Jump to content

What is leftism really about?


What Is Leftism Really About?   

12 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

15 minutes ago, Hodad said:

Among the many, many stupid things you've said, this one ranks near the top.

Well you ARE clearly  a master of stupid so i'll take your word for it.

15 minutes ago, Hodad said:

When someone offers a perspective that's clearly beyond your capacity, maybe you should just sit it out. Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and to remove all doubt.

I assume you're talking to your mirror :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Well you ARE clearly  a master of stupid so i'll take your word for it.

I assume you're talking to your mirror :)

Yawn. You sad little troll. Did you imagine that was clever? You reply and reply and reply, and still can't manage to say anything of substance. Go find someone more your speed (slow) to follow around.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Hodad said:

Yawn. You sad little troll. Did you imagine that was clever? You reply and reply and reply, and still can't manage to say anything of substance. Go find someone more your speed (slow) to follow around.

On noes :) Triggered leftie is triggered :)

Go read a book. Start with something suitable for your level of intellect - perhaps a book involving a ball. A big ball.  A big red ball.  :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, impartialobserver said:

in the most general sense, leftism, is about leveling the playing field. Does it succeed in that? Sometimes. Does it push the envelope too much? Yes. Politics and human nature at the macro level is not a simple shell game. 

Which playing field tho?

If we were talking about leveling people's access to opportunities that might be one thing. Accessing equality of outcome is another. And it feels like initially the left was all about the former, going back years.  Now it's about the latter.

Access to opportunity is actually pretty good these days. so there is a tendency for those on the left looking for a cause to pursue equality of outcome, and that's where we run into a problem.

1 hour ago, eyeball said:

Only for their oligarchs. No doubt they also peddle the same trickle down nonsense conservatives everywhere seem to enjoy hearing.

Nope - they had the benefits of socialism and communism the left loves to espouse ;)  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/17/2023 at 6:59 AM, Rebound said:

I get emails from Democrats all the time. 

Good idea.

I would LOVE to see what they say in relative privacy, considering how what they say in public is so comical. 

Maybe you should start a thread called: "Leftard Propaganda" and post it there, warts and all. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Nope - like us they're also burdened with filthy rich people who have too much power and influence.

that is how all socialist and communist countries are.  You think putin is poor? Or that castro didn't have enough to eat? :)

 The difference is that when a person gets rich in capitalism they tend to take a lot of people with them, and everynoe's life gets better at least a little.  In communism, the rich get rich by directly tapping the efforts of the lower people, so ONLY they benefit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, CdnFox said:

that is how all socialist and communist countries are. 

And capitalist countries too. 

Quote

You think putin is poor? Or that castro didn't have enough to eat? :)

Did you forget the little talk we had about you pretending to be stupid the other day?

8 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

The difference is that when a person gets rich in capitalism they tend to take a lot of people with them, and everynoe's life gets better at least a little.  In communism, the rich get rich by directly tapping the efforts of the lower people, so ONLY they benefit.

This seems to work for at least a little while, like when there's still a planet for the easy taking. But those days are coming to an end.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, eyeball said:

And capitalist countries too. 

Sure, but as i noted there's a difference.

5 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Did you forget the little talk we had about you pretending to be stupid the other day?

Did you forget how 'not stupid' i really am? If i say something its probably got some pretty seriously defensible facts and logic behind it. Doesn't mean i'm always right but dismissing anything i say as stupid is... well.... stupid :) 

If you have questions ask. If you disagree make your case.

5 minutes ago, eyeball said:

This seems to work for at least a little while, like when there's still a planet for the easy taking. But those days are coming to an end.

Well unfortunately that's a problem for pretty much ALL social and economic models. And in nature as well - when you get a species which consumes but has no natural enemies then nature has a way of sorting that out - eventually you reach an extinction event and the population crashes and either vanishes or starts over from a small number

But that's future eyeball and future fox's problem :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, impartialobserver said:

in the most general sense, leftism, is about leveling the playing field. 

TBH that's not a good goal.

The gov't is there to provide security on the foreign and domestic levels, infrastructure, basic education, hospitals, etc., and definitely not there so that people like the Bidens can use their influence to profit from joint ventures with Chinese banks & people with direct ties to the Chinese gov't.

Laws created are to provide opportunity and fairness.  

Levelling the playing field is not a reasonable goal. Anything that you give to someone has to come from someone else who earned it. Any opportunity given to someone who doesn't really deserve it is taken from someone else who earned it. Any government aid that goes to provide opportunities to people just because they want them comes from people who have to pay the full freight themselves, and some of them can't even afford those opportunities.

Leftists like to think of their politicians as givers when in fact they just take, take, take from other people to get re-elected.

FYI Jodi Biden isn't giving anyone anything. He's taking from taxpayers and giving away their money. If that's not bad enough he's sharply dividing Americans in the process.

16 minutes ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

What is ‘leftism’? Let’s sort that out first. On sites like this it seems to include everything people don’t like. 

It's hard to separate "leftism" from the fact that leftist politicians are just scum. 

I don't think it has to be that way but for some reason it is. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

Which playing field tho?

If we were talking about leveling people's access to opportunities that might be one thing. Accessing equality of outcome is another. And it feels like initially the left was all about the former, going back years.  Now it's about the latter.

Access to opportunity is actually pretty good these days. so there is a tendency for those on the left looking for a cause to pursue equality of outcome, and that's where we run into a problem.

Nope - they had the benefits of socialism and communism the left loves to espouse ;)  

I do not have the time to lay it all out but the thinking ( do not shoot the messenger) is that opportunity should correlate to outcome. If I let more x people into pro basketball then a certain percentage of them should succeed. Succeed would entail being viewed favorably, winning awards that have subjectivity built in (MVP and All-NBA selections), and them having long sustained careers. And when these favorable outcomes do not materialize it must be systemic.. society, the NBA, governments, etc. 

Edited by impartialobserver
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

What is ‘leftism’? Let’s sort that out first. On sites like this it seems to include everything people don’t like. 

I think we need to start with the original meaning of the term left wing.

It was coined when the link between wealth and power was obvious enough but when wealth still wasn't as important as straight raw power.  The importance of power in the scheme of things is coming back.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, impartialobserver said:

I do not have the time to lay it all out but the thinking is ( do not shoot the messenger) that opportunity should correlate to outcome.

(DUCK!)  - well then those people are asswipes and the left is just another form of failed communism and socalism and will drive people to poverty and ruin.

Just now, impartialobserver said:

If I let more x people into pro basketball then a certain percentage of them should succeed. Succeed would entail being viewed favorably, winning awards that have subjectivity built in (MVP and All-NBA selections), and them having long sustained careers. 

All that does is water down the top. You wind up wiht a lower 'average' player.

The correct answer is to have more 'ladders'.  Basket ball may be one - but how about pro baseball? Someone who sucks at basket ball might be great at that. Or soccer? or badminton, hockey, whatever.

Now people can try to find a success ladder that works for them and a place on that ladder they're comfortable with.

A successful society doesn't try to fake alter a specific ladder - it seeks to make sure the most ladders possible exist and that people can find them and then let them do what they want.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Did you forget how 'not stupid' i really am? If i say something its probably got some pretty seriously defensible facts and logic behind it. 

Yes but when I point to oligarch wealth and then you ask do I think the key to that wealth is poor...it's clearly a stupid question.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, eyeball said:

I think we need to start with the original meaning of the term left wing.

It was coined when the link between wealth and power was obvious enough but when wealth still wasn't as important as straight raw power.  The importance of power in the scheme of things is coming back.

Very few wealthy countries have abandoned the welfare state completely. Redistribution of income and a social safety net are fairly ubiquitous. In that limited sense, most states are ‘leftist’ these days. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Well unfortunately that's a problem for pretty much ALL social and economic models. And in nature as well - when you get a species which consumes but has no natural enemies then nature has a way of sorting that out - eventually you reach an extinction event and the population crashes and either vanishes or starts over from a small number

But that's future eyeball and future fox's problem :)

That future is here, it's unfolding all around us and we've clearly blown the small window of opportunity we had to get it right.

Edited by eyeball
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Yes but when I point to oligarch wealth and then you ask do I think the key to that wealth is poor...it's clearly a stupid question.

You misunderstood the answer then. It was in response to your statement that we have too many rich 'oligarchs' at the top controlling things (paraphrase) and i noted that so do socailst countries - the leaders are not poor.

 

2 minutes ago, eyeball said:

That future is here, it's unfolding all around us and we've clearly blown the small window of opportunity we had to get it right.

Maybe. I think we've got a ways to go yet. But you can never tell.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

Very few wealthy countries have abandoned the welfare state completely. Redistribution of income and a social safety net are fairly ubiquitous. In that limited sense, most states are ‘leftist’ these days. 

The governments and political parties of most states are more rightist which is to say preoccupied with distributing power to themselves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, eyeball said:

The governments and political parties of most states are more rightist which is to say preoccupied with distributing power to themselves.

That is demonstrably untrue.

The most centralized gov'ts are left leaning, and that is the way it HAS to be - socialism of any form requires a more centralized power and authority to pull off.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, CdnFox said:

You misunderstood the answer then. It was in response to your statement that we have too many rich 'oligarchs' at the top controlling things (paraphrase) and i noted that so do socailst countries - the leaders are not poor.

Yes but I suspect you don't agree that we have too many of our own that have too much power and above all else influence. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

That is demonstrably untrue.

The most centralized gov'ts are left leaning, and that is the way it HAS to be - socialism of any form requires a more centralized power and authority to pull off.

The acid test is the income/wealth gap and since 1980 the wealthiest 0.1% of the global population have increased their wealth by as much as the poorest 50%.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

(DUCK!)  - well then those people are asswipes and the left is just another form of failed communism and socalism and will drive people to poverty and ruin.

All that does is water down the top. You wind up wiht a lower 'average' player.

The correct answer is to have more 'ladders'.  Basket ball may be one - but how about pro baseball? Someone who sucks at basket ball might be great at that. Or soccer? or badminton, hockey, whatever.

Now people can try to find a success ladder that works for them and a place on that ladder they're comfortable with.

A successful society doesn't try to fake alter a specific ladder - it seeks to make sure the most ladders possible exist and that people can find them and then let them do what they want.

Where it runs afoul at least when it comes to pro basketball is that ratings/revenue have continued to grow. Its hard to say that this quasi--socialist setup is failing when owners are getting rich, select players are getting rich, and TV ratings increase in most years.

 

I know the NBA pretty well hence why I can fire away with this stuff. How have they leveled the playing field? First, they have made it increasingly possible that 18 to 20 year old kids are playing in their league. In the past (pre-1995), a player played in college basketball for 3 to 5 years. This weeded out the not-so-dedicated and the more injury-prone. Second, they have the draft which gives the worst teams the best chance of landing the best prospects. Third, it is no longer considered a deterrent if a player comes from a rough background. This rough background was weeded out by tough college coaches like Bobby Knight and Denny Crum. Now, if a college coach is too strict.. the player transfers or quits all the while their NBA draft stock is not hurt in most cases. 

Edited by impartialobserver
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,714
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    wopsas
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Venandi went up a rank
      Explorer
    • Jeary earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Venandi went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Gaétan earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • Dictatords earned a badge
      First Post
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...