The left right endgame

[Gen76]

let face it ppl, none of us would be here if we didnt enjoy blowing off steam and insulting each other.

Voting, ecopnomics etc, u name it theres no right or wrong per say.Thur is just as much right as Dog generaly, the only dif. is that thurs viewpoint stems from selfinterest\greed(u may define it as u please thur).Which is his prerogative in the system of global rule everywhere ie law.Dog is somewhere to the left of left, so he thinks selfihness and greed are bad since it doesnt give every1 equal opertunety, which i agree with.
'Corp greed means someone els, usualy poor has to pay the bill.NOW im not sure,but i think it both tried learning something from eachother, ie corps. want to have more social contiousness and make less money for the greater good and the most feverous idealists would comprimise more, which could lead to greater gain for all in the long run.



how about moving forward, yes?

 

[ase]

lol

 

[dog]

Dog is somewhere to the left of left

And then some

how about moving forward, yes?

Preff not with a non-existant forum troll

But I do get what ur saying gen, and I don't altogether disagree with you, I have no problem with profits, but the way the system is rigged up imo, means most times profit = loss for someone else, unlike so many others, I do not believe for one second, that is the only way.

 

[TexasTom]

Well Historically the only states that have prospered have been those with ruthless capitalism. When I say prospered I mean where the standard of living for the lowest paid in a coountry has risen.
Capitalism in its most naked form is ruthless and does lead to a huge devide. The rich being uncalcuably rich, but the majority of people have a reasonable standard of living. Communist states, the powerful have the most(as is always the way) but your average joe gets stuff all. Look at former USSR.

Is there a halfway house? I dont think there is. The second you try and direct companies in a more socially but less financially reqrding way things go wrong. People see less return so less investment and research happen. Its catch 22, there is no perfect system. The only perfect system is the one where the individual concerned is at the top.

For example I doubt many anti capitalists would hold their views if their family ran a multibillion dollar company and he had an allowance of
$1 000 000 a month. Someone has to be at the sharpend of an economy.

The real problem is it is impossible to make everyone rich and for an economy to work. But make everyone poor and its works great cos peeps want more and a better lifestyle. Simple economics.

 

[Sauron]

tom the problem is not in the system, communism is a perfect society, BUT(Aand thats a biiig but) only in theory. its human nature which is flawed, as greed and selfishness have always been a neccessary relevance in our evolution. before the human race gets rid of this and grows concious that humans dont have to be enemies but a family (which i personaly think will never happen) communism is an utopia which will not work.
because even a communist society needs leaders/directors/managers call them what u want, people who oversee the whole and define the plans. and as soon as someone has one of this posts he has powers and powers activate these patterns of greed and selfishness, which is why the soviet union became what it ultimately was and did not remain what it was supposed to be and was at the very beginning, a society of equals with a small intellectual group of leaders who act in the best interrest of the common people.

 

[Sauron]

maybe one day this world will bring out a perfect communist society of superants or termites, who knows

 

[Cutter]

Voting, ecopnomics etc, u name it theres no right or wrong per say.Thur is just as much right as Dog generaly, the only dif. is that thurs viewpoint stems from selfinterest\greed(u may define it as u please thur).Which is his prerogative in the system of global rule everywhere ie law.Dog is somewhere to the left of left, so he thinks selfihness and greed are bad since it doesnt give every1 equal opertunety, which i agree with.

My worldview has remained the same since I became self-aware a long time ago:

I simply want to be able to carry my own weight so to speak. I put in 100% to improve my lot in life. *Everything* I have and am, I have worked and sweated for, be that physical experiences, intellectual knowledge or worldly possessions.

If I end up with a nice house/life/whatever as a result, I've earned it. If someone wants to sit on their arse and do nothing, and expect everything to be handed to them on a silver plate, and ends up bitter and envious when this doesn't happen, that is their problem and not mine. If you put nothing in, don't be surprised when you get nothing out.

It is a fallacy to state that if your life is good, someone else's must have been crap to let you have the good one. You are what you make of yourself, and exploitation need not play a part. If only more people would accept personal responsibility for their lives and actions, things might improve.

I have no problem with supporting the genuinely needy. Alas, a look at the dole queue where I live suggests that the issue is not generally one of need, but more of laziness.

If you think that makes me a wicked capitalist oppressor, and helps you sleep easier at night, go ahead by all means.

Oh, and correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought the idea of cummunism was worker's soviets running things? Not a small elite? The problem with "transitional small groups running things for the benefit of the people" is that those groups tend to become permanent and then merely interested in protecting their own power base.

 

[RighteousFury]

just my lil oppinion maybe ... but i think no extreems are the rite way for anything. Not extreemly left right etc ...middle way ( may be more one side but still contains a bit of the other side) is the best ... ie a lawcode very strict and hard leaves no place for mercy and help but a very extreem mercy wont protect innocent ppl when the murder is free again ...
Well u can always support ur pov as long as u still think about (and if its only 1 sec) u might be wrong ...

 

[Sauron]

no the idea of communism was that everything belongs to everyone but the society still needs administration, not governement, administration. the problem with the sovietunion was that, as i mentioned above, the members of this council were corrupted.

its a fatal mistake to take the sovietunion as a rolemodel for commuism and build ur opinion on that. its only one way a communist society can take, unfortunately its pretty much the worst possible way.

 

[Arnet- StoneAge]

This wievpoint gen takes is clasically...

STUPID.

Of course one could say that it all comes down to opinions, but generally to be able to have wievs in most matters u might need 4, 5 fundamental feelings/thoughts which everything else derives from.

And sure u can say neoliberals are neither right or wrong, but i can reply that within the neoliberal wievframe its possible for an individual like thur to do what it takes to gain resources even if its killing ppl for money, without breacking any of the 2 virtues..

Before u say this is not deductive from neoliberalism, read the core litterature over again.

Oh and my point is sure u might like neoliberalism, if u at the same way think its legal to murder for money, but if u dont agree to the latter then u cant agree to the former..

Arnet

 

[Gen76]

I dont need to re read anything to know that making money off other ppl missery is dodgy stuff.

I dunno about u lot, but me personaly i can afford to have a little less for someone less fortunate to have a little more.


Jfk said something once which has stuck with me in recent years"we choose to do this not because it its easy,but because it is hard"

Im pretty sure he got that from somewhere els, i remember something about walking the path least trodden.Call me arogant,but i like the sound of that.