+- Pink Floyd Online Forums (http://www.pinkfloydonline.com/forums)
+-- Forum: Other Stuff (/forumdisplay.php?fid=5)
+--- Forum: Outside The Wall (/forumdisplay.php?fid=13)
+--- Thread: Right Wing vs Left Wing (/showthread.php?tid=16154)
Right Wing vs Left Wing - Joe - 04-04-2011 10:06 AM
If political threads are not allowed, I'll understand if this one is removed/blocked.
RE: Right Wing vs Left Wing - Lady Floydian - 04-04-2011 10:52 AM
What are we supposed to be talking about? "Right" and "left" don't mean the same things in every single country, politically.
RE: Right Wing vs Left Wing - Arno Sluismans - 04-04-2011 12:19 PM
I'll just go with saying that I'm a bit of a socialist.
RE: Right Wing vs Left Wing - Joe - 04-04-2011 12:30 PM
(04-04-2011 10:52 AM)Lady Floydian Wrote: What are we supposed to be talking about? "Right" and "left" don't mean the same things in every single country, politically.
You're right. I apologize. What Arno was talking about is what I meant to debate.
RE: Right Wing vs Left Wing - Wings on the Pig - 04-04-2011 12:48 PM
Slightly left wing in Britain, which is probably very left wing to Americans, I'm not sure. I'm lefter than Obama, anyway. Especially on social issues (gay rights/religion etc).
RE: Right Wing vs Left Wing - Joe - 04-04-2011 01:19 PM
Okay, maybe we should define this.
Communism, Socialism vs Liberalism
RE: Right Wing vs Left Wing - Lady Floydian - 04-04-2011 01:46 PM
Communism/Socialism/Liberalism are all left-wing, it's all a matter of degrees. Communism is more left than socialism, which is more left than liberalism. I'm a liberal Democrat, and if I lived in Europe, I'd probably be a socialist. I wish Obama was as liberal as the far-right in this country say he is, things might be better around here.
RE: Right Wing vs Left Wing - Wings on the Pig - 04-04-2011 02:01 PM
Out of those three options, I'm somewhere between socialism and liberalism.
Would be interesting to see if there is a correlation between Pink Floyd and political views. I would imagine most to be liberal with regards to drugs and so on ... obviously Roger Waters is a traditional Labour supporter ...
RE: Right Wing vs Left Wing - Lady Floydian - 04-04-2011 02:09 PM
When it comes to drugs, I'm a bit of a dichotomy. I've never done them, have no desire to do them, and don't want them done around me. However I don't give a rat's ass if you do them, because I'm not you. The "War on Drugs" has cost more money and more lives in this country than any war we've participated in, in the last 70 years.
RE: Right Wing vs Left Wing - Wings on the Pig - 04-05-2011 06:50 AM
As Bill Hicks said, 'George Bush says 'we are losing the war on drugs'. Well you know what that implies? There's a war going on, and people on drugs are winning it! Well what does that tell you about drugs? Some smart, creative motherfuckers on that side.'
And I'm completely the same. Though I'm curious about drugs I probably wouldn't try them. But it's people's choice, at the end of the day. As long as they don't harm other people, I fail to see the problem.
RE: Right Wing vs Left Wing - Joe - 04-05-2011 09:16 AM
Economically speaking, I'm completely against liberalism.
RE: Right Wing vs Left Wing - Lady Floydian - 04-05-2011 10:38 AM
Quote:Liberalism (from the Latin liberalis, "of freedom") is the belief in the importance of liberty and equal rights. Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but most liberals support such fundamental ideas as constitutions, liberal democracy, free and fair elections, human rights, capitalism, free trade, and the freedom of religion. These ideas are widely accepted, even by political groups that do not openly profess a liberal ideological orientation. Liberalism encompasses several intellectual trends and traditions, but the dominant variants are classical liberalism, which became popular in the eighteenth century, and social liberalism, which became popular in the twentieth century.
Specifically in regards to economic issues, you're against free trade and capitalism? That doesn't sound right.
RE: Right Wing vs Left Wing - Joe - 04-05-2011 12:57 PM
Well, sure, it sounds perfect on paper, but everything does. Free trade and capitalism are incredibly unjust and do not match the definition you put. I think there should always be a governmental intervention to [share] all the wealth. If there's never a neutral non-profit third party that can jump in to balance things out, I don't see how equality can ever be reached.
RE: Right Wing vs Left Wing - Lady Floydian - 04-05-2011 01:10 PM
Communism doesn't work, we've seen it all over the world. The opposite of communism is capitalism, and if you really believe that fair trade and capitalism are "unjust", I would hazard a guess that you aren't that familiar with either principal. If what you think works actually worked, communism never would have fallen in Eastern Europe, Cuba wouldn't be a hellhole, and China would still be communist. The fact that so many countries around the world abandoned communism was because they found that it did not work. There was no "equality" when the wealth was shared. Do some reading on the conditions people had to suffer through in Eastern Europe, specifically the Soviet Union, and then come back and tell me that was both just and fair.
The kind of utopia you're envisioning will never happen as long as humans are humans. There will always be poor people, there will always be rich people. What needs to be done is not an outright removal of a capitalist economy, but a move toward a society where those who are less-fortunate are taken care of, provided for, and helped so that their quality of life is not slightly above stray dogs. It is impossible to have a society where everyone makes the same amount of money, spends the same amount of money, and saves the same amount of money. Because unless you forcibly regulate that, people will spend/save differently, and thus there will be people with more money and people with less money, even though everyone starts out with the same amount. So you're right back to having rich people and poor people. Which is why this will never, never, work.
RE: Right Wing vs Left Wing - Joe - 04-05-2011 01:52 PM
Many countries not succeeding at fulfilling a vision does not necessarily mean the vision is impossible to fulfil. But, sure, let's put it this way: 1970->1973, Chilli: Salvadar Allende, a communist had won the presidential elections. Everything worked out well, he nationalized all the private companies, all the mines and the country's natural wealth, and he shared that with the people. It worked very well. All the children were getting free, equal education, food...etc. Everything was going well until the USA organised a coup with the help of extreme right wingers (the rich people of the old regime) and the military. The CIA was paid 10,000,000$. They were bombing factories, paralysing transportation and so on to link Communism with tough sh1t. Surprisingly enough, it didn't work, and re-elections took place, Allende won...again. September 11th, 1973, the US responded with aerial attacks on the presidential palace, and they killed Allende.
I haven't read as much as you have, but really...the whole "people will spend/save differently" doesn't matter as long as everyone is given their legitimate share. I don't understand how someone can allow themselves to not try to balance things out just because they think "it wouldn't work"
RE: Right Wing vs Left Wing - Lady Floydian - 04-05-2011 02:26 PM
(04-05-2011 01:52 PM)Joe Wrote: I haven't read as much as you have, but really...the whole "people will spend/save differently" doesn't matter as long as everyone is given their legitimate share.
Yes it does. That's the basis of wealth -- how much you physically have to your name. Say the two of us work for the same company, and all the company's profits are divided equally amongst all the workers. We both leave the building at the end of the month with a check for $1200. Your expenses for the month are $800. That includes your rent, your utilities, groceries, and any other incidentals. You now have $400 to your name in the bank. My monthly expenses are $500. That leaves me $700 in the bank. I am wealthier than you at the end of the month, and we both started out with the same amount of money. I have $300 more to do with what I want. You have $300 less. Not so equal. Let's move this to a larger scale, and say the state we live in takes in $5,000,000 in revenue for the month. The money is divvied up equally amongst all citizens in that state, and we each get a check for $1,000. Your monthly expenses are $550. Mine are $750. Now you are wealthier than I am, and we both started out with the same amount of money. Still not equal. That's two different scenarios where the wealth was shared equally, and yet we still ended up unequal in terms of our wealth. So yes, things like that do matter. What about people who inherit money, which is totally irrespective of any money they get as far as salaries or wages go? If my wealthy uncle dies and leaves me millions of dollars, that's millions of dollars more I have than everyone around me, even though at my company all the profits are shared amongst the workers, so that everyone takes home equal pay. How would you propose eliminating that inequity? Outlawing inheritance?
Quote:I don't understand how someone can allow themselves to not try to balance things out just because they think "it wouldn't work"
It's not that I think it wouldn't work, it's that I know it wouldn't work. History is a great indicator of what has failed and what has succeeded. How many failures need to happen before it becomes apparent that what is being proposed is faulty?
RE: Right Wing vs Left Wing - Joe - 04-06-2011 08:44 AM
(04-05-2011 02:26 PM)Lady Floydian Wrote: Let's move this to a larger scale, and say the state we live in takes in $5,000,000 in revenue for the month. The money is divided up equally amongst all citizens in that state, and we each get a check for $1,000. Your monthly expenses are $550. Mine are $750. Now you are wealthier than I am, and we both started out with the same amount of money. Still not equal.
Well, first off, in my opinion, perfect equality will make it so everybody consumes the same amount of money. Too utopian, okay. You're a couple hundred dollars wealthier than me. Big deal! I think that is way better than what we have today. For instance, for the lack of better examples, Mubarak had 70,000,000,000$ when 40% of the population lived under the poverty line. It's not perfect, I know, but nothing is. And, honestly, I'd rather try and making something perfect than just leave it because history tells me it never worked.
(04-05-2011 02:26 PM)Lady Floydian Wrote: How would you propose eliminating that inequity? Outlawing inheritance?
Well, if we're seeking perfect equality, let's give everybody the same amount of potential dead uncles. I'm kidding. I hope your uncle doesn't die...unless he's rich. I'm kidding.
But, no really, I have no idea. My intuition's telling me that outlawing inheritance would be the only way out of this kind of situations. Think of your uncle as everybody else's brother?
(04-05-2011 02:26 PM)Lady Floydian Wrote: It's not that I think it wouldn't work, it's that I know it wouldn't work. History is a great indicator of what has failed and what has succeeded. How many failures need to happen before it becomes apparent that what is being proposed is faulty?
History is a great indicator to point out potential mistakes/errors. Communism is a dangerous policy, I agree, but in my opinion, it's worth it.
On a side note, I'd like to say that (in my opinion) the only way to create a utopian-like society is anarchy. It would cost many lives, much time and many depressions, but eventually, we would get there.
RE: Right Wing vs Left Wing - Lady Floydian - 04-06-2011 10:00 AM
A dangerous policy is in your opinion, "worth it"? No one with even a rudimentary grasp of the effects of communism, not just economically, but socially, would ever say a thing like that. Anarchy is about 100x worse. It absolutely scares me to think that anyone would want "equality" through the deaths of untold scores of people, not to mention total economic collapse and devastation. Where's the "equality" for the dead? For the destitute? Do they not matter? What about the fact that in an anarchist society, there's no laws, no protection for the people......would you be perfectly happy with rapes, murders, robberies and who knows what else happening for no other reason than because they can?
There comes a time when you need to stop thinking on the micro level and start looking at the macro level.
RE: Right Wing vs Left Wing - Joe - 04-06-2011 10:51 AM
We can go on and on about this
I did not use the correct word to describe communism. Perhaps "hard to apply" is a better way to put it.
I never said I'd be happy with anarchy...but, if a utopian world is what you desire, anarchy is the way. It'll take years if not centuries, but eventually it will happen. I don't want to start this conversation though. I've had it many times, we'll cross that bridge when we get to it.
RE: Right Wing vs Left Wing - Lady Floydian - 04-06-2011 11:23 AM
I don't know what you mean by "we'll cross that bridge when we get to it." I know what the expression means, but I don't know what you mean by using it in that context.
The solution to the issue of inequity in society is not to swing the pendulum back to the other extreme. Making life better for the less-fortunate cannot be solved by going so far to the left, Stalin thinks you're too progressive. It just doesn't work that way. You're what, 17? I don't know what it is about disaffected youth and the idea that all the world's problems can be solved by a total and complete breakdown of society, but it's apparently inherent in every generation. I went to school with more than a few nihilists who thought that everything that was wrong with the world could be cured if we just got rid of government, the police, and made everyone some soulless automaton out of 1984, but they soon realize that hey.....the real world doesn't work that way, and they grow out of it.
You mentioned before about Mubarek having tons of dough and 40% of the Egyptian populace living below the poverty line. The solution to that is not communism. Communist societies are run by dictators, and do you really think that after what the Egyptian people just did to oust the guy, they'd want to go back to another dictator? I mean, really? Is that the life you want for yourself and your fellow citizens?
RE: Right Wing vs Left Wing - Joe - 04-06-2011 11:41 AM
Communist societies don't have to be run by dictators!
RE: Right Wing vs Left Wing - Lady Floydian - 04-06-2011 12:09 PM
Quote:Totalitarian communist regimes have been criticized for their one-party dictatorships, totalitarian control of the economy and society and repression of civil liberties by the Council of Europe, economic focus on heavy industry at the expense of consumer goods, sometimes resulting in shortages of vital products or even famine
On that note, name one communist state not run by a dictator or some other kind of totalitarian ruler.
RE: Right Wing vs Left Wing - Joe - 04-06-2011 12:16 PM
I don't know! There doesn't have to be one for it to be possible! The definition you gave away seems like what Staline did to the soviet union. Don't think of it as it's defined and only that way.
RE: Right Wing vs Left Wing - Lady Floydian - 04-06-2011 12:28 PM
That wasn't a definition. What I posted was not just what happened in Stalinist Russia (or the Soviet Union no matter who was in charge), but EVERY communist state. Communist states are by default run by dictators/totalitarian leaders. There is no other option available. You don't get to pick and choose aspects of several different kinds of governments, and then call it a communist state. That's not how it works. You don't seem to understand that. You want a communist state with all its trimmings minus the dictator, and they don't come that way. It would be like trying to buy a table without legs, or a car without a steering wheel.
RE: Right Wing vs Left Wing - Joe - 04-06-2011 12:40 PM
I do not understand your reasoning. We don't have to call it a communist state, fine, we'll call it an ida0204jtijfa state. Why does its name matter?
RE: Right Wing vs Left Wing - Lady Floydian - 04-06-2011 01:05 PM
I had a huge post, probably five paragraphs typed out, and I deleted it, because I can't do this anymore. I mean, you think that while communism is a dangerous policy to enact......people should do it anyway.....and you've given no indication that you even remotely understand what makes a communist state as horrific as it is. It's like you're saying this just to be shocking, or something. Then you tell me you don't understand MY reasoning?
Like I said, I went to school with plenty of people who thought just like you did when they were your age. They grew out of it. I hope you do too.
RE: Right Wing vs Left Wing - Joe - 04-06-2011 08:48 PM
I'm not trying to shock you. I said dangerous was not the correct word to describe it, I meant hard to apply.
We're probably not on the same page because you're well documented and experienced while I only have a vague idea. Talk to you in a few years
?
RE: Right Wing vs Left Wing - Joe - 04-07-2011 06:08 AM
Oh, and also...equality is a utopian dream, and I hope you grow back into it.
RE: Right Wing vs Left Wing - Arno Sluismans - 04-07-2011 07:14 AM
(04-04-2011 01:46 PM)Lady Floydian Wrote: Communism/Socialism/Liberalism are all left-wing, it's all a matter of degrees. Communism is more left than socialism, which is more left than liberalism. I'm a liberal Democrat, and if I lived in Europe, I'd probably be a socialist. I wish Obama was as liberal as the far-right in this country say he is, things might be better around here.
This post shows why I tend to avoid "debates" about political preferences on the internet. In America, liberalism is seen as left-wing, while in Belgium, liberals are at the right hand side of the spectrum. Even the word itself has different meanings.
I agree about Obama though. He's a great president, but the rightists keep him from being as good as he could be.
Edit: About communism and old-fashioned socialism: It's the best system ever, without exceptions, but fails because of human nature. There's no way to apply it.
Edit 2, after reading some more bits and pieces in this thread: Capitalism actually is rather unfair and unjust, but there's no way around it. Economy and politics has a whole bunch of scenarios where we opt for the bad thing, simply because the good thing is not possible to achieve.
RE: Right Wing vs Left Wing - Joe - 04-07-2011 09:19 AM
(04-07-2011 07:14 AM)Arno Sluismans Wrote: About communism and old-fashioned socialism: It's the best system ever, without exceptions, but fails because of human nature. There's no way to apply it.
Capitalism actually is rather unfair and unjust, but there's no way around it. Economy and politics has a whole bunch of scenarios where we opt for the bad thing, simply because the good thing is not possible to achieve.
I think most of us agree on this point. If I'm not mistaken, the only difference is LF says it's no use to try to apply communism when it always fails because of human nature while I think that we should still try because human nature is, in my opinion, something you can change.
RE: Right Wing vs Left Wing - Arno Sluismans - 04-07-2011 11:18 AM
Human nature is something you can not change, that's the big problem. If everybody gets paid the same, everybody will have the urge to get paid more by doing more, or to laze around, which logically should make them earn less. The result is capitalism. There's no way to avoid that.
Also, about Lady Floydian's point concerning dictatorships: She's partly right, but mixes causality and correlation. Communism doesn't require dictatorship, and many European countries have democratic parties that promote communism. The reason why all communist systems to date had dictators, was because they weren't voted for; they took power in those countries through wars and revolutions, then enforced their rules onto the people. If a country's voters decide that communism is a good idea, then it's perfectly possible for it to happen without dictatorship.
RE: Right Wing vs Left Wing - Lady Floydian - 04-07-2011 11:26 AM
(04-07-2011 06:08 AM)Joe Wrote: Oh, and also...equality is a utopian dream, and I hope you grow back into it.
There's a difference between wanting to lower the inequity that exists in society, and thinking the only way to get there is to institute a quasi-anarchist, communist state. The best combination you could have, in regards to an economic state within your country, is a mixture of both capitalism and socialism. Socialism =/= communism, by the by. A lot of countries, the United States included, have aspects of both a capitalist society and a socialist society. What is important is maintaining a reasonable balance between the amount of each you employ. If I've said it once, I've said it a dozen times -- You cannot fix what is broken or doesn't work by swinging the pendulum to the other extreme. It doesn't work, and it will never work.
Utopian by definition means both idealized perfection and unrealistic and impractical dreams of said perfection. Perfection cannot exist, because humans are not perfect. Humans are humans, and thus fallible. So while this utopian landscape you seem to think can exist is nice to think about......it is by its own definition, unable to exist.
So why don't we try working on making the less-fortunate in all societies live a better quality of life? Sounds like a more reasonable and practical plan.
RE: Right Wing vs Left Wing - Joe - 04-07-2011 12:44 PM
(04-07-2011 11:18 AM)Arno Sluismans Wrote: Human nature is something you can not change, that's the big problem. If everybody gets paid the same, everybody will have the urge to get paid more by doing more, or to laze around, which logically should make them earn less. The result is capitalism. There's no way to avoid that.I'll have to stand refuted. I cannot counter argue that.
(04-07-2011 11:26 AM)Lady Floydian Wrote: Utopian by definition means both idealized perfection and unrealistic and impractical dreams of said perfection. Perfection cannot exist, because humans are not perfect. Humans are humans, and thus fallible. So while this utopian landscape you seem to think can exist is nice to think about......it is by its own definition, unable to exist.I understand. Your view is kind of depressing, but realistic.
RE: Right Wing vs Left Wing - only floyd - 04-07-2011 12:50 PM
I'm nothing on the political front, I don't really care what happens out there because mine and anyone else's input will never change the corruption and evilness this world suffers. I'm happy in my own little world and it's how I choose to live it that counts. Until individuals realise the truth of life this world remains in the hands of bad people.
'And what is the truth?' it's here, now, you just have to look in the right places. Humans are capable of astounding feats and we are all more powerful than we realise, we have yet to fully appreciate our limits, our strengths and our desires. Somewhere along the way we have lost the whole idea of our existance even when we were given 'hints' in the past, some though do carry with them the ideal truth and lead wonderful happy lives despite everything.