front, a coalition of different parties, with differeing agendas, but who are united on enough basic principals to obtain power and make changes. He takes over from Tabaré Vázquez, a member of the Socialist Party, a coalition-partner of the MPP's.

The LEFT is doing very well in the UK. All the proclaimed "progressives" in the house of commons are implementing the DNA database, CCTV camaras and countless other attacks on liberty to pave way for the future Stalinists.

Too bad a lot of our population is too drugged up on welfare to vote for anyone else.

Didn't all of that start off under Thatcher anyway? New Labour simply maintained or advanced existing policies in those regards. Only real exception is welfare, and that's not exactly pertinent.

 

[Harshad]

People like Bonefeld and Holloway have copyleft or anti-copyright on their books, but I wonder how many famous leftists you even know, so I doubt you've heard of them. I think the Critical Marxists also didn't have their books copyrighted. IIRC, the Horkheimer book I read isn't.

But you want the names of all? I have to name all the famous leftists in order to prove to you that all leftists are not capitalists in disguise? Give me a break. You know that's a BS condition.



And why would the publisher listen? It's not up to him to tell the publisher how to manage it, is it? Writers are often at the mercy of the publisher and not the other way round, you know.



Then I don't see how you can reasonably live in present day society. Everything you do for a living will just make you part of the capitalist system, right? I suppose according to people like you leftists have to be Diogenes of Sinope or live in caves in the jungle and not have anything to do with the world in order not to be hypocrites.

I suppose the fact that some of them spend their whole lives fighting for systemic change is not enough. They also have to be eligible for cannonisation. But not so rightists. I wonder where such standards came from. Who is the real hypocrite here?

Noam Chomsky is a world renowned author, I doubt he has to supplicate to a publisher.

I see that you have resorted to personal insults.

Anyway, that's exactly the point, for a person such as himself to follow his own teachings would require him to basically live in a shack in Montana. How isn't following your own teachings not hypocrisy?

Anyway, I'm sure most on the right are also hypocrites, but this thread is on leftism, not the right.

 

[aelf]

Noam Chomsky is a world renowned author, I doubt he has to supplicate to a publisher.

Still no evidence that he earns exorbitant amounts of money.

And so what if he is world-renowned? Many pop stars are world-renowned and are still pretty much at the mercy of their particular labels. If they are too troublesome, no company will pick their stuff up. Simple. Then one side can't earn a living while the other continues to do business. You decide which.

I see that you have resorted to personal insults.

I see you have resorted to false accusations.

Go on, the self-defeating nature of your side of the conversation is building up

Anyway, that's exactly the point, for a person such as himself to follow his own teachings would require him to basically live in a shack in Montana. How isn't following your own teachings not hypocrisy?

Because that's not his own teachings? I told you that you don't understand the point. Obviously, the majority of leftists do not advocate living away from present society. They advocate fighting for change, which in itself requires them to be part of society. And while they're at it, they still have to make a living in order to live with some dignity in society. They too are human - you can't demand that they simply give everything away, especially since they don't mandate charity in the first place.

You'd have a point if you point fingers at leftists who are big bosses and who operate their businesses like any other capitalist, but you're not going to get far on the reasonable meter if you accuse leftists for being hypocrites simply because they live and work in capitalistic societies. That's ridiculous, on top of missing the point entirely.

Anyway, I'm sure most on the right are also hypocrites, but this thread is on leftism, not the right.

I suppose if you think that everybody except saints are self-defeating hypocrites, then there's no real reason to argue. You just rendered most political discussions void. Congratulations. It may be an excellent maneuver from a nihilist point of view (though, as it turned out, not so strong in logic).

However, it's worthless from a practical point of view.

 

[Kerozine]

Avoid usage of the following words and their associated derivatives in speech & writing:

-exploit#
-proletariat
-oppress#

 

[Ecofarm]

So then your position is that authoritarianism is only bad if its the government doing it.

Incorrect. Some government authoritarianism is good, a tiny bit. At any rate, my position is that authoritarianism is only absolute if it's the government doing it, real authority. One cannot simply leave or boycott the government. Also, there are many other types of authoritarianism that are bad. My statements are nothing like the quote above, how one can get that from what I wrote is beyond me.

God forbid an organization at least in theory responsible to the people is authoritarian, as opposed to ones who are not, and blatantly so.

If an organization is unjustly or unaceptably authoritarian, you can leave it or refuse to patronize it. Its authority is not inescapable. You can't start acting like other organizations equal the government, that's not legit argument.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Incorrect. Some government authoritarianism is good, a tiny bit. At any rate, my position is that authoritarianism is only absolute if it's the government doing it, real authority.

And what if a NGO risks becoming more powerful than the government? What if it already is? Then the only ones who have control over it are the owners or board members.

One cannot simply leave or boycott the government.

Sure one can, its called emigration.

If an organization is authoritarian, you can leave it or refuse to patronize it.

And if its the entirety of the system?

Its authority is not inescapable.

That's true, there's always death.

Its quite plainly clear that you've never been given the [crap] end of the stick in life, and probably have little idea of how the "other half" lives. A funny statement, that, since its far more than half who live that way.