Ignore the large contingent of secularist athiests in the FAR left that believe that religion must be abolished for reason to win out and that mention of it anywhere outside of the home should be frowned upon.
We'll not say that some on the Far left feel that kids should be taught they must experiment to find out what they're sexual preference really is and that we should allow for even wilder types of rights such as the ability to marry animals (go check out women marries dog). Yeah, that's not the mainstream left, but the far left.
They don't want 3rd term abortions allowed up to the day before the kid comes out, or government funded abortions, or anything like that...no no no, that may make them sound extreme and far and we can't have that because the far left is completely reasonable, unlike those evil rotten far right people.
Nothing about how they believe multiple industries should be ran by the government instead. Nothing about how anything bad for the environment should be extremely and completely taxed if not banned. Nothing about huge taxes on any kind of stock options. No, no no no, those are FAR to extreme to ever be included in a discussion about the FAR left.
We can't possibly say the FAR left is for banning substances that they deem "unhealthy" deciding you can't eat certain kinds of foods anymore or do certain types of activities anymore. Lets not mention the FAR left would like everyone to be forced to be on this health care, no matter their wealth or ability to own private health care, because that's what'd be most "Fair". Let us ignore that the FAR left would like to take 50% or more of some peoples income to help fund this kind of stuff. No no no, don't say anything extreme about the FAR left disney, that'd just be intellectually honest of you.
Yes, lets not say that the FAR left does not believe we should do anything militarily ever unless we're on the brink of annhiliation and even then its questionable. Lets not say that the far left would like to make it nearly impossible for the government to have a way, legal or no, to do survelliance on any modern technology communication formats.
Did I not imply that it not already has "worked," primarily in the Spanish Revolution and throughout the Free Territory of Ukraine? I typically refer to Gaston Leval's comments about the Spanish Revolution.
That said, the "human nature" comment is certainly nothing new and is more repetitive than anything else.
I wish we'd see someone trying to utilize the economic calculation problem once in a while, even if it would flop right away...
Unfortunately, your conclusion is beng held up by straw men....Yeah....I would say the far right is much more dangerous to the values of America.
You are wrong on several levels here Zyph.
First of all, I don't believe the Far Left is mainstream at all. Where have I ever said anything that would cause you to believe that.
Thats nice but it was a Democracy not Socialism.
It was also only 3 years. I could say look at the success of Nazism if you only look at the first 3 years.
Repetitive in this case equals the truth of the situation.
Why would you want to try something that you know will fail?
Almost all criticisms of socialism ultimately fail.
This one doesn't:
Socialism does not work, has never worked, can never work, and will never work.
In Spain, during almost three years, despite a civil war that took a million lives, despite the opposition of the political parties . . . this idea of libertarian communism was put into effect. Very quickly more than 60% of the land was very quickly collectively cultivated by the peasants themselves, without landlords, without bosses, and without instituting capitalist competition to spur production. In almost all the industries, factories, mills, workshops, transportation services, public services, and utilities, the rank and file workers, their revolutionary committees, and their syndicates reorganised and administered production, distribution, and public services without capitalists, high-salaried managers, or the authority of the state.
Even more: the various agrarian and industrial collectives immediately instituted economic equality in accordance with the essential principle of communism, 'From each according to his ability and to each according to his needs.' They co-ordinated their efforts through free association in whole regions, created new wealth, increased production (especially in agriculture), built more schools, and bettered public services. They instituted not bourgeois formal democracy but genuine grass roots functional libertarian democracy, where each individual participated directly in the revolutionary reorganisation of social life. They replaced the war between men, 'survival of the fittest,' by the universal practice of mutual aid, and replaced rivalry by the principle of solidarity . . .
This experience, in which about eight million people directly or indirectly participated, opened a new way of life to those who sought an alternative to anti-social capitalism on the one hand, and totalitarian state bogus socialism on the other.
Then again, naturally, one cannot have "anarchic collectives" because the existence of a collective implies the existence of agreed upon rules, which is a form of government, and hence not anarchic.
Replace "socialism" with "laissez-faire capitalism,"
Nothing succeeds like that which has already been proven to succeed
I concur. I'm glad you've chosen to abandon your short-sighted objections to socialism.
Don't know about you, but I oppose slavery.
I can't do anything but oppose slavery. That's why I oppose this kind of thing:
Wage slavery. The economic framework of capitalism involves a scheme in which the private ownership of the means of production (acquired through a coercive process of "primitive accumulation") and consequent hierarchical subordination of labor under capital enables the extraction of surplus value from the working class in the production process through the use of wage labor and subsequent utilization in the circulation process in order to perpetuate a vicious cycle of capital accumulation. Now ain't that somethin'?! :2wave:
Oh come off it, you're as bad as DisneyDude with this bull****. You're not talking about the far left here but just "left wing" people
Really? So all the Left-Wing DESPISES capitalism? Cause I know a great deal of left leaning people that positively believe we should remain capitalistic. They all despise individual liberty? I know a great deal that feel very strongly for it, a number of them on this site who are supporters of the 2nd amendment. That bull**** you spewed above was nothing but hyper partisan tripe and frankly you and Disney are more the same then you'd likely want to admit.
I can't do anything but oppose slavery. That's why I oppose this kind of thing:
Wage slavery. The economic framework of capitalism involves a scheme in which the private ownership of the means of production (acquired through a coercive process of "primitive accumulation") and consequent hierarchical subordination of labor under capital enables the extraction of surplus value from the working class in the production process through the use of wage labor and subsequent utilization in the circulation process in order to perpetuate a vicious cycle of capital accumulation. Now ain't that somethin'?! :2wave:
And yet the only real success you can point out is a system that lasted what? 3 years?
I said I am not going to debate this and I am not.
It does not work, period.
LMFAO
Yeah, we're all "forced" to be "slaves". Pahlease. In this country, if you don't like what you're getting paid, you go somewhere else. If you don't like your job, you find another one.
[T]o induce its workers not to shirk, the firm attempt to pay more than the going wage; then, if a worker is caught shirking and he is fired, he will pay a penalty. If it pays one firm to raise its wage, however, it will pay all firms to raise their wages. When they all raise their wages, the incentive not to shirk again disappears. But as all firms raise their wages, their demand for labor decreases, and unemployment results. With unemployment, even if all firms pay the same wages, a worker has an incentive not to shirk. For, if he is fired, an individual will not immediately obtain another job. The equilibrium unemployment rate must be sufficiently high that it pays workers to work rather than to take the risk of being caught shirking.
And, if you don't like working for someone else, you start your own business.
How in the world you can compare that to "slavery" is beyond me.
[T]he manual worker is, from his position and training, far less skilled than the employer...in the art of bargaining itself. This art forms a large part of the daily life of the entrepreneur, whilst the foreman is specially selected for his skill in engaging and superintending workmen. The manual worker, on the contrary, has the smallest experience of, and practically no training in, what is essentially one of the arts of the capitalist employer. He never engages in any but one sort of bargaining, and that only on occasions which may be infrequent, and which in any case make up only a tiny fraction of his life.
--
Wage slavery. The economic framework of capitalism involves a scheme in which the private ownership of the means of production (acquired through a coercive process of "primitive accumulation")
-- consequent hierarchical subordination of labor under capital enables the extraction of surplus value from the working class in the production process through the use of wage labor and subsequent utilization in the circulation process in order to perpetuate a vicious cycle of capital accumulation.
Your entire post.
The majority of what you stated as the far left are typical beliefs of the majority of left leaning people, not the extreme end of the party. On the other hand, for the far right you specifically went to the extremes, not the main stream of "the right".
Thus showing you seem to believe that what is currently rather mainstream liberalism is the far left, what is extreme conservatism is the far right, and apparently the extreme on the left side just doesn't exist to you.
Sure, some may identify with the left & still be in favor 2nd amendment and many other individual rights. That doesn't mean the the political left identifies the same individual liberties. They simply do not. For the most part the political left is against the 2nd amendment, State's rights, limited government, original intent in interpreting the Constitution, free-market capitalism and individual liberty. (the latter being a fallacy if there is a system absent of the ability for a cash payment to be exchanged for a good or service). I'm sure you are aware of that.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?