How to win an argument with Liberals-Progressives-Socialists-etc...
POSTED BY: Wulfenstar
UPDATED: Thursday, June 16, 2011 09:23
VIEWED: 32999
PAGE 7 of 31
Quote:
Originally posted by Hardware:
The thing you are missing when you deride me for equating all of the leftist isms into one massive clusterfuck of wrong thinking, is this; all of them have one flawed premise at their core. That mistaken point of origin is that someone else is better suited to decide what is best for me.
And that is why I will go to any lengths to oppose them and any person who try to force those ridiculous politics on me.
So quite clearly, you agree with me that we should never have gone into Iraq in 2003.
Quote:
The cold war may have ended, but those same leftists forces now have new names. Transnationists, humanists, and liberals. I can't imagine that the founders of the democratic party are spinning in their grave over the co-opting of their party by socialists.
So you now consider Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rove, and the entire GOP to be "leftists", eh?
Or are you such a hypocrite that you don't want someone else deciding FOR YOU, but you like the idea of your government deciding FOR OTHER NATIONS what is best for them?
Seems all you John Birch morons should be throwing a bitch-fit about your ideals being co-opted by socialists, too. The teabaggers are just another brand of socialist as well.
"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
Socialists, Communists, and Fascists all have various strong differences, but they tend to succumb to authoritarianism and corruption.
Authoritarianism is usually either pretty bad or it blows up and becomes really bad. History seems to be one long struggle between the people in power (amongst themselves even), the people who envy that power, and the people who just want to live in peace.
Hmmm, disagree about the socialism thing there, Byte,
I note that for many Americans (now I am speaking generally here, and not directing this at you, Byte) there is a tendancy to consider Nazis as being on the left. This suprised me, as I was brought up learning a different kind of political spectrum, and Nazis were definitely far right. Far right = authoritarian government. Far left = no government. That was the ideology anyway.
The 20th century will be remembered as the century where people fought over ideology, rather than religion as has been the norm for much of that millenium. Personally, I think the 21st we've moved back to fighting over religion, but that is another argument.
I would pretty much have thought that those classifications of ideology were now outdated, and tend to be used only for pejorative purposes (see the title of this thread).
Communism, as espoused by Marx, never really existed in its pure form. It contained many flaws as a theory, the same sort of flaws I see that many people of libertarian leanings tend to have as well, in that it doesn't recognise natural power dynamics and therefore leaves itself open to abuse of power.
fascism seems to have died a death, and its been replaced by your stock standard nasty tyrannies which are kind of an historical norm in country leadership, rather than being exceptional.
Socialism is now just how some people described Keynesian type econonics, that is, the type of system that sees a role for government in influencing economy, rather than just free market forces. I guess, if any, that is the one ideological difference that is still a reality. Government intervention vs no government intervention. Even that is a bit of a lie, because people tend to have hotchpotchy inconsistent views. As with some posters here -
Government should keep their hands off my guns (snigger) but allowing them to imprison people indefinitely and use 'harsh interrogation techniques' and yes, also have the power to put to death people is okay.
The reality is that most people are not pure ideologists, but perhaps have leanings, but may hold a variety of views.
Edit - climate is the other divisive issue. Whether you call it ideological???? I think it crosses the spectrum, myself.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Hardware:
In the long run ethical business pays greater returns than unethical practices. However, we have a brain dead executive population that cannot seem to grasp that.
That would discount most of the international businesses operating in developing countries then, who pollute, pay their workers virtually nothing, exploit children, have dangerous and or unhealthy work practices, undermine local businesses, and I guess that's why outsourcing of labour is so popular these days.
The history of business is the history of exploitation. Trade unionism, empowerment of workers, and legislation have all provided business operations with limits, which go some way to preventing some of the worst exploitation that has taken place. Not people choosing to use products that are ethical. Ethical products are expensive. When there is exploitation, the price goes down. People like cheap.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Well said, Magons. Sadly, however, Quote:
isn't unknown here, either. There's a law proposed (may have been passed by now, dunno) to change the child work laws so that younger kids can work, and to lower the "minimum wage" where young workers are concerned. Republicans, of course, helping us go backward to the days of no constraings on enterprise.
who pollute, pay their workers virtually nothing, exploit children, have dangerous and or unhealthy work practices, undermine local businesses
Lots of corporations pollute, either legally, with special dispensations, or illegally until someone notices (then they pay the "fine" and go right on in some cases...hi PG&E). BP is a prime example of "dangerous/unhealthy work practices (tho' there are many others), and we've got signs all over San Rafael reading "No Target in San Rafael"--they want to put one up, which would be disasterous for all the small businesses in town (currently we have no "big-box stores" like Walmart, etc., although there are a bunch of them just ten miles up the road!).
So unethical pays HERE, too, but it's SOOO much cheaper overseas, and they don't have to worry about American laws. If the Republicans have their way, we won't be much better.
Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off 
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Well, I agree with what you say to a degree. And perhaps socialism has not yet crossed over in most nations to out-and-out-authoritarianism. But I get this sense of it being on the way towards that, the more government power becomes consolidated to deal with all the other stuff, and the more power I see given to enforcement of laws.
Mostly I am wary that it all could become authoritarian frighteningly fast. But, I am more anti-authoritarian and anti-imperialism than I am anything else. I believe that the systems I mentioned, socialism, communism, even fascism COULD work... IF they avoided authoritarianism. And I think that it might be possible to do so. Which is why only said that I think they might TEND towards authoritarianism, as opposed to "all of them are and eventually will be authoritarian." I'm also not sure I would want to live in such a system of governance, but I'm willing to grant others might.
As for your left right view, it's not INCORRECT... But you have to look at how the ideologies work out in practice more than in theory I think. In America, even liberalism, which was then almost like my anarchism, somehow gave rise to Federalists. Weren't these people also the product of the same enlightenment era as anyone else? But no, somehow they twisted what was being wrought to try to mold it back into a monarchy, what would be in your opinion a right-wing move, and what would be in my estimation a "jerk" move from people who only wanted power and only stuck to principles in so far as it benefited them.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
You know after reading this topic I'm starting to see why America is falling apart at the seams. You're all as bad as each other.
"I really am ruggedly handsome, aren't I?"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Thank you kindly.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:How so?
You know after reading this topic I'm starting to see why America is falling apart at the seams. You're all as bad as each other.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:Quote:
Originally posted by Hardware:
In the long run ethical business pays greater returns than unethical practices. However, we have a brain dead executive population that cannot seem to grasp that.
That would discount most of the international businesses operating in developing countries then, who pollute, pay their workers virtually nothing, exploit children, have dangerous and or unhealthy work practices, undermine local businesses, and I guess that's why outsourcing of labour is so popular these days.
Which brings up the question: If Nike or another manufacturer uses sweatshop labor and prison labor, but does so offshore - albeit KNOWINGLY nevertheless - then are those still "ethical" business practices?
Quote:
The history of business is the history of exploitation. Trade unionism, empowerment of workers, and legislation have all provided business operations with limits, which go some way to preventing some of the worst exploitation that has taken place. Not people choosing to use products that are ethical. Ethical products are expensive. When there is exploitation, the price goes down. People like cheap.
Yup. Why do people like Hardware think WalMart is so huge? Because of their "ethical" business practices?
"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Rather than actually try to construct a coherent argument, people on both sides of the fence end just saying what is essentially "No, you."
"I really am ruggedly handsome, aren't I?"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME