SUBSIM Radio Room Forums - One mans opinion of Left v. Right

SUBSIM Radio Room Forums (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/index.php)

- General Topics (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/forumdisplay.php?f=175)

- - One mans opinion of Left v. Right (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=108213)

If you compare yourself with others,
you may become vain or bitter,
for always there will be
greater and lesser persons than yourself.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tchocky

Quote:

Originally Posted by waste gate

Tomorrow you will be bolding the other side because it suits you politically.

Wow.

Just what I was going to say (after the silence of disbelief).

Sigh, can you please be a little less mean?

There are socialists around here too you know, and we don't appreciate being called two-faced loser-lovers :roll:

Take it easy, will you? I can say lots of things about the right. For one, I believe the fundamental problem with the right is the issue of motivation. You call it material incentive, I call it greed. For me, a world based on greed and impulses rather than reason and sustainability is at risk of eating itself. Which socialists broadly believe it's doing; the Marxists dream of helping it along a little with some revolutionizing, the non-Marxists (myself included) just take a seat and offer alternatives to the inevitable (in our humble view) downfall of capitalism (and, we hope, not the human race along with it, though it's unfortunately a real possibility).

Socialism doesn't have to be dogmatic and strictly theory-based, though theorizing comes naturally. I personally have trouble with Marxism for that specific reason (it's too pervaded by near-dogmatic theory for any real progress).

Likewise, for me socialism is not the domination of society over individual; in fact I would like socialism to look more at the individual - but I see a rational socialist "system" being aimed at an egalitarian, sustainable society where the primary motivations are not greed but - if nothing else - survival, reasonable quality of life and sustainability for all. The second reason (after greed) that I can't accept the right is that it inherently assumes that people have right to be superior to others, which devolves into creepy resemblance of social darwinism. To me that's an insult both to society and individualism, and it's scary to think that someone who emphasizes rights of the individual believes in 'losers' and the rationalization of mass human suffering for the sake of a 'better' person's rights.

I always put my belief this way - "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness - but only in that order". If your rights to liberty and doing what you want infringe on another person's life, then you don't deserve these rights (clarification: I am not talking about fundamental human rights here). If your happiness and luxury infringe on another person's freedom, then you don't deserve that luxury. It's not a matter of taking from the rich and giving to the poor; it's a matter of observing fundamental humanist principles. A society which accepts material excuses for violating these is immoral. I may not believe in morals as such, but I think it even goes beyond that; I think a society that accepts material excuses for violating these is doomed to self-degradation and self-destruction. And I think I have a vested interest in the well-being of homo sapiens, beyond merely the specimen I inhabit.

Quote:

Originally Posted by CCIP

I'm with you 100% here.

Quote:

Originally Posted by CCIP

Sigh, can you please be a little less mean?

There are socialists around here too you know, and we don't appreciate being called two-faced loser-lovers :roll:

Take it easy, will you? I can say lots of things about the right. For one, I believe the fundamental problem with the right is the issue of motivation. You call it material incentive, I call it greed. For me, a world based on greed and impulses rather than reason and sustainability is at risk of eating itself. Which socialists broadly believe it's doing; the Marxists dream of helping it along a little with some revolutionizing, the non-Marxists (myself included) just take a seat and offer alternatives to the inevitable (in our humble view) downfall of capitalism (and, we hope, not the human race along with it, though it's unfortunately a real possibility).

Socialism doesn't have to be dogmatic and strictly theory-based, though theorizing comes naturally. I personally have trouble with Marxism for that specific reason (it's too pervaded by near-dogmatic theory for any real progress).

Likewise, for me socialism is not the domination of society over individual; in fact I would like socialism to look more at the individual - but I see a rational socialist "system" being aimed at an egalitarian, sustainable society where the primary motivations are not greed but - if nothing else - survival, reasonable quality of life and sustainability for all. The second reason (after greed) that I can't accept the right is that it inherently assumes that people have right to be superior to others, which devolves into creepy resemblance of social darwinism. To me that's an insult both to society and individualism, and it's scary to think that someone who emphasizes rights of the individual believes in 'losers' and the rationalization of mass human suffering for the sake of a 'better' person's rights.

I always put my belief this way - "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness - but only in that order". If your rights to liberty and doing what you want infringe on another person's life, then you don't deserve these rights (clarification: I am not talking about fundamental rights here, but more minor liberties and priveleges). If your happiness and luxury infringe on another person's freedom, then you don't deserve that luxury. It's not a matter of taking from the rich and giving to the poor; it's a matter of observing fundamental humanist principles. A society which accepts material excuses for violating these is immoral. I may not believe in morals as such, but I think it even goes beyond that; I think a society that accepts material excuses for violating these is doomed to self-degradation and self-destruction. And I think I have a vested interest in the well-being of homo sapiens, beyond merely the specimen I inhabit.

This post devolves on a number of issues, most of which are related to changing human nature from the will to succeed into the will to fail. Or worse the allowance of one group to suppress, for lack of a better word, others. Democracy and capitalism is and has been the most effective and egalitarian system mankind has ever known. I welcome you to point me to another set of systems that have been more successful and given people more opportunity.

I see many knash teeth over how terirble is the plight of the so called 'dis-advantaged', yet other than lip service and being modern day Robin Hoods I don't see much sacrafice out of them. Talk is cheap and spending someone else's hard earned money is easy.

Hitler? Leftwing?

:lol:

The unfortunate truth is that whatever a community beyond a certain scale and size tries to implement in the social field, must have a fundament in economical income. If that income is not generated, you're left in the social field with well-meaning intentions only - or the option to ever increase financial debts you make to bolster social ambitions that are more expensive than what you can afford.

This does not mean that there is only one way of economical strategy possible. Or that it cannot itself raise a problem independant from the social sector: when selfishness of the few overrules the interests of the community (which today is the case almost everywhere).

"Wem genug nicht reicht, der hat nie genug."

Quote:

Originally Posted by Letum

How about Stalin and Hitler?

Both where socialy authoritarian (on the right), however whilst Stalin was on the economic left, Hitler was mainly on the economic right wing.

Whoa, where did you read this? Is something about the concept of National Socialist Workers Party confusing?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics_of_fascism

I'm sorry, but if you ain't talking the politics of Fredrick von Hayek, your economics ain't 'right' or 'conservative.'

There is very very little difference between Hitler and Stalin, except Hitler hated Jews, Homosexuals, Gypsies, Communists and democrats, while Stalin hated everybody except, it seems, Hitler himself. So please, leave this misnomer to the World Civ. II classroom, where Marxist Professors like to tout it to wide-eyed freshmen.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dean_acheson

Quote:

Originally Posted by Letum

How about Stalin and Hitler?

Both where socialy authoritarian (on the right), however whilst Stalin was on the economic left, Hitler was mainly on the economic right wing.

I disagree. You do not have to be as extreme as Hayek to be economically right of center.
There are many differences between Hitler and Stalin. To say that there are not is to take a rediciously simplistic view of the two regimes.

Is anyone else sick of waste gate's way to naievely criticize anything with his lack of any idea of how things work, why they work, or how they could work? No, waste gate, all your arguments go back to "Poor people deserve to be poor, rich people deserve every penny."

Youre an economic genius, waste gate, an economic genius.

Quote:

Originally Posted by RedMenace

Well, things in this forum tend to repeat themselves, RM. Some more months and you'll get used to it. :lol:

AL and me attacking Islam, Iceman ripplebombing us with bible-quotes, Steed complaing about PC, Brad colliding with some conservatives, Subman and Happy Times complaining of everything getting worse, Bill Nichols strictly limiting himself to naval-related issues, Neal occasionally letting go a one-liner doomed to become a famous quote - and Waste Gate attacking liberals and lefties.

In other words: just the ordinary routine!

True socialism only works if Anne Frank was right when she opined that "people are basically good". Of course, she wasn't right. People are not innately good, in their natural state humans are violent, hateful, greedy, and jealous (Lord of the Flies illustrates this perfectly). Humans may have the capacity for compassion and empathy, but that is far from their natural state. Such values can only be externally imposed through years of upbringing not top mention centuries of sociteltal evolution, and dire enough circumstances can swiftly strip away this thin veneer away revealing the true, base nature of humanity (witness the reactions of populations en masse during severe natural disasters).

Capitalism can be cruel to those on the bottom, but it works because it appeals to humans' base instincts. CCIP's model of Socialism requires altrism by the society at large to work, which is not a natural human trait like greed, and thus why it will never triumph over capitalism.

In nature, the Weak fall before the Strong: That's simply a harsh reality, and the same applies to human society: We're nothing more than smart animals, and can be just as savage. Get over it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skybird

Quote:

Originally Posted by RedMenace

Don't I get to be stereotyped to?

please? ;)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Letum

Quote:

Originally Posted by waste gate

Both were socially leftwing and dicatorial. Much like Fidel Castro's government of today.

Are you nuts?
Hitler belived in:

Individualism over collectivism.
Racism or racial segregation over racial tolerance.
Eugenics over freedom of reproduction.
Merit over equality.
Competition over cooperation.
Power politics and militarism over pacifism.
One-person rule or self-rule over democracy.
Capitalism over Marxism.
Realism over idealism.
Nationalism over internationalism.
Exclusiveness over inclusiveness.
Gun ownership over gun control
Common sense over theory or science.
Pragmatism over principle.
Religion over secularism.

All of these are highly right wing traits!

Wow! Really? Hitler wasn't all lunatic I see - he had some good views in there amongst some of the bad.

-S

Insert:
"Letum sometimes missing the harbour when trying to sail straight by steering left."
(but he has founded a great and famous fan club, so he is excused :D)

Quote:

Originally Posted by RedMenace

I can always tell when someone's argument has been defeated. The personal attack follows.