Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,913 Year: 4,170/9,624 Month: 1,041/974 Week: 368/286 Day: 11/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Far left - US/UK definition
ringo
Member (Idle past 442 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 76 of 305 (225805)
07-23-2005 8:14 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by CanadianSteve
07-23-2005 8:07 PM


Re: Left & right
CanadianSteve writes:
Just consider every nation that took a decidely leftward slant. none decreased poverty; not one.
Saskatchewan decreased poverty.
(Admittedly, not exactly a "nation". )

People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by CanadianSteve, posted 07-23-2005 8:07 PM CanadianSteve has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by mick, posted 07-23-2005 8:28 PM ringo has replied
 Message 84 by CanadianSteve, posted 07-23-2005 8:53 PM ringo has replied

Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 77 of 305 (225808)
07-23-2005 8:20 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by ringo
07-23-2005 7:58 PM


Re: Red Ted
quote:
My point is that we (in Canada) don't use left/right labels as "organizing principles".
Nor was my point that anyone uses labels as "organizing principles". What I was hoping for in this thread was a discussion of what are the organizing principles that people label "left" and "right".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by ringo, posted 07-23-2005 7:58 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by ringo, posted 07-23-2005 8:23 PM Chiroptera has replied

ringo
Member (Idle past 442 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 78 of 305 (225809)
07-23-2005 8:23 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by Chiroptera
07-23-2005 8:20 PM


Re: Red Ted
Hmm. Not sure I see the difference.

People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by Chiroptera, posted 07-23-2005 8:20 PM Chiroptera has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by Chiroptera, posted 07-23-2005 8:26 PM ringo has not replied

Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 79 of 305 (225810)
07-23-2005 8:26 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by ringo
07-23-2005 8:23 PM


Re: Red Ted
*shrug*

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by ringo, posted 07-23-2005 8:23 PM ringo has not replied

mick
Member (Idle past 5016 days)
Posts: 913
Joined: 02-17-2005


Message 80 of 305 (225811)
07-23-2005 8:26 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by CanadianSteve
07-23-2005 7:47 PM


Re: Left & right
Canadian Steve writes:
socialism fails miserably, making almost everyone poorer. capitalism makes almsot everyone better off
If you mean that capitalism makes "almost everyone better" economically, you may wish to consider the facts that each year from 1989 to 2001 there was a fall of approximately 8% in Russia’s productive assets; The increase from 1990 to 1999 in the percentage of people living on less than $1 a day was greater in the former communist countries (3.7%) than anywhere else in the world; GDP growth between 1990 and 2001 was negative or close to negative in every country except Poland in the postcommunist region with Russia (-3.7), Georgia (-5.6), Ukraine (-7.9), Moldova (-8.4) and Tajikistan (-8.5) faring the worst; The number of people living in ‘poverty’ in the former Soviet Republics rose from 14 million in 1989 to 147 million even prior to the crash of the rouble in 1998; since the collapse of communism there has been a doubling of the number of young people in low-income households across eastern europe; Between 1993 and 1995, 20,000 out of 27,000 Russian state enterprises were privatized, but the Government sold them for about 10% per cent of their true value.
If you mean that capitalism makes "almost everybody better" politically, it is worth bearing in mind that of the 20 current presidents of Eastern European nations (excluding the former Yugoslavia) and countries which used to be part of the Soviet Union, 11 are former party insiders (called nomenklatura) (in other words, capitalism and democracy aren't interchangeable!).
If you mean that capitalism makes "almost everybody better" in terms of their personal health, you might take note that there has been since the collapse of communism a doubling of the suicide rate in men aged 15 to 24 (data from Russia, Belarus and Lithuania); and that life expectancy declined by 5 or 6 six years for men and 2 or 3 years for women in the decade after communism collapsed.
All data from NEW INTERNATIONALIST magazine, 2004.
Now, some people here might say that the new Internationalist is a hardline leftwing radical communist-anarchist fundamentalist organization. But they did indeed base their figures on data in the public domain, often gathered by the UN etc.
Let's take a look at an organization of impeccable bourgeois credentials, the Assembly of the Council of Europe. According to thier working paper The situation of women in the countries of post-communism transition dated only LAST YEAR:
Council of Europe writes:
The Parliamentary Assembly is concerned that the situation of women in most countries of Eastern and Central Europe has deteriorated since the collapse of communism. In fact, the current situation of women in these countries is characterised by rising inequalities and a lack of government action aimed at fighting this trend.
The introduction of the market economy, technological progress and the loss of social institutions has created many difficulties for women, particularly growing unemployment, low revenues, economic insecurity and reductions in childcare facilities. Discrimination of women in the workplace is not rare, with most women working in low-paid sectors (with a concomitantly low social status), such as in the health and social service sector, and earning on average only 70-90% of men’s wages.
The Assembly deplores that violence against women, especially domestic violence and trafficking in women, has become one of the most appalling problems in the countries of Central and Eastern Europe. Many governments continue to neglect this problem and do not treat it seriously enough. While the law recognises that women have the right to live free from violence, in reality, women’s human rights are frequently not adequately protected during the legal process.
Women’s participation in public and political life has also suffered. Women are seriously under-represented in political life and in decision-making positions. The adoption of equal gender status laws does not automatically guarantee the actual participation of women in decision-making. The rejection of the quota system within the changed political situation and the lack of affirmative action regarding the balanced representation of women and men in elections resulted in a significant decrease of women’s representation in national parliaments.
Yeah, capitalism is good for you!
mick
This message has been edited by mick, 07-23-2005 08:51 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by CanadianSteve, posted 07-23-2005 7:47 PM CanadianSteve has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by CanadianSteve, posted 07-23-2005 8:56 PM mick has replied

mick
Member (Idle past 5016 days)
Posts: 913
Joined: 02-17-2005


Message 81 of 305 (225812)
07-23-2005 8:28 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by ringo
07-23-2005 8:14 PM


Re: Left & right
ringo writes:
CanadianSteve writes:
Just consider every nation that took a decidely leftward slant. none decreased poverty; not one.
Saskatchewan decreased poverty.
(Admittedly, not exactly a "nation". )
cuba????

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by ringo, posted 07-23-2005 8:14 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by ringo, posted 07-23-2005 8:45 PM mick has replied

ringo
Member (Idle past 442 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 82 of 305 (225814)
07-23-2005 8:45 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by mick
07-23-2005 8:28 PM


Re: Left & right
Interesting that you should mention Cuba.
A few years ago, Michael Moore had a TV show which aired in Canada. He did a number of silly things, such as playing frisbee with Dr. Kevorkian. He also did a segment on comparing the health care systems of the US, Canada and Cuba.
His conclusions (for what they're worth) were something like:
The US has the best quality care - for those who can pay for it.
Canada has health care of almost the same quality, and the basics are available to everybody, free of charge.
Cuba has shortages of equipment, supplies, etc. - so that the quality of health care suffers somewhat - but everything is free, for everybody.
Now, we all know that Michael Moore is a leftist commie pinko who couldn't tell the truth if you strapped him to a truth-telling machine, but he made a case that the US has a third-rate system.

People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by mick, posted 07-23-2005 8:28 PM mick has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by mick, posted 07-23-2005 8:58 PM ringo has not replied
 Message 98 by CanadianSteve, posted 07-23-2005 9:26 PM ringo has not replied

CanadianSteve
Member (Idle past 6502 days)
Posts: 756
From: Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 06-06-2005


Message 83 of 305 (225815)
07-23-2005 8:49 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by ringo
07-23-2005 8:11 PM


Re: Left & right
what I said is true. As for saskatchewan, you had a corrupt Conservative Party, that carried out NDP economics, and an NDP that disagreed with the federal NDP on economic matters, being far more conservative than they.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by ringo, posted 07-23-2005 8:11 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by ringo, posted 07-23-2005 10:05 PM CanadianSteve has replied

CanadianSteve
Member (Idle past 6502 days)
Posts: 756
From: Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 06-06-2005


Message 84 of 305 (225816)
07-23-2005 8:53 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by ringo
07-23-2005 8:14 PM


Re: Left & right
saskathchewan is a small provincial government, whose experience was in the context of a national government moving away from socialism towards a balanced budget for the first time in a generation. moreover, Saskatchewan's NDP was far more conservative than had been their "Conservative" predecessors.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by ringo, posted 07-23-2005 8:14 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by ringo, posted 07-23-2005 10:09 PM CanadianSteve has replied

CanadianSteve
Member (Idle past 6502 days)
Posts: 756
From: Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 06-06-2005


Message 85 of 305 (225817)
07-23-2005 8:56 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by mick
07-23-2005 8:26 PM


Re: Left & right
Russia became an oligopoly, not anywhere close to true capitalism.
On the other hand, former Communist states that truly moved towards democracy and capitalism have seen living standards rise. A period of correction, however was and is needed when a nation moves from heavily subsidized Communism with its false and artificial economic indicators, to an honest capitalistic one.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by mick, posted 07-23-2005 8:26 PM mick has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by mick, posted 07-23-2005 9:01 PM CanadianSteve has replied

mick
Member (Idle past 5016 days)
Posts: 913
Joined: 02-17-2005


Message 86 of 305 (225818)
07-23-2005 8:58 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by ringo
07-23-2005 8:45 PM


Re: Left & right
Hi ringo,
As a person currently resident in Canada, i can confirm that Michael Moore's love of Canada is a subject of much ironic debate. Very much a pink spectacles situation.
I can't speak for Cuba, as I've never lived there, but I know for a fact that they are pretty generous with their medical expertise, both within the country and outside it. for example when the UK got hit by foot and mouth disease a couple of years ago, Cuba offered a dozen or so veterinarians who were experienced with the disease to work for free to help the UK farmers. Unfortunately the Cuban contingent were rejected by the immigration authority. The funny thing is, the cuban vets were experienced with f&m because the US government had purposefully infected Cuba with the disease in the 60s. what goes around comes around I guess.
Mick

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by ringo, posted 07-23-2005 8:45 PM ringo has not replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 87 of 305 (225819)
07-23-2005 8:59 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by mick
07-23-2005 7:00 PM


Re: Ted Turner, anti-Israel?
OK, I'll try again.
Hi faith,
fox writes:
CNN founder Ted Turner says Israel is guilty of terrorism. In an interview with the leftist British newspaper The Guardian, Turner said, "The Palestinians are fighting with human suicide bombers, that's all they have. The Israelis...they've got one of the most powerful military machines in the world. The Palestinians have nothing.
Let's leave aside the question of why fox might be politically inclined to assault Ted Turner {not Ted Turner, mogul of CNN, politically inclined to assault Fox of course-F}, and instead let's concentrate on the statement made by Turner which you have said makes him "Anti-Israel".
First of all, it's worth pointing out that being Anti-Israel isn't, in and off itself, a leftist position. The right wing (I'm using Euro-terminology here, referring to both Democrats and Republicans) have used Israel as a convenient military surrogate in the middle east for a long time. The contemporary right-wing policies of israel are strongly associated with the policies of the contermporary US governing party. But please don't think that leftists are anti-Israel. The Labour party in the UK was filled with pro-Israeli members a few decades ago, and there is (obviously) a strong historic Jew-Left connection starting before Marx. I think we should be clear here, and point out that being against israeli policies in the middle east doesn't make one "anti-israel". If that were the case, all left wing israelis would be "anti israel" as well. That's clearly not the case.
Sadly, many leftwing Jews ARE anti-Israel, true to their leftist ideology against their own best interests, seeming not to grasp that the Left has turned on them as it has turned on Israel. Yes, historically the Jews have always been predominantly leftist, including far left to Marxist and Communist, and still are. Only the Jewish Neo-Cons seem to have wised up. The tide has turned just in the last decade or so and now the left is virulently anti-Israel and at times outright anti-semitic and I hope more and more Jews are beginning to wake up to this reality.
That said, is there anything in the statement by Ted Turner that is anti-Israel? He said "The Palestinians are fighting with human suicide bombers, that's all they have. The Israelis...they've got one of the most powerful military machines in the world. The Palestinians have nothing".
that isn't an anti-israel comment. It's a statement of fact. The Palestinians have indeed got nothing (no army, no police force) to stand up against the sophisticated military machine of israel. All they have is sticks, stones, guns and suicide bombers. The sticks stones and guns have proven ineffective against israeli attacks, and suicide bombers are considered by some but by no means all palestinians as a valid form of weaponry. Can you explain where the factual error or bias is in Turner's statement? Where's the bias, faith? That isn't an anti-israel statement, it's a statement of fact.
Sure it's a fact but a fact up to its eyeballs in leftist spin. It's a classic leftwing statement. It's even Marxist in its basic implication that military might means a nation by definition is the Oppressor while poverty and weakness define a people as the Oppressed. In actual fact Israel is on the defensive against terrorist attacks and the Arab world's intention to rid the Middle East of their very existence. Leftist spin reverses the guilt. If it weren't for the irrational hostility of the Arab world to Israel, the Palestinians could have had a state a long time ago, and be at peace with Israel, as Israel has no aggressive intentions whatever. Their actions are strictly retaliatory, against terrorists and their support system and their arsenals, in defense of their citizens who are the innocent victims of Palestinian murders.
What about Israel being guilty of terrorism? Well, first of all, there's nothing in the quoted statement that even suggests Turner believes this, apart from the commentary by fox. But the idea that israel is guilty of terrorism isn't particularly insane, and it isn't particularly left wing either. Israel currently uses collective reprisals against the entire Palestinian community, which is terrorism by any reasonable definition. To say so is not bias, it's a documented fact.
To call Israel's actions terrorism is leftist spin. It's a lie. Their actions are strictly focused and retaliatory and in fact as carefully as possible aimed to avoid civilian casualties, a fact for which the Left will give them no credit. Terrorism is the absolutely unjustifiable unconscionable slaughter of innocent people for no purpose whatever. It accomplishes nothing but the purpose of terrorizing people. If it had a purpose like peace or establishing a Palestinian state, that could be accomplished just about immediately by STOPPING the bombings, instead of encouraging them as the Palestinian leaders and the jihadists all over the Middle East do. The Left reverses the guilt and the innocence, the good and the evil in the situation.
conservativelife.com writes:
Ted Turner called FOX an arm of the Bush administration and compared FOXNEWS's popularity to Hitler's popular election to run Germany before WWII...
In what way is that a left wing suggestion? It might be a good analogy, it might not, or it might just be Turner's attempt at propaganda, but it says nothing about the politics of economic redistribution, which is the meat and potatoes of the left. All it is saying is that fox is closely tied to the political aims of the bush administration. Maybe true, maybe not.
Likening Fox's popularity to Hitler's popularity, and thereby smearing all Americans who appreciate Fox, and linking it all to the Bush administration, is pure leftist propaganda intended only to vilify and discredit their political opponents.
truthinmedia.org writes:
Turner advanced the notion of "reductionism," which suggests that all religions are essentially the same. "Turner believes true tolerance means doing away with the uniqueness of all faiths and marginalizing all faiths that profess an exclusive component, like Christianity and Islam," said Logan.
Again, why is this a leftwing bias? It appears to be a description of Turner's personal religious beliefs rather than a political statement. Is it rabidly leftwing to suggest that the exclusiveness of religion works against civilized principles of tolerance?
Multiculturalism, the ideological refusal to make distinctions between cultures and religions is a major tenet of the left, especially with the one exception of demoting Christianity and treating it as the only evil religion. In this case Turner deviates a bit from the party line by including Islam in his denunciation, as Islam seems to have gained in popularity with the Left ever since the terror attack on the WTC. Hatred of America is a leftist position same as hatred of Christianity. There ARE some vague ideological ties here to a vulgar Marxist version of the idea of Oppressor and Oppressed. Any nation that is rich and successful is by definition the oppressor and only to be hated and destroyed so that the "proletariat" may become the oppressor.
apfn.org writes:
Turner’s United Nations Foundation has very close ties to the Clinton administration and appears to be furthering the interests of certain State Department officials. Could Turner’s foundation be using private funds to help federal bureaucrats skirt funding roadblocks erected by Congress?
What is left wing about using one's vast personal fortune to further one's own political agenda?
Nothing at all leftwing about financing one's political agenda, what's leftwing is the agenda itself.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by mick, posted 07-23-2005 7:00 PM mick has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by CanadianSteve, posted 07-23-2005 10:41 PM Faith has not replied

CanadianSteve
Member (Idle past 6502 days)
Posts: 756
From: Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 06-06-2005


Message 88 of 305 (225821)
07-23-2005 8:59 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by Faith
07-23-2005 1:22 PM


The Guardian supports socialist economics, believes in pacifism, believes in affirmative action, believes in moral equivalence and relativism, does not see that democracy needs to defend itself against aggressors, and so on.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Faith, posted 07-23-2005 1:22 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by Faith, posted 07-23-2005 9:12 PM CanadianSteve has replied
 Message 231 by Tusko, posted 07-25-2005 7:54 AM CanadianSteve has replied

mick
Member (Idle past 5016 days)
Posts: 913
Joined: 02-17-2005


Message 89 of 305 (225822)
07-23-2005 9:01 PM
Reply to: Message 85 by CanadianSteve
07-23-2005 8:56 PM


Re: Left & right
Canadian Steve writes:
A period of correction, however was and is needed when a nation moves from heavily subsidized Communism with its false and artificial economic indicators, to an honest capitalistic one.
LOL, yep, a period of correction when all of those artificial subsidized situations like universal health care and women's rights are got rid of!
Mick
added in edit:
Am I right to find it chilling that a 1000% rise in the number of people living in poverty over one decade is considered by right wingers such as yourself to be "a period of correction"? What the fuck is being "corrected" in this glorious period of history? Is it human beings with their crazy communist expectations of a decent life who are being "corrected"?
This message has been edited by mick, 07-23-2005 09:09 PM
This message has been edited by mick, 07-23-2005 09:11 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by CanadianSteve, posted 07-23-2005 8:56 PM CanadianSteve has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by CanadianSteve, posted 07-23-2005 10:22 PM mick has not replied

CanadianSteve
Member (Idle past 6502 days)
Posts: 756
From: Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 06-06-2005


Message 90 of 305 (225823)
07-23-2005 9:02 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Faith
07-23-2005 1:43 PM


I see that those on the left and right generally ascribe cliches about the other, and tend to see those on the fringe as representative of the whole movement. Thus, conservatives describe the left as being Marxist, and leftists describe conservatives as being heartless racists.
In my general description of left and right I avoided that kind of button holing, preferring a more balanced and accurate reading of each.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Faith, posted 07-23-2005 1:43 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by Faith, posted 07-23-2005 9:07 PM CanadianSteve has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024